| Corporate Welfare
Corporate Farm Subsidies
Molly Ivins: Republicans Support Tax Cheaters
Tax Havens: Are You With Us Or Against Us?
By Arianna Huffington (here)
No issue is more emblematic of this administration's perverted domestic
priorities than its scandalous refusal, in a time of soaring deficits,
to stop corporations and wealthy individuals from cheating the public
out of billions of dollars a year by either reincorporating offshore
or simply hiding their profits in offshore subsidiaries. While our
young men and women are ready to lay down their lives on the sands
of Iraq, these companies are allowed to avoid paying their fair
share by hightailing it to the sands of Bermuda.
"Off-shore tax havens," says Boyd, cofounder of MoveOn.org
"are the financial equivalent of desertion under fire. And
these corporate deserters are protected by politicians in Washington
ostensibly elected to serve the public interest. This really gets
people steamed."
This accounting sleight-of-hand is no small matter: It's depriving
the U.S. Treasury of around $70 billion a year. Even more galling,
these companies are being rewarded for ripping off taxpayers with
massive federal contracts. Scandal-tainted Tyco, for instance, pocketed
$1 billion in public money in 2001 while evading $400 million in
taxes by opening up a P.O. Box in sunny Bermuda.
And it's not like we can't use the money.
In Oregon, dead-broke public schools are being forced to shut down
a month early; in Illinois, child care for welfare families is being
cut in half; and nationwide, over a million poor Americans are facing
the loss of their publicly funded medical benefits. Even the president's
signature No Child Left Behind Act has been slashed -- his new budget
allocates it $6.2 billion less than was originally called for, transforming
it into the "A Few Million Children But Hopefully Not Yours
Left Behind Act."
The revolt against anti patriotic tax havens may be the spark that
ignites a far-ranging movement for basic fairness and economic justice.
What could be more unfair, after all, than asking hard-working Americans
to dig deeper into their wallets, retirement funds, and savings
accounts so corporate execs rolling in an overflowing wallow of
tax-free profits won't have to?
"I now have 120 co-sponsors for my bill," Rep. Neal, author
of the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act, told me, "and I know
that I would have at least 300 members supporting it if only we
could bring it to the House floor for a vote. But the Republican
leadership won't even let it out of committee."
The main roadblock to Neal's bill is House Majority Leader Tom Delay,
a politician who never hesitates to drape himself in the flag, but
who is now actively protecting companies and tycoons that are selling
their countries short in a time of war.
Demanding that DeLay bring Neal's bill to a vote would be a good
first step for the anti-tax haven movement. It would take only one
phone call from the president, which he's, apparently, unwilling
to make. So concerned citizens should do it for him and inundate
DeLay's office with phone calls, faxes, and emails. And if that
doesn't work, then the same people who filled the streets of cities
all across America to protest the war might want to see if they
can squeeze into the Majority Leader's office.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Democrats should attach an anti-corporate
tax cheat rider to every single piece of legislation and force Republicans
to vote on it ad nauseum until the House leadership relents.
Let's have a straight up or down vote: Are you in favor of allowing
corporations to continue bilking American taxpayers -- even while
we are facing severe budget cuts and our soldiers are ready to make
the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq?
To paraphrase a certain wartime president: When it comes to everyone
paying his fair share, you're either with us or you're against us.
(full
story here)
Republicans Support Tax Cheaters (Molly
Ivins: here)
Republican leadership went against the will of 318 members to grant
an unconscionable gift to corporations that set up offshore tax
shelters to avoid paying their U.S. taxes. Come on, Rush, I really
want to hear this one -- and do, please, include the word "patriotism."
According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the offshore tax-shelter
dodge costs this country as much as $50 billion annually. This amendment
was not to shut down the loophole -- though Lord knows that needs
to be done. It was just to prevent rewarding these financial traitors
with government contracts.
The House leadership -- that would be your speaker, Dennis Hastert,
and your majority leader, Dick Armey--going against the will of
both the House and the Senate, took out the "Wellstone Amendment,"
sponsored by the late populist senator. It would have prevented
runaway companies, those that set up mailboxes in Bermuda in order
to avoid paying their taxes, from getting government contracts related
to homeland security.
Here's Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts on how it works: "Let's
take Tyco, formerly of New Hampshire, now of Bermuda, for example.
Tyco avoids paying $400 million a year in U.S. taxes by setting
up a shell headquarters offshore, but it was awarded $182 million
in lucrative defense and homeland security-related contracts in
2001 alone. If Tyco had just paid its tax bill, Congress could easily
have paid for 400 explosive detection systems (EDS), which are badly
needed to protect U.S. travelers at airports around the nation.
"Or let's examine corporate expatriate Ingersoll-Rand, formerly
of New Jersey, and now also in Bermuda. Ingersoll-Rand earned as
much last year in U.S. defense and homeland security federal contracts
as it avoids in U.S. taxes annually merely by renting a mailbox
in Bermuda and calling it ‘home.' If Ingersoll-Rand paid its
U.S. tax bill, Congress could easily afford to fund the Cyberspace
Warning Intelligence Network, estimated to cost $30 million, or
it could also buy 400,000 gas masks for American citizens."
The other special provisions tucked in the bill to reward other
big Republican contributors are almost as disgusting. I must admit
that the amendment protecting the Eli Lily Co. from future lawsuits
is a fine example of really fast service for a contributor. It was
just a few weeks ago that The New York Times ran the first serious
look at Thimerosal, the vaccine preservative that may be related
to autism, and -- wham, bam -- no problem for the Lily company.
(And don't give me that bull about how it's just an arbitration
panel, parents can still sue, yaddda, yadda, yadda. The purpose
of that stinking amendment could not possibly be clearer. The Lily
Co. bought itself a very nice piece of legislation indeed.)
It's one thing to pass this kind of special interest legislation.
It's another to call it "patriotism." That could gag a
maggot.
(top)
|
