Now That's a Patriot Act

Now here is a Patriot Act everyone can get behind. It's called the Patriot Corporation of America Act and it rewards the companies that don't screw their employees and weaken the country by moving the jobs to China and elsewhere.

In these troubled times, doesn't that sound like common sense? Government policy presently works in opposite ways. It literally assists and subsidizes the disloyal free riders who boost their profits by dumping their obligations to the home country. It's called globalization. Establishment wisdom says there is nothing politicians can do about it.

But the bills introduced Thursday by three senators and seven representatives, all Democrats, can begin to reverse this political perversity. Don't expect a roll call anytime soon, but I think the governing principle is pivotally important.

And some Democrats have come up with a potent new version of patriotic politics. While the nation is fighting this ugly, costly war in Iraq, employers should be doing their part to defend the homeland. Will Republican warriors want to vote against that?

The House and Senate bills appear to be differ slightly but pursue the same goal. In the House, a "Patriot Corporation" would get tax breaks and preferences in federal contracting for employers who produce at least 90 percent of their goods and services in the US and with American workers. The companies must invest in research and development domestically, provide adequate health care and pensions and--surprise--comply with federal laws like workplace safety, environmental protection and consumer regulations.

The Senate's "Patriot Employers" version would give a 1 percent tax credit on taxable income for companies that maintain or increase their US employment in relation to their overseas workers. They must also keep their corporate headquarters in the US. The Senate bill adds a "living wage" requirement. Its initial co-sponsors are Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Dick Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois. Obama's sponsorship, I would guess, may attract other celebrated names.

House co-sponsors are the same nucleus of progressives pushing party leaders to undertake a thorough revamp of US policy on globalization and trade. They are Schakowsky and Hare of Illinois, Sutton and Ryan of Ohio, Woolsey of California, Kagen of Wisconsin and Ellison of Minnesota. Senator Brown and Rep. Jan Schakowsky endorse both House and Senate versions.

The principle at stake is straightforward. Multinational corporations cannot continue to have it both ways--moving more and more value-added production and jobs offshore to capture cheap labor, while still enjoying all of the rewards and benefits of claiming American identity. It's not just the outrageous tax breaks. The American military defends their freedom to operate around the globe.

These measures can be the beginning of tough new policies on globalization. They are quite limited in scope, but a good start. Thousands of small to mid-sized manufacturing firms that do not offshore their production should salute the initiative since the incentives are intended for them. The rewards are modest gestures at this point. The real fight begins when Congress proposes penalties--higher taxes--for those unpatriotic companies that left home.

Comments (69)

1. Nobody should have a problem with a plan that offers "tax breaks" and "incentives"...over punitive measures.

   But Mr Greider...."Don't expect a roll call anytime soon, but I think the governing principle is pivotally important."????

   So this is basically just a "symbolic victory"?

   Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 4:37pm

2. "These measures can be the beginning of tough new policies on globalization. They are quite limited in scope, but a good start. Thousands of small to mid-sized manufacturing firms that do not offshore their production should salute the initiative since the incentives are intended for them. The rewards are modest gestures at this point. The real fight begins when Congress proposes penalties--higher taxes--for those unpatriotic companies that left home."

   Higher taxes, refusing to protect their patents, no military support for overseas operations...

   Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:42pm

3. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/03/2007 @ 4:42pm

   It'll be all honey and no vinegar, Empty. And even passing the honey may be not be that easy....they may find their problem is to their Left, with "kill the corps" leftists demanding punitive measures first and hard, before any talk of "tax breaks for the evil capitalists"!

   You know how those wackos are...fortunately, they're easily ignored.

   Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 4:50pm

4. All vinegar? They're moving jobs overseas, why do they deserve any honey? You want to move production to some foreign country? Go right ahead, that's your right, but don't expect any help from the US government. What is so radical about that? Fair is fair.

   Yeah, it really sounds like you'll be voting Dem, mary.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 4:56pm

5. Posted by MASK 08/03/2007 @ 4:50pm

   And more of the smear tactics. Maybe you can get a job with the Weekly Standard. You're qualified in more ways than one, mary.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:00pm

6. 1% tax credit is not enough to keep companies from outsourcing.

   Wage rates in China are still below $1/hr, so the cost savings from outsourcing is still far greater than a 1% tax break.

   20-30% tax breaks would have some effect, but 1% will have no effect at all.

   Posted by Metteyya at 08/03/2007 @ 5:07pm

7. Socialize the costs, privatize the profit.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:09pm

8. GREIDER (& Dem Pols) raise middle fingers at: Multinational corporations cannot continue to have it both ways--moving more and more value-added production and jobs offshore to capture cheap labor, while still enjoying all of the rewards and benefits of claiming American identity...

   GREIDER (& Dem Pols) propose FIX at: Thousands of small to mid-sized manufacturing firms that do not offshore their production should salute the initiative since the incentives are intended for them.

   Posted by Happy at 08/03/2007 @ 5:11pm

9. Posted by HAPPY 08/03/2007 @ 5:11pm

   So, your point is......? Do you support multinational companies having it both ways using tax shelters while enjoying the protections as "American businesses" while smaller American businesses playing by the rules that don't hide their real budgets get screwed? You definitely sound like someone investing in the multinationals hoping that your own countrymen get screwed.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/03/2007 @ 5:26pm

10. GREIDER (& Dem Pols): The House and Senate bills appear to be differ slightly but pursue the same goal. In the House, a "Patriot Corporation" would get tax breaks and preferences in federal contracting for employers who produce at least 90 percent of their goods and services in the US and with American workers. The companies must invest in research and development domestically, provide adequate health care and pensions and--surprise--comply with federal laws like workplace safety, environmental protection and consumer regulations.

    After the dump the market took today, here goes my dump, hehhehe:

    tax breaks and preferences - This kind of financial `smokes and mirrors' muck things up far more than `benefits' they bring, if any! Now, you will need another layer of bureaucrats to dole these `goodies' out and of course, influence selling!

    at least 90 percent - Very easy to set an arbitrary % but very hard and time-consuming to determine accurately! How to deal with this, well of course, another layer of Gov't Do-Measurers whose findings can be challenged by firms losing out to the 90% `winners'!

    must invest in research and development domestically - Sounds good, so if a company invests $10,000 w/a part-time `Researcher', does that qualify? How to deal with this, well of course, another layer of Gov't R&D-Measurers.....

    Why not something simple and universal! Not that I am for taxing corp. at all, but something along the line of ALL foreign labor costs can only be deducted at 50% on Financial Statement! Instantly, that Indian software guy costing $20k per year becomes $40k! This would be like the expense deductions for Meals & Entertainments which are limited to 50% (on all Schedule C's)!

    Posted by Happy at 08/03/2007 @ 5:28pm

11. Here's the real long hard fight the average american gets to fight- lifting the American worker out of the pits. Believe it or not the economy is not so great and those who are working are suffering from stagnate wages, lowered medical benefits and pilaged retirement plans. As soon as the ridiculous idea that "Trickle Down" theory would ever make it to practice was naive (1981). When that became a policy it opened the door to all the greed we suffer from today. We are being systematically gutted as a nation. And as citizens we have not only watched but helped. We have even began to idolize and defend leaders of low morals, ethics and intelligence- just 'cause they said so. WE need to take responsiblity for our complacency and then get off our A** and stop it- from the base up. The top can not reign if the bottom will not support it. There are "Elitist" - they are collective referred to as Big Business-capitalism with a good splash of malice thrown in to increase the profit margin even slightly higher (The Third Horsemen) But we are the ants and they are the rubber tree plant and we will move those SOB's right out the door. Let's take the inch but keep our eye (hearts & minds) on the mile we have yet to go.

    360.yahoo.com/kimmy's quest

    Posted by Kimmy B at 08/03/2007 @ 5:44pm

12. HAPPY, You seem to be pretty to be up with it on the market so I have a question. If offshoring is so economically sound for these companies, where do the shipping fees come in?

    Is that fee just passed onto the customer as a small percentage in price, or is this type of thing worked out between the shipping companies and the vendor. Or do the vendors own their own ships?

    I would think that the shipping of materials would be pretty expensive. I've got an idea that might be a good incentive for businesses to anti up. How about the multinational businesses that ship materials in and out of the country pay the government about 20% of the margin for the "international piracy" protections on the high seas and airports. Our military protects these shipments, so I believe these companies can fork out that cash to pay for their protection. Otherwise, maybe the U.S. Navy can place a list of international shipments they will not protect letting the pirates out there know those ships are fair game. It would be kind of a voluntary thing as far as payment, but the ships couldn't sail under U.S. protection without the voluntary fee.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/03/2007 @ 6:04pm

13. Right on Kimmy! I do appreciate the strategy of this move by the dems so that no corps are penalized, only offered incentives for compliance. This way, when Bush vetoes it, it will still be a perceived Dem victory.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/03/2007 @ 6:06pm

14. Posted by WOLFGANG1 08/03/2007 @ 5:26pm | ignore this person

    you're getting the idea. remember, a company lays off a lot of workers, the stock goes up.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 6:22pm

15. as Marx explained, capitalism must always find cheaper raw materials and ever cheaper labor, or it will die.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 6:59pm

16. as Marx explained, capitalism must always find cheaper raw materials and ever cheaper labor, or it will die.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/03/2007 @ 6:59pm

    Sounds like a false dichotomy. Why can't the government ensure that capitalism operates responsibly by holding it to account when it fucks up, and offering incentives not to. The government must step in at times to ensure that we don't revert to the days of the trusts and such. Labor/service should be paid more and given more opportunities toward upward mobility. Middle class is looking less and less attainable to so many. Capital should have more of a role in empowering the disadvantaged.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/03/2007 @ 7:26pm

17. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/03/2007 @ 4:56pm |

    In case you missed it, Empty, I support the "incentives" plan that the DEMOCRATS are putting out. I'd vote for any of the co-sponsors who are backing it.

    While YOU on the other hand?..well, we all know how YOU feel about voting!

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 7:44pm

18. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/03/2007 @ 6:59pm

    I dare anybody to ask Professor Rolf if that means he's a Marxist...and see how long it takes him to put them on his voluminous Ignore list!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/03/2007 @ 7:45pm

19. Matt, look around. the facts prove Marx correct.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 7:48pm

20. The government must step in at times to ensure that we don't revert to the days of the trusts and such. Labor/service should be paid more and given more opportunities toward upward mobility.

    this is true in most modern countries, but sadly no longer true here. we have reverted to the gilded age.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 7:50pm

21. J,

    What planet do you live on?

    Your views are as twisted as a sharp-shooter with Maggie's drawers.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/03/2007 @ 9:35pm

22. Pridey, do you pay attention to anything going on in this country? the rich have been making out like bandits, pun intended. small wonder, they have our gov't on their side. the middle class and the poor have been stagnant or worse,

    my son is taking a history class, where he learned that in this country old people used to be in poverty. that is, thankfully no longer so. now children have taken their place in the poverty class. more children are in poverty than ever before. keep this in mind as you contemplate Bush vetoing health care for children.

    I don't mind a little criticism from you, but I must say your posts have been from hunger lately. you used to have something to say. I did not agree, but there was something there.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/03/2007 @ 10:15pm

23. it's hard to imagine any defending greed, but heh...............

    hooray for these people trying to slow down this planet's rape--if your neighbour makes it, that's a lot of hydrocarbons left unburnt as compared to 3,000 kms away.

    don't forget it was clinton/gore who really got this globalization ball rolling

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/03/2007 @ 10:29pm

24. "would get tax breaks and preferences in federal contracting for employers who produce at least 90 percent of their goods and services in the US and with American workers. The companies must invest in research and development domestically, provide adequate health care and pensions and--surprise--comply with federal laws like workplace safety, environmental protection and consumer regulations. "

    Federal contracts? So, we should sell to the govt at a price higher than the govt could get from another private company? Why not have the govt go into that business in the first place, unionnise it for the dolts like the EMPTYs of the world,put out of business those who specialise in that particular service that already have expertese, efficience and employess to do the job...then you will end up with the same type of jobs you now have when govt gets into the business....city road crews "fixing" pot holes...at a living wage, of course...(It called progressive economics).

    and for 1% tax credit? maybe for a lemonade stand...I for one, would never do business with the govt.

    also, when are the geniuses here at the home of the progressive thinkers going to wake up and understand corporations do not pay taxes....the consumers do...they past those living wages onto the customer in the form of higher prices...like prison gards...and every time the govt pay for a service, they are not creating any jobs, they are just spending money taken from taxpayers...it does not generate any new money...

    What a joke..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/03/2007 @ 10:50pm

25. "where he learned that in this country old people used to be in poverty. that is, thankfully no longer so."

    true, the biggest source of individual capital probably resides in the hands of..

    ...old widows....

    ....and the old people are draining the system while the young are stuck paying higher and higher taxes(think SS)...2 workers for everyone taking out "his share", when in reality, their share is taken in 3 years and not 20 years...

    Perhaps? My facts maybe a little off JR, but I'll bet my math is pretty close...close enough for govt work...(there is a reason that slogan still works)

    Posted by john maasch at 08/03/2007 @ 10:54pm

26. cheezy spinoffs of hamster speak don't inspire the heart or move the soul

    Posted by Will C. at 08/03/2007 @ 11:28pm

27. Perhaps? My facts maybe a little off JR, but I'll bet my math is pretty close...close enough for govt work...(there is a reason that slogan still works)

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/03/2007 @ 10:54pm

    I'd really like to see your math john boy. it would be interesting to see if there are any numbers in your equations.

    it would be interesting to see if there are equations

    Posted by Will C. at 08/03/2007 @ 11:33pm

28. If they want to be Chinese, tell them to go to China, and try to function THERE. If they want to be Indian, tell them to go India.

    Posted by ZERO 08/03/2007 @ 6:41pm

    Damn, you sound just like an East Texas redneck.....but I happen to have adopted some E. Texas redness (what can I say, been in Texas almost 30 yrs) and agree w/you here!

    Now, I would be so HAPPY if you would kindly tell our fellow bloggers that are Socialists or Marxists, where they can go....lucky for them, they do have multiple choices for Socialist or Communist countries.

    Posted by Happy at 08/04/2007 @ 6:48pm

29. I like some of the ideas on these projected bills, I think they should be studied very hard and perfected.

    I think that companies that manufacture pencils should be treated in a totally different way from those that create software or are in biochemical research. I think it is a fact of life that the country cannot escape globalization. Having said so, it is right for the federal government to use its leverage power, for example in contracting and taxing to protect the people and promote internal economic development.

    Research, this is the one real key of success in today's globalized markets. A new drug synthetized and manufactured in the country should get I don't know say the first 15 years without sales taxes.

    Federal contracting is also a very good tool. There is people that would "never do business with the government" so watch out Halliburton, you should know better and contract directly with for example the government of Iraq. If our government is efficient enough, taxes - when applied correctly - do create wealth, as they are a net transfer of economic resources from the rich to the poor in the form of roads, hospitals and schools built. Even of course if the builder is a private corporation that will take a profit - good enough - from the work; the reason these investments are done is the benefit of the people, hence most of the cases they are good and create development in the form of say medical doctors or engineers that come from poor families. Therefore, government contracting (e.g. the application of tax moneys to the real physical world) should favor American companies over "pirates" of the economic world with no known nationality.

    I like a statement such as: " So, we should sell to the govt at a price higher than the govt could get from another private company? Why not have the govt go into that business in the first place,..." it is just so candid, but false and misleading. Example: only American companies (that hold whatever 90% of their assets home)should participate in the bids for services to our troops in Iraq (watch out again Halliburton!!). Nobody says the govt is participating, free market continues to exist except that for the bid is only between American companies. Nobody will raise the bid because of that, unless, woops, it is only one company and its name is Halliburton. Speaking seriously, the govt. keeps an intermediary role by selecting what needs to be done and assigning the contract, if it keeps low costs (govt), its role is fair enough and totally legitimate.

    "also, when are the geniuses here at the home of the progressive thinkers going to wake up and understand corporations do not pay taxes....the consumers do...they past those living wages onto the customer in the form of higher prices."

    I agree with this particular genius, corporations never lose money they pass their costs to the people. So why don't we give those (as economists say) economic advantages to corporations that treat people well, so they'll make more profits than the others and everybody (govt, corps, workers) will be HAPPY?

    What the geniuses on the other side fail totally to grasp, is that 2/3 of the economic output in this country is the consumers market, and if we continue along this trend there will be no consumers 20 years from now because all the big companies will be gone except for the malls that will be obliged to close also because sales will plunge. If the benefits of economic growth do not fall into the main sectors of the population, the system breaks, period. And that is not socialism. Who will buy products from China, India and Mexico when nobody's got a job? Since we are keeping only some type of essential services and not manufacturing, the medicine doctor for example, will fall out of patients and lawyers will be trained in India's codes since corps will be there.

    We need to keep research and some basic and strategic manufacturing. Probably, we will never be able to compete with China in for example cheap clothing, but we can surely do in the high quality end of even trivial things as pencils.

    Posted by Frank42 at 08/05/2007 @ 05:30am

30. Classic, neo-con support for Chinese communists over the American worker.

    Maasch is still upset over the communist ties to labor 70 years ago, but perfectly willing to support the largest communist nation on earth.

    1% is a pittance. Increase "fees" at all points that goods enter the country. Neo-cons are comfortable with "fees", but not taxes. Increase taxes on any company that moves it's HQ offshore.

    How about finally adding some language to NAFTA, CAFTA and MFN laws that make labor and environmental concerns a priority? Undo some of the damage done by CLinton/Gore.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/05/2007 @ 11:08am

31. "when are the geniuses here at the home of the progressive thinkers going to wake up and understand corporations do not pay taxes....the consumers do."

    How about reducing some of the top exec pay, bringing it in line with the pay structure we had decades ago. Same with the tax rates. How was it that the US was able to build the highway system and most of our great infrastructure back in the 50's and 60's ? High taxes for the obscenely wealthy! Now we see the country being drowned in the Misissippi, just like Dobson wanted.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/05/2007 @ 11:12am

32. Why are we willing to let our military equipment be built offshore?

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/05/2007 @ 11:20am

33. ""when are the geniuses here at the home of the progressive thinkers going to wake up and understand corporations do not pay taxes....the consumers do.""

    So, if the cost goes up on imported goods, the consumer will buy the local good.

    works for me.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/05/2007 @ 11:21am

34. the thing that cracks me up about the hamsters is that they truly believe that corporations don't pay taxes when of course they do. the invisible hand of the market is still at play at tax time. competition still rules the day.

    and to become more competitive corporations will pay those taxes rather than pass them on

    Posted by Will C. at 08/05/2007 @ 12:36pm

35. Posted by WILL C. 08/05/2007 @ 12:36pm

    Listen to him....he's worked for lots of corporations!

    Posted by Mask at 08/05/2007 @ 1:29pm

36. Posted by MASK 08/05/2007 @ 1:29pm

    hey cum cavern. There's at least twelve corporations in the corporation I work for now.

    So imagine that. You were right for a change

    Posted by Will C. at 08/05/2007 @ 2:08pm

37. Well said!

    I always trust the statements from Mr. Greider after years of reading his thoughts,experiences, and reflections re: economic matters especially in the United States. Like Michael Moore, i would like to characterize Mr. Greider's views as reflective of a 'christian' economic analysis with no special interest to grind other than christian. Isn't this what America is all about as an "exceptionalism" to civilization?

    Posted by dan gillespie at 08/05/2007 @ 5:27pm

38. "So, if the cost goes up on imported goods, the consumer will buy the local good.

    works for me.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/05/2007 @ 11:21am

    Its called trade barriers..and it will be practiced on us in your equation...and will result in our being unable to export less than we do now...

    and it may work for you, but it will won't for the rest of the US..the world passed you by a long time ago.

    All that left for you to do is wave at the parade going by..maybe someone will throw you a piece of candy..

    one thing we can restrict, tho, is exporting technology, as Clinton did in exchange for campaign money from Chinese Army and Loral corp...that deal alone moved the Chinese military ahead 50 years...

    when I say I want to trade, I am talking items we won't or can't afford to build here due to price, union horseshit or other interference with efficiency levels of production in order to give the consumer the best price.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/05/2007 @ 5:35pm

39. Correction,,

    "..being unable to export less than we do now... should read,

    Unable to export any more than we do now.."

    Posted by john maasch at 08/05/2007 @ 5:36pm

40. ...If the benefits of economic growth do not fall into the main sectors of the population, the system breaks, .....Who will buy products from China, India and Mexico when nobody's got a job?......

    Posted by FRANK42 08/05/2007 @ 05:30am

    You have a patchy sense of our economy! But not too hopeless for someone with an IQ of ?42?

    THE primary AND CRITICAL benefit of "economic growth" is first, last and formost, provide job growth at least in line with the growth of the working age population! Look around the world and see how many advanced economies have done better than US.

    With the fundamental I just taught you, now think: Why have "products from China, India and Mexico" exploded? Is it because China produces the $200-milion yachts, the $100-million private jets, the $10,000 hand bags, etc. that the very wealthy 1% buy (imagine, some of them 1%-ters may not even have real jobs!)?

    Here's some study hints to help you think through this one: China's main exports are just about everything you find in Wal-Mart--from the $60 mountain bikes, clothing, inexpensive toys to the $10 blue jeans--and increasingly, Best Buy! Heard of iPods, yap, made in China!

    IF you have trouble with this Sunday's lesson, please feel free to ask!

    Posted by Happy at 08/05/2007 @ 6:05pm

41. it's really a shame that economic growth is coupled with the devaluation of the currency. So in the end it looks like you have more, but it don't buy as much

    Posted by Will C. at 08/05/2007 @ 7:11pm

42. The article says that this is good for small and medium employers. One of the requirments listed on Dick Durbins' website is the employer must match at least 5% of employee retirement contributions. From what I understand the easiest and cheapest retirment plan for small employers is a SIMPLE-IRA, which allows for a maximum of a 3% employer match.

    So if you're a small employer who wants to go for this, what do you do? Set up a 401(k) plan and send more money to the plan administrator than you would contribute to your employees retirement?

    P.S. I'm asking this as the benefits guy at a small business. We're not far away from qualifying for this and I think my boss would go for it if we could figure it out.

    Posted by stoole at 08/05/2007 @ 8:40pm

43. cool, do we get to revoke their citizenship?

    Posted by Will C. at 08/05/2007 @ 11:30pm

44. sounds fair to me

    Posted by Will C. at 08/05/2007 @ 11:30pm

45. I am sick of these Democrats who talk a good game but don't do a damn thing for interests of ordinary people. They are party without principles. I will not vote for a Democrat even if it means re-electing Republicans. I am sick of this politics of triangulation. They are just as corrupt as the Republicans.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 08/06/2007 @ 02:33am

46. Greiber thinks moving work offshore constitutes the "screwing" of employees. First of all, if you're status is employee then you havn't been screwed. Mainly though,If overhead for companies wasn't so high (and growing higher, if Dems have their way) due to constant demand from these same "progressive" for more perqs, better health care coverage, higher corporate taxes etc, etc ad nauseum, they wouldn't LOOK overseas for cheaper places to produce. But then Greider, who no doubt believes businesses should just eat the additional costs and be "socially conscious" forgets that business is in business to make money, period, not operate out of some outdated sense of noblesse oblige towards its employees.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 08/06/2007 @ 07:54am

47. you neo cons are right again.

    The American worker is greedy, lazy and undeserving of a living wage.

    Fuck the middle class! Communism/capitalism is what we should be supporting, not Americans.

    Still cannot figure out why Maasch hates firefighters, cops, the people that make his tires, educators, the people that clean up his bodily fluids in hotels, the people that serve him his food.

    why do you hate Americans so much John? Why are you against me making money, but for Chinese communists? Under your grand plan, I cannot afford to buy my wife new jewelry.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/06/2007 @ 08:07am

48. If anybody thinks China is going to stop exporting to the USA, you are delusional.

    But I have come to expect that from the fearful sheep whose only concern is stock price.

    Posted by crabwalk at 08/06/2007 @ 08:09am

49. In case you missed it, Empty, I support the "incentives" plan that the DEMOCRATS are putting out. I'd vote for any of the co-sponsors who are backing it.

    While YOU on the other hand?..well, we all know how YOU feel about voting!

    Posted by MASK

    Yeah, I guess I did miss that. I scrolled through and failed to find any posts from you saying so.

    You say you're voting Dem. I don't believe it.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/06/2007 @ 09:32am

50. That's okay, Empty, I realize that reading comprehension is a problem of yours (why you don't know much about the Constitution)....here ya go-

    "Nobody should have a problem with a plan that offers "tax breaks" and "incentives"...over punitive measures."----Posted by MASK 08/03/2007 @ 4:37pm

    Posted by Mask at 08/06/2007 @ 10:06am

51. By the way, I'm still deciding if...

    A. you'll knuckle under and vote in 2008 (and be proven a liar).

    B. you're not some GOP operative trying to convince the progressives to not vote for "Republican-lite" Democrats and depress the vote.

    Lean towards "A", cuz even the greatest actor in the world would have trouble sounding so dopey or contradictory....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 08/06/2007 @ 10:08am

52. Crab,

    "Still cannot figure out why Maasch hates firefighters, cops, the people that make his tires, educators, the people that clean up his bodily fluids in hotels, the people that serve him his food.

    why do you hate Americans so much John? Why are you against me making money, but for Chinese communists? Under your grand plan, I cannot afford to buy my wife new jewelry.

    Posted by CRABWALK 08/06/2007 @ 08:07am

    There is a lot more that you haven't figured out and appear to be doomed..

    Lets start at ther bottom of your post..

    You can't buy your wife jewelry because you do not make enough money..now that is not the fault of a Chinese worker sewing jeans together or some Indian worker making insense.. it is your choices and abilitys that have to you where you are today..or perhaps your lack of understanding basic economics and how to make money..some people know how and some don't know how to make4 a buck.

    I don't understand why you seem stuck on a notion that if you are in a union that I some how hate America..it makes no difference to me if one is in a union or not..that is hopefully still a free choice(although in some companies ones life is in danger should you decide not to join)..

    I just believe that in many situations all a union does is raise the cost while not improving the status of the jobs since there is no incentive to increase productivity or quality.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/06/2007 @ 10:49am

53. I have a better idea. Instead of PUNISHING companies that want to take adavantage of cheap overseas labor and tax shelters, why not create incentives to stay here? For example, tax breaks to keep your company here, lower or eliminate taxes for the employees so they can live more comfortably on a lower wage, educate our youth in schools so US employees are more desirable. Positive re-enforcements work better than negative. The dems have become punish-focused rather than saying, "OK, this is what those other nations have that are incentives for US companies to go over there, why don't we figure out a way to make the US more worthwhile to the companies that go overseas for their labor and tax shelters?"

    Posted by Paunk at 08/06/2007 @ 12:04pm

54. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 08/06/2007 @ 07:54am

    Oh, boo hoo. The poor old corporations aren't reaping ENOUGH profits, you want to baby them and give them tax breaks so the upper management can pocket $600 million in stock options......

    I guess you've never had to WORK for a living in your life.

    Poor little corporations, running out of ways to cheat and might actually have to PAY THEIR FAIR FUCKING SHARE FOR A CHANGE.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/06/2007 @ 12:52pm

55. "Oh, boo hoo. The poor old corporations aren't reaping ENOUGH profits, you want to baby them and give them tax breaks so the upper management can pocket $600 million in stock options......

    I guess you've never had to WORK for a living in your life.

    Poor little corporations, running out of ways to cheat and might actually have to PAY THEIR FAIR FUCKING SHARE FOR A CHANGE."

    I have worked, I work every day. I am trying to build my own business and I resent the fact that there is some politician out there who thinks that I have to run my business in a certain way. If I become big enough that I have the option to move overseas, of course I'm going to pick where my dollar is going to go the furthest. If there are good enough US workers to do the job at a price I can afford, of course I'll use them. If not, I'll go somewhere else. That's called free market and is what built this country. By penalizing companies that are headquartered here but use overseas labor, you are setting up scenario that will incent companies to not even have their headquarters here. Companies do pay their share. Even if some jobs are moved, there are still a portion of jobs that stay here. They develop real estate (their downtown corporate headquarters might be keeping a neighborhood from becoming a run down ghetto), they give employees money and benefits in exchange for their services, and they pay taxes.

    Posted by Paunk at 08/06/2007 @ 1:03pm

56. DR DECIBELS, not to mention that if you are resenting people taking their share of what's out there (money or otherwise) you are not doing anything to get yours because you're spending that time and energy complaining. Before you start complaining about someone elses stock options or income, ask yourself what you've done to get yours.

    Posted by Paunk at 08/06/2007 @ 1:05pm

57. Posted by PAUNK 08/06/2007 @ 1:03pm

    Good luck. Another budding fascist on the make.

    Bullshit. Not corporations.

    And will you be writing off your Hummer, and vacations, and every other fucking thing you can personally profit from, or will you do business straight up and honest?

    I thought so.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/06/2007 @ 1:05pm

58. DR DECIBELS, not to mention that if you are resenting people taking their share of what's out there (money or otherwise) you are not doing anything to get yours because you're spending that time and energy complaining. Before you start complaining about someone elses stock options or income, ask yourself what you've done to get yours.

    Posted by PAUNK 08/06/2007 @ 1:05pm

    Fuck you. I've been busting my ass for 30 years, and I've earned everything I have, and didn't have to lie cheat or steal to do it.

    But go ahead, make some more assumptions, and enlighten me with your twisted version of wisdom.

    Or just fuck off.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/06/2007 @ 1:07pm

59. I resent figureheads pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars for screwing the American worker.

    And if that is the sort of LEECH you aspire to be, then you know what to do. You forgot? Allow me to quote Mr Civility, Dick Cheney. Go fuck yourself.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/06/2007 @ 1:18pm

60. "I resent figureheads pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars for screwing the American worker.

    And if that is the sort of LEECH you aspire to be, then you know what to do. You forgot? Allow me to quote Mr Civility, Dick Cheney. Go fuck yourself."

    The American workers have been screwing themselves by electing people who continue government charities that take exhorbatant amounts of taxes out of your paycheck.

    I'm not a leech if people chose to work for me or not. The reality is, you chose to work for 30 years. I commend you for that. It's good that you earned everything you have and that you didn't lie, cheat or steal. Not everyone does, not every big business owner does lie, cheat, or steal.

    There is no need to curse just because we disagree. I also don't care to be called a leech since, as the big business owner I plan to be, I'll be giving a lot back.

    Posted by Paunk at 08/06/2007 @ 1:24pm

61. There is no need to curse just because we disagree. I also don't care to be called a leech since, as the big business owner I plan to be, I'll be giving a lot back.

    Posted by PAUNK 08/06/2007 @ 1:24pm

    I'll believe it when I see it.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/06/2007 @ 1:27pm

62. "I just believe that in many situations all a union does is raise the cost while not improving the status of the jobs since there is no incentive to increase productivity or quality."

    Amen John, we should not pay a lot for substandard work, ever.

    Posted by Paunk at 08/06/2007 @ 1:30pm

63. And if you can't quote our esteemed Vice pResident, well, good Lord, what is the world coming to??????

    Thank God dignity and decorum were restored to the WH, eh?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/06/2007 @ 1:30pm

64. we should not pay a lot for substandard work, ever.

    Posted by PAUNK 08/06/2007 @ 1:30pm

    Substandard work should get you fired. I have always been a top performer.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 08/06/2007 @ 1:44pm

65. also, when are the geniuses here at the home of the progressive thinkers going to wake up and understand corporations do not pay taxes....the consumers do...they past those living wages onto the customer in the form of higher prices...like prison gards...and every time the govt pay for a service, they are not creating any jobs, they are just spending money taken from taxpayers...it does not generate any new money...

    What a joke..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/03/2007 @ 10:50pm

    The people who are employed pay taxes as well. I agree corporations pass on higher taxes to the consumer. Which is why this makes sense. Give the complanies in the US lower taxes thus they are more competetive than the outsourced companies. I don't see how making things in America more cost effective is problamatic.

    Posted by zakquiet at 08/06/2007 @ 2:12pm

66. At the very best, this is a half-hearted, overwhelmingly cautious first step. I would suggest a few provisions to address the systematic attack on our economic security:

    1. Any corporation that moves its HQ offshore should be taxed exactly as any other "person" is taxed in this country. That means individual rates for single taxpayers with only the same itemized deductions and credits allowed.

    2. Allow any and all outsourcing of production, BUT prohibit any of that outoverseas output to be imported into this country.

    3. With respect to the auto industry and Japanese, Korean and Chinese manufacturers: Allow the same volume importation of parts and finished products into this country as are shipped into their countries multiplied by the relative size of the markets (For example, Japanese manufacturers could send us 3.5X as much auto output as we send them. In 2006, we sold approximately 24,500 vehicles in the Japanese market of 5,612,528 total vehicle sales. They sold approximately 5,350,000 into North America in a total market of 19,311,924 total vehicle sales. That would limit all Japanese mfrs. to about 24,500 X 3.5 = 85,750 vehicles instead of 5,350,000. I would also point out that when they build cars here, their domestic parts content is usually considerably lower than that of the domestic mfrs. The second item, above, would prohibit domestic mfrs. from importing parts from abroad.)

    Another idea to protect our taxes from being granted to corporations with little or no long-term benefit.

    4. Prohibit state and local governments from offering tax incentives to any mfr. for locating anywhere.

    Posted by radwriter at 08/06/2007 @ 2:20pm

67. It sure is simple when all one has to rely on for thinking is the ideology as written years ago by Party X or Y and repeated ad nauseum by Pundit L or M.

    The leech refernce may have been a bit much. BUT one ought to consider that many of the most profitable Fortune 500 "persons" calling themselves corporations have paid zero income tax for decades. Secondly, when they pay taxes, they report significantly less income than they do in their annual reports.

    What word would you use when they profit enormously from our infrastructure while contributing relatively little to creating and maintaining it? when certain defense contractors are profiting while our men and women die overseas?

    What word would you use when they are the ones who overuse and abuse our legal system? They sue each other far more often than private citizens do.

    What word would you use when these "persons" write off frivolous and personal expenses as well as absurd pay packages and hence shift the tax burden onto the rest of us?

    If not leech, maybe something simpler like con artist or thief or ?would be more appropriate in all too many cases.

    Posted by radwriter at 08/06/2007 @ 3:02pm

68. THE FAIR TAX WOULD STOP PUNISHING THE POOR AND THE CORPS.THE CORPS ARE RUNNING FROM THE TAX CODE SO COMPLEX IT HAS BEEN AMENDED 10,000 TIMES BY CONGRESS STROKING LOBBISTS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS.IF YOU SIMPLY TAXED WANT YOU SPENT THEN EVERYONE WOULD PAY EQUALLY EVEN TOURISTS AND THE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY.COMPANIES WOULD COME BACK AND BRING THEIR MONEY WITH THEM

    Posted by WRIGHTWINGER at 08/06/2007 @ 9:26pm

69. I live in a state that has a "fair" tax based on spending and no incomes tax. It is a total crock and an all out lie to say that it would benefit the poor. The lowest quintile (the poor) in states relying on a sales tax pay on average 17+% of their income on state and local taxes. The highest quintile pays less than 5%; those most highly compensated pay less than 3%. Many in the lowest quintile pay more than 100% of their income because of either depleting savings or using credit cards to meet basic needs while out of work. Check the facts; your proposal is totally devoid of reality. Those with the lowest income must spend a far higher percentage of income to meet the most basic of needs. Those with the highest incomes spend far less on basic needs as a percentage of income. In fact, in a conversation with a former Reagan administration official, that person crowed about what a great idea it was to give rich folks the option of whether or not to pay taxes by spending less. Well, the poor have no such option. Under your plan, the rich get all the benefits of tax-paid infrastructure to move their inputs and outputs and a legal system to support their frivolous law suits and protections for their property rights without having to pay for them. What form of political blindness calls this fair? Are you really advocating a return to Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham? The idea is to rob the poor to keep the new aristocracy from having to pay for their benefits, perks, and privileges?

    Posted by radwriter at 08/08/2007 @ 3:44pm