WTF!! Obama Helping Lobbyists Weaken Offshore Tax Crackdown Dems Passed In 2002 Over GOP Opposition

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Obama helping lobbyists weaken offshore tax crackdown Dems passed in 2002 over GOP opposition
by: David Sirota
Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 09:15

...

And yet in the now-Democratic Congress seven years later, with deficits exploding and the government clearly needing to strengthen any and all incentives for corporations to pay their taxes, I was more than disheartened to read this story in the Hill newspaper this week:

Multinational corporations are fighting to preserve language in a spending bill that would weaken a ban on federal contracts.

The provision, inserted in the Senate version of the bill at the request of the Obama administration, would weaken a ban on federal contracts for inverted companies...

Before the ban began in 2002, four of the 100 largest federal contractors were inverted, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.

In 2001, those four companies received $2.7 billion in federal contracts, but they have unable to win the contracts since the ban was put into place.

The Obama administration is justifying its push on the grounds that the ban may - at some point in the undetermined future - conflict with our trade agreements. It's a charge North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) rightly calls "absurd."

...

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15972/obama-helping-lobbyists-weaken-offshore-tax-crackdown-dems-passed-in-2002-over-gop-opposition

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Brilliant! Just brilliant!!

Mere mortals like Sirota who think that the Administration is capitulating to corporations obviously don't know how to play Vulcan chess.

[ThomCat]

2. Yet again, a republican priority from our Democratic administration.

:(

All that hope for "change" towards the left, and towards really helping people, and it was all just a sham.

:grr:

[bighart]

3. Unreal

[Octafish]

4. If only we had the Presidency and control of the House and the Senate...

...Oh. Wait a minute!

Thanks, Orwellian_Ghost. More government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.

[autorank]

5. k*r

:kick:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

11. Companies using offshore tax havens look to bill for windfall

Under the government procurement agreement in the World Trade Organization (WTO), the U.S. is supposed to give foreign companies the ability to bid for federal contracts. Those that have signed the agreement agree not to discriminate against foreign companies bidding for contracts.

The dispute between lawmakers and the administration over the language mirrors a clash earlier this year over “Buy American” provisions in the $787 billion stimulus. Lawmakers had sought to steer money toward domestic firms by including “Buy American” clauses in the stimulus, but the White House insisted on watering the provisions down to allay the concerns of trade partners, partly because of its commitments in the WTO and other trade deals.

The administration and the proposed language has a big backer in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Chris Braddock, the Chamber’s senior director of procurement policy, argued that the ban in its current form could run afoul of trade agreements. Braddock noted that the proposed language is similar to a provision in the $787 billion stimulus pushed for by the Obama administration to allay its trade partners’ concerns over “Buy American” provisions, requiring that stimulus money go to domestic companies.

...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/67063-bill-could-be-windfall-for-companies

[ProSense]

6. This story leaves out a huge detail

The 2002 ban only applied to Homeland Security. It was done through the appropriations process. The ban was expanded this year to apply to the entire federal government:

U.S. PIRG letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

In 2002, Congress took the first step in enacting legislation to address corporate inverters that seek government contracts with the Homeland Security Act. The law, passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate, prohibited the Department of Homeland Security from contracting with inverted corporations. Most recently, with the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, Congress broadened this restriction to apply government-wide.

It's clearly a loophole, but given that the ban was expanded this year to apply government-wide, there must be reason it's being considered.

The bill hasn't reached the Senate floor yet so there is time to get the facts.

[timtom]

7. It just gets better and better!

The mask is off. The gloves are off. There's no hidin' place down here.

[Individualist]

8. DLC is the elephant in the room.

[Xicano]

9. Sadly I am no longer surprised.

We all know wall-street owns washington. Nothing is going to change as long as we keep electing people who receive bribes from the rich.

It seems nobody even tries to vote for the folks who refuse to take corporate money. Too many people are scared we'll lose seats to the repubs. Well, so what. So the hell what as long as the dems are acting more like repubs than actual dems. NOTHING is gonna change until we MAKE it change. Starting with Obama.inc. and the current make-up of elected dems in congress. We make it known that all who have worked against the interests of the democratic base, especially in favor of special interests, they are done, they will not get one stinking vote. They need to understand in no uncertain terms that if they act against us in any way shape or form, they will be fired - period end of discussion.

But you see, they are not afraid of that because they know us. They know that no matter what people are going to vote them back in rather than take a loss of a dem held seat. Even though they act more like a repub than a dem they know it doesn't matter.

See, people are too scared at losing a battle to win the war. I guarantee you if the majority of dems refused to vote for corporate bribe taking dems or anybody else who serves corporate interests over people interests, and stuck to their guns on this issue, we'd have public ran universal health care, trade protections eliminating any benefit from off-shoring jobs, less unemployment, sensible price caps and other consumer protection regulations such as labeling of all GMO foods for example, alternative and renewable energy, no wars for profiteers, etc, etc, etc.

So until we come to grips that we may have to take it on the chin for a few rounds of elections we are not going to see any meaningful change. In my opinion it is vital that we boycott (blacklist) any and every elected dem who's represented special interests and let the chips fall where they may. It probably won't look pretty for a couple of elections, but, the fruit it will bare will be totally worth it in my opinion.

Or we can keep doing what we're doing and nothing will change.



Peace,
Xicano

[redqueen]

13. "won't look pretty"... yeah that's one way to describe it... Iraq, Katrina, etc.

And FYI... the banks have owned DC for over a century. You're kind of oversimplifying things. Just a little.

But thanks for the advice that we should stop voting for Dems. Interesting little quest you and a few others are on.

Very interesting.

[Xicano]

15. Iraq?

Are we still in Iraq? Are we escalating in Afghanistan? Is our rhetoric with regard to Iran changed? Did we continue blackwater's contract? Did FISA get "fixed"? Are we getting a public option HC bill? Did wall street get billions more of our money? Did we pull out of, or, re-negotiate NAFTA? Shall I continue?

You can go ahead and turn your back on democratic principles and be a good little slave to wall-street. Not me. I am a liberal democrat through and through and a politician just wearing a (D) flavored armband isn't enough for me.

But you go on. Keep voting against your interest by voting for fake dems who are nothing but wall street puppets. Don't say real democrats didn't warn you.


n/t

[redqueen]

17. So you think Gore would have started a war in Iraq?

Is that what you think?

[Xicano]

18. Bill Clinton continued bombing in Iraq

Link

Al Gore didn't seem to have any problem with that. Al Gore also didn't seem to have any problem with this policy as also illustrated by Madeleine Albright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4

So, yes, certainly Al Gore would have started a war in Iraq. You're naive to think otherwise.

[redqueen]

19. Yes, I know what Bill did.

Call me naive if you want.

I can't call you what I'd like to, cause it's against the rules.

Good luck with your quest to get more Republicans elected. Really.

[Xicano]

20. "I can't call you what I'd like to, cause it's against the rules."

Goes to show what kind of character you are. And the thing is, which goes right over your head, YOU are the one voting for republicans. You're just not using your common sense by allowing yourself to be fooled by armbands and talk. Well, talk is cheap and apparently, sadly, so is your vote.

And its not as if this is anything new either. I see all kinds of US flags posted here where the stars are replaced with corporate logos - YOU and others like you are responsible for that reality. I also see several posts reciting some accurate truths about this situation by George Carlin, where by the way, he also refers to the NO differences between repubs & dems who are all puppets of wall street. Everyone here agrees when someone posts that, but, then goes right back to business as usual - just like you.

If you can't handle being a real democrat instead of a corporate lapdog, like I said, go ahead. Just don't say real democrats didn't warn you or try and MAKE real change.


Have a nice day.... n/t




Peace,
Xicano

[redqueen]

23. I live in a rural area in a red state. You figure out what kind of Dems I get to vote for.

Why don't you take a break from trying to get DUers to vote against Dems and study some politics.

You make me laugh with your idiotic "real democrat" bullshit. Seriously... study politics. You really really need it.

Enjoy convincing more DUers to vote against Dems.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

21. Not started but continued

The war on Iraq has been going on for decades and is waged in various ways by the US political and business class. If necessary the guns are brought to the scene but in any case Gore, Clinton, Bush, Obama for the most part the foreign policy objectives towards Iraq are quite consistent.

[redqueen]

22. Ugh... OK then... would he have launched a full on invasion with 100Ks of troops?

Seriously, is it that hard to figure out that's what I meant?

[G_j]

10. I'm not gonna say it...

this isn't the.............etc.etc.

[redqueen]

12. I'm not sure, but isn't this just complying with signed agreements?

The provision, inserted in the Senate version of the bill at the request of the Obama administration, would weaken a ban on federal contracts for inverted companies by saying the ban will not apply if it is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under an international agreement.

I'm not saying it's a good thing... closing down those loopholes is vital... but I don't know that I can agree with Dorgan about this being 'absurd'.

[blindpig]

14. k&r

[branders seine]

16. it should be clear by now whose side the President is on

hint: if you don't publish a glossy, 4-color annual report, it ain't you.

[uponit7771]

24. ****ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF SLOPPY ASS'D JOURNALISM**** (link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6992262&mesg_id=6992889

[redqueen]

25. lol