NYT: The Truth about Taxes (revenue RAISING, folks)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/the-truth-about-taxes.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

A week later and we are still amazed at how the Republicans in Congress pulled it off. They held the economy hostage, won some cheap political points, and all of us will spend the next decade paying the ransom as government programs — $900 billion over 10 years in the first round — are slashed and the recovery is put at risk.

Related

• Times Topic: Federal Debt Ceiling

• S.& P. Downgrades Debt Rating of U.S. for the First Time (August 6, 2011)

• Post a Comment »

The only glimmer of hope is that the battle is not completely over — if President Obama is finally willing to fight.
Under the terms of the ill-conceived debt agreement, Congress has to propose another $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction measures by December. Just to ensure that rationality does not have a chance, Republican leaders said they would not put anyone on the deficit-cutting “super-committee” who might entertain the idea of raising taxes.
A week later and we are even more amazed by the failure of Mr. Obama and the Democratic leadership to stand up to this intransigence. If they do not start pushing back, with the same ferocity, the results will be disastrous.
Standard & Poor’s made its judgment about both the political standoff and the all-cuts, no-new-revenues deal on Friday when it lowered the country’s long-term debt rating one notch, down from AAA. And while “no new taxes” pledges are almost always big political winners, Americans are also figuring out that the country cannot keep on this way. According to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll, 63 percent support raising taxes on households that earn more than $250,000 a year to help address the deficit.
If that is not enough to energize the White House, here are a few more facts. To avoid across-the-board cuts, Congress must enact at least another $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures over the 10 years. For all of the talk of “big government,” there is no way to cut that much in discretionary programs without crippling basic functions. Lawmakers could eliminate the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Pell Grants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and Head Start and still not cut $110 billion annually.
Entitlement reform is essential. But it is unlikely that lawmakers will agree on deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Finally, asserting that deficits can be tamed with spending cuts alone ignores that the Bush tax cuts — costing $1.8 trillion from 2002 to 2009 — are a big reason we got into this deep hole.
Here is the bottom line. There is no economically sensible or politically honest way to address the deficit without also increasing revenues and reforming the tax code. The major challenges are these:
LET THE BUSH CUTS EXPIRE Mr. Obama vowed to let the high-end tax cuts (for people making more than $250,00) expire in 2010. But in a preview of the debt fight, he agreed to extend the cuts for two more years when Republicans held unemployment benefits and other measures hostage.
Letting all of the cuts expire at the end of 2012 would save $3.8 trillion over the next decade. Letting the tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 would save $700 billion. That would make a real dent in the $2.4 trillion in total deficit reduction envisioned in the debt limit deal.
A sensible and fair approach would be to let the high-end tax cuts expire as scheduled, but keep the other tax cuts for another year. That would keep more cash in the hands of people most likely to spend it and prop up consumer demand while the economy is weak. It would give Congress and the administration time to undertake tax reform.
MAKE REAL REFORMS Most Congressional Republicans are willing to embrace reform, but only if it is “revenue neutral.” There is no question that the system is overly complicated; it is also riddled with hugely costly special deals for special interests. Any reform must streamline the code, make it fairer and — most important — raise more revenue.
TARGET TAX BREAKS AND LOWER RATES Each year, the government provides $1 trillion in tax breaks. Some of the largest breaks — for itemized deductions and retirement savings — should be retained because they subsidize important goals, like home ownership and old-age security. Right now, wealthier taxpayers get the greatest benefit. The process needs to be reformed so that most of the help flows to those who most need it: low- and middle-income taxpayers.
At the same time, super-low tax rates for investment income should be ended. Capital gains are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, compared with a top rate for wages and salary of 35 percent. Proponents argue that the lower rate is an incentive to invest, but research shows that it also encourages gaming of the system. Tax breaks that have outlived their purpose must be ended, starting with subsidies for the oil industry, which is making billions in profits.
The revenue from such reforms could be used to pay down the deficit and allow all tax rates to be lowered, improving incentives to work. The amount of revenue raised and the drop in tax rates will depend on how much tax breaks are curbed.
OTHER TAXES Congress should consider raising revenues in other ways, like a value-added tax, or carbon taxes. That way all of the needed revenue for deficit reduction, and for what government provides, does not need to be squeezed from the income tax. A value-added tax is conducive to saving, and a carbon tax helps protect the environment.
The public is open to new taxes, and the economic facts are clear. Until tax increases are considered in equal measure to spending cuts, there will be no budget fix.

Citizens for Tax Justice on Minnesota Tax Surrender

Minnesota Governor Dayton Surrenders on Tax Issue to End State's Shutdown

“Relieved, but not celebrating” is one 

of the headlines in Friday’s StarTribune. Governor Dayton and the state legislature finally reached a compromise that would balance the budget and reopen the state by delaying payments to schools and issuing bonds against future tobacco settlement monies.

In his statement to lawmakers Governor Dayton said, “despite my serious reservations about your plan, I have concluded that continuing the state government shutdown would be even more destructive for too many Minnesotans. Therefore, I am willing to agree to something I do not agree with -- your proposal -- in order to spare our citizens and our state from further damage.”  In his statement the Governor listed three conditions:

1) The removal of social policy issues from further consideration this year (like requiring voters to bring identification to the polls or ending taxpayer funding for abortions).

2) Dropping a provision which would have required a 15 percent across the board reduction in the number of state employees.

3) Support for a $500 million bonding bill to “put people back to work throughout Minnesota.”

The details of the budget are still being worked out, but the state will likely be up and running in just a few days.

Obviously this compromise is a huge blow to tax fairness advocates. Dayton had previously campaigned on and proposed raising taxes in a progressive way to avoid making radical cuts. Delaying payments and issuing bonds is not a fiscally responsible way to solve Minnesota’s budget problems over the long term.

Dayton closed his statement this way: “I urge the members of both of your caucuses to consider carefully the advisability of supporting alternative sources of revenue, which would provide better, long-term financial stability for Minnesota than the two sources in your offer.” It’s a real shame that his words are falling on deaf ears; by all accounts, substantial, beneficial tax reform is going to be shelved for the time being.

Photo via Governor Dayton Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

What to do about the US sinking ship, ASAP

Washington's proposed budget for the coming year sends a clear message: The wrath of budget cuts will fall upon the shoulders of hard-working Americans. That's unacceptable. Obama seeks to trim $1.1 trillion from the budget in the next ten years by cutting or eliminating over 200 federal programs, many dedicated to social services and education. For instance, it cuts in half funding to subsidize heating for low-income Americans; limits an expansion of the Pell grant program for students; and decreases Environmental Protection Agency funding by over 12%. Meanwhile, Republicans are using their new House majority to slash spending even more brutally. The GOP has made it clear that they are bent on raiding funds for Social Security, Medicare, education; determined to kill health care reform; and gut needed investments in infrastructure, climate change and job creation, at a time when America needs it most. These cuts will come on top of very painful austerity measures made at the state-level across our nation–-worth hundreds of billions--since the recession began. In short, budget cuts demonstrate that Washington has abandoned ordinary Americans. But there is an alternative: Make corporate tax avoiders pay. Enjoying record profits and taxpayer-funded bailouts as the economy slowly recovers from a financial crisis, nearly two-thirds of US corporations don't pay any income taxes, instead opting to abuse tax loopholes and offshore tax havens. According to this study from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, 83 of the top 100 publicly traded corporations that operate in the US exploit corporate tax havens. Since 2009, America’s most profitable companies such as ExxonMobil, General Electric, Bank of America and Citigroup all paid a grand total of $0 in federal income taxes to Uncle Sam. Tax havens alone account for up to $1 trillion in tax revenue lost every decade, money that could be invested in K-12 education, colleges, public health, job creation and hundreds of other worthy public programs. If we pay our taxes, why don’t they? If corporations profit here, shouldn't they pay here? It’s time for ordinary Americans to fight back and demand an end to the corporate tax avoidance. Join US Uncut and together let's make corporate tax avoiders pay. US Uncut is a horizontal movement. There are no centrally planned protests. If you want one in your town or city, you'll have to take it on yourself. Read our blog about what to do next. Also remember to visit UK Uncut for some inspiration. See you on the streets.

In Defense of Good Government: John Marty

In Defense of Good Government
by Senator John Marty June 28, 2011
Why does one need to write in defense of good government? Because right wing politicians have vilified government. Under their relentless attacks, government is portrayed as evil - something Grover Norquist wants to reduce "to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."  Norquist is not an insignificant figure. He founded Americans for Tax Reform, and is a key strategist behind the Republican Party attack on government. This assault on government is not a compassionate attempt to serve the public good. Norquist says, "Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat.... It is like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see." Inflicting pain on others does not further the values of democracy. Contrary to the public's desire for civility, Norquist says, "We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." Here in Minnesota, and next door in Wisconsin, it is obvious how successful Norquist and his allies have been in that battle.Let's step back from that. I want to speak in defense of goodgovernment. In Abraham Lincoln's words, our government was instituted "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Government is not them. It is us. Government is not inherently good or evil; it's how people choose to govern themselves.As society and the economy become more complex, we need government to create the infrastructure to establish justice and to promote the general welfare. In primitive societies, with smaller communities and simpler lives, government was also much smaller. Food and necessities were produced locally; labor was done by family or neighbors. There was no Wall Street. No corporate boards made decisions affecting the lives of truly anonymous workers and consumers. No need for air traffic control or a pollution control agency.In our increasingly complex society, we need to work together to give all children access to quality education, to ensure that products we buy are safe, to pay for roads and bridges and public safety, to protect the environment, and to help those who are sick and vulnerable and unable to fend for themselves. It is through government that we can effectively address these needs. It is also, almost always, less expensive to do so collectively - it's far cheaper to pay for a clean public water supply than to have each household drill their own well, and test and purify their own water. Yet right-wing politicians across the country have been signing Norquist's No New Taxes pledge; a pledge that allows no exceptions, whether for growing needs, for emergencies, or natural disasters. Under the anti-tax ideology, if children go hungry, that's tough. If bridges collapse, too bad. After the 35W bridge collapse, Governor Pawlenty supported a tax increase to fund bridge construction needs (his spokesman explained, "Yes, it's accurate to describe this as a breaking of the [no-tax] pledge," because of the "extraordinary circumstances"). However, when pressure from the anti-tax lobby became too strong, Pawlenty backed away. But the bridge collapse was real, and the need to address transportation safety didn't disappear. The only thing that changed was Pawlenty's decision to ignore the need in favor of an ideological pledge against taxes. Meeting the needs of society can be expensive. Back in 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor did not come at a convenient time for the United States. Our nation was still struggling to recover from the Great Depression, and the federal government had no financial capacity to fund World War II. Yet all Americans sacrificed. In addition to the unmatched human sacrifice on the battlefield, there was an incredible economic sacrifice that needed to be paid for with higher taxes. Americans understood the need to work collectively to stop the brutal fascism that was taking over the world. As a nation, we pulled together to build a better future for the next generation. This is not a defense of all government. No one in the Minnesota legislature has been more outspoken than I in criticizing inappropriate spending, such as for corporate subsidies. No one has been more outspoken in fighting against government intrusion into private lives and decisions about whom one can marry. No one has been more outspoken against the corruption of special interest money in politics and the need for government reform.I'm speaking out in defense of good government, which includes criticism of bad, ineffective, and inappropriate government. But it also requires defending that which government needs to do, even if it means higher taxes. The people of Minnesota and our economy do better if we invest in early childhood education. We all benefit if everyone has access to preventive health care. We benefit if low-income workers have public transportation to get to their jobs and quality childcare to watch their children while they are at work. Failing to provide chemical dependency treatment to prisoners makes us less safe when they have served their time. Making college too expensive for students robs us all of their potential. The right-wing assault on government has been so brutal that there are times when few Democrats are willing to stand up and speak out. The rhetoric of Democrats from President Obama on down focuses on the need for cutting spending (yes, some of that focus is on inappropriate spending) but it feeds on the Republican frame that government is evil and less spending is better. A decade ago, even among DFLers, there were only a handful of votes against the huge Minnesota income tax cuts that led to our current budget crisis.Republican legislative leaders say we are spending too much and we need to cut back. Their budget makes deep cuts in services. But do we make Minnesota a better place by cutting the funds needed for investigation of child abuse? Or by denying health care to sick and disabled people? Much of the growth in government comes, ironically, from our failure to invest the funds needed to prevent those problems. If it requires more revenue to meet those needs, we should raise taxes rather than accept those cuts.When Republican legislators are voting, unanimously, for cruel cuts which affect the most vulnerable people in society, and some of those same politicians support tax increases for a publicly-funded stadium for a billionaire team owner, it is time to speak out. There is no better illustration that government is not inherently good or bad. I choose to speak out, not only in criticism of bad government, but also, in defense of good government.
To the Point!  is published by the Apple Pie Alliance.  www.apple-pie.org.  If you know others who would enjoy To the Point!, please forward this.

Tax Reform this year? Fahgedabootit ..

The top House Democratic tax writer, Sandy Levin, vowed today to fight hard against the sort of tax-code overhaul the Republican majority wants. He says  the GOP plan, eliminating some so-far-unspecified tax breaks to offset the cost of reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, would end up hurting the poor because “you would have to eliminate virtually every tax incentive for middle income and poor families.”

His comments, to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, suggest that this year’s early optimism about a bipartisan approach to simplifying the tax code may have been overblown.

U.S. Corporations Paid Far Less Than Legally-Imposed Tax Rate: Study

Source: Huffington Post
By Kevin Drawbaugh

June 2, 2011

Twelve big U.S. companies paid far less than the statutory corporate tax rate from 2008 to 2010, despite making substantial profits in that period, said a report released on Wednesday.

With the Obama administration drafting a corporate tax reform plan, the report found General Electric Co, American Electric Power Co Inc, DuPont Co and nine other companies had a negative 1.5 percent tax rate on $171 billion in profits over the three years studied.

"Not a single one of these companies paid anything close to the 35 percent statutory tax rate," said the report from Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning group based in Washington that promised more details later this year.

The White House and Congress are considering an overhaul of the corporate tax system as a partial solution to the federal deficit, projected to hit $1.4 trillion this year.

Critics say tax loopholes promoted by corporate lobbyists and enacted by Congress are to blame for a system that lets companies avoid taxes, usually in perfectly legal ways.

Some business leaders have said they could live with closing some of these loopholes, but in return, they have said they want the statutory tax rate lowered. It is among the highest rates in the industrialized world.

Both President Barack Obama and Republicans want to trim the rate. Obama has said he wants to end enough corporate tax breaks to compensate for the revenue that would be lost from a lower rate. Republicans have blasted that as "tax hikes."

The Business Roundtable, a lobbying group for corporate CEOs, issued a report in April that said U.S.-based companies faced an average effective tax rate of 27.7 percent in the 2006-2009 period, more than their non-U.S. competitors.

The debate promises to go on for months and possibly years. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last week predicted movement on tax reform later in 2011.

Citizens for Tax Justice produced a report in the 1980s that helped lead to President Ronald Reagan's landmark 1986 tax reforms. Since then, the tax code has become riddled with exemptions, deferrals and other special breaks.

Companies singled out in Citizens for Tax Justice's newest report also included Verizon Communications, Boeing Co, Wells Fargo & Co, FedEx Corp and Exxon Mobil Corp.

'TIP OF ICEBERG'

"These 12 companies are just the tip of the iceberg of widespread corporate tax avoidance," said Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, which is working on a broader report covering the Fortune 500 companies.

Elected officials should make "reducing or eliminating the vast array of corporate tax subsidies the centerpiece of any deficit-reduction strategy," he said.

GE spokesman Andrew Williams said the company is "fully compliant with all tax laws. There are no exceptions."

He said GE's 2010 tax rate was low because the company lost billions of dollars in GE Capital, its financial arm, as a result of the global financial crisis. "GE's tax rate will be much higher in 2011 as GE Capital recovers," he said.

Citizens for Tax Justice said that in the 2008-2010 period, 10 of the dozen companies studied enjoyed at least one year in which they were profitable, but paid no taxes.

Exxon Mobil had a 14.2 percent effective tax rate over the 3-year period, the highest of the 12 companies cited in the report, according to the group.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Alan Jeffers said, "Our effective tax rate in this country over the past six years has averaged about 32 percent. Last year our total taxes and duties to the U.S. government were $9.8 billion, which includes an income tax expense of $1.8 billion."

American Electric Power and DuPont did not respond to requests for comment. DuPont effectively paid $258 million in taxes in the first quarter of 2011, a 15.2 percent tax rate.

(Additional reporting by Matthew Daily and Ernest Scheyder in New York, Anna Driver in Houston, Scott Malone in Boston; Editing by Richard Chang)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters.

No-Tax ‘Zealot’ Norquist Emerges as Biggest Barrier to U.S. Deficit Deal By Alison Fitzgerald

When members of the House Budget Committee gathered over sandwiches to meet with the leaders of President Barack Obama’s debt commission in Washington, former Senator Alan Simpson delivered a warning.

“If you are in thrall to Grover Norquist,” the Wyoming Republican who co-led the debt panel said he told the group in February, “this country hasn’t got a prayer.”

There may be enough congressional Republicans enthralled with Norquist, a small-government advocate who has spent the last quarter-century pressing lawmakers to sign a pledge never to raise taxes, to kill any comprehensive, bipartisan deal to rein in the $14.3 trillion national debt, say current and former members of Congress.

“Until Republicans are more afraid of the deficit than they are of Grover Norquist, we’re going to have a problem,” said Representative Christopher Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee.

Norquist, 54, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says he has secured written pledges from 40 of the 47 Republicans in the Senate and 233 of 240 party members in the House. More than 1,300 state-level legislators, governors and even auditors have also signed, Norquist said. That includes Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Ohio Governor John Kasich, all Republicans, he said.

Those who sign gain from Norquist’s support. Those who break the promise risk his wrath.

Under Attack

The pledge is coming under fire as two groups of lawmakers try to negotiate a package of spending reductions and revenue increases to curb the budget deficit. Republicans are demanding spending cuts as a condition of raising the statutory debt ceiling the Treasury reached last week. If lawmakers don’t boost the cap by Aug. 2, the U.S. risks a default, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said.

Norquist, whose hard line on taxes belies an inclusive view of the Republican Party that welcomes Muslims, gay people and those who favor abortion rights, is undeterred by such warnings.

Every Republican involved in the negotiations has signed his pledge, which includes two promises: to “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or business” and to “oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

Showing His Clout

In an illustration of Norquist’s clout, he met on May 19 with Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, a Republican member of the so- called Gang of Six budget negotiators who some Democrats say may drop out of the talks. Norquist spokesman John Kartch and Crapo spokesman Amanda Critchfield both declined to say what was discussed.

Norquist denied that the commitment from lawmakers is making it harder for them to negotiate.

“The pledge makes it difficult or impossible to raise taxes,” he said. “It doesn’t make it difficult to cut spending. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it?”

Some Republicans, including Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss and U.S. Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia, say any solution to the debt issue will have to involve a revenue increase, probably the elimination of tax breaks for certain industries or activities. Under Norquist’s definition, that would be a violation, and he’s ready to make them regret it.

“Taxes are when the government takes away what you create with your own work effort and time,” he said in an interview. “That reduces your liberty.”

13.2% a Year

A Bloomberg Government study in March showed that, without tax increases, lawmakers would have to cut spending by $4.9 trillion, or an average 13.2 percent a year, by 2020 to meet the debt panel’s goal of reducing government debt to 60 percent of gross domestic product. The reductions would include $225 billion from discretionary spending in the peak cutting years of 2016 and 2017. That’s about the equivalent of zeroing out the departments of Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Homeland Security and Justice two years in a row.

If spending were lowered and taxes raised in equal measure, the cuts would average 6.6 percent a year, the report said.

Norquist has attacked Senator Tom Coburn, a onetime member of the Gang of Six, because the Oklahoma Republican raised the possibility of eliminating tax breaks. Norquist said if Coburn agreed to a tax increase “he was elected on a lie.”

That Norquist is taking on Coburn -- who last year blocked 120 spending measures in the Senate -- has some Republicans shaking their heads.

‘Fly on the Wall’

“Tom Coburn is an excellent conservative,” said Simpson, 79. Norquist, he said “is a zealot and a perfectionist, a 100 percenter.”

Coburn dismissed Norquist last week as “a fly on the wall. All noise and no substance.” Still, he has said he doesn’t plan to run for re-election in 2016. House members who will have to vote on any deal will face voters in 2012, and they’ve seen what Norquist can do.

“I spent $7.5 million in the 2010 election season talking about who has and hasn’t taken the pledge,” Norquist said.

When Abel Maldonado, a pledge-signing state senator in California, voted for a tax increase proposed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to help close the state’s budget gap, Norquist took revenge.

‘Closed for Business’

He issued a press release saying that because of Maldonado “California is closed for business.” He followed that up with a video distributed on YouTube, wrote opinion pieces in California newspapers and blogs, and just before the primary election in 2010 when Maldonado was running for lieutenant governor, Norquist distributed a list of state legislators who had broken the pledge, including Maldonado, to local papers.

Maldonado, who had been appointed by Schwarzenegger in 2009 as interim lieutenant governor, lost his bid for a full term. Maldonado didn’t respond to calls and an e-mail seeking comment.

In Virginia, Norquist distributed 90,000 posters with the pictures of pledge-breakers, and ran similar campaigns in North Carolina and Oregon.

Norquist has built up a following over the last 25 years that he says includes about 250,000 people who receive his group’s mailings and e-mail communications. And he hosts a weekly meeting that serves as a hub for conservatives to share information.

Activists ‘Speed-Dating’

On a recent Wednesday morning, he stood by the coffee urn in the gathering room at his 12th Street offices surrounded by young men and women from a range of organizations who were eager to catch his ear. Lobbyists, strategists and representatives from corporations milled about munching bagels.

Norquist has presided over this “center-right” meeting since 1993, when he set out to help defeat then-first lady Hillary Clinton’s health-care-overhaul plan.

About 30 people a week get 3 minutes to speak, updating the group on the progress of their cause. On this Wednesday, presenters included a Senate hopeful, lobbyists, Hill aides and some activist groups. The meetings are off the record, though reporters are occasionally invited to observe.

“It’s speed-dating for political activists,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the president of American Action Forum, a Washington group that pushes for limited government, and a former economic adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign.

Norquist has some rules. There’s no debate and no “emoting,” he said. “You say what you’re doing, not what you’re feeling.” These rules have allowed the meeting to thrive because people who disagree on some issues can come together on others, he said.

Helping Reagan

Norquist, raised in a wealthy Boston suburb and holder of a bachelor’s degree in economics and an MBA from Harvard University, created Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 from the network of activists working to help President Ronald Reagan pass a tax-overhaul law. The following year he wrote the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

He believes in coming together: He sits on the board of the National Rifle Association and is an adviser to GOProud, an organization of gay conservatives. He’s married to a Kuwaiti- born Muslim woman.

Norquist, who peppers his conversation with comic voices, Chekhov quotes and references to the movie “Grease,” is big on numbers. He knows what year his meeting reached an average of 80 people and when it grew to 100. He keeps charts on how much coffee and how many bagels are consumed, and his staff counts the attendees every 15 minutes so he can graph the flow.

Abramoff Ties

He’s replicated the meeting in 45 states, building himself a loose national network.

Said Holtz-Eakin: “He finds promising politicians at the state level and has them sign the pledge, so when they arrive in Washington, they’re already committed.”

Norquist -- who opposed the 1992 re-election bid of Republican President George H.W. Bush for breaking his own “Read my lips, No new taxes” vow -- probably reached the pinnacle of his influence when George W. Bush was president. White House visitor logs released in 2006 showed he had visited 74 times over five years.

That was also the period when his less-savory associations, including ties to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in connection with a corruption scandal in 2006, came to light.

Norquist was accused by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which was led by McCain, of serving as a conduit for Abramoff to move money from the Choctaw Indians to other groups, in an effort to disguise the source of the funds.

Politically Inspired

Norquist said the accusations were drummed up by political opponents. He said he was never accused of breaking a law and that the Internal Revenue Service never investigated his group.

“Jack was an old friend who unfortunately got involved in some bad things,” Norquist said. “Fortunately, he did me the favor of never inviting me into any of that.”

With Obama in the White House, Norquist remains a player on Capitol Hill. He, along with representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, meets a few times a month with the Senate’s Republican Policy Committee. Senator John Thune of South Dakota, who heads the committee, goes to the groups’ offices or sends his staff there to learn about issues and get their input, Thune said in an interview.

Robert Bennett, a former Utah senator who lost his bid for renomination for a fourth term last year at the state Republican convention, said he would sometimes run policy positions by Norquist before going public. An adviser to another Republican senator, who asked not to be named, said that practice wasn’t uncommon.

‘Pain in the Back’

Senator Orrin Hatch, another Utah Republican, said he agrees with Norquist that the problem in Washington is too much spending, rather than not enough taxation.

“He holds people’s feet to the ground,” Hatch said. “I love the guy because he works at it, and he is very dedicated about trying to get spending under control.”

Tom Ingram, who ran the successful campaigns of Tennessee Senators Lamar Alexander and Robert Corker, said he advises his clients to avoid Norquist’s pledge. They usually don’t listen.

“Grover is kind of like a pain in the back,” Ingram said. “You’re very aware of him, but you kind of wish he’d go away.”

Norquist won’t say where ATR gets its money, other than that about half comes from wealthy people and corporations and half from small, individual donations.

Its goal is to cut the size of government -- including federal, state and local -- in half over the coming decades. Federal spending now stands at almost 25 percent of GDP.

Elegance in Simplicity

Budget expert Maya MacGuineas said Norquist’s pledge only deals with one side of the equation.

“It’s just so elegant in its simplicity,” said MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. “It’s like saying no paying your credit card bill.”

Still, MacGuineas said, history may be on Norquist’s side in the current budget debate, at least in part.

“The problem is now, legitimately, a spending problem,” she said.

While most budget experts and economists agree that to reduce the deficit for the long term will require both spending cuts and higher taxes, Norquist doesn’t see it that way.

“If it’s not mentioned in the Constitution, that is a strong argument that American taxpayers should not be paying for it.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Alison Fitzgerald in Washington at afitzgerald2@bloomberg.net

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, speaks during an interview in Washington. Photographer: Jay Mallin/Bloomberg

Norquist, 54, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says he has secured a written promise never to raise taxes from 40 of the 47 Republicans in the Senate and 233 of 240 members of the House.Photographer: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Norquist created Americans for Tax Reform in 1985 from the network of activists working to help President Ronald Reagan pass a tax-overhaul law. Photographer: Greg Newington/ATR via Bloomberg 

TAXES Despite Many Critics, Proposals for a 'Repatriation' Tax Holiday Gain Support

By Katy O'Donnell

Updated: March 25, 2011 | 7:53 p.m.
March 25, 2011 | 7:46 p.m.

Getty Images

Large tech companies like Google and Apple support a tax holiday for overseas profits, and the effort has gained the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. 

 

As politicians dither over a sluggish economy, proposals to give corporations a tax "holiday'' on hundreds of billions in overseas corporate profits are suddenly back into fashion. 

On the face of it, it seems like a good idea: The economy is still tepid and unemployment is high. Why not induce American multinationals—from Apple and Microsoft to Google and Cisco—to bring home the vast profits they have been racking up for years in foreign countries?

The U.S. government wouldn't miss the tax money, supporters say, because the companies weren't going to pay it anyway. Investment here would grow and jobs would be created. Everybody would win.

WIN America, a corporate coalition that includes many of the the country's brightest business stars, is pushing for the holiday. Cisco CEO John Chambers and Oracle CEO Safra Catz, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in October, predicted that the move would create up to two million jobs and called the idea “the trillion-dollar elephant in the room."

And in the last week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., added his support as well.  

There's just one problem: veteran tax policy experts, Republican and Democratic alike, say it's a bad idea.

The Bush administration was staunchly against the idea in 2004, though Congress passed it as part of a broader corporate tax bill that year. The Obama administration is against it now. Tax policy experts across the political spectrum say the idea might simply encourage companies to park more of their future profits outside the country in the hope of yet another "holiday."

Analysts say the repatriation holiday in 2004 didn’t live up to the hype. In fact, many economists say a tax holiday—which would allow U.S. multinational companies to bring overseas profits (that haven't been taxed so far) home at a reduced rate of perhaps 5 percent, rather than the normal corporate tax rate that tops out at 35 percent—would do little to create jobs.

The 2004 holiday, which allowed companies to repatriate foreign earnings at a 5.25 percent rate, brought $362 billion back to the United States, $312 billion of it at a reduced rate, according to the Internal Revenue Service. The repatriated dollars accounted for 45 percent of foreign holdings at the end of 2004. But the move didn’t create the jobs that were promised.

“The balance of evidence at this point suggests [tax holidays are] not particularly successful at creating jobs, if that’s the goal,” said Joseph Thorndike, director of the tax history project at Tax Analysts. “You could make a marginally better case that as far as stimulus goes, they stimulate the economy, but they’re not the most effective form of stimulus.”

Still, the idea is gaining momentum.

“There’s an interest,” said Caroline Harris, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's chief tax counsel. “There’s a lot of cash sitting overseas that people would like to see come back and be infused into the U.S. economy."

The idea has both Republican and Democratic supporters in Congress. In addition to Cantor, supporters include Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who championed the 2004 tax holiday; Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who introduced a repatriation bill; and Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who is currently “finalizing the language” on a bill, according to a spokesman.

Even the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is toying with the idea, in the context of broader reform of the tax code.

“The continuing interest in repatriation is yet another reminder that our current tax system is threatening American competitiveness and hindering job creation,” said a spokesman for Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich, chairman of the tax-writing committee.

Supporters say the billions in federal revenue that a holiday would generate is money the government would otherwise be unable to get its hands on because it would stay overseas. But this free-lunch line of argument runs exactly counter to Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy Michael Mundaca’s assertion that the 2004 holiday “cost taxpayers billions.”

In a blog post on Wednesday, Mundaca said that “letting our eye off the ball of comprehensive tax reform in favor of a temporary measure of this kind would be a mistake.”

Critics say a holiday would be akin to rewarding companies that have already tried to dodge taxes by shifting profits overseas. Granting another “holiday” so soon after the last one, they say, may encourage companies to stash more money overseas.

Philip Swagel, a former assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy in the George W. Bush administration, said the holiday was a gimmick rather than a policy.

“Global competitiveness [in the tax code] will boost U.S. job creation, but one-off is not the way to do tax policy," 

said Swagel, now a professor at the University of Maryland. 

"Think about what’s good policy and do that, don’t just do this one-off.”

Indeed, temporary measures can skew incentives. Many supporters of comprehensive tax-reform said that companies have reinvested even more of their foreign profits outside the country since the end of 2004.

Proponents counter that the economic situation today – with its stubbornly high unemployment, skittish investors and record-high federal deficits – makes such concerns moot.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has said the administration might be open to a tax holiday if it's part of a fundamental tax reform. Cantor argued this week that the tax holiday would be a first step toward real tax reform.

“Forging consensus on this type of fundamental tax reform will take time, so in the meantime I propose that we allow U.S. multinational companies to bring back almost $1.2 trillion in overseas profits at a lower tax so they can invest in our economy here at home,” Cantor said in a speech at Stanford University on Monday.

When the holiday passed in 2004, economists were worried about a shortage of cash in the market. But today, loose monetary policies mean cash is anything but tight. And corporations are estimated to be sitting on trillions, a point critics of the tax break make when asking why large multinational corporations need a money infusion.

Chambers and Catz contended that corporations are sitting on cash in part because of problems with the United States' policy of taxing profits of American companies wherever they are earned.  That policy is almost unique in the world. 

“Large cash balances remain on U.S. corporate books because U.S. companies can't spend their foreign-held cash in the U.S. without incurring a prohibitive tax liability,” the two executives wrote.

Opponents of the repatriation holiday predict that companies would use the money to buy back shares and pay shareholders rather than create jobs. But others say that would actually be better than a strings-attached approach like the one taken in 2004.  In that effort, corporations had to produce plans for how they would invest the money and hire workers in the United States.

But many of the biggest beneficiaries in 2004 actually reduced their workforces in the United States.

Among Washington tax experts, the issue can be touchy.   At least one formerly outspoken opponent of the last tax holiday refused to comment about the idea now because a corporate client is pushing for it.

Champions of the idea say that politics and what happens with the repatriated money isn't really the point – the tax holiday is not the end goal.

 “Leader Cantor believes that we need to do comprehensive tax reform, and repatriation is a part of that which we can do more quickly to spur economic growth,” said Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon. “It’s part of our larger plan, and it should be viewed in that context.”

Blog AFSCME Joins Call for Corporate Tax Reform

by Karl Stark  |  May 19, 2011

On Wednesday, AFSCME joined other unions and allies in the progressive community across the country in telling lawmakers to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to tackling the federal budget deficit. In all, over 250 non-profits, consumer groups, unions and faith-based groups signed onto a letter calling on Congress to enact corporate tax reform that raises revenue.

Just as in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and other states across the country, politicians in Washington, DC, have proposed draconian cuts to essential public services while letting their corporate cronies off the hook:

It makes no sense for Congress to debate cuts in public services that working families rely on while ignoring the public spending that benefits corporations and is hidden in the tax code...
Some lawmakers have proposed to eliminate corporate tax subsidies and use all of the resulting revenue savings to pay for a reduction in the corporate income tax rate. In contrast, we strongly believe most, if not all, of the revenue saved from eliminating corporate tax subsidies should go towards deficit reduction and towards creating the healthy, educated workforce and sound infrastructure that will make our nation more competitive.

Even in the face of an 8.7% national unemployment rate and budget shortfalls in states across the country that have caused over 400,000 layoffs since 2009, the view from the corporate boardroom couldn’t be sunnier. While raking in record profits in 2010, many of America’s largest corporations avoided paying even one cent in taxes.

So what did they do with all this extra cash? Use it to hire back workers? Increase investments to help stabilize the economy? Fat chance — CEO’s kept it for themselves.

New W.H. battle: Corporate taxes: Politico

By MIKE ALLEN | 5/4/11 4:33 AM EDT

The Obama administration is quietly gearing up for a high-profile launch in May or June on what may turn out to be the most heavily lobbied issue of the year: corporate tax reform.
“This will be a feast for K Street,” said one top aide.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54246.html#ixzz1LPpZTPgx 

At a time when the two parties can find little common ground legislatively, strategists on both sides tell POLITICO they hope to advance their jobs agenda by finding a way to lower corporate tax rates.

“This would send a reassuring signal to the economy, and is something both parties should support in theory,” a senior administration official said, predicting “a numbers game” in which companies and industries ferociously litigate the fine points.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner plans to ignite the debate by unveiling a white paper that advocates lowering the top corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to less than 30 percent and as low as 26 percent, according to aides. The proposal is likely to fall between 26 percent and 28 percent.

To pay for that, the proposal will call for closing loopholes and slicing exemptions. The two main ones are a tax deduction for domestic manufacturing and accelerated depreciation for capital equipment.

Aides say Geithner will personally dive into the negotiations. House Speaker John Boehner also sees this as a ripe area for bipartisan cooperation. And House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan included corporate tax reform in his budget, which has been adopted as the GOP’s fiscal blueprint.

Aides predict that corporate tax reform is unlikely to pass as a stand-alone bill but could serve as a sweetener as part of a deal on a 2012 budget or a longer-term plan for reducing the deficit. There is unlikely to be enough time to include it in haggling over an increase in the debt ceiling, which will be needed this summer.

Agreeing on how to rework corporate taxes will be tough, and many aides remain privately pessimistic. But the two sides’ willingness to try to find common ground is a notable departure from their stances on most other contentious issues on the Capitol Hill docket.

Geithner has already begun his campaign with a series of closed-door meetings with CEOs, academics, labor unions and liberal and conservative think tanks. Aides say he was encouraged by the response. At the White House, Jason Furman, principal deputy director of the National Economic Council, is working the issue.

Aides say Timothy Geithner will personally dive into the negotiations on tax reform. | Reuters Close

“This won’t be like health care, where you put out specific ideas people have to take or leave,” an administration official said. “We’ll be more than willing to make trade-offs — to look at alternatives that lower the rates and broaden the base,” a euphemism for cutting back on loopholes.
One top business lobbyist, speaking on condition of anonymity, said corporate tax reform should be “the easiest piece” of a complex fiscal bargain “because you have people in both parties in the business community.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54246_Page2.html#ixzz1LPpCIzbQ

“There’s definitely demand,” the lobbyist said. “Politically, this can get done in a time of economic stress because it is clearly in the frame of helping American businesses compete and innovate and adjust.”

Aides in both parties warned, though, that they see notable hurdles. Some House Republicans are pushing for individual tax reform at the same time, with one top aide contending the administration “is leaving the American family out of the picture.”

“Their interest seems to be big business and whether they can win some corporate friends” ahead of the 2012 reelection campaign, the Republican said.

Opposition is likely to break down regionally and by industries, rather than by party or ideology. Small- and medium-sized businesses without sophisticated tax planning are likely to benefit, while highly international conglomerates might wind up paying higher rates under reform.

Mining does well under the current system. So opposition may crop up in the politically sensitive states of coal country. Technology and pharmaceutical companies see reform as a vehicle for a temporary tax break on overseas profits they bring back to the U.S., known as a repatriation tax holiday. So many big California companies may be for it.

One possibility for the administration white paper is a move toward a more territorial system that is consistent with taxation schemes in the rest of the developed world, focused on taxing profits earned in the U.S. Such a provision would probably include a transitional measure that allowed companies to move profits earned abroad back to the U.S. at a lower tax rate — say, 10 percent.

A Senate Democratic aide said the administration’s plan for a corporate tax overhaul is “definitely viable, but only as some type of grand bargain that includes the rest of the tax code and potentially entitlement reform and spending cuts.”

“There is bipartisan support for corporate tax reform, but it’s the low-hanging fruit,” the Democrat said. “They’re going to want to use it as a lure or incentive to tackle the harder problems. It’s the bunny that runs out in front and gets all the dogs racing.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54246_Page2.html#ixzz1LPoqfku5

New W.H. battle: Corporate taxes: Politico

By MIKE ALLEN | 5/4/11 4:33 AM EDT

The Obama administration is quietly gearing up for a high-profile launch in May or June on what may turn out to be the most heavily lobbied issue of the year: corporate tax reform.
“This will be a feast for K Street,” said one top aide.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54246.html#ixzz1LPpZTPgx 

 

At a time when the two parties can find little common ground legislatively, strategists on both sides tell POLITICO they hope to advance their jobs agenda by finding a way to lower corporate tax rates.

“This would send a reassuring signal to the economy, and is something both parties should support in theory,” a senior administration official said, predicting “a numbers game” in which companies and industries ferociously litigate the fine points.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner plans to ignite the debate by unveiling a white paper that advocates lowering the top corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to less than 30 percent and as low as 26 percent, according to aides. The proposal is likely to fall between 26 percent and 28 percent.

To pay for that, the proposal will call for closing loopholes and slicing exemptions. The two main ones are a tax deduction for domestic manufacturing and accelerated depreciation for capital equipment.

Aides say Geithner will personally dive into the negotiations. House Speaker John Boehner also sees this as a ripe area for bipartisan cooperation. And House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan included corporate tax reform in his budget, which has been adopted as the GOP’s fiscal blueprint.

Aides predict that corporate tax reform is unlikely to pass as a stand-alone bill but could serve as a sweetener as part of a deal on a 2012 budget or a longer-term plan for reducing the deficit. There is unlikely to be enough time to include it in haggling over an increase in the debt ceiling, which will be needed this summer.

Agreeing on how to rework corporate taxes will be tough, and many aides remain privately pessimistic. But the two sides’ willingness to try to find common ground is a notable departure from their stances on most other contentious issues on the Capitol Hill docket.

Geithner has already begun his campaign with a series of closed-door meetings with CEOs, academics, labor unions and liberal and conservative think tanks. Aides say he was encouraged by the response. At the White House, Jason Furman, principal deputy director of the National Economic Council, is working the issue.

Aides say Timothy Geithner will personally dive into the negotiations on tax reform. | Reuters Close

 

“This won’t be like health care, where you put out specific ideas people have to take or leave,” an administration official said. “We’ll be more than willing to make trade-offs — to look at alternatives that lower the rates and broaden the base,” a euphemism for cutting back on loopholes.
One top business lobbyist, speaking on condition of anonymity, said corporate tax reform should be “the easiest piece” of a complex fiscal bargain “because you have people in both parties in the business community.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54246_Page2.html#ixzz1LPpCIzbQ

“There’s definitely demand,” the lobbyist said. “Politically, this can get done in a time of economic stress because it is clearly in the frame of helping American businesses compete and innovate and adjust.”

Aides in both parties warned, though, that they see notable hurdles. Some House Republicans are pushing for individual tax reform at the same time, with one top aide contending the administration “is leaving the American family out of the picture.”

“Their interest seems to be big business and whether they can win some corporate friends” ahead of the 2012 reelection campaign, the Republican said.

Opposition is likely to break down regionally and by industries, rather than by party or ideology. Small- and medium-sized businesses without sophisticated tax planning are likely to benefit, while highly international conglomerates might wind up paying higher rates under reform.

Mining does well under the current system. So opposition may crop up in the politically sensitive states of coal country. Technology and pharmaceutical companies see reform as a vehicle for a temporary tax break on overseas profits they bring back to the U.S., known as a repatriation tax holiday. So many big California companies may be for it.

One possibility for the administration white paper is a move toward a more territorial system that is consistent with taxation schemes in the rest of the developed world, focused on taxing profits earned in the U.S. Such a provision would probably include a transitional measure that allowed companies to move profits earned abroad back to the U.S. at a lower tax rate — say, 10 percent.

A Senate Democratic aide said the administration’s plan for a corporate tax overhaul is “definitely viable, but only as some type of grand bargain that includes the rest of the tax code and potentially entitlement reform and spending cuts.”

“There is bipartisan support for corporate tax reform, but it’s the low-hanging fruit,” the Democrat said. “They’re going to want to use it as a lure or incentive to tackle the harder problems. It’s the bunny that runs out in front and gets all the dogs racing.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54246_Page2.html#ixzz1LPoqfku5

Reclaiming Oil Subsidies: Senate Democrats Prepping Bill That Would Recover Billions From Big Firms

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/28/oil-subsidies-senate-bill_n_855193.html

Seizing the moment, Senate Democrats are working on legislation that would reclaim billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil and redirect the money toward developing cleaner and cheaper fuel sources instead.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) announced on Thursday that his committee is crafting a measure that would repeal major tax breaks for the five largest oil and gas companies, which reported huge spikes in first-quarter profits this week due to skyrocketing oil prices.
"Now is not the time to stand idly by while large oil and gas companies get billions of dollars in tax breaks -- now is the time to take concrete steps toward cleaner, more affordable, domestically-produced energy," Baucus said in a statement. "Reducing dependence on foreign oil isn't easy, but this plan puts us on a path toward a clean, affordable energy future that works for our planet -- and our pocketbooks."
The bill could be ready as soon as next week.
Democrats seem to have found their own source of renewable energy in some poorly-chosen words by House Speaker John Boehner, who in an interview with ABC News on Monday seemingly abandoned longstanding Republican dogma by conceding that oil companies "ought to be paying their fair share" and that the subsidies are "certainly something we should be looking at."
Boehner's staff and colleagues quickly corrected the speaker. But empowered Democrats were already in motion.
Capitalizing on Boehner's comments -- and anger about high gas prices, and first-quarter profit reports -- President Barack Obama and his press secretary called for immediate action Tuesday.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) followed suit by pledging their support. "I'm going to try to get it done as soon as I can do it procedurally in the Senate here," Reid told reporters on Wednesday.
Democratic and environmental groups revved up their email lists. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee even popped up a new website Thursday morning, dubbing the GOP's relationship with the petroleum industry the "R-Oil Wedding."
Meanwhile, the liberal thinkprogress.org website distributed a video in which House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) told a town hall audience that he favored ending oil subsidies. "[W]e propose to repeal all that," Ryan said of corporate welfare generally. Asked specifically about ending oil subsidies, he said "I agree."
But Ryan's office told Politico that the congressman made his comments in the context of overall corporate tax reform.
The American Petroleum Institute and the rest of the oil and gas lobby have historically had more than enough clout on Capitol Hill to fend off attacks.
In fact, many considered Obama's proposal to repeal the subsidies in his State of the Union speech in January to be dead on arrival. Congress had rejected similar requests in two previous budget proposals, even with Democratic majorities in both houses.
But the API seems to be getting increasingly testy as of late.
The group on Thursday called Baucus' plan "a proposal borne of desperation that would do nothing to reduce gasoline prices." API chief economist John Felmy said in a statement, "If Senator Baucus were serious about gasoline prices, he would focus on further development of our vast resources here at home which would create much needed American jobs, increase revenue to the government, and strengthen our energy security."
Baucus' office said his plan would bar the biggest companies from receiving a credit intended for domestic manufacturers, reduce their foreign tax credits for royalty payments to foreign governments and impose an excise tax on certain Gulf leases.
The billions of dollars recouped through those means would be used to promote demand for clean and domestic fuel, incentivize fuel efficient vehicles and build a clean energy infrastructure.
House Democrats have already introduced a bill that would eliminate $40 billion in tax breaks for big oil and gas companies over five years.


************************* Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email, bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get email alerts when he writes.

  John Boehner ,   Max Baucus ,   Gas Prices ,   President Obama , Gas & Oil , Oil And Gas Subsidies , Oil Industry , Politics News

TAKE ACTION ON TAX DAY

April 15, 2011 11:24 AM | Permalink 

Hundreds of events from coast to coast are being organized to target corporations that fail to pay their fair share in taxes while lawmakers consider slashing public services that working Americans depend on. 

MoveOn

MoveOn invites "frustrated taxpayers, underwater homeowners, vilified public servants, job-hunting students, and unemployed veterans—everyone facing cuts or cutbacks, a pink slip or a shrinking paycheck" to join demonstrations to demand that Congress cracks down on corporate tax dodgers and to deliver to these companies the tax bill they should pay. Find a MoveOn event near you.

U.S. Uncut

U.S. Uncut is also organizing demonstrations and events targeting corporations, some of which are in cooperation with MoveOn. Find a U.S. Uncut event in your area.

U.S. PIRG

Finally, U.S. PIRG and other organizations will have activities outside post offices on April 15 and April 18 in several states to create awareness about tax dodging by corporations and to press Congress to act. These events will target people whose minds are very much on taxes as they mail off their federal income tax returns.

See the list below for U.S. PIRG events in your state and contact information.

April 15, 2011

Event: U.S. Public Interest Research Group will be holding events outside of Post Offices across the country to try to get Congress to address tax dodging corporations with report releases and post-carding.

Locations:

Portland OR, April 15th. Contact Jen Lavelle at jlavelle@ospirg.org, 503.231.4181

AnnArbor MI, April 15th. Contact Megan Hess at mhess@pirgim.org, 734.662.6597

Chicago IL, date TBD. Contact Brian Imus at brian@illinoispirg.org, 312-544-4433 x 210 (Federal Plaza, outside of main post office)

Hartford CT, April 15th, Contact Jenn Hatch at jhatch@connpirg.org, 860.233.7554

Albuquerque NM, date TBD, Contact Erin Eckelson at erin@nmpirg.org, 505.254.1244

Philly area, date TBD. Contact Megan DeSmedt at mdesmedt@pennpirg.org, 215.732.3747

Phenoix AZ, April 15th. Contact Seren Unrein at sunrein@arizonapirg.org, 602.252.9227

Des Moines IA, Date TBD, Contact Sonia Ashe at sashe@iowapirg.org, 515.282.4193

April 18, 2011

Event: U.S. Public Interest Research Group will be holding events outside of Post Offices across the country to try to get Congress to address tax dodging corporations with report releases and post-carding. U.S. PIRG is partnering with Citizen Action in a number of states: NJ, OR, IL, MI, MO, CT.

Locations:

Trenton NJ, April 18th. Contact Jen Kim at jkim@njpirg.org, 609.394.8155

Seattle WA, April 18th, Contact Lindsay Jacobson at ljacobson@washpirg.org, 206.568.2854 (either at post office downtown, or in front of Microsoft).

Boston MA, April 19th, Contact Dee Cummings at dcummings@masspirg.org, 617.292.4805

Baltimore MD, April 18th, Contact Johanna Neumann at Johanna@marylandpirg.org, (410) 467-9389

St. Lois MO, TBD

Categories:

 

• Tax Fairness and Tax Reform,
 
• Tax Giveaways for Corporations