And you think Republicans are Patriots?

Sava · November 28, 2002, 10:38

Quote:

Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate. Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist based in Austin, Texas
Published November 28, 2002

AUSTIN, Texas -- OK, Republicans, justify this. I want to hear your explanations for why the Republican leadership went against the will of 318 members to grant an unconscionable gift to corporations that set up offshore tax shelters to avoid paying their U.S. taxes. Come on, Rush, I really want to hear this one--and do, please, include the word "patriotism."

Citizens for Tax Justice says the offshore tax-shelter dodge costs this country as much as $50 billion annually. This amendment was not to shut down the loophole--though Lord knows that needs to be done. It was to prevent rewarding these financial traitors with government contracts.

The House leadership--that would be your speaker, Dennis Hastert, and your majority leader, **** Armey--going against the will of both the House and the Senate, took out the "Wellstone Amendment," sponsored by the late populist senator. It would have prevented runaway companies, those that set up mailboxes in Bermuda in order to avoid paying their taxes, from getting government contracts related to homeland security. They replaced the Wellstone Amendment with a toothless provision that affects no company.

The polite term for these corporate tax-dodgers is "corporate inversion" or "corporate expatriates," but they are tax cheats, pure and simple. They don't move anywhere, they just get a shell address so they won't have to pay their share of the taxes. And guess who gets stuck paying their share instead? And now we're going to reward these tax cheats with government contracts.

Here's Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts on how it works: "Let's take Tyco, formerly of New Hampshire, now of Bermuda, for example. Tyco avoids paying $400 million a year in U.S. taxes by setting up a shell headquarters offshore, but it was awarded $182 million in lucrative defense and homeland security-related contracts in 2001 alone. If Tyco had just paid its tax bill, Congress could easily have paid for 400 explosive detection systems (EDS), which are badly needed to protect U.S. travelers at airports around the nation.

"Or let's examine corporate expatriate Ingersoll-Rand, formerly of New Jersey, and now also in Bermuda. Ingersoll-Rand earned as much last year in U.S. defense and homeland security federal contracts as it avoids in U.S. taxes annually merely by renting a mailbox in Bermuda and calling it `home.' If Ingersoll-Rand paid its U.S. tax bill, Congress could easily afford to fund the Cyberspace Warning Intelligence Network, estimated to cost $30 million, or it could also buy 400,000 gas masks for American citizens."

If this is what Republicans want to stand for, fine with me. Their leaders have thwarted efforts to have a debate and vote on a separate bill, the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act, a bipartisan bill to deny benefits to corporations that flee to tax havens. In Texas, the home of the blunt, we call legislators who sell out the people in order to kiss the butts of their campaign contributors "whores."

And why would Republicans do such a despicable thing? Well, let's look at the lobbyists hired to fight the offshore provision: former Republican presidential candidate Robert Dole (paid by Tyco), former House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, Bush family confidant Charlie Black, former House Appropriations Committee Chair Robert Livingston, former Sen. Dennis DeConcini (one of the Keating Five) and Reagan White house Chief of Staff Kenneth Duberstein.

Here's the good news: If the people ever put up enough money, we could get exactly the same team to argue for our side. That's what I mean by "whores."

The D's, plus Sen. John McCain, tried to get this and other obnoxious special-interest provisions taken out of the bill. So the R's promised to "tone down" the offensive amendments with corrective legislation--sometime next year. But the incoming House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has already announced that he agreed only to "consider" such changes, not actually make them. Don't put any money on this prospect.

The Homeland Security bill was 35 pages long when President Bush, who had long opposed it, did a 180 in the summer and pretended he invented it. He decided to support it instead of ignoring the proposal by Democrats (one of those "down the memory hole" moments for the D.C. press corps, which keeps announcing the bill's passage is "a major victory" for the Bush administration). By then, the "Homeland Security" bill had become a 435-page behemoth, so larded with pork and special-interest legislation that Sen. Robert Byrd (no stranger to pork) kept dropping the triple-phone-book sized bill on his desk, calling it "this mon-stros-ity."

The other special provisions tucked in the bill to reward other big Republican contributors are almost as disgusting. I must admit that the amendment protecting the Eli Lilly Co. from future lawsuits is a fine example of really fast service for a contributor. It was just a few weeks ago that The New York Times ran the first serious look at Thimerosal, the vaccine preservative that may be related to autism, and--wham, bam--no problem for the Lilly company. (And don't give me that bull about how it's just an arbitration panel, parents can still sue, yaddda, yadda, yadda. The purpose of that stinking amendment could not possibly be clearer. The Lilly Co. bought itself a very nice piece of legislation indeed.)

It's one thing to pass this special interest legislation. It's another to call it "patriotism." That could gag a maggot.

Seriously, I'd like to hear how Republican supporters justify this crap. The hypocrisy is sickening. How can you people support the Republican party when they do this kind of dispicable crap?

OneFootInTheGrave · November 28, 2002, 11:03

What is the point of the article:

Go and getyourself a mailbox in bermuda...

Well if they can avoid paying taxes so can we :doitnow:
(oops I can't but you americans can... )

Ming · November 28, 2002, 11:07

Seeker · November 28, 2002, 11:19

Ming:

Distilling the attitude of the American people to their government: We Don't Care.

No one could've said it better.

Or did I misunderstand the snoozies?

Ming · November 28, 2002, 11:26

The snoozies are for another ranting Sava Troll...

Guynemer · November 28, 2002, 11:36

Ming, I'm no big Sava fan myself, but this is a legitimate argument. There is no reasonable explanation for this behavior, other than paying off the big contributors.

Ming · November 28, 2002, 11:49

I have no problem with the issues raised by the story... while it is a tad biased and inflamitory, the facts are accurate...

But I just hate when a single issue comes up and Sava makes it sound like for that reason alone, you should change parties and that every thing comes down to this one sole issue....

Every party does stupid things in support of those that keep them office... Is this bad... yes... does it surprise me... no... should I go running over to the Dems because of it... I don't think so...

Sava · November 28, 2002, 12:09

It's just that the Republican party hasn't done one smart or good thing for a LONG time.

And yes, I do rant. But that's no excuse for summarily dismissing this issue. Believe me Ming, there are several other issues I could rant about. Bush has loosened air pollution laws... he has loosened restrictions on logging...

The homeland security bill (which is absolute crap) has loads of little pork barrel provisions in it. Texas A&M is guaranteed to be the site of a multi-million dollar cash cow research center.

Face it Ming, the party you support is crap. There is no hope in reforming it. At least the Democratic party is full of weak leadership. That way, it has potential to be reformed. Don't take this the wrong way though. I only vote Democrat to keep the Republicans out

and a lot of good that's doing.

Ming · November 28, 2002, 12:10

And neither has the Dems... your point... snore...

Sava · November 28, 2002, 12:14

the Dems haven't done anything bag... while neither party does anything good, I'll choose the one that doesn't rape the earth, doesn't fill the pockets of greedy, immoral corporations, and doesn't steal my freedoms in the name of some boogey-man, scare tactic, bullsh1t, war on terror.

Ming · November 28, 2002, 12:20

Blah.. Blah... Blah... your same old story. You are welcome to your opinion... as misguided as it is

Sava · November 28, 2002, 12:24

well the guide me oh great one... show me some proof that I am wrong... seriously... that's why I created this thread.

SHOW ME ONE BIT OF PROOF THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ISN'T OUT TO SOLELY FILL ITS POCKETS AND THE POCKETS OF ITS CORPORATE CONSTITUENTS?

That's the problem Ming. It's the same old story... Republicans do something bad... I rant, yet, their actions aren't questioned. And most of America goes on with their lives like sheep, never questioning their leadership.

MarkG · November 28, 2002, 12:42

Quote:

never questioning their leadership

sssssh, we are in war! think about our country for a moment, will you?!?

Asher · November 28, 2002, 12:47

Can't you see? If the US was communist we'd never have any problems.

Urban Ranger · November 28, 2002, 13:06

Ah yes, Glonkie the omniscient, or at least the gnostic.

Clear Skies · November 28, 2002, 13:08

Shame the line item veto ain't still going...
*ducks*

Paul Hanson · November 28, 2002, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Can't you see? If the US was communist we'd never have any problems.

If the US hadn't declared independence we probably wouldn't have had this problem.

Clear Skies · November 28, 2002, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
If the US hadn't declared independence we probably wouldn't have had this problem.

Damn straight! Now revoke that Declaration of Independence right this minute!

red_jon · November 28, 2002, 13:25

Careful, Glonkie - ya might start to sound like Fezzywezzyhunniebumpkins

Where is he anyway?

Paul Hanson · November 28, 2002, 13:27

Busy trying to work out what exactly he believes in, probably.

Nubclear · November 28, 2002, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Blah.. Blah... Blah... your same old story. You are welcome to your opinion... as misguided as it is

David Floyd · November 28, 2002, 16:40

Corporations can still dodge taxes? Good!

Imran Siddiqui · November 28, 2002, 16:47

Quote:

Damn straight! Now revoke that Declaration of Independence right this minute!

You actually want us?

Lonestar · November 28, 2002, 17:04

I've seen Molly Ivins a few times, once on tv and once at a seminar at Texas A&M.

I am absolutely convinced she is stark raving mad. Willie Nelson is more coherant at concerts.

MichaeltheGreat · November 28, 2002, 17:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
I have no problem with the issues raised by the story... while it is a tad biased and inflamitory, the facts are accurate...

But I just hate when a single issue comes up and Sava makes it sound like for that reason alone, you should change parties and that every thing comes down to this one sole issue....

Every party does stupid things in support of those that keep them office... Is this bad... yes... does it surprise me... no... should I go running over to the Dems because of it... I don't think so...

This is a rather extreme example, but unfortunately, it's standard practice by both parties - put a nice, flag-waving title on a bill, load it with unrelated pork and special purpose legislation, and either nobody notices, or nobody dares vote against a bill with such a nice, catchy "who could be against that?" title.

The problem is that it's what voters want. People ***** about corporate perks, etc., but then you get things like useless national guard and reserve units, highway projects, all sorts of Federal tax money that gets spent locally, and people want senators and representatives who bring home the bacon.

Hey Floyd, that's very consistent with your anarchist ideology.

Some corporations can use special loopholes and hire tax attorneys to evade taxes, while most can't, nor can individuals. Hey, coherent, consistent Floydian ideology strikes again.

David Floyd · November 28, 2002, 17:26

Quote:

Hey Floyd, that's very consistent with your anarchist ideology. Some corporations can use special loopholes and hire tax attorneys to evade taxes, while most can't, nor can individuals. Hey, coherent, consistent Floydian ideology strikes again.

Hey, I don't agree with taxes in general. If a person or corporation can use a loophole to get out of paying them, I'm not gonna object. Sure, maybe it's not fair that I can't use the loophole, but in my view taxes aren't fair to begin with, so I'm not going keep someone else from getting out of them just because I can't.

And I'm not anarchist, I believe in government - just a strictly limited one.