

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Lacy MacAuley,
(202) 445-4692,
lacy@ips-dc.org
The corporate "tax holiday" that major U.S. companies are now pressing Congress to declare will likely lead to no new net job creation, says a new report by the Institue for Policy Studies. Surprisingly, IPS is releasing its report almost simultaneously with a new paper by the conservative Heritage Foundation that draws the identical conclusion: tax holidays do not create jobs.
"When Heritage and IPS, two think tanks on opposite ends of the political spectrum, actually agree on something, policymakers should take notice," says Sarah Anderson, an IPS report co-author. "Our solutions to the problem are polar opposites -- we want corporations to pay the full existing tax rate while Heritage wants to permanently lower them. But we welcome their honest assessment that the proposed tax holiday will not create jobs."
The IPS study -- America Loses: Corporations that Take 'Tax Holidays' Slash Jobs -- shows that most of the companies that claimed a tax holiday in 2004, the last time Congress made such tax holidays possible, actually reduced their national and global workforces.
In fact, 58 of the large corporations that took tax holidays after the 2004 congressional action went on to shed almost 600,000 workers. This downsizing did not stem from recession-linked red ink. These 58 companies today maintain combined cash reserves of more than $450 billion. (See below for other key report findings.)
TO ACCESS THE REPORT:
Click Here: https://www.ips-dc.org/reports/corporations_that_take_tax_holidays_slash_jobs.
For a hard copy, please e-mail lacy@ips-dc.org.
Companies that took advantage of the 2004 tax holiday essentially "repatriated" their offshore profits without having to pay the standard-rate U.S. corporate income taxes that would have otherwise been due on those profits. The new America Loses report details the corporations that have benefited the most financially from the tax holiday and slashed the most jobs.
The report gives a special spotlight to 10 "Layoff Leaders": Citigroup, Hewlett-Packard, Bank of America, Pfizer, Merck, Verizon, Ford, Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, and DuPont. These 10 corporations repatriated billions in offshore profits, many from tax haven countries like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, then announced layoffs and downsizing from 2004 through 2011.
"Some corporations are pushing Congress for another corporate tax holiday," notes Chuck Collins, an IPS senior scholar, report co-author, and director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at IPS. "But history shows that many 'tax holiday' companies use repatriated profits to reward executives and other shareholders, then lay off workers. Corporate tax holidays have resulted in precious few U.S. jobs. They are a bad trip."
The new IPS report's authors examined tax data and jobs numbers for 58 large corporations that made use of the 2004 corporate tax holiday. They looked at employment numbers listed in annual financial reports and layoff and downsizing lists compiled by Forbes.com and the consulting firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas, as well as media coverage of downsizing.
Precise data, America Loses points out, are not publicly available for all "tax holiday" firms, since no federal law requires U.S. corporations to report their U.S. employment numbers.
"We'd love to see corporations providing the number of Americans they actually employ in their annual reports and filings," says Scott Klinger, an IPS associate fellow and one of the report's main researchers. "Until they do, we have to conclude that, based on all available data, corporate tax holidays don't create jobs and constitute exceptionally poor public policy."
The new report's authors also include Sarah Anderson, director of the IPS Global Economy Project at IPS; John Cavanagh, IPS director; and Sam Pizzigati, the IPS associate fellow who edits the Institute's online weekly on excess and inequality, Too Much.
A month ago, four of the co-authors of America Loses released the Institute's annual report on executive compensation. This study, Executive Excess 2011: The Massive CEO Rewards for Tax Dodging, revealed that 25 top U.S. CEOs received more in compensation in 2010 than their corporations paid in federal income taxes.
"With Americans really struggling, Congress should not be subsidizing job destroyers," sums up America Loses co-author Chuck Collins. "We should instead be making investments that boost small and domestic business, the real engines of job creation. America needs real solutions to our job crisis, not another corporate handout dressed up as a 'tax holiday.'"
KEY FINDINGS OF REPORT
"America Loses: Corporations that Take 'Tax Holidays' Slash Jobs."
TO ACCESS THE REPORT:
Click Here: https://www.ips-dc.org/reports/corporations_that_take_tax_holidays_slash_jobs.
For a hard copy, please e-mail lacy@ips-dc.org.
Institute for Policy Studies turns Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice and the Environment. We strengthen social movements with independent research, visionary thinking, and links to the grassroots, scholars and elected officials. I.F. Stone once called IPS "the think tank for the rest of us." Since 1963, we have empowered people to build healthy and democratic societies in communities, the US, and the world. Click here to learn more, or read the latest below.
"Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers," said one advocate.
Environmental justice campaigners on Monday said the Trump administration's latest rollback of wetland protections was "a gift to developers and polluters at the expense of communities" and demanded permanent protections for waterways.
“Clean water protections shouldn’t change with each administration,” said Betsy Southerland, former director of the Office of Science and Technology in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Water. “Every family deserves the same right to safe water, no matter where they live or who’s in office.”
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin proposed changes to the rule known as "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS), which has been the subject of debate and legal challenges in recent decades. Under the Trump administration, as in President Donald Trump's first term, the EPA will focus on regulating permanent bodies of water like oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams.
The administration would more closely follow a 2023 Supreme Court decision, Sackett v. EPA, which the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found this year would remove federal protections from 60-95% of wetlands across the nation.
The Zeldin rule would eliminate protections for most wetlands without visible surface water, going even further than Sackett v. EPA in codifying a narrower definition of wetlands that should be protected, said the Environmental Protection Network (EPN). The rule comes after pressure from industry groups that have bristled over past requirements to protect all waterways.
Wetlands provide critical wildlife habitats, replenish groundwater, control flooding, and protect clean water by filtering pollution.
The Biden administration required the Clean Water Act to protect “traditional navigable waters, the territorial seas, interstate waters, as well as upstream water resources that significantly affect those waters," but was constrained by the Sackett ruling in 2023.
“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply."
Tarah Heinzen, legal director for Food and Water Watch, said the new rule "weakens the bedrock Clean Water Act, making it easier to fill, drain, and pollute sensitive waterways from coast to coast."
“Clean water is under attack in America, as polluting profiteers plunder our waters—Trump’s EPA is openly aiding and abetting this destruction," said Heinzen. “This rule flies in the face of science and commonsense. Eliminating protections from small streams and wetlands will mean more pollution downstream—in our drinking water, at our beaches, and in our rivers."
The "critical functions" of wetlands, she added, "will only become more important as worsening climate change makes extreme weather more frequent. EPA must reverse course."
Leda Huta, vice president of government relations for American Rivers, added that the change to WOTUS will "likely make things worse for flood-prone communities and industries dependent on clean, reliable water."
“This proposed rule is unnecessary and damaging, and ignores the scientific reality of what is happening to our nation’s water supply,” said Huta. "The EPA is taking a big swipe at the Clean Water Act, our greatest tool for ensuring clean water nationwide.”
The proposal was applauded by the National Association of Manufacturers, whose president, Jay Timmins, said companies' "ability to invest and build across the country" has been "undermined" by the Obama and Biden administration's broader interpretation of WOTUS.
But Southerland said Zeldin's proposal "ignores decades of science showing that wetlands and intermittent streams are essential to maintaining the health of our rivers, lakes, and drinking water supplies."
“This is one of the most significant setbacks to clean water protections in half a century,” she said. "It’s a direct assault on the clean water Americans rely on.”
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said the group was evaluating the legality of the proposal and would "not hesitate to go to court to protect the cherished rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands that all Americans need and depend on.”
"The proposal avoids specifying the exact scale of the deregulation it proposes, but it clearly would result in a serious reduction in legal protections for waters across the United States," said Caputo. "Many waters that have been protected by the Clean Water Act for over 50 years would lose those protections under this proposal."
"Sadly, we have a president who prefers the Saudi model—an autocracy run by a trillionaire family—to democracy," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US President Donald Trump said Monday that he intends to authorize the sale of F-35 fighter jets to the autocratic kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the country's leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, heads to the United States for the first time since the horrific 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"We will be selling F-35s," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office ahead of bin Salman's arrival.
The Saudis, Trump added, "want to buy them, they’ve been a great ally."
The Saudi crown prince, commonly known as MBS, is set to meet with Trump in the White House on Tuesday, heightening concerns among experts and watchdogs about a potential security pact and corrupt business deals with the kingdom. The New York Times reported Monday that the Trump Organization, formally run by the president's two eldest sons, is "in talks that could bring a Trump-branded property to one of Saudi Arabia’s largest government-owned real estate developments."
"The prince is overseeing a $63 billion project that is set to transform the historic Saudi town of Diriyah into a luxury destination with hotels, retail shops and office space," the Times noted. "Saudi officials toured the Diriyah development with Mr. Trump during the president’s official state visit in May, with the goal of piquing his interest in the project."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said Tuesday that "we're seeing the complete merger of Trump’s business interests with US diplomacy and military policy."
"Trump's apparent authorization of F-35 sales to Saudi Arabia comes amidst reports of new Trump family business deals with the Saudi government and its affiliates," said Weissman. "These deals seem poised to direct tens of millions into the Trump family coffers in exchange for little more than permitting the family name to be attached to development projects."
The F-35 program, which is expected to cost US taxpayers trillions of dollars in the coming years, is widely seen as a boondoggle that primarily benefits massive defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, the producer of the jets.
Internally, Pentagon officials have voiced concern that selling F-35s to Saudi Arabia could give China access to the jets' technology.
"How are Americans supposed to think that Trump’s decision on F-35 sales, over internal objections, not to mention over human rights concerns, is unconnected to Trump’s business arrangements with Saudi Arabia?" Weissman asked.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in response to bin Salman's upcoming White House visit that "this is the dictator who had a US columnist murdered for criticizing the Saudi royal family."
"Sadly, we have a president who prefers the Saudi model—an autocracy run by a trillionaire family—to democracy," Sanders added.
"We commend every Democrat and Republican who signed the discharge petition to bring the Protect America's Workforce Act to a vote, but the fight isn't over," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler.
Two Republicans in the US House of Representatives on Monday added their names to a discharge petition that will now force a vote on legislation to restore the collective bargaining rights of hundreds of thousands of federal workers targeted by GOP President Donald Trump.
US Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) responded to Trump's legally contentious executive order by introducing the Protect America's Workforce Act in April. They began collecting petition signatures in June. At least 218 members had to sign it to override House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and force a vote on the bill.
Two New York Republicans, Congressmen Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler, signed the petition on Monday. It was previously signed by the sponsors, House Democrats, and GOP Reps. Rob Bresnahan (Pa.) and Don Bacon (Neb.). Their move came on the heels of an end to the longest government shutdown in US history, which left some federal workers furloughed and others working without pay.
"Every American deserves the right to have a voice in the workplace, including those who serve their country every single day. Supporting workers and ensuring good government are not opposing ideas," Lawler said in a statement. "They go hand in hand. Restoring collective bargaining rights strengthens our federal workforce and helps deliver more effective, accountable service to the American people."
"Speaker Johnson has run out of excuses to delay a vote on this legislation to restore federal workers' rights."
Golden, a former Blue Dog Coalition co-chair who recently announced his plans to retire from Congress after this term, thanked the newest signatories for joining the fight for his bill.
"America never voted to eliminate workers’ union rights, and the strong bipartisan support for my bill shows that Congress will not stand idly by while President Trump nullifies federal workers’ collective bargaining agreements and rolls back generations of labor law," Golden said. "I'm grateful to Reps. LaLota and Lawler for bringing this discharge petition over the finish line, and I'm calling on Speaker Mike Johnson to schedule a clean, up-or-down vote on this bill."
Liz Shuler, president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the country's largest federation of unions, similarly welcomed the latest signatures and set her sights on the House speaker.
"The labor movement fought back against the largest act of union-busting in American history by doing what we do best: organizing," Shuler said in a Monday statement. "Working people built a bipartisan coalition to restore union rights to federal workers in the face of unprecedented attacks on our freedoms. We commend every Democrat and Republican who signed the discharge petition to bring the Protect America’s Workforce Act to a vote, but the fight isn't over."
"Speaker Johnson has run out of excuses to delay a vote on this legislation to restore federal workers' rights," she continued. "It's time to bring the Protect America's Workforce Act to a vote and restore federal workers' right to collectively bargain and have a voice on the job."
Other discharge petitions might be more salacious, but it is HUGE news tonight that two Republicans just got the Protect America’s Workforce Act discharge petition to 218 to restore federal workers’ union rights.Let’s get the job done. ✊
[image or embed]
— Lauren Miller (@laurenmiller.bsky.social) November 17, 2025 at 6:18 PM
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)—which is the largest federal workers union, representing 820,000 people in the federal and District of Columbia governments—also applauded the development on Monday.
"An independent, apolitical civil service is one of the bedrocks of American democracy," Kelley said in a statement. "Today, lawmakers stood up together to defend that principle and to affirm that federal workers must retain their right to collective bargaining. This is what leadership looks like."
"Federal workers do their jobs every day without regard to politics. Today's action honors that commitment," Kelley asserted.
"AFGE will continue fighting until these essential rights are fully restored, including by fighting to retain Section 1110 of the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act," he vowed, referring to an amendment to the NDAA that restores bargaining rights to hundreds of thousands of civilians working in the US Department of Defense.
While discharge petitions are rarely successful, this one secured the necessary 218 signatures following a similar victory last week, when the newest member of Congress, Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), signed her name to an effort to force a vote on releasing files related to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.