

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.
One of the few - and I sincerely stress the word "few" -
concrete legislative successes progressives notched in the Republican
Congress under President George W. Bush came on the evening of July
26th, 2002, when they humiliated the House into passing a bill sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) banning federal contracts
from going to companies that engage in tax "inversions." These are the
schemes whereby a corporation that is based in the United States buy a
P.O. box in Bermuda and use it to legally avoid paying American taxes.
The bill, reported Congressional Quarterly at the time, "was
expected to fail [but] when the 15-minute voting clock ran out,
DeLauro's amendment was five votes ahead." Ultimately, industry-owned
Republican legislators who had tried to vote down the measure realized
they weren't going to be able to stop it, and "after a nod from
Republican leadership, more than 100 Republicans recast their votes to
give DeLauro an avalanche victory." Having witnessed this firsthand on the floor of the House, I can tell you it was indeed a sight to see.
And yet in the now-Democratic Congress seven years later, with
deficits exploding and the government clearly needing to strengthen any
and all incentives for corporations to pay their taxes, I was more than
disheartened to read this story in the Hill newspaper this week:
Multinational corporations are fighting to preserve language in a spending bill that would weaken a ban on federal contracts.
The provision, inserted in the Senate version of the bill at the
request of the Obama administration, would weaken a ban on federal
contracts for inverted companies...Before the ban began in 2002, four of the 100 largest federal
contractors were inverted, according to a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report.In 2001, those four companies received $2.7 billion in federal
contracts, but they have unable to win the contracts since the ban was
put into place.
The Obama administration is justifying its push on the grounds that
the ban may - at some point in the undetermined future - conflict with
our trade agreements. It's a charge North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan (D)
rightly calls "absurd."
What this is all about is corporate lobbying against
provisions that both use taxpayer money to reward domestic companies
that pay their fair share of taxes and disincentivize companies from
trying to rip off the public through offshore "inversions." And it's
one of the first examples we've seen of the Obama administration and
the Democratic Congress potentially doing something even worse than the
Bush administration and the Republican Congress.
Here we have a commonsense progressive tax measure that
Democrats managed to pass and then expand under Bush and the GOP, and
here we are less than a year into an era of full Democratic control of
Washington watching Democrats aiming to weaken that tax measure. When
you look at this move and remember that candidate Barack Obama himself promised
to strengthen - not weaken - laws cracking down on offshore tax rip-off
schemes, you wonder why we even waged that tough progressive fight back
in 2002.
You wonder, in short, whether you are getting sold down the river.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
One of the few - and I sincerely stress the word "few" -
concrete legislative successes progressives notched in the Republican
Congress under President George W. Bush came on the evening of July
26th, 2002, when they humiliated the House into passing a bill sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) banning federal contracts
from going to companies that engage in tax "inversions." These are the
schemes whereby a corporation that is based in the United States buy a
P.O. box in Bermuda and use it to legally avoid paying American taxes.
The bill, reported Congressional Quarterly at the time, "was
expected to fail [but] when the 15-minute voting clock ran out,
DeLauro's amendment was five votes ahead." Ultimately, industry-owned
Republican legislators who had tried to vote down the measure realized
they weren't going to be able to stop it, and "after a nod from
Republican leadership, more than 100 Republicans recast their votes to
give DeLauro an avalanche victory." Having witnessed this firsthand on the floor of the House, I can tell you it was indeed a sight to see.
And yet in the now-Democratic Congress seven years later, with
deficits exploding and the government clearly needing to strengthen any
and all incentives for corporations to pay their taxes, I was more than
disheartened to read this story in the Hill newspaper this week:
Multinational corporations are fighting to preserve language in a spending bill that would weaken a ban on federal contracts.
The provision, inserted in the Senate version of the bill at the
request of the Obama administration, would weaken a ban on federal
contracts for inverted companies...Before the ban began in 2002, four of the 100 largest federal
contractors were inverted, according to a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report.In 2001, those four companies received $2.7 billion in federal
contracts, but they have unable to win the contracts since the ban was
put into place.
The Obama administration is justifying its push on the grounds that
the ban may - at some point in the undetermined future - conflict with
our trade agreements. It's a charge North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan (D)
rightly calls "absurd."
What this is all about is corporate lobbying against
provisions that both use taxpayer money to reward domestic companies
that pay their fair share of taxes and disincentivize companies from
trying to rip off the public through offshore "inversions." And it's
one of the first examples we've seen of the Obama administration and
the Democratic Congress potentially doing something even worse than the
Bush administration and the Republican Congress.
Here we have a commonsense progressive tax measure that
Democrats managed to pass and then expand under Bush and the GOP, and
here we are less than a year into an era of full Democratic control of
Washington watching Democrats aiming to weaken that tax measure. When
you look at this move and remember that candidate Barack Obama himself promised
to strengthen - not weaken - laws cracking down on offshore tax rip-off
schemes, you wonder why we even waged that tough progressive fight back
in 2002.
You wonder, in short, whether you are getting sold down the river.
One of the few - and I sincerely stress the word "few" -
concrete legislative successes progressives notched in the Republican
Congress under President George W. Bush came on the evening of July
26th, 2002, when they humiliated the House into passing a bill sponsored by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) banning federal contracts
from going to companies that engage in tax "inversions." These are the
schemes whereby a corporation that is based in the United States buy a
P.O. box in Bermuda and use it to legally avoid paying American taxes.
The bill, reported Congressional Quarterly at the time, "was
expected to fail [but] when the 15-minute voting clock ran out,
DeLauro's amendment was five votes ahead." Ultimately, industry-owned
Republican legislators who had tried to vote down the measure realized
they weren't going to be able to stop it, and "after a nod from
Republican leadership, more than 100 Republicans recast their votes to
give DeLauro an avalanche victory." Having witnessed this firsthand on the floor of the House, I can tell you it was indeed a sight to see.
And yet in the now-Democratic Congress seven years later, with
deficits exploding and the government clearly needing to strengthen any
and all incentives for corporations to pay their taxes, I was more than
disheartened to read this story in the Hill newspaper this week:
Multinational corporations are fighting to preserve language in a spending bill that would weaken a ban on federal contracts.
The provision, inserted in the Senate version of the bill at the
request of the Obama administration, would weaken a ban on federal
contracts for inverted companies...Before the ban began in 2002, four of the 100 largest federal
contractors were inverted, according to a Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report.In 2001, those four companies received $2.7 billion in federal
contracts, but they have unable to win the contracts since the ban was
put into place.
The Obama administration is justifying its push on the grounds that
the ban may - at some point in the undetermined future - conflict with
our trade agreements. It's a charge North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan (D)
rightly calls "absurd."
What this is all about is corporate lobbying against
provisions that both use taxpayer money to reward domestic companies
that pay their fair share of taxes and disincentivize companies from
trying to rip off the public through offshore "inversions." And it's
one of the first examples we've seen of the Obama administration and
the Democratic Congress potentially doing something even worse than the
Bush administration and the Republican Congress.
Here we have a commonsense progressive tax measure that
Democrats managed to pass and then expand under Bush and the GOP, and
here we are less than a year into an era of full Democratic control of
Washington watching Democrats aiming to weaken that tax measure. When
you look at this move and remember that candidate Barack Obama himself promised
to strengthen - not weaken - laws cracking down on offshore tax rip-off
schemes, you wonder why we even waged that tough progressive fight back
in 2002.
You wonder, in short, whether you are getting sold down the river.