Obama calls for crackdown on offshore tax havens

WhatsHisNuts

Woke
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2006
28,182
1,441
113
50
Earth
www.ffrf.org
Obama calls for crackdown on offshore tax havens

<cite class="vcard"> By Margaret Talev, McClatchy Newspapers Margaret Talev, Mcclatchy Newspapers

</cite><abbr title="2009-05-04T11:41:00-0700" class="timedate">Mon May 4, 2:41 pm ET

</abbr>
<!-- end .byline --> WASHINGTON ? Following through on a campaign promise to stop rewarding companies that send jobs and money overseas, President Barack Obama on Monday called for eliminating various loopholes that benefit offshore tax havens and ratcheting up overseas enforcement, which he said could save $210 billion over a decade and encourage more job creation at home.
The proposals, which would require congressional action, enjoy support from some Democratic lawmakers, but they face loud objections from others, including Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky , and from hundreds of the most powerful businesses in the nation, including those that produce technology, pharmaceuticals and food.
Opponents say that Obama's proposals would amount to a tax increase and put them at a disadvantage to foreign rivals who don't face such tax laws in their home countries.
"I want to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world," Obama said in announcing his plans at the White House , flanked by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner . "But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens."
As evidence of the problem, a White House fact sheet noted that:
? The effective U.S. tax rate on U.S. multinational corporations as of 2004, the most recent year for data, was 2.3 percent.
? Eighty-three of the 100 largest U.S. corporations had subsidiaries in tax havens, according to the Government Accountability Office .
? Bermuda , the Netherlands and Ireland ? all small, low-tax countries ? claimed nearly a third of all foreign profits reported in 2003 by U.S. corporations.
Obama wants to reduce companies' ability to defer taxes on overseas profits, end many overseas tax havens and aggressively hunt down overseas tax evaders.
To do so, he proposes tightening regulations and hiring 800 more Internal Revenue Service agents. In turn, he said he'd pump billions of projected savings into guaranteed funding of a research and experimentation tax credit for companies that invest in jobs in the U.S.
McConnell said Monday that while he supports cracking down on tax evasion and offshore shelters, he doesn't back the overall plan.
"I cannot endorse a plan that gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S.-based companies and the 52 million people they employ," he said.
Marty Regalia, the chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , said in a statement following Obama's remarks that "when you limit deferral, you limit the ability of U.S. companies to compete, you impede growth in the U.S. economy, and you cause the loss of jobs ? both at the companies directly impacted and companies in their supply chains."
In taking on the Chamber, Obama also is taking on big companies, such as Microsoft , DuPont , General Electric and Eli Lilly , among the more than 200 companies and trade associations that have gone on record in opposition to the move since March.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday that "we know we're going to take on some tough interests in that, but the president believes this is a fight we should have and one that we can win." Gibbs said the changes should be seen as a matter of "fairness, not something that will put them at a competitive disadvantage."
Under current law, U.S. companies can defer for years paying taxes on profits if they're putting the money back into offshore subsidiaries. Under Obama's proposal, companies could take deductions for foreign expenses only if they were paying taxes on foreign profits to the U.S.
How companies can take a foreign tax credit also would be tightened, so that the credit reflects how much foreign tax is actually paid and so it can't be used on income that isn't subject to U.S. tax.
Obama would end "check-the-box" rules that allow U.S. companies to set up subsidiaries in tax havens to avoid paying taxes. Going forward, U.S. businesses establishing certain overseas corporations would have to report them on U.S. tax returns.
Obama also would give the IRS more legal authority to get more information from foreign bank account holders in order to determine whether they're attempting to evade U.S. taxes.
In his remarks, Obama criticized "a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India , than if you create one in Buffalo, N.Y. " He blamed lobbyists for "a broken tax system" and said he is out to change things.
"Nobody likes paying taxes, particularly in times of economic stress," Obama said. However, he said, "most Americans" recognize that "it's an obligation of citizenship, necessary to pay the costs of our common defense and our mutual well-being."





:0corn
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I was shocked at the money these folks were/are hidng from American People. THese are some of the same ones that wave the flag in your face. THen chit on it THEM SELFS. Where are the so callled tea baggers. They should be in the streets.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
It don't have snowballs chance in hell of passing and Gumby knows it. They bring this up every election cycle--and it don't float.

Maybe if we didn't have 2nd highest corporate taxes in the world there wouldn't be problem.

--and the real knee slapper on this one -if Gumby;s really worried about tax evaders he might want to start in his own cabinet--and Geithners # 1 initial target could be himself:142smilie
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
It figures these two would be for evading taxes :142smilie :142smilie You really can't make this stuff up!
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
that breeze you feel above you is the sarcasm going over your head...

Of course it was sarcasm, that's why I asked the question. Do you agree with the proposed crackdown, or not? Not really that complicated of a question.

Wayne apparently has no problem with tax cheats. Well, unless they're named Marc Rich.

How about you, buddy?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,580
228
63
"the bunker"
Of course it was sarcasm, that's why I asked the question. Do you agree with the proposed crackdown, or not? Not really that complicated of a question.

Wayne apparently has no problem with tax cheats. Well, unless they're named Marc Rich.

How about you, buddy?

my word...if you don`t chill out and laugh every once in awhile,we`re sending you to "joy camp"....

the difference between corporate tax shelters and say,a geithner absconding from paying legitimate taxes he owed is that tax shelters that corporations use are legal....otherwise,bock wouldn`t be trying to change the rules... he`d be prosecuting them and charging them interest and penalties...and possibly throwing them in jail...

(unlike,say ..geithner ...and the rest of bock`s cabinet,who got a pass on the punitive penalties that we would surely all be forced to endure...not to mention dem pols like charlie rangel/richardson/daschle)........

these companies won`t be able to compete globally now...paying taxes for operations abroad...and now punitively at home as well...

what foreign company will want to open new businesses in the good ole usa with this new even more restrictive "bock tax code"?.....

chill out...take a nap,dude...

3253574971_c8494b57aa_o.jpg
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Of course it was sarcasm, that's why I asked the question. Do you agree with the proposed crackdown, or not? Not really that complicated of a question.

Wayne apparently has no problem with tax cheats. Well, unless they're named Marc Rich.

How about you, buddy?

I believe if you want to address someone with no prob with tax cheats you better start with your boy Gumby :)

1st You consider someone using tax loophole as cheat? Hmmm wonder if its not legal why they are trying to close them--DUH

To answer your question--I do not begrudge corps seeking any legal methods to escape the highest corp tax rates in the world.

You see --your boy is forced to extract tax any way he can to pay for his unprecented social redistribution.
Your getting what we all knew you would--tax and spend in spades.

I guess under liberals definition of tax cheats--all tax attorneys are guilty of aidingand abetting--and all your liberal political flagrant tax cheats should be put in cabinet --right?:yup

You better be glad this has no shot at passing or you'd see mass exodus ala Haliburton and lose billions in tax revenue---then how who would support "Da Base".

Ever wonder which social program he's going to cut--he promised one--remember--we know it isn't welfare as he's increased it--

Try social security--yep --it's coming --bank on it. If they earmned it--he wants its
--if they are deadbeats or terrorists--they can :00hour

--while on topic--got any thoughts on who'll he nominate for Supreme Court?

I don't know who --but would venture quess profile will be female minority--probably lesbian who has been member of some socialist org. :)
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
who would have thought that the two guys who support greed and are totally against the workers in this country would be against something like this? Very surprising. These two were so worried about those Iraqi people and their every day lives but somehow turn a blind eye to people making 10 cents a day in these third world countries.:shrug: Again. Very surprising.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I have maybe the most simplistic question ever asked here. Why do companies continue to maintain any position in the U.S. if it has been so difficult to conduct business in this country for so many years, under the most usurious tax system in the world? Wouldn't it make sense that they stop doing business here? Or is it simply because they are here, doing business, that they have grown to the amazing companies that they have?

I think this scenario is quite simple in some ways. If this country is so bad for these companies - why haven't they moved already? Have they not made unheard of profits and become so successful in the U.S. under the tax system that everyone currently rails about? These companies have become some of the top companies in the world, BECAUSE of the country they operate in, and the tax system that allows them to operate in such a wonderfully civilized, progressive country. And now, because they only answer to CEO's, board members, and shareholders, they want to change the rules and take money offshore and avoid the exact system that has taken them to these levels in the first place.

America sucks for business. But, America MADE business to begin with. Talk about unpatriotic BS...

These companies are simply avoiding responsibility, when it's advantageous to do so, at the expense of the people who made these companies prosperous to begin with. There's really nothing keeping these companies here, if they really feel this strongly...but somehow I don't think they want to completely avoid the American market, do they?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
Can sum up in one sentence--

You have capitalism which made america what it is today--and you now have the left move to socialism at the expense of capitalist.

If you think it will float--look around and give us an example of a socialist country that has flourished.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Can sum up in one sentence--

You have capitalism which made america what it is today--and you now have the left move to socialism at the expense of capitalist.

If you think it will float--look around and give us an example of a socialist country that has flourished.

Not sure what that has to do with the subject. Just because some tax shelters were created doesn't mean they can't be uncreated. It has nothing to do with Socialism. Let these guy keep their money in America and pay their fare share of taxes. Kind of a simple notion.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Can sum up in one sentence--

You have capitalism which made america what it is today--and you now have the left move to socialism at the expense of capitalist.

If you think it will float--look around and give us an example of a socialist country that has flourished.

Ye, and unregulated capitalism got us in this huge mess we are in today.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Can sum up in one sentence--

You have capitalism which made america what it is today--and you now have the left move to socialism at the expense of capitalist.

If you think it will float--look around and give us an example of a socialist country that has flourished.

Yes, you can sum it up in one sentence, however I can say that you really didn't sum up anything except your liberal socialist theme on another topic. These tax havens were in place - and actually helped along - long before the dems had control of the legislature and many were created when Bush was in control of things. I don't think we're dealing with too many that were created during the last four months, are we? So, I guess "the move to socialism" really has nothing to do, specifically, with the establishment of these tax havens.

How does that sum up your summation?

Considering that quite a few of these tax avoiders are the ones who have sought out taxpayer bailout money from your pocket and mine, I have a problem with that. You certainly don't have to, but that seems a little disingenuous to me. They hide money to avoid paying taxes, and yet they want to take advantage of the system a second time when the system will help them out. Gripe about the system, and manipulate it twice for personal gain.

Gotta love opportunity, right?
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
lets use generic terms to paint clearer picture.

How much should the responsible person/corp that has been responsible and contributed to society--be penalized to compensate the irresponsible/leaches on society.

Since when is it right to penalize good behavior to reward bad behavior.

Believe it or not there are now about 50% of people quite satisfied with their plight--they capitalized on America's land of opportunity and found all the needed was hard work and ambition to take advantage of it. They are the 90%+ that pay their mortages on time--

They are quite satisfied with their plight in life--They need no hope nor change.

However these themes did hit home to "Da Base" who always have excuse why they can't and looking for handout from those who refuse to make excuses.

--and theme was quite productive--as it pulled in 95% + of blacks--66% of hispanics and throw in the 19 % of liberals and you got a winning margin that will continue to grow.

Now let me pose this question--You were speaking of maybe starting your own business.
If you do--who do you want as employees responsible people or irresponsibe.

Yet you have no prob with the irresponsible dictating who represents us in government.

So far O's governing could be summed up as--

"Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you."

anyone disagree??--IF SO WHY??

--back to corp taxes-

Obama Redefines Corporate Taxes


<!-- Post Body Copy --><!-- sphereit start -->The Obama Administration today announced plans to tighten tax rules on corporations in hopes of decreasing off shore tax havens.
Among them, reforming the ?deferral? rule that lets U.S.-based multinationals take deductions on their expenses supporting overseas operations but defer paying income tax on the profits they make from their overseas operations. They only need to pay U.S. income tax on those profits if and when they bring that money back to the United States. The administration proposes that the companies must also defer taking their deductions until their overseas profits are brought back to the country. It estimates the change would raise $60.1 billion in revenue over 10 years. It also proposes to offer a $74.5 billion tax cut over 10 years to companies by making permanent the research and experimentation credit given to companies that do their research and development in the United States. The administration also wants to make it harder for companies to ?abuse? the foreign tax credit. Currently companies may claim a credit against their U.S. income taxes for taxes they paid to another country. Amending that rule would raise an estimated $43 billion over 10 years, according to the administration.
Some of these rules, such as the deferral rule, have needed to be revised for a long time, considering they give benefits to companies that move business off shore.
That said, these kind of regulatory changes are central to the concept of ?unintended consequences?. The U.S. already has the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and one of the few reasons that corporations stay here is because of some of the tax write-offs. The White House predicts that they can raise $200 Billion a year by closing these loopholes, which is all well and good, except that for all practical purposes this is a massive tax increases on business during a recession.
The irony is that many tech comapanies, who use many off shore subsidiaries, are most angry about this?but they were also among the strongest business supporters of the Obama Administration. Too bad.
So will this tightening promote or deter jobs from coming back to the U.S? That is up for debate. Will these corporations simply move off shore for cheaper tax codes? Quite possible. Democrats must look at both sides if they their intention is to create jobs here at home.
 
Last edited:

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,667
1,764
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
Securing Jobs or the New Protectionism? Taxing the Overseas Activities of Multinational Firms

Mihir A. Desai
Harvard Business School - Finance Unit; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

March 20, 2009

Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper No. 09-107 (click on "download" to read free pdf of complete paper)


Abstract:

Tax policy toward American multinational firms would appear to be approaching a crossroads. The presumed linkages between domestic employment conditions and the growth of foreign operations by American firms have led to calls for increased taxation on foreign operations - the so-called end to tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas. At the same time, the current tax regime employed by the U.S. is being abandoned by the two remaining large capital exporters - the UK and Japan - that had maintained similar regimes. The conundrum facing policymakers is how to reconcile mounting pressures for increased tax burdens on foreign activity with the increasing exceptionalism of American policy. This paper address these questions by analyzing the available evidence on two related claims - i) that the current U.S. policy of deferring taxation of foreign profits represents a subsidy to American firms and ii) that activity abroad by multinational firms represents the displacement of activity that would have otherwise been undertaken at home. These two tempting claims are found to have limited, if any, systematic support. Instead, modern welfare norms that capture the nature of multinational firm activity recommend a move toward not taxing the foreign activities of American firms, rather than taxing them more heavily. Similarly, the weight of the empirical evidence is that foreign activity is a complement, rather than a substitute, for domestic activity. Much as the formulation of trade policy requires resisting the tempting logic of protectionism, the appropriate taxation of multinational firms requires a similar fortitude.

Tax-Havens-Tsunami.jpg
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
May 11, 2009
The Great Tax Dodge Demystified

By Robert Samuelson

"(The U.S. tax code is) full of corporate loopholes that makes it perfectly legal for companies to avoid paying their fair share."
-- President Barack Obama, May 4
WASHINGTON -- Like it or not, ours is a world of multinational companies. Almost all of America's brand name firms (Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, Caterpillar) are multinationals, and the process works both ways. In 2006, the U.S. operations of foreign firms employed 5.3 million workers. Fiat's looming takeover of Chrysler reminds us again that much business is transnational.
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> <!-- OAS_AD('Block'); //--> </SCRIPT><!-- BEGIN TAG - 300x250 - www.realclearpolitics.com - DO NOT MODIFY --><SCRIPT src="http://optimizedby.rmxads.com/st?ad_type=ad&ad_size=300x250&section=180925" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><!-- END TAG -->
34613866663238363461303831386230
<SCRIPT src="http://optimizedby.rmxads.com/imp?Z=300x250&s=180925&_salt=955776076&B=10&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Farticles%2F2009%2F05%2F11%2Fthe_great_tax_dodge_demystified_96433.html&r=1" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
For most people, the multinational company is a troubling concept. Loyalty matters. We like to think that "our companies" serve the broad national interest rather than just scouring the world for the cheapest labor, the laxest regulations and the lowest taxes. And the tax issue is especially vexing: How should multinationals be taxed on the profits they make outside their home countries?
Listen to President Obama, and the status quo seems a cesspool. Pervasive "loopholes" engineered by "well-connected lobbyists" allow U.S. multinationals to skirt American taxes and outsource jobs to low-tax countries. So the president proposes plugging loopholes. Some jobs will return to the United States, and U.S. tax coffers will grow by $210 billion over the next decade.
Sounds great -- and that's how the story played. "Obama Targets Overseas Tax Dodge," headlined The Washington Post. But the reality is murkier; the president's accusatory rhetoric perpetuates many myths.

Myth: Aided by those overpaid lobbyists, American multinationals are taxed lightly -- less so than their foreign counterparts.
Reality: Just the opposite. Most countries don't tax the foreign profits of their multinational firms at all. Take a Swiss multinational with operations in South Korea. It pays a 27.5 percent Korean corporate tax on its profits and can bring home the rest tax-free. By contrast, a U.S. firm in Korea pays the Korean tax and, if it returns the profits to the United States, faces the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate. American companies can defer the U.S. tax by keeping the profits abroad (naturally, many do), and when repatriated, companies get a credit for foreign taxes paid. In this case, they'd pay the difference between the Korean rate (27.5 percent) and the U.S. rate (35 percent).

Myth: When U.S. multinationals invest abroad, they destroy American jobs.
Reality: Not so. Sure, many U.S. firms have shut American factories and opened plants elsewhere. But most overseas investments by U.S. multinationals serve local markets. Only 10 percent of their foreign output is exported back to the United States, says Harvard economist Fritz Foley. When Wal-Mart opens a store in China, it doesn't close one in California. On balance, all the extra foreign sales create U.S. jobs for management, research and development (almost 90 percent of American multinationals' R&D occurs in the United States) and the export of components. A study by Foley and economists Mihir Desai of Harvard and James Hines of the University of Michigan estimates that for every 10 percent increase in U.S. multinationals' overseas payrolls, their American payrolls increase almost 4 percent.

Myth: Plugging overseas corporate tax loopholes will dramatically improve the budget outlook as multinationals pay their "fair" share.
Reality: Dream on. The estimated $210 billion revenue gain over 10 years -- money already included in Obama's budget -- represents only six-tenths of 1 percent of the decade's tax revenues of $32 trillion, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office. Worse, the CBO reckons that Obama's endless deficits over the decade will total a gut-wrenching $9.3 trillion.
Whether or not Obama's proposals would create any jobs in the United States is an open question. In highly technical ways, Obama would increase the taxes on the foreign profits of U.S. multinationals by limiting the use of today's deferral and foreign tax credit. Taxing overseas investment more heavily, the theory goes, would favor investment in the United States.
But many experts believe his proposals would actually destroy U.S. jobs. Being more heavily taxed, American multinational firms would have more trouble competing with European and Asian rivals. Some U.S. foreign operations might be sold to tax-advantaged foreign firms. Either way, supporting operations in the United States would suffer. "You lose some of those good management and professional jobs in places like Chicago and New York," says Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute.
Including state taxes, America's top corporate tax rate exceeds 39 percent; among wealthy nations, only Japan's is higher (slightly). However, the effective U.S. tax rate is reduced by preferences -- mostly domestic, not foreign -- that also make the system complex and expensive. As Hufbauer suggests, Obama would have been better advised to cut the top rate by ending many preferences. That would lower compliance costs and involve fewer distortions. But this sort of proposal would have been harder to sell. Obama sacrificed substance for grandstanding.

<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> checkTextResizerCookie('article_body'); </SCRIPT>
Copyright 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,496
172
63
Bowling Green Ky
--additional conspirating between O and Unions--

Posted: May 10, 2009, 12:41 PM by NP Editor David Frum, Full Comment<INPUT id=ctl00_Main_WeblogPostTagEditableList1_ctl01_State type=hidden value=value:%3CA%20href%3D%22%2Fnp%2Fblogs%2Ffullcomment%2Farchive%2Ftags%2FDavid%2BFrum%2Fdefault.aspx%22%20rel%3Dtag%3EDavid%20Frum%3C%2FA%3E%2C%20%3CA%20href%3D%22%2Fnp%2Fblogs%2Ffullcomment%2Farchive%2Ftags%2FFull%2BComment%2Fdefault.aspx%22%20rel%3Dtag%3EFull%20Comment%3C%2FA%3E name=ctl00$Main$WeblogPostTagEditableList1$ctl01>

davidfrum.jpg
Something bad and dangerous is happening in Barack Obama's America.
The powers that the Obama administration claimed in order to arrest the financial crisis and mitigate the recession are being used and abused in ways that are underming the legal and financial stability of the United States. Investors: You are warned.
The first warning was the attempt to snatch Chrysler's assets away from their rightful owners to pay off administration friends and supporters.
The Obama plan to save Chrysler would have sold Chrysler's most valuable assets into a new company co-owned by the U. S. and Canadian governments, Fiat and the United Auto Workers (UAW) -- with the UAW getting the biggest piece, 55%.<!--more-->
The trouble was: those assets belonged to somebody else. They belonged to the company's bondholders, who had a legal first claim. Under the administration's plan, those senior-secured creditors would have received just 29? on the dollar.
For a failing company to shuffle assets so as to favor some creditors over others with a stronger claim is a very serious wrong, potentially even a crime. There's a sound economic reason for this rule of law: Bondholders accept lower returns in good times in exchange for greater security in bad times. Protecting bondholders in bad times ensures that future borrowers will be able to borrow in good times.
The bondholders squawked. Well -- not all the bondholders. Bondholders who had previously taken government bailouts for themselves, via the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), kept quiet. That's bad enough. It means that these major lenders were breaching their fiduciary duty to their shareholders in order to placate their new masters in Washington.
But what happened to the non-TARP bondholders was even worse. When they squawked, the administration tried to muscle them. Lawyers for the bondholders contend that senior representatives of the Obama administration threatened them. Michael Barone, the ultra-knowledgeable (and normally unflappable) editor of the Almanac of American Politics called it "gangster government."
The Obama administration denies it threatened anyone. And yet over the past week, one by one, formerly protesting bondholders have abruptly gone silent. Last week, the non-TARP group represented bondholders holding $1-billion in Chrysler bonds. By the end of this week, the group had shrunk to represent only $300-million in bonds. As one commenter observed: that shrinkage suggests that the threats were real.
Then, on Thursday, another alarm sounded.
The state of California faces a desperate fiscal situation. California now has the worst credit rating of any American state. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic majority legislature have struggled to balance the books, as they are constitutionally obliged to do. They have raised taxes dramatically, but they have also cut some programs. Among the cuts: a $2-an-hour cut in the wages of home health-care workers.
Those workers were unionized, and their union -- the Service Employees International Union - carries clout in Obama's Washington. On Thursday, California state officials told the Los Angeles Times that they had received a warning: The federal government would deny California $6.8-billion in stimulus funds unless the wage cut was rescinded. Since the wage cut will save only about $74-million, the state will have little choice but to surrender.
That missing money will have to be compensated for. Already, California's budget plans rely overwhelmingly on a mix of accounting tricks (selling future lottery revenues for an up-front payment) and tax increases. Now the state will need more tricks and more tax increases.
And so will the other states, as they too get the message: no pay cuts for unionized workers will be tolerated by Obama's Washington.
So, result:
In barely four months, Barack Obama has nudged the United States toward a future in which government will be bigger and more assertive -- where taxes will be higher and government unions more powerful -- where legal rights are less secure and contracts more uncertain.
In California, he is pushing a state toward the fiscal edge in order to favour a union ally. At Chrysler, he has put at risk the security of every contract in the country to please another union.
Meanwhile, his administration is planning changes to the regulation of finance that are likely to leave the United States less dynamic and less innovative in the years ahead -- at the same time as taxes rise and educational levels decline. (Already the Educational Testing Service-- the people who run America's SAT exam -- predicts a less skilled U. S. workforce in 2030 than today, with literacy rates declining by an average of 5% as unskilled immigration and rising rates of single parenthood take their toll.)
It's easy to lose sight of these wrong and costly choices in the turmoil of the immediate crisis. But it is these decisions of today that are preparing the crisis of tomorrow.
?David Frum
National Post
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top