Saturday, October 1, 2011

Google, Apple Hire High-Profile Lobbyist To Ask Congress For A Tax Holiday

NPR NEWS
by EYDER PERALTA
Bloomberg has a story worth reading, (story below) today. They report that Google, Apple and Cisco Systems' lobbying for a tax holiday on offshore profits has just received a big gun.

Bloomberg reports that the technology firms have hired Jeffrey Forbes, "once chief of staff to Max Baucus, chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee" to lobby for a tax break on more than $1 trillion in profits made in foreign countries.

Through an analysis, Bloomberg found that the companies have hired more than 160 lobbyists for the task that could cost the U.S. government $78.7 billion over ten years. Bloomberg has also put together this handy graphic that shows all of the Capitol Hill connections. (Again, it's a pretty comprehensive piece that's worth a click over for.)

What the tech firms argue is that a tax holiday would flood the country with new money that would help spur a sagging economy. The United States did that in 2004.

Needless to say, the move has its critics. The U.S. Treasury put together analysis of what the tax holiday did in '04. Michael Mundaca, the Assistant Treasury Secretary for Tax Policy, wrote in March:

Although advocates argue that a repatriation holiday could be costless or even raise tax revenue, the official Congressional scorekeeper, the Joint Committee on Taxation, estimated before enactment that the 2004 repatriation holiday would actually cost billions of dollars. In 2009, when this idea was being pushed once again, Senator Baucus indicated during Floor debates that the cost of a new holiday had increased to $30 billion, presumably because a second holiday would encourage further erosion of the U.S. tax base through shifting of profits overseas. Moreover, according to outside estimates, just five firms got over one-quarter of the tax benefits of the repatriation holiday, and just 15 firms got more than 50 percent of the benefits. To pay for giving this large tax cut once again to a small group of U.S. companies without increasing the deficit, we would have to raise taxes on other U.S. businesses.

In assessing the 2004 tax holiday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports that most of the largest beneficiaries of the holiday actually cut jobs in 2005-06 – despite overall economy-wide job growth in those years – and many used the repatriated funds simply to repurchase stock or pay dividends. Today, when U.S. corporations have ready access to cash they have accumulated and are holding here in the United States, it is even harder to make the case that a repatriation holiday will unlock new investment and job creation.


*******************************
BLOOMBERG
Google Joins Apple in Push for Tax Holiday
by Richard Rubin and Jesse Drucker - Sep 28, 2011 11:01 PM CT
Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. and Google Inc. are leading a coalition of multinationals lobbying for a repeat of the 2004 tax holiday that allowed companies to bring home offshore earnings at a tax rate of 5.25 percent, instead of the current 35 percent. More than 160 lobbyists, including 60 who once worked for Congress or the administration are pushing for the tax holiday on more than $1 trillion in offshore profits. Critics say the move will cost the government almost $78 billion. 

Data compiled by Bloomberg News show more than 160 lobbyists, including at least 60 who once worked for a sitting member of the House or Senate, pushing for the repatriation holiday. Graphic: Bloomberg

As a coalition led by Apple Inc. (AAPL)Google Inc. (GOOG), and Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) presses for a tax holiday on more than $1 trillion in offshore profits, it is turning to a well-positioned lobbyist: Jeffrey Forbes, once chief of staff to Max Baucus, chairman of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee.

Data compiled by Bloomberg News show that Forbes is part of an army of more than 160 lobbyists, including at least 60 who once worked for a sitting member of the House or Senate, pushing for the repatriation holiday. Their job is to persuade Congress to establish a tax break estimated to cost the U.S. government $78.7 billion over the next decade.

Independent studies have found that the last time this tax break was tried, in 2004, the bargain rate for bringing home offshore profits did little to spur hiring or domestic investment. Most of the money was used to buy back stock.

“This is an issue that involves a whole lot of people hired by corporations that are pushing for those corporate interests rather than the public interest,” said James A. Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University inWashington.

Though the studies found that money brought home in 2004 ended up benefiting a narrow set of shareholders, support is growing in Congress for the tax holiday as companies expand their roster of lobbyists. One case they are making is that the potential flood of cash will boost the faltering U.S. economy.
Complex Issues

“There are many issues that are very important but are complex and don’t seem of great importance to the wider public - - those are the issues primed for having people who formerly worked on the Hill or executive branch intervening in making policy,” Thurber said.

Those with Capitol Hill connections who are lobbying for the repatriation tax break include former Louisiana Representative Jim McCrery, who until 2009 was the top Republican on the U.S. House’s tax-writing Ways and Means Committee; Dena Battle, the former legislative director for that committee’s current chairman, Representative Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican; and at least four former staffers for House Speaker John Boehner.

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said former staff members don’t influence policy. “The speaker makes such decisions based on what is best for his constituents and the American people,” Steel said.
‘Regenerate the Economy’

Advocates for the break say a repatriation holiday would bring more than $1 trillion to the U.S. now held overseas.

“It would do much to regenerate the economy,” said Robert Livingston, a former Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and speaker-designate who is now lobbying for Oracle Corp. (ORCL) “A total of $1.5 trillion from all affected U.S. companies would go a long way to pull us out of the doldrums.”

There are more insiders pushing for the tax holiday than those in Bloomberg News’ tally of at least 60. That figure includes only registered lobbyists who worked for a sitting member of Congress and disclosed lobbying on the issue for the WIN America Campaign, the group ofcompanies seeking the break, or for one of the companies or associations in the coalition.

WIN America is coordinated by SKDKnickerbocker, a Washington political consulting and public relations firm, which includes as a managing director Anita Dunn, former communications director for President Barack Obama. Dunn isn’t a registered lobbyist.
Longtime Fixtures

The list of more than 160 lobbyists includes other longtime fixtures in Washington, such as former Representative Livingston; Democratic fundraiser Tony Podesta; and Kenneth Kies, former chief of staff of the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

The proposed break has gained momentum in recent months, with several prominent Democrats, including Senator Charles Schumer of New York, expressing a willingness to consider the tax holiday. Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann, a House member from Minnesota, and Texas Governor Rick Perry have called on Congress to let companies bring home offshore earnings at a reduced tax rate.

The Obama administration has said it is opposed to a stand- alone tax holiday for repatriated profits, pointing to the 2004 experience. Obama has been taking aim at tax breaks benefiting certain industries, such as oil and gas, and deductions and exclusions claimed by millionaires. He has embraced changes suggested by billionaire Warren Buffett, who has said he pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary.

U.S. multinational companies have amassed more than $1.375 trillion in profits overseas on which they have paid no federal income tax, according to a recent report by JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) When the earnings are returned to the U.S. -- or repatriated -- they are taxed at the top corporate rate of 35 percent, with credits for foreign income taxes paid.
Reprising 2004 Holiday

The companies are pushing to reprise the 2004 holiday that allowed them to bring home offshore earnings at a low tax rate of 5.25 percent. Under that break, companies repatriated to the U.S. $312 billion, largely for stock repurchases rather than direct hiring or investment, according to a recent paper in the Journal of Finance, the latest in a series of studies that reached similar conclusions.

The proposed holiday would reward the companies that have most aggressively parked profits in tax havens such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Switzerland, said Martin A. Sullivan, a former Treasury Department economist and contributing editor for the non-partisan Tax Notes.

“A lot of what companies report as foreign profit is really U.S. profit that should be subject to U.S. tax,” Sullivan said. “Those earnings didn’t get overseas by accident. Many of these companies intentionally put them there to avoid paying U.S. taxes.”
Tally of Lobbyists

Bloomberg’s tally covers individuals who were registered to lobby on the repatriation issue at some point in the first half of this year, the period for which records are available. Some of the lobbyists have since left their firms. The figures don’t include those who were listed as lobbying on general tax issues for companies in the WIN America coalition, except where the lobbyists confirmed to Bloomberg News that they were working on repatriation.

Newer members of the revolving-door community are involved, such as Danielle Maurer, a lobbyist at the Republican firm of Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock. It has been paid $160,000 so far this year by Oracle to lobby on a variety of tax issues, and the Win America coalition recently hired the firm. Maurer had been director of member services for Boehner, helping assign House members to committees.
Baucus Alumni

In all, three former staffers of Baucus, the Finance Committee’s chairman since 2007, are lobbying on the repatriation holiday. Besides Forbes, there’s Nick Giordano of Washington Council Ernst & Young, a longtime Cisco lobbyist. Microsoft has retained Timothy E. Punke, a former adviser to Baucus on trade issues who is active in Democratic politics.

The WIN America campaign’s manager is Karen Olick, former chief of staff to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat. One of the spokesmen for the group is Doug Thornell, who most recently was a staffer for Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat who is a member of the House leadership. Like Anita Dunn, Thornell and Olick aren’t registered lobbyists.

“Our economy needs all the help it can get, and leaving this money in foreign banks when we could bring it home now makes no sense,” Thornell said.

WHAT ?! .$935 MILLION OF TAXPAYER'S MONEY TO THE BPPR?!

BPPR received a $935 million cash injection in 2008 from taxpayer's money which has not been repaid!
MJ
Goldman Sachs Among Buyers of Troubled Popular Loan Batch
Businessweek
Goldman Sachs Among Buyers of Troubled Popular Loan Batch - Businessweek:
By Donal Griffin
(Updates with details on parties and information from statement beginning in sixth paragraph.)
Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Popular Inc., the biggest bank in Puerto Rico, said it sold a portfolio of distressed property loans to a joint venture controlled by an entity created by firms including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The non-performing loans were sold for 45.3 percent of their $381 million unpaid principal balance as of the end of March, or $172.6 million, Popular said today in a statement issued by Business Wire. Popular will own 24.9 percent of the joint venture, which will be controlled by a limited liability company, the San Juan-based lender said. The entity’s members are Goldman Sachs, Caribbean Property Group LLC and East Rock Capital LLC, Teruca Rullan of Popular said in an e-mailed statement.

Popular Chief Executive Officer Richard Carrion, a director with the New York Federal Reserve, is selling the loans as he tries to lead the bank’s recovery from the housing-market slump. The bank posted $1.9 billion in losses for the three years ended 2009 and has yet to repay a $935 million cash injection provided by taxpayers in 2008. Carrion had called off previous talks to sell loans to the Caribbean Property Group in May after they failed to agree on terms.
“This transaction is an important step, one of several initiatives the corporation is pursuing to continue to derisk its balance sheet,” Carrion said in the statement.
Michael DuVally, a spokesman for New York-based Goldman Sachs, declined to elaborate on the firm ’s links to Caribbean Property Group or East Rock Capital.
Caribbean Property Group
Caribbean Property Group, based in New York, runs a $472 million real estate fund, according to its website. The fund is sponsored in part by Whitehall Funds, a Goldman Sachs property fund, according to the website. Mark Lipschutz, CEO of Caribbean Property Group, didn’t return a phone call or e-mail sent after regular business hours.Popular will extend a $68.5 million advance facility to the joint venture to cover unfunded commitments as well as complete construction projects, the bank said in the statement. Popular will also provide a $20 million line of credit to the venture. An affiliate of Caribbean Property Group will service the purchased loans, Popular said. The servicer will enter into a subservicing agreement with Archon Group LP, a Goldman Sachs unit, according to the statement.
--Editors: Dan Reichl, David Scheer

more : http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-29/goldman-sachs-among-buyers-of-troubled-popular-loan-batch.html

Friday, September 30, 2011

Cual sera el costo de estas alianzas al logro de la estadidad? Es esto parte del esquema de la 933a? Si no vamos a depender de los EU, Venezuela y Chavez son una opcion? Por que no Bank of America, o Sun Trust?
MJ
Fortuño : No se puede depender de los EEUU
EL VOCERO
Carmen Milagros Díaz, 
EL VOCERO 
6 de agosto de 2011 
“Nosotros no podemos depender del gobierno federal y yo sé que puede chocar que un estadista digo esto.”, señaló el Primer Ejecutivo.

more: http://www.vocero.com/puerto-rico-es/politica-es/fortuno-asegura-que-no-se-puede-depender-de-los-federales
**************************************************
Banco Venezolano llega a Puerto Rico
EL NUEVO DIA
Por Joanisabel González
30 Septiembre 2011

Banesco buscará internacionalizarse utilizando el suelo boricua como su sede.
Banesco, el principal banco comercial de Venezuela, considera a Puerto Rico como la posible sede de su centro de operación internacional, dijo ayer su presidente, Juan Carlos Escotet.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Curitas para un sistema sociopolítico en estado crítico

Ricky Rossello 2012
EL VOCERO
29 sept 2011
por Ricardo Rossello Nevarez
En días recientes, han surgido nuevas propuestas presentadas por ambos partidos de mayoría para enmendar las secciones 933 y 243 del Código de Rentas Internas federal, a fin de generar nuevos incentivos federales que supuestamente estimularían nuestra economía y generarían más empleos. Pero, ¿cuál es el efecto real de estas propuestas para el trabajador puertorriqueño y la economía? ¿Quién se beneficia realmente de ellas?

Hay dos puntos fundamentales que se argumentan en este respecto:

Punto #1: Los incentivos contributivos traerán más trabajos para Puerto Rico.

Esto no es del todo cierto. La esencia del plan es crear un conducto para que miles de dólares generados por corporaciones americanas -establecidas en otros países para no pagar impuestos- lleguen a las arcas del Gobierno federal. Esos ingresos adicionales ayudarían a generar más empleos. Aunque tal vez esto pueda ser cierto, serían trabajos en los Estados Federados, no en Puerto Rico

Punto #2: Promete devolverle a Puerto Rico la competitividad perdida.

Los proponentes apuntan a que, cuando existían las 936, se creó mucha manufactura en la Isla, y tan pronto acabaron los incentivos, estas empresas se fueron. Esto es un mito. Si bien es cierto que muchas compañías se han ido, ha sido por otras razones que no tienen absolutamente nada que ver con los incentivos federales que recibían previamente.

El problema de estas nuevas propuestas es que tratan de revivir incentivos corporativos que aplicaban a una época ya pasada. Además, con el tiempo, estos incentivos probaron ser un “mantengo corporativo” que solo benefició a las compañías y nunca produjeron el mayor empleo y estímulo económico que prometían. De otra parte, Washington está buscando la manera de cerrar los concebidos loopholes (o deficiencias) en los códigos que permiten reclamar diversas deducciones contributivas, por lo que las propuestas presentadas se ven destinadas al fracaso ya que van en contra de esta corriente actual.

Para los 1950, cuando se estableció el sistema sociopolítico actual (ELA), el panorama en el mundo era muy distinto. El Puerto Rico de antaño pudo atraer manufactura mediante incentivos federales ya que era (y sigue siendo) una posesión de Estados Unidos y la mano de obra era relativamente diestra y barata. Estos atributos creaban un ambiente favorable, relativo a otras economías en desarrollo y países afectados por la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Pero el panorama de hoy presenta a India, China y Brasil como potencias económicas; fuertes bloques económicos como la Unión Europea y el NAFTA (North American Fair Trade Agreement); y un desarrollo económico global, impulsado por avances tecnológicos modernos, que favorece las economías del conocimiento, el servicio y la innovación, no tanto las de manufactura.

Por lo tanto, la posición idónea que tenía Puerto Rico hace 50 ó 60 años para desarrollar una economía basada en la manufactura, se ha erosionado. Y no importa cuántos créditos ofrezca el Gobierno federal; si las compañías pueden producir con mano de obra más barata, lo harán en otro lugar. Con más opciones que en el pasado, la competencia es mayor. Y si no tenemos el beneficio de una plataforma robusta de innovación, servicio, o capital humano, tenemos muy poco que ofrecer.

La realidad es que estas nuevas propuestas solo presentan beneficios directos a algunas compañías que ya están en Puerto Rico, sin ninguna estipulación para la generación de nuevos empleos. Por lo tanto, el trabajador puertorriqueño no verá un beneficio tangible. Los efectos económicos son mayormente para la economía de EE.UU.

Asimismo, se entiende que el propósito fundamental de estas medidas es darle dinero adicional a corporaciones estadounidenses que están produciendo en Puerto Rico, a fin de que se sientan incentivadas a extenderle la vida al sistema sociopolítico del ELA, ya que un cambio de status para Puerto Rico afectaría estos nuevos ingresos. Por ende, el pueblo no gana con esta política pública, pues no está diseñada para generar empleos, sino para mantener la plataforma política colonial.

La economía puertorriqueña no se arregla con créditos contributivos para grandes corporaciones, ni con esquemas de redistribución. Se arregla atemperándonos a la realidad global, enfocándonos en nuestras necesidades, y construyendo una economía basada en industrias del conocimiento.

¿Se imaginan a Puerto Rico como un centro mundial o regional de investigación y desarrollo para la biomedicina, generando curas para enfermedades que nos afectan? ¿O en el sector de la energía, generando mejores mecanismos de energías renovables?

Yo digo que sí podemos hacerlo. Pero nuestra visión de futuro tiene que ser una de cambios audaces, y no una de poner parches a una plataforma quebrada. Hay que eliminar ese obstáculo del actual sistema sociopolítico colonial desgastado, para así comenzar a elaborar un nuevo sistema que sea moderno, efectivo, y de verdadero beneficio para todos los puertorriqueños.

La terapia de ponerle curitas a un sistema en estado crítico no funciona y es muy peligrosa.
Estamos simplemente creándonos falsas expectativas de progreso, y postergando lo inevitable… el paciente pasará a mejor vida.

Cambiemos esa fallida terapia, y comencemos a construir un Puerto Rico de verdadero progreso. El poder está en nuestras manos.

more: http://www.vocero.com/opinion-es/curitas-para-un-sistema-sociopolitico-en-estado-critico

Comentarios a: http://facebook.com/rrossello

Temprana carta de despedida de Nancy Iriarte Diaz a su ex esposo Hugo Chavez

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (AFP/File, Leo Ramirez)


 Impresionante, muy Profunda y temprana despedida de Nancy Iriarte Díaz a Hugo Chávez; fue publicada el 9 de agosto de 2011 en uno de los periódicos venezolanos de mayor circulación “El Universal” 

No quiero que te marches de esta vida sin antes despedirnos, porque has hecho un mal inmenso a mucha gente, has arruinado a familias enteras, has obligado a legiones de compatriotas a emigrar a otras tierras, has vestido de luto a incontables hogares, a los que creías tus enemigos los perseguiste sin cuartel, los encerraste en ergástulas que no lo merece ni un animal, los insultaste, los humillaste, te burlaste de ellos, no solo porque te creías poderoso, sino inmortal... porque el fin de los tiempos no era contigo.
 

Pero llegó tu turno, los plazos se acaban, el término de tu contrato llega a su fin, tu "ciclo vital" se apaga poco a poco y no de la mejor manera; probablemente morirás en una cama, rodeado de tu familia, asustada, porque va a tener que rendir cuentas una vez que des tu último aliento, te vas de esta vida lleno de angustia y de miedo, allí van a estar los curas a quienes perseguiste e insultaste, los representantes de esa Iglesia que ultrajaste a placer, claro que te van a dar la extremaunción y los santos óleos, no una, sino muchas veces, pero tú y ellos saben que no servirá de nada, es solo para calmar el pánico que hace presa a tu alma ante el momento que todo lo define.

Mueres enfermo, padeciendo el desahucio, las complicaciones inmunológicas, los terribles efectos secundarios de las curas que prometieron alargar tu vida, tus órganos se van apagando uno a uno, tus facultades van perdiendo el brillo que las caracterizaba, tus líquidos y efluvios son colectados en bolsas plásticas con ese hedor a muerte que tanto te repugna.

Dime si en este momento, antes de que te apliquen una nueva inyección para calmar los dolores insoportables que padeces, vale la pena que me digas que no te pueden quitar lo bailado, ¡ah! los viajes por el mundo, los maravillosos palacios que te recibieron, las paradas militares en tu honor, las limousines, los títulos honorarios, los pisos de los hoteles cinco estrellas, las fastuosas cenas de Estado... dime ahora que vomitas la papilla de auyama que te tratan de dar las enfermeras, si era de eso de lo que se trataba la vida, pues ese brillo y el oropel ya no están entre los monitores y máquinas de resucitamiento que te rodean, esas marchas y aplausos ahora son tonos y alarmas de sensores que regulan tus signos vitales que se hacen más débiles.

¿Puedes escuchar al pueblo de tu país afuera de tu cuarto?... debe ser tu imaginación o los efectos de la morfina, no estás en tu patria, estas en otro lado, muy lejos, entre gente que no conoces... sí, estás muriendo en tu propio exilio, entre una banda de pilluelos a quienes les has tratado de entregar tu propio país, tus últimos momentos los pasarás entre chulos y estafadores, entre tu corte de aduladores que solo te muestran afecto porque les dabas dinero y poder, todos te miran preocupados y con rabia, nunca dejaste que ninguno de ellos pudiera tener la oportunidad de sucederte, ahora los dejas al descampado y tu país al borde de una guerra, ¿Era eso lo que querías? ¿Fue esa tu misión en esta vida? Olvídate del cuento de los pobres, ahora hay más pobres que cuando llegaste al poder, olvídate de justicia e igualdad cuando prácticamente le entregaste el país a una fuerza extranjera que ahora tendremos de desalojar a la fuerza y a costas de más vidas.

Tengo la leve impresión que ahora sabes que te equivocaste, creíste en un cuento de camino y te creíste revolucionario, y por ser revolucionario... inmortal, convocaste a tu lado a los muertos, a tus héroes, a esos fantasmas que también creíste con vida, a Bolívar, al Che, a Fidel, al Marx que nunca conociste y que recomendabas su lectura... el andar con muertos te llevó a la magia y a los babalaos, te metiste a jurungar tumbas, y a ofrendarle a una corte de demonios y malos espíritus que ahora te acompañan... ¿Sientes su presencia en el cuarto? Vienen a cobrar, a recoger lo único que tenía valor en tu vida y que tan malamente apostaste por la oscuridad y el mal, tu alma.

Bueno, me despido, solo quería que supieras que pasarás a la historia como un traidor y un cobarde, que no rectificaste cuando pudiste, te dejaste llevar por tu soberbia, por tus ideales, por tu ideología renunciando a los más preciado, a tu libertad y a la libertad de los otros, y la libertad nos hace humanos.

 "*El Socialismo solo funciona en dos lugares:
en el Cielo, donde no lo necesitan,
y en el Infierno donde ya lo tienen*" 

*Nancy Iriarte Díaz* 

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

America and Europe: Saving the Rich and Losing the Economy

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
Global Research, September 25, 2011


Economic policy in the United States and Europe has failed, and people are suffering.

Economic policy failed for three reasons: 
(1) policymakers focused on enabling offshoring corporations to move middle class jobs, and the consumer demand, tax base, GDP, and careers associated with the jobs, to foreign countries, such as China and India, where labor is inexpensive; 

(2) policymakers permitted financial deregulation that unleashed fraud and debt leverage on a scale previously unimaginable; 

(3) policymakers responded to the resulting financial crisis by imposing austerity on the population and running the printing press in order to bail out banks and prevent any losses to the banks regardless of the cost to national economies and innocent parties.

Jobs offshoring was made possible because the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in China and India opening their vast excess supplies of labor to Western exploitation. Pressed by Wall Street for higher profits, US corporations relocated their factories abroad. Foreign labor working with Western capital, technology, and business know-how is just as productive as US labor. However, the excess supplies of labor (and lower living standards) mean that Indian and Chinese labor can be hired for less than labor’s contribution to the value of output. The difference flows into profits, resulting in capital gains for shareholders and performance bonuses for executives.

As reported by Manufacturing and Technology News (September 20, 2011) the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages reports that in the last 10 years, the US lost 54,621 factories, and manufacturing employment fell by 5 million employees. Over the decade, the number of larger factories (those employing 1,000 or more employees) declined by 40 percent. US factories employing 500-1,000 workers declined by 44 percent; those employing between 250-500 workers declined by 37 percent, and those employing between 100-250 workers shrunk by 30 percent. http://www.manufacturingnews.com/

These losses are net of new start-ups. Not all the losses are due to offshoring. Some are the result of business failures.

US politicians, such as Buddy Roemer, blame the collapse of US manufacturing on Chinese competition and “unfair trade practices.” However, it is US corporations that move their factories abroad, thus replacing domestic production with imports. Half of US imports from China consist of the offshored production of US corporations.

The wage differential is substantial. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 2009, average hourly take-home pay for US workers was $23.03. Social insurance expenditures add $7.90 to hourly compensation and benefits paid by employers add $2.60 per hour for a total labor compensation cost of $33.53.

In China as of 2008, total hourly labor cost was $1.36, and India’s is within a few cents of this amount. Thus, a corporation that moves 1,000 jobs to China saves saves $32,000 every hour in labor cost.These savings translate into higher stock prices and executive compensation, not in lower prices for consumers who are left unemployed by the labor arbitrage.

Republican economists blame “high” US wages for for the current high rate of unemployment. However, US wages are about the lowest in the developed world. They are far below hourly labor cost in Norway ($53.89), Denmark ($49.56), Belgium ($49.40), Austria ($48.04), and Germany ($46.52). The US might have the world’s largest economy, but its hourly workers rank 14th on the list of the best paid. Americans also have a higher unemployment rate. The “headline” rate that the media hypes is 9.1 percent, but this rate does not include any discouraged workers or workers forced into part-time jobs because no full-time jobs are available.

The US government has another unemployment rate (U6) that includes workers who have been too discouraged to seek a job for six months or less. This unemployment rate is over 16 percent. Statistician John Williams (Shadowstats.com) estimates the unemployment rate when long-term discouraged workers (more than six months) are included. This rate is over 22 percent.

Most emphasis is on the lost manufacturing jobs. However, the high speed Internet has made it possible to offshore many professional service jobs, such as software engineering, Information Technology, research and design. Jobs that comprised ladders of upward mobility for US college graduates have been moved offshore, thus reducing the value to Americans of many university degrees. Unlike former times, today an increasing number of graduates return home to live with their parents as there are insufficient jobs to support their independent existence.

All the while, the US government allows in each year one million legal immigrants, an unknown number of illegal immigrants, and a large number of foreign workers on H-1B and L-1 work visas. 

In other words, the policies of the US government maximize the unemployment rate of American citizens.

Republican economists and politicians pretend that this is not the case and that unemployed Americans consist of people too lazy to work who game the welfare system. Republicans pretend that cutting unemployment benefits and social assistance will force “lazy people who are living off the taxpayers” to go to work.

To deal with the adverse impact on the economy from the loss of jobs and consumer demand from offshoring, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan lowered interest rates in order to create a real estate boom. Lower interest rates pushed up real estate prices. People refinanced their houses and spent the equity. Construction, furniture and appliance sales boomed. But unlike previous expansions based on rising real income, this one was based on an increase in consumer indebtedness.

There is a limit to how much debt can increase in relation to income, and when this limit was reached, the bubble popped.

When consumer debt could rise no further, the large fraudulent component in mortgage-backed derivatives and the unreserved swaps (AIG, for example) threatened financial institutions with insolvency and froze the banking system. Banks no longer trusted one another. Cash was hoarded. Treasury Secretary Paulson, browbeat Congress into massive taxpayer loans to financial institutions that functioned as casinos. The Paulson Bailout (TARP) was large but insignificant compared to the $16.1 trillion (a sum larger than US GDP or national debt) that the Federal Reserve lent to private financial institutions in the US and Europe.

In making these loans, the Federal Reserve violated its own rules. At this point, capitalism ceased to function. The financial institutions were “too big to fail,” and thus taxpayer subsidies took the place of bankruptcy and reorganization. In a word, the US financial system was socialized as the losses of the American financial institutions were transferred to taxpayers.

European banks were swept up into the financial crisis by their unwitting purchase of the junk financial instruments marketed by Wall Street. The financial junk had been given investment grade rating by the same incompetent agency that recently downgraded US Treasury bonds.

The Europeans had their own bailouts, often with American money (Federal Reserve loans). All the while Europe was brewing an additional crisis of its own. By joining the European Union and (except for the UK) accepting a common European currency, the individual member countries lost the services of their own central banks as creditors. In the US and UK the two countries’ central banks can print money with which to purchase US and UK debt. This is not possible for member countries in the EU.

When financial crisis from excessive debt hit the PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) their central banks could not print euros in order to buy up their bonds, as the Federal Reserve did with “quantitative easing.” Only the European Central Bank (ECB) can create euros, and it is prevented by charter and treaty from printing euros in order to bail out sovereign debt.

In Europe, as in the US, the driver of economic policy quickly became saving the private banks from losses on their portfolios. A deal was struck with the socialist government of Greece, which represented the banks and not the Greek people. The ECB would violate its charter and together with the IMF, which would also violate its charter, would lend enough money to the Greek government to avoid default on its sovereign bonds to the private banks that had purchased the bonds. 

In return for the ECB and IMF loans and in order to raise the money to repay them, the Greek government had to agree to sell to private investors the national lottery, Greece’s ports and municipal water systems, a string of islands that are a national preserve, and in addition to impose a brutal austerity on the Greek people by lowering wages, cutting social benefits and pensions, raising taxes, and laying off or firing government workers.

In other words, the Greek population is to be sacrificed to a small handful of foreign banks in Germany, France and the Netherlands.

The Greek people, unlike “their” socialist government, did not regard this as a good deal. They have been in the streets ever since.

Jean-Claude Trichet, head of the ECB, said that the austerity imposed on Greece was a first step. If Greece did not deliver on the deal, the next step was for the EU to take over Greece’s political sovereignty, make its budget, decide its taxation, decide its expenditures and from this process squeeze out enough from Greeks to repay the ECB and IMF for lending Greece the money to pay the private banks.

In other words, Europe under the EU and Jean-Claude Trichet is a return to the most extreme form of feudalism in which a handful of rich are pampered at the expense of everyone else.

This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population.

On September 21 the Federal Reserve announced a modified QE 3. The Federal Reserve announced that the bank would purchase $400 billion of long-term Treasury bonds over the next nine months in an effort to drive long-term US interest rates even further below the rate of inflation, thus maximizing the negative rate of return on the purchase of long-term Treasury bonds. The Federal Reserve officials say that this will lower mortgage rates by a few basis points and renew the housing market.

The officials say that QE 3, unlike its predecessors, will not result in the Federal Reserve printing more dollars in order to monetize US debt. Instead, the central bank will raise money for the bond purchases by selling holdings of short-term debt. Apparently, the Federal Reserve believes it can do this without raising short-term interest rates, because back during the recent debt-ceiling-government-shutdown-crisis, the Federal Reserve promised banks that it would keep the short-term interest rate (essentially zero) constant for two years.

The Fed’s new policy will do far more harm than good. Interest rates are already negative. To make them more so will have no positive effect. People aren’t buying houses because interest rates are too high, but because they are either unemployed or worried about their jobs and do not see a recovering economy.

Already insurance companies can make no money on their investments. Consequently, they are unable to build their reserves against claims. Their only alternative is to raise their premiums. The cost of a homeowner’s policy will go up by more than the cost of a mortgage will decline. The cost of health insurance will go up. The cost of car insurance will rise. The Federal Reserve’s newly announced policy will impose more costs on the economy than it will reduce.

In addition, in America today savings earn nothing. Indeed, they produce an ongoing loss as the interest rate is below the inflation rate. The Federal Reserve has interest rates so low that only professionals who are playing arbitrage with algorithm programmed computer models can make money. The typical saver and investor can get nothing on bank CDs, money market funds, municipal and government bonds. Only high risk debt, such as Greek and Spanish bonds, pay an interest rate that is higher than inflation.

For four years interest rates, when properly measured, have been negative. Americans are getting by, maintaining living standards, by consuming their capital. Even those with a cushion are eating their seed corn. The path that the US economy is on means that the number of Americans without resources to sustain them will be rising. Considering the extraordinary political incompetence of the Democratic Party, the right-wing of the Republican Party, which is committed to eliminating income support programs, could find itself in power. 

If the right-wing Republicans implement their program, the US will be beset with political and social instability. As Gerald Celente says, “when people have have nothing left to lose, they lose it.”
Dr. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.





more: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26769

"It’s time for middle class America to throw in the towel"

"While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.” In an age where voters are so readily influenced by advertising, media, and public opinion, it is clear we have sold our interest in this country to the bottomless coffers of the American corporation". Justice Stevens.

The Daily Collegian
(THE MASSACHUSETTS DAILY)
By: CHRISTOPHER DUNAY | September 25, 2011
We empower corporations – by poorly educating our voters and allowing corporate interests to influence the way we vote – to dictate their expenses, their taxes, and their profits. Corporations, especially those in the energy sector, are the decisions makers; we’ve given them the keys and they’re not easily taken back.

This corporate hand festers in the halls of Congress, as well. We are deceived into believing “Starve the Beast” style economic policies are fiscally viable, policies that embolden the wealthiest of Americans and reduce citizen protections, all of which are deepening our federal debt and widening class divides.

So my friends, grab a white flag, hang it high and hang it proud. We are the middle-class. We concede.

Christopher Dunay is a Collegian columnist.

Corporations Couldn't Wait to 'Check the Box' on Huge Tax Break

Puerto Rico, a territory of the US  is used as Tax Shelter by these Corporations. MJ
By ProPublica.org Sep 27, 2011 10:45 am
A simple rule meant to cut paperwork for U.S.companies has grown into one of the biggest multinational tax breaks around, costing the United States and other governments billions of dollars in lost taxes each year.

It thrives thanks to determined businesssupport, including a campaign two years ago that forced the Obama administration to retreat from altering it and tax professionals worldwide who exploit its benefits. The rule is dubbed "check-the-box." It allows U.S. companies to strip profits from operations in high-tax countries simply by marking an Internal Revenue Service form that transforms subsidiaries into what the agency calls a "disregarded entity." Others have labeled them "tax nothings."

Check-the-box allows companies to avoid the normal 35 percent U.S. corporate tax on certain types of income. The Treasury Department estimates that annual revenue losses from check-the-box have hit almost $10 billion. Other countries are also said to lose billions as income is shifted to places with low or no taxes, although there is no official estimate.

The impact of check-the-box goes beyond the drain on government coffers. The rule, along with other tax provisions, has helped fuel explosive growth in foreign investment by Americancorporations. Since 2004, the earnings that U.S. companies keep overseas have doubled to about $1.8 trillion, U.S. Department of Commerce data show.

These "unrepatriated" earnings, which are not subject to tax while held abroad, figure prominently in Washington's debate about corporate taxes. While President Barack Obama has proposed clamping down on loopholes, business groups and allies in Congress are rallying for a tax holiday on overseas profits and a sharp reduction in the corporate tax rate.

Their argument: The high rate creates a disincentive to invest in jobs at home. U.S. companies with the most profits accumulated abroad tend to invest heavily in research and development that can spur job creation. Check-the-box is but one of many forms of "tax arbitrage" -- the art of exploiting differences in countries' tax systems. It can reduce taxes all by itself or figure into more complex transactions. As the Financial Times and ProPublica reported Monday, the IRS in recent years has clamped down on what it views as abusive arbitrage deals involving foreign tax credits.

But check-the-box lives on. It is not among loopholes targeted by Obama's new plan. Its untouchable status -- the government has twice tried to kill it and balked -- provides a case study in how a billion-dollar tax break was born by mistake, then protected by the power of the business community.

Now check-the-box is "an open invitation to arbitrage," said David Rosenbloom, director of the international tax program at New York University's School of Law.

Birth of a Tax Break

The original idea was innocent enough -- to cut red tape by making it easier for companies to decide how to categorize their subsidiaries. In the mid-1990s, U.S. companies were creating a growing number of domestic entities. The new rule said that, by simply checking a box on IRS Form 8832, businesses could declare them as corporations or partnerships.

But within days of its announcement in 1996, tax lawyers were on the phone saying the Treasury Department had overlooked the international ramifications. Inadvertently, the government had provided a way for companies to move profits from subsidiaries in high-tax countries like Germany to Luxembourg, the Caymans or other jurisdictions with lower or no taxes on certain kinds of income. Often, this is done by making royalty or interest payments between operations in different countries.

For decades, the IRS has had anti-abuse rules to make sure such payments could be subject to taxes. However, these rules generally don't apply to payments made within a corporation. Check-the-box made it simple for a company to designate a subsidiary as a branch, with no U.S. tax consequences for the income unless it is repatriated.

Joseph Guttentag, international tax counsel at Treasury when check-the-box was introduced, said the government may not have understood, but tax lawyers quickly "saw all the avoidance goodies they could do."

Countries like the U.K. and Germany quickly raised concerns that the rule was stripping earnings from their tax bases. By early 1998, the U.S. said check-the-box was being used to "circumvent" anti-abuse rules.

Treasury proposed new regulations -- and corporate America erupted.
General Electric (GE), PepsiCo (PEP), Morgan Stanley (MS), Merrill Lynch, Monsanto(MON), and other major companies urged Congress to resist the change. The U.S., they said, was trying to be "the tax policeman for the world." Allies in Congress dug in, and Treasury quickly rescinded the proposal.

What followed was a check-the-box boom as multinationals and tax advisers around the globe embraced its benefits.

By March 2000, Treasury reported the existence of nearly 8,000 "disregarded entities." A paper by Heather M. Field, an associate professor at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, found that tens of thousands more were created between 2001 and 2006.

Check-the-box became an essential tool in tax planning, driving down the average effective corporate tax rate on the foreign income of U.S. businesses by 1 percent to 2 percent between 1996 and 2004, according to a private, unpublished paper by Treasury economist Harry Grubert.

The Netherlands became the preferred place for U.S. companies using check-the-box, according to tax lawyers and government data, although Luxembourg also attracts considerable activity.more: http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/corporation-tax-breaks-corporations-pay-no/9/27/2011/id/37089

herald de paris
http://www.heralddeparis.com/corporations-couldn%E2%80%99t-wait-to-%E2%80%98check-the-box%E2%80%99-on-huge-tax-break-2/150538

Quality of Care in the US Territories

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Vol 171 #17 - Sept 26, 2011
Marcella Nunez-Smith, MD, MHS; Elizabeth H. Bradley, PhD; Jeph Herrin, PhD; Calie Santana, MD, MHS; Leslie A. Curry, PhD, MPH; Sharon-Lise T. Normand, PhD;Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, SM

Background:
Health care quality in the US territories is poorly characterized. We used process measures to compare the performance of hospitals in the US territories and in the US States.

Methods: 
Our sample included nonfederal hospitals located in the United States and its territories discharging Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia (PNE) (July 2005–June 2008).
We compared risk-standardized 30-day mortality and readmission rates between territorial and stateside hospitals, adjusting for performance on core process measures and hospital characteristics.

Results: In 57 territorial hospitals and 4799 stateside hospitals, hospital mean 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates were significantly higher in the US territories.

Hospital mean 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRRs) were also significantly higher in the US territories for AMI (20.6% vs 19.8%; P = .04), and PNE (19.4% vs 18.4%; P = .01) but was not significant for HF (25.5% vs 24.5%; P = .07).

The higher risk-standardized mortality rates in the US territories remained statistically significant after adjusting for hospital characteristics and core process measure performance. Hospitals in the US territories had lower performance on all core process measures.

Conclusions: Compared with hospitals in the US states, hospitals in the US territories have significantly higher 30-day mortality rates and lower performance on every core process measure for patients discharged after AMI, HF, and PNE. 



Eliminating the substantial quality gap in the US territories should be a national priority.

more: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/171/17/1528?view=short&fp=1528&vol=171&lookupType=volpage

Unidos Populares y Estadistas por las 933 A


"UNIDOS los tradicionales enemigos...."  
Están todos juntitos bailando a la misma música.... Todo lo pintan bien bonito, pero la realidad es otra. 
Se acuerdan que se los dije??! Ahi tienen ! 
Bye bye a la solucion del status ! 
Bye Bye PR51. 
MJ

27 Septiembre 2011
Fortuño, Pierluisi, Ferrer y Dalmau firman convenio para presionar su creación en el Código de Rentas Internas federalPor Inter News Service
El gobernador Luis Fortuño, el comisionado residente Pedro Pierluis y los legisladores del Partido Popular Democrático, Héctor Ferrer y José Luis Dalmau, entre otros, firmaron hoy un convenio para presionar por la creación de la sección 933 A en el Código de Rentras Internas de Estados Unidos.
El memorando que firmaron hoy promovería la sección, que se lograría incluir si se aprueba una medida de Pierluisi que cuenta con el endoso de varios congresistas republicanos y demócratas.
El fin, entre otras cosas, es promover que las empresas establecidas en Puerto Rico puedan tributar en la isla por las ganancias generadas.
“La semana que viene comenzamos un esfuerzo intenso para lograr que el proyecto se inserte en el esfuerzo de la reforma contributiva (federal) de los próximos meses. En la alternativa, si la comision conjunta de Tributación ve que la medida puede generar ingresos al gobierno federal, se puede ver como ayuda al proyecto (contributivo estadounidense)”, dijo Pierluisi.
El documento establece los beneficios de la legislación para Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos, de manera que los que cabildeen puedan llevar un mismo mensaje.
El portavoz de la Coalición del Sector Privado, Francisco Rodríguez, explicó que las compañías estadounidenses crean empleos en otros países con inversiones de entre dos y tres billones de dólares.
“Si logramos captar uno por ciento, serían 20 mil millones de dólares... si logramos crear un 10 por ciento para la economía de la construcción y la infraestructura, serían 10 mil plazas de empleo por cada mil millones”, dijo.
Los sindicatos de la isla se reunirán con el Gobierno y el sector privado para discutir el apoyo que puedan ofrecer a esta medida y al “American Jobs Act” que presentó el presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama.
Sus expresiones se dieron en una conferencia de prensa en la tercera cumbre de Desarrollo Económico en un hotel de Miramar, San Juan, en la que Fortuño se limitó a contestar preguntas del tema.
http://www.elnuevodia.com/unidospopularesyestadistasporlas933a-1078056.html

Sunday, September 25, 2011

PUERTO RICO & PUERTO RICANS FOR SALE

PR Highways?         SOLD!
San Juan Airport?  SOLD!
Puerto Ricans?        SOLD! to the CFC's

REUTERS 
September 24, 2011

Puerto Rico officials on Friday chose six consortia to bid for a long-term concession to run San Juan airport in what the officials hope will be a deal worth USD$1 billion or more.
The finalists are: Zurich Airport, Camargo Correa and PSP Investments; Fraport and Goldman Sachs; GMR and Incheon Airport; Grupo Aeropotuario del Sureste and Highstar Capital; Grupo Aeropuertos Avance, and Puerto Rico Gateway Group.
Officials of the Puerto Rico Public Private Partnership Authority and the Ports Authority are looking for a concession of no more than 50 years and improvements at San Juan airport, the Caribbean's busiest, of between USD$40 million and USD$80 million over the contract's first five years.
"Puerto Rico is in a position to choose from among the best airport operators in the world to bring the Luis Munoz Marin Airport to a new level and provide an important stimulus for the island's tourism sector," David Alvarez, executive director of the island's PPP agency, said at a news conference.
Puerto Rico's international airport handled 8.6 million passengers in 2010, but is not living up to its potential, according to officials. Outbound boardings fluctuate between 4 million to 5 million annually, or half its capacity. and only half its facilities are in use.
Alvarez declined to discuss government expectations, but officials have said they expected to raise USD$1 billion from the proposed concession that had initially drawn a dozen potential bidders.
If completed, the deal, which calls for final proposals by year's end and for a winner to be chosen in early 2012, will likely be the largest airport public-private partnership in the United States under a Federal Aviation Administration pilot project.
Another agreed PPP deal, involving Chicago's Midway Airport, unwound in 2009. That deal called for a USD$2.52 billion, 99-year lease but was killed by the global financial crisis that blocked financing of the deal.
PPPs have been used widely by European and other governments for tollways, airports and other public facilities.
Critics say the deals expose taxpayers to undue financial risk, and some PPPs have soured or been scuttled.


http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1316840388.html