A few well-written words can convey a wealth of information, particularly when there is no lag time between when they are written and when they are read. The IPS blog gives you an opportunity to hear directly from IPS scholars and staff on ideas large and small and for us to hear back from you.
- pentagon budget
- Iraq War
- Vladimir Putin
- President Barack Obama
- Afghanistan withdrawal
- National Restaurant Association
- renewable energy
- World Bank
- Sustainable Energy
- minimum wage
- syria civil war
- Cold War
Baltimore Nonviolence Center
Barbara's Blog, by Barbara Ehrenreich
Blog This Rock
Busboys and Poets Blog
CODEPINK's Pink Tank
Demos blog: Ideas|Action
Dollars and Sense blog
Economic Policy Institute
Editor's Cut: The Nation Blog
FOE International blog
Kevin Drum (Mother Jones)
The New America Media blogs
Political Animal/Washington Monthly
Southern Poverty Law Center
US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
Entries tagged "fix the debt"
March 12, 2014 · By Miriam Pemberton
Though the champions of Fix the Debt are now on the run, proponents of the grim-and-tired “We’re broke, we can’t afford it” line of argument continue to throw their weight around our federal budget debates.
The Obama administration tried for several years to accommodate the Fix the Debt crowd. This year, the administration more-or-less gave up and delivered a budget that dared to declare that balancing the budget should not trump all other national goals. “Dead on Arrival” was the right wing’s rather predictable response.
Through all of this unproductive budget wrangling, one group—the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC)—has, year after year, performed the feat that no other group of our legislators seems able to pull off. The CPC produces budgets that balance significant deficit reduction over a ten year period with substantial investments in the near term to create jobs, strengthen the safety net, and reduce inequality—the kinds of investments that the budget austerity folks tell us we can’t afford. This group of seventy-plus progressive House members just released this year’s version, the “Better Off Budget.”
The CPC is able to reach their investment targets, in part, by going after areas of wasteful spending that other legislators won’t touch — for example, the enduringly large war budget (aren’t those wars ending?), tax havens for the rich, and oil company subsidies.
Other highlights from the CPC’s proposal include:
- Fixing overspending in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). Though we are finally winding down the longest period of war in our history, the OCO (the President’s war budget — separate from, but added to, the “regular” Pentagon budget) has hardly shrunk at all.
- Investing in the repairs needed for our deteriorating water, energy, and transportation infrastructure and creating jobs in the process.
- Implementing a small tax on financial transactions. More than 30 countries around the world already have this tax, and it would slow down reckless speculation while also generating revenues.
- Improving the Affordable Care Act by adding a public health insurance option into the health insurance marketplaces.
- Imposing a tax on carbon with 25% of the revenues applies to refundable credits for low income families, which would also serve to strengthen the market for clean energy and transportation.
- Enacting public financing for campaigns to curb the ever-more- corrosive effect of money in politics
In a couple of weeks, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan — the true champion of “We’re broke” — will unveil his budget. As he’s already promised, it will slash programs like Head Start and job training (presumably because they sap the initiative of three-year-olds and the unemployed.) A clear alternative, a Better Off Budget, will be there ready to take him on.
June 17, 2013 · By Sarah Anderson and Scott Klinger
On June 12, 2013, the Institute for Policy Studies released the sixth in a series of reports on the Fix the Debt corporate lobby group. This newest report, Corporate Pirates of the Caribbean, uses Fix the Debt members’ SEC filings to calculate how much they would stand to gain from a shift to a territorial tax system. Such a reform would permanently exempt U.S. corporations’ foreign earnings from U.S. income taxes.
In response to this IPS report, Fix the Debt issued a press release denying that they have ever taken a position on this controversial tax reform and spokeswoman Maya MacGuineas described the report as “lies and mudslinging.”
These attacks on our research conflict with clear statements in support of a territorial tax system, both by Fix the Debt directly and by numerous Fix the Debt leaders.
As we pointed out in our first report, published in November 2012, Fix the Debt expressed unambiguous support for a territorial tax system in a PowerPoint on their web site (see slide 11). The PowerPoint was described as a “CEO Tool” to help business leaders recruit others to join Fix the Debt. This IPS report, The CEO Campaign to “Fix” the Debt: A Trojan Horse for Massive Corporate Tax Breaks, received significant coverage in the mainstream and alternative press.
More than six months later, with this same PowerPoint still on their web site, Fix the Debt is claiming they have never had a position on a territorial tax system. And even though we reprinted the slide in our new report, Fix the Debt spokespeople did not address this obvious inconsistency.
Support for territorial tax reform is a core plank of the fiscal reform plan articulated by Fix the Debt Co-Chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. In April 2013, Fix the Debt prominently featured Bowles-Simpson 2.0 on their website. In their piece applauding the new Simpson-Bowles plan, Fix the Debt includes “move toward a territorial system” as one of five key components of the plan.
Our plan puts in place a process for comprehensive tax reform to eliminate or scale back tax expenditures in order to generate nearly $600 billion in revenues for deficit reduction substantially reducing marginal tax rates for individuals, corporations and small business, and moving toward a competitive territorial system while maintaining the progressivity of the tax code.
Excerpted from A Bi-Partisan Path Forward to Securing America’s Future, (aka Bowles-Simpson 2.0) Moment of Truth Project; April 2013, p 7.
Other prominent Fix the Debt leaders have also been vocal in their support of a territorial tax system for corporations:
“We shouldn’t be imperiling U.S. companies to be competitive with our foreign competitors by putting in a tax policy that puts them at a disadvantage. So, I’m very much in favor of a territorial system and that’s what we advocated in Simpson-Bowles."
- David Cote, CEO of Honeywell, CEO Fix the Debt Steering Committee member and Member of the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission, Bloomberg Street Sense, August 27, 2012
The U.S. needs to "allow this territorial system [excusing repatriated profits from being subject to domestic taxes] so that companies can repatriate their earning back to the United States."
- Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, Fix the Debt CEO Steering Committee member, exclusive interview with CNN, October 4, 2012
“We need comprehensive business tax reform that will lower tax rates and provide certainty for all businesses. We also need to move to a competitive territorial tax system in line with other major industrialized nations.”
- Doug Oberhelman, CEO of Caterpillar, Fix the Debt CEO Steering Committee (with Mary Andringa), op-ed in Roll Call, June 6, 2012
“Tax policy: I think the President's put out some really good suggestions, but we've got to get to the territorial tax.”
- Andrew Liveris, Chairman Dow Chemical, Fix the Debt CEO Steering Committee member, Kudlow Report, CNBC, April 19, 2012
“One of the things that's always bothered me is that we don't have a territorial tax system.”
- Paul Jacobs, CEO of Qualcomm, Fix the Debt CEO Steering Committee member, USA Today, May 20, 2013
The Fix the Debt campaign appears to be facing a dilemma.
On the one hand, they seem to be trying to recruit and maintain CEO supporters by creating a platform for promoting policies that would primarily benefit large corporations. On the other hand, they are trying to build broad public support through slick PR gimmicks emphasizing a message of shared sacrifice.
Rather than attacking IPS research, they may want to focus on resolving these inconsistencies.