"And I am proud that the gentleman who is head of Goldman Sachs, now he didn't give me $225,000 for speaking fees. He said I was dangerous. And he is right, I am dangerous for Wall Street." - Bernie Sanders at tonight’s (9MAR16) debate
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label corporate tax loopholes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate tax loopholes. Show all posts
10 March 2016
"I am dangerous for Wall Street."-BERNIE SANDERS 10MAR16
22 February 2013
US businesses sanguine about sequestration & Sequestration poll: Republicans to be blamed most 21FEB13
U.S. corporations prefer sequestration to a deal because a deal means they loose some of their tax breaks and tax loopholes, and government subsidies. Corporate welfare as they have enjoyed it for too long will come to an end. They might have to cut their excessive, obscene executive pay and perks and shift those funds to the actual operation of the business to maintain enough of a return to investors to keep them invested in the company. But this American saga is far from over. Pres Obama has American public opinion on his side and the threat of sequestration is causing movement in negotiations with the gop / tea-bagger obstructionist seeming to give ground on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Now is not the time for Progressives to become complacent. The fat lady isn't even warming up. There is too much at stake to just trust Pres Obama and the Democrats to do the right thing and insist on a moral, social justice budget protecting the poor, working and middle classes. This is class warfare, being waged for the rich and corporate America by the political prostitutes they have paid for in Congress. Taxes must be raised on the rich, tax loopholes benefiting the rich and corporations while harming the national economy must be closed, the corporate welfare system must be reformed and the vast majority of government subsidies must be ended. Defense spending must be cut eliminating waste, abuse and fraud, and an excess profits tax levied on war profiteering defense contractors. The government has one week to avoid sequestration. We, the people, have one week to make sure the 99% aren't sacrificed in any deal that may be achieved. From The Financial Times and Politico.....
US business groups and chief executives are lobbying less aggressively to avert the looming budget sequestration than they have during past fiscal stand-offs, judging the impact on the economy and financial markets to be less severe.
John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, which represents America’s largest companies, said the automatic spending cuts would do minimal harm, compared with the large tax hikes and possible default on US debt threatened during other big budgetary crises of the past two years.
ON THIS TOPIC
- Obama takes aim at ‘meat cleaver’ cuts
- Renewed push on US deficit deal
- Democrats pitch $110bn deal to avoid cuts
- US citizens braced for austerity impact
IN US POLITICS & POLICY
“[In those instances] there was great concern that it was going to damage the US credit rating or that there would be chaos in the financial markets – that’s clearly not the case with sequestration,” Mr Engler told the Financial Times, adding: “I think it’s considered de minimus by most people,” he added.
Economists have estimated that the sequestration cuts – worth $85bn for the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends in September, and $1.2tn over a decade – could cut US growth by 0.3 to 0.6 percentage points – and keep the unemployment rate close to 8 per cent.
Mr Engler’s comments are in stark contrast to theheated rhetoric and dire warnings about the cuts from the White House, both Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, some government agencies, and other outside groups. Both leading US political parties say they want to avoid the across-the-board cuts, but cannot agree on ways to delay or replace them.
Lately they have mostly resorted to blaming each other for the impasse, though President Barack Obama did place calls to John Boehner, the Republican speaker in the House of Representatives, and Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, on Thursday. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said they had “good conversations”.
Economists have been more measured. “The macroeconomic impact of the sequestration is not catastrophic,” said economists at Macroeconomic Advisers in a note. “Nevertheless, the indiscriminate fiscal restraint would come on the heels of tax increases in the first quarter that total nearly $200bn, with the economy still struggling to overcome the legacy of the great recession,” they added.
During the debt ceiling crisis of August 2011, and the fiscal cliff stalemate of December 2012, business groups and individual CEOs embarked on big lobbying pushes to plead for Congress and the White House to reach eleventh-hour agreements – including letters to lawmakers, public interviews and meetings in Washington. But that urgency has waned in advance of the sequestration, with the exception of defence groups and some other big contractors who would be adversely affected by the sharp cuts to Pentagon spending.
“If this were the debt ceiling you’d see a lot of letters,” Mr Engler said. He said attention was turning to the March 27 deadline when funding for the government expires, threatening a partial shutdown of federal operations in the absence of a new budget law. The hope in Washington is that this would force a fix to sequestration, though it is unclear whether it will be sufficient to yield political compromise.
“I think a lot of people are less nervous about the sequestration than they would be about a government shutdown or not handling the debt limits” says Tom O’Donnell, a former Democratic congressional aide at the Gephardt Group, a lobbying firm. “Of the three cliffs – if you will – I think this is the least problematic.”
Mr Engler said estimates of the effect on the economy were only “guesses” and US companies had “different approaches and thoughts about how to grapple with this”, depending on their industry. He contrasted the perspectives of healthcare and defence groups.
Under sequestration, Medicare, the US government health plan for the elderly, would be hit by cuts capped at 2 per cent, hitting providers to some extent, but not a huge degree. “You’ve got some in sectors where there are no cuts or limited to 2 per cent, like Medicare – and so they’re saying ‘geez that’s better than some kind of wide open debate where we might get cut more than that’.”
Oil companies may also prefer sequestration cuts to Democratic alternatives that would scrap some of their tax breaks. But Mr Engler said those groups who work with the Pentagon were much more worried: “If you’re in the defence sector you say ‘wait a minute that’s not so good for us’.”
Earlier this month, David Cote, the chief executive of Honeywell and a leading corporate spokesman on US fiscal policy, appeared resigned to the fact that sequestration would have to happen. “You could argue that the reduction would make more sense if we did it thoughtfully and spent a lot of time on it. I’m not sure that’s a real option, though. The options seem to be let it happen or take it away,” Mr Cote said. “So, yeah, there’s some impact but at some point we have to start working to get our debt under control and if this is the only rational step they could seem to take to do it, then they ought to do it.”
In terms of putting pressure on Congress to reach a deal, the BRT – and Mr Cote – played a pivotal role in trying to cajole Republicans into accepting the need for higher tax rates during the December fiscal cliff stand-off. But Mr Engler, a former Republican governor of Michigan, suggested he was no longer expecting his party to cave in on taxes. “My view is they got the revenue at the end of last year,” he said.
In a statement to the FT, the US Chamber of Commerce, the other big business lobbying group in Washington, said it “remains vocal” on sequestration. “ We have long stated that the sequester is bad public policy and should be replaced with prioritised spending cuts,” a spokeswoman said, adding : “Additionally, we have continued to adamantly oppose tax hikes to replace spending cuts, and we will continue that message when the Senate returns next week.”
Sequestration poll: Republicans to be blamed most
By: Kevin Robillard  | |
| Nearly half of Americans would blame Republicans if $1.2 trillion in spending cuts go into effect on March 1, according to a poll released Wednesday. Only 31 percent would blame President Barack Obama, according to the Pew Research Center/USA Today poll, while 49 percent would blame the congressional GOP. Eleven percent would blame both. The spending cuts — known as the sequester in Washington-speak — would cut equally from defense and domestic programs across the board. While most of Washington agrees the consequences of the sequester could be disastrous — economists have said it could cause another recession and military leaders have said it would harm national security — efforts to avert it are at a standstill. Obama has said revenue from closing tax loopholes should be included in a deal, while the GOP wants it to consist exclusively of spending slashes. Republicans get most of the blame despite an all-hands-on-deck effort by the GOP to blame the White House for the sequester, frequently pointing out the idea originated in the executive branch. Most congressional Republicans voted for the sequester as part of 2011’s Budget Control Act. If Congress and the White House can’t reach a deal to replace the sequester, 49 percent of Americans want them to delay the spending cuts — originally scheduled to happen on Jan. 1 — even further. Forty percent said they should allow the cuts to happen. While Americans might be willing to delay the spending cuts, they do want a deficit-reduction deal this year. Seven in 10 said it was “essential” for a deficit deal this year, compared with only 51 percent who said the same about immigration and 46 percent who said so about gun legislation. Republicans might have a small leg up in negotiating a deal. Seventy-six percent said a combination of spending cuts and tax increases should be used to reduce the deficit. But 54 percent said the combination should lean toward cuts. Only 16 percent said it should rely mostly on tax hikes. The poll of 1,504 adults was conducted from Feb. 13 to Feb. 18. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points. | |
| © 2013 POLITICO LLC http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/sequestration-poll-republicans-to-be-blamed-most-87914.html?wpisrc=nl_wonk |
11 January 2013
Republican Senator Calls For Repeat Of 1995 Government Shutdown: ‘If We Hold Strong We Can Do That Again’ & Obama Reiterates He Won’t Compromise Over Debt Ceiling, Calls For Closing Tax Loopholes For The Rich 5&7JAN13
HOPE springs eternal that Pres Obama realizes he is the President and doesn't have to negotiate with the repiglicans and tea-baggers in congress over the federal debt. After all, as pointed out in this article, negotiations were not required the 19 times the debt ceiling was raised when george w bush was president. And it is refreshing and heartening to see Pres Obama standing firm in his insistence on raising revenues by closing tax loopholes that benefit only the rich and corporations. Progressives will have to keep vigilant to make sure the President stands his ground. This from Think Progress, followed by a piece on sen ted cruz's call for the repiglican / tea-bagger obstructionist in congress to stand firm against Pres Obama on raising the fed debt ceiling, shutting down the American govt if necessary (but close tax loopholes legislated only for the rich and corporations? Oh no, he opposes that, big surprise).
In
a his weekly address from Hawaii, President Obama reiterated that he
will not negotiate with Republicans over raising the nation’s debt
ceiling and said that any future efforts to reduce the deficit must
include a combination of higher revenues and spending cuts.
Obama noted that additional revenue could come from closing tax loopholes and deductions Republicans themselves sought to reform throughout the 2012 presidential election and the fiscal cliff talks but were not altered in the compromise Congress passed to avert the fiscal cliff. Congress enacted $1.7 trillion in budget cuts last year and raised $620 billion in revenue in the fiscal cliff fix, a number that is far below House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)’s offer of $800 billion during the cliff negotiations and lower than what would have been raised under Simpson-Bowles or Rivlin-Domenici.
From Obama’s remarks:
During George W. Bush’s presidency, however, Republicans voted to increase the debt ceiling 19 times without ever demanding spending reductions, increasing the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion. In 2011, Boehner even warned of the consequences of holding the nation’s credit rating hostage. “That would be a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy,” Boehner said on “Fox News Sunday” of the risk of default. “I don’t think it’s a question that’s even on the table.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/05/1402591/obama-reiterates-he-wont-compromise-over-debt-ceiling-calls-for-closing-tax-loopholes-for-the-rich/
Tea
Party-aligned Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), within days of being sworn in, is
already calling for a government shutdown unless Congress agrees to
massive budget cuts.
During an appearance on Mark Levin’s radio show Friday, Cruz waxed poetic about the last time Republicans successfully shut down the government in 1995, arguing that a shutdown leads to better economic policies. “Because Republicans stood strong in 1995, we saw year after year of balanced budgets,” Cruz said. He went on to call for a repeat as Republicans hold the nation’s fiscal solvency hostage in the debt ceiling fight next month. “If we hold strong we can do that again,” the Texas Senator declared:
Were Cruz and his Republican allies to succeed in shutting down the government, the effects would be felt widely. Over 800,000 federal workers
would likely be furloughed, Social Security processing could be
delayed, newly-eligible Medicare patients wouldn’t be able to obtain
benefits, police and public safety officials could be cut, and veterans’
services would be impacted.
In addition, a debt ceiling negotiation itself is costly; last time Republicans held it hostage in 2011, the debacle cost taxpayers $19 billion.
The larger problem, however, is that by not raising the debt ceiling, Congress risks defaulting on the United States’ credit. If Cruz and his allies block a debt ceiling increase, the Treasury won’t be able to pay all its bills. As Matthew Yglesias notes, “The result won’t be a ‘shutdown’ of government functions; it’ll be a deadbeat federal government. Some people won’t get money they’re legally entitled to.” That’s why House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) warned in 2011 that not raising the debt ceiling would cause “financial disaster” for the entire “worldwide economy.”
In his first week in Congress, Cruz is already earning a reputation as an unwavering firebrand. As he explained on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, “I don’t think what Washington needs is more compromise.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/07/1406011/cruz-calls-for-shutdown-default/
In
a his weekly address from Hawaii, President Obama reiterated that he
will not negotiate with Republicans over raising the nation’s debt
ceiling and said that any future efforts to reduce the deficit must
include a combination of higher revenues and spending cuts. Obama noted that additional revenue could come from closing tax loopholes and deductions Republicans themselves sought to reform throughout the 2012 presidential election and the fiscal cliff talks but were not altered in the compromise Congress passed to avert the fiscal cliff. Congress enacted $1.7 trillion in budget cuts last year and raised $620 billion in revenue in the fiscal cliff fix, a number that is far below House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)’s offer of $800 billion during the cliff negotiations and lower than what would have been raised under Simpson-Bowles or Rivlin-Domenici.
From Obama’s remarks:
I believe we can find more places to cut spending without shortchanging things like education, job training, research and technology all which are critical to our prosperity in a 21st century economy. But spending cuts must be balanced with more reforms to our tax code. The wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations shouldn’t be able to take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans.Since Obama signed the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012,” the GOP has insisted that the measure “settles the level of revenue Washington should bring in” and have turned their attention to using the leverage of the debt ceiling to secure spending cuts and entitlement reforms.
And as I said earlier this week, one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up. If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.
During George W. Bush’s presidency, however, Republicans voted to increase the debt ceiling 19 times without ever demanding spending reductions, increasing the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion. In 2011, Boehner even warned of the consequences of holding the nation’s credit rating hostage. “That would be a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy,” Boehner said on “Fox News Sunday” of the risk of default. “I don’t think it’s a question that’s even on the table.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/05/1402591/obama-reiterates-he-wont-compromise-over-debt-ceiling-calls-for-closing-tax-loopholes-for-the-rich/
Republican Senator Calls For Repeat Of 1995 Government Shutdown: ‘If We Hold Strong We Can Do That Again’
Tea
Party-aligned Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), within days of being sworn in, is
already calling for a government shutdown unless Congress agrees to
massive budget cuts.During an appearance on Mark Levin’s radio show Friday, Cruz waxed poetic about the last time Republicans successfully shut down the government in 1995, arguing that a shutdown leads to better economic policies. “Because Republicans stood strong in 1995, we saw year after year of balanced budgets,” Cruz said. He went on to call for a repeat as Republicans hold the nation’s fiscal solvency hostage in the debt ceiling fight next month. “If we hold strong we can do that again,” the Texas Senator declared:
CRUZ: What would happen if the debt ceiling isn’t raised is it would be a partial government shutdown. We’ve seen this before, we saw this in 1995, when Republicans in the House shut down the government. What happened was it was a partial shutdown, there was some political cost to be paid but at the end of the day, because Republicans stood strong in 1995, we saw year after year of balanced budgets and some of the most fiscally-responsible policies Congress has produced in the modern-era. If we hold strong we can do that again. It just comes down to Republicans. Are we willing to stand strong and face the wrath of the mainstream media criticizing us and the president saying nasty things about us?Listen to it:
In addition, a debt ceiling negotiation itself is costly; last time Republicans held it hostage in 2011, the debacle cost taxpayers $19 billion.
The larger problem, however, is that by not raising the debt ceiling, Congress risks defaulting on the United States’ credit. If Cruz and his allies block a debt ceiling increase, the Treasury won’t be able to pay all its bills. As Matthew Yglesias notes, “The result won’t be a ‘shutdown’ of government functions; it’ll be a deadbeat federal government. Some people won’t get money they’re legally entitled to.” That’s why House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) warned in 2011 that not raising the debt ceiling would cause “financial disaster” for the entire “worldwide economy.”
In his first week in Congress, Cruz is already earning a reputation as an unwavering firebrand. As he explained on Fox News Sunday this past weekend, “I don’t think what Washington needs is more compromise.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/07/1406011/cruz-calls-for-shutdown-default/
14 July 2012
What We Know About Romney and Bain, Explained 13JUL12
mitt romney is a liar, pure and simple. He continues to lie about his involvement with bain capital after 1999, outsourcing and
The battle over Mitt Romney's role at Bain
and whether he was actually running the company after he claims to have
left continues. Here's what we know about the GOP presidential
candidate's involvement with the private equity firm:
Romney claims he left Bain in 1999.
Among them:
As Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler wrote on Thursday, "For Romney to be truly off the hook politically for the stuff Bain was doing, he'd have to claim not lack of control, but lack of knowledge." It's hard to believe that Romney didn't know what was going on at a company where he was the president, CEO, chairman of the board, and owner.
UPDATE: In an interview with local DC ABC affiliate WJLA, President Barack Obama says Romney should have to answer questions about his tenure at Bain:
Romney claims he left Bain in 1999.
- In his 2011 federal financial disclosure documents, Romney asserted that he left Bain in 1999 to run the Olympics and "had not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital Entity in any way" since then.
- Bain released a statement to Politico saying that Romney's story is true:
Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure. Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney's departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."Official documents and other sources contradict Romney and Bain's account.
Among them:
- Six SEC filings announcing Bain's acquisition of other companies (collected here by the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler) that are signed by Mitt Romney.
- Those SEC filings, among them those first highlighted by my Mother Jones colleague David Corn and Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall, list Romney's "principal occupation" as "managing director of Bain, Inc," as well as "chairman" and "chief executive officer."
- As David reported on July 2, a press release issued on Bain's behalf in 1999 describes Romney as the CEO of Bain and says he's on a "a part-time leave of absence to head the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee."
- Sworn testimony uncovered by Huffington Post's Ryan Grim and Jason Cherkis in which Romney states that "[T]here were a number of social trips and business trips that brought me back to Massachusetts, board meetings, Thanksgiving and so forth," after 1999 and before 2003. Cherkis and Grim report that during this time, Romney continued to sit on the boards of Staples and LifeLike, a doll-making company—firms that Bain had invested in.
- As Grim and Cherkis reported, Romney's lawyer said in 2002 that Romney's "private and public ties to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" continued "unabated" during his time running the Olympics.
- Romney told the Globe in 1999 that he would "stay on as a part-timer with Bain, providing input on investment and key personnel decisions." As Slate's Dave Weigel points out, this article was cited in an email the Romney campaign sent out to rebut claims that Romney remained involved with Bain after 1999.
- News reports from during Romney's 2002 run for governor refer to his affiliation with Bain during the 1999-2002 period as a "leave of absence," not a full departure. As Politicker reported Friday, Romney retained a "very active role" with Bain during a previous leave of absence, when he ran for Senate in 1994.
- Bain and Romney's claim that he had "absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or any of its portfolio companies" is deeply implausible, given the SEC filings and Romney's role on the boards of LifeLike and Staples. Lifelike, in particular, was a Bain portfolio company by any definition, and Romney was on its board—perhaps a passive management role, but indisputably a management role. As Brad DeLong writes, "It would be very unusual for somebody to have the titles of not just 'CEO' but 'President,' 'Chairman of the Board' and be 'sole stockholder' and to have no responsibilities whatsoever." As a factual matter, Romney's claim of zero involvement is contradicted by what we currently know.
- That said, none of the documents uncovered so far disprove Romney's claim that he had no direct, day-to-day managerial role at Bain after February 1999. The Romney campaign seems to believe that inoculates the candidate from responsibility for Bain's investment decisions during that time, despite the fact that Romney continued as CEO, president, and chairman of the board and benefited financially from Bain's investments.
- But even if Romney wasn't involved in Bain after 1999 (a claim contradicted by the documentary evidence), he's still not off the hook for outsourcing. As my Mother Jones colleague David Corn has reported, there's at least one example of Bain investing in outsourcing prior to the date Romney says he left.
As Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler wrote on Thursday, "For Romney to be truly off the hook politically for the stuff Bain was doing, he'd have to claim not lack of control, but lack of knowledge." It's hard to believe that Romney didn't know what was going on at a company where he was the president, CEO, chairman of the board, and owner.
UPDATE: In an interview with local DC ABC affiliate WJLA, President Barack Obama says Romney should have to answer questions about his tenure at Bain:
Ultimately Mr. Romney, I think, is going to have to answer those questions, because if he aspires to being president one of the things you learn is, you are ultimately responsible for the conduct of your operations, but again that's probably a question that he's going to have to answer and I think that's a legitimate part of the campaign.
Now, my understanding is that Mr. Romney attested to the SEC, multiple times, that he was the chairman, CEO and president of Bain Capital and I think most Americans figure if you are the chairman, CEO and president of a company that you are responsible for what that company does.
13 April 2012
10 Big Companies That Pay No Taxes (and Their Favorite Politicians) 13APR12 & Who Owns Congress? A Campaign Cash Seating Chart SEPT 2010
I am going to do my taxes this weekend. I always have to pay, and that is OK because I (thank God) have a job that keeps a roof over my head, food in my kitchen, provides health insurance (I do pay part of the cost), a reliable vehicle, money to donate to humanitarian and environmental organizations monthly and a little to play with. I don't agree with how the government budgets all my tax dollars but hey, none of us do. But the fact that many businesses don't pay any taxes pisses me off. Here's a list of the 10 most profitable tax evaders from 2008 to 2011 and the politicians they donated to in 2011-2012, followed by the seating chart of Congress showing corporate America's control of the legislature (NOTE, this is from the SEP/OCT 2010 issue but it is a good picture of who controls Congress), both from Mother Jones....
Between
2008 and 2011, 26 major American corporations paid no net federal
income taxes despite bringing in billions in profits, according to a new report
(PDF) from the nonprofit research group Citizens for Tax Justice.
CTJ calculates that if the companies had paid the full 35 percent
corporate tax rate, they would have put more than $78 billion into
government coffers.
Here's a look at the 10 most profitable tax evaders and the politicians their CEOs, employees, and PACs give the most money to.
Verizon Communications
Profits: $19.8 billion Effective tax rate: -3.8%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
President Barack Obama: $51,493
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ): $24,450
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $23,700
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): $22,500
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): $15,000
General Electric
Profits: $19.6 billion Effective tax rate: -18.9%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Mitt Romney: $53,750
President Barack Obama: $30,493
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.): $23,900
Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.): $21,860
Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.): $19,750
Who Owns Congress? A Campaign Cash Seating Chart
Read also: The rest of this special report, a note on sourcing, and MoJo's daily political coverage.
What if members of Congress were seated not by party but according to the industries which gave them the most money over their entire careers?
Here's a look at the 10 most profitable tax evaders and the politicians their CEOs, employees, and PACs give the most money to.
Verizon Communications
Profits: $19.8 billion Effective tax rate: -3.8%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
President Barack Obama: $51,493
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ): $24,450
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $23,700
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): $22,500
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): $15,000
General Electric
Profits: $19.6 billion Effective tax rate: -18.9%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Mitt Romney: $53,750
President Barack Obama: $30,493
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.): $23,900
Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.): $21,860
Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.): $19,750
Boeing
Profits: $14.8 billion Effective tax rate: -5.5%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.): $31,750
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.): $25,000
Former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.): $23,500
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $23,125
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): $20,986
NextEra Energy: North America's largest solar and wind power operator, based in Florida
Profits: $8.8 billion Effective tax rate: -2%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Rep. George LeMieux (R-Fla.): $9,500
Rep. Mike Haridopolos (R-Fla.): $4,800
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $2,000
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): $2,000
Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.): $2,000
American Electric Power: Electric utility based in Columbus, Ohio
Profits: $8.2 billion Effective tax rate: -6.4%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): $34,750
Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio): $34,050
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio): $21,700
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.): $19,750
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio): $18,450
Pacific Gas & Electric: California electrical utility
Profits: $6 billion Effective tax rate: -8.4%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
President Barack Obama (D): $6,250
Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.): $5,000
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.): $5,500
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): $5,000
Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.): $3,500
Apache: Houston-based oil and gas company
Profits: $6 billion Effective tax rate: -0.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Sen. David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $25,000
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.): $5,000
Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.): $2,500
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas): $2,500
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas): $2,500
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $2,500
Brendan Doherty (R-RI): $2,500
Consolidated Edison: New York energy company
Profits: $5.9 billion Effective tax rate: -1.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $15,050
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): $8,000
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY): $6,650
Then-Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.): $2,500
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY): $1,500
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): $1,500
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY): $1,500
El Paso: Houston-based energy company that operates the country's largest natural gas pipeline
Profits: $4.6 billion Effective tax rate: -0.9%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Sen. David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $7,500
Mitt Romney (R): $5,000
Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.): $3,000
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.): $2,750
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.): $2,500
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.): $2,500
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $2,500
Governor Rick Perry (Texas): $2,500
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): $2,500
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.): $2,500
CenterPoint Energy: Electric and gas utility company based in Houston
Profits: $3.1 billion Effective tax rate: -11.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Sen. David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $22,050
Rick Perry: $13,458
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $10,299
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.): $7,000
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas): $4,000
Giving data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Includes all 2011-12 campaign donations from each company's employees and corporate PACs.
Profits: $14.8 billion Effective tax rate: -5.5%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.): $31,750
Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.): $25,000
Former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.): $23,500
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $23,125
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): $20,986
NextEra Energy: North America's largest solar and wind power operator, based in Florida
Profits: $8.8 billion Effective tax rate: -2%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Rep. George LeMieux (R-Fla.): $9,500
Rep. Mike Haridopolos (R-Fla.): $4,800
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $2,000
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas): $2,000
Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.): $2,000
American Electric Power: Electric utility based in Columbus, Ohio
Profits: $8.2 billion Effective tax rate: -6.4%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): $34,750
Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio): $34,050
Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio): $21,700
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.): $19,750
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio): $18,450
Pacific Gas & Electric: California electrical utility
Profits: $6 billion Effective tax rate: -8.4%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
President Barack Obama (D): $6,250
Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.): $5,000
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.): $5,500
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): $5,000
Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.): $3,500
Apache: Houston-based oil and gas company
Profits: $6 billion Effective tax rate: -0.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Sen. David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $25,000
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.): $5,000
Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.): $2,500
Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas): $2,500
Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas): $2,500
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $2,500
Brendan Doherty (R-RI): $2,500
Consolidated Edison: New York energy company
Profits: $5.9 billion Effective tax rate: -1.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.): $15,050
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): $8,000
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY): $6,650
Then-Rep. David Wu (D-Ore.): $2,500
Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY): $1,500
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.): $1,500
Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY): $1,500
El Paso: Houston-based energy company that operates the country's largest natural gas pipeline
Profits: $4.6 billion Effective tax rate: -0.9%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Sen. David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $7,500
Mitt Romney (R): $5,000
Rep. John Barrow (D-Ga.): $3,000
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.): $2,750
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.): $2,500
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.): $2,500
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $2,500
Governor Rick Perry (Texas): $2,500
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.): $2,500
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.): $2,500
CenterPoint Energy: Electric and gas utility company based in Houston
Profits: $3.1 billion Effective tax rate: -11.3%
Top recipients, 2011-2012
Sen. David Dewhurst (R-Texas): $22,050
Rick Perry: $13,458
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.): $10,299
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.): $7,000
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas): $4,000
Giving data from the Center for Responsive Politics. Includes all 2011-12 campaign donations from each company's employees and corporate PACs.
What if members of Congress were seated not by party but according to their major business sponsors? We gave it a try.
What if members of Congress were seated not by party but according to the industries which gave them the most money over their entire careers?
The Senate: Lawyers, Drugs, and Money
SECTOR | # OF MEMBERS
Finance, insurance, and real estate 57
Lawyers and lobbyists 25
Health 5
Agribusiness 3
Labor 2
Energy and natural resources 2
Miscellaneous business 2
Communications and electronics 1
No money raised 3
Total seats | 100
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)Terms: 2 (9 in House) Total raised: $62.2 million, 27% from finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) Top donors: A major defender of Wall Street interests before the crash, Schumer has netted more big bank money than any member of Congress who hasn't run for president. |
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.)Terms: 1 Total raised: $17 million, 7% from FIRE Top donors: In the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, Brown's biggest donors were Fidelity Investments, Bain Capital (Mitt Romney's old firm), and Credit Suisse. But—whoops!—he voted for the financial regulation bill. |
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)Terms: 5 Total raised: $37.2 million, 14% from FIRE Top donors: The top Senate Republican's most generous contributors have been US Smokeless Tobacco—now part of Altria, née Philip Morris—and Brown-Forman, the maker of Jack Daniel's. Cheers! |
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)Terms: 4 (2 in House)Total raised: $35.4 million, 17% from lawyers and lobbyists Top donors: 5 out of the majority leader's top 10 lifetime donors are casinos or gambling interests. The industry has bet more than $1.7 million on him, plus $1.3 mil on fellow Nevada Sen. John Ensign. |
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)Terms: 3 (5 in House) Total raised: $75.3 million, 7% from lawyers and lobbyists Top donors: Boxer is Hollywood's favorite member of Congress (aside from Sen. John Kerry). Her second-biggest donor is Time Warner; Disney is sixth. |
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)Terms: 2 (4 in House) Total raised: $31.8 million, 12% from agribusiness Top donors: The ranking member of the ag committee has never met a federal farm subsidy he didn't like. He just happens to be Congress' second-most bountiful recipient of agribusiness cash. |
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)Terms: 4 (4 in House) Total raised: $16.2 million, 13% from energy and natural resources Top donors: Inhofe, who's declared that "man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith," has received more money from Koch Industries than any other company. The oil firm has given nearly $25 million to climate-change denial groups. |
The House: Big Labor vs. Big Money
SECTOR | # OF MEMBERS
Labor 159
Finance, insurance, and real estate 159
Health 26
Agribusiness 23
Lawyers and lobbyists 20
Miscellaneous business 18
Energy and natural resources 10
Defense 7
Transportation 6
Communications and electronics 4
Construction 1
Unfilled seats 2
Total seats | 435
Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.)Terms: 21 Total raised: $10.8 million, 21% from labor Top donors: The chair of the appropriations committee and a subcommittee with oversight of labor matters, is the House's second-biggest recipient of union cash. Obey's retiring in the face of a challenge from Real World star Sean Duffy. |
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)Terms: 12 Total raised: $11.9 million, 19% from FIRE Top donors: Sure, her husband is a major real estate investor, but the biggest all-time donor to the speaker (who has her own Napa vineyard) has been California wine giant E&J Gallo. |
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.)Terms: 5 Total raised: $17.3 million, 24% from FIRE Top donors: The top donor to the GOP whip, a leading opponent of cap-and-trade legislation, is Dominion Resources, a Virginia power company. |
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)Terms: 1 Total raised: $6.4 million, 25% from FIRE Top donors: The freshman rep, a former Goldman Sachs veep, now collects campaign checks from the firm—more than any other House member. Financial regulation vote: Yes. |
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)Terms: 7 Total raised: $50.5 million, 3% from FIRE Top donors: GIs, meet geeks. The small-government libertarian's biggest givers are members of the military, followed by Google and Microsoft employees. |
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)Terms: 13 Total raised: $17.2 million, 19% from energy and natural resources Top donors: Barton, who decried the "shakedown" of BP, has watched the cash flow from Anadarko Petroleum, owner of 25% of BP's Deepwater Horizon well. |
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.)Terms: 17 Total raised: $8.3 million, 17% from defense Top donors: The Armed Services Committee chair is—surprise!— Congress' top recipient of defense-industry cash. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)