[mr. natural]

Corporate Tax Cheating and Corporate Welfare is not something that gets a lot of peanut gallery scrutiny (but the "liberal media bias" sure does).

So to balance the books I'm starting this thread to point out all the ways in which we, taxpayers, have been and are getting fleeced by big and very profitable corporations.

To start with there's this story in today's NYTimes.

The Bank of America (a veritable paragon of *patriotic* capitalist banking in action) somehow leases a portion of Canada's air traffic control in order to turn around and "sharply" depreciate the asset, "generating a big tax break."

Of course Industry spokesmen claimed: "The transit deals were done with the express approval of the federal Department of Transportation."

Go figure.

Furthermore:

"A report by the General Accounting Office, released at the hearing, said that as of Sept. 30 abusive tax shelters had cost the government $85 billion, roughly $2 billion less than the amount that President Bush persuaded Congress to appropriate for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq.

"The G.A.O. report criticized the I.R.S. for lacking goals and a plan to measure its success in combating abusive tax shelters."

Despite the feigned concern as expressed by the committee chair, Republican Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, as to how the IRS needs "better tools" (whatever that means) no mention is made of the fact that when Charles Rossotti, former chief of the IRS, wanted to testify before Congress in November 2002 that we are "steadily losing the war with tax cheats, especially the wealthiest and most sophisticated among them," and how an investment of 2 billion in more and better trained auditors could net more than $70 billion in lost tax receipts annually; But the White House canceled Rossotti from testifying. (The NYTimes reported on Rossotti's aborted testimony on Nov. 5, 2002 -- I've copied the entire article and posted it in my public iDisk folder here.

OK, here's the deal: Post your own favorite rip-offs by corporations at our expense. Let's air out some real dirty laundry about the boys in power and who they really care about.

[edit: need to fix my iDisk link]

[mr. natural]

I think I've fixed the link to my iDisk public folder...

So for anyone who wants to download and read the NYTimes article/interview with Rossotti it's in my Public file folder as "IRS Losing War on Tax Cheats"

[thunderous_funker]

This one tops the recent scandal list.

Must be part of Bush's "Leave no defense contractor behind" plan.

More on the story here.

And we can't talk about corporate welfare without honoring the fattest, laziest welfare mother in the entire country: Archer Daniels Midland.

Read it and weep

The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30.

[BlackGriffen]

Don't forget Wal-Mart paying it's employees so low that they had to hand out, "How to apply for welfare," info packets to it's employees.

Wal*Mart, "We're competitive because we subsidize employee benefits using federal aid programs."

BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Don't forget Wal-Mart paying it's employees so low that they had to hand out, "How to apply for welfare," info packets to it's employees.

Wal*Mart, "We're competitive because we subsidize employee benefits using federal aid programs."

BlackGriffen

Tell me about it.

Because they claim they "can't compete" with Walmart superstores, the big 3 grovery chains in LA announced drastic cuts to employee benefits across the board. Unlike Walmart employees, their workers are Union so they voted to strike.

Yep. Every grocery store in Los Angeles is now a picket line because of the Walmart's "race to the bottom" cut-throat tactics.

I respect the workers for striking, but I'm afraid they are in a no win situation. They'll never get their benefits back (unless someone drastically reforms California's healthcare system). Its the beginning of the end for thousands of people who had fought hard to secure a decent living. They'll end up working for peanuts elsewhere or leaving the city/state.

[mr. natural]

How about the CSX Corporation, once headed by John W. Snow, now employed as Treasury Secretary, which managed to pay no federal taxes on nearly a billion dollars in pretax profits between 1998 and 2000, and instead managed to get federal welfare "rebate" checks to the tune of $164 million.

Maybe it's time to stop complaining about "limousine liberals" and about time we start investigating, arresting, and prosecuting with big time jail sentences all these Corporate Jet Conservatives.

[Nonsuch]

BlackGriffen, I was thinking of posting the same thing. I may refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, but I pay its employees' health care costs anyway.

[mr. natural]

OK, here's a page full of facts about corporate welfare.

Among the findings is this:

"In President Reagan’s second term, he strongly criticized corporate tax subsidies as wasteful, inconsistent with free-market principles and harmful to economic growth. At Reagan’s instigation, the subsidies were sharply cut back in 1986. But in recent years, corporate tax subsidies have made a striking comeback, and are now costing ordinary taxpayers close to $200 billion annually. They should (emphasis mine) be prime targets for reexamination in the effort to bring the budget back into balance."

Of course, under this administration nothing of the sort will be done to reign in these tax breaks and subsides.

It's full bore Pigs at the Trough.

See here for the full dirty details of this corporate welfare scandal. But among the low lights is this:

The 2002 and 2003 tax bills provided business tax breaks officially estimated to cost $177 billion in fiscal years 2002 through 2005, with $64 billion of that in fiscal 2004 alone.

While the exact cost of offshore corporate tax sheltering is unknown, reasonable estimates peg the cost at upwards of $50 billion a year.

Thus, recently created loopholes have slashed corporate tax payments by $100 billion or more annually—more than a 40 percent reduction since 2000. (yeah, that figures)

Counting tax breaks that have been on the books for longer, corporations now pay considerably less than half of what they should. They also pay far less than they used to pay. In fact, at 1.2 percent of the economy, corporate taxes are now three-fifths less than the 3.0 percent of the economy that corporate taxes averaged from 1950 through 2000.

Rather than address this egregious level of corporate tax avoidance, however, Congress and the President seem intent on preserving or expanding it. (My calculator is having a hard timer keeping up here )

The Senate corporate tax bill—missed opportunities, funny bookkeeping

In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has expressed deep outrage over the past year about rampant corporate tax sheltering, particularly offshore abuses. But Sen. Grassley doesn’t seem to understand that corporate tax avoidance is wrong not only because it’s underhanded, but also because it drains the Treasury of needed revenue and shifts the burden onto ordinary Americans.

Sen. Grassley does include some useful curbs on corporate shelters in his bill. But those reforms would raise a total of only $39 billion over the next decade. At least that much in corporate loophole closing annually would be more serious.

Even worse, Sen. Grassley proposes to use the revenue raised from his modest reforms to open even more corporate loopholes, at a ten-year cost of $103 billion, including $37 billion to facilitate offshore tax avoidance!

Sen. Grassley actually asserts that his bill is “revenue-neutral”—as if that were a reasonable goal of corporate tax reform—by taking credit for maintaining $18 billion in customs fees that everyone agrees will be extended anyway and by asserting that complying with a World Trade Organization ruling against a foolish U.S. corporate export subsidy ought to be counted as a $45 billion revenue-increasing offset, too.

“Senator Grassley’s approach of closing loopholes that ought to be closed, but then using the money to create new tax breaks is a lot like a bank forcing a would-be robber to put down his gun, but then giving him the money anyway so long as he asks nicely,” said McIntyre. “A triumph of form over substance, you might say.”

The House Bill—deep corporate tax cuts no matter the cost

Unfortunately, in the House, things are much worse. At the end of last July, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), with President Bush’s blessing, introduced a bill to provide companies with a staggering $259 billion in new loopholes over the next decade. Among the items on this corporate wish list are $79 billion worth of expanded tax shelters for multinational corporations.

Rep. Thomas doesn’t even give lip service to covering the enormous cost of his bill. He grudgingly offers a few minor reforms, but they raise a mere $9 billion over a decade. And like Sen. Grassley, he takes credit for extending existing customs fees and complying with the WTO ruling. But even if you mistakenly count those so-called offsets, Thomas’s bill still costs a net of $186 billion over ten years.

Hey now, how about we all all thank our lucky stars that "right-wing fiscal conservatives" are running this three card monte show.

I don't know about you but I'm feeling real good right now with these tight wads in control of Federal taxes -- aren't you?

[BRussell]

Here's a nice graph of Corporate Income Taxes and how they've dropped over the past several decades.



Note that neither Enron nor GM, for example, have paid any corporate income taxes over the past several years. They paid negative taxes, which means taxpayer money was transferred to them.

[mr. natural]

That's a mighty fine chart there BRussell. But you know we can't trust them things. It's all part of the "liberal conspiracy" to fool the people don't you know.

Well, I wish i could post such a nice pie chart as you did, but this will have to do... (from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy -- you know, one of them *non-partisan* think tank groups that is actually a commie-loving pinko group in "limousine liberal" drag.)

Changes in Taxes and Tax Shares under the First Three Bush Tax Cuts In 2010, Without Major unsets*
Income group------- % tax cut ------- Change in share of total federal taxes (percentage points)
Lowest 20% --------- –10% -------- +0.1%
Second 20% -------- –13% -------- +0.1%
Middle 20% -------- –9% -------- +0.7%
Fourth 20% -------- –8% -------- +1.5%
Next 15% -------- –11% -------- +1.4%
Next 4% -------- –21% -------- –1.0%
Top 1% -------- –25% -------- –2.7%

ADDENDUM:
All but top 5% –10% +3.8%
*Keep bonus depreciation & sec. 179 depreciation; keep dividend and capital gain tax cut; completely fix AMT.

I apologize if Zimphire, Spliffdadday, spacefreak, CRASH HARDDRIVE, Uday's Carcass, finboy, etc, of the paleo-con crowd find all this material difficult to digest.

Based on the non-responses from this crowd they must be eating pretzels.

[mr. natural]

Here's another bit of good news from the "fiscal conservative" branch of our government as compared to when the "tax & spend liberals" were in control.

Discretionary spending -- i.e., the portion of the federal budget that Congress doles out as opposed to fixed expenses, like Social Security, debt interest, etc. -- has grown by more than 50% since the Gringrich gang took control of the House. The number of pork bellied "earmarks" (federal welfare benefits for dubious district corporate tax subsidies and other assorted tax payer funded projects) attached to pending spending legislation has grown by such an astounding amount that nobody can keep track of it all; yet it was up around 8,300 in 2002 at last count.

To their credit, a couple of republicans did break ranks and complained about this hypocritical "right-wing fiscal conservative" chicanery, most notably in the Capitol Hill weekly, "The Hill," October 2, 2002.

The AP also reported on all this ballooning pork feast under the Republican controlled House in a study published on August 5, 2002.

But what the hell, it's just "liberal media" blather, right?

[Lerkfish]

The greatest chicanery of republicans is they get elected deriding democrats for "tax and spend" and uncontrolled spending, but no one does it better than republicans.

The second greatest chicanery of republicans is they get elected deriding democrats for overlegislating and growing the government, but no one does it better than republicans.

The third greatest chicanery of republicans is they get elected deriding democrats for lying, but no one does it better than republicans.

The fourth greatest chicanery of republicans is they get elected deriding democrats for looking out for the little guy and being against corporate bloat, but...oh. Maybe they got us there.

[moki]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Maybe it's time to stop complaining about "limousine liberals" and about time we start investigating, arresting, and prosecuting with big time jail sentences all these Corporate Jet Conservatives.

Surely a better idea is to go after anyone who is breaking the law in some manner, not target people of a particular ideology? This type of thing has been going on for a very long time, under both conservative and liberal governments and administrations.

As I investigate cases such as the ones you cited, some of them turn out to be sensationalistic hyperbole -- but I do agree with you completely that those cases which are not hyperbole should be vigorously investigated.

It's a bit of a complicated issue, though, because you can't fault a corporation for taking advantage of existing laws/loopholes. Blame the congressmen who passed said laws to begin with.

Also keep in mind that when you harm a corporation, by, say, denying them legitimate (law-abiding) tax-writeoffs, you're not just damaging "fat cats". You're also damaging everyone the company employs, and moreover, everyone who owns stock in said company.

[icruise]

Originally posted by moki:
It's a bit of a complicated issue, though, because you can't fault a corporation for taking advantage of existing laws/loopholes. Blame the congressmen who passed said laws to begin with.

What about the Republican ideal that people are inherently good and will do the right thing when left alone? You seem to be making an argument for more regulation.

But in any case, I absolutely think you can blame corporations for taking advantage of loopholes, if said loopholes result in people being hurt/disadvantaged/whatever. Just because it's legal (or perhaps I should say "not illegal') doesn't make it right.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Also keep in mind that when you harm a corporation, by, say, denying them legitimate (law-abiding) tax-writeoffs, you're not just damaging "fat cats". You're also damaging everyone the company employs, and moreover, everyone who owns stock in said company.

well, I realize you're a CEO yourself so I'm not suprised you feel this way.
However, this reminds me a great deal of how things work in a "company town". Everyone owes their job to the sole employer, which gives them great power, which they then use to act with impugnity. Everyone lets all their questionable activities slide because, of course, if they do anything, people will lose jobs.

How is this radically different from extortion? "If you take away our fat cat tax writeoffs, we'll make PEOPLE PAY! We'll cut employees! We'll HURT THE HOLY STOCKHOLDERS!"....of course, it never occurs to them to cut their obscene salaries, golden parachutes and greenmail buyoffs....oh NOOOOO....because if you make me have to eliminate one of my yaughts, I'm going to fire that guy in the mail room. And then won't you be sorry!

[chris v]

This just in:

300 arrested at Walmart.

Seems they're knowingly employing illegals. Not that it's not done all over the country, (The INS is swimming upstream in a big way) but it just points up Walmart's attitude about cheap labor.

CV

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, I realize you're a CEO yourself so I'm not suprised you feel this way.
However, this reminds me a great deal of how things work in a "company town". Everyone owes their job to the sole employer, which gives them great power, which they then use to act with impugnity. Everyone lets all their questionable activities slide because, of course, if they do anything, people will lose jobs.

Actually, I'm not a CEO. We're a small private company, with no CEO position in sight.

I agree with you that corporate corruption should be attacked head-on, and I also agree with you that salaries of business execs, Hollywood stars, and sports players are a bit ridiculous.

All I am pointing out is that these evil corporations people love to take potshots at employ people, and they are also generally owned by the public via stock, or indirectly via 401K retirement programs.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
All I am pointing out is that these evil corporations people love to take potshots at employ people, and they are also generally owned by the public via stock, or indirectly via 401K retirement programs.

Some are willing to turn a blind eye to exploitation when it benefits them (no matter how indirectly or minimally) and others are not.

Many corporations are a boon to society, many are not.

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Some are willing to turn a blind eye to exploitation when it benefits them (no matter how indirectly or minimally) and others are not.

Many corporations are a boon to society, many are not.

Agreed. So go after the ones who are not, but don't go off on a rampage against "evil corporations" because corporations are not inherently evil.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
Agreed. So go after the ones who are not, but don't go off on a rampage against "evil corporations" because corporations are not inherently evil.

Hmm. I see your point (and agree for the most part) but it really might depend on how one interprets "inherently evil".

People who run corporations certainly aren't "inherently evil" but in many ways the simple structure and purpose of a corporation (the inhuman legal abstract entity) might be considered "inherently evil" and require considerable human intervetion and restraint in order to remain a positive social agent.

Maybe that is going well beyond the intent of the thread, but maybe it isn't. It might actually be at the heart of the problem of defining the corporate role in society.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by moki:
Agreed. So go after the ones who are not, but don't go off on a rampage against "evil corporations" because corporations are not inherently evil.

well, in a way, yes. The problem however, is NOT individual corporations who might be bad, but rather a structure where politicians make the road too easy for ALL corporations, whether they are inherently evil or not.
So that, even if good corporations legally weasel out of their fair share of taxes, the damage is the same as if they were all evil.

The problem is not the corporations, per se, but rather the government's palm greasing which allows the corporations to skip and cheat and plunder and steal and still be legal.

[mr. natural]

Moki: As my signature facetiously says: "I made this thread. I know what it is, and is not about."

No one here is taking "potshots," nor going off in an unfounded "rampage against *evil corporations*" per say.

Among the ideas being pointed out here is that a lot of very profitable corporations are on the dole for various kinds of "corporate welfare" and it is costly us all dearly.

(Yet compared to say NPR's taxpayer cost or Arianna Huffington's tax write-offs and all the alleged conservative outrage over these examples as played out on these pages because they are easy "Liberal" targets to poke at, I think it highly illuminating that not one alleged MacNN republican/conservative has dared speak here; excepting you and only, it is worth pointing out, to raise a tried and true bogey man and red herring accusation about this thread as an unfounded assault on corporations as "inherently evil." Please, give this conservative knee jerk reaction a rest will you. Now, back on topic about corporate tax cheating and corporate welfare... )

Certainly there are a number of dumb Democrats who are culpable in this, but it needs pointing out that since an array of right wing Republicans have taken charge of the House, and the Senate, and now the White House, corporate welfare and shady tax evasion, and outright corporate fraud has risen to new heights of acceptability.

Perhaps the correlation of the above facts escapes many but it is worth pointing out.

This also tends to undercut all the conservative BS rhetoric about how they are the true stewards of *fiscal responsibility,* while they gleefully tar & feather all democrats as "tax & spend Liberals."

There is plenty of evidence to clearly suggest otherwise of late. If the previously mentioned evidence isn't clear enough, let's look at a number of historically relevant facts.

Among them is the "2000 Stock Trader's Almanac," - an authoritative source of Wall Street Statistics - whereby they looked at the prices of Dow Jones stocks over time and under a range of Republican and Democratic administrations. Their conclusions are that DJIA stocks posted gains of 13.4% under Democrats as opposed to 8.1% under Republicans.

As market historian Jeffery Hirsch, who edits the Almanac, said: "I don't know why people are convinced Republicans are good for the stock market."

Northwestern Mutual also published a survey of presidential administrations and S&P 500 performance between 1929 and 1999 that also showed a Democratic advantage by a margin of 16.9% to 14.2% (even after they removed two of worst Republican periods under Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon's 2nd term). The largest gains occurred under FDR, Truman, Johnson and Clinton.

Slate magazine in October 2002 also analyzed the average returns on the S&P 500 and they also found that during the past century Democratic administrations posted better returns than Republicans by a margin of 12.3% to 8%.

So no matter how you slice it, the US economy, at least by these stock numbers, rolls along better under the ridiculously vilified "tax & spend Liberal Democrats."

You name it, GNP, job creation, unemployment, disposable income, deficit reduction, federal spending, and inflation, by all these yardsticks Democratic Presidential administrations on average fostered more growth, higher wages, lower deficits, lower government spending, and lower inflation than their Republican counterparts.

Yet, now we taxpayers are confronted with an assault by this Republican led Presidential administration and Republican controlled Congress that is burying us in long term debt - red ink to no end - while doling out all manner of tax breaks, and subsidies - corporate welfare at its worst - or otherwise winking at and turning a blind eye to shady tax shelter schemes.

But where's the well honed sense of outrage now by the *conservative* claque for the man at the head of this patriot's brigade of thieves is what I wonder? And you all wish for 4 more years of this!

The silence is astounding but not at all surprising.

[finboy]

Originally posted by moki:

All I am pointing out is that these evil corporations people love to take potshots at employ people, and they are also generally owned by the public via stock, or indirectly via 401K retirement programs.

Right. Folks forget that all these evil, greedy corporations are going to fund their retirement. Or not, depending upon what kind of govt. intervention happens in the short run.

It always excites me to see so many folks straining to lift the bell jar. This thread has been particularly interesting for its high quality of whining. I think we've managed to get ALL of the big Lefty commerce bugaboos in there, including illegal aliens, WalMart, CEOs, "corporate welfare" and tax dodges. Heck, we've even got statements from the GAO and other "unbiased" organizations to demonstrate just how evil corporate America is.

Sad to say, but Corporate America is YOU, everyone. When they gain, you gain. When they lose, you lose AND maybe lose FASTER since they're more efficient than we are alone. Without the good old Corporate America that you folks love to hate, we'd all be living a radically different lifestyle with a lot more pain and suffering. When you start pointing the finger, unless you're living in a cabin in Montana and killing what you eat, look in the mirror first. Walt Kelly said it best: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Those evil managers are your next door neighbors, and you probably passed some more of those exploiters on the street today. They've got kids and parents and pets. Their kids go to the same schools as yours, and they drive the same cars as you drive. If nothing else, the stockholders are you, your parents, or your kids. Evil, all of them.



You all forgot about one tax "scheme" that we need to fix:

My FAVORITE corporate tax dodge is the write-off of advertising expense. Every time you see another add stereotyping hot blond chicks, hip-hopsters or Gen Xers, it's paid for by the taxpayer/consumer. I think before we do anything else, we should eliminate the deductibility of advertising expense, especially mass marketing and all those junk mail flyers. Of course all sports would have to be pay-per-view then, but then most of you guys would probably ADVOCATE a return to the wholesome nature of PBS, right? Less TV, fewer adds, and me not paying for either. Who loses?

[moki]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Northwestern Mutual also published a survey of presidential administrations and S&P 500 performance between 1929 and 1999 that also showed a Democratic advantage by a margin of 16.9% to 14.2% (even after they removed two of worst Republican periods under Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon's 2nd term). The largest gains occurred under FDR, Truman, Johnson and Clinton.

A few points here. Given that it is congress that actually enacts laws, passes budgets, etc., it probably would be far more useful to look at which party held the majority in the House and Senate during those periods, rather than who was President, no?

That aside, given that the stock market crashed in 1929, and the Great Depression followed (which was world-wide, to a large extent, btw), and Hoover was President during it, it is hardly surprising that this skews things a bit, no? You seem to hint that this was excluded from the study, but it seems odd to me that it'd be so, given the range of dates presented.

Originally posted by mr. natural:
So no matter how you slice it, the US economy, at least by these stock numbers, rolls along better under the ridiculously vilified "tax & spend Liberal Democrats."

What do the historically cyclical stock market results have to do with "tax and spend liberals"?

Originally posted by mr. natural:
You name it, GNP, job creation, unemployment, disposable income, deficit reduction, federal spending, and inflation, by all these yardsticks Democratic Presidential administrations on average fostered more growth, higher wages, lower deficits, lower government spending, and lower inflation than their Republican counterparts.

If you can present some sources for these assertions (preferably that I can check online), I'd really appreciate it. It certainly is an interesting statistic.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by moki:
That aside, given that the stock market crashed in 1929, and the Great Depression followed . . .

Not to be argumentative (or derail the thread), but to combat a popular misconception: the Crash of '29 didn't cause the Depression, but was one of a number of responses to other conditions that caused the Depression. It was nonetheless a singular event and therefore gets a lot of special attention, and certainly didn't help matters.

I'm not assuming that you didn't already know this, it's just something that I like to point out, having read a book about the era a while back. In other words, I'm being a smart-ass.

As for political parties and economic conditions, an older acquaintance of mine likes to say, "If you want to live like a Republican, vote like a Democrat!"

[mr. natural]

Posted by Moki:

If you can present some sources for these assertions (preferably that I can check online), I'd really appreciate it. It certainly is an interesting statistic.

Fair enough. Here's one link you can check out.

I'll try and post some more. Some of this statistical stuff gets real dense however, like from the Annual Bureau of Labor Statistic; but it's there for those who want to check it out.

Another link, albeit from a leftist publication, but written by an economic professor who was Chairman of President Carter's National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity is useful nonetheless in that I believe he's got his statistical ducks in order.

The Slate article mentioned above and elsewhere has proven difficult to link to but i'll keep trying.

The "2000 Stock Trader's Almanac" is only available in book form. But it is real.

Given that it is congress that actually enacts laws, passes budgets, etc., it probably would be far more useful to look at which party held the majority in the House and Senate during those periods, rather than who was President, no?

Interesting point. However, I'm betting that FDR, Truman, Johnson, and Clinton in his first term had Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. I'll be looking into this to verify my guess, but if anyone wants to beat me to the punch I'm game.

This still evades the point that fiscally, especially as regards Corporate pork and welfare, we are presently being sold down the river whole hog by Republicans, not Democrats.

Who's fooling whom here?

[mr. natural]

Posted by finboy:

It always excites me to see so many folks straining to lift the bell jar. This thread has been particularly interesting for its high quality of whining. I think we've managed to get ALL of the big Lefty commerce bugaboos in there, including illegal aliens, WalMart, CEOs, "corporate welfare" and tax dodges. Heck, we've even got statements from the GAO and other "unbiased" organizations to demonstrate just how evil corporate America is.

Sad to say, but Corporate America is YOU, everyone. When they gain, you gain. When they lose, you lose AND maybe lose FASTER since they're more efficient than we are alone. Without the good old Corporate America that you folks love to hate, we'd all be living a radically different lifestyle with a lot more pain and suffering.

This is more red herring conservative blather. No one here has suggested that corporate America is *EVIL,* or that we *HATE* corporations. Once again, it is the alleged *fiscal conservative* trying to derail and obfuscate the real concern.

One would think that Corporate Welfare and shady tax sheltering for otherwise extremely profitable corporations would alarm those of you who bow down at *free market* idealism, and who otherwise rail to no end against "Liberal" Federal free-loaders and welfare cheats; But NOoooo, when it comes to skinning this corporate fat cat scheme run primarlily at the hands of Republicans scams, you all have 1001 ways to change the charge.

My FAVORITE corporate tax dodge is the write-off of advertising expense.

Apart from the silly rant following this quote I'm all in favor of eliminating this tax write off.

[mr. natural]

Ok, let's look at this from yet again another angle; here's the findings from an Associated press analysis of the shift in federal spending since Republicans gained control of the House.

Since right-wing Republicans have gained control of the House, Federal spending per Republican district has soared to an average of $612 million dollars more than Democratic districts, compared to when Democrats controlled Congress and their Federal largesse per district as opposed to their Republican counterparts amounted to $35 million.

Furthermore, "Republican House districts that received an average of $3.9 billion in 1995 ballooned to $5.8 billion in 2001, a 52 percent increase, the analysis found. Over the same period, spending in Democratic districts on average increased only 34 percent, from $3.9 billion to $5.2 billion."

Furthermore, "the change was driven mostly by Republican policies that moved spending from poor rural and urban areas to the more affluent suburbs and GOP-leaning farm country... In terms of services, for example, that translates into more business loans and farm subsidies, and fewer public housing grants and food stamps."

About it all, Majority Leader Dick Armey replied: "There is an old adage: To the victor goes the spoils."

And to us, the taxpayers, we just get shafted with all this *fiscally responsible* Republican controlled Federal misspent largesse (especially to those who don't need it) and red ink debt.

Does anyone really care who is leading this thievery?

[mr. natural]

Seeing as the neo-cons seem to believe in and like pretty Presidential pictures more so than reality, I thought I'd post this one for their benefit.

[tie]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
Since right-wing Republicans have gained control of the House, Federal spending per Republican district has soared to an average of $612 million dollars more than Democratic districts, compared to when Democrats controlled Congress and their Federal largesse per district as opposed to their Republican counterparts amounted to $35 million.
...
About it all, Majority Leader Dick Armey replied: "There is an old adage: To the victor goes the spoils."

Quoted for emphasis.

Here is one, from a David Brooks editorial. Full editorial quoted below, but here are some excerpts. About the lease of Boeing tankers which would cost taxpayers at least $5.6 billion more than just buying the planes.

The chief Air Force official pushing the deal was Darleen Druyun. As The Washington Post reported yesterday, Druyun has recently left the Air Force and gone to work for Boeing. She sold her $692,000 northern Virginia home to a Boeing lawyer. Her daughter works for Boeing.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska went around the normal committee process and inserted the deal into a defense appropriations bill during a closed meeting of conferees. According to The Post, in the month before he made that move, Stevens received political contributions from 31 Boeing executives at a fund-raiser in Seattle.

Stevens must be one of the most corrupt senators ever.

Full editorial below:

Congressional Republicans need to schedule a meeting with the mirror this morning. The agenda item is their soul, and the questions to be addressed are: Why did I run for Congress? Was it to engage in the same pork barrel politics that marked the last decadent days of the Democratic majority?

The occasion for this meeting is Speaker Dennis Hastert's effort to ram through an Air Force tanker deal for the Boeing Corporation. This deal isn't just shady — it's the Encyclopaedia Britannica of shady. It's as if somebody spent years trying to gather every single sleazy aspect of modern Washington and cram it all into one legislative effort.

It's sort of awe-inspiring when you stop to think about it.

Under the deal, the U.S. Air Force would lease 100 refueling tankers, modified Boeing 767's, from an entity controlled by the Boeing Corporation. There are intelligent people in Washington who believe the U.S. needs a new fleet of tankers, to refuel jets over places like Afghanistan. But the details of this particular deal have been shredded by the murderer's row of green-eyeshade, independent-auditor acronym organizations: the O.M.B., the C.B.O., the G.A.O., the C.R.S. and the I.D.A.

The main critique is that it is ridiculously expensive to lease planes, rather than buy them. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leasing option will cost taxpayers an extra $5.6 billion, though scandal connoisseurs will appreciate that the deal also involves the use of "special purpose entities," the accounting mechanisms used by Enron executives in their glory days.

But the content of the legislation is as pure as the driven snow, compared with the way it has been pushed through Washington. The chief Air Force official pushing the deal was Darleen Druyun. As The Washington Post reported yesterday, Druyun has recently left the Air Force and gone to work for Boeing. She sold her $692,000 northern Virginia home to a Boeing lawyer. Her daughter works for Boeing. None of this may be illegal or even wrong, but is this what makes you proud to be an American?

This is a major contract, but there was no big competition. There was no big study of alternative ways to modernize the fleet. According to U.S. News & World Report (this process has been like a full employment act for investigative journalists) Boeing was given the unusual opportunity to help define the specifications for the plane. Recently released e-mail suggests that some Air Force officials worked intimately with Boeing officials, sometimes to rebut criticisms from other Pentagon officials.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska went around the normal committee process and inserted the deal into a defense appropriations bill during a closed meeting of conferees. According to The Post, in the month before he made that move, Stevens received political contributions from 31 Boeing executives at a fund-raiser in Seattle.

Two Republicans, John McCain and Phil Gramm, fought this thing from the start. The conservative columnist Robert Novak condemned it.

So Boeing rallied the lobbyists. Senators from Kansas and Washington, the states that stand to benefit, began lobbying. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. kicked in, with unions running ads against McCain. And crucially, Dennis Hastert lobbied the White House.

In recent days Senator John Warner has moved to minimize the travesty. He has pushed a deal that would have the Air Force lease only 20 planes, and purchase, less expensively, the other 80.

But there are larger issues. First, this whole mess started because the Air Force can't pay for new tankers up front, so it tried to push back the costs by leasing. Maybe it's time to stop trying to run a Bush foreign policy on a Clinton defense budget?

More broadly, this Republican majority is beginning to lose the idealism of youth and settle for the spoils of middle age. John Kasich used to rail against corporate welfare. Has that fire burned out entirely?

If this deal goes through, it will be a sign that all those fine young crusaders who campaign as fearless fighters against the ways of Washington are slowly but corrosively turning into the sort of creatures they despise.

It almost makes one miss Newt Gingrich.

[tie]

Remember this?

The chief Air Force official pushing the deal was Darleen Druyun. As The Washington Post reported yesterday, Druyun has recently left the Air Force and gone to work for Boeing. She sold her $692,000 northern Virginia home to a Boeing lawyer. Her daughter works for Boeing.

Not surprisingly, (link):

On Monday, Boeing fired its chief financial officer, Michael Sears, and Darleen Druyun, a former Air Force acquisition manager who had overseen the deal prior to going to work for Boeing last January. The aerospace giant says it discovered that the two executives had started talking about Ms. Druyun's joining Boeing before she recused herself from working on company matters, and that they sought to cover up evidence of those contacts.

[tie]

NY Times link

Things aren't getting any better with corruption affecting our military.

[First Command Financial Planning] sells life insurance and investments to young officers serving around the world. ...

So First Command was not happy a year ago when it discovered that a legal office at Air Force headquarters had put out a notice asking military lawyers in the field for feedback on "reports of possible unethical or overly aggressive" sales practices by the company's agents. The notice also raised questions about the suitability of the company's core product, an archaic and expensive type of mutual fund with sales fees that eat up half of an investor's first-year contributions.

First Command fought back: it complained to the second- most-powerful general in the Air Force. And it was heard.

..Within three weeks of the legal office's posting, the Air Force issued a retraction, which it had allowed the company to edit. It gave the company a letter of exoneration, signed by the Air Force's top legal officer, after letting the company edit that, too. The Air Force legal staff stopped cooperating with a securities industry investigation into the company's practices and products. And the Air Force effectively abandoned a broad inquiry of its own, letting local base authorities handle complaints.
...
One change, though small, was significant. The Air Force's draft said the original item had been prompted by "complaints." First Command proposed changing that to "a single complaint." Lt. Col. Timothy Guiden, Mr. Farmer's boss, opposed the change, noting that four problems had been reported. He was overruled, the documents show.
...
NASD has nevertheless pursued its inquiry, which has been joined by the Securities and Exchange Commission and should be concluded soon, Congressional aides say.

Since The Times first examined First Command's practices in a two-part series in July, the company has come under scrutiny in Congress. Lawmakers are considering legislation to abolish the type of mutual funds the company sells and require the military to coordinate more closely with civilian regulators.