Thursday, April 14, 2011
How 12 Multinational Corporations Avoid Paying Taxes
April 13, 2011 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Investigations headlines via email.
A new report out today illustrates that at least 11 other multinational, billion-dollar corporations managed to get a free pass from the IRS – and not only that, but while average Americans scraped their piggy banks to pay hefty taxes on paltry paychecks, many of these companies actually got a refund. Want to know how they pulled that off? By the fatcat’s swindle: lobbying, campaign contributions, and other legal gladhanding that helps them exploit corporate loopholes and keeps their pockets flush while the rest of us struggle to get by.
The campaign reform group Public Campaign has released a report called "Artful Dodgers," identifying 12 corporations – including GE – that used these tactics to avoid paying any taxes while reaping huge benefits. More disturbingly, the report notes they collectively spent over a billion dollars influencing politicians to make Washington more corporate-friendly. As the report points out, the money invested to sway groups such as the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee has been wildly successful. Legislation from both parties has created these tax loopholes, while providing incentives that effectively destroy the American workforce. Public Campaign:
According to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), eighty-three of the 100 largest publicly traded U.S. corporations utilize such tax havens to reduce their U.S. tax liability. Ironically, these accounting tricks aren’t available for companies that only do business in the United States, so Congress in effect is providing tax incentives to ship jobs overseas and dismantle the middle class.Public Campaign (PC) researched "the lobbying expenses and political contributions of 12 large, well-known corporations, their political action committees (PACs), and their executives," and broke them down into four categories: Oil, Banks, Transportation, and Telecommunication and Technology.
Let’s use an example from the latter category first, since GE falls into it. While the general brouhaha surrounding the company involved its tax-free 2010, PC notes that it has in fact not paid any taxes since 2006, despite raking in $26 billion since then. Since 2006, it has collected tax refunds of $4.1 billion. Further, despite being "one of the worst polluters in the world," GE has gained these benefits from aggressively lobbying for green tax breaks for using wind turbines. Its zealousness in political contributions has probably helped; in 10 years, GE, employees and PACs have given more than $13 million in federal contributions, along with a whopping $205 million on lobbying.
GE's partner in the telecommunications category, Verizon, is no less absurd. PC reminds us that last year the company caused an outrage when it "exploited a tax loophole to sell 4.8 million rural phone lines at a profit while avoiding $600 million in taxes." The shocking amount it ponied up in federal taxes? Zilch. And like GE, Verizon’s quite generous when it comes to contributions to committees that control taxation and regulation: in 10 years, it's dropped $12 million in campaign contributions, and another $131 million on lobbying. That’s a lot, but still less than it would have had to pay in taxes if it was held to the same standards as the rest of us.
So who else made the hotlist? Aside from the lucrative oil industry – ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero – there were a few surprises on the transportation list – Boeing, sure, but also FedEx and Carnival Cruise Lines? But perhaps the most infuriating corporations included are big-time recipients of corporate welfare – Bank of America, Citi, and Goldman Sachs, which helped decimate the housing market, were all rescued by the taxpayer-supported bailout but managed to pay little to no taxes in 2010. Last year, Bank of America made $4.4 billion...and received a refund of $1.9 billion.
Clearly, the moral of this story is that these corporations are not sneaking around the government, slithering through back alleys in order to avoid paying taxes. They are essentially lobbying our government – individuals we elected – into submission, tipping the tax brackets in their favor on the backs of average, everyday Americans. Congress wants to make huge budget cuts in social programs that help us in myriad ways, and yet many of the same politicians would rather punish the poor than make corporations pay their fair share. As PC points out:
Elected officials across the political spectrum are talking about the need for shared sacrifice to reduce our deficit. Both Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and President Obama have talked about getting rid of special interest tax loopholes. But, talk doesn’t equal action. And it’s not going to happen as long as well-heeled companies like G.E. or Chevron are able to use millions in lobbying and campaign contributions to advocate for the creation of loopholes and tax breaks, and against their closure. Reforming our tax code won’t happen when every line in it has a special interest that will push back against any increase.
Is American Idol Having Its Most Racist, Sexist Season Yet?
April 8, 2011 |
American Idol attraction at Hollywood Studios.
Photo Credit: BestWDW at Flickr
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
American Idol has a racism problem. American Idol also has a sexism problem. That's true generally—four of its nine winners have been female; three of its nine winners have been people of color (two women, one man). But it's especially true this season.
The season started out with 13 finalists: Six men, seven women. So far this season, only one man has been voted off—and the judges used their one and only "save" to rescue him from elimination. At this point in the season, we are down to eight contestants—six men, and two women.
[Spoiler warning for image below the fold and related discussion that reveals who was eliminated last night.]
From left to right: African-American contestant Ashthon Jones, Puerto Rican-American contestant Karen Rodriguez, African-American contestant Naima Adedapo, Filipina-American contestant Thia Megia, and Italian-American contestant Pia Toscano.
Above are the contestants who have been eliminated so far this season. All—all—of the women of color were voted off first. (With the exception of the white male contestant who was voted off and saved; the next week, two women of color were sent home.) When only three white women were left, the most "ethnic"-looking of the three women, who was widely regarded as one of the best singers in the competition, was eliminated.
A woman of color hasn't won since Season 6 (Jordin Sparks); seasons 7, 8, and 9 were all won by white men (David Cook, Kris Allen, and Lee DeWyze, respectively). All but one (Jacob Lusk, who was in the bottom three last night) of the remaining male contestants this season are white (or present as white*), so odds are that a white man will win American Idol again this year.
There is an argument to be made that this isn't American Idol's fault, but America's. The show has a geographical bias that favors southern contestants—six of the nine winners have been from southern states, and the three exceptions were Jordin Sparks who was from the southwest (Arizona), David Cook who was from the upland south (Missouri), and Lee DeWyze who was from Illinois but living in Oklahoma when he auditioned for the show. Four of the five female contestants voted off have been from New York, California, or Wisconsin. Only Ashthon Jones was from Georgia.
And then there's the argument that the US is itself a deeply sexist and racist place, so it ought to be no surprise when the voting reflects those values. Of the top 10 best-selling music artists in the US, only Barbra Streisand is not a white male.
Except.
If you start looking at best-selling lists of recent decades, things start looking different. Best-sellers are not a sea of white male faces, anymore.
(And there's a separate issue about, for example, Motown music being covered over and over, instead of originals considered untouchable canon, which affects all-time best-sellers lists, and which is a whole other post I will write someday, but suffice it to say all-time US best-sellers lists are deceptively white, anyway.)
Yes, American Idol votes skew based on the same prejudices that affect all parts of US culture and the same clan-championing that goes on in US politics. But the show treats female and male contestants fundamentally differently, encouraging creativity among the boys and conformity among the girls. (Gee, where have I heard that before?)
And, beyond the creative-compliant disparity, there is the routinely reinforced narrative that (straight) male voters should support male contestants because they're cool, and (straight) female voters should support male contestants because they're hot. There were no staged scenes of teenybopper boys running onstage to throw themselves at Pia's feet (like Scotty McCreery got, with teenybopper girls)—or staged scenes of young girls running up to ask for her autograph. The only reason to vote for a female contestant, it seems, it because she's a good singer. "This is ultimately a singing competition," the judges like to say, so that ought to be enough.
But it's not enough, because calling American Idol just a singing competition is dishonest. And all the little staged extras, and the opportunities to show "personality," and all the other "showbiz spectacle" detritus that increases exponentially every year, favors the boys.
Which would just be exasperating, and nothing more than a reason to change the channel, were it not for the millions of little girls vested in the show—and internalizing the lessons it's teaching about how "America" treats men and women, especially women of color.
[Note: All of the female finalists this year were also thin.]
-------------------------------------
* Earlier in the season, the country contestant, Scotty McCreery, told Lopez his grandmother wanted him to tell her that he is one-quarter Puerto Rican. McCreery, however, trades on a cowpoke image inextricably associated, if wrongly so, with whiteness, and his family history did not come up again until this week, when he awkwardly attributed his dance moves this week to "the Puerto Rican blood." Shut Up!
Boehner: When we say 'privatize' Medicare, we don't mean 'privatize'
This is encouraging: "privatization" is still a dirty word, when it comes to Medicare. At least, if you can judge by Speaker John Boehner, who says that the Republican plan to replace Medicare with vouchers that can by used to purchase private insurance is not privatization.
"There's no privatizing of Medicare," Boehner said. "We're transforming Medicare so that it'll be there for the future." A reporter asked Boehner whether his members support the GOP budget, which includes a plan to give seniors vouchers to buy insurance in a private marketplace. He offered less than a full-throated defense.The less-than-enthusiastic endorsement of the privatization plan from Boehner might have a little something to do with this:
"I think it's an option worth considering," Boehner said. "I think our members are in full support of us continuing to march forward with our budget."
The most popular position in the GOP’s coalition isn’t that Medicare needs a complete overhaul, as Ryan thinks. It isn’t that it needs major changes, or even that it needs minor changes. It’s that we shouldn’t try and control costs at all. That’s not true for the Democrats’ coalition, where both “minor changes” and “major changes” beat “no cost control,” and it’s not true for the independent coalition, where “minor changes” at least tie cost control.While Republican politicians and members of Congress might not need Medicare, or know anyone personally who needs it, plenty of regular-people-type Republicans do. And even they don't want to see the program changed.
The Racist Anti-Abortion Group That Criminalizes Black Motherhood
The Racist Anti-Abortion Group That Criminalizes Black Motherhood
April 12, 2011 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Gender headlines via email.
"Every 21 minutes," the billboard read, "our next possible leader is aborted." Next to that text runs the very recognizable profile of our commander-in-chief. Get their message? It's not subtle: black women, they have no shame in saying, are destroying black communities. By choosing abortion, they're decimating our future (never mind that Obama's mother was white). Black women cannot be trusted, these ads clearly imply -- not with their children and families, and certainly not with decisions about their own bodies. Do not trust black women, Life Always implores you. Do not trust them.
It's a message anti-abortion advocates are getting very good at spreading -- and I for one have had enough of it. As a black mother, I take these ads personally -- and you know what, Life Always? I am offended. I am enraged. I am disgusted that it seems to you, and to all these folks who are willing to sell you ad space, just fine to call black women dangerous, incompetent and downright dumb, out in the open air.
To expose these children that you claim to care so much about to messages that come a hair's breath away from criminalizing their mothers. To assume we don't have the good common sense to make reasonable decisions about the limits of our bodies, and our families. To treat us so definitively like what we want and need and believe to be best just doesn't matter.
Do I imagine that the folks behind this ad much care about how angry and depressed these ads make me feel? Do I think they mind that seeing a billboard declaring "the most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb" – in my own hometown-- made me want to tear my hair out with shame and grief? Not really.
Because despite their use of the first person possessive to describe their relationship to the black community, what's agonizingly clear is that groups like Life Always don't really give a fig about black people – not about how they make us feel with their racist rhetoric, nor about what happens to black babies after they are born.
If they did care, they would support policies and programs that prevent pregnancies before they happen (and by that I mean policies and programs that are actually proven to work, as opposed to abstinence-only education). They'd stop cutting the guts out of programs that provide subsidized child-care and early education to low-income families, and stop trying to roll back provisions of health-care reform that provide a greater pool of families and children with the medical resources they need.
They'd be leading investigations into why black women die so much more often in childbirth than women of other ethnicities do, and why black babies are also more likely to suffer the same fate, within the first year of their lives.
But they do none of that. Instead, their goal is to undermine the credibility of humanity of people of color, with an eye to the election season that will quickly be upon us. Don't be fooled: as much as it is about anything else, this campaign is about convincing white Americans (who drive past these billboards, too) of the purported continued "pathology" of the black community – and now, in Chicago, they're tying the president directly to that insidious message, as a means of delegitimizing him, too.
That should be enough to make anyone who believes in equality and justice furious – regardless of how you feel about the very complex issue of abortion.
As for me, I'm tired of being insulted. I'm tired of waking up every morning to a new affront to my existence and intelligence. But I know that this only ends when we make it end. The moral arc of the universe may be long, and it may bend towards justice, but it does not bend without our help. So sign a petition to put an end to these menacing campaigns. Stand with an organization working to stop the insanity. Do something now -- before they come to take more than just our wombs.
Elizabeth G. Hines is a writer and co-author of 'Black Titan: A.G. Gaston and the Making of a Black American Millionaire.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)