Senate Approves Corporate Tax Bill ($140 Billion in Pork)

[oldhat]

God, these people make me sick. So corrupt...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/business/11CND-TAX.html?ei=5094&en=3de4947a2f1bfd03&hp=&ex=1097553600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&position=

WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 - The Senate today approved a bill handing out about $140 billion in corporate tax breaks.

The 633-page bill, which has already been passed by the House, passed the Senate today on a vote of 69 to 17. It is loaded with hundreds of provisions that provide benefits to a wide range of interests, including the General Electric Company, oil drillers, shipbuilders, cruise ship operators, importers of ceiling fans, corn farmers, tobacco farmers and even foreign gamblers.

Despite widespread criticism of the bill as a Christmas tree of special-interest provisions, the House passed it by a vote of 280 to 141 on Friday, and the Senate voted, 66 to 14, on Sunday to cut off a potential filibuster.

But Senate leaders were blocked from voting until today by Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, who was furious that the final bill did not include $2 billion in tax credits for companies that keep paying employees who are called to active duty from military reserves and the National Guard.

Ms. Landrieu finally won agreement for a vote - whose effect would be purely symbolic - on a measure that would declare the Senate's support for giving those employers some tax credits. The largest provisions of the corporate tax bill repeal a $5 billion annual tax break for exporters that has been declared illegal by the World Trade Organization, and replace it with a tax reduction for manufacturers in the United States.

The bill's tax breaks are worth about $140 billion over 10 years, but it is supposed to raise the same amount of money by closing tax shelters, raising customs fees and eliminating the old tax benefit.

On Friday night, Senate leaders overcame objections by opponents of the bill, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who were angry that it would provide a $10 billion buyout for tobacco farmers without subjecting tobacco products to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.

Opponents could not muster enough votes to block the bill through a filibuster, so Mr. Kennedy and his allies settled for separate voice votes in favor of tobacco regulation and against new overtime rules.

But those bills are unlikely to become law because the House has not passed similar measures.

[calico1]

1. FYI---

NAYs ---17

Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Collins (R-ME)
Corzine (D-NJ)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Levin (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD

[Bandit]

3. No Kerry and no Edwards...............................................

Fourteen Senators didn't even bother to vote probably including Kerry and Edwards. God help America because it is in the hands of Corporations.

[Occulus]

5. my math tells me it would have made no difference

Their absence on this bothers me not. They need to be campaigning as hard as they can right now.

[sangh0]

7. It doesn't make a difference that it made no difference

It's another excuse to bash Kerry and Edwards, and for some people, that's the only thing that matters.

[Robert Oak]

2. It's disgusting what is going on

I am not saying we don't need corporate tax cuts, but this version of the bill increases incentives to outsource
US jobs.

This was added in the house and why Ted Kennedy and others are speaking against this bill. The Senate version
was much more in our favor.

What happened was both the house and senate were working on this and truly it was a good idea..
but the house ways and committee CHANGED THE BILL and now it's bad for us!. Read the below snips on bill analysis
with respect to outsourcing and tax breaks to do so:

http://democraticwhip.house.gov/media/press.cfm?pressReleaseID=729
<snip>
B) The amendment does not include the additional tax incentives provided in Title III of the Committee-reported bill for companies to move jobs and operations offshore. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, in a recent report, stated that our current system already provides incentives for companies to shift capital out of the United States to take advantage of low taxes overseas. The Committee-reported bill will only increase the incentives provided by current law.
</snip>

http://hrcenter.bna.com/pic2/hr2pic.nsf/id/BNAP-65GPRV?OpenDocument
<snip>

On a largely party-line vote of 215-205, the House Sept. 29 rejected a Democratic nonbinding motion intended to remove incentives for businesses to "outsource" U.S. jobs to overseas locations.

The motion would have instructed members of a conference committee on an export tax bill (H.R. 4520) to remove from that bill any increases in tax benefits for overseas operations of multinational corporations. The motion also asked conferees to "provide the largest effective rate reduction for businesses that have not moved operations offshore."

</snip>



http://kennedy.senate.gov/index_high.html

<snip>



Finally, this bill outsources jobs.

Middle class families across America live in fear every day that their good jobs will be shipped overseas. The people expect us to protect their jobs. But this bill provides a stunning 42 billion dollars in new tax breaks for multinational corporations that will make it easier for them to export your jobs. It has 24 different provisions that will use your taxes to create jobs overseas rather than here at home.

Imagine that. You are working hard every day, playing by the rules, trying to provide for your family, and faithfully paying your taxes. And this bill uses your tax dollars to ship your job overseas.

Why should a bill that the sponsors claim to be a jobs bill contain new special interest loopholes for importers of ceiling fans? And of the 276 new tax breaks in this bill, why on earth should we exclude from taxation the winnings of foreigners at horse and dog racing tracks? How does that strengthen America? How many new jobs will that one create?

This bill is of the elite corporate interests, by the elite corporate interests, for the elite corporate interests. It's a lobbyist's dream and a middle class nightmare. It's an embarrassment to representative government. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

</snip>


Bill summary:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR04520:@@@L&summ2=m&

Final vote: Look at what your Senator did for you today:

http://forum.noslaves.com/index.php?showtopic=281&st=0&#entry456

[proud patriot]

4. So glad both my Senators voted NAY

:D

[Trillo]

6. Competitive edge:

I've wondered for some time if it's possible to start a buisness and be hugely profitable if one doesn't have a "special interest tax incentive."

Perhaps that's why there are so many struggling self-employed people, and so many unhappy corporate employees.

If you want to go off and do it on your own, don't forget the largess you'll need to send to legislators in order to have that special competitive edge.

[Robert Oak]

8. that's true, startups get a lobbyist before hiring engineers

I'm serious, I have met a series of startups who have their lobbyists
in place with absolutely no product and no engineering staff.

[DeepModem Mom]

9. kick

[Deja Q]

10. By, of, and for the corporation.

n/t

[Thor_MN]

11. Could someone explain to me why we need to pay $10B to tobacco farmers???

I didn't get paid anything when my job was taken over by someone on an H1B Visa. My "way of life" was significantly affected, just like many of my coworkers. Why do Republicans hate middle class IT workers?