Business Leaders Worry Obama Has It in for Them
Obama is seeking more stringent tax reporting laws
Another week, another assault on business-as-usual by President Obama. Or is it, as some critics are starting to wonder, an assault on business, as usual?
This time, Obama took aim at offshore tax havens, announcing a drive against corporations and wealthy Americans who avoid U.S. taxes by putting their money overseas. He is seeking new tax laws, more-stringent reporting requirements, and the hiring of 800 new agents for the Internal Revenue Service to limit the practice of sheltering money and shifting jobs outside the United States.
"I want to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world," Obama said Monday, "but the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens." Obama said his proposal would bring in $210 billion in extra tax revenue over 10 years.
But all this prompted angry opposition from major business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable. Corporate leaders said the Obama plan would result in their companies paying higher taxes than their foreign competitors, hindering their attempts to compete globally. The critics also argued that American jobs would be jeopardized if Obama succeeded in blocking corporations from deferring tax payments on overseas profits and taking a credit on taxes incurred in foreign countries to reduce their tax burden in the United States. John Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, which represents some the nation's largest companies, issued a statement calling it "the wrong proposal at the wrong time for the wrong reason." Castellani said it will "make us less competitive in the international marketplace, where, by last count, 95 percent of the world lives."
Republicans in Congress seemed generally opposed to Obama's plan. "I cannot endorse a plan that gives preferential treatment to foreign companies at the expense of U.S. companies," says Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP leader in the Senate. Even some Democrats, including Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, weren't wild about the changes. Calling for "further study," Baucus issued a statement noting, "I want to make certain that our tax policies are fair and support the global competitiveness of U.S. businesses." Much of the plan would require congressional approval.
Until the offshore decision, business leaders had been muted in criticizing the Obama administration, even though the new president has made them very uncomfortable by intervening more aggressively in the private sector than any other president in many years. Among his actions have been bailing out the financial industry, taking over a stake in the auto industry, and helping people avoid foreclosure in the housing industry, all with powerful strings attached.
Democratic strategists say that, up until now, business leaders haven't wanted to alienate the popular president so early in his tenure. One particular concern, says a senior Democrat who is close to the White House, was that corporate leaders did not want to be excluded from discussions of important legislation, especially proposals to overhaul the healthcare system. The offshore decision, however, has set up a clash that may break the informal truce.
White House officials aren't worried. "The last election in some ways was a referendum on President Obama's economic philosophy versus the philosophy that didn't do very well over the last eight years," argues an Obama adviser. Not that the administration is looking to pick fights. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke says, "President Obama has a very good relationship with the business community. He's working extra hard on creating more jobs and stabilizing the financial crisis.... In many ways, he's perhaps surprised the business community with just how moderate he has been and how much he is willing to work with them."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Read up and Decide for Yourselves
Look up these authors and give them a read:
Friedrich Hayek
Ludwig von Mises
Milton Freedman
These are the Austrian School economists who basically argue against Socialism and for Free Markets. Their argument is basically that our freedoms are inherently economic, and that free markets are what allow for the development of new innovations that benefit us all. Socialism, on the other hand, is a reaction to the prosperity created by innovators and entrepreneurs, and the desire to take their wealth away from them on the grounds that "they're greedy". The result of Socialism's Egalitarianism is poverty for all, since they want to create a "Level Playing Field", but obviously not everyone can be rich. Therefore the logical conclusion, and the conclusion of their policies, is that everyone will be made poor, and Equal. Except of course the Political class who will have Power and Privilege as a result, which is the true goal. That is the Austrian School in a nut shell. And it does make a certain amount of sense, at least to me. Anyway, read for yourself and decide.
Anti Runaway Greed, Not Anti Business
My husband and I own and operate a small business in Arizona. We employ 10 to 12 people and pay our share of taxes. We voted for Obama and both of us would do it again in a second.
I believe that President Obama believes in Capitalism, but with reasonable restraints on greed and malfeasance, unlike Republicans who believe in unfettered Capitalism and Devil Take the Hindmost. I know in my own mind I cannot operate a successful business in the long term if too many people in the world around me are too finacially sreapped to avail themselves of my services. If businesses continue to ship jobs overseas to pay sweatshop wages, if they continue to lavish rewards on those at the top to the detriment of all the rest, there will be no future customers for my business. I would much rather pay slightly higher taxes and have a government that cares about all of its citizens.
Obama on business
Dobbs and Frank and Obama's friends at Freddie and Fannie have destroyed my retirement plans - along with anyone else who attempted to pay their way and save for their future.
What I worry about more is the disastrous changes his Administration's plans will have on my childrens' families. They will not have the economic opportunities of prior generations, as everything will be taken in by the government and then doled out to all, based on their need.
advertisement









