Why does Obama promise to cut corporate tax rates an additional 5% after Bush

[papau]

/GOP cuts have already moved those rates down from 35%?

Why does any one who wants to cut corporate tax rates and to decrease corporate regulation since he sees corporations as people that need freedom/rights - why is this person not seen as the corporate candidate?

Indeed yesterday an Obama supporting economist was asked about the spending proposed in Obama's speeches - which unlike with Hillary who in general specifies where the money will come from - is left out there for the listener to add up and for the GOP to scream about promising a grab bag of goodies with nothing to pay for them.

The economist - again an Obama supporter - said "Oh, those are just campaign promises" and discussed how Obama would not be a deficit disaster for the economy - implying that the promises are a con.

Today om the talking heads financial cable channels the same topic was discussed and the same points pointed out - those promises may not happen - and when they don't - just don't blame Obama - it was a Congress that could not be moved.

Why are these financial comments that are being exposed on the financial cable channels not discussed in political programs - is the idea to hide the real Obama until after he locks up the nomination?

I did not believe the reduction in corporate tax rates at first - but it is on his web site and indeed the bill - called the Patriot Corporation Act, co-sponsored by Obama, is already in committee in the House as H. R. 3319 and has been written up as a progressive idea by Obama by the Nation (the idea is that it requires decent employee treatment to get the 5% tax cut - and there are offsets but only for a small fraction of the cost to the Treasury of this 5% cut).

"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Patriot Corporations of America Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL CONTRACTING PREFERENCE FOR PATRIOT CORPORATIONS.

After December 31, 2007, in the evaluation of bids or proposals for a contract for the procurement of goods or services, the Federal Government shall provide a preference to any entity that is a Patriot corporation (as defined in section 11(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 3 of this Act ), unless the award of the contract to such entity would jeopardize the national security interests of the United States.

SEC. 3. REDUCTION IN RATE OF INCOME TAX FOR PATRIOT CORPORATIONS.

(a) In General- Section 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(e) Patriot Corporations-

`(1) RATE REDUCTION FOR PATRIOT CORPORATIONS- In the case of a Patriot corporation , the amount of the tax imposed under subsection (a) (determined without regard to this paragraph) shall be reduced (but not below zero) by an amount equal to 5 percent of the taxable income of such corporation .

[rodeodance]

1. We know where Hillary stands on important issues. but not where Obama stands.

again an Obama supporter - said "Oh, those are just campaign promises"

[Occam Bandage]

3. A hilarious reply in a thread about a specific policy proposal of Obama's.

[rodeodance]

9. I ws referring to the text of my post. --(? replay)

[Occam Bandage]

2. Yes. For corporations that don't outsource, don't dodge taxes, don't offshore,

don't run sweatshops and don't mistreat their workers. We want to reward good behavior.

This would be paid for by removing the tax breaks given to corporations that outsource workers.

[Seabiscuit]

4. "...is the idea to hide the real Obama until after he locks up the nomination?"

Well, Duh...

Of course it is. The media wants Obama to run against McCain. Either way, big corporations get what they want.

[Occam Bandage]

8. I would think an Edwards supporter would applaud rewarding corporations that don't outsource or

mistreat their workers.

[Political Heretic]

5. PATRIOT corporations is a proposal for reward corps that don't outsource with tax breaks.

It's not all corporations - its an incentive program to encourage corps to keep jobs here.

Not saying I like the idea, but at least get it right.

[Windy]

7. HRC people are looking for anything that they can find to try and attack Obama

I don't have a problem with this proposal at all.

I live in Michigan and we've seen many companies take their companies and jobs overseas. This may give them the incentive to return.

[democrattotheend]

6. To encourage employers to keep jobs in the US

The idea is to remove the tax advantages to corporations that ship their jobs overseas and instead reward employers for keeping jobs here.

[MNDemNY]

13. How about removing the advantages, while at the same time

making All corps pay their share? they are not now paying their share.

[Occam Bandage]

18. Obama is in favor of closing those loopholes. I don't know where you're going with that.

[MNDemNY]

36. And giving breaks to other corps? why?

Different clientele, but a whore just the same.

[Occam Bandage]

37. To keep good, high-paying, health-care-providing jobs in America, under companies

that don't overpay CEOs, union-bust, or dodge taxes.

[MNDemNY]

43. And the only way to do that is to give them money? Fuck that.

[Occam Bandage]

64. Er, yeah. Carrots or sticks, and we can't very well illegalize offshoring.

[lumpy]

62. Over paying CEOs ? now that's another story. Don't believe

any candidates would touch that with a ten foot pole.

[Occam Bandage]

63. It's in the bill.

[ContinentalOp]

66. Yeah but,

You can't expect an Obama detractor to actually read something now can you?

[lumpy]

61. Indeed, why reward ? Why not reduce tax breaks from

companies who do not comply with fair hiring practices or penalize those who downgrade for the purpose of using foreign workforce. Reward hell. The whole tax system needs overhauling to the point individuals and corps. should be paying fair share. One reason JFK was killed because of his
proposals for tax reform.

[jackson_dem]

67. You can't raise $100 million in a year if you do that, though

$hange we can believe in!

[dtotire]

56. Ditto

We want businesses to stay in this country and provide jobs for Americans.

[JoFerret]

60. Dumb way to do it

But classic for Mr. Accommodation.

[JCMach1]

10. His economic advisors are Chicago School... expect more of the same in this area if elected

Republican-lite.

[MNDemNY]

12. But he sounds good as he fucks us!!!!

[Occam Bandage]

21. If you had actually read this bill--or any articles about it--you'd realize how silly you look.

[JCMach1]

65. Oh yes, let's lower Corporate Taxes!

Koolaid indeed... of a different sort if you buy that...

[MNDemNY]

11. Simple...He is a corporate whore.

[Occam Bandage]

14. I like how you obviously did no research whatsoever. These breaks are only for companies

that do not outsource, do not run sweatshops, do not offshore, do not dodge taxes, do not bust unions, and pay a decent wage here and abroad. It's designed to encourage good behavior in corporations, and will be paid for by closing loopholes for offshoring corporations, and ending tax breaks for outsourcing corporations.

[MNDemNY]

16. The corporate tax is too low, across the board.

Yes, remove any incentive for outsourcing and the like, but profit making companies must pay their share.IMO they are not.

[Occam Bandage]

19. In Obama's opinion, as well, they are not, and that is why he has proposed

reforming the tax code to close the loopholes that allow corporations to get off easy.

[MNDemNY]

22. And giving breaks to those he deems decent?

This government has evolved into one that is operated by and for the corporations. They should pay for this service, lock,stock, and barrel.To AGAIN decrease the taxes payed by any profit making corporation at the expense of the poor and middle-class is , well, just not progressive. But, neither is BHO.

[Occam Bandage]

27. To those that uphold progressive principles? Yes.

[MNDemNY]

33. Taxing the people to provide give-aways to corps is progressive?

That is stupid talk. Take your corporate whore of a candidate and go fishing!

[Occam Bandage]

35. No. Taxing bad corporations to provide bonuses to progressive corporations is. Look,

you walked into a discussion and mouthed off without knowing a fucking thing about the bill. You won't win this one; it's a great progressive bill sponsored by good, progressive Democrats.

[MNDemNY]

42. No, it's a house proposal that will go nowhere.

[Occam Bandage]

44. Don't worry. President Obama will sign it into law.

[MNDemNY]

47. It would have to pass congress, first, or will BHO "change" that?

[Occam Bandage]

48. It will.

[MNDemNY]

49. Just make him king, already. geez

[LiberalFighter]

15. Patriot Corporations?

Any politician that uses patriot in their bill should be shot! I am sick and tired of these weasels suggesting that others are patriots or they can only be patriots if they do such and such a thing. I am sick and tired of the Homeland Security crap too which is reminiscent of Nazi Germany with their Fatherland bit.

[Occam Bandage]

17. I actually agree with the use of the term "patriot" here. A corporation

that does not outsource its manufacturing to China nor its call centers to India, that does not offshore and avoid paying taxes, does not abuse its workers, and pays a fair wage both in America and abroad is, indeed, patriotic.

[MNDemNY]

23. Define "fair" wage. Define "abuse".

Or does your candidate just decide that for you?(us)

[Occam Bandage]

28. Read "the bill."

[Political Heretic]

57. lol that made me laugh

[NYCGirl]

20. Here's a good article from The Nation on the VERY good bill:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=219923

The House and Senate bills appear to be differ slightly but pursue the same goal. In the House, a "Patriot Corporation" would get tax breaks and preferences in federal contracting for employers who produce at least 90 percent of their goods and services in the US and with American workers. The companies must invest in research and development domestically, provide adequate health care and pensions and--surprise--comply with federal laws like workplace safety, environmental protection and consumer regulations.

The Senate's "Patriot Employers" version would give a 1 percent tax credit on taxable income for companies that maintain or increase their US employment in relation to their overseas workers. They must also keep their corporate headquarters in the US. The Senate bill adds a "living wage" requirement. Its initial co-sponsors are Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Dick Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois. Obama's sponsorship, I would guess, may attract other celebrated names.

House co-sponsors are the same nucleus of progressives pushing party leaders to undertake a thorough revamp of US policy on globalization and trade. They are Schakowsky and Hare of Illinois, Sutton and Ryan of Ohio, Woolsey of California, Kagen of Wisconsin and Ellison of Minnesota. Senator Brown and Rep. Jan Schakowsky endorse both House and Senate versions.

The principle at stake is straightforward. Multinational corporations cannot continue to have it both ways--moving more and more value-added production and jobs offshore to capture cheap labor, while still enjoying all of the rewards and benefits of claiming American identity. It's not just the outrageous tax breaks. The American military defends their freedom to operate around the globe.

These measures can be the beginning of tough new policies on globalization. They are quite limited in scope, but a good start. Thousands of small to mid-sized manufacturing firms that do not offshore their production should salute the initiative since the incentives are intended for them. The rewards are modest gestures at this point. The real fight begins when Congress proposes penalties--higher taxes--for those unpatriotic companies that left home.

[ctaylors6]

24. Here are the links to H.R. 3319 and senate version S. 1945 ...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3319

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1945

Senate version sponsored by Dick Durbin, co-sponsored by Obama & Sherrod Brown

[ctaylors6]

32. Patriot Corporation has to meet following requirements for current & preceding tax years:

B) REQUIREMENTS- A corporation meets the requirements of this subparagraph, with respect to any taxable year, if such corporation--
`(i) produces in the United States at least 90 percent of the goods and services sold by such corporation during such taxable year,
`(ii) does not provide compensation to any management personnel of such corporation at a level of compensation which exceeds 10,000 percent of the level of compensation of the full-time employee of such corporation with the lowest level of compensation during such taxable year,
`(iii) conducts at least 50 percent of the research and development conducted by such corporation during such taxable year (determined on the basis of cost) in the United States,
`(iv) has contributed at least 5 percent of wages paid by the corporation during the taxable year to a portable pension fund for the benefit of employees of the corporation,
`(v) has paid at least 70 percent of the cost of a standardized health insurance plan for the benefit of employees of the corporation during such taxable year,
`(vi) has maintained at all times during such taxable year neutrality in employee organizing drives and has in effect a policy to that effect,
`(vii) provides full differential salary and insurance benefits for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called to active duty,
`(viii) has not been (at any time during such taxable year) in violation of appropriate Federal regulations including those related to the environment, workplace safety, labor relations, and consumer protections, as determined by the Secretary, and
`(ix) has not been in violation of any other regulations specified by the Secretary.

As for the process, the Secretary of the Treasury will have to certify the corporation as a "Patriot Corporation."

subparagraph vi pertains to unions

edited to add: this is the house version

[Occam Bandage]

34. Wow. How Orwellian.

:eyes:

[ctaylors6]

39. My first instinct is that I agree, Orwellian. Also, certification process seems like it'd be costly

& cumbersome for all those requirements. It seems to apply only to corporations (ie entities organized as corporations under IRS rules), so at least there'd be more accessible management/accounting records. I'm not clear if it pertains to S-Corps (the proposed legislation in my link is short). It wouldn't apply, from what I read, to companies organized as LLCs, to partnerships, or sole proprietorships. (I have tax/accounting background by the way.)

It looks like to pay for it, they'll tax high income earners additional 4.6% (joint filers with AGI > $1million and single > $500,000).

I'm going to have to think on this.

[Occam Bandage]

40. Okay. Now explain how it's Orwellian.

[ctaylors6]

50. Sorry, was being sarcastic about orwellian. I do wonder about the certification process though

But that's probably just the accountant in me.
(I shouldn't try to type when I'm on phone, not clear at all.)

[femrap]

25. Well, I'm damn happy to see that the Corporations'

taxes will NOT be reduced 'below zero.' That'll be the next thing those greedy fucknots will want...they'll want the middle class taxpayers to give them $ to exist...pay for having jobs!

I'll tell you...these Corporations come up with new and different forms of slavery everyday.

Who is BO sponsoring this with????

I have long felt that BO found his Daddy in The Corporation. Daddy is taking care of BO now...

'patriot corporations of America Act'....just more orwellian gobble-de-goop.

It is Mass Psychosis.

[Occam Bandage]

29. Are you in favor of outsourcing jobs to India and China? If not,

why do you oppose this bill?

[NYCGirl]

30. The sponsors include Sherrod Brown, Dick Durbin, Jan Schakowsky, Lynn Woolsey:

The Senate's "Patriot Employers" version would give a 1 percent tax credit on taxable income for companies that maintain or increase their US employment in relation to their overseas workers. They must also keep their corporate headquarters in the US. The Senate bill adds a "living wage" requirement. Its initial co-sponsors are Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Dick Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois. Obama's sponsorship, I would guess, may attract other celebrated names.

House co-sponsors are the same nucleus of progressives pushing party leaders to undertake a thorough revamp of US policy on globalization and trade. They are Schakowsky and Hare of Illinois, Sutton and Ryan of Ohio, Woolsey of California, Kagen of Wisconsin and Ellison of Minnesota. Senator Brown and Rep. Jan Schakowsky endorse both House and Senate versions.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=219923

[Occam Bandage]

31. What a pack of evil corporatists. (Nice to see Keith Ellison there,

he's been a great first Muslim Congressman)

[democrattotheend]

41. Dick Durbin and Sherrod Brown

Not exactly Republican-lite.

[femrap]

52. So it's a tax incentive (carrot)

to keep the corps. from moving more jobs overseas? So I assume there is a certain ratio that must be maintained of here and there employees?

Is there a tax punishment (stick) on those who don't do this?? Taxes will go UP if if HQ is moved or if more jobs are moved overseas?

I wonder if the legislation looks at the particular jobs...for example, a call center employee who is required to speak English. If these jobs are shipped overseas, that should be a double penalty, because it is a job that most Americans are capable of doing.

Thanks for clearing that up...No Sherrod is not a pug-lite.

I'll have to read more. Thx.

[karynnj]

26. This bill does not seem to have been introduced in the Senate

I have no idea from what I can find in the Congressional record as to who is introducing it in the Senate but it does seem that it is pushing companies to produce mainly in the USA, set up pensions, give health care, kept guard and reserve people financially whole, followed a whole set of rules. Sounds good to me - I would like it even if it were HRC's bill. I hope Obama did sponsor it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the House info - note there are no related bills.


H.R.3319
Title: To provide Federal contracting preferences for, and a reduction in the rate of income tax imposed on, Patriot corporations, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. (introduced 8/2/2007) Cosponsors (14)
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments
SUMMARY AS OF:
8/2/2007--Introduced.

Patriot Corporations of America Act of 2007 - Grants after 2007 a preference to Patriot corporations in the evaluation of bids or proposals for federal contracts. Defines " Patriot corporation" as a corporation which: (1) produces at least 90% of its goods and services in the United States; (2) does not pay its its management-level employees at a rate more than 10,000% of the compensation of its lowest paid employee; (3) conducts at least 50% of its research and development in the United States; (4) contributes at least 5% of its payroll to a portable pension fund for its employees; (5) pays at least 70% of its employees' health insurance costs; (6) maintains a policy of neutrality in employee organizing drives; (7) provides full differential salary and insurance benefits for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called to active duty; and (8) has not violated federal regulations, including regulations relating to the environment, workplace safety, labor relations, and consumer protections.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) reduce the income tax rate for Patriot corporations; (2) reclassify foreign corporations created or organized to avoid federal taxation as domestic corporations for income tax purposes; and (3) increase, for the period between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2010, the income tax rate for individual taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of $500,000 or more ($1 million or more for joint returns).
MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***

ALL ACTIONS:

8/2/2007:
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
8/2/2007:
Referred to House Ways and Means
8/2/2007:
Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform

TITLE(S): (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

***NONE***

COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Rep Boyda, Nancy E. - 8/2/2007
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 8/2/2007
Rep Ellison, Keith - 8/2/2007
Rep Hall, John J. - 8/3/2007
Rep Hare, Phil - 8/2/2007
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 8/2/2007
Rep Kagen, Steve - 8/2/2007
Rep Kildee, Dale E. - 8/2/2007
Rep McNerney, Jerry - 8/2/2007
Rep Michaud, Michael H. - 8/2/2007
Rep Ryan, Tim - 8/2/2007
Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 8/2/2007
Rep Sutton, Betty - 8/2/2007
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 8/2/2007

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
House Ways and Means Referral, In Committee
House Oversight and Government Reform Referral, In Committee

RELATED BILL DETAILS:

***NONE***

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE***
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to the companies that it gives preferencial treatment to - it seems they are those who opt to do specified voluntary things that are good for the country.

From Thomas:

2) PATRIOT CORPORATION DEFINED- For purposes of this subsection--

`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `Patriot corporation' means, with respect to any taxable year, any corporation which is certified by the Secretary as meeting the requirements of subparagraph (B) for such taxable and the preceding taxable year.

`(B) REQUIREMENTS- A corporation meets the requirements of this subparagraph, with respect to any taxable year, if such corporation--

`(i) produces in the United States at least 90 percent of the goods and services sold by such corporation during such taxable year,

`(ii) does not provide compensation to any management personnel of such corporation at a level of compensation which exceeds 10,000 percent of the level of compensation of the full-time employee of such corporation with the lowest level of compensation during such taxable year,

`(iii) conducts at least 50 percent of the research and development conducted by such corporation during such taxable year (determined on the basis of cost) in the United States,

`(iv) has contributed at least 5 percent of wages paid by the corporation during the taxable year to a portable pension fund for the benefit of employees of the corporation,

`(v) has paid at least 70 percent of the cost of a standardized health insurance plan for the benefit of employees of the corporation during such taxable year,

`(vi) has maintained at all times during such taxable year neutrality in employee organizing drives and has in effect a policy to that effect,

`(vii) provides full differential salary and insurance benefits for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called to active duty,

`(viii) has not been (at any time during such taxable year) in violation of appropriate Federal regulations including those related to the environment, workplace safety, labor relations, and consumer protections, as determined by the Secretary, and

`(ix) has not been in violation of any other regulations specified by the Secretary.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[FarCenter]

38. 90% production in the US, but only 50% R&D?

Why require only 50% of research and development be done in the US?

This seems to encourage off-shore R&D, with the "screwdriver shop" in the US.

[karynnj]

46. Maybe reflecting that in today's world, that would mean "re-inventing the wheeel in some cases.

I remember in the 1970s that there was always criticism in the biggest research arms of companies that there was a danger in the "not invented here" bias.

[TheDoorbellRang]

45. The Missing Link is alive and well here, unfortunately

Was a time here at DU when the first post replying to such an OP would have been "Link, please?"

Since others have responded to the egregious misrepresentation in the corporate tax cut portion of this post, let me address another portion of this link-free anti-Obama post. This part sounded familiar:

"Indeed yesterday an Obama supporting economist was asked about the spending proposed in Obama's speeches - which unlike with Hillary who in general specifies where the money will come from - is left out there for the listener to add up and for the GOP to scream about promising a grab bag of goodies with nothing to pay for them.

The economist - again an Obama supporter - said "Oh, those are just campaign promises" and discussed how Obama would not be a deficit disaster for the economy - implying that the promises are a con."

This sounded eerily familiar to me. Two weeks ago we had a similar link-free post:

"Obama's chief economic advisor Austin Goolsbee was being bombarded with questions on CSNBC's Kudlow and Company as to why he was supporting Obama's liberal policies that would disrupt the free market.

he responded "obviously Obama wouldn't be able to deliver on most of his promises." He reassured the others "that nothing was set in stone and that Obama was just campaigning.""

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4597785#4597853

Notice at least in this previous post we had a few clues so we could check it out ourselves. I checked out Goolsbee's appearance on Kudlow & Co here and found he had said no such thing. More telling, DUer sandnsea found the same post, almost word for word, here:

"The guy was being bombarded with questions about why he was supporting Obama's liberal policies that would disrupt the free market.

Of course the guy was some sort of lobbyist...but when the question was posed he responded that obviously Obama wouldnt be able to deliver on most of his promises. He reassured the other pundits that nothing was set in stone and that Obama was just campaigning.

He seemed to know alot"

Good to know we now defer to the political pundits over at MySpace.com.

[papau]

53. Obama's chief economic advisor Austin Goolsbee is not credible = interesting

[TheDoorbellRang]

54. And where is your source that he is not credible -- an anonymous MySpace poster?

The part where Goolsbee airily says, "Oh. Not to worry. Obama's economic proposals are just empty campaign promises." Repeated here. By you. Without a source.

Show me the link on video or in writing where he said this, please. Because the link I provided to the Kudlow & Co. airing with Goolsbee shows that that is a palpable falsehood.

[papau]

55. wrong - guess truth hurts - the Kudlow interview repeated a couple of times this weekend -and indeed

I saw it -

I did not know about a "Myspace" posting - but thanks for the information.

But the fact remains that Obama's econ advisor says his promises are bullshit and he plans corporate tax cuts - just like any other Republican (granted he did not say "bullshit" - just said not to worry about them or their cost as they are "just" campaign promises and unlikely to pass into law). Kudlow was pleased.

I can see how Obama gets those crossover votes - what I don't understand is why he gets votes from folks at DU.

[TheDoorbellRang]

58. Still waiting for your link

the link I posted of Goolsbee on Kudlow does not show what you say to be true. If he did say it, please show the link.

[jackson_dem]

68. Here is a source that says a similar thing about "just campaign promises"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4805060

[TheDoorbellRang]

69. Which makes both these instances even more suspect

No link here to the damning evidence, and on the other thread, what the anonymous staffer allegedly said, but they're too coy to reveal the staffer's name? Why would that be?

Now we are to believe that Obama's staffers/advisors are running hither and yon announcing that everything he says is just "campaign rhetoric"? Seems there is a pattern here, and without evidence, all it boils down to is a more subtle political smear than we have yet seen.

Show me evidence, and then I'll be appalled.

[ProSense]

51. Durbin, Obama, & Brown and...Schakowsky Introduce Legislation to Reward "Patriot Employers"

Senators Durbin, Obama, & Brown and Representative Schakowsky Introduce Legislation to Reward "Patriot Employers"

Thursday, August 2, 2007

For Immediate Release:
Contact: Sandra Abrevaya (Durbin), Ben LaBolt (Obama), Bethany Lesser (Brown), or Peter Karatofas (Schakowsky)

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) Barack Obama (D-IL) Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today introduced legislation to reward companies that invest in American jobs, pay decent wages, provide good benefits, and support their employees when they are called to active duty. The Patriot Employer Act of 2007 would provide a tax credit to companies that make a commitment to American workers.

“When companies make headlines today it is often for all the wrong reasons: fraud, tax avoidance and profiteering,” Durbin said. “Americans have had enough with a corporate culture that rewards bad behavior and ignores the well being of workers. It is time for Patriot Employers to be recognized for doing right by their workers even while they do well for their customers and shareholders.”

“Instead of providing incentives for employers to outsource and move their headquarters overseas, we should encourage corporations to be patriot employers that create good jobs with good benefits for American workers,” said Senator Obama. “Patriot employers help maintain American competitiveness in the global marketplace, while keeping our workforce and our middle class strong.”

“For far too long, our government has betrayed the middle class while giving tax breaks to billionaires and multinational corporations that ship jobs overseas,” Senator Brown said. “Instead we should reward patriot companies that are loyal to workers and advance jobs.”


“The Patriot Corporation Act would reward companies that invest in our nation and its workers,” said Congresswoman Schakowsky. “Americans have had enough of businesses offshoring jobs and skirting the law to increase their bottom line. We must stop rewarding outsourcers and tax dodgers, and make corporations earn their tax incentives by investing in America and American workers. Our bill will create a new patriotic corporate ethic in America that unites workers and their employers in the mutual goal of building a stronger, more prosperous democratic business sector to compete in the twenty-first century global economy.”

The Patriot Employers legislation would provide a tax credit equal to 1% of taxable income to employers that:

• Invest in American jobs, by maintaining or increasing the number of full-time workers in America relative to the number of full-time workers outside of America AND by maintaining corporate headquarters in America if the company has ever been headquartered in America.
  
  
• Pay decent wages, by paying each worker an hourly wage that would ensure that a full-time worker would earn enough to keep a family of three out of poverty (at least $ 7.80 per hour).
  
  
• Prepare workers for retirement, by providing either a defined benefit plan OR a defined contribution plan that fully matches at least 5% of worker contributions for every employee.
  
  
• Provide health insurance, by paying at least 60% of each worker’s health care premiums.
  
  
• Support the troops, by paying the difference between regular salary and military salary for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called for active duty AND by continuing their health insurance coverage for the Guard member and his or her family.

[ContinentalOp]

59. The National Guard and Reserve part doesn't sound good.

The rest of the bill sounds great to me but I don't know about this:
"Support the troops, by paying the difference between regular salary and military salary for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called for active duty AND by continuing their health insurance coverage for the Guard member and his or her family."

Doesn't that just create a disincentive for companies to hire National Guard and Reserves members?