Meadows attempts to spread his disease to Democrats


And they need to run like scalded dogs:

In a bid to help shape and build support for the tax package, the North Carolina Republican has been reaching across the aisle to a handful of moderate Democrats, he told The Hill in an interview. The outreach includes Rep. John Delaney (Md.), who has said he's running for president in 2020, and Rep. John Garamendi, the former California insurance commissioner and lieutenant governor.

Meadows's top ally, former Freedom Caucus chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), has taken part in many of those informal, bipartisan discussions. A number of skeptical, moderate Republicans could peel off from the GOP tax-reform bill, so Meadows and Jordan are looking to make up for those losses with Democratic votes.

Oh, hell no. If those Democrats truly are interested in coming up with some bi-partisan approach that will give them some leverage on this issue, they need to deal with a genuine moderate Republican (if they can find one) and not a Tea-Party megalomaniac like Mark Meadows. Seriously, this dude would shut down government and throw us into another deep recession if he thought it would give him half a point in the polls and an extra five minutes in front of a camera. And while this idea might look good on paper:

The other bill, co-authored by Freedom Caucus Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), would allow U.S. multinational corporations to bring back, or repatriate, their earnings at a mandatory, one-time tax of 8.75 percent - a discount on the current 35 percent rate and deferral option.

"What I've said is: If tax reform included infrastructure, there's the basis for starting to have a conversation with Democrats," Delaney told The Hill on Thursday. "A large-scale bipartisan bill creates a pathway for money to come back overseas as a part of building infrastructure. And Jim [Jordan] was a co-sponsor. So that's the nexus."

That "great deal" represents hundreds of billions *not* collected in owed taxes, but it will also likely fail to generate many (or any) new employment opportunities for American workers. How do I know? Because we tried this before under Bush II:

In the 2004 case, 9,700 companies were eligible to take part in a tax holiday that would bring the overseas cash back at a rate of 5.25 percent, well below the 35 percent rate for profits earned abroad.

Of that group, 843 companies participated. They brought home $312 billion in qualified earnings, or about one-third of the total cash held overseas, according to the CRS. That translated into total deductions of $265 billion.

From 2005 to 2006, Pfizer, which repatriated $37 billion, slashed 10,000 jobs. Merck, which brought back $15.9 billion, cut 7,000 jobs, and HP pared its employment rolls by 14,500 after repatriating $14.5 billion.

Most of the money went to repairing balance sheets and rewarding shareholders, according to the CRS. According to one study cited, as much as 91 cents on the dollar went to share repurchases, even though that, along with compensation increases, was expressly prohibited by Congress.

Prohibited uses for the cash weren't easy to track because the money ended up being commingled with other corporate funds.

Get that? Republicans are trying to use this repatriation thing as a carrot, that it will replace revenue dollars they're giving to their wealthy overlords. When in fact, it's just more of the same. The only thing more disgusting than their habit of recycling these bad ideas every decade or so is the fact so many people fall for the scams, over and over again.



Pure speculation on my part,

but between 2004 and 2006 a lot of those same corporations were also taking part in the Prime Mortgage fiasco that brought about the Recession. Freed from regulations that used to prohibit such activities, these corporations tried to "enhance" their retirement portfolios by buying 1,000 mortgage contract "tranches," which had been built by increasingly risky home loans. At one time, General Motors actually owned several entire communities in places like Baton Rouge, that would see a future foreclosure rate of 35% or more.

The truth is, when these companies do get their hands on big piles of money, they rarely invest it in building said company, it's just pissed away or pocketed.