American tax code promotes outsourcing. Mitt Romney’s jobs plan would exploit that weakness.

The Center for American Progress is a public policy think-tank which was created by John Podesta in 2003 as an alternative to right-wing extremist think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

You can skip the article to the conclusion, but then, if you did, you’d miss out on the rationale… which is the significant point.

Yes, there are changes to American tax policy which need to be re-examined, particularly and especially those which do not offer competitive, fair or just incentives for a win-win-win for American enterprise, the American worker, and the American economy as a whole. However, the rules that have skewed the advantage to Big Business to the exclusion of the benefit of all of America and her citizens should be re-examined and modified or eliminated as necessary.

Time and time again, history has shown that when our nation has had high personal income tax rates, our nation has prospered significantly. That’s but one proof positive that should no longer be a “sacred cow” for any political party.

Further, the “starve the monster” philosophy which has, in large part, guided the modern Republican party, even spawning the modern radical TEA Party element, is a significant departure from reality. The reason why is simple: 100 years ago, we didn’t have space travel, the Internet, computers, cell phones, the Interstate highway system and so many, many, many more things that we have now. It’s ludicrous – bordering on the insane – to imagine that as these new inventions and innovations have proliferated (themselves signs of American ingenuity & enterprise), that there would be fewer rules and regulations associated with them. The concept is really quite simple. For example, when families have more children, there are more rules to govern their actions & behaviors. It’s analogous also to saying that, as an adult, one would wear smaller clothing as an adult, then as they did when in their infancy. It’s so preposterously ludicrous as to be insane – a genuine divorce from reality.

—

Romney’s New Tax Incentive for Outsourcing U.S. Jobs

How Romney’s Plan Would Reward Foreign Outsourcing

Gov. Romney presents his plan for creating jobs and improving the economy during a speech Tuesday, Sept. 6, 2011, in Las Vegas. His argument that we must exempt the overseas profits of American companies from U.S. taxes to make them more competitive in a global economy doesn’t hold up. SOURCE: AP/ Julie Jacobson

By Seth Hanlon | July 16, 2012
Download this issue brief (pdf)

The Washington Post recently reported that some of the companies Mitt Romney’s firm Bain Capital invested in were “pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories.” Even more troubling than his business record is his platform as Republican presidential candidate, which includes a policy that would encourage and further accelerate the outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries.

The former Massachusetts governor would make U.S. corporations’ overseas profits exempt from U.S. taxes. These profits are already treated favorably under the tax code compared to corporate profits that are earned and reported domestically, creating an inefficient bias toward investment offshore. The favorable treatment of profits that are reported offshore also creates rewards for corporations that shift profits (on paper) out of the United States to foreign countries, including tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

Romney’s proposed exemption for foreign profits would exacerbate the worst features of our current tax system. It would:

Republican Father of ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate Denies He Ever Created It

Liar.

Weasel.

Republican.

Can you smell the hypocrisy cooking?

—

Column: Don’t blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

By Stuart Butler

Updated 2/6/2012 10:40 AM

Is the individual mandate at the heart of “ObamaCare” a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no. {ed. note: That’s utter bullshit, which you’ll understand why as you read on.}

Stuart Butler, By Kate Patterson, USA TODAY (The liar looks happy as a lark, doesn’t he? Apparently, there’s no joy in Mudville.)

The U.S. Supreme Court will put the middle issue to rest. The answers to the first and last can come from me. After all, I headed Heritage’s health work for 30 years. And make no mistake: Heritage and I actively oppose the individual mandate, including in an amicus brief filed in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the myth persists. ObamaCare “adopts the ‘individual mandate’ concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation,” Jonathan Alter wrote recently in The Washington Post. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews makes the same claim, asserting that Republican support of a mandate “has its roots in a proposal by the conservative Heritage Foundation.” Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and others have made similar claims.

The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that

Republicans first championed Individual Mandate health insurance, aka “Obamacare.” Now, they don’t. Why?

Perhaps someone can assist me with the proper spelling of “hypocrisy.”

Conservatives Sowed Idea of Health Care Mandate, Only to Spurn It Later

By MICHAEL COOPER

Published: February 14, 2012

It can be difficult to remember now, given the ferocity with which many Republicans assail it as an attack on freedom, but the provision in President Obama’s health care law requiring all Americans to buy health insurance has its roots in conservative thinking.

Gary Stewart/Associated Press

Waiting for Hillary Rodham Clinton in 1994, a crowd in Seattle gathered to protest a Clinton administration health care plan.

The concept that people should be required to buy health coverage was fleshed out more than two decades ago by a number of conservative economists, embraced by scholars at conservative research groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and championed, for a time, by Republicans in the Senate.

The individual mandate, as it is known, was seen then as a conservative alternative to some of the health care approaches favored by liberals — like creating a national health service or requiring employers to provide health coverage.

“In 1993, in fighting ‘Hillarycare,’ virtually every conservative saw the mandate as a less dangerous future than what Hillary was trying to do,” Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, said at a debate in December, casting his past support of a mandate as an antidote to the health care overhaul proposed by Hillary Rodham Clinton during her husband’s administration.

Since then the politics of health care have grown more twisted and tangled