Cenk to Obama: Big Business is just not that into you

Posted on February 7, 2011 by William Brighenti

All right. Today President Obama went over to the Chamber of Commerce to make nice with big business. Now, I think that`s a bad idea, and I want to explain to you why.

First of all, the Chamber of Commerce is, without a doubt, a right- wing organization. You shouldn`t feed the bear that wants to eat you for lunch. That`s a saying I just made up. What do you think?

All right. Now I`ll show you why.

Last year, the Chamber spent $33 million to defeat the Democrats in the midterms. That doesn`t look very friendly to me. That looks like they might be on the other side.

And in 2009, insurance companies gave the Chamber of Commerce more than $86 million to fight against President Obama`s health care law. What part of that is confusing?

President Obama, I got bad news for you. They are just not that into you.

Secondly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has nothing to do with the U.S. Now, I`m going to get back to that in a second, but first, let`s take a look at the president`s speech.

Even though the Chamber has consistently worked against the president and his party, Obama still showed up with a message of appeasement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Which brings me to the final responsibility of government, breaking down some of the barriers that stand in the way of your success. As far as exports are concerned, that means seeking new opportunities and opening new markets for your goods. Now, another barrier government we can remove — and I hear a lot about this from many of you — is a burdensome corporate tax code with one of the highest rates in the world, which brings be to the last barriers we`re trying to remove, and those are outdated and unnecessary regulations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Oh! It`s so painful. He`s making every Republican talking point there. He`s talking about so-called free trade, he`s talking about high corporate tax rates, when they have got a million loopholes and they didn`t pay that money any way.

He`s talking about burdensome regulation? This is a Democratic president or a Republican president?

But the president, as usual, of course presented both sides. That`s what he does. Now, here he talks about the merits of regulation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I also have to point out the perils of too much regulation are also matched by the dangers of too little. And we saw that in the financial crisis, where the absence of sound rules of the road, that wasn`t good for business. Even if you weren`t in the financial sector it wasn`t good for business.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: All right. That`s true, and that sounds so much more reasonable. All right. You are getting both sides.

But the problem is, in effect, you do not get both sides. If you just had it the president`s way, it wouldn`t be that bad. You`d say, all right, look, a little too much regulation here, a little too regulation here.

But the right wing blocks all of the Democratic proposals. They get the Republicans to do that. And when the president agrees with them, and says, all right, I`m going to take away the regulation there, or I`m going to lower your taxes there, they`re like, fantastic.

So you get a one-sided view. That`s what I`m scared of.

Now, don`t get me wrong. The president did ask big business to support the little guy today in return for favorable treatment of big business. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: If we`re fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports to help you compete, the benefits can`t just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standards of living, as well as your bottom line.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Again, if it worked that way, I would love it. That would be great. But these corporations` interests are global.

They are not in it for the American worker. And I`m not saying that as a bad thing. Let me give you an example.

Caterpillar, they`re based in Peoria, Illinois. Right? Their profits more than quadrupled in the fourth quarter of 2010 over the previous year because of a surge in overseas demand. That`s a good thing.

The company is thriving thanks to global commerce. Good thing.

In 2010, Caterpillar hired 19,000 people. Lovely. But only 7,500 were in America.

They also announced plans to build eight new facilities. Great! But only three of them are in the U.S.

Look, I`m not against Caterpillar if they make money abroad or if they even hire abroad. It`s OK. But giving our tax breaks to them, or lightening of their regulatory load, in the hopes against hope that they are going to create jobs here in America, it`s just misunderstanding the system, misunderstanding the process. That`s not how it works.

In the end, the president still tried to appeal to their patriotism at the Chamber of Commerce.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I know you love this country. I know you want America to succeed just as badly as I do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Wrong again. Look, I`m not saying they are bad people. And I`m not saying that they don`t America to succeed as individuals as you do, I do, as the president does. But they are part of a corporate machine.

By law, they`re not allowed to give a damn about America. If it costs two cents less to make something in China, they are going to make it in China and they`re going to hire in China. If they didn`t, they would get fired.

Pleading with the corporate machine to do the right thing is futile. I wish the president would at some point understand that.

All right. Joining me now is Robert Borosage. He`s the president of the Campaign for America`s Future.

Robert, do I have this right, or if the president just asks really nicely, maybe the Chamber of Commerce will change their minds and go, oh, my God, you`re right, I should hire in America?

ROBERT BOROSAGE, CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA`S FUTURE: No, you`ve got it right. And we can see it in the recovery.

We`ve got record profits in corporations, and we have a massive job problem here at home. And largely, that`s because the big corporations are making more and more profits abroad and locating their plants there. And it will take a changed public policy to turn that around.

UYGUR: You know, I want to give you a quote by Leslie Margolin. She was with Anthem Blue Cross. She was in fact their president. Right?

But when she complained about a 39 percent tax — I`m sorry, a rate hike, what they did was they said, all right, thank you very much for working here, but your work is done. And her quote is, “I thought the rates were too high. I thought the impact on our membership was too significant.”

So the minute she said that, they showed her the door. So I`m not saying these people are evil, but isn`t the system set up in a way that they`re not allowed to be the good guys? If they are, they`re removed for the sake of profit.

BOROSAGE: Well, they have to make as much money as they can. And now, in recent years, we have seen them accumulate more and more of that money at the top, among the CEOs and the top executives.

I mean, when this economy was growing under Bush, the top one percent were capturing about two-thirds of all of the rewards of growth — we`ve never seen that before — while most families were losing income. And that`s, again, got to be changed by public policy.

It`s not going to be changed by the corporations themselves. Those executives have a quite personal stake in keeping the system as it`s working now.

UYGUR: So then let`s get into practical matters. What should the president do? Because, of course, his advisers, who, in my opinion, are center-right, to say the least, are like, oh, my God! You have to get to the Chamber of Commerce and please them! You have to make them happy!

Do they have a point? If not, well, then, what is the president supposed to do when he talks to the Chamber of Commerce?

BOROSAGE: Well, I don`t know that I would go talk to the Chamber of Commerce, which, as you said, is just a right-wing lobby group that makes its money raising money from big corporations that prey on American taxpayers. But I do think he has to make business comfortable. I don`t have a problem with that.

I do think we need though a policy for making things here in America. And that`s where we`ve gone wrong.

You know, Germany is a very high-wage producer, but it`s an export superpower. And the reason is it has an industrial policy that ensures that the companies keep high-quality jobs in Germany. And we`ve got to move to that, and that will take a very different set of policies than begging the Chamber of Commerce to be patriotic.

UYGUR: Well, Robert, that`s a great point, so let`s stay on that for a second, because a lot of people say, well, what can we do? The jobs are going to go to China, India, et cetera. But Germany has figured it out. They`ve figured out a way to keep the jobs.

How are they doing it?

BOROSAGE: Well, they do a combination of things. The workers have unions, and they have a stake in the company leadership. And so they make collective decisions.

They have long-term capital from their banks that`s not speculative. They make collective decisions about what kinds of plans they move abroad and what technology they`ll keep at home.

They have a middle level of corporations that are funded by municipally-located banks that are geographically located and very dynamic. And the combination makes them a superpower. And they also manage their trade with China and the like so that they don`t get overwhelmed by the Chinese mercantilist policies.

UYGUR: Yes. You know, I love the idea of Obama going to the Chamber of Commerce and saying, hey, I`m going to make you work with unions so that we keep the jobs here.

(LAUGHTER)

BOROSAGE: Well, you know, he said that workers have to share in the profits this time. But if we don`t change policy, we`ll go back to that old economy.

UYGUR: So this isn`t going to work. I mean, him reaching out and saying, all right, I`m going to cut some regulations if you promise to be good guys, it might be well intentioned, but let me ask you that as the last question.

Real quick here, do you think Obama thinks it`s actually going to work if I appeal to their patriotic duty, that they`ll put on a flag lapel pin and get out there and hire Americans? If he doesn`t think that, why is he doing it?

BOROSAGE: No, I don`t think he thinks that. I think he does think that he can get the Chamber of Commerce perhaps to be an ally in his quest to get money to invest in infrastructure and research and development and education and training, all of which would help business.

UYGUR: Right. Well, they`re like, oh, if you`re going to give us more money, yes, we`ll agree to that.

(LAUGHTER)

UYGUR: So that`s not much of a stretch. I don`t think he had to do a big speech to get them on board for that.

All right. Robert Borosage, thank you so much for your time this evening. We really appreciate it.

BOROSAGE: A pleasure. Take care.

UYGUR: OK.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Have you read the Time Magazine article on “The Pentagon’s Marauding Fraudsters”? Military defense contractors who put the “con” in contractors, milking the taxpayers for billions, entitling them to be “con”victs.

Posted on February 5, 2011 by William Brighenti

Fraud is big business at the Pentagon. Always has been, always will be. When you’re spending more than $1 million a minute, some is bound to be pilfered one way or another. But it’s rare to find all such chicanery cataloged in one place. Thanks to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, we now have one-stop shopping for Pentagon fraud.

He asked the Defense Department to pull together data on how military contractors have hoodwinked taxpayers in recent years. The report says the Pentagon spent $270 billion from 2007 to 2009 on 91 contractors involved in civil fraud cases that resulted in judgments of more than $1 million. Another $682 million went to 30 contractors convicted of criminal fraud in the same three-year period. Billions more went to firms that had been suspended or debarred by the Pentagon for misusing taxpayer dollars.

“With the country running a $14 trillion national debt, my goal is to provide as much transparency as possible about what is happening with taxpayer money,” Sanders says. “The sad truth is that virtually all of the major defense contractors in this country for years have been engaged in systemic fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.”

Pentagon contracting has been broken for decades. Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said — on September 10, 2001 — that “according to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.” The next day was 9/11, and counting Pentagon dollars was no longer a top priority.

As someone who has risked his eyesight poring through defense contracts over the years, it’s fair to note the system is cumbersome, complicated and opaque, at least to us common taxpayers. To the contract analysts, accountants and lawyers — especially those who used to work for the government and who now work for these contractors — not so much. They’ve got to pay for all those newspaper and radio ads urging the government to spend more on the military somehow.

As you sit down in the weeks ahead to file your federal tax return, toss out your TurboTax computerized tax program, don’t sleep for two days, and down a half-bottle of Jack Daniel’s before picking up your pencil to fill out your 1040. That’ll give you a rough idea of how the Pentagon keeps track of its — our — money.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GE turns to U.S. for bailouts but turns to China for employees

Posted on February 5, 2011 by William Brighenti

GE is, of course, one of our major corporations. The manufacturer’s recent disclosure pointed out, the taxpayers of this country, through the Fed, provided $16 billion in bailout to General Electric during the recent crisis. This is what the head, the CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, said in 2002, December 6:

When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China, China. You need to be there. You need to change the way people talk about it and how they get there. I am a nut on China. Outsourcing from China is going to grow to 5 billion. We are building a tech center in China. Every discussion today has to center on China. The cost basis is extremely attractive. You can take an 18-cubic-foot refrigerator, make it in China, land it in the United States, and land it for less than we can make an 18-cubic-foot refrigerator today ourselves.

Gee. A couple of years ago when GE had some difficult economic times, and they needed $16 billion to bail them out, I did not hear Mr. Immelt going to China, China, China, China, China. I did not hear that. I heard Mr. Immelt going to the taxpayers of the United States for his welfare check.

So I say to Mr. Immelt, and I say to all of those CEOs who have been so quick to run to China, that maybe it is time to start reinvesting in the United States of America.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

GOP Spins Jobs Report: House Speaker John Boehner Claims that the Stimulus Plan Caused the Dismal Jobs Report

Posted on February 4, 2011 by William Brighenti

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

UYGUR: When the economy showed signs of life last month, including a drop in unemployment, Republicans couldn`t wait to claim credit. They said it was all thanks to the tax cuts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: Some of the results that you just talked about, I suspect, are coming from the fact that we extended tax rates that the president did not want to be extend.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And we`ve gotten some positive numbers. I think it`s in large part because we won our majority and we`re pursuing pro- growth policies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

UYGUR: Now, that was a week after they got sworn in. It`s incredible how fast they worked. Republicans come in office — boom! The economy is instantly fixed. They`re like miracle workers.

But then look at what happened today. A new jobs report shows unemployment dropped again last month, but not as much as some analysts had hoped, partly because the stormy weather may have slowed the hiring.

Now, so it fell from 9.4 percent to 9 percent. And Republicans are now saying that`s Obama`s fault, that the jobs report wasn`t even better.

Come on.

Today`s statement from John Boehner: “The president`s spending binge is hurting job creation, eroding confidence, draining funds away from private investment, and spreading uncertainty among really rich people.” I mean job creators.

So, Obama`s policies destroyed job growth last month, but not the previous month. And I guess the Bush tax cuts magically worked in December, but then immediately stopped working in January.

Seriously, who can believe that? I don`t even think the Republicans believe it as they`re saying it.

But it`s obvious what the plan is. If the economy doesn`t do well, well, then you blame Obama and you say, I had nothing to do with it. Me? Me? Not me. But if it does do well, you take credit and you say it was all you.

Look, the reality is that it`s pure nonsense to look at a two-month snapshot and make a judgment based on it either way. But we can look at the big picture and see a clear pattern over a much longer period of time.

During Bill Clinton`s eight years, the country added 22 million jobs. During George W. Bush`s eight years, just one million jobs. And that`s actually being kind to him, because the recession cost us a huge amount of jobs in `09, after he helicoptered out of town.

And how about Obama? In 2010, the U.S. added 1.1 million jobs, more than were added during the entire Bush presidency.

Look, the jury is still out on Obama and this economy. But when it comes to which party creates jobs and which party doesn`t, you just saw the record. The record is incredibly clear.

All right. Now with me is former secretary of labor, Robert Reich. He`s now a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley.

Secretary Reich, a great pleasure having you here.

ROBERT REICH, FMR. LABOR SECRETARY: Good evening, Cenk.

UYGUR: First of all, what`s your reaction to the job numbers? Is it good? Is it bad? Everybody seems to be all over the board on it.

REICH: Well, the most important job number today is 36,000, which is the number of new private sector jobs created in January. And that`s pretty discouraging. I mean, it`s in the right direction, but you need 125,000 new jobs just to keep up with the growth in the population of people who are eager and ready and willing to work.

UYGUR: All right. So there`s two different things here, what`s happening in reality in terms of creating jobs, are we doing enough, et cetera, and then there`s the Republican version of reality. Let`s dispense with the Republican version first. Right?

So, they say, well, ,look, last month we created jobs because we said we were going to do tax cuts, and then this month it`s Obama`s fault. I mean, you`ve dealt with the Republicans a long time. Do they actually believe that, or do they just say it and hope that it confuses people?

REICH: Well, I don`t want to accuse anybody of hypocrisy, Cenk, but I think there is a little bit of the quality of — yes, let`s say what helps us and what undermines our opponents. Democrats are not completely innocent of the same strategy, by the way, but unfortunately, in Washington, you get left-and-right-handed economists, you get economists who will basically parrot whatever the dominant political force is, particularly Republicans and Democrats will say and want them to say.

Look, the reality right now is that we are coming out of a recession, but it`s a very, very slow recovery. Corporate profits are up, Wall Street is up, but most Americans aren`t seeing much of a recovery.

UYGUR: Secretary Reich, we saw earlier in the week record profits again for the top financial firms. I read an article of yours where you talked about how the stock market is still growing, but the median wage is falling. Right? So it depends on what your perspective is, right?

So, if you only care about the top one percent, the economy is actually doing rather well. Right?

REICH: Exactly. In a sense, Cenk, we have two economies right now.

We have got the big money economy. Wall Street is doing wonderfully well. Big business is doing well, sitting on over $1 trillion of cash, don`t even know where to spend that cash. But most Americans are seeing their major assets, which is their homes, and not their stocks and bonds — most Americans don`t have very much by way of stocks and bonds — their major asset is their homes, and that major asset continues to drop.

UYGUR: So now let`s get to the reality. What would you do if you were the secretary of labor for President Obama, and he comes to you and he says, look, you know, we`re stagnating a little bit here, what`s the answer?

REICH: Well, the first answer is to make sure that there`s more money in the pockets of average working people so they can turn around and buy more. And if they turn around and buy more, that means more jobs.

How do you get more money into the pockets of average working people? Well, for example, I might recommend that you exempt the first $20,000 of income from the payroll tax. Eighty percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And make up the difference by lifting the ceiling on the percentage of income subjected to the payroll tax.

UYGUR: So, you know, of course the Republicans would call that redistribution of wealth. But what I see now is a massive redistribution of wealth. We`ve got the $400 billion tax cuts going to the rich. And right now they`re going to come after entitlements when they go to cut spending.

So you`re saying flip it on its head, and not because you care about fairness, but you`re saying that would actually help the economy and it would help everybody.

REICH: Exactly. I mean, I do care about fairness, Cenk, as you do. But the fact of the matter is that if you`ve got so much of the nation`s income and wealth concentrated at the top, which you do right now — I mean, we have almost a record amount of concentrated wealth and income at the top — the vast middle class, the working class of America, just doesn`t have enough income to turn around and buy the stuff that`s going to boost the economy. I mean, there`s just not enough demand out there, there`s no way around that. You can`t run an economy just based on the top one percent to five percent of Americans.

UYGUR: All right. One last final question for you.

You know, the Republicans came out yesterday and said, oh, we`re going to cut $32 billion after they add $$00 billion in tax cuts. So that leaves about — we did the math last night — about $368 billion they`ve got to get to, to get to square one.

When you saw those numbers, did you have a good belly laugh?

REICH: Well, I thought it was a little embarrassing for them, honestly, because their entire strategy is based, as it has been for the last 30 years, on at least this philosophy. They don`t actually act on it, but they talk about shrinking government. But $32 billion may sound a lot, but given the entire federal budget, let alone the federal budget deficit, it`s almost nothing.

What happens is that the Republicans talk very, very toughly, but when it gets actually to the point of having to take on something like an entitlement, Social Security, or Medicare, or national defense, which is still bloated beyond belief, they just don`t want to take any action. .

UYGUR: Let alone, of course, taxes, where they cause a lot more damage than they do with any spending cut or spending increase. They just added $400 billion a year. It`s unconscionable if you care about the budget.

REICH: Absolutely. They continue to believe — and this is an amazing thing, Cenk, when you realize that for years and years, the actual reality has proven otherwise — they continue to believe that if you reduce taxes on the top, it trickles down and benefits everybody else.

It doesn`t benefit. There`s been no trickle down for the last 30 years.

UYGUR: Yes. I actually don`t think they believe that. They know that it goes to the top, but they like that. Those are the guys who paid them and got them into office.

REICH: Well, they keep talking about trickle down as if it actually was a reality.

UYGUR: Well, as you know, of course it isn`t.

All right. Great talking to you, Labor Secretary Robert Reich. We really appreciate your time.

REICH: Thanks, Cenk.

UYGUR: All right.

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Businesses reveal unhappiness with Obama policies

Posted on February 3, 2011 by William Brighenti

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

>> remember a few weeks back when house oversight committee chairman darryl issa asked 150 corporations for help on what to target to deregulate. basically asking them, what can i do for you? well, they responded. big time. so far issa has refused to release their responses, but 33 companies responded to a request for citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. so we have a sample of their wishlist. the american chemistry council wants issa to crackdown on a recent proposal to increase the epa standards on boilers and incinerators. those regulations would cut down on pollutants that are harmful to children. who doesn’t want more pollute at that particular times that are particularly harmful to children. then there’s a national multihousing council. who doesn’t like the epa safety regulations that prevent contractors from releasing lead-based paint into the air during home renovations. so they say the renovations pose a major obstacle to housing market recovery. more lead for everybody. and the flamability test for children’s mat tress. so your kids could be pumped up full of pollutants, and poisoned by lead paint but it wouldn’t matter because they could be sleeping on mattresses that can burst into flames. you do need a careful balance of safety for the public and efficiency for business. but in this case, the republicans are only listening to the companies whose soul interest is in making more money. the less regulations there are, the more money they make. 20 regulations, health care retirement benefits, financial reform, and environmental regulation. these guys are against ceos having to disclose their earnings, they don’t want protections for whistleblowers and they really don’t like the regulation of greenhouse gases and the gop is working hard to appease these guys. a bill to eliminate epa regulations of car emissions. lovely. two representatives released the following statement, we firmly believe that federal bureaucrats should not be unilaterally setting the climate change policy. of course not. it should be left up to big business. joining me now is david sirota, author of “the uprising.” the republican part, how bought are they? 80%, 90% or 100%?

>> that’s an impossible question. but one thing, cenk, give darryl issa credit, right? he came out and was honest about how the system works. i mean, i’m saying that a little tongue and cheek, but here’s the thing. he came out and said listen, big money interests, you want to buy policy, here’s how you buy it. you tell me exactly what you want and we’re going to try to deliver. and the problem with this is really in a process way is usually what’s happened in the past is industries hood to come to the government and testify and tell us what they wanted. now he’s doing it through this letter-writing situation where the public won’t necessarily know who’s asking for the policy when it ultimately fits into the bill that the republicans offer.

>> how do they do it? i guess they do it with the money, right? they get the money from the industry guys, they run for office and pretend to be for president people and turn around and say okay, how do i pay you back? how do we let people know these guys aren’t an your side. you have to suffer pollution in your local area or whatever. it’s for the guys who pay their bills.

>> i think the public knows that in a general sense. i think the public is rightly suspicious of congress, rightly suspicious — every poll shows suspicion of money and politics. but every time a story like this comes out, it reiterates just how grandular it really is, legislating different lines, different regulations of bills. it’s important to continue highlighting this to reiterate that money, as you suggest, money buys things in politics, just like it buys things in the rest of the economy.

>> real quick, david. do you think they’re going to be successful? they’re going after the epa hard. how successful do you think they might be?

>> i think if the democrats roll over– and that’s a huge if right now — the president is focussing on being, quote, unquote, pro business. that may be the president tries to appease the republicans, schilling iffer their big money interests, and we may see that come to fruition when it comes to epa policy making.

>> let’s hope it doesn’t happen, but i’m a little worried.

>> david sirota, thank you for

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged | Leave a comment

GOP fuzzy on budget math. Why a CPA is needed in Washington NOW!

Posted on February 3, 2011 by William Brighenti

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

>> end!

>> we will also get right to work to reduce the deficit which next year alone will save the tax payers $100 billion.

>> cut government spending to prestimulus, prebailout levels, saving immediately $100 billion.

>> now that was during the elections. then the republicans kept saying we’re going to cut $100 billion. trust me, trust me. well, i didn’t. i didn’t trust them. i didn’t believe it for a second. and the gop went on to make that promise a center piece of their pledge to america, saying they would make the cuts to f they win control of the house in midterms. today they announced their actual plan. turns out, they could only find $32 billion in cuts. look at that. what a shame. they said no, no, no. we’re going to actually cut $58 billion, but there’s only eight months. if you do the math it’s only 32, but we should get credit for more and it’s almost close to $100 billion. no, it’s not. it’s not close. $400 billion is how much the republicans added alone by insisting on the bush tax cuts. so let me do the math for you. $400 billion minus $32 billion. that equals $100 billion in cuts? i know republicans think math has a liberal bias. but the committee chairman paul ryan should do the real math and here’s the real math. $400 billion minus $32 billion meaning they they have $368 billion to make up to get to square one. and then the republicans would still have to find another $100 billion to make good on the real promise, the promise you just saw. but let’s just leave all that aside. and look at the $400 billion they added to the deficit. they took out a whopping 8% from that $400 million. wow. when republicans say they care about balancing the budget, it is simply not true. it isn’t within miles of true. they just put another $368 billion hole in the budget and that was mainly to help the rich. they are the ones who believe in redistributing wealth, giving tax breaks to the rich and then cutting programs to the middle class. that’s gop 101. by the way, paul ryan hasn’t even said exactly where the $32 billion in cuts is going to come from. he says that will be up to the different committees to figure out. bold, very, bold. but they have indicated they’re coming to the epa first. taxes ftarks cuts for the rich. pollution for you. you see i’m worked up. tell me where i’m wrong. this isn’t $100 billion, is it?

>> what we’re witnessing is what i call — and i’m trying to trademark this. the fiscal clown show. one of those deal where is the little car comes up and one clown comes out and another. and they’re every stripe, conservative republicans, moderate republicans. and actually president obama himself has played a big role until this, because the first thing that happened after the election, he was saying well, we’re not going to let taxes — the tax cuts extend for those above $250,000 because hey, our deficit is above $1 trillion. then, of course, he signed off on that. so this is a bipartisan fiscal clown show affair. and i think what people need to know about the deficit hawks is that 98.5% of them are not serious or to be believed. it’s something you wield at a cugel to have hit your opponent over the head with. then when time comes to govern, it’s never a good time to cut taxes or spending. there’s a famous line, give me chasity but not quite yet. live me austerity, but not until after the next election.

>> there’s three real deficit hawks in the country and i’m one of them. i don’t believe in any of the tax cuts. i didn’t want them for the rich or even the middle class. because it puts a $400 billion hole in the budget and we can’t deal with that. the president said we’ll give reasonable tax rates but two years from now. but having said that, the republican party, this is their big thing. this is what they run on. look, i’m the guy who balanced the budget. but they’ve never balanced the budget. reagan didn’t balance the budget, george bush didn’t balance the budget. are nay stupid or do they think their followers are stupid? who can’t do math?

>> that’s a difficult choice. maybe it’s both. the difficult thing is governing, which they haven’t had to do the last couple of years and they did a poor job of, it’s much harder than campaigning. you see this with health care. they’ve been saying for a year, we’re going to repeal and replace. well, they vote to repeal, the replacement is something they haven’t had time to work something out. they run on the balanced budget, rolling it back to 2008. there have’s a difference between saying we shall not spend an “x” amount of money. paul ryan can say that without implementing it. and the approach aye tors saying this line is going down 80%, this line is going down 50%. nobody seems to have gone through that exercise. that was always put off until after the election. and i think actually, we’re now in a situation where they’re going to say well, look, the senate is not going to take it up. and obama is not going to sign whatever we do anyway, so really, what’s the point. it’s symbolic without saying by the way, we want to cut education spending 90%.

>> right, we would be really tough, except for the democrats. oh, we would balance the budget but these republicans! either way, we had to give the tax cuts to the rich. this is redistribution of the wealth. when it comes to cut, you say i’ve got to cut entitlements and social security, i’ve got to give you more pollution. isn’t that redistribution of wealth to the top?

>> the misdirection is even beyond that. we hear people say we have an entitlements problem. that’s going to sink us in the long term. social security, aside from not being 234 trouble has helped keep us solvent for all these years. over the last 20 year, these surpluses have built up, they don’t put them in the lock box that also gore talks about. if we hadn’t been spending that social security surplus, the national debt would be even larger. so there is a lot of misdirection about who needs to pay and whose hide that should come out of to deal with the long-term structural imbalances that we have.

>> absolutely right. and they’re going to come to raid social security and say sorry, the money is gone. when that happens, i’m going to explode. you think i’m angry now, wait till you get a load of me then. thanks so much for joining us. really appreciate it.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Battle over big oil: GOP Republicans (and Democrats) are giving your tax dollars to big oil companies

Posted on February 3, 2011 by William Brighenti

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Presented by the Barefoot Accountant

Cenk Uygur:  $36 billion is how much oil companies stand to get from taxpayers over the next 10 years.  That’s about $4 billion a year of your money.  President Obama wants to fight to end these tax breaks.  He says he wants to strike these tax breaks from his next budget and hand the money back to you, me and everyone else who pays taxes.   That would be phenomenal.  And yet the Republicans will probably still say no.  Over $36 billion for big oil and the Republicans love it.  What happened?  I thought they were so worried about this deficit?  It’s a perfect opportunity to cut.

President Obama has been trying to end these subsidies for three straight years now and it’s gotten voted down every time in Congress.  Well maybe that’s because these poor oil companies need the tax breaks, right?  Let’s take a look at their bottom line and find out.

Big Oil Companies ProfitsIn 2009, Exxonmobil pulled in almost $20 billion in profits, Chevron over $10 billion and ConocoPhillips nearly $5 billion.  Why on God’s green earth are we giving the most profitable companies in the world our taxpayer money?  Again, conservative and liberals should hate this; we should all unite on this. 

Big Oil Lobbying Dollars 2010

Now you want to know why they get the money anyway.  For years, the industry has been one of the biggest lobbying forces in Washington, shelling out more than $110 million in 2010.  Much of the money came straight in from those three companies I just mentioned:  Exxonmobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.

Big Oil Gets Big Tax Dollars Back from Lobbying

And lobbying also explains what might be the biggest travesty of all.  In 2009, when Exxonmobil posted $20 billion in profits, it got back $156 million in Federal taxes from the United States government.  And Chevron got $19 million back.  Look, this is exactly what’s wrong with our system.  Money goes into politicians pockets; votes come out.  Taxpayers lose; the lobbyists win.  The politicians don’t represent us.  They represent the people who pay them.  And in this case, it’s the oil companies.  And now I want to bring in former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.  He’s now an NBC News political analyst.  Governor Rendell, I’ll ask you if I’m being too cynical but what other reason is there to not pull back these subsidies from the world’s richest companies?

Ed Rendell:  There’s no reason whatsoever.  In fact, we should take away all subsidies to any energy company that’s mature.  To renewable energy companies that are growing and that have a short life span, they need subsidies, they need tax credits, and they need loan guarantees until they reach maturity and can compete economically, because we want them to grow.  But it is a disgrace.  You cited Exxon figures, but Exxonmobil, i think, their last quarter was the most successful quarter in the history of the world by any corporation.  And that’s obscene.  When you talk about $36 billion, about taking that away, the average citizen might say that that $36 billion is a lot of money, but that’s less than 1% of what the oil companies will gain in revenue in that decade: 1%.

Cenk Uygur:  And accordingly it might not matter much to them, but it matters to us: that’s a lot of money for us.  And I know the Republicans claim that they want to cut the deficit, but, you know, sometimes it’s bipartisan here.  Why can’t we get this through Congress?

Ed Rendell:  Well, you hit the nail on the head.  By the way, we didn’t get it through Congress the first two years President Obama was President because some of the Democrats voted to continue the subsidy.  And what we’ve got to be clear, I think what the people have to be clear on, is who’s voting against our interests for these big companies that are making enormous profits.  It should be a campaign issue; and it should be a campaign issue in the Democratic primary and it should be a campaign issue in the general election.  It’s a legitimate issue.  These companies do not deserve tax subsidies.  The idea that somehow removing the subsidies will hurt their growth, that’s baloney.  One of the gas companies — a gas company filed a report with the SEC where they said they expected a 64% return on investment this year.  Well, that’s simply, you know, obviously something that’s off the charts.  And we want them to make money, we want more exploration, we want more drilling, because we want American independence.  We want our gas companies to be able to drill so we can produce our own form of energy.  But they shouldn’t get a subsidy.

Cenk Uygur:  Yeah, no question about that.  Now, you mentioned using it as a campaign issue.  So now, the President has already put it up twice and it’s gotten defeated twice.  He’s putting it up a third time.  Is the idea behind making it a campaign issue so it creates pressure on the politicians to actually change their vote, is that how you would actually get it done?

Ed Rendell:  Sure, the one thing that politicians fear more than losing money, losing campaign contributions, is losing votes.  But basically they’ve been able to continue these subsidies with a sort of veil of anonymity around them.  It never gets framed as a particular issue.  And if it was, what do you think if we polled right now, let’s say we went into any state in the Union, red state, blue state and polled, should Exxonmobil that made the highest corporate profits in the history of the world in the last quarter get taxpayer subsidies?  It would probably poll 90% no, 7 or 8% yes.

Cenk Uygur: Yeah, I think 7 or 8% would be high.  Why would any average American want to pay money out of their own pocket to the most profitable company in the world?  It doesn’t make any sense.  You’re saying pressure is the only thing that works in this case.  If you point that out.  Look, here’s Republican X or Democrat Y voting for this, that’s going to make them change their vote.

Ed Rendell:  We could have gotten rid of these subsidies when both houses of Congress were run by Democrats and President Obama proposed it.  So there are Democrats who voted to continue these subsidies as well.  And some of these subsidies are not necessary.  The only energy companies that we should be subsidizing, let me repeat again, are the new ones, the new renewable, alternative renewable energy companies that need a little time to grow, that need a little help for them to be in position to produce a significant amount of production.  Those companies we should be subsidizing, with everything, loan guarantees, subsidies, making tax credits permanent so that Wall Street will have confidence in investing in them.  But other than them, we shouldn’t be subsidizing.  You know, the corner grocer doesn’t get subsidized.  The guy who sells sweat shirts doesn’t get subsidized by the government.  And neither should the mature energy companies.

Cenk Uygur:  Right.  And by the way, the subsidies in the budget that the President announced last year was about $500 million for renewable energy companies, as opposed to $36.5 billion for the oil companies.  There’s something wrong there.  But Governor Rendell, you got it exactly right as to what the core problem is.  Thank you.

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Vox Clamantis: “the voice of one crying out”

Posted on February 2, 2011 by William Brighenti

Currently, there are approximately 40,000,000 unemployed people in the United States. Only about 15,000,000 of them receive unemployment benefits. 25,000,000 Americans either failed to qualify for benefits, have already rolled off unemployment, have taken some kind of burger-flipper type of under-employment or have simply given up. Over 400,000 workers file first-time claims for unemployment benefits EVERY WEEK. Workers who were laid off back in 2008 have rolled off of unemployment at the same rate minus the negligible impact of new job creation. At this current rate, there will be close to 60,000,000 unemployed Americans this time next year.

These people didn’t lay themselves off. They didn’t create this situation. Unfortunately, help is NOT on the way any time soon. So, once again, the American People are going to have to rise to the occasion and get the job done themselves.

The Barefoot Accountant

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Companies who are exporting American jobs overseas

Posted on February 2, 2011 by William Brighenti

CNN.com’s Exporting America segment has published a list of U.S. companies that are either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers.  In other words, these United States companies are “Exporting America.”

3Com
3M

A
Aalfs Manufacturing
Aavid Thermal Technologies
ABC-NACO
Accenture
Access Electronics
Accuride Corporation
Accuride International
Adaptec
ADC
Adobe Systems
Advanced Energy Industries
Aetna
Affiliated Computer Services
AFS Technologies
A.G. Edwards
Agere Systems
Agilent Technologies
AIG
Alamo Rent A Car
Albany International Corp.
Albertson’s
Alcoa
Alcoa Fujikura
Allen Systems Group
Alliance Semiconductor
Allstate
Alpha Thought Global
Altria Group
Amazon.com
AMD
Americ Disc
American Dawn
American Express
American Greetings
American Household
American Management Systems
American Standard
American Uniform Company
AMETEK
AMI DODUCO
Amloid Corporation
Amphenol Corporation
Analog Devices
Anchor Glass Container
ANDA Networks
Anderson Electrical Products
Andrew Corporation
Anheuser-Busch
Angelica Corporation
Ansell Health Care
Ansell Protective Products
Anvil Knitwear
AOL
A.O. Smith
Apple
Applied Materials
Ark-Les Corporation
Arlee Home Fashions
Art Leather Manufacturing
Artex International
ArvinMeritor
Asco Power Technologies
Ashland
AstenJohnson
Asyst Technologies
Atchison Products, Inc.
A.T. Cross Company
AT&T
AT&T Wireless
A.T. Kearney
Augusta Sportswear
Authentic Fitness Corporation
Automatic Data Processing
Avanade
Avanex
Avaya
Avery Dennison
Azima Healthcare Services
Axiohm Transaction Solutions

B
Bank of America
Bank of New York
Bank One
Bard Access Systems
Barnes Group
Barth & Dreyfuss of California
Bassett Furniture
Bassler Electric Company
BBi Enterprises L.P.
Beacon Blankets
BearingPoint
Bear Stearns
BEA Systems
Bechtel
Becton Dickinson
BellSouth
Bentley Systems
Berdon LLP
Berne Apparel
Bernhardt Furniture
Best Buy
Bestt Liebco Corporation
Beverly Enterprises
Birdair, Inc.
BISSELL
Black & Decker
Blauer Manufacturing

Blue Cast Denim
Bobs Candies
Borden Chemical
Bourns
Bose Corporation
Bowater
BMC Software
Boeing
Braden Manufacturing
Briggs Industries
Brady Corporation
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Bristol Tank & Welding Co.
Brocade
Brooks Automation
Brown Wooten Mills Inc.
Buck Forkardt, Inc.
Bumble Bee
Burle Industries
Burlington House Home Fashions
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway

C
Cadence Design Systems
Camfil Farr
Candle Corporation
Cains Pickles
Capital One
Cardinal Brands
Carrier
Carter’s
Caterpillar
C-COR.net
C&D Technologies
Cellpoint Systems
Cendant
Centis, Inc.
Cerner Corporation
Charles Schwab
ChevronTexaco
The Cherry Corporation
CIBER
Ciena
Cigna
Circuit City
Cirrus Logic
Cisco Systems
Citigroup
Clear Pine Mouldings
Clorox
CNA
Coastcast Corp.
Coca-Cola
Cognizant Technology Solutions
Collins & Aikman
Collis, Inc.
Columbia House
Comcast Holdings
Comdial Corporation
Computer Associates
Computer Horizons
Computer Sciences Corporation
CompuServe
Concise Fabricators
Conectl Corporation
Conseco
Consolidated Metro
Continental Airlines
Convergys
Cooper Crouse-Hinds
Cooper Tire & Rubber
Cooper Tools
Cooper Wiring Devices
Copperweld
Cordis Corporation
Corning
Corning Cable Systems
Corning Frequency Control
Countrywide Financial
COVAD Communications
Covansys
Creo Americas
Cross Creek Apparel
Crouzet Corporation
Crown Holdings
CSX
Cummins
Cutler-Hammer
Cypress Semiconductor

D
Dana Corporation
Daniel Woodhead
Davis Wire Corp.
Daws Manufacturing
Dayton Superior
DeCrane Aircraft
Delco Remy
Dell Computer
DeLong Sportswear
Delphi
Delta Air Lines
Delta Apparel
Direct TV
Discover
DJ Orthopedics
Document Sciences Corporation
Dometic Corp.
Donaldson Company
Douglas Furniture of California
Dow Chemical
Dresser
Dun & Bradstreet
DuPont

E
Earthlink
Eastman Kodak
Eaton Corporation
Edco, Inc.
Editorial America
eFunds
Edscha
Ehlert Tool Company
Elbeco Inc.
Electroglas
Electronic Data Systems
Electronics for Imaging
Electro Technology
Eli Lilly
Elmer’s Products
E-Loan
EMC
Emerson Electric
Emerson Power Transmission
Emglo Products
Engel Machinery
En Pointe Technologies
Equifax
Ernst & Young
Essilor of America
Ethan Allen
Evenflo
Evergreen Wholesale Florist
Evolving Systems
Evy of California
Expedia
Extrasport
ExxonMobil

F
Fairfield Manufacturing
Fair Isaac
Fansteel Inc.
Farley’s & Sathers Candy Co.
Fasco Industries
Fawn Industries
Fayette Cotton Mill
FCI USA
Fedders Corporation
Federal Mogul
Federated Department Stores
Fellowes
Fender Musical Instruments
Fidelity Investments
Financial Techologies International
Findlay Industries
First American Title Insurance
First Data
First Index
Fisher Hamilton
Flowserve
Fluor
FMC Corporation
Fontaine International
Ford Motor
Foster Wheeler
Franklin Mint
Franklin Templeton
Freeborders
Frito Lay
Fruit of the Loom

G
Garan Manufacturing
Gateway
GE Capital
GE Medical Systems
Gemtron Corporation
General Binding Corporation
General Cable Corp.
General Electric
General Motors
Generation 2 Worldwide
Genesco
Georgia-Pacific
Gerber Childrenswear
GlobespanVirata
Goldman Sachs
Gold Toe Brands
Goodrich
Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Google
Graphic Controls
Greenpoint Mortgage
Greenwood Mills
Grote Industries
Grove U.S. LLC
Guardian Life Insurance
Guilford Mills
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.

H
Haggar
Halliburton
Hamilton Beach/Procter-Silex
The Hartford Financial Services Group
Harper-Wyman Company
Hasbro Manufacturing Services
Hawk Corporation
Hawker Power Systems, Inc.
Haworth
Headstrong
HealthAxis
Hedstrom
Hein-Werner Corp.
Helen of Troy
Helsapenn Inc.
Hershey
Hewitt Associates
Hewlett-Packard
Hoffman Enclosures, Inc.
Hoffman/New Yorker
The Holmes Group
Home Depot
Honeywell
HSN
Hubbell Inc.
Humana
Hunter Sadler
Hutchinson Sealing Systems, Inc
HyperTech Solutions

I
IBM
iGate Corporation
Illinois Tool Works
IMI Cornelius
Imperial Home Decor Group
Indiana Knitwear Corp.
IndyMac Bancorp
Infogain
Ingersoll-Rand
Innodata Isogen
Innova Solutions
Insilco Technologies
Intel
InterMetro Industries
International Paper
Interroll Corporation
Intuit
Invacare
Iris Graphics, Inc.
Isola Laminate Systems
Iteris Holdings, Inc.
ITT Educational Services
ITT Industries

J
Jabil Circuit
Jacobs Engineering
Jacuzzi
Jakel, Inc.
JanSport
Jantzen Inc.
JDS Uniphase
Jockey International
John Crane
John Deere
Johns Manville
Johnson Controls
Johnson & Johnson
JPMorgan Chase
J.R. Simplot
Juniper Networks
Justin Brands

K
KANA Software
Kaiser Permanente
Kanbay
Kayby Mills of North Carolina
Keane
Kellogg
Kellwood
KEMET
KEMET Electronics
Kendall Healthcare
Kenexa
Kentucky Apparel
Kerr-McGee Chemical
KeyCorp
Key Industries
Key Safety Systems
Key Tronic Corp.
Kimberly-Clark
KLA-Tencor
Knight Textile Corp.
Kojo Worldwide Corporation
Kraft Foods
K2 Inc.
Kulicke and Soffa Industries
Kwikset

L
Lancer Partnership
Lander Company
LaCrosse Footwear
Lamb Technicon
Lau Industries
Lands’ End
Lawson Software
Layne Christensen
Leach International
Lear Corporation
Leech Tool & Die Works
Lehman Brothers
Leoni Wiring Systems
Levi Strauss
Leviton Manufacturing Co.
Lexmark International
Lexstar Technologies
Liebert Corporation
Lifescan
Lillian Vernon
Linksys
Linq Industrial Fabrics, Inc.
Lionbridge Technologies
Lionel
Littelfuse
LiveBridge
LNP Engineering Plastics
Lockheed Martin
Longaberger
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
Louisville Ladder Group LLC
Lowe’s
Lucent
Lund International
Lyall Alabama

M
Madill Corporation
Magma Design Automation
Magnequench
Magnetek
Maidenform
Mallinckrodt, Inc.
The Manitowoc Company
Manugistics
Marathon Oil
Maritz
Mars
Marshall Fields
Mattel
Master Lock
Materials Processing, Inc.
Maxim Integrated Products
Maxi Switch
Maxxim Medical
Maytag
McDATA Corporation
McKinsey & Company
MeadWestvaco
Mediacopy
Medtronic
Mellon Bank
Mentor Graphics Corp.
Meridian Automotive Systems
Merit Abrasive Products
Merrill Corporation
Merrill Lynch
Metasolv
MetLife
Micro Motion, Inc.
Microsoft
Midcom Inc.
Midwest Electric Products
Milacron
Modern Plastics Technics
Modine Manufacturing
Moen
Money’s Foods Us Inc.
Monona Wire Corp.
Monsanto
Morgan Stanley
Motion Control Industries
Motor Coach Industries International
Motorola
Mrs. Allison’s Cookie Co.
Mulox

N
Nabco
Nabisco
NACCO Industries
National City Corporation
National Electric Carbon Products
National Life
National Semiconductor
NCR Corporation
neoIT
NETGEAR
Network Associates
Newell Rubbermaid
Newell Window Furnishings
New World Pasta
New York Life Insurance
Nice Ball Bearings
Nike
Nordstrom
Northrop Grumman
Northwest Airlines
Nu Gro Technologies
Nu-kote International
NutraMax Products
Nypro Alabama

O
O’Bryan Brothers Inc.
Ocwen Financial
Office Depot
Ogden Manufacturing
Oglevee, Ltd
Ohio Art
Ohmite Manufacturing Co.
Old Forge Lamp & Shade
Omniglow Corporation
ON Semiconductor
Orbitz
Oracle
OshKosh B’Gosh
Otis Elevator
Outsource Partners International
Owens-Brigam Medical Co.
Owens Corning
Oxford Automotive
Oxford Industries

P
Pacific Precision Metals
Pak-Mor Manufacturing
palmOne
Parallax Power Components
Paramount Apparel
Parker-Hannifin
Parsons E&C
Paxar Corporation
Pearson Digital Learning
Peavey Electronics CorporationÊÊ
PeopleSoft
PepsiCo
Pericom Semiconductor
PerkinElmer
PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc.
Perot Systems
Pfaltzgraff
Pfizer
Phillips-Van Heusen
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation
Pitney Bowes
Plaid Clothing Company
Planar Systems
Plexus
Pliant Corporation
PL Industries
Polaroid
Polymer Sealing Solutions
Portal Software
Portex, Inc.
Portola Packaging
Port Townsend Paper Corp.
Power One
Pratt & Whitney
Price Pfister
priceline.com
Pridecraft Enterprises
Prime Tanning
Primus Telecom
Procter & Gamble
Progress Lighting
ProQuest
Providian Financial
Prudential Insurance

Q
Quaker Oats
Quadion Corporation
Quantegy
Quark
Qwest Communications

R
Radio Flyer
Radio Shack
Rainbow Technologies
Rawlings Sporting Goods
Rayovac
Raytheon Aircraft
RCG Information Technology
Red Kap
Regal-Beloit Corporation
Regal Rugs
Respiratory Support Products
Regence Group
R.G. Barry Corp.
Rich Products
River Holding Corp.
Robert Mitchell Co., Inc.
Rockwell Automations
Rockwell Collins
Rogers
Rohm & Haas
Ropak Northwest
RR Donnelley & Sons
Rugged Sportswear
Russell Corporation

S
S1 Corporation
S & B Engineers and Constructors
Sabre
Safeway
SAIC
Sallie Mae
Samsonite
Samuel-Whittar, Inc.
Sanford
Sanmina-SCI
Sapient
Sara Lee
Saturn Electronics & Engineering
SBC Communications
Schumacher Electric
Scientific Atlanta
Seal Glove Manufacturing
Seco Manufacturing Co.
SEI Investments
Sequa Corporation
Seton Company
Sheldahl Inc.
Shipping Systems, Inc.
Siebel Systems
Sierra Atlantic
Sights Denim Systems, Inc.
Signal Transformer
Signet Armorlite, Inc
Sikorsky
Silicon Graphics
Simula Automotive SafetyÊ
SITEL
Skyworks Solutions
SMC Networks
SML Labels
SNC Manufacturing CompanyÊ
SoftBrands
Sola Optical USA
Solectron
Sonoco Products Co.
Southwire Company
Sovereign Bancorp
Spectrum Control
Spicer Driveshaft Manufacturing
Springs Industries
Springs Window Fashions
Sprint
Sprint PCS
SPX Corporation
Square D
Standard Textile Co.
Stanley Furniture
Stanley Works
Stant Manufacturing
Starkist Seafood
State Farm Insurance
State Street
Steelcase
StorageTek
StrategicPoint Investment Advisors
Strattec Security Corp.
STS Apparel Corporation
Summitville Tiles
Sun Microsystems
Sunrise Medical
SunTrust Banks
Superior Uniform Group
Supra Telecom
Sure Fit
SurePrep
The Sutherland Group
Sweetheart Cup Co.
Swift Denim
Sykes Enterprises
Symbol Technologies
Synopsys
Synygy

T
Takata Retraint Systems
Target
Teccor Electronics
Techalloy Company, Inc.
Technotrim
Tecumseh
Tee Jays Manufacturing
Telcordia
Telect
Teleflex
TeleTech
Telex Communications
Tellabs
Tenneco Automotive
Teradyne
Texaco Exploration and Production
Texas Instruments
Textron
Thermal Industries
Therm-O-Disc, Inc.
Thomas & Betts
Thomasville Furniture
Thomas Saginaw Ball Screw Co.
Three G’s Manufacturing Co.
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans
Time Warner
Tingley Rubber Corp.
The Timken Company
The Toro Company
Tomlinson Industries
Tower Automotive
Toys “R” Us
Trailmobile Trailer
Trans-Apparel Group
TransPro, Inc.
Trans Union
Travelocity
Trek Bicycle Corporation
Trend Technologies
TriMas Corp.
Trinity Industries
Triquint Semiconductor
TriVision Partners
Tropical Sportswear
TRW Automotive
Tumbleweed Communications
Tupperware
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International

U
UCAR Carbon Company
Underwriters Laboratories
UniFirst Corporation
Union Pacific Railroad
Unison Industries
Unisys
United Airlines
UnitedHealth Group Inc.
United Online
United Plastics Group
United States Ceramic Tile
United Technologies
Universal Lighting Technologies
USAA

V
Valence Technology
Valeo Climate Control
VA Software
Velvac
Vertiflex Products
Veritas
Verizon
VF Corporation
Viasystems
Vishay
Visteon
VITAL Sourcing

W
Wabash Alloys, L.L.C.
Wabash Technologies
Wachovia Bank
Walgreens
Walls Industries
Warnaco
Washington Group International
Washington Mutual
WebEx
WellChoice
Wellman Thermal Systems
Walls Industries
Werner Co.
West Corporation
Weavexx
Weiser Lock
West Point Stevens
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool
White Rodgers
Williamson-Dickie Manufacturing Company
Winpak Films
Wolverine World Wide
Woodstock Wire Works
WorldCom
World Kitchen
Wyeth
Wyman-Gordon Forgings

X
Xerox
Xpectra Incorporated
Xpitax

Y
Yahoo!
Yarway Corporation
York International

Z
Zenith
ZettaWorks

If you know of any other companies exporting jobs, please add them below.  I called the Hartford Courant’s customer service a while back and spoke to someone overseas.  I was shocked.

I urge all of you to buy American and support only our local businesses.  If you do not, the next job that is exported to China, the Philippines, India, Cambodia, etc., may be your job.

The Barefoot Accountant

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Courting the right

Posted on February 1, 2011 by William Brighenti

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

>>> except, of course, when it’s their guy doing it, right? we’ve seen it a million times, who, he ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. that meant the whole thing was void. i think it raises some legitimate constitutional questions, but for the judge to say it invalidates the entire health care law? that’s basically admitting you’re a republican. there’s no question that’s what happened here. judge vinson said, quote, it’s difficult to imagine that a nation that began in that part because of and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in america would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. you think that’s a coincidence? no that’s a direct reference to the tea party and some advocates thanked him afterwards. gee, i wonder if political considerations came into play in this decision. he’s not alone in his activism. the only other judge to rule against the law, virginia district court judge henry hudson, a dyed in the wool republican both political and financially connected to the party. judge hudson invested in a republican firm that, including virginia attorney general ken couch necessarily i couch cusp necessarilyi. that didn’t change once the courts got involved. where does the games leave us? with anthony kennedy. the case is you wouldly heading to the supreme court, and we basically know four justices will be four it and four against it, so that leaves your decision about your health care not up to your congressman or doctor, but up to one supreme court justice. joining me now is independent senator bernie sanders of vermont. first of all, great pleasure to have you on. i know the republicans have started their assault on health care reform. tell us about that.

>> frankly i don’t think they have the votes, but i think it’s a totally absurd proposal. they talk about our large deficit, yes if they are successful in repealing health care they’ll add a trillion at a time when 50 million americans have no health insurance right now, health care reform would provide health insurance to over 30 million, and what these guys want to do is say no action we can’t do that. at a time when people were denied access to health insurance because the preexisting conditions, they want to allow that object senity to continue to exist. this bill would provide access to community health centers for 20 million more americans. they want to do away with that. look, at the end of the day, let’s be clear. the united states is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not provide health care to all of our people, yet we end up spending almost twice as much as any other country. is this health care reform bill the bill i would have written? no, it is not. one of the changes i want to see is not to repeal the whole bill, but to give states the flexibility to go forward in more effective ways. in my state i would like to see, and i think we have a shot at passing for a single payer program, which in a cost-effective way could provide health care to all our people. those are the changes we need, not the wholesale repeal.

>> senator, i want to talk about messaging. whenever there’s a decision that the republicans don’t like, they scream, they do a press conference, they say my god, judicial activism. why is there not a concerted effort to say the same.

>> i think you’re absolutely right. again, this to my mind, could we have writer a better law, a stronger law, taken on the insurance companies? yes, we can’t have, but this debate took place for an entire year. the whole nation was involved in it. we had hearing after hearing, markup after markup. now it all comes down, perhaps if you’re correct, and you may well be, to one justice in the united states supreme court determining the future of health care in the united states of america, if that is not judicial activism, i don’t know what is.

>> how do you feel about the mandate? i notice some progressives were not in favor of the mandate?

>> it is not the best way to go. the best way to go is say, number one, everybody in america will have health care, and b, we are going to fund a medicare for all single payer program in an effective — in a plowingive way. the problem with the individual mandate is in some case it’s going to be pretty regressivive. government will help many people, but there may be some people stuck with the bill. i think there are more effective ways to pay for health care for all people than the individual mandate. having said that, if somebody walks across the street without any health insurance, gets hit by a truck, spends $100,000 in the hospital, you know who’s paying for the bill? you and i are, and everybody else who has health insurance. is that fair as well? you can make the case for the individual mandate. it’s probably not the best way to fund universal health care for our people.

>> if the courts eventually struck down the rest of the mandate, might you actually be happy about that?

>> there is a debate about where we go from there, but i think the evidence that i have seen is you can deal with that reality, and probably it without the individual mandate. what i am fighting for right now is to maintain the high standards, but give us the flexibility to do it in a more cost-effective way. i happen to bloef when you get rid of the insurance companies, you can say — you can get rid of the bureaucracy, and administrative costs that presently exist, you can provide health care to all people without having to spend more overall dollars.

>> all right. senator bernie sanders from vermont, thank you so much for joining us tonight. we appreciate it.

>> good to be with you,

Posted in Accountants CPA Hartford, Articles | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment