Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Schakowsky/Conyers introduce "Patriot Corporations"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 12:14 AM
Original message
Schakowsky/Conyers introduce "Patriot Corporations"
this is a proposal i'd like to see the whole Democratic Party get behind ... these days, it seems like we don't unify behind any policy on any issue ...

maybe this one will fly with all Democrats ...


source: http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/06/06/ale06079.html

The Patriot Corporations for America Act was officially announced today by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and a number of cosponsors. Schakowsky spokesman Ben LaBolt told BuzzFlash the proposal is "a tool to fight against outsourcing and plant closings" by encouraging companies to keep their money and jobs in America.

The bill will "close loopholes and provide incentives to invest in the U.S.," LaBolt said. Revenues gained by killing the loopholes will be used to fund the program, which will be enforced by the Department of Labor. It also promotes worker conditions and benefits. <skip>

The Patriot Corporations for America Act would provide preferential treatment for government contracts and a 5% tax reduction to corporations that:

• Produce at least 90% of their goods and services in the United States;
• Limit top management compensation to no greater than 100 times that of their lowest-compensated full-time workers;
• Spend at least 50% of their research and development budgets in the United States;
• Operate a profit-sharing plan for all employees;
• Contribute at least 5% of payroll to a portable pension fund;
• Pay at least 70% of the cost of health insurance plans;
• Maintain neutrality in employee organizing drives; and
• Comply with federal regulations regarding the environment, workplace safety, consumer protections and labor relations.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Newsjock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
1. What good news ...
... for the six American corporations who will qualify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoWantsToBeOccupied Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. Is this legal under NAFTA, CAFTA, SHAFTA, WTO, etc? I bet not.
Our "representatives" have signed away our ability to protect American jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. LOL...
Funny, and at the same time sad but true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. YOU LIAR!!!
There are only five. :evilgrin:

This is why the proposal is such a good political move. Which corporation wouldn't want to claim to uphold those principles? Which corporation actually does?

(k&r)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. I LIKE it! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. Sounds very good
I wonder about the 90% for some things, like what if Ford doesn't sell 90% of its vehicles state side. Gotta buy our vehicles someplace. I don't know if there are other examples of that kind of thing. There also already are small business, women, minority and vet owned businss, preferentials. They should be included in any preferential contracting legislation, along with the unbundling laws so the contracts aren't so big small business can't compete.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurgedVoter Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. I Love it!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. Love it
and for the record though my costs are higher I am doing all I can to keep all production in the US....

Yep I could have gone to china to print.. but NOOOOO... and once I can employ people... we will do what is right for employees. I ask a good days work for a good days pay... and reality is, if you truly take care of employees everybody wins
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 02:41 AM
Response to Original message
6. What a great idea! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ebayfool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
7. K/R - It's a beauty! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harlinchi Donating Member (954 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
8. I mentioned a similar idea in an 'immigration' post before.
Of course my idea was less severe. This one sponsored by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) is better!

Here's the DU post where I ask for government contracts to be tied to corporate behavior:

I do agree that the quicker folks here get legal status, the better it will be for all concerned, except the so-called businessmen who employ immigrants without legal status; these 'businessmen' could likely be accurately called by far worse names. I know the people we're talking about already pay a great deal of taxes, specifically those you mention. I also am aware that those who get social security cards are also paying into the fund with little chance of ever receiving benefits.

I don't ignore the other issues you mention; I address them in other areas. But since this has evolved into an 'attack the one who posted' event, I'll try to better explain my intent. I simply meant to underscore an aspect of the immigration debate that is not being adequately addressed, that of health care costs for those who enter illegally. Was I attempting to demonize any group of people? I sure was; the one who hire folks with no legal status. Once again, my unclear writing has led me down a path where I appear to be defending an idea with which I do not agree.

Here's a proposal to attempt to get a little fairness in corporate taxation: no government contract can be let to any corporation who outsource more than 75% of its employment or who offshore more than 75% of its business activity for tax avoidance purposes.


What do 'ya think?


It was post # 36 in this topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2562508



The act proposed by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) seems to be an idea behind which even one as lazy and as busy (as oxymoronic as that sounds, it nevertheless is true -- a lazy guy with a 9-year old son, a 5-year daughter and a 10-month old Black Labrador = lazy and busy!) can get behind! I wonder if Lou Dobbs would get behind it, in an attempt at inclusiveness and bi-partisanship, since it so clearly supports the middle class in this country?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. here's another proposal
i like your government contract restrictions very much ...

my idea was similar in concept but very different in tactics ... the similarity is that you "punish" the undesirable behavior and you make those who would gain by it pay the price ...

my script was to change the capital gains tax laws ... right now, investors who make gains on the sale of stock get a tax "discount" by taking advantage of lower capital gains tax rates ...

but let's say that discount was reduced by the percentage of non-domestic labor the company employs ... the more domestic labor a company hires relative to non-domestic workers, the greater the capital gains discount ...

by going after stockholders, we put pressure on company management using them as our proxies ... stockholders will push for more domestic labor when their taxes go up because of foreign hiring ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harlinchi Donating Member (954 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. That seems to get at one of the central problems!
Boy I wish I was a legislator! But every time I think that, I also think of Mark Twain's quote: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
9. Wow, that's AWESOME!
This sounds like a really good idea.

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JudyM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. About bloody time!! How excellent, especially if it gains traction! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
10. Wow! Wonderful ideas there. Probably a good way of
disassociating the term from the abominable Patriot Act as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 08:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. now that makes a lot of sense
Edited on Fri Jun-30-06 08:12 AM by Douglas Carpenter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
16. Good idea. I might add something about hiding profits in offshore accts.
Seems corps get away with avoiding a lot of taxes we could use by hiding money in offshore accounts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
17. I like this a lot
Edited on Fri Jun-30-06 10:45 AM by nickinSTL
but I doubt it'll get much support in the corporatist Congress.

I don't suppose anyone has a list or a link for corporations that would qualify?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
19. The entire Democratic party should get behind this
Edited on Fri Jun-30-06 07:03 PM by Lydia Leftcoast
:thumbsup:

The robber barons have been in charge for too long.

In a related note, I had to take my mother and stepfather to the doctor today, and while sitting in the waiting room, I heard a group of women (who seemed to be working class) talking about the incident of the baby left in the car all day.

They were sympathetic, saying that the poor mother must have been tired and stressed out. They started complaining about how their bosses always wanted them to work harder and longer but weren't raising wages and were cutting benefits, and meanwhile, the price of everything was going up.

If the Dems really ran with economic populism (even though their corporate contributors wouldn't let them), they could sweep the next few elections. There's a vast bloc of people who don't vote because they believe that neither party cares about them. Certainly the Dems aren't reaching them, not in any way that they can relate to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
20. pity that we have to bribe the fuckers,
but yes, I'd like to see the party unite behind this as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texpatriot2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-30-06 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
21. Great Idea, how cool is that. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC