One expects hyperbole, demagoguery, and overall intellectual dishonesty from politicians.  In this column from the New York Times, however, Paul Krugman goes even further:  if you oppose cap and trade legislation, you're guilty of treason against humanity.  Yes, treason.  So, I sent the following email to Dr. Krugman, stating what regular readers of mine will recognize as a common question:

re:  Betraying the Planet

Dr. Krugman,

In your recent column, you criticized opponents of the "cap and trade" legislation as committing "treason against the planet" and acting with "immorality" and "irresponsibility".  You go on to mention researchers at MIT who are predicting a 9 degree rise in global temperatures by the turn of the next century.

While you don't mention whether there is competing research detailing various other potential scenarios, or what sets the particular research you cite apart from competing climate models, I think a more central question is this, based on your claims specifically against those in opposition to the Waxman-Markey bill:  precisely how many degrees would that bill lower temperatures?  One degree?  5 degrees?  0.1 degrees?  How, specifically, does passage of the cap-and-trade bill alter the computer models on climate change?  What percentage of arctic tundra will now not defrost, what percentage of polar ice caps will not now melt?  How much less in "grave danger" are "future generations of Americans" now in as a direct result of this legislation?

Failure to be able to answer this central, overarching question, seems to be laden with the same hyperbole and "politics as usual" you find so distasteful and immoral on the part of the dissenters.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

I realize I'm repeating myself, but in response to this editorial in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  Cap and trade will clean and fuel our economy, too

In supporting cap and trade legislation, Messrs. Krupp and Liveris continue the same conceits common among advocates of such action.  First, they never spell out precisely how much such legislation will impact global warming.  Will cap and trade reduce global warming by 1 degree?  5 degrees?  0.1 degree?  Without knowing what the benefit will be, it is impossible to say that the proposed plan is a good one.

The authors go further in their conceit by claiming that the cap and trade approach is "market based".  Free markets emerge based on supply and demand and voluntary exchange, not government decree.  If a "market based" approach is desired, then a simple tax on carbon emissions would be the simplest option.

Finally, the authors mistakenly claim that somehow jobs and economic activity are created by the government increasing costs on business.  Government mandates don't "create jobs", they simply shift resources to less efficient and profitable endeavors -- otherwise, such acts wouldn't require government coercion.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

It has become a common refrain, repeated ad nauseum:  our current financial and economic problems are the result of deregulation, particularly of the banking and finance system.  Of course, this supposed deregulation is typically laid at the feed of George W. Bush, and typically no real evidence of such is given (with the occasional exception, such as Paul Krugman, who lays the blame on Ronald Reagan for signing a bipartisan financial reform act).

When claims of deregulation arise, it is illuminating to ask a few questions of the claimant.  First of all, what precisely was deregulated?  Typically, no specific claims of deregulation can be given.  Secondly, did the Code of Federal Regulations increase or decrease in size during the 8 years of the Bush Administration?  Thirdly, did the budgets for regulatory agencies increase or decrease during that same time period?  And finally, what about Sarbanes-Oxley, the massive regulatory bill put into place in response to the corporate scandals at Enron, WorldCom, etc.?

Upon asking these four simple questions, it is likely that you'll be called a "neocon" at best, perhaps even a fascist (which can prompt further questioning about the claimant's knowledge of the actual economic platform of the fascists; hint:  it was left wing, not right wing, as Jonah Goldberg has detailed) after which some exposition on the war in Iraq or Bush's buddies in "Big Oil" are likely to be brought up.  But what are the facts?

According to a study by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the answers are different than might be expected.  While President Bush liked to speak of limited government and free markets, his record was, of course, much different.  As the Heritage Foundation report relays (with footnoted references), while the rate of increased regulation slowed somewhat during the Bush Presidency, the budget for regulatory agencies increased from $27 billion to nearly $45 billion in the first 7 years of President Bush's time in office -- a 44% increase, even after considering inflation.  Total staffing for those agencies increased by 41% -- over 72,000 new regulators employed.  Over that same time, the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations grew by over 4500, and there were approximately 90 "major rule changes" -- changes that had an economic impact of over $100 million.

As President, Bush liked to talk about limiting government and promoting free markets, but all too often his record is one of increased government intrusiveness and restrictions on voluntary exchange.  Bush was not, contrary to the conventional wisdom, a deregulater, and our financial situation was not the result of deregulation, because it simply didn't occur:  regulation increased during the Bush Administration, and taxpayers and consumers, of course, were forced to foot the bill.

In speeches and through spokesmen, President Barack Obama has been laying out the case for government-centric health care reform, and Congressional Democrats have been crafting legislation to make it possible.  The ostensible goal is to expand access by providing "universal" health care coverage, extending insurance to the supposed 40-50 million Americans who currently do not have it, while simultaneous cutting costs and improving efficiency.  Unfortunately, "health care reform" that relies on more government interference in individual choice and the free market is exactly the wrong approach -- so wrong in so many ways that it is difficult to know where to begin criticism of the various plans.  While different in some of the details, each of the plans expands the government intrusion and restricts individual liberty; each of the proposals provides the wrong incentives to improving affordability; each of the proposals involves a massive increase in government spending -- spending that has to be paid for somehow.

Let's start with one of the main postulates used as justification for government involvement:  the number of uninsured Americans.  While claims by various groups vary, the official estimate by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is 43.6 million.  This doesn't mean those people are unable to access any health care; rather, it means that medical care must either be paid for out-of-pocket, by charities, or the cost spread around paying customers (typically insurance companies) when bills go unpaid.  The common narrative is that because health insurance is unavailable, uninsured sick people tend to visit emergency rooms, an option that is no one would consider efficient or economical.

However, looking closer at the numbers is instructive.  According to a Department of Homeland Security estimate, there were approximately 11.6 million illegal immigrants in the United States in January 2006.  It would seem reasonable to suggest that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants would be uninsured.  Should government policy seeking to increase health insurance coverage be based on providing coverage to people who came to this country illegally?  While I disagree with much of the anti-immigration sentiment that seems to pervade much debate about border security, I certainly don't find it acceptable to reward people who come here illegally with health coverage.  Therefore, it seems reasonable to subtract the population of illegal immigrants from the number of people to which health coverage should be extended.

So suddenly our 43.6 million uninsured Americans has decreased by nearly 27% without spending a penny of tax dollars or enacting a single government program.    Not a bad start.

A common reason given for going uninsured is that people can't afford the insurance, so it seems reasonable to look at income demographics.  As it turns out, according to US Census data, 7.2% of uninsured Americans have family incomes of more than $75,000 per year.  As with the illegal immigrant situation, it would seem reasonable that government policy need not be focused on providing insurance to people in the top 20% of all income earners.  We've now reduced our "target group" by another 3.1 million.  If you want to take the uninsured in families with incomes above $50,000 per year, you could subtract another 5.6 million.  Where we draw the line is obviously a point of legitimate debate, so for now we'll keep the cutoff at $75,000 per year.

What we've also not mentioned are younger workers who might not make large sums of money, but make a choice not to buy medical coverage; perhaps some of these workers are healthy, perhaps some have access to wealthy family members, perhaps many are just young and unwise.  I don't really know how to count the number of people in this group, so they won't be included in the overall calculations, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are at least 1-5 million people that fall into this group -- somewhere between 1-10%.

Even accepting that there's probably some overlap in the numbers presented above, it is at least a reasonable assumption that we are now working with a smaller, more manageable number of uninsured people -- approximately 15 million people less than previously thought.  The task of increasing access to medical insurance to the uninsured is less daunting at least.  What methods are there for reducing barriers to these individuals and families acquiring health care coverage?  Does it require government restrictions, mandates, and expansion?  We'll cover that issue in Part 2 to follow.

In the midst of economic bad news — the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that the economy shrunk by 6.3% in the 4th quarter of 2008 and by an additional 5.7% in the 1st quarter of 2009, and another half-million jobs were lost in April  — some good news is starting to trickle out.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in April the Consumer Price Index was unchanged, hourly earnings were up and productivity increased.  Additionally, the Institute for Supply Management reports that new manufacturing orders grew in May for the first time in a while, and overall economic activity was up.  Other key indicators tracked by ISM that were still contracting were at least slowing in their negative growth.  The 3-month trend of the Dow Jones Industrial Average is positive, and Larry Kudlow reports that both housing and commercial construction were up in April.

So is the economy on the upswing, finally pulling us out of our doldrums?  Well, the Congress did pass the massive, $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act earlier this year — the so-called "stimulus bill" — with the claims by President Obama that it was critical to ending our economic slide and moving towards recovery.  He had urged Congress to act quickly to pass the bill;  Congress did so with little (in the Senate) or no (in the House) Republican support, and in spite of a letter signed by over 200 economists urging non-passage of the bill that appeared in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.

Is the so-called "stimulus bill" the source of our possible economic recovery?  Should recovery occur, no doubt the politicians instrumental in enacting the legislation — President Obama and Congressional Democrats — will claim credit for their efforts.  But a closer look is in order.

As promised by President Obama, the "stimulus" spending is being tracked by each agency and posted online at www.recovery.gov .  The numbers are interesting:  less than $37 billion has been spent thus far.  That is worth repeating:  out of $787 billion in the total stimulus bill (for projects that were supposedly "shovel ready"), less than $37 billion has been spent in an economy worth nearly $14 trillion per year.  For those counting, that's less than 5% of the total "stimulus" package and approximately 1/4 of 1% of the annual economy.

This begs some questions, but also seems to put the proponents of the spending package in a trap:  if the economic turnaround is the result of the government spending, thus meaning that only $37 billion in stimulus was necessary, why did we need $787 billion?  On the other hand, if the government spending is not the reason for the positive economic signs, then the economy must not have needed any stimulus.  Either way, it would seem that we don't need to spend the entire $787 billion.  It would also seem to suggest, as pointed out by Dr. Russell Roberts, Chairman of George Mason University's Economics department, that perhaps the bill wasn't as urgent as the politicians said it was — perhaps they could have actually read the entire bill after all.

In response to this article in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  "Obama lauds energy progress"

According to the Associated Press report (please see "Obama lauds energy progress, May 27), President Obama is touting a $100 million solar energy plant at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, claiming the program "created" 200 new jobs and will save the Air Force $1 million per year.  Only in government would a program providing a 1% return on investment be held up as a model "investment" -- how many people would voluntarily invest $1000 of their own money to get a return of $10 per year?  Also, how many more new jobs might have been "created" had that $100 million been invested by private sector investors seeking a higher return?  Would a nuclear, coal, or natural gas plant have provided electricity more or less efficiently?  I suspect those questions will go unanswered.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Dick Cheney may no longer be the Vice President, but (unlike President Obama's predecessor), he has definitely not left the public stage.  Instead, the former VP has made several high profile appearances and speeches, criticizing the Obama Administration's reversal of Bush-era anti-terrorism policies, notably concerning the closure of the detainee camp at Guantanamo Bay, the use of so-called "harsh (or enhanced) interrogation techniques", withdrawal from Iraq, and the US approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East. 

Rhetorically, Obama has made liberal use of the bogeyman of Bush-Cheney, and refers frequently to having to clean up a "mess" left to him by President Bush and his team.  Bush has remained silent on the issues.  Cheney, however, has been aggressively defending his and Bush's record, as well as praising Rush Limbaugh and critiquing Colin Powell.

Cheney's calm, understated, professorial style works well -- he is excellent at marshaling his evidence and presenting it in a clear, concise manner while remaining aggressive and forceful; he seems reasonable when he speaks rather than unhinged or hateful.  Yet while Cheney's reappearance has reportedly led to an uptick in his approval ratings, he remains one of the most unpopular political figures around.  Among the mainstream news media, he probably ranks below Hitler, the Antichrist, and Lucifer himself in terms of popularity.  His outspokenness has been called "unprecedented" and out of step with past former VP's; apparently some commentators have forgotten about former Vice President Al Gore bellowing that President Bush had "betrayed this country" in the run-up to the Iraq War.

With the scorn of the mainstream media often comes the affection of conservative activists, and Cheney is no exception.  Conservative media have given extensive coverage of Cheney's speeches and comments in print, lauding his criticism of Obama and his spirited defense of the US response to 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But does Mr. Cheney deserve the resurge in his reputation?  When studying the record he leaves behind, the obvious answer is:  No.

As perhaps the most powerful and influential Vice President in history, Cheney was considered by Bush to be the "Chief Operating Officer" of Bush's "MBA Administration".  While it has been documented that Cheney didn't always get his way (if was well publicized that he wanted a pardon for his aide Scooter Libby, for example), if he deserves credit for Administration successes, then he certainly deserves some of the blame for its failures.

As the "COO" of the Bush Administration, Cheney helped implement an unprecedented increase in the size, scope, and intrusiveness of the federal government.  Bush's signature education initiative, "No Child Left Behind", greatly expanded the federal government's role in primary and secondary education -- certainly not a "conservative" position.  In the name of an "ownership society", the Administration helped maintain and increase government incentives for providing credit to high-risk borrowers -- the expansion and ultimate collapse of the "subprime" mortgage market that has proved central to our current economic woes.  Cheney sought to expand the power of the Vice Presidency at the expense of transparency, particularly during the Scooter Libby investigation.  Cheney played a role in implementing a new prescription drug entitlement for the elderly, whereby they receive subsidies regardless of income for prescription drugs -- the largest expansion of Medicare since the LBJ Administration.  Cheney was COO of what has become the largest government takeover of the private sector (AIG, GM, Chrysler, etc.) and met economic difficulty with a Keynesian mindset rather than the successful supply-side approach that worked so well for President Reagan.

On the war front, according to most reports it was Cheney who worked to influence Bush to keep Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, even after it was obvious that the Rumsfeld approach was not working in Iraq.  Had Bush replaced Rummy with Robert Gates sooner, perhaps Republicans would not have lost the 2006 Congressional elections, giving the country Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.  Whatever one thinks of some of the details of the Patriot Act, it certainly represents a dramatic increase in the power and intrusiveness of the government and less freedom of mobility and privacy for American citizens.

In short, while Cheney may be an effective advocate for a "conservative" position in fighting the "War on Terror", his record is not one that conservatives and certainly libertarians should salute and extol.  Mr. Cheney's current resurgence should not let him off the hook for his record of the previous 8 years, even with conservatives.

In response to this editorial in the Chronicle, I sent the following letter:

re:  "Cap-and-trade-off"

In your May 24 editorial, the Chronicle lauds the "landmark" bill being developed in the US Congress with the ostensible goal of limiting emissions of so-called "greenhouse gases", particularly CO2, through the implementation of a cap-and-trade system.  The editorial claims that the "compromise bill ... spreads the costs" of such a system; however, nowhere in the editorial is the full and actual cost of such a program stated, nor is any information giving about precisely how much global warming will be decreased through implementing cap-and-trade.  Is it one degree?  0.1 degree?  5 degrees?

It would seem reasonable that prior to asserting that any program amounts to "exercising leadership", one should know precisely what is being achieved and at what cost.  No such cost-benefit analysis has ever been provided for this or other proposed cap-and-trade systems.  This hardly seems like an efficient, effective method of operation on even the least imposing of government programs, much less for something as far-reaching and intrusive as cap-and-trade.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

Some ideas are just so outlandish, ridiculous, foolish, and beyond the pale that it is hard to know where to start in criticizing it.  Consider this, from Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson (courtesy of Politico):

Rep. Alan Grayson was standing in the middle of Disney World when it hit him: What Americans really need is a week of paid vacation.

So on Thursday, the Florida Democrat will introduce the Paid Vacation Act — legislation that would be the first to make paid vacation time a requirement under federal law.

The bill would require companies with more than 100 employees to offer a week of paid vacation for both full-time and part-time employees after they’ve put in a year on the job. Three years after the effective date of the law, those same companies would be required to provide two weeks of paid vacation, and companies with 50 or more employees would have to provide one week.

The idea: More vacation will stimulate the economy through fewer sick days, better productivity and happier employees.

The article goes on to quote a think tank that claims that job burnout and stress cost the economy to the tune of $300 billion annually.

As stated above, it's hard to know exactly where to start with this one, after getting over the initial shock that yes, this guy is serious, and yes, there's really a group called the Center for Economic and Policy Research that really paid someone to write a study on vacation.  My first thought on reading this (other than ridicule and scorn for Rep. Grayson) was this:  why stop there?  If vacation, particularly at Disney, is so gratifying that it should become the government's business, why stop at mandating merely time off... why not take it further and just have the government provide free trips to Disney World for every man, woman, and child in the United States.  The general state of happiness would surely shoot through the roof (that is, for everyone except employees of Disney, who themselves would need a vacation after the sudden convergence of millions on their park, expecting entertainment).

Perhaps a better kicking-off point is the Bureau of Labor Statistics:  the unemployment rate in the US was 8.9% for April 2009, with 539,000 jobs lost.  Government-mandated vacation effectively raises the cost of each employee, providing a disincentive for businesses to hire more workers.  It would seem to follow that during a recession characterized by job losses and rising unemployment would be the absolute worst time to increase the cost of hiring workers.  Businesses would either find themselves cutting payroll, raising prices, or perhaps taking benefits away from others to make up for the added expenses.  The government can't simply create something out of nothing by decree; there are always trade offs.

Of course there's the liberty and freedom of association aspect of this issue as well.  Let's say I want a job, and someone agrees to hire me at a price for which I'm willing to work.  Do I not have the right to contract out my services at whatever rate I find to be fair?  (Of course, this same line of reasoning also refutes the idea of a minimum wage.)  What right does the government have to tell me that I can't choose to work for whatever rate and benefits I'm comfortable with?  Obviously, everyone would like more vacation (or any vacation at all), but if the choice is a job with no vacation or no job at all, priorities can change.

As to the think tank "study" showing $300 billion in lost productivity due to stress and burnout of workers, that's hard either to refute or corroborate, but certainly workers in the United States aren't lagging those in other countries when it comes to productivity.  A UN report showed that American workers are the most productive in the world; when it comes to average vacation, however, the US averages fewer days per year per worker than Italy, France, Germany, Brazil, UK, Korea, Canada, and even Japan.  The data don't support the assertion that we'd be more productive with more vacation, which would seem to be common sense -- it seems obvious that workers who aren't working will produce less than those who are.

All of these facts would seem to be bad news for Congressman Grayson, but when have politicians ever felt encumbered by facts?  Something tells me Mr. Grayson will find a nice campaign contribution from Disney in his inbox soon, if he's not already cashed it.  Let's hope his "goofy" idea stays where it belongs:  over the rainbow.

Texas Senator John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, has endorsed Florida Governor Charlie Crist over former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio in the Republican primary for the 2010 Senate race to replace retiring Senator Mel Martinez.  Crist represents more of the same -- another middle age white guy eager to expand government -- while Rubio is a young (37), energetic candidate eager to restrain government -- exactly the kind of candidate we need.  At least, there should be a debate between the two, with the chips falling where they may in the primary.

In response, I sent Sen. Cornyn the following letter:

Dear Senator:

I am very disappointed to hear that you and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) have decided to endorse Gov. Charlie Crist over former House Speaker Marco Rubio in the 2010 Senate primary.

First of all, the primary is over a year away, and while Gov. Crist's approval ratings are high now, any number of things could happen in the coming months.  Granting an endorsement now only serves to dampen debate and discussion of what both Crist and Rubio seek to do in office.

Secondly, Crist's record is checkered.  He has opposed offshore oil drilling, and recently even endorsed the big government, wasteful, confiscatory, un-Constitutional Obama stimulus.

Third, Marco Rubio represents the kind of up-and-coming, youthful, energetic candidate that we as Republicans need more of, particularly considering his Hispanic heritage and success as Speaker of the House in Florida.

Perhaps most importantly, with Republicans in dire shape in the Senate, the NRSC is better served saving its energy and money for supporting Republican candidates in the general election rather than meddling in primaries.

Senator, I urge you to let the people, particularly the Republicans, of Florida decide which senate candidate best represents their values, ideology, and philosophy.  Once that occurs, then utilize your own influence and that of the NRSC to help ensure that voters in Florida elect a Republican to the Senate -- but not before.

Sincerely,
Dave Smith
Houston, TX

"[P]reduction location is a corporate decision, but when it's on the taxpayer dime, there are different sensitivities..." ~ Harley Shaiken, "a professor at the University of California at Berkley who specializes in labor issues"

I pulled that quote from a news story about a GM plan to import automobiles manufactured in Mexico, South Korea, China, and Japan to the US for sale.  Ordinarily this wouldn't be much of a story, but since the government is propping up GM with billions in loans and is effectively running the company (remember this story about the government-mandated firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner?), it becomes big news.

In ordinary circumstances, the purpose of a business is to make a profit.  Decisions such as where the business is located, where and from whom it purchases raw materials and parts, and what sales and marketing strategies to employ are made by executives who answer to the board of directors and ultimately to the owners of the company; in the case of big corporations, the owners are typically stockholders.  These executives are judged based on a pretty objective standard:  profit, which is the ultimate purpose of any business.

In an enterprise where the government is involved, however, making a profit is not the ultimate goal.  What actually is the purpose of the business becomes convoluted, subject to the whimsies of whoever is in charge of the government; the ultimate goal becomes not necessarily profit, but securing re-election.  The company in search of profit answers quickly to the demands of the market or suffers; the company in search of political benefits answers to bureaucrats not known to act quickly and not necessarily mindful of the demands of the market.

Key aspects of free market capitalism are free trade, division of labor, and specialization.  It sometimes makes good business sense, from an efficiency and economic viewpoint, to import certain raw materials, parts, or even products.  Doing so can provide more profit for a particular business, and benefits the consumers by providing them with lower prices and more choices.  The competition helps promote innovation and lower prices from other businesses, and using lower-skilled and lower-wage workers for certain jobs frees up higher value workers for more complex jobs.

But what makes good economic sense isn't always politically astute.  With the government and the United Auto Workers poised to become the largest stockholders in General Motors, there is now pressure on GM to make decisions that are pleasing to the union and the government.  In the case of the UAW, this means promoting more and higher-paying jobs for UAW members, not economic efficiency; in fact, increasing efficiency and productivity is actually counter to the UAW's goals -- as workers become more productive and efficient, fewer are needed.  In the case of the government (at least as it is currently constituted), the goal is pleasing the unions and making cars that are more "green" -- regardless of whether or not there is a market for such cars.

Such are the perils of nationalization, either in actuality or in practicality:  profit ceases to be the primary motivator and simply becomes one of many competing "sensitivities".

President Barack Obama has announced that his next tax endeavor will be to focus on pursuing companies that utilize tax "loopholes" to lower their tax bill, so-called "tax havens" where income is shielded, and will hire over 800 new IRS agents to help ensure compliance.  The total effort, he says, will be an increase of $21 billion per year (approximately 1% of the total FY2009 budget).  In his speech announcing his new initiative, the President derided the current system as one that makes it more tax-friendly to create jobs overseas than within the United States.  He also seemed to suggest that businesses that use legal methods to decrease their tax burden are somehow acting in an un-patriotic manner.

Instead of looking to improve compliance with an expensive, complicated, inefficient tax code and spend more taxpayer money on more government intrusiveness, instead of worrying about corporations seeking "tax havens" to lower their tax burden, there's an easier answer:  simplify the US  tax code and reduce the taxes on businesses here in America.  Instead of increasing government intrusiveness, a simplified tax code would reduce government's heavy hand in attempting to micromanage corporations.  Instead of a high rate that encourages overseas investment, a lower rate with fewer loopholes could promote investment by foreign and domestic companies here in America.

In addition, a simpler tax code with lower rates would provide less of an incentive for businesses to spend massive amounts of money to get out of paying taxes or to cheat, and would mean fewer compliance agents rather than more.  Audits would be easier, more straightforward, and less necessary.  Government would have less power to choose winners and losers in the marketplace, and fewer opportunities to enact policies with harmful unintended consequences.  Every dollar not sent to the government is a another dollar businesses would have to hire additional workers, increase employee compensation, pay dividends to shareholders, or invest in capital improvements.

Even within the United States, business and corporate tax laws vary from state to state in intrusiveness and complexity; as a result, we've seen industries move from high-tax, heavily unionized "Rust Belt" states to more tax-, worker-, and business-friendly states in the South and West.  The same concept applies:  lower the cost of tax compliance and tax bill, and businesses and industries are more likely to flourish and grow.  The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, and with the "Bush tax cuts" set to expire, that rate will soon increase further.  Why shouldn't corporations move to more tax-friendly homes internationally?

It isn't un-American, unethical, or immoral for a company or individual to do everything within the confines of the law to avoid paying taxes -- it is simply good sense.  But it makes even better sense for the government to implement the most efficient means possible of collecting the tax it is owed.  Instead of clamping down on businesses, how about freeing them up to create prosperity instead?  That would be true economic "stimulus".