JustOneMinute

Now Apple Is The Enemy?

Democrats are going to demonize Apple as a non-taxpayer when there are so many US corporations from which to choose? What, did Obama's last fundraising swing through Silicon Valley disappoint?

The Times had an amusing and comprehensible example of a legal tasx minimization ploy:

Atop Apple’s offshore network is a subsidiary named Apple Operations International, which is incorporated in Ireland — where Apple had negotiated a special corporate tax rate of 2 percent or less in recent years — but keeps its bank accounts and records in the United States and holds board meetings in California.

Because the United States bases residency on where companies are incorporated, while Ireland focuses on where they are managed and controlled, Apple Operations International was able to fall neatly between the cracks of the two countries’ jurisdictions.

So for tax purposes Apple was nowhere. That is assuming the Times has this right, and in my experience they have a hard time on issues of tax and finance.

They also allude to a dumb but widely offered argument, to wit, that corparations that leave cash overseas to avoid taxes are inevitably under-investing in their US operations. That could make sense in the case of small businesses that lack ready access to our capital markets. However, the notion that Apple is constrained in its investments by a lack of internally generated cash is absurd. To their credit, the Times presents the research making that point:

As companies’ earnings have accumulated offshore, many executives have been pushing more aggressively for a tax holiday that would allow them to bring back funds at lower tax rates. Apple has recently announced that it will return $100 billion to shareholders over three years through a combination of dividends and purchases of its own shares. Though Apple has enough cash on hand to pay for those initiatives, the company recently announced it would take on $17 billion in debt, rather than bring overseas money back to the United States to avoid paying repatriation taxes on those returning funds.

“If Apple had used its overseas cash to fund this return of capital, the funds would have been diminished by the very high corporate U.S. tax rate of 35 percent,” Mr. Cook is planning to testify, according to the prepared text. Apple “believes the current system, which applies industrial era concepts to a digital economy, actually undermines U.S. competitiveness.”

Critics, however, say these so-called repatriation holidays, which bring back funds at lower tax rates, do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy and benefit only corporations, their executives and shareholders. Congress enacted a repatriation holiday in 2004, allowing corporations to bring back about $300 billion from overseas and pay just 5.25 percent rather than the regular 35 percent corporate rate.

But a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 92 percent of the repatriated cash was used to pay for dividends, share buybacks or executive bonuses.

“Repatriations did not lead to an increase in domestic investment, employment or R.&D., even for the firms that lobbied for the tax holiday stating these intentions,” concluded the study, which was conducted by a team of three economists that included a former Bush administration official. Tuesday’s hearing on Capitol Hill, along with the disclosures about Apple’s tax policies, are likely to make lowering repatriation taxes a more difficult proposition for lawmakers to stomach, Congressional staff members said.

 BIG FINISH: The most creative minds in Silicon Valley study and create computer code, the most creative minds in Wall Street study, and lobby for changes in, the tax code, and the result is Apple.

 

 

Scandals

 

A new ABC News/WaPo poll is out with some reaction to the various scandals.

A majority think the Administration is trying to cover up the facts on Benghazi.

A majority think the IRS deliberately targeted conservative groups; a [plurality think the Administration is covering up the facts.

But there is little love for the press - a majority think the federal prosecutors were justified in going after the phone records of the AP. That said, 69% are very or somewhat concerned that the feds will overstep in trying to protect classified information.

Here we go:

Q: Do you think the Obama administration (is honestly disclosing what it knows about what occurred in Benghazi) or (is trying to cover up the facts)?

33% say disclosing honestly: 55% say covering up.

But the Republicans are not unambiguously the good guys here:

Q: Republicans in Congress have criticized the way the Obama administration handled the attack in Benghazi, Libya. Do you think Republicans in Congress are (raising legitimate concerns), or are they (just political posturing)?

44% say they are raising legimate concerns; 45% say posturing.

On the IRS:

Q: As you may know it's been disclosed that the IRS singled out some conservative political groups for extra questions about their tax status. Do you think it was appropriate or inappropriate for the IRS to do this?

20% appropriate; 74% inappropriate.

Q: Do you think this extra focus on conservative political groups by the IRS was (a deliberate effort to harass these groups) or (an administrative mistake that was not intended to treat these groups unfairly)?

Deliberate - 56%; Administrative mistake - 31%

Q: In dealing with this situation with the IRS, do you think the Obama administration (is honestly disclosing what it knows about what occurred) or (is trying to cover up the facts)?

Disclosing - 42%; Concealing - 45%.

And on the AP:

Q: The AP reported classified information about U.S. anti-terrorism efforts and prosecutors have obtained AP's phone records through a court order. Do you think this action by federal prosecutors is or is not justified?

Justified - 52%; Not justified - 33%.

Nothing on the James Rosen, the Fox News reporter mentioned as a possible co-conspirator in a leak investigation because he wanted to interview a State Department source. And nothing on Secretary Sebelius' arm-twisting fund-raising from companies she regulates.

Don't Tell The President!

The latest revelation in the IRS debacle is stunning. From Politico:

The White House on Monday once again added to the list of people who knew about the IRS investigation into its targeting of conservative groups — saying White House chief of staff Denis McDonough had been informed about a month ago.

Press secretary Jay Carney said again that no one had told President Barack Obama ahead of the first news reports: not his top aide McDonough, nor his chief counsel Kathy Ruemmler, nor anyone from the Treasury Department.

I understand their desire to avoid even the appearance of interfering with an ongoing internal investigation, so not alerting the President before hand is a justifiable strategy. What is inexplicable is that the President was sent out after the story appeared in the press to express his disappointment and anger without any staffer mentioning to him that, by the way, we knew about that. So now, a week later, we find out that his chief of staff was keeping him out of the loop.

Of course, maybe Obama was just playing dumb and had been told immediately that his staff had been shelterering him for several weeks. At the press conference with Turkey PM Erdogan last Thursday Obama was queried specifically on the timing and ducked it:

Q    Unfortunately, we all forgot umbrellas.  Mr. President, I want to ask you about the IRS.  Can you assure the American people that nobody in the White House knew about the agency’s actions before your Counsel’s Office found out on April 22nd?  And when they did find out, do you think that you should have learned about it before you learned about it from news reports as you said last Friday?  And also, are you opposed to there being a special council appointed to lead the Justice Department investigation? 

And also, Mr. Prime Minister, what is the status on efforts to normalize relations with Israel?  And do you still plan to go to Gaza in the coming weeks?  Thanks.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well, with respect to the IRS, I spoke to this yesterday.  My main concern is fixing a problem, and we began that process yesterday by asking and accepting the resignation of the Acting Director there.  We will be putting in new leadership that will be able to make sure that -- following up on the IG audit -- that we gather up all the facts, that we hold accountable those who have taken these outrageous actions.  As I said last night, it is just simply unacceptable for there to even be a hint of partisanship or ideology when it comes to the application of our tax laws.

I am going to go ahead and ask folks -- why don't we get a couple of Marines, they're going to look good next to us -- (laughter) -- just because I've got a change of suits -- (laughter) -- but I don't know about our Prime Minister.  There we go.  That's good.  You guys I'm sorry about.  (Laughter.)   

But let me make sure that I answer your specific question.  I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press. Typically, the IG reports are not supposed to be widely distributed or shared.  They tend to be a process that everybody is trying to protect the integrity of.  But what I'm absolutely certain of is that the actions that were described in that IG report are unacceptable. 

So in addition to making sure that we've got a new acting director there, we're also going to make sure that we gather up the facts, and hold accountable and responsible anybody who was involved in this.  We're going to make sure that we identify any structural or management issues to prevent something like this from happening again.  We're going to make sure that we are accepting all of the recommendations that the IG has in the report. 

And I'm looking forward to working with Congress to fully investigate what happened, make sure that it doesn’t happen again, and also look at some of the laws that create a bunch of ambiguity in which the IRS may not have enough guidance and not be clear about what exactly they need to be doing and doing it right, so that the American people have confidence that the tax laws are being applied fairly and evenly. 

So in terms of the White House and reporting, I think that you've gotten that information from Mr. Carney and others.  I promise you this -- that the minute I found out about it, then my main focus is making sure we get the thing fixed.  I think that it's going to be sufficient for us to be working with Congress.  They've got a whole bunch of committees.  We've got IGs already there. 

The IG has done an audit; it's now my understanding they're going to be recommending an investigation.  And Attorney General Holder also announced a criminal investigation of what happened. Between those investigations, I think we’re going to be able to figure out exactly what happened, who was involved, what went wrong, and we’re going to be able to implement steps to fix it. 

And that, ultimately, is the main priority that I have, but also I think the American people have.  They understand that we’ve got an agency that has enormous potential power and is involved in everybody’s lives.  And that’s part of the reason why it’s been treated as a quasi-independent institution.  But that’s also why we’ve got to make sure that it is doing its job scrupulously and without even a hint of bias, or a hint that somehow they’re favoring one group over another. 

And, as I said yesterday, I’m outraged by this in part because, look, I’m a public figure -- if a future administration is starting to use the tax laws to favor one party over another or one political view over another, obviously we’re all vulnerable.  And that’s why, as I’ve said, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you should be equally outraged at even the prospect that the IRS might not be acting with the kind of complete neutrality that we expect. 

And I think we’re going to be able to fix it.  We’re going to be able to get it done, and we’ve already begun that progress and we’re going to keep on going until it’s finished.

More grist for John Stewart's mill.

Oklahoma

CNN has ongoing coverage of the disaster there.

The Fourth Scandal

The Times updates us on the fourth scandal of Hell Week:

Potential Donors to Enroll America Grow Skittish

By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s efforts to raise private money to carry out the president’s health care law have provoked such a strong partisan uproar that potential donors have become skittish about contributing, according to several people involved in the fund-raising program.

White House officials said they did not sign off on the fund-raising calls made by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, but were generally aware that she would be seeking support from outside groups.

Two House committees have begun investigating the solicitations. Five senior Republicans from the Senate and the House have asked the comptroller general of the United States, Gene L. Dodaro, to investigate the actions of Ms. Sebelius to determine if she was improperly circumventing spending limits imposed by Congress.

Having Ms. Sebelius raise money from the companies she regulates never sounded like a great idea. Let's flash back to the WaPo's seemingly straight-faced explanation of how she could it within the letter of the law:

Federal regulations do not allow department officials to fundraise in their professional capacity. They do, however, allow Cabinet members to solicit donations as private citizens “if you do not solicit funds from a subordinate or from someone who has or seeks business with the Department, and you do not use your official title,” according to Justice Department regulations.

No use of her job title? She's just another private citizen! Jeffrey Andersen of The Weekly Standard expounds:

When possibly the second-most powerful person in Washington comes and suggests that perhaps you should make a donation to her administration’s favorite cause, it’s hard to say no — especially when she holds almost unchecked power over the business sector in which you compete.

That seems obvious to me, but evidently not to Barry (who is no doubt planning to emulate Bill Clinton and raise money for his future library from the Oval Office as a "private citizen").

UPDATE: And then there were five: Fox News reporter James Rosen is described as a co-conspirator for a warrant in a leak investigation? Kidding?

Light It Up

Bill Keller of the Times on how to legalize pot. he includes an interesting aspiration for the market structure by way of drug policy sage Mark Kleiman:

One practical challenge facing the legalization pioneers is how to keep the marijuana market from being swallowed by a few big profiteers — the pot equivalent of Big Tobacco, or even the actual tobacco industry — a powerful oligopoly with every incentive to turn us into a nation of stoners. There is nothing inherently evil about the profit motive, but there is evidence that pot dealers, like purveyors of alcohol, get the bulk of their profit from those who use the product to excess. “When you get a for-profit producer or distributor industry going, their incentives are to increase sales,” said Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon, another member of the Washington consulting team. “And the vast majority of sales go to people who are daily or near-daily consumers.”

What Kleiman and his colleagues (speaking for themselves, not Washington State) imagine as the likely best model is something resembling the wine industry — a fragmented market, many producers, none dominant. This could be done by limiting the size of licensed purveyors. It would help, too, to let individuals grow a few plants at home — something Colorado’s new law permits but Washington’s does not, because polling showed Washingtonians didn’t want that.

I suppose with a fragmented market the producers could promote the product by way of a trade association - the Got Milk campaign springs to mind - but there is still a good point here. One does wonder about the history of the beer industry in the US, which was highly fragmented but (I suspect) locally concentrated a century ago. Presumably that was driven by high transportation costs which are not relevant to the current marijuana question.

Another Beautiful Sunday

Rain again? When does the global warming Al Gore promised us kick in?

On The Path (Again)

The White House Press Office delivers some light Saturday morning comedy:

President Seeks Path Forward Beyond Troubles

Their gist - the White House won't be distracted by these distractions and neither will the Times. Instead they will focus on the President's agenda, as soon as they develop one.

I can't wait for the musical: Somewhere, over the rainbow, states are Blue...

Obama's Outrage On IRS - Hey, I Might Get Audited Someday!

It's all about Obama in ObamaWorld. Here is the First Fixer explaining why he is outraged by the IRS debacle (my emphasis):

And that, ultimately, is the main priority that I have, but also I think the American people have.  They understand that we’ve got an agency that has enormous potential power and is involved in everybody’s lives.  And that’s part of the reason why it’s been treated as a quasi-independent institution.  But that’s also why we’ve got to make sure that it is doing its job scrupulously and without even a hint of bias, or a hint that somehow they’re favoring one group over another. 

And, as I said yesterday, I’m outraged by this in part because, look, I’m a public figure -- if a future administration is starting to use the tax laws to favor one party over another or one political view over another, obviously we’re all vulnerable.  And that’s why, as I’ve said, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, you should be equally outraged at even the prospect that the IRS might not be acting with the kind of complete neutrality that we expect.

Obviously, Obama realized he couldn't quite complete the thought that follows from "Look, I'm a public figure" so he broadended his horizons to include the rest of the residents of ObamaWorld.

The good news is that he will be unemployed in another three years so perhaps he will start focusing on the grim job market in, let's guess, late 2015.

WHERE IS THE TRUST? Ann Althouse wants a special prosecutor becasue she doesn't trust the partisan hacks under Holder to investigate the partisan hacks in the IRS. Fair enough, but I don't want a special prosecutor - that becomes an excuse to hide all evidence and witnesses from Congress so as to avoid interfering with an ongoing, never-ending investigation.

That said, I would favor a special counsel for the AP leak investigation since the underlying leaks probably came from Admin officials hoping to boost Obama's re-election chances and Team Holder is never going to prosecute ayone anyway. Even after his Double Secret Recusal.

Obama's Presser

I wonder what else Obama is angry about. I guess we'll find out...

The Incredible Disappearing Deficit

CBO revises downward its deficit estimate:

CBO Slashes 2013 Deficit Projection to $642 Billion

The budget deficit for the current year is projected to come in well below what was estimated just a few months ago, according to a government study released Tuesday.

The Congressional Budget Office cites higher tax revenues and better-than-expected bailout repayments by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the key reasons for the improved outlook. The budget office now predicts a 2013 budget deficit of $642 billion, more than $200 billion below its February estimate. This year's shortfall would register at 4.0 percent of the economy, far less than the 10.1 percent experienced in 2009 when the government ran a record $1.4 trillion deficit.

The deficit picture is expected to continue to improve next year and beyond, with the 2015 deficit now projected at $378 billion, just 2.1 percent of the economy. All told, the budget office predicts deficits over the coming decade of $6.3 trillion, down $522 billion from earlier projections.

The projected deficits then resume an upward trajectory.

Presumably this affects the urgency of any Grand Bargain. It may also alter the timing of the debt ceiling scuffle.

I infer from this that capital gains realizations were high in 2012:

One of the reasons for the burst of additional income tax revenues, the budget office says, is that upper-income taxpayers claimed more income late last year in order to avoid paying the higher tax rates enacted in January.

 The CBO report can be found here. Ezra Klein engages in some cheerleading; I especially love this:

3) Sequestration is a dumb idea.

If this report clarifies anything it’s that our debt problem, insofar as we have one, is a long-term problem, not a short-term problem. But sequestration disappears in 10 years. The policies in a deficit deal, by contrast, continue to grow. If you care about the long-term debt you should see a world in which sequestration replaces a debt deal to be a disaster. The calm of the Republican Party on this point either bespeaks a disinterest in debt or a misunderstanding about sequestration.

Dumb compared to what - negotiating more tax hikes with Obama? The search for a long term solution may have to be deferred until the next President.

 

I Buried Paul

Audio forensics reports are available for the upcoming Zimmerman trial. Whether the two reports (FCA, Reich)are actually admissible as evidence is yet to be determined, but the Reich report really needs to be turned into a comedy sketch. A highlight:

"An evangelical preacher or carnival barker". Please.

The evidentiary status of these reports is roughly as firm as their scientific foundation, which is shaky:

Zimmerman’s lead defense attorney Mark O’Mara said the only thing the audio analysis shows is that the recording is not long enough, or good enough quality, to prove anything. “There are two of them, and they seem to be internally inconsistent, because they seem to be saying different things. One witness says he thinks he hears certain things, and another witness says he doesn’t hear that. And none of them can come up with something that is precise … or that is something they can testify with.”

O’Mara said since the analysis came out just a month away from the beginning of the trial, he may ask for a delay in the trial so his defense team can have enough time to look at the science that was used to analyze the call.  He also said he plans on challenging those methods used at an evidentiary hearing he has asked for later this month.

The defense motion is discussed by the Orlando Sentinel. Jeralyn Merritt is doubtful that that the voice analysis can meet the 'Frye' standard applied by Florida courts. When this was topical last year she was pretty sure that the analysis would not pass muster in Federal court under the Daubert standard.

And even if the reprts were admitted, it is not clear what we are learning:

Two new reports from state audio experts give different conclusions about the voice screaming for help just before 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot: One said it was Trayvon. The other said some cries more likely came from his shooter.

It remains to be seen whether jurors will hear about the new evidence at George Zimmerman's trial, set to begin June 10 in Sanford. Zimmerman's lawyer said he may ask to delay the trial in light of the new analysis.

...

Another report, by Harry Hollien and James Harnsberger of Forensic Communication Associates, said the audio quality was insufficient for a definitive voice match. But they found some of the cries came close to matching Trayvon's voice, while others came close to matching Zimmerman's.

The FCA report was interesting and had a good point. They explain that they can't make a definite voice match to anybody in particular but if they assume that the screaming was coming from either Martin or Zimmerman then they can make a sensible guess as to the more likely screamer.

Which is all very well for investigative purposes (or cocktail party chit-chat) but should this go to a jury? What is the level of accuracy, or the track record of this technique? Will the jury get any baseline at all as to what these reports actually might mean?

Different researchers using different techniques come to different answers and the jury is supposed to decide the scientific validity? I don't think so. But I'm not feeling bold enough to predict a Florida court.

HOWEVER! I was bold enough to pooh-pooh voice analysis as a definitive tool in this case.

Apparently Erroneous Reporting About Allegedly Erroneous Reporting

Jake Tapper, now of CNN but a bulldog for truth while at ABC News, is getting lots of love from the left for debunking a bit of the Benghazi talking points story. His gist - the summaries of the emails put forward by ABCNews and the Weekly Standard exaggerate (to the point of invention) the mention of State Department concerns by the White House as a topic needing to be addressed.

However, there is trouble in their Blue Heaven: Tapper's summary of the Weekly Standard is wrong and somewhat misleading. Here is Tapper:

The Weekly Standard reported that Rhodes "responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning." Nuland refers to then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

But that is not what Stephen Hayes reported in the article linked by CNN; instead, he wrote that as a follow-up the the ABC news reports. The relevant passage from the original Hayes reporting is here (p. 2), with my emphasis:

But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

So per Hayes, his info is coming from a House report (Republican side). Other White House officials said that the State Department concerns would be addressed. And Ben Rhodes, who wrote his now-controversial email at 9:34 PM, just after the Nuland email, is alleged by Hayes to have said what CNN is now reporting: 

"...further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House."

Baffling. To compound the mystery, CNN presents what looks like a direct quote from the Hayes piece, but the passage does not appear in the linked Weekly Standard article. However, the phrase does appear in a different Hayes piece which was written as a follow-up to the ABC scoop.

If Hayes was right (or at least, unsure) the first time in describing what Rhodes wrote and wrong following ABC News then we should look to ABC for the problem. Here is how Karl described their sourcing for the emails:

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

So ABC implies they had access to more emails than were reported by Stephen Hayes. Eventually, Karl writes this:

After the talking points were edited slightly to address Nuland’s concerns, she responded that changes did not go far enough.

“These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote.

In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.  We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

Karl's quote includes a specific mention of the State Department; the new, selectively released email from CNN does not. What gives?

In a follow-up today, Karl tries to explain:

This is how I reported the contents of that e-mail, quoting verbatim a source who reviewed the original documents and shared detailed notes...

The source was not permitted to make copies of the original e-mails. The White House has refused multiple requests – from journalists, including myself, and from Republican leaders in Congress – to release the full e-mail exchanges.

...

I asked my original source today to explain the different wording on the Ben Rhodes e-mail, and the fact that the words “State Department” were not included in the e-mail provided to CNN’s Tapper.

This was my source’s response, via e-mail: “WH reply was after a long chain of email about State Dept concerns. So when WH emailer says, take into account all equities, he is talking about the State equities, since that is what the email chain was about.”

The White House could still clear up this confusion by releasing the full e-mail transcripts that were provided for brief review by a select number of members of Congress earlier this year. If there’s “no ‘there’ there,” as President Obama himself claimed yesterday, a full release should help his case.

Jake Tapper has a good reputation for being tough on the White House, so there was a certain craftiness in selectively releasing one out-of-context email to him to make the White House case. However, I doubt he will play the patsy here - if context counts then Tapper will join the cry for a more complete release of the emails.

And for my money, if Nuland of State is complaining at 9:24 and Rhodes is responding ten minutes later, it is hardly a stretch to think he was responding to Nuland.

MORE: Ace pounds the table about "doctored" emails, forcefully reminding people who shouldn't need reminding that ABC News and Stepehn Hayes were working off of summaries of the emails, not source documents. J Karl of ABC News is crystal clear in his follow-up; his original story opened the door to confusion with this:

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.

What? ABC News reviewed them? A few paragraphs later we get this:

Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

Well, was it summaries, source documents, or both? Karl was blurry in round one.

Salt It Up

Let me be the first to misrepresent this new panel finding:

Panel Finds No Benefit in Sharply Restricting Sodium

They are not saying "Salt It Up"; they are saying that there are reasons to doubt that lower levels of sodium consumption extolled by some are in fact beneficial (which is Not News). But my guess is this will be widely misinterpreted.

Well, misinterpet away, I say! Going after both salt and sugar is like going after the Joker and a jaywalker. Our national dietary discussion would benefit from a focus on the real baddies. Do keep in mind - like zombies, sugar eats your brain!