More Governance by Fiat

This time regarding American businesses merging with overseas companies and moving to that overseas lower corporate tax environment.  This improves profits for the businesses’ owners, never mind that.  It reduces revenue for the Know Betters in our Government.

The new [Treasury Department] rules, the government’s third wave of administrative action against inversions, will make it harder for companies to move their tax addresses out of the US and then shift profits to low-tax countries….

[Emphasis added]

The aggressive nature of this latest round also comes

from a Treasury Department that has expressed frustration at the limits of its own powers in curbing these transactions.

Because Know Betters always want more power.  It’s not mete that the plebes and commoners should be in their way.  Here’s the gist of these rulers’ latest power grab:

The rules have two main parts….  First, the government would go after what it calls “serial inverters,” large companies created through multiple inversions or takeovers of US companies. The government would disregard US assets acquired by such companies over the previous three years.

And

To reap the full benefits of inverting, the US company’s shareholders should own between 50% and 60% of the merged entity, which requires a partner of carefully calibrated size.

Because business decisions concerning the details of a merger are better made by the Know Betters of Government than they are by the owners and managers of the businesses involved.

And

Treasury’s second action would limit what is known as earnings stripping, a practice that follows many inversions and other cross-border acquisitions that helps lower companies’ effective tax rates.

Inverted companies—in fact, all non-US-based companies—can lend money to their US subsidiaries.  Those moves create deductible interest in the US, reducing the income subject to the 35% US corporate tax rate and shifting income to a lower-taxed jurisdiction.

Because business leaders can’t be allowed to honor their fiduciary duties to the business’ owners by looking to maximize profit and to maximize revenue left in the business’ hands.  No, not when doing that runs counter to the demands of Know Betters for ever more money for Government.

Jack Lew, author of the rules in his capacity as Treasury Secretary had this bit of disingenuosity in defense of his latest stab:

After an inversion, many of these companies continue to take advantage of the benefits of being based in the United States—including our rule of law, skilled workforce, infrastructure, and research, and development capabilities—all while shifting a greater tax burden to other businesses and American families[.]

Never mind that inversions could better be discouraged by lowering our existing corporate tax rates to internationally competitive levels, and which thereby would shift no burden to other businesses and American families.  Lowering taxes is anathema to a gang that sees tax revenue as another path to their political power. (Certainly, Treasury can’t lower tax rates on its own, but Lew is carefully silent on this matter.)

Elections have consequences, folks.

How to Understand the Constitution

Juan Williams had some thoughts concerning this alleged point of confusion last Friday in his Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Over the past half century, regardless of whether a liberal or a conservative resides in the White House, the critical issue facing any Supreme Court nominee is where he or she stands on the political contest of wills over how to read the Constitution.

True enough.  But then he went astray.

Liberals regard the Constitution as a “living document” that lends itself to modern interpretations by judges, who may extend rights to groups not mentioned or considered in the Constitution or its amendments.

This is an accurate reading of the Modern Liberal position, but what they and Williams alike carefully, consciously elide is this crucial fact: our Founders and the Constitution’s authors also considered the Constitution to be a living document (no obfuscating quotes needed).  They, and We the People who then ratified our Constitution, included Article V explicitly for the purpose of that life.  And We the People are the ones, the only ones, to breathe life into our Constitution.  Judicial interpretation away from the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution only sap that life.

That puts a premium on the importance of judges and Justices applying the Constitution and the lesser laws enacted by our elected Representatives in Congress and our elected President as they are written.

The push-pull over the Constitution and the Supreme Court is a battle without end….

There is no legitimate push-pull here.  The Constitution does not belong to any judge, to interpret according to what he thinks it ought to say.  Nor does it belong to any Modern Liberal to interpret for his convenience.

The Constitution is We the People’s document, and it lives through us and our Article V.

Full stop.

A Telecon Transcript

A leaked phone call held by International Monetary Fund officials is exposing strains between Greece and its international creditors, highlighting the risk that the country’s bailout program could be headed for more drama this summer.

And from that phone call,

“Look, you Mrs Merkel you face a question, you have to think about what is more costly: to go ahead without the IMF…or to pick the debt relief that we think that Greece needs in order to keep us on board,” Mr [Director of the European Department of the IMF, Poul] Thomsen tells his colleagues, according to the Wikileaks transcript.

A couple of thoughts on this.  Were I Merkel, I’d have something like this to say to the IMF: “I don’t appreciate ultimatums, Mr Thomsen.  Your threat has made our pick for us.  We’re done here.”  I’m not sure she’s ready to cut the cord, though.

And: who leaked the transcript?  The IMF, to pressure Greece (rather than Germany)?  Germany, to prepare Europe and Greece for the IMF’s withdrawal from the bailout?  Greece, to pressure the IMF and/or Germany?

Climatista Madness

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI) is at it again, it seems.

Whitehouse has apparently decided that if he can’t persuade the general public to adopt his climate absolutism, at least he can use the controversy to motivate his deep-pocketed partisans.

This week a recipient shared with us an email sent out on Tuesday by the Senator’s re-election campaign. The subject line: “Standing up to the WSJ.”

And

His email consists of a description of what he portrays as his brave and lonely stand against the terrible abuse he is taking from fearsome foes, including “the Wall Street Journal editorial page, as well as various less-well-known blogs, fronts and just plain cranks.”

Am I one of those less-well-known blogs, now in the same class as The Wall Street Journal?

Nah.  Prolly not.  Prolly just one of those plain cranks.

Censorship

…and cowardice?

France’s privacy regulator, known as CNIL [National Commission for Computing and Liberties], last week fined Google €100,000 ($112,000) for not applying Europe’s “right to be forgotten” across the search engine’s global network of sites.

And

Now Paris contends that only a world-wide scrub will do. “For people residing in France to effectively exercise their right to be delisted, it must be applied to the entire processing operation,” the regulator says.  If it stands, this ruling would compel Google to remove links globally.

Aside from simple free speech questions in the land of Voltaire, this

limits the ability of non-Europeans to vet French prospective business associates or German job applicants.

To say nothing of the sovereignty of nations outside of France.  Or CNIL is saying the whole world is part of Metropolitan France.

This whole smelly affair should make it…difficult…to do business in France, for Google and for those non-Europeans.

Google says they’ll appeal, but then what?  Will they have the courage to ignore this idiocy, this arrogant power grab outside French borders?