Page 18 ■Parttani» CObserurr N o vem b er 16. 2011 Opinion articles do not necessarily represent the views o f the Portland Observer. We welcome reader essays, photos and story ideas. Submit to news@portlandobserver.com. New Prices « Effective May 1,2010 Martin Cleaning Service Carpet & Upholstery Cleaning Residential & Commercial Services M in im u m S e r v ic e C H G $ 4 5 .0 0 A small distance/travel charge may be applied C A R P E T C L E A N IN G 2 C le a n in g A r e a s o r m o r e $ 3 0 .0 0 E a c h A re a P r e -S p r a y T r a ffic A r e a s (Includes: 1 small Hallway) 1 C le a n in g A r e a (o n ly ) $ 4 0 .0 0 Includes Pre-Spray Traffic Area (Hallway Extra) S ta ir s (1 2 - 1 6 s ta ir s - W ith O th e r S e rv ic es)-. $ 2 5 .0 0 A r e a /O r ie n ta l R u gs: $ 2 5 .0 0 M in im u m A rea /O rien ta l R u g s (Wool): $ 4 0 .0 0 M in im u m H e a v ily S o ile d A r e a : A d d itio n a l $ 1 0 .0 0 e a c h a re a (Requiring Extensive Pre-Spraying) UPH OLSTERY C L E A N IN G S o fa : $ 6 9 .0 0 L o v e se a t: $ 4 9 .0 0 S e c tio n a l: $ 109 - $ 139 C h a ir o r R eclin er: $25 - $49 T h ro w P illo w s (W ith O th e r S e r v ic e s ): $ 5 .0 0 A D D IT IO N A L S E R V IC E S • A rea & O riental R ug C leaning • A uto/B oat/R V C leaning • D eodorizing & Pet O d o r T reatm ent • Spot & Stain R em oval S ervice • S co tchguard P rotection • M in o r W ater D am age S erv ices SEE C U R R EN T FLYER F O R A D D IT IO N A L P R IC E S & SE R V IC E S C all for A p p oin tm en t (503) 281-3949 Just Say No to Corporate Greed Let’s not hurt children and families again by M arian W right E delman Repatriation. It’s a w ord many school children probably haven’t yet learned to define or even seen very often outside o f spelling bees. But when it com es to corporate taxes, repatriation is the corner stone o f an idea that has the po tential to severely hurt m illions o f children and parents and widen the already historic and uncon scionable gap betw een the rich and the poor. In its sim plest definition, repa triation is bringing something back to its country o f origin— returning it back hom e. One o f the solutions to the jobs crisis being proposed by som e o f our Congressional leaders, and lobbied for aggres sively by som e o f the country’s richest corporations, is a rehash o f an old experim ent: enacting a re patriation tax holiday that w ould tem porarily allow U .S.based m ul tinational co m p an ies to bring hom e profits they currently hold overseas at a 5.25 percent tax rate, instead o f the usual 35 per- cent corporate tax rate. U n d er cu rren t tax law, multinational com panies generally pay no U.S. corporate taxes on foreign incom e until Ihose profits are brought back to the U.S. As the C enter on Budget and Policy Priorities explains, “T his effectively allow s such firm s to defer paym ent o f the U.S. corpo rate incom e tax on their overseas profits indefinitely, even though they m ay obtain an im m ediate tax deduction for m any expenses in curred in supporting the sam e overseas investm ents. This can produce a negative U.S. corpo rate incom e tax— that is, a net governm ent subsidy— for over seas operations. In addition to causing the federal governm ent to lose tax revenue, this structure gives m ultinationals a significant incentive to shift econom ic activ ity— as well as their reported prof- its— overseas.” The argum ent for the repatria tion holiday is that giving corpora tions a huge incentive to bring profits back right now— in the form o f an enorm ous tax break— would bring billions o f dollars back to the U.S. econom y that w ould be reinvested and provide a big stim ulus to our econom y. C orpo rate proponents and their C on gressional bullies argue this will create desperately needed jobs. But the last tim e this was tried, under a 2004 Bush A dm inistra tion plan, it d id n ’t w ork out that way. Instead, as C B P P points out, “T he evidence show s that firms m ostly used the repatriated earn ings not to invest in U.S. jo b s or growth, but for purposes that C on gress sought to prohibit, such as repurchasing their ow n stock and paying bigger dividends to their shareholders. M oreover, m any firm s actually laid off large num bers o f U.S. w orkers even as they reaped multi-billion-dollar benefits from the tax holiday and passed them on to shareholders.” M any econom ists and scholars believe that if corporations get their w ay and get another repa triation holiday, history will repeat itself— and once again the corpo rations and their shareholders, not A m erican workers, fam ilies, and children, will be the only winners. T he nonpartisan congressional Joint C om m ittee on Taxation has estim ated the holiday w ould cost the federal governm ent about $80 billion over 10 years in lost rev enue. The Economic Policy Institute’s A ndrew Fieldhouse puts it this way: “W hile there are num erous jo b creation proposals that would m eaningfully low er unem ploy ment, som e law m akers are push ing counterproductive policies dis guised as jo b creation packages. The proposed repeat o f the cor porate tax repatriation holiday is one such w olf in sheep’s cloth- ing. W hen the nation is already fac ing a jo b s crisis, and m any C on gressional leaders are threatening to slash nutrition, child care, and other safety net program s that children and fam ilies rely on as a m eans o f balancing the budget, revisiting a failed idea instead o f com ing up with real solutions and real jo b s is a threat children and fam ilies and our country cannot afford. A s the O ccupy W all Street protestors are shouting, “Just say no to corporate greed” and to C ongress people w ho continue to raid from the poor and children to curry favor and cam paign contri butions from the rich. Marian Wright Edelman is president o f the Children's De fense Fund.