Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in the United States and abroad:
Tampa (Florida) Tribune on flogging corporate deserters:
President Obama wants to lash “corporate deserters” ”“ companies that move overseas to avoid U.S. taxes ”“ with penalties and additional regulations.
It is another case of the president trying to pit Americans against one another instead of supporting an economy that would offer more jobs and opportunities for everyone.
“These companies are cherry-picking the rules, and it damages the country’s finances,” the president said in California last week. “It adds to the deficit. It sticks you with the tab to make up for what they are stashing offshore.”
Decrying the lack of “corporate patriotism” may sound good on the campaign stump, but if the president was genuinely interested in keeping American companies from shifting operations overseas, he would attack the country’s tax burden.
The nation’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrial world, and even though exemptions allow some companies to pay considerably less, the U.S. tax rate remains unduly burdensome, precisely the reason more companies are moving abroad.
As The Wall Street Journal points out, when state taxes are added, the average corporate tax rate in the United States is 40 percent, double the average in Europe.
Small wonder companies look for relief.
Since 1983, according to the Congressional Research Service, 76 companies have moved their corporate headquarters from the United States ”“ 47 in the past decade.
The Journal reports 19 such deals in the past year.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article, he wrote, “American businesses are taxed on a worldwide basis regardless of where in the world revenue is earned. This means U.S. multinationals pay taxes twice, first to the foreign country in which they do business and then to the U.S. …”
It seems to us that “corporate patriotism” should mean making American businesses as strong as possible. The president ”“ and Congress ”“ should stop looking for scapegoats and get serious about corporate tax reform.
The Burlington (Vt.) Free Press on workplace discrimination:
President Obama did the right thing in July, by signing an executive order that expands protection from discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Moving to block the violation of a person’s civil rights based on who they are is such a basic function of our government that the president’s action should be considered a no-brainer.
In theory, broad anti-discrimination laws should offer adequate protection for everyone. In practice, we still live in a society in which specific language is necessary to protect the basic rights of people.
Vermont recognized this in 2007 when Gov. Jim Douglas signed legislation that added gender identity to the state’s anti-discrimination laws, including the statute covering employment practices.
The executive order takes a step in following in Vermont’s footsteps, but also exposes the inadequate protection federal laws offer those who face discrimination based on their sexual identity.
The president’s executive order does two things.
The order extends the protection from employment discrimination by the federal government based on sexual orientation to cover gender identity.
The White House also prohibits any company that receives a federal contract from discriminating against employees who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, a group also referred to as LGBT.
Millions of Americans face the threat of losing their job over their sexual orientation or gender identity, Obama said at the signing ceremony.
“And that’s wrong,” he said. “We’re here to do what we can to make it right ”“ to bend the arc of justice a little bit in a better direction.”
This country must do more than “bend the arc of justice.”
Even an employer’s sincerely held religious belief can be the basis for discrimination in the public sphere, such as employment. The nation is finally moving toward accepting this tenet as applied to race, ethnicity and gender.
Sexual identity is as basic to any person’s humanity as race, ethnicity or gender. The prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity should be the law of the land.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
