contact.ipr@gmail.com


Ralph Nader: Open the books, save the economy

November 27th, 2008 · 2 Comments

Posted at Nader.org

It has never been more clear how much corporations depend on We, the People for their very existence. Corporations are given the right to exist through a public charter. For public corporations, shareholders are bestowed with limited liability, and they benefit from a public system of securities regulation that gives investors confidence to invest. In the best of times, corporations benefit both from public goods (public roads and infrastructure, public investment in R&D) and targeted benefits (tax subsidies, loan guarantees, and much more). In the worst of times, as we now see, the largest corporations can expect massive public support. Bloomberg reports that the United States has already committed an amazing $7.76 trillion — more than half of U.S. GDP — in funds for bailouts, guarantees, share purchases, insurance programs, swaps and more.

Don’t We, the People have the right to expect something in return?

How about starting with public release of the income tax returns of all corporations above a certain size (say, $10 million in assets)?

In October, a former Bush administration head of the Internal Revenue Service, Mark Everson, proposed exactly that in the Washington Post.

Wrote Everson, “Federal tax returns include important information about corporations beyond that available in financial statements. Making corporate returns available for public inspection would provide a powerful tool to analysts who follow companies and industries, and it would help others better evaluate counterparties and risk. It would assist other federal and state regulators, who currently are prohibited from reviewing the details of federal returns. (The IRS itself is precluded from sharing returns with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department except in narrow circumstances.) Large corporations file their federal tax returns electronically, so the data can easily be shared. Information returns filed by not-for-profits are already available online.”

Disclosure of corporate income tax returns would help offset the intentional obscurity and complexity surrounding corporate records that has so directly contributed to the current financial crisis.

It would also lead to much better tax policy. President-elect Obama has stated that he and his administration will carefully review every budget expenditure, in order to save taxpayer dollars and eliminate or curtail programs that have outlived their usefulness or never should have been started. This is a welcome commitment. Aside from cutting wasteful Pentagon spending, however, the really big ways to improve the government’s balance sheet are in eliminating unfair, inefficient corporate tax loopholes, and escapes to tax havens abroad.

The complexity of the tax code — itself the product of long-term, persistent and intensive lobbying — invites esoteric gaming by large corporations, aided and abetted by lawyers and accountants.

Some tax provisions are included in the Code with almost no one other than the lobbyists who wrote them understanding what their implications will be.

And some tax provisions are muscled through by powerful interests, but impose public costs not fully understood at the time of enactment, while offering minimal public benefits.

If corporate tax returns were made public, citizen advocates and other monitors would be able to root out tax abuses, and rally to have them repealed. The government — that is, the taxpayers — would stand to recoup tens of billions of dollars, or more, to be more appropriately allocated.

Corporations, naturally, would object to mandatory disclosure of their tax returns. They would claim a right to privacy. But corporations are legal fictions, not people with legitimate privacy concerns. There should be no corporate right to privacy.

Corporations would also argue that disclosing tax returns would force them to reveal proprietary information. But that claim pales beside the broad public interest in gaining access to corporate returns, especially in this period of cascading mega bailouts. And, if corporations can identify some narrow and legitimate right to proprietary protection, let them do so. Then those specific areas can be excluded from disclosure.

Disclosure of corporate tax returns would be administratively simple. As Everson notes, the IRS already requires that corporations file their returns electronically. And there are precedents even from the pre-digital age. Wisconsin, for example, required corporate tax returns to be disclosed, before modifying its rules several decades ago.

In the first week of December, the auto industry CEOs will again appear before the Senate Banking and House Financial Services committees, to make the case for receiving billions in tax payer bailout monies. Hopefully, they will find a way to get to Washington other than by chartering their corporate jets. Chairman Chris Dodd and Chairman Barney Frank should instruct the CEOs that they should come with their corporate tax returns in hand, ready to share them with the American people. That will open the gates for a new standard of openness that should apply to all corporations.

Filed Under: Independents

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 JimDavidson // Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    I don’t disagree with Ralph that there are problems with the bailouts and the direct government support of corporations. I do not disagree with greater openness and transparency in markets.

    I do disagree that an open and transparent system of corporatism, which we used to call the economic policy of fascism, is an acceptable alternative to open and free markets. I’m not interested in a kinder and gentler fascism, as Ralph so evidently is.

    Individual liberty involves private property. It cannot be extricated from property, any more than it could be separated from life.

    The policy should not be to improve slightly the transparency of the corporations, including the mega-banks, including the mega-manufacturers, but to leave them entirely exposed to market forces to break up and disappear. Their assets won’t go away, the jobs in their industry won’t go away, but the competitiveness of finance and manufacturing, and the customer service innovations needed to win back market share will dramatically increase.

    We are currently engaged as spectators in watching what should be our money as individuals distributed to reward for bad behavior and high risk taking among consolidated industries, while publicly purporting to seek good behavior and lower risk taking. Rewarding for A while seeking B is a classic folly.

    Unfortunately, a fascist economic policy always encourages consolidation, to reduce the number of players who are giving benefits to those in power to a comprehensible few. Fascism always causes bigger businesses to become gigantic. And the policy of the United States government has been fascist since the days of private railroad companies and the “Interstate Commerce Commission.”

    A study of, say, the history of James J. Hill and the Great Northern Railroad reveals that it was possible to build a profitable railroad without land subsidies or track subsidies. And it was upsetting to those who depended on government subsidies, so they set up the ICC to get the government into the rate setting business.

    I believe that Ralph is determined to have government rate setting, even if it means people starve for want of food. It is clear that he supports a policy of government mandates on the design of automobiles, so my mother had to spend a small fortune to get the airbag in her car removed, because if it accidentally deployed (as they do, especially as they get older) it would likely kill a woman of her very small frame (she’s tiny).

    Unfortunately, all his safety standards and emission standards have raised very high barriers to entry, even when they are stupidly applied. The bureau-rats of the EPA and the DoT are not interested in a better environment or safer autos, they are interested in jobs when they stop being bureau-rats for government – jobs in industry helping big companies navigate the byzantine regulations they used to impose. These high barriers to entry prevent new innovators, including foreign ones, from having access to the same market as GM and the other behemoths.

    I don’t know what Ralph thinks about protectionism, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he liked it. And there is still a 100% tariff on imported pickup trucks, since 1968, last I checked. Again, protectionism benefits, not the consumer, not the economy, but the mis-managers of huge businesses.

  • 2 Ms. Know // Dec 5, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Some of the books that the left-wing illuminati don’t want to open will expose their help in this mess, and they won’t be able to put it all on Bush.

Leave a Comment