Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 00:02:52 -0700 From: Norm Matloff To: Norm Matloff Subject: Kerry and offshoring/H-1B--the full story To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter For some time I've been saying that John Kerry's tough "Benedict Arnold" rhetoric on offshoring is just bluster, and that he has no intention of doing anything of real substance to deal with the problem. (Needless to say, I don't think Bush is any better.) Those of you on this mailing list who are in the press or in government know how the game is played, but the general public has amazing faith in the system. I continue to hear from naive activists who think that Kerry represents hope for them. The purpose of this posting now is to explain once and for all why their hopes are misplaced. I have gathered together here a number of articles and other documents relevant to Kerry's views on offshoring and H-1B. Collectively, this material--much of it "straight from the horse's mouth," i.e. from Kerry's campaign officials and Kerry himself--makes it quite clear that we would NOT see any improvement in the offshoring/H-1B situation in a Kerry administration. Kerry's main proposal on offshoring has been to remove certain tax breaks that accrue from foreign transactions. I said at the time he first brought this up that it would accomplish very little, and indeed both Kerry and his people subsequently admitted this: The February 26, 2004 edition of the Washington Post included an article exposing the fact that major Kerry campaign donors were also big-time "Benedict Arnolds" (Kerry's campaign rhetoric term for firms that offshore). The Post wrote, On Monday, Kerry was asked why two of his biggest fundraisers were involved with "Benedict Arnold" companies. "If they have done that, it's not to my knowledge and I would oppose it," Kerry told a New York television station. "I think it's wrong to do [it] solely to avoid taxes." Then he sought to clarify his position: "What I've said is not that people don't have the right to go overseas and form a company if they want to avoid the tax. I don't believe the American taxpayer ought to be giving them a benefit. That's what I object to. I don't object to global commerce. I don't object to companies deciding they want to compete somewhere else.'' That second paragraph is key. Kerry is admitting that he does not object to offshoring, and merely wants to tweak around the edges of the problem. Moreover, Kerry's campaign officials admit it too. Here is an excerpt from an article in the New York Times, March 26, 2004 (again, the full text is enclosed later in this posting): Many independent economists questioned Mr. Kerry's underlying assumption that the tax code plays a significant role in corporate decisions to set up factories overseas. ''My sense is that it is not usually the decisive factor,'' said Edward McKelvey, a senior economist at Goldman Sachs. ''Normally, companies go offshore either because of cost reasons -- labor costs, materials costs -- or for market access reasons. Countries tell you that if you want to sell here, you need to be here.'' Campaign officials acknowledged that the new plan would not stop the broader trend of outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries. But they said it would at least remove what they called a bias in the tax system that encourages such practices. So there it is, direct from Kerry and his people: Kerry's tax proposal wouldn't do much to stop offshoring, and in fact Kerry supports offshoring. The several articles enclosed below from the Indian press illustrate what is really going on. Basically Kerry's people are quietly assuring the Indian offshoring interests, "Don't worry about the `Benedict Arnold' talk, which is aimed at the voters. Kerry does support offshoring." Kerry seems to love being technically honest while being quite deceptive in spirit. If Kerry is elected and someone calls him on his perceived promise to stop offshoring, he could truthfully say, "Wait a minute. I never said I was opposed to offshoring. I merely said I don't want to give U.S. firms an *extra* incentive to offshore, in the form of a tax break. I clearly stated that I do support offshoring." You can see this technique of mincing words further in one of the articles below from the Indian press, with the headline and subheadline, Kerry, Our Ally Against BPO Backlash He knows manufacturing unemployment's the issue Here "our" of course means "India's," and "BPO" means "business process offshoring." In other words, the title is "Kerry, India's Ally in Resisting the U.S. Backlash Against Offshoring." The article shows how Kerry inserted the word "manufacturing" into his speeches, in order to differentiate from IT work. The article says that Kerry is India's "ally" in the U.S. backlash against offshoring. In other words, the article is saying that Kerry does intend to support offshoring of IT work to India if he is elected. Again, if called on that by angry American programmers, Kerry can say, "No, I specifically stated 'manufacturing' work in my campaign speeches." Sen. Hillary Clinton, a public supporter of the offshoring/H-1B software giant Tata Consultancy Services (see the various postings titled "Hillary" in http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive) has also inserted the word "manufacturing" into her public comments, also seen in an article enclosed here. And New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Chair of the Democratic National Convention, has gone out of his way to assure India that Kerry supports offshoring. See another article enclosed below. So, why is the Democratic Party, putatively pro-labor, taking in essence the same view as the Republicans on these issues? The answer, as always, is money. The Washington Post article I cited above, exposing Kerry's hypocrisy in his "Benedict Arnold" rhetoric, goes into some detail on the fact that Kerry is just as much a captive of corporate interest as is Bush. Again, the full text of that article is enclosed later in this posting. Also enclosed later in this posting is a similar article from the San Francisco Chronicle, March 23, 2004. Read the article and see who his big donors are in northern California. Right away one notices several big venture capital firms. If you recall, there have been several articles in the press recently reporting that the VCs are vigorously coercing firms they fund to offshore their work. (See the items beginning with "VCs" in http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive) Do you REALLY think that Kerry is going to bite the hand that feeds him? Another big Kerry donor, according to the article, is Faraj Aalaei, CEO of Centillium Communications. The Dept. of Labor Web page shows that they hire lots of H-1Bs, most of them at wages well below the median for the Bay Area. The firm's own Web page says, "We are not only looking for people to staff our Fremont, CA headquarters, but we're also staffing up our remote design centers and sales offices across the US and internationally!" (Exclamation mark in the original.) How can Kerry ignore donors like this? He wouldn't. It is interesting that in today's Daily Californian, the student newspaper of UC Berkeley, there is an article about Ralph Nader's speech in San Francisco Friday, quoting Nader as saying, "The Democrats are running a campaign that's contrived, manipulated and paid for by people with more money than you can afford," Nader said. An article in the current issue (July 19, 2004, at http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=23901874) of InformationWeek notes the following: IT execs, like all business leaders, "want to know they can count on a president who will set the right tone and make the right investments in high tech," says Jeff Raikes, group VP of Microsoft's Information Worker Business and a Kerry adviser. So a Microsoft VP is a Kerry adviser! Just what kind of "advice" on offshoring and H-1B do you think Kerry is getting from this guy? The first article I've enclosed below, also from the current issue of InformationWeek, reports on Kerry's and Bush's positions on offshoring. The reporter had contacted me for my view of the whole mess, which the article accurately summarizes: Yet one hard-core critic sees little difference between the candidates on offshore outsourcing and the related issue of H-1B visas, which let foreigners work in the United States. Neither candidate has proposed restricting H-1B visas or preventing companies from using offshore labor or moving operations offshore. Kerry is "trying to convey the impression that the Democrats are on the side of the IT workers, while the Republicans are pro-H-1B and pro-offshoring," Norman Matloff, a University of California-Davis computer-science professor, says via E-mail. "It's not true. Both parties are solidly pro-H-1B and pro-offshoring. The only difference ... is that the Democrats are pretending to be pro-labor on those issues, while the Republicans are quite openly pro-industry," Matloff says. Note that the reporter did get a statement from Kerry's campaign about H-1B (presumably in response to my statement above): On H-1B visas, the Bush campaign is mute. Kerry, who in the past has voted to increase the number of H-1B visas, more recently has cast doubt on whether the number needs to be raised. "It is unclear how diligently employers seeking to fill these positions with noncitizen technology professionals have sought to fill those same positions with U.S.professionals," the Kerry campaign says in an E-mail to InformationWeek. "It needs to be clear to employers that they must seek qualified citizens before reaching out to potential H-1B visa holders." The key word is "diligently." It suggests that Kerry thinks that H-1B law requires employers to give Americans hiring priority over H-1Bs. That Kerry thinks this is confirmed by a letter Kerry sent to IEEE-USA (enclosed later in this posting), in which Kerry says In order to ensure that domestic workers are given equal treatment, companies that sponsor temporary H-1B workers must abide by certain guidelines. These guidelines state that the employer will pay the nonimmigrant the same level of compensation as other employers for that position, and that the employer will take measures to advertise open positions to nonimmigrant and domestic workers. Kerry is wrong. H-1B law does NOT require employers of H-1Bs to "take measures to advertise open positions to nonimmigrant and domestic workers." In other words, Kerry's only public statement on H-1B, the InformationWeek quote above, is devoid of content. All he promises to do is enforce a law that he doesn't realize is nonexistent in the first place. Diehard Kerry supporters might now say, "Yes, but once he finds out that there is no such law, he'd want to enact one." But this is extremely unlikely, given his phony stance on offshoring, and his bevy of deep-pockets corporate donors, as seen above. Indeed, Kerry told a pro-H-1B group, South Asians for Kerry, that he would be "willing to consider extending the 6 year term limits [on H-1B visas]." (Again, see the enclosure below.) Lots of enclosures follow below. Norm http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=23901280 InformationWeek July 19, 2004 Offshoring By Eric Chabrow President Bush and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry have a rhetorical difference on offshore outsourcing, but neither proposes banning U.S. companies from hiring foreigners to do jobs performed by U.S. workers. Bush takes a hands-off policy to offshore outsourcing, saying he doesn'twant to let the United States retreat into economic isolationism, which would jeopardize 12 million American jobs that he says are dependent on exports. "Outsourcing is an issue that we face as part of living and working in a dynamic global economy," Bush-Cheney '04 campaign policy director Tim Adams said in an online chat this spring. "The real question is how we prepare American workers to compete successfully in this global economy." Kerry proposes eliminating tax breaks for companies that outsource work overseas. He would stop letting companies defer U.S. taxes on income earned by certain types of foreign subsidiaries when the net result is to move U.S. jobs abroad, and he would close loopholes that letcompanies escape taxes by taking advantage of complicated internationaltax rules that encourage them to shift their headquarters to low-tax havens. "We're going to repeal every tax loophole and benefit that rewards any Benedict Arnold CEO or company for exploiting the tax code to export American jobs," Kerry said in a controversial speech to the AFL-CIO earlier this year. Kerry has since dropped the "Benedict Arnold" tone but has kept offshoring a top issue. Yet one hard-core critic sees little difference between the candidates on offshore outsourcing and the related issue of H-1B visas, which let foreigners work in the United States. Neither candidate has proposed restricting H-1B visas or preventing companies from using offshore labor or moving operations offshore. Kerry is "trying to convey the impression that the Democrats are on the side of the IT workers, while the Republicans are pro-H-1B and pro-offshoring," Norman Matloff, a University of California-Davis computer-science professor, says via E-mail. "It's not true. Both parties are solidly pro-H-1B and pro-offshoring. The only difference ... is that the Democrats are pretending to be pro-labor on those issues, while the Republicans are quite openly pro-industry," Matloff says. On H-1B visas, the Bush campaign is mute. Kerry, who in the past has voted to increase the number of H-1B visas, more recently has cast doubt on whether the number needs to be raised. "It is unclear how diligently employers seeking to fill these positions with noncitizen technology professionals have sought to fill those same positions with U.S.professionals," the Kerry campaign says in an E-mail to InformationWeek. "It needs to be clear to employers that they must seek qualified citizens before reaching out to potential H-1B visa holders." Illustrations by Hanoch Piven Return to main story: "A Vote For I.T." *************************************************************** http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/493334.cms Hillary too hits anti-BPO button ASHA RAI TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2004 01:34:16 AM ] BANGALORE: Just as India was taking heart from the recent Bush administration's endorsement of offshoring in the annual report by the President's Council of Economic Advisors, the first salvo against it has being fired. And, by a person no less than Senator Hillary Clinton. With the Presidential elections drawing close, 'offshoring' with its inherent connotation of 'job loss' in the US is attracting the attention of the big guns on Capitol Hill and the topic is no longer the preserve of governors and senators of states like Colarado and Ohio, who initially steered down this course, mainly to cater to their domestic constituency. Clinton is introducing a 'Sense of the Senate' amendment to the Highway Bill (which authorises funds for highways, highway safety, transit programmes and others) to express her opposition to the President's Council of Economic Advisors highlighting the benefits of outsourcing, according to sources. Quoting job loss figures, she wants policies that favour outsourcing of jobs overseas to be opposed and wants the government to provide tax incentives to keep manufacturing jobs within the United States If at all there is a silver lining here for India, it is that Clinton has stressed the loss of manufacturing jobs and not service jobs. To state the obvious, Clinton's advocacy of tax breaks and favourable policy framework for the US manufacturing sector obviously is targetted at China as outsourcing to India is mainly from the services sector. In the amendment she is introducing, Clinton has taken exception to the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors describing the outsourcing of American jobs overseas ''as a good thing "and to outsourcing being "just a new way of doing international trade". According to her, "The President's economic policies have either failed to address or exacerbated the loss of manufacturing jobs that our country has experienced over the last three years; American families are facing an economy with the fewest jobs created since the Great Depression." Using figures to substantiate her argument, she has said that 2.9 million private sector jobs have been lost since January 2001, including 2.8 million manufacturing jobs and "on several occasions, the Senate has supported reforming our tax laws to eliminate policies that make it cheaper to move jobs overseas". She, therefore, wants to "oppose any efforts to encourage the outsourcing of American jobs overseas" and to "adopt legislation providing for a manufacturing tax incentive to encourage job creation in the United States and oppose efforts to make it cheaper to send jobs overseas". http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=53248 *************************************************************** Kerry, Our Ally Against BPO Backlash He knows manufacturing unemployment's the issue by BHANOJI RAO February 23, 2004 The election fever is on in the US. TV channels are all agog with the news about the winners and losers at the Democratic Party primaries and caucuses. By the 12th of this month, primaries were completed in 10 states (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, Delaware, Oklahoma, Michigan, Washington, Tennessee and Virginia) and caucuses in four (Iowa, New Mexico, North Dakota and Maine). Senator John Kerry won in 12 of the 14 states and could well be nominated in July at the Democratic Party National Convention to challenge President Bush in the November presidential election. Senator Kerry, who turned 60 in December, graduated from Yale, served on a gunboat in Vietnam, received honours for service in combat, founded Vietnam Veterans of America and was a spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In 1984, he was elected to the US Senate and is currently serving his fourth term. The website of the senator has pages and pages on policy issues - on health care, fiscal deficits, domestic economy, external trade, homeland security and so on. Going by the press and electronic media focus in recent months, however, the single most important problem facing the American people is that of growing unemployment, and Senator Kerry has the right focus and emphasis on the crucial issue - as the following facts indicate. The overall unemployment rate increased from 4.1 per cent in January 2001 to 6.3 per cent in June 2003 and since, declined marginally to 5.7 per cent in December. The African-American unemployment rate rose from 8.2 per cent in January 2001 to 11.2 in September 2003, while the Hispanic unemployment rate increased from 5.8 per cent to 7.8 per cent. How did it all happen? The Economic Report of the President issued just a few days ago says it all, if one has the patience to look into the data. Manufacturing employment declined marginally from 17.7 million in 1990 to 17.3 million in 2000. By December 2003, the figure plummeted to 14.5 million. In contrast, services absorbed 85.8 million in 1990, 107.1 million in 2000 and 108.2 million in December 2003. Where have the manufacturing jobs gone? No economic expertise is needed to get to the answer. A visit to any popular superstore anywhere in the US will tell you: to China, of course. The above numbers speak well about where the emphasis should be. Unlike Mr Bush who seems to worry about outsourced call centre jobs, Senator Kerry has the right priority - bringing back manufacturing jobs. "Of the more than three million jobs lost since this (Bush) Administration took office, two and a half million have been in manufacturing", reads one of the numerous press releases issued by the Senator. His job creation agenda includes the revitalisation of the American manufacturing sector, effective utilisation of the work force, investment in research and development and better trade enforcement. In regard to enforcing fair trading practices, the senator hopes to use the full force of the WTO to take on countries which are manipulating their currency to undermine US exports. The proposals also include enforcement and strengthening of intellectual property rights and ensuring the inclusion of labour and environmental standards in revised/new trade agreements. Mr Kerry has the right rhetoric too: "The Bush Administration has not cracked down on countries that violate trade agreements or undermine American exports by manipulating their currencies...Japan and China are now the largest holders of US debt, giving them more leverage over our economy." Of course, it is easy to brand statements such as these as protectionist and anti-free trade. The truth, however, is the incompatibility of free trade with the rock-like stability of the Chinese currency against the US dollar despite the latter's southward movement over a period of time. Democratic governments all over the world should hope for Mr Kerry to win and should even begin talking to him on how they could work to strengthen his jobs agenda, instead of leaving it for the pro-China lobby in the US to gain ground and turn the job losses issue once again towards the countries providing low-end services for Uncle Sam. The author, an economist and an academic, worked with the National University of Singapore and the World Bank. He can be contacted at bhanoji@vsnl.net *************************************************************** http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A6884-2004Feb25¬Found=true Kerry Donors Include 'Benedict Arnolds' Candidate Decries Tax-Haven Firms While Accepting Executives' Aid By Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, February 26, 2004; Page A01 Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, frequently calls companies and chief executives "Benedict Arnolds" if they move jobs and operations overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes. But Kerry has accepted money and fundraising assistance from top executives at companies that fit the candidate's description of a notorious traitor of the American Revolution. Executives and employees at such companies have contributed more than $140,000 to Kerry's presidential campaign, a review of his donor records shows. Additionally, two of Kerry's biggest fundraisers, who together have raised more than $400,000 for the candidate, are top executives at investment firms that helped set up companies in the world's best-known offshore tax havens, federal records show. Kerry has raised nearly $30 million overall for his White House run. Kerry has taken aim at "Benedict Arnold" companies as part of a much broader political and policy debate over stemming the flow of well-paying U.S. jobs overseas, a chief cause of unemployment, especially in the hardest-hit manufacturing sector. Kerry's solution, detailed in a speech yesterday in Toledo, is to enforce trade agreements, track and slow the outsourcing of U.S. jobs, and stop government contracts and tax incentives from going to companies that move operations or jobs offshore. Kerry has come under attack from President Bush, as well as some Democrats, for criticizing laws he voted for and lambasting special interests after accepting more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years. Some Democrats worry that Kerry is leaving himself open to similar attacks on the latest issue. Given the vast sums raised during the presidential campaign as well as the growing number of companies with offshore operations, it seems almost inevitable that candidates would receive contributions from some of them. Bush has taken exponentially more from these companies than Kerry, though the president has not made a major campaign issue out of clamping down on them. On Monday, Kerry was asked why two of his biggest fundraisers were involved with "Benedict Arnold" companies. "If they have done that, it's not to my knowledge and I would oppose it," Kerry told a New York television station. "I think it's wrong to do [it] solely to avoid taxes." Then he sought to clarify his position: "What I've said is not that people don't have the right to go overseas and form a company if they want to avoid the tax. I don't believe the American taxpayer ought to be giving them a benefit. That's what I object to. I don't object to global commerce. I don't object to companies deciding they want to compete somewhere else.'' David Roux, who has raised more than $250,000 for Kerry since 2002, is co-founder of a California company that helped purchase Seagate Technology Inc. four years ago and incorporated it in the Cayman Islands, one of the world's best-known tax havens. Roux described himself in an interview last fall as the "anchor tenant in John Kerry's fundraising mall." While the State Department lists Seagate as among the companies that reincorporated offshore to save on taxes, Roux said yesterday that he works for a "global" company forced to make "thoughtful" business decisions about where to locate its offices and jobs. Roux said he does not consider Seagate or himself a "Benedict Arnold." That term, Roux said, "is, like many things in politics, a label that [is] meant to cover a lot of sins." Stephen J. Luczo, chief executive of Seagate, has contributed $4,000 to Kerry, the maximum allowed under law, and $2,000 to the candidate's legal defense fund. Luczo was on vacation and not available for comment, according to his assistant. Thomas F. Steyer, who said he has raised around $200,000 for Kerry, is a partner at a California investment firm called Hellman & Friedman LLC that helped set up an insurance company in Bermuda, another popular tax haven. The insurance company -- Arch Capital Group Ltd. -- stated in a 2000 Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it was sinking roots in Bermuda to reduce its U.S. tax bill. Steyer said that it "wasn't my decision" to set up the company in Bermuda and that he now spends less than 10 percent of his time at Hellman & Friedman. "I believe American citizens should pay their American taxes," Steyer said. He said he "absolutely" does not consider himself part of a "Benedict Arnold" enterprise. Steyer and Roux have hosted fundraisers for Kerry and are listed by his campaign as among three dozen supporters who have "bundled" $100,000 or more each, which means they get credit for packaging individual donations to reach that total. When asked for the definition of a "Benedict Arnold" company or CEO, Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's spokeswoman, said: "Companies that take advantage of tax loopholes to set up bank accounts or move jobs abroad simply to avoid taxes." She pointed to a list compiled by Citizen Works, a tax-exempt nonprofit group that monitors corporate influence, as a source on the companies that fit the candidate's definition. According to federal election records, Kerry has received $119,285 from donors employed at what Citizen Works describes as the "25 Fortune 500 Corporations With the Most Offshore Tax-Haven Subsidiaries." The list does not include nearly all of the companies that shave their tax bill by moving jobs and operations overseas, so Kerry has actually raised substantially more from firms qualifying as "Benedict Arnolds." Kerry has also received $20,100 in donations directly from individuals at companies with mailing addresses offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes, records show. "Senator Kerry has made it crystal clear that he's going to close these loopholes, forever," said Chad Clanton, a Kerry spokesman. "Nothing will stop him. Period." Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), whose campaign gets most of its money from trial lawyers, has not described these companies in such harsh terms and has received less from them, Federal Election Commission records show. Edwards took in $500 from a Tyco International Ltd. employee and $75,000 from the 25 Fortune 500 companies with the most offshore-tax-haven subsidiaries. Staff writer Dan Balz and researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report. © 2004 The Washington Post Company *************************************************************** Kerry to Propose Eliminating a Tax Break on U.S. Companies' Overseas Profits EDMUND L. ANDREWS and JODI WILGOREN New York Times Mar 26, 2004 p.A.12 Copyright New York Times Company Mar 26, 2004 Responding to widespread anxiety about the movement of American jobs overseas, Senator John Kerry plans to propose on Friday a sweeping revision of international corporate taxes intended to prompt companies to invest more money in the United States. Aides said Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, would also challenge President Bush by saying his administration would spawn 10 million additional jobs over four years. Democrats often point out that more than two million jobs have been lost since Mr. Bush became president. In a speech he is scheduled to deliver at Wayne State University in Detroit, a city that has been plagued by job losses in manufacturing, Mr. Kerry is to propose eliminating a major tax break on profits earned by American companies overseas and using that money to reduce the tax rate for all corporations. ''You know, economic plans aren't just about dollars and decimals -- they're about choices,'' Mr. Kerry plans to say, according to excerpts of his prepared text provided by his campaign Thursday evening. ''Time after time, this administration has put ideology first and jobs last. Today, I'm announcing a new economic plan for America that will put jobs first.'' With voters saying that the economy is still the most important issue in the election, Mr. Kerry's speech is designed to begin a new economic policy offensive. It represents an approach that sounds some of the same notes as his frequent denunciation of ''Benedict Arnold C.E.O.'s'' during the Democratic primaries, yet is more sympathetic to business. Kerry campaign officials said they hoped his proposal would appeal to people concerned about the loss of jobs to low-wage countries like China and India. But by advocating a crackdown on international companies but not an increase in the overall level of corporate taxes, the campaign is trying to avoid angering the business community. ''This is pure tax reform,'' said Gene Sperling, a top economic adviser to Mr. Kerry who also served as a senior policy adviser to President Bill Clinton. ''He is eliminating tax incentives to move jobs overseas and using those funds to create incentives for new jobs and investment in the United States.'' Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for President Bush's re-election campaign, denounced the proposals as ''window dressing'' and said that Mr. Bush supported a more comprehensive approach to job creation. ''John Kerry's proposal does not make the kind of fundamental reform that will make U.S. firms more competitive in the global environment,'' Mr. Schmidt said, adding that Mr. Kerry was ''obstructionist'' on job-creating engines like opening foreign markets, reducing regulation and lowering taxes. On Thursday, Mr. Bush continued insisting that the economy was improving. ''So we've been through recession, an attack, corporate scandals and war,'' he said at New Hampshire Community Technical College in Nashua. ''And yet our economy is growing and getting stronger.'' The essence of the Kerry plan boils down to two main elements. The first would be eliminating the ability of American multinational companies to defer taxes on their foreign profits as long as those profits stay outside the United States. That would raise about $12 billion a year in extra tax revenue, which Mr. Kerry would use to reduce the overall corporate tax rate to 33.25 percent from 35 percent. ''If a company is torn between creating jobs here or overseas, we now have a tax code that has American taxpayers paying to ship jobs overseas,'' Mr. Kerry plans to say in Friday's speech. ''That makes no sense. And if I am president, it will end.'' Analysts on Wall Street have estimated that American companies have accumulated more than $400 billion in overseas profits, and multinationals are pushing for bills in Congress that would reduce taxes on foreign profits by as much as $37 billion over the next 10 years. ''The reason all that money is held overseas is because our international tax system does not prevent the double taxation of foreign source income,'' said John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, a lobbying organization that represents the chief executives of large corporations. Many independent economists questioned Mr. Kerry's underlying assumption that the tax code plays a significant role in corporate decisions to set up factories overseas. ''My sense is that it is not usually the decisive factor,'' said Edward McKelvey, a senior economist at Goldman Sachs. ''Normally, companies go offshore either because of cost reasons -- labor costs, materials costs -- or for market access reasons. Countries tell you that if you want to sell here, you need to be here.'' Campaign officials acknowledged that the new plan would not stop the broader trend of outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries. But they said it would at least remove what they called a bias in the tax system that encourages such practices. To sweeten his proposal for business, Mr. Kerry also borrowed an idea supported by many Republicans. In addition to reducing the corporate tax rate, the plan would give American multinational companies a one-year ''tax holiday'' under which they could bring their accumulated foreign profits back to the United States at a tax rate of only 10 percent. Economic advisers to Mr. Kerry said the tax holiday would actually lead to a short-term windfall in tax revenues, because companies would have a special incentive to bring back hundreds of billions of dollars that have been sitting untaxed overseas. Under the plan, the government would use that windfall to pay for a two-year tax credit to companies that create new jobs. *************************************************************** http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/07/15/stories/2004071501920400.htm `Democrat Kerry not against outsourcing' Sridhar Krishnaswami Washington , July 14 THE soon-to-be official nominee of the Democratic Party Senator, Mr John Kerry, is an internationalist who has voted for free trade agreements, for free trade with China; and on the issue of outsourcing only stressing that the US should have a policy of giving tax incentives to American companies that do research and development, says the Permanent Chair of the Democratic National Convention, Governor Mr Bill Richardson. At the Washington Foreign Press Centre this correspondent asked Mr Richardson, a key leader of the party, that if the Democrats were really more sensitive to Asia, Africa and Latin America why then the strident note on such issues as trade and outsourcing bordering on protectionism; and more specifically where Senator Kerry was on the subject of outsourcing. "Senator Kerry voted for the free trade agreement, voted for free trade with China. He is an internationalist. I think what Senator Kerry is saying on outsourcing is that it's important that America have a policy where we give tax incentives for our companies that do research and development," Mr Richardson maintained. "We recognise that outsource (outsourcing) is a reality but at the same time we want to keep our jobs and industries more at home here too," the Governor of New Mexico said going on to make the point again that Mr Kerry is an internationalist and that India should welcome him as an American President. Subsequently, Mr Richardson was asked by another Indian journalist that sometime ago Mr Kerry had used the expression "Benedict Arnold CEO's" suggesting that those involved in outsourcing may actually be traitors; and in this context whether the Massachussetts politician believed in globalisation. " ...look at his voting record on trade, on international issues, respect for the United Nations. He supported international trade treaties, free trade agreements. His reference there was...to some of the CEOs of Enron and others that I believe were...misusing stocks and other funds. That was his reference," Mr Richardson said. But the context of Mr Kerry using "Benedict Arnold CEOs" was seen at the time as a reference not to any misuse of stocks and funds of some of the CEOs of the failed energy giant Enron, but to the problem of outsourcing. After the victory in the Wisconsin primaries this February, Mr Kerry had this to say on outsourcing: "We will repeal the tax loopholes and benefits that reward Benedict Arnold CEOs and companies for shipping American jobs overseas. Instead we will provide new incentives for good companies that create and keep good jobs here in America." C Copyright 2000 - 2004 The Hindu Business Line *************************************************************** http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/23/MNGR15PL4V1.DTL Californians betting big on Sen. Kerry Dozens from state have pledged to raise $50,000 for Democrat Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau Tuesday, March 23, 2004 San Francisco Chronicle Washington -- Dozens of Californians, including San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's father, are among the fund-raisers who have pledged to gather at least $50,000 for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign and turned the state into the main source of big contributors for the Democratic Party's likely nominee. Emulating President Bush's practice of releasing the names of Republican "rangers'' and "pioneers'' who have persuaded business associates, friends and relatives to contribute large sums of money to the president's re-election campaign, Kerry released the names of some of his big fund-raisers on Monday. These people solicit and gather contributions from individuals who each can give a maximum of $2,000 to the Kerry effort. In all, Kerry's campaign has brought in more than $20 million in recent months and plans to raise about $10 million Thursday night for the candidate and the party at a big fund-raiser in Washington featuring former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Kerry has found his largest number of deep-pocketed donors in California -- repeating the success of Democrats Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and Al Gore in 2000. Twenty-one individuals from the liberal and heavily Democratic Bay Area have pledged to raise at least $100,000 and 13 others have committed to gathering at least $50,000, according to a report released by the Kerry campaign. "Northern California has always been a cash register for presidential campaigns. It's not any different this year,'' said Richard Rubin, a lawyer and lobbyist from Tiburon, who chairs Kerry's Bay Area finance steering committee. "People know they can rely on big contributions here.'' The Kerry campaign listed 180 people across the country who have contributed more than $50,000. The Democrat's fund-raising efforts so far lag well behind those of Bush, who has raised $158.8 million for the 2004 campaign through the end of January. Since then, new contributions have bumped the president's estimate to at least $170 million. Through the January period, Kerry raised $41.3 million, including a loan he made to his campaign of $6.4 million, but almost all the money was spent during the primaries, when the Massachusetts senator was competing against several other Democratic candidates. Among those raising at least $50,000 in Northern California is William Newsom, a former state appeals court judge whose son, Gavin Newsom, took office as San Francisco mayor in January. The elder Newsom is a longtime Kerry friend. Trial lawyers are among Kerry's most generous donors, as they have been for Democrats for years. Bush and other Republicans have championed legislation that would limit judgments in many civil lawsuits. Lawyers tied to high-tech firms also are among the biggest donors to Kerry's campaign. Among the Northern California attorneys who are major Kerry donors are Judy Droz Keyes of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco; John Roos of Wilson, Soncini, Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto; Robert Lieff of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco; Arnold Laub, a San Francisco personal injury attorney; and William Orrick of Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass in San Francisco. Silicon Valley, a bastion of support for Clinton and Gore, has become a major source of cash for Kerry as well. In addition to such big donors as John and Sue Dean and Aaron Gershenberg of Silicon Valley Bank, the campaign has released a list of hundreds of high-tech backers. In his bid to raise at least $80 million more before the Democratic convention starts in Boston on July 26, Kerry plans to intensify his efforts in the Bay Area. A $1,000-a-ticket buffet and reception is scheduled Monday at the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco to help him kick off a 20-city fund- raising blitz. Rubin said the goal is to get 700 people to attend. Additional supporters who have pledged to raise $100,000 have signed up to sponsor the event and aren't included on the list that Kerry's campaign released, Rubin said. Kerry and Bush have chosen not to accept federal matching funds for the primary season -- which means they are not limited in how much they can raise and spend before their parties' respective nominating conventions. Both men have said they will accept federal matching funds for the general election campaign. While Kerry listed 180 people who have brought in at least $50,000, the Bush campaign now has 455 "rangers,'' who have bundled at least $200,000 in contributions, and "pioneers'' who each have solicited and gathered $100,000 in contributions. Bush's campaign has found more of its bundlers in the president's home state of Texas than in California. In the Bay Area, the Bush campaign has identified four "rangers.'' These are Katherine E. Boyd, a Hillsborough interior designer who is a longtime Republican donor; Steven Burd, chairman and chief executive of Safeway Inc.; John Tsu of Milbrae, a John F. Kennedy University regent; and Slayton Capital chief executive Gregory Slayton, who leads the Republican campaign's Silicon Valley effort. Seven other people have reached the "pioneer'' level for Bush from the Bay Area. But most of the president's major California support comes from the Los Angeles-Orange County area, mainly from industrialists, developers and such entertainment industry executives as Warners Brothers producer Jerry Weintraub. Kerry draws a lot of his Southern California support from Hollywood, where his bundlers include actor Dennis Hopper, Kenny "Babyface'' Edmonds, Paramount Pictures chairwoman Sherry Lansing and director William Friedkin. _________________________________________________________________ CALIFORNIA'S CAMPAIGN CASH MACHINE Californians are active fund-raisers for the presidential campaigns of Republican incumbent George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry. Here is a look at the names of some of the Bay Area residents helping to raise large sums for the two candidates: Kerry fund-raisers -- Twenty-one Bay Area residents have pledged to raise more than $100, 000 for Kerry's campaign: Suzie Tompkins Buell and Mark Buell, co-founders of Esprit Inc., San Francisco John and Sue Dean of Silicon Valley Bank Eileen and John Donahoe of Portola Valley Judy Droz Keyes, attorney at Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco Stephanie Elkins, Palo Alto Mark Gorenberg, partner at Hummer Winblad Venture Partners, San Francisco Aaron Gershenberg of Silicon Valley Bank Doug Hickey of Hummer Winblad Michelle Kraus, CEO of Digital Campaigns in Palo Alto Wade and Tamsin Randlett of Dashboard Technology, a political Web-based consultancy John and Susie Roos, Palo Alto David and Barbara Roux of Silver Lake Venture Partners in Silicon Valley Richard Rubin, a lawyer and lobbyist from Tiburon Tom Steyer, managing director of Farallon Capital in San Francisco Mike Thorsnes, a San Diego attorney with a San Francisco home. -- Thirteen others have pledged to raise at least $50,000. They are: Faraj Aalaei, CEO of Centillium Communications in Fremont Chris Larsen, CEO of E-Loan in Pleasanton Arnold Laub, lawyer, and Isabelle Laub, San Francisco Robert Lieff of Lieff, Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco and Carole Lieff William Newsom, retired judge, San Francisco William Orrick of Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, San Francisco Clint Reilly, investor and political consultant, and his wife, Janet Barbara Schraeger, Sausalito Jeff Soukup, CFO of Planetout.com, San Francisco Larry Stone, Santa Clara County assessor. Bush fund-raisers -- Four Bay Area residents are listed as Bush campaign "rangers'' -- fund-raisers who have pledged to gather at least $200,000 for the president's re-election effort. They are: Katherine Boyd., interior designer, Hillsborough Steven Burd, chairman and CEO of Safeway Inc., Pleasanton Gregory Slayton, CEO of Slayton Capital, Palo Alto, and chairman of the Bush Silicon Valley campaign John Tsu of Milbrae, a regent at JFK University, Pleasant Hill -- Seven others are "pioneers'' who have pledged to raise at least $100, 000. They are: Carole Bionda of Nova Group Inc., Napa Kristen Hueter, political consultant, San Francisco Stephen Kass, former CEO, Meris Laboratories, San Jose E. Floyd Kvamme, former partner, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, Menlo Park Howard Leach, U.S. ambassador to France, San Francisco Bill Pauli, owners, Braren Pauli Winery, Mendocino County Thomas Stephenson, general partner, Sequoia Capital, Menlo Park Source: Kerry and Bush campaigns E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com Page A - 4 ©2004 San Francisco Chronicle *************************************************************** http://bigcircle_11.web.aplus.net/ Welcome to South Asians for Kerry in 2004! In an effort to energize the South Asian presence in the political process South Asians for Kerry in 2004 (SAKI) was formed in March of 2003. SAKI is officially recognized by and works closely with the Kerry campaign with chapters in Boston, Washington D.C., New York, and the Bay Area. National South Asian Gala please note new date, time and location South Asian Breakfast with Senator John Kerry Friday July 9, 2004 8:30 am Pier 92, New York 711 12th Avenue (Entrance at 52nd Street) So that Senator Kerry can appear at our event with his choice for Vice President, Senator John Edwards, the South Asian Fundraiser has been moved to Friday morning. We now have the honor of hosting both the future President and Vice President only three days after the formation of the Kerry/Edwards ticket! You can still join us as a member of the Host Committee and/or RSVP to attend the Breakfast by returning this Invitation to rsaujani@americansforkerry.com. We are expecting over 500 individuals to attend the Breakfast. The cast of Bombay Dreams will perform at the event. For the first time in the history of American politics, the entire South Asian community will come together to show their support for the next President of the United States. This will be our moment, our chance to express our collective political voice and advocate for the issues that impact us. The fundraiser on July 9th will be the only exclusively South Asian event that Senator Kerry will attend during his election campaign. You will have an extraordinary opportunity to personally hear Senator Kerry's vision for the future of America and the world. California SAKI Volunteer Day July 18, 2004, 1 - 3 pm Cell Space (Mission Neighborhood); 2050 Bryant Street, San Francisco, CA Contact Vijay Sankaran Boston Reception For John Kerry July 14, 2004, 7:00 pm Mantra Restaurant, 52 Temple Place Click for more info Contact Mekhail Anwar or Shanika Amarikoon http://bigcircle_11.web.aplus.net/projectimpact.html PROJECT IMPACT Presidential Candidate Questionnaire John F. Kerry IMMIGRATION POLICY ... H-1B term limits: Plans to extend current 6year term limits? ... Quotas from different countries: Position on reducing Indian H-1B quotas? ... Streamlining application processes: Do you have actionable plans to reduce INS bureaucracy? I believe that America needs immigration policies that are fair and safe. The United States is a diverse nation built by people from all parts of the world who came here because they believed in freedom, democracy, and justice. I will work to cut the backlog of applications pending with the Bureau for Citizenship and Immigration Services, speed up the naturalization process, and reduce the wait for family visas and other important matters. I believe that we should make family reunification the cornerstone of our immigration system. I do not believe that there are currently quotas on H-1B visas for specific countries. I am willing to consider extending the 6 year term limits. *************************************************************** http://www.ieeeusa.org/boards/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=26;t=000032;p=1#000000 IEEE-USA Forums » Information & Assistance » Public Policy » Senator John Kerry on H-1B Author Topic: Senator John Kerry on H-1B Chris Brantley Administrator Member # 3 Icon 1 posted 29.05.2003 06:43 PM Profile for Chris Brantley Author's Homepage Email Chris Brantley Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote _________________________________________________________________ (transcribed reply to letter from IEEE-USA President Jim Leonard) Thank you for your letter regarding H-1B visas. I appreciate hearing from you. As you know, H-1B visas allow temporary foreign workers to enter and work in the United States. These workers typically fill positions in the business and technology communities, utilizing their specialized expertise. In order to ensure that domestic workers are given equal treatment, companies that sponsor temporary H-1B workers must abide by certain guidelines. These guidelines state that the employer will pay the nonimmigrant the same level of compensation as other employers for that position, and that the employer will take measures to advertise open positions to nonimmigrant and domestic workers. The Immigration and Nationality Act limits the number of H-1B visas issued annually at 65,000. However, due to the period of fast-paced economic growth that our country experienced in 1999 and 2000, the demand for highly-skilled workers in the business and technology fields drastically increased. In order to facilitate the technology boom, Congress passed S.2045, known as the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act. This act increased the annual H-1B visa allocation to 195,000. This new cap is set to remain in place until the September 2003, at which point it will automatically return to the usual statutory level of 65,000 without further legislation. When S. 2045 was passed the United States was experiencing unprecedented prosperity and many did not foresee the difficult economic times that were ahead. I will continue to monitor the changing economic conditions and will consider appropriate action when the visa increase expires in September. In the meantime you can be assured that I will explore policies to turn our economy around and to create more jobs for our workers. Thank you for writing me about this important issue. Should you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to contact either me, or my staff. Sincerely, John F. Kerry United States Senator -------------------- Chris Brantley Director, Gov't Relations & Operations IEEE-USA _________________________________________________________________ Contact Us | IEEE-USA Homepage Powered by Infopop Corporation UBB.classic(TM) 6.7.1 Copyright © 2000, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Terms & Conditions - Privacy and Security - Contacts/Info