On the campaign trail, California’s Republican Senate nominee Carly Fiorina has repeatedly defended the decision to outsource thousands of jobs that tech giant Hewlett-Packard made while she was its CEO. “During my time at Hewlett Packard, yes, I had to make some tough choices like families and businesses all across California are making tough choices. China is fighting for our jobs,” she said.

But at the same time that she was shipping positions overseas — and HP was raking in billions in profits — Fiorina also claimed California tax credits meant to encourage start-up companies to invest in manufacturing equipment (and presumably create jobs here in the U.S.):

While Fiorina was chief executive of the computer giant, the state was hospitable enough to grant the company a controversial $13-million tax refund even though, state officials said, it had already used credits to offset some income tax bills…HP was awarded $13 million in 2005, when the company posted net earnings of $2.5 billion. That year, California faced a $6-billion budget gap and slashed funding for public health programs, education and law enforcement. In asking for the rebates, the companies cited provisions of a law that state officials said were designed to encourage small start-ups to invest in manufacturing equipment.

Considering that it was founded in 1939, HP calling itself a start-up is obviously a bit of a stretch. According to the Los Angeles Times, “in years before the vote, Hewlett-Packard made $20,000 in political donations to the four members of the five-member Board of Equalization who approved the tax relief,” which may have greased the skids a bit.

This credit is California’s version of a problem plaguing the tax code at the federal level: the proliferation of credits and handouts to mature, profitable companies. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with trying to incentivize actual start-up industries, but there’s no reason to be giving companies that can clearly stand on their own two feet taxpayer money, particularly when states and the federal government are facing their own severe fiscal constraints.

Nowadays, Fiorina spends a healthy portion of her time bashing her state’s economic policies, telling CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, “the facts are we’re destroying jobs in this state through bad government policy.” But during her tenure as CEO, Fiorina clearly had no qualms about accepting tax credits meant to create and preserve jobs and then shipping positions overseas anyway. I guess we should expect nothing less from someone who refers to outsourcing as “right-shoring.”

Earlier this month, former Bush administration budget director Rob Portman, who is running on the Republican ticket for Ohio’s open Senate seat, denied that he favored privatizing Social Security, despite his long record of statements in support of doing just that. “I mean, this is what Einstein talked about, the magic, the greatest force in the universe, the power of compounding interest. That’s what we’re talking about here,” Portman said of private Social Security accounts.

But now Portman has added a new quirk to his privatization plan, in a pretty clear attempt to calm the nerves of those who rightfully worry about their Social Security being subject to the whims of the markets:

During the debate and in the “spin room” with reporters afterward, Portman insisted he has pledged not to cut benefits for retirees. Instead, he said he supports allowing young people to take a small portion of their Social Security taxes to set up personal accounts to invest as they see fit. But he insisted if they lost money, the government would step in to make them whole again.

This idea is simply absurd. In addition to the substantial costs associated with a traditional privatization scheme — which would force the government into trillions of new borrowing — Portman would add the cost of bailing out the accounts of those investors who lost money.

Obviously, this sets up a huge moral hazard problem. If investors know full well that the government is going to “make them whole again,” no matter what they do, then the incentive is to make risky investments and hope for a big payoff. After all, why not take the risk if the government has guaranteed that you can’t lose money? “If the government guaranteed to bail you out in case of losses, then investors would make riskier investments and the number of people who need bailing out would rise,” wrote Matthew Yglesias in reaction to Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) promoting a similar idea.

Of course, there’s a simple way to avoid creating this sort of cockamamie scheme and the assorted problems that come along with it: don’t privatize Social Security. But Portman has been in thrall to this idea for so long, he seems willing to say and do whatever it takes to make it look like a responsible plan.

Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that some multinational corporations — including General Electric and Pfizer — lowered their effective tax rate by more than 20 points thanks to the use of offshore tax havens and the loophole ridden corporate tax code.

But those companies don’t have anything on Google. According to a Bloomberg News report, Google, thanks to a setup in which it moves its profits to Ireland and countries in the Caribbean, has paid a 2.4 percent tax rate over the last three years, avoiding $3.1 billion in taxes:

Google’s income shifting — involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” — helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries…The method takes advantage of Irish tax law to legally shuttle profits into and out of subsidiaries there, largely escaping the country’s 12.5 percent income tax.

“It’s remarkable that Google’s effective rate is that low,” said Martin Sullivan, a tax economist who formerly worked for the U.S. Treasury Department. “We know this company operates throughout the world mostly in high-tax countries where the average corporate rate is well over 20 percent.”

The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent. But Google not only avoided U.S. taxes with its scheme, it also dodged taxes in the United Kingdom (where the statutory corporate tax rate is 20 percent). Facebook is reportedly cooking up a similar tax plan right now.

Despite having a relatively high statutory corporate tax rate, the U.S. collects little corporate tax revenue due to the prolific use of tax havens and the needless subsidies the U.S. taxpayer provides to mature, profitable industries. In fact, “the U.S. Office of Management and Budget estimates corporate tax receipts will account for just 7.2% of federal revenues in 2010, with large corporations contributing less than one-sixth as much as small business and individual taxpayers to the Federal Treasury.” Eighty-three of the 100 largest publicly traded U.S. corporations and 63 of the 100 largest federal contractors have at least one subsidiary in a tax haven.

Since the Obama administration came into office, it has been trying, along with some congressional Democrats, to close some of the more egregious tax loopholes that allow corporations to sling profits all over the world and never pay taxes on them. But they have been stymied at every turn by Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce and other Big Business groups, who are content with allowing corporations to do all they can to get around paying the tax rate on the books.