Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) delivered an address Monday night at the Economic Club of New York, where (in addition to botching several key economic points) he reiterated that House Republicans will not consider tax increases as a legitimate option for reducing the deficit. “The big myth of the current budget debate is the notion that in order to balance the budget, we have to raise taxes. The truth is we will never balance the budget and rid our children of debt unless we cut spending and have real economic growth,” he said.

Boehner, in one fell swoop, pronounces that “everything is on the table” to reduce the deficit, before immediately taking one half of the federal ledger — taxes — off the table. But this is far from the first time that Boehner has attempted to convince the country that the budget can and should be brought into balance entirely on the spending side. In fact, on June 12, 1993, Boehner gave the weekly Republican radio address and used it to attack the tax increases and budget proposed by President Bill Clinton:

We Republicans are relegated to the sideline, even though we have a solid plan ready to go to reduce the deficit, a plan that calls for no tax increases and true cuts in government spending. [...]

The hard simple truth is, the President is taking us down the path of more taxes, more spending, and bigger government…President Clinton must understand that he has to cut spending, for real. He has to reduce the deficit, for real. And level with this nation about the direction he wants to take us.

Watch it:

Two months after this speech, Clinton’s 1993 tax increases were passed without a single Republican vote, and Boehner was far from the only one who said that the move would “kill jobs,” “kill the economic recovery,” and “set loose [a] dreadful virus into the economic bloodstream.” In reality, Clinton’s policies ushered in the longest sustained period of economic growth in the nation’s history, with 23 million jobs created. Compared to the administration of George W. Bush, the Clinton-era saw more job growth, more GDP growth, more wage growth, and more business investment.

Of course, it could be that Boehner is well-aware of all this and is just playing politics. After all, one Senate GOP aide admitted to the Atlantic’s Derek Thompson that his party’s no-taxes stance isn’t “intellectually honest” and is all about political gamesmanship.

(HT: Glenn Kessler)

A group of multinational corporations (that already pay exceedingly low taxes) have been lobbying Congress to enact what is known as a tax repatriation holiday. The plan would enable these companies to bring money they have stashed offshore back to the U.S. at a dramatically lower tax rate (instead of the statutory rate that they normally pay to repatriate money).

The corporations have united under a campaign called “WinAmerica,” and evidently they are having some effect. Yesterday, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) unveiled a bill that would let corporations repatriate their money at a tax rate of 5.25 percent (instead of the usual 35 percent). Brady said that, “this is about creating jobs, expanding U.S. businesses and strengthening American companies.”

However, when Congress approved a repatriation holiday in 2004, companies used the money to enrich their executives, not create jobs. And according to an analysis by the Joint Economic Committee a repatriation holiday today would cost close to $80 billion in lost revenue:

Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat who is a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, yesterday circulated an estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation pegging the cost of a repatriation bill at $78.7 billion. An unsuccessful effort to create a similar holiday in 2009 would have cost the U.S. government about $30 billion over a decade in forgone revenue.

If the money that corporations brought back actually led to job creation, some might consider this worth the cost. But that’s not what happened in 2004. In fact, the Congressional Research Service found that the largest beneficiaries of the last tax holiday cut jobs over the subsequent two years. Hewlett-Packard, for instance, “returned $14.5 billion to the U.S. at a low rate in 2004 and cut its workforce by 14,500 employees in 2005.”

Kristen Forbes, who was on President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers when the last repatriation holiday was approved, told the Boston Globe that the policy “didn’t accomplish the stated goals of bringing jobs and investment to the US.” But that hasn’t stopped several other Republicans, including 2012 presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, from endorsing the idea.

A group of multinational corporations (that already pay exceedingly low taxes) have been lobbying Congress to enact what is known as a tax repatriation holiday. Under such a plan, multinational corporations would be able to bring money they have stashed offshore back to the U.S. at a dramatically lower tax rate (instead of the statutory rate that they normally pay to bring back money).

The corporations have united under a campaign called “WinAmerica,” and evidently they are having some effect. Yesterday, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) unveiled a bill that would let corporations repatriate their money at a tax rate of 5.25 percent (instead of the usual 35 percent). Brady said that, “this is about creating jobs, expanding U.S. businesses and strengthening American companies.”

However, when Congress approved a repatriation holiday in 2004, companies used the money to enrich their executives, not create jobs. And according to an analysis by the Joint Economic Committee a repatriation holiday today would cost close to $80 billion in lost revenue:

Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat who is a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, yesterday circulated an estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation pegging the cost of a repatriation bill at $78.7 billion. An unsuccessful effort to create a similar holiday in 2009 would have cost the U.S. government about $30 billion over a decade in forgone revenue.

If the money that corporations brought back actually led to job creation, some might consider this worth the cost. But that’s not what happened in 2004. In fact, the Congressional Research Service found that the largest beneficiaries of the last tax holiday cut jobs over the subsequent two years. Hewlett-Packard, for instance, “returned $14.5 billion to the U.S. at a low rate in 2004 and cut its workforce by 14,500 employees in 2005.”

Brady claims that his bill “would impose sanctions for failure to maintain current workforce levels for two years.” For one thing, maintaining current levels is not the same as job creation. But the 2004 holiday also had restrictions on how the money could be used, which turned out to be “completely ineffective,” according to researchers at MIT. Kristen Forbes, who was on President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers when the last repatriation holiday was approved, told the Boston Globe that the policy “didn’t accomplish the stated goals of bringing jobs and investment to the US.”

The GOP and the corporations behind WinAmerica are trying to convince Congress that providing them with a tax holiday will lead to a flood of domestic investment and job creation. But what they’re really asking for is another Congressionally-provided windfall, making the same mistake a second time for the same reason.

On Wednesday, ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva outraged many on Capitol Hill when he released a statement calling it “un-American” to end subsidies to the Big 5 oil companies — ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. A press release referencing the subsidies posted on the company’s website was headlined: “ConocoPhillips Highlights Solid Results and Raises Concerns Over Un-American Tax Proposals at Annual Meeting of Shareholders.”

This position is a stark reversal from what Mulva said just a few years ago. In 2005, he testified that he agreed with President Bush’s assessment that with “$55 oil, we do not need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.” Mulva testified, “With respect to oil and gas exploration and production, we do not need incentives.” But with oil prices now hovering around $100 per barrel, Mulva has inexplicably changed his tune.

Yesterday Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) called Mulva’s “un-American” statement “truly outrageous” and said he expected Mulva to apologize. At today’s Senate Finance Committee hearing with the oil CEOs, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) repeatedly pressed Mulva for an apology, but the ConocoPhillips CEO refused to give one, claiming “nothing was intended personally” by his press release. Schumer then pressed the other oil CEOs to state their views:

SCHUMER: I want to ask you a specific question, do you think anyone who advocates cutting these subsidies is un-American? Yes or no, sir. That one we deserve a yes or no answer on, it was your release that said “un-American.” Yes or no?

MULVA: Senator, maybe you can hear me out on this because it’s a very important question.

SCHUMER: Do you apologize for it?

MULVA: Make no mistake, were these proposals enacted…they would place U.S. oil companies like our company…

SCHUMER: Sir, I have limited time. I know your view. Do you consider it American to have another view? Yes or no?

MULVA: Senator, I believe policies under consideration are going to have a very adverse impact with respect to energy policy.

SCHUMER: There are many people who disagree with that. … Do any of you others consider it un-American to be against the subsidiy that you’re for? If you do, raise your hand?

[No one raises their hand.]

SCHUMER: Alright, thank you I appreciate the other four of you not labeling those who are different from you un-American.

Remarkably, after Schumer wrapped up his questioning, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) rushed to Mulva’s defense and echoed his claim that it was “un-American” to end tax breaks for big oil companies. “Now, I’d call that sort of un-American — sorry, Chuck.” Watch it:

Democrats demanded the CEOs explain why they need special tax breaks when gas prices are above $4 a gallon in much of the country and their companies are raking in record profits. Earlier this week, Democrats in both the House and Senate unveiled legislation that would close the tax loophole for the top 5 oil companies — who collectively made $36 billion in the first quarter alone — and use the money to pay down the deficit. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has scheduled a vote for next week on a bill that would repeal $21 billion in oil subsidies over the next 10 years.

Ex-Shell CEO John Hofmeister recently told the National Journal, “In the face of sustained high oil prices it was not an issue — for large companies — of needing the subsidies to entice us into looking for and producing more oil.”

As of April 2011, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate stands at around 9 percent, as millions of Americans are seeking work in any position they can find.

One company that is hiring is Walmart, “one of the largest private employers in the U.S.” The company recently posted a job listing online for a director of “Labor Relations.” The job description requires helping the company’s human resources department maintain a “union-free” workplace. Under “Additional Preferred Qualifications,” the company seeks fluency in Spanish:

Walmart is a company notorious for breaking up labor unions and has taken swift action to prevent its workers from organizing. In 2000, “when a small meatcutting department successfully organized a union at a Walmart store in Texas, Wal-Mart responded a week later by announcing the phase-out of its meatcutting departments entirely.” When a branch in Quebec, Canada, voted to unionize, the company immediately shut down the store.