Undeterred by the failure of his previous attempts to legislate Exile and Punishment for Apoplectic Taxpayers Residing In Other Territories, on Monday Jack Reed (D-RI) introduced his third amendment to ban covered expatriates — people who found financial success overseas thanks to the countries to which they emigrated many years ago, or ordinary wage-earners who in the past five years missed some of the dozens of pages of confusing tax forms that Americans abroad must file and that Homelanders have never seen.
The number of this latest amendment is S.A. 1609. It appears at page S5075 of the Congressional Record for Monday, 24 June 2013; the text is identical to the earlier S.A. 1233 we discussed two weeks ago, including in its misspelling of “principal purpose” as “principle purpose”. However, it is not an amendment to the immigration reform bill itself, but rather a second-degree amendment to Patrick Leahy (D-VT)’s border security amendment S.A. 1183 — in a manner heavily reminiscent of Carl Levin’s FATCA, which after its repeated failure as a standalone bill was moved as an amendment once he finally finally find somewhere to sneakily insert it. The Senate already invoked cloture on S.A. 1183, and scheduled it for a final vote on Wednesday (tomorrow).
I’ll leave it to Tim or others to comment further on the parliamentary procedure implications of this. As he mentioned earlier, even if the amendment passes, the House might still “blue slip” the whole bill if they agree that permanent exile for ex-citizens or other provisions of the bill violate the Constitution’s Origination Clause requiring that all bills raising revenue come from the House. However, note that this version of the amendment, unlike S.A. 1252, does not include the provisions of the original Ex-PATRIOT Act that would hit covered expatriates with an additional 30% tax on U.S.-source capital gains (like that already imposed on non-resident aliens present in the U.S. for half the year or more).
I think what Reed and Schumer want is to be able to catch the next Savarin case and make a huge media show in which they will appear to be heros…
But then the Savarins of the world will have the means to hire tax attorneys and get a ruling before expatriating, won’t they.
Unfortunately as usual this amendment is scaring the hardworking people who now fear they will not be allowed back into the US to care for their elderly parents.
Apparently education and ethics are so low in the US that people have lost all site of basic human and democratic rights…
Please forgive me for asking what may be obvious to some here. This affects me directly so I’m really trying to understand where the Schumer/Casey/Reed 2013 effort stands in terms of chances of becoming law this time around. Can anyone here verify whether my understanding below is correct?
– Schumer/Casey’s bill was an amendment to the Senate’s immigration bill
– Reed’s bill was an amendment to some other amendment to the Senate’s immigration bill
– The version of the Immigration bill that already passed the senate did not contain any of the above
– Therefore, if THIS version of the immigration bill passes, there is no EX-PATRIOT law this year, and Schumer, Casey, and Reed will have to look for another bill to try to slip this into.
– If the house passes its own version of an immigration bill and sends it back to the senate, my understanding is that there is no opportunity to add new amendments (?) without it having to go back to the house.
– If the house does not pass any immigration bill, causing the senate to “try again”, it is possible that either Schumer/Casey’s version or Reed’s version will be added to whatever the senate passes next.
So bottom line, in order for this to get “in” on this go-around, the house would have to punt the bill back to the senate to get a different version of a senate bill. In all other scenarios this is dead for now, except that we can assume these guys will try again next chance they get.
Does that accurately summarize the current situation?
Thanks!
@Calary has just posted Moody’s write up on Reeds attempt to change the Expatriate Act again…
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/07/04/theyll-never-give-it-up-one-nation-under-god-punitive-for-all/comment-page-1/#comment-419719
Eric… Do you know if the Reed Amendment made it through to the final Senate version that passed? I haven’t looked, and just wonder if you have.
Thisis all new to me, and very confusing as to how these bills and amendments and sub amendments come together . Never was a legislative aide to learn all this, so I am just DIY learning as I go on how these things get buried, but let me see if I can follow it…. And, if I have it wrong, I hope I will be corrected, because I want to learn this better…
Lets start with
SP 1183 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SP01183:
6/26/2013:
Amendment SA 1183 as modified agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 69 – 29. Record Vote Number: 163. (consideration: CR S5215)
It says, SA 1183 amends S744 which is….
Latest Title: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act which has passed, right?
That is what this says.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SN00744:
Latest Major Action: 6/27/2013 Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 – 32. Record Vote Number: 168.
Latest Action: 6/27/2013 Senate ordered measure printed as passed.
Senate Reports: 113-40
Now, inside SP 1183, if I read all this this correctly is….
S.AMDT.1609
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:SP01609:
TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S5075
There is where you find the language of the Reed Amendment…
Here is the printer friendly version
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r113:./temp/~r113kOtJzu
Just do a find function on “Reed” or 1609, and you will find it…
It says…
SA 1609. Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 1183 submitted by Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. HATCH) to the bill S. 744, to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title II, insert the following:
SEC. 2324. INADMISSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUALS WHO RENOUNCE CITIZENSHIP TO AVOID TAXES.
Section 212(a)(10)(E) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)(E)) is amended to read as follows:
“(E) FORMER CITIZENS WHO RENOUNCED CITIZENSHIP TO AVOID TAXATION.–
“(i) INADMISSIBILITY.–The following aliens are inadmissible:
“(I) Any alien who is a former citizen of the United States who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States.
“(II) Subject to clause (ii), any alien who is a former citizen of the United States and who is a covered expatriate.
“(ii) REVIEW FOR COVERED EXPATRIATES.–A covered expatriate shall not be inadmissible under clause (i)(II) if the Secretary determines that the covered expatriate has established by clear and convincing evidence that avoiding taxation by the United States was not one of the principle purposes that the covered expatriate renounced United States citizenship.
“(iii) COVERED EXPATRIATE DEFINED.–In this subparagraph, the term `covered expatriate’ means an individual described in section 877A(g)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and to whom section 877A(a) of such Code applies.”.
So, from all this, I take it to mean, that the Reed Amendment passed! and it is now up to the House to kill it! Anyone disagree?
Hi JustMe,
That’s rather disconcerting if true. I saw an article that said the Schumer/Casey amendment “was not in the version of the immigration bill that just passed the senate”. But there were two amendments on the table – one from Schumer/Casey and one from Reed. Based on your research here, it sounds like the article I saw correctly reported that the Schumer/Casey version didn’t make it into the version that passed the senate, but the author failed to notice that the Reed version did.
This really sucks! Obviously nobody in the house is going to object to this particular issue and insist on the Reed portion being removed. So either the immigration bill gets killed in the house for completely unrelated reasons, or we can all forget about ever visiting our families in the US again.
My expatriation had NOTHING to do with taxes and I haven’t saved a penny in taxes as a result of expatriating. But I don’t have the slightest hope that the “review process” will ever find anyone to be non-tax motivated. There is no longer any burden of proof on the government, allowing them to legally say “No, and the reason the answer is no is just because we said so because we can”.
JustMe, to my eye your research looks accurate, but I still hope you’re wrong, for all our sakes.
No, none of these amendments was included in the immigration bill. I repeat: neither Jack Reed’s 1233, Bob Casey’s 1252 or Jack Reed’s 1609 was included in the bill. They weren’t even considered by the Senate. The Senate passed S.744 without these amendments.
If you want to check it for yourself, do the following:
1. Go to the immigration bill S.744 page here.
2. Click on “Amendments”.
3. Note that there are hundreds of amendments, and compare the “Latest major action” of each one. Most of them just say “Senate amendment submitted”. Those are amendments that were just submitted but not considered by the Senate. A few amendments say “Senate amendment agreed to”. Those are the amendments considered by the Senate and included in the bill after a vote. Others say “Senate amendment not agreed to”. Those were also considered but rejected after a vote. Amendments 1233, 1252 and 1609 just say “Senate amendment submitted”.
@PoliticalXpat, What you wrote above is correct. Since the Senate already passed S.744, the Senate amendments not considered are finished. Whatever the House passes now, the Senate can no longer amend, unless the House agrees to the new Senate amendments too. Again: These amendments are over. Reed, Casey and Schumer can try again, but they will have to start from the beginning.
If you still have doubts, do the following:
1. Note that the three amendments contain the word “expatriate”.
2. Go to the immigration bill S.744 page here.
3. Click on “Text of Legislation”.
4. Click on “PDF” of the third version of the bill, which passed the Senate (or just click here).
5. Right-click on the page, click on “Find” (or just press Ctrl+F), type “expatriate” and press Enter.
6. No matches were found. Conclusion: The amendments were not included in the bill passed by the Senate.
Also, note that Schumer is the one who introduced S.744. He could have included these provisions in the bill from the start, but didn’t. He cosponsored the amendments but didn’t introduce them, it was Reed and Casey who did.
@ShadowRaider
Thanks so much. I can’t tell you what a relief it was to read this.
@Just Me
Thanks to you too for your diligent efforts. It sounds like you were mistaken in this case, but I still appreciate that you did your best to find the truth and share it with others. And in this particular case, I’m pretty sure it’s a safe bet that you won’t mind being proven wrong on this particular point.
@Shadow Raider…
Thanks for your update. I too, after further research concluded the same and just came back here to post that fact, but see you beat me too it. I have learned some things, but still don’t quite know how to make sense of what Thomas provides. Obviously I get some of the reading of the various threads wrong…
My first hint that it was NOT there was reading this good summary of what was in the final bill, and a page by page examination showed me it was not there…
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/159624901/Final-S744-summary
To confirm what I was reading, I then went to a printer friendly version of S. 744 and did some searching on key words..
I did a ‘find function’ on the word “inadmissibility” which was in S.AMDT.1609
It had said…
Also, just looking more closely under
TITLE II–IMMIGRANT VISAS
There is NOT a subtitle C of Title II,
Neither is there a SEC. 2324.
So I concluded the Reed Amendment must have been pulled out somewhere along the line just not sure where I missed it. It is NOT in the final Senate bill, and thanks for the additional educational help on how to read these amendments.
However, here is what still confuses me…
My understanding was S.AMDT 1609 was part of S.AMDT.1183
That is what this link above shows. Do I have that right?
Now, when I go where you suggest to check on amendments to S. 744 and their status, I find this on page one:
Notice that item 3 says the following:
Now, there appears to have been some “modification agreed to” but how would I see that ‘modified S.AMDT 1183? Where is it recorded after 6/26/2013? When you click on S.AMDT.1863 in that item 3 above, the S.AMDT. 1609 is still showing! I am missing something, somewhere! I would expect to see a recording of S.AMDT 1183, as modified WITHOUT S.AMDT 1609 showing up! This is obviously NOT the final version of S.AMDT.1183 as modified and voted on!
Maybe I have to look under the last note:
Record Vote Number: 163. (consideration: CR S5215) and go through the entire Congressional Record of the discussion to find where it was pulled out?
Is that how it works? (Just my rhetorical question to myself.) It appears so.
Anyway thanks for your help, as it GREATlY assists us poor uneducated novices! No wonder most Americans have NO idea what gets passed in Congress. Hell, I have never paid attention prior to this before this, and am still struggling to clearly see the path of amendment of modified amendments and what ends up or gets dropped in a final bill. I am just as guilty as all “Real Americans”. No wonder Senators really have no idea what they vote for. I guess it is left up to aids to inform that what happened! 🙂
@PoliticalXpat
Yes, you are right, and I am glad I am wrong. I just want to more clearly understand how you follow and determine what has happened in the final process. See my note above. Hope it is as clear as mud. I usually don’t have the tolerance to do this detail, but struggling to follow this for my own education purposes. 🙂
@Just Me
Did you mean “aids” or “aides”
Here is what you get if you put “Senate aids” into google:
http://www.google.ca/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=senate+aids&oq=senate+aids&gs_l=hp.3…773.2735.0.3103.11.10.0.0.0.0.359.543.0j1j0j1.2.0….0…1c.1.19.psy-ab.H9iyTsDTKPA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWM&fp=cc6e727a50d23148&biw=1440&bih=700
What’s really baffled me for the last 24 hrs is this insightful comment by Shadow Raider:
Also, note that Schumer is the one who introduced S.744. He could have included these provisions in the bill from the start, but didn’t. He cosponsored the amendments but didn’t introduce them, it was Reed and Casey who did.
Schumer has [given the outward appearance of being] seriously hot-to-trot on this Ex-PATRIOT thing since last year. I can’t possibly imagine that he just forgot about it when introducing the immigration bill, which is obviously a good place for it.
This pokes a pretty big hole in our theory that Schumer/Casey/Reed have been using the technique of sneaking something that couldn’t pass on its own into a bigger bill. Schumer had a perfect opportunity to include it in the original version of the Immigration bill, and nobody [in congress] would have objected. But he didn’t. I’ve been pondering this all day and can’t fathom a reason he would have left it out, although I’m certainly glad he did.
Sadly for all of us, I think it’s just a matter of time before these jokers get away with this. There’s just no political motivation for anyone to object to it, and Schumer is in line for party leadership, which will give him plenty of new opportunities to push this through.
I wonder if there is any way to influence these guys to realize that their bill would be a whole lot more defensible before the courts if they dropped the retroactivity clause next time they try to push this through. They are clearly doing this to try to discourage future expatriations, and they don’t need a retroactive clause (and the post-facto legal objections it brings) to achieve that. So far as I can tell the retroactivity part was added to try to make a public spectacle of Saverin, which basically backfired.
@USCitizenAbroad
Whatever! 🙂
@Just Me, S.AMDT.1609 was not part of S.AMDT.1183. It was a proposed amendment to S.AMDT.1183. It was proposed and not considered, so it was discarded. “S.AMDT.1183 as modified” means that it was modified by other amendments, which were approved, but S.AMDT.1609 was not one of them.
They show the original text of S.AMDT.1183, and the text of its proposed amendments. I don’t think they show the compiled text of S.AMDT.1183 including its approved amendments. You would have to read each approved amendment to understand how exactly S.AMDT.1183 was modified.
However, they do show the compiled text of S.744 as approved by the Senate, including all approved amendments (and the approved amendments to these).
@Shadow Raider…
RE your comment :
That certainly is the case, but it STILL is NOT clear when I look at S.AMDT.1183 and all the actions that were taken on it from 6/11/2013 – 6/26/2013 what the final result was before the final vote.
There is NOTHING that clearly shows which of the various amendments from 1507 through to 1659 were NOT considered and discarded in the debate that occurred. All you get is this…
It does say, in the end, that SA 1183 was modified, I will give you that, but you certainly do NOT have a clear track record or picture of what was dropped or added along the way until it was finally voted on and produced.
I guess that is why Pelosi says (to much derision) about ObamaCare “We have to pass the bill, so that you can find out what is in it.”
I am beginning to understand why that is true!!
You would have had to read all the congressional record notes to see what was or was not being included in the final. You would have to make your own markup along the way to have any idea what was being voted on at the end of the process. You literally have to wait until the final text is published to know if something survived or NOT and “find out what is in it.”
I begin to have sympathy for Senators that don’t know what is in the final bill they vote on. If you can’t easily find the “modified” amendment before the vote is taken, how could you know?!
…but this is the best Democracy money can buy! It represents the liberty and Democracy we go to war for.
@Just Me, I was wrong, it looks like none of the amendments to S.AMDT.1183 were even considered. What happened is simply that the senator who had proposed S.AMDT.1183 modified it later. On the block that you copied above, look at 6/21/13, it says “text as modified”. If you click on that link, you can see:
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand the Leahy amendment No. 1183 is now pending; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
AMENDMENT 1183, AS MODIFIED
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I modify my amendment with the changes I have at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1183), as modified, is as follows:
[modified text of amendment]
I agree that it’s hard to follow the changes to the bills as the amendments are approved, but the Senate and House do prepare a compiled text of the bill before the final vote. They don’t read it because they don’t care. What Nancy Pelosi said is absurd.
@ShadowRaider et al.,
Could you or someone direct me to a website that lists the names of those in Congress who voted for the (1996?) Reed amendment that was passed? I suppose this means the bill attached to the Reed.
In particular, I would like to find out whether my congressman voted for the Reed.
@Shadow Raider…
I am not sure how much time Congress is given to read the results of all the back and forth of amendment additions and subtractions, but given the very technical language “within the meaning of
section 223 ” or references to other existing statutes, I am not sure anyone could make full sense of the bill even if they tried to follow exactly what was being proposed or what became final.
Further, is it a standard amount of time, say 24 hours to read a bill, or is it time related to number of pages? A simple bill could be researched, read and understood in 24 hours, but @906 pages of ObamaCare, forget it. I couldn’t read it that fast, so could you expect realistically that a Senator could? From a practical matter, even though I can’t stand Pelosi, I see the problem with the simple statement “Just Read the bill”. Given our legislative process, I would say, it is more than just them not caring, I would say it is nigh near impossible, combined with the fact they have to spend half their time fund raising. http://bit.ly/UVJmCB
So more than NOT caring, it is a totally dysfunctional system. For the life of me, I don’t know why anyone wants to be a legislator!
@IRSCompliantForever, The Reed amendment was section 352 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act in 1996. Jack Reed proposed it while the bill was in the committee, and the committee approved it in an internal vote by 25 to 5. I would also like to know who voted for and against it, but I haven’t found this information. I only found the vote for the final bill in the House and Senate, but this was an enormous bill so I don’t think that they paid attention to the Reed amendment when voting. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan voted against the bill and condemned the Reed amendment afterwards.
@Just Me, You’re right. There have been a few proposals that would require congressmen to actually read the bills before voting (I don’t know how exactly they would enforce that), or a certain minimum period of time between the compilation of the final bill and the vote. I don’t think there is any minimum period currently required.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society
@Shadow Raider & IRSCompliantForever: I found the vote on the Reed Amendment in the committee report. I also tried (and didn’t exactly succeed) at untangling the ridiculously complicated history of the IIRIRA bill in which it was contained. New post here:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/07/09/who-voted-for-the-reed-amendment-in-1996/
No one here is in the category of the clients of this letter to the editor, but thought you might enjoy reading it. It was in response to last years efforts to pass the expatriate Act, and he was right, it would be back…
Letter to the Editor: A Defense of the Ultra-Rich Who Give Up Their Citizenship for Tax Reasons
A large majority of my clients are expatriating Americans such as Mr. Saverin. In an upcoming book that I am co-authoring with a London School of Economics Professor Emeritus, we have labelled this client group, “The Golden Geese”. Today is my first day in the office after three successful weeks of speaking with European countries about bringing my American Golden Geese clients to their shores. During my trip the whole Ex-Patriot Act controversy erupted. Following up on last weeks surge of calls, I am responding to emails and setting up calls all this week with past, present and future Golden Geese clients who are in an uproar about the Ex-Patriot Act proposals.
Since the US has a progressive tax system, where the top 1% account for well over a third of the total tax revenue, the views of the Golden Geese on this topic are important to the US. The two senators proposing this bill talked in their press conference about what a small number of people that this would affect. However, the point they missed is “quality (i.e. whether these individuals are 1% super tax contributors) is much more important than “quantity”. If this proposal prompts even a small number of American Golden Geese to decide to leave, then it will have a large asymmetric negative effect on local, state and federal tax revenue. As has been previously pointed out, what happens to this group in a positive or negative way has an immediate and profound impact on government tax revenues.
I thought that you might be interested in what the reaction of the Golden Geese has been to Senators Schumer and Casey ‘s initiative. In quick summary here are some of the points that my Golden Geese clients are making:
– With the exception of currently only North Korea, the US is the only country that taxes based on citizenship. Every other developed country operates on the “If you are resident here (day count and/or connections) then we tax you”. The fairness of this tax basis is questioned by many Americans and by most wealthy people around the world.
– During his press conference, Senator Schumer outlined why he thought that individuals like Mr. Saverin owed all their success to the U.S., and could not contemplate any situation where anyone would be justified in expatriations. Apparently, he was unaware (or ignoring the fact) that there are millions of people around the world who acquired their US citizenship by having one US parent. They never lived in the US; were never educated in the US; never made their wealth through the US; or often never even applied for a US passport. Many live and pay taxes in high tax countries like Canada. As a result of the new FATCA rules and a vast increase in sharing of banking information, these people are suddenly becoming aware of this unique basis for a previously unknown US tax burden. While they will update their filing and pay any US tax owed (rather than face the wrath of the IRS), they have no interest in continuing to do so in the future. This group already and will continue to account for a large number of expatriation. The justifications given for the Ex-Patriot Act ring very hollow for this group;
– Even expatriating Americans who were born or became naturalized (like Mr. Saverin) in the US will pay on the capital gains they made while US citizens. Just like any other US taxpayer. However, they have the added burden of a “deemed disposition” which makes that tax obligation immediate upon expatriation and not at a time when there is an actual sale. At the time of his expatriation (January 2011), Mr. Saverin held shares in a non-public company. He therefore was forced to calculate (and pay!) his capital gains based upon a reasonable valuation of those shares at that time. He had no assurance that those shares would ever go public or if it did, what the value of those shares would be when actually sold. Whether the valuation that the US government required him to place on those shares in January 2011 is higher or lower than what the value of those shares will be in the future is dependent on the market. Senators Schumer and Casey pulled numbers out of the air based on the value of those shares in the first hours of trading and conveniently failed to mention that Mr. Saverin had already paid enormous capital gains taxes as a result of US rules and might never see the values that they based their complaints upon.
– Expatriation has always been a perfectly legal tax avoidance strategy. What the senators are proposing is to retroactively impose a heavy financial penalty and the onerous penalty of being automatically denied a basic human right of travel for having done something completely legal. A very apt analogy would be if someone legally avoids paying tax by contributing to their 401K or deducting their mortgage interest. Then 10 years later a lawmaker such as Mr. Schumer calls such a thing “unpatriotic” and retroactively imposes fiscal and immigration penalties on them.
– Many of my Golden Geese clients clearly remember the US government’s outrage that the then Soviet Union was charging an “exit tax” before it allowed Soviet Jews to depart. Like these Senators, the Soviets then claimed that these individuals were state assets who had benefited from their education and economic system. This was the same reasoning behind the building of the Berlin Wall. The US politicians of the day howled in protest. Senators Schumer and Casey are proposing the same thing. The hypocrisy is not lost on the Golden Geese.
– If the purpose is for the US government to maintain or increase its tax revenue by introducing this legislation, then I would venture to say that it will have the opposite effect for the following reasons:
1) Golden Geese have been very wary of another tax grab. The Senators showed their hand on this one. Even if this doesn’t pass before the end of this congress, it will probably be re-introduced next year. The Golden Geese see the barn door closing and are already rushing to the exits. Future tax revenue, their investment dollars and the product of their entrepreneurial zeal will all be lost;
2) Tech Entrepreneurs and Venture Capitalist are already actively looking to abandon the US and this will just add fuel to the fire. Quite frankly you don’t need to be holed up in Silicon Valley to create the next Facebook. Look at Skype. You can get programming talent in a large number of other places. In addition, venture capital and private equity are not only available in the US. Finally, New York is not the only place in the world to take a company public.
3) The US education system: With tuition rates already sky high and increased hassles for foreign students to get student visas, they are already looking to alternatives. MIT and other on-line and mixed media education options will continue to flourish as a result of this. Like any gambler entering a casino, these foreign students all hope to be the next Zuckerberg and win big. Putting a high cover charge and hassling bouncers is bad enough. Signally that the bouncers will take most of your earnings if you win isn’t going to help to attract a lot of quality participants.
While my strong suspicion is that the senators proposed this simply as a crass election year political grandstand, it has spooked the Golden Geese. This is very dangerous for the US. I am just finishing reading “Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty” which talked about why places like Rome and Venice first flourished and then failed as a result of moving from inclusive to extractive/confiscatory political policies. This type of proposal is a giant signal as to which direction the US is moving. Each of these societies also thought they were unique and exceptional and that the rules of economics did not apply to them. Much to their dismay, they found out they were wrong.
@Just Me
Excellent commentary in the Atlantic, thanks for posting that.
“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. George Orwell had that right.
Those who tell themselves that the US is the champion of freedom and human rights are just deluding themselves. Actions ALWAYS speak louder than words, my friends!
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society
Pingback: The Cruz Chronicles 1: His Canadian citizenship is not in doubt. Is Ted Cruz a US citizen? | U.S. Persons Abroad - Members of a Unique Tax, Form and Penalty Club
An article called “Former US Citizens Threatened” appeared in today’s Neue Zürcher Zeitung newspaper. Sen. Jack Reed has read the newspaper columns that an increasing number of US citizens have been expatriating and wants to put a stop to it by banishing them forever from the promised land. Once an Americans, always an American:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nzz.ch%2Faktuell%2Fwirtschaft%2Fwirtschaftsnachrichten%2Fehemaligen-us-buergern-droht-ungemach-1.18138795