Hillary prevented IRS from gaining access to more than 91% of illicit, tax-evading UBS offshore accounts. https://t.co/0yH91u4Hly
— Patricia Moon (@nobledreamer16) March 12, 2016
This story appeared in The Hill on Friday, March 10, 2016. I simply cannot believe I have not heard anyone in the expat world speak of it, and/or the American presidential arena has failed to emphasize it. Perhaps it is just buried along with the general theme of Ms. Clinton, her Wall St. speeches and “her damn emails.”
Everyone would agree that it is the fault of the Homelanders with Swiss bank accounts who caused the disruption in the way of life as we know it, wouldn’t we? We all went about our lives, blissfully unaware of the creeping edge of unenforced CBT until 2008 when the IRS and DOJ found a way to go after the real tax evaders. First came the unending threats of then-Commissioner Douglas Shulman regarding “our last best chance,” endless media blithering about “coming clean” and the very real life-threatening FBAR penalties…OVDP/OVDI and well, you know the rest of the story.
And we all have heard the justification that the laws have to be applied as they are because as unfortunate as it is that we are affected, (unintentionally, ja right) no party can come out and endorse such changes because they would be seen as supporting tax evasion, right?
Well Madame Secretary Clinton has bested that by a long shot. It is so outrageous you simply cannot make this kind of stuff up.
In March 2009, after meeting with Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton intervened with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of Switzerland’s most powerful banking institution, UBS. The IRS, which at that time was seeking the identity of wealthy Americans who had stashed some $20 billion in 52,000 tax evading UBS accounts, then agreed that the Swiss bank need only turn over information on 4,450 accounts. Afterwards, UBS increased its previous $60,000 in donations to the Clinton Foundation ten-fold. By the end of 2014, UBS donations to the Clinton Foundation totaled $600,000. UBS also “paid former President Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.” ……
***
When UBS, which could have lost its ability to conduct business in the U.S. if successfully prosecuted, balked at the IRS demand that it turn over information for all 52,000 accounts, the IRS filed a legal action seeking to compel disclosure. That is when, at the behest of the Swiss government, Hillary Clinton stepped in to negotiate a deal that prevented the IRS from gaining access to more than 91 percent of the illicit, tax-evading offshore accounts.
The Hill article is rather short with few links and nothing much to back up these claims. So I spent the afternoon researching this and it has been in the news all along and is not even remotely mysterious. And it forms part of the longer narrative which demonstrates so clearly that the Clintons are most certainly not the candidates for everyday people. Watching these Town Hall Meetings where regular folks get up and are all starry-eyed about actually getting to ask a question reminds me of the looks on the Trudeau cabinet last week in DC. And it would truly be in the best interests of the entirety of the American people to realize just how much the tax debt remains an affair of the wealthy-that they, the banks and their candidates are taking every dime they can away from the little guys.
After the Reagan landslide victory of 1984, the Democratic Party realized it needed to make changes. The Democratic Leadership Council was formed, with Bill Clinton being chair from 1990-1991 while he was Govenor of Arkansas.
From The Clintons and Wall Street: 24 Years of Enriching Each Other by Richard W. Behan
This was the “New Democratic Party,” President Clinton said, and he soon demonstrated how far to the right he would move its agenda.
Claiming “the era of big government is over,” President Clinton promised to “end welfare as we know it.” And he did, by signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The law bore severely on low income families, disproportionately communities of color. Clinton took pride also in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which led eventually to an explosion of incarceration, and spawned an industry of private, for-profit prisons. Once again the law impacted most heavily the black and Latino communities.
Then it was time to favor corporate America.President Clinton promoted “free trade” with vigor, signing the North American Free Trade Agreement and strongly supporting the World Trade Organization. “Free trade” was immensely beneficial to corporate America. Among the nation’s exports, during the Clinton years, were the manufacturing jobs of 9.2 million American workers.
Rewarding Wall Street came next.
President Clinton appointed Robert Rubin, the Co-chairman of Goldman-Sachs, as his Treasury Secretary in January of 1995. Mr. Rubin went to work fashioning two laws of stupendous value to the New York banks, but President Clinton’s first term of office ended before they could be enacted.
Perhaps sensing the need to assure Clinton’s re-election, Wall Street saw fit nearly to triple its campaign contributions—from $11.17 million in 1992 to $28.37 million in 1996.
Continued nicely in office, Secretary Rubin triumphed with the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which repealed the Glass-Steagall legislation of 1933. Now it was legal once more for financial institutions to mix commercial and investment banking; in essence, to use depositors’ funds for trading the bank’s own account in the stock market.
A year later President Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This law ended the regulation of derivatives, freeing Wall Street to manufacture mortgage-backed securities and sell them without restriction; these complex derivatives would power the “subprime” swindle soon to commence.
***
During all of those years the Clintons benefited immensely from Wall Street’s political contributions: $11.17 million for Bill’s 1992 campaign; $28.37 million for his 1996 re-election; $2.13 million for Hillary’s 2000 run for the Senate; $6.02 million for her 2006 re-election; and $14.61 million for her first presidential campaign. And they’ve been paid $8.85 million by the financial industry in speaking fees.The intimate interplay of ambition and greed between the Clintons and Wall Street has continued for nearly a quarter century. It is a tawdry history, ignored or trivialized by the Clintons, anxious to obscure it.
It is rather amazing that the Clintons seem to hold the loyalty of the African American community, something which begins to make little sense. Given that Mr. Clinton’s Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was the cause for massive incarceration and the rise of for-profit prisons,
I find Mrs. Clinton’s answer to a question from yesterday’s Town Hall Meeting in Columbus OH, to be a little bit too much to believe. In fact, I find her entire body language throughout the entire proceeding suggests dishonesty. Jill Saunders asks Mrs. Clinton about the number of prisons in the country and what she will do about them. And be sure to catch Mr. Martin asking just after, if Democrats should stop taking money from private prisons. Whaaat???
So what to make of the Clintons? They cannot possibly be seen as being a “peoples choice” type. Mr. Clinton was the “father” of the Exit Tax. Mrs. Clinton has promised to create an Exit Tax on Corporate Inversions. Clearly neither has any sense of what is best for the country in terms of U.S. presence outside the Homeland. Despite their language, their behaviour clearly favours the banks, corporations. She didn’t even bother to show up for the DA phone conference for expats and her answers indicate she has no clue. Extra strange given she was Secy of State when this debacle began in 2008. She is in la-la land as far as how dangerous a place Too Big To Fail is. And yet, so many may choose to vote for her because she has been around, is seemingly “normal” compared to the antics of Trump and the issues of a Ted Cruz. I would think of all the candidates, she would be the absolute worst for expats.
The last section demonstrates that she DOES NOT blame the banks for the financial collapse of 2008. Read this and weep………
From The Banks were Always Banking on Clinton
In a country which imprisons more of its people than virtually any other nation on Earth a single Wall Street executive was prosecuted and jailed. In 2008 the bubble burst. Property values collapsed, followed by the American economy. $13 trillion in Americans’ household wealth disappeared. Nine million workers lost their jobs. Five million families were evicted from their homes. Many New York banks faced insolvency, their portfolios bloated with nearly worthless mortgage-based derivatives—so-called “troubled assets.” Beyond question the New York banks were guilty of massive criminal behavior, but Attorney General Holder dusted off the directive he’d written eight years previously in the Clinton Administration. The Holder Doctrine directed the Department of Justice to consider “collateral consequences” in its prosecutions. If such consequences were sufficient, criminal indictments were to be rejected in favor of other remedies. Holder’s Department chose, therefore, to negotiate with each bank a financial penalty to be assessed in lieu of criminal proceedings. The agreements required no admission of guilt, they guaranteed no further prosecution, and the documentation of illegal behavior was permanently sealed. The penalties were paid with corporate funds. Goldman Sachs’ penalty was $550 million: it could recover that much in about three weeks of trading. No corporate executives were jailed, no damning personal records of felonious behavior were established, no personal fines levied, no salaries reduced, no bonuses denied.
Clinton has often in the past praised Wall Street for its role in creating the nation’s wealth and assured the banks they were not the main reason for economic instability, “not by a long shot,” she said but that it was homeowners who “should have known they were getting in over their heads.” Clinton places the blame for the recession upon the victims of Wall Street who were targeted specifically by large, profit-seeking financial institutions because they were low-income immigrants and people of color lacking financial literacy. Clinton applauds Wall Street for creating wealth for Wall Street because none of it trickled down to ordinary Americans. When running for president in 2007, Clinton did make a few campaign speeches attacking the tax breaks loop-hole for hedge-fund and private-equity executives. However as senator, not only did Clinton hold no leadership position in the movement to close this loophole, she did not even sign her name onto the legislation that would. Contrary to her rhetoric today, she was not a torchbearer in the fight against de-regulation and the recklessness on Wall Street. The Politico website reports she was a passive by-stander. The Boston Globe wrote, “Hillary Clinton was hands-off on Wall Street,” and Samuel Baptista, a lobbyist for Morgan Stanley while Clinton was in the Senate, says, “She just didn’t have a lot of interest.” As former Democratic Representative Brad Miller explains, “What Wall Street wanted then was for everyone to look the other way. And to a large extent, we did.”
Clinton argues that the omission of a promise to “break up the banks” in her Wall Street plan is not a weakness, since she will bust them up “if they pose systemic risks, and I’ve said that I would do that if that became the case.”…
.. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to trade in derivatives in many of the same ways they did before the crash, but on a larger scale and with precisely the same unknown risks. The Financial Stability Board’s 2015 report lists eight U.S. banking behemoths that are considered to be too big to fail, which means they pose, as Market Watch reports, “a threat to the global economy and financial stability if they were to collapse.” If Clinton believes that the large financial institutions are not already “systemic risks” then that is cause for concern about her judgement.
I was well aware of this. More proof the US government is rotten to the core. Which is why the US primaries are going as they are.
It might as well become part of the Oath of Office for U.S. Presidents: “Do as we say, not as we do.”
I have never trusted a single word that comes out of Hillary’s mouth. Even when she’s dripping in sincerity, it’s all so transparently insincere. I’m sure that in some parallel universe she is actually a genuinely good, trustworthy person – but not in this one. There are far too many stories about her callous, manipulative, opportunistic and egotistical personality flaws going back decades to the beginning of her career. There are any number of skeletons left in her closet just waiting to come out and play if she wins the nomination. This UBS story is just one of many.
The only one of the bunch with ANY integrity is Bernie Sanders – but it would almost take a miracle for him to get elected – and then he’d soon likely expire from some unnamed “natural causes.” That’s where the United States is today.
No point wasting even a single breath talking about the Republicans. If one of those clowns ever gets in then I’m moving to Canada. Oh, wait…
Although disgusting, this really isn’t surprising behavior from Hillary Clinton. As the comment above says so clearly, when you have a system like they have in the U.S., corrupt, undemocratic and extortionist, then why should the current primaries and the candidates that are in the lead be a surprise to anybody, not to mention the scenes at these primaries, of fighting and hurling racial insults, etc.
FATCA alone is enough to make most intelligent expats or unfortunate accidental U.S. persons want to renounce, but when you look at what goes on there, with such overt corruption, self enrichment and injustice, how could any sane person want to continue holding on to a citizenship while continually being fleeced, extorted and abused by an elite political group, with no interest whatsoever for their needs, nor for bettering the country? What more does it take to get people to wake up?
Hilary’s in the 1% club. They help eachother.
“Stepford Wives” support presidential candidate who aided and abetted #offshore tax evasion!
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/12/19/democrats-abroad-are-like-the-stepford-wives/
Ralph Nader for President.
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/10/03/in-public-interest-behind-deregulatory-curtain/
@USCitizenAbroad
from Joe Green letter:
So what were these goals and just how many of them did they achieve?
@badger
Wow the s**t runs deep……..he apparently retired from UBS in early 2012 but planned to “work on a few targeted areas for the bank next year.” After reading what Sen. Gramm is responsible for in the financial meltdown, in his endorsement for Marco Rubio he says “Like many Americans, I feel that I no longer live in the land of opportunity and freedom that I was born in……President Obama in seven years has expanded American government almost beyond recognition.”
Is there no shame in anyone anywhere for anything?
Deckard. Even good ol’ Bernie was hell-bent for leather to put expats heads in nooses and supported FATCA at one time. If you believe that electing him is going to provide a miracle, you’re sadly mistaken. If Bernie is sincere in helping expats to ease the burden of the CBT he so eagerly supported at one time; he’s going to be fighting an uphill battle.
I don’t trust the lot and not a single penny will be outlaid from me to pay for expatriation. The US passport will be utilized to get Canadian citizenship for my wife. Once the CDN passport is in hand, the US passport will be burnt. And she will never consider herself American ever again. And I, the natural-born Canadian, will back her up 100%.
It’s like deja vu all over again:
“When the time is right (not in the midst of the federal election campaign)……..” (Joe Green)
I heard him say that same thing (and have read it how many times now …?) and that was how many years (and now elections) since?
How long oh Democrats Abroad, how long?
I suspect I’ll be still be watching for it, and shaking my head, from the afterlife.
@badger,
Yes, I meant to highlight that (not in the midst…)
I got such a kick out of this picture in your link, I am going to see if I can get it to work here….we all need a laugh, right?
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/?attachment_id=48445
Re Joe Green
Not in the middle of a federal election campaign = NEVER!
The Bern also wants to seriously raise taxes. So which to come first:words of ‘shift to residence based taxation’ or well documented intent to tax 1% more (usually translates to whacking the middle class)? Could go far worse than current!
The leading Republicans wish to simplify and ease US taxes (how are they going to fund that?), which would translate to injustice relief for US persons. Trump wants to eliminate death tax.
What is Really Needed (and why hasn’t @US Citizen Abroad had a whole chapter on it): CHANGE the way tax treaties impact on US persons overseas. Every tax, every tax by a different name etc. should not be considered separately in silos – they should be considered in aggregate allowing those 92% who live in higher tax countries to use those excess taxes as credits to extinguish taxes that the US has but not their own country. This should go along with shift to RBT, as is contemplated RBT may apply after some waiting period, then how do you get taxed in that waiting period?
@Patricia Moon Excellent Post
@The_Animal1970
Just to clarify, as a Canadian citizen who relinquished his American citizenship in 1984, I am in no position to vote for any of these people, thank goodness; what a horrible Sophie’s Choice facing American voters come November! My assessment of Bernie Sanders and his chances of ever becoming President is more along the lines of damning with faint praise. Given the option, I would sooner vote for Larry David, who does a much better Bernie than Bernie, lol.
To those who think Trump being ahead in the polls is about Trump, please consider the following:
It’s highly likely that Trump actually started a “soft opening” of a campaign back during Season One of that show “The Apprentice”.
And people remember his performance on that “reality” show.
And would just like to lock the all the professional politicians inside the boardroom called Washington, DC, and tell them all “You’re fired!”
@Patricia Moon
Nice Joe Green find from the archives: “When the time is right (not in the midst of the federal election campaign).” No doubt Joe is still saying the same thing four years later. Will the time ever be right for Democrats Abroad? For that matter, does Democrats Abroad even deserve the time of day?
@Deckard
Thanks but actually, I didn’t find anything….I just clicked on USCA’s link 😉
The fault is not “the Homelanders with Swiss bank accounts”, but rather how the US deals with the international savings of people who live in America.
@SwissPinoy
What do you mean? Not sure I follow you….Are you saying that Homelanders who make money off of investments in foreign banks (Swiss or otherwise) should not pay any tax? If they had paid would this be an issue?
I suspect you mean to find fault with the way the US government chose to deal with it and while not condoning it, they did not seem to know who had those accounts….?????
@Patricia … thank you for summarising these Clinton Shenanigans for us ….. I have been aware of much of this for a very long time ….. but find that many …. especially rabid Clintonites … are either ignorant of these things or label them the product of a “Right Wing Conspiracy”. I dont trust the Clintons in anything whatsoever. Remember her (untrue) story of being under sniper fire in Bosnia ?
Nor do I trust the word of Justin Trudeau.
https://www.rt.com/usa/335325-obama-makes-case-government-access/
If FATCA data wasn’t enough, now Pres Obama wants to get into those tax cheats iPhone as well.
https://www.americansabroad.org/sdfcu-account/
Anyone interested in a State Dept Federal Credit Union account? It seems the ACA is spending more time providing compliance options than considering a European legal challenge.
They also have a list of tax preparers for your convenience as well.
Given the pathetic candidate choices I am so grateful I no longer have a so-called vote in the American elections.
2012 was the first year I had not voted. I was still a citizen but had applied for Canadian Citizenship intending to relinquish. I felt that voting might harm my chances of receiving a relinquishment. During my relinquishment interview the consulate did ask if I had voted in the last election.
Ironically I had not received a ballot for the 2012 election even though I was on a list to receive ballots until I informed the county otherwise. I thought my name had been purged, but between submitting my forms (fall of 2013) and the interview (2014), I was received an application to retain my absentee voter status! I returned it with a note that I was in the process of relinquishing and was therefore ineligible. I still wonder if that was some sort of deliberate trap.
Questions I am asking myself. Someday if this mess somehow is cleared up and Congress or the Supreme Court decides that the 10s or 100s of thousands of us who gave up our citizenship should be able to get it back. Will they set an application fee of $2350? If they pull a post-Vietnam maneuver and make it automatic, will they demand $2350 to ditch it a second time?
@Don
ACA needs to get its act together. Within the last few days, ACA sent me an e-mail reminding me to register to vote in the primary. That is, half way through the primary season when it was actually far to late for me to register for either my home state primary or the Democrats primary.