TOPIC: Soros/Obama NPV To Bypass Electoral College?

The National Popular Vote effort, which could see the 14 states with the largest populations decide the presidency, is more than halfway to its goal of legally bypassing the Electoral College established in the Constitution.

Last week, the Maine state Senate voted in support of the plan one week after both houses of the New York legislature overwhelmingly supported it.

Now the governors of both states will need to decide whether to formally back the National Popular Vote, or NPV.

The plan is more than halfway to its goal of electing future presidents via the popular vote, after Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, an independent, signed on last July.

The NPV campaign seeks to obtain the consent of the majority of the 538 votes in the Electoral College to award its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Now 10 jurisdictions possessing 136 electoral votes are part of the plan, just over half of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring the National Popular Vote interstate compact into effect.

The states will not be required to award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner until the NPV has signed up enough states to garner 270 electoral votes.

The NVP effort is fully partnered with a George Soros-funded election group, as WND was first to report.

The group, the Center for Voting and Democracy, received original seed money in 1997 from the Joyce Foundation, a non-profit that boasted President Obama served on its board at the time of the grant. Obama was a board member from July 1994 until December 2002.

The NPV is run by individuals with a history of support for the Democratic Party, WND found.

The Founding Fathers firmly rejected a purely popular vote to elect the president, because they wanted to balance the power of the larger and smaller states.

The Electoral College was fashioned as a compromise between an election of the president by direct popular vote and election by Congress.

Now the NPV effort could change the way Americans elect the president without amending the U.S. Constitution. The plan simply requires that enough states join through votes in their legislatures along with gubernatorial approval.

It takes two-thirds of both the House and Senate to pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the Electoral College.

To bypass the constitutional amendment process, NPV minimizes the number of states that would need to agree. Instead, once enough states agree to allot their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant.

With the addition of Rhode Island to the NPV effort, the pact now has nine states plus the District of Columbia for a total of 136 of the 270 electoral votes needed. The other states signed up are Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington, Vermont and California.

NPV is partnered with FairVote, a project of the Soros-funded Center for Voting and Democracy that advocates for a national popular vote for president.

FairVote’s website says the organization “has nurtured and supported the National Popular Vote plan to ensure that every vote for president is equally valued no matter where it is cast.”

FairVote’s executive director Rob Richie co-authored “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote,” a book explaining how the National Popular Vote plan would work and why he thinks the U.S. “desperately needs it.”

Fairvote regularly works with advocacy leaders at the National Popular Vote organization to assist in getting legislation passed.

Richie, executive director of FairVote since he co-founded it in 1992, is also a member of the civil society committee of the Soros-led Bretton Woods Committee, which openly seeks to remake the world economy.

Richie’s book was co-authored with NPV’s founder, John R. Koza.

In a Dec. 15, 2008, Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Jonathan Soros, son of George Soros, wrote that it was time to junk the Electoral College.

Soros’s Open Society Institute funds the Center for Voting and Democracy, where FairVote is based.

The center’s website notes the group was kick-started in 1997 with two grants – one from the Open Society and another from the Joyce Foundation.

With Obama on its board, the Joyce Foundation also funded the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute; the National Council of La Raza and Physicians for Social Responsibility, among numerous radical groups.

Meanwhile, the NPV leadership is comprised of Democratic Party supporters.

The organization’s chairman and major funder is Koza. He was the co-founder, chairman and CEO of Scientific Games Inc., where he co-invented the rub-off instant ticket used by state lotteries.

Koza, who has reportedly pledged $12 million to NPV, previously gave tens of thousands of dollars to various Democratic Party committees and liberal candidates and was an Al Gore elector in 2000, the Weekly Standard reported.

Another pledged NPV leader is Tom Golisano, founder and chairman of Paychex, the nation’s second largest payroll and human resource company. He co-founded the Independence Party of New York in 1994 and ran as the party’s gubernatorial candidate.

Golisano is a registered Republican, even though he supported John Kerry for president and gave $1 million to the Democratic National Convention in 2008.

NPV’s secretary, Chris Pearson, served in the Vermont House of Representatives in 2006. In 2005, he was director of the Presidential Election Reform program at the Soros-funded FairVote.


TOPIC: International IRS Overreach

The following information originates from: American Citizens Abroad

Why FATCA is Bad for America - Update

The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is having a negative impact on the U.S. economy, U.S. financial markets, American businesses operating abroad and American citizens who work and reside overseas.

American Citizens Abroad (ACA) is working hard to educate the legislature and decision makers to inform them of the many dangers of FATCA. Recently legislators and the media have come out in strong opposition to FATCA, some advocate for repeal, others for revisions of the regulations. All our unanimous that FATCA as currently drafted is bad for America and Americans.

What is FATCA?

FATCA was initially introduced to target those who evade paying U.S. taxes by hiding assets in undisclosed foreign bank accounts. With such a noble goal, and with the strong backing of the Administration, Congress quickly drafted the FATCA legislation and quietly slipped it into the HIRE (Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment) bill signed into law by President Obama in March 2010. Most members of Congress are unaware of the unintended negative consequences this legislation will have when fully implemented in 2014.

Key [requirements] of FATCA

FATCA requires foreign financial institutions (FFI) of broad scope - banks, stock brokers, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, trusts - to report directly to the IRS all clients’ accounts owned by U.S. Citizens and U.S. persons (Green Card holders).

Starting July 1, 2014, FATCA will require FFIs to provide annual reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the name and address of each U.S. client, as well as the largest account balance in the year and total debits and credits of any account owned by a U.S. person.

If an institution does not comply, the U.S. will impose a 30% withholding tax on all its transactions concerning U.S. securities, including the proceeds of sale of securities.

In addition, FATCA requires any foreign company not listed on a stock exchange or any foreign partnership which has 10% U.S. ownership to report to the IRS the names and tax I.D. number (TIN) of any U.S. owner.

FATCA also requires U.S. citizens and green card holders who have foreign financial assets in excess of $50,000 (higher for those who are bona-fide residents abroad) to complete a new Form 8938 to be filed with the 1040 tax return, starting with fiscal year 2011.

Those affected by FATCA

FATCA will have serious negative ramifications on the entire U.S. economy and more specifically on

• U.S. financial markets and financial institutions

• U.S. businesses operating in global markets

• American citizens residing overseas

• American citizens with legitimate investments overseas

The dangerous ramifications of FATCA

FATCA constitutes a breathtaking extension of U.S. legislative overreach, purporting to impose upon every foreign financial institution, corporation and partnership the obligation to examine whether and to what extent it must adhere to the application of U.S. law. In many cases, entities electing to comply with FACTA will find themselves in violation of local privacy laws. The cost for this massive reporting bureaucracy is estimated in the billions of dollars for foreign and U.S. financial institutions as well as for Americans residing overseas, not to mention for the IRS itself. Much more significant than the cost and time burden, FATCA creates a direct financial and legal threat to all foreign financial institutions.

After much complaint over the direct transfer of information from FFIs to the IRS, the Treasury Department created "Intergovernmental Agreements" or IGA’s. This is a system intended to allow FFIs to release client account information via government to government exchange so that FFIs will not need to violate privacy laws by directly releasing information to the IRS. FFIs must still register with the IRS to abide by FATCA, whether or not the government signs an IGA, to avoid the 30% withholding.

An anti-discriminatory clause has also been included in the IGA agreements in order to minimize the possibility of banking lock-out for U.S. citizens and U.S. persons. Nonetheless, U.S. citizens and U.S. persons continue to experience banking lock-out and reduction of services.

Many FFIs have simply not referenced FATCA as the reason, citing only "private banking policy."

Suddenly, after years of not calling into question banking policy, U.S. citizen clients are having their accounts closed, access limited, or being denied services all together. FATCA is definitely the cause. Those FFIs that do not enter into IGA are penalized with a 30% withholding tax on U.S. source investment income. A withholding tax on income transferred overseas, such as dividends and interest, is recognized as a fair and effective way of collecting taxes and is built into most double taxation treaties signed by the United States and other countries, generally with a reduced withholding rate.

But FATCA provides in addition for a 30% withholding on the sale value of U.S. assetsand imposes the 30% withholding tax on ALL U.S. source transfers to non-compliant foreign financial institutions. This is completely different and is confiscatory. FATCA rests on a fallacy: guilty (of tax fraud) until proven innocent; this is a denial of justice as it is known in our Western world.

Foreign divestment of U.S. investments is a serious risk

The FATCA threat of a 30% withholding tax and the potential exposure to transfer of personal data is inciting foreigners to divest out of U.S. securities and investments. Some foreign banks throughout the world have already indicated their intention to do so and have advised their institutional and private clients accordingly.

• The Japanese Bankers Association stated very clearly: In the event that the implementation of FATCA is not practically feasible for the Japanese financial services industry, it would result in substantial confusion in the industry and could ultimately lead Japanese financial institutions to withdraw their investment from U.S. financial assets.

• The European Banking Federation and the Institute of International Bankers, which in their own words represent most of the non-U.S. banks and securities firms around the world that are affected by the FATCA provisions, highlighted their concerns: many FFIs, particularly smaller ones or those with minimal U.S. investments or U.S. customers, will opt out of U.S. securities rather than enter into a direct contractual agreement with a foreign tax authority (the IRS) that imposes substantial new obligations and the significant reputational, regulatory, and financial risks of potentially failing those obligations, or may disinvest their U.S. customers in order to reduce their compliance burdens under an FFI Agreement.

• This warning from Europe was reiterated in June 2011. George Bock, a Luxembourg-based KPMG partner and head of tax at KPMG, told reporters at a funds event in London that FATCA could cause investors to sell out of U.S. stocks, bonds and other investments, affecting the price of U.S. shares as well as those of other countries in ways that are not yet fully clear.

• KPMG conducted a survey in 2011 of leading fund promoters in 12 countries. v) The majority of respondents had assets under management in excess of EUR 10 billion, and more than half of the respondents distributed their shares/units in more than 10 countries. The survey asked: Further to FATCA, could your fund intend to disinvest (directly/indirectly) from the US? For both the U.S. fixed income market and the U.S. equity market, 6% answered yes. Another 10% for the fixed income market and 7% for the equity market stated that it was thinkable to divest from the U.S. A whopping 29% for the fixed income market and 26% for the equity market replied that divestment depended on the detailed implementation rules for FATCA. In other words, for funds managers worldwide, divestment from U.S. securities markets is a real option.

These statements must be taken seriously and should not be ignored. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, total foreign investment in the United States exceeds $21 trillion. vi) Foreign investment in U.S. securities alone exceeds $10 trillion. The capitalization of the two U.S. stock exchanges is $18.6 trillion.

The financial weight of foreign financial institutions is enormous. The 100 Top Financial Institutions worldwide command total assets of $77.6 trillion. More than $55 trillion or two-thirds of this financial power is controlled by non-U.S. financial institutions. Among the top ten alone are seven non-U.S. financial institutions with combined balance sheet assets of $16.7 trillion.

In addition to direct control of assets, foreign financial institutions have very significant client funds under management, funds which do not appear on their balance sheets. Among the top 15 Global Money Managers, 7 are non-U.S. financial institutions. The assets under management of just these 7 non-U.S. financial institutions are close to $9 trillion.

These are big numbers. Foreign financial institutions have significant power through the allocation of their assets and this should be taken into account in a cost/benefit analysis of FATCA. The United States should not be playing with fire when it comes to keeping the country attractive for foreign investment.

Risk of funds withdrawal from U.S. bank deposits held by non-resident aliens

In addition to investments in securities, foreigners hold over $1 trillion on bank deposit in the United States because those deposits are tax free and the United States represents a safe haven for non-resident aliens. Congress has deliberately established this policy to attract foreign funds so necessary to the U.S. economy. But if a 30% withholding tax may potentially be applied upon transfer of those deposits to an overseas account, the attractiveness of United States banking services disappears.

With the IGA currently being signed by foreign governments, the U.S. Treasury is promising reciprocity on information on foreigners holding financial assets in the United States. This is something the Treasury cannot and should not be promising. Already banks in Texas and Florida have protested that broad-based reciprocity will destroy their banking markets; many foreigners residing in Latin America have chosen banking in these states not to evade foreign taxes but for the anonymity and security provided, due to unstable governments in the countries where they reside.

The foreign direct investment component is also vulnerable

If future financial transfers out of the United States are perturbed by FATCA, the direct investment component of the U.S. economy may suffer as well. A pull back in foreign direct investment in the U.S., which now represents an accumulated $2.7 trillion, would negatively impact the growth of the economy. Attracting foreign companies to invest in the United States requires not only good business prospects but also a free flow of capital both into and out of the country. With the economy seriously underperforming, unemployment high and budget and trade deficits ballooning, this is not a time when the U.S. can afford to lose any kind of investment in its economy, but that is exactly what FATCA will provoke.

The huge potential foreign investment losses largely outweigh FATCA revenues

Sale of just a portion of foreign holdings of U.S. securities, transfer of some of the foreign-owned bank deposits out of the United States and reduced foreign direct investment would severely damage the U.S. securities markets, the solvability of certain U.S. banks and the growth of the entire U.S. economy. The potential losses of trillions of dollars due to foreign institutions and foreigners divesting out of the United States totally outweigh the meager tax revenue that the IRS will actually collect as a direct result of this deeply flawed legislation.

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the FATCA bill would raise $792 million of additional taxes a year in the next ten years. xi) Congress never requested a full GAO (Government Accountability Office) cost/benefit study on FATCA. Administrative costs will be very burdensome and costly for the IRS, U.S. taxpayers and, most importantly, for financial institutions which despite a precarious situation in global financial markets, have no option but to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on compliance.

The U.S. financial industry is one of the nation’s most competitive sectors in world markets today, and the open access and ability to freely transfer funds into and out of U.S. financial markets has historically been a key reason for that strength. This competitive position will be diminished by FATCA. The U.S. financial industry will find itself isolated from many international transactions. Foreign investors will avoid U.S.-based hedge funds. Foreign hedge funds will avoid investing in U.S. securities and will refuse U.S. clients.

Foreign financial institutions will create dedicated entities for handling transactions with the United States, separate from their other business. This will erode the influence of the U.S. banks as the indispensable counterpart when trading with the dollar. As the Financial Times stated: one of Asia’s largest financial groups is quietly mulling a potentially explosive question: could it organize some of its subsidiaries so that they could stop handling all US Treasury bonds?

Their motive has nothing to do with the outlook for the dollar. Instead, what is worrying this particular Asian financial group is tax. In January 2013 (subsequent to this article, the date was delayed to July 1, 2014), the US will implement a new law called the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. These rules would partly put the responsibility on the bank or asset manager not just the individual to make this filing the new rules leave some financial officials fuming in places such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong and Singapore.

There is no doubt that in a FATCA world, China will be the winner and the United States the loser. The Chinese have the possibility to circumvent FATCA by passing foreign currency transactions through government-owned banks, as this category of bank is exempted from the FATCA regulations. This provides China with a unique competitive advantage over publicly and privately owned banks in the rest of the world. It provides China an opportunity to transform the Yuan into a more attractive reserve currency for international transactions. It is known that the Chinese want to develop an alternative to the U.S. dollar domination in international transactions. FATCA provides the Chinese with a perfect platform for doing just that.

One of the very undesirable consequences of FATCA will be the creation of a two-tier banking system, an upper tier of the larger financial institutions which will comply with the FATCA legislation and continue to deal with U.S. financial institutions and a lower tier, which will refuse to do so. The latter group will provide a perfect cover for precisely the undesirable transactions that the legislation is intended to curb. FATCAs means are diametrically opposed to its ends. It is not only self-defeating, but as an added bonus it fosters irreparable damage to the economy at large and in particular erodes the competitiveness of the U.S. financial sector.

The complexity of compliance by FFIs is overwhelming

FATCA uses a bulldozer to go after an ant hill, which is already creating serious backlash against the United States. The complexity of compliance for foreign financial institutions is enormous; after two rounds of Treasury Department draft regulations, fundamental questions remain open about the feasibility of compliance after issuance of the final regulations. The Treasury Department has twice delayed the date for implementing FATCA due to the complexity in developing regulations and the resistance from governments and financial institutions throughout the world. Thousands of lawyer, accounting specialists, software developers and staff of FFIs have already spent enormous time trying to understand the regulations and develop appropriate implementation tools.

Just the question of client identity is a major issue since FATCA requires FFIs to identify, and report on, all clients deemed to be U.S. persons. The Japanese banks have several hundred million bank accounts, all with opening forms in Japanese and many not digitalized. Today, banks in Canada are not required to know the nationality of their clients; to conform to FATCA Canada would have to change its privacy laws.

Many countries find themselves in the same conflict with regard to privacy laws. This invasion of U.S. law into other countries is a source of bad will for the United States. The Calgary Herald published an article entitled Note to Obama: Canada is not the Cayman Islands. xiii) The Globe and Mail reported: In a recent letter to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Canadian Bankers Association President Terry Campbell complained that the U.S. law takes an end-run around the Canada Revenue Agency and attempts to coerce foreign financial institutions into a reporting and withholding relationship with U.S. tax authorities.

Passthru payment control is another mindboggling issue of FATCA. In its June 7, 2011 reply to the U.S. Department of Treasury Notice 2011-34, xv) the second round of draft regulations, The British Bankers Association (BBA) stated in paragraph 6: While we understand and support the goals of preventing tax evasion, the most problematic proposal in the Notice is Passthru Payments. We understand the US Governments concern with the potential for using non-participating FFIs as a blocker to shield US taxpayers from identification and reporting and the intent of the proposal to encourage FFIs to become compliant with FATCA. However, in its current form the proposals are unfortunately unworkable for a deposit-taking global institution. xvi) The Department of the Treasury has pushed forward the date for enforcement of the Passthru Payment Concept and has opened a dialogue with FFIs on this issue.

FATCA is ruinous for Americans and for American business overseas

FATCA has turned Americans into pariahs in the international financial world.

FATCA requires foreign financial institutions to report to the IRS the names and assets of all clients who are U.S. persons. Consequently, foreign financial institutions banks, insurance companies and pension funds are already turning away American clients due to the costly IRS reporting requirements and the perceived significant legal and financial risks. ACA has received multiple testimonies from Americans abroad who have had their foreign bank accounts closed, been refused entry into a foreign pension fund, or who cannot enter into insurance contracts overseas.

How can Americans abroad survive and U.S. businesses develop globally without access to foreign banks, foreign pension funds and insurance coverage? In many cases Americans have been unable to participate in company pension funds or conclude insurance contracts, and as a result are rendered unemployable by this punitive framework.

If a U.S. company aims to develop exports, either through a sales representative or its own sales subsidiary, it necessarily must have foreign bank accounts to facilitate payments from foreign clients and to pay local expenses. It must be able to contract insurance plans for its company’s assets and provide pension plans for its employees. FATCA creates an enormous barrier for U.S. companies attempting to penetrate foreign markets with U.S. products and services. This barrier adds to the already burdensome IRS reporting required for foreign controlled corporations.

The 10% U.S. ownership rule

Section 1472, introduced into the Tax Code by FATCA, requires a withholding agent to withhold 30% on any payment made to a non-financial foreign entity unless the payee or the beneficial owner of the payment provides the withholding agent with either:

1) a certification that the foreign entity does not have a substantial U.S. owner(which is defined in FATCA as one holding 10% or more of the company) or,

2) the name and Tax I.D. Number (TIN) of each substantial U.S. owner.

Additionally, the withholding agent must not know or have reason to know that the certification or information is incorrect, and the withholding agent must report the name, address, and TIN of each substantial U.S. owner. Hence any privately held, non-listed foreign company which may have financial dealings with the United States must be prepared to declare through the withholding agent any U.S. ownership of 10% or more in the company. There are millions of these companies throughout the world.

Furthermore, American citizens are required to report on the new FATCA Form 8938, to be attached to the 1040, the names and addresses of all issuers of foreign shares or partnerships not held with a foreign financial institution as well as the value of the American citizens share of the capital. Hence, foreign companies will have their names appear in tax filings of U.S. citizens and the IRS will be able to put a value on the entire company.

These reporting requirements are already shutting Americans out of business ventures abroad. In one case, three partners, two foreigners and one American, were far down the road in developing their business plan for a joint venture, but when they went to the bank for financing, the banker advised the foreigners to evict the American partner because of the IRS reporting requirement. The American literally got pushed out of the venture he had initiated. In today’s global market, this IRS requirement creates a devastating handicap for Americans eager to establish the relationships abroad necessary to promote American business in the global economy.

Imagine the reaction in the U.S. if Great Britain, Germany and Japan, to name just three major economic partners, imposed a similar rule. Imagine the problem if Joe's welding shop in Dubuque, Iowa has a German partner (with 11% ownership) and has to report to the Bundes Steuer Amt on its forms, in German, the names and German taxpayer identification of the German partner. And, if Joe's welding shop also had a Japanese partner and a French partner, each with 11% ownership, its compliance office would require a separate floor. A nightmare just to think of it!

The 10% U.S. ownership rule is both politically arrogant and economically unsound for business. In today's ever more global economy, the United States cannot risk having its citizens excluded from partnerships overseas with foreign entrepreneurs. In addition, the bureaucratic burden of such a reporting requirement on foreign companies and on the worlds financial transfer system will be horrendous. Companies and partnerships will refuse to deal with Americans, or simply refuse to comply with the law. And who can blame them?

Reporting requirements of Form 8938 for Americans holding foreign financial assets

FATCA requires any American with more than $50,000 in foreign assets to report (Form 8938). Americans who are bona-fide residents overseas have higher thresholds for reporting, $200,000 for those reporting individually and $400,000 for those filing jointly.

All foreign financial account assets, bank accounts, securities accounts, annuity contracts, rental properties, insurance contracts, pension plans, trusts and private investments in companies and partnerships. This reporting requirement took effect for tax filing year 2011 (1040s to be filed by April 15, 2012), and this requirement is in addition to the FBAR reporting of foreign financial accounts already required by the Department of the Treasury.

Penalties for non-willful failure to report Form 8938 are high: 40% of any under-reported position. The initial fine for not filing Form 8938 is $10,000, rapidly increasing to $50,000 for each fiscal year. Given the high degree of complexity and the breadth of this new reporting requirement as well as the uncertainties attached to Form 8938, there exists a substantial risk of filing error due to confusion and misunderstanding, particularly since the FBAR form uses different reporting criteria.

To have an overview of the complexity of the reporting requirement, the information required on Form 8938 includes the names of all financial institutions with which one has a foreign account, the account number, the maximum balance during the year (in U.S. dollars), the foreign currency rate at which foreign amounts were translated into U.S. dollars, the source of the foreign currency rate, whether the account was opened or closed during the tax year and a box to check if the account is jointly owned with spouse.

Similar reporting is required for all other foreign assets. Part III of the form requires reporting of a summary of tax items attributable to specific foreign financial assets with reference to the form and line or schedule and line where the income or gain is reported.

Compliance with this additional requirement is simply not realistic for a vast swathe of the normally law-abiding filer community unable to afford the expensive services of a professional tax advisor. The fear of data being compromised via electronic and/or paper transfer is also a concern that needs to be seriously considered. FATCA specifically discriminates against Americans residing abroad.

Americans residing overseas necessarily have bank accounts and other financial assets in their country of residence, just as Americans residing in Kansas have bank accounts, mortgage loans, and pension funds in Kansas and not in California or Virginia.

Consequently, most if not all Americans residing abroad will be subject to the Form 8938 reporting requirement and will risk the penalties mentioned above, while only the very few Americans residing in the United States and owning foreign bank accounts or other foreign financial assets will be subject to the same requirements and risks.

The law, as written, specifically discriminates against Americans residing overseas. Americans residing in the United States are not required to report their assets for tax purposes, only their income, since federal taxes are levied only on income and capital gains. Why should Americans who are bona fide residents abroad be subject to a more extensive reporting requirement?

FATCA reporting by bona fide overseas residents will not bring in significantly more tax revenue since Americans residing abroad first pay taxes in their country of residence. Once foreign tax credits available to overseas filers are deducted from the theoretical IRS tax liability, the net tax revenue due to the IRS is minimal.

Most Americans residing in such high tax countries as Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, Australia and Japan owe no U.S. taxes when they file their 1040. The administrative burden of FATCA imposed on the 7 million overseas Americans is totally out of proportion with any potential tax revenue to be collected. Moreover, FATCA creates serious financial risks for Americans residing abroad as penalties for simple reporting errors could wipe out their entire savings, even though they may not owe any U.S. taxes at all.

For the reasons mentioned above, the community of Americans residing overseas is of the opinion that, if FATCA is not revoked in its entirety, bona fide residents overseas should be exempted from the reporting requirement of Form 8938. ACA has proposed that Congress adopt residence-based taxation (RBT) instead of citizenship-base taxation; this would not only eliminate issues of double taxation and double filing; it would also eliminate the need for FFIs to report on Americans resident abroad as well as the requirement for Americans abroad to file Form 8938 and the FBAR. (See ACA’s position on FATCA and ACA’s RBT proposal).

Risk of identity fraud

Form 8938 provides full disclosure of personal assets and bank account information. It will be filed with the 1040 that details the tax filers name, address, phone number and Social Security number, thus putting Americans abroad at high risk of serious identity fraud, in particular, since the IRS is pushing to have all of this reporting done on-line in the near future.

James White, director of strategic studies for the GAO, told the House Oversight subcommittee on Government Organization that there were close to 250,000 incidents of taxpayers’ identity theft in 2010, up from just under 52,000 in 2008. xviii) This is a five-fold increase in the number of instances in just two years. When 100% of all private financial information is acquired with such identity theft, the potential damage inflicted on Americans overseas will be substantial.

The IRS is already successfully tracking down tax evaders without FATCA

The IRS already has multiple tools to go after tax evaders the QI program, the John Doe summons, the "Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters", Tax Information Exchange (TIE) Agreements, Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) and the "Swift Agreement".

FATCA is unnecessary because the IRS has already been highly successful in pursuing U.S. resident tax evaders. The IRS collected $780 million in settlement of the recent charges facing UBS. The IRS has collected over $5 billion from more than 35,000 filings under the Voluntary Disclosure Programs. Thanks to the Voluntary Disclosure Programs and the information on 4,500 American-owned UBS accounts that were transferred to the IRS as part of the UBS settlement, the IRS has multiple information leads which will enable even more efficient tracking of tax evaders. The IRS is already actively pursuing other foreign banks as a consequence. The IRS has been very vocal about its successes. There is no need for FATCA.

Conclusion

FATCA legislation is predicated on the faulty assumption that foreigners throughout the world with no predisposition to favor the U.S. will react positively to its attempts to convert them into unpaid IRS agents. Faced with similar investment and personnel options without the legal jeopardy and financial risks, reasonable people will choose non-U.S. alternatives. FATCA implementation will constitute a major disruption of the entire international financial world as we know it today. Reasonable persons and entities will develop effective antibodies to this perceived infection, in ways too numerous and manifold to predict.

What can be predicted is that the cumulative effect of this legislation will be a major blow to U.S. economic interests and prestige. At stake for the United States is the potential loss of trillions of dollars of investment, the opportunity for American companies and financial institutions to compete in a competitive global environment and the possibility for American citizens residing overseas to survive and thrive. In brief, the economic future of the United States is at stake.


TOPIC: Pro-International-Trade-Treaty TPP Dictator Obama & Cohorts vs USA Sovereignty?

Very recently, an impressive group of 564 political analysts from labor, environmental, family-farm and community organizations sent Obama a strongly-worded letter to the White House arguing that pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, undermines the Obama's message on "income inequality."

Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born dictator-in-chief Barack Hussein Obama will not only deceitfully blatter in another dishonest promotional speech that he is actually for reducing income inequality as expected, he will covertly and belligerently push for fast-track legislation on the job-destroying TPP free-trade agreement.

The TPP is the first part of a two-ocean globalist plan the Obama administration is working quietly to put into place. The aim is to follow up the passage of the TPP with the finalization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union.

Obama announced in his 2013 State of the Union address the plan to add the trans-Pacific free-trade agreement to the trans-Atlantic agreement already in place.

Fast-track authority would allow the Obama administration to ram the TPP through Congress with a simple majority vote. The rules would limit debate so that no amendments could be introduced to modify the language of the agreement the Obama administration has negotiated behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, the power the Citizens Trade Campaign plans to deliver to the White House can be seen by the letter's signatories.

They include labor unions such as the AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; United Autoworkers (UAW); United Brotherhood of Carpenters; United Steelworkers (USW); and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Among the environmental organizations are 350.org, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Rainforest Action Network and the Sierra Club.

Family farm organizations include the National Family Farm Coalition, National Farmers Union and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. Consumer groups include Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, National Consumers League, and Public Citizen.

Income inequality and long-term unemployment are serious problems that the job-killing TPP would only worsen.

On Wednesday, another group opposed to TPP, the U.S. Business Industry Council, plans to deliver the second punch in the one-two punch act by following up the State of the Union address with a national press conference revealing the results of a bipartisan national poll on TPP.

In an unusual move, two pollsters that usually do not work together, Democratic pollster Gary Molyneux of Hart Research and Republican pollster Bob Carpenter of Chesapeake Beach Consulting, have collaborated to take the poll and report the results.

The majority of responders oppose the TPP as a job-killing measure. Critics charge the Obama administration negotiated it in secret and is now trying to rush it through Congress before the American public finds out how the trade measure compromises U.S. sovereignty.

On Jan. 14, it was reported that Republicans in the House are preparing to follow the lead of the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to rubber-stamp the TPP, the most sweeping free-trade agreement since NAFTA.

On Jan. 9, in a little-noticed statement, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont, together with ranking member Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., announced they were introducing fast-track trade promotion authority.

The last line of congressional resistance to TPP appears to be coming from House Democrats concerned that more U.S. union jobs will be lost in the free-trade steamroller Republicans under Boehner and Democrats aligning with Reid plan to run through Congress.

Last year, 151 House Democrats, led by Representatives Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and George Miller, D-Calif., opposed to TPP wrote a letter to Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born liar-in-chief Obama stating their opposition to using outdated Fast-Track procedures that usurp Congress's authority over trade matters.

With Boehner's decision to support Obama on TPP, the Republican Party appears ready to ignore concerns raised by GOP conservatives and various tea-party groups that the 12-nation deal further undermines U.S. sovereignty. The opponents argue it places major sectors of the U.S. economy under a new dispute-regulation mechanism that takes precedence over U.S. judges and courts.

Fast track authority, a provision under also has the function of reassuring foreign partners that the FTA negotiated by the executive branch, will not be altered by Congress during the legislative process.

In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama declared that to boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Recently, he announced that he will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union because [presumably]: "trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs."

The promise of creating new jobs drew congressional applause despite legitimate concerns that previous trade agreements, including NAFTA and U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization, have resulted in the loss of millions of high-salary U.S. jobs to nations with less expensive job markets.

The 12 nations involved in the TPP are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States.

Republicans in the House are preparing to follow the lead of the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to rubber-stamp the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, the most sweeping free-trade agreement since NAFTA.

The White House seeks to pass it with a simple majority vote, without so much as introducing a single amendment to modify the language of the agreement it has negotiated behind closed doors.

With House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio already deciding to vote with Senate Democrats to grant fast track authority for congressional consideration of the TPP, the only remaining opposition to the bill seems to be coming from House Democrats.

Pressured by labor union constituents, the House Democrats have concluded the massive Trans-Pacific trade deal capitulates to corporate interest groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, placing under international control important U.S. environmental, public-health and labor standards.

The House Democrats are concerned that more U.S. union jobs will be lost in the free-trade fast-track steamroller Republicans under Boehner and Democrats aligning with Reid plan to run through Congress.

For too long, bad trade deals have allowed corporations to ship good American jobs overseas, and wages, benefits, workplace protections and quality of life have all declined as a result. That is why there is strong bipartisan opposition to enabling the Executive Branch to ram through far-reaching, secretly negotiated trade deals like the TPP that extend well beyond traditional trade matters. At the core of the Baucus-Camp bill is the same Fast Track mechanism that failed us from 2002-2007.

The lawmakers said their constituents did not send us to Washington to ship their jobs overseas, and Congress will not be a rubber stamp for another flawed trade deal that will hang the middle class out to dry.

Instead of pursuing the same failed trade policies, we should support American workers by making the necessary investments to compete in today's global economy.

With Boehner's decision to support Obama on TPP, the Republican Party appears ready to ignore concerns raised by GOP conservatives and various tea-party groups that the 12-nation deal further undermines U.S. sovereignty. The opponents argue it places major sectors of the U.S. economy under a new dispute-regulation mechanism that takes precedence over U.S. judges and courts.

Most seasoned congressional watchers expect Obama, Reid and Boehner will ultimately succeed in ramming TPP through to passage. But they believe it won't happen without labor-supporting House Democrats and conservative House Republicans concerned about sovereignty wrangling to obtain last-minute concessions.

Fast-track authority is a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress to review a free-trade agreement, or FTA, under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame that is subject to a yes-or-no vote by Congress without any provision for Congress to modify the agreement by submitting amendments. Fast-track authority is also intended to reassure foreign partners that the FTA negotiated by the executive branch will not be altered by Congress during the legislative process.

The TPP is the first part of a two-ocean globalist plan the Obama administration is working quietly to put into place. The goal is to follow up the passage of the TPP with the finalization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union.

As dictator Obama, in his 2013 State of the Union address announced, the addition of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership to the agenda that would complement the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement to supposedly:

"Boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership," and he announced plans to launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union [allegedly] "because trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs."

The promise of creating new jobs drew congressional applause despite legitimate concerns the promise is hollow, as previous trade agreements, including NAFTA and U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization, have resulted in the loss of millions of high-salary U.S. jobs overseas to nations within the partnership with less expensive job markets.

Globalists advising the Obama administration appear to have learned from the adverse public reaction to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, during the administration of President George W. Bush. Obama has avoided the leader summit meetings that exposed to a critical alternative news media the international working-group coordination needed to create international free-trade agreements.

The Obama administration has shut down the Security and Prosperity Partnership website, SPP.gov. The last joint statement issued by the newly formed North American Leaders Summit, operating as the rebranded SPP, was issued April 2, 2012, at the conclusion of the last tri-lateral head-of-state meeting held between the U.S., Mexico and Canada in Washington, D.C.

Now, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obama administration appears to have leap-frogged SPP ambitions to create a North American Union by including Mexico and Canada in the TPP configuration.

The 12 nations involved in the TPP are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States.

For the first time, a decision by the U.S. Trade Representative within the White House to expand negotiations to create a free trade zone with Pacific Rim countries was made public, along with a similar initiative with EU countries.

Despite having demonized Republican challenger Mitt Romney as a jobs outsourcer, Obama in his SOTU address did not hesitate to sell the new globalist alliances to Congress and the American people as partnerships that would expand U.S. exports.

It's the same premise all previous administrations have used to sell free-trade agreements such as NAFTA.

Remarkably, the Trans-Pacific negotiations have received almost no publicity in establishment media, though they have concluded 15 rounds. Eleven nations are participating, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

The low-profile advancement of the TPP, now supplemented by the addition of the TAP, appears to have been accomplished by design.

The Obama administration is aware that under George W. Bush, concerns from the right about sovereignty and the left about infringement of U.S. environmental laws with both sides fearing outsourcing of jobs blocked greater North American political integration under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Expansion of NAFTA was halted and, later, the inclusion of South America under the Free Trade Act of the Americas.

Obama's open discussion of the two-oceans TPP and TAP free trade agendas during his recent SOTU attests to the persistence of globalists.

Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born melado-in-chief? has found a way to revive the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, through pushing the Trans-Pacific TPP agenda.

On March 23, 2005, at their summit meeting in Waco, Texas, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin issued a joint statement announcing the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

With the announcement, the U.S. Mexico and Canada entered into an unprecedented arrangement in which bureaucrats from the three nations would be assigned to shadow government working groups charged with integrating and harmonizing administrative law and regulatory structures of the three nations in a broad range of public policy areas.

While much of the agreement was announced in Waco, Texas, there was virtually no explanation of whey the trilateral bureaucratic behind-the-scenes work was being initiated. Moreover, nothing was said about creating a North American Community or advancing toward a North American Union.

By the end of the Bush administration, the SPP meetings were dropped and the name was changed. All future tri-lateral meetings with Mexico and Canada were subsequently billed under the less threatening designation of North American Leaders Summit Meetings.

So far, the Obama administration has pursued the TPP not under the auspices of the Department of State, but through the offices of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.

On June 16, 2012, in a notice published on the U.S. Trade Representative website, Ambassador Kirk announced that Mexico had decided to join the TPP negotiations.

Kirk said that he was "delighted to invite Mexico, our neighbor and second largest export market, to join the TPP negotiations. Mexico's interest in the TPP reflects its recognition that the TPP presents the most promising pathway to boosting trade across the Asia Pacific and to encouraging regional trade integration." They look forward to "continuing consultations with Congress and domestic stakeholders" as they "move forward."

Three days later, on June 19, 2012, with similar language, the USTR announced Canada had decided to join the TPP negotiations:

"Inviting Canada to join the TPP negotiations presents a unique opportunity for the United States to build upon this already dynamic trading relationship. Through TPP, we are bringing the relationship with our largest trading partner into the 21st century," said Kirk. "We look forward to continuing consultations with the Congress and domestic stakeholders regarding Canada's entry into the TPP as we move closer to a broad-based, high-standard trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region," he continued.

To avoid mistakes made with the SPP, the USTR this time notified Congress of the intent to include both Mexico and Canada in the TPP negotiations, triggering a 90-day consultation period with Congress. A notice was published in the Federal Register seeking public comments.

By including Mexico and Canada, the U.S. government moved to revive the SPP union of North American nations in the larger regional context of a Pacific Rim union of nations.

A February 13th White House press release on the USTR website announced the Atlantic negotiations:

"We, the leaders of the United States and the European Union, are pleased to announce that, based on recommendations from the U.S. EU High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth co-chaired by United States Trade Representative Kirk and European Trade Commissioner De Gucht, the United States and European Union will each initiate the internal procedures necessary to launch negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

The announcement suggests the new TAP stems from working groups formed through US-EU integration efforts begun long before Obama took office in 2008.

On May 8, 2007, it was reported that President George W. Bush signed an agreement creating a permanent body that commits the U.S. to deeper transatlantic economic integration without ratification by the Senate as a treaty or passage by Congress as a law.

On April 30, 2007, a Transatlantic Economic Integration agreement between the U.S. and the European Union was signed at the White House by Bush; Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, the current president of the European Council; and Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission.

The Transatlantic Economic Council created by the agreement was tasked with creating regulatory convergence between the U.S. and the EU on some 40 different public policy areas, including intellectual property rights, developing security standards for international trade, getting U.S. GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices) recognized in Europe, developing innovation and technology in health industries, implementing RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technologies, developing a science-based plan on bio-based products and establishing a regular dialogue to address obstacles to investment.

The April 2007 summit also involved coordinating the Transatlantic Economic Council with the work of the Transatlantic Policy Network, or TPN a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington and Brussels, chaired in 2007 by former Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah. It dates back to December 1995, when the United States and the EU signed what was then known as the New Transatlantic Agenda, a protocol contemplating a Transatlantic Common Market to be created between the U.S. and the EU by 2015.

The Transatlantic economic integration plan was originated in 1939 by a world government advocate who sought to create a Transatlantic Union as an international governing body.

Writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal 'Freedom and Union,' Rep. Jim Costa, D-Calif., a member of the TPN congressional policy advisory group, affirmed the TPN target date of 2015 for the creation of a Transatlantic Common Market.

Costa also argued the Transatlantic Economic Council is tasked with a common set of economic regulations, creating by bureaucratic action the required Transatlantic Common Market regulatory infrastructure, without seeking specific Congressional approval of a new Free-Trade Agreement, or FTA.

Writing in the same issue of the Streit Council publication, Sen. Bennett also confirmed that what has become known as the Merkel Initiative would allow the Transatlantic Economic Council to integrate and harmonize administrative rules and regulations between the U.S. and the EU in a very quiet way, contemplated then to be accomplished without introducing a new FTA to Congress.

The Streit Council is named after Clarence K. Streit, whose 1939 book 'Union Now' called for the creation of a Transatlantic Union to be formed as a step toward world government. It envisioned a new governmental federation with an international constitution governing the 15 democracies of the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and South Africa.

Ira Straus, former founder and U.S. coordinator of the Committee on Eastern Europe and Russia in NATO, or CEERN, a group dedicated to including Russia within NATO, credits Bennett with reviving Streit's work seven decades later.

A globalist with leftist political leanings, Straus was a Fulbright professor of political science at Moscow State University and the Moscow State Institute of International Relations from 2001 to 2002.

The congruity of ideas between Bennett and Streit is clear when Bennett writes passages that echo precisely goals Streit stated in the same terms in 1939.

One such example is Bennett's claim in his Streit Council article that creating a Transatlantic Common Market would combine markets that comprise 60 percent of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) under a common regulatory standard that would become the de facto world standard regardless of what any other parties say.

Similarly, Streit wrote in 'Union Now' that the economic power of the 15 democracies he sought to combine in a Transatlantic Union would be overwhelming in their economic power and a clear challenge to the authoritarian states then represented by Nazi Germany and the communist Soviet Union.

Also writing in the Fall 2007 issue of the Streit Council journal 'Freedom and Union,' World Bank economist Domenec Ruiz Devesa acknowledged that transatlantic economic integration, though important in itself, is not the end.

"As understood by Jean Monnet," he continued, "economic integration must and will lead to political integration, since an integrated market requires common institutions producing common rules to govern it."

Also recently, Obama defended a proposed mega free-trade zone between the world's two largest economies, the United States and the European Union.

"I have fought my entire political career, and as president, to strengthen consumer protections. I have no intention of signing legislation that would weaken those protections," Obama said during a visit to the EU headquarters in Brussels.

Obama was responding to criticism of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, which the U.S. has been negotiated with the EU since last July.

Besides creating the world's biggest free-trade zone, the TTIP would also bring about closer cooperation between EU and U.S. regulatory bodies while more closely integrating the two economies.

One leak about the TTIP revealed a proposed Regulatory Cooperation Council that would evaluate existing regulations in the U.S. and EU and recommend future rules while coordinating a response to the current regulations.

Writing in the left-leaning 'The Nation' magazine, foreign policy analyst Andrew Erwin said the TTIP was less about reducing tariffs and more about weakening the power of average citizens to defend themselves against corporate labor and environmental abuses.

Erwin took particular issue with a section in the TTIP called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement, which stipulates foreign corporations can sue the government utilizing a special international tribunal instead of the country's own domestic system that uses U.S. law.

The tribunals are not accountable to any national public or democratically elected body.

Last December, a coalition of more than 200 environmentalists, labor unions and consumer advocacy organizations drafted a letter asking for the Investor-State Dispute Settlement section to be dropped.

The New York Times, meanwhile, reported earlier that some American companies are concerned that protections for investors will not be part of a deal.

While Obama is negotiating the TTIP largely in secret, talks continue to forge ahead with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. The expansive plan is a proposed free-trade agreement between the U.S., Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

The agreement would create new guidelines for everything from food safety to fracking, financial markets, medical prices, copyright rules and Internet freedom.

On Tuesday, the leaders of Canada and Japan reportedly met on the sidelines of a nuclear summit at the Hague to discuss the TPP.

The TPP negotiations have been criticized by politicians and advocacy groups alike for their secrecy. The few aspects of the partnership leaked to the public indicate an expansive agenda with highly limited congressional oversight.

A New York Times opinion piece previously called the deal the most significant international commercial agreement since the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995.

Last October, the White House website released a joint statement with the other proposed TPP signatories affirming "our countries are on track to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations."

"Ministers and negotiators have made significant progress in recent months on all the legal texts and annexes on access to our respective goods, services, investment, financial services, government procurement, and temporary entry markets," the White House said.

The statement did not divulge details of the partnership other than to suggest a final TPP agreement "must reflect our common vision to establish a comprehensive, next-generation model for addressing both new and traditional trade and investment issues, supporting the creation and retention of jobs and promoting economic development in our countries."

In February, the Open the Government organization sent a letter to Obama blasting the lack of transparency surrounding the TPP talks, stating the negotiations have been "conducted in unprecedented secrecy."

"Despite the fact the deal may significantly affect the way we live our lives by limiting our public protections, there has been no public access to even the most fundamental draft agreement texts and other documents," read the letter.

The missive was signed by advocacy groups such as OpenTheGovernment.org, Project On Government Oversight, ARTICLE 19 and the Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression and Information.

The groups warned issues being secretly negotiated include patent and copyright, land use, food and product standards, natural resources, professional licensing, government procurement, financial practices, healthcare, energy, telecommunications, and other service sector regulations.

Normally free-trade agreements must be authorized by a majority of the House and Senate, usually in lengthy proceedings.

However, the White House is seeking what is known as "trade promotion authority" which would fast track approval of the TPP by requiring Congress to vote on the likely lengthy trade agreement within 90 days and without any amendments.

The authority also allows Obama to sign the agreement before Congress even has a chance to vote on it, with lawmakers getting only a quick post-facto vote.

A number of lawmakers have been speaking out about the secret TPP talks.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. recently proposed legislation requiring the White House to disclose all TPP documents to members of Congress.

"The majority of Congress is being kept in the dark as to the substance of the TPP negotiations, while representatives of U.S. corporations like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA, Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association of America are being consulted and made privy to details of the agreement," said Wyden.

Obama has so far refused to give Congress a copy of the draft agreement.

Only 5 of its 29 chapters cover traditional trade matters, like tariffs or quotas. The others impose parameters on nontrade policies. Existing and future American laws must be altered to conform with these terms, or trade sanctions can be imposed against American exports.

Jim Hightower, a progressive activist, wrote the TPP incorporates elements similar to the Stop Online Piracy Act. Hightower wrote that the deal would "transform Internet service providers into a private, Big Brother police force, empowered to monitor our user activity, arbitrarily take down our content and cut off our access to the Internet."

Indeed, Internet freedom advocacy groups have been protesting the TPP, taking specific issue with leaked proposals that would enact strict intellectual property restraints that would effectively change U.S. copyright law.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued the TPP would "restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector."

In a petition signed by more than 30 Internet freedom organizations, the group warned the TPP would "rewrite global rules on intellectual property enforcement."

The Obama administration appears determined to ram through Congress a key part of a grandiose trade plan that transcends the vision for a North American Union encompassing both Europe and Pacific Rim nations.

Pro-abortion-choicers/pro-homoqueer-sodomy-unions-licensing Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born deceptive dictator Obama declared in his State of the Union address his intent to complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership and announced the launch of talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union.

It was the first time a decision by the U.S. Trade Representative within the White House to expand negotiations to create a free trade zone with Pacific Rim countries was made public, along with a similar initiative with EU countries.

To implement the newly contemplated Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement, or FTA, the administration apparently plans to restrict congressional prerogatives to an up-or-down vote.

The issue centers on a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress to review an FTA under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame subject to a yes-or-no vote.

Under fast-track authority, there is no provision for Congress to modify the agreement by submitting amendments. Fast-track authority also treats the FTA as if it were trade legislation being negotiated by the executive branch. The purpose is to assure foreign partners that the FTA, once signed, will not be changed during the legislative process.

A report released Jan. 24 by the Congressional Research Service, 'The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress' makes clear the Obama administration does not have fast-track authority to negotiate the TPP, even though the office of the U.S. Trade Representative is acting as if fact-track authority is in effect.

The present negotiations are not being conducted under the auspices of formal trade promotion authority, or TPA, according to the CRS report. The latest TPA expired July 1, 2007. The administration, however, is informally following the procedures of the former TPA. If TPP implementing legislation is brought to Congress, TPA may need to be considered if the legislation is not to be subject to potentially debilitating amendments or rejection, the report says.

The CRS says Congress may seek to weigh in on the addition of new members to the negotiations, before or after the negotiations conclude.

The report makes clear that the TPP is being negotiated as a regional free-trade agreement that U.S. negotiators describe as a comprehensive and high-standard FTA. Obamanites hope an agreement will liberalize trade in nearly all goods and services and include commitments beyond those currently established in the World Trade Organization (WTO.)

That the Obama administration is treating the TPP like a TPA and not a formal treaty obligation strongly suggests the Democrat majority in the Senate will seek passage of the TPP by a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote, as required for the ratification of a formal treaty.

Still, the impact of the TPP will be equivalent to a formal treaty obligation, because certain agreements within the TPP will place regional authorities over U.S. law.

One of the few remaining strategies left to opponents of the TPP is to make sure Congress rejects any fast-track authority the Obama administration seeks to invoke when it comes time to get final congressional approval.

No formal steps have been taken to consult Congress as the agreement is being negotiated.

A leaked copy of the TPP draft makes clear in Chapter 15, Dispute Settlement, that the Obama administration intends to surrender U.S. sovereignty to an international tribunal to adjudicate disputes arising under the TPP.

Disputes concerning interpretation and application of the TPP agreement, according to Article 15.7, will be adjudicated by an "arbitral tribunal" composed of three TPP members. The purpose of the tribunal under Article 15.8 will be "make an objective assessment of the dispute before it, including an examination of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with this Agreement, and make such other findings and rulings necessary for the resolution of the dispute referred to it as it thinks fits."

The TPP draft agreement does not specify that the arbitral tribunals must render decisions in compliance with U.S. law.

Investment disputes under the TPP appear to be relegated for resolution to the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, an international authority created by 158 nations that are signatories to the ICSID Convention created under the auspices of the World Bank.

The TPP draft agreement specifies that foreign firms from Trans-Pacific signatory countries that seek to do business in the U.S. may apply to the arbitral tribunals to obtain relief under the trade pact from complying with onerous U.S. laws and regulations. The firms would be exempt from certain environmental and financial disclosure regulations, for example, if such regulations are deemed overly burdensome.

Because the TPP agreement places arbitral tribunals created under TPP to be above U.S. law, the Obama administration's negotiation of the Trans-Pacific pact without specific consultation with Congress appears aimed at creating a judicial authority higher than the U.S. Supreme Court. The judicial entity could overrule decisions U.S. Federal District and Circuit courts make to apply U.S. laws and regulations to foreign corporations doing business within the United States.

The result appears to allow foreign companies doing business within the United States to operate in a legal and regulatory environment that would give the foreign companies decided economic advantages over U.S. companies that remain subject to U.S. laws and regulations.

In the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican challenger Mitt Romney never elevated the TPP into a major campaign issue by questioning the authority or intentions of the Obama administration.

The Romney campaign even declined to refute Obama charges that the Republican nominee was a "venture capitalist" who sought to outsource U.S. jobs to the detriment of U.S. workers.

Romney did not make the TPP an issue because his free-trade strategists enthusiastically supported the Obama administration's pursuit of TPP negotiations, objecting only that Japan should not be permitted to join the discussions until it opens its markets more to U.S. competition.

The comments developed after the New York Times published in November 2012 speculations that the government of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda was considering a declaration that Japan intended to join the ambitious pan-Pacific free trade agreement as a prelude to calling a snap election and campaigning on the trade advantages to be gained by the move.

Although Japan and China are not presently participating in TPP negotiations, "docking provisions" being written into the TPP draft agreement would permit either Japan or China to join the TPP at a later date without suffering any disadvantage.

An analysis by WePartyPatriots, published by the DailyKos.com in the final days of the 2012 presidential campaign, suggested the TPP is being negotiated in a stealth manner.

The TTP "has been mentioned exactly zero times by the Presidential candidates as far as we can tell, but if/when it is secretly approved it will become the most significant foreign and domestic policy initiative to come out of the Obama administration, or out of the Romney administration," the writer said, "since both parties support it."

In the 1990s it was NAFTA, which turned our 1993 trade surplus with Mexico ($2.5 billion) into a massive trade deficit ($181 billion by 2012) and made our trade deficit with Canada even worse.

Today, it's the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would lock us into an undesirable agreement with other countries: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and Singapore.

First off, it's important to know that the TPP would make any 'Buy American' or 'Buy Local' laws or preferences illegal. The benefit, we are told, in waiving Buy American procurement policies is that we would avoid potential 'Buy Malaysia' laws from Malaysia, 'Buy Singapore' laws from Singapore, etc.

Theorizing over potential trade retaliation threats from other countries is not a valid reason to avoid or sacrifice Buy American laws on the altar of the global economy. Consider the recent $1.1 trillion budget passed by Congress.

When Congress was expected to vote on and pass a pro-Buy American amendment to exclude Canadian companies from our multi-billion-dollar clean water infrastructure market, Ottawa officials downplayed simultaneous Buy Canadian policy threats.

Even if we were able to muscle our way in and win procurement contracts in other countries, the U.S. market is over seven times larger than the markets for Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam combined. And one should argue that winning U.S. bids in other countries won't be likely since we have higher standards of living and therefore pay higher wages than most other countries, potentially making our contract bids more expensive.

Especially in today's economy, we need to be using American tax dollars to strengthen American manufacturers so they can hire more American workers and reduce the jobless rate in this country. Using U.S. tax revenue to strengthen foreign manufacturing firms makes little sense to most Americans, and rightly so.

With TPP, we would also be disposing of other regulations that have worked to provide us with a safer consumer environment and raise U.S. living standards.

For example, when our government buys something as simple as printing paper, we wouldn't even be able to specify that we prefer to use recycled materials or non-toxic dye. We would do well to pay attention to common-sense environmental standards in trade agreements. Anyone who disputes that need only look at the smog from China that has worked its way across the Pacific to plague Los Angeles.

The TPP also would seek to aggressively reduce tariffs that protect our domestic factories from cut-throat global competition from predatory foreign trading partners of which there is never a shortage. In one of the early stages of the TPP negotiations, potential member countries called for elimination of all trade tariffs by 2015. Such a stipulation would fly in the face of our U.S. Constitution, which gives our Congress the power to regulate commerce (trade) with foreign nations.

We've passed enough free-trade agreements already (three in the past year alone) and the results have not been favorable to the United States if you go by the basic definition of a good or beneficial trade agreement. A beneficial trade agreement should simply be defined as one that results in the trade surpluses for the United States, not trade deficits.

According to Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the treasury in the Reagan administration, a trade deficit means that foreigners have even more surplus dollars with which to buy up more U.S. assets and is a way to redirect a country's revenues and profits into overseas hands.

According to Reuters, foreign companies owned 1.3 percent of all U.S. corporate assets. By 2008 that figure had risen to 14.2 percent. It's clearly past time to reverse direction, and one of the best ways to do that is to reverse the trend towards ever-more free-trade agreements.

Supporters of the TPP and free trade in general will try to tell you that America was founded upon free trade, but this is simply not the case. The Tariff of 1789 was the first major act ever to pass Congress, and allowed the collection of tariff duties on various imports to fund the cost of government. Tariffs were advocated by Presidents George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and William McKinley, just to name a few.

Former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, a self-described protectionist, often points out: "From 1870 to 1913, the U.S. economy grew more than 4 percent a year. Industrial production grew at 5 percent. The Protectionist Era was among the most productive in history. When it began, America was dependent on imports for 8 percent of its GNP. When it ended, America's dependency had fallen to 4 percent. The nation began the era with an economy half the size of Britain's and ended it with an economy more than twice as large as Britain's."

In 1896, the GOP platform stated, "We renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence, and the foundation of American development and prosperity." Even the 1972 GOP platform rallied against outsourcing (a key component of free trade), saying, "We deplore the practice of locating plants in foreign countries solely to take advantage of low wage rates in order to produce goods primarily for sale in the United States."

Right now, pseudo-"christian" cultic-muslim-supportive Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born Barack Hussein Obama is trying to get fast track authority so he can negotiate the TPP free trade deal and have Congress vote on it with limited debate, no amendments, and a mere up or down vote. He should be denied fast track authority.

Why?

The first words of our Constitution say that, "All legislative power shall be vested in a Congress." If Congress can't amend legislation and only vote yes or no, they clearly do not have all legislative power, since allowing amendments would be an increase in the legislative power of Congress.

As a nation, we need to return to our roots and secure the American market for the American producer. Free trade works against doing that, and that is why the Trans-Pacific Partnership needs to be stopped. I hope that you will contact your legislative representatives and tell them we do NOT need fast track and we do not need more congress-bypassed free trade.