American Taxpayer Research Articles

The United States as the Reluctant Ally

ABSTRACT: US leadership in NATO has been declining since the Cold War ended. From a European perspective, the United States looks more and more like a reluctant ally. A re-nationalization of European security could occur without strong US leadership. The United States should, therefore, reassert itself in European security affairs--not with costly troop contributions, but by facilitating European unity and the development of relevant force structures. ********** Since its creation in 1949, NATO has been the most important alliance for America. US engagement and leadership in NATO has, however, been declining since the Cold War ended; this has been especially true during the Obama administration and in particular since the Libya War in 2011. In general, Obama's administration has engaged less in international security affairs; the strategic rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific has definitely moved the US focus from Europe to that region. (1) Although the US government plans to send more troops to Europe during 2017 and takes Russian aggression seriously, military operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria have moved Washington's focus from Ukraine and Russia to the Middle East. In addition, the appetite for supporting Europe among US politicians and the American public seems to have declined. From a European perspective, the United States looks more and more like a reluctant ally, a characterization normally used by Washington to describe some of NATO's allies during the Cold War. (2) How does this reluctance manifest itself? What might it lead to? How should the United States act to facilitate more security in the transatlantic region without increasing the costs for American taxpayers? A re-nationalization or division of European defense and security is likely to occur without strong US leadership, and that will probably lead to a stronger Russian influence in European affairs which is clearly not in Washington's interest. The United States should, therefore, regain its leading role in European security affairs--not with massive troop contributions, as in the Cold War, but with strong and firm leadership that can facilitate European unity and help to create relevant force structures capable of defending Europe and contributing to its security. NATO's Declining Role in US Grand Strategy During the Cold War, Europe had a major role in US grand strategy and the United States led NATO with a firm hand. There was never any doubt the United States was the primus inter pares in European security affairs. To borrow Max Weber's concept, Washington led NATO in a charismatic way. (3) That has changed however. Even the Ukraine Crisis failed to make Europe a major player in US grand strategy. For example, in his comprehensive speech about the US foreign policy agenda for 2016 at the National Defense University (NDU) in January 2016, Secretary of State John Kerry, used just one sentence to describe the situation in Europe, and in that sentence he mentioned NATO once. (4) The demonstration of Europe's decreased importance in US security policy was not new. When Robert Gates gave his last major speech as Secretary of Defense he criticized NATO for being a two-tiered alliance, for having a dim, if not dismal future, and said future US political leaders may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost. (5) Gates' view of NATO meetings was they were excruciatingly boring, and he had to do crossword puzzles to stay awake. (6) The Obama administration's decline in interest in Europe compared to other regions and the reluctance to lead NATO in traditional ways have been demonstrated over and over again, especially since the Libyan War in 2011. (7) That war caused a comprehensive discussion in the United States about burden-sharing in NATO between the United States and Europe, and especially who should take the lead in such an operation. …

American experience in the implementation of AML / CFT system

This article presents a research into very specific matters and issues of creating and further improvement of Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism system (abbreviated as AML/CFT) in the USA. In contains a precise analysis of key elements of this system, as well as a deep look into the nature and purposes of financial intelligence “FinCEN”. Strong emphasis is laid on The US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) for the reason that, according to this Act, any foreign financial institution is legitimately forced to sign a special agreement with The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), giving the Service power to maintain control over any American asset within its equity. The latter is understood as a legal right to investigate not only the accounts and property of American taxpayers, but to investigate any account or capital of any foreign institution having American shares or stocks.

SCAI core curriculum for adult and pediatric interventional fellowship training in continuous quality assessment and improvement.

Keywords: percutaneous coronary intervention; structural heart disease intervention; congential heart disease; adults; congenital heart disease; pediatrics

An Ethical Foreign Policy? Globalism as a Threat to the US National Interest

An ethical foreign policy can have no objectives other than those that are of service to its own people. An unethical foreign policy, however, may pursue objectives that enhance the nation as a power, seeking dominance for its own sake, for the honor, glory and wealth of the state or a minority within the state, or spreading its ideology out of missionary fervor. The mainstream wisdom in the United States is that the US foreign policy agendas are virtuous and ethical, since they are oriented mainly towards the protection and enhancement of the American ‘National Interest’. Nevertheless, the orthodox perception among many foreign observers is that the American foreign policy is by no means ethical, since it is oriented exclusively towards the promotion of the Americans’ interests at the expense of the rest of the world. My thesis is that the US foreign policy is unethical and anti-democratic mainly because it is causing a lot of harm to the American taxpayers’ interests. I esteem that the American people are the real permanent victims of their country’s globalist stance. This article is based on an argumentative criticism of the mainstream American perception of U.S. foreign policy as well as a criticism of the foreign observers’ perception of American foreign policy. In a nutshell, this article tries to highlight the unethical nature of the American foreign policy with a focus on the complex justifications for such an undemocratic globalist agenda.

Private Insurers to Cushion Federal Deposit Insurance

This research describes the views on the existed mechanism of the federal deposit insurance in the United States. It criticizes this deposit insurance system is so much involved with the circumvention from the government, exploiting deeply the government’s reserves that contributed by the U.S. taxpayers, possibly causing the conflicts of interests in the bank’s corporate governance, hardly ending the government’s bailouts in future’s crisis, and incidentally nationalizing of private banks. The herein analysis explains how the lack of a risk-reducing mechanism in the existed federal deposit insurance system nurtures the moral hazard in banking industry, critically contributes to the addressed problems. It further discusses on the government’s circumvention to the banking system through the federal deposit insurance likely illustrates a step the government made into the alliance of itself and the businesses. On the other hand, such circumvention also makes the banks extremely distinctive with extraordinary privileges despite fact the banks are generally the business entity like any and all other private entrepreneurs in the U.S. As a result, this research is aim at introducing a solution to not only protect the legitimate rights of depositors, but also to push the banks back to their private business environment, in equal to other business sectors. The solution further aims to prevent the depletion of American taxpayers’ money used by the government in rescuing banks. So this research’s first part briefly describes typical characters of the existed mechanism of the federal deposit insurance. The second part subjectively addresses the remained problems in the existed system deposit insurance. This research introduces in its third part a solution of having private insurers to cushion in federal deposit insurance, before allowing the insured depositors reach up the federal insurance funds, and making a buffer to the alliance of the government and the businesses.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: A Plunge to Irrelevance

What was the role for the FDIC as the financial industry began to collapse in 2008? One must remember that when it was created as part of the Banking Act of 1933, the prime directive of the FDIC was policing banking activities to prevent reckless and speculative activities with the money entrusted to banks by depositors. With the passage of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, the FDIC became an insurer of gambling losses. It was still responsible to depositors when gambling losses occurred; but it had very little control over the gambling activities themselves. Considering the magnitude of the 2008-2009 collapse, common sense should have dictated that if financial institutions had become too big to fail, then they had also become too big to regulate. As part of the bailout process, one would think that the federal government should have taken a page out of Teddy Roosevelt’s playbook and set out on a mission to bust these trusts rather than further contributing to their unbridled growth. If the collapse and taxpayer bailout was precipitated by reckless behavior among institutions that were too big to fail, the sensible response by the U.S. government would seem to have been a passage of legislation disallowing future corporate mergers that create such institutions. However in its feckless state during the recent banking crises, the FDIC not only facilitated more growth, it worked at cross-purposes to its original mandate. In the 21st century, it has instead become the quintessential facilitator of the moral hazards that continue to permeate the U.S. banking industry today. With the FDIC insuring these hazards, the American taxpayer will most certainly be called upon once again to foot the bill for reckless behavior by the big banks. It’s just a matter of time.

Tax-Minded Executives and Corporate Tax Strategies: Evidence from the 2013 Tax Hikes

Exploiting the increase in personal tax rates due to the American Taxpayer Relief Act and Healthcare Act, we identify tax-minded executives who exhibit a preference for personal tax savings. We find that 2,281 top executives strategically realized their built-in capital gains prior to the tax hikes to save nearly $741 million in personal taxes in 2012. These executives also save their shareholders taxes and save their firms cash taxes. Specifically, their firms distributed $8 billion in special and accelerated dividends in 2012, which saved shareholders nearly $700 million in taxes. Further, each tax-minded executive reduces a firm’s long-run cash effective tax rate by 0.43%.

The Covert Strengthening of Islamic Extremists under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush

Some political analysts in the U.S. manage to remain objective as they examine a particular subject. However, there are many who let their political leanings impact the conclusions that they reach in their respective publications. An analyst with a conservative bias will usually seek to enhance the image of a Republican by comparing him to Ronald Reagan and other revered figures that were associated with the Grand Old Party at one time. In 2001, George W. Bush signed a bill that substantially cut taxes in the United States. Shortly after this turn of events, various conservative writers started to compare him to Reagan since he also provided American taxpayers with relief during his first term in office.

Pharmacists, prescribers team up for collaborative practice in TN

Pharmacists, prescribers team up for collaborative practice in TN

Safety in surgery and overall health: what is the responsibility of the patient?

Safety in surgery and overall health: what is the responsibility of the patient?

An empirical examination of the determinant of the US financial CEOs’ compensation for the post-financial crisis period

The US financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent Global Financial Crisis were considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. As a results, Dodd-Frank Act has passed and aims “(1) to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", (2) to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, (3) to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.” The enactment of Dodd-Frank Act, in part, intended to significantly influence accountability on executive compensation especially for the financial institutions. This paper empirically investigates the changes in Financial CEOs’ compensation since the Financial Crisis of 2008. Our findings show that in the post- Financial Crisis period financial leverage is significant factor influencing the CEOs’ total compensation. In addition market based performance such as stock price and market-to-book ratio shows significant positive relationship with CEO compensation. This change can be interpreted an attempt to reduce opportunistic behavior of top executives after the financial crisis and the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act

Tax Changes Enacted By The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act Of 2010 And The American Taxpayer Relief Act Of 2012

Close to three years ago, Congress enacted legislation that overhauls the U.S. health care system and at the same times affects nearly all taxpayers, many employers, and many elements of the health care industry. The sweeping new health reform law embodied in this legislation pays for its cost through tax increases in a number of ways The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 similarly affects many taxpayers with numerous changes in the tax law which either increase or decrease a taxpayers burden depending on income levels.

Editorial

How topsy-turvy can the world of mobility become? Th e London cab has recently been revived by a Chinese automotive group,1 General Motors had to be rescued by the American taxpayer, and BMW is converting its cars to electricity. In Delhi, after a rape and murder of a woman in a bus, rickshaw pullers introduced “safe for women” rickshaws.2 In Brazil riots against corruption and poverty started in a bus, out of outrage at increased ticket prices.3 In Rio de Janeiro there are three bus accidents per day, in part caused by drivers racing against each other.4 How can we understand the plethora of confusing messages from a world of mobility that seems to spin out of control, more so with every new decade? New Mobility Studies tries to make sense of this turbulence and as editors of Transfers we seek fresh approaches that are not afraid of transgressing boundaries. Th is issue, in which we present scholarship beyond the immediate reach of Western mainstream mobility studies, is an example of such boundary crossing.

Note from the Editors

Previous articleNext article No AccessNote from the EditorsGeorge R. Zodrow, William M. Gentry, and John W. DiamondGeorge R. Zodrow Search for more articles by this author , William M. Gentry Search for more articles by this author , and John W. Diamond Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by National Tax Journal Volume 66, Number 4December 2013Major Challenges that “The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012” Leaves Open for Individuals, Businesses and the Government Published for: The National Tax Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/NTJ24370037 © 2013 National Tax Association. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Book Reviews

Book Reviews

Major Regulatory Changes and the Impact on Diagnostic Imaging in the United States 2005 to 2012∗: ∗Effective May 15, 2013

Federal regulation of diagnostic imaging in the United States has increased dramatically in recent years. The primary statutes aimed at curbing escalating costs and reorienting the national priorities of health care have a direct effect on the specialty of diagnostic imaging. This paper surveys the major regulations and current issues that pose challenges to the practice of diagnostic imaging in the United States, from the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 through the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.

Tax Planning after the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

For more than a decade taxpayers have enjoyed a 15-percent tax rate on long-term capital gains. The 15-percent rate was the lowest maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains since 1954. On January 2, 2013, Congress passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA). ATRA permanently increased the top capital gain tax rate to 20 percent (up from 15-percent) for single filers with taxable incomes above $400,000 and married couples filing jointly with taxable incomes exceeding $450,000. In addition as part of the Health Care legislation a new 3.8-percent Medicare surtax applies on net investment income, which includes capital gains.This results in an overall rate for higher-income taxpayers of 23.8 percent — a staggering 58.69-percent increase in 2013 from 2012 tax rates.The real kicker is the application of the capital gains tax rates to trusts. A trust is hit with the increased rate on any income the trust does not distribute over $11,950. This is significantly less than the $400,000/$450,000 taxable incomes from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 and the $200,000/$250,000 adjusted gross income from the Health Care legislation that is applicable to individuals. Many trusts accumulate capital gains in the trust and pay tax within the trust. Generally in the past the capital gain rate in the trust and the rate that would be applicable to the beneficiary were the same 15-percent. Therefore, generally the tax paid would be the same amount. Under the new rules in 2013 it is possible that the trust may be paying a capital gains tax at a 23.8-percent rate while the individual might be taxed at a 15-percent.With a 58.69-percent increase in 2013 and beyond, high-income taxpayers and trusts might look to ways to defer the recognition of the capital gain in the current tax year. In addition trusts in certain instances might look to have capital gains be part of the distributable net income (DNI). This article examines strategies to defer the recognition of the gain and the ability to monetize the position. Strategies that are examined are as follows:Variable Prepaid Forward ContractCollars Buy a Put and Sell a CallNonrecourse Loan against Publicly Traded StockEstablishing a Short-against-the-box after 1997Use a short-against-the-box to defer taxable gains from 2013 to 2014Charitable Gain Harvesting to offload gain to charitySale to an ESOPCharitable Remainder TrustsCapital Gains in a trust to be included in DNI.

Can Shale Safely Host U.S. Nuclear Waste?

Even as cleanup efforts after Japan's Fukushima disaster offer a stark reminder of the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) stored at nuclear plants worldwide, the decision in 2009 to scrap Yucca Mountain as a permanent disposal site has dimmed hope for a repository for SNF and other high‐level nuclear waste (HLW) in the United States anytime soon. About 70,000 metric tons of SNF are now in pool or dry cask storage at 75 sites across the United States [Government Accountability Office, 2012], and uncertainty about its fate is hobbling future development of nuclear power, increasing costs for utilities, and creating a liability for American taxpayers [Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, 2012].

Direct and indirect impact of federal transfer to individuals and to the government of Puerto Rico.

The Puerto Rico Planning Board classifies individual transfer payments into two categories: “earned transfers” and “granted” transfers. The purpose of this work is to estimate the direct and indirect economic effects of federal and other transfer payments to Puerto Rico using two input-output models and two vectors of employment and income coefficients base on tables for years 1992 and 2002. The economic impacts were estimated for three economic indicators namely, gross output, direct and indirect employment and direct and indirect wage income. The results presented in this work shows that the argument that Puerto Ricans enjoy relatively generous income supplements and retirement benefits without imposing heavy tax burdens on highly compensated workers failed to distinguish that most of the transfer payments to individuals were in the category of earned transfers. It is doubtful that this type of transfer “impose heavy tax burdens” to American taxpayers. Since we are an open economy most of the income generated by transfer to individuals is spent of goods and services a substantial amount of which comes from United States. It is also doubtful that earned transfer to individuals (especially transfers in the form of pensions and payments to veterans) have any significant impact on the labor force participation rate or the incentives to work.

Dodd-Frank Says 'Too Big, Will Fail'

Of all the claims made by the proponents of the Dodd-Frank Act, the most important are that the Dodd-Frank Act ends “too big to fail” and that it protects the American taxpayer “by ending bailouts.”One component of intervention of Government to bolster the bank balance sheets during financial crisis in 2008 was the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Although TARP may have saved the United States economy from a lengthy depression, it was perceived by many as a “bailout” of the banks whose own greed had precipitated the financial crisis. A number of institutions received TARP funds, but two – Citigroup and Bank of America – were identified as “systemically significant” and received additional equity infusions and other extraordinary aid from the government. There were significant concerns that the government’s intervention created moral hazard and that risk taking of financial institutions would remain unchecked if the market believed that the government would intervene if necessary to prevent the failure of the largest financial institutions.On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the massive Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank). But Dodd-Frank responds to TARP and attempts to change the phrase “too big to fail” to “too big, will fail”. Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) as the new systemic risk regulator, with the authority to identify systemically significant institutions, subject them to additional prudential regulation by the Federal Reserve Board, and to mandate an orderly liquidation without the possibility of reorganization in the event they are not able to remain solvent on their own. Whether this new regime will ever be used and whether it will incentivize bank and nonbank financial institutions to reduce their size and complexity so they will not become subject to it, remain to be seen.