Organizations, Associations & Businesses
Voice Their Concerns Over Stand-Alone
Repatriation…

“Moreover, a repatriation holiday would lose billions of dollars after the first two years, so it can’t
‘pay for’ highway construction or anything else. A new repatriation holiday would lose $96 billion over
11 years, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated last year.” (Chuck Marr, “Paul-Boxer Repatriation Tax Holiday
Can’t Pay for Highways,” Off the Charts (Blog), The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/29/15)
–
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
“‘For lawmakers that campaigned on reining in spending, [repatriation] should be a non-starter,’ Heritage
for America communications director Dan Holler told the Daily Caller News Foundation, explaining that, ‘In the
unlikely event projected revenues fill in the funding gap created by congressional largess, it will only stimulate the
political desire for more spending.’” (Peter Fricke, “Repatriation Holiday Won’t Fix Highway Funding Shortfall, Critics Say,” The Daily Caller,
1/26/15)
“Furthermore, either a repatriation holiday or deemed repatriation would be a temporary fix. Congress
would be back looking for other sources of revenue in a few years if it took this path. It should instead focus
on other reforms to the highway program that would be sustainable, would not break the user-pays principle, and
would not raise taxes. Using repatriation to pay for any new spending is the wrong approach. Members of Congress
should not look to taxes on offshore earnings as a reservoir to tap when they want more money to spend.” (Curtis S.
Dubay, “Changes to Repatriation Policy Best Left to Tax Reform,” The Heritage Foundation, 2/17/15)
–

The Heritage Foundation
“…So I think repatriation is one of the things that needs to be dealt with, but it needs to be dealt with in
the context of a fundamental changing of our tax policy that helps companies that want to, in my
opinion, do the right thing, create jobs in the U.S., and be competitive on a worldwide playing field.” (Tiernan
Ray, “Intel CFO: Obama Repatriation Tax Proposal ‘Lipstick on a Pig’,” Barrons, 2/4/15)
–

Stacy Smith, Chief Financial Officer, Intel
“[W]hile the NAM recognizes the need to fund our infrastructure, piecemeal changes to the tax code that
increase taxes for U.S. global companies is not the way to do it.” (Nick Timiraos and John D. McKinnon, “Obama
Proposes One-Time 14% Tax On Overseas Earnings,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/2/15)
–

National Association of Manufacturers
“Marty Regalia, chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said multinationals don’t like being
made responsible in effect for increased infrastructure spending and they don’t want to codify another
tax on overseas profits.” (Vipal Monga and Joann S. Lublin, “Firms Back Tax Reform – Just Not Obama’s,” The Wall Street Journal,
2/2/15)
“Some observers, though, are skeptical that the White House can sell
some its various trade-offs. ‘Infrastructure is a good idea, but I
don’t see why it has to be tied to’ a change in tax law, said Glenn
Hubbard, a former top economic adviser to President George W. Bush
who is now dean of Columbia Business School. Any taxes on
accumulated foreign earnings, he added, should be used to pay for
changes to the business-tax structure. ” (Nick Timiraos and Carol E. Lee, “Obama
Budget Sets Off Push For Deals,” The Wall Street Journal, 2/2/15)
‒ Glenn Hubbard, Former Economic Adviser to President George W. Bush

“Mr. Obama’s plan to finance infrastructure partly by taxing U.S. companies’ foreign earnings sounds like
‘good politics and poor public policy.’ The maker of construction equipment derived more than 60% of
its 2014 sales outside the U.S., Mr. DeFeo said. ‘Give us a globally competitive tax system. This [proposal] is
not that,’ he said.” (Nick Timiraos and John D. McKinnon, “Obama Proposes One-Time 14% Tax On Overseas Earnings,” The Wall Street
Journal, 2/2/15)
–
Ronald DeFeo, Chairman & CEO, Terex Corporation
“Instead of fixing the current issue by either reducing spending or raising the gas tax, the president is proposing
more spending paid for by a one-time stream of revenue. Once this stream of revenue has been used up to pay for
the new infrastructure, we will be right back where we were: a trust fund running out of money. If new spending
is desired, a stable source of income would be the best way to fund it, not an influx of revenue from a
retroactive tax.” (Kyle Pomerleau, “The President’s Tax On Offshore Earnings Represents The Worst Of Retroactive Policy,” Tax Foundation, 2/2/15)
“Retroactive taxation, such as the president’s deemed repatriation proposal, is bad tax policy. It is unfair to
taxpayers, brings instability to the tax code, and could hit some cash-strapped corporations hard. Furthermore,
using this one-time influx of revenue is a poor way to fund infrastructure spending.” (Kyle Pomerleau, “The
President’s Tax On Offshore Earnings Represents The Worst Of Retroactive Policy,” Tax Foundation, 2/2/15)
–

The Tax Foundation
“What we have to do is get off of this hamster cycle of these one off
repatriation things. That's got to end … We have to come up with a better
system, and what is incredibly frustrating from reporting on this story for
almost a decade now is everybody agrees. Both sides agree…To put away the
stupid differences and come up with a tax plan because what Rick is saying I
think is real in that tax policy can hold back important investment.” (CNBC – U.S.
Cable, Media Monitoring Suite, 2/6/15)
–
Steve Liesman, Senior Economics Reporter, CNBC