Halliburton's Dubai Move Sparks Outcry

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Members Of Congress Criticize Move As Insult To U.S. Soldiers And Taxpayers

(CBS/AP) U.S. oil services firm Halliburton Co. is shifting its corporate headquarters and chief executive from Houston to Dubai in a move that immediately sparked criticism from U.S. members of Congress.

Halliburton Chief Executive Dave Lesar, speaking at an energy conference in nearby Bahrain, said he will relocate to Dubai from Texas to oversee Halliburton's intensified focus on business in the Mideast and energy-hungry Asia, home to some of the world's most important oil and gas markets.

"Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston," spokeswoman Cathy Mann said. "The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai to run the company from the UAE."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., called the decision to move as "an example of corporate greed at its worst."

"This is an insult to the U.S. soldiers and taxpayers who paid the tab for their no-bid contracts and endured their overcharges for all these years," Leahy said in a statement.

"At the same time they'll be avoiding U.S. taxes, I'm sure they won't stop insisting on taking their profits in cold hard U.S. cash," Leahy said.

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is already planning a hearing on Halliburton's move, Time Magazine reports online.

Lesar's announcement appears to signal one of the highest-profile moves by a U.S. corporate leader to Dubai.

"As the CEO, I'm responsible for the global business of Halliburton in both hemispheres, and I will continue to spend quite a bit of time in an airplane as I remain attentive to our customers, shareholders and employees around the world," Lesar said. "Yes, I will spend the majority of my time in Dubai."

Dubai is an Arab boomtown, where free-market capitalism has been paired with some of the world's most liberal tax, investment and residency laws.

"The Eastern Hemisphere is a market that is more heavily weighted toward oil exploration and production opportunities and growing our business here will bring more balance to Halliburton's overall portfolio," Lesar said.

In 2006, Halliburton — once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney — earned profits of $2.3 billion on revenues of $22.6 billion.

More than 38 percent of Halliburton's $13 billion oil field services revenue last year stemmed from sources in the Eastern Hemisphere, where the firm has 16,000 of its 45,000 employees.

Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995-2000, and the Bush administration has been accused of favoring the conglomerate with lucrative no-bid contracts in Iraq.

Federal investigators last month alleged Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billion of the $10 billion in contractor waste and overcharging in Iraq.

Halliburton last month announced a 40-percent decline in fourth-quarter profit, despite heavy demand for its oil field equipment and personnel.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/12/business/main2558620.shtml

[Rohirrim]

Somebody tell me why we discontinued firing squads.

[baja]

First the rats eat all the food and **** on everything else than they scurry away escaping the mess left behind.

[Bronco Bob]

Obviously fleeing the country to avoid prosecution on the off chance the GOP
loses the next election.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your tax dollars at work, Bush supporters:

Federal investigators last month alleged Halliburton was responsible for $2.7 billion of the $10 billion in contractor waste and overcharging in Iraq.

Funny how the bush sheep never complain about these kinds of "entitlements."

[Bronco Bob]

Funny how the bush sheep never complain about these kinds of "entitlements."

But crap their pants when a welfare mom buys her kid a pair of Nike sneakers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But crap their pants when a welfare mom buys her kid a pair of Nike sneakers.

This really exposes their phoniness with regard to their alleged valuation of fiscal prudence, doesn't it?

The amount of tax money that goes to fund social programs is a drop in the bucket compared to the kind of corporate welfare and frauds perpetrated by Smirk & Sneer cronies we're discussing here.

[alkemical]

But crap their pants when a welfare mom buys her kid a pair of Nike sneakers.

Maybe we can undercut asia's cheap labor and have the welfare people make nike's.

[TailgateNut]

Notice how none of the BushBots are outraged about this. No comments from the righties about the thieves!

[Bronco Bob]

Maybe we can undercut asia's cheap labor and have the welfare people make nike's.

I would suspect some people currently on welfare used to make Nike shoes,
or something similar, at one time right here in this country. A big campaign
issue in Iowa was the Maytag factory closing down and being moved off shore.

[alkemical]

I would suspect some people currently on welfare used to make Nike shoes,
or something similar, at one time right here in this country. A big campaign
issue in Iowa was the Maytag factory closing down and being moved off shore.

So let's put welfare to work, and undercut the labor market. It will be beautiful to watch socialism work! /scarcasm

[alkemical]

Wait a minute...did i just read this right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy

Chronology

In mid-October 2005, DP World approached the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to clear regulatory hurdles for a possible acquisition of the British firm P&O. The CFIUS is the multi-agency federal panel that passes judgment on deals with foreign corporations that raise antitrust or national security questions, Soon after, DPW began negotiating the terms of the takeover with P&O. [1] They were advised by former President Bill Clinton to submit to a 45-day review of the acquisition. [2][3]

In December 2005, Coast Guard intelligence officials raised the possibility of significant security risks associated with the management of some U.S. port operations by a Dubai company, stating in a report that broad intelligence gaps prevented them from assessing the risks.[4]

In February 2006, the stockholders of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British firm, agreed to a sale of that company to DPW over a bid by PSA International of Singapore. As part of the sale, DPW would assume the leases of P&O to manage major U.S. port facilities in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, and Miami, as well as operations in 16 other ports.

After P&O stockholders approved the deal, the arrangement was reviewed by the CFIUS headed by the U.S. Treasury Department. The transfer of leases was approved.

Once the deal appeared in the business press, it was noticed by Eller & Company, a Florida firm. Eller has two joint ventures with P&O and it feared becoming an "involuntary partner of DP World". According to the company's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer, Eller hired semi-retired lobbyist Joe Muldoon as a last ditch effort to persuade Congress to block the deal. Soon Muldoon and Kreitzer got the attention of Democratic New York Senator Chuck Schumer and an Associated Press reporter. Within days, Schumer held a press conference calling for a review and the AP ran the story nationally. [5]

Congressional politicians were quick to respond after Schumer's press conference and the AP story put the Dubai Ports deal in the national spotlight. Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress started to question the approval. Republican leaders Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist, who usually work closely with the office of the President, publicly questioned the deal. Frist said "If the administration cannot delay the process, I plan on introducing legislation to ensure that the deal is placed on hold until this decision gets a more thorough review." [6]

On February 22, 2006, President Bush threatened to veto any legislation passed by Congress to block the deal, a veto that would be his first. In a statement to reporters, Bush claimed, "It would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through." DP Worlds Chief Operating Officer, Ted Bilkey engaged a number of high profile lobbying firms to garner congressional support for the deal. [7]

The controversy has created a public and unusually high-profile dispute within the Republican Party, and between the Republican-controlled Congress and the Republican-controlled White House.

On February 23, 2006, DPW volunteered to postpone its takeover of significant operations at the ports to give the White House more time to convince lawmakers that the deal poses no increased risks from terrorism.

On February 24, 2006, it was reported[8] that there are 22 U.S. ports in the deal, not just the six major ports mentioned in initial news stories and reports. According to the website of P&O Ports, the port-operations subsidiary of P&O, DPW would take over stevedore services at 12 East Coast ports including Portland, Maine; Boston, Massachusetts; Davisville, Rhode Island; New York City; Newark, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Camden, New Jersey; Wilmington, Delaware; Baltimore, Maryland; and Virginia locations at Newport News, Norfolk, and Portsmouth.

Additionally, DPW will take over P&O stevedoring operations at nine ports along the Gulf of Mexico including the Texas ports of Beaumont, Port Arthur, Galveston, Houston, Freeport, and Corpus Christi, plus the Louisiana ports of Lake Charles and New Orleans.

Former Senate Majority Leader and 1996 Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole hired by Dubai Ports World to lobby Congress on its behalf against bipartisan criticism of the deal. Mr. Dole is a special counsel in the Washington office of the law firm of Alston & Bird. DP World hired the firm in 2005 to help shepherd its purchase of the British-based firm Peninsular and Oriental[9]

On March 8, 2006 the House Panel voted 62–2 to block the deal, and senator Charles Schumer added amendments to a senate bill to block the deal, causing an uproar in the senate.[10]

On March 9, 2006, Dubai Ports World released a statement saying they would turn over operation of U.S. ports to a U.S. "Entity".[11] Later that same day, American Enterprise Institute scholar Norm Ornstein reported on PBS's "News Hour" that DP World was considering selling its U.S. operations to Halliburton.[12]

Dubai Ports World eventually sold P&O's American operations to American International Group's asset management division, Global Investment Group for an undisclosed sum.[1]

[ak1971]

Your tax dollars at work, Bush supporters:



Funny how the bush sheep never complain about these kinds of "entitlements."

why would I. I hope to profit more and **** the little guy......excuse me I need to go bathe in Cristal.

[snowspot66]

I love how people try to argue that we should GIVE these companies tax breaks so they stick around. Then they take this reward, move their factories over seas, move the fat cats to some plush location overseas and get even more money!

[alkemical]

I love how people try to argue that we should GIVE these companies tax breaks so they stick around. Then they take this reward, move their factories over seas, move the fat cats to some plush location overseas and get even more money!

Or bailouts:

Dubai Ports World eventually sold P&O's American operations to American International Group's asset management division, Global Investment Group for an undisclosed sum.[1]

[Garcia Bronco]

I love how people try to argue that we should GIVE these companies tax breaks so they stick around. Then they take this reward, move their factories over seas, move the fat cats to some plush location overseas and get even more money!

Oil Companies are taxed on income at a rate of 75 percent. 75 percent. 75 percent. Think about it.

[alkemical]

Oil Companies are taxed on income at a rate of 75 percent. 75 percent. 75 percent. Think about it.

Ya, i want some proof on that.

[TailgateNut]

Ya, i want some proof on that.


Someone will need to help GB pull that one out of his ass.

[Garcia Bronco]

In 2006 Exxon for example, had profits of roughly 39.5 Billion. They paid 28 Billion in income tax. In 2007, 40.6 billion in profits. They paid 30 billion in income tax. It gets better.

"According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion


Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
"

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion

I did screw it up though. It's more like 40 percent in taxes.

[alkemical]

In 2006 Exxon for example, had profits of roughly 39.5 Billion. They paid 28 Billion in income tax. In 2007, 40.6 billion in profits. They paid 30 billion in income tax. It gets better.

"According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion


Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).
"

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-exxon-s-2007-tax-bill-30-billion

I did screw it up though. It's more like 40 percent in taxes.



So exxon and me are in the same tax bracket! :)

Also, does this include any tax breaks for them as well?

[Garcia Bronco]

So exxon and me are in the same tax bracket! :)

Also, does this include any tax breaks for them as well?

This is just income tax it does not include subsides, property tax, employment tax, or sales tax.

[alkemical]

This is just income tax it does not include subsides, property tax, employment tax, or sales tax.

Well, some of that **** is wiped out - due to breaks you and i know that (see walmart and property tax breaks, etc).

[kappys]

Thankfully our gutless congress will green light the Halliburton move while piling on the criticism and doing nothing.

Of course there is plenty that could be done - corporations can not ignore the US Government. Why not fine them with interest for overcharges on services to the military? It seems like a decent start.

[snowspot66]

I wonder if we could create an effective tax system for corporations based upon what % of their operations/production are in the U.S. It's a global market and it's never going back. It's not just U.S. and everybody else. We need to find new ways to keep people here.

[Paladin]

The US needs to find ways to manufacture things. Need to make things to grow value. The US cannot continue to consume and not create goods.

I was in Iowa when Maytag was bought out, and the company said that they would not move the business off shore. Maytag has been on the downside in profits, but those people in that small town in Iowa were absolutely loyal to Maytag. But the Corporate gremlins got them....

I wonder why McCain isn't doing better in Iowa....

[alkemical]

Guys, the AIG bailout - i think covered parts of this - that was my bump.

Not taxes, etc - the fact that it's so f'd up

[snowspot66]

Guys, the AIG bailout - i think covered parts of this - that was my bump.

Not taxes, etc - the fact that it's so f'd up

I'm not even sure I follow exactly what happened. That whole situation was ****ed up. Care to help me 'get it'? I'd like to understand.

And on the manufacturing note I can't agree more.

I read an article that we shipped our harvested grain to China for processing and then have it shipped back. That blew my mind. I mean what the ****? Is it honest to God cheaper to ship it half way around the world, process it, and then ship it back for our use? It sure as hell isn't healthier for us.

Damnit I'll just pay the dime extra it would cost to process it here and if you tell the American people that's why it costs 10 cents more you can bet your ass they would too. Companies are really missing out on a marketing opportunity. If it's made in this country and even reasonably priced in comparison to foreign goods people WILL buy it if they see a big ass "Made in America" sticker on the front. It's not like the Chinese are shipping over high quality products here. Only the Germans and the Japanese do that. It's disgusting that I can't walk into a store, grab a product, and look at the bottom without seeing "Made in China".

[alkemical]

I'm not even sure I follow exactly what happened. That whole situation was ****ed up. Care to help me 'get it'? I'd like to understand.

And on the manufacturing note I can't agree more.

I read an article that we shipped our harvested grain to China for processing and then have it shipped back. That blew my mind. I mean what the ****? Is it honest to God cheaper to ship it half way around the world, process it, and then ship it back for our use? It sure as hell isn't healthier for us.

Damnit I'll just pay the dime extra it would cost to process it here and if you tell the American people that's why it costs 10 cents more you can bet your ass they would too. Companies are really missing out on a marketing opportunity. If it's made in this country and even reasonably priced in comparison to foreign goods people WILL buy it if they see a big ass "Made in America" sticker on the front. It's not like the Chinese are shipping over high quality products here. Only the Germans and the Japanese do that. It's disgusting that I can't walk into a store, grab a product, and look at the bottom without seeing "Made in China".

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2135353&postcount=12

[Rohirrim]

I'm not even sure I follow exactly what happened. That whole situation was ****ed up. Care to help me 'get it'? I'd like to understand.

And on the manufacturing note I can't agree more.

I read an article that we shipped our harvested grain to China for processing and then have it shipped back. That blew my mind. I mean what the ****? Is it honest to God cheaper to ship it half way around the world, process it, and then ship it back for our use? It sure as hell isn't healthier for us.

Damnit I'll just pay the dime extra it would cost to process it here and if you tell the American people that's why it costs 10 cents more you can bet your ass they would too. Companies are really missing out on a marketing opportunity. If it's made in this country and even reasonably priced in comparison to foreign goods people WILL buy it if they see a big ass "Made in America" sticker on the front. It's not like the Chinese are shipping over high quality products here. Only the Germans and the Japanese do that. It's disgusting that I can't walk into a store, grab a product, and look at the bottom without seeing "Made in China".

Like I wrote somewhere in here before, on any given day you can stroll out on Terminal Island in Los Angeles Harbor and watch miles long coal trains come rolling in to dump their cargo into Chinese ships. There goes the wealth of America.

[kappys]

Oil Companies are taxed on income at a rate of 75 percent. 75 percent. 75 percent. Think about it.

I am missing the point, perhaps. So what? Corporations are not private citizens and should not be extended any of the rights we give to real people. Let them get taxes all we want. Corporations don't have much of a choice in dealing with the US, they pretty much have to. If not lets just treat them like we treat Central American countries that get out of line.

[Garcia Bronco]

I am missing the point, perhaps. So what? Corporations are not private citizens and should not be extended any of the rights we give to real people. Let them get taxes all we want. Corporations don't have much of a choice in dealing with the US, they pretty much have to. If not lets just treat them like we treat Central American countries that get out of line.

I like your posts, but the second sentence is just ignorant. Companies make the world go round. They employ people and stimulate economy. First thing, there in no such thing as a business tax. Taxes get passed on to the customer to the point that the market will bare it. Second by over taxing business we eliminate jobs, pay, and ultimately economy. We should tax business, but there must be balance. 40 percent isn't balance.

[kappys]

I like your posts, but the second sentence is just ignorant. Companies make the world go round. They employ people and stimulate economy. First thing, there in no such thing as a business tax. Taxes get passed on to the customer to the point that the market will bare it. Second by over taxing business we eliminate jobs, pay, and ultimately economy. We should tax business, but there must be balance. 40 percent isn't balance.

I view the modern corporation in fundamentally different ways then most people. To me its another economic institution that for the most part has really only been an important engine of economic development for the past 150 years or so. Prior to that a variety of other systems existed - central planning, feudalism, slave economies, and a variety of others.

The modern corporate model has done some things well but I believe it is ultimately flawed and unsustainable. It makes assumptions such as limitless consumption, limitless resources, etc. that I think will ultimately make it a failure. Other models have been proposed and may work better - ultimately I think the corporate model we have today will have to be abandoned in favor of a more sane one.

In the current setting corporations are important but not as important as small business - which I believe are fundamentally different and need to be treated as such. My reference to corporations are in regards to the modern multi-national giants that exist now independant of states(only in the last 20 years or so), are totalitarian centers of control with perfect top-down command infrastructure, are essentially immune to most state action via treaties, and are increasingly dominating control of governments around the world and undermining democracy in fundamental ways.

[alkemical]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6378

With all eyes on Obama, Port of Los Angeles security under control of Chinese President’s son!