Our $3B is going WHERE??

[Smiling Assassin27]

Well, I know $3B around these parts is barely worth batting an eyelash about, given the spending habits of this Adminstration and Congress, and those here who love them. Still, this expenditure puzzles me. We, the taxpayers, are going to pay a BRITISH liquor producer $3B over 30 years to move their operation from Puerto Rico--a US territory-- to St. Croix--a US territory. Follow the money--$470 million per year in tax revenue for those bottles of rum sold in the US, 103 million from this particular British company. This money is then funnelled back to Puerto Rico and other Caribbean islands, where 90% (in PR's case) of it goes to fund public welfare. 300 Puerto Ricans are employed at this plant--nearly all of them will lose their jobs. On the other hand, St. Croix anticipates that 40-70 jobs will be created by the move--a net loss in jobs of 230. The rum company, of course, claims that the move will result in a net gain in jobs. The question is what are we doing subsidizing a British company and why are we sticking a knife into Puerto Rico's economy in the process? We're spending $3B to make $103M per year--meaning we get our money back no sooner than 30 years into the future. Why?

Tax Dollars to British distiller for Captain Morgan rum
TOM HAMBURGER AND PETER WALLSTEN

Reporting from Washington
Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum.

With little fanfare, a deal is moving forward to direct billions in U.S. tax dollars to an unlikely beneficiary -- the giant British liquor producer that makes Captain Morgan rum.

Under the agreement, London-based Diageo PLC will receive tax credits and other benefits worth $2.7 billion over 30 years, including the entire $165-million cost of building a state-of-the-art distillery on the island of St. Croix in the Virgin Islands, a U.S. territory.

Virgin Islands officials say the arrangement complies with the letter and spirit of tax law and will help the islands' sagging economy.

Captain Morgan is now produced in another U.S. territory, Puerto Rico, and critics say the Virgin Islands' subsidy for the new distillery there, along with the other benefits, are so generous that they practically guarantees a profit on every gallon of rum produced there by Diageo, the biggest distilled spirits maker in the world.

"The U.S. taxpayer is basically being asked to line the pockets of the world's largest liquor producer," says Steve Ellis, the vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog organization.

With the exception of Ellis and a handful of lawmakers, however, the deal has attracted little opposition in Congress or elsewhere.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said he does not have authority to block or investigate the project. Criticism on the Hill has been confined to a small group that includes Republican Congressmen Dan Burton of Indiana and Darrel Issa of California, plus a handful of Democrats with large Puerto Rican constituencies.

The key to the deal is a special tax collected on every bottle of rum sold in the United States -- some $470 million a year. The tax was first imposed in 1917 ,and most of the money is funneled back to the governments of rum-producing U.S. territories in the Caribbean to help create jobs, pay for local government services, and promote consumption of rum.

Puerto Rico, which requires that 90% of its rum tax money be used for the public welfare on the island, says it has had as many as 300 workers making Captain Morgan and many if not all those jobs will disappear if Diageo moves its operations to the Virgin Islands.

"It's insulting that the money we give is essentially paying for a foreign corporation to move from one U.S. location to another, while cutting jobs," Ellis complains.

Virgin Islands officials, on the other hand, say the deal, while consuming a good portion of its rum tax dollars, will bring 40-70 jobs and some much needed financial stability to their suffering economy.

The Washington lawyer who helped Diageo negotiate the Virgin Islands agreement, John Merrigan of the DLA Piper firm, says government inducements are often provided to attract a new employer to a location needing economic development. He cited concessions granted by Tennessee and South Carolina to encourage foreign automakers to locate plants in their states.

And Diageo officials say that, contrary to Puerto Rico's claim that the deal will result in a net loss of jobs, it actually saved jobs.

The company would probably have moved its operations to Guatemala or Jamaica or another country if the Virgin Islands hadn't offered the favorable terms, Diageo says.

The offer "helped us decide to stay in the U.S.," said Zsoka McDonald, Diageo's director of media relations.

"If what the government put up was a lot in terms of a subsidy, he said, "then . But what Diageo put up was a lot as well. Diageo moved its global brand to an untried production venue for 30 years. There is risk and reward on both sides and both parties concluded it was a fair deal," he said.

The Virgin Islands government will finance the new $165 million distillery by issuing bonds that will be paid off with future rum tax dollars. In addition, the 30-year agreement provides almost $2 billion in marketing subsidies and a break on property and income taxes, though the company will accept reduced subsidy payments until the construction debt is repaid, Merrigan said.

Legislation to limit the agreement was offered in April by Puerto Rico's representative in the U.S. Congress, Rep. Pedro Pierluisi. But his proposal, which would cap subsidies to the industry at a maximum of 10% of total rum tax revenues, has picked up only a handful of co-sponsors. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has refused to intervene in the dispute, citing his longstanding support for the rum tax program, which gives territories the right to determine how the funds will be used.

Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana, who is on a fact-finding trip to the region this week, says he is supporting Pierluisi's bill "because there needs to be a vehicle for intervention when unreasonable subsidies are given to foreign companies at taxpayer expense. . ."

Roberto Serralles, whose family owns the Puerto Rico distillery that currently produces Captain Morgan under contract to Diageo, said other brands will find it hard to compete with Captain Morgan on price: "We're going to be competing with producers in the Virgin Islands that will have no cost," he said.

In the end, said Javier Vazquez, executive director of the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company, the two Caribbean territories could get into a trade war over whocan give rum makers the biggest rewards. Bacardi, another huge producer, still has a large operation in Puerto Rico.

"This is going to be a race to the bottom," he said.

[Rohirrim]

Rum gives me heartburn.

[Bronx33]

Dems love booze plus the virgin islands is more captian morganish.

[cutthemdown]

I have no idea why.

[Bronx33]

god imagine the cash they could tax if they legalized weed!

[rastaman]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Well, I know $3B around these parts is barely worth batting an eyelash about, given the spending habits of this Adminstration and Congress, and those here who love them. Still, this expenditure puzzles me. We, the taxpayers, are going to pay a BRITISH liquor producer $3B over 30 years to move their operation from Puerto Rico--a US territory-- to St. Croix--a US territory. Follow the money--$470 million per year in tax revenue for those bottles of rum sold in the US, 103 million from this particular British company. This money is then funnelled back to Puerto Rico and other Caribbean islands, where 90% (in PR's case) of it goes to fund public welfare. 300 Puerto Ricans are employed at this plant--nearly all of them will lose their jobs. On the other hand, St. Croix anticipates that 40-70 jobs will be created by the move--a net loss in jobs of 230. The rum company, of course, claims that the move will result in a net gain in jobs. The question is what are we doing subsidizing a British company and why are we sticking a knife into Puerto Rico's economy in the process? We're spending $3B to make $103M per year--meaning we get our money back no sooner than 30 years into the future. Why?

I've heard this story before! Here's an example thats TRIPPLE the cost!

Billions over Baghdad

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...billions200710

Between April 2003 and June 2004, $12 billion in U.S. currency—much of it belonging to the Iraqi people—was shipped from the Federal Reserve to Baghdad, where it was dispensed by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Some of the cash went to pay for projects and keep ministries afloat, but, incredibly, at least $9 billion has gone missing, unaccounted for, in a frenzy of mismanagement and greed. Following a trail that leads from a safe in one of Saddam's palaces to a house near San Diego, to a P.O. box in the Bahamas, the authors discover just how little anyone cared about how the money was handled.


With storage space to rival a Wal-Mart's, the currency vault can reportedly hold upwards of $60 billion in cash. Human beings don't perform many functions inside the vault, and few are allowed in; a robotic system, immune to human temptation, handles everything. On that Tuesday in June the machines were especially busy. Though accustomed to receiving and shipping large quantities of cash, the vault had never before processed a single order of this magnitude: $2.4 billion in $100 bills.

Under the watchful eye of bank employees in a glass-enclosed control room, and under the even steadier gaze of a video surveillance system, pallets of shrink-wrapped bills were lifted out of currency bays by unmanned "storage and retrieval vehicles" and loaded onto conveyors that transported the 24 million bills, sorted into "bricks," to the waiting trailer. No human being would have touched this cargo, which is how the Fed wants it: the bank aims to "minimize the handling of currency by eroc employees and create an audit trail of all currency movement from initial receipt through final disposition."

Forty pallets of cash, weighing 30 tons, were loaded that day. The tractor-trailer turned back onto Route 17 and after three miles merged onto a southbound lane of the New Jersey Turnpike, looking like any other big rig on a busy highway. Hours later the truck arrived at Andrews Air Force Base, near Washington, D.C. There the seals on the truck were broken, and the cash was off-loaded and counted by Treasury Department personnel. The money was transferred to a C-130 transport plane. The next day, it arrived in Baghdad.

That transfer of cash to Iraq was the largest one-day shipment of currency in the history of the New York Fed. It was not, however, the first such shipment of cash to Iraq. Beginning soon after the invasion and continuing for more than a year, $12 billion in U.S. currency was airlifted to Baghdad, ostensibly as a stopgap measure to help run the Iraqi government and pay for basic services until a new Iraqi currency could be put into people's hands. In effect, the entire nation of Iraq needed walking-around money, and Washington mobilized to provide it.

What Washington did not do was mobilize to keep track of it. By all accounts, the New York Fed and the Treasury Department exercised strict surveillance and control over all of this money while it was on American soil. But after the money was delivered to Iraq, oversight and control evaporated. Of the $12 billion in U.S. banknotes delivered to Iraq in 2003 and 2004, at least $9 billion cannot be accounted for. A portion of that money may have been spent wisely and honestly; much of it probably wasn't. Some of it was stolen.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Two explanations; it's somebody's pork barrel project in Congress or it's a smokescreen meant to hide something else instead...covert military-black opps stuff...pick a card...it's been going on forever.

[bronco militia]

[watermock]

I'm sure it was put to good use.