Skip to comments.Did Pfizer Buy The Constitution Of the United States of America?
Posted on 06/29/2005 8:39:37 AM PDT by jeffers
Did Pfizer Inc, purchase The Constitution of the United States of America?
Did Pfizer purchase the government of the State of Connecticut?
Pfizer's connections with former Connecticut Governor John Rowland are a matter of public record:
"John Rowland, Pfizer's agent in Hartford, became Connecticut's first Governor to plead guilty to taking bribes, yet persisted in referring to them as "gratuities." Pfizer drove hundreds from their homes and businesses outside its new research facility. State and local taxpayers got stuck with a massive tab."
"Rowland gave Pfizer everything it wanted in New Haven, on land which many had assumed would be eventually used for needed expansion by Yale-New Haven Hospital. But while Rowland was in office, it was never safe to assume that anything would come before Pfizer's profits.
Note the symmetry in how the Horsebarn, New London and New Haven deals were structured. Pfizer pays either $1 or $10 for extraordinarily valuable land. In the case of Fort Trumbull, the developer (who many believe is simply fronting for Pfizer) will be granted a 99-year lease on 90 acres of extraordinarily valuable waterfront land for $1 a year, rather than the tens of millions of dollars this peninsula would yield in property tax revenues if the deal was structured to benefit New London taxpayers."
"In New London, Pfizer was given a 24-acre prime waterfront lot by the city for $10."
Pfizer only last year opened a new $294-million R&D medical research headquarters in New London. The three six-story office buildings totaling 750,000 sq. ft. (67,500 sq. m.) were built with $100 million in state assistance.
"In negotiations with Pfizer, the state agreed to spend $5 million cleaning up contamination on the property and an additional $14 million buying and clearing a nearby scrapyard. The city and state promised $7 million to rid Fort Trumbull of odor from the city's nearby wastewater treatment plant -- another Pfizer request. For years residents had made the same demand of the city, only to be told there wasn't enough money.
Pfizer paid just $10 for its 24 acres, and won a decade of 80%-a-year abatements on its city real-estate and property taxes. Pfizer also negotiated a deal under which up to $3 million a year in state sales taxes related to construction would be forgiven. The state also added $800,000 to Pfizer's own $1 million for a cleanup of Bentley Creek. And, with a nudge from Pfizer, the state accelerated efforts to refurbish the park where old Fort Trumbull itself stands, at a cost of $21 million, according to a state official."
Does Pfizer have lucrative, ongoing relationships with other government officials?
"WASHINGTON - The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. was facing last July the kind of lawsuit that sends shudders through the drug industry. The suit alleged that Zoloft, the companys top-selling antidepressant, had backfired and caused a patient to commit suicide.
So Pfizer turned for help to one of the most powerful lawyers in the Bush administration: Daniel E. Troy, chief legal counsel of the US Food and Drug Administration. Troy was quite familiar with the company, having served as a Pfizer attorney in legal combat with the FDA until just months before he joined the agency last year. Shortly after the one-year federal restriction on action involving his former clients expired, Troy filed a government brief that backed up Pfizers case."
In fighting the appeal, the Pfizer legal team sought help from Troy, asking him to file a brief saying that the US government agreed with Pfizers contention that antidepressants did not increase suicidal thoughts.
I called Dan Troy and informed him of the case, Pfizer attorney Malcolm Wheeler said. This is a classic case in which the governments interests ought to be the same as those of a private company. Wheelers spokesman said that Wheeler contacted Troy in July, but could not provide a date.
Troy said that as long as his mandated one-year recusal period was over on May 31 - a year after he said he performed his last legal work for Pfizer - he didnt see any problem in filing a brief that helped the firm. Troy declined to describe the work for Pfizer, or reveal how much he was paid."
Do any of these relationships with government officials constitute potential conflicts of interest?
"Chuck Hardwick is Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs, with worldwide responsibility for Government Relations, Media Relations, Public Policy and Philanthropy. He is also President of the Pfizer Foundation and a member of the Pfizer Leadership Council.
He has worked for Pfizer for nearly 40 years in a variety of management positions. He recently announced his retirement effective at the end of 2005.
Active in state and national political affairs, Chuck Hardwick is the former Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly where he served 14 years."
Nor is Pfizer's practice of keeping high-ranking state legislators on its payroll confined to New Jersey. In Connecticut, for example, State Senator Catherine W. Cook (one of the state's only 36 senators) is self-employed as a lobbyist. While the public is unable to learn how much Pfizer funnels into her bank account each year for the lobbying work she does for the firm, it is known that she lobbies legislators in other states on their behalf and drafts model legislation to advance Pfizer's interests. Would it surprise anyone to learn she was at the front of the line in Hartford when Pfizer needed support for the $100,000,000 gift the taxpayers of Connecticut bestowed upon the firm for settling into the Fort Trumbull neighborhood?
Cook has recently stepped up to the plate once again for her employer. In March of 2005, she tried to slip a major gift for Pfizer into a bill disguised as an economic stimulus package to support defense-industry related industry in southeastern Connecticut. The bill would eliminate the local property tax on all manufacturing equipment not just defense manufacturing equipment (the supposed purpose of the bill) - purchased on or after July 1, 2005. As Ted Moukawsher, Groton's representative to the state legislature, quickly noted, the possible closure of a large Navy base in Groton is being exploited by people to have benefits for other parties, at the expense of taxpayers and Groton in particular. Among those parties is Pfizer, which Moukawsher said owns roughly 90 percent of the exempt manufacturing equipment [in Groton]. The bulk of the effect (of the manufacturing exemption), either for good or ill, affects Pfizer, he said. (New London Day, March 25, 2005.) Moukawsher should probably not anticipate any goodies from Pfizer in his Christmas stocking this year.
Also at the state level, Connecticut's Senator Lieberman's wife has long worked for the pharmaceutical industry. In the 1980's, she served four years as Director of Policy, Planning and Communications for Pfizer. Her husband, of course, was the Democratic candidate for vice President in 2000. The Republican candidate for President in the previous election, Bob Dole, also was employed by Pfizer as their spokesman in Viagra commercials. In the 2004 election, Senator Lieberman ran for his party's nomination for President, with his friends at Pfizer in the top ten donors to his campaign treasury.
Did Pfizer purchase the government of New London?
How close are the ties between Pfizer and the New London Development Corporation, the supposedly independant developer who stands to make millions from the Supreme Court's decision to allow the city to take the Ft. Trumbull resident's properties in a for-profit venture?
"George M. Milne, Jr., Ph.D., will continue as Senior Vice President, Pfizer Inc, and will also be named Executive Vice President, Pfizer Global Research and Development, and President, Worldwide Strategic and Operations Management. He is currently Senior Vice President, Pfizer Inc, and President, Central Research."
"One of the people I (Claire Gaudiani, President, New London Development Corporation) asked to be on the (New London Development Corporation) board, was George Milne, who was at that time president of Pfizer Central Research in Groton, Connecticut, across the river from New London. He is a board member at Connecticut College. His son was in my class. George Milne commanded a $3 billion operation and I asked him to think about a particular New London asset, a 26-acre brownfield on the waterfront."
"The controversy began in 1998 when pharmaceutical giant Pfizer built a plant next door to the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Shortly thereafter, the City and its ally, the NLDC, determined that someone else could, in their opinion, make better use of the land than the existing home andbusiness owners in Fort Trumbull. So the government and the NLDC began to condemn these properties and kick out the owners. The new development will supposedly enhance the new Pfizer facility. In fact, in December 2000, Pfizer guaranteed a $2 million dollar line of credit for use as working capital by the NLDC."
"The City Council transferred its awesome power of eminent domain to the NLDC. This group, headed by Claire Gaudiani, former president of Connecticut College, now makes all the decisions on redevelopment in Fort Trumbull, including how and when to trigger the use of eminent domain on the home and business owners."
From Claire Gaudiani's website:
"I am speaking as often as possible because I feel we, as a nation, need to be reminded of our core American value: generosity. Despite recent tax cuts, and an improving economy, WE ARE NOT SEEING AN INCREASE IN AMERICAN GIVING. We remain the most generous nation on earth, but the income differential between our wealthiest and poorest citizens continues to widen. We must remember the Constitution and HELP EACH OTHER IN THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS."
"Anything thats working in our great nation is working because somebody left skin on the sidewalk. - Claire Gaudiani, New London Development Corporation"
What kind of tax revenue can New London look forward to in return for seizing the current resident's properties and turning them over to Pfizer's strategic ally, the NLDC?
In 1998, Pfizer reported profits of $1,197,600,000.00 and paid - $197,200,000.00 in Federal Taxes. In other words, on profits of $1.1 billion, the Federal Government of the United States of America paid Pfizer a tax rebate of $200 million. This works out to a tax rate of negative 16.7%.
Is Pfizer in line to receive significant additional tax relief from other US governmental agencies, including the US Treasury Department and/or the United States Congress?
""The U.S. Treasury recently issued guidance that appears to clarify some of the provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004," Mr. Shedlarz continued, "and management is now investigating whether the company (Pfizer) might repatriate up to $29 billion in extraordinary dividends, as defined in the Act, during 2005 (subject to management and board approval). This amount could increase by $8.6 billion, the amount of Pharmacia's historical accumulated earnings, but is subject to further U.S. Treasury guidance. Since the U.S. Treasury has not yet completed the issuance of all of its guidance on the Act, the company can only make a good-faith estimate of the tax liability that would have to be recorded if these extraordinary dividends are paid. Accordingly, the company expects, based on the information presently available, that it would record a tax liability based on the 5.25-percent statutory rate in the Act. However, the actual cost to the company is dependent on a number of factors that are currently being analyzed, including the passage of the pending Technical Corrections Bill."
How often has Pfizer been accused of corrupt, deceptive, illegal, and/or fraudulent practices?
In 1990, the US Generic Pharmaceutical Industry listed Pfizer as one of the companies accused of fraudulent and deceptive practices for its failure to report severe side effects of its Feldene drug before it obtained US approval.
"THE NEW YORK TIMES March 12, 2003 Pfizer Nears Drug Settlement By MELODY PETERSEN
BOSTON, March 11 - Dr. David P. Franklin decided within weeks of accepting a job with the drug maker Warner-Lambert that he had become a crucial component in an apparent corporate plan to illegally market an epilepsy drug called Neurontin, he said today.
In his first extensive interview since filing a federal lawsuit against the company in 1996, Dr. Franklin said he thought he had little choice but to blow the whistle on what he says was a scheme to ignore federal regulations and market Neurontin for more than a dozen uses it was not approved to treat.
"We were truly experimenting on patients, which put them at risk," said Dr. Franklin, 41, a microbiologist and a former fellow at Harvard Medical School who worked as a medical liaison for Warner-Lambert. "I was involved in this, trained and asked to deceive physicians and take advantage of their trust, and I'm embarrassed by that."
"When you put profits above patients," he said, "aberrations like this happen." Nearly seven years after Dr. Franklin filed the whistle-blower suit, the case appears to be moving closer to resolution. Pfizer, which acquired Warner-Lambert in 2000, is now negotiating a settlement with government prosecutors, according to court papers."
"Allegations against Pfizer first surfaced in December 2000, when The Washington Post broke a story about the companys use of the experimental drug trovafloxacin (commonly called Trovan) to treat a 1996 meningitis outbreak in Nigerias Kano district. At issue was the companys possible breach of global ethical guidelines on pharmaceutical trials. Pfizer, which hoped that Trovan would become a multibillion-dollar brand, had been waiting for an opportunity to test the drug on children suffering from cerebrospinal meningitis (CSM). Since meningitis epidemics occur very infrequently in the United States, the 1996 Nigerian epidemic presented a rare opportunity for a trial.
Due to the nature of the epidemic, however, Pfizers trial was set up hastily in conditions where parents of meningitis-infected children were panicking. Some of these parents have claimed that they did not know they were submitting their children to a trial of an experimental drug and were not told Trovan had never been tested on children. Of the 200 children who participated in the trial, five of those given Trovan died and many others were left with disabilities."
Pfizer was quick to defend itself, stating in a Dec. 17 press release that the Nigerian trovafloxacin trial was an important clinical investigation, and Pfizer is proud of the way the trial was conducted. But the companys statement did little to quell growing anger in Nigeria, where commentators decried the drug companys arrogance and its use of Nigerians as guinea pigs."
The lawsuit said that Dr. Juan Walterspiel, a Pfizer infectious disease specialist assigned to the Trovan test, repeatedly told Pfizer management that the company was violating international law, federal regulations and medical ethics standards. Dr. Walterspiel was subsequently dismissed.
PAL filed a lawsuit in California in February 2005 and a nationwide case in April 2005 alleging that Pfizer engaged in a massive deceptive advertising campaign which misled consumers into purchasing Celebrex at a substantially inflated price.
The lawsuit alleges that, to increase its sales, Pfizer launched a massive deceptive advertising campaign targeting doctors and patients. Much of Celebrex"s advertising came in the form ofdirect-to-consumer advertising. For instance, Celebrex ads showing a woman playing an acoustic guitar suggested that she can play the long version whereas previously she could not, a benefit for which Celebrex was not approved or indicated.
Pfizer used such advertising to convince consumers that Celebrex was a premium drug that offered significant safety benefits over older, cheaper pain relievers. In truth, not only did Celebrex offer no safety benefits to the vast majority of consumers, it actually increased their risk of death from a heart attack or stroke. In December 2004 and in February 2005, Pfizer disclosed two separate studies showing that Celebrex users have an increased risk of cardiovascular events. Had Pfizer disclosed the risks of Celebrex, of which it was aware since 1999, consumers would not have been willing to pay the high price Pfizer charged.
"Levenson, a Cincinnati housewife, has been waiting for her heart to explode. In 1981, surgeons implanted a mechanical valve in her heart, the Bjork-Shiley, "the Rolls-Royce of valves," her doctor told her. What neither she nor her doctor knew was that several Bjork-Shiley valves had fractured during testing, years before her implant. The company that made the valve, a unit of the New York-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, never told the government.
At Pfizer's factory in the Caribbean, company inspectors found inferior equipment, which made poor welds. Rather than toss out bad valves, Pfizer management ordered the defects ground down, weakening the valves further but making them look smooth and perfect. Then Pfizer sold them worldwide.
When the valve's struts break and the heart contracts, it explodes. Two-thirds of the victims die, usually in minutes. In 1980, Dr. Viking Bjork, whose respected name helped sell the products, wrote to Pfizer demanding corrective action. He threatened to publish cases of valve strut failures.
A panicked Pfizer executive telexed, "ATTN PROF BJORK, WE WOULD PREFER THAT YOU DID NOT PUBLISH THE DATA RELATIVE TO STRUT FRACTURE." The company man gave this reason for holding off public exposure of the deadly valve failures: "WE EXPECT A FEW MORE." His expectations were realized. The count has reached eight hundred fractures, five hundred dead-so far.
Dr. Bjork called it murder, but kept his public silence.
Eight months after the "don't publish" letter, a valve was implanted in Mrs. Levenson. In 1994, the U.S. Justice Department nabbed Pfizer. To avoid criminal charges, the company paid civil penalties-and about $200 million in restitution to victims. Without the damning evidence prized from Pfizer by a squadron of lawyers, the Justice Department would never have brought its case.
Pfizer moans that lawyers still hound the company with more demands. But that is partly because Pfizer recalled only the unused valves. The company refused to pay to replace valves of fearful recipients."
Pfizer also said it has voluntarily provided the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission with information regarding an internal probe of certain potentially improper payments made in connection with foreign sales activities in Croatia.
The strategy pursued by drug giant Pfizer for the development of its new anti-HIV product (an inhibiter of the CCR5 receptor) is putting at risk the health of hundreds of treatment-naïve patients with low CD4 count and high viral load . TRT5 , the inter-collaborative group for French HIV treatment advocates, denounces this unethical practice and alerts the various authorities concerned by this trial.
TRT5 denounces the unethical practices of Pfizer and other drug companies developing their products in utter disregard to medical ethics, expert recommendations and the health of HIV+ research participants.
Has Pfizer ever been found guilty, pleaded guilty, or offered to settle any of these charges?
Pfizer Type of Crime: Antitrust Criminal Fine: $20 million Source: 12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(1), July 26, 1999
Pfizer Inc. pled guilty and paid criminal fines totaling $20 million for participating in two international price fixing conspiracies in the food additives industry.
Pfizer Guilty, To Pay $430M AP - Denise Lavoie
05/14/04 - Pfizer Inc. will plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $430 million in fines to settle charges that a company it bought illegally promoted non-approved uses for a drug.
The settlement with the world's largest pharmaceutical company over Warner-Lambert, which Pfizer bought in 2000, includes a $240 million criminal fine the second-largest ever imposed in a health-care fraud prosecution, the Justice Department said. Pfizer also will pay $152 million in civil fines to be shared among state and federal Medicaid agencies. Another $38 million would go to state consumer-protection agencies.
The lawsuit alleged the company's plan included paying doctors to put their names on ghostwritten articles about Neurontin and to induce them to prescribe the drug for various uses by giving them tickets to sporting events, trips to golf resorts and speakers fees.
Pharmaceutical company Pfizer has been ordered to shut down a Dutch website about erectile dysfunction that it sponsors, after a complaint was upheld that it was guilty of the "unlawful public advertising" of its prescription only drug sildenafil (Viagra).
In 1994, a judge found Pfizer guilty of lying about Miles and Adalat CC, and ordered the company to certify within six weeks that it had made its sales force aware of the court's findings. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 25, 1994, at D12.
Company Accused of Misleading Ads About Children's Ear Infection Drug
January 6, 2003 03-003 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(SACRAMENTO) Attorney General Bill Lockyer today announced his office and the Attorneys General of 18 other states have settled a consumer protection investigation into Pfizer's advertising for Zithromax, a product used to treat severe ear infections in young children.
Under the agreement, Pfizer will pay the 19 states a total of $4 million for costs and attorneys fees. The company also will fund a $2 million public service announcement (PSA) campaign during the next three years to educate parents about medical decisions that are made when describing specific treatments. The campaign will run during the cold and flu seasons, November through March, in 2003-2005.
The agreement also prohibits Pfizer from making any representations in consumer ads about Zithromax regarding dosing convenience, frequency of use or effectiveness unless Pfizer has competent and reliable scientific evidence to support such claims.
Pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer Inc. announced Friday, Sept. 3, a $965 million settlement to end all current and future asbestos litigation against the company and its Quigley Co. subsidiary.
The agreement, which would involve putting Quigley in Chapter 11 protection, is the latest in which a company mired in asbestos litigation decides to settle with plaintiffs lawyers and then file for bankruptcy.
Pfizer acquired Quigley in 1968, and the division sold asbestos-containing insulation products until the early 1970s.
The proposed settlement calls for Pfizer to pay $430 million to 80 percent of existing plaintiffs. It will also place an additional $535 million into an asbestos settlement trust that will compensate future plaintiffs as well as the remaining 20 percent of current plaintiffs with claims against Pfizer and Quigley.
Pfizer settles lawsuit on misleading drug ads by Reuters Health - January 09, 2003
Pfizer Inc. has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and 18 other attorneys general alleging that the drug giant misleadingly advertised its blockbuster antibiotic Zithromax (azithromycin), Spitzer's office said on Monday.
Pfizer Agrees to Pay $60M to Settle Rezulin Class-Action Lawsuit
Source: PR Newswire Published: July 02, 2004
Drug giant Pfizer Inc. has agreed to pay $60 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the company of falsely marketing its diabetes drug Rezulin.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of purchasers of Rezulin who live in Illinois. It sought a refund for all Rezulin tablets they had purchased.
Pfizer to Pay $49 Million To Settle Medicaid Case
SCOTT HENSLEY / Wall Street Journal 29oct02
Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay $49 million to settle allegations that the company defrauded the Medicaid health-care program for the poor by charging the government too much for cholesterol drug Lipitor.
At issue were alleged inducements offered in 1999 by Warner-Lambert Co., since acquired by Pfizer, to the Ochsner Health Plan, an health-maintenance organization operating in Louisiana and eastern Texas, in exchange for Lipitor being placed on the insurer's preferred list of drugs.
Did Pfizer purchase the Constitution of the United States of America?
If even half of the above accounts are true, (and all are presented as such on their respective sites) they raise significant questions regarding how Pfizer conducts its dealings with the government of the United States and all others.
I believe that an immediate independant investigation needs to be launched to find the answers to precisely this question. The possible implications of the coincidences outlined above are beyond chilling.
I work across the street from a Pfizer warehouse. They're expanding like mad these days; lot's of construction going on over there. They haven't kicked anyone out of their homes yet (or taken over our parking lot), but the construction crews have no problems blocking the street.
"This might also explain the BRAC recommended closure of New London Submarine Base and the Sub
No "might" about it.
Pfizer had employees/Pfizer officials on the board that negotiated with the military over base closings.
That was part of the large body of information I was unable to fit into the original post.
Try doing a search on "Pfizer" and "corrupt" or "illegal" or "unethical". You'll get more hits than you can read.
Makes me wonder what sort of connections Pfizer has to the Supreme Court.. Friends, relatives, etc., that work for or financially benefit from Pfizer or it's affiliates, subordinates, medical branches or facilities, & so on..
I don't care if it's a second cousin, or the son or daughter of a long-time family friend, if someone is benefitting from this decision then it's a criminal sell-out..
That's grounds for impeachment and indictment..
The petition says:
I am writing to ask you to please agree to the proposal by Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media, LLC, to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road in the Town of Weare.
Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, "Kelo vs. City of New London" clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to Mr. Clements' LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that Mr. Clements' hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare.
The "Kelo" decision, led by Justice David Souter, was a very poor one, and I can see no more fitting way to point out its drawbacks than to take Justice Souter's land as the "Kelo" decision dictates. Please, help see that "Justice Is Served" on property rights in America. Thank you.
It's crap like this that makes me wonder sometimes if Hollywood isn't too far off base with it's 'all government is corrupt' theme in many movies.
" Makes me wonder what sort of connections Pfizer has to the Supreme Court.."
Of course no one in the media wants to look into this.....
Please don't cross the street alone & pull the tin foil down tight over your ears, the rays are deadly. ROFLMAO
You attempt to negate years of documented court cases with a one line insult?
In fact, excellent.
You have a nice day now.
great post - a lot of info to digest
Presented by the Federal Election Commission
Committees Who Gave To This Candidate
LIEBERMAN, JOSEPH I
PFIZER INC. PAC 10/01/1998 1000.00 98033782623
PFIZER INC. PAC 10/01/1998 1000.00 98033782623
PFIZER INC. PAC 02/22/1999 5000.00 99034391177
PFIZER INC. PAC 02/22/1999 5000.00 99034391177
PFIZER INC. PAC 05/17/2001 1000.00 22991765607
PFIZER INC. PAC 06/06/2002 5000.00 22991416846
PFIZER INC. PAC 06/24/2004 5000.00 24961770570
"It's crap like this that makes me wonder sometimes if Hollywood isn't too far off base with it's 'all government is corrupt' theme in many movies."
The Founding Father know 'all government is corrupt' so that's why the created a "check and balance" system.
That would be a pretty good "investment" for the returns that Pfizer gets in tax breaks, etc..
It always cracks me up to here pharmaceutical companies whining about how they have to charge high prices to recoup their "expenses" for R&D...
Nobody EVER points out the $$$ (tens? Hundreds?) of Millions $$$ they get get in GRANTS from the government to actually do the R&D in the first place..
That part never comes up..
cracks me up to "hear"... ( @#$%^!!!)
There is a dark side to pure capitalism....greed and lust for things even if they belong to others...
There is NO light side to Communism/Marxism/Hedonism/Paganism
It was no mistake when our founders declared that our Republic would only really be fit for Christians...
I would add and those like minded...
"Nobody EVER points out the $$$ (tens? Hundreds?) of Millions $$$ they get get in GRANTS from the government to actually do the R&D in the first place..
That part never comes up.."
Grants are one thing, at least some of them lead to useful research.
But how does a corporation go about getting a tax REBATE on one BILLION dollars in declared profits?
For that matter, how does one go about getting the Justice Department AND the US Congress to ok a tax rate of less than 6% on close to 40 BILLION dollars worth of money parked overseas?
Ever notice how Joe Leiberman never proposes reimporting drugs from Canada? A friend of mine works at Pfizer. He said it looks like New Calcutta down there. I thought these jobs were going to be for Americans?
Government at all levels is out of control. This is an obvious case of private enrichment at the homeowners and taxpayers expense. And the Supreme Court goes along! Unbelievable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.