If you mean the practice of US companies "selling themselves" stuff through foreign subsidiaries, Taibbi covered that in an earlier blog post, about the brazen attempts during the debt ceiling debate to push the same corporate tax holiday. After reading his article on how the Justice Dept. and SEC "handled" the subprime mortgage fiascos rampant and deliberate fraud, and in particular that it was friends of folks like Hillary and Chuck Shumer (i.e. NOT Republicans) who let the guilty escape punishment (or actively prevented it), I have zero faith in either party. They're both corporate lackeys; Republicans just proudly admit it while Democrats market themselves as an alternative to capitalize (in every sense) on overwhelming voter dissatisfaction with the crony capitalism masquerading as "government".

Hyperbole is valid so long as we recognize it for the illustration it is rather than taking it literally. I'd be OK with dumping corporate personhood in exchange for dumping the corporate income tax, but we'd have to go further and allow suits against the corporate boards for the damage done by their decisions. It often seems like preventing that is the whole basis of corporations (in much the same way our corporate masters blame torts for every social ill and incessantly demand their elimination under the guise of "reform", because, after all, if corporations were COMPLETELY unaccountable and their human directors completely isolated from the consequences of their own decisions, wouldn't that be best for America? ) Expecting multinationals to do anything to EARN their staggering corporate welfare is probably unrealistic; Cisco has all but said they won't hire any more people if they get this windfall than they did after the last one, despite arguing they should receive it for precisely that reason.

No worries, I know how that goes, believe it or not.

The major parties already do that, which is much of the problem; only the major parties can command the kind of political donors (particularly the unlimited and/or anonymous corporate ones) necessary to run a national campaign, and they quickly close ranks to ensure nothing like Instant Runoff Voting gains any traction, because they both know they'd ultimately be the big losers if the American public won big by getting legitimate voting choices. Likewise, the national parties have the national organizations to energize and organize voters as well as get them to the polls. How many unpaid volunteers put in thousands of hours on behalf of Republicans and Democrats every two years? How can any third party spend the half BILLION dollars the major parties devoted to the 2008 presidency alone? Even if they could, what good would it do so long as First Past the Post guarantees they can't do more than play spoiler for the major party whose nominal platform is closest to their own?

Yet both major parties are beyond redemption; establishing at least one viable public alternative to the two non-viable corporate ones is, IMHO, Americas only hope. The public will not forever endure being hostage to the whims and greed of corporate tyrants fully supported by the entire government. Right now the Greens look like the best bet to me, both because we share most of the same policy goals and because they reject all corporate donations, but the country needs some legitimate political options to prevent growing numbers of disillusioned, alienated and increasingly desperate people pursuing non-political ones. No one knows how that would look, except horrific, so I'm eagerly searching for a peaceful alternative to offer those for whom corporate tyranny is no longer acceptable.

No, I understand completely, because whether we're getting our moneys worth is precisely the issue. The notion that government services are some kind of free money is absurd; whether you get it from the government or private sector, EVERYTHING costs money. Government has the means to provide things at a much lower cost because of the leverage legal regulations and hundreds of millions of customers provide--but that's no guarantee government WILL provide services at a lower cost. If government service becomes a vehicle for total employment at the expense of ACTUAL service, or if government officials are bought and paid for by corporations who consider government services no more than cut rate competition, it doesn't happen. At the end of the day, particulary in America, where overall taxes are much lower than in the rest of the developed world, the issue is seldom that taxes are too high; far more often the issue is that expressed by referring to inactive and/or incompetent government employees witht he sarcastic declaration "your tax dollars at work". Tax dollars should be earned just like any other kind, so the public has every right to demand that the work be done, and well, or the tax money returned, but the former is as good or better than the latter. If the Army went around accidentally bombing its own barracks instead of the enemy people wouldn't say we need to privatize national defence and stop spending tax money on it, they'd demand the Army do its job, as they should.