Patriot Employer Act

Title: Patriot Employment Act

Central Idea: To persuade people to understand that even if Obama wins the Patriot Employer act must not pass. It will lead to the evitable downfall of the US economy. I also hope my speech shows the audience the importance of not just looking at the candidate but also exploring his plans and critically analyzing it.

Specific Purpose: To inform and persuade people against the Patriot Employer act.

Introduction

I. With the presidential race in full force, many candidates have been talking about their economic agenda and their plans for the country.

A. Tonight I want to talk about Barrack Obama's support for something called the Patriot Employer Act.

B. Along with co-sponsors Sherrod Brown, senator of Ohio, and Nick Durbin, Senator of Illinois, Obama introduced this bill in August of 2007.

C. The bill forces companies to meet certain conditions and if conditions are not met then those companies are taxed at a higher rate then normal. Although it did not pass Obama has announced that he will make this bill a priority if he is elected stating "We will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America." (Wall Street Journal).

(Transition: So after researching this bill extensively, tonight I want to tell you about what the 'Patriot Employer Act' is, what it entails, and finally why this bill will undoubtedly hurt the U.S.)

Body

I. So first what is the Patriot Employer Act?

A. This act is different then the 'Patriot Act' which is the post-9/11 antiterrorist law, but like I said early, it is a proposal by Obama to designate certain companies as 'Patriotic Employer' and favor them over other, apparently not so patriotic, businesses.

B. In the bill it takes four pages to define patriotic and how it applies to within the business sector.

1. Basically it is a whole bunch of political mumbo jumbo so I am going to save you the 4 pages and sum it up in two minutes. This part is a little dry, but stick with me because knowing this is essential in understanding the proposal.

2. There are basically six conditions that must be met by a company in order to reap the benefits of being a 'Patriotic Employer'.

a) First, the ratio to full-time workers within the US must not decrease compared to full-time workers outside the US and the company must be headquartered here in the US.

b) Second, they must pay a minimum hour wage to keep a family of three out of poverty which is set at $7.80 an hour.

c) Third, they must provide a defined benefit retirement plan or a defined contribution retirement plan that fully matches at least five percent of each worker's contribution.

d) Fourth, they must pay at least sixty percent of each worker's health care premiums. Fifth, they must pay the difference between a worker's regular salary and military salary and continue the health insurance for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called for active duty.

e) And finally they must maintain a neutral stance in union organizing drives.

C. If a company meets these conditions then it is considered a 'Patriotic Employer' and receives a tax break equal to 1% of the taxable income of what that company yields.

(Transition: Now that you know a little more about the bill, let's talk about the logical effects it could have on American Businesses and workers.)

I. Although Obama's intentions are noble and pure his proposal ignores the marketplace reality that businesses hire a workforce that they can afford and still make money.

A. The idea of raising benefits and wages may only lead to fewer people being hired in the long run. Like stated earlier those companies that meet the conditions of the bill will receive a tax break. In order to finance this tax break American companies that do not meet the conditions will have to pay a U.S. corporate tax on profits earned overseas compared to paying the corporate tax in the country they are stationed. Since the U.S. corporate tax is at 35% while the rest of the world has a much lower rate, this would raise taxes considerably for most major corporate companies with profits coming from abroad. To say it leniently large companies would be forced to pay drastically higher taxes then their competitors in China, Japan, and Europe.

B. This would undoubtedly make US companies less profitable and less competitive worldwide (Wall Street Journal).

C. Also in condition five it refers to matching current salary of National Guard and Reserve Members when called to active duty. This is an example of a policy hurting those people it is intended to help. If it cost more for companies to hire National Guard and reserve members then they simply will not hire them. This argument can be applied concerning conditions two thru