Panama Papers

President Obama Uses Panama Papers to Condemn Government Corruption Demand More Power for Government

Panama Papers illustrate how lucrative politics and government is, and shouldn't be a reason to make it even more so.

|

White House

Let's recap: Yesterday, millions of documents related to a law firm that helps people set up off-shore companies were leaked. Those are the "Panama Papers." They identify the assets of 140 current and former politicians from around the world, as well as a few dozen private citizens.

Governments are up in arms, not because of the endemic corruption the ill-gotten wealth of the politicians in the Panama Papers represents but because, apparently, they didn't get enough of a cut. And there's little evidence additional tax enforcement authority would be used to catch corrupt politicians instead of merely curbing your freedom to move yourself or your assets across national borders.

Today, President Obama addressed the Panama Papers issue not by saying the U.S. would, say, re-examine its foreign aid spending to ensure U.S. dollars aren't fueling corruption abroad, but by using it as an excuse to call on Congress to pass laws to prevent Americans from moving their money out of the country as freely as they can now. He should call Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump, who has also railed against "inversions" as if money that Americans earn actually belongs to the U.S. government, and who has some novel ideas about limiting the outflow of money (specifically to Mexico) that maybe the president could build on.

Great Britain, too, has used the Panama Papers leak to push for more taxation authority. The billions in assets held by former government officials overseas represents how lucrative working in government and the power government has to take people's money can be. The use of this example of public corruption to demand government get even more power to confiscate people's assets and corrupt itself is beyond shameless, but, tragically, totally predictable.

NEXT: West Hollywood mayor says city wouldn't grant special event permits to Trump rally

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Has Obama ever seen anything as a reason to decrease the power of government?

    1. A socialist only sees the cause of problems as not enough government. Therefore the only solution is more government.

      1. Exactly. The only reason why people in government are corrupted is because they don’t have enough power. If they had more power then they wouldn’t be corrupt.

        If giving them more power results in more corruption, it means they weren’t given enough power to not be corrupt. So the solution is to give them more power.

        If that results in more corruption, it means they weren’t given enough power to not be corrupt. So the solution is to give them more power.

        If that results in more corruption, it means they weren’t given enough power to not be corrupt. So the solution is to give them more power.

        If that results in more corruption, it means they weren’t given enough power to not be corrupt. So the solution is to give them more power.

        If that results in more corruption, it means they weren’t given enough power to not be corrupt. So the solution is to give them more power.

        If that results in more corruption, it means they weren’t given enough power to not be corrupt. So the solution is to give them more power.

        If that results in more corruption, it means they weren’t given enough power to not be corrupt. So the solution is to give them more power.

        If that results in more corruption, it means they weren’t given enough power to not be corrupt. So the solution is to give them more power.

        1. I see what you did there….

          *tries “CTRL +C” then “CTRL + V”*…..

        2. If only we had the right people in power, corruption wouldn’t be a problem.

          Hillary Clinton would never have a problem, for instance, because, unlike the Republicans, she cares about people.

          1. she cares about people.

            I died a little inside when I read that.

        3. Change a few of these:

          If that results in more corruption, it means they weren’t given enough power to not be corrupt. So the solution is to give them more power.

          To:

          If that results in more corruption, it means they weren’t given enough pay to not be corrupt. So the solution is to give them more pay.

          And I’ll agree 100%.

  2. “We’ve had another reminder in this big dump of data coming out of Panama that tax avoidance is a big, global problem. It’s not unique to other countries,” Obama said. “A lot of it is legal, but that’s exactly the problem. It’s not that they’re breaking the laws, it’s that the laws are so poorly designed.”

    It’s not that we have too many laws, or too much taxation; Nay, peasants, it is that our laws are inadequate.

  3. Corporations who can afford the accountants and lawyers to arrange the tax deals are “gaming the system,” he said.

    A perfect reason to vastly simplify the tax code, Mr. President. Spot on!

    1. “You’ve got money, we want it, fork it over.” That’s as simple as it gets. If you play within the rules in order to pay what the rules say is your fair share, that’s cheating and not paying your fair share.

  4. 1 cashless society, coming up! How else can government be sure that it’s getting everybody’s fair share if people can hide transactions by using instruments that cannot be traced in person-to-person exchanges?

    1. 16 And [the Beast] causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

      17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

      —-Revelation 13:16-17 KJV

      I’m just sayin’.

      1. What? Are you saying that Revelations isn’t a blueprint?

        1. I’m saying maybe it is.

          They didn’t know about digital transactions back then.

          They already knew Skynet’s first step was to know about and approve every transaction.

          We have to deal with that. It is what it is.

          Just because it’s prophecy doesn’t mean it isn’t prophetic.

          Star Trek got some things about the future right, too.

          I’m just sayin’.

        2. No “s.”

  5. “Today, President Obama addressed the Panama Papers issue not by saying the U.S. would, say, re-examine its foreign aid spending to ensure U.S. dollars aren’t fueling corruption abroad, but by using it as an excuse to call on Congress to pass laws to prevent Americans from moving their money out of the country as freely as they can now.”

    The argument Dalmia and other open borders people should be pushing is that the logic used to give the government the arbitrary power to determine who crosses our borders can eventually be used against native born Americans, as well.

    1. Walls do work both ways.

      1. I’ve been pointing that out for a long time.

        1. Oh, very well. TWO big beautiful doors.

  6. There was a story earlier today about the cities with the most net growth in millionaires, in which it showed a number of Australian cities ranking high because of Chinese money. Chinese money has in fact blown the lid off of those property markets in recent years. What’s driving that explosion is that there are so many Chinese people who are hedging their bets by buying property outside of China.

    It’s hard to get currency out of China, but one of the few ways to do it is with an approved foreign investment in something like real estate. Investing in real estate is, likewise, one of the ways various countries will let you jump ahead in the legal residency queue. If and when the next revolution comes to China, all those wealthy Chinese people want to know they’ll have somewhere to run–and they’re willing to pay a premium for access to the escape hatch. They don’t even care about the ROI so long as they can hedge their risk by getting their money and/or themselves out of the country.

    We’re so used to thinking about people trying to get into our country, we never stop to think what it would mean if we couldn’t get out. A lot of wealthy people might want to get out of America some day, but middle class people might someday wish they could get out, too.

    1. What they don’t know is that you can’t actually own property in Australia. The fucking animals own it, every bit of it, and it’s only a matter of whether they decide to enforce their claim on the particular piece you’re occupying. Which sucks, because I really want to go to New Zealand, but you can’t without stopping in Australia.

      1. New Zealand has a sliding scale residency agreement.

        Whether you can be a resident there is a function of your age and how much money you’ve invested in the country.

        “3. Investment in New Zealand

        You have been approved residence under the Investor Category and met any conditions imposed under section 49(1) of the Immigration Act 2009, or you obtained residence under another category and maintained an investment of NZ$1,000,000 or more in New Zealand for two years.”

        http://www.immigration.govt.nz…..ements.htm

      2. My understanding is that New Zealand has about the freest gun laws in the world, by the way. They also have no prohibitions whatsoever on things like silencers.

        1. . . . silencers, suppressors, clips, magazines, tomato, to-mah-to, whatever.

          1. “Silencer” is actually the correct term, so SUCK IT all you gun snobs out there. Created AND USED by the man who invented them, Hiram Maxim in 1906 for his invention.

            ORIGINALIST, BITCHES!!!!

            1. But it’s false advertising if it isn’t actually silent, right?

              I can can refer to a paper clip as a stapler, but if it doesn’t actually staple anything . . .

              1. Silencer could be construed as RELATIVE, Ken!!! Jesus, some of them out there (the WET ones) are silent as mofos compared to the ordinary report of the muzzle.

                I’LL TAKE IT!!!

                1. I’m just joshin’.

                  Some gun people are purists. I read gun forums, and it’s hilarious. If you thought libertarian purity tests were bad, . . .

                  You have to say everything exactly the right way, or there are 20 guys ready to ponce on you for not knowing ANYTHING!!!

                  That’s why I went back and corrected. If I wrote how much I liked the the Starship Troopers movie, some people around here might have a hernia.

                  Silencers/Suppressors. It’s like that.

        2. New Zealand has about the freest gun laws in the world

          No

          Except under supervision of a licence holder, owning or using firearms requires a firearms licence from the police. The licence is normally issued, under the conditions that the applicant has secure storage for firearms, attends a safety program administered by the Mountain Safety Council and passes a written safety test. The police will also interview the applicant and two referees (one must be a close relative and the other not related) to determine whether the applicant is “fit and proper” to have a firearm. The applicant’s residence is also visited to check that they have appropriate storage for firearms and ammunition. …There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have an end use for wanting the endorsement.

          et cetera.

          if you want to have a hunting rifle, or a handgun… its possible (unlike elsewhere), but even after acquisition? its use (never mind transport) is highly limited and regulated. Simply buying ammo and going to the range can be a complex legal procedure that opens the door to inadvertent violations.

          There was a guy on Utube who used to vlog on NZ gun issues but its private now.

          1. sorry, that last sentence was trying to point out (within the character limit) that the “Kiwi Ted Ferny‘s, Militaria/Firearms Collector”-channel seems to have gone private. Which is a shame because he had some great video commentary

            1. Okay, so my understanding is that they don’t generally ban any specific type of firearm per se; it’s generally about vetting the owner. And that vetting process is pretty damn intrusive. Do I have that right?

              There’s no special registration for SBR, silencers, etc.–and in that narrow sense, the Kiwis’ gun laws are more liberal than ours. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Even in a free state, if you want one of these set up like this:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMEmNeL-i9U

              . . . you gotta ask for permission from the BATFE twice, right?

              By the way, should we put you in the pro-suppressor or pro-silencer column?

      3. Que?

  7. Governments are up in arms, not because of the endemic corruption the ill-gotten wealth of the politicians in the Panama Papers represents but because, apparently, they didn’t get enough of a cut.

    Gee, where’s my shocked face? /sarc

    1. When Obama gives the taxpayers’ money to his cronies in the UAW, out in the open where everyone can see it, that’s not corruption . . . for some reason.

      Also, when foreign governments give their taxpayers’ money to Hillary Clinton by way of her foundation, that’s not corruption either . . . for some reason.

      Somehow, if Obama or Clinton does it, it isn’t corruption.

      I’ve seen bowlegged street walkers on Hollywood Blvd. who were nowhere near as sleazy as Hillary Clinton.

      1. When Obama’s erstwhile pick for Secretary of Treasury, Jon Corzine, steals his clients’ money outright so that he can speculate on junk bonds, that’s not corruption … for some reason.

  8. End all foreign aid
    Abolish the IRS
    Cut the size of the government by 98.7%

    Mission Accomplished !!!

  9. I made the mistake of watching O’s address on this subject. Normally I avoid watching clips of this narcisstic, pedantic, egomainacal blowhard as his ignorance of all things economic just turns my stomach. He didn’t disappoint, but I was amazed at how LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE HE UTTERED had some falsehood, or obfuscation or appeal to class warfare or envy. IT was fucking appalling and I realized that this man is not just the worst president of my lifetime – he is a fucking cancer on the republic (such as it is) that is/was America. I find it hard to believe that he could be so ignorant as to actually believe the things he says, but if not, then what? Outright malice?
    HE is the liberal Reagan. He has done an AMAZING job of destroying Reagan’s legacy and anything that was prosperous about America.

    1. You are far too charitable in your assessment of Obama’s performance and character.

    1. Did they shut it down so he could enjoy it in solitary splendor?

  10. This is all about government getting its cut. Nothing more, nothing less. The use of the word socialist is brilliant language gibberish to fool The Retards.

    The Panama Papers, while exposing what we all instinctively knew (well, the more skeptical and less naive among us), will not lead to an epiphany or ‘libertarian moment’. It will mean a doubling down of state power and the people will pay. Not the criminals or anyone else in the parasite class.

    How many times have we heard the story of people owning land but not allowed to develop it because of whatever ordinance or regulation? How many are stuck with lands they can’t use because of the bureaucracy? Ah, but if you know the right people you know who to grease because more often than not, the parasite class knows you’re sitting on a pot of gold; or at least a nice, fat profit. Give them their cut and suddenly and magically – presto! – you have permission.

    1. It reminds me of some other organization I’ve heard of.. Mafie? Afia? No, no, Mafia! That’s it! MAFIA!

      Now, just let them wet their beaks a little. That way we all come out ahead, right?

  11. one of these days we’ll have to create a group of people whose job it is the oversee the tax code so this kind of thing doesn’t happen anymore.

  12. GamerGate: It’s not about media corruption, it’s about the harassment of women and minorities!

    Panama Papers: It’s not about government corruption, it’s about tax evasion!

    1. They identify the assets of 140 current and former politicians from around the world, as well as a few dozen private citizens.

      33 private citizens, or 19% of the named individuals, are not politicians are evading taxes.

      140, or 81%, are corrupt government officials.

      Yet it’s about tax evasion.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.