I’m an accountant. My college degrees and CPA license are the intellectual properties that enable me to earn a living. Now suppose that I formed a corporation to deliver my services, then took my diplomas and license off my wall and placed them in a safe deposit box in a Luxembourg bank. When clients came to my Oregon office, I would explain that the value of my services was represented by the diplomas and license now held in the offshore bank, and they should send their payment to my corporation housed at a PO Box in Luxembourg. Using this little accounting trick, I would be able to avoid paying U.S. taxes, until I brought those “foreign” funds back to the United States.

If I spun this ludicrous tale to my clients, I expect most of them would leave my practice immediately and find a different accountant.

But this accounting acrobatics is exactly the sort of transaction that hundreds of U.S. multinational corporations use to avoid paying billions of dollars annually in U.S. corporate income taxes.

Technology, pharmaceutical and entertainment corporations, whose profits depend heavily on patents, trademarks and copyrights, have aggressively shifted profits from the United States, to one of dozens of tax havens that charge little or no taxes.

Bloomberg Business Week recently illustrated examples of this tax avoiding behavior: Forest Laboratories “sells nearly 100 percent of its drugs in the U.S. – and cuts its U.S. taxes dramatically by attributing the bulk of its profits to a law office in Bermuda. … Google reduced its income taxes by $3.1 billion over three years by shifting income to Ireland, then the Netherlands, and ultimately to Bermuda.”

These tax avoiding strategies cost the U.S. Treasury more than $100 billion a year. And they have led to more than $1.2 trillion in liquid assets being stashed offshore by U.S. corporations.

A new coalition of corporate tax avoiders including Google, Apple Computer, Pfizer, Duke Energy and an array of industry trade groups are demanding that Congress pass a special tax break that would reward these tax avoiders who “repatriate,” or bring back their offshore stash to the U.S., with a 5.25% tax rate, not the 35% corporate income tax that would otherwise be owed.

The coalition calls itself WIN America, but the numbers involved in the corporate tax holiday mean a real loss for America. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has calculated this tax windfall would cost $80 billion, money that would be made up with higher taxes on small business people like me, or through reduced government services and infrastructure upon which all businesses, communities and families depend.

Tax amnesty programs are nothing new. The IRS has a couple of times allowed individual taxpayers to declare hidden offshore assets and pay both the full tax due and penalties in exchange for avoiding prosecution and possible jail time. While much corporate tax-dodging through the use of tax havens is neither hidden, nor illegal under current law favoring U.S. multinationals, it wholly stems from corporations who engage in these transactions for the principle purpose of shifting profits between countries in order to avoid taxes. Creating an incentive for such anti-social behavior through preferential tax rates will only serve to accelerate the offshoring of U.S. profits through fictional transactions.

Indeed, this is exactly what happened in 2004, when Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act, a bill which promised that a 5.25% tax rate would bring home billions of dollars that supporters claimed would be reinvested to create American jobs. The promise never materialized; most of the funds went instead to boost shareholder dividends and stock buybacks. Many of the biggest beneficiaries of the tax break, including Pfizer, Honeywell, and Hewlett Packard, laid off thousands of workers just months after receiving their tax windfall. That tax holiday, and the promise of another, has dramatically accelerated the amount of U.S. profits shifted offshore.

All of my education took place in the United States, as do all of my client meetings. The vast majority of Americans find it right and logical that I have a duty to pay taxes in the U.S. It is time that the same logic applies to multinational corporations, and that we stop accepting fairy tales about patents and trademarks held in some far-away bank vault.

Senator Mitch McConnell has a clever plan to resolve the federal debt impasse. Congressional Republicans would invite President Obama to raise the debt ceiling on his own, and then they would excoriate him for doing so.

Hm. Just a bit contradictory?

Meanwhile, the impasse arose because Congressional Republicans thunder against government red ink, yet refuse to raise revenue by ending tax breaks that help Warren Buffett pay a lower tax rate than his receptionist (which he agrees is preposterous).

Another contradiction? Of course.

Senator McConnell’s plan — a pragmatic way to avert a catastrophic default — may be torpedoed by more extremist House Republicans, like Michele Bachmann. They seem to fear that ending tax loopholes for billionaire fund managers would damage a fragile economy. Yet they seem to think that this invalid of an economy would be unperturbed by the risk of a default on our debts.

A contra- — yes, you got it!

What about this one? Republicans have historically been more focused on national security threats than Democrats. Yet what would do more damage to America’s national security than a possible default that might halt paychecks for American military families?

This game of “spot the contradiction” is just too easy with extremist Republicans; it’s like spotting snowflakes in a blizzard. Congressional Republicans have taken a sensible and important concern — alarm about long-term debt levels, a genuine problem — and turned it into a brittle and urgent ideology.

Politicians in both parties have historically been irresponsible with money, but President Bill Clinton changed that. He imposed a stunning fiscal discipline and set the United States on a course of budget surpluses, job growth and diminishing federal debt — until the Republicans took over in 2001.

In the Bush years, Republicans proved themselves reckless both on the spending side (unfunded wars and a prescription drug benefit) and on the revenue side (the Bush tax cuts). Their view then was, as former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill quoted Vice President Dick Cheney as saying, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

It may seem odd that Republicans were so blithe about debt in the Bush years, yet now insist on addressing the problem in the middle of a downturn — even though basic economics dictates that a downturn is the one time when red ink is advisable. Well, just another of those contradictions.

Then there’s the rise of health care costs, a huge burden on our economy. The Congressional Budget Office foresees a rise in federal spending on health care from 5.5 percent of gross domestic product today to more than 12 percent in 2050 (at which point it will be double the share of spending on Social Security).

“The United States’ standing in the world depends on its success in constraining this health care cost explosion,” Peter Orszag, the former budget director, observes in Foreign Affairs. So how do we contain health care costs?

It’s pretty clear what doesn’t work — the existing, dysfunctional system. A forthcoming book on health care by Paul Starr, “Remedy and Reaction,” notes that in 1970 the United States spent a smaller fraction of income on health care than Denmark and the same share as Canada. Today, in dollar terms, we spend two and a half times the average per capita of other rich countries.

When Congressional Republicans do talk about health care, they have one useful suggestion — tort reform — and it was foolish for Democrats (in bed with trial lawyers) to stiff them on it. But research suggests that curbing malpractice suits, while helpful, would reduce health costs only modestly.

Beyond that, the serious Republican idea is to dismantle Medicare in its present form. That would indeed reduce government spending, but would increase private spending by even more, according to the C.B.O.

The Obama health care plan could have done better on cost control, but it does promote evidence-based medicine, so that less money is squandered on expensive procedures that don’t work. And a panel of medical experts, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, will recommend steps to curb excess spending in Medicare. These initiatives will help hold down health care costs, even if it’s difficult to know how much — and they are the only game in town.

Yet Congressional Republicans are trying to kill the Obama health plan. Yes, of course: another contradiction.

A final puzzle concerns not just the Republican Party but us as a nation. For all their flaws, Congressional Republicans have been stunningly successful in framing the national debate. Instead of discussing a jobs program to deal with the worst downturn in 70 years, we’re debating spending cuts — and most voters say in polls that they’re against raising the debt ceiling. I fear that instead of banishing contradictions, we as a nation may be embracing them.