This seems to me to be a lose-lose proposition. You lose by setting the precident, but if there is no other way to bring that money back in for at least SOME taxation, them you lose if you don't do it also. The real problem is that the money is allowed to stay outside in the first place, but I have little hope of Congrss having the guts to do anything about that soon.

I guess that places me in agreement with the administration (and that's a first, believe me!): I'm skeptical but would probably not stop it.

What do all these pharma companies have in common? Hint:

http://www.aegis.com/news/wsj/2002/WJ020509.html

If a multinational corporation has profits securely parked overseas, what exactly is to prevent them from simply borrowing against those overseas profits as collateral to finance domestic investment, since the interest cost is much less than the tax cost and furthermore tax-deductible? If this is correct, why then would the proposed measure cause them to repatriate such profits? Is this why the proposed tax rate is just 5%, i.e. roughly the rate of interest?
And, given that a large proportion of so-called international trade is actually infra-corporate transfers, such that where profits accrue and get taxed is subject to corporate pricing and accounting decisions, what does this story imply about the domestic government revenue consequences of "free trade" policies?