Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWill Obama Keep His 'Buy America' Promise?
As Businessweek reported in its cover story a few weeks back, taxpayers lose a major bang for their buck when our money is allowed to be spent on products and commodities made overseas. Thus, the least we can do is make sure that when taxpayer money is spent, that it gets spent to create jobs here at home. That's basic commonsense that domestic business and labor be able to agree on. It's an issue, in fact, that even many progressive Democrats and Republicans agree on (note that archconservative Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter was a big supporter of "Buy America" laws).
Cut to today. Both the House and Senate, following the campaign promise of Obama, inserted the most basic "Buy America" provisions into their drafts of the economic stimulus package. As the nonpartisan watchdog group Public Citizen reports, these provisions, requiring that U.S. steel and iron be used for federal and state transportation infrastructure projects, "simply extends existing law (the 1982 Buy America Act)" and is therefore explicitly exempt from any corporate-written trade rules that seek to limit such policies.
These provisions are critical, especially because they include language making sure they don't inadvertently undermine taxpayers interests. For example, the president is allowed to waive the Buy America provisions if applying the preference would be "inconsistent with the public interest," if iron and steel are not produced in the United States "in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality," or if inclusion of iron and steel produced in the United States will increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.
OK - so to review: Obama campaigned on the Buy America concept, Congress followed his lead and legislated them into the stimulus bill but made sure to give him enough flexibility to waive them if they ever endanger taxpayers. So has the Obama administration been cheering and applauding - thanking Congress for helping them fulfill a campaign promise? Um, not exactly.
Since the provisions passed, business front groups - representing multinational corporations yet fraudulently putting the terms "American" and "U.S." in their names - have launched a major lobbying offensive to gut them. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Emergency Committee for American Trade in Washington are demanding Obama use his leverage to get Congress to eliminate the Buy America provisions.
The groups are getting help from individual companies like Caterpillar and General Electric (not surprisingly, two of the biggest job outsourcers) as well as the usual cast of Washington's corporate-funded think tanks and private equity firms like the Carlyle Group who make the hysterical claim that ensuring American tax dollars are spent in America will somehow initiate a global "trade war." They also throw out the canard that these provisions are somehow like the Smoot-Hawley tariffs that conservatives blame the Great Depression on - somehow omitting that the original Buy American laws were passed in 1933 (well after Smoot-Hawley) and one of the New Deal policies that got us out of the Depression. The screeching has gotten so loud, that for the first time since I can ever remember, the Washington Post (whose editorial board has been one of the most strident voices for free trade fundamentalism in American politics) put a story on page A1 about trade/industrial policy.
But for all the claims of concern about the domestic economy and regular workers, the corporations lobbying against Buy America are acting to defend their own business models that rely on economic policies that effectively incentivize corporations to ship jobs overseas, where they can crush unions, destroy the environment, enslave workers - and therefore lower their bottom line. Buy America laws that reward domestic businesses for staying in this country are a mortal threat to the multinational corporate lobby.
Indeed, what this is about is making sure taxpayer money keeps flowing to corporations that have no loyalty to the United States. Whether its multinational banks getting bailout money or multinational manufacturers getting Export-Import Bank grants to ship jobs overseas, K Street has done a fantastic job of making sure that you and I - the average taxpayer - keeps having to subsidize our own pink slips. And now K Street is making its first campaign of 2009 a campaign to convince Obama to drop his campaign promises and use his power to ensure that our taxpayer money keeps funding our own economic demise - even if it means, as Businessweek suggested, severely weakening the positive effects of the stimulus package.
The Obama administration has responded with a very tepid reaction. Instead of Obama saying, "Damn straight, we're going to make sure stimulus money gets spent in America," the best we've gotten is Vice President Joe Biden telling CNBC, "I don't view [the Buy America provisions] as some of the pure free traders view it, as a harbinger of protectionism." That's at least a start - but from Biden's boss, the president, we haven't even gotten that.
Here's Bloomberg News:
President Barack Obama’s administration will examine a “buy American” requirement in economic stimulus legislation that has raised concern among U.S. trading partners, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.
The administration “will review that particular provision,” Gibbs said today at his regular briefing. The president’s advisers understand “all of the concerns that have been heard, not only in this room, but in newspapers produced both up north and down south.”
He refused to say whether the administration supported or opposed keeping that part of the legislation intact. Nor did he say what the president would do if the provision remains once the bill clears the House and the Senate.
Forgive me for being not encouraged by this pledge to "review" provisions that Obama campaigned on, but c'mon - this is, well, not encouraging.
Obama's first use of presidential power was a veto threat to make sure taxpayer cash keeps flowing to multinational banks and financial houses. He's negotiating with Republicans over adding new corporate tax cuts to the stimulus bill. Now, as a corporate lobbying campaign ramps up, he's signaling a willingness to "review" the most basic provisions making sure American taxpayer dollars benefit American taxpayers.
At what point will he draw the line? At what point will he answer that historic question that labor always asks: Which side are you on? At what point will he firmly and proudly say "no" to the demands of moneyed interests in Washington? Is it too much to ask him to stand up and publicly defend the most basic, minimal and commonsensical form of economic patriotism that would make sure the stimulus package gets the most bang for the buck?
Democrats just ran a 2006 and 2008 campaign promising to come to Washington to reform our trade and economic policies to make sure they start working for regular people. This fight over Buy America is the beginning of that battle - and if at the very beginning the head of the Democratic Party joins the economic Benedict Arnolds who have sold our country out, it could rip apart the party the same way Bill Clinton tore apart the party with his early push for NAFTA (anyone remember the '94 election?). More important, it could undermine the effectiveness of the stimulus and tell voters Democrats really were never serious about their most minimal economic pledges.
Let me conclude by saying I hold out hope that Obama will make the right decision and support Buy America provisions - and we should withhold our judgment until the president makes his judgment. But the fact that there's even a hesitation once again reiterates what I said in my newspaper column today. Like FDR in the 1930s, we may today have president who says he agrees with us, but passing even the most minimal policies like Buy America will require us to make him do it.
51 Comments so far
Show AllFrom WSWS this critical socialist perspective on "Buy American".
The rising tide of economic nationalism
30 January 2009
Peter Symonds
Read the full article hear:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/pers-j30.shtml
(a couple of excerpts)
As the global economic crisis continues to deepen, the unmistakable stench of economic nationalism is on the rise around the world. Confronted with collapsing industries and growing anger over job losses, governments are reaching for protectionist measures despite the disastrous consequences of such beggar-thy-neighbour policies in the 1930s.
...
The new Obama administration spurred on the rising tide of protectionism with the comments last week of Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner accusing China of manipulating its currency to boost exports. Designating Beijing as a “currency manipulator” would allow the White House to invoke a broad range of punitive tariffs and other economic penalties against China under US trade legislation.
...
Those who push this reactionary poison in the working class are the trade unions and their various middle class radical allies. Far from defending jobs and conditions, economic nationalism goes hand-in-hand with the continuing impoverishment of working people. Whether in the US, Europe or any other country, the same union bureaucrats who have presided over the decimation of manufacturing industry over the past three decades now insist on the further sacrifice of wages and conditions as part of the protectionist packages to defend American or European companies.
...
The working class cannot defend its interests under the banner of either protectionism or “free trade”.
Wait. Hasn't America already BEEN bought? And sold?
Seems like those who like "buy America" tend to dislike NAFTA:
Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the United States erects barriers between itself and Canada, it will slow down the economic recovery of both countries.
Will the Prime Minister address the question of American protectionism during President Obama's visit, and what is he prepared to say to defend our country's interests?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for any country, protectionism is a serious concern during such an economic crisis. I have been prepared for some time. Protectionism must be avoided during a global downturn. It is an ongoing process in the American Congress. We will see further changes, plans and proposals.
United with every country in the world, we will insist that the United States respect its obligations with respect to the World Trade Organization. ...
Hon. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I got the impression that the member was reaching out at the same time as giving a backhanded hit at some of the members here in this House.
I want to refer the hon. member to some price problems with respect to his own riding and the crisis across Canada.
We have learned this morning, and over the past couple of days, that the U.S. government is potentially proposing a bailout, a stimulus package of epic proportions. That stimulus to the economy will have with it a possible condition of no foreign content being allowed. Clearly, the member understands the implications for companies within his own riding. The implications could look a whole lot more, and I do not want to sound alarmist, like the Smoot-Hawley bill of the 1930s which had the unintended effect of raising tariffs and of course seeing the world go into further economic difficulty.
Given the member's concerns about investments within his own riding and jobs, concerns which we all share in this House although we have perhaps a different way of seeing this, will he speak to his trade minister and the Prime Minister and ensure that Canada remains open for business with the United States as it ought to? What will be the effects and impacts of this kind of stimulus? What will that member of Parliament do to ensure that we do not fall back into the malaise of the 1930s?
Mr. Stephen Woodworth: Madam Speaker, I am aware of Mr. Obama's stimulus package and its impact on Canada. I am also aware, as he is, that the protectionist provision in that package is limited to one or two sectors. It is not a wide-open protectionism. Our industry minister is on top of this file and has commented on it. He is aware of it. He is intent on ensuring that the American government will comply with its international obligations under NAFTA and other trade agreements.
It is interesting to see at this time, 20 years after NAFTA was hotly debated in this country, how important it is to our country to ensure that we maintain that good, open, free trade with the United States. I am glad that my friend on the opposite side of the House is concerned about that, too. I assume he will be supporting NAFTA in any efforts to reopen negotiations on it. Having said all of that, it is premature in that the American package is yet to be finalized.
In any event, our good news budget today provides a great deal of access to credit and financing to the industries in my riding which will help them ride out this storm. ...
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=363429...
Iggy seems concerned mainly with "American protectionism" - his concern is mainly of being shut out of the American Market. Harper makes the point that the World Trade Organization is by its very nature anti-protectionist. The second exchange (McTeague and Woodworth) is also a Conservative-Liberal match up. The inference is that "no foreign content allowed" means that a country is not "open for business" - but what it mean to be "open for business" is left undefined? There is also the assertion that the Buy American Act, as it is presently written contradicts NAFTA and that, when push comes to shove, Americans will rewrite the Act so that it complies with NAFTA (ie water it down into nothing).
I only gave a portion of Brian Masse's comment for the NDP on the issue because it was quite long - and left out most of the part about applying protectionism to the automobile sector. The NDP opposed what it saw as the anti worker pro business approach of NAFTA from the beginning so do not have the positive view of NAFTA shared by both the Liberals and Conservatives. Masse figures that lack of protection for our own industries have cost Canadians jobs long before the present crisis.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's East and I am proud to do so.
An interesting launching point to start off this discussion is to refer to what is happening in the United States and the protectionism measures in the stimulus package it has developed, not just the current one, but the past one. It also has a series of laws and guarantees in its legislation enshrined to protect its bus industry, its shipbuilding industry and its defence contract that covers a series of different procurements that are important.
One of the glaring examples of why this budget needs to be defeated to propose a stronger budget is a procurement policy in Canada, something that the United States and other countries do, that would be within good faith practices in North America based upon what the U.S. is doing.
We saw this come to a head in my area of Windsor and Essex county and Chatham Kent when a contract for almost a quarter of a billion dollars was recently awarded for a truck to be built for the military. Instead of awarding that contract or putting in the RFP to ensure Navistar would build it in Chatham, it is going to be built in Texas. It is unacceptable when a quarter of a billion dollars of procurement goes out this door to reward people in Texas.
Ironically, in 2002, I was fighting with the auto workers to protect that plant. The Liberal government at that time originally said that we could not do anything to assist or facilitate that plant to ensure it had a future. It denied all those things. It said that we could not do it under NAFTA and it used every excuse. However, it finally capitulated and we were able to successfully keep that plant going until today with a modest investment and that retooling was very successful. The money helped the plant develop for the future. It has had good jobs since that time and has paid for itself in spades.
Workers and their families have been able to live a solid life and donate to the United Way and other causes and actually return the investment to the taxpayers of Canada through income tax. We will now watch that plant go down and be eliminated, while at the same time we will be supporting a plant and a facility in the United States.
There are other examples of that by the current government in its past. The Conservatives have a history of it. The ecoAuto rebate program, for example, which is still in the program the penalty axe back. It is important to note the type of strategies the government does not acknowledge or fix. When that program was put in place it literally had Canadian taxpayers' money going to Japanese vehicles made overseas with the Yaris, in particular, getting the actual incentive.
It is very difficult to support a government that does not plan its position properly. We will see a lot of the stimulus exit this country. We will do what the Americans did when one of George Bush's packages went out, which was basically cheques to Americans. What they discovered was that only 10% of the money went back into the value-added American economy. The rest of the money was either saved or lost in banking scandals or exited the country as other manufactured goods were developed overseas.
Vaudree
I'd like to point out that there is another country involved in NAFTA. Mexico is also a member. Let's look at all of the problems that have resulted from the inclusion of Mexico into NAFTA. Wait. The comment section is not long enough to discuss them.
There is also CAFTA, which include El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras. More problems for all of us.
A case study of how contemporary free trade policies and global financial institutions (IMF and World Bank) affect the economies of developing nations can be seen in the documentary - Life + Debt (2001), produced and directed by Stephanie Black.
Magarulian you are right that the Free Trade Agreement became NAFTA after Mexico joined the original agreement with Canada and the US. NAFTA was bad because, despite NDP pressure, it was devoid of worker and environmental protections and actually gave rights to corporations to sue governments if government policies impacted corporate profits. The rights of governments were further eroded as the result of the SPP (NAFTA on steroids) - that meeting between the three amigos and 30 CEOs in New Orleans last April - that was an SPP meeting - and they are finding ways to harmonize pesticide standards etc to make it easier for goods to cross borders - and to word new laws as regulation rather than legislation - so that they don't have to go through Congress/Parliament etc to be passed.
Linda McQuaig detailed in "Cult of Impotence" how the Peso crisis required a bail out to protect money speculators (Mexicans basically got nothing out of it) and Mexico was punished again by WTO requirements in order to get financing on their dept.
Labour leaders are regularly murdered in Mexico. Pesticides are killing the people. The people are working in unsafe conditions for money that often doesn't even provide for basic food and shelter. People sleep in shifts.
What have I left out?
Do you have a link to the video?
Vaudree
Thanks for that additional information.
I purchased the DVD "Life + Debt" a few years ago. For more info on this excellent documentary - about the reality of life in Jamaica - see http://www.lifeanddebt.org/
Thanks! Found it on line:
http://vodpod.com/watch/42408-documentary-life-and-debt-full
Is the WTO, IMF or World Bank of any particular value to America?
"Let's look at all of the problems that have resulted from the inclusion of Mexico into NAFTA. Wait. The comment section is not long enough to discuss them."
Correct!
There is also CAFTA, which include El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras. More problems for all of us.
Also correct!
As I recall Canada Imports about as much steel from the United States as it exports to the United States.
In other words as far as STEEL goes there really no jobs created in America by a "Buy American" policy as they risk losing that export market.
The problem in America is they run a MASSIVE trade deficit with the world at large one that has never seen its like in history of some 700 billion dollars.
At the same time they have massive liabilities and run a budgetary defict which will be close to some two trillion dollars this year.
If one wishes to keep the same Capitalist system, the US will suffer more then anyone from "protectionism" as they NEED exports in order to bring wealth into the country.
If they can not earn these money via exports then they can only BORROW more or print up more dollars which will lead to hyper inflation.
All too true.
But is fair trade protectionism? I'd say no, just a level playing field. Rather than "free trade" which is one sided protectionism. With us on the wrong side.
My point being that protectionism in foreign markets under these "free trade" deals has exacerbated the corrupt and bad business practices of our corporations.
I believe out trade with Canada needs adjustment on both sides. Example...when lumber got so high here Canadian softwoods were kept out of our market hurting both countries. Same was true of Brazilian plywood, neitherr of which was subsidized (as far as I know). This is "free trade"?
Perhaps I should say equal access to markets is whats needed rather than "free trade" NAFTA, CAFTA, etc which is really protectionism in the end. It protects corporations profits.
Thomas - there are people still angry about softwood lumber in Canada. We were on the verge of winning the last appeal and the Conservative government snatched defeat out of the hands of victory. If fact, because of softwood lumber, Canada could have walked away from NAFTA without having to pay the fee for breaking the agreement.
Remember that the loonie was quite low at the time - which made Canadian lumber cheaper - until the US put the levies on Canadian softwood lumber to protect their own industry.
For decades, the NDP has advocated "Fair Trade NOT Free Trade" by which they meant a trade agreement which protects workers and the environment and puts levies on countries who pay their workers less than a living wage. Lately, the Conservatives seem to have co-opted the phrase with their own slogan "fair and free trade" - that, in their opinion, the only type of trade that is fair is unfettered trade.
In Canada we have a government who is so anti-protectionist that it is trying to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board (which has nothing to do with protectionism at all).
Obama can risk protectionism because they know that their biggest trading partner (Canada) will not engage in protectionism. Thus, they create jobs in their own industry at home and do not risk losing the Canadian market because of it.
NAFTA was started with Reagan's approval of the US-Canada "Free trade" Agreement but at that time, very few people were paying attention except those of us in the Upper Midwest who saw the beginning of this mess and we were IGNORED by both parties except for a few Republicans and Democrats in those states who gave a hoot back then.
Vaudree
"Thomas - there are people still angry about softwood lumber in Canada"
Believe me there were a lot of people here that were very unhappy about! Our local builders were screaming as they were gouged.
"fair and free trade" - that, in their opinion, the only type of trade that is fair is unfettered trade."
We are a prime example of what unfettered and unregulated markets do. So they resemble some of your currency that you mentioned.
"Canada could have walked away from NAFTA without having to pay the fee for breaking the agreement."
I wish you guys had. We could have had a decent trade agreement by now.
The NDP suggested we should. The Conservatives didn't listen.
The 1985 US-Canada Free Trade Agreement pretty much started the road to NAFTA and later CAFTA. Back then nobody was paying attention except for a few Republicans and Democrats in the upper midwest.
That is because Canadians would come down on the weekends, get drunk and then spout off about Free Trade being about Mulroney trading Canada to the Americans for free - or some other similar comment. Speaking about Mulroney - the more we learn about Mulroney, the more Blago looks like Mother Teresa.
"When Irish Eyes are Smilin'
Sure 'tis steal your heart away"
There were a number of "Price advantages" Canada had with its softwood lumber which US Lobby groups claimed as subsidies.
The NAFTA panel conitnulay ruled in Canada's favor byt the Canadian Government decided it did not want to tweak Americas nose so agreed to quotas.
1>The price of the Canadian Dollar at the time.
This was the single largest component of the price difference.
2>The health Care system
As in virtually every industry Universal health Care provides comeptive advantages to Canadian Industry.
3>Private versus Public control of resources.
This is the one US Lobbyists focused on the most. Canadian provinces hold massive swathes of Timber under the Public domain. They auction the right to harvest this timber off to Industry.
Part and parcel of the bid process is the OBLIGATION of Industry , in return for that public timber , to harvest certain amounts of timber each year so as to provide Jobs In Canada.
In the United States the bulk of Timber lands are own by private companies. Those companies have no obligation to cut timber and provide jobs. If the market for Lumber is too low they can lay everyone off till the price of timber climbs.
Industry in the US claimed that by putting lands up for auction, Canadian Governmnets were subsidizing the industry since Industry could gain the right to harvest timber at a cost that was below what a US firm would have to pay to BUY private timber lands outright.
I am going to suggest that the fact is that Canadian firms and its system were providing Jobs in the US. As long as Canada could export lumber to the United States, US firms had to keep running in order to maintain market share. As soon as the Canadian lumber slowed, US firms could lay off workers, wait until the price of Lumber jumped , and then hire them back , all the while maintaining market share.
GwNorth
"The NAFTA panel conitnulay ruled in Canada's favor byt the Canadian Government decided it did not want to tweak Americas nose so agreed to quotas."
Should have tweaked our nose.
1>The price of the Canadian Dollar at the time.
I don't believe that was a function of manipulating currency was it, if not thats a usual component of trade.
2>The health Care system
Then I'd say we get one here that levels the playing field.
"In the United States the bulk of Timber lands are own by private companies. Those companies have no obligation to cut timber and provide jobs. If the market for Lumber is too low they can lay everyone off till the price of timber climbs."
It mostly got into their hands through government auctions. A lot still does.
"I am going to suggest that the fact is that Canadian firms and its system were providing Jobs in the US. As long as Canada could export lumber to the United States, US firms had to keep running in order to maintain market share. As soon as the Canadian lumber slowed, US firms could lay off workers, wait until the price of Lumber jumped , and then hire them back , all the while maintaining market share."
I believe thats fair comment.
Obama is in a difficult situation. While "Buy American" is extremely appealing and caters to the unions and protectionist elements in Congress it raises the spectre of retaliation leading to trade wars that can only hurt any chance of global recovery.
It is disingenuous to claim that requiring US made steel for stimulus projects represents merely an "extension" of the 1982 Buy America Act and does not contravene the 1988 Canada-US FTA (free trade agreement).
It also shows the lack of understanding in Congress of how integrated the Canadian and US economies have become. Most Canadian steel production is controlled by US companies and the remainder by offshore companies.
By the way, I doubt Obama would want to repeal NAFTA and forego the rights that the US has negotiated to Canadian oil.
"Renegotiate" rather than "repeal"
Obama has of late been talking down the dirty oil of the Alberta oil sands - and it is access to this oil that is the big incentive to keep NAFTA in its present form. In fact, the Conservatives are quite worried about Obama's recent blasting of Alberta oil.
“I think that we have to have a discussion with the United States about all kinds of energy and just as there are discussions about so-called dirty oil there are discussions about dirty coal plants and it all needs to be part of the discussion.” - Jim Prentice, Minister of the Environment
(scroll to bottom - click “Monday” - app 24 minutes in)
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/
Can anyone name an economic issue which Mr. Obama has not stabbed the progressives in the back over?
I can't; but please enlighten me.
If we had free and fair elections, Mr. Nader would have had a real chance to make his points, and therefore, maybe winning the election. This so called democracy is a farce on the way to a tragedy.
David Sirota asks "Is it too much to ask him (Obama) to stand up and publicly defend the most basic, minimal and commonsensical form of economic patriotism that would make sure the stimulus package gets the most bang for the buck?" Yes, it is too much. Please understand this, Delusionary David, B. Obama works for the interests of the American Empire, not for the interests of America and its people. The sooner that you and the American people realize this, the sooner we can all find ways to deal with it.
Sirota goes on: "we may today have president who says he agrees with us, but passing even the most minimal policies like Buy America will require us to make him do it." Why? Why should it require us to make him do it? What you are saying is that B.O. has no basic concept of what's right for America. Yet, you "hold out hope that Obama will make the right decision." And I'm sure that you have a fairy godmother too, Mr. Sirota.
If Obama really cared for America and its people, he would push to abolish NAFTA and he would make a huge effort to bring our manufacturing base back to these shores. What's stopping him? It certainly isn't 'we the people'.
How the hell can we Buy America when so much is made overseas? The fact that Obama pretends not to see this should be ample evidence for all of us that he supports the goals of the American Empire, and not America. Wake up Delusionaries!
"If Obama really cared for America and its people, he would push to abolish NAFTA and he would make a huge effort to bring our manufacturing base back to these shores. What's stopping him? It certainly isn't 'we the people'."
YEP!
And changing a few tax laws to make offshoring jobs and moving manufacturing offshore, taxing corporate profits no matter if they are left overseas, costs nada! Nothing!
I told people when the first stimulus bill was passed that we should all cash our meager checks and stuff the resulting “wad” in an envelope and send it to China. It was going to end up there anyway, why not cut out the middlemen? The people running the transnational corporations don't seem to realize that we, people in the US are one of their major customers and we can't buy their crap if we don't have jobs to earn the money to buy with. I know that many of these MBAs that are running these entities took some economics classes, because that's basic stuff. Were they passing notes and trying to get a date with the pretty woman across the classroom, sleeping off a drunk or high, or what?
As for forcing our elected officials to do what's in our best interest instead of the corporations', I'll point out again the first bailout Splurge in October a couple weeks before the election. At first we thought Congress listened to the majority of the electorate and was not going to pass it. But they did anyway, over our loud objections. And a couple weeks later, with that supposedly fresh in many minds, most of those people in Congress were returned to their positions. I remember reading that many of the reps in Congress were scared about what they should do with the “bailout” since it was coming so very close to the election. To many of them it seemed to be a “damned if you do, damned if you don't” deal. The next elections are a long ways away. If we, collectively, can forget such a serious transgression in just a couple of weeks, then, surely Congress is safe from our collective memory in two years. I don't have a lot of hope, but will happily say I was wrong if I am.
The term "Buy America" came up only because there were real unions and a real working class united on the idea of putting quality over whole sale volume sale first. Obama had a good reason to remind us that we must all work together. Until we stop laughing at putting quality over profiteering first, our mom-and-pop stores will have a harder time making it back and the "Buy America" phrase will be rendered meaningless. I suggest we put our hearts and minds into local unity and try to level the plane field so that Obama will find it easier to tackle the corporate interests hell bent on borrowing "cheap" foreign labor and parts. America was rendered "cheap" and worthless and the same corporate raping is going on elsewhere too. I've posted these red alerts about foreign exploitation on quite a few foreign blogs and I was surprised at some of the responses though in time some of those people finally understood the exploitation they're going through that we went through back in the 1980s.
While I don't agree with Sirota a lot, he has nailed this one. Nailed it to the wall.
"This fight over Buy America is the beginning of that battle - and if at the very beginning the head of the Democratic Party joins the economic Benedict Arnolds who have sold our country out"
If Obama does not adjust or repeal NAFTA, if he does not protect the American worker's jobs from business predators, keep money from being sent out of the country and start taxing profits no matter if they are returned to the US or not, indeed make the right decision and support Buy America provisions, he will be looking for a new job in 4 years. And a lot of Democratic Congressmen will be looking in two years.
"business front groups - representing multinational corporations yet fraudulently putting the terms "American" and "U.S." in their names - have launched a major lobbying offensive to gut them. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Emergency Committee for American Trade in Washington are demanding Obama use his leverage to get Congress to eliminate the Buy America provisions."
These are just some of the predatory anti-American groups using fradulet framing of their arguments. They are opposed to the American worker and citizen at every turn. They are in effect traitors to our country just as Mr. Sirota suggests.
And I wish someone would tell Joe Biden that most of us don't give a damn what the "free traders" think, they are the ones that created this mess. And what's wrong with a little "protectionism"? Every other country is practicing it.
You are absolutely correct, Thomas. NAFTA and GATT agreements have led to the destruction of our economic base. The original claimed intent (which has been proved a lie) was to bring economic equality to workers everywhere. Instead, it became a rapid race to the bottom, where only a few at the top benefited. Ironically, they never saw that they could not maintain this profit ratio (or if they did, they didn't care). A poorly paid worker cannot buy the products he makes, and when you take enough money out of the hands of enough people, the whole edifice collapses (which is what's happening now). This the CORE issue that Obama must address, or reelection will be the least of his worries; he will have to deal with large scale civil unrest. Several states are already on the verge of bankruptcy. What do we think will happen when they try to squeeze their already cash-strapped residents with higher taxes and fees?
We certainly agree. Though our focus must be on our own country first and helping our own people, these bad trade agreements have certainly hurt the workers, farmers and ranchers in other countries too. The Mexican farmer for a start.
The corporate cover story of "Globalization" has allowed them to get away with murder, literally.
"A poorly paid worker cannot buy the products he makes, and when you take enough money out of the hands of enough people, the whole edifice collapses (which is what's happening now)"
Seems they forgot the lesson Henry Ford taught them when he gave his workers a $5.00 a day wage so they could buy his cars. His predicted business collapse never happened.
"We certainly agree. Though our focus must be on our own country first and helping our own people, these bad trade agreements have certainly hurt the workers, farmers and ranchers in other countries too."
Exactly. It's really a no-brainier that the money (money from a taxpayer-based stimulus package) should go toward buying goods made in the USA (whenever possible). Keep as much of that money circulating in our economy as possible for maximum effect. Otherwise, it will amount to a job stimulus for other nations, many of whom house these Benedict Arnold Corps (It is my view that any corporation that has the bulk of its operations elsewhere should lose its US corporate status entirely, but that is another matter). We should ignore any threat of economic blackmail. Presumably, these other countries stand to lose a lot more were we boycott their goods altogether. Moreover, if other nations have that much control over us, then we are indeed in deep doo doo.
chessgames56
Agreed. And we are indeed in deep do do at the moment.
RE: Otherwise, it will amount to a job stimulus for other nations
Well yeah - it is.
That is what Japan did with their car industry - they had a "buy Japanese" program at home and then also sold their cars on our open market. That is the reason their automobile industry is doing better than ours. Or one of them ...
Obama doesn't have to worry about "retaliation" in the form of protectionist policies in Canada - a "Buy Canada" policy goes against Harper's DNA. Thus, a "Buy American" program would result in, for example, Americans using American steal in their building projects and still being able to sell their steal to Canada without facing tariffs. Dalton McGuinty of Ontario may have other ideas, though ...
Vaudree
You are right. Thats what other nations are doing and have been doing. And should. Thats the job of every government I believe, protect your citizens from military, social and economic predators.
I expect Canadians to try and get the best deal they can for their citizens, I'd just like to have a government here that will do what the other governments have been doing for years. Whats best for their country.
I, on the other hand, would not hold my breath. Harper is more concerned with keeping the corporations happy than he is about making sure voters have jobs. Probably dusting off an old recording of "When Irish Eyes are Smilin'" right now since his copy of The Beetle's Taxman is so scratched his cd player is rejecting it.
Bye,Bye Harper would be a more appropriate song.
NAFTA along with union busting and undermining was responsible for the downfall of some of what used to be the best paying jobs in the state. I live in Nebraska, and one of the good paying jobs out here in the 70s was meat packing. It paid the equivalent of $25/hour and they had a strong union. It provided a decent middle class income for so many. From Reagan's union busting policies to Clinton's NAFTA and Bush's CAFTA, the illegals came in and now you are lucky to get eight bucks/hour and the union is history.
Meat packing is critical to better health too and doing it "cheaply" only leads to more increases in healthcare costs. Unfortunately, looney brains such as John Stossel and Neal Boortz will froth at the mouth if they hear about the need for meatpackers to get better pay and benefits and give them the rights to form a union but then they'd never know all the hazards and precautions one has to go through in that kind of a labor. They think it's as "easy" as wrapping a box of chocolates.
Nebraska Nathan1
We have the exact same problem, though I'm happy too report that our packers are getting $9.00 whole dollars an hour down from $20 something.
(haven't noticed cheaper meat though)
We had the unions too, but Texas is a right to work state, but till the Meat Packers could run in the illegals they couldn't bust the union or cut the pay of non union members. Big business has a vested interest in maintainig their cheap labor.
I suspect that the unions will be back as American citizens can no longer afford to subsidize business's cheap labor, almost slaves some of them. Once they aren't being subsidized any more and our laws enforced, business won't have a lot of choice.
"Meat packing is critical to better health too and doing it "cheaply" only leads to more increases in healthcare costs."
Good point and inspections need to be brought back. I don't know this as fact, but I'm told by some of the guys in West Texas that the inspections are a joke. But you know how workers talk.
"I don't know this as fact, but I'm told by some of the guys in West Texas that the inspections are a joke. But you know how workers talk."
I would say they're correct having met someone who actually worked as a meat inspector. Like everything else, it's all a matter of fudging the data and shifting blame to the small farmer if something goes wrong.
Another I forgot to mention is that since illegals know nothing about labor laws, they can be counted upon as happy slaves ready to receive no health care coverage which they will seriously need as they're bound to run into serious injuries or even deaths due to lack of proper training and hazardous chemicals to injest as they breathe. What's more, these illegals are chained to work longer hours which seriously affects performance and safety.
Nebraska Nathan1
It doesn't matter if they know labor law or not. As was posted on another string, if they try to organize or protest the Corps just hire another bunch. And if they are union members and try to get better conditions and pay, the immigrastion service magically appears.
Its a shameful business to exploit the poor uneducated workers you've lured here, dump your American workers into the street or force them to work under the same conditions and betray your country for a few extra bucks.
"Its a shameful business to exploit the poor uneducated workers you've lured here, dump your American workers into the street or force them to work under the same conditions and betray your country for a few extra bucks."
I'm not one of those who uses illegal labor to maintain my farm. Heck, I've cut down on corn production even though it's supposed to be the best cash crop despite its consequences on the environment and choking up more water and fossil fuels. Besides, my wife and I each take turns handling the farm and despite the work, it's actually great. I just wished more farmers in my state would learn. I've come across obese ones who use a few illegals to clean up and maintain their farm plus their fridges are stacked up with more Hungry Jacks than any local produce. It's insane when you see the whole thing.
There are plenty of ranchers here in Texas that use illegals, always have been actually but not like now. They work them and sometimes don't even pay them, we have had a couple of cases here where the rancher abused the women and it was swept under the carpet thanks to a DA a couple of counties over.
Though I oppose illegal immigration for many reasons, these poor folks that are lured here should be protected till we can restore our law and assume our civic responsibility again.
I don't see any difference between these ranchers/farmers that underpay, abuse and exploit these people than the slave owners that abused their slaves. Cowardly bullies that abuse people that can't fight back.
Nebraska Nathan1, you are right. Eric Schlosser has written a book describing the things you mention - meat packing, meat inspection, Mexicans illegally entering this country, labor laws and serious injuries.
These subjects and others are covered in the movie - 'Fast Food Nation' (2006).
Yes, it's only a movie, but I highly recommend it. It's directed by Richard Linklater and written by Eric Schlosser and Richard Linklater. There's great acting by everyone involved, and it's based on reality.
I thought Eric looked a bit goofy in the movie but I really must read his book and would be happy to get it. Thanks.
Read Schlosser's original book - it's much better than the movie. The movie was made into a fictional story, albeit one based on the facts presented in his book. The book is all about his research into this subject at the very places and with the very people at the heart of the food industry. It is filled with WAY more helpful information than the movie. Excellent book.
Thanks for info from you also. I guess some people are better writers than actors after all.
Nebraska Nathan1 & Seventhson
Eric Schlosser did not appear in the movie. Luis Guzman (as usual), Bruce Willis, Catalina Sandino Moreno, Ana Claudia Talancon, and others, were excellent in this movie.
And the reason I mentioned the movie is that a person could get a taste about the things we are talking about in 2 hours or less. Of course the book is a much better resource.
I'll buy America - as soon as it gives up it's unconditional support for war crimes and Israeli genocide.
Maybe next century.
The Glue That Holds Chaos Together
Hello, Dave!
I think that Obama is playing a political chess game with the Republicans. Any basic search on Obama's past will show you that he has often conversed with conservatives and used their trust to his advantage. While Obama promises change and offers hope, he has always rode the line on several peripheral issues, but he does stay on point with his agenda.
Obama has offered his hand out to the Republicans, who promptly bit it off. Now Obama will be seen as the mighty and humble Norse god, Tyr, and he will gain even more political capital. Obama is winning the trust of the borderline conservatives, while angering the liberals to push harder for what they want. The question is, can we survive through the duration of this political chess game?
I understand your concerns, and I agree with your opinion on the matter, but I think that Obama is a masterful chess player, and I can't condemn him for my not being privy to his great and secret show.
Rock on, Dave!
Good points, Dave.
Obama will keep his promise. He always does.
Norse God? Ha,ha,ha.
Don't write ridiculous things.
Tyr: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BDr
Sioux Rose
PATHOS: Chess player or otherwise, thus far demonstrated by his equivocal positions and 88% of his appointments, he's looking like all polish, no substance. In my book he's yet to STAND for ANYTHING! I have to say, Kem Patrick, bless his heart, had this one pegged!