US Lawmakers Push Tough New 'Buy American' Bill

[Purveyor]

Source: AFP

US lawmakers have introduced legislation to tighten "Buy American" rules that often anger major US trading partners by requiring that public sector projects rely on domestic goods and services.

Representative Dan Lipinski and Senator Russ Feingold, both Democratic allies of US President Barack Obama, say their "Buy American Improvement Act of 2009" will help foster US job growth amid double-digit unemployment.

"For American taxpayer dollars to needlessly wind up in the pockets of workers in China and other foreign countries is indefensible in the best of times. During the worst recession in more than a quarter-century, it's a disgrace," Lipinski, who hails from Illinois, said in a statement.

"By purchasing American-made goods whenever possible, our federal government will send a simple message to American workers: We support you," said Feingold as they introduced the legislation on Wednesday.

Similar provisions in a nearly 800-billion-dollar economic stimulus package approved in February drew European and Canadian complaints of protectionism.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_lawmakers_push_tough_new_Buy_Ame_12182009.html

[Romulox]

1. The Obama admin has been trying to subvert the last Buy American clause since it was passed...

More than half of the Cash 4 Clunkers monies went to foreign corps, for example...

[pundaint]

7. The country of the Corporation doesn't matter, where were they manufactured?

[Romulox]

25. C4C had no restriction as to country of manufacture.

Some were assembled in the US, many were not. There was no requirement that they be, one way or the other...

[Booster]

2. I've tried and it's impossible to just buy American stuff. We don't

make enough things here to just buy American and the time you spend looking for American made and the extra money you spend if you do find something would just you out to be a total fool. What we need to do is compete with other countries to make good, affordable goods so we could have a choice.

[flamin lib]

3. What we need is Fair Trade, not Free Trade

If our trading partners had to meet our labor and environmental standards we WOULD be competitive. If China or Mexico and foul the air and use child or forced labor we'll never be able to compete.

[safeinOhio]

4. I will not talk to call centers if the

person can not tell me who plays third base for the tigers. I sometimes give them a second chance and ask who is the starting center for the Calvs. Drives em made too.

[SnakeEyes]

8. I don't even know who plays third.

Yikes.

[pundaint]

9. Yes, we can at least get some entertainment while we are not being served.

My favorite response to "where are you located?" was a city in Texas, so I said "oh yeah, that's about 100 miles Southeast of Houston right?" They said "Right." My second favorite was the guy in "Salt Lake City" who couldn't give me the direction of the Wasatch chain from town.

[Unvanguard]

17. I'm an American, I've lived here all my life, I could answer neither question.

Couldn't even tell you what cities those teams play for. If you hadn't mentioned bases I wouldn't know which sport...

[JDPriestly]

48. I would not pass your test. Can't stand sports.

I also don't watch TV. You've got a great idea but you need a different question.

[Book Lover]

51. I'm a US-born person and I have no effing idea who is who in sports

Then again, the person in Chennai and I can both use Google, so I have to wonder how useful your interrogation is

[safeinOhio]

53. Point is, I don't either.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. Not everyone follows baseball or basketball, even in the US.

Un-American as the idea may be.

[treestar]

66. I don't know that

I've lived in the US my whole life.

[tomm2thumbs]

5. i think it is because kids don't play chess anymore

(symbolically) When you think of where we grew up and how things have changed, the sport of 'thinking' has fallen to the sport of, well - enjoying.

For example, I swear science is so damn interesting, but this country hasn't started kids early in getting excited about that - or thinking in new ways, or discovery. It's all about instant gratification, games, video and absorbing instead of creating.

(stepping away from the mic)

[justabob]

11. .

Seems like during the Cold War it wasn't just about who had the biggest missiles. It was about who had the best scientists, astro/cosmonauts, ballet, chess players, Olympians.... Who grew the most grain or exported the most tractors, you know? I don't know if I am making any sense, but we don't have anything we are competing against except fear and hysteria now. There was fear and hysteria back then too, but many other outlets for "besting" the big bad Russians were available and even encouraged. I don't mean to sound like I am nostalgic or anything, but it is something I have noticed.

[tomm2thumbs]

52. nope, you are correct - and it isn't nostalgia

I do think the idea of a common purpose or national identity has blended away somehow - perhaps the lack of a 'common enemy' but also a lot of GOP divisiveness of who are considered 'real Americans' - and keeping folks on the fringe. The Democratic side has not picked up the ball and made the most of it as uniter, with the caveat that it is starting to happen more now, but it has a long way to go.

Perhaps the school system needs to catch up with the internet a bit as science and technology could really be introduce much earlier in schooling to inspire younger minds to think with ambition as they are exposed to the magic of what it can do SOOO much earlier nowadays.

I think they are starting to address the school issue now, so maybe this is simply the beginning of a change!

[justabob]

59. common purpose

Yes I agree about the loss of purpose/identity.... as well as the shit stirrers defining who/what is a real American. I don't even know how to talk about this because I don't want to live in Borg cube where everyone is homogenized and thinks the same and resistance is futile, but at the same time our diversity and 'independence' make things a lot more challenging.... As an example I believe the Democratic party has big tented themselves to death, and as we are seeing now, will tear itself apart over it.

I have pondered this gordian knot of sub par education/un-informed electorate/media, merging of the parties + corruption/ethics, corporatism.... for years. What a mess it is. The only way I have come up with to start unraveling the knot is the schools... challenge the kids whether pre-k or highschool senior... and the general population as well. Why can't we have Obama.... or whatever leader stand up and say I challenge y'all to get your cities on alternative fuel or cut gasoline consumption by x% or grow x acres/tons of community vegetables.... whatever. I believe we enjoy a challenge.... pit Dallas against Houston to see who can get greenest the fastest, NYC vs LA or Nebraska vs Kansas whatever. Why do we only get competitive about our sports teams? Can't we harness that spirit for something bigger than the Rose Bowl? It doesn't have to be a huge thing.... lots of small challenges. We are a competitive people, or we were.

on edit: I cannot spell

[tomm2thumbs]

65. yes, the challenges are the attempts to accomplish - and that is a big lacking in the US

everything is accomplished FOR us - I wonder if I grew up and and had video games if I would have not turned out less creative or productive than if I hadn't, but I do think that it would be a better mind feeder to have kids try to create their own game (character design, sound effects, 3-D learning, etc) than to sit and play one. I love those challenges that colleges have, and I think you are right, they need to move those into younger grades because kids are connecting to technology so much earlier.

I've seen engineering students have to build water balloon shooting devices, things that have to pick up a brick off the bottom of a pool, something you can throw off a 2nd story building to protect a raw egg... that sort of thing... and the participants literally start ooooozing with creativity. It is the challenge that gets them.

I remember being told 'There are no lazy people - only people without passion.' I think it applies to kids as well.

[w4rma]

62. Don't blame the kids for the greed of the old and wealthy who run things. (nt)

[Zorra]

21. Here's a link to a website: HowToBuyAmerican.com -

http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/index.php

This may help you find more American Made products.
:hi:

[Booster]

61. I bookmarked that link and will check it out. But I just resent

having to "work" at finding American made things - I'm old and I remember when MOST things on any store shelf was made right here. We need to go back to the good old days. Thanks for posting the link.

[PassingFair]

63. That would change with the right combination of tax breaks and importation fees. n/t

[Golden Raisin]

6. I really try to buy American-made

products but it is frequently very hard to find them --- so many of the goods for sale here nowadays are manufactured in other countries.

[liberal N proud]

10. Closing the barn door after the horses got out

[Mari333]

15. exactly

now, lets dump Nafta and fine the shit out of US companies that outsource, slap huge tariffs on goods being imported from them, and tax the shit out of the rich. and get rid of HB1 visas

[denverbill]

12. Three cheers for Feingold and Lipinski!

I'm sure the 'free traders' will have none of this though.

[Unvanguard]

13. This is a terrible idea that progressives should oppose.

It embodies the kind of narrow-minded, counterproductive nationalist reasoning that used to be the province of the Right, and should have remained there.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. And your comment

Embodies the kind of corporate stooge horseshit that should have remained up Tom Friedman's ass along with his head, and has wrecked the economy.

[Unvanguard]

20. I think Thomas Friedman is a posturing fool. I don't read him.

But comparative advantage has been recognized as sound and compelling economic doctrine for a very long time, and the fact that it does not jive well with some of the simplistic populist rhetoric currently in vogue does not concern me.

Global capitalism as a system has numerous problems, but they more closely concern the "capitalism" part than the "global" part. Protectionism is not the solution: policies that redistribute wealth and power are. Even figures as antipathetic to global economic institutions as Hugo Chavez are perfectly willing to embrace economic integration; they understand this, as many people in the developed world do not.

[Hello_Kitty]

22. Once again

Slave labor and pollution are a FEATURE of globalization, not a bug. Your dream utopia of a global economy that is fair and just is not going to happen because very rich people have a vested interest in it not becoming so. That icky protectionism that you dread so is the last vestige of leverage that the working and middle class has.

[Unvanguard]

24. It is not "leverage", it does not change anything. It is just bad economics.

Workers will still be exploited whether an economy is open or closed to imports. The main difference is that both the US and its trading partners will, in the aggregate, be poorer.

[DainBramaged]

42. You're not Dr. Sheldon Cooper from the Big bang theory are you?

:banghead:

[pampango]

44. Good point. Chavez is pursuing, successfully, economic integration with his neighbors in MERCOSUR.

Your point is good. If the government has the best interests of its people at heart, economic integration with other countries is a good thing. If the government does not, any amount of effort to distance your economy from those of other countries is not going improve the lot of citizens, because those benefits will go to the "protected" class in the country.

[mstinamotorcity]

56. If you want to make a case

for global capitalization, i don't see how.America as well as its trading partners have been off course for as long as i can remember. Protectionism.my ass are workers here in America would be more competitive if some of our own companies would quit selling us out. Listen you can take that product that is being made over in another country where they are polluting the air poisoning the people and have floating barges of garbage on the ocean and using child labor and low wage workers and give me my protectionism. F--k what you heard. They go to other countries to make a thousand parts for a dollar. they thought that the cheap labor would improve their bottom line.And it did for a while. But like all good evil things it had to come to an end.So now when they bought their product back they were not counting on the fact that they had crippled their own workforce and now no one has a dollar to buy their goods here. So your global s--t can take a back seat to the work ethic of an honest hard working American.IMHO.

[Romulox]

26. LOL. Now "free trade" and globalism are LEFTIST ideologies?

Too silly to require further comment. :silly:

[Unvanguard]

29. Protectionism is not historically a left-wing policy.

It is not historically a right-wing one either: people adhering to both sides of the political spectrum have advanced it and opposed it.

I merely wished to emphasize a truth that liberals have long recognized--cooperation with other countries often ends up helping us as well as them--that should incline us against protectionism.

[Romulox]

35. Rubbish. Race to the bottom "free trade", deregulation and globalism are all triangulated positions

Positions that belonged to the right before they were appropriated by "New" Democrats like Bill Clinton.

Your attempt to re-write worker protections as "rightwing" ideology, is, I will repeat, too silly to require refutation.

"I merely wished to emphasize a truth that liberals have long recognized--cooperation with other countries often ends up helping us as well as them--that should incline us against protectionism."

Your assertion is at odds with the truth--globalization has been accompanied by a marked decline in the wages and standard of living of workers. :hi:

[pampango]

43. They are in Europe where societies are quite progressive. FDR and Truman believed that global trade

helped foster peace and prosperity, so they created GATT which was the predecessor to the WTO. It's the ultra-conservatives in Europe that want to dismantle the EU with its free trade and open borders, so that they can reinstate immigration limits and tariffs against the rest of Europe.

You are right, though, that in the US opposition to "free trade" has been adopted by the left, not the right. (Smoot, Hawley and Hoover are all turning over in their graves at conservatives losing control of the "tariffs are wonderful" argument.)

[Romulox]

45. The proponents of these policies in the US tend to VOCIFEROUSLY oppose a social safety net

Stripped of a society which is "quite progressive", all that remains in the ideology in question is a Randian social darwinism. If you'd like to forge a new progressive case for laissez faire capitalism, the field is wide open.

But you'll be starting from scratch if you want to apply that model here in the US. Which means that little details like massive inequality, worker exploitation, and lack of anything resembling environmental regulations will have to be addressed before (not after) more so-called "free trade" is implemented. Don't you favor this sort of comprehensive approach? Because, while I'd be pleased to extend to you the benefit of the doubt, I haven't seen much of this sort of advocacy from you. :shrug:

[pampango]

49. Perhaps we agree that "free trade" can be a left Ideology IF it implemented in a progressive society

You and I agree that the US is not a progressive society, to put it mildly.

My point is that eliminating "free trade" by implementing tariffs and tearing up treaties, agreements and membership in international organizations isn't going to help. It's going to hurt our exporting companies, costing us jobs there. And the extra profits that some domestic companies earn when foreign competition is eliminated are going to go mainly to the rich, just as profits do now. None of the countries that have opted out of "globalization" (not members of the WTO) are just societies, Russia, North Korea, several of the "...stans", Bosnia, Laos and several other Middle Eastern countries.

Opting out doesn't accomplish anything by itself. Creating a progressive society doesn't require getting rid of "free trade" since the latter can be consistent with the former, as evidenced in Europe. Creating a progressive society does require that we deal with the concentration of wealth and power which manifests itself in tax cuts for the rich, shredded social safety net, lack of regulation of the corporations and financial markets, weakened union and worker rights and a lack of effective national health care.

[CrispyQ]

14. If they really wanted to send a message of support to American workers,

they would work on a "Manufacture in America" bill, aimed at the multi-nationals who have outsourced our manufacturing sector.

[Unvanguard]

16. Or, instead of engaging in protectionist special-interest pandering

they could pass the Employee Free Choice Act, or give us real health care reform, or (finally!) repeal Taft-Hartley, or strengthen weak and poorly-enforced workplace safety laws, or pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to protect LGBT workers, or do a whole host of things that would actually concretely improve the lives of American workers.

But instead of facing the real problem--the immense inequality in wealth and the unrestrained abuses of employers, wherever their plants are located--the preference is for protectionist rules that amount to little more than a subsidy for certain US corporations, at the expense of American workers as a whole.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. Those things should have been done BEFORE we started shipping jobs

Along with rigorous controls on the treatment of workers and environmental standards in plants located overseas.

Sweatshop labor and unchecked pollution are a FEATURE of globalization, not a bug.

[Unvanguard]

23. I don't think the chronology matters particularly, but the earlier the better, sure.

I agree that workers in other countries should not be exploited, but I'll admit to being skeptical of the motives behind many attempts to put labor regulations in trade deals. If the idea is to best help workers in other countries, the aim of such regulations will be to improve their working conditions without pricing them out of the market; unfortunately, when it is cited as an attempt to stop "outsourcing", its point instead seems to be precisely to price them out of the market, which certainly does not improve their circumstances. I'm more inclined to support labor movements and broad movements for social reform in other countries, than to dictate economic policies from here.

As for unchecked pollution, I'll give you this one. I'd be happy with a tariff policy designed narrowly to be proportionate to the costs of the environmental damage inflicted by companies overseas. But this is an entirely different approach from one centered around protecting US industries. (Indeed, especially when trading with other developed countries, in some cases foreign goods may be produced in a MORE environmentally friendly way.)

[Hello_Kitty]

27. The hell it doesn't matter

NAFTA passed, a buttload of manufacturing jobs were sent to Mexico, and a handful of people got filthy stinking rich off of it.

[Romulox]

39. Right. Let the peasants eat cake if they have no bread.

:eyes:

[pampango]

41. One problem with an "environmental tariff" which would be a great achievement is that it might hurt

the US, too. China produces more CO2 than us but not by much and they have 4 times our population. On a per capita basis we produce 3.5 times as much CO2 as does the average Chinese. If you broke China up into 4 US-sized (300,000,000 population) countries each would have about 27% of emissions that we do.

If one bases an environmental tariff on total country CO2 emissions, big countries (like China, the US and EU) will be punished, while ignoring smaller countries that might each put up heavily polluting industries but each countries total wouldn't amount to much. If one bases it on per capita CO2 emissions, it would be a lot tougher on the US and the EU.

To base an environmental tariff on the pollution of individual factories, power plants, etc., the countries of the world would have to agree on binding rules and enforcement mechanisms handled by another international agency. That's fine by me, but you can predict problems when such an agency tells us (of the Chinese or the Brazilians, etc.) something we (they) don't want to hear. (The right didn't want foreigners assigned by the Kyoto Treaty telling us what to do and many on the left don't want foreigners assigned by NAFTA or the WTO telling us what to do.)

Most of us like the idea of treaties to work out mutual problems until someone comes along and tells us, "You know the treaty means that you have to do this (or can't do that). Our reaction is, "You can't tell me what is best for me and my country".

[Romulox]

28. Umm, were you in a coma when they were handing out TRILLIONS to banksters?

American workers as "special interests" indeed. Ridiculous. :hi:

[Unvanguard]

31. American workers are certainly not special interests.

The particular US industries that want protection, are--at the expense of American workers, whose real income depends (and sometimes whose jobs depend) on lower-cost imports.

[Romulox]

38. "The particular US industries..." like Banking and Securities, you mean?

Oh, of course you don't mean those industries--those industries must be free to suckle at the taxpayer's teat. No sir. Competition is for people with dirt under their fingernails, but there is a completely different set of rules for the pigs who walk upright, eh? :puke:

[Hello_Kitty]

32. Not to mention thinking of human beings as "comparative advantages"

That's code for "where are the people poor and desperate enough that we can work them like slaves"?

[Unvanguard]

33. If your interest is in protecting poor and desperate people

then the very last thing you should want to do is throw them out of work by prohibiting the goods they produce from being imported into the US.

They are not poor and desperate because the US has lowered its tariffs.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. They are poor and desperate

Because the plutocrats have a vested interest in keeping a large number of people in the world poor and desperate. And those same plutocrats have spent the last 20 odd years looting the wealth of the American middle class, which has been substituting credit for wages. In case you hadn't noticed, that gravy train has kinda screeched to a halt. Americans need jobs and money to be able to afford to buy stuff from anyone, let alone third world countries.

IOW, if you want to provide the opportunity for poor people to improve their lives via access to U.S. markets, the last thing you want to do is throw a bunch of middle class Americans out of their well-paying jobs and into unemployment or shitty Walmart jobs.

[pampango]

34. Well said. All great ideas. I would add restoring the progressive taxation that we had before

the 1980's, toughen financial market regulation (in concert with Europe and others), and create an effective social safety net.

These are all things that are totally within our control as a country, not areas that we worry about breaking treaties or agreements with other countries to accomplish. (Though I realize that many people on both ends of the political spectrum don't care about breaking treaties or international agreements if it serves our purpose.)

Perhaps it is frustration at not being able to accomplish your suggestions or mine that leads many to look for another solution. Blame the foreigners - imports or immigrants - is a common reaction all over the world. They are the "others" and by definition have little political support since they can't vote, so it is usually easier to "do something" about them (tariffs, border walls) than it is to fight the domestic power structure.

[Romulox]

37. Right. But all those things need to be done BEFORE we implement more neoliberal policies

Nobody buys the "NAFTA side agreement" excuse any longer. The President isn't proposing any of what you talk about; he is proposing a "free trade" deal with South Korea. This is why the neoliberals have no credibility when they claim to care for workers. :hi:

[Zorra]

30. Woo-hoo! Thank you Senators Feingold and Lipinski.

Help yourself, your friends, and your neighbors, and help create tax revenue for the US.

Buy local. Buy American. Buy Union.

[DainBramaged]

40. The chinese and Japanese 'clunker" bills PREVENT the purchase of American cars

The Chinese infrastructure projects PREVENT bidding by American construction firms. During the Domestic cash for clunkers program, %67 of the vehicles sold were japanese imports or transplants.


Those who feel we are being protectionist with this bill can kiss my wrinkled old ass in Macy's window.

[Romulox]

46. But the WTO REQUIRES that taxpayers bail out Japanese and Korean car makers

Why doesn't the WTO require the Japanese and Koreans to do the same? Um...well... :shrug:

[pampango]

47. The US agreed in 1995 with other countries to allow mutual bidding on each others'

federal procurement and infrastructure projects. Most of them are European countries, along with Canada and a few others.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/gproc_e/memobs_e.htm#parties

China is not part of that agreement. Neither of us can complain if one doesn't let the other bid on its projects.

This may be another agreement that we want to walk away from, but then it would be hard to blame countries in Copenhagen from wondering if our word on a climate change agreement is worth anything.

[Hello_Kitty]

50. They're hypocritical asses too.

Most of those countries are engaging in protectionism to stimulate their own economies while decrying this Buy American proviso.

[IndianaGreen]

54. NAFTA drove most of our industry to other countries

This is another "feel good" bullshit bill.

[24601]

55. China beat them to it - they been buying America some time now n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

57. Oh, how ironic.

AFTER allowing major corporations to export our jobs AND give them tax credits to do it and AFTER allowing even more Visas and AFTER turning their heads away from the 20 million ILLEGAL immigrants, NOW they want to do push buy American? Buy American WHAT?????

[4dsc]

60. Ironic the republican use to support tarriffs

After reading this article its clear to see that somewhere along the lines of history, the republicans and democratic parties somehow switched their positions on tariffs and free trade.


http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/17606.htm

In the decade after the end of the First World War, the United States continued to embrace the high tariffs that had characterized its trade policy since the Civil War. These were enacted, in part, to appease domestic constituencies, but ultimately they served to hinder international economic cooperation and trade in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

High tariffs were a means not only of protecting infant industries, but of generating revenue for the federal government. They were also a mainstay of the Republican Party, which dominated the Washington political scene after the Civil War. After the Democrats, who supported freer trade, captured Congress and the White House in the elections of 1910 and 1912, the stage was set for a change in tariff policy.

[amandabeech]

67. That's simple. Republican Masters of the Universe used to make more money

by protecting their markets at home from foreign competition.

Now, the same folks can make more money by making things in the second and third world and protecting their access to the US market.

Follow the money.

[Jkid]

64. Unless there that bill restricts products purchaged made in the 50 states and DC.

It's meaningless. Some companies would set up shop in areas where US labor law does not apply but is part of the US.