Companies that Offshored Jobs Attacking "Buy America"/Stimulus on False Grounds

[Hello_Kitty]

Firms That Sent U.S. Jobs Offshore Now Claim That Investing U.S. Taxpayer Funds in America Is "Protectionism," While Falsely Claiming That U.S. Steel, Iron Requirements for Highway, Transit Projects Violate Trade Pacts

Before any more front-page stories get the facts wrong about the preferences for U.S. steel and iron in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, please be advised: Buy America and Buy American are separate pieces of legislation with separate regulatory requirements and different statuses under U.S. trade agreements. The House stimulus package requirement 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 practice and is EXEMPT from coverage under various trade-agreement procurement rules. (What various U.S. trade pact rules do require and what these two "Buy-A" laws require is discussed below.)

Meanwhile, lobbyists from corporations such as Caterpillar and General Electric seem to be intentionally conflating Buy America and Buy American to falsely claim that the U.S. iron and steel rules violate trade-pact rules. Perhaps the real reason these firms have launched a fact-distorting PR and lobbying effort is because they have moved so much production away from the United States to low-wage foreign venues, meaning that their products may see less benefit from this massive injection of government spending.

As well, the notion that these Buy America provisions will launch a global trade war is ridiculous, if for no other reason than the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Government Procurement (AGP) applies only to 39 countries with an additional 13 countries being signatories to U.S "Free Trade Agreements" (FTAs). The United States has no trade agreement or other procurement obligations to China, Brazil, India and many other major developing-country industrial powers. Further, any number of laws implemented in any number of countries to date in response to the economic crisis violate WTO rules. But these have not been subject to WTO challenge, which suggests that there is some sort of multinational gentlemen's agreement among WTO signatory governments to ignore each others' take-backs of non-trade policy space to implement needed regulations during this emergency period. Contrary to recent newspaper editorials repeating the hysterical 'launching a trade war' tone of the corporate attack on the Buy America provisions, a review report circulated by the WTO's director general on January 23 concludes that the global economic crisis has so far provoked little "protectionist" reaction from governments in the form of increased tariffs or other barriers to trade.



Read the whole memo: http://www.citizen.org/trade/offshoring/government/federal/articles.cfm?ID=18343

Gee, corporate stooges are lying to us yet again. Whodathunkit?

[w4rma]

1. Very good analysis. This whole stimulus plan is going to fail without Buy American clauses. (nt)

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Exactly.

People on DU need to wake the fuck up and realize that supporting all this "globalism" doesn't make them tolerant and multi-cultural and hip. It makes them stupid.

[OhioChick]

5. You're dead on. n/t

[shari]

9. Well said.

Don't they realize that if we fail to correct our economy it will affect them all? Or do they dislike us so much that they hope to see us fail?

[RC]

7. The stimulus plan needs "Employ American" clauses in it.

What good does it do to hire HB-1 visa foreign workers for American jobs?

[Waiting For Everyman]

13. It darn straight better be included - jobs are the whole point.

I thought that was in it, but I hope I'm not wrong - geez, that would be crazy. If "hire American" is not in it, that's even worse and more absurd than this controversy.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. Yeah, it's American products, not necessarily jobs

My main criticism of it is that it doesn't go far enough.

Mark my words: In one or two years were going to find out that many companies who get these stimulus contracts are hiring low-wage immigrants. Halliburton was caught hiring undocumented immigrants for post-Katrina projects and then cheating them out of their wages!

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. Whoa, wait a minute, time out.

That's putting it way too mildly. This needs a full-stop and a total redo. Back to the drawing board and get it right this time.

Ok, I'm re-calling my senators and telling them I'm against it because of that. That, is not optional. We don't need to waste more money. That is totally preposterous and UNACCEPTABLE.

What are these - 5 year olds, we're dealing with?

[Waiting For Everyman]

17. We need a Federal "Employ America Act" for government jobs immediately!

And that should apply to subcontractors as well. I agree with you 200%. It could have provisions similar to those for materials. That has to be the main thrust of this, or it's nothing. Absolutely nothing.

I'm disgusted by practices like Citibank obtaining employment contracts from the Federal government, and then using it's "American name" to hide the fact that it offshored the Food Stamp call centers of 42 states! That needs to be illegal. This is a no-brainer!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3717478#3717691

What worse outrage could there be, than sending our own government's jobs elsewhere or to H1-Bs? Good grief, does the atrocity have no bounds?

Enacting that one law, and permanently, could do a lot to turn this around all by itself.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Sure - they don't want to be taxed is all

[AzDar]

4. A little protectionism is a good thing.

A lot is even better.:patriot:

[Double T]

6. Buy American or buy NOTHING!

Yes, we GD can!!

[ChromeFoundry]

8. Thanks for posting this. K&R n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

10. I pointed this out too, but lying liars lie as a response.

Bookmarking because we'll see the same lies at least 20 more times by tomorrow. (Not that they'll read it.)

Until we stop incentivizing the offshoring multinationals, we'll get nowhere, no matter how much we spend (it's just going into the same pockets). Which of course, they will then after guzzling up the stimulus our companies should specifically be getting, point to it and call it a failure. Well gee, I wonder why? How about we figure that out ahead of time for once? It doesn't take great insight to see it.

But this is no honest error or lack of realization on the free traders' part. As you said, it's more intentional lies - just like what we've had for too long, which brought us here.

The old saying... "Insanity is doing the same thing that didn't work before, and expecting a different result".

[Hello_Kitty]

11. There are a handful of especially noxious globalism defenders on DU

One, in particular, is a real world class douche about it. Dollars to donuts he's involved in outsourcing in some way.

[Waiting For Everyman]

15. I'd bet big on that too, HK - the hidden agenda.

Mega-skanky! Considering the extreme damage already done to our whole economy, and people they interact with right here.

Euw, I couldn't imagine doing that without self-loathing. And they think they're cool. Unfuckingbelievable.

[liberalhistorian]

20. I think I know who you're talking about and I agree,

he probably is involved in outsourcing in some capacity. It's as if he's almost offended by the very idea of his fellow Americans being able to have jobs and as if he finds the fears and concerns of the unemployed to be whining and offensive. It's as if he thinks we all should be living under bridges and eating scraps from garbage because so many citizens of some other countries are in bad shape. As if our joining them in being in bad shape will do them any good.

I've been looking for paralegal work for a long time now and stumbled upon a sickening website for the offshoring of legal support and attorney review jobs, run by an American. He's no American in my eyes, however.

[Hello_Kitty]

26. Post #24 is a classic example

"La la la I'm not listening!!"

[midnight]

12. Be patriotic, by American.....

Perhaps the real reason these firms have launched a fact-distorting PR and lobbying effort is because they have moved so much production away from the United States to low-wage foreign venues, meaning that their products may see less benefit from this massive injection of government spending.

"multinational gentlemen's agreement among WTO signatory governments to ignore each others' take-backs of non-trade policy space to implement needed regulations during this emergency period."

[Hello_Kitty]

18. Please K and R this to the front page.

Everyone needs to see it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

19. Kick!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Hello_Kitty]

21. Kick.

[Greyhound]

22. Another K&R for one of the few voices of sanity in Amerika. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Late evening kick to expose the lies. eom

[pampango]

24. I'll support Obama.

"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama supported Buy American provisions already in U.S. law that give preferences to domestic manufacturers in public works projects, but wanted to avoid an expansion that violates trade commitments."

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5135MN20090205

I assume that when NAFTA was agreed to in 1994, everyone knew about the 1982 Buy America Act. The latter's provisions are either explicitly excluded from NAFTA or are "understood"(gentleman's agreement?) to not be covered, so following its provisions does not violate any international agreement. (The alternative possibility would be that we agreed with Canada to let each other bid on government procurement projects, then got home and said "Thanks for your concession allowing us to bid on your projects, but we have a 12 year old law that we didn't tell you about that gets us out of doing what we conceded, so you aren't bidding on ours.") I prefer to think that we were honest with them and that the 1982 is a mutually agreed exception to NAFTA provisions.

If I believe in international diplomacy, negotiations and agreements, I have to also believe in living up to the agreements I sign until they are changed or formally abrogated. I we are going to solve problems in Iran, North Korea, the Middle East through negotiations and agreement, it will help if the other side doesn't suspect that, after we reach an agreement, we are going to get home and suddenly say that there's this preexisting law that we didn't tell them about that prevents us from doing what we promised as our side of the deal.

The part of the article about what other countries have or have not done is a little confusing. Has the economic crisis "provoked little "protectionist" reaction from governments" or "any number of laws implemented in any number of countries ... to violate WTO rules"?

Obama seems to have a good handle on the balance between economic recovery and jobs in the US and keeping the international commitments we have.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. Your post is a study in missing the point to avoid admitting you were wrong

Your rhetorical tactic is basically Appeal to Authority at this point. President Obama, as brilliant as he is, might be listening to advisors who are giving him wrong information. Or he might be perfectly aware that protecting U.S. iron and steel for government projects doesn't violate any pacts but he just doesn't want to extend the Buy America clause in the stimulus because, as the author of the article pointed out, some big U.S. companies have moved so much of their manufacturing off-shore that they wouldn't benefit as much.

The part of the article about what other countries have or have not done is a little confusing. Has the economic crisis "provoked little "protectionist" reaction from governments" or "any number of laws implemented in any number of countries ... to violate WTO rules"?

Perhaps you should contact the author about that. We do find out from another article that the deals we entered into with Canada and the EU were never equitable to begin with.

"...While the United States (only) safeguards its preferences for domestic iron and steel used in federally funded state transportation projects, Canada simply carves out steel, motor vehicles and coal altogether (for all provinces, for all sectors), and also carves out all construction contracts issued by the Department of Transport. The EU carved out of its WTO procurement obligations all EU members’ country contracts awarded by federal governments and subfederal governments in connection with activities in the fields of drinking water, energy, transport or telecommunications. (On the links, just click on Appendix I, Annexes I-II, and the general notes. Some bits will be easy to read, other bits less so.)


Translated out of trade lingo, both Canada and EU give their nations' companies products much more generous preferences than Congress is even considering giving ours. While current U.S. laws (merely extended in the stimulus bill) give U.S. iron and steel a leg up over the foreign competition for transit projects, Canada and the EU give their firms products a leg up over American companies and products on EVERY aspect of transit funding, and many other government purchases besides..."

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2009/02/harper-gets-hypocritical-about-hypotheticals.html