Is Kerry a Market Fundamentalist? He just said:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

On NPR, Kerry just said: "We don't have the right Constitutionally to keep a company from sending jobs overseas."

Of course, state government charter corporations, and can revoke their charters, and can regulate them. But instead Kerry is pushing the corporatist line. Why?

[emulatorloo]

1. And what was the rest of the quote. . . .

He has been talking about other methods (Tax Codes, etc) to punish corps that outsource and reward companies that keep jobs in US.

I don't believe Kerry is big on messing with the constitution.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. the constitution says no such thing

In fact, the Commerce Clause says the federal government is responsible for regulating interstate commerce. Does Kerry subscribe to some right-wing doctrine about corporations? The Constitution is silent on the issue, so saying "Kerry isn't big on messing with the Constitution" doesn't work?

[bread_and_roses]

3. No expert here but

I hardly see how we could force companies not to build and hire overseas. But we sure could use the tax code to make it disadvantageous for them to do so, while at the same time using minimum wage laws to mandate living wages.

[HFishbine]

5. Of course you don't see it

Because you have lived too long in a country in which all interests bend to the will of corporations. The fact is, Who Counts is right. Corporations only exist because of charters granted by states. They have no "rights" to build or hire overseas, quite the opposite, in fact. The constitution prohibits states from making laws that interfere with interstate commerce, but congress has the express right (Article I, section 8) to regulate foreign and interstate commerce as it sees fit.

[Mairead]

6. "we sure could use the tax code {and} minimum wage laws"

Not under NAFTA and the WTO! That's why DK wants to get rid of them: they override national sovereignity. Nations that are signatories cannot use their laws to prevent owners of corporations from doing whatever the hell they like. National (and local) laws are subordinate to corporate interests. I'm not making this up!

[BruinAlum]

4. I'd like to see the whole interview in context

From that selective snippet you have provided, it is NOT accurate to say Kerry is actively PUSHING the corporatist line.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. the context

"From that selective snippet you have provided, it is NOT accurate to say Kerry is actively PUSHING the corporatist line."

The corporate line is that offshoring is inevitable and we can't do anything about it. Kerry is pushing that corporate line in the snippet I quoted.

The context was a question asked of Kerry regarding what he'll do to stop corporations from sending jobs offshore. Kerry said - I'm *loosely* quoting - we can't stop them, we don't have the right Constitutionally, I'm not going to lie to you, any politician that says so is lying.

That's the corporatist line, right there. Kerry is also making a false statement - he surely knows that Congress has the power to regulate international and interstate commerce. In fact, his answer makes him sound like a hard core right wing market fundamentalist. What's next - is he going to say environmental regulation is a "taking" and the taxpayers must reimburse property owners for lost potential profits? This is the stuff of wingnut Libertarians.

So, is Kerry lying on purpose, or has he really not read the Constitution?

[BruinAlum]

12. I'm not willing to take your word for it

I'd have to see the interview myself or see a transcript. I don't accept your characterization that Kerry deliberately lied, that he is actively pushing outsourcing, or that he is unfamiliar with the Constitution.

Sorry, call me a cynic. I've seen too many threads here lately with severely slated and biased characterizations of Kerry's record and positions, as well as a few deliberate mischaracterizations to take any one seriously without a source. And this one stretches credulity.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. ha ha, okay

You certainly shouldn't take my word for it. Kerry said we don't have the constitutional right to regulate corporations and make them keep jobs in America. This is obviously false, and anyone with a nominal knowledge of the Constitution would know. You tell me why Kerry said it.

[gottaB]

15. strawman

the word Kerry used in the NPR spot was precisely "company," not corporation. Then he talked about "people."

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. what strawman? what are you talking about?

"the word Kerry used in the NPR spot was precisely "company," not corporation"

irrelevant - you're using a strawman here. The issues isn't how the company is registered, it's whether the federal government has the power to regulate them, specifically whether they can outsource jobs. The Constitution clearly says that Congress does have that power - Kerry seems to disagree.


"Then he talked about "people.""

Okay ... so what?

[xchrom]

7. it's not that kerry or many others are by nature corporate facists

but they are indoctrinated, brainwashed by the awesome power and scope of mega corporations.
unless we the people in the streets become more adament about not wanting our lives run by these fools -- then kerry and just about any one else you can think of will swept into that corporate tide.
it will be up to the street to give the guys in washington the spine they need to over come.
protest often.

[gottaB]

8. I believe you're misinformed

Kerry is strong on small business, not mega corps.

And he protects consumers. The Consumer Federation of America scores Kerry above Edwards and Kucinich in recent years, though Kucinich has had perfect scores in the past.

That is not the voting record of a fascist.

[polpilot]

11. Kerry & Co., in 19 years of his ideas, have brought us to this point so...

if you like pro-Nafta...pro-Iraqi War...Pro-establishment with NO HEALTH CARE then Kerry's the man to stay the course.

Election year committment to national health care and jobs from the king of career politicians hardly is inspiring or revolutionary.

[xchrom]

36. while i will support kerry

he has voted in favor of gatt and nafta as well as most favored nation status for china.
those are fairly big flags of a corporatist.
there are many ways that politicians can support smaller businesses that do nothing to curb the accumulating power to the corporations.
the clinton administration comes to mind.

[emulatorloo]

10. Kerry Pro-Outsourcing? No.

<snip>

. . .In their economic report, the Bush Administration said that sending American jobs overseas is good for America and good for the economy.   They've delivered a double blow to America's workers -- 3 million jobs destroyed on their watch, and now they want to export more of our jobs overseas.  What in the world are they thinking?

My economic policy is not to export American jobs, but to reward companies for creating and keeping good jobs in America.  Unlike the Bush Administration, I want to repeal every tax break and loophole that rewards any Benedict Arnold CEO or corporation for shipping American jobs overseas.

<snip>

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0210b.html

[Monte Carlo]

14. But he's right, isn't he?

We don't have the Constitutional right to keep a company from sending jobs overseas, unless they are allying themselves with enemies of the nation.

No, he's not a market fundamentalist. He's more liberal than Ted Kennedy, haven't you heard?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. no, he's not right, according to the Constitution

"We don't have the Constitutional right to keep a company from sending jobs overseas, unless they are allying themselves with enemies of the nation."

Not according to the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"


Congress has the power to regulate interstate and international commerce - that's the mainstream, liberal and conservative position, held by both Democrats and Republicans.

The radical market fundamentalist position - held by the WSJ editorial page and right-wing libertarians, disagree.

Which side is Kerry on?

[Shrek]

18. But commerce isn't employment.

I grant that the power to regulate commerce is enumerated, but it would be a stretch to say that employment practices are included as well.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. nonsense!

It's long established that Congress can regulate employment - are you kidding? Employment is heavily regulated!

Just the obvious example: It's illegal to hire illegal immigrants. It's required to hire US citizens for many jobs. Congress can and does regulate employment all the time. Offshoring jobs - which is simply US companies employing foreigners in offshore locations - is obviously subject to federal regulation.

[Shrek]

25. But the regulations are limited in scope

Mainly to protect employees that have already been hired; e.g. wage laws, harassment policies, and so on. It'd be a dubious idea to attempt to regulate who is hired and where they must work.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

26. of course they are limited in scope

It's not mainly to protect employees that have already been hired. In any case, that's just a red herring.

"It'd be a dubious idea to attempt to regulate who is hired and where they must work."

Of course Congress CAN and DOES regulate both.

[HFishbine]

29. Not true

Feederal child labor laws are a perfect example of regulating the hiring of prospective employees.

[Beaker]

22. your interpretation of the Constitution leaves a lot to be desired.

"regulating commerce" does not equate to telling companies they can't manufacture their products overseas.

besides, as long as we're in the WTO, their rules trump our constitution.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

23. Congress can require companies to hire US citizens

You don't need my interpretation of the Constitution to know that the federal government regulates corporations, specifically citizenship requirements in many cases.

"regulating commerce" does not equate to telling companies they can't manufacture their products overseas."

Obviously, it can and does.

"besides, as long as we're in the WTO, their rules trump our constitution"

You're right about that of course.

[HFishbine]

30. It most certainly does

Laws the require certain military goods to be manufactured in the US are an example.

One can argue the wisdom of regulating American companies to such a degree as requiring that they only hire American workers, but to insist that such action is not constitutional is simply wrong.

[KittyWampus]

19. Yeah, Keep Pushing That "Free Trade" Boogieman

Protectionism does NOT work.

Krugman has spelled it out for even the most novice economic students like me to understand.

You CANNOT keep ALL jobs from moving overseas.

The PROBLEM is that we are not CREATING NEW JOBS.

And those jobs involving National Security issues can be kept here through regulations.
Others can be kept here using Tax Code etc.

Oh, Clark also mentioned making corporations give a certain amount of notice before moving jobs.
And he also mentioned enforcing copyright laws.

How do you think India will create a middle class to buy our goods?

[denverbill]

21. What goods will India buy from us, exactly?

Indian labor is cheaper than American labor for both manufacturing and services. When we send service jobs to India, it will allow Indians for buy more Indian goods, not American goods.

The Constitution and the Founding Fathers relied heavily on protectionism to protect American industry. They knew that having their own industry was vital to self-protection. During the Revolution, the British blockade prevented Americans from easily importing guns and ammunition. However, without tariff protection, American industry was unable to compete with foreign gunmakers/ammunition makers.

Tariffs have been used successfully for over 200 years in this country to protect American jobs from unfair foreign competition. When India provides workers the right to unionize, provides them healthcare and retirement benefits, and protects the environment as well as American corporations do, then we'll have fair competition. Until then, corporations which ship American jobs overseas ought to pay a tariff on the work done by the foreign labor.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. If you're really so concerned about the people of India

and other Third World countries, encourage them to become suppliers of low-priced goods and services for their own region. This approach allows indigenous entrepreneurs to prosper and creates economic independence for the countries involved.

I'm totally in favor of free-trade associations among countries of similar economic standing, such as the EU or ASEAN (in Southeast Asia) or MERCOSUR (southern South America). But CAFTA--a "free trade" deal with Central America? Support that only if you want to see your job or your neigbor's job go to Honduras, which has an even lower standard of living than Mexico.

All this crapola about outsourcing saving American corporations is self-serving nonsense. What are we supposed to save American corporations FOR if they don't provide Americans with jobs and just make a few stockholders and executives obscenely wealthy? If an allegedly American corporation has more than 50% of its workforce and locations overseas and has a P.O. box in the Cayman Islands as its official corporate headquarters to avoid taxation, why should it get any consideration at all?

[Armstead]

27. BINGO

You hit the nail on the head Lydia.

The noption that the only way underdeveloped nations can achieve economic progress is to become Corporate Colonies is hogwash.

Rather than seeing the world as One Big Market for Big Corporations (or as plantations for the US economy) is to recognie that this world is huge, and that domestic production for domestic consumption is a perfectly valid model as well.

[IrateCitizen]

33. It's great if the only "personhood" you care about...

... is corporate personhood. If you're somebody who actually still holds the antequated belief that PEOPLE should be conferred the rights of personhood, and not corporations, then there's plenty to be worried about.

You would do well to review Lydia Leftcoast's and Armstead's posts on this. Speaking of India creating a middle class, you are aware of course that the intrusion of US-based agribusiness has vastly undermined their agricultural sector, throwing countless smaller farmers off their land in favor of more environmentally-destructive, pesticide and GM-dependent industrial farming methods. While the high-end shops in Delhi are doing a BOOMING business, the vast majority of Indians are seeing their lives become WORSE as a result of this "free trade" you warn us to not call the "bogeyman".

[Deaner1971]

28. His message from last night's rally

Sen. Kerry was very specific that he would use tax breaks and tax penalties to encourage companies to stay here (not using mailboxes in Bermuda, etc. ) and that is what I want to see. I also agree that no company that utilizes offshore addresses to avoid paying their fair share of taxes should be considered for government contracts.

[Mairead]

39. Tax breaks? You mean bribes?

Because that's what tax breaks are, bribes. When we give corporations a tax break for doing what they should be doing anyway, who has to come up with the money to make up the shortfall? We do.

[Deaner1971]

42. Would you prefer to make up a greater tax shortfall?

If those companies leave or "move" to tax havens we lose all of their taxes and if the ship jobs overseas, we lose tax revenue from the corporation, from the employees, and increase the cost of unemployment insurance, as well as, losing purchasing power which ripples through the economy.

Should American corporations show some loyalty? Sure. But, are we past the point where conscience alone will fix our problem? Definitely.

Kerry offers a good and realistic solution for a bad problem. Wishing corporations would rediscover loyalty and conscience is wishful thinking. You have to give them rewards and penalties in their language - money.

[Mairead]

44. " You have to give them rewards and penalties in their language - money"

No, not really. It would be quite in order to say that corporations that sell here either submit to being taxed here on the actual gross revenue from their sales OR suffer some prohibitive tariff, that foreign-origin wealth changes are taxed to US citizens as ordinary income unless the changes can be demonstrated not to have any relationship to US commerce, and that anyone who gives up their citizenship presumptively for tax reasons (e.g., a wealthy person with no ethnic or personal ties to some tax-haven country takes up citizenship there) is treated as someone hostile to the US, and thus barred from obtaining a visa.

We wouldn't have to go as far as making capital export a capital crime, as some countries do.

[Tim_in_HK]

31. So . . . you revoke

a company's charter for moving their jobs overseas. Sounds like if they do that they don't need the charter anymore anyway? Your idea doesn't really sound like much of a solution.

Yeah, Kerry is right.

[lastliberalintexas]

37. Wrong

Businesses don't want the corporate charter for the mere conducting of business- they want it for protection! The revocation of a charter would not prevent them from selling their products here in the US after they are manufactured in third world countries for pennies. What it would do is subject the company, its owners and shareholders to actual liability for its actions, since they would no longer have the coporate charter as a liability shield.

A company does not have to be incorporated to conduct business- they simply do so for the liability and financial protections incorporation affords. There are plenty of things that can constitutionally be done to punish, encourage, etc. corporations. But the 2 major parties are each so beholden to their corproate masters that they refuse to implement them.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

43. Will Kerry appoint extreme Market Fundamentalists to the Supreme Court?

Talk about red herrings. Companies that don't want to do business in the US don't. Tariffs are one type of tax that businesses pay to have access to the US market - corporations have to register to do business in the US already, NAFTA doesn't take that away, obviously.

Of course, tariffs aren't the central issue to the FTAs nor the outsourcing debate.

Kerry is saying we can't regulate corporations - when it's established law that we can - so he's pushing an extremist, right-wing libertarian interpretation of the Constutiton. Is he going to appoint radical market fundamentalists to the Supreme Court?

[RichardRay]

32. Regulate commerce refers to tariffs and duties

note to ordering a company to move from place to place.

Corporate charters are licensing issues for states. The most you can do is threaten to revoke a charter (requires a court action). Even if you win what are you going to do to a company that's moved its operations to a foreign country? How about if the company chooses to incorporate in some other state? Do you go through it 50 times?

The tools available are tax policy and tariffs.

If you believe differently please supply some sort of a legal basis for your claim (quoting a broad and easily interpreted clause from the constitution doesn't count).

[Mairead]

40. Try this, then

http://www.sonic.net/~doretk/Issues/96-06%20JUNE/stratagies2revoke.html

Delaware, the home of most US corps, is a 'shall revoke' state.

[JVS]

34. oooooooohhhhhh BAD

[Nicholas_J]

35. First of all

To tell the truth does not indicate that Kerry is a market capitalist.

Constitutionally the U.S.Government has no authority to prevent businesses from relocating offshore, or outsourcing jobs. There is no element of the constitution that prevents U.S. Corporation from moving its headquarters to any other nation in the world.

Which is why Kerry is going to rely on changing the tax codes to prevent corporations from creating a phony front by setting up Cayman Island Post Office Box headquarters.

Given your opposition to Kerrys statement, you would have to agree that under U.S. COnstitutional Law, you personally do not have te right to give up your U.S. citizenship and become the citizen of another nations, or even that ou cannot decide to live in another nations.

Legally, a corporation is a fictitious person, with all the constitutional rights of a real person.

These are the terms under which corporations can move to other countries and avoid paying income taxes. Currently a U.S. citizen does not have to pay income taxes on money they earn while working overseas (U.S. law does not allow for dual taxation).

[HFishbine]

38. Simply not true

If we are going to have this discussion, let's at least not begin with ignorant presumptions.

The Constitution allows congress to regulate commerce. It is the authority of the Constitution that allows congress to prohibit companies from hiring eight year-olds to work in mines or from exposing workers to asbestos inhalation. We compel companies to do things for the benefit of society all the time. We force them to pay a minimum wage and prohibit them from making unsafe products.

The regulation is not just domestic either. We require that telephone companies install equipment that allows for law enforcement monitoring of international calls, we prohibit companies from exporting security-sensitive software, prohibit funding of certain overseas organizations, place controls on military exports and even require that certain arms be produced in the United Sates.

None of these regulations and prohibitions are unconstitutional. Indeed, they are wholly constitutional as would be, no matter how extreme, requiring US companies to hire only US workers or to manufacture their products only in US factories.

(As a side note, let's also dispel the notion that corporations have "all the constitutional rights of a real person." They do not. They do not have the right to vote, for example.)

[Tim_in_HK]

41. Expats get taxed sometimes . . .

"These are the terms under which corporations can move to other countries and avoid paying income taxes. Currently a U.S. citizen does not have to pay income taxes on money they earn while working overseas (U.S. law does not allow for dual taxation)."

Not true. US citizens do not have to pay taxes on the first US$70,000 they earn overseas. After that, it is taxed. And if Chuck Grassley gets his way, the 70k exemption will be taken away (and will put the US in a small company (itself) of rich countries that do this). And this is just federal. Different states have different policies as well, ranging from no tax to a good chunk of tax on income. Believe me, I know . . .