VOTE: Should 'Buy American' be part of stimulus?

VOTE: Should 'Buy American' be part of stimulus?
AT&T Yahoo! - A "Buy American" clause in the $900B stimulus package allows, with some exceptions, only U.S.-made materials and goods to be used in projects funded by the bill. What do you think of this requirement?

Results:


Q. A "Buy American" clause in the $900B stimulus package allows, with some exceptions, only U.S.-made materials and goods to be used in projects funded by the bill.

Do you think a "Buy American" clause should be included in the stimulus bill?

Yes. With a few exceptions, all steel, iron, or manufactured goods used in a stimulus-funded project should be made in the U.S.A. 83%

No. There should be no import restrictions placed on such projects. 15%

Not sure/No opinion 3%


I voted yes.


Abner

 

Abner,

Buy American already exists for government procurements:

http://www.arnet.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%2025_1.html

I haven't read the current clause but I am sure I will have to react to its directives.

I don't think American products are always the best solution. Therefore I believe we should source products from the best provider. Especially when investing in infrastructure projects that have to stand the test of time (emulate the Romans or ancient Egyptians, their stuff seems to have lasted) BUT I believe that we should source workers from the ranks of our current unemployed, and I am specifically refering to those who are US citizens. I don't want to offend anyone, but folks, even those who are here legally, that are not citizens should only be offered jobs if US citizens are not available to fill the positions.

 

concur, every FAR class I've been in stresses these clauses to include "buy american Act"

will adding this, affect current and future contracts?

 

I guess we will see. The FAR doesn't apply to all federal agencies so perhaps the intent is to tighten up those that aren't already governed by the provision or apply to state contracts that use federal funds.

 

I would also want to point out that there are some "foreign" products that are actually manufactured in the USA. For example, I believe that there are a number of automobile manufacturing facilities in the US that (Nissan, Toyota, etc.) There are American jobs tied to those brands. In a global economy it's not as black and white as we might think/hope.

 

"The FAR does not apply to all federal agencies"
I am not an expert, but as i understood; the federal aquisitions regulation does apply to all federal agencies.

and also apply to anyone wanting to do business with the feds; to include state agencies and private contractors.

bottom line: FAR applies to contracts using tax payers money; if you want the contract you must work within the FAR.

or should I go back to ACQ101 + CON110........

 

Nope:

http://www.arnet.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%201_1.html#wp1130776

"The Federal Acquisition Regulations System is established for the codification and publication of uniform policies and procedures for acquisition by all executive agencies."

emphasis is mine.

Only the executive agencies. If we ever have a beer together I'll tell you about a rather brutal runin I had with the US Courts who not so politely told me where to put the FAR. Thank goodness it is digital now otherwise it wouldn't have fit. Those judges can be rather direct and usually get what they want.

 

And there are some "American" products that are manufactured in foreign countries including automobiles and computers. I believe all automobiles state the percentage of foreign manufacturing on the price information sheet

 

I agree that banks and agencies (etc) that are directly affected by the stimulus should definitely be required to make an effort to use only US goods and resources. Now I think that there should be some exceptions within reason, but saying "95% of the materials you use must US-made and purchased in the US" is pretty reasonable. There should be a system in place where they can appeal for special circumstances, but I'm pretty sure that big guys in power have thought of that.

 

That makes sense regardless of the economic climate. While eligible for the NAFTA TN-1 if the choice for an employer is between equally qualified individuals, with bona fide experience (not 5 weeks in a sweaty little room), then the citizen or permanent resident should be given first offer of refusal. Then again I do not know many TN-1 holders, unlike many H1-B holders, who are willing to work for less than a US citizen.

Next step for economic stimulus is legalization of drugs so taxes can be collected. Overall use will not increase significantly and criminal activity might decline once the pure profit factor has been removed. Licensed drug dealers and the taxman join forces.

 

Seriously. I don't smoke, I rarely drink and I certainly don't use pot (although it might have come in handy when I was sick). I wholeheartedly agree that legalizing pot would be a great first step. It's basically giving the government a cut of what's already going on, they'd have to package it properly and be licensed, and it frees up the DEA to prosecute real threats.

I mentioned in another thread that legalizing gay marriage across the board would generate 9 billion in tax revenue per year (per the congressional budget office). That's less of a stimulus and more of a "let's all pay less in tax money" thing.

 

I think it would be hard to do but I do favor a classic remedy TARIFFS I will say any goods made outside the United States even (especially) US companies should get hit with import tariffs high enough to make goods outside our nation expensive, enough to negate any profits from outsourcing said jobs.

Its funny China gets away with this on goods they don't want imported and we don't. And its well within the legal and authorized powers of COngress to do this.

And we may want to look at shortening the standard work week to say 30 hours a person can work, with overtime rules locked in so any employee or manager working over that. Total hours per week regardless of the number of jobs gets time and a half unless in the military, certain government jobs (police and fire fighters). That would create lots of new jobs as employers would have to hire more people to work. The economy could then downshift to a more practical and simpler standard of living long term and more relaxed workers may result.

 

Unfortunately with any benefits it also makes it much more expensive to hire people. In other words, 30 hours * 4 people does not equal 40 hours * 3 people.

A shorter workweek didn't even work for the socialist bastion of France, I severely doubt it will work here.

 

Where is it going to stop? First we tell the companies how much they can pay their executives. Then we tell them that they can only hire American workers .. even if these specialized H-1B workers would be able to perform skills that could save their companies millions and/or save jobs.

By the way ... do any of you know you call an economic system where business and industry is privately owned but controlled by government? Fascism.

 

I'm not saying to not hire immigrants! America was built on the hard work of immigrants and I have friends who came to america. I love immigrants.

But I believe more and more that Canada (with something like 20% of it's citizens being foreign-born) has it right in this regard. They say that if you are looking, you must look within canada first. Now they give some fields carte blanche to just hire from anywhere because there's such an un-filled need. But for most fields, you can get audited to make sure that you are within the law.



I think most fields in the US could benefit from this type of oversight. IMO, companies shouldn't fill US positions by looking outside the country when there are still qualified applicants here already - whether they are visa-holders, permanent residents or citizens.

 

If these companies don't like government control, they should stop going to the government for corporate welfare. Like it or not, whoever bails you out financially gets to run your damn life for you.

 

Precisely!

Abner

 

Yes...and no

I think there is a fine line that must we walked. I think free and open trade is critical to building or economy and those of other countries. At the same time, if the U.S. gov is dumping money into something you want the work and benefit to go to as many U.S. citizens as possible. I think those that are effected with buy America should have very strict hiring policies and purchasing probably should be looked at as well.

 

A 30-hour work week with cost of living fixed at that of the 1980s could reasonably provide the benefit sought. On the other hand, the broken H1-B programme would quickly dilute any potential economic benefit. President Obama said the economic recovery might never happen despite the best efforts of the government.

 

France also has a massive safety net that eats away at productivity. When a worker can take months off and the government (taxpayers) pay 65% and the rest the employer pays it hurts business. And I heard firing people is also much harder so many companies don't put people on full time.

I'm saying do the shorter work week in an American way this means we ned a functional public health care program so that is no longer a burden on business, reduced regulations where its not the Federal governments business and the American people to reduce the costs of their lifestyles. It takes two prongs to increase jobs people working fewer hours but with no need to work 40 hours say 20-25 hours per person with government public health care services perhaps the old community hospital model so common in the first half of the twentiesth century as the cornerstone.

For example does everyone need a super fancy cell phone, high speed internet, their own car, that larger television, that larger home than a smaller one and the like? If people think what they really need over what they want we would be far better off.

Back to this topic I say if our companies want to move a company plant outside the United States and foreing companies want to sell to us then tariff the goods, so high that they might have to make the goods domestically to make a profit. Take Nike if we taxed each pair $50 then perhaps making that pair of shoes in the United States may be made necessary. We used to do this on goods and we can always withdraw from any trade treaties that would hurt us doing this they are treaties there is no international demand anyone stick to one as far as I know. And I for one have no problem if China to sell goods there makes us open a factory there for any of our companies, fair is fair. But those should just sell goods to Chinese citizens.

I'm not a trade expert but it seems to me there is a time for a nation to protect its own industries and jobs first, regardless of the opinions of other nations.