Who's really looking out for us?

[edge]

Clear DayWHO'S REALLY STANDING UP FOR THE USA?
8/5/2003

Attention Americans: The Pentagon is back on Code-Red Alert – not because of
another threat from foreign terrorists, but because of a red-white-and-blue
attack by solid American patriots!

These patriots are hitting the very heart of the Pentagon – its budget. This is
not an assault from the left, attacking the waste and fraud in the bloated
budget, but rather a surprise attack from the right. It's led by Republican Rep.
Duncan Hunter, a superhawk who's never seen a weapons program he wouldn't throw
our tax dollars at.

Hunter has no quarrel with the unlimited billions we pay to Lockheed, Boeing,
Raytheon, and other blood-sucking Pentagon contractors, but he is alarmed that
these U.S. corporations are shipping so much of the work on these weapons
offshore. The contractors are taking hard-earned tax dollars from America's
working families, then thumbing their noses at us by sending the work, the jobs,
the money, and even the technical expertise to Asia, Europe, and elsewhere.
Where's the fairness – or the patriotism – in that, Duncan rightly asks?

So he has shocked the Pentagon by putting a "Buy American" provision in the
budget. It requires that 65 percent of the content of goods bought by the
Pentagon must be made-in-the-USA.

Oh, the shrieks and squeals from the corporate profiteers! They've been making a
killing by charging top dollar for weaponry made on the cheap by low-wage
subcontractors abroad. So their lobbyists are now swarming senators, demanding
that they strip Hunter's "Buy American" provision from the bill, and they even
got their boy, Don Rumsfeld, the Pentagon chief, to promise a presidential veto
if the budget includes what they call this "ludicrous" idea.

This is Jim Hightower saying... What's ludicrous is that these greedheads
consider a 65-percent-made-in-America standard to be ludicrous. To urge Rep.
Hunter to stand firm, call him: 202-225-5672.

[Bestatte]

I haven't seen the proposal for myself, so I'll ask those who have:

Does this 65% USA-made thing take into consideration resources that are not available in the USA? Does it also take into consideration the sizeable increase in cost to the buyer for having to pay union wages and wasted time in union negotiations on contracts?

Does it take into consideration manufacturing equipment that doesn't exist here, or that is made overseas in the first place?

This isn't a comparable example, but it's the first thing I could come up with: Silk.

Silk might come in bolts of fabric for US manufacturers to turn into clothes.. but the silk is not produced in the USA. Never was, never will be. We don't have silk worms here.

So what - specifically - constitutes "Made in the USA?"

There are lots of cars that are put together here on the line, but their parts are created in other countries. If they are made from foreign parts, but are put together here, does that make them "Made" in the USA?

Perhaps the proposal was called "ridiculous" because it lacked the detail necessary to cut out any ambiguity.

[Warriorbird]

That's funnier than heck. Thanks.

[edge]

<So what - specifically - constitutes "Made in the USA?">

The money stays in our economy. Creates more jobs for us. That's the way I alwasy looked at it.

edge

[Bestatte]

Your answer doesn't apply to the situation.

Do you mean 65% of the manufacturing cost of each item made remains in the USA? And does that manufacturing cost extend to the cost of the equipment the manufacturer needs in ordered to manufactur the product?

I mean - we're talking conveyer belts here. Robotic movers and lifters. Hydraulic jacks. Electronic tools. Everything needed to create that widget, right down to the crude oil needed to create the plastic doo-hicky.

Crude oil, for the most part, is -not- produced in the states. Some of it is, but not 65%, and not by a longshot.

These factories are filled with equipment that is made outside the USA, OR made from foreign components. They make up the bulk of the manufacturer's cost. Gross wages are an ongoing cost that in the long run will exceed the equipment cost, but per diem, the equipment and maintenence of it wins hands down.

A car is made from components that are manufactured outside the united states. The parts are -not- available here, if you want to make that car you MUST go outside the country to get those parts. With that proposal, the car maker will go out of business.. unless there are details within the proposal that allow for the import of things that are simply not available here.

Edited to add:

I would rather see the government spend less money on superior products made outside our country, than spend more money on inferior products made here.

The fact of the matter is, no one does cameras better than the Japanese. And even the american camera companies get their parts from Japan. Unless you want to see the FBI, CIA, and all other agencies that rely on cameras using old fashioned brownie boxes with monochrome film that has to be developed by hand in a darkroom, you must accept that some things will be made 100% entirely outside this country.


[Edited on 8-13-2003 by Bestatte]

[edge]

If you have a American option you should take it. Just because not a single TV is made in the US doesn't mean you should not own one. Some things are not made here. Companies really could care less about us, it's their bottom line. You want to support our economy. It's makes life better for us in the end.

edge

[Bestatte]

I agree Edge, but that STILL doesn't answer my question.

Did the bill proposed by that guy make allowances for things that are not available in the states when he proposed that 65% of government purchases be made in the USA?

It's a simple yes or no question, requiring only a yes or no answer.