Big Labor Wins, America Loses
The Democrats just couldn’t bring themselves to eliminate the “Buy American” provison of the stimulus bill. They owe Big Labor and I”m sure Big Labor reminded them of that prior to the vote:
On another contentious issue, the Senate softened a labor-backed provision requiring that only U.S.-made iron or steel used in construction projects paid for in the bill. A move by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to delete the so-called Buy American requirement failed, 31-65.
But with Obama voicing concern about the provision, the requirement was changed to specify that U.S. international trade agreements not to be violated.
Read that last line carefully. How in the world does keeping the “Buy American” requirement not violate US international trade agreements?
“Just words.”
Hope and change.
~McQ
“Buy American, but don’t…”
God, and people thought Bush 43 was stupid…
So, let me get this straight:
The Clown™ is pushing for trade protectionism that Canada, and England, and the EU and soon others will criticize, isolating the United States from the rest of the world.
Remind me, but didn’t The Clown™ and His Clownettes™ say during the campaign that the “days of going it alone in this world are over”?
Perhaps I didn’t read the fine print. It appears that “the days of going it alone <I>except when we kowtow to the thuggish unions to help destroy the American economy</I>, are over.”
Maybe my hearing aid was turned off during that part.
we need to figure out what we can make that the rest of the world would want to buy. our economy is bad i feel as if i am on Tax Payer Life Support
good, i hope it just makes more senators vote against it. Keep it just as crappy as you want it, the crappier it is, the more likely it is to die a painful unending death.
Reality bites hard, doesn’t it dear Mr. President?
I have heard that the Buy American provision, which only includes where the federal government is going to purchase steel and other metal for infrastructure projects, is something that has always been included in bills in the past and which do not violate any trade agreements. Not that I think that’s okay or anything, but if this “limited” provision has been there in the past and not been a problem with existing trade agreements, then I don’t see what the fuss is about. Perhaps I heard a falsehood. Has anyone else heard this? And is it legitimate?
By keeping out foreign steel, we’ll get more employment in the US steel industry but it means other American companies will find their costs rising too. Interestingly, our allies are also wondering what we are doing…