Posted on 05/26/2014 12:58:56 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
If the Republican nominee for president is going to come from the ranks of current or former governors, the GOP could do worse than choose former chairman of the House Republican Conference and current governor of Indiana Mike Pence.
Pence is the kind of candidate who just might be able to act as a bridge between the warring conservative factions. His conservative voting record as a House member is nearly impeccable: no to No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug biil; no to the bank bailout; and a budget hawk who was calling for big cuts in spending before it became popular to do so on Capitol Hill.
On the other hand, he has governed Indiana via compromise and pragmatism — two traits that don’t sit well with much of the GOP base. As James Antle III writes in the American Conservative, those qualities of governance have led to several problematic decisions by Pence:
With great fanfare, Pence signed legislation pulling Indiana out of Common Core, making it the first state to junk the controversial education standards many Tea Party conservatives see as a precursor to a national curriculum. “I believe education is a state and local function,” he said. He then embraced new academic standards that were panned as “warmed over” Common Core.
Hoosiers Against Common Core describes Pence’s standards as “re-branding Common Core” and the bill he signed back in March as “a ruse to fool Common Core opponents.” The group says on its website, “The legislation gave the appearance of voiding the Common Core while the Indiana Department of Education and the Center for Education and Career Innovation walked it through the backdoor.”
Then Pence announced he would accept the federal funds that come with Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. But he vowed to seek a waiver that would allow him to pursue Medicaid reforms based on former Gov. Mitch Daniels’s Healthy Indiana Plan rather than the traditional Medicaid plan.
“Reforming traditional Medicaid through this kind of market-based, consumer-driven approach is essential to creating better health outcomes and curbing the dramatic growth in Medicaid spending,” the governor said.
Some conservatives see this too as sleight of hand. One complained to the Indianapolis Star it was “merely the latest iteration of full Obamacare Medicaid expansion thinly disguised as a conservative entitlement reform.” Other critics wrote at Forbes, “Gov. Pence has tried to cover his ObamaCare expansion plan with the veneer of the Healthy Indiana Plan begun by Mitch Daniels.”
Those who have followed Pence since he was in Congress may remember a third instance where he tried to split the baby on a contentious issue. In May 2006, as House Republicans stood against an immigration plan hatched by Bush, John McCain, and Ted Kennedy, Pence gave a speech to the Heritage Foundation in which he outlined “a rational middle ground” between “amnesty and mass deportation.”
Pence’s proposal was an ambitious guest-worker program that essentially privatized a large part of immigration enforcement. “Private worker placement agencies that we could call ‘Ellis Island Centers’ will be licensed by the federal government to match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers,” he said.
Pence’s immigration reform proposal never went anywhere, with some conservatives calling it “backdoor amnesty.” So what happened to the Tea Party favorite and conservative lion who served in Congress? I’ll explain on the next page.
Governors are faced with the prospect of not only talking a good game, but actually getting things done. As one of 435 House members, Pence could afford to stake out positions on the issues that were strong and uncompromising.
But an executive can’t afford to take the kinds of stands that a House member or even a senator can hold to if he wants to be successful. Accepting Medicaid expansion may appear on the surface to be a betrayal, but the several billion dollars dangled in front of Pence and other GOP governors will help tens of thousands of their citizens. It’s what makes Pence an attractive candidate to some: his willingness to eschew ideology in favor of practical governance.
Pence would be one of the longer long shots if he runs. But if he does, he should be taken seriously as someone with the experience and temperament to be a successful president.
RE: When America starts bringing back American jobs.
Other than tariffs ( which I highly doubt will do the job) what other proposals do you have?
Because if Tariffs is you solution, then I don’t see any person who can satisfy you other than Pat Buchanan.
Are we worried that tariffs will drive the prices of things up, to somewhere it is unreasonable?
Then bring the manufacturing back to America. It is that simple. No extra cost. No hassle.
No big deal.
So yes. I believe tariffs are exactly the answer. Not only does that bring back American jobs, it also raises American taxes - of which we are currently way, way in debt. Both of which are currently big and growing problems.
For real. It is very simple.
Great idea.
“It’s what makes Pence an attractive candidate to some: his willingness to eschew ideology in favor of practical governance.”
Yes, a perfect description of a RINO. When he had the position to do the right thing he did the BIG G’ment thing and enslaved more of the little people.
Pence was the clown who pushed ‘no amnesty amnesty’—claiming that if illegals went home but came back with the guest worker passes he wanted to initiate, they would no longer be illegal.\
Seems to me like that kind of double talk is central to his governing philosphy—from ‘no common core common core’ to ‘no Medicaid Medicaid’.
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/pence-plan-no-amnesty-immigration-reform
RE: Then bring the manufacturing back to America. It is that simple. No extra cost. No hassle.
And what INCENTIVES are there to do that?
Also, consider this — 30 percent of GE’s business was overseas in 2000; today it’s 46 percent, and the majority of GE’s employees are now overseas. Why is that?
Ditto for Caterpillar, whose overseas workforce grew by 39 percent between 2005 and 2010, compared to a 7.8 percent U.S. increase.
A 2011 report from the U.S. Commerce Department says that about a third of the roughly 31 million U.S. employees of multinational firms work abroad — and growing.
But first, let’s clear up some of the confusion surrounding the terms. Outsourcing is when a company contracts with an outside person or company to provide some product or service, such as bookkeeping, payroll processing or janitorial services, or more complicated functions like marketing or IT services. And families do the same thing when they turn to professionals for major plumbing, air conditioner or car repairs.
If a company outsources jobs to another country, that’s off-shoring. However, companies can also build stores or factories in foreign countries and hire the people who work there. That’s also off-shoring, but it isn’t necessarily outsourcing. Those are company employees, both American and foreign.
I used to work in a company that did that in the Philippines and Taiwan ( lived there for several years and learned to speak their languages too ).
Why? Because THAT’s where the market is.
It makes no sense to create sales, maintenance, assembly or field support in the US when your market is in say, Asia.
Hence, it makes no sense for Toyota to make cars in Japan when they can make it in the USA and SELL in the USA.
I’m not sure how tariffs can bring such jobs back.
The jobs are created there because the market and demand is there.
I used to work in a company that did that in the Philippines and Taiwan ( lived there for several years and learned to speak their languages too ).
Why? Because THAT’s where the market is.
-
Congratulations, your background sounds in a way similar to mine.
I am stateside now however.
Watching all of our jobs disappear.
America needs lots, and lots of American jobs. Bring them back, is what I am saying.
Stop sending American jobs to foreign countries.
Bring jobs, right back here.
RE: America needs lots, and lots of American jobs. Bring them back, is what I am saying.
Repeating a mantra isn’t going to solve anything. The question is HOW, given that a significant part of the market is being created overseas...
Yes, some U.S. companies produce their products overseas in order to take advantage of lower labor costs — i.e., comparative advantage. But that means U.S. consumers get cheaper prices.
You’ll notice no one complained when gasoline prices FALLS even though much of that oil is produced overseas. The public was elated because lower gas prices means more money left over to spend on other wants and needs.
Well, the exact same reasoning applies to manufactured goods, raw materials and other products and services that U.S. consumers buy for less because of lower foreign costs.
Of course, some off-shoring efforts have not worked as well as others. U.S. customers often get frustrated when they are connected to a call-center person whose English is barely understandable. And that negative customer experience has forced some companies to reevaluate their off-shoring strategy.
In addition, Washington needs to understand that some off-shoring is a justifiable response to the quickly escalating number of government regulations, especially under the Obama administration, and the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.
So, instead of tariffs, I suggest we start with the part that’s PREVENTING jobs from being started or expanding in the first place -— REGULATIONS, TAXES and other business burdens.
RE: Stop sending American jobs to foreign countries.
Bring jobs, right back here.
______________________
Rather, CHANGE the tax and regulatory structure in this country so that American jobs will be created here, in a market of over 300 million people the size of Europe.
You wouldn’t need to bring jobs back ( many aren’t going to be brought back anyway because in makes better sense to make things where they are going to be sold ).
Well on that we disagree.
We are Americans. Sure we can participate around the world, but our companies have in my opinion, gone well beyond simply participating elsewhere, and are selling out America.
Other countries get the benefits of working with America, without giving us the same benefits.
America is being sold out, right now. A small number of companies are making a whole lot of money, but in the end America is done if we do not bring back jobs.
Right here.
I think it is time for America-first. Long overdue in fact.
Oh well. We see things differently.
OK, let’s start with oil. How many percent tariff do you want to slap on imported oil?
Over HALF of our oil is imported, a lot from Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Venezuela.
How many percent do you want to slap on these imported oil and how is it going to bring American jobs back?
I’m not actually concerned with oil. We’re doing quite well in oil, I believe.
I am very concerned with American manufacturing.
That is where we are being wiped out. That is where we are simply giving away the future.
America needs to bring back American production. That is the portion of our economy which I am very concerned about.
Production.
America needs to make things. A whole lot of things.
Look in your store then next time you go shopping.
Go ahead. Look. Pick up anything anymore, in any store. In any town, in any state in America.
Coast to coast.
I will almost guarantee, the item will say:
“Made in China”.
RE: I am very concerned with American manufacturing.
That is where we are being wiped out. That is where we are simply giving away the future.
___________________
OK, let’s talk manufacturing. What particular product do you want to slap a tariff on?
We already did that early this century with the Steel tariffs, to DISASTROUS results. It did not create jobs, it SAVED jobs that were UNCOMPETITIVE to begin with and INCREASED the cost of steel users elsewhere.
If it worked, they wouldn’t have let the law die ( which they did ).
RE: Go ahead. Look. Pick up anything anymore, in any store. In any town, in any state in America.
Coast to coast.
I will almost guarantee, the item will say:
“Made in China”.
________________________
Here’s news for you, it won;t be “Made in China” much longer. Even China is outsourcing to cheaper countries like Vietnam.
All of them.
Like I say. We look at this differently.
I say it is critical, to begin to support American manufacturing. All American manufacturing.
I’m tired of everything in America, being make in China.
The entire world is building up right now, while to me it appears we are tearing down our own country.
Build up America for a change.
For real. I believe it is time, to build up America again.
That is the big difference between us right now.
I am of the opinion, it is time to stop offshoring. It is time to start rebuilding America.
We are pretty obviously at different points right now.
I am just saying, I am myself of the opinion we cannot continue to get rid of American businesses.
It is now time, to bring them back.
Obviously you’re not of the same opinion.
In fact, we appear to be at complete opposites on this question.
Hard saying currently, which of us, is wrong.
I do not believe I am. You however don’t believe you are.
:D
If the experience we had introducing tariffs were POSITIVE for the USA (i.e. REALLY brought jobs back ), I’d have supported your all of them approach.
Well, it just so happened that every single one of the experiences we’ve had, not only did not bring jobs back, but produced RETALIATIONS and bad relations with the trading partner.
Just recently, WHEN THE Commerce Department slapped tariffs on Chinese solar panels in 2013, industry analysts had good reason to worry that it would spark a costly and counterproductive trade war.
Now, in another example of why tariffs and other trade barriers should be imposed with extreme caution, their fears are being borne out. In retaliation for the tariffs, the Chinese government has begun enforcing tariffs of its own on American polysilicon, an ingredient in solar panel manufacturing.
U.S. polysilicon makers account for about a quarter of the international market, much of their product shipped to China. Or at least that was the case last year.
In the beginning of 2013, Michigan-based Hemlock Semiconductor announced that it was firing hundreds of workers, perhaps for good, partially in anticipation of the trade restrictions that have just been phased in. Upon hearing that the Chinese government would punish U.S. firms, stocks of non-U.S. polysilicon makers soared.
Tariffs on both sides, meanwhile, promise to push up the price of solar equipment in the United States.
That’s bringing American jobs back? Heck, not only did jobs not come back, jobs were LOST.
Just saying...
Last year trade, from China to America: 440 billion dollars.
Last year trade, from America to China: 122 billion dollars.
We do not stand up for ourselves. Nobody stands up for America anymore.
Not the GOP. Not the democrats. Nobody is looking out for America.
Not anyone. If that is not true, then where are they, and what are they doing??
RE: Last year trade, from China to America: 440 billion dollars.
Last year trade, from America to China: 122 billion dollars.
We do not stand up for ourselves.
______________________________
Let’s look at Japan as an example, one country that we have always feared at the turn of the century due to its surplus with the USA.
Toyota might sell me a Lexus, manufactured in Tahara, Japan for $70,000 but not purchase any American goods such as wheat, cotton or steel. That means there is a $70,000 trade deficit with the Japanese. What will the Toyota seller do with the $70,000? It would be wonderful if Toyota and other foreign producers just treasured dollars and simply stored them.
We’d be on easy street having a few Americans printing up dollars whilst the rest of the world sends us cars, computers, coffee and other goods in exchange for them.
It doesn’t work out that way.
In our example, instead of purchasing American goods with the $70,000, Toyota might put the money toward building a Toyota plant, as it has already done, in Huntsville, Ala., that employs nearly 800 Americans. As a result of that current account deficit of $70,000, we have a capital account surplus (net inflow of capital into the U.S.) of $70,000.
Here’s my question to you: Have Americans been made worse off because of the $70,000 current account trade deficit?
I’d answer no.
Of course, Congress could do something to reduce the trade deficit. They could impose tariffs and quotas to restrict the number of Lexus cars being exported to the U.S. or the White House could, as was done during the Reagan administration, intimidate Japan into “voluntary export restraints.” Again, would Americans be better off? By the way, there are other ways for capital inflows, or investment in the U.S., to occur. With the dollars foreigners earn selling us goods, they purchase U.S. stocks, bonds and real estate. As a people, we should be proud to be a nation in which millions of people around the world want to buy into.
So, What about the argument that American producers are undercut by cheap goods imported from low-wage countries like China? Whose fault is this? The answer is easy.
If American consumers refused to buy goods produced in China, there would be no Chinese-made goods on store shelves.
In the end, American consumers who prefer lower prices to higher prices are the true enemy of American companies and their unions whining about “free but fair trade.”
China is not Japan.
China has five times our population.
The rules are far different this time. That is what I am saying.
We need different rules. Completely different rules. We have (never) in our entire national history, competed against a country with five times our population.
I believe this is the difference between our viewpoints.
China is in my opinion, different. Much different.
We need to pay complete attention. America needs to build up America.
Now.
RE: China is not Japan.
China has five times our population.
____________________________________
The laws of economics APPLY regardless.
If you increase tariffs with China, the end result is the cost of underwear, auto parts, toys, shoes, etc. cost double or TRIPLE what they cost, in the foolish belief it would bring back US jobs.
Well it won’t. Manufacturing would simply move jobs from China to Vietnam or other places
So, what’s next? You’re going to impose tariffs on Vietnam, then Cambodia, then what? You want the US to start a trade war with the world?
Assuming tariffs worked (they haven’t as the example of steel and solar panels showed) and even assuming the jobs returned (that wouldn’t happen either), would the tradeoff be worth it?
The answer is of course not. A protected few union workers might benefit, but the cost of everything would skyrocket. Those on fixed income and those in non-protected jobs would be hammered. Unemployment would soar ( layoffs occurred for instance in the Michigan plant that made the components for the solar panels ).
And that is looking on the bright side. The jobs would not come home, even if the manufacturing itself did. The first reason is robots, and the second reason is a too cheap cost of money.
And what better use is there for money at 1% than for manufacturers to buy robots to replace humans, especially when you drive up the cost of labor?
The point is tariffs are not going to bring jobs back to the US, at least jobs by living, breathing human beings with robots increasingly transforming the manufacturing sector.
Rather all tariffs will do is slow global trade and raise costs on everyone.
No one will benefit from a trade war, except perhaps a miniscule percentage of union workers. Everyone else will lose big time.
So here’s the next question, should we not be concerned with the hundreds of billions of dollars of trade deficit we have with China?
Not sure if this is a cause for concern.
Consider... I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me, and I bet it’s the same with you and your grocer. That means we have a trade deficit with our grocers. Does our perpetual grocer trade deficit portend doom? If we heeded some pundits and politicians who are talking about our national trade deficit, we might think so. But do we have a trade deficit in the first place? Let’s look at it.
Insofar as the grocer example, there are two accounts that I hold. One is my “goods” account, which consists of groceries. The other is my “capital” account, which consists of money. Let’s look at what happens when I purchase groceries.
Say I purchase $100 worth of groceries. The value of my goods account rises by $100. That rise is matched by an equal $100 decline in my capital account. Adding a plus $100 to a minus $100 yields a perfect trade balance. That transaction, from my grocer’s point of view, results in his goods account falling by $100, but when he accepts my cash, his capital account rises by $100, again a trade balance.
The principle here differs not one iota if my grocer was located in another country as opposed to down the street.
There’d still be a trade balance when both the goods account and the capital account are considered. Imbalances in goods accounts are all over the place. For example, my grocer buys more from his wholesaler than his wholesaler buys from him.
The wholesaler buys more from the manufacturer than the manufacturer buys from him, but when we put capital accounts into the mix, in each case, trade is balanced.
International trade operates under the identical principle.
When we as consumers purchase goods from China, and the Chinese don’t purchase a like amount of goods from us, it is said that there’s a trade deficit. But instead of purchasing goods, the Chinese might purchase corporate stocks, bonds or U.S. Treasury debt instruments. Just as in my grocer example, there is a balance of trade. The deficit in our nation’s goods and services account, sometimes called current account, is matched by a surplus of equal magnitude in our capital account.
What about the possibility of China dumping our debt?
China isn’t stupid. Dumping large amounts of Treasury bonds would drive down their value. China as well as we would take a hit.
If they are suicidal, I’d like to see them try.
So, repeating the mantra — “Bring American jobs back” is like the mantra “Cure cancer now.”
Sounds good on paper, but the issue is HOW to do it.
Your proposal ( TARIFFS ) is something I doubt will solve the problem it purports to solve.
How about chanting these instead:
APPROVE KEYSTONE XL NOW.
APPROVE FRACKING IN NY NOW.
REPEAL OBAMACARE NOW.
DECREASE THE CORPORATE TAX NOW.
ABOLISH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, COMMERCE, EDUCATION, etc. NOW.
SIMPLIFY TAXES NOW.
Now doing all of the above WILL create jobs here, and maybe attract companies large and small, foreign and domestic to establish businesses here too.
I disagree.
Tariffs work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.