Posted on 10/08/2003 12:08:33 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
In response to the growing political agitation over the “jobless recovery” and the loss of manufacturing jobs under the impact of imports and outsourcing, the Bush Administration has launched a media campaign touting the importance of industry to the economy and the nation´s security. In his Labor Day address, President George W. Bush said,. “I understand for a full recovery, to make sure people can find work, that manufacturing must do better. And we've lost thousands of jobs in manufacturing....some of it because production moved overseas.”
In a recent Washington Times column, Commerce Secretary Don Evans wrote, “manufacturing represents the backbone of our economy and the muscle behind our national security.” A fine and true sentiment, but is the administration doing anything more than trying to soothe public opinion? One example, drawn from the very nexus of manufacturing and national security, clearly indicates that the administration is not interested in reversing America´s industrial decline, but furthering it. The sector involved is none other than the defense industry itself, where much of the Bush Administration is explicitly encouraging the foreign outsourcing of jobs and production capacity.
The 2004 Defense Authorization bill written by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) under chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) mandated that the Pentagon draw up a list of components and technologies that are critical to the production of U.S. weapons, and that the industrial capacity to produce such items be located within the United States.
The Senate version of the bill did not include any of Hunter´s language. Indeed, it expanded the waiver authority in current “buy America” provisions to allow the easier outsourcing of defense work overseas at the request of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The issue has been stalled in the House-Senate conference.
Large defense prime contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon—who assemble parts and components produced by smaller firms, oppose the HASC legislation and have been lobbying the White House hard to block it. These giant defense corporations are succumbing to the same temptations that led firms in the commercial sector to become dependent on fragile “global supply chains” for their operations while sending millions of jobs to foreign lands.
To break the impasse, Rep. Hunter and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz negotiated a compromise. According to published reports, Hunter's concessions included dropping the 65 percent U.S.-made content requirement, keeping it at the current 50 percent level [alarmingly, the defense primes claim they cannot build more than half of major weapons systems here anymore]. Hunter also agreed to accept a less rigorous standard for the foreign sourcing of military items, and to drop the requirement that military production be done with U.S. made machine tools. He held to the position, however, that the most essential pieces of weapons systems be built in America. It seemed like a workable solution, hammered out by two men who have made national security issues their lives´ work.
Unfortunately, other senior administration officials, who deal with trade and economic theory, such as the U.S. Trade Representative and the Council of Economic Advisors, are trying to block the compromise. They oppose any limit on the right of corporations to outsource jobs or move production overseas. Their “free trade” ideology raises real questions as to whether either trade negotiations or economic calculations in the Bush Administration are really predicated on a desire to gain advantages for the United States, or whether they are simply guided by academic sophistry.
The basic problem with this kind of interagency approach is that the defense industry is not like the commercial sector. National security cannot be risked by letting such a vital industry be hollowed out the same way so many commercial sectors have been. It is the government´s duty to set the parameters within which the defense industry will operate. The defense industry exists only to fulfill public policy: to secure the preeminent position of the United States in world affairs and to secure the homeland, including everything needed to keep Americans safe and prosperous. Defense managers used to take pride in their contributions to America´s strength. It is tragic to see a new, more venal corporate culture tarnish this patriotic image.
Advocates of military outsourcing claim they need access to alleged superior European technology and to integrate their commercial and defense operations. Yet, since the 1991 Gulf War, a wide gap in capabilities has opened between the United States and everyone else. American forces continue to improve their weapons and doctrines while Europe invests little in new military technology as their defense budgets fall. Indeed, the European defense industry is in deep trouble and is looking for the American taxpayer for a bail out. The record of joint European defense projects is often one of delay and disappointment, making for unreliable partnerships.
And American corporations are not just looking to Europe for integration, but to Asia – and particularly to China, which raises a host of security concerns. Beijing has just announced that General Electric will cooperate with Chinese industry to produce a new jet engine with both commercial and military applications.
By letting private business desires override considerations of national security and economic revival, the Bush Administration is revealing why it cannot be trusted to back its high-sounding rhetoric about manufacturing and job growth with effective action. As long as the corporate managers who want to send jobs overseas and buy foreign-made goods have influence in the White House, policy will continue to be made in their special interest, while the needs of domestic American enterprises and their workers will be dismissed.
William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council.
We talked about trade and this administration's commitment to free and fair trade, that administrative officials will continue to press certain countries to open up their markets to U.S. product.
Like I suspect your husband feels, it's simply up to me to do what I can to get another somewhere. I can't think that someone else, or some political process, will come around to save me. I've just got to find some way on my own.
A good start would be eliminating about 50% of what the federal government does, half of the agencies should close. I would keep the Army, AirForce, Navy and Marines and that is about it!
You nailed it. Your entire post. Exactly. Yes, my husband did have the same exact attitude you have. And he found a job. You will too. It's incredibly painful and I'd not want to go through it again for anything but we did learn some valuable lessons that could not have been learned any other way.
So in your opinion we should do nothing to try to change the direction things are heading because it won't help you in your situation. Apathy will be our downfall.
Shrub, aka Bush, is a one termer.
Let's BOTTOM LINE it...We are well into the Second Quarter of the FOURTH promised SECOND HALF UPTURN since Bushco took office.
Layoffs and OFFSHORE OUTSOURCING are ACCELERATING.
After the Holiday Shopping season, Staff reductions and concommitent offshoring accelerate, in anticipation that a DEMOCRAT President will "slam the door."
In other words, "All's Offshore that's Going Offshore" in the hope that the damage will be "Grandfathered."
Around February, expect a 'California recall' size Tectonic Shift to hit the National Political scene.
Of course, the Stupid Party is too, well, STUPID to see the approaching Cataract of DISASTER on November 2, 2004.
And, in Delicious irony, the election is at the EARLIEST date possible...Nov.2, 2004 IS the First Tuesday after the First Monday in November!! Hence, there will be less time to "talk up" hunters at the local sporting goods store about DemocRATS and gun control in crucial blue collar states.
Shrub, er, Bush is, like father like son, a ONE TERMER!!
He wasted a few years.
Which is why you should look for the flood tide of jobs going offshore to slow to a trickle in the next year or so. And I submit that's already happening.
Unemployment has slowed a bit (and just a bit). And there is a hint of net job creation being reported by the major media (although they're vague about just what kind).
I suspect you won't see the stampede of offshoring to resume until after 2004, which will conveniently put Bush in the White House for a second term. In the meantime, look for the AWB to be renewed by GWB, as promised, with more punative anti-gun measures to come.
A poverty-stricken middle class must be a disarmed middle class, you see.
I took a Microsoft SQL Server course from UC Irvine Extension earlier in the year. The instructor was an H1-B from Sarawak. There were two Russian H1-Bs, an Indian L1 and three Chinese programmers who could barely speak English. All were being financed by U.S. government grants.
The powers that be are paying attention to this. They just don't care about it.
Media campaign, eh? Well, that ought to take care of the problem.
This is quite a mess alright. What is Bush thinking about? IF he breaks the back of the economy by outsourcing how is America going to pay the billions of dollars to ALL the world he has promised it too? He just doesn't care about Americans! It's time we faced it.
CLIFFSIDE, N.C. (AP) - Cone Mills, the world's largest denim maker, announced Wednesday it would eliminate 625 jobs when it closes two North Carolina denim plants within the next 60 days.
John L. Bakane, Cone Mills' chief executive, blamed a reduced market demand that has been severely weakened by the recent flood of low-cost imports from Asia.
"The steps we have announced today are necessary in order for the company to remain competitive in an environment where unfair trade policies are decimating the U.S. textile industry," Bakane said in a news release.
Cone Mills' future has been under local scrutiny since it announced last month it would file bankruptcy to clear the way for a sale to financier Wilbur Ross.
Both Ross and Cone officials have indicated that part of the transaction would include merging Cone Mills' denim operations with those of Burlington Industries, which Ross acquired this summer in a bankruptcy sale.
The closings announced Wednesday will affect the Haynes Plant in Avondale and the Cliffside Finishing Plant.
The operations at the Cliffside Weave Plant will also be reduced, leaving about 225 employed.
The cut does not affect Rutherford County's Cone Jacquards Plant, which employs about 245. However, the fate of that operation remains uncertain because of the bankruptcy and sale.
Founded in 1891, Cone Mills makes the fabric for Levi's jeans, among others. It employs more than 3,000 people in five factories in the Carolinas, along with a joint venture in Mexico.
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.