Kemp, a nationally syndicated columnist, is founder and chairman of Kemp Partners and honorary co-chairman of the Free Enterprise Fund. He can be reached via e-mail at .Posted on 10/11/2005 4:26:54 PM PDT by RWR8189
In Washington, D.C., and capitals throughout the world, the positive force of market competition often becomes clouded by regional politics and short-term self-interests. Unfortunately, this nation, the beacon of free-market capitalism, has not proved to be the exception to this ominous trend of late.
Despite having long fought for and won a number of trade accords to provide a fair playing field for our goods and services abroad, some U.S. leaders now seem content to selectively thwart international engagement here at home. At the same time that we ask our counterparts in Asia, Europe, the Americas and elsewhere to open their markets and government procurement programs, we cannot and should not deny them the same ability to compete within our own borders.
Yet under the guise of patriotic slogans or calls of U.S. industrial defeatism, overt political efforts are increasingly being mobilized to establish new protectionist barriers against foreign competition. The reality is that foreign and domestic industries have converged internationally to take advantage of an ever-expanding global marketplace. The competitive result can be viewed in terms of dramatic new innovations, increased productivity and lower costs. And the aggregate economic effect can be seen from Main Street to Wall Street through increased investment and more open global trade.
The pending competition to procure a new aerial refueling aircraft for the U.S. Air Force provides a case study that highlights this evolving dilemma. Despite some initial hurdles, procurement officials at the Pentagon are now emphasizing an acquisition program that will best meet its technological requirements while providing the greatest value to American taxpayers. As with the majority of the commercial jetliner industry, the competition falls between Boeing and Airbus, both international companies.
For several decades, these two rivals have directly competed for contracts around the globe, resulting in better, more diverse and affordable products, as well as increased sales opportunities. The positive byproducts of this healthy rivalry should be allowed to come forth through the current bid to fulfill the Air Force's next generation of aircraft refueling needs.
Many who now seek an upper hand for U.S.-based businesses argue that any potential selection of Airbus could cut domestic jobs and adversely affect our own industrial base. The facts, however, paint a different picture. Both Boeing and Airbus are global organizations, building parts and components for aircraft throughout the world. About 43 percent of the components for Boeing's 787 aircraft are built outside of the United States. Airbus works with a number of international partners, as well. As author Tom Friedman points out, the world is rapidly "flattening."
In total, more than 50 percent of both Boeing and Airbus' planned manufacturing of aerial tankers would be performed within our borders. The playing field is level, from even the most ardent nationalist perspectives. As such, both sides should be allowed to develop the most competitive bids possible without any external or political influence.
Opponents of a free and open competitive bidding environment seem resolved to a defeatist and protectionist mentality. In contrast, I believe that competition brings out the best in U.S. enterprises and should be embraced. Global engagement has numerous risks but presents exponential opportunities for our domestic industries, employees, consumers and national well-being both today and tomorrow.
Free and fair trade must be a two-way street with clearly marked rules for the road. Our nation has learned that when one party does not abide by its own trade obligations, it undermines the profound economic and societal benefits for all. Members of both our political parties must reconcile that it is ultimately the best course of action for our nation to lead by example on this front.
I've always believed in free trade and open competition, and now that I'm on several multinational company boards and work as a consultant, I continue to believe, as I have for more than two-and-one-half decades of public service, in free trade and competitive bidding.
Free trade cannot and will not flourish globally when it remains politically expedient to disregard its principles here at home. While it may be good politics for a handful of individuals seeking short-term gain, it is most certainly bad policy for the nation and our continued standing in the world.
Kemp, a nationally syndicated columnist, is founder and chairman of Kemp Partners and honorary co-chairman of the Free Enterprise Fund. He can be reached via e-mail at .What rock or payroll did he crawl out from under?
Jack Kemp changed the paradigm of American politics when he convinced conservatives to stop raising tax rates and start cutting tax rates for the sake of maximizing revenue.And Jack Kemp published an article in the WSJ editorial page before the Reagan Administration took office, advocating the sale of gold. And over time, the price of gold - high during the Carter Administration - dropped dramatically; Kemp's call was exactly right.
When Kemp talks economics, it's time to listen. I think he'd be right for chairman of the Fed if Greenspan retires.
And they would be????
The United States signed three FTA's in 2004. Can you name them?
Rush is looking forward to '08 because of the Meirs nomination. And he said that there are good potential candidates out there, but he would unfairly forget some if he tried to make a list of them. So he unfairly named only one - George Allen.Best thing I know about Allen - about all I know about him - is that he's a former governor, successful enough to be elected senator on completion of his (term-limited) service as governor. And that he isn't overage in grade (i.e., it hasn't been too long since he first became governor - tho he'll be marginal in that last category by '08). And he and Haley Barbour are the only two Republicans in that category getting national exposure who are not named Bush.
"What rock or payroll did he crawl out from under?"
The voice of reason payroll. The rock of common sense.
Protectionism harms everyone in the near and long term. The short term protection of 'local' industry is but an illusion.
Could not best Gore in the '96 debate. Kemp needs to stay in the retirement home. Although he points are valid, it is safe to say from the number of posts here that not many care.
I wouldn't mind a chimp as long as he's a supply sider. A stable currency isn't all that difficult to achieve.
In this case, the payrolls of workers who will be harmed.
There is about as much a spit of difference between airbus and Boeing, these are 2 global companies that have HQs is different parts of the world but manufacture all over.
I.E. They'll both manufacture here, there and everywhere, it make no sense to penalize one of them, to benefit the other, when they both employ equal numbers of americans, based on where the CEO happens to have his house.
Problem was, some rather large economies out there were cheating. We had no choice unless we wanted to keep being suckers. Also, something Kemp and other ideologues miss is that Free Trade works great with free nations, but with Commies and other vermin, it usually results in BOHICA for us.
Kemp's never left. Nor should he. He's one of the leading economic conservatives around. Nobody knows more about how to fix SS then Kemp.
Wish Bush would have made him Secretary of the Tresury or something. Not that Snow is bad or anything, it's just I like Kemp and think he'd be a great guy.
He followed the Dole campaign plan. It wasn't Kemp's fault. If it were just a war of ideas, and Kemp was let loose, he would have destroyed Gore. It was so clear that Kemp didn't do a lot of things he wanted to do because it wasn't part of 'the plan', whatever that was.
Dole was never going to win that race. It just wasn't going to happen.
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.