Bush Distances Himself from Aide on Exporting Jobs

Reuters ^ | February 12, 2004 | Adam Entous

[Deliberator]

HARRISBURG, Pa. (Reuters) - Under pressure from fellow Republicans, President Bush distanced himself on Thursday from one of his top economic advisers who said the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to workers overseas may benefit the economy.

"The (economic) numbers are good. But I don't worry about numbers, I worry about people," Bush told students and teachers at a high school in Pennsylvania -- a pivotal state in this year's election and one of the hardest hit by factory job losses during his presidency.

Without mentioning by name the chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers, Gregory Mankiw, Bush said he was concerned "there are people looking for work because jobs have gone overseas" and vowed to "act to make sure there are more jobs at home" by keeping taxes low and by retraining displaced workers. Bush offered no new initiatives to curb outsourcing and aides said he opposed restrictions on free trade.

With political concern about unemployment heating up ahead of the November presidential election, critics have seized on Mankiw's characterization of "outsourcing" by U.S. companies as "something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run."

Democrats said his comments and the council's annual report were evidence that the Bush White House is insensitive to the plight of out-of-work Americans.

Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle predicted Mankiw would quit.

But Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York said, "This is the economic report of the president and not the economic report of Mr. Mankiw ... We cannot allow our Republican friends to shift the blame and the burden to Mr. Mankiw."

Senate Democrats said they would propose new protections for workers whose employers send their jobs overseas. Their proposal would require that outsourcing companies disclose their plans to their employees and to the Labor Department.

On Wednesday House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois joined the bipartisan chorus of criticism from the U.S. Congress and the campaign trail, saying of Mankiw: "His theory fails a basic test of real economics."

The White House has rebuffed any suggestion that Mankiw resign. "That's kind of laughable," spokesman Scott McClellan said, adding: "Our economic team is doing a great job."

U.S. Commerce Secretary Don Evans defended the comments, telling CNBC: "What he praised was free trade and open trade. Every president since Herbert Hoover (1929-33) has said that free and open trade - as long as it's fair trade - is good for our economy."

At issue is the practice of a growing number of U.S. companies to move all or a portion of their operations to places like Mexico, India and China, where labor costs are lower and goods can be produced more cheaply, in order to improve corporate profits.

Nearly 2.8 million factory jobs have been lost since Bush took office and the issue looms large ahead of November's vote, where victory in rust-belt states like Pennsylvania could be key.

Underscoring its political importance to Bush's re-election, Thursday's visit was his 25th to Pennsylvania as president. He narrowly lost the state in the 2000 election, and analysts say he may have hurt his chances of winning it this year when he scrapped U.S. tariffs on steel imports in December to avert a trade war with Europe.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

[1rudeboy]

Oh please, what a stretch. lol

[GraniteStateConservative]

Loyalty first and foremost, except for politics which is then first and foremost.

[DoctorMichael]

"....We need a lot more of that from our sold out media...."

JMHO: I don't think its totally because of their being 'sold out' in the case of discussions on the topic of Economics.......Most of the talking heads are totally ignorant individuals anyways, and are hired for their personal 'looks' rather than any knowledge of the subjects they report on. Hell! Most Economists can't agree on anything (LOL).

Lou knows his 'stuff', and so was able to hold his own when arguing the theoretical benefits and downsides of 'Free Trade' policy. People like Couric, Lauer, Brokaw, Rather, Jennings etc., etc. would have glazed-over, cross-eyed, confused eyes 30 seconds into the conversation that took place last night.

[brownsfan]

Bush's economic advisors could have easily said that as they said what they said

Yes, they could, and a large number of posters here would have applauded such a statement.

[Jim Cane]

It's your own damn problem, it's not government's job to worry about your job!

It's not our government's job to protect those privately owned overseas factories and capital holdings either.

The government needs to get out of the business of doing both. End minimum wage. Seal the borders and allow only legal and controlled immigration. Pull our soldiers out of Japan, Germany(in process), Saudi Arabia, etc.

[Bikers4Bush]

I heard the other day that India's tariffs are some of the highest in the world.

Over a billion people and the market is and will remain pretty much untapped to the U.S. and others.

But don't let that stop us from sending jobs over there.

This morning on Good Morning America they pointed out how the call center people in India use more american sounding names so people don't catch on. They also take classes to sound more american.

How charming.

[Deliberator]

Only if you pay a royalty.

Sorry, it's not THAT good.

[RockyMtnMan]

NRST alone would save my employer tens of thousands of dollars (per employee) and would negate the need for TIF like programs. The administration should be looking at ways to attract new investment here in the US and make Americans more competitive globally. Our tax system is the number one reason many choose to relocate labor.

Bush has all three branches, the least he could do is campaign on tax reform. He's lying low because he doesn't want to give any campaign ideas (or attack points) to the Dims. Reagan would have spoke up and wouldn't care what the Dims said.

[Deliberator]

many, including Deliberator, refuse to entertain any but their reality accept claims just on others' say-so.

[lewislynn]

Or, start a business...and didn't mind unsafe working conditions, maybe you'd keep a few

It's your own damn problem, it's not government's job to worry about your job!

Really Mr.President? What about that government bureaucracy OSHA...ever hear of them?

Try starting a business Mr. President without the overbearing threats from ADA (your daddy's other baby), EPA (Nixon's baby), IRS, OSHA to name only a few of YOUR federal bureaucracies standing in the way of "free trade".

Don't preach to me about "free trade" Mr. President untill you've addressed all of YOUR bureaucracies standing in the way.

Quit waffling Mr. Bush! (There, did I do that right?)

No. You got it ass backwards. Government IS the problem and THAT is how it IS the government's responsibility.

[Alberta's Child]

He narrowly lost the state in the 2000 election, and analysts say he may have hurt his chances of winning it this year when he scrapped U.S. tariffs on steel imports in December to avert a trade war with Europe.

This little item goes a long way towards explaining why it is absolutely impossible to keep everyone happy even here in the U.S. when it comes to trade issues. It also shows how careless and/or ignorant the media can often be when discussing something like the steel tariff issue relative to its impact on "factory job losses."

The reality is that many of the "factory job losses" described in this article may very well have been caused by the steel tariff, not ameliorated by it -- it all really depends on which "factory jobs" you're talking about. The tariff on steel imports certainly helped the steel industry itself, but actually hurt other industries that rely on steel as a raw material for manufacturing. There was a period of time last year when it was believed that the 2004 election would basically come down to whether the Bush administration was more interested in helping the major steel "fabricator" states (Pennsylvania and West Virginia, for example) or the major steel "user" states (Michigan and Ohio, for example).

[ElCapitanAmerica]

W's Job Creation Program


BTW, I made a mistake in the cartoon, they adjusted their figure up, saying they're going to create about 3.2 -3.6 million jobs this year. So that's probably a million more for China, sorry I didn't add that.

[brownsfan]

I heard the other day that India's tariffs are some of the highest in the world.

I've been in this type of debate a few times here. It amazes me how there is a strong component here that doesn't care. They see their stock prices rise, or they are involved in offshoring, it's good for them, so they cling to the "free market".
I bring up unfair tariffs, (as you mention), the inequity in pollution control and worker safety, the squalid conditions for people in other countries, (essentially slave labor). None of that matters to our free market friends. Their retort is chanted long and loud: Re-train, start your own business, you are on your own. Don't look to government to pick my pocket to pay for your job!
It has been mentioned that the government, OUR government, is actively funding moves overseas, as well as foreign governments providing inducements. Is this a fair playing field? No! But the free market proponents don't even address that.
Finally, one bright gentleman mentioned that when the U.S. was the primary trading partner with Great Britain in the late 19th early 20th century that the U.S. had restrictive tariffs, and Great Britain was strongly entrenched in a free market phiolosphy, (again, an unfair playing field). What happened? The U.S. overtook G.B. in wealth, and economic power. There are complex reasons for this, but are tariffs a factor? It's a fact that it happened.

[Alberta's Child]

On Wednesday House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois joined the bipartisan chorus of criticism from the U.S. Congress and the campaign trail, saying of Mankiw: "His theory fails a basic test of real economics."

I may with Hastert most of the time, and he may even be right on this specific point. But somehow, the notion of this former gym teacher lecturing anyone on "real economics" seems a bit absurd.

[lewislynn]

Under pressure from fellow Republicans, President Bush distanced himself...

----

The (economic) numbers are good. But I don't worry about numbers, I worry about people,"

Two faced weeny. I'm getting more disgusted by this group everyday.

[oceanview]

Dobbs has been nothing short of AWESOME on this topic. If we could get rid of Snow and Evans, and put Dobbs into one of those jobs, you'd see some action.

This "economic advisor" must be fired immediately, publicly. Bush is handing this issue to the Dems on a silver platter (who have nothing to actually ofer in teh way of solutions mind you), and it will move alot of votes.

[Alberta's Child]

What happened? The U.S. overtook G.B. in wealth, and economic power. There are complex reasons for this, but are tariffs a factor? It's a fact that it happened.

The fact that the U.S. population, resource base, transportation infrastructure, etc. far exceeded anything that Great Britain had to offer was the major cause of this, not the tariffs. In fact, if you look at Great Britain compared to the rest of the world in these areas I mentioned, it's a wonder they managed to remain an economic power for as long as they did.

[oceanview]

many of us predicted this would be a major campaign issue months and months ago on these offshoring threads. it cuts right into the heart of a strong republican demographic: private sector middle and upper middle class workers.

[brownsfan]

No. You got it ass backwards. Government IS the problem and THAT is how it IS the government's responsibility.

I think you missed it. There was a supersize helping of sarcasm in that post. I know that Deliberator is a free market proponent.
My point is: That's what he should have said, because that's how the current Administration is doing business. It would appeal to the free market component here, but would surely sink his reelection campagin if he were that honest.
Now, if that kind of honesty would get you the boot, does that mean most Americans are wrong?

[Alberta's Child]

Something that everyone needs to keep in mind here is that the United States is facing the same basic dilemma that every modern society has faced -- and every developing nation will face, too. The dilemma is that there will always be a trade-off between our standard of living and our ability to compete in a global marketplace -- and there is simply no way of avoiding this. Europeans like to think they enjoy a very high standard of living -- and yet the cost of maintaining that standard of living is an "institutional unemployment rate" (that is, the unemployment rate that is considered "full employment" for the economic conditions at any given time) that is continually rising and now hovers somewhere around 10%.