Posted on 03/14/2004 10:34:34 AM PST by ninenot
Jerry Skoff and his fellow "patriots" at Save American Manufacturing (SAM) are having a grand old time.
A couple dozen of them picketed a conference at the Italian Community Center Thursday by the World Trade Center Wisconsin on global outsourcing, winning coverage for SAM's position against trade agreements from three Milwaukee TV stations.
Later that night, Skoff, president of Badger Metal Technologies, made his case to sympathetic ears at the Milwaukee Chapter of the Society of Automotive Engineers. "We are not economic isolationists," he said.
"We believe we are patriots," Skoff added as he showed the statistics on manufacturing job losses in the United States over the last four years.
The implication, of course, is that people participating in the global economy, importers and exporters alike, are less patriotic, or, as Sen. John Kerry posits, treasonous.
The extreme position of SAM against any and all trade deals was an interesting counterpoint to the presentations earlier in the day at the trade center conference. There the speakers were trying to figure out how to play the global economy game to the benefit of American companies and workers.
The basic premise of the trade center meeting was that the global economy has been evolving for a long time, the result of many decisions by our national political leaders, such as Kerry, and by executives at multinational corporations.
The conference was aimed at small and medium businesses that have to compete and survive in a world that they didn't create. Until the rules of the global game are changed, what choice do owners and managers of those firms have except to join the international fray?
There is skepticism about whether SAM and Kerry, political rhetoric notwithstanding, will really be able to make substantial changes in the global dynamics, given the impetus toward more cross-border trade from leaps in broad band capacity, the spread of PCs worldwide and the development of work management software. How do we unwind the momentum toward a global economic village?
Well, SAM has answers, and some are quite interesting. Protests are part of it. Coming up is a Memorial Day boycott of Wal-Mart, the biggest importer of goods to the U.S. from China. SAM now claims chapters in 12 states, so Wal-Mart, which once upon a time bragged of "Made in USA," has a real public relations problem on its hands.
One engineer agreed with Skoff that Americans should be encouraged to "buy American." There was some sympathy in the room for poor workers in undeveloped countries that depend on access to U.S. markets for their livelihoods, but the prevailing sentiment was that U.S. jobs come first.
Two of the nuggets that came out of SAM were proposals that would act to balance trade, as opposed to shutting it down. The first was some kind of domestic content rules for products imported and sold in the U.S. If other countries use that system, and we are the ones in a trade deficit (a half-trillion dollars for 2003), why not us, too?
The second was a system of import "coupons." A country such as China would get those coupons for what they buy from us and then use them to export to our shores. It would be a tool for balancing our imbalance with China - $124 billion in 2003.
A third such mechanism, not raised by SAM, would be to require China to drop all its tariffs on incoming U.S. goods until more balance is reached. Skoff cited predictions that the imbalance with China would rise by 25% to 40% in 2004. It was up 22% in January compared with January 2003.
So balancing mechanisms are overdue.
Skoff and SAM leave no device untouched. They want the yuan unpegged from the dollar, protection of intellectual property cranked up and Chinese subsidies to exporters unplugged.
He also wants the U.S. to pull out of the World Trade Organization, fast-track trade authority taken away from the president and a moratorium on any future trade pacts.
If the SAM position isn't isolationist, it would be interesting to see what is.
For the most part, the business people at the picketed WTC meeting were taking the longer view that we can figure out how to be competitive in foreign markets and that, if we do so, job creation and the economy will be stronger here over time.
But that's a hard sell, even though unemployment is finally dropping, against SAM's compelling case that Americans are losing millions of jobs to outsourcing by multinational CEOs.
The presidential debate will be centered on this issue, and we'll see which argument wins out. Meanwhile, until major political change occurs, if it ever does, managers of small and midsize firms will have to play the global cards they've been dealt.
And Jerry Skoff and company are smack in the middle of the national debate on the side of the little guy. What fun.
Yeah, WTO compliant outsourcing of our defense industries is the preferable alternative. </sarcasm>
Here is a list of companies we've confirmed are "Exporting America." These are U.S. companies either sending American jobs overseas, or choosing to employ cheap overseas labor, instead of American workers.
3Com 3M
A Accenture Adaptec ADC Adobe Systems Advanced Energy Industries Aetna Affiliated Computer Services AFS Technologies A.G. Edwards Agere Systems Agilent Technologies AIG Alamo Rent A Car Albertson's Allen Systems Group Alliance Semiconductor Allstate Alpha Thought Global Amazon.com AMD American Express American Household American Management Systems American Standard AMETEK Amphenol Corporation Analog Devices ANDA Networks Andrew Corporation Anheuser-Busch AOL A.O. Smith Apple Applied Materials Art Leather Manufacturing ArvinMeritor A.T. Cross Company AT&T AT&T Wireless A.T. Kearney Automatic Data Processing Avanade Avanex Avaya Avery Dennison
B Bank of America Bank of New York Bank One Bassett Furniture BearingPoint Bear Stearns Bechtel Becton Dickinson BellSouth Bentley Systems Berdon LLP Best Buy BISSELL Black & Decker Bose Corporation BMC Software Boeing Braden Manufacturing Bristol-Myers Squibb Brocade Bumble Bee
C Cadence Design Systems Candle Corporation Capital One Carrier Caterpillar Celestica Cendant Cerner Corporation Charles Schwab ChevronTexaco CIBER Ciena Cigna Circuit City Cisco Systems Citigroup Clorox CNA Coca-Cola Cognizant Technology Solutions Collins & Aikman Columbia House Comcast Holdings Computer Associates Computer Sciences Corporation CompuServe Continental Airlines Convergys Cooper Crouse-Hinds Cooper Tire & Rubber Cooper Tools Countrywide Financial COVAD Communications Crown Holdings CSX Cummins Cypress Semiconductor
D Dana Corporation Daws Manufacturing Delco Remy Dell Computer Delphi Delta Air Lines Delta Apparel Direct TV Discover Document Sciences Corporation Donaldson Company Dow Chemical Dresser Dun & Bradstreet DuPont
E Earthlink Eastman Kodak Eaton Corporation Electroglas Electronic Data Systems Electronics for Imaging Eli Lilly Elmer's Products E-Loan EMC Emerson Electric En Pointe Technologies Equifax Ernst & Young Ethan Allen Evolving Systems Expedia Extrasport ExxonMobil
F Fair Isaac FCI USA Fedders Corporation Federal Mogul Federated Department Stores Fellowes Fender Musical Instruments Fidelity Investments Financial Techologies International First American Title Insurance First Data First Index Flowserve Fluor FMC Corporation Ford Motor Foster Wheeler Franklin Mint Franklin Templeton Freeborders Frito Lay Fruit of the Loom
G Gateway GE Capital General Electric General Motors Gerber Childrenswear GlobespanVirata Goldman Sachs Goodrich Goodyear Tire & Rubber Google Greenpoint Mortgage Guardian Life Insurance Guilford Mills
H Halliburton Haggar The Hartford Financial Services Group HealthAxis Helen of Troy Hershey Hewitt Associates Hewlett-Packard The Holmes Group Home Depot Honeywell HSN Hubbell Inc. Humana HyperTech Solutions
I IBM iGate Corporation Illinois Tool Works IMI Cornelius IndyMac Bancorp Infogain Ingersoll-Rand Innodata Isogen Innova Solutions Intel International Paper Intuit Invacare ITT Educational Services ITT Industries
J Jabil Circuit Jacobs Engineering Jacuzzi JDS Uniphase Jockey International Johnson Controls Johnson & Johnson JPMorgan Chase J.R. Simplot Juniper Networks
K KANA Software Kaiser Permanente Keane Kellogg Kellwood KEMET KeyCorp Kimberly-Clark KLA-Tencor Kraft Foods Kulicke and Soffa Industries Kwikset
L Lands' End Lawson Software Lear Corporation Lehman Brothers Levi Strauss Lexmark International Lifescan Lillian Vernon Linksys Lionbridge Technologies Lionel LiveBridge Lockheed Martin Lowe's Lucent
M Marathon Oil Maritz Marshall Fields Mattel Maytag McDATA Corporation McKinsey & Company MeadWestvaco Medtronic Mellon Bank Merrill Corporation Merrill Lynch Metasolv MetLife Microsoft Midcom Inc. Moen Monsanto Morgan Stanley Motor Coach Industries International Motorola
N Nabco Nabisco NACCO Industries National City Corporation National Life National Semiconductor NCR Corporation neoIT NETGEAR Network Associates Newell Rubbermaid New York Life Insurance Northrop Grumman Northwest Airlines Nu-kote International
O Office Depot Ohio Art ON Semiconductor Orbitz Oracle OshKosh B'Gosh Otis Elevator Outsource Partners International Owens Corning
P palmOne Paramount Apparel Parker-Hannifin Parsons E&C Pearson Digital Learning PeopleSoft PepsiCo Pericom Semiconductor PerkinElmer Perot Systems Pfizer Pitney Bowes Planar Systems Portal Software Power One Pratt & Whitney Primus Telecom Procter & Gamble ProQuest Providian Financial Prudential Insurance
Q Quark Qwest Communications
R Rainbow Technologies Radio Shack Rawlings Sporting Goods Raytheon Aircraft RCG Information Technology Regence Group Rockwell Automations Rogers Rohm & Haas RR Donnelley & Sons Russell Corporation
S Sabre Safeway SAIC Sallie Mae Sanmina-SCI Sapient SBC Communications Schumacher Electric SEI Investments Seton Company Siebel Systems Sikorsky Silicon Graphics SITEL Skyworks Solutions SMC Networks Sola Optical USA Solectron Sovereign Bancorp Sprint Sprint PCS Square D Stanley Furniture Stanley Works Starkist Seafood State Farm Insurance State Street StorageTek StrategicPoint Investment Advisors Sun Microsystems Sunrise Medical SunTrust Banks Supra Telecom SurePrep The Sutherland Group Sykes Enterprises Symbol Technologies Synygy
T Target Tecumseh Telcordia Teleflex TeleTech Tellabs Tenneco Automotive Teradyne Texas Instruments Textron Thomas & Betts Thrivent Financial for Lutherans Time Warner The Timken Company The Toro Company Tower Automotive Toys "R" Us Trans Union Travelocity Trinity Industries Triquint Semiconductor TriVision Partners Tropical Sportswear TRW Automotive Tumbleweed Communications Tyco Electronics Tyco International
U Union Pacific Railroad Unisys United Airlines UnitedHealth Group Inc. United Online United Technologies USAA
V Valence Technology VA Software Veritas Verizon VF Corporation Vishay VITAL Sourcing
W Wachovia Bank Warnaco Washington Group International Washington Mutual WellChoice Werner Co. West Corporation Weyerhaeuser Whirlpool White Rodgers Wolverine World Wide WorldCom Wyeth
X Xerox Xpitax
Y Yahoo! York International
Z Zenith .
The Bush Administration is already outsourcing critical aerospace technology to Red China. What you fear is already well underway.
This November we will be presented with a choice between Alfred E. Newman and Lurch for the office of President. It's a damn-all choice.
=================================
Bush Administration Requires Transfer of Critical Technology to Red China, GOP Indifferent
----------------------------------------------
'ON November 7, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the conference report on the 2004 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1588) with a much weakened version of its "buy American" program. Under the original proposal as crafted by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), all critical components in a weapon system would have had to be American-made and the overall system had to be 65 percent American. Those two requirements were eliminated under intense pressure from the Bush Administration, whose commitment to the recovery of American manufacturing has now been clearly shown to be phony.
The defense bill still calls for the Pentagon to produce a study assessing how much the United States depends on foreign suppliers and to provide incentives to encourage contractors to use American machine tools, the building blocks of all manufacturing. The current 50 percent American-made requirement for weapons was retained. Under the approved provisions, the Pentagon would have to create a Defense Industrial Base Capabilities Fund to ensure that the domestic industrial base can manufacture all critical military components. The Pentagon also would have to stop buying from any countries that have refused to deliver military supplies because they objected to U.S. military operations.
Rep. Hunter should be commended for moving the issue forward, even if only a small distance. The Pentagon study on foreign suppliers will have to be closely watched as neither the DoD bureaucrats nor the prime defense contractors want the facts known about how far “globalization” has already gone to weaken the domestic integrity of the nation’s defense industrial base. The battle over the defense bill this year was conducted mainly behind closed doors, the arena in which big business is most comfortable. Corporate managers are well aware that if the public knew how they were conducting their business, without the faintest regard for the prosperity or security of the United States, the political backlash would be unrestrainable.
Boeing, the largest defense contractor in the United States, led the fight against the Hunter initiatives. One motive is a desire to integrate its commercial and military supply-chain on a global basis. Shortly after the weakened defense bill passed the House, it became known that Boeing plans to hold a conference in Beijing next week with its Asian suppliers (mostly Chinese) to discuss the design and construction of its new 7E7 jet. The 7E7 is to be a super-efficient, long-range aircraft pushing the edge in aviation technology. The plane is scheduled to debut in 2008.
Boeing China president David Wang was quoted in China Daily as saying that Boeing wants more Chinese participation in the program because it sees Beijing as a strategically important part of its globalization strategy. Boeing has forecast that China will need nearly 2,400 new airliners, worth $197 billion, over the next two decades. To capture this market, “Boeing should become more Chinese in China,” said Wang, “Twenty years from now, China will view Boeing as a global China brand, not just a global brand....We must be more Chinese in our leadership, in content...have more designs, capability coming from China in the long term.”
Thus Boeing in America lobbies for more foreign content in its U.S.-produced aircraft, even those it builds for the military, but Boeing in China is committed to more Chinese content in the planes it builds there. It would seem Wang is correct, Boeing is well on its way to being more of a good corporate citizen of China than of the United States.
Boeing is also negotiating with Chinese partners to establish a $100 million repair, modification and maintenance joint venture in Shanghai. Both the production and maintenance of advanced aircraft in China involves a substantial transfer of technology and the skills needed to it into top-line equipment; knowledge that is easily translated from commercial to military industry. The problem with high-tech outsourcing is not just that the United States will become dependent on the supply of critical components than could be cut off in a crisis, thus crippling the American armed forces; but that the transfer of the information needed to produce the critical components will help arm a future enemy and increase the risk of war.
For example, the White House has agreed to allow Boeing to transfer two 737-800 aircraft to China that contain the QRS11 computer chip in their navigation systems. The chip has the potential to be used for military applications, such as in missile guidance systems. The chip is on the restricted Munitions List and should require an export license, but the State Department has given Boeing a pass. The House International Relations Committee has raised questions about this transaction, but will likely have no more success is constraining Boeing than did the House Armed Services committee.
Boeing CEO Phil Condit is also the head of the Business Roundtable (BRT). The BRT spearheaded the campaign to win most favored nation trading status for China. As part of its lobbying effort, the group published a booklet on “Corporate Responsibility in China.” The report was filled with examples of how BRT members were helping to build China's industrial base, endowing it with advanced technology and more productive methods. For example, “Rockwell has established industrial automation training laboratories in 10 of China's better universities” and “was the first foreign company to install an in-house automation technology training lab in a Chinese state-owned enterprise.” Honeywell Aerospace proclaimed its “unprecedented” agreement with Aviation Industries of China (AVIC) which manufactured both military and civil aircraft, missiles, engines, advanced materials and other items. Honeywell boasted how it provides extensive training for AVIC's “best engineers” including bringing them to U.S. plants to learn about American technology firsthand.
It seems that Boeing and other transnational corporations are running their own foreign policies, for their own purposes, while the Bush Administration looks the other way. When Congress comes back from its holiday recess, it must take another, stronger crack at these rogue corporations, who are so eager to please foreign governments and shed their American allegiances that they can no longer be trusted. Indeed, it is now best to assume from the start that corporate and national interests are no longer in concert. '
(c)Copyright 2001-2002 TradeAlert.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mind rejects what the senses can't deny. There is conceptual paralysis in the GOP regarding what exactly the national interest is, and in the members of this forum who will defend the current administration even if Red China is granted access to crucial military hardware.
When Clinton was pulling this kind of crap the GOP went ballistic with outrage. Now that we have a, err, cough, COUGH "conservative" in the White House, that outrage has disappeared.
It strikes me that the GOP has thrown its mind in the garbage and lets "those who know better" make their critical decisions for them. This is a quality antithetical to everything the GOP is supposed to stand for.
I am struck dumb by the blank-eyed, blind support the current administration receives. It's enough to make one weep.
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.