How to stop exporting jobs {Henry Lamb}

WorldNetDaily / Commentary ^ | Posted: February 14, 2004 | Henry Lamb

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

WorldNetDaily / Commentary
Henry Lamb

How to stop exporting jobs

Posted: February 14, 2004
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

It's really quite simple. To stop the outflow of American jobs, all that is required is to: repeal the minimum wage law, outlaw labor unions, repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act, dismantle OSHA, abolish the EPA, repeal the Endangered Species Act, abandon the Ecosystem Management Policy, repeal all articles of the Clean Water Act that affect non-navigable waters and, in general, return America to the social status of India, China and the other nations to which American jobs are flowing.

"The loss of 3 million jobs under Bush's leadership," has become the central battle cry of Democrats in this election year. The outflow began long before the current administration and will continue well after November, regardless of who wins the White House.

There is another alternative: force India, China and the other nations to adopt the same environmental and social standards America has adopted, thus imposing the same production costs on foreign producers that American producers must pay. This is the goal of the United Nations, working through the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and several other international institutions.

The goal of the United Nations is to bring the global economy under its regulatory power. The U.N.'s High Level Panel on Financing Development is trying to establish a global mechanism to equalize tax rates and to extract a tax on currency exchange to provide independent funding for a global government. The Kyoto Protocol to the Climate Change Treaty attempted to give an international agency the power to control energy use, in developed countries first, and then globally. The Convention on Biological Diversity and other treaties and agreements seek to control the use of land and natural resources.

These are all components of "sustainable development," a euphemism which means a controlled society, spelled out in great detail in the U.N.'s Agenda 21.

The United States has been a driving force toward sustainable development for many years. The current president is the first since Ronald Reagan to show any reluctance at all to advancing the principles of sustainable development at home and around the world.

Many people, including many in Congress, believe that the sustainable development model is the only solution to the world's economic and environmental problems. The Democratic Socialists of America, the Progressive Caucus, most of the Democrats in Congress and many Republicans actually advocate this policy. Of course, the idea of free enterprise cannot exist in a managed, or "sustainable," society, but this fact seems to be unimportant to proponents of sustainable development.

Americans will decide whether or not the world continues to move toward a globally managed society by the people elected to Congress and to the White House.

Americans, however, are in a real dilemma: They want the highest paying jobs possible for the work they perform, along with the highest possible environmental, safety and social standards. At the same time, they want to pay the lowest possible price for the goods they buy – even if those goods are produced in India, China or any other nation.

We cannot have both at the same time, unless we allow a third party – the United Nations – to manage the global economy and dictate "fair" wage and tax rates for all producers, and also dictate which products are really needed and which resources may be used to produce them.

The North American Free Trade Agreement and the evolving Free Trade Agreement of the Americas are both major steps toward ultimate economic globalization. While proponents of these agreements may argue to the contrary, they both exacerbate the conditions that beg for third-party oversight. Specifically, the agreements tend to abolish tariffs, making foreign goods much cheaper than domestic goods, while doing nothing to elevate the standards (increase the cost of production) in foreign countries.

This so-called "free trade" is precisely what drives American companies and capital to move to foreign countries where they can produce goods cheaper, to sell in America. This is, in fact, the redistribution of wealth dreamed of by the authors of Agenda 21. The process has begun to diminish the economic power of the United States, while providing new economic opportunity in foreign lands.

The irony is that Americans have made it happen. The policy agenda driven by the DSA, the Progressive Caucus and the other Democrat and Republican proponents of "sustainable development" are responsible for the export of jobs in recent years.

Since the first alternative suggested – repeal of the laws that inflate the cost of production – is not likely to happen, and since the second alternative is already happening, with the approval and support of much of society, those who cherish free enterprise must find a way to save it.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

THIS article at WND

[A. Pole]

It's really quite simple. To stop the outflow of American jobs, all that is required is to: repeal the minimum wage law, [...]

Or better yet - cancel all "free" trade treaties, withdraw from WTO, abolish OPIC etc ... Then the American wages will be above minimum,

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"The number one thing we can do to help alleviate the problem is to repeal the Income Tax!!"

Jim, I would say to eliminate any and ALL "progressive" aspects of the income tax and eliminate any and ALL deductions and exemptions for social "benefit". One rate, NO deductions, NO exemptions. We could then elminate ALL other forms of taxation, including "user" fees for "public" property access, and especially the rent paid to Governments called property tax. But, the big bhoys ain't going to go along with this most equitable form of taxation. Especially BIG business which has just been given a tax break for people who invest in the fixed game called "The Market" {BIG Business}. People don't give preferential treatment up easily, and BIG Business can {and does} buy a LOT of politicians. Sorry, but, IMHO, on the subject of taxes, "free" trade, and economic socialism, I believe you have been brainwashed. And, I wish I knew, by who. Any and all deductions and/or exemptions from any tax system are designed as social engineering. As is the "progressive" aspect of the income tax. Peace and love, George.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, the way I see it, taxes on income directly adds to the overall costs of all products produced and services provided and makes us less productive and less competitive in the free markets. It's hard enough as it is to compete with cheap, unregulated, unburdened labor overseas. Why add to our own burden?

Why not eliminate the crippling tax on productive assets and resources and levy the tax at the point of purchase? Kinda like an excise tax as the founders intended. One way or another, the consumer pays all taxes anyway.

Eliminating the income tax would significantly reduce the cost of each and every product manufactured domestically as well as transfer a portion of the tax burden to the producers/suppliers of imported products/services as they are sold in the U.S., thus leveling off some of the advantages of cheap offshore labor.

Additional benefits of replacing the income tax with an excise tax would be eliminating excuses for government snooping into our personal affairs and papers and also that the consumer would have a better chance of timing his major tax payments vs investing a larger portion of his pre-tax dollars and reaping the rewards of tax free investment gains.

[Jim Robinson]

And I meant to also say that eliminating the income tax and other regulatory government burden components from the cost of our manufactured goods and even from agricultural produce and raw goods will automatically make them less costly and more competitive as exports.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"..taxes on income directly adds to the overall costs of all products produced"

Jim, If the products are bought, so do sales taxes {excise, tariff, "user fees", etc}. And the hardest hit are low and middle income. It's like the guys sitting in their dens and discussing raising the tea tax while drinking their high dollar booze. Eliminating all deductions and/or exemptions, and the progressive part of the income tax would also reduce paperwork. Probably to about the same point as sales tax would produce. But, tax lawyers, accountants, and a lot of other high dollar folks jobs would be unnecessary, so it is unlikely to see either.

The only good arguement for eliminating the income tax is, "The government has no business knowing how much money a person makes." But, IMHO, government will know anyway with current and coming technology, and the benefits of the income tax over all other forms of taxation override this IMO.

Everybody would have the same incentive to keep the tax rate low, especially those with the wherewithal to bring the rate down. High dollar earners. If I make 40 grand a year, and win the lottery, I would still pay the same percentage rather than the higher levy for higher wages.

People with real money don't worry about paying sales taxes. while they would {and do} fret over high income taxes. While the low and middle income folks worry about both. And, the sales tax that would be required to "replace the money already coming in." would be debillitating to many. Especially those just starting out and needingto buy everything.

Even the churches figured out over the centuries that the most equitable tax is based on income. There is no such thing as a "good" or "fair" tax. A flat tax based on income with no deductions and/or exemptions if the best of evils. Peace and love, George.