A letter to President Bush regarding the Economy

Harpseal | June 15, 2003 | Harpseal

[harpseal]

Dear President Bush,

Sir, I am writing today about what I and some others see as some significant problems with our current international trade policies. Specifically, our research has shown that the United States Government has agencies and policies in place that provide direct support to competitors of the USA. Specifically I am referring to The Overseas Private Investment Corporation as the first of these agencies. I realize this agency was created and expanded before your administration but it is a problem and it should be addressed by your administration. Policies in place that may harm American permanent residents include the H1B and L1 visa programs. As one of your supporters in the 2000 elections I appreciate many of the policies you have advocated over your term so far. I would hope that you are elected to a second term but I am concerned the economy may provide you with problems over the coming months until November 2004.

As I am sure you are aware unemployment in the USA is still rising despite the emaciated version of your tax cut that was passed and this continued rise in unemployment and underemployment may well threaten any economic recovery. A part of the reason that companies are not hiring is the effect of imports on the American economy. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is an agency of the United States Government that provides American Corporations loans and political risk insurance for investing in nations other than the USA. Sir, this is not Free Trade or anything even close. This is government subsidy to the low cost labor of China, India, and other so called developing nations who are in direct competition with American workers for jobs. There is a correlation between productivity and capital investment. Simply eliminating this organization and its programs would help to stimulate investment in new plant and equipment in the USA since there would no longer be a subsidy to investing offshore.

Sir, another problem is the abuse of our immigration law that allows foreign guest workers who are willing to work for less than American workers in technical professional areas. I am referring to the H1B and L1 visa programs. The H1B program is supposed to provide temporary guest workers to help alleviate short term shortages within the American labor supply. Instead it has become a permanent short circuit around our regular immigration laws. As a result American engineers and IT people are out of work in record numbers. Sir, these people are American citizens and they vote. They need their government to enforce the laws for their protection. Curtailing the abuses of these programs will be a winning political issue because it is the right thing to do.

Sir the political implications of not doing anything about these programs are clear. A Democrat will run on the economy promising a government jobs program which will do little to help the economy really but may get enough votes to threaten your re-election. By taking a stand on these programs you will attract much of the traditional Democrat supporters in the next election. Your stand against government handouts will appeal to your base while driving a wedge between Liberals and the union member Democrats and independents. Thank you for your consideration

Respectfully yours,

[meadsjn]

Well said. I will send one tonight.

[Travis McGee]

It's a worthwhile effort to state the obvious, but is anybody listening? I kind of doubt it.

The ship drifts on, while the captain plays poker in the lounge.

[lelio]

then I fear for our future because take a look at the 9 dwarves
At least in 1932 FDR had a personality and could inspire people. Yikes, did I just say that FDR is looking good these days? Do I hear four horses outside?

[hedgetrimmer]

More information on wholly owned government corporations, including OPIC. Tell me to stop if I'm boring you :-)

***
A wholly owned government corporation is a corporate entity established by Congress in which the government holds all equity. Most of these entities are listed in the Government Corporation Control Act (1945). The Act does not serve as a general incorporation law; each of these corporations have their own enabling legislation that stipulates its powers. Fourteen wholly owned government corporations are listed in the Government Corporation Control Act. They are as follows: [Source: From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access. GPO comment: Laws in effect as of January 6, 1999. Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between January 6, 1999 and February 11, 2000.]

Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
OPIC's mission is "to mobilize and facilitate the participation of United States private capital and skills in the economic and social development of less developed countries and areas, and countries in transition from nonmarket to market economies, thereby complementing the development assistance objectives of the United States." [Source: www.opic.gov]

In a similar vein:
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Ex-Im Bank's mission is to create jobs through exports. It is the official credit agency of the U. S. Government. It provides guarantees of working capital loans for U.S. exporters, guarantees the repayment of loans or makes loans to foreign purchasers of U.S. goods and services. Ex-Im Bank also provides credit insurance that protects U.S. exporters against the risks of non-payment by foreign buyers for political or commercial reasons. Ex-Im Bank does not compete with commercial lenders, but assumes the risks they cannot accept. It must always conclude that there is reasonable assurance of repayment on every transaction financed. [Source: http://www.exim.gov/mover.html]


An added bonus
Presidio Trust
The trust is a wholly-owned government corporation established by the 1996 Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act to maintain and lease property at the Presidio in San Francisco. In 1996, the U.S. Congress created the Presidio Trust to preserve and enhance the Presidio in partnership with the National Park Service. Congress also mandated that the Trust become financially self-sufficient by fiscal year 2013. If the Trust fails in this mission, the park may be transferred to the General Services Administration and sold. [Source: www.presidiotrust.gov/about/index.asp


http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/corp.html

[hedgetrimmer]

Definition of a wholly owned government corportation (like OPIC).

"a corporate entity established by Congress in which the government holds all equity"

Is this constitutional? I would like to know where the Constitution gives Congress the right to form corporations with taxpayer money, own it down to the letter, and because the government owns it, it does not have to publish its budget or monetary information.

[hedgetrimmer]

A little information about corporations:

For one hundred years after the American Revolution, citizens and their legislators controlled the nation's economy by controlling the corporate chartering process. Having thrown off English rule, the revolutionaries did not give governors, judges or generals the authority to charter corporations. Citizens made certain that legislators issued charters, one at a time and for a limited number of years. They kept a tight hold on corporations by spelling out rules each business had to follow, by holding business owners liable for harms or injuries, and by revoking charters.

Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after long, hard debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing rules and operating conditions not just in the charters but also in state constitutions and in state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action which legislators did not specifically allow.

States limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders.

Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but revocation of the charter and dissolution of the corporation.

*******

Undoubtedly, one of the most severe blows to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886. The Supreme court ruled in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the U.S. Constitution, sheltered by the Bill of Rights and the l4th Amendment.

Using the 14th Amendment, which had been added to the Constitution to protect freed slaves, the justices struck down hundreds more local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm.

The Supreme Court had now effectively positioned the corporation to become "America's representative social institution," "an institutional expression of our way of life."

Corporate power, now virtually unchecked, owned resources, production, commerce, trade, prices, jobs, politicians, judges and the law.

Over the next half century, as a United States congressional committee concluded in 1941, "The principal instrument of the concentration of economic power and wealth has been the corporate charter with unlimited power..."

http://www.pushhamburger.com/hidden1.htm

[Squantos]

Dang Harpseal ! Awesome posts.......I sitting here at home trying to figure out how to get my nephews Play Station 2 with the network adapter to hook up to the net and yer still saving the world. I gotta do more.......

Stay Safe and as always I hope yer days are easy.

[DugwayDuke]

"My information on their programs and policies comes from the OPIC website."

"Now please back up one of your accusations with a reference or go back to DU."

It's interesting that you would post a link to the OPIC website. You see I went to their website before I made any statements about that agency. I found the following:

"By charging market-based fees for its products, OPIC operates at no net cost to taxpayers. It has earned a profit in each year of operations — $175 million in 2002 — and built its substantial reserves to more than $4 billion. All of OPIC’s guaranty and insurance obligations are backed by OPIC’s own substantial reserves and by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government."

I also learned that it has created: "254,000 American jobs and $65 billion in exports".

I think that pretty well backs up my statements. Now, I suggest you retract your statement that I am a "liar and a fraud".

[DugwayDuke]

"Ummm... I think if one thinks about something totally, not just a 'little bit', they would see that nike tennis shoes ten years ago cost $100 with American labor. Today, they cost $100 + with two dollar an hour Chinese labor... It's a no brainer buddy. Get with it..."

So what? Are you suggesting price controls on tennis shoes or perhaps you'd like the government to regulate how much profit a company can make? Sounds oh, so, Democrat.

[DugwayDuke]

"You 'free traders' almost always get it wrong with your argument that protectionism cost consumers money. Think about it... we do live in a socialist country. When another american (or another million americans!) loses his job and can't find another, he doesn't disappear and neither does his family. He does however still consume, require health care, a home, etc. And who pays? I do!"

So, let me see if I understand your argument. The government should erect barriers to free trade to preserve jobs and minimize the welfare rolls? You are saying that the government should force some Americans to pay more for goods and services in order that other Americans have a certain standard of living. What a strange argument for a person who posts under the name "Libertarian Joe". What you are saying is that Peter has a right to the property of Paul.

"I hope your gated community has strong gates because before long they will surely be tested."

Normally this argument is made by members of the democrat party, not libertarians. Essentially, you are saying that if I don't give you some of my property, then you'll come and take it. Hardly a libertarian argument.

[DugwayDuke]

"If members of a nation did not owe anything one to another, what would be a reason for such nation to exist? To protect and serve the international corporations? You got it wrong, sir."

No, I think I have it just right. You have no right to my property. You have no right to use the power of government to increase your living standard by taking my property or forcing me to pay more for goods and services to support your lifestyle. I do have an obligation to live according to the law of this land. Other than that, my obligation is to my family, not to you or yours. This is pretty basic stuff.

[DugwayDuke]

"Wow, you must have missed all the outsourcing threads up to this point."

Can't say that I've read them all, some but not all. The arguments that it's ok to force some Americans to pay more for goods and services to subsidize other Americans tends to make too ill to read all of them.

[DugwayDuke]

It might help to actually read the text of the letter. It does not advocate subsidizing American jobs."

No, it advocates limiting the competition within the IT industry. Such limits means that American corporations will have to pay more for goods and services. This is a transfer of income from some Americans to other Americans. Most would call that a subsidy.

[harpseal]

If you wanted to add some points, you might want to throw in that cheap wage slaves from India are destroying any incentive to startup a new software company here with US workers as someone can easily steal the idea and do it over there for a fraction of the cost.

I wanted to keep it short and simple. Once the issue is broached points can be added later.

[harpseal]

I had to state the obvious. The problem may not be affecting me but I had to at least write a letter. it may not be much biut if enough other peopel do so on the basis of a sample letter it will get someone's attention and hopefully save a lot of pain later.

[harpseal]

Day to day operations are supposedly funded by current income . however, the unfunded liability is a US taxpayer expense. Now you may not understand such difficult concepts as unfunded liability and unearned premium but they are essential insurance concepts. Like I said if it is such a good idea why isn't private enterprise doing it. A business venture by the government is by definition a handout. I saw about how supposedly their current operating revnues cover their current operating expenses but unless the company is maintaining reserves to cobvver reasonable risk they are underwriting then it is a government handout.

Your simple lies will not work on this one. Unless they are using standard insurance accounting it is a handout of taxpayer monies. Since they are using government agency accounting standards without properly accounting for the risk it is a handout or do you believe all insurance companies are frauds? Further there was initial funding.

[harpseal]

No, it advocates limiting the competition within the IT industry. Such limits means that American corporations will have to pay more for goods and services. This is a transfer of income from some Americans to other Americans. Most would call that a subsidy.

Please provide a quote where the letter has at any time advocated limiting competition in the IT industry. Go nback to DU you lying socialist.

[harpseal]

You have no right to my property. You have no right to use the power of government to increase your living standard by taking my property or forcing me to pay more for goods and services to support your lifestyle. I do have an obligation to live according to the law of this land. Other than that, my obligation is to my family, not to you or yours. This is pretty basic stuff.

Then why are you advocating teh continuation of a government agency that gives and has given loans of government money to provide for a subsidy to some. You are stating while no one has a right to your property you have a right to other peoples's property. If you have an obligation to live by the law of the land then you have an obligation to oppose the use of H1B and L1 visas to in an illegally. The law madates that H1B visas only be given to alleviate a shortage of any particular skill set. The law madates that L1 visas are only granted for specialized knowledge for someone vital to a company. bringing in a consultant under the H1B provisions is a violation of Federal law according to the INS.

I am really tired of your lying.

[harpseal]

Please not I would not be complaining about OPIC ifd it were a private corporation I am complaining because it is a US government agenbcy with teh full faith and credit of the United states government behind it. that in case you did not know is taxpayers. any statements about jobs created in the US erconomy must be balanced by jobs destroyed in teh US economy and the duration of the jobs created versus the probale duration of the jobs destroyed.

[DugwayDuke]

"Day to day operations are supposedly funded by current income . however, the unfunded liability is a US taxpayer expense. Now you may not understand such difficult concepts as unfunded liability and unearned premium but they are essential insurance concepts."

Oh, I understand those concepts. I also understand OPIC operates at a profit, it's risk insurance has not cost the US taxpayers (remember OPIC operates at a net profit), and has created 245,000 US jobs.

"I saw about how supposedly their current operating revnues cover their current operating expenses but unless the company is maintaining reserves to cobvver reasonable risk they are underwriting then it is a government handout."

Then you also must have noted that OPIC has $4B in reserves? Also OPIC exposure to any single project is strictly limited.