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,

[harpseal]

Thank you I believe every fact should be posted unfortunately I can not do all the research and reference posting I would like to do.

No you do not bore me. you have done most of the work with OPIC I just decided the time had come to start doing something more than jsut posting on Free Republic. to write a letter and see if I could get a few more people to write letters.

If you and i could make the decisions we would do it but teh uS cnstitution delegates the powers of interstae commerce to the Federal Government.

[DugwayDuke]

"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."

OK, I stand corrected. Your letter did not specifically advocate limiting competition in the IT sector. Do you wish to limit all competition. BTW, exactly which sector are all those H1B and L1 immigrants working?

Question, what make you think I'm from DU? I'd like to point out I've been registered here almost as long as you. And, just exactly where have I lied?

[DugwayDuke]

"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."

If you have evidence of a crime, then report it. If this practice is so widespread and the crime is so clear cut, I'm sure we'll hear of convictions very soon.

[DugwayDuke]

"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."

OK, OPIC states they've created 245,000 US jobs. Show me some facts on jobs destroyed by OPIC and that the jobs created are of limited duration.

[hedgetrimmer]

March 17, 1997
Killing Corporate Welfare
by John F. McManus


Representative Rob Andrews (D-NJ) recently introduced H.R. 387, the OPIC Termination Act. Begun in 1971, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is a government agency formed to provide project financing, investment insurance, and other services for American businesses so that they can operate risk-free in developing nations where investment environments may be perilous.

The very name of this agency cleverly misleads. OPIC is not "private," but government; it is not a "corporation" in the real sense, but a non-taxpaying federal bureaucracy feeding at the public trough; and its greatest beneficiaries aren't "overseas," but right here in corporate America. It ought to be renamed the Government Agency for Subsidizing Big Annual Givers (GASBAG) inasmuch as the corporations receiving OPIC subsidies are among the largest donors to federal re-election campaigns.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no06/vo13no06_welfare.htm

[hedgetrimmer]

OPIC's proponents claim its activity stimulates exports and Andrews agrees, but Andrews insists that jobs are the major exports -- out of the United States. He told his House colleagues: "In 1994, Kimberly-Clark obtained $9.27 million from OPIC; the same year the Labor Department certified that 600 of Kimberly-Clark's U.S. employees were adversely affected. Similarly, Levi-Strauss obtained $41.8 million in OPIC insurance, while the government stated that 100 Levi-Strauss workers in the United States were hurt."

Eleanor Holmes Norton, non-voting House delegate from Washington, DC, pointed out that "OPIC pays no taxes, pays no dividends, and two-thirds of its income comes from Treasury securities...." Concerning OPIC's negative impact on American jobs she cited the following figures: "Let me take four of the large OPIC users: Ford, minus 160,000 jobs here; Exxon, minus 83,000 jobs here; AT&T, minus 127,000 jobs here; General Electric, minus 185,000 jobs here." Certainly not all of these job losses can be attributed entirely to OPIC programs, but some surely can.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no06/vo13no06_welfare.htm

[hedgetrimmer]

"I cannot see any redeeming aspect in the existence of OPIC. It is special interest legislation of the worst kind, legislation that makes the problem it is intended to deal with worse rather than better ... OPIC has no business existing."

-- Nobel laureate Milton Friedman

September 5, 1996

[hedgetrimmer]

The skyrocketing number of commitments by OPIC in recent years involving extremely high risks, the prospect for more of the same and the lack of taxpayer protections in the event of a financial meltdown turn this government program into an accident waiting to happen. Scrapping the agency now is the best way to protect taxpayers.

http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php/142.htm

[hedgetrimmer]

People were trying to get rid of this junk in July 1, 1997. **** OPIC claims to boost exports and create American jobs. But the top purchasers of U.S. products, such as Japan, Mexico and South Korea, have no OPIC-backed investments. Of America’s $835 billion in exports, OPIC tries to take credit for a tiny portion — only one percent. Yet OPIC-related trade comes at the expense of countless job and export opportunities that are lost when OPIC alters the market’s allocation of capital.

Along with foreign policy, politically-correct environmental and labor standards take precedence over financial prudence at OPIC. While these niceties score points with Vice President Gore, they do not foster a better world. In fact, extraneous political considerations are used to steer capital away from sound investments. The higher risk factor produces a higher failure rate, the biggest enemy of the environment and workers. In addition, the uncertainty of coverage in a politicized risk allocation system means less stability and predictability for investors.

Through OPIC’s activities, the federal government has exposed the taxpayer to enormous risks. Should the $19.8 billion OPIC scheme prove to be as shaky as federal deposit insurance, it will need a costly bailout.

Foreign investment is too important to leave to bureaucrats. The free market should determine where and how much to invest. Congress should make a hard-headed business decision, and end government intervention in overseas private investment.

http://www.cei.org/gencon/005,01252.cfm

[harpseal]

Hey if it operates at a profit then why would you object to defunding this operation and getting the US government out of the business. Government is not supposed to operate business at a prfoit according to your statements and while I question any statement this company makes about jobs created yopu are the one who has argued that government is not responsible to create winners and losers that I agree with and obviously OPIC is creating winners and losers.

If OPIC is a profit making venture then it should not be a government agency because it should be done by private enterprise as the government agency is competeing with an entrepenuer that would set up such a profit making corporation.

If it is a government subsidy then it is a harm to many Americans by subsidizing the investment of capital in foreign nations in which case it should be defunded aka abolished, sold off as a stickholder company and teh proceeds from that sale put in the US treasury. If it had an initial funding then it is a government agency set up to subsidize the flow of capital from the USA. Now there nmay be times when such an economic move may make sense such as when the inflow of capital is causing an unusual bubble in teh economy but when that bubble has gone down it is time to change policies.

In brief you are so desparate for this agency of the US government to stay in operation I almost wonder if you work for them and then by definition the PRC.

[DugwayDuke]

How sweet it is! I've spent most of my time on this thread saying that you guys sound like democrats and socialists and then you come along quoting a Democrat from, of all places New Jersey, and Eleanor Holmes Norton. Thank you for just proving my point.

Judging from the list provided by Norton, if any company used OPIC services, and so much as fired a janitor, then it is a job loss attributable to OPIC.

[harpseal]

I note another government insurance operation the FSLIC has gone away at massive taxpayer expense. Free insurance is not free otherwise why would we have insurance companies and whuy would people pay insurance premiums. OPIC is a Agency of the United States government and I propodse defunding it. If it went private then the actuarial risks would have to be accounted for. that is what insurance companies sell protection against actuarial risk. Do insurance companies allocate reserves for future risks yes. Do they purchase reinsurance to protect themselves from too much risk yes again. If this was a truly profit making venture and based on sound insurance accounting both on the investment side and the premium risk side then it would be a private profit making venture.

[harpseal]

Well your defense of offshore outsourcing is actually the position of Shelia Jackson Lee so what is your problem with Eelenor Holmes Norton.

[DugwayDuke]

"In brief you are so desparate for this agency of the US government to stay in operation I almost wonder if you work for them and then by definition the PRC."

I could care less if this agency stays in operation. Nor, have I argued that the government should be in this type of operation. My argument has been that you have not been arguing against OPIC on conservative grounds. If, for example, you want to make the argument that corporation as OPIC is unconstitutional and should be abolished on that basis, then I will support that argument. But, I don't believe you made such a claim. Instead, you have choosen rhetoric much more akin to that place, DU, where you keep tyring to banish me.

[DugwayDuke]

"Well your defense of offshore outsourcing is actually the position of Shelia Jackson Lee so what is your problem with Eelenor Holmes Norton."

The only public pronouncement of Shelia Jackson Lee of which I am familiar is her desire to use the Mars Rover to hunt for the American flag left by the astronauts.

[hedgetrimmer]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so why are you suprised a democrat might understand OPIC is harmful?

A technique polished by the clinton administration is to accuse their opponents of what they are indeed doing. Calling me a socialist shows me you 1. have no facts to show that OPIC is NOT an illegal arm of the global socialists and 2. you are the socialist.

I am just posting articles. I have said NOTHING that promotes socialism, in fact I have shown many times that the transfer of wealth out of this country by groups like OPIC is SOCIALISM AT ITS MOST DANGEROUS.

You cannot refute any of the facts posted. You refuse to recognize that as early as 1997 people were understood the danger of OPIC and even put a bill in the house of representatives to repeal it. The were unsuccessful and now the harm is snowballing.

[harpseal]

The problem is you are the one arguing for a government agency to stay a government agency interfering in the free market. If this is a good idea the sell it off as a private enterprise. Get stockholders to invest to buy this profit making venture. i would have no objection whatsoever to a private sector company offering this insurance dfor a premium or making these loans. It gets it out of the government hands and lets the market allocate and evaluate the risks of overseas investment.

Now it really does no good whatsoever to argue of who is quoting a liberal etc. Actually since th India Caucus is more than 2 to 1 Liberal Democrat I would not use that as jsutification and when you cited the priciple taht government should not involve itself in the Free market thgat I agrred with. Yet when I suggest getting rid of a government agency and you scream socialism.

To perhaps get out of the name calling which you started in your first post, let me ask a simple question what are your objections to private enterprise providing the function this agency provides said private enterprise would be owned by individuals and could be a corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship. Why is this a necessary function of government? If you can explain why the US government in 2003 must operate an agency that provides political risk and currency convertability insurance along with loans for offshore projects that is clear I will be more than happy to engage in reasonable discussion and I believe hedgetrimmer will also. Remember I am asking you to justify a government operation and claims of creating 1% of the jobs from US exports do not cut it. exoplain why the US government must operate a supposedly profit making enterprise rather tahn some entrepeneur. Just saying no one in the private sector would do it does not cut it on this.

please eithe rput up or shut up.

[DugwayDuke]

"If you can explain why the US government in 2003 must operate an agency that provides political risk and currency convertability insurance along with loans for offshore projects that is clear I will be more than happy to engage in reasonable discussion and I believe hedgetrimmer will also."

As I said, if you wish to oppose this agency on constitutional grounds, then I will support you on that basis.

[harpseal]

The only public pronouncement of Shelia Jackson Lee of which I am familiar is her desire to use the Mars Rover to hunt for the American flag left by the astronauts

Your lack of knowlede is your personal problem please do not wear it as a badge of honor.

[harpseal]

Excuse me I am opposed to this agency's existence For that matter I do not like the Export Import Bank on Constitutional grounds either. you are the one who called me a socialist for opposing an agency you now admit is unconstitutional.

As I said, if you wish to oppose this agency on constitutional grounds, then I will support you on that basis.

I must have missed that post but I really do not care what a person's internal logic is behind opposing an agency that I see as both Unconsitutional and harmful.

I was writing a letter to the President of the USA in order to try and influence his policies and your first post on this thread started with saying it sounds like sociaism to you. Are you on the same thread that I am posting to?

I admit you have a right and perhaps a duty to convey your views regarding this progam to teh White House. When you do why don't you say how you support an unconstitution program.

If you were posting simply in order to generate more supporting arguments for getting rid of OPIC fine. If the logic that this should not be a government agency finally reached you then fantastic but I did not see of what you stated if you wish to oppose this agency on constitutional grounds, then I will support you on that basis.