- Vote 'NO!' to Government Regulation of Privacy at The Economist
- FCC Stalls on Internet Regulation; Asks for More Comments
- Why was the Volcker Commission Constrained by Obama’s Tax Pledge, but not the Simpson-Bowles?
- Daily Media Spotlight September 2, 2010
- Harry Reid Looks to Resurrect RES During Lame-Duck
- Calculating the Cost of Government (CFA Site »)
Thursday, September 2, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight September 1, 2010
-
Obama Tax Commission Report:
Baby Step Toward IRS Tax Preparation - Dina Titus Launches False Attack Ad on Joe Heck and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge
- Indiana LaunchesTransparency Website (CFA Site »)
- Rally for Jobs Kicks Off Today in Texas
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 31, 2010
- Let us All Join in on the NOT so “Green Cause”
- California Bag Ban Bill Up for Vote Today
- Norquist to Gov. Pat Quinn: Pick a Flawed Income Tax Hike and Stick With It
- Phil Moffett Signs Taxpayer Protection Pledge in Kentucky Gubernatorial Race
- New Mexico Sets Trends in Transparency Websites (CFA Site »)
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
- Robert Gibbs’s Fuzzy Tax Hike Math
- Daily Media Spotlight August 30, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
- 2011 Could Be Ugly for Nevada Taxpayers
- Lame Duck Governor Ed Rendell Not Going Gently Into That Good Night – New Call for Higher Taxes
- Happy Cost of Government Day, California
- Bay Staters Spent 239 Days Paying for Government Burdens in 2010 (CFA Site »)
- Washington Welcomes Cost of Government Day (CFA Site »)
Friday, August 27, 2010
- Spill Commission Should Lift Moratorium Which Has Cost Gulf Residents 12,000 Jobs and $2.1 Billion
- Daily Media Spotlight August 26, 2010
- Why is Dan Onorato Knowingly Misleading Pennsylvania Voters?
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle
- Utah Tobacco Sellers Feeling the Impact of Tax Hikes
Thursday, August 26, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 25, 2010
- WI Democrats Launch “Blatantly False” Attack on Sean Duffy
- Unions plan on spending big this election cycle (AWF Site »)
- Philly's New Blog Tax May Foreshadow Other eTaxes
- BNA: For 14 States, Existing Tax Code Leaves Room for Etax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Philly's $300 Blogger Tax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Cost of Government Day Arrives in the Commonwealth
- Pennsylvania Finally Celebrates Cost of Government Day
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
- California Budget Proposal Advocates eTax (Stop eTaxes Site »)
- Daily Media Spotlight August 24, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 23, 2010
- Government Workers' Pensions are Underfunded by $3 Trillion
Monday, August 23, 2010
- Fourteen Ways to Reduce Government Spending
- FCC Report on Broadband Performance: A Scare Tactic
- Sen. Al Franken Doesn’t Understand Wireless Networks...or the First Amendment
Friday, August 20, 2010
- Daily Media Spotlight August 19, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Job Killing Buy American Provision Included in...Jobs Bill
From Kelsey Zahourek on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 3:00 PM
Today, the House is set to vote on a “jobs” bill that includes a protectionist Buy American provision that would make it harder for government agencies to waive the requirement that steel and manufactured goods used for highway and bridge projects are American made. This seeks to strengthen the previous Buy American provision that was included in the failed stimulus plan passed in February.
“Buy American” mandates in this year’s $787 billion spending package have clearly not helped create the jobs that legislators have promised. Unemployment hovers around 10%, yet populist sentiments are attempting to make the same mistake twice. According to the New York Times, employers across the country have been forced to lay off workers as a direct result of “Buy American” requirements in the bill. One factory in Pennsylvania has let go of 600 employees because some of its products include goods produced overseas.
“Buy American” mandates raise barriers to trade and endanger American businesses to retaliation from trading partners. Considering the escalating trade wars with both China and Mexico, the last thing that Congress should do is provoke trading partners further. If the federal government is serious about spurring the creation of new jobs, Congress should focus on lowering taxes and pursuing enactment of pending free trade agreements.
Comments
The US is a trade deficit nation. That means international trade cost us more jobs than we gain form it. The only advantage to being a trade deficit nation is that if there is a trade war you win. A trade war or tariffs that would drive our trade deficit to zero would be the equivalent of having a stimulus package each and every year without having to borrow any money. The history of trade protection has been written by supporters of free trade. They never tell you that the US was the worlds most trade protected nation for more than a hundred years. During that more than a hundred years of trade protection the US ascended to the economic high from which it has descended during a short period of free trade.
>> n6532l Wednesday, December 16, 2009 5:30 PM Report Comment
Everything n65321 wrote after "The US is a trade deficit nation" is factually wrong. International trade creates jobs because countries can maximize their competitive advantage by specializing in what they produce most efficiently. Not really sure how a net importing country would "win" a trade war. Tariffs would be the equivalent to a stimulus package only in that it would further damage the economy. I can't tell you how many text books I read in school that were written by free trade libertarians, because we all know that is the dominant view point in government-run schools. And the US was not protectionist for more than 100 years, there is a difference b/w not getting involved in other countries' wars, and in not trading with them.
>> TCH Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:18 AM Report Comment
TCH, US trade protection began in 1828 when Andrew Jackson passed the “Tariff of Abomination” that was the highest tariffs we have ever had. Tariffs went up and down ending at about 20 percent just before the Civil War. After the Civil War started Congress passed the Morrill and War tariffs which jacked tariffs up to just under 50 percent. Tariffs stayed high until low tariffs were used to constrain monopolies. That was soon abandoned in favor of anti trust legislation. By the 1920s tariffs were back in the range of 40 percent where they were when Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley introduced their new tariffs that raised tariffs to just below 60 percent. That is the 750 char version of 100 years of trade protection. Check it out.
>> n6532l Thursday, December 17, 2009 7:25 PM Report Comment