"Now That's a Patriot Act"

[Rhino]

BLOG | Posted 08/03/2007 @ 4:27pm
Now That's a Patriot Act
William Greider

Now here is a Patriot Act everyone can get behind. It's called the Patriot Corporation of America Act and it rewards the companies that don't screw their employees and weaken the country by moving the jobs to China and elsewhere...

But the bills introduced Thursday by three senators and seven representatives, all Democrats, can begin to reverse this political perversity....

...The House and Senate bills appear to be differ slightly but pursue the same goal. In the House, a "Patriot Corporation" would get tax breaks and preferences in federal contracting for employers who produce at least 90 percent of their goods and services in the US and with American workers. The companies must invest in research and development domestically, provide adequate health care and pensions and--surprise--comply with federal laws like workplace safety, environmental protection and consumer regulations.

The Senate's "Patriot Employers" version would give a 1 percent tax credit on taxable income for companies that maintain or increase their US employment in relation to their overseas workers. They must also keep their corporate headquarters in the US. The Senate bill adds a "living wage" requirement....http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=219923

It's an old article, but apparently Obama is now supporting it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

All well and good, but why should the government interfere with the free market, positively or negatively?

[Rhino]

It shouldn't.

[gnome]

Look at the focus though... tax breaks and government contracts. When it comes to contracts, just as an individual consumer can choose to buy American, why not the US Government? It seems to me this bill, rather than taking the sledgehammer choice of putting down mandates or tariffs, is affecting how the US Government does business.

[Gato es Verde]

It shouldn't.

Our free market economy, and the theory behind it, is based upon a domestic free market, not a global free market.

[The_Sonarman]

The Senate's "Patriot Employers" version would give a 1 percent tax credit on taxable income for companies that maintain or increase their US employment in relation to their overseas workers.

A whole 1 percent credit? ROTFLMAO. How is that going to lure US corporations away from moving operations overseas, where their cost of labor is $2 an hour or less, and their cost of facilities is 1/5th or 1/10th that of the US?

A 1 percent credit is laughable, and Con-gress well knows it.

[Rhino]

Our free market economy, and the theory behind it, is based upon a domestic free market, not a global free market.Was that supposed to be a counter to what I said? It seems to agree with me, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Gato es Verde]

Was that supposed to be a counter to what I said? It seems to agree with me, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

There was a suggestion put forth that this act would meddle with the free market economy, but as I read it, it's providing tax incentives to companies who do not farm out their labor overseas.

That's not meddling with the free market in my estimation because the free market is a domestic free market and not a global free market.

[Rhino]

It's the government deciding which companies are patriotic or not, and providing or denying rewards based on that. That directly affects competitiveness, and is indeed meddling with a free market.

And health care, pensions, workplace safety, environmental regulations, consumer regulations and a living wage have nothing to do with a global market.

[Gato es Verde]

With minimum wage going up, measures like this are necessary to allow US Companies to compete in a global marketplace and domestically.

Artificial price floors and artificial price ceilings put companies at a competitive disadvantage. This helps US companies level the playing field.

[Rhino]

I disagree with minimum wage too. And competing by artificial means is also meddling with a free market. It does far more harm than good. Artificial incentives also put companies at a disadvantage. If you want to see how well government intrusion into competition and the marketplace works, try living in North Korea for a while. Government controls do not work, and do more harm than good. No thanks.

[Gato es Verde]

Your laizze faire approach does nothing to assuage the grief of companies who are put at an extreme competitive disadvantage due to domestic minimum wage increases, health care costs, tax burdens and under EPA regulation.

These US companies are struggling to compete both domestically and abroad with those who farm out their labor to overseas sweat shops who are not under similar regulations, which keep their costs far below those of domestically based companies.

An act like this provides these US based companies with incentives and a license to compete.

[Rhino]

It isn't the government's job to assuage the grief of companies in a capitalist economy. That's the province of socialist economies. An act like this provides companies with incentives based solely on the whims or social agenda of the government, and severely detracts from the ability to compete for companies that are not in the governments 'favor'. You can advocate socialist policies if you like, but I have no intention of supporting them.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It isn't the government's job to assuage the grief of companies in a capitalist economy. That's the province of socialist economies. An act like this provides companies with incentives based solely on the whims or social agenda of the government, and severely detracts from the ability to compete for companies that are not in the governments 'favor'. You can advocate socialist policies if you like, but I have no intention of supporting them.
That was exactly the point of my question: Why should the government interfere with the free market, positively or negatively?

Meddling with the free market is a big part of socialism (and liberal fascism, according to Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism).

[Jack_Savage]

To the degree we regulate the free market to guarantee an increased standard of living for people who are not competative, who do we force to pay for it? Do we confiscate resources of other nations who don't go along with it. Print more money?

I don't see Obama, Hillary or anyone on the left that supports these stupid ideas suggesting we force the world to pay for larger homes and bigger tv's? Does Hillary and Obama talk about that? No. just bring home the non competitive jobs, raise the wages to cover more fancy upgrades, and lets include free breast implants in mandated health care, but leave out the part where they explain who is going to pay for it. Do they think others countrys will pay a premium for American goods to cover all our new whims?

[Timberwolf]

Not gonna waste my time...

[gnome]

In a free market, the customers make buying decisions according to their own interests. In the global market, the individual nations themselves are very much customers themselves... so why shouldn't the US government make buying decisions according to US interests? I'm sure most of the rest of the countries do.

[Timberwolf]

Oh crap...okay, I guess I'll waste some of my time...

We have a "free" market because the 50 states subordinate themselves to a central authority (the Federal Government).

To HAVE a global "free" market, the individual countries would have to suborne themselves to a "central authority" - namely, the U friggin' N - don't wat any part of that little arrangement...no way, no how.

[DesertFox]

America hasn't had a truly open economy since, oh, maybe 1776. Govt will ALWAYS meddle. It can't help itself. The tendency toward such fascism is built into the human animal, I'm afraid.

[Rhino]

... so why shouldn't the US government make buying decisions according to US interests? I'm sure most of the rest of the countries do.This isn't about governmental buying decisions. It's about governmental control of private, free enterprise.