Responding To Reader Email: Outsourcing And Term Limits
I received a rather heated email from a reader of my political writing on my blog that expressed a couple of things I thought I would answer publicly. I should note that “local” for the email writer is not North Dakota.
“If you cut a tree down you have to replace it”…….. I was appalled to find out that 60% of our local unemployment is due to “Outsourcing”…Charbroil makes BB grills for half the world under private labels etc … they shut down and pushed 700 people into the streets ..no they did not quit making grills they outsourced to China. If you out source and take jobs away from Americans then you should pay an import tax strong enough to discourage outsourcing.
Term Limits……No more than 2 terms ..8 years….Fresh blood brings in new ideas, something we are missing! The day of the career politician should be eliminated, because they lose sight of what they are in DC for.
The reason jobs get outsourced is because the cost of doing business becomes cheaper elsewhere (outside the U.S.). It’s not simply that Chinese workers get paid less. It’s that the taxes, building costs, permit costs, regulatory hoops, and union requirements are all more onerous here than there (China in your example).
All that would be accomplished by raising import tariffs is that tariffs on American products exported to China (again, in your example) would increase and the cost of those grills would rise to offset the cost of the tarriff.
Corporations don’t pay tarriffs — the consumer does, in increased prices. I agree that we should discourage outsourcing. The way to do that is to remove federal barriers to building a business. That certainly doesn’t mean 100% deregulation or the elimination of corporate taxes. But it does mean not tiliting the game away from business and towards state and federal tax coffers, unions, and trial lawyers to such an extent that outsourcing becomes the sanest business decision. As for term limits, I’m on the fence, though I generally lean to the same side as you. Generally I think they would eliminate a lot of the complacency and bed-sharing that goes on as long-time incumbents get comfortable partnering with special interests. My qualms with it are twofold: First, I don’t know if there are Constitutional questions about limiting terms that would need to be dealt with. I’m not a Consitutional lawyer. Second, part of me feels that citizens can vote for whomever they want; term limits would remove that ability. If the citizens of Massachussetts want to send Scott Brown to the Senate for the next thirty years, they should be able to. If he becomes entrenched in the same nest-feathering as most of his counterparts, at some point the onus falls on the electorate to “vote the bum out” as it were. In some sense I see term limits as a copout for a disinterested electorate. That said, I still lean towards agreement with you on this topic if only because there are so few examples of public servants above the local level that are in the job for the right reasons. They get elected to represent their constituents. At some point, they all seem to become more enamored of keeping the job and securing as much compensation as possible, from whomever will provide it. Tags: Economy
