Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? Same-Sex Marriage: Obama’s Lincoln Moment

On Wednesday night, Governor John Baldacci of Maine signed legislation that he struggled to support. While governors are often pressed by their legislatures and constituents to support laws that they do not necessarily agree with, this bill—one that legalizes same-sex marriages—was a personal dilemma for the first-term governor. After weeks of agonizing over the decision, the Governor released a statement to the press that outlined the reasoning behind his eventual approval:

In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.

The first governor to sign a same-sex marriage bill, Baldacci touches on the heart of the same-sex marriage debate: The arguments for or against same-sex unions based on morality, religion, tradition, or any other logic is irrelevant. What matters is the law. And the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution that he refers to clearly states “[no] State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Which means that, like it or not, from Baldacci’s perspective, gays and lesbians should be entitled to the right to marry if straight people are allowed to marry.

Over the course of the past several months, four states have legalized same-sex marriage in their states: Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire (Massachusetts legalized gay marriage back in 2004). Recently, both New York and Washington D.C. have decided to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. And now there is talk that New Jersey may become the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage in the coming months.

Throughout this civil rights upheaval,  President Obama and his administration have remained conspicuously mum. According to the New York Times, Obama has said that as a Christian he opposes gay marriage but remains a “fierce advocate of equality” for gay men and lesbians. And so far, he has remained true to that statement by pledging to sign a U.N. declaration, which Bush refused to sign before he left office, that calls for a worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality (the United States was the only western nation not to support the measure). Moreover, Obama has continually recognized qualified persons with same-sex sexual orientations for top level jobs: In his short time in office, he has appointed numerous openly gay officials for executive administrative positions and may be considering two prominent lesbian lawyers to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court.

Although the saying goes that “actions speak louder than words,” his silence is an action that may indicate his political discomfort with gay rights advocacy. During the election, he reiterated that same-sex marriage is an issue that should be decided by the states. And, to a certain extent, he’s constitutionally correct: There is currently no federal marriage license that any straight couple can apply for but, then again, opposite-sex couples who marry in their home state trust that their marriage will be honored no matter which state they travel to or live in. And while there is no federal law regulating straight marriages, the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress regulates same-sex unions. The Act explicitly outlines that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions performed in other states. That is a gross discrepancy.

While Obama has said that he supports a repeal of that legislation and of the military’s “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy, he has remained virtually silent on the gay marriage issue since he took office and has chosen to not comment on the landslide of same-sex marriage laws in recent months. Although this issue may not seem like a priority for the administration when they have an economic crisis and two wars to contend with, it should be a priority for the president since Obama has repeatedly stated that he wants America to rebuild and renew its reputation in the world. In a 2007 article he wrote for Foreign Affairs, he stated:

At moments of great peril in the last century, American leaders such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy managed both to protect the American people and to expand opportunity for the next generation. What is more, they ensured that America, by deed and example, led and lifted the world — that we stood for and fought for the freedoms sought by billions of people beyond our borders. […] They used our strengths to show people everywhere America at its best.

Yet, how can those freedoms be realized if America does not follow its own laws and ensure that all of its own citizens receive the same “protection” under the law? If President Obama is going to continue to reiterate that marriage laws should be left to the states, then he should actively pursue a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act since it is a federal measure. So too, if he wants America to “lead by deed and example” then he must show support for states that have passed inclusive marriage legislation and encourage others to do the same. It sets a very bad “example” to have some areas of the country have more “freedoms” for its citizens than others.

Or, Obama could take a cue from his favorite president, Abraham Lincoln. When Lincoln took office in 1861, he viewed slavery as a states’ issue and expressly stated that he had “no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in the States where it exists.” However, two years later, he delivered his Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves because it was “an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution.” Certainly, it is thorny comparison between slavery and gay rights and America is not in a civil war where gay marriage is, like slavery was, the catalyst for domestic combat; nevertheless the United States is at a civil rights crossroads that needs to be addressed by the President. Had Lincoln chosen to never take that stand on slavery, decided to put it off until later, or thought he could leave the responsibility on to the next administration, Obama may have never even had a chance to be our president. Obama should take a page from the book of his presidential idol and realize that, regardless of the political risk, he is obligated as America’s national leader to stand up for the rights of all Americans.

Obama has continually said that he wants his presidency to speak to and for all Americans. In his famous Democratic nomination acceptance speech, Obama evoked Martin Luther King and reiterated that “now is the time” for the United States to rebuild and renew:

[I]n America, our destiny is inextricably linked, that together our dreams can be one. “We cannot walk alone,” the preacher cried. “And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”

Indeed, we cannot turn back and now is certainly the time.

Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? Tax Resisting Takes a Stand on Tax Day

Last Wednesday was tax day for most Americans. I say “most Americans” because there are some who recognize the legal obligation to pay taxes, but who chose not to pay some or all of their taxes for ethical or moral reasons. And, in big cities all over the United States, groups gathered on April 15 to protest the bank bailouts, gay marriage laws, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with the argument that paying taxes to the federal government encourages corporatism, discrimination, or unjust combat.

In the United States, some citizens subject themselves to IRS fines and penalties and actually resist paying taxes. And while many Americans may be disgruntled by Timothy Geithner’s bank plan, tax resisting (not to be confused with tax evasion, which is subject even stricter penalties and possible jail time), has always has been an integral part of American democracy in spite of the the fact that it is subject to fines and penalties. In the 1790s the first US Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, implemented a controversial luxury tax on whiskey that had some citizens so riled up that they actually tarred and feathered a handful of tax collectors. While Hamilton insisted that the tax had to be instated in order to pay off debts from the Revolutionary War, the tax resisters were not pleased with that explanation, and in 1794 Washington had to send an army of 12,000 to rural Pennsylvania to quell a rebellion (by the time the troops arrived, the dissenters had dispersed).

Of course, Henry David Thoreau is probably the most famous tax resister, spending a night in jail for refusing to pay six years of back taxes on the principle that he did not support the Mexican-American War and institutionalized slavery. But what about today? Is withholding taxes, despite the fact that it is subject to heavy government penalties, still one of the best ways to show anger and frustration towards one’s government?

A resident of Brooklyn, who I will call Barb Smith for purposes of anonymity, thinks that if you’re frustrated with your government, it makes you a “more responsible citizen.” At a demonstration on the front steps of the New York Post Office, she and fellow disgruntled citizens gathered to lend their voice to the anti-war movement. Handing out fliers that document military spending in this country, Smith, a third-year tax resister and war protester, pointed out that, “Money has an impact and where you spend your money has an impact. My decision [not to pay federal taxes] is in alignment with my conscience.”

Also gathered on the steps on the Post Office was a small group of elderly women from an international pacifist organization. One woman brandished a sign that said, “Raging Grannies and their Daughters.”

However, the sign did not mention granddaughters and Smith noted that, “Unfortunately, there are not many young people involved [in the tax resisting movement]. It’s mostly middle-aged and older people who are passionate about the issue.”

However, despite the age gap, the movement definitely gained momentum this year in cities around the country. Fox News had all day coverage of  “tea parties” in cities like Atlanta and Salt Lake City where protesters angrily voiced their tax boycott of the Wall Street bailouts. In Austin, Texas, Governor Rick Perry galvanized a crowd of angry citizens and even suggested that Texas might secede one day while, in downtown Houston, close to 2,000 people turned out to protest the federal government and threaten secession.

In Boston (the home of the first tea party back in 1773) gay rights groups gathered to protest their inability to file federal joint tax returns, even though Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage. A group with similar concerns gathered on the steps of the New York Post Office but when asked, none claimed to be resisting taxes. “We just want Albany to give us equality,” one woman implored.

Yet, despite all the hoopla surrounding tax resisting this year, the demonstrations still beg the question, does tax resisting in spite of the potential penalties really make a difference?

“I don’t know if the IRS cares,” another protester, who I will call Mark Johnson for anonymity, a fifth year tax resister from New Jersey said, “but I’m appalled at what the money is used for and I resist with a token amount.”

When asked what he does with the money he owes, Johnson insists, “I don’t keep it, I give it to organizations that do good that hopefully counterbalance what the government would do with the money. This year, I’m giving the $198 I owe and I’m sending it to the Iraq Collateral Repair Project.”

And, while he admits he only protests with a small amount of money, Johnson notes that there “is not enough outrage” and that he does the little that he can to press the point that he is not pleased with military spending in this country.

Although it is doubtful that Congress or the Obama administration paid much attention to tea parties, protests, or tax resister demonstrations on Wednesday, many see tax resistance, despite the fact that it is illegal, as the one act outside of voting that citizens can participate in to vocalize their disappointment with their government. And, while there is always the possibility that you can be audited, Smith notes that, “This is America. I’m not afraid of the IRS.”

Editor’s Note: This Web site does NOT in any way endorse or condone any act of tax resisting or tax evasion. Because of possibly incriminating statements, the names of quoted individuals were changed at the request of the editor.

Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? A Free Choice? Making the Case for American Workers

Over the past week, there has been substantial media coverage of the public rancor over A.I.G. bonuses, the Obama administration’s ballooning deficit spending, and Timothy Geithner’s plan to buy up toxic debt. And while Washington’s economic policies certainly deserve to be on everyone’s minds, there is another issue that could affect millions of workers that is getting far less play in the news but definitely a lot of heated debate among union leaders, corporations, and Congress—“card-check” voting.

Its official name is the Employee Free Choice Act and it would amend the National Labor Act of 1935 to essentially make union organization much easier for workers. The legislation would allow workers to form a union if a majority signs pro-union cards and would forgo the current practice of secret ballot elections. Other provisions would impose binding arbitration when employers and unions fail to reach a contract after 120 days and would substantially increase fines on employers who jeopardize union activities.

Proponents of the plan are many Democrats and large unions (including AFL-CIO and SEIU) who say that the current restrictions for unions put their members’ rights at a disadvantage. Many advocates for the change in the law, such as the union coalition Change to Win, say that private voting encourages intimidation and coercion of companies’ employees who wish to unionize. The act would also encourage a speedier and more thorough process in contract disputes and would triple the damages imposed against companies who do not adhere to union standards.

There are many opponents of this measure—both corporate and political—who view this legislation as an ends-to-justify the means type of regulation. The Chamber of Commerce has been very outspoken in its disapproval of the Act and notes that it could disenfranchise both parties (employers and workers) in the long run.  Under the proposed new rules, union organizers would be under no obligation to notify their employers that they are going to launch a union drive.  In addition, the “card check” policy would abolish secret-ballot elections even if many workers wish to have them. Also, in the instance that the companies and the newly formed unions fail to reach an agreement within a limited time frame, a federal government arbitrator must step in to mediate the contract so that a deal is reached—even if the outcome is not ideal for either party.

On Tuesday, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) said he would oppose the union “card-check” measure and, without his support, the legislation would likely fail in the Senate. Noting that he may very well be the “deciding vote,” Specter, who was the only Republican to vote for cloture in the previous Congress, says he is against the Act because it “will result in further job losses.” Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Costco, and several other large corporations agree. (It should be noted that Specter faces a stiff primary challenge from his right flank in 2010.) Whole Foods CEO John Mackey told the Washington Post on Sunday that the binding arbitration clause is “not the way we normally do things in the United States” and that allowing workers to organize without a secret ballot “violates a bedrock principle of American democracy.”

While corporations certainly are justified to feel threatened by this Act, ultimately, the workers are the ones who should receive some long overdue benefits. While Specter may consider the legislation a possible hindrance to labor and Mackey even deems it un-American, the rebuttal should be what is more beneficial to the labor movement than empowering workers and what is more American than appealing to the government for the rights of its citizens? According to Change to Win, low-wage workers only earn 83 cents on the dollar of what they were earning 35 years ago. What’s more is that Pennsylvania State University’s Poverty in America Project concludes that “in 2003, almost 25% of the nation’s counties had low per-capita incomes below one half the national average or less, high unemployment, low labor force participation rates, and a high dependency on government transfer payments-all measures of economic distress.” Most of these counties are located in areas with a relatively low levels of union penetration, such as the Deep South.

According to MSNBC, the vote on the EFCA might get pushed back to 2011 and  the Obama administration will be “quietly” happy since they support it but don’t really have the energy to fight for it at the moment. However, if this bill does come to vote and fails in the Senate, then compromised legislation will undoubtedly be pushed through that could do more harm than good for both employers and employees. To avoid that from happening, corporations worried about the Employee Free Choice Act should reach out to their employees and hold forums where both parties can speak their minds and try to understand each other’s positions. One of the reasons this issue has become a Congressional matter is because many large companies have at times failed to look out for the interests of their workers and put fiscal profits ahead of human capital. If these large corporations truly want to temper these regulations, then they must have an open dialogue with their employees and offer some solutions such as health care, transportation vouchers, child care benefits, higher wages, organizational tranparency, and more employee input into the decision-making processes of the organization. The only way to curb workers’ desire to unionize is to provide similar financial and non-financial benefits under a corporate business model. And, with low-wage workers who are unionized ultimately earning an average of 44% more than their non-union counterparts, even in these hard economic times it going to be a hard bargain to sell non-represented workers anything short of that improvement.

Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? The Invisible Homeless

Last Sunday three thousand people packed the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in New York City. A concert? A high profile speaker? A trade show? None of the above. Instead, it was a group of Tri-state residents eager to capitalize on the increasingly dismal housing market. Packing the convention center, they placed bids on foreclosed homes at prices 70 percent below their former values.

What made this auction so remarkable wasn’t the turnout, but who turned out. While these auctions have typically attracted house flippers, real estate investors, and the occasional curious buyer, this time it brought in a new demographic—the protester. With New York state home foreclosures up 64% in January from the previous month, buyers looking for affordable housing for themselves had to withstand the objections of recently evicted homeowners. “Evictions are a crime! It could be your house next!” they chanted as the auctioneers sold over a thousand properties, one by one.

With 1 in every 54 homes currently being foreclosed on in the U.S. (2008’s statistics are up 225% from 2006’s), there are certainly a lot of vacant properties that can go at great bargain rates. But what about the families who formerly lived in those homes? What happens to them? Where do they go?

Although the housing crisis kick-started this economic crisis, the realities faced by these displaced Americans are only now coming to light. Some homeowners who are having trouble hanging onto their mortgages have resorted to renting to those who have already lost their homes. Still others plagued by the bad credit that bankruptcy brings or the financial woes of lost wages, are obliged to stay in shelters. However, in many cities shelters are at maximum capacity and families are forced to rent cheap motel rooms. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that in California, one of the states hardest hit by the housing crisis, residents are packing motels just as fast as the state’s budget cuts are shutting down vital social services. In Anaheim, there are over a thousand families living in motels and, with nearly 24,000 foreclosures in California this February alone, there are certainly thousands of other homeless Californians looking for shelter at a cheap nightly rate.

At the same time, people who don’t have the means to spend several hundred (or even thousands) of dollars a month on a one-bedroom shelter have had to become more creative. In Miami, Max Rameau has founded Take Back the Land, a foundation that matches families with empty, foreclosed homes. Rameau pairs people with houses that they can squat in until the local government, bank, or police interferes. He defends his actions by asserting that, “It’s morally indefensible to have vacant homes sitting there, potentially for years, while you have human beings on the street.”

In Los Angeles and Sacramento, tent cities have become the norm. Forty miles outside of LA, local officials designated a patch of land last year for a handful of displaced families to set up temporary housing. Today, it boasts several hundred people. In Sacramento, there are 2,000 homeless, with 300 of those individuals setting up a tent city nearby. With people in the capital city losing their homes and jobs at an alarming pace, this shanty town has several dozen new people take up residence each day.

While the Obama administration has set forth a housing plan to help troubled owners, it hasn’t presented any solution to the escalating number of displaced Americans. While it is certainly important to lower rates and adjust payments for those struggling to pay their mortgages, there also needs to be a plan for the people who are jobless and homeless already. Hopefully, the stimulus’s infrastructure initiatives will employ people who have lost their jobs, help them get back on their feet, and eventually put them in a financial position neccessary to find a permanent residence. However, the federal government does not have the pulse of every town, city, and state’s particular problems, nor can they.

In order to stave off this crisis,  local governments must step in and confront homelessness not as fringe social problem but as a critical issue that directly or indirectly affects all their residents. States like California and New York cite budget shortfalls for their inability to do more, but even if they are strapped for cash, they must prioritize some funding to help those who have lost their homes. If they don’t, then they will inevitably bear the burden in a more indiscreet way: Schools will have to feed more hungry children on free-lunch programs, non-profit institutions that depend on local tax breaks will have to stretch their resources to house and clothe the needy, and hospitals and health care clinics will certainly see more people fill their emergency rooms with non-emergent health problems as these homeless individuals struggle to stay healthy in a stressful and sometimes unlivable environment. The federal stimulus money presents an opportunity for states and cities to provide temporary housing, food, and other benefits before this housing emergency completely debilitates communities. Local governments must find some way to institute comprehensive plans that offer shelter—and dignity—to those who have lost theirs.

Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? We Need You: A Case for a New Grand Old Party Agenda

Last week Mark Wilson articulated that the GOP’s “alternative” plan for economic recovery was really just more of the same tried and un-true tax-cut policies. On Sunday, Frank Rich went so far as to say that the Republicans’ “desperate” tactics (such as Bobby Jindal’s callow performance Tuesday night and GOP Party Chair Michael Steele’s assertion that the Republican party needs an “off-the-hook” hip-hop makeover) were close to “committing [political] suicide.” While the stakes are definitely high for Obama and the Democrats to pull off this economic recovery, the Republican Party’s future is in dire straits if they don’t come up with a (positive) message—and leaders—fast.

On Wednesday, New York’s registered Independent mayor Michael Bloomberg met with local GOP leaders to ask for their support for his run for a third term as mayor. Although it’s understandable that they would be wary of his sincerity (he dropped the party back in 2007, and many think he only wants their endorsement because he’d be placed more visibly on the ballot), there are currently no clear Republican front-runners that could legitimately challenge Bloomberg when he runs later this year. And, while the party certainly reserves the right not to back him, they ironically need a candidate like him—someone who understands their commitment to balanced and fair economic incentives but also encourages public works projects and city-supported programs for the broader citizenry. In fact, if you look at New York as a political microcosm of the United States, Republicans can only remain relevant in this country if they promote candidates and leaders with Bloomberg-esque ideas; ones that offer innovative policies for their fiscal proposals along with new, bolder initiatives that support individual citizens.

Of course, Bloomberg isn’t perfect. However, the point is that if the Republican party wants to survive, it can’t only look to out-of-touch spokespersons such as Mark Sanford to deliver their fractured message. Although they seem to be avoiding it like the plague, Republicans are going to have to change their agenda, their ideas, and even their mission to go beyond the same old trickle-down, tax-cut, tax-credit mantra. Americans just aren’t buying it.

One possible reason the Republicans are having such a hard time promoting a new, appealing agenda is because while they’ve certainly evolved since their inception to favor the interests of an elite minority of the electorate, they’ve also clung to the image that they represent just the opposite. This stolid Party-of-No got its start by being a conflicted party of misfits: Disgruntled Democrats, frustrated Whigs, angry Know-Nothings, and other politically passionate individuals who really could only agree on their opposition to slavery. This team of outcasts banded together in Wisconsin in 1854 to form the party that only six years later would usher in its first and most famous president—Abraham Lincoln. As the party evolved from one that supported small businesses and individual rights to one that consistently favors corporate tax breaks and social conservatism, it has tried to hang on to its message and supporters by pretending to be Joe the Plumber when it’s really Joe the CEO. Granted, the Democrats are just as guilty of supporting big banks and big companies. However,  they lack the Achilles heel that the Republicans will not confront—denial. Republicans don’t want to change their image, but, ironically, they often misrepresent themselves and don’t embrace the interests of most Americans.

Despite all the best efforts of the Democrats, we need Republicans to challenge them, offer ideas, and approach our economic problems with a different, fresh perspective. We don’t need one party running the show in Washington. Unfortunately, the GOP is making this paradigm easy when congressional members stonewall Obama and his administration, GOP governors threaten to deny crucial funding for their constituents based on ideological disagreement, and Republican leaders and pundits cry “Socialism!” every time the Democrats offer forth a plan but at the same time fail to offer any constructive agenda of their own. (Sorry, the so-called “minority tyranny” that Senate filibustering provides does not constitute as a genuine effort either.)

In his speech on Tuesday night, Governor Jindal implored:

Democratic leaders in Washington, they place their hope in the federal government. We [Republicans] place our hope in you, the American people.

Of all the patronizing statements he made that night, this was the most striking. If the past election taught Americans anything, it was that they are their government and can certainly accomplish a lot if they stay motivated and involved. Jindal’s assertion corroborates the Republican “people v. government” attitude and fails to recognize that Americans want Washington to work for them—they don’t pay taxes for their representatives to sit on their hands. By suggesting that Americans have the power and know-how to overcome the hardships of the economy, health care, and education as individuals, Jindal minimizes the severity of the people’s problems and shirks the responsibility of the post in which he was elected.

Americans don’t expect government to solve all their problems. However, they do expect them to make their best and most qualified effort. If Republicans want to complain about how horrible and intrusive government is, then why are they involved in government at all? They can’t claim the title of watchdog, if they’re just going to bark and not bite.

Which brings us back to Bloomberg. Why exactly did this very popular Republican leader leave the ticket he ran on in two successful elections? In a speech at the University of Southern California in 2007 he explained:

The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy.

This was pre-economic crisis, and yet his words still hold true today for the Grand Old Party. And if the Republicans can’t convince a Wall Street billionaire that they’re capable of instituting effective, industrious policies, whom can they convince? Hey, if Bloomberg wants you back, take him.

Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? “Buy American” Policies: More Hurtful than Helpful?

Last week’s $787 billion dollar stimulus promised aid to education, infrastructure projects, jobless benefits, and a whole host of other programs designed to stimulate the economy. While the bill was pretty straight forward, there were a few provisions that stood out and inevitably were nixed (i.e.,  the clause specifying that no federal money was to go to former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich). However, one short, but very controversial clause on page 189 did make it to the final bill. There, section 1605 states: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project is produced in the United States.”

There are some exceptions (for instance, if the cost of American raw materials will increase the overall cost of the project by 25 percent, the party purchasing the materials can apply for a waiver) but the real significance of this clause is that it sets a very negative and narrow tone on the global economic crisis. Even President Obama stated in an ABC interview that this stipulation was “a potential source of trade wars” and John Bruton, the EU ambassador to the US, cited it as a “dangerous precedent.” Although the provision does state that it “shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements” it still forces many companies, such as the struggling Caterpillar, to spend more of their fiscal resources on raw materials instead of preserving jobs or raising wages. Also, given the fact that 37 percent of all manufactured goods sold in America are not made here, this stipulation seems hard-lined and, at some level, woefully misguided.

Moreover, the other underlying and more significant impact of this “Buy American” policy is this: If American companies are forced to purchase domestic raw goods for the public works projects, then what is stopping other countries from enacting the same jingoistic economic policies? This economic crisis is a global one and if every country decides to enforce a “buy me first” approach, this crisis will get far worse before it gets better. Not long after Congress announced its plan, major international news outlets such as Japan Today, Canada’s CBC NEWS, and China’s Xinhua criticized the measure. The International Herald and Tribune also noted that the United State’s protectionist policy could incite a backlash in which other nations stipulate a Don’t-Buy-American policy on foreign goods.

Although I understand Congress’s desire to promote the construction of new roads and bridges, green technology, and car manufacturing while supporting what little domestic manufacturing industry we have left, the reality is that (a) we don’t produce enough of these materials to support the sweeping projects they want to see enacted, and (b) even if we did, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot, so to speak, if we don’t work to stimulate other nations’ struggling economies in the process of stimulating our own. Maybe this approach would be acceptable, or even relevant, if this were just an ordinary American recession. But we are in the midst of a global crisis, and our economy will not get better if everyone else’s is suffering.

I believe a smarter and more fitting approach would have been a “Make American” initiative. Not an ultimatum like the “Buy American” provision, but a tax-break incentive encouragement for either domestic companies to expand their production of vital goods or for foreign ones to locate some of their operations in the United States. In both scenarios, there would be job creation and more spending. Instead of forcing companies to purchase domestic raw materials, encourage them to make products that can be purchased here or abroad. In Louis Uchitelle’s article on this issue for the New York Times last week, he cited the example of mass transit—while the stimulus bill calls for the expansion of mass transit, there are no US companies that manufacture the train cars necessary for that expansion. Now these projects will have to rely on American steel, iron, and manufactured goods while they also negotiate their express need for a specific foreign good they cannot get domestically. Wouldn’t it be nice (and much cheaper for taxpayers) to let cities purchase some raw materials from China or India and let the United States encourage these more specialized industries to move some of their operations here since we will be purchasing such a high volume of these products?

Of course, America will never return to its manufacturing hey day, and I’m not suggesting that domestic production will solve all our economic woes. But by encouraging a responsible, inviting economic policy, we could perhaps not only pave the way for global economic recovery, but also mend some broken foreign policy fences we need to repair from the past administration. Yet, despite the demands of this myopic economic policy, I hope that the Obama administration can find other ways to encourage growth domestically and promote more foreign investment in America’s future without ostracizing our trade partners and fellow economically struggling nations.