Do we really want to ban outsourcing like Miller says?

By: relawson
Published On: 6/7/2006 6:44:48 PM

Well, sure.  Who wouldn't love a monopoly?  I would also prefer to only compete in the IT labor market with people born in May and with brown hair (natural brown of course).

Anti-outsourcing activists aren't asking for a ban on outsourcing.  It is silly that Harris Miller claims we are.  He asked if we would like him to stand on the border and prevent the jobs from leaving - well it would be a nice gesture but don't worry Harris, you can sit comfy in your gated community.

What we want is a level playing field.  I believe that American IT workers can compete on both quality and cost if we have that level playing field.  Currently we have tax laws that encourage outsourcing, immigration laws that facilitate it, and we are trading with nations who manipulate their currencies.  In the interest in brevity, I'll just list the top hitters.  If you want to do some homework - here is a policy statement from the IEEE-USA: http://www.ieeeusa.com/policy/positions/offshoring.html

What we would have liked from Harris Miller is that he wasn't such a CHEERLEADER for outsourcing.  I think we have enough cheerleaders running this country - literally and figuratively.

The ITAA under Miller opposed any attempts to level the playing field.  If trade in services were foosball, Harris Miller and the ITAA effectively chopped the legs from under our side of the table.  Game over for IT workers. 

This pink slip brought to you by the Harris Miller for US Senate campaign.

Comments



just show (TurnVirginiaBlue - 6/7/2006 6:58:50 PM)
He's trying to confuse the issue.  He has assisted NASSCOM come over to the US and peddle their offshore outsourcing services. 

The only place I have seen a ban (which of course Miller is against) is federal and state contracts because it is a public funds and keeping those funds cycling within the Domestic economy and also that is an area of national security.

There is much about removing the tax incentives to offshore outsource (as the current tax code is), level the playing field with wages, demand worker rights and environmental rights in trade agreements, provide health care and then
look at strategic areas where long term it is not in the national interest to offshore outsource.  That is in areas of technological research (because it gives other nations a comparative advantage to offshore outsource), things like steel, which are critical to have a resource in the case of war, and my favorite, keeping scientific expertise within the United States as a long term strategic advantage.



federal and state contracts (relawson - 6/7/2006 7:23:33 PM)
Yes, this is a separate issue than private enterprise.  The fundemental question here is should tax payer dollars stay in the United States or go offshore?  I prefer that they go to American companies in the United States whenever possible. 

An outright ban wouldn't work because we no longer have the infrastructure to support the needs of the government - we don't manufacture as much as we use to.  That is a problem that must be addressed.  I hope we can recover our lost manufacturing jobs, but that will never occur under the current direction of this country.

When national security is an issue we must be self-reliant and always ban outsourcing federal contracts.  And when national security is not an issue, American companies should still have a strong advantage over foreign companies.  Foreign companies should be a choice of last resort when it comes to federal and state contract procurement.



Dodd amendment (TurnVirginiaBlue - 6/7/2006 7:36:06 PM)
What you are saying is basically an amendment introduced by Senator Dodd which Miller lobbied heavily against and managed to get out of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.

That bill which started out which the idea of removing the foreign tax credit which was deemed illegal by the WTO turned into a corporate pig fest which not only kept the tax incentives, but ADDED incentives to offshore outsource jobs.

Guess who lobbied heavily to turn this bill into a farce with the added insult of the bill title itself (should have been called the how to destroy the American middle class Jobs act of 2004)..

ok, guess who was lobbying against the Dodd amendment and the amendments to stop the tax incentives to offshore outsource American jobs???

Why our pal, HARRIS MILLER!



Right you are - here is Miller opposing the Dodd amendment in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (relawson - 6/7/2006 8:02:03 PM)
The Dodd amendment to the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 would have limited federal contracts from being offshored.  Miller was OK with tax payer money going offshore...

Harris Miller in regards to the Dodd amendment...

http://www.itaa.org/newsroom/release.cfm?ID=630
The so-called Dodd Amendment “would have adverse unintended consequences on the American economy if enacted, harming American job growth and sending a very contradictory signal to the trading partners we are negotiating with to open their markets to American goods and services exports,” wrote ITAA President Harris N. Miller in a letter to Thomas. “Thank you in advance for your commitment to maintain an open trading environment by standing firm and keeping this legislation out of the final bill.”

Here is a letter from Harris Miller thanking Chairman Thomas for opposing the amendment:
http://www.itaa.org/govt/docs/fsclettertoconferees.pdf

Interesting enough - Miller sides with the Financial Services Roundtable.  Miller is free to have such views, but these aren't views shared by the majority of Democrats.  In fact, one thing that grass roots Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on is this issue.



yup (TurnVirginiaBlue - 6/7/2006 8:43:58 PM)
More Corporate corruptions weeding it's way into OUR party.

That's my view on it.