Senate kills anti outsourcing bill

This is horrifying. The Democrats tried to pass through a bill (the Bring Home Jobs Act)through the senate and the Republicans blocked it. Part of this bill is to eliminate the TAX BREAKS companies get for sending jobs overseas and to give tax breaks to bring these jobs back.

While I do question the timing, why would anyone be against AMERICANS having jobs? Why would anyone be for companies getting tax breaks to send jobs overseas? It’s a disgrace. These politicians are not Christians, they worship themselves and the corporations doing this. I support a system where the small business owner gets tax breaks and so does companies that keep jobs here. Companies that outsource? they should be forced to pay more in taxes to help those people who lost jobs courtesy of them.

I take this personally since I lost a job that went overseas. It can happen to anyone and trust me it will. I blame both parties, including Clinton for signing NAFTA.

7 thoughts on “Senate kills anti outsourcing bill”

  1. Unfortunately, this was one of the bills that is voted upon to make a point, much like the Republicans’s latest effort to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, not because it has a chance of passing. As the author of the article pointed out, though not too clearly. the vote was for cloture, or prevention of a filibuster, not for actual passage of the bill. The author noted that they would have needed 60 votes, which has been the requirement to limit/end debate in the Senate for years, because of Senators’s ability to speak as long as they can stand UNLESS they vote to limit debate.

    If you watch C-SPAN, you get to see some funky things happen, such as the vote for passage of Medicare Part D in the House be held open for over two hours at two in the morning, when a recorded vote is supposed to take only 15 minutes.

    Though things like the “Buy American Act” and the requirement to buy certain amounts of certain items from the Lighthouses for the Blind, which makes office suppplies, exist at the federal level, they can be gotten around fairly easily. The Lighthouse for the Blind lost a lot of business when procurement officers began to be allowed to charge items on government-sponsored credit cards inan effort to streamline procurement.

    I find myself thinking about the scene in the movie “Heaven Can Wait” where Warren Beatty’s character proposes raising the price of canned tuna by two cents or so, and using the slogan, “Would you pay two cents more to save a fish that thinks?”, in response to dolphins being caught along with the tuna. We can be sold a lot of things, so there is an opportunity for an enterprising enterpreneur to sell products made in the U.S. by U.S. citizens and people legally present in the U.S.

  2. As far as I know, businesses don’t get ‘tax breaks for sending jobs overseas.’ What does happen is that the costs of reorganizing to send jobs overseas represent a business expense, the same as employee wages/benefits, rent, insurance, office supplies, etc. All of these costs are deducted from the incoming revenue to determine the business’s taxable income (profit).

    While I’d like to see the government do something to discourage offshoring, I’m not sure this bill is it:

    – Whenever the government tries to use tax policy to make business do this or that, it usually doesn’t work: businesses, especially big businesses, get sharpie lawyers to argue that the rules don’t apply to them.

    – More complexity in tax law = more government bureaucrats to administer it.

    – The law includes benefits for employers who repatriate jobs back to the US, but nothing for keeping jobs here in the first place. The benefits will accrue to bigger companies with enough management structure to do offshoring in the first place.

    – If labor costs are that much cheaper elsewhere, and they seem to be, then disallowing the tax deduction for the costs of offshoring won’t help much.

    I’d like to see a law allowing businesses to deduct, say, 110% (i.e. an extra 10%) of the wages paid to US employees who are not corporate officers.

  3. If it was up to me what I would do is lower corporate tax rates and give companies breaks for keeping jobs here and increase taxes for those companies that outsource. We need to do something because it is a problem.

  4. NWP, it appears that most of your objection to outsourcing lies in jobs that are outsourced overseas. Outsourcing is far more common than you think. It is just the jobs that go overseas that get your attention. One of the fundamental business decisions that a company makes is whether it is cheaper to buy or make something. If you don’t need much of something, it is usually cheaper to buy it. ADP has been doing payroll for many companies for decades.

    For instance, I am evaluating whether it is more economical to build a laundry facility where I work to wash the coveralls that employees will be required to wear, hiring however many employees will be needed to run the facility, or whether it will be cheaper to hire a local laundry to do our wash for us. If you look at it from a lifecycle cost perspective, the longer that the plant operates, the more economical it will be to make the capital investment to build the laundry facility. Another thing to consider is that it is at least 10 miles from the nearest possible business site to where the coveralls will be needed, so transportation will be a nontrivial cost.

    Most companies that can engage in wage arbitrage will do so. Sending jobs overseas also provides an opportuntity to take advantage of less restrictive environmental laws. We have been seeing this happen for at least 50 years, as companies moved jobs to lower cost-of-living areas. Why are people surprised that when it is cheaper to do something at another site on an all-inclusive basis, that the jobs leave the area or country?

  5. I know outsourcing happens on a more local aspect (such as sending jobs say an hour away)and those don’t bother me. What does bother me is how we are sending jobs to these other countries and it’s not just the outsourcing issue but everything else, like when we send government jobs overseas. For instance when I am late on my student loan an Indian from Sallie Mae calls me. That job, which is subdized by the government should be required to stay here. I find it a disgrace that I am helping support a country I do not like and which isn’t the US. I could go on with that but let’s just say I don’t like certain countries and their culture. When we send jobs to these countries we are supporting them. I don’t want to make COMMUNIST China stronger.

    I will say though that I do blame some here, such as the unions. I have seen them try to get salaries way more higher than they should be. So in that respect I get it, but many of these jobs aren’t union, but professional. Many others are non union call centers. I just found out a call center near me was sent overseas.

  6. We’ve seen union protections be weakened severely in recent years. Bush 43 suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, which required prevailing wages (usually union scale) to be paid on government projects. This freed contractors to hire illegals and other unskilled people tto the extent that they wanted.

    Not liking a minority group is a different thing from being affected by outsourcing. I’d be equally annoyed if I lost my job to the Indians or to someone in Colorado Springs, which is about an hour from where I live, particularly if I did not have an immediate prospect of getting another job. Sallie Mae is a publicly traded company that enjoys the loan guarantees from the federal government. Unless they pay their people outrageously high salaries, it is impossible for them to lose money on the student loan business. More and more, student loans are like the “loan to own” mortgages that were made from 2000 to 2006 or so. People who are not creditworthy got to borrow money, they paid on the mortgage for a while, and then lost the house.

    I think that student loans should have variable limits based on the career prospects brought by the degree. One should be able to borrow less and be charged a higher interest rate on what they borrow if they want to study journalism, broadcasting, women’s studies, black studies, or any degree program where the number of jobs are declining or borrow more and pay a lower interest rate for degrees that are in demand. In return for being able to price the loans according to the risk of not being paid back, banks lose the federal guarantees. This would shutter the for-profit schools in a short amount of time. Perhaps the Pell Grant pool should be redistributed along these lines as well.

    Circular A-76 is the federal government’s guide for “contracting out”, and a lot of the times the jobs that are contracted out go to people who are retiring from federal service, so they go from their federal job on Friday to their private sector job on Monday, and collect their full pension plus a salary at least as large as their federal salary. Nice work if you can get it.

  7. The schools should do something different though and it’s make sure the students at the top have more access to money. When I was in grad school 10 years ago I applied for the work study program but was denied. The reason is the foreign students got first priority being they couldn’t take loans out. I think it’s disgraceful that me and my American classmates had to take loans while the foreign students got a free taxpayer ride.

    I don’t have an issue with Indians per se, except those who come here to take jobs or take jobs in India. I have lost jobs both due to visaed workers and outsourcing and in these cases the person was Indian. I have also had issues with Indian doctors as well (they were trained in India). As a result of this and many other issues (including how the men have treated me)I dislike foreign born Indians.

Leave a Reply