[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 104 (Tuesday, September 7, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8842-S8843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE RIGHT COURSE FOR THE ECONOMY
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I always find it of interest when a
prominent member of corporate America steps forward to offer a
refreshing perspective on the economic challenges our country faces
today.
To that end, I would like to call the Senate's attention to two
pieces of commentary written by Leo Hindery, Jr. and published over the
summer recess.
Mr. Hindery, as many of my colleagues are aware, has served as the
CEO of TCI and AT&T Broadband, and more recently as the chairman of the
YES Network. He has a keen understanding that corporations have
obligations both to their shareholders, but also to the communities in
which they operate, and the American economy they fuel.
Mr. Hindery's first piece is on the subject of outsourcing, and he
argues that offshoring of jobs is not inevitable, nor is it often the
best long-term strategy for American companies.
His second talks about the need to see through the sky-is-falling
claims of some interest groups and weigh both policy and electoral
decisions on a simple standard--what is the best thing to do, not just
for a few who are well-off and well-connected, but for the economy as a
whole?
Again, I think these pieces of insight and analysis would be of
interest to those of us who are entrusted to make decisions about the
policies America adopts, and I ask unanimous consent that they be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S8843]]
[From the San Jose Mercury News, Aug. 5, 2004]
When Outsourcing Takes Your Job, Then It Will Matter
(By Leo Hindery, Jr.)
A recession is when someone else loses his or her job; a
depression is when you lose your job. I was reminded of this
adage when a recent report by three Bay Area groups said we
shouldn't worry about outsourcing of good jobs to other
countries. Those losing their jobs would beg to differ.
Throwing in the towel, one of the report's sponsors asid,
``Offshoring is here to stay.'' That's particularly troubling
when a UC-Berkeley analysis found that one-in-six jobs are at
risk of being exported from Silicon Valley.
But voters aren't buying the lines coming from think tanks
and Washington. First, they were told that he few jobs lost
would be quickly replaced. They weren't. Then President
Bush's economic adviser said outsourcing jobs was actually
good in the long run. Displaced workers know better. And now,
it seems, the new line is that nothing should be done. Voters
don't buy inaction, either.
Offshoring of jobs is not inevitable. There's much
government can do, and it should act before more good jobs
disappear and the middle class shrinks even more.
First, we must ensure that free trade is also fair trade.
How can we keep manufacturing jobs in America when foreign
competitors often employ children, pay pennies, provide
little or no benefits and ignore environmental standards?
Likewise, how can we keep high-quality customer and
technical-service jobs here when employees in Bangalore,
India, earn $200 to $300 a month for jobs that pay Americans
$2,000-$3,000?
America has a responsibility to the rest of the world,
especially developing countries, to foster responsible free
trade. But we can no longer condone--or support--practices
that pay subsistence wages, violate child labor standards and
degrade the environment.
Second, we must responsibly use our nation's corporate tax
laws to provide incentives for American businesses to keep
high-quality jobs here. Today, corporations take advantage of
tax benefits by shipping operations overseas, shielding
profits earned there. Sen. John Kerry has rightly proposed
eliminating that loophole, which is a glaring incentive to
move operations overseas and keep them abroad by reinvesting
profits there.
We should also adopt a levy on corporations that use
loopholes to escape taxation. That would help redress the
imbalance between job retention and untaxed overseas profits,
and aid workers who lose jobs in part because of skewed tax
policies.
Part of the bargain that was supposed to accompany ``free
trade'' was help for workers who lose their livelihood
through no fault of their own. Workers need retraining for
new careers when industries disappear. They need unemployment
benefits and medical benefits.
Action on outsourcing would be far less urgent if enough
jobs were being created here at home. But today's lukewarm
economic recovery provides no place for laid-off workers to
go.
None of this is ``protectionism,'' except that it will
protect foreign workers and nations from exploitation, the
U.S. tax code from encouraging companies to offshore jobs,
and American workers from the unchecked whims of
globalization.
Corporate leaders need to work smarter. Having served as a
CEO, I know the pressures to outsource can be intense. But
business executives must look beyond the short-term, cost-
cutting gains that outsourcing sometimes provides and focus
instead on the long-term costs and devastation to employees
and our national economy.
And political candidates will have to show they understand
the voters' call for action. Because this election should be
about getting the economy moving and about who will best
protect the middle class and those striving to join it.
____
[From the Financial Times, Aug. 10, 2004]
Bush's Economy Is for the Elite Few
(By Leo Hindery)
Within an hour of John Kerry's selection of John Edwards as
his running mate, the US Chamber of Commerce said it was
forced to abandon its position of ``neutrality'' because Mr
Edwards was ``hostile to business'' I could almost hear the
laughter in corporate boardrooms across the country. To argue
that the Chamber intended to be, or has ever been,
politically ``neutral'' reminds me of the film Casablanca
when Claude Rains expresses shock that gambling was taking
place in Rick's Cafe.
The line revealed the dirty little secret of the US Chamber
of Commerce. It is run by the wealthy chief executives of the
nation's biggest companies.
It is easy to see why enormously rich businessmen believe
more personal income and lower taxes are good for them. But
what is good for an individual chief executive's wallet does
not translate into being ``good for business'' or for the
nation's economy.
What businesses and the economy need are full employment,
or as full as possible, and strong consumer demand, generated
by a combination of consumer confidence and fair
compensation. The Bush-Cheney ticket is failing that test.
They adopt ``anything-goes-for-big-business'' policies,
continue to push for ever-lower tax rates for the wealthiest
Americans, defend self-serving executive compensation
packages and condone benign regulation of corrupt practices.
The latest sign of how what is really good for ordinary
citizens and the economy is being flipped on its head is
George W. Bush's spin on sluggish job-growth numbers. Now, he
contends, that bad is good. In response to the far lower than
expected employment numbers for June, he said: ``Steady
growth. That's important. We don't need boom-or-bust-type
growth.''
But when the number of new jobs created this year fails to
keep up with the growth in the adult population--a trend
confirmed by last Friday's job numbers for July--a little
more boom and a little less steady stagnation would certainly
be helpful.
Certainly the unemployed and businesses that need to sell
products and services to people with incomes are getting
weary of the disappointing growth. For the first time in more
than seven decades, there are fewer jobs at this point in an
election year than there were when the current president
was inaugurated. A net 2.6m manufacturing jobs have been
lost since 2001.
And anyone whose job has been outsourced to other countries
should appreciate Mr. Kerry's call to end tax loopholes and
benefits that provide an incentive for shipping jobs overseas
and keeping the profits there.
Compounding the problem, far too many of the jobs being
created are low-wage positions with few benefits. Overall,
wages for non-supervisory workers have failed to keep up with
inflation over the past year.
But jobs and wages are not all that matters. Instead of Mr.
Bush's big tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans, the
Kerry-Edwards ticket would reform healthcare. That would make
health insurance more available and affordable for millions
of Americans and cheaper for businesses. The other 98 percent
of Americans and the businesses whose healthcare costs would
be lower should welcome the choice between better healthcare
and tax cuts for the wealthy.
The business community has also traditionally, and rightly,
been concerned about massive government borrowing. But under
the Bush administration, we have seen huge budget surpluses
turned quickly into crushing deficits. That, too, takes a
toll on consumer and business confidence.
Make no mistake about it. There is a big distinction
between the US Chamber and local Chambers. The local Chambers
honestly focus on what is good for their communities. They
understand that jobs and wages are essential for their
business members to have customers and for their cities and
regions to thrive.
Yes, the US Chamber would like to distract attention from
the economy and scare Americans about the Democratic ticket.
But in this election year, voters must make a distinction
between policies that will create jobs and value for
shareholders and organizations that speak and act at the whim
of entrenched management and the economic elite.
Today, the Bush administration and the US Chamber are
trying to twist even the questionable adage of Calvin
Coolidge that ``the business of America is business'' into
something far worse, namely that ``the business of America is
about super-rich CEOs and executives''. Instead, we need a
team who will, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, ``save
capitalism from the capitalists''.
Americans have a fundamental choice to make in November,
and the economy will be an important issue. The US Chamber
hopes voters will--ignoring the facts, history and the
candidates' records--assume that Republicans are better for
the economy than Democrats. But the voters should avoid this
knee-jerk reaction, and make the distinction between what is
good for the elite few and what is good for the economy as a
whole. Then it will be clear who will really do the best job
of looking out for them and who will get our economy moving
again.
____________________