Another Kerry article that might invoke some controversy

[jillan]

Just want to give another heads up
http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=348102

snip
KERRY-OUTSOURCING
Kerry denies opposing outsourcing of IT jobs to India
HYDERABAD, JAN 12 (PTI)

US Senator and former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry today denied that he was opposed to outsourcing IT jobs to India and said "any company has a right to make an economic decision that it wants."

[wisteria]

1. When you read the whole statement it makes more sense.

But, I'm not sure I see a whole lot of difference with Companies doing this for tax purposes and those doing it to stay competitive and make a profit. The bottom line is it increases their profit one way or another. Am I not understanding something here on Kerry's position?

[Mass]

2. I had he same issue , but I decided not to post it here

not wanting to give ammunitions to lurkers.

After having read everything about that on Google, I got the feeling that there is two things:

- being polite to his guests: India gets a lot of GOOD jobs from outsourcing and is providing qualified workers (nothing to do with CAFTA and NAFTA). In an international economy, this has to happen, particularly if you want to sell US products to India. So it is not all bad.

- Kerry has never been for protectionnism. He is for fair trade, so he probably does not have any philosophical problems with outsourcing as long as it is done correctly.

In one of the reports (I will see if I find the link), he explains more and you can see that he follows this philosophy. There is no problem in outsourcing if this is done for economic reasons only and not for fiscal reasons (pay taxes in your country), if the jobs are replaced (this is the role of the government to help doing that), and some of the jobs lost are lost because of the cost of healthcare and pensions.

Also this is reported by a newspaper from India, which is very much interested by what happens in India and not in the US. Who knows what Kerry actually said.

This said, this made me mad when I read it the first time (as somebody who worked in an industry that was outsourced), and anybody reading that will react the same way.

[TayTay]

3. Well there was another story with this in it:

Kerry, who lost to Bush in a closely contested election last year, also discussed his party's concerns over outsourcing work from the US to India - a pet theme of the Democratic Party's campaign in 2004.

I will wait and read more press. We shall see.

[blm]

5. He's for open and fair trade making it FAIRER for workers, too.

That's something the BULLY PULPIT accomplishes.

[Mass]

4. One of the major problems with these stories is that they are seen

thru a different perspective: this is not the US perspective (from the left or the right), this is the Indian perspective.

They care about THEIR jobs, THEIR energy problems, THEIR industrial, healthcare, ... policies, and they dont care about the US domestic problems and what Kerry says about them.

AP not following the press conference (as far as I can see) allows us to do an interesting, but difficult exercise: see what Kerry says thru foreign eyes. I am not that sure he said something problematic, but anyway, they (very logically) cared about their country, and they cared about the US only when it touches them.

I would be interested to hear what Kerry has to say about outsourcing in an American perspective (and this is certainly something that would be good for him to do), but this probably would involve problems and solutions that do not belong to this conference.

Globalization is going to happen, and Kerry is too pragmatic to ignore that. The issue is to know what the US government is going to do to help companies who want to keep jobs in this country or to create new jobs.

[ProSense]

6. Kerry has said this often

it's just stated differently in these reports.

October 13, 2004

The Third Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate

THIRD PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' DEBATE
ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, TEMPE, ARIZONA

snip...

KERRY: I don't blame them entirely for it. I blame the president for the things the president could do that has an impact on it.

Outsourcing is going to happen. I've acknowledged that in union halls across the country. I've had shop stewards stand up and say, "Will you promise me you're going to stop all this outsourcing? "And I've looked them in the eye and I've said, "No, I can't do that. "

What I can promise you is that I will make the playing field as fair as possible, that I will, for instance, make certain that with respect to the tax system that you as a worker in America are not subsidizing the loss of your job.

Today, if you're an American business, you actually get a benefit for going overseas. You get to defer your taxes.

So if you're looking at a competitive world, you say to yourself, "Hey, I do better overseas than I do here in America. "

That's not smart. I don't want American workers subsidizing the loss of their own job. And when I'm president, we're going to shut that loophole in a nanosecond and we're going to use that money to lower corporate tax rates in America for all corporations, 5 percent. And we're going to have a manufacturing jobs credit and a job hiring credit so we actually help people be able to hire here.

The second thing that we can do is provide a fair trade playing field. This president didn't stand up for Boeing when Airbus was violating international rules and subsidies. He discovered Boeing during the course of this campaign after I'd been talking about it for months.

The fact is that the president had an opportunity to stand up and take on China for currency manipulation. There are companies that wanted to petition the administration. They were told: Don't even bother; we're not going to listen to it.

The fact is that there have been markets shut to us that we haven't stood up and fought for. I'm going to fight for a fair trade playing field for the American worker. And I will fight for the American worker just as hard as I fight for my own job. That's what the American worker wants. And if we do that, we can have an impact.

Plus, we need fiscal discipline. Restore fiscal discipline, we'll do a lot better.

[TayTay]

7. Well, the good side of fair trade is that it opens societies up

and that is a very great goal to shoot for. India has a lot of problems and it needs that. But outsourcing itself is a very hot button and will be difficult to broach. One the one hand, JK is right about the tax dodge, the dodge for purposes of avoiding health care costs and so forth. We in the US have to deal with these problems. There is nothing he can do that will stop companies from either trying to make more money by avoiding taxes or by avoiding exorbitant health care costs.

There is also the idea of efficiencies and such which are all great geeky topics until I am the one who looses my job because it can be done more cheaply somewhere else. (Sigh!) There is that as well.

BTW, this is a gateway drug to talking about education and the need to produce more scientists and engineers in this country and to reduce the crushing debt associated with education. I can recite that stuff from heart because Jk has siad it over andover and over and over....

[saracat]

8. Damn. I disagree with the Senator on this.

And yes, I read the whole thing. I think he is smoozing India, and that is just WRONG. And it wasn't smart to make such a statement to the press. Damn. Double damn.

[Dr Ron]

9. Wish we had his actual statement

Before blaming Kerry for making a statement to the press I wish we had his full statement. Unfortunately this is a complex issue and it would be appropriate for Kerry to make a nuanced statement. Quoting only part (or possibly misquoting) could give a different interpretation.

That said, Kerry has never been a protectionist, and if that is what someone hoped for they are going to be disappointed in what he says.

[ProSense]

10. How is this different from what he said during the debates?

See post 6

[Dr Ron]

11. Differs from his sound bites

We know this is consistent with what he said, but others might see it as different. Not many people are aware of the details of what he said in the debates, but might recall sound bites where he complains about Benadict Arnold Corporations sending jobs overseas. This could give people the impression he was more for protectionism than he actually was.

[ProSense]

12. In each instance

the emphasis is on tax breaks and a level playin field.

What strikes me is Kerry is one of the few people subjected to this level of scrutiny, often generated by media reports.

With this and the other story out of India, the first response is why is Kerry saying this or doing that. Kerry cannot abdicate his responsibilities simply because people will spin it to serve their own agenda.

If it comes up, then present the facts. I can't see walking on eggshells over every statement. This was evident in the statement about the troops: when the WP reported the same thing quoting high-profile officials, no one cared.

I'm not saying things don't slip out sounding the wrong way, but I don't see it in this instance.

[saracat]

13. I think it is very clear what he meant and I think it is awful

JMHO. I don't like JK pandering to India. This is the kind of "politico " crap he gets in trouble for. I wish he would learn. This is why he looks like a flip flopper! And one reason I supported JK was because of his statements regarding "Benedict Arnold" corporations. My DH lost his job to outsourcing. I understand the global concept but enough is enough.And hubby's job was "global management" LOL!

[Mass]

16. This has always been Kerry's position and it is the one he repeated today

The statements about the Benedict Arnold CEOs were about companies that were hiding their benefits in tax paradises (remember Enron), not about global commerce.

We leave in a global environment and it will not change. The best thing we can do is to make the jobs in the States more attractive.

It is amusing how the outsourcing issue has been ignored as long as outsourcing was in the US. When I met my husband some 20 years ago, one of the main issue in MA was how in the previous 30 years, textile and wood-related jobs had been outsourced to Southern States, where wages and work conditions were considerably less attractive than here. Luckily, we have some smart Senators, a few good governors, and we attracted better jobs.

The problem with outsourcing these days is that the government has not been doing his job, not that people in India are getting better jobs that may help them living better and eventually wanting a better job.

[ginnyinWI]

21. Yes, that's the whole point

The government can do a lot to make it attractive for businesses to locate here in the U.S. and that's what Kerry was talking about. Like help with health care costs, for example. He never said he thought the government should force the issue somehow.

[Mass]

14. I think one of the issue is the scope of what he speaks on

Most politicians are speaking more or less on one issue or one angle (Edwards and poverty, Clark and military/diplomacy, Feingold and clean government, ..., and, whatever the subject, they fold it along these lines.

It is more difficult to associate Kerry with one specific issue, and therefore everything he says is scrutinized.

[Dr Ron]

15. People just remember the sound bites

You are being too logical and complete here. The problem is that people just recall teh sound bite and not the full details. They here "Benedict Arnold Corporations" and assume he is for more protectionism that he really was. Not that this is Kerry's fault for using such sound bites as the media has no interest in covering detailed explanations. The media will only play a sound bite regardless of the complexity of a question.

[ProSense]

17. I understand

what you're saying about soundbites, but I still think the spin on what's being said is selective.

I must be missing something. I don't see a difference this soundbite and what he has said in more detailed context:


From the article:

snip..

"I think some stories that came out of the campaigning last year suggested to some people that I have a specific problem with outsourcing itself. What I was complaining about in the course of campaigning was not the right of companies to outsource," Kerry said when his views were asked on offshoring issue. "Any company can make a decision that it wants. Obviously, in a competitive environment, that (outsourcing) is going to happen," he said.

snip...

"I have come here to study all aspects of economic transformation and figure out where we can see mutual advantage and partner and work together," the influential Senator said.

From the debates:

snip...

Outsourcing is going to happen. I've acknowledged that in union halls across the country. I've had shop stewards stand up and say, "Will you promise me you're going to stop all this outsourcing? "And I've looked them in the eye and I've said, "No, I can't do that. "

What I can promise you is that I will make the playing field as fair as possible, that I will, for instance, make certain that with respect to the tax system that you as a worker in America are not subsidizing the loss of your job.

snip...

That's not smart. I don't want American workers subsidizing the loss of their own job. And when I'm president, we're going to shut that loophole in a nanosecond and we're going to use that money to lower corporate tax rates in America for all corporations, 5 percent. And we're going to have a manufacturing jobs credit and a job hiring credit so we actually help people be able to hire here.

The second thing that we can do is provide a fair trade playing field. This president didn't stand up for Boeing when Airbus was violating international rules and subsidies. He discovered Boeing during the course of this campaign after I'd been talking about it for months.

[Dr Ron]

31. I'm speaking of those who only heard the soundbites

If they read the specifics as you quote they would know better.

Even the brief lines from the article aren't much more than sound bites and are not sufficient to really discuss Kerry's position on outsourcing. The quotes from the debates do fill in much more.

[ProSense]

34. The point is

this is all word parsing. Every elected official's words can be (mis)interpreted (intentionally or unintentionally) on almost every issue, especially complex issues, if scrutinized to this level. In fact, it happens all the time. I don't see this as one of those times. I mean, everyone agrees they know where he stands, everyone agrees the statements are similar, everyone agrees that the facts will support consistency, but some want him to change his PR people, are worried about the spin and that this has the potential to look bad. There was more to be concern about in the troops statement, which had nothing to do with his PR people, than there is now because there was no context for it. And even then, reasonable people made the distinction. Sometimes is pays to cut off spin, sometimes it pays to see if there is real cause for concern. They might spin this, but the facts are on his side.


edited to add: JMO

[kerrygoddess]

45. Your points are all right IMO

The message I got was his position has not changed.

[saracat]

18. Ahem. The sound bite was chosen precisely to do just that.

the impression that Kerry was against outsourcing was deliberate and was a large part of his Union support. I am shocked by this recent statement and I wasn't ill informed. I intend to let the Senator know how disappointed I am.

[saracat]

19. And this "sound bite" was deliberately chosen to make India happy!

[kerrygoddess]

63. Just a curious question

Do you think Kerry should have gone to India and spoken with Indian Officials and not been diplomatic and said things that might piss them off?

He's there on a diplomatic mission and as a diplomat it's his job to make for smooth relations with other countries.

[ProSense]

20. Which soundbite are you referring to? n/t

[Mass]

22. "Benedict Arnold" companies, I think.

I can understand that saracat is upset if she thought Kerry was protectionist.

I knew his positions and I did not like the articles I read (I know I dont know what Kerry actually said).

This said, I think I understand Kerry's position and I am comfortable with it. No way to create a stable and secure world if everybody stays behind his walls. It has to be made in a fair way, though.

[saracat]

23. yes . Benidict Arnold" is the soundbite. I didn't think Kerry was

" protectionist" but I think he led people to think he was more opposed to outsourcing than he is. Benidict Arnold used to describe companies who do so is a pretty strong inditement. Now he is softening his rhetoric to placate India. You are right his stance is the same but appying it in different ways, in order to influence different audiences ,has always gotten him in trouble and paints hinm as a "waffler". One cannot really blame Dean for PR political misrepresentation during the campaign when our boy is trying to make his issue a one size fits all. I KNOW what he is saying, I don't like HOW it is being said and the use to which it is being put.
Sadly, there are many aspects of his policy regarding this with which I agree. His marketing of the policy is what is wrong.Kery's PR strikes agin, and it is still ill conceived.

[Mass]

24. Thanks for the clarification - I agree I did not like what was reported

today. It was my first reaction too.

I am in total agreement with your view of his PR though.

[TayTay]

26. Benedict Arnold companies refers to the tax evaders

Who flee to Ireland or the Bahamas or the Grand Caymans to get out of paying US taxes. It is a legitimate remark that describes a legitimate practice.

Outsourcing is going to happen. Partly it happens because the world is getting smaller and because it is cheaper to get people in other countries to do the job. The other part of the reason is because of the lower taxes and regulations. That just is. You can fight some of this, but a lot of it is beyond JK's ability to stop. He has to deal with some of the reasons behind the outsourcing like education and regulation.

I don't see the implied duplicity in this. He is certainly not a cheerleader in outsourcing.

[kerrygoddess]

44. You're right

with all of this. There is no implied duplicity. Ultimately because the world is getting smaller everyday we have to learn to work with in this. There are things that can be done and JK understands that. That is why he is there.

[Dr Ron]

46. The problem with sound bites

We knew what JK meant as we read what he said in more detail.

If someone only goes by the sound bites they are going to be mislead. Without this context its no surprise that some could have thought his Benadict Arnold Companies applied to outsourcing itself.

It's an example of where it is necessary for people to do their homework. They certainly cannot chose a candidate based upon sound bites.

[TayTay]

25. Hey, look what I found when I was looking for

something else.

Legal Times
9/26/05

RECLAIMING LIBERTY

Because of job losses, American citizens are becoming increasingly cognizant of outsourcing. In reaction, many overseas call operators are under strict instructions to make the customer believe that the call is being handled in the United States.

The labor union Communications Workers of America,with the support of allies in Congress, has been pushing to put an end to such ploys. The Call Center Consumer's Right to Know Act, introduced by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Strickland (D-Ohio), would require U.S. companies to disclose the physical location of the call center at the beginning of each call. Ironically, Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) criticized this bill as placing the country on a "path of more Government . . . with less freedom."

Yet the disclosure that a customer's call is being fielded offshore would not only alert a consumer to the existence of an outsourced job, it could also provide the prompt needed for American citizens to safeguard their Fourth Amendment rights. Those wishing to ensure the privacy of their telephone communications could insist on a U.S.-based telephone operator.

Beyond this, ideally, Congress should bar the NSA from revealing the intercepted identities of U.S. citizens to other branches of the federal government, except where there exists a significant, clearly established risk to national security. An imminent terrorist attack would qualify, but routine law enforcement -- let alone mere curiosity -- should not.

Congress is also free to disagree with the 6th Circuit's conclusion in Jabara. Specifically, Congress could require law enforcement to apply to a court and demonstrate probable cause before obtaining NSA intercepts of conversations involving targets of a criminal investigation. Congress could bar the use of NSA intercepts in criminal prosecutions where domestic law enforcers have not convinced a court beforehand that a review of NSA intercepts will reveal evidence of a crime. Such safeguards could prevent law enforcement from engaging in fishing expeditions by casting lines in the pool of intercepted overseas calls.

Congress and the federal courts need to be more vigilant about protecting U.S. citizens from these abuses. As the Supreme Court recognized in Katz v. United States (1967), the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.

Though the economy might be globalized, the U.S. Constitution is not. Its protections should not be so casually set aside.

[Mass]

27. I know, I know.

The issue is that he needs to change his PR. There is no reason he could not say something in India that would state his position without sounding like an endorsement of the current globalization system.

[saracat]

28. Thanks Mass. Exactly the point.

[TayTay]

29. But he did say this.

I quoted the single line from the other newspaper in India that said that he came to India to express the concern of his party about the issue of Outsourcing American jobs to India.

That is also not cheerleading. There are concerns in India about outsourcing as well. They have a short shelf-life before their jobs get outsourced down to the next level as well. In fact, that is happening with some firms over there now. This is not a cut and dry issue. It is an intricate thing that cuts across many, many lines.

[Dr Ron]

30. Outsourcing down the line?

Interesting. I've been told by some businessmen that they see India as becomming bigger in terms of outsourcing compared to China as they speak English and as they don't have to deal with a Communist government. It also makes sense that others will be looking for even cheaper places.

[saracat]

37. It is still exceptionally bad PR once again.

And the average American voter is in no position right now to give a damn about Indian jobs. We need to have attention paid to us. This is going to play very badly. I understand what he is doing. And it is promoted and worded very badly by both JK himself and whomever allows or encourages these soundbites! If this turns someone like myself off, can you just imagine the impact on John Q Public? Sheesh. It doesn't matter if it is intricate. It is being presented stupidly.

[kerrygoddess]

38. See my post #32

I spoke with his office - let's put it this way - they misinterpreted misinterpreting him. That is the bottom line. his position has not changed, the Indian press misinterpreted things.

It's not about his PR people, it's about the Media misinterpreting - they do it here - they do it there - they do it everywhere.

[saracat]

40. KG, His PR is awful I don't care what the staff says.

. They are defending themselves and JK. The fact is, one can say things that DON'T allow for misinterpetation , or NOT say those things which are subject to misinterpetation. If you don't want to be misinterpeted, don't say it. Very simple. And if you are misinterpeted, correct the situation cleanly and immediately. JK's people have never done either. PR is about managing the news reaction. Apparently no one in his office knows that. It is the job of the PR people to control the interpetation. They flunk once again. It has always been my opinion that this is the real reason Kerry didn't win by a landsline. Their blaming the Indian Press for their own failure really pisses me off. Sorry. I just had to vent!

[kerrygoddess]

41. You don't know exactly what was said in India do you?

Were you there? You can't stop the media from misinterpreting things - you can not. It is not at all feasible.

Given the state of the media, here and around the world, honestly give these people and JK some slack. Misinterpretations by the media are rampant everywhere and quite honestly it's probably less misinterpretated here than in other country.

[wisteria]

51. I can't see how you can avoid sometimes making controversial

remarks that can be misinterpreted, when you get involved in and tackle big issues. JK is forthright and forthcoming with answers to sometimes tough questions. He isn't rehearsed nor the type to duck a question. Personally, I like this about him. If people go fishing for mistakes they are bound to find something to criticize.

[Mass]

42. They did not misinterpret - They took the part that was important for

them and their country, as is normal.

They did the same thing with the US-India nuclear deal, but there, the subject was important enough for Reuters to have corrected by themselves.

I am sure Kerry said everything that was reported. The problem, as I said earlier, is that we get the Indian version and they are not here to inform the American public. I agree with saracat that it is the PR role to make sure that the message is heard correctly in this country. They did not report everything, you correct and reformulate.

[kerrygoddess]

43. The Reuter's piece

was not vastly different from the Indian stories on the nuclear deal. There is only so much any PR person can do and they can't physically stop a reporter from printing things. That is unrealistic. So all I can say is have it. Blame who ever you like, I'm going back to work. I checked on this for you, I told you what I was told. I'm sorry that was not good enough.

[saracat]

48. I appreciate your efforts Kg. I just don't buy the PR excuses.

Thank you very much for following up.

[kerrygoddess]

49. It's not PR excuses

It's fact. Media distorts the truth here and everywhere. Blaming PR does not help. See my forum for a post about this.

[saracat]

56. And that is why PR exists. Nevermind.

[kerrygoddess]

58. There is a difference

between a press op, a press conference, a press release, a statement, an interview and news article and news articles will and can always get disorted even with the best PR team in the world.

A PR team can not stop a reporter from reporting distorted news unless the PR team follows every damn reporter to work ansd types the friggin stories for them. What JK said today is also in keeping with everything he has ever said, on this subject.

[Dr Ron]

47. Different type of sound bite

We are really talking about two different things by sound bite here.

Sound bites such as Benedict Arnold corporations is a sound bite chosen intentionally by the campaign. They are over simplistic and can be misleading but are necessary based upon how politcs is covered.

Brief quotes from the media are a different matter. Kerry most likely said much more, and the reporter cuts it down into a brief quote. Kerry's staff can't control what each reporter selects to print.

As for the PR reaction in this country--very few people follow international news and this will have no impact. The only people who will hear about this are people who already have been following closely and have an opinion.

[kerrygoddess]

32. I checked on this.

I checked on this. What I was told is that the Indian news sources was "misinterpreting JK’s position, misunderstanding American politics, and misreading what Kerry said in favor of reporting what they wanted to hear."

I haven't seen this make the MSM yet. The best suggestion I can offer to counter any complaints is to remind people of JK's position on this during the election "you can’t stop outsourcing, but you can stop giving big tax subsidies to Benedict Arnold CEOs that helps them pull up stakes and leave the U.S. and American workers high and dry."

[rox63]

33. Kerry is all over the press in India today

About outsourcing and other issues. Here, have a few links:

Kerry all praise for Andhra Pradesh

Kerry says his views on outsourcing misinterpreted

No decision on contesting again: John Kerry

I am not against outsourcing: John Kerry

[rox63]

35. I also had a problem with this when I first read it

But it really isn't any different than what he said during the campaign. He is being a realist. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. But there are ways to make it more attractive for companies to keep jobs in the US, by getting rid of the tax incentives that subsidize the loss of American jobs with our own tax money. And by letting people know where the call center they are dealing with is located. That way, they can make an informed choice about who they do business with.

I work in an industry that has been heavily outsourced, software technical support. So I'm pretty sensitive about the subject. My own employer has outsourced some of their own support jobs (overnights and weekends) to India. And the market they sell to (call centers) outsources heavily, so a lot of their customers are companies that outsource jobs to India. So it's a double-edged sword for me.

That said, a lot of our customers (including some customers in India) tell us that they much prefer dealing with our US support staff. Some even wait to call us until after 8:00 AM, when the support phone lines switch over to the US.

[wisteria]

52. I agree with you, he IS being consistant on this issue. n/t

[jillan]

36. I'm afraid to ask, but is this posted anywhere else?

You all know what I mean.

[kerrygoddess]

39. So far no

His position has not changed. That is what I was told today. Technically what he said is correct, "any company has a right to make an economic decision that it wants." He knows he can't stop that but he can work to stop the tax cuts for businesses who do this. That has always been his position. it still is and he said in that piece he is against the tax cuts that favor these businesses.

[TayTay]

50. Interesting remarks on outsourcing at CFR

12/13/05 Speaker: Alan S. Blinder
G.S. Renschler memorial professor of economics, Princeton University; Former vice chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; former member of the Council of Economic Advisers
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9440/fear_of_offshoring_rush_transcript_federal_news_service_inc.html

QUESTIONER: Margaret Taylor (sp) with JP Morgan.

And I’ve been involved, as Alan knows, for the last couple of years in developing a securities analysis unit in India. And we went there for low cost, but now, as we’re there for a couple of years, it’s been very successful, and I think we keep finding new things for people to do which really aren’t based on low cost, but based on the extraordinary quality that they offer us.

So as that unit grows, the question that I always get from the folks that run it there is, when does this become — how many people will there have to be in India, how much outsourcing will there have to be, before this becomes a major political issue, particularly in the next election?

BLINDER: I think we’re getting very close to that point, if not there already. You may remember when the economic report of the president in February 2004 came out. There was a paragraph or two on offshoring and then a press conference in which my friend Greg Mankiw, who was then the chairman of the council, made an unfortunate remark about how this was good for America, like full stop. The right way to do this politically is first you bleed and cry to the people that are disadvantaged, but then at the end you say but it’s good for the whole country. Had he done it that way, I don’t think you would have had so much angst. But he was then excoriated by his own party, and by the Democrats; it was bipartisan piling on. John Kerry tried and maybe succeeded — you know, on net he lost the election, but you lose it on many things — to make an election issue out of that. And it seems to me as clear as anything can be that this difficult transition, which is the right way to think about it, will be a bigger political issue in 2008 than it was in 2004 and bigger in 2012 than it was in 2008. What I’m trying to get my party — I’m a Democrat, as you can tell from the introduction — you know anyway — (laughter) — to try to think creatively about what sorts of remedies — by which I really mean palliatives — make sense and can be proposed in order to give greater security. This is about security for the American workforce.

I really think — I may be wrong about this, but I really think that this issue will be THE major issue in political economy for the next 20, 30 years — not the budget deficit, not the trade deficit, not inequality, not any of these things. And the reason I say that — it comes back to the numbers that I was saying before. When tradable goods are limited to manufacturing, you’ve got this many people. When they get to the service sector, you’ve got this many people. And you’ve got — in that set you’ve got a lot more vocal people that are used to talking to politicians and know how to do it in the way that factory workers don’t. So I think it’s just going to grow and grow, and I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if already by the ‘08 presidential it’s a huge issue.

[wisteria]

53. Well, personally, I think Blinder is right on the mark. It's time for

our party to start formulation a clear "united" position on Outsourcing.It seems like John Kerry is ahead of the game, and he already has his position charted.I think it may still need a little fine tuning though. Thanks for posting.

[TayTay]

54. Well, his total position makes sense

Including making conditions to replace those jobs that are lost through outsourcing. (Ahm, wasn't this a basis for the part of the environmental policy? We need to invent out way out. Ahm, didn't that imply homegrown talent and jobs and education and so forth.)

[wisteria]

55. I think you are correct on these points. n/t

[StoryTeller]

57. I had a lot of mixed feelings upon reading this...

My husband spent 18 months trying to get a computer programming job here in Omaha, a very scary 18 months that ended a year ago this month. During that time, we saw Union Pacific send entire programming departments to India, and one of the consultant companies he was contracting for (temp jobs) had to fiercely compete with Indian consultants for a project with (of all companies) ES&S, which resulted in our consultants' wages being drastically shoved down. The results are things like 50+ job applications from programmers with advanced degrees and over 20 years experience competing for an INTERN IT position at a small nursing college, and my own husband took a significant pay cut just to get his programming position with the same college. And that's only a few examples of what outsourcing has done to the programming job market just here in little ol' Omaha. The harsh reality of that experience is one of the main reasons we left the Republican party and joined the Democratic party. It is infuriating that Republicans do NOTHING to show any compassion for U.S. workers who are struggling to keep their jobs in a market in which it is impossible to compete.

At the same time, I've been to China, and I have friends who've been to India. We've seen the terrible poverty in those countries first hand. The poorest of us here in the U.S. are still far better off than most of the people living in abject poverty over there. So part of me is happy for the workers in India--though I bet their job environment and work hours and benefits suck big time. They need those jobs in a way few in this country can comprehend.

What makes me mad is that the companies are using them just as they use us, and probably treating them worse. That's not right. It's not right for companies to dump U.S. workers and leave them unemployed or underemployed, but it's also not right for the U.S. to become more and more obscenely wealthy while the majority of people in the world can hardly afford to buy adequate food for their families.

So I have very mixed feelings about JK's quotes on this subject. I think he's right that outsourcing is something we have to live with, and I am glad to see that he wants to make things as fair as possible for U.S. workers. I'm not sure what can be done, though, really. The problem is that there are a lot of very greedy people driving this system, and they don't care how they treat other people. And you can create different types of legislation to try to bring justice into the situation, but unless you can change the hearts of these people, I think they'll continue to find ways around the spirit as well as the letter of the laws.

As far as the particular article referenced, I agree with those of you who said that you think it's the Indian media's spin on JK's views.

[TayTay]

59. This is so true!

We all know people who have been affected by this. (Massachusetts lost 400,000 jobs since 2000. They ain't coming back.) This is a fairness issue and what grabs you is why no one is addressing the root cause of this or what is to be done to prepare the work force for global competition.

This is so many issues it makes your head spin. There is a major problem in America with the depopulation of small towns. A lot of places that were able to exist with a manufacturing plant in town have seen that plant close, the jobs go away and nothing come in to replace it. The NYTimes did a story last year on a town in Nebraska that went through this situation. The Town Administrators built a complex hoping to attract new business, but it just isn't there. The people can't find jobs and drift away. Pretty soon you arrive at below subsistence population and school close and so forth. Towns are drying up and blowing away.

It's not just outsourcing. What are we doing in response to this? What does the business community owe to this country? (And all those other issues raised up thread, education, health care, pensions, all those things that are said to be a drag on the corporate bottom line.) Well, they are not being dealt with in the Congress or this Admin. It's not going to get better until this is dealt with as a total issue.

[TayTay]

60. This is what Kerry said, in Finance Committee this year

He was questioning Robert Portman on his nomination to be US Trade Representative ('USTR') for the Bush Admin. 4/21/05

Let me give a little bit of background to the comments that I'm going to make, because I want to put them in a context. I wasn't able to be here for the hearing previously on CAFTA itself.

I've been here 22 years now, and I've always pushed hard for trade agreements. And I've supported every one of them that came through here. And I've been part of those fights. Beginning with NAFTA, I supported the Uruguay Round. I supported China PNTR. I support fast track. I supported Trade Act of 2002 and bilateral free trade agreements, including most recently Australia, Singapore and Chile.

I supported those, even in the course of the presidential race, when a lot of people were pushing in another direction because those countries, particularly, had strong regimens of enforcement, strong laws and standards with respect to their workers.

During that same time, even as I supported those, over the last five or six years, as a member of this committee, since I came on the committee, I have also consistently been warning the administration, at the end of the Clinton administration and now this administration, about the changing dynamic in the world with respect to trade and our economies, and that trade can't be looked at sort of just as trade.

It's not just trade. It's investment policies. It's fiscal policies. It's technology and research and development, and a host of other things. And it's enforcement and standards. And if those don't keep up, if you're not vigilant about them, you lose the consensus, the global consensus on which trade regimens have been built.

For five years, I've been warning about the fraying of the edges of that consensus. And I think, you know, not that it was particularly remarkable or anything, but just that it was a demarcation point in my own thinking.

I remember speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos about four or five years ago about backlash and the threat of backlash. And the warning that, if you don't maintain the consensus, the backlash will grow. Well, it has grown.

And we are inheriting now the harvest of not having done the work that many people, Democrat and Republican alike, laid out, needed to be done to maintain that consensus. And even to look dispassionately at some of the differences between countries and standards and how we approach this.

Last year during the campaign, I said that I thought we needed to put together a commission to look at all our trade agreements and make a nonpartisan analytical judgment. What's working for us? What's not working for us? And go out and try to cure some of those things that aren't working for us.

Now, I also said that, unless things change with respect to CAFTA, I wouldn't be able to support it. Now, that was reflecting the view back in June of 2003 of our own USTR who said that there were serious problems with essential American labor laws, pledged to take action to address those problems before duplicating the labor rules of Chile and Singapore.

And Peter Allgeier testified before us as to whether the labor provisions of the Chilean and Singapore agreements would be sufficient for Central America and he said, quote, "It depends in part on what changes in their laws they make during the negotiating process." He stated that, "Frankly, the different circumstances that exist in those countries and among those countries compared to, for example, Chile and Singapore make require a different approach."

And he pledged that USTR would need, quote, "need to get those, the labor standards and the enforcement of labor rights, up to a certain level before we would find acceptable a commitment to enforce those laws." A year-and-a-half later, most of those countries have done nothing to bring their labor laws closer to the international standards.

So my first question to you is going to be -- but I want to say a few more words before that -- you know, if the model wasn't acceptable to USTR for Central America in 2003, and they haven't changed it, why should it be acceptable to the Congress now? And think that's a very legitimate question.

But what's important is to understand that the current trade regime is not working as effectively as we want it to be. You know, American manufacturing has suffered 42 consecutive months of job losses, 2.7 million jobs. We've lost a lot of them in your own state. We continue to pace record trade deficits with no sign that that's going to change. And when we were debating fast track authority in 2001, I remember issuing a warning, both to the president and to the trade rep, to use that authority carefully. And many of us asked the rep and the administration then to pay close attention to labor laws and environment standards and, indeed, to improve those standards.

President Clinton and the prior administration came to that conclusion, which is why the Jordan trade agreement embraced those standards for the first time in the four corners of the agreement. And we had a big debate. I remember Phil Gramm and I and others. There was always that ideological tension here of purity.

But it tended to have blinders on with respect to real consequences, real people, real jobs and the real economy. And that has not been addressed. Frankly, those appeals were just ignored.

Now we're presented with CAFTA, which is our largest trade challenge in a decade. And frankly, it is deeply flawed. The labor and environment standards contained in CAFTA are inadequate to deal with serious issues in the region, including pay and working conditions, violence against trade unionists, inadequate enforcement of existing laws.

CAFTA leaves our states and municipalities vulnerable to costly investor rights litigation if they act to protect the public health or the environment. A large part of the problem is that, in my judgment, CAFTA wasn't reached through this kind of consensus that we've talked about in cooperation.

And Democrats and Republicans have expressed concerns. And I think all have been sort of left out -- those considerations have been left out in the reaching of a final agreement.

And so obviously your first job is going to be to try to address these. But I think it's beyond CAFTA, frankly. And you've heard some people mention that here.

The China situation is simply unacceptable. The administration's dragged its feet on the trade deficit with China. It's causing enormous economic dislocation. And I think all of understand that good trade policy requires consensus.

I don't think your predecessor upheld the spirit or letter of the trade promotion authority as I've understood it over the 22 years I've been here. And I voted for fast track, but it was with the expectation and the promise that the administration was going to work closely with us to address these kinds of concerns.

Frankly, it's been lip service through the years. No fault of yours, but it has been a kind of lip service. And almost sort of a blinder with respect to -- just there are benefits to trade, and they're automatic, and so we flow ahead.

There's a big distinction between the economy we have today in America and the economy we had in the 1990s and also the fiscal policies of those periods of time. We were investing in R&D, investing in education, investing in infrastructure, pushing the curve with respect to new technologies and high value-added jobs. It's not happening today.

Tha t's what he said, unfiltered by any reporter. It made sense to me.

[ProSense]

61. Exactly!

It's a very complex situation, not easily resolved. I have family members in the IT industry who are experiencing this firsthand everyday, including having to travel overseas. They will tell anyone about the plight of workers here (massive layoffs) and there (substandard working conditions), and the broken system, and what could possibly be done to fix it. The problem is the greedy people and the exploiters, not the idea and not, everyone should know, the workerforce.

JMO.

[kerrygoddess]

62. Max Baucus in India talking outsourcing too

I got from the gist of the article that Senate Dems atre looking for new solutions to the problem and that is why JK is there and Baucus too - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060113/ap_on_go_co/india_us_outsourcing;_ylt=AtkWPwXNuRkQ2otVvSi0u2.yFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

[karynnj]

64. I think they HAVE to look at new solutions

I like the Kerry/Kennedy bill that Tay Tay had information on in #25. Having the person say I am in India before starting the call, may make more people complain about the call not being handled in the US. If this is important enough to someone, it could become a marketing point for a company not outsourcing calls. If there are two banks- one of which the representatives seem to be in India, one in the US - I would take the second even if it was slightly more expensive.

Making the tax code FAVOR rather than punish companies that keep there operations here. Maybe raising the taxes on all business profits enough so the government pays for all health insurance plans. (This would likely help companies doing it now, while hurting those who don't or who outsource.)

For 2008, one danger might be that a person willing to demagogue by saying that they will do what they can't - which is to outlaw outsourcing could be very attractive.

(GD-P has the Baucus article but not the Kerry ones. They are saying what would be expected.)

[jillan]

65. Funny - Kerry can't even get credit for controversy.

Just read the article and it's all about Baucus!
All it says about Kerry is
Kerry voiced similar sentiments on Thursday when he visited New Delhi and the central city of Hyderabad.

Don't know if I should laugh or cry.

[karynnj]

66. At this point - be happy

Comparing them the totality of Kerry's statements reflect a deeper concern for the people affected than Baucus's - which may be because there is only one Baucus article from a pro-business magazine. I assume Baucus is concerned about the people involved - but the answer is not to outlaw it. This will not be an easy problem to solve.

My concern is that a candidate who takes this issue and takes a very protectionist stance could be very popular. The reality is that there is a global economy.