Slashdot Mirror
The Problem with DHS's Plan to 'Buy American'
An anonymous reader points out a Cnet report on the
Homeland Security Authorization Act, which would require that more than 50 percent of the components in any end product bought by the Department of Homeland Security be produced or manufactured in the U.S., writing "The Pentagon has agreements with 21 countries that waive the act, but an amendment that just passed the House would prevent the DHS from waiving the 'Buy American' restrictions. "The president of the Information Technology Association of America observed that this means the DHS may 'have to learn to do without computers and cell phones,' since he could not think of any manufacturers of those devices that would meet the 50% threshold."
No, they'd never do something as low and underhand as that... That would be like putting an illegal tariff on steel imports...
> That would be like putting an illegal tariff on steel imports...
Or, say, softwood lumber?
I work for a department of the NIH--the National Institute of Health. I have been closely associated with some large computer purchases, and I can tell you that, over a certain dollar amount, we must also source from US manufacturing plants.
The details of how this works aren't 100% clear to me--but I believe that major manufacturers have a manufacturing plant for just this purpose, although I don't know if they serve any other gov't institutes besides the NIH.
I can tell you that we can purchase Dell, Apple, and HP following the US sourcing rules. While it does indeed complicate the bidding process, it's not impossible. I would imagine that the DHS would tap the same resources; in fact, their use of these resources might drive down the prices for all gov't buyers who are currently constrained by this rule. The more the merrier.
The fact that you can't purchase "Made in the USA" computer goods at Best Buy really has no relation to the purchasing power of the US gov't.
--
$tar -xvf
As a Government acquisition professional, I would like to point out that buy American does not apply to commercially available products. It is recognized that market forces will generally provide fair pricing.
This ruling applies to custom development (hardware/software) only. So DHS can buy all the cell phones they want from Taiwan. If they want buy something that does not exist in the commercial market, then "Buy American" applies.
Just a bit north, near Detroit at the River Rouge (extremely industrialized part of michigan) and also one of the home to one of those SuperFund sites, the contamination is so great that a person, without protection, supposodly will get cancer within 20 minutes of exposure.
As a kid, my dad would bring my brother and I down there in the boat and watch the fires. Fires, literraly on the river, they'd just start spontaneously, it almost seems surreal thinking about that experience. It was almost like a weird scene out of mad-max/apolocalpyse now/terminator.
Uhhhmm, Daimler Chrysler is no longer a U.S. auto maker.
Where did you get your economics degree? Perhaps you ought to consider asking for your money back.
m ance.html)
...
Here's is the shocker: China does not run a large trade surplus. (Serious, it's very very small, and was in '04 only slightly in the black.) Now, the numbers "experts" give you tell you that the US ran a $160bn trade deficit with China in the year to April '05. But that is against an overall trade surplus of just $26bn (which, trust me, isn't a lot of money when it comes to surpluses and deficits.)
(For details on China's trade performance, check this http://www.uschina.org/statistics/2005tradeperfor
But this is not relevent: China imports as much as it exports. It just happens not to import a lot from the US. It does however import a lot from Germany (which, along with Japan is the world's largest manufacturer of capital goods). So, China has a trade deficit with Germany, and a trade surplus with the US. Now: go to Germany. Who do they buy from? Well, lets start with the US. Germany imports a terrific amount of software and financial services from the US.
So: money goes US -> China -> Germany -> US ->
(Now, this isn't great if you work in the manufacturing sector in the US, and your job goes to China. But it is great if you're selling fund management products to the Germans.)
Here's another shocker. Between 1998 and 2005, the US lost 2m manufacturing jobs (while, it should be noted, manufacturing output rose). And those jobs went to China, right? No. China lost 15m jobs. Yes, you heard that right fiftenn million manufacturing jobs were lost. (The result, I should add, of moving from an inefficient state system to a marginally more efficient private system.)
Anyway: the point I make is a simple one. Focussing on bilateral trade surpluses or deficits is stupid. You have to look at the system. You also have to remember that those trade deficit/surplus numbers are vey bad at capturing so called "invisible" exports, such as financial services.
Cheers,
Robert
--- My dad's political betting