The takeover of terminal operations at some American ports by a Dubai-owned shipping company has generated nearly twenty new bills in Congress. Some are more far-reaching than others, most notably the legistation proposed by my own voice in the House, Rep. Jim Saxton (NJ-3. see photo) whose bill is widely regarded as most heavy-handed and would prohibit foreign ownership of any so-called "critical infastructure" in this country. Says Rep. Saxton,Americans are less likely to attack the Homeland than perhaps some others are. We know that there's an ideological divide between some people who live in the eastern, uhhhh, hemisphere and some people who, the rest of us who live in the western, uhhhh, hemisphere.For a bill with such far-reaching economic consequences, Rep. Saxton's proposal is woefully short on details. Not only does this bill fail to outline what foreigners can and can not own, but it defers to the Whitehouse's definition of "critical infastructure" which could be anything from agriculture/food, water, energy, transportation, banking and many other industries. This bill would obstensibly require thousands of foreign-0wned companies to divest in the United States such as Evain water, Danon yogurt, Stouffer's lasagne, as all are foreign owned. Says economist Gary Huffbaker of the Institute of International Economics,
If (this piece) of legistation passes, it will be a sign to the world that the United States is taking a new more nationalistic attitude towards investement in this the United States by foreign companiesTo which Saxton responds, "This is about national security, not about fostering some (econonic) competition. There will be costs." He's right about that much at least, there would indeed be costs! Now the last thing I want to do it get into a free-trade argument, but it does occur to me that Rep. Saxton's bill could have some pretty major economic consequences--nothing short of completely overhauling our trade policy in this country. (In my opinion, it would be a fiscal catastrophe!)
And for what? Is Rep. Saxton using this port-controversy to make a distinction between himself and an unpopular president? And if this is the case, why would he defer to the president's definition of "critical infastructure."
Mr. Saxton what are you thinking?
(And for my fellow 3rd District voters: THERE IS A BETTER WAY!!! JIM SAXTON HAS GOT TO GO! READ HIS QUOTE--HIS WORDS--AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF IF THIS IS THE KIND OF PERSON YOU WANT ADVOCATING FOR YOU IN WASHINGTON!! THERE IS A BETTER WAY!! RICH SEXTON FOR CONGRESS IN NJ-3!!!http://www.richsextonforcongress.com/
2 comments:
Saxton. What a dope. The GOP doesn't get it. Actually, Congress doesn't seem to get it generally, but the GOP is worse. The problem was UAE, not foreign companies entirely. If they want to do something smart then that's fine, but now the sensible objections to a takeover approval that was rushed through to benefit a country with ties to terrorism is turning into a contest to see who can object to "foreigners" more than the next guy. What a bunch of jerks, really.
Saxton gets special credit for stupidity, though. I want to know which foreign countries those guys who bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City came from, since Saxton is all full of this crap about "west vs east". Also, if he wants us to think that folks in the "east" are so much more likely to bomb stuff than folks in the "west", what with their "ideological divide" and all, maybe he can tell us which country is the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon on another country as well as telling us whether the country that dropped millions of tons of bombs on Viet Nam and Iraq was a western country or an eastern country.
Saxton is making me think he's kind of, I don't know, ignorant I guess.
The reaction to this whole port story has been a case study in the opportunism of demagogues and blowhards. Saxton is a fine case in point.
-- david
Post a Comment