Why conservatives and liberals must oppose unfair trade with China

The Economic Collapse Blog makes a strong case for why conservatives, liberals and everyone else must oppose unfair trade with China:

If you are truly a conservative, there is no way that you should ever support our trade relationship with China.

If you are truly a liberal, there is no way that you should ever support our trade relationship with China.

Globalism has allowed the big global corporations that dominate our economy to make huge amounts of money, but it has also forced American workers into one gigantic global labor pool.

Are you willing to work 12 hours a day for less than $2.00 an hour in sweatshop conditions?

Well, that is your new competition.

The top 1 percent of all Americans is using globalism to make huge profits, but the standard of living for the rest of us is slowly but surely being forced down toward the rest of the world.

Is that what you really want?

If after reading the reasons below you can still consider yourself a good "conservative" or a good "liberal" and still support our current trade relationship with China please leave a comment to this article. I would love to hear your reasoning.

10 Reasons Why Conservatives Should Be Against Unfair Trade With China

1 - Conservatives are supposed to be all about creating jobs. But millions upon millions of good paying middle class jobs have been shipped off to China and they are never coming back.

2 - Once upon a time, conservatives were opposed to communism. But our trade relationship with China has enabled the largest communist economy in the world to go from third world status to superpower status. China is now the second largest economy in the world, and that would have never happened without our cooperation.

3 - Conservatives are supposed to be concerned about national security. But thanks to the massive amount of money they have made from us, the Chinese have been able to dramatically upgrade and modernize their military. At the top levels of the Chinese government, most officials still believe in the ultimate worldwide triumph of communism, and now thanks to us they have a world class military with which to advance that agenda.

4 - China has a very strict one-child policy which should be absolutely abhorrent to any true conservative.

5 - China uses mobile abortion vans to help enforce the one-child policy. How any social conservative can justify trade with China after learning this is a total mystery.

6 - If Republicans actually started fighting to protect American jobs from going overseas they could win the "angry working class vote" and take both houses of Congress and the White House in 2012.

7 - Conservatives don't like when other countries try to take advantage of the American people. Yet China is taking advantage of the American people by keeping their currency artificially low and most conservatives are strangely quiet about this. This currency manipulation has put large numbers of U.S. small businesses at a huge competitive disadvantage and has forced many of them to shut down. Essentially, this currency manipulation has enabled China to get us down on the mat and continually beat the stuffing out of us. Meanwhile, our politicians stand by and do nothing.

8 - Our trade deficit with China has enabled them to accumulate about a trillion dollars of our debt. This gives them tremendous leverage over us and is a very serious threat to our economy and to our national security.

9 - Conservatives are traditionally very protective of national sovereignty and state sovereignty. But a global economy governed by the G20, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank is a giant step toward world government and a giant step away from national sovereignty and state sovereignty.

10 - The giant trade deficit that the United States runs is making us poorer as a nation each and every month. Each year, somewhere around half a trillion dollars of our national wealth gets transferred out of the United States. Much of that gets transferred to China. The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States. The transfer of wealth that this represents is absolutely mind blowing. China is literally bleeding us dry.

10 Reasons Why Liberals Should Be Against Unfair Trade With China

1 - Liberals are supposed to defend unions, yet our trade relationship with China has done more to hurt unions than anything else and most liberal politicians don't seem to care. Globalism has put the average American worker in direct competition with the cheapest labor in the world. Unemployment is going to continue to increase unless something is done to stop the offshoring and outsourcing of our jobs.

2 - Liberals are supposed to care about the environment. But our trade relationship with China means that thousands of factories and businesses leave our shores and end up in China where the environmental regulations are not nearly as strict. In fact, China has become a complete and total environmental nightmare at this point. If liberals truly cared about the environment they would want to keep factories and businesses here.

3 - Our trade relationship with China (and with the rest of the world) has caused the income inequality gap in America to explode. The top 1% of all Americans have done very well in this environment while the rest of us suffer. For much more on this phenomenon, please see my recent article entitled "Winners And Losers".

4 - Dangerous products from China are pouring into the United States. Liberals should be horrified that so many of our products are now made outside the United States far from the watchful eyes of our regulatory agencies. Over the past couple of years, there has been headline after headline about dangerous products made in China. The following is just one example of this: 10 Babies Die Mysteriously At Fort Bragg: Toxic Drywall From China Used In Base Homes The Culprit?

5 - In a global economy, every piece of legislation that Democrats intend to help American workers with ends up backfiring. For example, a rise in the minimum wage or a law increasing worker benefits causes American workers to become even more expensive and gives corporations even more incentive to move jobs overseas.

6 - "Free Trade" has been the most destructive in the inner cities where Democrats have traditionally gotten a tremendous amount of support. Shiny new factories are going up all over China while at the same time formerly great manufacturing cities such as Detroit have degenerated into rotting war zones. This is not good for liberals.

7 - Democrats won't get elected if there are no jobs. Each month, more jobs leave the United States for China and the growing number of long-term unemployed workers in the U.S. is not going to be inclined to keep the same politicians in office if this continues. If liberal politicians value their jobs they should start protecting the jobs of average Americans.

8 - Free trade with China threatens to ruin our social safety net. It is a good thing to help those in need, but there comes a point where too many people jump on to the net and it breaks down. Already, one out of every six Americans is enrolled in at least one anti-poverty program. Over 40 million Americans are on food stamps. These are not good numbers for liberals.

9 - True liberals should be absolutely horrified by the exploitation of labor in China. In China, millions of people work in horrific conditions for what is essentially slave labor pay. The fact that big global corporations are getting rich from this should make the stomach of every liberal turn.

10 - The giant trade deficit that the United States runs is making us poorer as a nation each and every month. Each year, somewhere around half a trillion dollars of our national wealth gets transferred out of the United States. Much of that gets transferred to China. The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States. The transfer of wealth that this represents is absolutely mind blowing. China is literally bleeding us dry.

Liberals and conservatives should both be able to agree that it is not a good thing for millions of American jobs to leave the United States and go to China.

Liberals and conservatives should both be able to agree that it is not a good thing that billions of dollars in wealth gets transferred from the United States to China every single month.

But will our leaders wake up and start pursuing a more logical approach to China?

Don't count on it.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-reasons-why-conservatives-should-be-against-unfair-trade-with-china-and-10-reasons-why-liberals-should-be-against-unfair-trade-with-china

Economic Times: China on the verge of unleashing "carrier-killer" missiles

The Economic Times reports:

BEIJING: China is close to operationalising its new super-weapon, "carrier-killer" missiles, saying they would be used to counter balance US Naval supremacy in the pacific.

"The anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBP) is close to becoming operational," the Global Times said, warning that Beijing would not allow foreign aircraft carriers near its waters.

"China undoubtedly needs to build highly credible anti-carrier capability," the paper said it an editorial.

Claiming that the missiles were a deterrent to US aircraft carrier-led battle groups operating in the Pacific Ocean, the paper said for this "not only does China need anti-ship ballistic missiles but also other carrier killing measures."

The Chinese claims comes in the wake of warnings by US Pacific Commander Admiral Robert Willard that China is developing a new version of its Dongfeng 21 missiles that can pierce through the defences of even the most sturdy US Naval vessels.

"These missiles have a range of 20,000 kms — a capability to strike targets far beyond Chinese waters," US Naval commanders have warned.

"For quiet sometime the intelligence agencies in the US and other Western countries have conjectured over China's anti-ship missile capacity. China ought to convince the international community of its reliable carrier killing capacity as soon as possible to end the speculation," the Global Times said.

In a recent report submitted to the Congress, the Pentagon has said that the China has made a string of double digit hikes in its military spending to build new range of nuclear weapons, long range missiles, submarines, aircraft carriers and cyber warfare system.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/China-on-the-verge-of-unleashing-carrier-killer-missiles/articleshow/6505639.cms

Froma Harrop: Populism, then and now, protecting the little guy

Froma Harrop exposes the phony populism of Glenn Beck and his tea party followers in a Seattle Times column:

Over a century ago, William Jennings Bryan presided over mass rallies of mostly middle-class Americans angry about economic inequities. The tea-party activists gathered in Washington last weekend for Glenn Beck's event shared similar concerns. Both leaders framed their populist mission in Christian terms.

But Bryan's people knew the source of their insecurity. Beck's don't.

Bryan's populists blamed unregulated banks and industrial mammoths for oppressing the middle class on down. They wanted government to protect them from marauding monopolies.

Beck's populists see government as the marauder. Government, in his rhetoric, is the bully harassing individuals and business alike.

Populist sentiment against the business elite helped get Republican Theodore Roosevelt elected president in 1904. (He had moved up from the vice presidency with the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901.) But Beck slams Roosevelt for his reformer vision. He froths over Roosevelt's belief that the pursuit of great wealth should benefit the wider community as well as rich people as "the cancer that is eating at America."

It's always dangerous to compare periods separated by more than 100 years. Back in the late 1890s, the government was tiny, and the big corporate powers were free to trample workers and small businesses. Standard Oil and the future U.S. Steel had bigger budgets than the U.S. government. (By the way, Standard Oil et al. did not really favor "free enterprise." They favored their continuation as competition-killing monopolies.)

In sharp contrast, today's populists don't see the recent economic meltdown as the product of the financial industry allowed to run amok. The same folk agonize over growing deficits and see the widening gap between the super rich and everyone else — yet still oppose a modest tax hike on the top few percent.

In one breath, the tea partyers rail against the bank bailouts. In the next, they object to efforts in Washington to re-regulate the banks and make future bailouts unnecessary. And they see their political home in a Republican Party that tirelessly serves the interests of the Wall Street princes and the industries that dine on taxpayer dollars — for instance, health care.

It's hard to remember that Wall Street was rather sympathetic to the surging Democrats only two years ago. During the presidential campaign, the party took in 70 percent of Wall Street's political contributions. Republicans are now receiving 68 percent. (Always cynical Wall Street is betting on a GOP win.)

The financiers turned on Democrats as the Obama administration sought to re-regulate the financial industry. They denounce a proposed return to the top marginal rates of the Clinton-era as a gross injustice. They indignantly defend the ludicrous loophole that lets hedge and private-equity-fund managers pay taxes at a lower rate than the police who guard their mansions.

Private-equity tycoon Stephen A. Schwarzman recently likened the administration's attempt to close the loophole to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Hedge-fund manager Daniel S. Loeb angrily wrote his investors that "this country's core founding principles included non-punitive taxation, constitutionally guaranteed protections against persecution of the minority and an inexorable right of self-determination." Who's arguing with that?

These guys are not necessarily "conservative." They generally don't care a fig about the social issues. Some, like Loeb, are registered Democrats.

But the name of their game is to amass the highest number of billions. Nothing is ever enough. Anyone who slows the play is their enemy. And these days, it's the Republican Party that can best help them rack up their scores. (What's good for the country is generally not item No. 1 on the priority list.)

The plutocracy hated and feared Bryan, especially after he won his first (of three) Democratic presidential nominations. In 1896, Republican operative Mark Hanna went directly to John D. Rockefeller and said, "We need money to defeat Bryan." Rockefeller wrote a check.

One would think that the populists who lament the alleged decline of their economic status — and America's real economic decline — might want to stop the big players from repeating their excesses. Amazingly, they don't.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012794316_harrop03.html

http://www.fromaharrop.com/

Thorium energy could end dependence on oil within 5 years

Popular Science reports:

An abundant metal with vast energy potential could quickly wean the world off oil, if only Western political leaders would muster the will to do it, a UK newspaper says today. The Telegraph makes the case for thorium reactors as the key to a fossil-fuel-free world within five years, and puts the ball firmly in President Barack Obama's court. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

Thorium, named for the Norse god of thunder, is much more abundant than uranium and has 200 times that metal's energy potential. Thorium is also a more efficient fuel source -- unlike natural uranium, which must be highly refined before it can be used in nuclear reactors, all thorium is potentially usable as fuel.

The Telegraph says thorium could be used as an energy amplifier in next-generation nuclear power plants, an idea conceived by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, former director of CERN.

Known as an accelerator-driven system, it would use a particle accelerator to produce a proton beam and aim it at lump of heavy metal, producing excess neutrons. Thorium is a good choice because it has a high neutron yield per neutron absorbed.

Thorium nuclei would absorb the excess neutrons, resulting in uranium-233, a fissile isotope that is not found in nature. Moderated neutrons would produce fissioned U-233, which releases enough energy to power the particle accelerator, plus an excess that can drive a power plant. Rubbia says a fistful of thorium could light up London for a week.

The idea needs refining, but is so promising that at least one private firm is getting involved. The Norwegian firm Aker Solutions bought Rubbia's patent for this thorium fuel cycle, and is working on his design for a proton accelerator.

The Telegraph says this $1.8 billion (£1.2 billion) project could lead to a network of tiny underground nuclear reactors, producing about 600 MW each. Their wee size would negate the enormous security apparatus required of full-size nuclear power plants.

After a three-decade lull, nuclear power is enjoying a slow renaissance in the U.S. The 2005 energy bill included $2 billion for six new nuclear power plants, and this past February, Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants.

But nuclear plants need fuel, which means building controversial uranium mines. Thorium, on the other hand, is so abundant that it's almost an annoyance. It's considered a waste product when mining for rare-earth metals.

Thorium also solves the non-proliferation problem. Nuclear non-proliferation treaties (NPT) prohibit processes that can yield atomic bomb ingredients, making it difficult to refine highly radioactive isotopes. But thorium-based accelerator-driven plants only produce a small amount of plutonium, which could allow the U.S. and other nations to skirt NPT.

The Telegraph says Obama needs a Roosevelt moment, recalling the famous breakfast meeting when Albert Einstein convinced the president to start the Manhattan Project. A thorium stimulus could be just what the lagging economy needs.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years

The Reid Report: Five Things To Know About Rick Scott

The Reid Report gives us some background on Medicare fraudster turned Republican nominee for Florida Governor Rick Scott:

Think you know everything there is to know about Rick Scott, the guy you can’t get off your TV in Florida? Here are five things to add to your knowledge base.

1. He is not an “outsider.” — Not only has Rick Scott cowed the Florida GOP establishment, he was already a crony of the Bush family, having co-owned the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush. A former Bush White House staffer has signed onto the Scott campaign, and with Jeb also in his corner, it should be clear to anyone who’s paying attention that far from being a tea party insurgency, the Scott run is more of a white table cloth rebellion by corporate titans who long for the long-lost Dubya era of tax cuts (for them) and deregulation of their industries. Looked at that way, both the McCollum and Scott campaigns were Bush restorations of a sort, which makes it easier to see why Jeb is cool with the outcome either way.

2. He didn’t always have a beef with “career politicians” — In fact, during the 2008 election cycle, Scott gave more than $45,000 to rather doctrinaire politicians like Mitt Romney, and about $30,000 to tea party anathema John McCain. He’s even given thousands of dollars to pro-”pathway to citizenship” immigration moderate Mel Martinez, to moderate Connie Mack, and to the blood bank of political careerism, the Republican National Committee.

3. He is not necessarily going to go all Meg Whitman on Florida. — Scott is now in such firm control of the party that used to hate him (but now just fears him), he’s bragging that he “probably” won’t have to spend his own cash through November (which is supposed to be the point of nominating a guy who can self-fund…) meaning he’ll get the special interests that back McCollum to start writing checks, or someone might get hurt… UPDATE: Scott has also begun hiring Bill McCollum’s fundraising team.

4. The fraud committed by his former company, Columbia/HCA, was worse than you think. — According to the 2003 press release from what was by then the Bush Justice Department, relating to an investigation that began in the Clinton years, the $1.7 million fine the company paid was the largest in history, involved criminal, not just civil fraud, stretched back to the Reagan era, and even involved defrauding the healthcare system used by our military. From the release:

Under the first of three agreements announced today, which becomes effective upon the court’s dismissal of the lawsuits, HCA will pay nearly $620 million to resolve eight whistleblower lawsuits in which the government had intervened alleging that HCA systematically defrauded Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded health care programs through schemes dating back to the late 1980s. HCA will pay an additional $11 million to resolve separate allegations of improper HCA billing practices.

The settlement requires HCA to pay:

$356 million to resolve whistleblower lawsuits alleging that HCA engaged in a series of schemes to defraud Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE, the military’s health care program, through hospital cost reports, the year end claims submitted by hospitals to the government to reconcile payments received throughout the year with amounts they claim are actually owed. In 2001, a subsidiary of Nashville-based HCA, Columbia Management Companies, Inc., pled guilty in the Middle District of Florida to related charges on eight counts of making false statements to the United States and paid $22.6 million in criminal fines. An additional amount of $20 million of the settlement is being paid toward a resolution of cost reporting fraud allegations pursued separately by James Alderson and John Schilling, the relators who filed the lawsuits. In total, the two relators are to receive a total of $100 million as their statutory share of the settlement.
$225.5 million to resolve lawsuits alleging that HCA hospitals and home health agencies unlawfully billed Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE for claims generated by the payment of kickbacks and other illegal remuneration to physicians in exchange for referral of patients. In 2001, Columbia Management Companies, Inc., pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to pay kickbacks and other monetary benefits to doctors in violation of the Medicare Antikickback Statute and paid a $30 million criminal fine. Dr. James Thompson, a doctor who filed suit against the company in 1995, will receive $41.5 million as his statutory share of the settlement. Gary King, a former HCA employee, will receive $5 million and Ann Mroz, a former HCA nurse, will receive a share of $837,500.
$17 million to resolve allegations that certain company-owned hospitals billed Medicare for unallowable costs incurred by a contractor that operated HCA wound care centers, and for a non-covered drug that the contractor manufactured and sold to hospital patients. The 2001 Columbia Management Companies’ guilty plea concerning cost report fraud included a charge related to wound care center costs. HCA’s wound care center management contractor, Curative Healthcare Services, Inc., previously paid $16.5 million to resolve related allegations pending at one time in these same lawsuits. Joseph “Mickey” Parslow, a former HCA financial officer, will receive $2,990,000 and Francesco Lanni, a former Reimbursement Manager at the Wound Care Center at New York Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, New York, will receive a share of $680,000.
$5 million to resolve allegations concerning the transfer of patients from HCA facilities to other facilities and the claiming of excessive costs for those transfers.
$5 million to resolve allegations that HCA’s Lawnwood Regional Medical Center in Fort Pierce, Florida submitted false claims in Medicare cost reports by inflating its entitlement to funds to treat indigent patients and by shifting employee salary costs in order to increase its reimbursement from the federal health care program.
$950,000 to settle allegations made by Michael Marine that HCA improperly shifted its home office costs to hospitals. Marine will receive a share of $116,500.
And last but not least:

5. Scott is significantly less popular among Republicans than his main opponent Alex Sink is among Democrats. — Despite all of the doom and gloom pronouncement emanating out of every primary this season, as pundits predict that Democrats will lose 73 House seats — giving up seats that only exist in Charlie Cook and Mark Halperin’s minds — plus every conceivable office from governor to dog catcher, Sink actually bested Scott on election night, 669,426 to 599,696, a difference of 69,730 votes. Sink got 77 percent of the votes in her arguably non-competitive race. Scott got 46 percent. And while it’s hard to imagine Brian Moore’s supporters not heading into Sink’s camp, it’s not clear that all of McCollum’s 563,000 voters, or the voters for the third guy in the race, Mike McCallister, who got 130,944 votes without many people even knowing who he was (meaning those voters affirmatively said “no” to both McCollum and Scott) will go Scott’s way, especially if McCollum sticks to his guns and refuses to endorse him (or at this point, to even commit to vote for him.) Sure, many McCollum Republicans will write off poor Bill as a sore loser, but his view of Scott’s lack of character can’t be his alone.

Bottom line, Scott will get a majority of the GOPers who come out in November, but what kind of majority? If it’s a bare one, he’s in trouble. Sink has strong appeal among moderate to center-right voters, plus potential appeal to Republican women, who are polling in the dregs where Scott is concerned. And Scott has emerged from the bruising primary with very high negatives among his own. It’s arguable that Sink can benefit from both the Kendrick Meek voters who come out in November AND the Charlie Crist folks, who will by default be more moderate, more independent, and drawn from both major parties. Scott will get zero cross-over. He’s down to tea partiers and that’s about it. With evangelicals having trashed him during the primary, it’s not even clear he can get those souls to the polls. Will the Schlafly-Bauer axis get on board the way Tallahassee Republicans have? That remains to be seen. So far, the Christian Family Coalition’s website is silent on Scott, whose corporate impurity on abortion (and stem cell research), despite his haranguing on the issue, and his distortions and misuse of a Texas family (I smell a commercial!…) could make the Christian vote less than enthusiastic about turning out for him.

BONUS: Based on his fixation on national issues, Scott may have ambitions beyond the governorship. In fact, it’s hard to detect much interest in the mundane issues of governing the state of Florida. Scott’s latest “issue” doesn’t even deal with the job of governor. Instead, he’s joined the Club For Growth chorus against letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/08/five-things-to-know-about-rick-scott/

rickscott5thamendment

Webb calls for scrutiny of U.S. funding to Chinese firms

Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today said that the awarding of two major construction contracts to U.S. firms by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a positive step forward but does not eliminate the need for a thorough examination of the MCC’s process for awarding contracts. In an August 2 letter to the MCC, Senator Webb expressed concern that, at that time, Chinese companies were the largest recipients of its contracts, which are funded with U.S. tax dollars.

“As I wrote to the MCC last month, the partnership of U.S. businesses with U.S.-funded MCC development contracts can help speed America’s economic recovery while strengthening U.S. business ties with developing countries,” said Senator Webb. “I remain concerned that hundreds of millions of U.S. tax dollars continue to fund contracts with Chinese state-owned companies. Chinese state-owned companies are actors of the Chinese government, designed to carry-out that government’s economic and political interests, and I do not believe that the U.S. government should be financing such activity. This issue demands oversight for both financial and strategic reasons.

“While I look forward to the conclusion of the MCC’s internal review on the participation of foreign state-owned companies, I will continue to press the MCC to terminate its policy of contracting with state-owned and state-subsidized companies. This policy is inherently against the spirit of private markets and fair competition and harms American business, foreign policy and development interests.”

According to an updated list of contracts provided by the MCC, Chinese firms are now the second largest recipients of its contracts after the U.S.

A full copy of Senator Webb’s original letter to the MCC follows.

August 2, 2010

Daniel W. Yohannes
Chief Executive Officer
Millennium Challenge Corporation
875 Fifteenth Street NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Yohannes:

I am writing to express my concern that the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is enabling Chinese state-owned enterprises to expand their operations—and Chinese influence—in Africa with tens of millions in American taxpayer dollars. I was alerted to this problem by a recent Reuters report that Sinohydro Corporation, a Chinese state-owned company, was awarded a $71.6 million contract in Mali to build a new airport for the capital, Bamako. I have been informed by your staff that in addition to the Bamako airport project, Sinohydro was awarded a contract for the Main Canal Conveyance System in Mali and two contracts for the construction of roads in Tanzania.

Sinohydro Corporation is one of China’s largest state-owned infrastructure companies, ranking 89th among China’s 500 largest companies and 56th among the 225 largest international contractors in 2009. Sinohydro is well-known for its work on the Three Gorges Dam in China. Additionally, it has operations all over the world, including Angola, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Sudan and Tanzania. Some of these projects include financing from the China Development Bank, China’s state-owned development lending organization.

Many of Sinohydro’s projects have been controversial due to their environmental or human impacts, such as the displacement of thousands of people in Sudan with the construction of the Merowe Dam. Sinohydro also has been reprimanded by the Chinese government for substandard work and breaches in safety and environmental pollution.

At a time when our economy is struggling to recover, I am concerned that the funding of Chinese state-owned companies with U.S. taxpayer dollars harms American business, foreign policy, and development interests abroad. If this situation is unchanged, we risk the entrenchment of Chinese companies in Africa at the expense of U.S. companies, which cannot compete because of the cost of establishing new operations in Africa. Additionally, this action tacitly supports the Chinese government’s “going abroad” strategy to expand political influence through business and development ties.

I believe that there should be a natural marriage in the partnering of U.S. businesses with U.S.-funded MCC contracts in Africa and other regions. This partnership can aid the U.S. economic recovery, provide American jobs, and strengthen U.S. business ties with developing countries.

Consequently, I am asking that you immediately cease action on these and any other projects not awarded to U.S. companies.

As Chairman of the East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, I intend to conduct vigorous oversight on this issue to ensure that our development assistance properly uses American taxpayer funds to advance U.S. interests abroad and not to enhance the spread of Chinese influence.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Jim Webb

Study: CEOs of top 50 job-cutting companies earned $598 million in compensation

From The Kansas City Star:

The nation's biggest job-cutting companies paid their top executives an average of $12 million last year, according to a report released today.

The 50 U.S. chief executives who laid off the most employees between November 2008 and April 2010 eliminated a total of 531,363 jobs, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, a research group that works for social justice and against wealth concentration.

In "CEO Pay and the Great Recession," the institute said the $598 million in combined pay for the 50 executives would have paid one month's worth of average-sized unemployment benefits for each of the laid-off workers.

The top 50 layoff firms reported a 44 percent average profit increase for 2009, the report said.

"These numbers all reflect a broader trend in Great Recession-era Corporate America: the relentless squeezing of worker jobs, pay and benefits to boost corporate earnings and maintain corporate executive paychecks at their recent bloated levels," the authors wrote.

In the 17th annual executive compensation report, the institute once again focused on the gap between big-company CEO pay and average wages for American workers.

Last year, the report said, median CEO pay in the 50 largest U.S. firms was $8.5 million, or more than double the $4.1 million median in the 1990s. But the 2009 median was down from the $9.2 million median in the 2000-05 period.

In 2009, median CEO pay was 263 times the average pay of U.S. workers. In the 1970s, the CEO-to-employee pay ratio was about 30-to-1. The report noted that management guru Peter Drucker, who coined the term "knowledge worker" and was instrumental in shaping American management theory until his death in 2005, believed the ratio of pay between worker and executive should be no higher than 20-to-1.

Fred Hassan, former CEO of Schering-Plough, presided over announced layoffs affecting 16,000 workers after a 2009 merger with Merck. He resigned after the merger, receiving "golden parachute" compensation in 2009 of more than $49.6 million to rank as the highest-paid layoff leader.

To read the complete article, visit www.kansascity.com.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/01/99965/study-ceos-of-top-50-job-cutting.html#ixzz0yPslRFxq