When American companies get bailouts, do Americans get the jobs?
The Latin American Herald Tribune has just reported that General Motors plans to invest $1 billion in its operations in Brazil. The Tribune quotes Jaime Ardila, president of GM Brazil-Mercosur, as saying that the money will come from the aid package GM is expecting from the U.S. government.
Boosting employment in Brazil is a worthy cause, no doubt. But did American taxpayers know that was how their money would be used?
Then there are the banks. The Associated Press reports that the 12 banks that got the biggest government bailouts asked for some 22,000 visas for foreign workers over the last six years, including visas for people they hoped to hire as senior vice presidents and corporate lawyers. As the economy tanked last year, they asked for more such visas—almost 1,000 more in 2008 than in 2007, though the number of such workers laid off last year should have meant that there were no shortages of prospective employees here at home.
Then there's the flap several American corporations, especially large exporters, have started up around what they call the "protectionist" prohibition against using foreign steel in the works projects to be paid for by the stimulus package before Congress. The brouhaha overlooks two things. First, President Obama didn't invent that rule; it's a longstanding law that federally financed works projects here must use American steel. Secondly, the objections overlook the fact that tax money is different from profits earned in the private sector. Telling corporations what they can buy with their own money is protectionism. It's not at all the same as using American tax dollars to support the U.S. economy—not the economies of foreign countries—and to help the Americans who pay those taxes get and keep jobs.
How much will the bailouts for American businesses help the American economy if the jobs they finance don't go to Americans?
