Rep. Saxton still out of touch with voters in NJ-3!

by: Jay Lassiter

Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 08:53:35 AM EST

( - promoted by jay lassiter)

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) 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.

Jay Lassiter :: Rep. Saxton still out of touch with voters in NJ-3!

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 affecting companies like 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 companies.

To 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.

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 WASHINGTOWN!! THERE IS A BETTER WAY!! RICH SEXTON FOR CONGRESS IN NJ-3!!!http://www.richsextonforcongress.com/

Tags: Dubai, Rich Sexton, Jim Saxton, NJ3, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Rep. Saxton still out of touch with voters in NJ-3! | 1 comments

Missing the point (0.00 / 0)

What Saxton and many other politicians are doing is missing the point badly. Now they are all playing a game of "I can be against 'foreigners' more than the next guy". The point was and is UAE ties to terrorism, not "every other country is untrustworthy". I have a question for Congressman Saxton: please name the foreign countries from which the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombers came. Next question: since people in the "east" seem so much scarier to you, because of this ideological divide, which eastern country was the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon against another country?

My point isn't to make points against the US, but to illustrate how ignorant isolationist thinking can be. My point is that you protect your ports and other infrastructure by determining what poses a threat and dealing with that threat, not by cutting off everyone who doesn't look like you or think like you.

DBK

by: DBK @ Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 17:57:56 PM UTC