I thought I found a fantastic way to keep American jobs from migrating overseas. Colorado legislators are pushing a state bill mandating that companies sending jobs overseas will lose their state contracts. It’s only fair that companies that make their money off taxpayer-supported government contracts not ship jobs to other countries, right? Is it fine for government to place stipulations on its contracts? After all, nothing compels you to accept the contract: its your choice.

I blew a gasket when the Reagan Administration forced states to lower their speed limit or lose federal highway funds. I suppose in that case I saw it as a matter of the federal government meddling in affairs of the states. It’s different when its government-to-contractor, isn’t it? Or is it?

What about government contracts that require drug testing? I am firmly opposed to drug testing, except in positions where the safety of the public could be at risk. What one does on one’s own time is no one else’s business. Yet, drug testing has become an ugly reality at many large companies because of government contracts which require drug testing of its contractors.

I’m thinking out loud (out blog?) here. So let me toss this out to the Peanut Gallery: is there a conflict between these two examples of contract stipulations? Is prohibiting companies that “offshore” from government contracts a good thing, or is it another example of government social-engineering?