in Uncategorized

Government Contract Stipulations

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?

  1. Not saying it’s a good thing but I believe it’s perfectly acceptible. The state has every right to put limits on their contracts. Now, if they taxed them extra because they went offshore that would be different. Or, if they said for every job you send offshore you have to hire one here then that would be social engineering.

    I’m cool with their policy.

    Scotty G

  2. MattFeath

    I read somewhere that the GOP has outsourced their fundraising to India … is there anything the repugnicans won’t do to destroy jobs in this country???

    Matt

  3. I read somewhere the Democrats are going to oursource their presidental candidate.

    Yeaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhh!

  4. You weren’t one of the nine mt.net readers yet, Matt, but I posted something about that back in August. Afterward, the GOP denied the report.

    This post stands out for me as it marked the first comment I got from a pirate. 🙂

Comments are closed.