Lowest price isn't always best choice

It would seem to me that if President Obama and our Congress were serious about job creation, that they would look at the Pentagon, the largest purchaser in the country and possibly the world, and not at a pizzeria.

The concept that we must buy only from the lowest bidder may be part of the problem. Take, for instance, Air Force refueling tankers. They also purchased some munitions from a young man who was supposed to have them made in some Third World country. The munitions received were left over from World War II.

Can't we supply munitions to our armed forces made in the United States? In some cases a foreign manufacturer may use "dump costing" which would result in the product costing more in the manufacturers country then the bid price to the U.S.

Finally, shouldn't some products be made in the U.S. regardless of cost? Let us assume that a foreign manufacturer came in with a bid on a couple of carloads of widgets $100,000 below the domestic bid. If the domestic supplier had to lay off 75 workers because he lost the contract and the volume necessary to keep all the workers employed, is that still a profitable purchase?

The state of California is in debt over their heads. For some strange reason, neither the Republicans or Democrats want to mine for the vast supply of oil that is off shore. There is no question that this would create jobs. There is no question that the royalty on the oil mined would give needed income to California. There is no question that this would help the balance of trade. There is some question if this would impact the price of gas at the pump. A different group of alleged speculators seem to control the price. It takes four or five years to bring the oil up. We have already wasted one year.

Wally Miller

Prospect Heights