Last week I posted about Jim Walsh siding with big business over hard working taxpayers by allowing companies that are set up outside the US to avoid taxes to collect government contracts. Jim voted against this amendment:
An amendment to prohibit the use of funds from being made available to enter into any contract with an incorporated entity where such entity's sealed bid or competitive proposal shows that such entity is incorporated or chartered in Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua, or Panama.
Then a commenter, upsttate guy, pointed out that Jim had sponsored a similar in aim recently, so I found it:
To amend title 10, United States Code, and title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act to require certain prospective government contractors to employ at least 50 percent of their employees in the United States.
So what's the difference, or is Jim just being Independent of himself again?