Just as public works projects launched by FDR put millions of unemployed people to work during the Great Depression, the Obama administration has pushed to invest billions in public works projects to create jobs for millions of today’s unemployed. But many of the dollars that are intended to create those jobs are instead creating jobs overseas.

As President Obama said in a speech in September, “Building a world class transportation system is part of what made us a economic superpower. And now we are gonna sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads at a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?”

But when California received over $7 billion in federal funds in order to construct the state-of-the-art San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, significant portions of the bridge’s construction were set to be manufactured in China. China Construction America has become a frequent presence in New York City after it was put in charge of a $407 million project to renovate the Alexander Hamilton Bridge. The Alaska Railroad Company is flirting with the using part of its $190 million in federal funding to build the Tanana River Bridge Crossing to outsource work to a Chinese company.

Due to lax labor standards in China, many American companies continue to lose construction bids because they are unable to match the Chinese companies’ drastically lower prices. “There is no way that American workers will be able to ever compete with $12 a day,” said Bob LaVenture, a district director for the United Steelworkers Union, in an interview with NPR.

Contracting infrastructure projects abroad has significantly undermined our efforts to rebuild our economy by reducing domestic unemployment and revitalizing our manufacturing base. In California alone, where unemployment is projected to remain above 10% this year, outsourcing in public workers projects is estimated to have cost some 3,000 jobs.

Foreign sourcing of government-funded projects has been discouraged for over 70 years through Buy America legislation, which sets sourcing requirements to federal procurements. But in many cases legally required commitments to American workers have been subverted through elaborate loopholes. One significant way that domestic agencies have avoided their commitments is through a process known as “segmentation.” This involves agencies cutting large projects into numerous segments, some of which would only receive state funding and therefore not be subject to Buy America restrictions. In the case of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, the job was split into nine parts, only two of which were restricted by Buy America provisions.

That is the reason for an amendment proposed today by Senators Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, to a transportation re-authorization bill now pending on the Senate floor. The amendment would eliminate the “segmentation” loophole, require annual reports documenting the use of Buy America waivers and make adherence to international labor laws more stringent. It is on a list of amendments that were scheduled for a vote Thursday afternoon. (See Dave Johnson’s post urging calls to the Senate.)

Passing this amendment is critical to the goal of ensuring American taxpayer dollars support American industry and American jobs.

Today, as millions of Americans have coalesced to demand the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes, one crusader, pledge in hand, stands in the way: Grover Norquist.

In honor of tax day, protesters met in front of the offices of the Norquist-founded Americans for Tax Reform to demand progressive tax reform. They expressed their discontent with signs and a variety of popular tunes reworked as protest jingles, such as “Someday Grover Won’t Reign So” in the tune of “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.”

For more than 25 years Norquist has staunchly fought any form of tax increase as head of Americans for Tax Reform. Armed with his “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” Norquist has amassed a legion of 236 House members and 41 senators who refuse to raise taxes even in the face of growing wealth inequality.

The crowd booed in disapproval as Chuck Collins, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, denounced Norquist’s involvement in filibustering the popular Buffet Rule, which would tax unearned income at the same rate as wages. “We object to there being a two-tier tax system in America: one tax system for the very wealthy 1 percent and a couple thousand global corporations and another tax system for everybody else,” Collins said.

For members of the GOP, taking the pledge is a rite of passage. Once they have signed their lifelong commitment, they know that as far as tax issues go, they can enjoy the support of over 90% of their Republican compatriots. However, if they ever decide to break their pact for any reason, they will face inevitable political suicide.

A recent study by Michael Tomz of Stanford and Robert Van Houweling of Berkeley shows that politicians who sign the pledge are more likely to gain support, and those who break it are more likely to be defeated come election time, even when voters support higher taxes.

In cases where only one candidate had signed the pledge, “the pledged candidate would maximize his vote by maintaining an anti-tax stance unless at least 98% of voters wanted higher taxes,” the study says. In this scenario, it appears that voters are attracted to the candidate who makes the pledge, even if they would support some tax increases.

And for candidates who dare to break the pledge, “The adverse response is so strong that many people will vote against a pledge-breaker, even if that candidate best represents their views,” the study says.

Norquist’s pledge has taken on a life of its own. Despite overwhelming popular support for tax increases as a means of cutting the deficit, politicians who advocate the contrary continue to remain in office.

The anti-pledge coalition, which includes groups such as the Center for American Progress, American Federation of Government Employees, Campaign for America’s Future, the AFL-CIO and scores of others, highlighted how tax fairness is beneficial to the 99 percent, as well as the wealthy.

Since Norquist began his crusade, the United States has seen widespread tax cuts, such as those put in effect by the Bush administration, while military spending has continued to grow. According to Brown University’s “Cost of War” report, the U.S. government is estimated to have spent between $3 trillion and $4 trillion in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Higher war expenditures coupled with less tax revenue leave less and less money for public services that are necessary for maintaining the economy.

Self-identified 1 percenter and Columbia Business school professor Eric J. Schoenberg put the matter in perspective. “It is impossible to create wealth without a good system of public schools to provide an educated work force; without soldiers, policeman and fireman to provide security; without a transportation infrastructure to provide access to a national market of customers,” he said.

For more information on how you can get involved in fighting Norquist’s pledge you can visit stopthepledge.org.

Last year, for a brief moment, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s popularity soared as he unveiled his audacious deficit reducing budget. His proposal maintained tax cuts for the wealthy and defense spending while dismantling important programs for lower- and middle-income families, particularly Medicare.

On Monday, he released his new federal budget proposal. Although there are several changes, for the most part it is just more of the same. He continues to allow “job creators” freedom from taxes while eating away at such essential programs as Medicaid, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the former Food Stamp program) and Medicare.

Fearing the loss of crucial services, there has been an immediate public outcry. On Monday, in defiance of Ryan’s plan to sequester social services, a coalition of health care advocates for seniors gathered to give a middle-class prebuttal to Ryan’s budget.

The gathering featured community leaders who advocated for the millions of Americans whose lives would be most directly affected by Ryan’s budget. “We expect that this budget will severely cut programs for low-income people, seniors, women, people with disabilities and people from communities of color,” said Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President of the Leadership Conference.

Ryan’s previous proposal sought to completely privatize Medicare by transforming it into a private insurance voucher program. Perhaps due to public backlash, Ryan has amended his new plan to in which vouchers would compete with a form of traditional Medicare. “All plans, including the traditional fee-for-service option, would participate in an annual competitive bidding process to determine the dollar amount of the federal contribution seniors would use to purchase the coverage that best serves their medical needs.”

Kaiser Health News reported this week that “some critics are already arguing that the government-administered option would not be affordable and that it could cause doctors to leave the program. Critics have argued that the government-run plan would attract the sickest people, driving up its costs, while private plans would lure the healthiest.”

Opponents of the plan claim that the constraints in the Republican budget on health care funding will not be able to keep up with the growing health care needs of the increasing numbers of older Americans. Frank Stella, President of the MD/DC Alliance for Retired Americans, lamented, “Like most people over 65, I know that I am going to need more and more health care as I get older,” something that will become increasingly unaffordable under Ryan’s budget.

Members of the committee expressed their outrage over Ryan’s insensitivity to the disproportionate effect his plan would have on lower and middle- income families. “Chairman Ryan might be able to live fine with his budget, but the communities represented by the leadership conference don’t have these same options,” Zirkin said, calling for action against the budget proposal.

In the coming weeks, groups such as the Leadership Conference, the Alliance for Retired Americans and Strengthen Social Security will continue to engage in grassroots mobilization and lobbying to defend essential services such as Medicare. The Republican budget is expected to be voted on in the House as early as next week, so there is time for you to tell your member of Congress to oppose the Ryan Republican budget.