That is right. Mr. Speaker, we have enticed so many people to come up to the public trough, that they have become accustomed to it. It is difficult to make the transition away from that trough. It has to be done. Mr. Speaker, politicians are not going to do it unless the American people say, hey, it is time. Cut spending. We are willing to tighten our belts to make some of the sacrifices so that our kids and our grandkids have the same chance of improving their lifestyle as we did. Davis-Bacon comes to mind. Davis-Bacon is coming up in the next several days. Davis-Bacon was enacted by Republicans in 1931 so that some lower-cost, black labor coming into New York could not get those construction jobs where there was any Federal money. So the law was passed, it kept the beginning wage-earners out of the marketplace for anything that government was contributing money towards constructing or building. The Congressional Record of 1931 reveals that one of its primary goals was to block southern minority contractors from obtaining New York construction jobs. Let me just give an example of the requirement of prevailing wage. The prevailing wage in Philadelphia for electricians averages $37.97 an hour, but the average wage actually paid by private contractors is $15 an hour. That has resulted in an overcost to the American taxpayer, and with the expenditures that we borrow from the United States, of $3.2 billion.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing government spending and the implications of the Davis-Bacon Act.
Share
More from Nick Smith
I would like to address certainly different issues that I think are possibly more serious than a lot of challenges this Congress has faced, this Nation has faced in fact. This is the 195th birthday of Abraham Lincoln, and in my district…
I was sitting up in my office listening, reading letters from constituents, letters that wanted more money for the AIDS program, letters that wanted more money over the approximately $29 billion that is going to our foreign support…
I oppose H.R. 2828, the California Water Bill because it preauthorizes wasteful projects. It forces federal taxpayers to pick up more than a $1.5 billion tab for a California-only project. It would not prevent taxpayers from getting stuck…
Well, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this is cut from one of the largest expenditures in the United Nations appropriations, that is, to the contributions to international organizations. I think the American taxpayer in general is not…





