Below is the text from Congressman's standard reply letter to his constituents concerned about shipping of Information Technology jobs offshore. Translation/comments/insertions by Vic Timoff appear in blue.
| Dear Mr. Timoff:
Thank you for contacting me regarding U.S.-based information technology (IT) companies moving off-shore to provide services. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
I get plenty of mail like yours, so I hired consultants from India to prepare my reply.
|Over the last fifteen years, the internet has drastically altered business practice and the international community. Today, the business world is more closely linked than ever before, opening new doors for enhanced free trade, exchanges of ideas, and positive relationships. As this global market continues to expand, companies in the United States are finding new methods to lower costs, increase production, and bring more reliable products and services to American consumers and trade partners worldwide.||I think computer professionals are being replaced by cheaper ones from other countries by way of the internet-dude whoever he is. A good thing too, since when you are jobless and have no income you may buy more reliable products from our foreign companies at greater savings for them.|
|Over the last half century, the textile and automotive industries have managed to lower costs and boost efficiency by moving some services to overseas locations. Citing similar cost savings and management advantages, many IT companies are investing millions to employ services in countries such as India, China, and Russia. Microsoft recently invested over $400 million to provide such services out of India, with a particular focus on software development and technology consulting.||We did away with our textile and automotive workers without a shred of remorse, and so we will with computer programmers. Microsoft took $400 million it squeezed out of America over to India, so it can make even lousier software at greater profit to them. Cheers to you Bill, and please make a donation to my campaign.|
|I am a strong supporter of free trade and open markets, and recognize the importance of U.S. companies' investment overseas. However, I share your concern that this investment may come at the expense of hardworking Americans. We must make every effort to expand our markets and encourage international participation, while maintaining sustainable job growth within the United States. While we must work to ensure American workers have viable job opportunities, the high demands of 24-hour service and consulting include the need for qualified providers. With over 60,000 customer service centers in North America, many U.S. companies are struggling to find enough qualified agents domestically, and are therefore looking offshore for services.||I do as the corporate lobby tells me to. But I want you knuckleheads to vote for me anyway. Please do cheer while those poor multibillion corporations spend your money offshore in their noble quest for cheaper labor. For sure, they need to look for the specialists abroad, because you here are incompetent lot. You elected me, didn't you?|
|As this issue progresses, I will continue to work with my colleagues to strengthen our domestic workforce, while encouraging investment abroad that will help not only stimulate our economy, but improve quality service and products here at home.||
The meaning of the passage on the left may be further clarified if you rearrange the words like so:
I will continue encouraging investment abroad that will not help our economy, improve quality service, and products here at home. But I will "as this" our domestic workforce with my strengthen stimulate progresses issue and colleagues to work to only while.
| Thank you for your thoughts on this important issue. Please feel free to contact me again should any other issues of importance to you come before the Congress.
Mark Steven Kirk
Member of Congress
|I am positive you will vote for me again because both my last and first name end with "rk".|
Truly, there is very little to add. The letter is explicit enough, so my comments aren't really necessary. The essential message of the reply letter to the concerned constituent is: "screw you". I am only curious as to why the congressman bothered to send a reply like that at all? Are we really that stupid?