No. of Recommendations: 1
Don't get me wrong - I would welcome if more conservatives would decide to support active and muscular governmental intervention in the economy if it is necessary to advance the collective interests of the nation, even if it requires spending a lot more government money. I just don't think there's as many takers on that side of the spectrum as you might think.
Sorry about Biggs. I voted against him, but the district is a bunch of MAGA-people (and a Mormon Temple). Though I'm seeing fewer "Trump" flags lately (don't know if that's significant).
I agree with pretty much everything you've said about governmental intervention. Not only to provide things that are in the interests of the nation to keep at home (e.g. high tech, PPE manufacture, and some heavy industry), but also intervention in the form of controlling corporations. The overturning of Chevron is a major blow to that. The only entity that can reign-in corporations is the government. Without that, it's a race to the bottom in terms of health and safety (both consumers, and workers).
The semi company I worked for ended up buying companies that had some military contracts. I heard at work that one issue -from a corporate standpoint- is that if the government/military needs you to produce more of whatever you contracted, they could force you to cease all other activities to produce just that chip. Not sure if it was true, but likely it was since I heard it from a senior QA person. So, not only do you want domestic manufacture, but you need to have companies contracted for production. I don't think the above scheme would work if you approached a non-contracted company and said "you're going to make this for us now".**
**Nevermind the issues with MIL spec adherence, which approved contractors are supposed to have incorporated already.
