BusinessWeek's article "Can Kerry Sell Kerrynomics?" might sound promising to anti-outsourcing activists. In Detroit, the city that is suffering astronomically from the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, he unveiled the $12 billion-a-year plan to create 10 million jobs by 2009 and to give tax credits and breaks for employers who hire domestically.

However, by not disclosing how he would fund his plans, caveat emptor! Average Americans may expect to have their taxes increased in various ways and government funding in other areas may need to be adjusted accordingly.

In the long-term, Kerry may even lead America and Americans to the brink of bankruptcy. Why?

First, the number of jobs outsourced overseas is very low (3.3 million) compared with the number of baby boomers who are retiring (15 million) by 2013. Thus, it is not true to name �outsourcing� the culprit of current slow economy growth.

Second, by having to deal with the consequences of increasing the job creative budget and giving tax incentives to employers, cuts may come from important sources, including but not limited to health care and education. This would translate into higher expenses need to come out from average Americans and employers.

Third, by imposing the anti-outsourcing law, retaliation from other countries is not inevitable. Being the largest outsourcing suppliers in the world, the United States would suffer. Not only the incoming revenue would decrease considerably, but also the nation�s credibility.

Fourth, the actual reasons for slow economy growth are plenty and outsourcing is not one of them. Refer to Robert Z. Lawrence�s article �The Slow Growth Mystery: Can We Cure the Cancer?� in Foreign Affairs.

Bottom line, Kerry needs to understand:

� The United States cannot afford not to become an outsourcing supplier for foreign countries
� The United States� job outlook is bright because more workers are retiring than being laid off because of outsourcing
� The United States cannot afford to lose more workers due to high health care cost, which can be resolved domestically
� The United States cannot afford to lose the trade battle in this global era due to wrong notions of modern capitalism

Using activism as a platform for presidential campaign apparently needs to be reconsidered. It might sound caring and current but the long-term impact doesn't sound promising to the candidate.

Caveat emptor, voter!