One and one for the day -- here's an editorial I agree with, on the reasonableness of "buy local" programs when they are voluntary, and their danger when they are government-imposed:
Proponents will argue that the measure itself is subject to local implementation, and could only come into play after several factors are weighed in, including location of the bidding business, where a majority of its payroll tax is paid, residence of a majority of employees, capital investments, and the like.
And they will note that the law applies only where the next bid is within 5 percent of bids under $50,000, 3 percent on bids between $50,000 and $100,000 and 1 percent for purchases expected to be at least $100,000.
As the editorial points out, even 1 percent of a $500,000 purchase is $5,000 put on the taxpayers' tab, and the Legislative Services Agency says the bill would have "an indeterminate impact" but one "potentially increasing costs." A lot will depend on the final language, whether it is a "may" or "shall" kind of a law. If I remember the bidding process in Indiana from my reporting days, it isn't always necesssary to choose the lowest bid. It is permissable to choose the "lowest and best" bid, so factors other than cost might be considered. So even with a new law, the situation might not be changed much.
In my personal transactions, I occasionally use a "buy local" policy if it involves a business I don't want to see leave the neighborhood. I'll pay a little more for, say, a dozen roses, or a pizza, if it will keep the flower shop down the street or the restaurant across the bridge in business. But on things I buy all the time -- a week's worth of groceries, for example -- price is more important than proximity. I guess I wouldn't be against a "buy local" official policy if I thought the state would use the same kind of common sense prioritizing, going local when it made sense and strictly for the price when that seemed wise. But I just used "common sense," "state" and "wise" in the same sentence, didn't I? Silly me.
