I would like to call a truce between Congressman Faleomavaega and myself in the current war of words we are waging. I have raised some important points regarding our economic future that are being obscured in rhetoric about the value of our cannery workers. As far as I can see Faleomavaega and I are in agreement that they are valuable workers, okay? Enough said about that. Let’s not squabble over rhetorical devices.

What is at issue is the future of our economy and Faleomavaega’s efforts to seek federal assistance to strengthen it. I am concerned about the absence of job opportunities for our young people and the lack of effort to solve the problem. Our territory is facing a terrible economic downturn for which we are not ready. We are not prepared because our entire private sector economy is dependent upon a single industry that is facing problems that will, in all likelihood, cause it to seriously downsize further if not leave altogether.

The diminishment of our tuna industry is due to a variety of reasons, many completely out of our control. But what is more important is that we are depending on an industry that is failing internationally and has very questionable long-term sustainability.

We applaud our Congressman for his most heroic effort to salvage a nearly hopeless situation by promoting legislation that provides subsidies for this failing industry and asks the U.S. taxpayer to pay an estimated $25 million to support it. In addition, this same industry has for many years enjoyed substantial U.S. tax subsidies and will continue to do so for at least the next year.

But that is not enough.

My view is that Faleomavaega’s legislative package should contain elements based on the Interior Economic Development Study Commission recommendations that will diversify our economy and prepare us for a day when we no longer will have any tuna industry at all. Simply put, rather than beating this same dying horse, we need to follow the example of our Pacific neighbors who are moving forward with more sustainable industries that offer much brighter futures for young, ambitious people. We owe this to our children.

Our Tourism Bureau, for instance, has been graced with a mere $150,000 budget with which it is expected that our tourism will be miraculously and dramatically increased. That $150,000 is only about one-half of one percent of what is suggested the U.S. taxpayer provides to a dying industry.

I would be most interested to learn more about the $500,000 Faleomavaega says he sent here for a computer lab to be used for call centers. I am not aware of the existence of such a computer lab or any relationship it might have to any call center operation. To my knowledge, the Congressman has never mentioned this or offered this before.

As I point out, Faleomavaega will never be more influential than he is today as an early campaign supporter of a President enjoying high first-year popularity and as a senior member of the political party that controls Congress with leaders he considers close friends and allies. If he cannot get important legislation passed in these circumstances, when will he ever be better positioned? It is the argument that elected him by a handsome margin.

Since Faleomavaega himself acknowledges that his ASPIRE bill will need extensive revisions before it can advance, all I am asking is that it be broadened substantially so that it is a comprehensive piece of legislation that addresses both the immediate and long term economic problems we face.

In my original editorial I said: “We have the education systems, quality of life expectations and the burning desire to aspire to higher ambitions.” There is much that needs to be done and our Congressman is in a position to provide real leadership in this regard. Let’s get on with the task at hand and end the name calling.

John Newton