It's a classic debate.  Should American lawmakers protect American jobs by requiring American tax dollars to be used to purchase only American goods and services?

      Those of us who grew up in Pittsburgh when steel was king are familiar with "Buy America" provisions.  These require that money from certain state and federal spending bills be spent on "American" products in order to keep good-paying jobs in America.   Foreign countries don't like these provisions, although many have similar ones in their own countries.  "Buy America" requirements are also opposed by some American companies that use cheap foreign labor to manufacture their products or that fear that a trade war might limit their chance to ship their U.S. made products overseas.

       President Obama insists that his economic stimulus bill is needed to protect American jobs, but the bill has a very weak "Buy America" provision.  That has earned the ire of some members of Congress, like U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy, who argues American economic recovery dollars should be spent on Americans, not Asians or Europeans.

      As it stands now, the House bill only requires "Buy America" for iron, steel, and other infrastructure material -- less than 10 percent of the bill's total dollar amount.  Critics like Murphy say the "Buy America" provisions should apply to automobiles, electronics, and most other manufactured goods.  The first Senate version of the bill did expand the "Buy America" provisions, but the latest version weakened the provisions.

      So what do you think?  Does it make sense to require federal tax dollars in an economic recovery bill be spent only on American goods and services?