At 10:59 PM 3/7/02 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
>1) I'd like to hear from everyone here who has an opinion, are
>you for or against this?
Well, I have an opinion, but on this issue I am particularly torn.
>2) Does anyone want to try to persuade me that this is actually
>a good idea?
Well, first let's be clear:
This is bad for the US economy.
This is bad for US consumers.
This is bad for US foreign relations.
This is bad for the US Steel Industry (yes, in the long term - this only
makes things worse for them, which means....)
This is bad for young US Steel workers (however few of them there may be.)
This is, however, probably good politics - which means that it may probably
be a good thing.
First, the bad stuff. This policy will make steel more expensive. That
will ripple through all sectors of the US economy that use steel -
basically every sector. Thus, consumers will be worse off by having to
pay more for all goods and services that use steel. Naturally, this is
also bad for US foreign relations - as nobody likes having tariffs slapped
on their exports - and thus, those countries are naturally quite upset with
us. (Actually, the best-case scenario here is that the EU takes us to the
WTO (a certitude), and the US loses (a strong possibility), and then Bush
takes the political poitns for trying in the first place, but then claims
that his hands are tied by the WTO Treaty, and complies with the WTO ruling
to remove the tariffs.)
And yes, this is even bad for the US Steel Industry. The problem with the
US Steel Industry is that just like every other country in the world - we
produce far more steel than our economy needs. Just as Economics 101
predicts, this makes the price of steel very, very, cheap. This is doubly
bad because most US steel is produced by out-dated mega-mills that are
grossly inefficient, compared to the newer and smaller micro-mills that can
produce steel much more efficiently. Unfortunately, these tariffs will
do nothing to correct these fundamental underlying problems. Thus, the
problem is just going to fester even longer, which will only make the
inevitable correction far more severe.
So, despite the fact that these move is bad for just about everybody
involved - it is good politics, and unfortunately, if we are truly to
believe in the principle of government for the people and by the people,
then we must concede that good politics may very well be a good thing.
Bush was elected by the narrowest of margins to the Presidency. Among the
deciding factors in Bush's victory was Bush's upset victory in
predominantly Democratic West Virginia. While campaigning in West
Virginia, Bush promised the large number of steel workers in that State
that they "would not be forgotten." Now, while this is an unfortunate
promise - it was almost certainly necessary for him to be elected President
(and if you lose the election there really isn't much point in being
principled, because if you lose - you're just not affecting anything
anyways.) Thus, Bush had to choose between being true to his ideological
principles or being true to a promise that he made to a group of people who
had the courage to no longer vote for their traditional Party, but instead
give Bush enough votes to be elected. (I should also point out that there
are huge numbers of Steel Workers in Pennsylvania, particularly the West of
Pennsylvania - which is another region that is crucial to Bush's
re-election hopes, and the hopes of the Republicans to gain a majority in
Congress.)
Moreover, there may actually be even bigger political fish to fry here.
Bush is currently seeking Trade Promotion Authority in Congress - which
passed the first round of voting in the House by a single vote. The
Washington Post has reported that this move may be the first stage of a
quid-pro-quo by Bush, that will ensure that he has just enough votes to get
TPA through Congress (from Congressmen with large steel constituencies) and
thus begin negotiations for a new WTO-round of trade talks as well as for
the Free Trade Area of the Americas.
In other words, this is the Catch-22 of democracy. You have a large group
of people who are advocating policies that in the long-run are actually
very bad for themselves, and bad for the country as a whole, but are very,
very, strongly commited to those policies. Invariably, this requires
trade-offs. In this case, steel tariffs arebeing traded off for ability
to negotiate much broader trade agreements that will produce a large net
increase in freedom of trade. Moreover, since my overriding priority is
to elect enough pro-life Presidents and Senators in order to grant all
children in this country the full protection of the laws, I recognize that
just like speaking at Bob Jones University, this is the sort of thing that
needs to be done in order to assemble coalitions in a democracy. Now,
while people may dismiss this as being simply "dirty politics", I'll just
point out that when we say "government by the people, for the people" this
is precisely the sort of thing that we mean.
(And God willing, Bush will get TPA through Congress, followed subsequently
by the US losing the case at the WTO, and the whole thing being dropped
anyways. :)
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Our campaign against international terrorism does not represent some
sort of 'clash of civilizations.' Instead, it is a clash between
civilization and those who would destroy it." -Amb. Richard N. Haass
