At 05:05 PM 3/9/02 -0500 Erik Reuter wrote:
>Right. Here are some things that Bush could have done to help the steel
>workers and the industry, both short term and long term:
>
>1) Earmark Federal money for aid for steel workers in unemployment,
>medical, and retirement benefits.
>
>2) Set up facilities and earmark money for training steel workers in
>newer technologies or alternate career paths.
>
>3) Provide tax breaks or other incentives to the steel industry to
>modernize their facilities, invest in more efficient equipment, and
>retrain workers in the most modern and efficient technologies.
Well, those were almost certainly strongly considered by the Administration
but rejected. The reason for this is that a great many Economists,
politicians, and analysts were concerned that the above actions would set a
disturbing precedent and open a whole new can of worms. In addition, the
above solutions would require Bush to also sacrifice his principles of
believing in smaller government by authorizing the creation of a whole new
class of government programs and subsidies.
In addition, to violating his principles, it would have opened the door for
a wide variety of other industries to also beg for assistence. At least
in this case, the backlash makes it harder for other industries to try and
get tariffs on their industries as well.
>Instead, "free trade" Bush chose the spineless path of caving in to the
>steel lobbies and possibly starting a global trade war. He could have
>demonstrated leadership and vision by taking actions like those listed
>above, but Bush chose to do something that not only angers our allies at
>a time when we most need them, but will also raise prices for Americans.
>He could have chosen to take the first steps to make the American steel
>industry stronger, but Bush chose a path that will hurt both the steel
>workers and the steel industry in the long term, coddling them now and
>thus encouraging the industry to stagnate or fall apart in the future.
Well, lets please not exaggerate here.
Yes, there will be the usually puffery and rhetoric, and European
politicans will make the standard anti-American-imperialist comments for
the populace back home, but this is hardly disastrous. There will not be
a trade war, simply because a trade war will hurt everyone else as much as
it hurts us - and both sides are more intelligent than to let things spin
out of control. Additionally, the tariffs placed on the steel industry
are no different than a wide variety of other barriers in place on an array
of industries. The EU's disproporitionate subsidizing of agriculture
comes most prominently to mind in that regrad.
And finally, if this move opens the door for TPA in Congress - world tade
will end up being much freer because of this move 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
