|
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0208030215aug03.story
Trade authority and tariffs
August 3, 2002
To date, President Bush's record on the trade front has
been dismal, marred by one act of protectionism after
another. But now he has in his grasp what he has sought
since entering the White House--the authority to cut trade
deals on the nation's behalf without fear that Congress
will pick them apart.
The Senate passed trade promotion authority Thursday as
one of its last acts before going on vacation, adding its
approval to that of the House. When he signs this bill,
Bush will regain a right every president since Gerald Ford
had been accorded until Congress refused to extend it for
Bill Clinton eight years ago. To be specific, the
president can negotiate trade treaties with other
countries. Congress can then vote them up or down--but
can't amend them.
Still, Bush has paid dearly for authority. In the name of
expanding trade, he moved to protect U.S. steel and lumber
industries and boost farm subsidies. That has increased
manufacturing costs and endangered jobs at a time when the
economy is threatening to stall again. His actions have
robbed the U.S. of the moral high ground on trade. If the
richest country in the world can't stomach the domestic
dislocations that go with expanding trade, how can other
much poorer countries be expected to do so?
To gain trade authority, Bush also agreed to major
increases in assistance for workers who lose their jobs
because of foreign competition--including tax credits for
health insurance and up to $10,000 per person, over two
years, as partial reimbursement for lost wages.
But in all these efforts to protect the purported victims
of trade, the Bush team completely ignores its
stalwarts--those Americans who actually engage in commerce
with the rest of the world, providing jobs and economic
growth. They're left to fend for themselves.
Take Lester Trilla as an example. He traveled to
Capitol Hill last month to explain what the president's 30
percent steel tariffs imposed in March have done to his
third-generation Chicago company. The bottom line: The
tariffs have cut off Trilla's supply of imported steel,
raised his costs by 54 percent, and threatened future
business and jobs at Trilla Steel Drum.
Those tariffs prompted a firestorm of retaliatory
threats from U.S. trading partners. The only reason they
haven't yet led to an all-out trade war with the European
Union is that the administration has been forced to grant
so many exemptions, the Europeans have so far been
mollified. In mid-July, the administration added
exemptions for another $60 million of European steel
imports, bringing the total to $290 million.
At home, the economic ripple effects have been severe. The
tariffs have caused spot shortages and price hikes for
companies that need steel to make their products, as
Trilla and others testified last month before the House
Small Business Committee.
Trilla Steel Drum makes those 55-gallon drums used to ship
everything from petroleum to food products. The South Side
company's 60 employees make one million drums a year--or
at least they did until steel tariffs "effectively
cut off our supply of the major raw material we
need," Trilla told the House committee.
"The steel tariffs were supposed to protect American
businesses and American jobs," testified Robert
Herrman, one of 400 workers at A.J. Rose Manufacturing, an
Ohio maker of precision metal components. "So why do
the steel mills deserve to stay in business more than A.J.
Rose?"
Good question.
The Bush White House argued that tariffs would give the
steel industry time to reorganize and become more
competitive. That's absurd. The big integrated companies
that make steel from iron ore, coal and limestone have
been steadily losing business for years--not just to
foreigners, but to more efficient domestic mini-mills that
use scrap as their raw material.
That process will continue, with or without tariffs.
Meanwhile companies like Trilla and A.J. Rose are bearing
the cost--and it's being paid in lost jobs and business.
The administration argues all of that was a necessary
price to advance the cause of free trade. It's now up to
the president to prove the trade authority was worth it.
Copyright © 2002, Chicago
Tribune
|
[trilla/_includes/whatsnew.htm]
|