Posted on 04/30/2003 7:22:23 PM PDT by jrushing
Imagine that you and I are in a rowboat. I commit the stupid act of shooting a hole in my end of the boat. Would it be intelligent for you to respond by shooting a hole in your end of the boat?
Or, imagine I were a politician and told you that the Russian, Chinese, Korean, Brazilian and German governments were ripping off their citizens by, on the one hand, taxing them to provide subsidies to their domestic steel industries and, on the other, erecting tariff barriers forcing them to pay higher prices for products made with or containing steel. Would you deem it responsible or intelligent of me to propose retaliatory tariff policy, whereby Americans are ripped off until Russia, China, Korea, Brazilian and German governments stop ripping off their citizens?
Both of these scenarios are applicable to the Bush administration's 30 percent steel tariffs imposed last year. Those tariffs caused the domestic price for some steel products, such as hot-rolled steel, to rise by as much as 40 percent. The clear beneficiaries of the Bush steel tariffs were steel industry executives, stockholders and the approximately 1,700 steelworker jobs that were saved.
Tariff policy beneficiaries are always visible, but its victims are mostly invisible. Politicians love this. The reason is simple: The beneficiaries know for whom to cast their ballots, and the victims don't know whom to blame for their calamity.
According to a study by the Institute for International Economics, saving those 1,700 jobs in the steel industry cost American consumers $800,000 in the form of higher prices for each steelworker job saved.
That's just the monetary side of the picture. According to a study commissioned by the Consuming Industries Trade Action Association, higher steel prices have caused at least 4,500 job losses in no fewer than 16 states -- over 19,000 jobs in California, 16,000 in Texas, and 10,000 in Ohio, Michigan and Illinois.
In other words, industries that use steel are forced to pay higher prices, the products they produce become less competitive and they must lay off workers.
The average hourly wage of steelworkers ranges between $15 and $20 plus fringe benefits, so we might be talking about an annual wage package averaging $50,000 to $55,000. Here's my question to you: How much sense does it make for American consumers to have to pay $800,000 in higher prices to save a $50,000- to $55,000-a-year job?
It'd make better economic sense for Congress to pass an Aid to Dependent Steelworkers Act, whereby we'd tax ourselves so as to give each of those 1,700 steelworkers, whose jobs were saved, $100,000 year so they might take off and live in a nice beachfront condo in Florida or Bermuda. While less costly to Americans than President Bush's steel tariffs, it has no political future. The handout would make the protectionist policies apparent and hence repulsive to most Americans.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says Congress has the authority "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." It wasn't the Framers' intent to give one group of Americans, such as those in the steel industry, the power to use Congress tax other Americans.
When Congress creates a special advantage for some Americans, it must of necessity come at the expense of other Americans. Those Americans who're harmed, such as steel-using industries, descend on Congress, asking for some kind of relief for themselves.
It all reminds me of a passage from Marcus Connelly Cook's play "Green Pastures," wherein G-d laments to the Angel Gabriel,
"Every time Ah passes a miracle, Ah has to pass fo' or five mo' to ketch up wid it."
I think Congress ought to get out of the miracle business.
We need to drop this tariff.
As you wish.[23:18 CDT]
There is certain value in retaining basic industry in this country. Since there is no way in Hell that our government will do the proper things to keep the steel industry healthy in this country: Reduce regulation, reduce taxation, eliminate pro-union/anti-free market laws that tilts the balance of negotiating power to greedy unions, relax overzealous environmental laws, etc.. Then the backup plan falls into play - that is do something Congress loves to do: Raise Taxes, Pander to Constituents, Lie like a rug about the collateral damage to the economy.
Ok, so what is this perceived value of keeping an industry at least on life support? This country is quickly eliminating those who know logging, mining, and oil drilling because these industries are deemed environmentally unfriendly and thus should be performed in countries that have no clue what environmentalism means. As a result of the killing of this industry, in the event that the US needs to log, mine, or drill for basic natural resources, there is not an industry to speak of that can quickly ramp up to speed with compentent talent and equipment.
The steel industry is considered to be one of those national security industries. Now you say "so what?" there is bound to be some country that will sell us steal. Are you sure about that? Steel doesn't come in just one flavor, and the technical staff and metallurgists who come up with exotic and potentially militarically strategic alloys aren't going to just sit on the bench and let their skills go to waste until this nation decides to build the next ultra-high-tech weaponry and doesn't want to give the Chinese the recipe to the super metal(just yet).
Are we forgetting about the impact that West Virginia and Tennessee had on the 2000 election?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.