PDA

View Full Version : Bush Repeals Steel Tariffs



Seoulstriker
12-04-2003, 12:47 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,104801,00.html


Bush Repeals Steel Tariffs

Thursday, December 04, 2003



WASHINGTON — President Bush on Thursday lifted virtually all tariffs he imposed on foreign steel in March 2002.

But the president will soften the blow on the domestic steel industry by announcing new measures designed to protect against unfair foreign competition, Republican and industry officials said Thursday.

"The decision I make will be based upon my strong belief that America's consumers, the American economy, is better off with a world that trades freely and a world that trades fairly," Bush told reporters Thursday during an Oval Office photo session with Jordan's King Abdullah II (search).

"I acted to give the steel industry time to adjust. I acted in time for us to say to the world that we will trade but we want to trade in a fair way. And the decision will be announced here shortly," he added.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan (search) said Thursday that something will be announced "soon."

The White House asked key lawmakers from steel states to return to Washington for a briefing at the White House Thursday morning so they could be informed before the administration made Bush's decision public.

But when asked if anyone at the White House had been talking to lawmakers, McCllelan said he was not aware of official meetings with lawmakers or of phone calls being made.

Avoiding a Trade War

The administration was acting to avert a threatened trade war with Europe and other big trading partners. Those nations had vowed to retaliate with punitive tariffs on American products unless the steel tariffs were removed.

The World Trade Organization (search) had ruled the tariffs must be lifted and the 15-nation European Union is threatening retaliatory sanctions against $2.2 billion of American products if the tariffs aren't lifted by Dec. 10.

Japan and South Korea have also said they were considering retaliation.

The EU carefully chose its target list to cover a range of products from oranges to pajamas that would inflict maximum political pain in key swing states that Bush is hoping to win in next year's presidential race.

Bush had to choose between angering businesses in those states or steelmakers in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, also considered crucial to his re-election chances.

A study by the U.S. International Trade Commission last September concluded the tariffs had accomplished many of their goals in getting the domestic steel industry to consolidate and restructure. The Bush administration believes the tariffs have helped the steel industry get back on its feet.

The tariffs were also a diminishing benefit, politically. The Steelworkers Union has already endorsed Democratic Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri for president, and the higher cost of steel was drawing complaints from the manufacturing sector, which Bush is anxious to see make its own recovery. Bush will promise to monitor steel imports to make sure they don't surge again.

The tariffs were imposed when the domestic industry was staggering from a string of bankruptcies and thousands of lost jobs that the industry blamed on a surge of foreign imports.

Among the proposals being considered by the administration was making permanent early reporting requirements to detect any big influx of steel into the United States.

That requires steel importers to apply for import licenses, giving the government a quicker way to detect possible import surges than waiting for Customs Service data when the steel arrives at U.S. ports.

The administration also was expected to pledge an aggressive use of U.S. anti-dumping laws to impose tariffs on specific steel products should imports surge once the tariffs are lifted.

The Bush package was also likely to include pledges to continue pursuing global negotiations aimed at getting other countries to limit government subsidies for their domestic steel producers and to curb overcapacity in the steel industry.

Those talks, under way since 2002, so far have yielded little, and many trade experts don't hold out much hope that other countries will agree to U.S. demands in this area, given the political power their own steel industries wield.

A key discussion on the steel issue occurred Tuesday night when Bush met in the Oval Office with Vice President **** Cheney, Commerce Secretary Don Evans and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick. Bush had just returned from a fund-raising trip to Pittsburgh, where he encountered last-minute lobbying from the steel industry urging him not to lift the tariffs.

Bush raised $850,000 for his re-election campaign at the fund-raiser, where one of his hosts was Thomas J. Usher, chief executive of U.S. Steel Corp., the nation's largest steel producer. Usher met with Bush to urge him to retain the tariffs.

Brink Lindsey, a trade expert at the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank, said the package the administration was assembling to replace the tariffs amounted to little more than a fig leaf for the domestic industry.

"The existence or nonexistence of an import monitoring system is not going to make that much difference," he said. "And the pledge on more international talks is lip service as well. The talks haven't gone very far and they are not likely to go very far."

Evans is scheduled to discuss the steel tariff issue on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on Thursday.

wholagun
12-04-2003, 01:23 PM
Japan and South Korea have also said they were considering retaliation.

The EU carefully chose its target list to cover a range of products from oranges to pajamas that would inflict maximum political pain in key swing states that Bush is hoping to win in next year's presidential race.


They forgot to put China in there as well.

Don't you love it when politicians make political decisions that benifit themsevles. Although free trade is better for the whole country's economy, Im still willing to bet that people in the Pittsburg will still be pissed. Now if you'd kindly do the same with softwood lumber we'd be the best of friends :hug:

Mr Gently Benevolent
12-04-2003, 01:27 PM
Good to know that GW has reverse gear it may come in handy some time.

Durandal
12-04-2003, 01:47 PM
[quote]They forgot to put China in there as well.


China is a world unto itself. Scary too.

They do not tag the chian to anyone's currency and determine its value in a seemingly arbitrary fashion.

I would love to see Canada and the United States (the two countries that are the primary food suppliers to China) to simply force them to play ball...balance the import/export field as well as reognize copyright, patent, and trademark laws.

I mean, China rips off (NORINCO, which is the same thing as saying China) the M16/M4/AR15 design (massively illegal) and then LICENSES a plant to the Iranians. Where is the logic here? A 1/4 of China's business both internal and out would be considered a violation of some other countries' laws.

wholagun
12-04-2003, 01:54 PM
Now im not an economics major, but I took economics last year at univesity and I learned that whenever you have any type of trade barriers be it protectionism or trade quotas then there is loss. The only way to prevent this loss is, you guessed it free trade. Its better for everyone US and the trading partner(s) if free trade exists not protectionism which only protects a tiny minority of the entire economy.

wholagun
12-04-2003, 01:56 PM
I would love to see Danada and the United States (the two countries that are the primary food suppliers to China) to simply force them to play ball...balance the import/export field as well as reognize copyright, patent, and trademark laws.

I mean, China rips off (NORINCO, which is the same thing as saying China) the M16/M4/AR15 design (massively illegal) and then LICENSES a plant to the Iranians. Where is the logic here? A 1/4 of China's business both internal and out would be considered a violation of some other countries' laws.


If im not mistaken, I believe it was the US that wanted China in the WTO more then anyone because of the HUGE new market it brought with it. Personally I'd be more then happy to see China out of the WTO for a couple more years. The currency is a good point, the same goes for Japan although there are signs that is changing.

Durandal
12-04-2003, 02:17 PM
Now im not an economics major, but I took economics last year at univesity and I learned that whenever you have any type of trade barriers be it protectionism or trade quotas then there is loss. The only way to prevent this loss is, you guessed it free trade. Its better for everyone US and the trading partner(s) if free trade exists not protectionism which only protects a tiny minority of the entire economy.

In theory, yes. If ALL things were equal the theory would be quite sound.

Now do not get me wrong. I am a Libertarian, whichis like saying I believe in controlled anarchy. :)

The problem is, that all things ar not equal. Not every economy in this world is equal or even close. Jobs go elsewhere because it is cheaper to produce good there and your economy buys at lesser prices. In many ways, Americans, demanding high salaries and befits from their employers have caused part of the problem we are seeing today. We are not willing to pay fair market value for an item. Instead we want cheap goods. Unfortunately you cannot have both at least onthe scale we are talking.

The fact that China deliberately deflates the value of the chian (their dollar) simply demonstrates this. Now you have foreign textile companies in China and Indonesia shipping thier jobs to Russia because it si actually cheaper to hire labor there thean intheir countries....which amazed me. I think I read that in the "Economist" about 8 months back....I'll see if I cannot find the article to directly quote from.

Ultiimately, a free economy works for a business or a natio with a lesser valued dollar/economy. When you are on top, like the United States is currently, it hurts you. A Free Market Economy is a truly Capitalist model tha ignores the imprtance of a nation. Companies will profit enormously by it why nations perish.

I guess it depends on what you value. :|

Durandal
12-04-2003, 02:31 PM
If im not mistaken, I believe it was the US that wanted China in the WTO more then anyone because of the HUGE new market it brought with it. Personally I'd be more then happy to see China out of the WTO for a couple more years. The currency is a good point, the same goes for Japan although there are signs that is changing.

Yes, we did...well I am not too sure as far s the WTO is concerned. I follow our politics and check the G7 Summit reports/papers which is a different ball of wax, though all related, I think, to some degree.

I think the United States should have never given China a "most favored nation" status. I am still not understanding why my government deals with China. The country is filled with xenophobic, super nationalistic, totalitarianists. I studied China for years...3 years of the language in high-school, and 2 in college. It was like stufying the Soviet Union and Russian inthe 60s....super important, becaus I understood where the market was, even at the age of 15.

I was rivoted to CNN when they started covering Fang Lizhi and the movement that e started which would end in a massacre of THOUSANDS at Tiananmen Square adn the surrounding neighborhoods. When this happened I vowed I would never be a supporter of China until there was a government freely elected by the people.

China scares me. Here we have the largest concentration of citizens withint he borders of one nation. The economic power behid that alone is awesome. Fortunately, their military might, as strong as might be in actual manpower, sucks on a whole. America gets the brunt of the anger in regards to tariffs and unfair trade practices, but ultimately China is the nation we need to be concerned with.

As far as Japan goes...well, the United States voluntarily decided to keep their economy from coompletely collapsing. America is keeping Japan afloat and out of a depression.

James
12-04-2003, 05:11 PM
"The decision I make will be based upon my strong belief that America's consumers, the American economy, is better off with a world that trades freely and a world that trades fairly," Bush told reporters

Yeah, that's why he lifted the restrictions... :roll:

martinexsquaddie
12-04-2003, 06:17 PM
he backed down for 2 reasons
one it made no economic sense and actually hurt more US firms than it supported due to higher steel costs all round
two WTO ruled it broke laws and the EU had the right to enforce Tariffs
to the tune of 2 billion and the french got to choose the Tariffs Florida oranges and Harleys were top of the list :lol: the whole idea was to give Bush maximum bad publicity well doing the EU littel real harm

ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
12-04-2003, 06:24 PM
"The decision I make will be based upon my strong belief that America's consumers, the American economy, is better off with a world that trades freely and a world that trades fairly,"

Ummm so ya thats why you guys tax the **** outta our Canadian wood there for decapitating our industry in B.C. Thanks alot Mr Bush, if thats "free trade" I dont want none of it.

Durandal
12-04-2003, 06:34 PM
"The decision I make will be based upon my strong belief that America's consumers, the American economy, is better off with a world that trades freely and a world that trades fairly,"

Ummm so ya thats why you guys tax the **** outta our Canadian wood there for decapitating our industry in B.C. Thanks alot Mr Bush, if thats "free trade" I dont want none of it.

Wasy now, the idea is that it does not and there for needs checks and balances...

*giggle* But yeah, I hear ya.

ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
12-04-2003, 06:41 PM
Glad to see Durandal is seeing what im getting at. I dont mean to be an ass about it but im glad my point got across. :P