Protecting One at the Expense of Many

ATR ^ | 2011-09-19 | Kelsey Zahourek

[92nina]

...Unfortunately, the GSP expired in December 2010 and was never reauthorized due to the actions of one Senator. In February of this year, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, refused to lift a hold on the bill because he wasn’t able to insert a provision that would increase tariffs on Bangladeshi imports in order to protect Alabama sleeping bag manufacturers from competition. As a result of the Senator’s protectionist leanings, tariffs were raised on approximately 3,400 imports, affecting $23 billion in global trade. Well, Sen. Sessions is at it again. According to Roll Call:

"Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has enlisted the aid of an anti-free-trade group in his quixotic campaign to provide protections for an Alabama sleeping bag maker as part of a looming trade bill. In an eleventh-hour bid to add an earmark to the Generalized System of Preferences measure, Sessions has called in the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition — despite the fact that he has long been a supporter of free-trade deals that AMTAC has vehemently opposed."

Luckily, it appears Sessions efforts will be in vain. However, it must be acknowledged, no matter how fruitless, his actions can be described as nothing more than reckless. Passage of GSP is an essential part of the delicate path to bringing the pending agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama to a vote. These agreements are projected to bring hundreds of thousands of new jobs to America and countless cost savings for American consumers and businesses. With much of the focus in Washington on jobs and the economy, these agreements are more important than ever before. Yet, the Senator from Alabama apparently believes protecting a political ally is much more important than bringing lower prices to millions of Americans.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/protecting-one-expense-a6455#ixzz1YQ6yNDED

[92nina]

"Tonight, the Senate is scheduled to take up a procedural vote on the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), a program that allows certain products from less developed countries to enter the U.S. duty-free..."

Take this article and others I found to the fight to the Libs on their own turf; put the Left on the defensive at Digg and at Reddit and in Stumbleupon and Delicious

[WayneS]

These agreements are projected to bring hundreds of thousands of new jobs to America and countless cost savings for American consumers and businesses.

Who, exactly, is 'projecting' that allowing foreign manufacturers to bring more goods in to the United States without paying tariffs will "bring hundreds of thousands of new jobs to America"?

[WayneS]

I have to admit that the use of the word “looming” in the same paragraph with a reference to a textile manufacturer (sleeping bag maker), was somewhat clever (assuming it was intentional).

[92nina]

Yeah, the lack of citation by the author is a problem. I think the suggestion is one of reciprocal trade agreements, but there is no clear argument for it. Sen. Sessions’ (R-Al) actions bring up the debate that so divides the Republican party:

Should senators and representatives defend their locality’s industry, from foreign competitors who can sell a certain sales item at a lower price, with a tariff? Or, does this risk a trade war that could cause wider harm?

No easy answer, but while Conservatives are agreed against raising taxes, tariffs/excise-taxes versus free-trade still is unresolved.