Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush Expected to Lift Steel Tariffs
AP ^ | 12/4/03 | MARTIN CRUTSINGER

Posted on 12/04/2003 6:40:19 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush likely will lift steep tariffs he imposed on foreign steel 20 months ago but soften the blow on the domestic steel industry by announcing new measures designed to protect against unfair foreign competition, congressional and steel industry officials say.

The White House asked key lawmakers on the steel issue to return to Washington on Thursday, and a formal White House announcement was expected to come after they had been briefed.

White House officials refused to discuss details of the president's decision, but congressional and steel industry officials, who spoke Wednesday on condition of anonymity, said they expected Bush to remove the tariffs in order to avoid the imposition of retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of American products.

The 15-nation European Union has vowed to retaliate against $2.2 billion of American products by mid-December unless the United States removes the steel tariffs, which were ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.

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.

That put Bush in the difficult position of being forced to choose between angering businesses in those states or steelmakers in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, also considered crucial to Bush's re-election chances.

At the same time, Bush's original tariff decision in March 2002 had unleashed a barrage of criticism from steel consuming industries that claimed the higher prices they were forced to pay cost more jobs than were saved at U.S. steel plants.

Steel industry officials said the administration was reviewing a number of proposals to soften the blow of lifting the tariffs, which Bush had imposed at a time 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.

The reporting program 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. antidumping laws to impose tariffs on specific steel products should imports surge once the tariffs are lifted.

The administration package also was expected 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 Dick Cheney, Commerce Secretary Don Evans and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick after returning 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 Pittsburgh 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."



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: steeltariffs

1 posted on 12/04/2003 6:40:19 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection; clamper1797; sarcasm; BrooklynGOP; A. Pole; Zorrito; GiovannaNicoletta; ...
Ping

On or off let me know
2 posted on 12/04/2003 6:52:17 AM PST by harpseal (stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
... but soften the blow on the domestic steel industry by announcing new measures designed to protect against unfair foreign competition,...

Why didn't he do that in the first place?

3 posted on 12/04/2003 6:58:00 AM PST by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Always on.

Bush, unlike the left, must pull away from the past and allow for progress. I don't understand why he signed the Medicare bill and is now dropping this.

4 posted on 12/04/2003 7:00:28 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freedomcrusader
Agreed. These tariffs were a bad idea under Ronaldus Magnus, and a bad idea under W.
5 posted on 12/04/2003 7:00:37 AM PST by Andyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I'm also glad he's going to open up forests for "protective" logging. Hopefully that will add some supply to the wood shelves and lower the very high prices.
6 posted on 12/04/2003 7:05:11 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Bush, unlike the left, must pull away from the past and allow for progress. I don't understand why he signed the Medicare bill and is now dropping this.

Because he's a politician, and politicians buy votes with tax dollars.

7 posted on 12/04/2003 7:13:22 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
What do you believe he needed to buy in order to win?
8 posted on 12/04/2003 7:14:51 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
It was intended to be temporary from the get go. I don't know if they will be dropped or kept, probably dropped, but they would have been dropped eventually anyway. Might as well be now.

Just so long as they accomplished the intended goal, no crying here.

9 posted on 12/04/2003 7:41:47 AM PST by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
What do you believe he needed to buy in order to win?

Votes (and money) from the people this Medicare bill ladels largesse to.

10 posted on 12/04/2003 7:42:33 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Basically it looks like Bush is caving to the hard core socialists on this one. HE should have countered any tariffs by other nations with tariffs on their products until they got the message we will not be a victim in the trade war.
11 posted on 12/04/2003 7:43:42 AM PST by harpseal (stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
What?!?

Ok, first of all, tariffs are anti-capitalist.

Ah, yes, getting the United States involved in a trade war. I've always thought the Great Depression built character. Often times, I've said to myself, "Self, why can't we have another President that exercises foreign policy in a way that would drive our economy into the ground and completely destroy our export trade with other countries, bringing on a second, even larger Great Depression? Damn the world for such unfairness!"

Have you ever thought of running for President? You'd definitely get my vote.
12 posted on 12/04/2003 7:50:20 AM PST by Viva Le Dissention
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
How do we artificially create economy?

Some of these countries exist through "grants" from America, why would we continue them?

13 posted on 12/04/2003 7:55:49 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Andyman
These tariffs were a bad idea under Ronaldus Magnus, and a bad idea under W.

The US should determine the extent of subsidy for each importing nation and slap a tariff of that amount on each load of steel from that nation. If nations want to subsidize their industries, that's fine. But they should not be allowed to dump their sub-cost product in the US.

If the subsidies were just being marked back up for US shipments, you can bet that foreign producers would stop subsidizing US shipments so they could keep that money in their treasuries rather than ours.

14 posted on 12/04/2003 8:04:18 AM PST by gridlock (Eliminate perverse incentives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
I almost wrote what you wrote to harpseal but you did it so much better than I would have.

Kudos. However, a picture of Archie and Mrs. Bunker at the piano singing "We could really use a man . . . " would have been a nice touch.
15 posted on 12/04/2003 8:07:39 AM PST by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (Raise Taxes on Oil. Lower Taxes on Income)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro
I'm also glad he's going to open up forests for "protective" logging. Hopefully that will add some supply to the wood shelves and lower the very high prices.

Lumber prices are high? Mills are closing left and right as they can't make a profit.

The wood that's going to be taken out of these forests is the crap that no one wants. You can't sell brush, nor rotting wood. It might make good firewood.
16 posted on 12/04/2003 8:26:07 AM PST by lelio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: lelio
NFN - Why Are Lumber Mills Really Shutting Down- http://www.nativeforest.org/campaigns/public_lands/lm_2_23_03.htm
Posted on Sun, Sep. 21, 2003 story:PUB_DESC
Lumber prices soar, but effect is muted

Inquirer Real Estate Writer

Unless you and your family are loggers, the price of lumber isn't usually a topic of dinner table discussion.

But it is definitely a talking point among builders and U.S. and Canadian officials and the logging industries there.

There are a number of issues, all related to lumber price and availability and how they relate to construction costs, especially for new homes.

One immediate concern has been the hefty increase in the price of plywood and the wood-composite product oriented strand board (OSB), both of which are used in residential construction as sheathing.

Random Lengths, of Eugene, Ore., which tracks lumber prices, reported that structural-panel prices reached $535 per 1,000 square feet on Sept. 12.

North-central 7/16-inch OSB was commanding $445 per 1,000 square feet, according to Random Lengths.

It reported Aug. 22 that OSB's "historic price run reached stratospheric levels as producers aggressively raised quotes, often several times per day."

The price per 1,000 square feet of OSB on Aug. 22 was only $374.

The increase is attributed to wildfires that have destroyed thousands of acres of timberland in British Columbia and interrupted logging operations.

Combined with continued strength in the U.S. residential-construction market and the weakness of the dollar compared with currencies from countries other than Canada from which plywood is imported, notably Brazil, price increases in structural paneling have surprised just about everyone.

Another factor is involved in the increased demand, although more has been made of it than seems to be justified, considering the overall picture: The U.S. Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia recently purchased about 20 million square feet of plywood for shipment to Iraq.

That is a fairly small amount; annual consumption of plywood in this country totals about 16 billion square feet.

Although stocks of structural-panel producers have benefited from the price increases, do not expect the situation to last much longer.

"I think the price hikes will end and be partially reversed in the next few months, provided that we don't have a big hurricane," said economist Michael Carliner of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).

Russell Taylor, publisher of Wood Markets, an industry newsletter in Vancouver, British Columbia, thinks the long-term outlook for OSB prices is good for consumers but not so great for the industry.

"The next three-year period could become quite bleak for OSB prices if current plans to 'stay the course' occur," Taylor said - adding 7.5 billion square feet of capacity at 16 mills to chase "a U.S. demand scenario that is expected to show little growth."

A typical 2,000-square-foot house consumes 6,000 square feet of structural paneling, the NAHB says.

A year ago, Random Length's structural-paneling composite index was at $240 per 1,000 square feet, while OSB was $139 per 1,000 square feet.

Just going with the composite price, the 6,000 square feet that cost $1,440 in September 2002 was at $3,210 this September, about 21/4 times more expensive.

Every 2,000-square-foot house needs 16,000 board-feet of framing lumber such as 2-by-4s and 2-by-6s.

In September 2002, 16,000 board-feet, at $288 per thousand, cost $4,608. In September 2003, it was $382 per thousand board-feet, or $6,112.

Thus, the total cost of all lumber required for such a house has risen to $9,322 from $6,048 in a year, Random Lengths says.

Wood products account for about one-third of the total cost of materials used to build a house, NAHB says.

How have the increases affected area builders?

Plywood prices have risen 20 percent to 25 percent since July, said Marshal Granor, a principal in Granor Price Homes in Horsham, who described the gain as "extraordinary."

But long-term contracts with suppliers of OSB and roof trusses are preventing similar increases. "So, at Lantern Hill in Doylestown, the supply contracts for panels and trusses will remain in effect until that project is completed," he said. "For other projects, that may not be the case."

Increases in the prices of houses are based purely on the marketplace, not on higher materials costs, unless those costs are extraordinary, Granor said.

"In slow times, we tend to absorb the increases," he said. "Our contract has an escalation clause that [says] if the house hasn't been started and materials prices increase, we can raise the price of the house to compensate.

"We've never done it," he said.

As builders are quick to point out, houses are priced based on what people are willing to pay.

"It depends on how the builder prices his houses, but it doesn't necessarily follow that if your costs go up 7 percent, the buyer will be automatically willing to pay more," said Kira McCarron, vice president of marketing for Toll Bros.

"What a buyer pays not only depends on what he is willing to pay, but what the person down the road paid for a similar house with the same amenities," she said.

"Historically, materials prices tend to fluctuate," said Toll's senior vice president, Zvi Barzilay. "Because we deal directly with the mills, we can ease the effects of... increases a little bit."

What is concerning many builders are thefts of plywood from construction sites in the wake of rapid price increases.

Orleans vice president Gary Schaal said his subcontractors had warned the company's site superintendents that such thefts were occurring. Precautions are being taken, he said.

Instead of leaving materials on site at the close of the workday, some builders are moving panels inside and nailing them together. Others have increased security.

"These are not do-it-yourselfers who won't pay higher prices at the home centers, but professionals," Schaal said.

While plywood prices have risen owing to shortages, "Home Depot has contracts with our major supplier, Georgia Pacific, to ensure we continue to get the quantities we signed up for," spokesman Don Harrison said. "In addition, we know this is the peak time of year for hurricanes, so we stock up additional supplies..."

The current increase in structural-paneling prices mirrors the rapid rise of building materials' costs in the boom years of 1997-99.

In late 1999, the price of drywall, bricks, roofing materials, and insulation rose substantially because many manufacturers had reduced plant capacity in the recession of the early 1990s and had not retooled.

Builders did not raise their prices to compensate, and the shortages eased by spring 2000.

Also affecting current lumber prices is the Canada-United States Softwood Lumber Agreement that expired in March 2001.

The five-year agreement provided Canadian softwood-lumber exporters with guaranteed market access to the United States and a guarantee against U.S. trade action during its life.

The pact permitted the fee-free export to the United States of 14.7 billion board-feet per year of lumber first manufactured in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec.

Canada was required to collect fees when that limit was exceeded. As stipulated in the agreement, Canada gave export-level allocations to eligible companies annually. Lumber from the other provinces and territories was exempt and could enter the U.S. without permit.

After the U.S. and Canadian governments failed to extend or renegotiate the agreement, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled in May 2002 that the U.S. lumber industry was threatened with injury by imports from Canada.

The action triggered 27 percent tariffs on Canadian lumber imports, including 8 percent anti-dumping duties.

On Aug. 13, a North American Free Trade Agreement panel ruled that the International Trade Commission did not adequately explain or support its findings of a threat to the U.S. lumber industry, and gave the commission 100 days to reconsider.

The NAHB welcomed the decision, long contending that the tariffs would hurt both the industry and consumers. The Canadian government, too, welcomed the decision.

The Coalition for Fair Lumber, representing U.S. softwood producers, took another view.

"We can compete against any lumber industry in the world, but we can't compete against their government, too," said the group's chairman, W.J. Wood.



17 posted on 12/04/2003 10:28:18 AM PST by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Ok, first of all, tariffs are anti-capitalist.

Wrong tariffs are totally pro Capitalist look at the history of the USA from 1789 until Clinton.

Ah, yes, getting the United States involved in a trade war.

Actually if you had read the USITC initial reports on the dumping of subsidized steel in teh USA you would understand we are already in a trade war it is just the radical neo-liberals at the Cato institutute and teh Wall Street crowd along with the UAW are worried about the US winning such a trade war.

I've always thought the Great Depression built character.

I realy do not like the idea of another great depression so I would prefer tariffs to prevent such from coming to the USA. Your not going to bring up those old lies about teh Smoot hawley tariff causing something t hat was well underway before it was even defined let alone enacted.

... Often times, I've said to myself, "Self, why can't we have another President that exercises foreign policy in a way that would drive our economy into the ground and completely destroy our export trade with other countries, bringing on a second, even larger Great Depression? Damn the world for such unfairness!"

Well if we keep up with the present WTO lunacy we will have our econmony driven into the ground.

Now your obvious desire for more Clinton economics that transfers more and more wealth outside of the USA is not necessarily good for the USA.

Have you ever thought of running for President? You'd definitely get my vote.

As an American I could not run for President of India or China Which aparently are where your loyaties lie or else you are just totally ignorant of econmoiics and history.

18 posted on 12/04/2003 11:37:53 AM PST by harpseal (stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson