Posted on 11/23/2005 10:35:06 AM PST by BransonRevival
Amid its disarray last week, the House of Representatives did do one good deed: It included the repeal of the anti-trade Byrd Amendment as part of its budget reconciliation. The White House is also pushing repeal, so opponents are now hoping Senators (including a Republican who wants to run for President) will keep this protectionism alive.
"Byrd" is named after West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who snuck it into a 2001 spending bill without debate. The amendment gives companies that sue for "anti-dumping" relief any duties that the government imposes on foreign competitors. U.S. companies that decline to join any dumping petition don't get to share in the Byrd droppings. In other words, sue for protection and get rewarded; keep your nose to the grindstone and get zilch. In political terms, it's a perpetual-motion protectionism machine.
It also violates global trade rules that the U.S. has agreed to observe. The World Trade Organization declared that Byrd was illegal in 2002, and it has authorized the European Union and seven other countries to impose retaliatory tariffs on American goods. This May, the EU did just that, slapping a 15% tariff on imports of 10 kinds of U.S. apparel. Canada, Mexico, and Japan have also retaliated.
According to a study by the Government Accountability Office, a mere five companies have collected half of the $1 billion in Byrd money that has been doled out since 2001. The biggest winner by far has been Ohio-based Timken Company, maker of ball bearings, which pulled down a staggering $52 million in 2004. Another Ohio company, candle-maker Lancaster Colony Corporation, got $26 million. This sure beats having to win market share.
The Commerce Department is holding almost $5 billion in Byrd money while the U.S. litigates multiple Nafta panel rulings that say U.S. anti-dumping duties against Canadian lumber violate that trade agreement. Fourteen Georgia companies got $321,000 in Byrd money in 2004, but 12 of those are lumber companies, awaiting the Canada decision.
Which brings us to the Senate, which didn't include Byrd repeal in its version of the reconciliation bill that now goes to conference. Nonetheless, 20 GOP Senators recently signed a letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist threatening to oppose final passage of reconciliation if it includes Byrd repeal once it returns from the House.
We're not surprised to see the signatures of Ohio Senators Mike DeWine and George Voinovich or Georgia's Saxby Chambliss on that letter. They're flacking for their home-state companies (see above) and no one will mistake them as Presidential timber. The really surprising name on the list, however, is George Allen, the Virginia Republican who has become the darling of some conservatives as they contemplate life after President Bush.
We wonder if Mr. Allen really knows what he's doing here. Byrd distributions in Virginia in 2004 totaled a mere $5.5 million. About $4.6 million went to Lafarge North America, and $924,000 to Titan America LLC -- both building material suppliers that stand to benefit from such protectionism as the 55% anti-dumping duty levied on Mexican cement.
In return for doing their bidding, Mr. Allen is cementing his own reputation as an opponent of free trade. No avowed protectionist has won the White House since Herbert Hoover in 1928 (and we know how that turned out), so backing Byrd doesn't look like a smart political strategy. Worse, it raises doubts about Mr. Allen's grasp of economic policy.
Modern Presidents of both parties have been ardent free-traders because they realize it is in the national interest. That's why Mr. Bush is now devoting a great deal of his time and diplomacy to advancing the Doha round of global trade talks. Byrd contradicts that policy, which is why a growing number of national business groups -- from home builders and construction companies to food processors and retailers -- are organizing to fight Byrd. They see both U.S. exports and consumers losing under Byrd to a handful of inefficient U.S. companies and their savvy Beltway lawyers. Which side are Mr. Allen and his GOP colleagues on?
According to the Dept of Labor own stats the wages adjusted for inflation have dropped a little over 2% in the past 2 years.
thanks for posting this and thanks for the ping. Certainly some cause for concern, although I'd need to read more about it. I'd like to see Sen. Allen's reasoning and statements about this...
No link? How have wages done since your article in 1995?
Year Real$ Change
1964 302.52
1965 310.46 2.62%
1966 312.83 0.76%
1967 311.30 -0.49%
1968 315.37 1.31%
1969 316.93 0.49%
1970 312.94 -1.26%
1971 318.05 1.63%
1972 331.59 4.26%
1973 331.39 -0.06%
1974 314.94 -4.96%
1975 305.16 -3.11%
1976 309.61 1.46%
1977 310.99 0.45%
1978 310.41 -0.19%
1979 298.87 -3.72%
1980 281.27 -5.89%
1981 277.35 -1.39%
1982 272.74 -1.66%
1983 277.50 1.75%
1984 279.22 0.62%
1985 276.23 -1.07%
1986 276.11 -0.04%
1987 272.88 -1.17%
1988 270.32 -0.94%
1989 267.27 -1.13%
1990 262.43 -1.81%
1991 258.34 -1.56%
1992 257.95 -0.15%
1993 258.12 0.07%
1994 259.97 0.72%
1995 258.43 -0.59%
1996 259.58 0.44%
1997 265.22 2.17%
1998 271.87 2.51%
1999 274.64 1.02%
2000 275.62 0.36%
2001 275.38 -0.09%
2002 278.91 1.28%
2003 279.94 0.37%
2004 277.57 -0.84%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
About the same as Reagan's first term, though.
Free Trade isn't the problem.
Labor Unions are!!
Right you are, and I agree.
Artificially high prices = Labor Unions!!
I suggest you invest a few dollars and get a book on economics, written by Milton Friedman or Dr. Walter Williams.
Free Trade isn't the problem. Labor Unions are the problem.
Artificially high prices = Labor Unions.
Trickle Up theory??? You're kidding, aren't you.
You forgot one VERY important point. If wages go up, so do the prices of the manufactured products. Everyone loses. And your so called "boat" sinks.
We sure are making a lot less than in the 60's and 70's. Since the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration launched the U.S. into modern free trade on January 30 (not 13), 1975, real wages have declined more than 10%. Here's the treaty that started it all:
http://natlaw.com/treaties/global/global/global54.htm
Good answer!!
Too bad only the people here who understand economics will get your point!!
Couldn't find any info from CPUSA? Do you have real data, direct from the BLS? Or has all your info been touched by left wing union types?
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/05/art1full.pdf
Chart 4 contains the same data expanded over quarters, but it is limited to 1980-2003.
George, That's a good way to GAIN my vote.
This data is from the source you requested--the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I'm way ahead of you. I've already checked the numbers. The numbers are precisely the same. Perhaps you're having difficulty in reading the chart?
Perhaps you can provide the link that you checked the union numbers against?
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.