Posted on 08/12/2003 3:48:25 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
WASHINGTON – A little more than a year ago, after a long legislative struggle, Congress passed the most sweeping international trade legislation in 15 years. After a nearly decade-long deadlock, Congress gave the president authority to negotiate new trade agreements. And just before this summer's recess, Congress overwhelmingly passed the first fruits of that authority: new free-trade agreements with Chile and Singapore.
Unfortunately, implementation of the assistance for workers who lose their jobs because of international trade has not been as swift. If the displaced worker-adjustment provisions are not in place soon, the newfound consensus in favor of freer trade may rapidly erode.
There is little doubt that expanded trade creates, on balance, more jobs than it eliminates, and provides consumers with greater choices at lower cost. There is no doubt, however, that increasing imports and the movement of factories from the US to overseas is costing some American workers dearly. The loss of more than 2 million jobs in the manufacturing sector in the current downturn has framed much of the discussion on this topic.
Increasingly, however, these problems are not confined to workers in traditional blue-collar jobs. Even IBM - once seen as the upper crust of the new economy - has recently moved some of its computer-programming jobs out of the US.
For IBM's displaced workers - and thousands like them - the knowledge that the economy as a whole benefits from trade provides little solace. Failure to meet the immediate needs of these workers is undoubtedly one important reason that Americans, including some in Congress, appear dubious of the benefits of free trade.
To address those concerns, the authors of the Trade Act of 2002 attempted to revise, expand, and reinvigorate the nation's largely moribund worker-adjustment programs. These programs have existed in some form since the Kennedy administration, but their record is spotty and their availability to the unemployed workers who need them is quite limited.
The Trade Act of 2002 created the framework for a broad and innovative program to ensure that workers displaced by trade truly have their needs met and are helped back into the workforce as soon as possible.
Eligibility for benefits and training was expanded to include farmers, fishermen, and thousands of other workers who were denied benefits because the jobs they lost weren't previously considered to be directly affected by trade. The legislation also took the historic step of providing a tax credit to help displaced workers purchase health insurance.
Finally, the legislation also launched a truly innovative program - in a field largely devoid of original thinking - known as "wage insurance." Older workers who qualify for wage insurance can receive half of the difference between their new and old wage. Wage insurance should help workers return to work at a lower cost than current programs. More important, it will enable workers to get the most effective form of training: training on the job.
Unfortunately, much of the promise of these new programs has yet to be realized.
To its considerable credit, the Bush administration requested nearly a tripling of funds for worker adjustment, but Congress pared back the request even as some states, such as Pennsylvania, began to experience shortfalls in the budget for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs. The administration has drafted solid new regulations on eligibility for industrial workers, but the new program for farmers is now months overdue. Health benefits for workers in job training are in place, but still under the shadow of ongoing political wrangling in Congress. Though a statutory deadline has just passed, the wage-insurance program is yet to be implemented.
It is certainly premature to call the new worker-adjustment programs a success, but neither can they yet be termed a failure. Perhaps if the worker-adjustment programs received the same priority as new free-trade agreements, the workers who lose their jobs because of international trade would have a meaningful program in place to get them back to work earning paychecks.
There are other problems Congress should examine. For instance, services are an increasingly large part of US trade, yet service workers, like the IBM programmers mentioned above, are denied assistance under TAA.
Free trade and the needs of workers are often presented as opposing interests. In fact, an effective worker-adjustment program could go a long way toward reducing the anxiety in the workforce over foreign trade. This in turn could reduce the opposition to free trade, open the door to new trade agreements, spur new economic growth, and ultimately ensure that the benefits of free trade are fairly shared.
Howard Rosen and Greg Mastel are the founders of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Coalition at the New America Foundation. Mr. Mastel, now with the law firm of Miller and Chevalier Chartered, was the lead Senate staff member on the Trade Act of 2002.
G.W. Bush, Karl Marx salutes you!
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
~Karl Marx, "On the Question of Free Trade" - January 9, 1848
To its considerable credit, the Bush administration requested nearly a tripling of funds for worker adjustment
Either way I do have a problem with this. This is not the responsibility of the national government
I am also opposed to excessively high, protective tariffs that are targeted for the benefit of specific industries. They are riddled with loopholes and exemptions for special interests and do not work. In fact, they generally do more harm than good.
My preference is for a relatively low (10~15%), flat-rate tariff levied on ALL imported goods. The proceeds would be used to further reduce other forms of domestic taxation and truly stimulate domestic production in our own market.
George W. Bush's tax cuts are not working because the money hemorrhages OUT of our economy, either as increased overseas investment or as the Trade Deficit. This leaves the American taxpayer encumbered with evermore burdensome National Debt.
I don't believe that the transnational corporate interests who pull Dubya's strings care one iota about our National Debt or the increasing "entitlement" programs that are enacted to keep Dubya in power. As long as they can minimize their own tax obligation to pay these debts, who gives a rat's patoot about the American people?
Can anyone provide evidence that this staemnent is true? Evidence consists of measurement that includes all factors costs and benefits. Measurements and mathematics not assumptions and anecdotes. Measurements over a two year time period (minimum) but longer if possible.
Look at the history of the USA. The first protective tariff was enacted in 1789 as the second act of the First Congress. It was enacted before the Bill of Rights was fully ratified. Whenit was enacted the wages in teh USA were lower than in England. England was the preeminent industrial power in the world. In less than forty years the USA had become the nation with teh world's highest wages. Protective tariffs were a Republican issue until very very recently. Ronald Reagan signed protective tariff legislation.
You question teh utility of protective tariffs and I say look at history. I ahve challegned people to debate the historical record with me on tariffs and teh best I could get from a Free Trade advocate was that one can prove that when a tariff was lifted it sometimes did not hurt the industry.
Ah yes the civil war argument. I certainly admit teh hostorical record does support the stated reason for secession was the fact that the Republicans supported protective tariffs. In the past tariffs had generated the nullification theory and mush additional discontent. Clearly Slavery was an underlying cause of both the opposition to the tariff and the Civil War. but I will conceed your point but given that the failure to enact such tariffs now may lead to another Civil War in teh USA I would state that argument dioes support such tariffs.
I really can not refute the argument that the South so opposed the tariffs teh Republicans adviocated and had the votes to get through was teh stated cause of at least South Carolina's Secession.
I can debate whether or not it could have been resolved peacefully had not the continued collection of such cutoms duties been at least suspended. Was Secession legally sound? I can also argue that it was. Would the nation have stayed broken apart as it was had cooler heads prevailed perhaps but might have beens are fun but not very instructive. O do note you are the first Free trade advocate ro bring up the civil war issue with its ties to slavery. If you wish tommorow I wil discuss the ties of Slavery and Slabve owners to the tariff issue. It is late tonight but leave me a postand if I really need to I will try to dig up a thirty year old paper on teh connection of Slavery to the anti-tariff position.
Not that I'm aware of. In fact, I believe that Ricardo's theory would infer the opposite in that labor resources are driven to the minimum.
I suppose one could make a convoluted arguement that cheap labor increases the number of jobs "created" because it is more "efficient" than expensive, automated production technology. Globalists are essentially luddites in that respect.
Well, you might be able to push to 20 or 25%, but I doubt you could get it much higher than that. True "revenue tariffs" are essentially self-capping. By that, I mean that if you raise the rate too high, you begin to cut back on trade too much and revenues begin to decline. It would be best to determine which rate actually maximizes revenue so that other domestic taxes can be further reduced.
As for me I prefer as I have stated before a protective tariff on industries where the uS faces foreign subsidized competition
As far as I'm concerned, the tax policies of other nations are their business, not ours. If they're dumb enough to tax their own citizens in order to pay our tariffs, it's fine by me.
or against all imports from nations where slavery is practiced in their export industries where they have high tariffs on American products or non-tariff barriers to American goods. I favor absoolute embargoes on any nation that subsidizes terrorists such as say North Korea, Iran and Lybia.
If they don't want to buy our products or they want to tax 'em, that's fine by me as well. It's their sovereign territory. I don't see where we have the "right" to barge into their countries like a bunch of beligerant door-to-door salesmen sticking their feet in the front door when you try to slam it shut.
Same thing with terrorist nations. I have no problem with trade embargoes against such regimes. But that is a totally separate issue than how our nation raises revenue. IMHO, revenue tariffs are exactly that: they are a method of raising revenue to fund our government, nothing else. They should NOT be negotiable dependent on the actions of foreign nations.
Now that my worst nightmare has come to pass and Bush has "Fast Track" to send a bill to the legislature to vote up or down on. We can really count on the Congress and Senate to pass it while claiming not to have read it. As they did with the package of 34 U.N. treaties, as they did with GATT, as they did with NAFTA, and as they did with the Patriot Act.
How silly of us to have supposed that we elected representatives that know how to read.
The subsidizeed exports f these nations are competeing with American products abroad and as such I do believe that the free market encouragement would be ebneficial. Personaly I prefer more of a Hamiltonian approach to tariffs than your Jeffersonian approch to taqriffs but we can get along and the first hurdle to get over is the very nature of the tariff itself.
If they don't want to buy our products or they want to tax 'em, that's fine by me as well. It's their sovereign territory. I don't see where we have the "right" to barge into their countries like a bunch of beligerant door-to-door salesmen sticking their feet in the front door when you try to slam it shut.
No more than they have a right to sell their products here. I merely am proposing that they recieve the same treatment they hand out. we are not forcing them to open their borders merely closing ours to nations that are not welcoming of our products. We have that right as a sovereign nation.
Same thing with terrorist nations. I have no problem with trade embargoes against such regimes. But that is a totally separate issue than how our nation raises revenue. IMHO, revenue tariffs are exactly that: they are a method of raising revenue to fund our government, nothing else. They should NOT be negotiable dependent on the actions of foreign nations.
I see we shall once again mirror the Jefferson Hamilton debates on tariffs and trade. Although I note there was a period where Jefferson imposed a trade embargo.
Well actually they do know how to read they can read their bank statements and they can also count. They count the contributions they get (bribes). They are too bust doing this to actually read the legislation they are voting on.
NOT!
What these shills, whose bias is blatant, do not comprehend, is that what is still true is the old tried-and-true economic understanding that high-technology jobs have a vastly higher 'economic-multiplier' than local service jobs.
I suppose so, although I'm more inclined to reference the Congressional debate that occurred during the enactment of The First Federal Revenue Law. During that debate, it was James Madison (along with Congressman John Laurence of NY) who advocated a flat rate, with higher rates on only 13 other specific items. It was Congressman Thomas Fitzsimons of Pennsylvania who really boogered up the flat rate by proposing an additional 50 items be "protected" for special interests with targetted tariffs.
I've come to disdain such favoritism because of the disparities it creates in the market, someone is gonna suffer for the benefit of another. The flat-rate applies-to-everybody-no-exceptions seems to be the "fairest" solution.
Same thing with your tit-for-tat treatment of foreign nations. On the surface, it may seem "fair" to have a reciprocal agreement with another nation: you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. But with so many different nations, and so many issues upon which nation's agree/disagree to various degrees, all you wind up doing is setting up a system of disparities where one nation can whine about another "why them and not us? Yes, we have a slight disagreement with you on this item, but they disagree with you on that other item".
BS. Then you got to erect a danged bureacracy that does nothing but perpetually negotiate and arbitrate a bunch of whiners who are wheedling for their own advantage. And who pays for that perpetual bureaucracy? You got it! WE DO! The Taxpayers!
The heck with it. Stick with a simple flat-rate applies to everybody and everything approach and you can also minimize the federal expenditures on bureaucrats! Much, much better if you can keep it simple!
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.