The little jug-eared egomaniac was right.
Posted on 07/30/2003 11:04:15 AM PDT by ex-snook
| U.S. prosperity begins at home Saturday, July 26th, 2003 Lou Dobbs The controversy over proposed "buy American" provisions in next year's Pentagon budget is a reminder of just how complicated the globalization of markets has become. The provisions, offered by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), would make it mandatory for contractors to use machine tools and molds made in America when working on defense acquisition programs of more than $5 million. "Other countries just have to understand," said Hunter. "We have to do everything we can to protect our defense industrial base." Others argue that the idea will prove too burdensome to aerospace contractors and will be a detriment to U.S. international relations. Some free-trade advocates say exceptions, even for defense, create problems. Dan Griswold, associate director of trade policy at the Cato Institute, asks, "How can we ask foreign governments to allow American companies to compete fairly for their government contracts when we don't allow their companies to compete fairly for our government contracts?" It's a fair question. But Hunter is absolutely right that this country cannot be dependent on foreign producers for our national security. Hunter has created an uproar precisely because there are often confounding contradictions between policies that are in the best interest of our national security and policies that are in the best interest of our economy. Free trade supporters claim that globalization has brought us closer to our allies and lowered prices for American consumers. 3 million jobs lost But try persuading the millions of Americans who've lost their jobs over the past few years that globalization is a great idea. And many economists are beginning to notice that a pure ideological commitment to free trade may be as foolhardy as absolute protectionism. There is evidence that open trade policies and global trade pacts have been ultimately detrimental to the U.S. economy. The Economic Policy Institute found that an estimated 3 million American jobs were lost due to NAFTA and WTO agreements. In addition, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has multiplied by 10 since the 1993 NAFTA agreement while our economy hasn't quite doubled. Our international deficit in goods and services increased to $42 billion in May. In 2002 our current account deficit, the Commerce Department's broadest measure of trade, hit a record $503 billion. This means that we are buying far more in goods and services from the rest of the world than we are selling. And the Economic Policy Institute estimates that 99% of this deficit comes from goods we now buy overseas because we no longer make them here. That should be alarming to even the most ardent free-trade advocates. Staunch protectionists believe we can turn back the clock and use high tariffs to protect every industry in this country. Their absolutism forces most of us to dismiss even their valid points. And the absolutists who demand free trade should be dismissed every bit as quickly. There is no more glaring example of the folly of unrestricted trade than China. The United States ran an almost $10 billion goods deficit with China in May. As Roger Simmermaker, who wrote the book "How Americans Can Buy American" put it, "China would have no interest in opening its markets to the United States because they enjoy almost unimpeded and unlimited access to our market while they practice protectionism at home." Too high a price We need to reexamine how our trade policies have negatively affected our economy while boosting the economies of other nations. We can no longer sustain a free-trade policy that does not insist on reciprocal, mutual benefits to both our economy and those of our trading partners. Globalization at any price is proving to be too high a price for this nation to pay. |
How much louder does the sucking sound have to get before it can be heard over trade lobbyists? Homeland security begins with jobs.
I don't think the dividend tax cut is going to 'cut it'. And the rebate checks will probably buy more stuff from China.
Exactly, Bush better address this issue and fast or he's out in 2004. If a dem picks this issue up and runs with it, then I might just have to hold my nose and vote dem.
As always anyone who wishes to be on or off my economy ping list let me know.
Actually I very seldom see anyone arguing for protecting every industry in this nation but we need manufacturing and a broad range of industries in ordert to maintain our nation.
I guess I am one of the oddballs who does use Latin in my everyday life in my household but that is mostly becuase I like to keep a certain level of proficiency.
The little jug-eared egomaniac was right.
This is the argument for protective tariffs in a nutshell. China has tariffs of 50% and higher on some American products. We need tariffs on Chinese goods as a bargaining chip if nothing else.
Exactly. Some of the free traitors would have you believe that all economists are in agreement on the issue of free trade, but that is just not so.
Lou nails it.
We need "tit-for-tat" tariffs. We should impose the exact same tariffs on a country's exports to our country as they do to imports from our country. We also need to examine the various ways in which some or our "trading partners" subsidize their domestic industries and impose tariffs to cover that as well.
Somehow doing things fast is not his MO. I hope for the Country's sake it doesn't come back to bite us on the a$$. [He laid back on dealing with Israel/Palestine and it got worse, the Arab world and we got 9/11 plus Iraq war, NK and we got more dangers, the economy and we got market/job meltdown]
He is now engaged in all of these areas with minimum results so far. But he does have some time until the election day finish line.
Actually we do need a broad based approach to trade issues. We must address tariffs where approporiate at a reasonable level, We need to enforce our immigration laws regarding H1B's L1 visas and illegal immigrants. We need to get rid of the government subsidies to offshore investing. We clearly need to use all teh leverage possible to open up foreign markets as ours have been opened to foreign nations. we further need to get the corproate income tax dropped for those comapnies investing in new facilities in the uSA. Personally I favor economic development zones where all the profits from any corporation locating a facility therein and strictly employing American labor (citizens or legal immigrants) does not pay any income tax. As the prosperity from these zones spreads maybe we can get the entire nation declared such a zone.
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.