Posted on 08/04/2003 12:33:05 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
CRAWFORD, Tex. - President Bush slipped speedily into vacation mode this past weekend at his furnace of a ranch in Central Texas, where he spent Sunday fishing, clearing cedar and going for a walk with the first lady and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. But before the president ducked out of public sight, he made sure to address one of the biggest re-election anxieties of Karl Rove, his chief political adviser: the nation's continuing loss of jobs and the uncertainty about the economy.
"This week, three members of my cabinet Treasury Secretary John Snow, Commerce Secretary Don Evans and Labor Secretary Elaine Chao visited business owners and their workers in the Midwest," Mr. Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday. "They received reports that the economy is picking up."
Well, yes and no.
Anyone on the trip, which was a very un-Air Force One-like, two-day, six-city bus journey across Wisconsin and Minnesota (Ms. Chao dined on Tuesday night at Burger King), could see that the cabinet members charged with promoting the president's tax cuts also heard a lot of anger from workers about foreign competition and laid-off relatives and friends.
"Right now I am very disillusioned with the Republicans' policies," said Michael Retzer, a Republican and a consultant to a supplier for Harley-Davidson. Mr. Retzer told Mr. Snow at a Harley plant near Milwaukee that he did not see how the tax cuts would stimulate the economy when so many consumers would spend the extra money on goods made overseas.
Later, in the kind of confrontation with a disgruntled citizen almost never seen on the president's trips, Mr. Snow tangled with an unemployed software programmer at the drive-through at Culver's Frozen Custard and ButterBurgers in Wausau, Wis.
"He said, `But your tax cuts haven't done anything for me,' " Mr. Snow recounted the next day to reporters, as the bus traveled through Minnesota. "And I said, `Well, now, let's just take a second and talk about that.' "
Here in McLennan County, Tex. which includes the nearby city of Waco, the one-stoplight town of Crawford and the president's 1,600-acre ranch the number of people unable to find work jumped to more than 6,000 in June 2003 from more than 4,000 in June 2000, according to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"That's pretty much a general slowdown that mirrors the rest of the country," said Cheryl Abbot, an economist at the agency's Southwest Regional Office in Dallas.
Although the McLennan County unemployment rate jumped from 4 percent in June 2000 to 5.7 percent in June 2003, it was still lower than the national unemployment rate in June of 6.4 percent. But the jobless rate for Texas that month was 7.5 percent, and more than 800,000 people in the state could not find work, up from 527,000 people in June 2000.
An unscientific series of interviews with Crawford businesspeople and churchgoers Sunday revealed plenty of support for Mr. Bush, whose presidency has brought a surge of tourists to the once-shuttered main street but uneasiness about the economy and nervousness about his policies.
"You look at the tax breaks he's cut for everybody and I wonder how he's able to do that," said John Dutschmann, 32, a sales manager for a concrete products company who had just attended services at Crawford's First Baptist Church. Mr. Dutschmann, a Democrat who supported Mr. Bush in 2000, said he was still behind the president, although he had trepidations about the economy. "We just put our trust in him, and we hope he knows what he's doing," he said.
Paul Stripling, 67, a Republican and executive director emeritus of the Waco Baptist Association, who had also attended services at the First Baptist Church, said that Waco had not felt the economic crunch as much as other parts of Texas and that Mr. Bush "is doing the best he can with a very precarious situation."
Brent Duncan, 40, a hotel owner who was talking with other parishioners after services at Crawford's United Methodist Church, said that his business was doing well he is building a hotel in the nearby town of McGregor and that he would probably vote for Mr. Bush in 2004. But Mr. Duncan, who described himself as a conservative Democrat, said that his support was not guaranteed.
"Let's see who the Democrats put out," he said.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Mr. Bush has little on his public schedule this week, although Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is to make an appearance Friday.
But next week, as part of a monthlong campaign to try to convince voters that sunnier economic days are just around the corner, Mr. Bush will meet at the ranch with his economic team, then take his economic message around the country in day trips from Crawford. His tone will be upbeat, which was evidently the tenor of the report he heard from his cabinet secretaries after the Midwest bus trip last week.
As Mr. Snow put it, "I'm going to go back and tell the president, `Mr. President, I ran into a lot of people who asked me personally to express my gratitude to you for worrying and thinking about us.' "
Mr. Snow did not say if he would mention the man in the drive-through at Culver's.
You may assume anything you want, and as usual, you would be wrong. You are a one-trick-pony who posts the same lame brain comments time after time even though they have been thoroughly refuted each time you post them. As I said, Brain last.
What they do on their end is up to them. If they want to waste their money trying to prop up industries, that's fine with me, but ultimately they will pay for that (unless, you think communism/socialism works; I don't). By "free trade" I only mean the freedom for Americans to trade with whom they would like. I understand the need for some restrictions (i.e. I support the Cuban embargo) for defense purposes, etc. But the anti-trade crowd here is opposed to trade with China, Mexico, etc., simply to protect their own jobs at the expense of all other Americans.
Because economic freedom is at the base of almost all others, and I want to conserve Americans' freedoms. If you aren't free to acquire capital and spend it as you choose, for the most part (see my post in #82 of this thread), then many of your other freedoms will be diminished or removed as well (freedom of travel, association, etc.). Ultimately, I don't really care about getting into who is more conservative (I have never voted for anything other than Republicans, who are the only ones even close to advancing conservative causes; many of the people that debate me on here about free trade have admitted they have voted Democratic (read Fritz Hollings' (D-South Carolina) retirement announcement speech today where he railed against free trade to understand why). I care about what works best for our country and the most Americans. Ultimately, all I can say as far as free trade being more or less "conservative", it's no surprise that on this issue, the FReepers that hate my stance on free trade the most, are 100% in line with the AFL-CIO leadership on this issue. And that is about as Left as one can get.
our industries should go ahead and pay the restrictive tariffs that other nations impose without protest;
we should force our over-taxed and over-regulated industries to compete - without benefit of some combination of tax relief and/or tariffs - with heavily subsidized foreign competition that can hire labor at a fraction of US labor costs;
that because of the cheap working conditions, we should allow America's manufacturing base to move offshore, thereby adding to the unemployment rolls here;
simply accept that since the erosion of American manufacturing is a by-product of "free trade", it's ok (i.e., even though noone will suggest whether, how or why it's a good thing, hey, it's "free trade", so it can't be bad);
and that we should ignore approximately 180 years of American history and tradition and adopt a system that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx predicted would destroy the West (which is why the former opposed free trade, and the latter, wanting to see the West destroy itself, encouraged the US and Britain to pursue it).
Did I sum up the free trade position correctly?
It's funny how much faith you paleos put in Karl Marx and his economic theories. If Karl Marx was in favor of something economically, don't you think to most people that would be a great signal to do the opposite? The paleos and the Marxists (i.e. AFL-CIO)... marching hand in hand yet again.
I agree Marx was full of crap, and will gladly disregard anything he wrote.
You still didn't answer the rest of the post. To refresh your memory:
So...
our industries should go ahead and pay the restrictive tariffs that other nations impose without protest;
we should force our over-taxed and over-regulated industries to compete - without benefit of some combination of tax relief and/or tariffs - with heavily subsidized foreign competition that can hire labor at a fraction of US labor costs;
that because of the cheap working conditions, we should allow America's manufacturing base to move offshore, thereby adding to the unemployment rolls here;
simply accept that since the erosion of American manufacturing is a by-product of "free trade", it's ok (i.e., even though noone will suggest whether, how or why it's a good thing, hey, it's "free trade", so it can't be bad);
and that we should ignore approximately 180 years of American history and tradition and adopt a system that Adam Smith...predicted would destroy the West .
Did I sum up the free trade position correctly?
Is it not an American's choice whether to deal with these markets or not? If other countries want to waste their money on tariffs, why would I care? Sure, I'd like to see them lower their tariffs as well because that will ease things on the U.S. in the short-term, but in the long-term it won't really matter as long as our side isn't wasting its money. But then, NAFTA removed these tariffs on the other side, and you are still opposed to that. So that's just a red herring argument on your part, obviously.
2) we should force our over-taxed and over-regulated industries to compete - without benefit of some combination of tax relief and/or tariffs - with heavily subsidized foreign competition that can hire labor at a fraction of US labor costs
I'm for lowering taxes and restrictive regulations as well. Raising tariffs to counter taxes and regulations? That makes no sense at all. That's like trying to cure your headache by banging your head on the wall even harder.
3) that because of the cheap working conditions, we should allow America's manufacturing base to move offshore, thereby adding to the unemployment rolls here;
In the long-term, the money saved will more than provide for the jobs lost in the very near-term. Always has and always will. Or, we can follow your idea and be like Japan with its banks: just stuck in a terrible situation because we're too scared to do the right thing and let the markets operate.
The problem here is that all your questions are loaded with blatently incorrect economic assumptions. I could answer them forever but you will always have new fears and new worries. Japan one day, Mexico the next, then China, then someone else in a few years, and on and on and on... Luckily the U.S. is still the freest market in the world, despite our politicians having to go along with the bad economics of "the little man" in order to get reelected. So unlike you, I'm not really worried about things until that changes. The economic policies of China, Japan, the EU, and South America (apart from Chile) insure that we will continue to dominate as we have for the past couple centuries. Now, if China ever decides to open its market up to unrestricted free trade, well then I'd be worried. Its funny because all the things the paleos yell at China about (not floating the yuan, subsidizing industry, etc.) are all the reasons that they should rest easy in knowing that China will continue to lag behind the U.S. economically. Only a group that has such faith in Marxist economic policies would be worry about losing to China because of their Marxist economic policies (many of which they have abandoned, leading to their increasing economic success).
What choice do Americans have if there are no more domestic producers because of the predatory trade practices?
All NAFTA did was make Americans part of a globalist organization whose goals are to re-distribute wealth, a la socialism. You know, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Which means the US gets screwed. Socialism in action.
I'm for lowering taxes and restrictive regulations as well.
We agree here, as well as doing what we can to ease up the impact of the unions.
Raising tariffs to counter taxes and regulations?
No no no no. You raise them to force the OTHER guys to pay them, or lower their own tariffs and play fair.
One of two things will happen: either they will lower their own tariffs, or producers here will rise up to meet demand (or an equitable combination). In the long run, the consumer will come out ahead anyway, and the economic might of the US is secured.
It's using our own economic might to force change.
Right now, there is nothing forcing the other guys to play fair, so it is unprofitable for domestic producers to try to meet the demand. Yes, consumers are coming ahead for now, but it can't last.
And the impacts on the consumer should be a benefit of, not a justification for, a policy. In the long-term, the money saved will more than provide for the jobs lost in the very near-term. Always has and always will.
Economically, that may be true, though I'm not convinced. For the time, I'll not address it.
But, and this is important, and it is something that the Founding Fathers knew, YOU CANNOT BASE A TRADE POLICY ON THE RIGHT OF THE CONSUME TO BUY CHEAP STUFF.
You have to have a means of protecting vital industries; you have to have a means of recovering a market once it is lost. You have to have a means of retaliating against predatory trade practices. How would you propose we do this?
You also haven't addressed the protectionist history of the US - which made us the most profitable nation, biggest exporter, and mightiest economic power on earth - why Kennedy suddenlt decided that 180 years of experience should be tossed, and that all those funny guys in wigs didn't know what they were talking about.
They lived in a totally different economic world. I don't think they would have supported slavery today (as many of the founding fathers did then), nor do I think many of them would have played this class warfare trade protectionist game the paleos and the unions play today (Hamilton probably would have). To say they allowed for tariffs and supported them in some cases (in others they did not) shows they would have necessarily supported them today is to say they would have supported slavery today as well.
This is what I mean by many of the protectionist paleos being Marxist. Support of tariffs is not Marxist per se, but statements such as the one above most definitely are. That reads like something straight out of The Communist Manifesto.
I think they were brilliant. Do you think they would have supported slavery today?
Wait a second... so they did support it. I understand the circumstances. Circumstances change.
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.