Copyright 2002 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company The Houston Chronicle
July 01, 2002, Monday 3 STAR EDITION
SECTION: A; Pg. 24
LENGTH: 398
words
HEADLINE: FREE FOR WHOM?; President Bush has abandoned his principles on trade
SOURCE: Staff
BODY: President Bush has worked hard to gain congressional authority to
negotiate free-trade promotion agreements subject to congressional approval but
not amendment. Legislation that would grant him that authority is again pending
in the U.S. House. At the same time, Bush's administration has been doing
everything it can to restrain trade and protect favored U.S. industries.
What happened to the principles of free trade and free
markets that Bush championed during his campaign and said were hallmarks of his
conservative philosophy of limited government? Apparently his convictions were
too puny to survive the pressures of a midterm election year.
First came new tariffs on foreign steel, to protect U.S. mills from
ostensibly unfair (either subsidized or more efficient) competition abroad. Then
came stiff (and questionable) duties on soft lumber from Canada.
Overshadowing the actions on steel and lumber was Bush's decision to
sign a bill giving farmers and agri-businesses a minimum of 190 billion tax
dollars over 10 years and costing Americans an additional $ 200 billion or more
at the grocery store.
During a global war against
terrorism, the farm bill has soured relations with important
U.S. allies around the world and already is acting as a deterrent to efforts to
get other nations, particularly in Europe, to reduce their agricultural
subsidies and tariffs.
The health of American farms
depends increasingly on opening new markets abroad. The farm
bill will make it harder to open those markets. Struggling farmers in
developing countries won't be able to compete against cheap U.S. grains, and
their governments will be reluctant to lower barriers to U.S. agricultural
commodities.
Steel, lumber and agriculture are just the
most publicized areas in which the administration has acted to make trade less
free. A debater might be able to make a case for any one of these policies, but
taken together they reveal a lack of conviction on free trade.
Compromise is the essence of the political art, but what does the
president have to show for his professed goal of increased trade? In exchange
for a few votes he probably would receive by sticking to his principles, the
president is causing every American and many people around the world to bear the
ill effects of bad policies that a more candid, less expedient president would
admit were indefensible.
Document 460 of 463. 