Friday, March 08, 2002
Some see Bush's caving in to narrow steel-producing interests as a means by which to ensure the renewal of fast track negotiating authority. Fast track is even more important than the economic damage which will result from the decision to place import tariffs on steel. Fast track is necessary if Bush is to negotiate freer trade in the next round of global trade talks. Likewise, if we are ever to extend the success of NAFTA into the rest of the Western hemisphere, Bush needs the ability to negotiate without having the product of those negotiations pulled apart by congressional addendums and revisions. Foreign countries want to know that what is negotiated with the president is what congress will eventually approve, and without fast track, they have no such assurance.
Fast track is even more important after September 11th. One of the biggest complaints among third world members of the WTO is the exemption which exists for agricultural products and textiles. Agriculture and textiles just so happen to be a large component of third world economies, and are highly protected and politically sensitive markets in rich countries. Third world nations see these exemptions as a means by which rich nations open up third world nations to rich nation products but fail to reciprocate by opening up rich nation markets to third world products. They're right, of course. We enrich farmers and textile manufacturers in rich nations at the expense of poor workers in third world economies, which would be ironic if it wasn't so cruel. This is bad economics, and worse, unethical.
The problem is that congressman HATE to make the hard decisions. It's hard for them to make the right choice when they have constituents screaming at them to do what is bad for the country. It's much easier if those congressman can claim that their hands are tied by fast track.
Fast track negotiating authority has already been approved in the House of Representatives, but is being held up in the Senate. If the result of satisfying senators with large steel constituencies is their vote for fast track, there MAY be some utility in Bush's recent decision. If not, however, there is very little to recommend in a decision to place a tax on 15% of the US economy (those that use steel) and deteriorate our free trade credentials.
Fast track is even more important after September 11th. One of the biggest complaints among third world members of the WTO is the exemption which exists for agricultural products and textiles. Agriculture and textiles just so happen to be a large component of third world economies, and are highly protected and politically sensitive markets in rich countries. Third world nations see these exemptions as a means by which rich nations open up third world nations to rich nation products but fail to reciprocate by opening up rich nation markets to third world products. They're right, of course. We enrich farmers and textile manufacturers in rich nations at the expense of poor workers in third world economies, which would be ironic if it wasn't so cruel. This is bad economics, and worse, unethical.
The problem is that congressman HATE to make the hard decisions. It's hard for them to make the right choice when they have constituents screaming at them to do what is bad for the country. It's much easier if those congressman can claim that their hands are tied by fast track.
Fast track negotiating authority has already been approved in the House of Representatives, but is being held up in the Senate. If the result of satisfying senators with large steel constituencies is their vote for fast track, there MAY be some utility in Bush's recent decision. If not, however, there is very little to recommend in a decision to place a tax on 15% of the US economy (those that use steel) and deteriorate our free trade credentials.
