DATE=10/06/03
TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP
NAME=STEEL TARIFFS
NUMBER=6-130116
BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
EDITOR=ASSIGNMENTS
TELEPHONE=619-3335
CONTENT=
INTRO: President Bush, who says he is a proponent of free trade, is drawing criticism from a number of newspapers as regards the steel tariff he instigated a year ago. We get a sampling now from V-O-A's _____________ in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.
TEXT: When the U-S steel industry complained that foreign steel makers were "dumping" in this country, that is selling sometimes state-subsidized steel at below-market prices, he acted. The president imposed a 30-percent three-year tariff on imported steel to help the U-S industry restructure itself and become more competitive.
At the time, there were suggestions Mr. Bush's motive might have been partly political, to court the powerful steelworkers union and voters in steel-producing states. Now, the American press is suggesting that the tariffs may have failed both economically and politically, and soon may cause trade retaliation. Here is what Boston's Christian Science Monitor has to say.
VOICE: In an example of politics trumping good economic policy, President Bush last year levied a 30-percent tariff on imported steel. It has not worked out quite as planned. Two reports found that while the U-S steel industry has successfully restructured, U-S companies that make goods from steel were hit with steep price increases and shortages of quality supplies. The steelworkers, meanwhile, thanked the president by endorsing Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt [And] In addition, the World Trade Organization has declared that the tariff violates international trade laws
TEXT: An equally unsympathetic Washington Post, says:
VOICE: No one would ever accuse the Bush administration of being eager to admit its mistakes. But in the case of steel tariffs such an admission is overdue. The tariffs were a diplomatic failure: [sending] precisely the wrong message to the world at precisely the wrong time - namely, that the [U-S] supports free trade in theory but not in practice.
Now it seems the tariffs were an economic failure as well costing industries that consume steel more than 680-million dollars annually.
/// BEGIN OPT /// Nor will it be so easy, going into [next year's] election, for the president to claim that he "saved jobs" by imposing [the] tariffs. He may have saved them in the steel industry, but he may well have destroyed more of them elsewhere.
/// END OPT ///
TEXT: Excerpts from a Washington Post editorial. These criticisms are not limited either to large papers or by geography. Here is the view of Georgia's Savannah Morning News.
VOICE: Halfway through one of the worst decisions of his administration, President Bush need not wait another 18-months to conclude that the tariff he imposed on imported steel has done more harm than good to the economy. due to expire in 2005 Mr. Bush should euthanize it now and remove what has literally become a steel barrier to economic recovery.
TEXT: Even in Charleston, West Virginia, where steelworkers rallied recently in favor of continuing the tariff, The Charleston Gazette had to admit the increasingly globalized economy must be faced.
VOICE: As the world continues to shrink, tariffs may play a temporary role in easing the pain for some sectors. But labor needs to recognize that an American job saved is now often a Russian or Malaysian job lost, and vice versa. The measure that preserves jobs in West Virginia may lead to losses for workers in Connecticut. The world economy is impersonal and ruthless. It's also volatile and unpredictable. Adjusting to its demands will never be simple. but tariffs and other artificial barriers will never be a real solution.
TEXT: Lastly, from Ohio, another state with an important steel industry, Akron's Beacon Journal suggests:
VOICE: Steelmakers have clearly benefited, and the [report] concluded the effect has not been as detrimental to the larger economy as many feared. President Bush made a political calculation, betting that a dose of trade protection would aid his fortunes in such large industrial states as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
The free trader in word may see a continuing political benefit to protectionism in deed. That would be unfortunate.
/// BEGIN OPT /// Steel consumers argue that a less harmful impact than expected does not erase the overall negative effect. When the [U-S] bolts to serve narrow interests, other countries are invited to do the same, promising harm to an even wider array of American companies and jobs.
/// END OPT ///
TEXT: With that assessment from Ohio's Akron Beacon Journal, we conclude this discussion from the U-S press on this country's 30-percent imported steel tariff.
NEB/ANG/RAE