2002 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened
by the
administration’s recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel
imports. This measure will hurt far more Americans than it will help,
and it
takes a step backwards toward the protectionist thinking that dominated
Washington in decades past. Make no mistake about it, these tariffs
represent
naked protectionism at its worst, a blatant disregard of any remaining
free-market principles to gain the short-term favor of certain special
interests. These steel tariffs also make it quite clear that the
rhetoric about
free trade in Washington is abandoned and replaced with talk of "fair
trade" when special interests make demands. What most Washington
politicians really believe in is government-managed trade, not free
trade. True
free trade, by definition, takes place only in the absence of
government
interference of any kind, including tariffs. Government-managed trade
means
government, rather than competence in the marketplace, determines what
industries and companies succeed or fail.
2002 Ron Paul 15:2
We’ve all heard about how
these
tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we
never
hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of
steel
rises 30 percent. We forget that tariffs are taxes, and that imposing
tariffs
means raising taxes. Why is the administration raising taxes on
American steel
consumers? Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry
Hazlitt’s
classic book, Economics in one Lesson. Professor Hazlitt’s
fundamental
lesson was simple: We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term
effects of any proposal on all groups. The administration
instead
chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one
group, the
domestic steel industry. In doing so, it chose to ignore basic
economics for the
sake of political expediency. Now I grant you that this is hardly
anything new
in this town, but it’s important that we see these tariffs as the
political
favors that they are. This has nothing to do with fairness. The free
market is
fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward
the
strongest Washington lobbies.
2002 Ron Paul 15:3
We should recognize that the
cost of
these tariffs will not only be borne by American companies that import
steel,
such as those in the auto industry and building trades. The cost of
these import
taxes will be borne by nearly all Americans, because steel is widely
used in the
cars we drive and the buildings in which we live and work. We will all
pay, but
the cost will be spread out and hidden, so no one complains. The
domestic steel
industry, however, has complained- and it has the corporate and union
power that
scares politicians in Washington. So the administration moved to
protect
domestic steel interests, with an eye toward the upcoming midterm
elections. It
moved to help members who represent steel-producing states. We hear a
great deal
of criticism of special interests and their stranglehold on Washington,
but
somehow when we prop up an entire industry that has failed to stay
competitive,
we’re "protecting American workers." What we’re really doing is
taxing all Americans to keep some politically-favored corporations
afloat. Sure,
some rank and file jobs may also be saved, but at what cost? Do
steelworkers
really have a right to demand that Americans pay higher taxes to save
an
industry that should be required to compete on its own?
2002 Ron Paul 15:4
If we’re going to protect the
steel
industry with tariffs, why not other industries? Does every industry
that
competes with imported goods have the same claim for protection? We’ve
propped
up the auto industry in the past, now we’re doing it for steel, so who
should
be next in line? Virtually every American industry competes with at
least some
imports.
2002 Ron Paul 15:5
What happened to the wonderful
harmony
that the WTO was supposed to bring to global trade? The administration
has been
roundly criticized since the steel decision was announced last week,
especially
by our WTO "partners." The European Union is preparing to impose
retaliatory sanctions to protect its own steel industry. EU trade
commissioner
Pascal Lamy has accused the U.S. of setting the stage for a global
trade war,
and several other steel producing nations such as Japan and Russia also
have
vowed to fight the tariffs. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who
has been
tremendously supportive of the President since September 11th, recently
stated
that the new American steel tariffs were totally unjustified. Wasn’t
the WTO
supposed to prevent all this squabbling? Those of us who opposed U.S.
membership
in the WTO were scolded as being out of touch, unwilling to see the
promise of a
new global prosperity. What we’re getting instead is increased
hostility from
our trading partners and threats of economic sanctions from our WTO
masters.
This is what happens when we let government-managed trade schemes pick
winners
and losers in the global trading game. The truly deplorable thing about
all of
this is that the WTO is touted as promoting free trade!
2002 Ron Paul 15:6
Mr. Speaker, it’s always
amazing to
me that Washington gives so much lip service to free trade while never
adhering
to true free trade principles. Free trade really means freedom- the
freedom to
buy and sell goods and services free from government interference. Time
and time
again, history proves that tariffs don’t work. Even some modern
Keynesian
economists have grudgingly begun to admit that free markets allocate
resources
better than centralized planning. Yet we cling to the idea that
government needs
to manage trade, when it really needs to get out of the way and let the
marketplace determine the cost of goods. I sincerely hope that the
administration’s position on steel does not signal a willingness to
resort to
protectionism whenever special interests make demands in the future.
This chapter appeared in Ron Pauls Congressional website at http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr031302.htm