
by: Bill Dupray posted: 2009-09-17 09:16:00
Viewed 482 times. 3 Comments.
It is safe to say that certain elements of the MSM are starting to see that our emperor has no clothes. Whenever a story like this comes out, one wonders whether Obama is just naive and inexperienced or a bald-faced liar. Which one do you think the Post chooses?
Is President Obama a free trader? He has said so -- many times. At the April Group of 20 summit in London, he announced that he and the other assembled leaders had "rejected the protectionism that could deepen this crisis. History tells us that turning inward can help turn a downturn into a depression." From Wall Street on Monday, he declared that "this administration is committed to pursuing expanded trade and new trade agreements." And in a CNBC interview later that day, he said it is in "our interest and the world's interest to avoid protectionism." He urged Congress to mute -- though not eliminate -- "Buy American" provisions in the stimulus bill.Yet, for all that, the most significant action (emphasis in original) he has taken on trade was last weekend's decision to slap a stiff tariff on Chinese tire imports for the next three years. In the name of protecting jobs in the U.S. tire industry, the president has effectively imposed a tax on tires for every American -- and a particularly regressive tax at that, since the impact will fall most heavily on the cheap tires that China makes and that lower-income Americans buy.
So it looks like they are calling him naive for thinking that a trade war with the Chinese will somehow help average Americans. He's raising taxes on the lower and middle classes. If a Republican had done that, the Democrats' heads would have exploded and we would have heard no end of it on MSNBC. To WaPo's credit they are going after Obama for the same reason.
So he's naive about the economic consequences of the tariff, but is he also a liar about being a free-trader?
Mr. Obama says that this step will bolster free trade in the long run by showing that the United States intends to enforce trade agreements. That demonstration will, he implies, strengthen public trust in open markets.The question is: Exactly what is he doing to advance additional market-opening agreements that are clearly in the U.S. interest, such as pending deals with Colombia, South Korea and Panama? Or the Doha talks on reducing global tariffs? So far, the answer is somewhere between not much and nothing.
Now, if you believe, like I do, that Obama's economic philosophy is somewhere between committed anti-capitalist on one end and a flat out advocate of state control of business on the other, then his decision on the tire tariff is perfectly understandable. If he really cared about helping average Americans, he wouldn't raise their taxes (first on cigarettes, now on tires, soon on health care). If he cared businesses he would cut their taxes, not nationalize them.
So why is he doing this? Who benefits from a trade war with China? You guessed it: The unions.
Just as the tariff against Chinese tires reflects the unilateral urging of the United Steelworkers of America -- not U.S. tire companies -- so does Mr. Obama's broader trade policy seem pretty close to that of organized labor, which adamantly opposes all of the above-mentioned deals.
And what percentage of American workers are union members? According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in 2008, it was 12.4%, and falling.

If you had to name the least capitalist element of our society, the one responsible for the deaths of GM and Chrylser, the one whose 'Workers Movement' has long been supported by the Communists, it would be the unions. It says a lot about Obama that he is damaging our country to benefit that particular group of people. And the Washington Post editors are the one who are saying it.
Note: The link to the Post editorial and the graph were were added to the original post.
Tags: Unions, Capitalism, China, Obama,
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/wapo-editors-unload--obama-is-all-talk-on-trade-/trackback
The broad expanses of my tiredness know no bounds when it comes to his mouth and his pen.
Hey, the good news is that he will be on all 5 Sunday shows this weekend. Just in case you were starting to forget what he looks and sounds like.
The problem is the sequence. Can the House vote to amend something that isn't the law, as the Senate bill will not be law before the president's signature? The Rules Committee meeting turned into mass confusion when Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman said, "We're not going to 'deem' the bill passed. We're going to pass the Senate bill…I would be against the idea of 'deeming' something -- we either pass it or we don't."
Views: 77 Comments: 2
Views: 108 Comments: 0
Views: 195 Comments: 0
Views: 104 Comments: 1
Views: 169 Comments: 0
Ranking Republican Paul Ryan responds to an NRO query about the news this morning: “The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate. Yet House Democrats are touting to the press — and spinning for partisan gain — numbers that have not been released and are impossible to confirm.Boy, a final official number that came in over a trillion bucks would really bite them in the a**.
Views: 135 Comments: 1
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Arizona GOP Primary voters shows McCain ahead 48% to 41%. Three percent (3%) favor another candidate, and eight percent (8%) are undecided. Following the announcement that Sarah Palin would campaign for his reelection, McCain opened up a 53% to 31% lead over Hayworth in January. The two men were in a near tie in November.By my math, McCain's lead shrunk from 21 to 7 in two months. Hmmm.
Views: 80 Comments: 0
Views: 91 Comments: 0
[House] leaders are mulling a rule that would allow the chamber to "deem" the Senate's version of health legislation as passed, without actually having to vote on it. Imagine how useful this trick would be in daily life. You could make unpopular decisions without actually appearing to make them. That excruciating Thanksgiving dinner at your brother-in-law's? You "deemed" that you attended. . . . It's understandable that some House Democrats wouldn't want to cast a direct vote on the Senate bill . . . before moving to change it. But a procedure this transparently gimmicky just adds to the cynicism surrounding the bill and opens it up to unnecessary court challenges.
Views: 97 Comments: 2
Views: 112 Comments: 1
Nine months into this guy's term and I am already infinitely tired of him.