Bush protects steel at high cost

Two weeks ago, before IU left for spring break, President Bush decided to impose tariffs of up to 30 percent on imported steel. Predictably, his rationale was the post-Sept.11 standby: "(Fill in the blank) is a matter of national security, therefore we must do (fill in the blank) in order to do (fill in the blank)." Bush has used this line of reasoning to support just about everything he's wanted to do since Sept. 11: beef subsidies, drill oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and now, tariffs on imported steel.\nPerhaps my education has been wanting, but I always thought that a threat to our national security meant that the nation, the republic and peoples' lives were in danger. Applying the term "national security" to economic issues makes one wonder if "national security" has any real meaning at all. Will domestic cashew farmers get a brand new taxpayer-supported subsidy because, "Gol-darn-it, if American people can't get their cashews democracy don't stand a chance"?\nBut this column is not about Bush's butchery of the English language; that much is self-evident. It's about his politics and hypocrisy. \nAs befits his right-wing pedigree, Bush, both in the campaign and in office, has presented himself as an ardent free-trader. He's sought "Fast-Track" negotiating authority, he's supported the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement (FTAA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and argued for the opening of markets worldwide.\nFree trade is a good thing. It opens markets for American business, creating wealth and a growing economy. It provides innovative products with a wider stage from which to launch, benefiting scientific and social progress. It makes nations more dependent upon each other, reducing the likelihood of open armed conflict.\nFor years, the domestic steel industry has been clamoring for tariffs to close the American steel market, insisting they needed a competitive advantage over overseas steel firms to survive. Former President Clinton resisted their entreaties for his entire eight-year tenure, admirably withstanding considerable pressure from within his own party. George W. Bush, on the other hand, decided to impose tariffs -- a measure even the "liberal" Clinton refused to take. It cannot be comfortable for a right-wing Republican to appear less in favor of open markets than a Democrat, especially the right's nemesis, Bill Clinton.\nWhat's more, the domestic steel industry is grossly inefficient. Giving them this sort of help is repugnant to a tenet of capitalism: the fittest survive. I certainly don't believe President Bush is a communist, but his imposition of tariffs doesn't jive with his rhetoric. \nIndeed, this decision is simply nonsensical unless one discovers the true reason: Politics. Steel is made in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Bush won West Virginia by six percent and lost Pennsylvania by four percent. Bush needs to win one or both of those states to win reelection in 2004. \n The steel industry and organized labor are key to victory in those states. What better way to earn favor with those constituencies than to give them this sweetheart deal? The fact that Bush is ideologically opposed to tariffs seems to have been brushed aside as an inconvenient irrelevancy. After all, why do would he what he thinks is right when he could lose Pennsylvania?\nCandidate George W. Bush often boasted that he wouldn't make policy by polling. President George W. Bush's decision to raise tariffs on imported steel makes Candidate Bush's rhetoric look disingenuous and cynical at best, blatantly dishonest at worst.