Tariffs on steel important to many American familes

Mr. Halcom:\nRegarding your column on President Bush's decision to impose steel tariffs, let me say you are dead wrong on some accounts. The steel industry doesn't need protection because "the domestic steel industry is grossly inefficient," as you wrote. Inefficient how? Exactly what is the basis for this statement? In fact, the American steel industry is more efficient than ever. American steel producers are at a great disadvantage to other nations who dump steel into our country at deflated prices. You may ask how we are disadvantaged. OK, here are a couple of reasons:\n• Legacy costs:\nAmerican steel producers provide retirement benefits for their employees that other nations do not. We do not have nationalized health care -- the companies pick up this cost. Additionally, our nation's steelmakers pay pension benefits that competing countries ignore.\n• Environmental issues:\nIs the environment important to you, Ken? American steel producers comply with costly rules imposed by the EPA. Most developing nations are not concerned with environmental issues, and the environment suffers as a result. The fact is that we make steel with the least amount of damage to the environment, but there is a cost to that. \nYou don't understand the correlation between steel and national security? In the event of a full-scale war, what do you suggest we use to make tanks, jets, engines, bombs, jeeps, Hummers? Should we use plastic? Paper? If the American steel industry no longer exists, we will still need steel.\nTry to consider all factors when forming an opinion on such a complex issue. This decision is about more than George Bush's re-election campaign. Tens of thousands of families depend on the American steel industry. If you look around Bloomington, you'll be surprised how many you'll find.