Steel tariffs at what cost?

In March the Bush administration imposed an audacious 30 percent tariff on imported steel products. The trade barrier was erected in response to the estimated 30 percent of steel-producing firms having filed for bankruptcy in the U.S. since 1998 and because of the lowest domestic prices in 20 years. The Bush administration insists that the tariff is within World Trade Organization guidelines and breaks no international law or agreement. In fact, in the administration's report to Congress they charge that our trading partners -- including the European Union, Japan, Brazil, South Korea and India -- "have safeguarded a wide range of products." However, no crucial products have been protected with the same severity.\nResponding to Bush's protectionist tactics, the EU has expressed condemnation and threats of retaliation. This is where Bush hits a snare: Here in the middle of the war on terrorism as we're begging for allies across the globe, our president has effectively angered and taken steps to economically alienate those nations we are trying to win over!\nFor example, the U.S. has been trying to work closely with Indonesia, the location of one of the most important battlegrounds for the war. However, Indonesia is a major steel producing country and is deeply hurt by Bush's tariffs. It isn't just other nations that are bearing the financial burden of the American steel producers' impotence. The wallet of the American consumer is also taking a beating while our government inflates steel prices. It's amazing that even though most economists have decried the international economic policies of the late 19th century, there are still those willing to uphold protectionist tenets.\nThe steel industry is a strong interest group and might make reelection difficult for Bush should he fail to appease them, but at what price is he willing to buy his next term in office? It's time for American consumers to break the curse of collective action and voice our support for free trade! Why should we continue to pay for an industry that is afraid to cut costs in order to survive? One of the more serious problems with the steel producers and the reason they have failed to compete with foreign firms is that their employees are overpaid. But as long as the government makes it possible for them to maintain inflated salaries, the steelworker's children will grow up and work in the mill too.\nWith the WTO set to rule on the legality of the steel tariff in March of 2003, the administration's situation looks bleak. Of the eleven free trade cases that have come before the WTO since it was created in 1995, it has ruled against barriers every time. This means that President Bush will have to decide in March whether or not he intends to bend to the WTO ruling (accepting international consensus has not been one of his strong points).\nThe Republican policy of protecting the steel industry at the expense of Republican ideals has been painful to watch. But what is even more painful is the indifference of American consumers and anti-protectionists that don't mind looking the other way because they appreciate their tax cuts and support the action Bush has taken in Iraq. Even Democrats are afraid to be aggressive on the issue for fear of losing those union members that still back their party. If Bush really wants to give us a tax break (and a break in international diplomacy), he could start by letting the steel industry stand on its own. If they succeed and learn how to compete -- great! If not, then it's time for them to get off the financial backs of the American public and play fair with the rest of the world.