Protectionist "Stimulus"
The Washington Post reports:
The stimulus bill passed by the House last night contains a controversial provision that would mostly bar foreign steel and iron from the infrastructure projects laid out by the $819 billion economic package.
Without endorsing any of the eventual infrastructure projects, we must acknowledge that this protectionist rider to the bill is bad for several reasons. Obviously, it will raise the cost of the projects–that’s it’s point–and reduce the number of projects. Second, it will reduce the number of dollars foreign steel and iron makers will have to buy or invest here. Third, it invites protectionist retaliation from the targeted countries. The last two consequences mean that the provision is an implicit transfer of wealth from the majority of Americans to U.S. steelmakers.Nice going, House of Representatives.
Comment by Steve Hogan on 29 January 2009:
Great! Smoot-Hawley 2009 Edition. The 1930 version was such a resounding success….
Comment by Carl Clegg on 29 January 2009:
Get used to it. There will be more protectionist riders…just as damaging. Like the plan to give tax breaks to people that buy new American cars that get better mileage than their current wheels. The catch is the old car must be destroyed…it can’t be sold as used. How’s that for making America more productive? Also, the bailout will upgrade the Federal governments fleets of cars with new GM and Fords and Chryslers. Expect the big bridge and infrastructure projects to have “prevailing wage” stipulations as well.