Smoot-Hawley

In her column today, Kimberley Strassel throws some light on what’s behind President Obama’s recent endorsement of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement and what might lie ahead after the November elections. Strassel points out that Obama seems to be waiting for the revival of a trade agenda to be rescued by the post-election GOP.  She says:

Having presided over the most anti-free trade Congress since the days of Smoot-Hawley, having protected Democrats from any vote that might earn them union retribution, and having had little positive to say about trade, the president is now looking to a bolstered GOP caucus to pass a trade agenda.  That is, if even a GOP majority can rescue Democrats from their increasingly unfettered protectionism.

Strassel also notes the lost economic opportunities for the U.S. in not ratifying the bottled U.S. -Colombia FTA, which has cost the U.S. a whopping 31 percent of its market share in products in Columbia, while other countries making trade deals with that nation have seen their market share rise by 22 percent.

Even if the Republicans make significant gains in the elections and push a free trade agenda, Strassel says, they’ll still need some Democratic support.  And that’s where Obama needs to be serious about free trade and lead that charge against the protectionists and union blockers.

The $800 billion stimulus package pushed through by Obama has ignited a trade war with Canada, reports the Washington Post. In response to vague “buy American” provisions in the stimulus, “A number of Ontario towns, with a collective population of nearly 500,000, retaliated with measures effectively barring U.S. companies from their municipal contracts — the first shot in a larger campaign that could shut U.S. companies out of billions of dollars worth of Canadian projects.”

A trade war is also underway with Mexico, thanks to a provision in the stimulus package that blocked a measley 97 Mexican truckers from U.S. roads. That minor NAFTA violation “caused Mexico to retaliate with tariffs on 90 goods affecting $2.4 billion in U.S. trade,” destroying 40,000 American jobs.

Obama’s protectionism echoes Herbert Hoover’s protectionism, which helped spawn the Great Depression. President Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which helped turn a recession into the Great Depression by triggering a trade war with other countries.

Unemployment is now even higher than what Obama predicted it would be without the stimulus. The White House now admits that there will be no job growth until 2010. The Congressional Budget Office repeatedly predicted that the stimulus would shrink the economy “in the long run,” but increase it in the short run, i.e., by the next election.

But so little of the stimulus money has gone into sectors of the economy where unemployment is high (like construction and transportation) that it seems to be doing nothing for the economy even in the short run. The $100 billion it pours into education — a sector where unemployment is very low, and where the U.S. also spends more per capita than almost every other country — appears likely to be wasted. Only 5.9 percent of the stimulus will go to transportation, a small amount compared to the amount of money it showers on state governments, which are using it to continue to provide lucrative pension and health benefits for state employees, whose wages continue to rise much faster than private sector workers.

Obama is following in Herbert Hoover’s footsteps on taxes and spending. In the Great Depression, Hoover raised marginal tax rates to 63%, and went on a deficit spending binge. Similarly, Obama has proposed higher marginal tax rates, which will produce another $1.9 trillion in tax increases. One of Obama’s own advisers now says that “the barrage of tax increases proposed in President Barack Obama’s budget could, if enacted by Congress, kill any chance of an early and sustained recovery.” He compares Obama’s tax increases to those that deepened the Great Depression.

Hoover imposed regressive taxes that burdened consumers, like the Revenue Act of 1932. Obama is now doing the same thing through his proposed $2 trillion cap-and-trade carbon tax. Obama privately admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle (which didn’t report it) that under his “plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” As Obama admitted, that cost would be directly passed “on to consumers” — just the way Herbert Hoover’s 1932 excise tax increase was. Although the tax’s supporters claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them and also result in dirtier air. It is also chock full of corporate welfare, regional favoritism, political pay-offs, and give-aways to special interests.

Good article today by Bloomberg columnist Michael Sesit, who lays out the protectionist actions many countries are taking in the midst of the worldwide economic slump and warns that accelerated trade protectionism would plunge the world into a depression.

Unless governments get serious about arresting the trend soon, the chatter about 2009 morphing into a replay of the Great Depression will become a self-fulfilling prophesy. The U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 increased duties on more than 20,000 goods, inviting retaliation by other countries. Within two years of the law’s enactment, global trade declined 70 percent.

One of the signs of increased protectionism in the U.S. comes on the tail of the stimulus bill’s “Buy American” provisions, which mandate that public projects funded by the package must use goods, including iron and steel, manufactured in the U.S. Not satisfied with that, now the steel industry wants to protect the rest of its market by increasing tariffs on imported steel. According to today’s Wall Street Journal, expect to see steelmakers file anti-dumping complaints this spring. They’ll have to wait a bit, ‘though, because their profits during the first three-quarters of 2008 were healthy, and one can assume that wouldn’t make a strong case.