AnnotatedOpinions.com

U.S. steel makers are cheering an International Trade Commission vote Wednesday to impose new duties on imports from China. U.S. consumers will want to hold their applause.  

The case was filed in April by domestic steel manufacturers and the United Steelworkers union, which argued that they had been injured by imports of subsidized steel from China. The ruling allows the Commerce Department to impose countervailing duties ranging from 10% to 16% on future imports from China of “oil country tubular goods,” which are the pipes used in the oil and gas industry. . . [AO: Ok. China illegally subsidizes its steel industry. This hurts American Steel Companies by keeping prices artificially low. U.S. steel manufacturers and the United Steelworkers union bring a case against China before the International Trade Commission and win.   

Should we be happy that U.S. workers are fighting for their jobs against subsidized Chinese production? Not according to the Wall Street Journal.]  

China will no doubt respond to this latest protectionism with more tariffs of its own against U.S. products or investment, further increasing the cost of this protectionism. . . [AO: See, this is about
protectionism. This is not about China cheating and getting caught. This is not about the U.S. being given the option to rectify an injustice perpetrated against American workers by China. No. To hear the Wall Street Journal tell it, this is about the U.S. being protectionist.  

Know what? The U.S. is being protectionist. The U.S. is protecting its citizens—hardworking Americans who have seen their industry decimated by, among other things, cheating on the part of other countries—from, yes, cheating. There is nothing wrong with protecting American families here.]

There is an old saying that there is no such thing as a free lunch. What may come as a surprise to you is that there is such a thing as a free job. . .  

As of Oct. 30, the Obama administration says $214.5 billion of the stimulus has been spent thus far and this spending has “saved or created 640,000 jobs.” In other words, according to the numbers provided by the White House, these jobs have come at a cost to the American taxpayer of $335,156 per job. . .  

Thankfully there is a way to create jobs without spending a dime of taxpayer money. How do we create these free jobs? By passing the three pending free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.  

[AO: The writer, Rep. Aaron Schock of Illinois, makes free trade seem like the solution to our unemployment problems. The way he tells it, lower barriers to trade and US companies will be hiring more people to produce more goods for sale in Columbia, Panama and South Korea.  

But free trade is a two way street. By entering into a free trade agreement, we open our markets to goods from other countries just as they open their markets to ours. As a result, for free trade to produce a net positive number of jobs in America, we must create more jobs here than are destroyed by the free trade agreement. This was one of the big concerns with NAFTA. Briefly considering trucking under NAFTA, U.S. truckers were concerned that Americans would loose trucking jobs by opening America’s roads to Mexican truckers.  

Which brings us back to Schock’s suggestion to pass the three pending free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Will these agreements create more jobs then they destroy? 

This is not an argument against passing the agreements, per se. Instead, it is an argument against passing the agreements for the purpose of creating jobs without considering the full effect on jobs of their passage. After all, the agreements might be worth passing for a number of other reasons that have nothing to do with creating jobs. ]

Despite some questions, Obama’s Afghan policy is sound Given time, his strategy should work. But will there be time, and what about ‘winning’? [LA Times]

Afghanistan: Did Obama really say that? [Chicago Tribune]

Afghanistan: Now let’s win it; Republicans, Democrats and independents, it’s time to get behind our troops – and our commander in chief. [USA Today]

A Goldilocks strategy: Obama bought himself time on Afghanistan, but there will be hell to pay if his policy fails. [Washington Post]

Health reform must go forward: Defenders of the status quo in health care would gladly allow the need to vet President Obama’s Afghanistan plan to drain precious energy from the health-care fight. [Boston Globe]

Climate of suspicion [Chicago Tribune]

Trading with Ecuador: Washington must resist efforts by Chevron to interfere with a Andean trade agreement. [LA Times]

Too risky to regulate? Not with proper verification [Boston Globe]

The Job Summit: Once job creation has the priority status it deserves, the next step is to build on proven programs and add new ones to address the scale and nature of joblessness. [New York Times]

‘Yes’ to a second stimulus: State and local governments are draining federal dollars, deepening the U.S.’s decline. [Washington Post]

Cracking Cuba [LA Times]

Framers envisioned separation: Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s support for legal abortion has earned him the wrath of the Catholic bishop of Providence, R.I., Thomas Tobin [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Tiger Woods pleas for privacy, and he has a point [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

Taking one for the team: The National Football League needs to move beyond its incremental steps to combat player brain injuries. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Concussions: Kurt Warner’s courage - Arizona Cardinal Kurt Warner did something courageous last Sunday. He admitted he was too shaken up to play. [Boston Globe]

Neglected Warriors: Far greater candor in Washington is needed about all the factors and risks that can drive soldiers to commit suicide. [New York Times]

‘Reality’ and the White House crashers [LA Times]

How to get around Karzai: Good governors and ministers may help us succeed in spite of the Afghan president. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

————————–

Editorial Note: This feature, “What They Are Saying” will be discontinued on Monday, December 7, 2009 so that we can bring you more annotated opinions.

President Obama is in favor of free trade. Except when he isn’t. Free trade creates jobs and lowers prices, as he freely acknowledges. But he also insists that American workers must be shielded from foreign labor practices that threaten job security. . . .

Invoking a section of the Trade Enforcement Act meant to permit U.S. industry to adapt to competition from China, Obama raised tariffs for three years: by 35% the first, 30% the second and 25% the third. But restricting Chinese tires won’t save American jobs; imports from Mexico and other countries will certainly fill the void. . . .

Trade squabbles are to be expected. Even President George W. Bush placed a tariff on steel imports from Russia (which retaliated with one on chicken). But Bush’s overall record was one of trade expansion; Obama’s record, to date, is incoherent. Trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama languish in Congress, the U.S. still refuses to give Mexican trucks access to most U.S. roads . . .

[AO: Where to begin? Let’s start at the top. The LA Time seems to equate free trade with unregulated trade. This is not so. Just like free speech doesn’t mean that you can say whatever you want whenever you want (example: no screaming fire in a crowded theatre), free trade must be guided by our efforts, from time to time, including invoking sanctions against other countries, to ensure that trade remains free and fair. See, free trade that is not fair will result in no trade at all.

Notice how the Time proclaims that raising tariffs on importation of Chinese tires will not benefit American jobs? Well, what the Times fails to mention is that its claim that decreased Chinese imports will “certainly” be replaced by imports from other countries is not exactly . . . certain! Whether some or all the decrease in Chinese imports will be replaced by other imports is a disputed issue among economists. Indeed the Times hints at this in the sentence immediately following the paragraph quoted above when it writes that President Obama is aware of the “probability” that imports from other countries will fill the void. So, if the Trade Enforcement Act gives a US president the right to protect American jobs under specific conditions and those specific conditions are met, why is the President criticized for taking action?  

The Times also argues that President Bush’s “overall record was one of trade expansion” whereas Obama’s record is incoherent. To support this argument, it lists the following as reasons why President Obama’s record is “incoherent”: Trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama languish in Congress; the U.S. still refuses to give Mexican trucks access to most U.S. roads. But wait! Are these not conditions inherited from President Bush? How do these examples spell “trade expansion” when applied to Bush but “incoherence” when applied to President Obama? Perhaps the real problem is comparing 9 months of the Obama presidency with 48 months of the Bush presidency. ]