Author Topic: Obama Wary of Tariff Provision in Cap & Trade Bill (Can't make this up alert!))  (Read 548 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama Wary of Tariff Provision

By GREG HITT and NAFTALI BENDAVID

President Barack Obama said the House bill curbing greenhouse-gas emissions that passed by a close vote Friday represents "an extraordinary first step," but said he had doubts about a provision to impose tariffs on goods from countries that don't match U.S. efforts to combat global warming.

Associated Press
 
Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.), center, before a climate-bill hearing of the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee this month.

After passing by a 219-212 vote, the bill, a priority for President Obama, faces even higher hurdles in the Senate, both from Republicans and from the president's own party, despite a 59-40 majority for Democrats. "It was a struggle to get [climate legislation] through the House, and there's no reason to think it will be any different in the Senate," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.), chairwoman of one panel that has jurisdiction over climate legislation, along with Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D., N.M.) energy committee. Ms. Boxer said she intends for her environment committee to vote on a version before Congress's August recess.

Several Republicans, criticizing the bill's costs, suggested the House bill has little chance of passage in the Senate. "You're going to find signs on manufacturing doors, if this bill passes, that say, 'Moved, gone to China,'" said Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) on ABC's "This Week."

Among the most controversial parts of the House bill is the provision inserted by Democratic leaders that would impose tariffs on goods imported from countries that don't match U.S. carbon-dioxide restrictions -- a slap at China and India that some business interests fear could provoke a trade war. The tariff would take effect in 2020 and fall on a range of products from countries that don't adopt similar programs to control emissions.

Transcript

"There are critics from the left as well as the right; some who say who doesn't go far enough, some who say it goes too far. I am convinced that after a long period of inaction, for us to have taken such a significant step means that we're going to be in a position to advance technologically, obtain huge gains in efficiency." -- President Obama

Thoughts for Fuel: Carter's Energy Plan Will Put Priorities On Conservation, Environmental Issues (Dec. 28, 1976)Carter's Energy Budget Changes to Stress Conservation, Cut Back Nuclear Projects (Feb. 17, 1977)President Loses A Crucial Vote On Energy Policy (Sep. 23, 1977)Blitz to Aid Carter's Energy Plan Is Set; Staffers Call Six-Week Period 'Critical' (Aug. 6, 1979)

Supporters say a tariff is needed to shield U.S. industries such as steel and cement makers from unfair competition abroad. The proposal also is designed to give Congress leverage to force imposition of a tariff even if the president resists.

President Obama, speaking to reporters Sunday, didn't say whether he would veto the bill if the measure remains a part of it, or whether he will work to remove it in negotiations with Congress. "At a time when the economy world-wide is still deep in recession, and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there," he said. He added that he was "mindful" of the need to level the playing field internationally for U.S. business.

The bill would create a system that lets companies buy and sell pollution permits, while complying with progressively tighter caps on emissions. U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions would be cut by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% by midcentury.

It also would mandate that coal-burning electric utilities use greater amounts of renewable fuels like solar and wind power and would provide incentives to develop clean-energy technologies. The legislation gives businesses -- including power generators -- more than 60% of the pollution permits for free in the early years of the program.

Business factions remain split. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers lobbied against passage, while groups that represent airlines, oil producers and mining companies expressed disappointment, saying the bill would lead to onerous new costs. "It will affect every aspect of the American economy, harming our ability to compete in the world and provide secure and affordable energy to American consumers and businesses," the National Mining Association said in a statement.

But the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, backed it, as did companies with big investments in alternatives to fossil fuels. "The House has taken an important first step on a road that will help the industry scale to a point at which we no longer need government incentives," said Bryan Ashley, vice president of Suniva Inc., a Georgia solar-cell manufacturer.

The bill contained a range of compromises. The original goal for 2020, for instance, was a cut of 25% of emissions from 2005 levels, not 17%. But leaders made a deal with Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D., Minn.), who spoke for many rural lawmakers, letting the Agriculture Department run a key program for farmers, rather than the Environmental Protection Agency. Some Farm Belt lawmakers fear the EPA would be less friendly to agribusiness.

Even after those changes, nearly one in five Democrats defected from the House bill. That the climate bill is coming at the same time as the president's health-care plan makes it an even tougher sell to some from conservative districts.

Similar compromises to woo centrist Democrats loom for the health-care bill, which faces votes in both chambers later this summer. Some Senate Democrats are whittling down provisions considered sacrosanct by liberal advocates, reducing proposed subsidies for the uninsured and opposing the creation of a government-run plan to compete with private insurers.

The intraparty tensions are frustrating some Democratic leaders and activists, who believe they have an opportunity to enact a broad liberal agenda. MoveOn.org announced Friday that it is running ads criticizing Sen. Kay Hagan, a newly elected Democrat from North Carolina, for opposition to a publicly run plan as part of a health overhaul.

Mr. Obama and his top aides at the White House played down intraparty tensions, as well as the 44 Democrats who voted against the climate bill. "I think those 44 Democrats are sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue," the president said.

A senior aide even suggested the climate vote "has helped health care enormously," demonstrating that Congress is capable of confronting big issues.

—Stephen Power contributed to this article.

Write to Greg Hitt at greg.hitt@wsj.com and Naftali Bendavid at naftali.bendavid@wsj.com

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A3

________________________ ________________________ ___________________

Obama has to be dumbest president we have ever had when it comes to economics. 

Serious, even Bush was not this dumb and idiotic.

You literally cant make up the idiocy that is the Obama admn when it comes to economics.   

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18182
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
We should have imposed tariffs years ago and saved manufacturing jobs in America.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
We should have imposed tariffs years ago and saved manufacturing jobs in America.

You cant have tarriffs in today's global economy without massive losses of jobs. 

Protectionism does not work because businesses will simply pack up and leave.  If you want to demand that countries we do business with life tarrifs against us as a condition of our doing business with them - fine, I agree with that. 

However, to start a trade war with our banker who finances half our budget deficit every year is pure madness. 

We need to be making the business climate here better for domestic and intl businesses, not worse. 

By imposing tarrifs right now, the cost of everything skyrockets and our own businesses will not be able to do business overseas. 

It sounds good, but is bad economics.   

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18182
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
You cant have tarriffs in today's global economy without massive losses of jobs. 

Protectionism does not work because businesses will simply pack up and leave.  If you want to demand that countries we do business with life tarrifs against us as a condition of our doing business with them - fine, I agree with that. 

However, to start a trade war with our banker who finances half our budget deficit every year is pure madness. 

We need to be making the business climate here better for domestic and intl businesses, not worse. 

By imposing tarrifs right now, the cost of everything skyrockets and our own businesses will not be able to do business overseas. 

It sounds good, but is bad economics.   

Better to piss them all off if it means a return of manufacturing to our own country.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Better to piss them all off if it means a return of manufacturing to our own country.

Why are we not asking the question why we dont mfg more???

Why arnt we looking at the reasons businesses pick up and leave?

Before imposing tarrifs, I would suggest we get rid of all this global warming nonsense and focus on making our country a better climate to do business in, from tort reform, to tax reform, etc.

Even China has a better business climate than we do now. 

shootfighter1

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5674
  • Competitor- NABBA Nationals Overall Champ
33386, as usual, I agree with you.

If we empose tariffs on other countries like China, do you think they will still be happy to finance our massive debt?  We are in a horrible position right now with our massive spending, borrowing and debt.  No leverage.  We must decrease spending and make the U.S more attractive for all businesses.  Business creates growth, not government.  Government is there as a needed check against bad business practices...but we need all three together and need to free the constraints on business so it can grow.

I agree with enacting tariffs on all countries who issue tariffs on our products.

drkaje

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18182
  • Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.
33386, as usual, I agree with you.

If we empose tariffs on other countries like China, do you think they will still be happy to finance our massive debt?  We are in a horrible position right now with our massive spending, borrowing and debt.  No leverage.  We must decrease spending and make the U.S more attractive for all businesses.  Business creates growth, not government.  Government is there as a needed check against bad business practices...but we need all three together and need to free the constraints on business so it can grow.

I agree with enacting tariffs on all countries who issue tariffs on our products.

The US screwed up in the 80s by not fighting comparative pricing. All those countries kept widening their customer base and using cheap labor. We were led to believe a free market would level the playing field and that unions were the problem.... how can the free market fix the problem when Chinese unskilled labor is basically free, Japan charges less for the same products in other markets, and some countries have a tariff/VAT on goods produces in other countries when we do not?

No matter how you slice it our politicians have not protected American Jobs. Jobs are the solution to this problem and not jobs @ $7.50/hr. Think about it, minimum wage has doubled in 15 years but no one's standard of living has improved. NAFTA and GAT were bad ideas, period. All we've done is send jobs to Canada, Mexico, India, Pakistan, etc... while lowering the cost of credit/goods/services so people can't realize how their buying power has eroded.

We need tariffs to make US produced goods competitive. It's the only way to save and rebuild our country's job base.