Login
|
Subscribe
Search only accepts letters and numbers.
Sunday, August 14, 2022
Home
News
Coronavirus Coverage
State & National Coverage
CDC Coronavirus Microsite
Columns
Brian Howey
Cameron Carter
Linda Chezem
Joshua Claybourn
Jack Colwell
Larry DeBoer
Craig Dunn
Trevor Foughty
Shaw Friedman
Christina Hale
Lee Hamilton
Kelly Hawes
Maureen Hayden
Michael Hicks
Rich James
Terri Jett
David Kitchell
Robert Kraft
Anne Laker
Erin Macey
Morton Marcus
Jay Ruckelshaus
Chris Sautter
Mark Schoeff Jr.
Pete Seat
Curt Smith
Russ Stilwell
Mark Souder
Tony Samuel
Renee Wilmeth
Downloads
HPI Daily Wire
HPI Weekly PDF's
HPI Polling
HPI Poll April 23, 2013
Howey/DePauw Poll November 2, 2012
Howey-Gauge Poll October 28, 2008
Howey/DePauw Poll September 27, 2012
Howey/DePauw Poll May 4, 2012
Howey/DePauw Poll April 5, 2012
Howey-Gauge Poll September 4, 2008
Howey-Gauge Poll April 29, 2008
Member's Archives
2014 Archives - PDF's
2013 Archives - PDF'S
2012 Archives - PDF's
2011 Archives - PDF's
2010 Archives - PDF's
2009 Archives - PDF's
2008 Archives - PDF's
2007 Archives - PDF's
2006 Archives - PDF's
2005 Archives - PDF's
2004 Archives - PDF's
2003 Archives - PDF's
2002 Archives - PDF's
2001 Archives - PDF's
2000 Archives - PDF's
HPI Videos
About
Contact
Subscribe
Linda Chezem: Tariffs aren't terrifying
By LINDA CHEZEM
Friday, July 20, 2018 12:10 PM
MARTINSVILLE – Hyper headlines about trade, tariffs, and treaties are really nothing new, and neither are the terrified commentaries about what is going to happen to the U.S. economy. The history of trade debate is part of our country’s crazy quilt of political shifts and turns in policy. Just a quick look at history can calm us and provide a better context for the current trade debate.
Today’s low U.S. tariff levels are the product of a (mostly) bipartisan consensus in favor of progressively freer trade that dates back to the post-World War II era. But that consensus was emphatically not the case for the first 150 years or so of the nation’s history: Tariff policy was the subject of fierce disagreement between Republicans (and earlier, Whigs) who favored high rates to protect American industries from foreign competition, and Democrats who by and large argued that any tariffs higher than necessary to fund the federal government unfairly taxed the many to benefit the few.
To be clear, we have learned lessons from the Smoot-Hawley tariffs. I do not suggest we should repeat that experience.
I admit that I am writing on something about which I have as much bias as I have knowledge. I am biased in favor of freely engaging in trade and against tariffs in general. But I also want a fair treatment for U.S. exports, not like past experiences when we have turned a blind eye toward exploitation of U.S. goods while other countries violated treaties with impunity. As for impacts of trade upon agriculture, I am also in favor of giving agriculture a break rather than another burden.
With my basic leaning toward free trade, I do not consider President Trump’s trade initiatives as policies in the traditional sense, but rather as negotiating strategies. The president and Secretary of Commerce Ross have made a valid point; our trading partners tend to impose higher tariffs than the U.S. does. We should highlight the valid U.S. concerns and demand that our trading partners lower their tariffs through the proper channels.
But wait, you might say, haven’t we done that for years? Well, maybe the tough talk from President Trump about what our trading partners have been doing to the U.S. is necessary to get us to a point of free and fair trade. It might be a good time to cease the whiny undermining of the president and start to seriously consider how we might best shape trade policy for the future, for the long haul.
In thinking about the long-term best interests of the United States, we need to strengthen our policy for agriculture. Sustainable and profitable agricultural production is a national security priority. If you say it is not, then I say it should be. And by the way, my husband and I grow corn and beans on our farms. As producers, we pay part of our crop money into check-offs. Those dollars can be used to develop new products and to better market agricultural products, domestically, and in countries where we are getting along OK on the trade front. But, our check off dollars cannot be used to achieve the policy that U. S. agriculture needs.
I think it is in our best interests not to handicap the president as he attempts to negotiate in this trade climate. That is one of the jobs a president is elected to do. Let him do his best. As for Congress, it does not set the details of U.S. trade policy. In 1934, Congress delegated authority to negotiate trade deals with other countries and, under certain circumstances, raise or lower import duties to the president. And that is the authority President Trump has relied on for this year’s tariff increases.
I love ranchers and farmers. There is no more community-minded and generous group of people in the world. When it is time to fight our country’s wars, it’s the rural 20% that provides over 40% of the military. The trade wars are another battle and yes, the rural communities are suffering from previous administrations’ policies. Secretary Perdue believes that President Trump will not forget the farmers and ranchers. I agree with Secretary Perdue, but it is up to us, the farmers and ranchers, to tell President Trump how we want to be remembered.
President Trump could be the best president ever for rural America and for poor Americans. If the agriculture community will join together with proposals for policy changes in three critical areas, the President can make new and better agricultural policy supporting the production of food and essential agricultural products. We have a national security interest in the viability of agriculture and rural communities.
First, fix transportation. Immediately. Rewrite the Federal Motor Carrier rules so the price of transportation of products and perishables does not continue to drive the price of food up. If we cannot get produce and livestock to the markets and agricultural products to the ports, trade negotiation will not matter. Update and repair the river locks and make river transportation of grain cheaper and easier. Fund well-designed, not special interest or advocacy group driven, research for transportation policy for remote and rural communities.
Second, recognize that the significant differences in climate and terrain of this country require a more localized approach to health and environmental policy development and implementation. Again, we have a national security interest in the viability of remote and rural communities.
Third, revise federal grant-making policy so that the money gets used for local needs within the broad programmatic areas. The money should not be siphoned off on its way back home to the taxpayers.
The president can direct White House staff to offer full support to the agencies to accomplish these critical aims long before he can fix the trade issues. Those of us who care about agriculture and our rural communities can quit whining and help the president make rural and agricultural policy great.
Chezem is a former Indiana Court of Appeals judge. She is a professor at Purdue University in the Department of Youth Development and Agriculture Education. She holds an adjunct appointment at the IU School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, with the Indiana Alcohol Research Center. She practices law with Foley Peden and Wisco in Martinsville. She will write columns for Howey Politics Indiana on law and agriculture.
Submit A Comment
Please fill out the form below to submit a comment.
*
indicates a required field
Comment
*
Your Name
Email
Phone
A comment must be approved by our staff before it will displayed on the website.
Submit
X
Brooks excoriates Rokita over child rape case
"We are confident of Americans’ ability to work through the issue of abortion now that the Supreme Court has returned it to the democratic process. But it’s crucial for law enforcement to stay above the partisan fray. A case in Indiana leaves us deeply concerned on that score. Initially, some doubted news reports that a 10-year- old Ohio rape victim had traveled to Indiana for a legal abortion. There were also unsubstantiated claims that the physician who performed the abortion had failed to report the abuse of a child and the abortion performed on a girl under 16, as Indiana law requires. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita rushed precipitously into this fray. He told Fox News he was investigating the physician and 'was looking at her licensure.' This, after admitting he hadn’t examined evidence that she complied with reporting requirements. Even worse was his inflammatory rhetoric: 'We have this abortion activist acting as a doctor,' he said. Despite the arrest and confession of a defendant in the rape, and news accounts documenting the physician’s timely reporting, Mr. Rokita continues to say publicly that he is investigating her. The justice system’s legitimacy requires that law enforcement be fair, deliberative and ethical. Government investigations should remain confidential unless and until a defendant is charged, with respect for the presumption of innocence and government’s burden of proof. A baseless investigation, if disclosed publicly, causes the target reputational damage, humiliation and loss. We are appalled that, by his own admission, Mr. Rokita announced his investigation before gathering the most basic facts."
- Former Indiana congressman and district attorney
Susan Brooks
and
John Tinder,
writing in a
Wall Street Journal
op-ed.
HPI Video Feed
Tweets by @hwypol
The HPI Breaking News App
is now available for iOS & Android!
Home
|
Login
|
Subscribe
|
About
|
Contact
© 2022 Howey Politics, All Rights Reserved • Software © 1998 - 2022
1up!
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
##LOC[Cancel]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
##LOC[Cancel]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
##LOC[Cancel]##
{1}
##LOC[OK]##
##LOC[Cancel]##