I can see why he’d want to woo steelworker votes with a thin majority in the House, but did you ever think you’d see a Labor PM reading a Conservative republican the Riot Act over trade?
I’m still thinking through why Bush did this. If he claims that overseas steel producers are subsidized (the head of the steelworker’s union described healthcare and environmental protection as part of those ‘unfair’ subsidies, when a union man talks about healthcare as an unfair subsidy, I’d look for sodium pentathol, or hypnotists) then take it up with WTO. Maybe it’s part of a baroque plot to force the rest of the world to priviatize their healthcare systems? Maybe Bush was really worried about losing what little control he has of the House. Maybe he got a tidy pile of cash from LTV.
As for the steelworkers, man, you guys were played, pure and simple. Instead of bitching about the health, safety, and environment expenditures that steelworkers in other countries enjoy, why not lobby for them? You’ll find plenty of alies. When the rest of the industrial economy’s costs go up, do you really think they’ll blame Bush? They need him. They don’t need you.
Besides, tarrifs are, in most instances, a bad idea, and as the Economist points out, they just put off the reconning that the industry has put off for thirty years.
Meanwhile, Blair’s got his own steel problem. There some sort of controversy about campaign contributions to New Labor from a steel making firm.
Possibly Related posts (machine generated):