(doppio senso intraducibile: Byrd si pronuncia come “bird”,
uccello; “dropping” ciò che si lascia cadere, in questo caso la spartizione dei
dazi antidumping; ma “bird droppings” sono gli escrementi degli uccelli…)
Editoriale WSJ
- attacco a protezionisti USA che si oppongono
alla revoca dell’emendamento del senatore Robert Byrd del 2001, il quale
riserva alle imprese che sporgono ricorso antidumping il ricavato dei dazi
antidumping così ottenuti (escludendone le altre imprese che pure risultassero
danneggiate). Tale emendamento viene definito “macchina protezionistica a moto
perpetuo”. - La Camera ha votato la revoca dell’emendamento; in
Senato 20 senatori Rep. hanno firmato documento che si oppone alla revoca. - WTO ha dichiarato illegale l’emendamento, e ha
autorizzato UE, CAN, MEX, JAP ad adottare tariffe di rappresaglia. - Ad avvantaggiarsi dell’emendamento sono state
soprattutto società dell’Ohio e della Georgia (che tuttavia aspettano la
conclusione di contenzioso con il Canada sull’esportazione di legname). Quasi 5
MD$ di “proventi Byrd” sono bloccati in attesa dell’esito dei ricorsi. - E’ quindi normale che tra i firmatari del documento
pro-emendamento ci siano repubblicani di Ohio e Georgia. Fa specie che ci sia
quella di George Allen, rep. della Virginia, che alcuni vedono come
candidato a succedere a Bush, dato che le imprese della Virginia hanno fruito
poco o nulla delle elargizioni Byrd, mentre è dai tempi di Hoover che nessun
protezionista è mai più arrivato alla Casa Bianca… - Connotandosi come protezionista Allen non sembra
adottare una strategia vincente. I presidenti di entrambi i partiti hanno
riconosciuto che il liberoscambismo è nell’interesse nazionale…
November 22, 2005; Page A14
Amid its disarray last week, the House of
Representatives did do one good deed: It included the repeal of the
anti-trade Byrd Amendment as part of its budget reconciliation. The White
House is also pushing repeal, so opponents are now hoping Senators
(including a Republican who wants to run for President) will keep this
protectionism alive.
"Byrd" is named after West Virginia
Senator Robert Byrd, who snuck it into a 2001 spending bill without
debate. The amendment gives companies that sue for "anti-dumping"
relief any duties that the government imposes on foreign competitors. U.S.
companies that decline to join any dumping petition don’t get to share in the
Byrd droppings. In other words, sue for protection and get rewarded; keep
your nose to the grindstone and get zilch. In political terms, it’s a
perpetual-motion protectionism machine.
It also violates global trade rules that the
U.S. has agreed to observe. The World Trade Organization declared that Byrd
was illegal in 2002, and it has authorized the European Union and seven other countries
to impose retaliatory tariffs on American goods. This May, the EU did just
that, slapping a 15% tariff on imports of 10 kinds of U.S. apparel. Canada,
Mexico, and Japan have also retaliated.
According to a study by the Government
Accountability Office, a mere five companies have collected half of the $1
billion in Byrd money that has been doled out since 2001. The biggest winner by
far has been Ohio-based Timken Company, maker of ball bearings, which pulled
down a staggering $52 million in 2004. Another Ohio company, candle-maker
Lancaster Colony Corporation, got $26 million. This sure beats having to win
market share.
The Commerce Department is holding almost
$5 billion in Byrd money while the U.S.
litigates multiple Nafta panel rulings that say U.S. anti-dumping duties
against Canadian lumber violate that trade agreement. Fourteen Georgia
companies got $321,000 in Byrd money in 2004, but 12 of those are lumber
companies, awaiting the Canada decision.
Whih brings us to the Senate, which didn’t include
Byrd repeal in its version of the reconciliation bill that now goes to
conference. Nonetheless, 20 GOP Senators recently signed a letter to
Majority Leader Bill Frist threatening to oppose final passage of
reconciliation if it includes Byrd repeal once it returns from the House.
We’re not surprised to see the signatures
of Ohio Senators Mike DeWine and George Voinovich or Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss on
that letter. They’re flacking for their home-state companies (see above) and no
one will mistake them as Presidential timber. The really surprising name on the
list, however, is George Allen, the Virginia Republican who has become
the darling of some conservatives as they contemplate life after President
Bush.
We wonder if Mr. Allen really knows what he’s
doing here. Byrd distributions in Virginia in 2004 totaled a mere $5.5
million. About $4.6 million went to Lafarge North America, and $924,000 to
Titan America LLC — both building material suppliers that stand to benefit
from such protectionism as the 55% anti-dumping duty levied on Mexican cement.
In return for doing their bidding, Mr.
Allen is cementing his own reputation as an opponent of free trade. No avowed
protectionist has won the White House since Herbert Hoover in 1928 (and we know how that turned out), so backing Byrd doesn’t look
like a smart political strategy. Worse, it raises doubts about Mr. Allen’s
grasp of economic policy.
Modern Presidents of both
parties have been ardent free-traders because they realize it is in the
national interest. That’s
why Mr. Bush is now devoting a great deal of his time and diplomacy to
advancing the Doha round of global trade talks. Byrd contradicts that policy,
which is why a growing number of national business groups — from home builders
and construction companies to food processors and retailers — are organizing
to fight Byrd. They see both U.S. exports and consumers losing under Byrd to a
handful of inefficient U.S. companies and their savvy Beltway lawyers. Which
side are Mr. Allen and his GOP colleagues on?