,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Great @clark_packard review of some of the @RepSeanDuffy Reciprocal Trade Act's many, many flaws: nationalinterest.org/feature/theres…
The bill is DOA (only 18 co-sponsors - sad!), but here are a few more flaws: /1
The bill is DOA (only 18 co-sponsors - sad!), but here are a few more flaws: /1
The bill totally misunderstands the general reciprocity concept at the WTO (or in US FTAs) - it's never been abt identically matching tariff rates; it's abt offering generally the same level of access, while having the flexibility to protect sensitive sectors /2
Speaking of which, the USA has high tariffs on its own political babies (132% peanuts; 35% tuna; 20% dairy; 25% trucks; 16% wool sweaters, etc) PLUS many high "non-tariff barriers" and higher avg tariffs than many countries - shld they be allowed to retaliate against us? /3
The bill also ignores why the WTO's "MFN" principle exists - to prevent discrimination & thereby avoid the trade bloc debacles that led to WWI/WWII, and to create a stable/predictable trading environment. This bill would destroy all of that (and the WTO itself) /4
The bill ignores that the WTO has actually been very successful in lowering tariffs, and that the USA has been very successful in using FTAs - not threats - to take care of the rest (see, eg, NAFTA & KORUS). /5
Finally, the bill ignores Congress' constitutional role in setting tariffs (and how the President has already abused the expansive tariff authority he's been delegated); in fact the bill provides almost-unlimited discretion for POTUS to raise US tariffs even more. /6
Famously, the Reciprocal Trade Act used to be called the Fair And Reciprocal Trade (FART) Act. The name may have changed, but it still stinks. /x
