Protection Racket

Various representatives of American business are now trying their luck at the old protection game down in Washington. Then goal is to choke off imports of certain European goods that have found favor with the American public. The moves are made by lobbying for higher duties before the susceptible U. S. Tariff Commission. It's fun, profitable, and any number can play.

The nation could afford to tamper with international trade in the past because the U. S. consumer paid the piper in higher prices and never knew the difference. But now these small interest groups are doing more than just milking domestic consumers; they are endangering the economic balance of the free world and may force some Western European nations to turn towards the some West European nations to turn towards the USSR.

For, underlying our Marshall Plan, E.C.A., and foreign loan programs is the idea that Europe must get back on its feel financially by selling enough goods in dollar markets to pay for its imports without the aid of continuing American grants and loans.

E.C.A. teams begged European businessmen to modernize their products and aim for the dollar area. But as soon as these manufactures began making the slightest headway in earning dollars, segments of American Free Enterprise made their opposition to free competition quite clear. In 1951 they won tariff increases on cheeses, milk products, and hat bodies. The U.S. was in the position of doling out money and goods with one hand, and slamming the trade door with the other so Europeans couldn't pay us back. Now the pressure is on for duty hikes on eight more commodities, from motorcycles to tobacco pipes. The Belgian, British, Dutch, and Italian governments have complained bitterly about these tariff demands, and have pointed out the inconsistency of such a trade policy. Russia has benefited from our hypocrisy by pretending to throw open its trade doors just as the U.S. ones seem to be closing.

Just what segments of the community are asking the government to underwrite their competitive position by sacrificing both foreign policy objectives and the taxpayers money? Are they struggling baby firms, or vital defense industries? It is difficult to place the Wisconsin cheese industry in either category. It is equally hard to see why Harley-Davidson, the nation's principle domestic motorcycle manufacturer, should get protection from lightweight English cycles when it both specializes in heavyweight models and already has a stranglehold on the domestic military and police market. Yet both these industries have asked for severe duty increases, and will probably get them.

Of course it's easier for these domestic industries to lobby for tariff hikes than to lower production costs or adapt their products to changes in consumer taste. But this is no reason why the United States should continue to protect small sectors of the economy at the sacrifice of global objectives. Playing Protection at the domestic consumer's expense is bad enough, but it is inexcusable to do so at the expense of the free world's security.