From: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Subject: Re: January Surprise
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:08:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.033657.18429@uts.cc.wayne.edu> tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:
>vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov9.194337.15005@wixer.cactus.org>, reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
>>> Don't bet on it... Bush just imposed a 200% tarriff on French Wine.
>>> This is just one the first action he will be taking from now until
>>> January to be sure that the Clinton administration is the last
>>> Democratic administration in a very long time.  Bush is attempting to
>>> start a trade war.  Clear and simple.  This could be something that
>>> Clinton will have a tough time dealing with given Democratic tendencies
>>> toward protectionism -- any moves Cinton makes to head off the trade
>>> hostilities will undoubtedly hurt American companies and/or workers.
>>> 
>>> I don't know what Bush's motives are for this -- he could seriously think
>>> that this is the "tough medicine" America needs so it will see the folly
>>> of electing Democrats.  Either way, it stinks.
>
>>Just to play devils advocate... lets assume that Bush IS imposing tarriffs for
>>the sole sake of hindering the Clinton Administration and so that this
>>administration "is the last Democratic administration in a very long time."
>>Could you then explain how this would be anymore dispicable than the Democrats
>>tainting bills that put Bush into a catch 22.(the bills would either raise taxes
>>with all the excess pork if he signed it, or he would go back on political
>>promises if he vetoed it) Now, in order to remain consistant, if we assume that
>>Bush is screwing Clinton with bad politics, then we must also assume that the
>>Democrats screwed Bush, so that he would lose the presidency. Pray tell, how
>>is it wrong for Bush to do this sort of "legislative skullduggery" whereas the
>>when the Democrats do it, it's good politics, and blame is pinned on the
>>president? Seems to be YALI (Yet Another Liberal Inconsistancy)
>
>I also believe that the Democrates put Bush in a no win situation to make him
>look bad. But even if that were true, it does not give him the right to try
>and make Clinton look bad. Two wrongs do not make a right (although two
>Wrights did make an airplain...sorry old joke). I must say that I for one
>do not believe for a second that he is doing this just to make Clinton look
>bad. First of all, this has been going on for something like 5 years, so
>this would be by far the longest joke on record. I'm sure the two reasons
>it is happening now is 1) the Prez. race is over, and 2) he wants to see
>this done, right or wrong, while he is Prez. If anyone will look bad from
>this, it will be Bush, so how can anyone say he is doing this to make Clinton
>look bad? Even as the lights are being turned off, he is still willing to
>do the hard task, even if it makes him look bad. I only hope that Clinton
>will be able to do the same. I hope he does, and I hope he's right. Only
>time will tell.

Hello?
Has no one been paying attention for the past 4 years?  The president
has tried several times, including once this spring/early summer
to get the EC to eliminate or at least lower their farm subsidies
so that we (the US) can get rid of ours.  In my opinion, if this
weren't an election year, the tarriffs would have been imposed
much earlier anyway.

I also really don't know where any of you are coming from when you say
this will make the new president look bad.  If the EC backs down
now, it's good for the US (and, in the long run, the EC too).  If the
EC doesn't back down, there are 2 options:  (1) Clinton, who's more of a 
protectionist than free-trade-president Bush, seizes the opportunity
to put his idea of trade restrictions in place-- Clinton renegotiates
with the EC.  The EC "saves face" by being able to negotiate and yet
remain unthwarted by Bush. (2) Or... Clinton sees that it's
not the time for him to be messing with trade barriers and rescinds
Bush's tariffs.  French-white-wine-drinking yuppies cheer.
Companies that use a lot of canola oil in their products complain...
but mostly things stay the same.  It seems very unlikely that 
there are a lot of people that pay enough attention to trade
regulations that they have a strong opinion on a specific policy
like this.

Rocky Giovinazzo
giovinaz@hks.hks.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh