Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Monday, July 02, 2007
Phyllis Schlafly :: Townhall.com Columnist
Fair trade for U.S. business the aim of House bill
by Phyllis Schlafly
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Who will win on November 4th?


The bipartisan Border Tax Equity Act, or H.R. 2600, has just been introduced by Reps. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-N.J., Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., Michael H. Michaud, D-Maine and Walter B. Jones, R-N.C. The purpose is to correct border-tax inequities that cost U.S. producers and service providers $379 billion a year. The goal of U.S. post-World War II trade agreements, such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization, was to lower tariffs mutually in pursuit of worldwide free trade. The trouble is that it takes two to tango and we trade with at least 137 countries that dance to a different tune.

When other countries reduced their tariffs, they simultaneously imposed border tax schemes, particularly Value Added Taxes, which add up to almost exactly the same amount as the tariffs that were supposedly reduced or eliminated. This sleight-of-hand is achieved by imposing VAT taxes on imports (a de facto tariff) and rebating VAT taxes on exports.

These de facto tariffs in many countries, including the European Union, are now as high or higher than tariffs were at the beginning of the GATT. Today, 94 percent of all U.S. exports and imports of goods are traded with VAT countries. The scheme started as a historical accident. The VAT, a consumption tax, was labeled an "indirect" tax, while income-payroll-property taxes paid by U.S. businesses were called "direct" taxes.

U.S. negotiators agreed in 1955 that indirect taxes, such as the VAT, "shall not be deemed to be a subsidy." At that time, the rates of VAT taxes were only 2 percent to 4 percent and U.S. negotiators looked upon this concession as no big deal.

However, foreign countries caught on to how to use the VAT to cheat the United States. Over the years, other countries' use of the VAT has grown into a major violation of GATT's primary purpose: the reduction of border barriers. The average VAT imposed by all our trading partners today is a whopping 15.7 percent of the cost. European Union nations average a VAT of 19.2 percent. The VAT is one of the major factors causing the loss of 3.2 million manufacturing jobs since 2000 and the dramatic increase in our trade deficit to $763.6 billion in 2006.

The disparate treatment of border taxes is harmful and costly to U.S. agricultural producers, manufacturers, and service providers in two ways. First, the refunds of indirect taxes amount to subsidies to foreign companies that export to the U.S. even though subsidies are supposed to be prohibited by WTO rules.

Second, U.S. exporters are subjected to double taxation. They pay U.S. "direct" taxes, and then they pay a so-called "indirect" tax at the foreign border in order to get their products and services admitted. The VAT import tax is levied on the price of the "landed cost," which includes the costs of the product and transportation.

The Border Tax Equity Act accurately calls this discrimination against U.S. producers "arbitrary," "inequitable," and "a primary obstacle to more balanced trade relations between the United States and its major trading partners." The Border Tax Equity Act is designed to level the trading field by forcing other countries to eliminate their de facto tariffs. The bill would direct our trade representatives to negotiate a remedy for the VAT inequity on goods and services by Jan. 1, 2009. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phyllis Schlafly is a national leader of the pro-family movement, a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Feminist Fantasies.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Phyllis Schlafly‘s column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: Deskjockey
Thamks again for the mutual fellowship.

foxfire22 writes: 07, 2007 5:29 PM

I admitted that you were right! I simply made a statement that if you had not been born where you were, you wouldn't have had the advantages of education and the market, your story would have been different.

DESKJOCKEY RESPONDS

I admitted that you are a great man, not because you may have agreed with me but that you are rare in that you can change your view.

I concede that I likely would have been different in a foreign culture, but we are comparing income disparity within one culture. It becomes problematic going cross culture. I mentioned Cullen Davis was happier with $23K/yr working for the state than when he was making $30K/hr. in the oil business. And he continued to live in the same community, so the culture was unchanged only his income and perspective of joy changed. In short sometimes the responsibility associated with holding on to your wealth is more costly than the peace and time you sacrifice from just enjoying life. I remember the interviews of shopping cart folks that had been multi-millionaires and were choosing to live that life in preference of the other. Clearly they understood the cost of the responsibility, time consumed and fear and frustration of holding on rather than the liberation of just sleeping under the stars without a care in the world.

foxfire22 writes:
I wasn't sugessing that we, the UN, or anyboby else raise the standards, or living conditions at yours or my expense. I don't like politians either. I think that they are self serving. Everytime I see a commercial of John Edwards, or John Kerry, I want to puke.

DESKJOCKEY RESPONDS

Hmmm. Edwards is concerned about the two AmeriKas. LOL, fortunately he has no chance. I know you weren’t suggesting this, but in reality it must be imposed by somebody.

foxfire22 writes:
As for the verse Jonh 9:2,3 I assumed that you would read the text.

This man was born blind for the purpose of Christ opening his eyes. Before the foundation of the world things are predetermined for the purposes of God.

DESKJOCKEY RESPONDS

We are basically in agreement but let me try to be even more precise with minutia.

The question being considered here was often debated as one of transmigration, did the kid sin before he is born or is the parent’s sin in their soul passed on to others to be punished there, or the other argument was are the parents merely being punished for their sin by use of the child.

However, the reason given is that, “the works of God should be made manifest in him”. In the verses 3, 4 work is used four times. They are “ergon” the item in question and ergazomai. Ergon is used twice as the work of God, meaning being employed by a master. Ergazomi is to do labor or engage in commerce. The Greek can take our words and slice them down to many subtle distinctions.

I know that many may say the point is predestination. But to do so then seems to reduce any universal context of the lesson. It would be no lesson, but merely explaining this one guy and his unique miracle. I don’t think the purpose is opening his eyes at all but rather that this event is used for a lesson regarding all lame who are not getting the miracle. I know of no miracle ever performed not done in public. Therefore the healing itself is unimportant, it is the witnessing of the miracle that is important. Miracles where done to bring people to faith and/or teach a lesson.

In verse 5 He says that He is the Light of the world and then touches the eyes. The people see the miracle and then can give huge credence to the claim of He being the Light. Because almost no other kids born lame are going to have this miracle, I believe when He says, the child is born this way so that works of God should be made manifest is not meant only for this one guy but all born lame. The reason I suggest this, is this question posed to Jesus was one of past Jewish theology resulting in much additional persecution of the lame for the assumed sin that caused it. In short I don’t think Jesus was saying, continue to abuse the lame, but don’t abuse this particular guy anymore as being His answer to their universal question. I always go back to who is he talking to and what is the topic or question.

In short, the lesson is that even the lame can have the works of God manifest in them, not necessarily by healing but by other blessings. I went to hear David Ring preach one evening. He has cerebral palsy and you obviously have to listen most intently because he can barely speak at all. But you catch a word here and there. Out of about 3,000 in attendance 2,700 came forward for an alter call. I had never witness anything like this in my life from this mans compelling preaching. The works of God were manifested in him. Helen Keller may be another.

foxfire22 writes:


You're going to have to lighting up on me a little. You're micro analyzing ever comment. I'm not in a debate. You made your case.I'm not disagreeing with you.

I reread your comment, decided that it was a reasonable argument, and thought that I would drop you a line and say so.
I told you that many of my thoughts and comments were coming from the wrong approach to the suject.
I am a conservative at heart, believe in Capitalism, despise Socialism.
Still believe that man is preoccupied with the things of this world, which are lust of the flesh, lust of the eye, and the pride of life.

I was not trying to debate a position of any kind.

I was simply reflecting upon a closing thought to this discussion.

DESKJOCKEY RESPONDS

My bad. Sorry, bad form. I understood your gracious comments, but saw some points I might broaden my thoughts on. Not to beat on you but hopefully to give more aspects to consider. U da man.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State: