The Constitution Party is for high taxes

I was looking at the field of candidates in my congressional district  for the upcomin’, and noticed there was a candidate from the Constitution Party running.  Her official campaign page had a link to her wordpress campaign blog, which I perused.  The candidate has a lot to recommend her, policy-wise, but I have a problem with her party.  You see, the Constitution Party is a firm supporter of protective tariffs–it’s stated boldly in their party platform:

They state: ” In no event will the U.S. tariff on any foreign import be less than the difference between the foreign item’s cost of production and the cost of production of a similar item produced in these United States. The cost of production of a U.S. product shall include, but not be limited to, all compensation, including fringe benefits, paid to American workers, and environmental costs of doing business imposed on business by federal, state, and local governments.”

So, if the Hypothetical Nation of North Dakota has a nascent pineapple industry that grows pineapples in greenhouses, and produces pineapples that cost $10 each, while pineapples grown in the hypothetical nation of Hawaii and shipped to N. Dakota can be profitably sold at $1 apiece, the Constitution Party wants to apply a tariff of $9 to pineapples imported from Hawaii. This is not “free market”; it is, instead, government interference in an individual’s right to seek the best uses for the product of his labor.  It’s a form of socialism.  The CP thinks otherwise: “Since the adoption of the 1934 Trade Agreements Act, the United States government has engaged in a free trade policy which has destroyed or endangered important segments of our domestic agriculture and industry, undercut the wages of our working men and women, and totally destroyed or shipped abroad the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers. This free trade policy is being used to foster socialism in America through welfare and subsidy programs.”  This is like saying that the teaching of Creation Science in the classroom promotes atheism.  Besides, I don’t see where the FedGov has really pursued a “free trade policy” at all.  It rather ties up the U.S. market with a lot of managed trade agreements, like NAFTA and CAFTA and the like, which add complexity and expense to an otherwise elegant process of people in different countries agreeing to exchange what each values less for what each values more.

The Constitution Party members should learn a little more about economic theory before promoting a policy of neo-mercantilism that was shown to be a failure two hundred years ago, by Adam Smith.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: