If I may ask an additional question, this is such a crucial issue. We hear now, from the patter of the national campaign on the other side of the aisle, that maybe we should move back toward protectionism. This amendment to me is a stalking dog for that sort of an attitude. It is colored by fairness and reasonableness. But as a practical matter, its effect will be to create retaliation, as we have discussed. I guess my question is this: Are we a nation that believes we can compete in the world or aren't we? Are we a nation that believes our people are smarter, brighter, and more productive than anybody else in the world or aren't we? I look at New Hampshire and I know our people are smarter, brighter, and more competitive. I look at Connecticut, a neighboring State which I know quite well. Every time I drive through Connecticut I am impressed. I know it is built on smart, bright people. I suspect that is the case in Kentucky, too. My question is, Are we so fearful of our capacity to compete as a nation that we must put forward this new concept which we hear pattering from the other side of the aisle toward us of protectionism or should we follow what the great leaders of our Nation--Truman, Roosevelt, Franklin by the way, not Theodore, Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton--stood for, which is that we are a nation that competes and competes well?
Judd Gregg: “If I may ask an additional question, this is such a crucial issue. We hear now, from the patter of the national campaign…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of protectionism during a debate on trade policy.
Share
More from Judd Gregg
Had it been actually a legislative vehicle versus a commission, we probably would be out of the woods right now on our deficit and debt issues.
Meeting state and national carbon reduction goals will be compromised without existing nuclear power plants.
I think Dr. Rivlin is absolutely correct on both points, and Simpson-Bowles did the same thing that Domenici-Rivlin did, which was to actually increase benefits to single women over 85, and low-income individuals.
It makes no sense whatsoever, and it's apparently--certainly makes no sense for the same people to be urgently arguing to deal with climate change and then either quiet or urgently opposed to nuclear power.