An Analysis of the Ideas of Duncan Hunter
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Gennady Stolyarov II
06-04-07
Duncan Hunter,
a U. S. Representative from the 52nd Congressional
District in California, is another of the Republican contenders for
the presidency. Analyzing Hunter’s stances on important political
issues shows him to be generally sound on his positions in support
of the right to life and limited government. However, Hunter’s
recommendations to restrict true international free trade are cause for significant concern.
Hunter’s ideas
in support of the right to life and in opposition to abortion are
fundamentally sound. In 2005, he was responsible for the
introduction of H. R. 552, The Right to Life Act, which would have
defined human “personhood” as originating at conception and thus
would have afforded all constitutional protections to unborn
fetuses. Unfortunately, this bill was not heard by the House of
Representatives, which adjourned several days before the hearing on
the bill was scheduled. Hunter also co-sponsored and helped pass the
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005, which forbade
the transportation of minors across state lines to obtain an
abortion if this violated the laws of the state where the minor
resides.
Other strong
points in Hunter’s agenda include his strong disapproval of the
Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision, which
legitimized eminent domain seizures of private property for
redistribution to other private parties. Hunter furthermore
advocates a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union
between one man and one woman. He is a proponent of gun ownership
rights, who promises to “vigorously defend against all attempts to
chip away at the Second Amendment.”
Representative
Hunter wishes to balance the federal budget, largely through cutting
the 28% of federal programs which he states “are either ineffective
or have results that are not demonstrated.” The representative has
historically supported increases in defense and homeland security
spending, but has advocated “limiting growth in non-defense areas.”
Hunter opposes
tax increases and seeks to provide greater government revenue
through increased economic growth rather than through raising the
tax rates. He also wishes to eliminate obsolete taxes such as the
Federal Telephone Excise Tax, whose original purpose in 1898 was to
pay for the Spanish-American War. Today, this tax is levied on all
telephone and Internet communications, despite having long outlived
the cause which it initially supported. Hunter states that he wants
to “reform the tax code, making it simpler, fairer, and more
growth-oriented” as well as to reduce the impact of the Alternative
Minimum Tax, which most gravely burdens lower-income working
Americans.
If Hunter
manages to implement any of these government reduction and tax
simplification ideas, he will have made the country freer as a
result. Yet Hunter’s stances on trade policy are a cause for
significant concern.
Hunter has a
good record opposing pseudo-free-trade agreements such as NAFTA and
the World Trade Organization, but this is mixed with a thorough
opposition toward genuine, non-state-regulated free trade.
Hunter argues that the United States trade deficit is detrimental,
ignoring the economic fact that a trade deficit is also equal to a
net inflow of capital into the country that experiences it. That is,
foreigners are purchasing American dollars in exchange for assets
that they either invest into the U. S. economy or into U. S.
treasury bonds, thus preventing a complete collapse of the
debt-ridden American federal government.
Furthermore,
Hunter has voiced strong opposition to China’s subsidization of its
manufacturers and its protective tariffs against American imports.
Yet while these policies in restraint of trade can justifiably be
opposed, economics shows that they do not hurt American
consumers or manufacturers. Indeed, they hurt the Chinese
consumers who are taxed to subsidize Chinese manufacturers while
having to pay higher prices for American imports. By shielding
Chinese manufacturers against competition, such policies actually
render them less effective in meeting challenges posed by
other non-subsidized firms.
If anything,
the Chinese government subsidizes American consumers at the expense
of its own citizens, by encouraging Chinese exports to the United
States. But Hunter wishes to “put the same charges on foreign goods
that [foreigners] put on ours.” This policy of implementing
retaliatory tariffs has historically been nothing but the cause of
trade wars, which intensify over time to suffocate commerce among
nations. This was the effect of the notorious 1930 Smoot-Hawley
tariff, which significantly worsened the Great Depression and
virtually eliminated international trade; Hunter cannot reasonably
expect his suggested policies to produce a different result.
Furthermore, placing tariffs on imports will hurt the American
consumer in the same way that the Chinese government currently hurts
Chinese consumers.
Indeed, what
Hunter supports is not true multilateral free trade, but rather the
misnamed “fair trade.” He laments in his official platform statement
that “unfortunately, [American workers] are asked to compete in an
unfair environment against other workers who make only a fraction of
a living wage and are employed by companies that face few, if any,
responsibilities to the environment or the long-term prospects of
their employees.” Instead of recognizing the harms that minimum wage
regulations and draconian environmental restrictions impose on
American workers and corporations, Hunter wishes to see these
deleterious policies applied to foreign workers as well, in
the interests of “fair trade.”
Yet the only
results such a policy will obtain are diminished prospects for
American companies with overseas investments and massive
unemployment in Third World countries, many of whose workers do not
have the skills or training to earn an American minimum wage.
Economics holds that the marginal productivity of labor, not the
regulatory climate, is responsible for the wage rate. Hence, an
American worker earns more because he is more productive, not
because he is “protected” by government regulations. The regulations
only impose a price floor on labor and result in unemployment for
all those whose labor is not worth the minimum wage rate.
While Hunter
has a variety of sound positions—including his support for the right
to life, the integrity of the family, the reduction of inefficient
government programs, and a simplification of the tax code—his
thorough advocacy of government protectionism and state intervention
online makes one seriously wonder whether he would do more harm than
good if elected. While this remains an open question, it is in
general far easier for a politician to institute more
government interference than to reduce already existing kinds. If
elected, Hunter would probably succeed in restricting international
trade with the United States, but he would face an uphill battle
trying to enact his proposals for limiting government. The key
question in deciding whether Duncan Hunter is a worthwhile candidate
for President must then be: does he have the tenacity and
will to actually carry through on his promises in the areas
where he seeks to restrict the government’s scope? The answer
remains to be determined.
Gennady Stolyarov II is
Editor-in-Chief of
The Rational Argumentator, a magazine championing the principles
or Reason, Rights, and Progress. His works have been published by
Le Quebecois Libre,
Enter Stage Right Magazine, the
Ludwig von Mises Institute,
Rebirth of Reason, and other organizations. Mr. Stolyarov can be
contacted at
gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.
GrassTopsUSA is a 501c4
not-for-profit organization. Contributions are not tax deductible.
Copyright
GrasstopsUSA.com 2007
