On Free-Trade and Protectionism

An economic policy that disproportionately helps A, while disproportionately harming B, doesn't help the economy. It helps A. This whole antiseptic notion that, if we simply put stiffer tariffs on certain countries in an effort to help certain industries, the entirety of the nation will somehow benefit from it is absurd. There are always, ALWAYS, unintended consequences............................................................................................And the fact of the matter is that we can certainly stimulate the economy without these measures. Reducing and simplifying the corporate income tax rate (right now we have companies like G.E. paying zero and other companies like U.P.S. paying a cart-load), continuing to explore and market domestic sources of energy (even as it stands now, a lot of new manufacturing jobs are being created here in at least some small measure due to the cheap natural gas that we have), reducing the amount of red-tape necessary to start a new business (according to Dallas Mavericks' owner, Mark Cuban, he probably wouldn't have been able to start his businesses in today's highly troubled environment), loosening up visa restrictions in an effort to boost the tourist industry (prior to 9/11, the U.S. garnered 17% of the world's tourism business and we're currently down to 11% - Mr. Obama, to his credit, is absolutely addressing this), etc. - all of these initiatives would greatly expand the economy, I'm thinking............................................................................................And, besides, if tariffs were in fact such a wonderful thing for the ENTIRE country, then why, pray tell, did we almost fight the frigging Civil War 30 years prematurely over them? And why in the hell aren't they allowed BETWEEN the 50 states? Certainly Connecticut should be able to protect its citizenry from those terrible and backward Mississippians, no?