Keith White on growing Congressional opposition to a White House proposal to study the impact of adding a new crossborder fee.
By Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief
Bill Owens (D-NY) has pledged to "explore all legislative options" to prevent a proposed DHS study on the "feasibility and cost" of a new border fee at northern and southwestern U.S. border crossings.
Who thought a boilerplate study would generate such buzz?
But when the study relates to slapping a new fee on crossborder travel between the United States and Canada, pushback is to be expected.
BTBObserver blogged yesterday on boilerplate language included in the White House's FY14 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budget that directs DHS to assess the "feasibility and cost" of a new fee on northern and southwestern border crossings.
Congressman Brian Higgins (D-NY) had already harshly criticized the proposal.
And now Bill Owens (D-NY) has pledged to "explore all legislative options" to prevent the study.
From North Country Now:
And when it comes to northern border security, something that I'm sure no one wants to underfund, it looks like Canada is the one needing to ponying up money--not the United States. (Canada has a helpful habit of paying for important Canada-U.S. items, just look at the new Detroit-Windsor bridge.)
But, then again, a properly designed fee could generate a guaranteed source of border security and trade facilitation funding. And in an era of tightening fiscal belts, perhaps setting aside new DHS revenue could be helpful.
Though, is border security an item that those crossing the border should pay for? The United States, as a whole, benefits from increased trade and enhanced border security.
And there's no way to prevent policy makers from using the fee as a way to cut general revenue DHS funding.
Owens, representative to the U.S. House of Representatives from the North Country’s 21st Congressional District and co-chairman of the Congressional Northern Border Caucus, said such a fee would not be good for business or for relations with our northern neighbors.
“Imposing a fee to cross the border is a bad idea, plain and simple,” Owens said. “I represent a number of communities that depend on Canadian travelers and investment to support local businesses and job growth. Instead of adding an additional barrier for commerce, we should be taking more steps to ease the legitimate flow of people and goods between our two countries.”The opposition is understandable. Whether you call it a tax, fee, or tariff, they all do the same thing: increase the cost of crossborder trade and business.
“I will explore all legislative options available to me to prevent this move in the months ahead,” Owens said.
“Good work is being done across the district to reduce wait times and promote increased trade with America’s neighbor to the North. We should keep focus on these positive developments and set aside any initiatives that would diminish the progress already taking hold.”
And when it comes to northern border security, something that I'm sure no one wants to underfund, it looks like Canada is the one needing to ponying up money--not the United States. (Canada has a helpful habit of paying for important Canada-U.S. items, just look at the new Detroit-Windsor bridge.)
But, then again, a properly designed fee could generate a guaranteed source of border security and trade facilitation funding. And in an era of tightening fiscal belts, perhaps setting aside new DHS revenue could be helpful.
Though, is border security an item that those crossing the border should pay for? The United States, as a whole, benefits from increased trade and enhanced border security.
And there's no way to prevent policy makers from using the fee as a way to cut general revenue DHS funding.
The possible worst-case result: international travel and trade are taxed to fund border security, lowering the economic benefit of crossborder travel and trade, which then only lowers the revenue coming into federal coffers.
Watching what happens to this proposal will be interesting, and who ends up writing such a study should it come to pass, will be interesting.
Watching what happens to this proposal will be interesting, and who ends up writing such a study should it come to pass, will be interesting.
Another very interesting post. Priority should be placed on increasing oross border trade and the jobs that result from such commerce, certainly not taxing it. Kudos to Rep. Bill Owen!
ReplyDelete