[单项选择]It was inevitable that any of President George W. Bush’s fans had to be very disappointed by his decision to implement high tariffs on steel imported to the U.S. The president’s defense was pathetic: He argued that the steel tariffs were somehow consistent with free trade, that the domestic industry was important and struggling, and that the relief was a temporary measure to allow time for restructuring. One reason that this argument is absurd is that U. S. integrated steel companies ("Big Steel") have received various forms of government protection and subsidy for more than 30 years.
Instead of encouraging the industry to restructure, the long-term protection has sustained inefficient companies and cost U.S. consumers dearly. As Anne O. Krueger, now deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said in a report on Big Steel: "The American Big Steel industry has been the champion lobbyist and seeker of protection .... It provides a key and disillusioning example of
A. the sacrifice from U. S. consumers.
B. the government’s financial support.
C. the reduction of steel product prices.
D. the compromise from the labor force.