Editing Fordney–McCumber Tariff (section)

==Reactions==
The tariff was supported by the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] and conservatives and was generally opposed by the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]], liberals, and progressives. One purpose of the tariff was to help those returning from World War I have greater job opportunities.

Trading partners complained immediately. European nations affected by the war sought access for their exports to the American market to make payments to the war loans from America. Democratic Representative [[Cordell Hull]] warned, "Our foreign markets depend both on the efficiency of our production and the tariffs of countries in which we would sell. Our own [high] tariffs are an important factor in each. They injure the former and invite the latter."

Five years after the passage of the tariff, American trading partners had raised their own tariffs by a significant degree. France raised its tariffs on automobiles from 45% to 100%, Spain raised its tariffs on American goods by 40%, and Germany and Italy raised their tariffs on wheat.<ref name="auto"/>

In 1928, [[Henry Ford]] attacked the tariff and argued that the [[Automotive industry in the United States|American automobile industry]] did not need protection since it dominated the domestic market. Its main interest was now to expand foreign sales.<ref>Kaplan, Edward S. ''American Trade Policy, 1923–1995'', 1996, p. 13</ref>

Some farmers opposed the tariff and blamed it for the agricultural depression. The American Farm Bureau Federation claimed that because of the tariff, the raised price of raw wool cost to farmers $27 million. Democratic Senator [[David I. Walsh]] challenged the tariff by arguing that the farmers were net exporters and so did not need protection. They depended on foreign markets to sell their surplus. Walsh pointed out that during the first year of the tariff, the cost of living climbed higher than any other year except during the war. He presented a survey of the [[United States Department of Labor|Department of Labor]] in which all of the 32 cities that were assessed had seen an increase in the cost of living. For example, the food costs increased 16.5% in Chicago and 9.4% in New York. Clothing prices rose by 5.5% in Buffalo and 10.2% in Chicago.

Republican Frank W. Murphy, the head of the Minnesota Farm Bureau, also claimed that the problem was not in the world price of farm products but in the things that farmers had to buy.