Posted on 05/14/2015 11:16:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
For a long time, there was a bipartisan consensus for free trade. President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, and Democrat Bill Clinton got it passed. It prevailed in the Senate in 1993 with the support of 27 Democrats and 34 Republicans. The consensus wasn't unanimous by any means, but it was broad enough to steadily advance the cause.
Tuesday's Senate vote against considering a bill to give President Barack Obama "fast-track authority" for trade deals suggests those days are gone. Only one Democrat supported it, with 42 opposed -- led by Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Economic anxiety, hostility to foreigners, resentment of large corporations and distrust of Obama -- in both parties -- have dissolved the old coalition. Even Hillary Clinton is on the fence.
It's easy to spurn free trade now partly because we enjoy so many rewards from it already. Every senator who voted "no" should be required by law to drive only American-made cars built no later than 1975, before the influx of Japanese makes brought about a gigantic improvement in quality and reliability.
They should also have to surrender their iPhones, assembled in China, and their flat-screen TVs, made in Korea and Japan. And to buy all their kids' and grandkids' toys from domestic suppliers. And to give up Colombian coffee, Guatemalan bananas and Chilean grapes, along with 91 percent of all the seafood they eat.
As it is, though, those lawmakers and citizens who oppose giving the president trade promotion authority have nothing to worry about. They get to show their disgust with free trade while enjoying all its bounty. If Obama doesn't get the deal he has been negotiating with 11 Pacific nations, we won't lose the benefits of existing imports. We just won't get the benefits of additional commerce.
The prevailing complaint is that trade deals ship American jobs abroad and lower American wages. But the effect is greatly exaggerated. It's true that many U.S. industries competing with overseas rivals have seen companies shrink and jobs disappear. That regrettable pattern, however, has also emerged in sectors that are largely domestic.
Big airlines like Delta and United have gone bankrupt, and their unions have been squeezed, because travelers flocked to lower-cost domestic carriers. The Big Three automakers' chief problem is "Japanese" cars built in places like Kentucky and Ohio.
Newspapers haven't lost revenue because of foreign competition, but because so much advertising has migrated to the Internet. Bookstores have vanished thanks to a Seattle company named Amazon.
U.S. manufacturing output is nearly 50 percent higher today than in 1994, when NAFTA took effect. So why has employment shrunk? Because companies and workers have become more productive, allowing them to turn out more goods with less labor.
If you think the problem is that foreigners sell us too much and buy too little from us, the Pacific trade deal ought to be just your thing. It would have minimal effect on our imports, but would give a significant boost to our exports.
The United States already has among the lowest tariff rates in the world, averaging about 2 percent. One of the main effects of free trade agreements we reach with other nations is to make them slash their duties, which are typically higher. Another purpose of this accord is to pry open closed foreign markets in agricultural products and services, allowing U.S. companies to sell more.
Eight years of economic contraction and turmoil have put a lot of politicians and constituencies into a defensive crouch, treating any change as a threat. But it wasn't trade that caused the U.S. housing crash or the financial meltdown. In fact, exports have been one of the main engines of growth in recent years.
Nor can we simply close ourselves off from global commerce. If we shun trade agreements with Pacific nations, the Chinese will be happy to step in. Globalization is going to expand no matter what we do. Trade negotiations are a way for us to ensure that when it does, the rules applied by other governments don't put our companies at an unfair disadvantage.
Many Democrats used to realize there is no future in hunkering down behind trade barriers. In 1993, one of them was Sen. Ted Kennedy, who said, "All of the problems that working families face ... will be even worse if NAFTA is defeated." His seat is now occupied by Elizabeth Warren.
If the deal is so good, why is it secret?
Free trade is a good thing. Above all, its efficiency and benefit is based on simplicity - equal terms and mutually accepted conditions among all participants.
Why then does Obama need to negotiate in secret?
The only foreigners the Rats want are uneducated and unskilled and likely to vote for Rats.
It has absolutely CRUSHED US manufacturing and very nearly destroyed the middle class.
The lower classes have no "next rung up" on the ladder.
American Capital has funded the rise of our enemies and it's siphon has nearly bankrupted all of us.
The mercantilists of the world now circle like buzzards over a dying corpse that used to be a great nation.
Wasn’t Mitch trying to push this deal for a yes vote?
Tens of millions of our people out of work, and the best the idiots can do is champion more of what resulted in what’s going on now.
They were told trade with China would gut our economy and labor force.
Now that our economy and labor force are gutted, they come back to offer more of the wonders of trade.
Pure insanity.
Califoprnias economy has transformed into a service sector economy rather than a manufacturing economy.
I love these comments that less people are working because our workers today are more productive.
I guess nobody is employed in China making things for sale in the U. S. then. Good to know.
Bull stuff!
If the free trade is so hunkydamndorry, then it does not need the secrecy. But its the nigglingnaggling details and sidebar agreements hidden within that cause the angst and suspicion.
Negotiate the trade deal...then examine it in a very public senate debate.
This authority enables all sorts of mischief. After 6 years of lies and deceits, you would think the author might be a bit suspicious himself.
Commies ABANDON Free trade.?....
When were they ever for it?...
MAN.... can people be so dense...
Seems few know what communism is anymore..
-OR- even that it’s, in fact, SOCIALISM...
Huge payoffs for politicians - while selling American workers down the river.
So? We already have agreements with some of these countries. Then there should already be low tariffs for imports to these countries. Also, the main point is for bringing in more imports to here, China might be large, but their purchasing power is not as great as ours.
We just did a trade agreement with Korea. How is that working out for US?
"Labor's friend" Bill Clinton sold them down the river for huge back-channel payoffs.
Please, by all means, let China undercut their workers for a change.
Thanks. Great suggestion.
...”If the deal is so good, why is it secret?”...
Moreso if the deal is to be made why is it they are voting for or against without reading it????
There is no free trade. Only crony capitalist insider deal trade.
Didn't Democrats already do away with those with their Cash for Clunkers program, money which then went towards the purchase of foreign-made cars?
-PJ
Time to put America first. I didn't always agree with Pat Buchanan, but I damn sure do on trade. NAFTA killed us.
Free trade both ways, sure. But if there is one tariff, fee or penny spent to export a US product forget it. We have been suckers for these so-called free trade deals for 50 yrs. Free and fair trade should be our strategic goal.
McConnell is crying that the Democrats reneged on their deal. You'd think that by now he'd have realized that Renege is their middle name.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.