This morning the Drudge Report has a headline that screams "Senate Republicans Give Obama New Powers." Matt Drudge, of course, is talking about fast track authority for the president to negotiate a trade deal with a group of Pacific nations. Rush Limbaugh went on a tear yesterday also about the GOP senators voting to "rescue" Obama's trade agenda when the Democrats won't support it. Limbaugh's view is that the GOP leadership is doing this because they want the Democrats and the media to decide that Republicans really can govern and out to be supported. The problem with these screeds is that neither of them even consider the basic question that ought to be first on the list for any senator, namely: "Is this trade deal good for America and the American people?"
Let's take a minute to consider the answer to that question. We ought to start with exactly what fast track authority is and what it is not. Without fast track authority, the president can negotiate a trade pact, and then when that pact gets sent to the Congress for approval, it can be amended. Since the 1930s, trade deals have not be negotiated this way, however. The problem is that other countries don't want to make deals with the USA which can then be renegotiated by Congress through the amendment process. Why, for example, would Canada give us its best deal when it knows that it may still be asked for more by Congress during the approval process? As a result, about eighty years ago, Congress came up with "fast track" authority. This is a process whereby Congress authorizes the president to negotiate a trade deal and Congress agrees that it will vote on the pact without making any amendments to that pact. There will be a simple up or down vote. This fast track authority lets the other countries know that whatever deal is reached will not be changed and renegotiated by Congress a few months later. In theory, this leads to the USA getting a better deal from the other countries in the pact. Every major trade deal of the last eighty years has been negotiated this way. Congress still has the final word on whether or not the deal will be approved, but the deal is better to start with.
So, is the Trans Pacific Trade Pact a good deal for America? As usual, Obama has kept the details of the pact secret. Indeed, he has even limited members of Congress from taking notes while reviewing this massive document which is in almost final form. The Congress can get a general idea of what is in the draft treaty, but no one outside the administration knows the details. We don't know if the pact is good for America or not. So let's take another step back. Are trade deals good for America? There, the answer is pretty certainly in the affirmative. It is an axiom of economics that greater world trade means greater prosperity for people around the world. There are large treatises that explore all the nuances of trade, but there is total agreement among economists that more trade is a good thing for all involved. Without a doubt, there can still be bad trade deals that ought not be approved, but in general, entering into a trade deal is likely to help the economy and the average American. Granting fast track authority lets the deal get finalized with Congress then deciding if it is actually a deal worth approving.
So why are there so many Democrats against the trade deal? The answer is twofold. First, trade deals are strongly opposed by most unions. The unions view trade deals as opening up American markets to more foreign goods which could put downward pressure on the wages of certain American workers as their employers have to compete with imported goods. Of course, there are other American companies which will be able to export more products and that ought to help their workers. For example, with tariffs gone or reduced, it will be less expensive for foreign airlines to buy planes from Boeing rather than Airbus (which is European). The additional planes sold mean tens of thousands of jobs for Americans. The unions never seem to consider those people, however.
The second reason why the left hates the trade deals, however, is the main one. Trade deals help America's big companies, the ones who are most able to take advantage of foreign trade. Senators like Elizabeth Warren have never met a big company that they liked, so doing anything that might help those companies is distasteful to say the least. It is a shortsighted view driven by ideology rather than logic.
So back to the initial question: do the rants by Drudge and Limbaugh make sense? The answer is clearly a resounding NO! These two guys see the matter in terms of "helping" Obama. The reality, however, is quite different. The real question is helping America and the American people. Obama ought to be allowed to complete the trade pact which can then be made public and voted on by Congress. It can be debated and defeated if it is a poor deal, but it might be a good deal. With the economy so weak, we can use all the good deals we can get.
Let's take a minute to consider the answer to that question. We ought to start with exactly what fast track authority is and what it is not. Without fast track authority, the president can negotiate a trade pact, and then when that pact gets sent to the Congress for approval, it can be amended. Since the 1930s, trade deals have not be negotiated this way, however. The problem is that other countries don't want to make deals with the USA which can then be renegotiated by Congress through the amendment process. Why, for example, would Canada give us its best deal when it knows that it may still be asked for more by Congress during the approval process? As a result, about eighty years ago, Congress came up with "fast track" authority. This is a process whereby Congress authorizes the president to negotiate a trade deal and Congress agrees that it will vote on the pact without making any amendments to that pact. There will be a simple up or down vote. This fast track authority lets the other countries know that whatever deal is reached will not be changed and renegotiated by Congress a few months later. In theory, this leads to the USA getting a better deal from the other countries in the pact. Every major trade deal of the last eighty years has been negotiated this way. Congress still has the final word on whether or not the deal will be approved, but the deal is better to start with.
So, is the Trans Pacific Trade Pact a good deal for America? As usual, Obama has kept the details of the pact secret. Indeed, he has even limited members of Congress from taking notes while reviewing this massive document which is in almost final form. The Congress can get a general idea of what is in the draft treaty, but no one outside the administration knows the details. We don't know if the pact is good for America or not. So let's take another step back. Are trade deals good for America? There, the answer is pretty certainly in the affirmative. It is an axiom of economics that greater world trade means greater prosperity for people around the world. There are large treatises that explore all the nuances of trade, but there is total agreement among economists that more trade is a good thing for all involved. Without a doubt, there can still be bad trade deals that ought not be approved, but in general, entering into a trade deal is likely to help the economy and the average American. Granting fast track authority lets the deal get finalized with Congress then deciding if it is actually a deal worth approving.
So why are there so many Democrats against the trade deal? The answer is twofold. First, trade deals are strongly opposed by most unions. The unions view trade deals as opening up American markets to more foreign goods which could put downward pressure on the wages of certain American workers as their employers have to compete with imported goods. Of course, there are other American companies which will be able to export more products and that ought to help their workers. For example, with tariffs gone or reduced, it will be less expensive for foreign airlines to buy planes from Boeing rather than Airbus (which is European). The additional planes sold mean tens of thousands of jobs for Americans. The unions never seem to consider those people, however.
The second reason why the left hates the trade deals, however, is the main one. Trade deals help America's big companies, the ones who are most able to take advantage of foreign trade. Senators like Elizabeth Warren have never met a big company that they liked, so doing anything that might help those companies is distasteful to say the least. It is a shortsighted view driven by ideology rather than logic.
So back to the initial question: do the rants by Drudge and Limbaugh make sense? The answer is clearly a resounding NO! These two guys see the matter in terms of "helping" Obama. The reality, however, is quite different. The real question is helping America and the American people. Obama ought to be allowed to complete the trade pact which can then be made public and voted on by Congress. It can be debated and defeated if it is a poor deal, but it might be a good deal. With the economy so weak, we can use all the good deals we can get.
No comments:
Post a Comment