Race to the bottom? The presidential candidates' positions on trade

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), July, 2008 by Sallie James

Obama's campaign literature reveals a deep distrust of the market in general and unrestricted trade in particular. While his statement on trade opens with a promising line that "trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs," he then goes on to tout his willingness to get tough with trade partners and to use trade policy as a tool for advancing labor and environmental standards, including through amending NAFFA "so that it works for American workers." He emphasizes the importance of enforcing wade agreements, and in appealing to the WTO to stop countries (presumably excluding the U.S.) from "continuing unfair subsidies to foreign exports."

Retraining our workforce

Obama touts his support of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program and its expansion to service workers and to providing retraining assistance to workers in "sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation" before they are laid off. There is no evidence that Obama would insist on proof that the workers needed retraining or that their unemployment was imminent or certain or, indeed, linked to trade policy, before spending taxpayers' money on special welfare benefits for favored workers--nor does Obama link his proposed expansion of TAA to further trade liberalization, as has been the practice with the TAA program since its inception in 1962.

On the positive side, however, Obama has shown pro-wade credentials in his proposal for dealing with Cuba, calling for an end to the failed embargo and a new engagement with Cuban leaders in light of Fidel Castro's retirement. It is a pity that he cannot recognize the universal applicability of the pro-trade arguments that obviously swayed his vote on wade with Cuba.

Meanwhile, the Republicans' commitment to free trade is not unanimous, with fluctuating regional interests often trumaping free-market principles but, at this stage in the race, it appears that a Pres. McCain, who has an excellent and consistent record on trade, would pursue more trade-friendly policies than Obama.

In recent years, Republican members of Congress generally have been more likely to vote to reduce trade barriers and subsidies than have Democrats, with party affiliation the best indicator of how members of Congress vote, even allowing for time in office and regional affiliation. For example, in the 109th Congress, House Republicans opposed trade barriers on 54% of votes compared to 37% of Democrats. In the last five full congressional sessions, Republicans generally have been more trade friendly and more likely to vote against government subsidies than Democrats.

On the most important and substantive votes, such as granting trade promotion authority to the Executive Branch (and thereby allowing the USTR to negotiate trade agreements and submit them to Congress under expedited roles and without possibility of death-by-a-thousand-amendments), the Republicans are even more reliable. For example, in the 107th Congress, House Republicans voted in favor of TPA by a margin of 87% to Democrats' 12%. Senate Democrats were slightly more likely to vote for TPA than their House counterparts, with 41% of Democratic senators voting for TPA passage, although Republicans again outvoted them, with 90% voting to grant TPA. Ending the failed embargo on Cuba is the only issue which consistently gets more Democratic than Republican votes, reversing the partisan divide. Generally, however, it is fair to say that Republicans have, at least in recent years, been more reliably pro-Wade than Democrats.