An Opening for Trade?

Wall Street Journal Editorial – November 7, 2010

TRADE IS ONE ISSUE on which the Congress elected on Tuesday is potentially an improvement over its predecessor. The Democratic majority in the House was heavily influenced by organized labor and hostile to trade. It let presidential “fast track” authority to negotiate tariff-slashing agreements with friendly nations expire. Democrats also denounced free-trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama left over from President George W. Bush’s administration and still unratified. Taking his cue from the House, President Obama, who had waffled on trade throughout the 2008 campaign, declined to submit any of the deals for legislative approval, insisting that he had to negotiate improvements first. During the just-concluded campaign, Democrats and their allies launched an avalanche of simplistic ads attacking “outsourcing.”

Now that the Republicans are in the majority, all three trade agreements have better prospects – good news for the American companies and workers who would benefit from expanded exports, and for the American consumers who would benefit from more choices in the marketplace. The likely next chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), is a self-described “free-trader,” as is the incoming chairman of the Ways and Means trade subcommittee, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.). To be sure, the nationalistic rhetoric of the Tea Party raises questions about how its members might affect the Republican caucus’s position. But the fact that former Bush administration trade negotiator Rob Portman easily won the race for U.S. Senate in Ohio suggests that anti-trade animus has a more limited audience than is commonly believed.

Trade, in short, may offer that rare policy area in which prospects for bipartisan cooperation improved on Nov. 2. Mr. Obama would be wise to take advantage of that fact. Even before the election, he had been moving, gingerly, in a pro-trade direction. He called for a doubling of U.S. exports by 2015 and pledged to finalize revisions to the South Korea trade deal in time for this week’s G-20 meeting in Seoul. The South Korea pact would slash tariffs on a wide range of U.S. exports to that country and enjoys the backing of the vast majority of U.S. firms but has been criticized in Congress for allegedly failing to open the Korean market sufficiently to U.S. autos and beef.

Those criticisms are, in our view, overblown. Also, it’s asking a lot of the Koreans to renegotiate what they had reasonably considered a done deal – especially at a time when the U.S. Federal Reserve’s cheap dollar policy is already helping U.S. exports and harming Korean ones. Still, if changes to the most sensitive parts of the deal are the price of eventual congressional ratification, Mr. Obama should pursue them in good faith, as he appears to be doing, and Korea should meet him half way. At stake is not only economic growth, but also the strategic balance in Asia. As China rises, this agreement would help keep the peace by binding two long-time democratic allies closer. Similar arguments apply to stalled agreements with two U.S. allies in Latin America, Colombia and Panama. The finalization and swift congressional approval of all three pacts should be among Mr. Obama’s highest priorities for 2011.

 

RWRO on Fiscal Responsibility

According to a June 2010 report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Federal debt will reach 62 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by year end– the highest percentage since the World War II era. According to CBO, large budget deficits of up to 9.4 percent of GDP per year have caused public debt to balloon rapidly from normal rates of 40 percent of GDP in 2008 all the way up to 62 percent, presently. Even more alarming, the debt could rise to nearly 90 percent of GDP within 10 years. This kind of debt is unsustainable.

However, taxing our way out of this significant problem is not the answer. In fact, it’s not even practical. According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Congress could raise the top income tax rate all the way to 90%, and the revenues generated would only reduce the annual deficit to 2 percent of GDP, making no real progress towards reducing the accumulated debt. Continually finding new and creative ways to tax the American public would only hinder growth in the U.S. economy and drive new and current employers away from our country, further eroding the tax base.

Instead, the solution to decreasing our national debt should be two-fold: decrease spending, and enact competitive tax policies. Together these solutions will help grow the U.S. economy and reduce the national debt.

Decrease Spending, Reform Entitlements

Each year, federal programs are ranked and rated for effectiveness by the Office of Management and Budget. While this exercise is helpful, it is also crucial for the federal government to be disciplined enough to use this data to regularly cut or reform any ineffective programs – a job which could involve some tough decisions. This rating system should be used more effectively to reduce wasteful federal spending.

Another tough choice that must be tackled is the reform of out-of-control entitlement spending. It is important to consider all options, such as finding ways to gradually limit benefits, raise eligibility bars, and even find new ways to get the private sector involved in the management of retirement and health care. A recent study by the Committee for a Responsible Budget found that 79 percent of people (regardless of political party) suggest an increase in the normal retirement age for Social Security as a way to reduce the deficit. In addition, Representative Paul Ryan’s has many concrete ideas for simplifying the tax code and limiting annual spending growth, which should be debated as part of an overall effort to reform entitlement programs.

Enact Globally Competitive Tax Policies

Aside from limiting spending growth, the only true way to drive us out of our fiscal problems is to enact competitive tax policy which encourages employers to continue making investments in growing their businesses, hiring workers, and breaking into new markets. The U.S. treasury will start to see more tax revenues, not when the public is taxed to oblivion, but when economic output is increased and more citizens are working and contributing to the large pools of employment taxes collected by the federal government.

More often than not, countries facing serious fiscal crises choose to decrease spending over raising taxes – and even if they choose to raise taxes they soon backtrack and begin a trend towards reducing taxes. In fact, the trend amongst OECD nations has been to reduce the overall corporate tax burden, while the U.S. has maintained its rates. As a result, the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate tax rates of any nation . If that were not bad enough, many corporate and individual taxes are scheduled to rise over the next 6-12 months. In anticipation of these higher taxes companies are starting to make tough decisions such as limiting growth in their workforce, reducing research and development spending, or limiting making new investments in equipment.

It is crucial to simplify the tax code and reduce overall tax rates for companies as well as individuals, so that strong investments in the economy can continue to be made, and our U.S based companies can be globally competitive.

RWRO on International Trade

Since 95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside the U.S., international markets present important growth opportunities for American companies.  Implementing effective trade policies that foster global trading relationships is, therefore, imperative.  The U.S. Department of Commerce estimated that more than 10 million U.S. jobs were supported by exports in 2008.[1]   Continued growth in exports as well as imports will provide an effective job creation engine in the current economic environment.  To maximize the benefits of trade, the U.S. should promptly implement the three pending free trade agreements (FTAs).  Other strategies include avoiding protectionism and developing sensible export policies.   

Implement Pending Free Trade Agreements

Recent efforts to double U.S. exports within five years, to negotiate a new Trans-Pacific Partnership, and to protect U.S. positions in World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations overlook the benefits already available from FTAs negotiated and signed more than three years ago but denied implementation. 

The pending FTA between the U.S. and Korea would affect a higher value of trade than any other U.S. FTA except NAFTA.  Bilateral trade between the U.S. and Korea already exceeded $75 billion in 2006.[2]  The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the FTA would increase U.S. merchandise exports to Korea by $10 billion annually.[3]  Despite skepticism about U.S. access to Korean markets, the FTA would make both the U.S. and Korea better off than they would be in the absence of the FTA.[4]

Similarly, the pending FTA with Colombia offers significant opportunity for U.S. producers.  Over 90 percent of imports from Colombia already enter the U.S. without duty, pursuant to existing unilateral preference programs.  In contrast, U.S. products entering Colombia are subject to duty of as much as 20 percent, so the net impact of the agreement for the U.S. economy would be positive.[5]

Trade volume with Panama may seem small relative to trade with NAFTA countries or Korea, but 2008 exports to Panama from Texas alone were valued at over $1.2 billion.  Ninety-six percent of U.S. imports from Panama are also already duty-free, while U.S. products entering Panama are more often subject to duty.[6]  This lack of reciprocity shows how delay in implementing pending FTAs deprives U.S. businesses of opportunities for beneficial trade opportunities.  At the same time, Korea, Colombia, and Panama are concluding similar agreements with and extending reciprocal benefits to other countries. 

Failure to honor U.S. commitments to implement these FTAs also tarnishes U.S. credibility.  Prompt approval of all three FTAs is imperative from an economic and geopolitical perspective.  Once pending agreements are implemented, the executive branch also needs renewed Trade Promotion Authority to conclude ongoing regional and multilateral negotiations and to seek new candidates for bilateral FTAs.

Avoid Protectionism

While securing access for U.S. products and investment in foreign markets is important, reciprocity is fundamental to achieving our trade policy goals.  Trade-restrictive policies may appear to protect U.S. jobs, but the negative consequences of protectionism outweigh its benefits.  WTO Director General Pascal Lamy has emphasized that, especially as world economies struggle to emerge from a global recession, “an open, fair, and transparent trading environment is vital for the economic recovery.”[7]

Proposed legislation to impose punitive duties on imports, require foreign manufacturers to register U.S. agents, or mandate that government contractors buy American products risks imposing costs on the same U.S. businesses and consumers that the laws are designed to protect.   Additionally, such regulation invites other countries to erect barriers for U.S. businesses seeking access to foreign markets.  Legislators must strike a careful balance between the desired safety and accountability benefits of new regulation and the economic costs of government interference with free trade.

In conclusion, effective trade policy retains an open regulatory environment that does not overburden U.S. companies or foreign companies seeking to do business with the U.S.  Export-oriented policies are commendable, but it is important to implement such policies without unnecessarily increasing the size of or costs borne by the federal government.  Trade is by definition reciprocal.  Trade policy that supports export growth also recognizes the importance of imports to economic growth, and it honors U.S. commitments to remain open to market-driven trade. 

 

 


[1] Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, “2010 Trade Policy Agenda” (March 2010), available at http://www.ustr.gov/2010-trade-policy-agenda.

[2] Jeffrey J. Schott, “The Korea-US Free Trade Agreement: A summary Assessment,” PB07-7 (Aug. 2007), available at http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/pb/pb07-7.pdf. 

[3] Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, “Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement” (viewed July 26, 2010), available at http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta.

[4] Schott, PB07-7.

[5] “No Cost Stimulus? Approve the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement: Democrat Congress Still Sitting on a Proven Job Creator” (Dec. 10, 2009) (citing a Congressional Research Service report), available at http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/12/10/no-cost-stimulus.

[6] “Position on the U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement” (viewed July 26, 2010), available at http://www.freetradealliance.org/commondetail.asp?id=3802.

[7] Pascal Lamy, “Keeping Trade Open: Resisting Isolationism,” Seoul, Korea (Feb. 23, 2009), speech reprinted at http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl115_e.htm.

RWRO on National Security

America has many friends and admirers around the world, but RWRO members are realistic. We recognize that America also has many enemies.  Protection of our land and our citizens must always be the highest priority of the federal government.  In addition to a strong defense, we support a vibrant homeland security effort which includes border protection and a robust and well-coordinated intelligence gathering system.  

We honor our military.  Its members are America’s heroes.  They need and deserve the full support of our government not only when on duty but also when they return to private life. 

The families of our servicemen and women also deserve our highest praise and thanks.  Their contributions and sacrifices, though frequently unheralded, are critical to our military’s success.  By enabling, supporting and providing comfort to our troops, they play a pivotal role in the defense of our freedoms.

RWRO believes that national security should be defined broadly.  In addition to the defense of the homeland and its citizens, national security includes developing new sources of energy, maintaining a vibrant economy and protecting our borders.