Syndicated columnists Steve and Cokie Roberts this weekend attempted to marginalize criticism of the recent trade agreement brokered by the White House and Congressional leaders by implying opposition to the proposal came primarily from the Labor community. Steve and Cokie in essence say Labor has its “head-in-the-sand view” when it comes to trade and is ignoring the benefits of trade:

“Add another point that labor leaders never mention: their members, like all American consumers, can buy more goods more cheaply, from sweaters to softballs, when they are made abroad.”

ManufactureThis wants Americans to have “cheap sweaters and softballs” too. But only if those products are not the result of subsidies intended to undercut U.S. producers. Furthermore, Steve and Cokie shouldn’t be surprised that neither Labor leaders nor any Americans would be very interested in giving a free ride to those who break the rules.

Americans — rural, suburban, Republican and Democrat, Labor activist and investor — are concerned about the inattention that American policymakers give to predatory trade tactics by many of our trading partners. Subsidies, currency manipulation, piracy and other barriers prevent Americans from having the benefits of free and open trade and yet they have to pay the price for the cheating of others.

Here’s a question that Steve and Cokie don’t address: Why go through the trouble of negotiating new agreements if we’re not going to enforce the rules on the existing ones? In fact, according to an AAM study out this week, when we do enforce our trade laws to combat predatory trade practices, the economic gains for Americans are substantial.

Steve and Cokie also suggest that the “losers” in free trade must accept their fate:

“But there are losers as well as winners, and any free trader must also support better education, smarter midcareer training and more generous benefits for workers who do lose their jobs to international competition.”

This conclusion leaves out a step. While welcoming international competition, ManufactureThis like most Americans, insists that those small businesses, employees, and American investors whose opportunities are uprooted because of predatory trading practices should not simply be dismissed as “losers.”  

Americans should have access to softballs and sweaters at the most economical price — and many of them also believe that before they endorse any new trade agreements, American policymakers should insist that the terms of the earlier agreements are adhered to.

The proposed agreement needs a thoughtful and thorough discussion, not one where those who raise questions or concerns are shut out or dismissed.

This entry was posted on Monday, May 21st, 2007 at 9:11 pm and is filed under Manufacturing in the U.S., Holding China Accountable, Currency Manipulation, Economic Security, Enforcing Trade Laws, AAM. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.