For many years, The Heritage Foundation represented enduring principles, not the convenient politics of the day. Free trade has always been one of those principles.
The president of Heritage has a piece today in The National Interest explaining why the organization is not supporting free trade now. This is a departure from its long-standing position and a mistake conservatives should hope Heritage will correct.
The question at the moment concerns Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). There’s been enough said about why conservatives should support TPA, for example by Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz. What’s disturbing is how TPA is being cited by some conservatives as a reason to oppose free trade.
Heritage’s past free-trade credentials are indisputable. First and most obvious, Heritage previously supported TPA itself, precisely because TPA makes free trade more likely. Beyond that, the 2011 Korea-US trade agreement was certainly not perfect. But it did advance free trade and Heritage was a strong advocate.
In particular, Heritage has (rightly) criticized Trade Adjustment Assistance, yet still (rightly) supported the Korea-US agreement even though Trade Adjustment Assistance came along with it. The reason was simple: free trade is much, much more important than a small government program.
What’s changed? Heritage President Jim DeMint says the last vote on TPA was tied to preferences legislation that lowered tariffs. So is this vote. TPA includes non-trade provisions pertaining to human rights and the environment. But these were introduced in 2007, after which Heritage continued to support TPA and free trade, thankfully.
Heritage argues that, this time, a deal was cut to have a vote on Ex-Im Bank. It’s not clear there was any such deal but it is clear there have been no pledges to vote for Ex-Im Bank as part of it. And preventing an issue from just getting a vote is the kind of deal-cutting everyone should indeed object to.
Senator DeMint says a major reason to oppose free trade is Ex-Im Bank supports state-owned enterprises. I worked at Heritage for five years, and loved it. While there, I wrote on the harms of state-owned enterprises. In fact, TPA would be the first time Congress has instructed the president to fight against state-owned enterprises in our trade agreements.
This has the potential to change the world, literally. TPA would be in effect for six years, long beyond President Obama. Over this period, the US could sign agreements with groups of both Pacific and Atlantic economies, from Australia to Austria.
These deals could force today’s state-owned enterprises out of most global trade, removing what may well be the biggest harm to America from trade. My colleague Tim Carney is a leading critic of Ex-Im Bank, and has praised the current free trade initiative for taking a stand against state-owned enterprises.
A claim that you fight state-owned enterprises by opposing TPA is nothing short of outrageous. Combined with the other changes in previous positions, Heritage is no longer supporting free trade in a meaningful way.
It’s a mystery why some conservatives have taken up with Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and others who demand government intervention. But it’s not due to conservative principles; that claim doesn’t hold up. It may be about the politics of the moment, something The Heritage Foundation has shown it can rise above. Time to do so again.
from AEI » Latest Content http://ift.tt/1GLrcZD
0 التعليقات:
Post a Comment