Editorial: Don’t let politics doom Trans-Pacific deal.
Presidential front-runners Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton don’t seem to agree on much, but both have come out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That’s the free trade deal between the United States, Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations. saIg t ewould be unfortunate for America, and especially Florida, if their political posturing were to damage the deal’s prospects of getting the full and fair hearing it deserves from Congress.
Trump delivered his 140-character analysis of the agreement in a tweet the day the TPP was announced, calling it a “terrible deal.” You might call that a snap judgment, considering the deal includes 30 chapters of details that haven’t been released yet.
Clinton, who presumably knows far more about the deal as a former secretary of state, insisted it didn’t meet her standards for protecting American workers and the environment. But in 2012, while still a member of President Obama’s Cabinet, she declared that the TPP “sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open, free, transparent, fair trade … and build[s] in strong protections for workers and the environment.” Of course, she wasn’t yet seeking the nomination of a party whose base dislikes trade deals, and angling for endorsements from labor unions.
It took eight years for the 12 participating nations to conclude negotiations on the agreement. Again, take it from Clinton: In her memoir “Hard Choices,” published in 2014, she wrote, “It’s safe to say that the TPP won’t be perfect — no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be — but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers …”
Congress will be given several weeks to review its voluminous details before taking a vote. Assuming there are no deal-breakers buried in the text, the U.S. has much to gain from an agreement that would expand trade between countries that together are responsible for 40 percent of the world’s commerce.
Critics blame trade deals for the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs, though automation accounts for much of the decline. Regardless, there’s no question that trade deals have increased U.S. exports. And companies that export their goods pay higher wages on average — 18 percent — than companies that don’t, according to the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office.
In Florida, the USTR says, more than 270,000 jobs are supported by exports, including almost one in five manufacturing jobs. Most of the 60,000 Florida companies that exported goods in 2012 were small- or medium-sized businesses.
About a fifth of the Sunshine State’s exports, or $12.5 billion worth a year, already go to TPP partners. Passage of the deal would make it easier for companies in Florida, as well as every other state, to compete in those markets, by eliminating 18,000 tariffs on U.S. goods, whether they come from a factory or a farm. It would reduce the average tariff on Florida orange juice, for example, by 43.1 percent.
Making U.S. products more competitive abroad would create more jobs at home. That would reduce the incentive for American companies to outsource their employment and production.
The TPP would increase imports, too, providing more choices and lower prices to U.S. consumers. In Florida, more trade would boost business for the state’s 15 seaports, which already support tens of thousands of jobs.
And Hillary had it right the first time: The TPP would set labor and environmental standards for participating nations in Asia. Those include the right to a minimum wage and collective bargaining, to be enforced with trade sanctions.
There’s a political upside to the deal that goes along with the economic benefits. The TPP would strengthen ties between the U.S. and Asia, and counter the growing influence of China, which is not a party to the agreement. Killing the deal would leave an opening for China to write the rules for the region’s trade.
The fate of the TPP is important — too important to be dictated by pandering or demagoguery on the presidential campaign trail.