The NY Times: Mostly right on NAFTA

Well, whaddaya know? Even the bruised Gray Lady gets it right every now and then. Today's editorial on NAFTA is about as close to right as one can expect on this topic from the New York Times. Writing about NAFTA on the occasion of the looming Ohio Democratic primary, the Times weighs in. "Criticisms of trade agreements in Ohio are as predictable as praise for ethanol in Iowa," they say, "But they do the voters no favor."

It is fact -- anybody care about the facts? -- that trade agreements are good for American manufacturers. In the year before the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passed, we had a $1 billion trade deficit with the CAFTA countries. On the one-year anniversary of CAFTA's passage, we had a $1 billion surplus with the CAFTA countries, a net $2 billion swing. Hard to see how that hurts US manufacturers.

Says the Times:

"Middle-class voters across the country are legitimately anxious...But blaming NAFTA or any trade agreement only feeds misguided protectionist sentiments at home and strains already difficult relations around the world.

It is also factually inaccurate. In a review in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that NAFTA had slightly increased growth in the United States and that any disruptive effects on employment were small. Trade opens foreign markets for American producers and gives consumers more choices, while competition spurs productivity growth at home."

According to a US Trade Representative fact sheet, in 13 post-NAFTA years, 1993-2006, manufacturing output in the US was almost double the level of the 13 year period before NAFTA took effect. In 1993, then-President Clinton enlisted Bill Daley (before he was Commerce Secretary) to honcho the effort to pass NAFTA. And it worked, as some 100 Democrats supported the Clinton White House and voted for it. But now come the revisionists, remembering it all as a bad dream, all to gain political advantage.

The Times is right that, "The Democrats need to articulate a coherent vision for how this country can compete in and benefit from a globalized world."  Globalization is a fact of life here in the 21st Century, and one that has opened markets for US-made goods. However, in the heat of political battle, as the Times concludes, "Taking rhetorical axes to NAFTA is not only pandering, it is bad policy and counterproductive."