When first running for president, Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaWhy is Joe Biden dodging the public and the press? Here's who Biden is now considering for budget chief Pentagon issues report revealing ex-White House doctor 'belittled' subordinates, violated alcohol policies MORE pledged to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). If elected, he said, "I would immediately ... try to amend NAFTA because I think that we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now."

At the time, most observers dismissed the vow as mere political positioning. But fast-forward to the newly released 2015 President's Trade Agenda:

In TPP [the Trans-Pacific Partnership], we are negotiating to put in place the largest expansion of enforceable labor rights in history, renegotiating NAFTA and bringing hundreds of millions of additional people under enforceable International Labor Organization standards.

Uh-oh.

Statements like that are a good reminder that in the world of trade negotiations, the interests of average Americans are sometimes better represented by foreign officials than our own.

ADVERTISEMENT

There is little reason to believe that the 11 other countries negotiating the TPP will agree to the largest expansion of enforceable labor rights in history. Foreign negotiators don't want to be forced to adopt new regulations from Washington; sometimes they simply want us to reduce our self-destructive, special-interest trade barriers.

Other aspects of Obama's 2015 Trade Agenda are also troubling. Consider the assertion that "we do not use non-tariff barriers to prevent other countries from selling their goods and services in the United States." That statement is patently false. Worse, it comes from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), which surely knows better.

As a result of U.S. non-tariff barriers:

  • Bakeries pay twice the world price for sugar;
  • Drivers pay more for gas at the pump because refiners can't ship oil from the Gulf Coast to Northeast refineries on low-cost tankers built in other countries;
  • Tourists can't cruise from Seattle to Alaska or from New York to Miami without stopping in a foreign port along the way;
  • Taxpayers pay extra for federal infrastructure projects because of "Buy American" laws that inflate prices; and
  • U.S. service members can't use their shoe allowance to buy Nikes or other shoes made abroad if a U.S.-made shoe is available.

And what about U.S. tariffs? The Trade Agenda asserts: "Our tariffs on imports are extremely low — less than 1.5 percent on average." The statement glosses over the fact that Washington imposes double-digit tariffs on sneakers, jeans, T-shirts and many other popular products. The government actually pays an "assistant U.S. trade negotiator for textiles" $157,000 a year to defend these regressive U.S. tariffs.

The USTR report claims: "We already have one of the most open markets on the planet." But according to World Bank data, the United States has one of the lowest levels of import penetration in the world. Imports equal about 16.5 percent of gross domestic product in the United States, versus 19 percent in Japan, 23.8 percent in China and 32.4 percent in Mexico.

With respect to U.S. trade policy achievements, the 2015 Trade Agenda mentions efforts to overturn China's restrictions on exports of raw materials. This is a strange policy to highlight, since the United States also restricts the export of raw materials like oil and natural gas.

Equally strange is the report's touting of an administration decision to stop a "harmful surge" of tires imported from China. According to a study by Gary Hufbauer and Sean Lowry, this act of protectionism cost the United States three jobs in the retail industry for every job protected in the tire manufacturing industry, producing a net loss of around 2,500 jobs.

The USTR document fails to mention any of the benefits provided by imports, even though about half of everything Americans import is an intermediate good used by U.S. industries to produce something else. A 2013 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis study concluded: "Our analysis focuses on the role of exports and imports in affecting manufacturing performance. Surprisingly, we find that imports have played a critical positive role in boosting manufacturing output in the United States — much more so, in fact, than exports."

In the 1994 Economic Report of the President, Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonSenators introduce bill creating technology partnerships to compete with China Edie Falco to play Hillary Clinton in Clinton impeachment series Website shows 3D models of every Oval Office design since 1909 MORE accurately described the importance of trade: "International competition through trade has long been a powerful engine of change and progress — for America and for the world. We must not let that engine idle."

An earlier president, Ronald Reagan, noted other benefits:

The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides for human progress and peace among nations. ... [F]ree and open markets ... produce more jobs, a more productive use of our nation's resources, more rapid innovation, and a higher standard of living. They strengthen our national security because our economy, the bedrock of our defense, is stronger.

The Gipper added a cogent warning as well: "I know that if we ever faltered in the defense and promotion of the worldwide free trading system, that system will collapse, to the detriment of all."

Quick, somebody tell the president. Please.

Riley is the Jay Van Andel Senior Analyst in the Heritage Foundation's Center for Trade and Economics.