The warning signs are clear, but so is the path forward. Now is the time for a full-court press from the White House. President Obama should be clear about the imperative of TPA and make the strong case for trade as a catalyst for job growth.
Government support for globally engaged American businesses is required now, not sometime in the future. The reality of our times is that all exporting countries are targeting the same faster-growing markets and an emerging middle class today, not in the future.
The next four years provide dramatic opportunities for trade liberalization across the Pacific and the Atlantic. Barack Obama will use those opportunities to build a durable bipartisan consensus on trade. Mitt Romney won't.
Mitt Romney says that he wants more trade with Latin America. How? By negotiating new trade agreements in the region. With which countries, exactly? He doesn't say, and frankly it's difficult to name a likely candidate.
In the wake of the worst financial crisis in 80 years, I thought it would be a no-brainer for the U.S. government to give up its longstanding policy of banning capital controls through trade agreements.
It's striking that at this late date, Senator Kerry would still be promoting a corporate-driven trade agreement by claiming that the agreement would create jobs based on an estimate of increased exports, while ignoring the issue of imports.
This week, we'll see Congress vote on three so-called "trade agreements." Did you ever wonder why they call them "trade agreements"? So that they don't have to call them what they actually are -- treaties.
It's time for our leaders to demand the integrated all-of-government approach to our trade relations with China that is the only one which is going to address the economic nightmare we find ourselves in with that country.