Support for global trade

Editor, The Times:

I write to commend The Seattle Times’ support for the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and for raising awareness among readership on this critical issue affecting our economy and Washington workers.

Among the many stops on his trip, President Obama visited South Korea, a critical trading partner for the U.S. and one with whom we’ve had a free-trade agreement pending congressional approval for more than two years.

This visit presents the perfect opportunity for the president to demonstrate to the world that the U.S. remains open to global trade, and to signal to American workers that we will continue to support them and pursue every opportunity to create jobs and spur innovation in this country.

Our Northwest workers produce some of the very best goods and services in the world — Boeing airplanes, Microsoft information technology and Paccar trucks, to name a few — but 95 percent of our customers are located outside America’s borders. Therefore, trade is an essential, proven economic stimulus that brings the results of American labor to global markets that demand them, sustaining and creating jobs in the process.

America, and Washington state in particular, can ill afford to sit on the sidelines failing to act while our competitors race ahead to engage and open new trade markets. A recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce study revealed that we stand to lose 350,000 American jobs should we not enact the trade agreement before implementation of the European Union’s own agreement with South Korea.

America must not be just a participant in the global economy; we must lead it. I will continue to press for policies that ensure we will.

— Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn

Trade agreement: Been there, done that

Yes, trade is good, but not all trade deals are good, so let’s not do the Korea free-trade agreement.

Korea has systematically shut out U.S.-manufactured goods, most notably U.S. automobiles, and this agreement does not change that. The mega-banks, entertainment providers and software industry will be big winners in this deal, but once again American workers will come up short.

The Korea agreement uses the WTO model that the least regulation is the best regulation. It is the same flawed approach that led to the recent global financial crisis created by runaway banks.

Our members of Congress should be working on reforming and improving our trade model before making any more bad deals.

The template for change already exists in the Trade Act (HR 3012), which has been co-sponsored by 127 members of Congress, but not one from Washington state. It’s time to get on board the way forward and stop repeating past mistakes.

— Allan Paulson, SeaTac

We need a new direction, and a new policy

Our country has spent the past 15 years indulging the free-market, free-trade ideology of deregulation and offshoring, of cutting government oversight and coddling investors.

Look what its brought us: Our manufacturing sector is in shambles, our leading export is fraudulent financial services, and the rich keep getting richer while the rest of us struggle.

Even in our state of Washington, companies like Boeing are outsourcing and offshoring faster than you can say, “Oops, the Dreamliner’s off schedule again.”

Do you still think the answer is more of the same?

Come on.

Our country needs a new direction in trade policy. Reps. Adam Smith and Dave Reichert should reject the outdated Korea free-trade agreement, and instead put that great bipartisan spirit to work fixing the mess we’re in.

— Marina Skumanich, Seattle

Finding the balance between pure free trade and protectionism

The trade debate is easily expressed as trade versus protectionism.

If you are against trade, you must be a protectionist. This is a curiously American sentiment, since every other country in the world finds a comfortable spot between those two extremes.

No country in the world is pure free trade or pure protectionism.

It is far more useful for everyone to favor a trade policy that raises our standard of living and strengthens communities we care about. We can all oppose a trade policy that lowers our standard of living or wrecks communities we care about.

From that perspective, we all favor trade, and we need only ask which of the available trade policies will do the best job of raising our standard of living, and helping communities we care about.

Free trade has failed to meet lofty promises made to American workers, families and communities. Adding one more agreement with Korea won’t redeem a trade model that is fundamentally flawed.

— Stan Sorscher, Seattle