I read every word of this back-and-forth, which pulled together some of the more informed and balanced commentary than you'll get, so far, from the old-platform media (outside of this lukewarm reception). It also pulls together who some of the players are on the Democratic side, working on trade issues currently.
There is a SWAT-I provided for in the recent agreement ("Strategic Worker Assistance and Training Initiative"), but no information on how this is to be paid for. I'm not a zippy trade economist, but this stands to reason: unless we ask for "free trade" to actually pay the transition costs, then don't we have the worst of two worlds, privatizing the "benefits" of trade and socializing the unpaid costs?
In other words, we vote for a "free trade" policy that provides a private benefit for companies who find non-U.S. workers at lower costs and then we vote to mitigate the pain to U.S. workers by creating "social cost" programs that are a public cost paid for by all the other workers, giving ourselves a double-whammy. Would it be unreasonably to ask "free trade" to pay for its social costs, a so-called 'transition recovery-tax on trade'?
Also, if the Dems have to give-up some 'consumption taxes' to the GOP to get some other goals (like paying for Bush-Cheney's 'free' war), would it make sense to have an 'partial equalization tax' on 'cheap labor', low enough that companies still have a profit motive to take advantage of trade opportunities?
Plenty of other issues, but I'm going to hit the books to see what some trade economists have been proposing in relation to my two taxes.
Last month, well known economist Alan Blinder concluded "I estimate that somewhere between 22% and 29% of all U.S. jobs are or will be potentially offshorable within a decade or two." Given that markets respond so quickly, the challenge to policymakers is not to fall behind or be complacent about the status quo.
Update: Dave Sirota, ahead coming out of the first turn, with two posts on the matter.