Trade in the Montana Senate Race: Baucus vs. Kelleher

Incumbent Democrat Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is running against 85 year old Republican Bob Kelleher. 

According to the Rasmussen polling firm, Kelleher doesn't pose a threat to Baucus: Election 2008: Montana Senate:

In the first poll of Montana’s race for United States Senate, Incumbent Max Baucus (D) is way out in front. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds the Senator leading challenger Robert Kelleher 64% to 31%

It doesn't look like trade is an important issue for Kelleher; it's not one of the issues that comes up on his campaign web site.

Baucus likes agricultural subsidies but doesn't like trade barriers.  Here's his average Cato score over the period 1997-2008 (in the Cato figure below the higher an "X" the greater the opposition to subsidies, the further an  "X" is to the right the greater the opposition to trade barriers):

 

This career average masks a shift through time.  His average for the period 1997-2002 was 89%, but his average for the period 2003-2008 was 57%.  Here's a story from The Hill about his shift in early 2007 from supporting to not supporting extension of the expiring fast track authority: Baucus shifts course on fast-track.

A year ago, Baucus proposed a new Democratic trade strategy: Remarks by Senator Max Baucus to NDN on U.S. Trade Policy.  He laid out a four point program:

• "First is responsibility.  To rebuild the national consensus on trade and globalization, we must recognize the federal government’s responsibility in the face of globalization...."  Not everyone benefits from integration with the world economy and that integration needs to be regulated.  We need to enforce the agreements we reach with other countries, provide adjustment assistance for people hurt in this country, and ensure the safety of imported goods.  We may also, from time to time, need, "...legislation to encourage foreign governments to adopt currency exchange rate policies that are responsible and foster stability...." 
• "Second, we must multiply our successes, no matter how small...."   This is more tactical advice on how to push forward.  Seize on successes, even if partial, and build on them.  He would like to build a bipartisan approach to trade on the Spring 2007 agreement between Congress and the Administation which included an agreement "to include binding environmental and labor norms in our trade agreements."  He like to build on past tariff reductions and bring regressive tariffs on basic goods (like t-shirts) down to the lower tariff levels typical of luxuries.  We should continue to build on our progress with China; remember, this market is growing 30% a year.
• "Third, let us calibrate our ambitions to our strengths and needs."  This seems to mean pursuing trade agreements that are large in scope (to get the biggest buck from our negotiating resources) and to pursue agreements, such as agreements in services,intellectual property, and environmental goods, that build on our natural strengths.  Although he mentions pursuing large scale agreements, the largest he talks about are regional agreements; he doesn't talk about pushing the Doha negotiations.
• "Fourth, and perhaps most challenging, we must begin to rethink our policies to embrace and predict changing global dynamics, rather than simply react to them."  This is pretty vauge: "...We must imagine seamless policies that embrace the environment, economic growth, and public health.  We must craft policies that view education, innovation, and intellectual property rights protection as the many sides of the same valuable economic gem.  We must craft our competition and investment policies knowing that companies, policies, and policy outcomes have global consequences, whether we like it or not."

Here's a speech from a Democrat that's optimistic about economic engagement with the outside world.  But this is speech that looks at trade reform in bilateral and regional terms.  There's no hostility to the WTO and multilateral institutions, but there's no sense that non-discriminatory multilateral approaches are especially attractive.  I've posted on this speech before: Baucus on Trade

Here's an analysis of a January 4, 2007 Baucus Wall Street Journal trade op-ed: The Devil is in Max Baucus' Details.

Here's a report on Baucus remarks at a trade workshop last summer in Montana.  Again, it's positive about trade, but it's all about bilateral agreements: Baucus: U.S. ‘treading water’ on trade:

Sen. Max Baucus thinks the United States is missing the boat when it comes to trade.

“We in America are not reaching out aggressively enough to get trade agreements with other countries,” the Montana Democrat said Wednesday at a global trade conference in Kalispell.

Most on a panel of five international trade ambassadors from Vietnam, Colombia, Morocco, New Zealand and Peru agreed.

Other nations are sealing free-trade deals among themselves, Baucus said, lowering and eliminating tariffs to pump new vigor into their markets. But the United States is “a little slow.”

Baucus pointed to New Zealand trade ambassador Roy Ferguson’s example from earlier in the morning: His country has a trade agreement with China but not with the United States, and not for lack of interest on the part of New Zealand.

“We need to reach out and make those agreements,” Baucus said. “We’re treading water. We can no longer tread water.”

To balance out the impacts and tide people over through retraining programs should they lose jobs to global trade, Baucus said he’s pushing in Washington for renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

Here's a report on a speech Baucus gave in Seattle in early September 2008: Baucus Calls for Change in U.S. Trade Policy, Agreements with Asian Nations.

Comments

[Richard Paris]

If we had intelligent people in position of power we could imposr fair tariffs and value the overseas currenct at a fair amount. Until out leadership does these thing we will loe statue, jobs and opportunity.We must take it back! Technology starts here and schold stay here!