My wife tells me this is a boring column. She says that most of the time when I write about trade. It is not that she doesn’t think trade is important, she does. It is not that she doesn’t understand trade, she does. It is just not a subject she gets very excited about. She has a lot of company. It seems most of the people in Washington who are in charge of making our trade policy don’t get very excited about it either. In fact, they think trade is so unimportant that they are willing to trash a trade agreement that would benefit U.S. farmers and workers just to spite a lame-duck president.

The Columbian Free Trade Agreement, signed by the president over a year ago and sent to Congress last week for ratification, simply says that Columbia must import all products from the U.S. duty free. It does not say the U.S. must allow imports from Columbia duty free. Why? That’s because Columbia already can send products into the U.S. with no duty since U.S. trade policy allows almost all products from South America into the U.S. without tariffs or duties. This policy has been in place for decades. All this new FTA would do is give U.S. companies and farmers the same right Columbian farmers have had for years. But in a much anticipated politically motivated move, the leadership of the House announced they planned to put off any vote on the FTA indefinably.

To hear opponents tell it, this agreement would be the ruination of the U.S. economy. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said “Helping the struggling U.S. economy is a higher priority.” U.S. labor unions have brought their well-worn clichés about losing jobs and labor standards in other nations. What makes all this laughable is that the FTA with Columbia will actually help stimulate the U.S. economy and create jobs. Let’s take, for example, the U.S. pork industry. Now here is a sector of the U.S. economy that is really hurting. Purdue Ag Economist Chris Hurt says this may be the worst financial year on record for U.S. producers. What would the Columbia FTA do for pork? According to the National Pork Producers Association, it would increase the price of each hog marketed by U.S. producers by $1.63. It would also generate $63 million in U.S. pork exports and create 945 new jobs. But Ms. Pelosi is not interested in helping U.S. pork producers; she and her fellow Democrats are interested in scoring political points. 

Anti-trade rhetoric is hot on the campaign trail. As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama crisscross the Midwest in search of support, trade agreements – especially NAFTA – are favorite targets. Obama has promised to stand against such deals that cost jobs, and Clinton called for a “timeout” on such trade deals. In the same breath, however, both candidates have promised to create jobs and revitalize the economy. Yet, the best and most long lasting method for creating new jobs and stimulating economic growth is with trade.

So here we are at the end of a column about a subject that no one is in favor of, no one wants to talk about, and no one gets excited about. This is unfortunate because history has shown us that trade and trade agreements have built nations, fostered peace, advanced civilization, and prevented war. But that is history, another subject not many people get excited about.