Opinion	E-mail PagePrint Version

Ten years after Congress approved the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the pact is creating a new ''giant sucking sound.'' The noise isn't from the loss of jobs to Mexico, as colorfully predicted by 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot.
 
It's coming from the 2004 White House contenders who are kissing up to labor unions and industries with promises to protect them from foreign competitors.

Though NAFTA has meant more jobs and lower consumer prices since its passage in the fall of 1993, most Democratic presidential candidates are ignoring its success. Instead they are courting union leaders with tirades that blame increased foreign trade for contributing to the loss of 3 million US jobs since 2001.

Even President Bush has departed from the Republican Party's deep-seated belief that open markets lead to stronger economies, more jobs and higher living standards. Last year, his shortsighted moves to raise tariffs on steel imports and back $190 billion in government farm subsidies gave US industry a boost over foreign competitors.

Longer term, however, such actions raise prices for US consumers and prompt other nations to retaliate against American goods.

Of course, free trade is an easier sell when the economy is booming. Tough times invite government leaders to look for convenient scapegoats and simple fixes. The harder challenge is pressing ahead on a proven course for economic gain even when it means rejecting the special pleadings of influential political patrons and the beleaguered workers they represent.

But by retreating on free trade, Democrats or Republicans risk undoing a decade-long bipartisan consensus on the value of expanding global markets.

Trade has been a vital source of growth for the US economy for more than half a century. Since NAFTA's passage, benefits include:

Higher income. The increased commerce that the pact has spurred is the equivalent of more than $1,260 per US household, the Office of the US Trade Representative reports.

Lower costs. Lower tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada equal a yearly $210 cut in sales taxes for an average family of four, according to the trade office.

More jobs. Through 1999, NAFTA's first six years, the number of US jobs linked to Canadian and Mexican exports more than doubled to 2.9 million.

Trade opponents point to the damage foreign competition causes in US industries such as textiles and steel, where recent job cutbacks have been heavy. Yet some of those losses are being offset by the growth in successful export industries that include computer hardware, aerospace and finance.

Critics also ignore the costs of protectionism to consumers and other businesses. Bush's steel tariffs raised costs $600 million for users of domestic and foreign steel, such as US automakers, according to a recent International Trade Commission study. That made US goods more expensive and less competitive with imports.

Trade critics are right to worry about wrenching dislocations suffered by some industries and regions. Still, those who lose jobs to foreign competition are better served by retraining and other assistance that help them return to the job market than by counterproductive trade barriers.

The loud sucking sounds on the campaign trail may grab voters' attention, but the quiet benefits of free trade continue to serve the US economy well.

Go back, or read the latest opinions:

''On the Waterfront – Still''

John Fund, Wall Street Journal, 09/17/06