Maladjusted: The Misguided Policy of "Trade Adjustment Assistance"

Through much of the post-World War II era of trade liberalization, organized labor and freetraders struck a grand bargain: negotiated agreements that lower tariffs in the United States would be accompanied by extra welfare benefits available to people who lose their jobs because of import competition. As many free traders see it, such programs can help mollify the opposition to new trade agreements and as such are a sacrifice worth making. But that bargain has broken down. The new Democratic majority in Congress has given only half-hearted support for new trade agreements and has so far refused to grant President Bush new authority to negotiate and submit them to Congress without the risk of deal killing amendments. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program is a relic of the past that reflects a different economy in a different political setting. The very existence of trade adjustment assistance perpetuates the myth that freeing trade creates special "victims" who deserve special programs simply because of the reason for their unemployment. But for every worker who is displaced because of competition from imports or "off-shoring," 30 others lose their jobs for other reasons such as changes in technology and tastes, and domestic competition. Studies have suggested that workers displaced because of import competition were equally successful at finding new jobs as other unemployed workers. Systemic changes that help workers adjust to new opportunities, such as increasing the portability of health insurance and retirement savings, and increasing labor market flexibility to create new jobs, would be more fitting policy prescriptions for a free society and a dynamic, service-oriented economy

Service to the Economy: Removing Barriers to "Invisible Trade"

Although they are part of a large and growing segment of world trade -- and a prominent feature in healthy, vibrant economies -- services are often overlooked in trade negotiations in favor of higher-profile trade in agriculture and manufactured goods. Yet countries with more open services markets benefit from higher growth rates and living standards. Because services are an input to most other sectors of the economy, the benefits from open and competitive markets are pervasive. Indeed, the gains from lowering remaining trade barriers in services would eclipse the gains from trade liberalization in agriculture and manufacturing. The recently derailed Doha round of global trade talks seem to have put globally coordinated efforts towards liberalizing services trade on the back burner for the foreseeable future. Fortunately, the United States does not have to wait for a negotiated trade agreement to benefit from a more open trade in services. The United States should continue to press other nations, including developing countries, to open their markets to American service providers, while removing unwieldy restrictions at home. By autonomously reducing the remaining barriers on maritime services, rail and air transportation services, distribution services, and restrictions on the temporary entry of workers from abroad, many of the benefits to American consumers and industry will be realized regardless of what other nations choose to do

Race to the Bottom? The Presidential Candidates' Positions on Trade

In recent weeks the economy has been in the headlines and in the sights of politicians seeking the presidency. Particularly on the Democratic side, the candidates have sought to paint a picture of a doom-and-gloom economy and a convenient culprit: the trade policies of the Bush administration. Although Sen. John McCain has largely stuck to his free-trade principles, even when it might have been politically expedient to appeal to voters' worst instincts, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have entered into a seemingly escalating war of words over the alleged damage done by trade liberalization. As news about the economy worsened and crucial primary contests in industrial states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania approached, the rhetoric reached a nadir. As voters consider the mix of policy offerings by the candidates, a look at their records on trade during their time in Congress and their statements during the campaign can give some early guidance as to the direction of the next administration's trade policy. Although trade votes are a necessarily imperfect yardstick with which to measure future policy -- packaged as they often are with other, sometimes contradictory, legislation -- they seem to be consistent with the campaign pledges of the candidates.Voters could expect a President Mc-Cain to promote freer trade and cuts in market-distorting subsidies, and a President Clinton or a President Obama to view free trade between voluntary actors as somethin

Freeing the Farm: A Farm Bill for All Americans

Agricultural policy in the United States is interventionist, expensive, inequitable, and damaging to American interests abroad.Over the last 20 years, the opportunity cost to American consumers and taxpayers of supporting agricultural producers has totalled over $1.7 trillion.The harm to agricultural producers abroad, including many developing countries, does not help U.S. foreign policy. American intransigence over reducing farm subsidies is a significant impediment to a successful conclusion to the Doha round of world trade talks. It is time for the government to get out of the business of managing agricultural markets and supporting the incomes of farmers, many of whom are relatively well-to-do. Removing barriers to agricultural imports will provide cheaper food for consumers and inject competition and dynamism into agricultural markets. Democrats took Congress partly by criticizing fiscal irresponsibility. Dismantling farm income support programs is a perfect opportunity to make good on the promise to make changes for the better. Because the first-best solution of completely ending farm programs as of September 30, 2007--with no compensation or transition payments--is politically infeasible, we advocate that the government buy out the damaging and expensive support for farmers by paying them a fixed amount of money, which they would be free to spend as they wish. Although it would require large up-front outlays, a politically expedient buyout of agricultural subsidies and trade barriers, with concrete steps to ensure the changes are permanent, would be a worthwhile investment. The 2007 Farm Bill provides an opportunity for less government interference with rural America

DMA Recital

Program listing performers and works performe

James T. Jones to Sallie Jones (18 July 1962)

Would like supplies sent from home and his wishes given to the family and women at home.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/ciwar_corresp/1392/thumbnail.jp

James T. Jones to Sallie Jones (10 December 1861)

The author discusses blockade runners and camp life for the winter.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/ciwar_corresp/1385/thumbnail.jp

James T. Jones to Sallie Jones (21 March 1862)

Discusses troop movements and denies the rumors that he is a gambler and a drunk.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/ciwar_corresp/1388/thumbnail.jp

James T. Jones to Sallie Jones (11 June 1862)

James discusses the wounded after the recent battle, the Union fortifying their position, and the care of their troops by women from home.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/ciwar_corresp/1391/thumbnail.jp

James T. Jones to Sallie Jones (12 April 1862)

James discusses his new camp life near the enemy and asks again for the name of the slanderer.https://egrove.olemiss.edu/ciwar_corresp/1389/thumbnail.jp