Derek Scissors for the American Enterprise Institute : NAFTA is the big game. The importance of Canada and Mexico is often overlooked: $1.3 trillion in goods and services traded last year, almost one-fourth of the U.S. total. The trade deficit with the two combines to $70 billion, only 12 percent of the full deficit. The Chinese share is 59 percent.

If we update NAFTA, we get better protection for an estimated 28 million American jobs supported by intellectual property. We get a digital trade chapter where there isn’t one now, as digital commerce has transformed the U.S. since NAFTA was signed. We clear the path for rising U.S. energy exports to Mexico and a powerhouse North American energy trade group.

Then we get to take the text to bilateral trade partners — such as the United Kingdom, Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan — and say President Trump agreed to this with Mexico, so you know a deal with you is genuinely possible.

The bad news is time is just about up. The last day both houses of Congress are scheduled to be in session this year is Dec. 13 . Trade Promotion Authority stipulates the president must report to Congress at least 180 days in advance, implying June 15 is the drop-dead date.

It’s not, of course — Congress can accept whatever the administration submits in June or change its rules. But the other side of the coin is that there is no guarantee a lame-duck Congress will vote on NAFTA, there are also political risks in a July 1 Mexican election and a 2019 Democratic House rejecting any Trump-supported bill.



Voters don't like claims of disadvantaged groups

Matt Grossman for the Niskanen Center : Since the 2016 election, I have reviewed nearly every academic article containing the name “Donald Trump.” This huge amount of literature has plenty of disagreements, but the dominant findings are clear: Attitudes about race, gender, and cultural change played outsized roles in the 2016 Republican primaries and general election, with economic circumstances playing a limited role.

Media coverage of this research has often framed it as a victory for those who argue “Trump supporters are racist and sexist” over those who argue “Trump supporters are left behind economically.” Concerned scholars and commentators have criticized this research as hopelessly biased and have often tried to revive the economic story. But another strain of conservative explanation for Trump’s support — one that is focused on aversion to “political correctness” — turns out to be quite close to the racial and cultural explanations.

Beneath the divide lurks a consensus: Many people dislike group-based claims of structural disadvantage and the norms obligating their public recognition. Those voters saw Trump as their champion.



Liberals misguided on their jobs guarantee

Anne Kim for the Progressive Policy Institute : While a federal jobs guarantee certainly passes the “bigness” test, its very bigness is a central conceptual weakness, at least in the current political environment. It is far too large a hammer in search of a nail.

According to the leading proposal for a national guaranteed jobs program, it would cost roughly $543 billion a year to create 10.7 million new federal jobs covering every worker unemployed or underemployed in January 2018. That would put the number of job guarantee participants at nearly five times the size of the entire current federal workforce.

It’s hard to fathom why proponents believe there is public appetite for a jobs program of this scale today, especially given that the nation’s official unemployment rate is at its lowest in nearly 20 years, employers in many places are complaining of worker shortages, the economy is set to grow at a solid pace, and fears of inflation are preoccupying central bankers and financial markets.

And even though workforce participation is lower than it could or should be compared to historical standards, the magnitude of unemployment and underemployment is nowhere near what it was the last time a massive federal works program was proposed and implemented, which was during the Great Depression. Then, unemployment rates were running at upwards of 15 to 25 percent while the private sector was wholly crippled.

• Compiled by Joseph Lawler from research by the various think tanks.