‘Free-trade’ and ‘Pro-Trade’

This bill would increase the resources available to small and medium-sized businesses that are interested in engaging in international trade. In particular this bill would:

• It would create an export promotion pilot grant program targeted at small businesses, including rural and women-owned small businesses, that are just beginning to export to China, lending direct assistance as they work to overcome market access barriers.
• It would ensure that each Small Business Administration (SBA) office is staffed by a full time Export Development Specialist and would add ten additional regional representatives.
• It would establish an Associate Administrator position to head SBA’s proposed Office of Export Development and Promotion and have that position report directly to the Administrator.
• It would develop reference materials for the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program and technical assistance for small businesses facing commercial disputes.

I normally wouldn’t spend too much energy talking about this sort of thing for a few reasons. (1) Small business subsidies don’t bother me as much as big business subsidies because (a) it’s not as morally offensive [it’s not so clearly Robin Hood-in-Reverse], and (b) they don’t cost as much. (2) much of this bill is piddly little growth of a federal bureaucracy that’s already absurdly bloated.

But this letter grated on me because I learned it from a Twitter posting which a Chamber blogger tagged with “freetrade.”

But there’s a difference between being “free trade” and being “pro-trade.” When I wrote about this back in March, a top pro-trade lobbyist told me, “ ‘Free trade’ is a theoretical construct. What we’re talking about is practical business transactions.”

And I’ll admit that I would probably lose a public opinion poll by standing against the Chamber of Commerce’s support of small subsidies for small business exports. But let’s at least be clear about what the two sides are. The Chamber is “pro-trade.” I’m “free-trade.”