Romney and Obama Don’t Always Disagree About Outsourcing

Neither candidate would—or could—end outsourcing.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/7188960566/">DonkeyHotey</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are bickering over who is the bigger fan of outsourcing. The Obama campaign has accused the private equity firm Romney owned and founded, Bain Capital, of “pioneering” outsourcing with its investments in companies that moved manufacturing overseas. Romney has claimed that he left Bain before jobs were outsourced and countered that Obama’s the real “outsourcer in chief” for investing government funds in energy companies that went on to hire workers abroad.

Nevertheless, neither candidate is actually outraged over outsourcing. Romney has strenuously denied the charges that he misled the public about his role at Bain after leaving to run the Olympics, but he’s never said that outsourcing is wrong or that he would have done things differently. Obama has attacked Romney over wanting to “keep giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas,” but as Reason‘s Peter Suderman noted, he’s previously acknowledged that “we can try to slow globalization, but we can’t stop it.” The candidates are battling for a populist mantle, but neither subscribes to the underlying principles.

“Both candidates recognize that in globalization, offshoring happens,” says Jared Bernstein, a former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden who is now a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “Both candidates are generally favorable towards globalization. These are not protectionist people.” Outsourcing often leads to companies moving jobs out of the United States, but it also makes consumer goods cheaper to buy by making them cheaper to produce. Neither candidate has proposed trying to fundamentally alter that dynamic.

“I think their basic view is pretty much the same,” says Dean Baker, the cofounder of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Dan Ikenson, a trade expert with the libertarian Cato Institute, agrees. “Both the president and Mr. Romney understand that outsourcing is an unobjectionable fact of life, that the process generates large net benefits for Americans, and that attempts to restrict outsourcing would have deleterious effects on the US economy,” Ikenson says. “However, both campaigns have decided, thus far, that it is easier to demagogue the issue and label the opponent as the bigger outsourcer than it is to explain how outsourcing works.” That’s because Romney doesn’t want to look like a callous moneybags to American workers, and Obama doesn’t want to undermine the image of the populist he plays on TV. So the détente serves both sides.

Where the candidates do differ is on how they want to respond to outsourcing—especially when it comes to tax policy. The Obama campaign has proposed ending tax incentives for companies that move jobs overseas and has proposed tax changes that it argues will stimulate manufacturing, such as tax credits for manufacturers of products that can be used to produce green energy. The Romney campaign has promised to crack down on China for artificially lowering the value of its currency, which makes Chinese goods cheaper and makes it harder for American manufacturers to compete. Romney has also proposed exempting companies’ overseas profits from taxes. As president, Obama has reneged on his pledge to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which makes it cheaper and easier for companies to manufacture goods in Mexico and Canada and import them to the United States, and signed new free trade agreements with Columbia and South Korea that have similar effects.

“I don’t think Obama is going to do much to stop outsourcing—this is like renegotiating NAFTA,” Baker says. “Great for campaign purposes, but no one around him ever took it seriously.”

None of Obama’s proposals would end outsourcing. But Bernstein argues that Obama’s proposals would at least have the impact of not rewarding companies that outsource. Romney’s proposal to allow US companies to be exempt from taxes on profits they make overseas would incentivize outsourcing, Bernstein argues, though Baker thinks its primary impact would be reducing tax revenue.

“The president is very clear that the last thing we’d want to do is incentivize more [outsourcing],” Bernstein says, “I haven’t seen that sentiment reflected in the proposals from the Romney camp.”

The one Romney proposal both Baker and Bernstein agree might lead to less offshoring is his pledge to go after China for allegedly manipulating its currency. But Baker is skeptical Romney will follow through.

“If Romney did actually take steps to reduce the value of the dollar [thus making US exports cheaper and more attractive to overseas customers], it would have a big impact on offshoring, but I don’t believe that he would,” Baker says. “Obviously Obama won’t.”

Bain and outsourcing are likely to remain sources of conflict between the candidates as the campaign goes on. It’s ironic, then, that when it comes to the basic economics of outsourcing, the candidates basically agree—as do most economists. Many voters, however, see things differently—which is probably why neither of the candidates is talking about what they have in common.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate