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.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

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