To date, congress has seen 11,865 bills this session. Each one of these has gone through some sort of committee, endured debate and editing, and finally either been put into law or vetoed. Of those bills, some good and some bad, there has been one that has been heavily debated upon since its inception: The Trans-Pacific Partnership. This trade agreement has seen across the board opposition from notable politicians on both ends of the political spectrum, from Vermont senator and 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sander to the current president-elect Donald Trump, and was at the forefront of the 2016 presidential race. Those against it cite grievances such as potential job losses and the potential for environmental damages, but, in my opinion, in doing so they neglect the fact that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP for short) is easily one of the best trade agreements the United States of America has been a part of in a very, very long time. From potential job growth, to almost guaranteed economic growth, to even expanded environmental protections, this is a bill that is good, and arguably necessary, for our nation if we wish to continue growing and prospering for the decades to come.

For years now, The United States has been facing what some would call a less than fair playing field in the South East Asian region. Our exports are taxed in the form of tariffs, which simply put are taxes other nations place on our goods when they come into other countries. In Japan for example, the United States faces tariff rates on the beef that enters the country to the tune of 38.5%. This is not necessarily unfair, given that in doing this Japan gets to provide a competitive edge to their domestic cattle industry. Tariffs are beneficial in this way given it makes it more expensive for consumers within the nations they are implemented in to buy foreign goods, thus ideally incentivizing the action of purchasing domestic goods, leading to strong growth for their own businesses. What is unfair however is that the Japanese government, through other trade agreements they have made, lacks a set tariff rate for all nations. In this particular instance, this means that Australia only sees tariff rates of 27.5%-30.5% on their beef products when exported to Japan. This is indefensible, and has led to the U.S losing a portion of our market share of beef sales in Japan. This is where TPP comes into play. The agreement, if ratified by our government, changes the tariff rates of various goods and services. In the case of beef in Japan, it will reduce the tariff rates on U.S. beef exported from 38.5% to 9%, along with promises to eliminate duties on 74% of its beef and beef product tariff lines within 15 years. Given beef is a $1.6 billion industry in the United States, that is significant. In fact, Philip Send, the president and CEO of the U.S. Meat Export Federation, has gone so far to say that, in regards to beef, “TPP is essential to our long-term competitiveness in Japan”. The Trans-Pacific Partnership’s ratification can effectively make beef producers in the U.S. more competitive, and that's only one industry with one set of tariffs. The agreement hardly ends at beef, instead eliminating or reducing more than 18,000 of tariffs transcending dozens if not hundreds of industries.

Upon focusing on the agricultural sector of the U.S. economy, arguably the largest beneficiary of this agreement, the advantages of TPP in regards to economic growth become clear. Though overlooked fairly frequently given the shift in our nation towards being a service economy, agriculture and industries related to it contributed $985 billion to the U.S GDP, which is a whopping 5.7% of the total. Though seemingly small to the untrained eye, economic experts regard that percentage as being extremely significant. Given that the health of the agricultural industry is inadvertently tied to the health of the overall economy, if farmers begin hurting, it is a good economic indicator in that the overall economy will eventually experience a ripple. For example, the dust bowl and the destruction of the financial wellbeing of farmers was a contributing factor to the Great Depression. The farmer's economic hardship was a sort of overlooked early warning sign, signaling potential hardship years before the eventual stock market crash. More importantly, every good we put on a dinner table has to be grown, fed, and sold. When farmers begin making less money, the higher prices they must place on their raw goods to break even cause price inflation in all of the goods their goods are inputs for. That cost is fronted to the consumer, and we must pay as a result. According to the official TPP website, 20% of the income farmers face comes from agricultural exports. That is significant.

Few have better data and arguments in support TPP than the American Farm Bureau Federation. Their findings were, to say the least, startling, showing not only economic benefits should the U.S. ratify TPP, but actual damage to the agricultural sector as a whole should we not. According to their report, U.S. beef and pork exports are expected to be $1 billion and $940 million higher respectively should TPP be passed, along with net trade increases for corn, cotton, beef, pork, poultry, butter, cheese, and non-fat dry milk and marginal increases in the prices of corn, soybeans, rice, cotton, fed steers, barrows and gilts, wholesale poultry, and milk. That culminates to a farm income increase of $4.4 billion. Profits of that degree can become to jobs as well, but that is something given a more in depth look later. On the flip side of that, should the U.S. neglect to ratify TPP, the nation risks becoming less competitive in the very markets that are so promising for growth. This is due to the fact that regardless of our ratification, other nations will continue to negotiate with one another in an effort to foster regional growth. Deals made between regional partners equate to our agricultural industry losing due to not even being at the negotiating table pushing American agricultural agendas. The Trans-Pacific Partnership effectively brings U.S. businesses to the negotiating table and then some.

It is also notable that the agricultural sector is far from being the only beneficiary of the tariff cuts. The manufacturing sector, most notably the auto industry, sees significant advantages with the passing of TPP. To demonstrate those benefits, I present another example: Currently, U.S. automotive companies are obligated to pay a 70% tariff rate on all automobiles they export to Vietnam. Should TPP be ratified, those tariffs are eliminated, along with similar ones in every nation who ratifies the agreement. In a strange twist of events, the U.S. even manages to retain tariffs on Japanese automobiles for more than a decade, effectively giving us a massive competitive edge at home and abroad. Again, this is significant. The auto industry employees more than 6 million hard-working Americans, and exports alone for the manufacturing industry totaled $1.4 trillion in 2014. It is fair to assume eliminating tariffs on U.S. manufactured goods could lead to significant and noticeable profit increases for domestic producers. Strict rules of origin are also implemented in the agreement, which give preferential treatment to automobiles and their accompanying parts if they were made in a TPP nation and nowhere outside of one, which to some extent opens up new export opportunities for the automotive industry as well as incentivizing producing within TPP nations, or in the auto industry’s case, the United States. This not only helps to retain U.S. jobs, but also goes a step further and potentially creates them.

Jobs are actually a significant part of the argument against TPP. During his 2016 presidential campaign, now president-elect Donald Trump was quoted saying “…TPP is the biggest betrayal in a long line of betrayals where politicians have sold out U.S. workers." He was far from the only person to complain about the loss of jobs. Even on the Democratic side, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were openly opposed to the agreement’s ratification, due in part to the fear of losing jobs to foreign nations. Although it is feasible to simply acknowledge that U.S. manufacturing jobs have been on the way out for years, and that their exodus to developing nations is simply a natural transition as the U.S. becomes a service economy as well as an economy focused more on high intellectual manufactured goods that reap us more profits (airplanes rather than iPhones for example), doing so would be to assume the opposition to TPP is correct, which they simply aren’t.

To start, the previously mentioned rules of origin outlined in the bill create incentives for manufacturing companies to stay. The notion that companies will even want to move out of the nation after the agreement’s ratification is semi-humorous in itself given that TPP is going to shred labor systems in the nations that embrace it and make them more fair for the workers within them. From outlawing forced and child labor, to creating opportunities for workers to form unions in nations they otherwise can’t (Vietnam), to being able to bargain collectively, to establishing minimum wages and set hours of work, TPP is bringing massive reforms to nations that are otherwise mainly appealing to companies who leave due to their inexpensive, unregulated labor. These reforms make it less profitable to move overseas, and as a result may very well end in the U.S. retaining jobs they otherwise wouldn’t.

Moreover, TPP not only retains, but also creates jobs. In my previous article I cited information from the TPP website claiming that for every billon dollar increase in exports, 5,800 jobs are created on average. The previously mentioned AFBF study also showed significant increase in jobs within the agricultural sector as a whole, to the tune of over 40,000. Peter Petri, a professor at the Brandeis International Business School, went so far as to estimate 150,000 jobs created through the passing of TPP. He also put forward the theory that as supply and demand find a new equilibrium, it would not be surprising to see job losses in certain sectors of the economy, but that they would be made up for by gains in other sectors. His theory stands to provide a legitimate argument against the notion that TPP is a massive job killer. To say TPP eliminates some jobs, though not technically wrong if viewed from a microeconomic, single sector perspective, is incorrect in that when viewing the bigger picture there is high probability of net job creation.

TPP has another quite interesting and positive effect in regards to how it assists the environment. During her bid for the White House in the 2016 presidential race, Green Party candidate Jill Stein was openly opposed to the agreement, saying “For the safety of our food, our air and our water, the security of our bank accounts, our access to the Internet and so much more [we must not pass TPP]”. The Green Party in particular is interested in environmental protection and the conservation of resources, and as a result, part of Jill Stein’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership lay in a belief that it would potentially harm that which she wants to save. This is a fair argument. Findings by the Sierra Club for example conclude TPP could lead to an increase in the use of fossil fuels in the U.S. Though factually founded, it demonizes the agreement for one small, arguably negligible aspect.

To the contrary, there are tangible positive environmental regulations within the agreement. Within it are rules that attempt to enforce the illegality of poaching endangered animals as well as strict rules regarding the practices of overfishing and deforestation that are taking place in South East Asia. These rules culminate into a fairly impressive effort by the TPP nations to preserve vital parts of the environment, something almost unheard of in previous trade agreements in the region. To say that TPP damages the environment, an argument of critics, therefore is near invalidated, as there are physical components of the agreement dedicated to environmental protection that prove more substantial than speculation from those who do not even seem to be reading it.

Raw data is truly what provides the answer to the question “Is TPP good for the United States?” Political opinions aside, the numbers prove again and again that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is beneficial to our economy. Whether is be the rapid and large economic growth in the agricultural industry, the benefits for manufacturers, the good it does for workers, the potential growth of jobs in sectors that have been weakened over the years and desperately need the growth, or the environmental benefits of getting the bill passed, it is evident that TPP’s pros far outweigh whatever cons there may be. There is real economic growth to be seen from this to the tune of an estimated 0.5% GDP increase by the time of the bills implementation as well as countless benefits for U.S. workers and companies. For years the U.S. has been growing, but in the region effected by TPP, we are slowly losing our market shares in multiple industries to foreign competitors. Despite what might be said by Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump speaking out in patently untrue, twisted perspectives on the bill, one thing is clear: Farmers want this bill. Manufacturing workers want this bill. Small businesses want this bill. Corporations want this bill. A number of Democrats and Republicans want this bill. The Trans-Pacific Partnership’s supporters transcend socioeconomic and political boundaries, and despite what naysayers may believe, this is a bill worth passing. For future economic gains, job retention and growth, and environmental protection, we as a nation must pass this bill. When asked, “Is TPP good for the United States”, the resounding answer is undoubtedly “Yes.”