WaPo editorial:

It shouldn’t matter whether you’re conservative or liberal, for globalization or against: Some trade bills are so obviously beneficial and unobjectionable that there’s no excuse for letting them languish. This is the case with a raft of measures that would extend trade preferences for poor countries — preferences due to expire at the end of the year. Failing to renew them would not save American jobs or advance any other national interest; rather, it would disrupt the economies of U.S. trading partners and create another excuse for foreigners to resent the United States…

These trade measures might founder partly because anti-globalization sentiment is growing in Congress, causing a minority of members to oppose all trade deals, no matter how routine…

But the biggest reason these trade measures may fail is the most scandalous: Most members of Congress know that they ought to be extended, but institutional inertia is stopping them from doing the right thing. For the past several months, Congress has put off dealing with the trade preferences, even though their expiration at the end of the year was no secret. Now the deadline is approaching, and members of Congress complain that they lack time to craft the legislation. What Congress is saying is that leaving town for the holidays is more important than jobs in developing countries. No wonder the United States is seen as arrogant.

It’s not true that trade preferences for poor countries are obviously beneficial and unobjectionable, but I agree that congressional procrastination is inexcusable. Moreover, the unwillingness to renew previously granted tariff cuts (even if ill-advised) may be a first sign of protectionist backsliding, which I worried about after the election.