First up, the White House press briefing, with some more details on the plan, is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/13/press-gaggle-press-secretary-jay-carney-and-omb-deputy-director-manageme
Second, here are some links to what others have been saying:
Dan Drezner: "this [is] one of those "reorganizing government" initiatives that makes a lot of sense in the abstract but probably leads to more transition costs than long-term benefits."
David Rothkopf: "Not only does the move make logical sense -- bringing together all those agencies of the government that support the development of U.S. trade and the job creation associated with it -- but it also would save, according to initial White House estimates, over 1000 jobs and $3 billion over the next ten years."
David Zaring: "American trade lawyers are worried that the proposed combination of USTR and Commerce will not work well. I would suggest that they needn't spend a lot of time thinking about it. Combining agencies means dispossessing a congressional sub/committee of oversight responsibilities, and it isn't as if it can never happen - we have a Department of Homeland Security, after all - but it makes such consolidations much more difficult than mere logic would suggest."
Clyde Prestowitz: "Fundamentally the idea is good and should be adopted. Indeed, the Obama proposal does not go far enough . In addition to the agencies named as candidates for the new department, the Department of Energy, NASA, and the economic agencies of the State Department should also be added. That would make the department comparable to and competitive with the industry and trade ministries of most of the countries who are America's major economic partners. It would also make the department a front rank agency and thereby give it the resources and weight to enable it to compete on equal terms in the intra-departmental Washington battles with the likes of the Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury."
Also, a number well-known trade lawyers and other experts are quoted on the issue in the Legal Times BLT blog, the NY Times and Bloomberg. And here's Reuters:
"White House budget official Jeffrey Zients told reporters the reorganization would fold together the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and other trade bodies now spread across Washington, giving businesses a single point of contact and ensuring federal spending goes further to boost exports.
Obama was set to deliver remarks at 11:20 a.m. on the new, yet-to-be-named department that would be tasked with achieving his goal of doubling exports in five years, a key part of his economic agenda as the November presidential vote nears.
The Democrat was expected to cast it as an effort to make the government leaner and more efficient, reducing bureaucracy for export-oriented companies."
Finally, putting aside issues of the effectiveness of the proposal and whether it will actually happen, let me take this in a somewhat different direction -- one that is admittedly a bit naive and idealistic -- and note the following about the operation of domestic trade policy. It concerns me that governments sometimes seem to think of trade policy as having the goal of increasing exports while limiting imports. They see trade rules and negotiations as, for the most part, a battle for market share. I'm not singling out the U.S. here; it's a more general phenomenon. While this may seem rational in terms of short-term domestc politics, I worry that the result is a world trading system that is overly confrontational and inherently unstable. It is important, I think, for those who make international trade and economic policy to take a broader view, and think about what purposes the system is supposed to serve and how the specific rules can best achieve these goals. Thus, for me, the main issue with the Obama proposal is not so much whether the proposal will make the U.S. a tougher trade negotiator, but rather the impact it may have on how the U.S. thinks about trade policy. There is not enough detail on the Obama proposal yet to say much about this issue, and we won't really know unless the changes actually happen, but that's what I'll be most curious about if the proposal goes ahead.
I realize that last paragraph may be a bit vague. I'll say something more about all this eventually!
