NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney each claims they would do better standing up for American workers against unfair trade with China. However, when it comes to outsourcing both have sins to repent.

Just about everyone who has had a choice between buying an American-made product or an import -- a car, a dress or bottle of wine -- must admit international trade based on national differences in knowhow, labor costs and natural resources can help us live better.

If Americans expect to sell

Boeing

aircraft and

Microsoft

Windows abroad, then they must be prepared to outsource some of what they buy directly, or through firms assembling goods here.

The problem is not outsourcing but importing products that could be made as or less expensively in the U.S. That happens when: U.S. policy throws up unnecessary barriers to domestic business; foreign governments subsidize inefficient production or simply keep out competitive American products; or U.S. firms have an inappropriate bias toward foreign sourcing.

Those swell the trade deficit, imposing great costs, and both President Obama and Governor Romney each share some guilt.

President Obama's tough restrictions on oil and gas development in the Gulf, off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and in Alaska do not reduce U.S. petroleum consumption but merely shift exploration and production to costlier and riskier locations abroad. Environmental Protection Agency limits on CO2 emissions encourage manufacturers to locate in China, where similar regulations do not apply. Both kill U.S. jobs without an environmental benefit.

China keeps its products artificially cheap and encourages U.S. manufacturers to locate production in the Middle Kingdom by suppressing the value of its currency, imposing high tariffs and throwing up administrative barriers to U.S. goods and services.

In the wake of the financial crisis, Beijing required its stimulus money be spent in China, and yet President Obama permitted billions of U.S. stimulus money to be spent in China and similarly protectionist regimes.

For example,

TheStreet Recommends

GE

(GE) - Get General Electric Company (GE) Report

, whose CEO heads the President's Job's Council, used stimulus grants to purchase components for U.S. wind turbines from the Chengxi Shipyard -- a state-controlled company that builds vessels for the Chinese Navy -- even though an American supplier offered to match its price.

President Obama could have excluded those products -- either through the initial legislation or by executive order -- without violating World Trade Organization rules but chose not to do so.

More broadly, he has not taken aim at China's undervalued currency, which affords exporters as much as a 40% price advantage when selling in the U.S.

Bain Capital

, the firm founded by Governor Romney, has invested in companies that have relocated jobs to China. More broadly private equity firms have an inherent bias toward outsourcing that is often neither helpful to the businesses they reorganize nor healthy for the U.S. economy.

Essentially, private equity purchases distressed businesses, and looks for quick profits by slashing wasteful employment -- unnecessary jobs that would be lost anyway if the firms failed -- and replacing ossified management. However, seeking big returns in a brief period, private equity managers are more likely to sell off valuable brands and patents to raise quick cash, and to offshore manufacturing that supports domestic R&D and could contribute greatly to the future value of the firm and broader U.S. competitiveness and employment.

U.S. tax policies offer substantial incentives to private equity reorganization of businesses by taxing their partners' income at about half the rate that many corporations, small businesses and professionals pay. Simply, those tax breaks give the economy more private equity reorganizations than are good for U.S. growth and jobs creation.

Unnecessary outsourcing is responsible for at least half the $600 billion U.S. trade deficit. Slashing that deficit in half would boost domestic demand and GDP by about $500 billion and add 5 million jobs.

Export and import-competing industries spend at least four times as much on R&D as the private business sector as a whole. Reducing outsourcing, by increasing R&D, could boost U.S. GDP by one or two percentage points. A U.S. economy growing at 3% or 4% a year, instead of its current 2%, would have far fewer budget problems at the federal and state levels, and far more resources to address issues like health care, the solvency of social security and finance an adequate national defense and space exploration.

This article is commentary by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.

Professor Peter Morici, of the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, is a recognized expert on economic policy and international economics. Prior to joining the university, he served as director of the Office of Economics at the U.S. International Trade Commission. He is the author of 18 books and monographs and has published widely in leading public policy and business journals, including the Harvard Business Review and Foreign Policy. Morici has lectured and offered executive programs at more than 100 institutions, including Columbia University, the Harvard Business School and Oxford University. His views are frequently featured on CNN, CBS, BBC, FOX, ABC, CNBC, NPR, NPB and national broadcast networks around the world.