Excerpt:

David Sirota has a good post at Open Left about the debate over Free Trade. Sirota’s key point is that even though Free Traders call those opposed to Free Trade deals protectionists, in reality Free Trade agreements are protectionist provisions for corporate profits.

As Democrats sharpen their fair trade talk and promises, people like John McCain are making wild accusations claiming that such moves will alienate the rest of the world - when in fact the actual public opinion data shows precisely the opposite. Far from quelling anti-Americanism and building diplomatic bridges, our current trade policies exacerbate anti-Americanism and burn what few diplomatic bridges we have left.

This isn’t to say that the rest of the world is “anti-trade.” That’s the tired, cartoonish phrase that the “free” trade extremists use to describe anyone who wants a new trade policy (and I put “free” in quotes because, as Solis notes in my column, “free” trade deals are protectionist - they are just protectionist for corporations). Progressives here and abroad are all for trade and commerce - they just want the rules of trade to protect people and the environment, before they protect corporate bottom lines.

The problem, of course, is that the debate over globalization has left the “reality-based” world. While reformers are arguing with actual facts, figures and history, the Establishment argues with empty rhetoric that actually thumbs its nose at facts. Remember, it was none other than Tom Friedman - America’s leading cheerleader for status quo trade policies - who actually went on national television and bragged that “I wrote a column supporting CAFTA. I didn’t even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade.” That’s right - in the face of growing global animosity to America’s trade policy, our country’s leading Republican displays no understanding of trade policy, and our country’s leading “intellectual” thinker on trade trumpets the fact that he advocates for trade deals that he doesn’t even bother to read.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Here’s another example of the Clinton’s being willing to do anything to get elected.

From David Sirota…

Clinton is airing this advertisement in Indiana, bemoaning the closure of a defense contractor Magnequench’s manufacturing plant in Valparaiso (she is also echoing this line in her stump speeches). Looking at the camera, she tells us she’s upset that the 200 jobs that were sent to China, and that “now America’s defense relies on Chinese spare parts.” And then comes the kicker: She tells viewers that “George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t.”

Clinton is certainly right that it is a tragedy that 200 American jobs were killed in a corporate deal that also exported sensitive military technology to China. But she forgets to mention that it wasn’t George Bush who was in the key position to stop it - it was Bill Clinton.

Back in 1995, a Chinese consortium, which included two Chinese state-owned companies, made a bid to take over Magnequench. Because the company makes key parts for smart bombs, the takeover had to be approved by the Clinton administration’s Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. Despite the national security and economic problems with selling off such critical manufacturing capacity to the Chinese - and despite the knowledge that such a deal would likely end in a domestic mass layoff - the Clinton administration approved the deal. This same deal - not surprisingly - paved the way for those 200 Indiana jobs and that sensitive military technology to be shipped to China.

The Clinton administration’s move was not surprising. This was an administration whose NAFTA and China PNTR record more than proved it was intent on helping Big Money interests face as little resistance to international financial transactions as possible - consequences be damned. But the move was very controversial, raising the ire of key Hillary Clinton surrogate Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN). As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2005, “Bayh was particularly disturbed by the committee’s decision in 1995 to approve a Chinese consortium’s takeover of Magnequench Inc.” In 2006, Bayh specifically slammed the Clinton administration’s approval of the deal to the South Bend Tribune, saying “It’s not smart to put ourselves in the position of relying on the Chinese for a critical component of a vital weapon system, and yet that is what the CFIUS process has allowed.”

Unfortunately, as he has campaigned around Indiana with Hillary Clinton listening to her decry the Magenquench fiasco, Bayh has suddenly gone silent on the matter.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

A forgotten aspect of NAFTA is its affect on immigration. This story from the NY Times back in 2003 takes a look at this…

The more than $10 billion that American taxpayers give corn farmers every year in agricultural subsidies has helped destroy the livelihoods of millions of small Mexican farmers, according to a report to be released on Wednesday.

Prepared in advance of critical trade talks next month, the report by Oxfam International argues that the subsidies given American corn farmers allow them to sell their grain at prices far below what it costs to produce. That has led to cheap American corn flooding the Mexican market and pushing the poorest Mexican farmers out of business, the report said.

‘’There is a direct link between government agricultural policies in the U.S. and rural misery in Mexico,'’ according to the report entitled, ‘’Dumping Without Borders: How U.S. agricultural policies are destroying the livelihoods of Mexican corn farmers.'’

Mexico, the birthplace of corn, opened its borders to American corn exports after signing the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. Within a year, corn imports from the United States doubled and today nearly one-third of the corn used in Mexico is imported from the United States. The United States is the biggest exporter of corn in the world and the biggest exporter of corn to Mexico.

The report said the price of Mexican corn has fallen more than 70 percent since Nafta took effect, severely reducing the incomes of the 15 million Mexicans who depend on corn for their livelihood.

Many of the Mexican families in Marshalltown were farmers in one rural area in Mexico. Farming is no longer a viable option to make a living and they are left without many options except to move their families and they chose to come to the United States.

The United States can do as many raids and build as many border fences as we want, but we will not come up with a solution to the immigration issue unless the problem with dumping corn in Mexico is solved.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Here is a look at the the issues I am looking at when trying to decide which candidate to support for president.

I want a candidate for president that…

• is strongly against Free Trade and recognizes that NAFTA ships US jobs overseas and is a driving force behind our immigration problem.
• is in favor of universal health care
• sees the major flaws in NCLB and will drastically change the program or just get rid of it
• is committed to ending our addiction to foreign oil and sees renewable energy and green technologies as a way to create millions of jobs in the country
• sees Iraq as a distraction from fighting al Qaeda and dealing with terror threats around the world, will bring our troops home from Iraq ( the British withdrawal from Basra reduced violence in the city by 90%), and understands the only solution in Iraq is a diplomatic one

Check out Still Undecided Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

The Wall Street Journal has a story, which was run on the front page of the Des Moines Register over the weekend, about trade being an important issue in Iowa.

Iowa’s anxiety stems from a mix of factors, many of which are also at play in other Midwestern swing states. By many measures, the global economy has been good for the state. Boosted by the ethanol and biofuels craze and surging demand for crops and farm equipment world-wide, Iowa’s exports are up 77% over the past four years versus 50% nationally. The state’s unemployment rate hovers around 3.7%, below the national 4.6% average.

But the past couple of decades have seen a steady decline in once-prized factory jobs, from a high of 252,700 in 1999 to 231,000 today. Just this year, Iowa lost about 1,800 jobs when appliance-maker Maytag, now owned by Whirlpool Corp., shuttered its plant in its home town of Newton. (The jobs moved to Ohio, but foreign competition was a key reason Maytag was acquired by Whirlpool.) Wages haven’t kept pace with inflation, and employers here, as elsewhere, have been paring health and retirement benefits.

Many Iowans blame their difficulties on global trade. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of Iowa Democrats conducted in September found that by 42% to 33% they favored a candidate who believes trade pacts hurt the U.S. economy over one who believes they benefit the economy; Republicans were evenly split at 39%. (The balance said they didn’t know or hadn’t a preference.)

Earlier this month, David Sirota wrote about John Edwards and Mike Huckabee that are campaigning on the issue of trade and are seeing results in Iowa from it.

What explains the unlikely rise of these two dark horses?

It’s the populism, stupid.

Huckabee and Edwards are the only two major candidates staking their campaigns on an indictment of economic inequality, corporate power and corruption. As the latest Democracy Corps poll shows, these are the very societal ills angering a middle class whose real-life struggles with stagnant wages, layoffs, debt, foreclosures and health care costs chafe against a pop culture and political system that glorify fabulous affluence. The country, in short, seems ready to embrace Huey Long’s “Share Our Wealth” ethos, and these two southerners are resurrecting the best of the famed Louisiana governor’s legacy.

Just look at the stump speeches.

“The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we’re not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas, jobs that are lost by American workers, many in their 50s who, for 20 and 30 years, have worked to make a company rich and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus to jettison those American jobs somewhere else,” Huckabee said at a recent Republican debate. “That’s criminal — it’s wrong.”

Edwards presents arguably the boldest challenge to the political Establishment of any major presidential candidate in contemporary history. Proposing sweeping health care, tax, trade and labor law reform, he says the only way “people who are powerful in Washington” are “going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.” The system, he says, is “controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water.”

Huckabee and Edwards benefit from facing icons of the very problems they attack.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

This video is from David Sirota and highlights Clinton talking about NAFTA at Thursday debate in Las Vegas.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

David Sirota thinks she does…

Hillary Clinton thinks Iowans are stupid - very stupid. Here’s what I’m talking about.

TODAY:

“Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wants to take a close look at foreign trade deals. She says she’ll call a ‘time out’ on trade agreement if she wins the White House to see if the deals are draining jobs from the U.S.Clinton, who spoke to a regional conference of the United Auto Workers in Dubuque today, says she’ll do everything she can to ‘move toward smart trade.’” - Associated Press, 11/12/07

FOUR DAYS AGO:

“Clinton Says Yes to Peru Deal…Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, after prodding from a rival campaign, has issued positions on several trade deals currently before Congress, including her support for an agreement with Peru that is dividing her party.” - New York Times, 11/8/07

As I said, Hillary Clinton clearly thinks Iowans are stupid. In this special edition of Strategery, I would suggest that treating voters like they are stupid is not a good strategy.

Another example of double talk from Clinton that Edwards mentioned during the last debate.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer wrote a column about Hillary Clinton’s slippery stance on trade issues.

Bill Clinton’s greatest domestic achievement, aside from abolishing welfare, was free trade. The crown jewel was the North American Free Trade Agreement. He got that through Congress over sustained union opposition in 1993. Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton proposed that NAFTA and other existing trade agreements be reassessed every five years.

The Post correctly called Hillary’s retreat from free trade ” opportunism under pressure,” the pressure being the rampant and popular protectionism of her presidential rivals, particularly in protectionist Iowa. But while “opportunism under pressure” suggests ( pace Hemingway) cowardice, the better description of Clintonism is slipperiness. Adaptability. Cynicism, if you like.

Note her clever use of terms. Reassessing NAFTA sounds great to protectionists, but it is perfectly ambiguous. It could mean abolition or radical curtailment. It could also mean establishing a study commission whose recommendations might not reach President Hillary Clinton’s desk until too late in her second term.

Krauthammer then issues an endorsement of Clinton because of her slipperiness on the issues.

I could never vote for her, but I (and others of my ideological ilk) could live with her — precisely because she is so liberated from principle. Her liberalism, like her husband’s — flexible, disciplined, calculated, triangulated — always leaves open the possibility that she would do the right thing for the blessedly wrong (i.e., self-interested, ambition-serving, politically expedient) reason.

If there were ever a reason to not vote for Hillary Clinton, it is the reasons Krauthammer points out. Clinton is ambiguous, calculated, triangulated, and flexible on many of the mainstream issues like trade. We need a Democrat who believes in opportunism under principle, not opportunism under pressure.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wrote a piece at the Huffington Post about Costa Rica becoming the first nation where citizens will be allowed to vote on trade agreements. The vote took place yesterday and early results are showing the trade agreement passed with 52% of the vote.

Here is some of what Sen. Sanders had to say about the downsides of free trade…

Free trade is very good for the large multinational corporations who can throw American workers out on the street, move abroad to China and other low-wage countries, hire people there for pennies an hour, and bring their products back into this country. For those people, for the CEOs of large corporations, unfettered free trade has been a very good thing, but for the middle-class and working families of this country, for working families and poor people in Mexico and in other low-wage countries, unfettered free trade has been an unmitigated disaster.

Increasingly, trade policy is not a partisan issue. The vast majority of Republicans now have serious concerns about our current trade policies because they see those trade policies as being harmful to the middle class and working families of this country, according to a new poll. “By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president. The sign of broadening resistance to globalization came in a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll that showed a fraying of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy,” The Wall Street Journal reported in a page-one news story on Thursday.

Related Posts:

Excerpt:

I am a teacher, my wife is a nurse, so you might think education or health care would be the top issue. However, I think our nation’s trade policies are the most important issue at national level currently. It was good to see this story in the Quad C…

Related Posts: