Thread: Washington in for a shift in free-trade attitude

Washington in for a shift in free-trade attitude

With a focus on cheaper consumer goods since World War II, many jobs have been lost overseas. The new Congress will take a new tack.

Kevin G. Hall and M Argaret Talev, McClatchy News Service


WASHINGTON - The American worker, not Corporate America, will be the central focus of U.S. trade policy as far as the new Democratic majority of Congress is concerned.

That's no surprise, but it's a big shift. Since World War II, U.S. trade policy has sought to open markets to American exports through free-trade deals with countries large and small. That has made less-expensive electronics, apparel and other foreign-made goods increasingly available to U.S. consumers.

But it also has cost a growing number of American workers jobs, pay increases and pensions. Manufacturers left Rust Belt states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania for China, and garment makers in the Carolinas shuttered factories and moved to Asia or Central America, lured by lower wages, fewer regulations and nonexistent trade unions.

"In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future," James Webb, the newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia, said in an opinion piece in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal.

As a result, many Democrats and some Republicans are demanding that free-trade agreements be fairer to American workers and businesses.

Democrats aren't going to abandon free-trade agreements, said New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who led the Democrats' senatorial campaign this fall. Instead, they'll demand that future agreements be "fairer and more in the interests of America, as opposed to just American corporations."

But there are limits to what the Democrats can do for U.S. workers. Labor and environmental agreements are easier to negotiate than they are to enforce, and global forces largely determine where companies locate, jobs are created and trade flows.

But there are some areas in which U.S. policy can make a difference, and politics is about perception as much as about reality.

So what will Democrats do? The incoming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Montana's Max Baucus, told McClatchy Newspapers that he'll seek to expand the safety net for American workers. He wants trade-adjustment assistance to include the services sector, where jobs have been lost to offshoring -- the outsourcing of administrative, clerical, service and technology jobs overseas.

That would provide financial assistance to software designers, accountants, call-center operators and even architects who have lost their jobs to less expensive overseas labor.

Democrats have scant interest in trade deals with smaller countries that haven't produced great increases in U.S. exports or significantly improved working conditions.

"These are not friendly to workers in the countries that they're supposed to help and certainly not favorable to American labor," said Harry Reid, D-Nev., the incoming Senate majority leader.

Democrats also want the administration to invoke the provisions allowed under global trade rules to protect U.S. manufacturers from cheap imports and unfair competition. They want President Bush to bring a number of trade complaints against China to the World Trade Organization for keeping out U.S. exports.

"It's totally unacceptable. It's worse than unacceptable. It's offensive, and it costs us jobs," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., a champion of U.S. autoworkers.

Organized labor, a longtime Democratic ally, wants future trade deals to require that partners of the United States adopt enforceable International Labor Organization standards.

"We're in a new world here," said Thea Lee, the chief international economist for the AFL-CIO.

"We are thrilled to have a majority that's friendly to the issues we're interested in."

Bush's "fast-track" trade promotion authority, which helps speed congressional approval of trade deals, will expire Sept. 30. He'll probably have to agree to strengthen labor protections as part of any deal to maintain it.

"As a practical matter, whatever law reauthorizes fast-track authority should address trade adjustment assistance ... and will have to strengthen labor and environmental provisions in some way to win broader Democratic support," Baucus said.

Democrats aren't in a mood to compromise on trade, but they say they want to cooperate with the Bush administration.

"I don't want to be negative because perhaps the president has listened to the voter and perhaps wants to work with us instead of having gridlock," said Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., who'll head the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives, which has jurisdiction concerning trade issues.


http://www.startribune.com/535/story/819948.html

"I don't want to be negative because perhaps the president has listened to the voter and perhaps wants to work with us instead of having gridlock,"

LOL


There's no evidence this moron "gets it" at all on Free Trade, Illegal immigration, or the plight of working Americans.

This reads like they understand that they are killing us, but have no intentions of doing anything about the pacts in place.

Getting future deals right?

The deals already made will be the death of this nation and getting further deals right at this point is academic and futile. I mean cmon, who cares if they get a fair deal with say Honduras.....will that do anything about our jobs that are already in China, Mexico, India, etc.

Ross Perot called it correct when he said "with these trade agreements you will hear the sucking sound of all our jobs leaving America"

If it's not too late already, the only way to repair the damage is completely repeal NAFTA and CAFTA -or- Tax the products coming into this country by the traiterous American corporations made in 3rd world countries for what amounts to slave labor, just like they are foreign.

As it is now they are making their products in the 3rd world for next to nothing with no enviromental protections or unions, shipping them to America untaxed just like they were made in Iowa, or Ohio and selling them to the people they fired to move over-seas.

What part of that even sounds like a good thing for America?

Anyone who still thinks we live in a Democracy whos Government is NOT run by corporations is sadly diluded.

Hi JP,

Originally Posted by Kevin G. Hall and M Argaret Talev

The American worker, not Corporate America, will be the central focus of U.S. trade policy as far as the new Democratic majority of Congress is concerned.

Sounds good if it's true. How can this be, with Hillary beholden to Ratan Tata (and other Bangalore body shop executives)?

Originally Posted by Kevin G. Hall and M Argaret Talev

Democrats aren't in a mood to compromise on trade, but they say they want to cooperate with the Bush administration.

So the truth is revealed.

As we have seen recently, any legislation that attempts to protect American workers or domestic stay-at-home businesses will be challenged under the WTO and likely just end up with sanctions being levied against the US by that body. With GATT, NAFTA and other trade deals in place, legislators are pretty much hamstrung when it comes to protecting us from outsourcing. Claims to the contrary by legislators are just posturing, but then that's what the Dems do best.

This really isn't a Republicans will seal the borders and Democrats will open and give amnesty issue.

The President (R) is the one who wants amnesty. Hell I think Vincente Fox is his house-boy. But Mexico has a new Pres. and he is looking south for partners instead of North like his predocessor. He is more in touch with the hostlity in America than our own leaders.
There are many Democrats that are for a wall and legislation to rid us of this scourge...of course there are many that are for the amnesty too.

I think there are D, and R, in each camp.

Either the new majority will do nothing, or listen to the people. They have to unless they only want 2 years of power. But we have to wait and see.
I was a participating member here for a few months earlier in the year under another name, but I couldn't recall it when I came back, hence new name.
I had to take a break from what I saw as too much racism at times which just takes away from the issue and makes us look like something we are not, at least Im not. And blaming everything on Democrats which is also ridiculous.

I know we can discuss things without racial tones and political divisevness..if not, Ill just go away again.

Oh, and I should say that I dont think anything here in this thread is racial or divisive...I was just saying it as a blanket statement and I wont say it again.