Thread: Democrats Trade Hypocrisy

Democrats Trade Hypocrisy
By Linda Chavez
April 11, 2008

Democrats' hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to free trade. The latest example of duplicity comes from the Clinton campaign, which was forced to announce on Sunday that chief strategist Mark Penn would be stepping down from his official post. It seems Penn had been doing a little moonlighting on behalf of the government of Colombia in its efforts to win a free-trade agreement with the U.S. -- something Hillary Clinton vigorously opposes.

Penn, who has earned around $15 million from the Clinton campaign for providing strategic advice, never gave up his other job as worldwide CEO of the large public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, which represents Colombia. He had promised Hillary, however, that he'd recuse himself from dealing with the issue personally. But then last week Penn met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. just as President Bush was about to send the Colombia free trade agreement to Capitol Hill.

Of course, the Clinton campaign isn't the only one that has been embarrassed on the trade issue. Earlier, Barack Obama got egg on his face when one of his economic advisers, Austan Goolsbee, told Canadian officials that Obama didn't really mean what he said when he was busy bashing the North American Free Trade Agreement.

But the real problem for the Democrats isn't undisciplined campaign advisers -- it's the candidates' ridiculous pandering on trade itself. Clinton and Obama are worried that they might offend the protectionist labor unions that provide money and "volunteers" -- actually, paid union staff -- critical to their fortunes in November, whichever one of them gets the nomination. So, they prattle on about the dangers of trade pacts like the one President Bush is proposing Congress fast-track with Colombia. And they never let facts get in the way of their claims that free trade costs American jobs.

In the case of the Colombia agreement, the Democrats' criticism is even more outrageous -- namely that we can't sign a pact because Colombian trade unionists have sometimes been assassinated. Obama has gone so far as to suggest, "You've got a government that is under a cloud of potentially having supported violence against unions, against labor, against opposition." In fact, Colombia's president, Alvaro Uribe, has fought hard against extremists of both left and right in his country, and crime against labor leaders is actually lower than against other sectors of the population. Indeed, Uribe is one of America's strongest allies in Latin America, and he has had remarkable success rescuing a nation that was on the brink of anarchy a few years ago.

The Colombia free trade pact will help the U.S. every bit as much as it will Colombia -- in some ways, more. The overwhelming majority of Colombia's exports to the U.S. -- 90 percent -- already are free of tariffs, but our exports to Colombia face heavy tariffs of up to 35 percent -- and depending on the product, sometimes much more -- for everything from consumer goods to agriculture. If Congress acts favorably on the agreement, 85 percent of our industrial and consumer exports will be tariff-free, and eventually 100 percent of our exports will be. Now, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is threatening not to allow a vote on the issue at all, jeopardizing not just this agreement, but our ability to negotiate future trade agreements, as well.

A secure and economically viable Colombia helps us in many ways. The U.S. faces unfriendly governments in several Latin American countries, most notably Venezuela under the dictator Hugo Chavez. We need all the friends we can get in the region -- and rejecting the Colombia agreement will be a real slap in the face of a strong ally. President Uribe has cracked down on narco-traffickers, seizing 500 metric tons of cocaine in 2006 alone -- and these groups wreak havoc not only by financing terrorism in their home country, but flooding our inner cities with drugs that breed crime and corruption.

Instead of firing their campaign advisers because they made the candidates look like hypocrites, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should rethink their own positions on free trade. Clinton has previously made some sensible statements on the issue, and one of her husband's few major accomplishments in office was winning approval of NAFTA. And Obama is too smart a fellow to not realize that what he says about NAFTA and the Colombia agreement is utter nonsense. But I won't hold my breath for either of them to show real leadership by rejecting protectionism.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal."

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/lchave ... 4111.shtml

House Puts Off Vote on Trade Agreement
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press
April 11, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic-led House, in an election-year showdown with the White House, on Thursday effectively denied President Bush a vote any time soon on a free trade agreement with Colombia, a key South American ally.

The House voted 224-195 to eliminate a rule forcing it to vote on the trade agreement within 60 legislative days of the president's submitting it to Congress. Bush sent the agreement to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, starting a 90-day clock for the House and then the Senate to either approve or reject the pact.

The House action in all likelihood kills consideration of the Colombia agreement this year, leaving it for the next administration. Both of the Democrats competing for their party's nomination, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, have expressed skepticism about the benefits of free trade agreements.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who initiated the rules change, blamed Bush for submitting the agreement to Congress before a consensus was reached with congressional leaders on outstanding differences. She said whether the agreement is dead for the year ''depends on the good faith'' of negotiations between Democrats and the White House.

She said that in a phone conversation with Bush on Monday she warned him that the agreement would be defeated if a vote were taken now, and that the priority should instead being on measures to revive the U.S. economy.

Bush, she said, ''abandoned the traditions of consultations that have governed past agreements.''

''You forgot to consult with us,'' House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said, referring to Bush. ''You did not deal with some of the issues we have.''

Bush, in a statement, shot back that the House vote ''is damaging to our economy, our national security and our relations with an important ally.'' He said: ''the message Democrats sent today is that no matter how steadfastly you stand with us, we will turn our backs on you when it is politically convenient.''

Republicans angrily condemned the rules change. It ''aligns with the goals of (Venezuelan President) Hugo Chavez and South America's narco-terrorists,'' said Rep. David Dreier of California, top Republican on the Rules Committee.

''This action today is nothing short of political blackmail,'' said Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, contending that Pelosi was using it to force the president to deal with her agenda.

Top figures in the administration were equally strong in condemning the action. ''To change the rules in the middle of the game is, as I said, both unprecedented and unfair,'' U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said Wednesday at a news conference attended by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and other Cabinet secretaries.

''From the perspective of American foreign policy and American interests, there is perhaps no more important free trade agreement in recent memory,'' Rice said.

The Democratic Congress did approve a free trade agreement last year with Peru, but has balked at moving ahead with Colombia, partly because of continued violence against organized labor in Colombia and partly because of differences with the administration over how to extend a program that helps American workers displaced by foreign competition.

Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., cited figures that in the first 12 weeks of this year, 17 trade unionists in Colombia were assassinated. ''When it comes to issues like human rights, I refuse to be a cheap date,'' he said.

Organized labor and human rights groups in the U.S. have generally opposed the Colombia deal because of the problems of labor leaders in the South American country. Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have actively lobbied for the deal, saying it will remove tariffs that impede American exports to the country.

Almost all Colombian goods already enjoy duty-free status when sold in the United States. Trade between the two countries reached about $18 billion last year.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/april/0 ... ade1.shtml

Re:

Business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have actively lobbied for the deal, saying it will remove tariffs that impede American exports to the country.

Almost all Colombian goods already enjoy duty-free status when sold in the United States. Trade between the two countries reached about $18 billion last year.

The larger, more obvious question people should ask is:
Why are we in such a situation now where we have tariffs placed on our goods, and Colombia doesn't have a reciprocal arrangement?

The history of 'free trade' agreements is generally not a good one for most Americans. While some multinationals use them as a means of chasing looser and cheaper labor sources, other transnationals use them as a means of assembling or manufacturing components as well. Either way, the American worker almost always loses in this process.

Prior to NAFTA, the US had a net trade surplus with Mexico. Within 2 years of it's implementation, we had a net deficit. That deficit has grown consistently since it's inception.

Let's make Fair Trade the new policy. Interestingly, almost no other country on the planet has thrown themselves into the vague economic fuzzy area of a 'true' free trading with reckless abandon.

Ponder this:

Do you think it's possible to sell your US made cars into South Korea or Japan without tariffs or special taxes? Answer: Nope.
How about large quantities of American grown rice? Nyet.
Think about selling large quantities of wheat or beef to Argentina without local import barriers? Nada.
How about large quantities of Vodka into a certain Northern European country that has a name that starts with an "S"? Ain't gonna happen without taking a hit in mandatory tariffs.

Fact: Most countries still protect their economies in various ways (in particular, 'prized' or particularly important industries). The other corollary question to ask here is: why are *some* people pushing to make rules that only force OUR loosening of trade rules, knowing that most other countries maintain rules to protect their local economies?

Almost all Colombian goods already enjoy duty-free status when sold in the United States. Trade between the two countries reached about $18 billion last year.

I don't understand. Can someone please help me out? It appears as if Columbia already enjoys "free trade" within the United States. Not sure what the United States is getting out of this "trade" agreement, but it does not appreat to me that Rice is concerned about the United States in her appeals.

What is Rice so upset about and why is she using such strong language to push this vote?