So much for bipartisanship. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have approved the one part of President Obama's jobs agenda voters hate the most. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose so-called "free trade" agreements like the trifecta with Korea, Colombia and Panama Congress just passed.
A poll by my organization, the American Jobs Alliance, found 4 out of 5 voters of all political stripes -- and a stunning 90% of Tea Party supporters -- believe trade with China and deals like NAFTA cost the U.S. jobs. It's the latest in a series of surveys showing super majorities blame our economic woes on Washington's welcome mat to outsourcing and uncontrolled imports.
President Obama and Congressional incumbents sold these deals as a salve for sorely needed jobs. But when the economy fails to improve next year, the politicians will inherit the wind.
Blue-collar whites make up about 40 percent of the electorate and are the traditional swing voters. Many have no college degree. Factory jobs were their ticket to the middle class, a ticket that's expired as more and more industry moves offshore. To say they don't buy the free trade dogma pushed by the post-industrial elitists, who say we will all be Steve Jobs and Warren Buffetts inventing iPods and selling fancy mortgage-backed securities, is an understatement - they view it as treason. They distrust business and government, and believe both political parties don't represent their interests. These are the "Independents" pundits talk about as having a decisive role in elections.
White blue-collar ethnics determined the special Congressional election in western New York in May. Conventional wisdom attributed the surprise outcome to Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare phase-out plan, but that doesn't fully explain what happened. In September, Democrats tried to use Medicare as a silver bullet to ward off an angry electorate in the Democratic downstate district Anthony Weiner used to represent -- and it didn't work.
What we saw upstate in the spring was reliably Republican voters going for a third party businessman who hammered trade and outsourcing relentlessly. The GOP candidate refused to renounce the free trade religion -- and was defeated by Democrat Kathy Hochul who did (and who kept her campaign promise to vote against these latest deals).
Anti-incumbent sentiment festers across the country. Like the Anti-Masonic Party of the 1820s that believed Freemasons controlled both parties, today's voters believe both parties have been bought by moneyed special interests and do their bidding. Foreshadowing the shape of things to come, Congress' disapproval rating eerily almost matches the number of voters who believe corporate trade deals are bad for the country -- 80 percent. These voters are reminded of what galls them every time they go to the store and see Made in China on a package with an American brand name on it. Politicians ignore the trade issue at their own peril.
Robert Scheer: If a Republican Were President
Guess their economy is in worse shape than ours and our workers and companies - the few left in the U.S. - do not need any help.
The only candidate that will not sell out to the globalist free traders elite, the big money financial system and the special interest is Ron Paul. his voting record is clean and in support of our Constitution; Ron Paul for years worked to stop this economic catastrophe, but the elite that want to control Washington, expended millions of Dollars to place in Washington their own puppet that will work for them and make this country a socialist, multicultural and divided country.
How sad! I guess we deserve reverting back to Colonial Status a supplier of Raw Materials to the nations that own us!
That is why I oppose it.
In fact, I think it goes further. NAFTA-style trade agreements are a little bit of free trade for select special interests (i.e. agriculture exporting companies, etc.), and a little bit of protectionism for select special interests (i.e. Big Pharma and financial service industries, etc.), used as the delivery mechanism to lock in a sweeping corporate rights agenda. They could have done it with candy, but instead they chose "trade," which is why groups all across the country with a variety of views on the desirability of "free trade" realize that NAFTA-style trade agreements are not about that, and indeed about much more.
And, in case you weren't sure, Paul is the only GOP candidate (and only one of two in the entire two-party field) to have an 100% fair trade voting record. (Except for missing a vote on the Morocco FTA.)
Technorati Tags: fair trade, free trade, NAFTA, Ron Paul, WTO
Posted by Todd Tucker at 9:46am in Inside the Beltway | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452507269e200e008ddd0308834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ron Paul: For Free Trade, Against NAFTA:
read this from 07
" uly 23, 2007
Ron Paul: For Free Trade, Against NAFTA
The New York Times Magazine had an interesting piece on Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who is vying for the GOP nomination. It does a pretty good job explaining the challenges facing "big tent" candidacies of any political stripe, as well as Paul's considerable grassroots political skills. Unfortunately, the piece gives relatively short shrift to Paul's work on trade issues:
While he backs free trade in theory, he opposes many of the institutions and arrangements — from the World Trade Organization to Nafta — that promote it in practice.
Actually, Paul's position, unlike that of more opportunistic libertarians, is to oppose WTO and NAFTA precisely because they are not about so-called "free trade... in practice." As Paul said on the floor during the CAFTA debate:
If we were interested in free trade, as the pretense is, you could initiate free trade in one small paragraph. This bill is over 1,000 pages, and it is merely a pretext for free trade. At the same time we talk about free trade, we badger China, and that is not free trade. I believe in free trade, but this is not free trade. This is regulated, managed trade for the benefit of special interests. That is why I oppose it.
Since we open up our markets we have increased our trade deficit by a factor of 10!
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf
But there has been one true winner in this and that is Wall Street and the BANKS that are to BIG to FAIL!
Look at the chart!
We have sacrificed over 30+% of our manufacturing jobs to make Wall Street Traders rich???
Only Republicans and their Kinder Gentler kin - call them Clinton Democrats think like this!
Want to know the difference between a Republican and a Clinton Democrat?
Well I'll tell you anyway!
Republicans make big promises to Wall Street but it's Clinton Democrats that deliver. Who sign NAFTA, gave Permanent Most Favored Trade Status to China when he promised not to, Who sign The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (IBBEA) swept away all state barriers to interstate banking AND The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also referred to as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, repealed part of Glass-Steagall, tearing down the walls between banking, insurance and investments.
And after failed attempts by President Bush who is getting ready to sign free trade with Korea, Columbia, and Panama?
I'll tell you anyway!
Republicans make BIG PROMISES to Wall Street but it's Clinton Democrats that deliver!
President Bush had given up on these Trade Agreements with Korea, Columbia, and Panama but not the Clinton Democrat President Obama.
For all you that think Unrestricted Free Trade is a good idea!
Let me give you some facts!
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf
Our deficit is 10 times bigger than when we started! We have lost 30+% of our manufacturing jobs, and the big winners are the Wall Street Traders!
Why continue this?
If Candidate Romney runs as a Roosevelt Democrat and says he will restrain unrestricted free trade and but back safeguards put there by President Roosevelt Glass-Steagall act.
He wins this election like President Roosevelt won in 1932!
Think about that for a minute!
The only thing free about it, is that it enables global capitalistic greed fest, and the workers and the environment suffers in their race to the bottom.
Fact: Congress does not reflect the will of the people.
Any hope for me voting for him again is dashed
but what other choices do we have between worse and worser?
any job that can be done in front of a computer screen and does not require any direct human contact is vulnerable
except of course execs and politicians - these are the jobs that need to be outsourced!
not a good trade off at all
See a Roosevelt Democrat would know on an instinctual level Unrestricted Free Trade is bad for middle class America. Sure they will be some winners but a majority of Americans will be losers!
See a Roosevelt Democrat would know on an instinctual level that BANKS to BIG to FAIL was a bad idea!
It was not the Republicans that gave Wall Street these gifts - they tried but it was the Clinton Democrats that delivered!
See Clinton Democrats are the Kinder Gentler Republicans that President Bush wanted the Republicans to become! He was not smart enough to realize that space was already occupied!
Funny by their votes there appears to be some Roosevelt Democrats in the Republican party!
Wonder how fast a Roosevelt Democrat party would take off?
Wonder how many Wall Street Protesters it would attract? I wonder how many Tea Party members it would attract?
Wonder how many Americans it would attract?
I wonder?
all they did was get distracted over health reform that really wasn't
and still allowed the right to control the agenda and frame the debate