Senator Clinton's Wrong Priorities
The Peru trade agreement is an example of how corporate interests and their lobbyists and cronies have corrupted the Democratic Party. Like the failed free trade agreements before it, this agreement puts the interests of the big multinational corporations first, ahead of the interests of American workers and communities. Despite progress on labor and environmental standards, the guidelines outlined in this agreement are only as strong as George Bush's will to enforce them -- and we all know, trusting Bush to enforce a trade agreement is like letting Mark Penn negotiate a labor contract for workers.
Coincidentally, Senator Clinton's announcement that she supports the agreement came on the same day that the New York Times reported she would receive the endorsement of former Clinton Administration official and NAFTA architect Robert Rubin. Rubin's endorsement builds on Clinton's already robust support among Wall Street elites who favor free trade policies that prioritize the profits of multinational corporations over the needs of America's workers.
We've all seen the devastating effects of these free trade policies: in recent years our country has lost middle-class manufacturing jobs, seen wages stagnate, and run up larger and larger trade deficits. But it doesn't have to be this way. Instead of expanding the NAFTA model, we need our leaders to fight for trade agreements that strengthen and maintain, rather than undercut and erode, labor rights, environmental standards and wages.
Instead of cozying up to corporate interests, John Edwards will fight for safe and smart trade policies that put the interests of Main Street above the profits of Wall Street. By supporting this agreement, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are sending a powerful signal to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and across America that they have very different priorities.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Insightful, but it does not go far enough.
"[C]ozying up to corporate interests" is not simply a poor judgement in terms of priorities. It is an outright betrayal, a clear-cut case of bribery, and would be treason if there weren't laws exempting lobbying.
Some interesting info provided in an article by Hartmann:
Since Bush has been president:
* over 5 million people have slipped into poverty;
* nearly 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance;
* median household income has gone down by nearly $1,300;
* three million manufacturing jobs have been lost;
* three million American workers have lost their pensions;
* home foreclosures are now the highest on record;
* the personal savings rate is below zero - which hasn’t happened since the great depression;
* the real earnings of college graduates have gone down by about 5% in the last few years;
* entry level wages for male and female high school graduates have fallen by over 3%;
* wages and salaries are now at the lowest share of GDP since 1929.
http://www
You are so right...th
Her priorities on many other things are wrong as well. Should this come as a surprise?
Congressman Bonior, I didn't realize that you headed John Edwards campaign until this post. I have been giving Sen. Edwards kudos for running a really brilliant campaign with few resources, and you deserve a lot of the credit I'm sure. I am a non-affiliated voter and cannot vote in the primary in my state, but I have done my own weeding out and decided that Sen. Edwards is my choice for the Democratic nominee. If anyone reading my comment could post an e-mail address for the campaign, I can at least make a donation at this time.
My weeding out was completed in the last day when four of the Democratic candidates decided to by-pass the Mukasey vote which in my opinion translated into a yes for Mukasey. In addition, I am very concerned about your topic here and pleased to know that Edwards, unlike Obama and Clinton, does not support Bush's plan for an expanded NAFTA.
Well said and true.
"Free trade" is Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Robert Rubin was Bill Clinton's mentor for NAFTA. That "sucking sound" you hear is those jobs going over seas. What was Ross Perot talking about? Well, each of us must do our homework in economics. When I did, I found out that Bill Clinton represented Wall Street, not Main Street. It is not about protectionism - that is a right-wing talking point. No, pitting worker against worker across borders reduces real wages in the United States. Sure, you get some cheap toys from China but your buying power goes down.
John Edwards is telling you the truth. Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin didn't. When Al Gore made Ross Perot look like a fool, American labor lost out. I never have been a fan of Ross Perot. But the DLC types are not the friend of the working person. Sam Walton at WalMart called HRC "his little lady." Truer words were never spoken. Again, do your homework and you will see how NAFTA has undermined the middle class of America. It also hurts farmers in Mexico who cannot compete with subsidized corn meal from the U.S. Then they come here
You're exactly right.
It's astounding to me that there were less than 50 registered lobbyists when Reagan took office in contrast to 35,000 or so now (a number that was half that size when George Bush Jr took office in 2000).
Obviously Clinton came in the middle and didn't seem to care much about the issue, and as you mentioned, he allowed and even endorsed NAFTA (and GATT, and the Telecom Act of 1996).
What happened to the progressive roots of the democratic party? You know, the people that stood up for the poor and middle class against special interests?
Now the business community has given more money to democrats rather than republicans, a very disturbing development. Hillary has taken more money from the health care industry than any candidate, democrat or republican.
Yet the mainstream media seems to present these developments as a good thing, as if Hillary is clearly the best candidate because, well, she raised the most the money. Huh? What? Since when did taking the most special interest money make someone the best candidate?!
It's insane.
Until we have publicly funded elections (and some form of run-off voting at least in the primaries), this trend is likely to continue, which means economically speaking, the distinction between democrat and republican will become even less meaningful than it already is.
But until then, at least Edwards has a strong populist message and policy plan (see Sirota's article today on trade for example) even if he's not perfect.
www.theyou
"Like the failed free trade agreements before it, this agreement puts the interests of the big multinational corporations first, ahead of the interests of American workers and communitie
Please provide hard evidence for such a sweeping generalization. Until those who are against every trade deal can be more specific and provide direct evidence of the intentions stated above, I can't take any of them seriously.
Correlating employment statistics that are not provably related to Trade Agreements don't wash, either. Canada signed NAFTA over many objections, and now imports more US manufactured goods than any other country. That's good for us. Yet the Canadian middle/working class continues to grow and prosper.
I don't deny that there are problems for working men and women today. What I challenge and have not been convinced of, not even a little bit, is that it is the fault of trade agreements.
John Edwards is exploiting the fact that trade is a complicated issue, too complicated for most busy people with families to sort out on their own. His campaign is about being against everything that will get him a positive emotional reaction from people who are either angry or struggling. I don't consider that to be a very responsible campaign strategy.
I think we need to bring America back to what it was before the NAFTA, CAFTA agreements. I do not want to see anymore trade agreements. I would like to see jobs staying in the U.S. and not being outsourced or companies moving. We must support our workers to have a strong America and we need to be accountable to we the people. If John Edwards is the one to break this stronghold in Corporate America, I say more power to him and others just like him.
Senator Clinton's position troubles me, because I believe this agreement will have the same negative effects for the American working people as NAFTA. It also concerns me that Mrs. Clinton remained undecided for so long. I regret that Senator Obama supported this trade agreement, but at least he was able to make a decision. I believe that Mrs. Clinton makes too many decisions based on deals and negotiations to further her career goals instead of on the face of the issues.
I know that I can count on John Edwards to do the right thing on each issue. He only thinks about what is good for the country and the American people. I am sick of Washington deal making. We need John Edwards in the White House.
Very irresponsible journalism to throw Obama into the storyline of a Peru deal, NAFTA....
It was after all,Obama who went before the automakers and told them what this country needed to do for them to be globally competitive is to raise mpg- make more hybrids. But for all the squealing of the canary in the coal mine-the corporate world seems hell-bent on keeping up the status quo business as usual approach-despite increasing losses (especially automakers). They think thier usual "a cut here-a cut there' is what will save them-I don't think they see the writing on the wall-about Global warming, corporate corruption
David Sirota has been doing a great job of covering this ... and in particular of the legal opinion of the Columbia University Law Professor that confirms that it is only the President who can bring a dispute under the labor standards in the US-Peru FTA ... and no President has ever brought a dispute over labor standard in any one of these NAFTA-model "Free Trade" Agreements.
There is nothing wrong with free trade! It is the way it has been executed that is faulty to say the least! Hillary is right when she states that all NAFTA needs is some tweaking and fine-tuning to meet modern day needs!!
With full-scale gobalization in effect in every part of the World, it would be rather silly not to recognize the reality of "free trade" ...
They have both learned the Republican lesson on campaigning: tell the people one thing and do the opposite. The people are too stupid to catch on. Looks like it works for Dems just as well as Repubs. Vote Edwards.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
