If you thought President Obama's expressions of sympathy for the Occupy Wall Street movement meant he was suddenly going to stand up for "the 99%," think again. Obama has just submitted to Congress the Chamber of Commerce-backed Colombia, Panama, and Korea Free Trade Agreements. And now, thanks to maneuvering by Obama and his business-friendly Chief of Staff William Daley and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, they're on an accelerated schedule in Congress. According to a report in The Hill, they will be voted on Wednesday, where they're expected to pass.
Obama's move is a brazen display of contempt for the Occupy Wall Street movement's calls for jobs, economic, and environmental justice as well as human rights. These trade agreements achieve a rare trifecta of progressive punching: it's hard to imagine a single initiative that at one time could so infuriate anti-corporate activists, labor unions, and environmentalists at the very moment that these disparate movements are finally finding solidarity and support in the streets.
For starters, while properly negotiated trade agreements could help boost U.S. exports and economic fairness, these specific agreements plain and simple cost jobs.
The Korea FTA alone will add a net $13.9 billion to our annual trade deficit with South Korea and cost 159,000 jobs, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute. That's a giant anvil of unemployment around the neck of the economy: when we do start to dig out of the recession, it will take that much more growth just to get back to where we are today.
If you like bailouts, you'll love Obama's FTA's. They represent the globalization of disaster capitalism. Now, instead of just being on the hook to guarantee Wall Street firms if they make bad investments, the U.S. government will be responsible for bailing out foreign companies too.
"Investor protection provisions" in the agreements actually give foreign companies the right to challenge U.S. labor and environmental laws if they deem them to be somehow costing them money. The United States then has the delightful option of changing its law or paying millions or billions in compensation to foreign companies... just for obeying our laws like American companies do.
Previous free trade agreements have included similar provisions, and governments have already shelled out $350 million, with billions more pending in cases affecting the United States. Critics, such as Public Citizen's Todd Tucker, believe that the investor provisions in these free trade deals are even worse, and the bailouts for foreign companies could reach the billions. In addition to the monetary cost, these provisions have a chilling effect on legislation: before changing our laws, we'll now not only have to assess the effect not only on our own economy and environment, but have to consider the cost to overseas operations of foreign companies as well.
We've had experience with this type of provision in previous trade deals, and it's not pretty: just this past month, the World Trade Organization issued a ruling that says notorious Mexican fishing operations must be given "dolphin-safe" labels on their tuna fish -- even though these operations routinely kill dolphins (Mexico's fleet actually seeks out dolphins to cast their nets knowing that they frequently swim near tuna). Just so it's clear, the United States isn't banning import of dolphin-dangerous tuna -- we just insist that tuna fish labeled "dolphin-safe" doesn't actually involve killing dolphins. Crazy.
Congress is also being asked to give Colombia preferential trade treatment even though scores of Colombian labor organizers, Afro-Colombians, and human rights activists are murdered every year for trying to boost wages or just hang onto their land (palm oil operations are aggressively cutting down rainforest currently occupied by Afro-Colombians and indigenous people to expand their plantations).
The deal would allow companies that want to sell their goods in the United States to pay zero tariff even as they set up manufacturing in a country where they can hire armed gangs to intimidate or even kill workers who advocate for better working conditions or a union. This is an open invitation to companies to shift jobs overseas to countries where they can operate with impunity. It's so bad that Colombian trade unions oppose the deal along with their U.S. counterparts.
The Panama deal rounds out the greed train with its own investor provisions. The country is one of the most notorious offshore tax havens. Under the agreement, investors will be able to challenge U.S. efforts to crack down on this type of tax shelter -- a huge sop to the very Wall Street financial institutions that are the direct target of the Occupy movement.
As bad as the trade deals are, they could have at least represented a strategic opportunity to pass the President's jobs bill, which is supported by many of the same groups that bitterly oppose the free trade agreements. Obama could cut a deal with Republicans: he only submits the trade agreements on condition that Republicans pass the jobs package, thus compensating for at least some of the employment losses expected to occur under the trade deals.
Of course, that's not going to happen. Obama's not exactly the guy you want walking into a car dealership with you. As I wrote in a tragic-accurate 2007 article about his failure to bargain as a senator on the Peru trade agreement that forecast his inability to haggle his way out of a paper bag of debt ceiling, Obama is "the world's worst negotiator."
Obama also seems to have a highly evolved capacity to divide his own party in two: while a majority are expected to oppose the deals, the pro-trade New Democrat caucus is expected to back it, giving Republicans and the White House the votes they need to force the agreements through.
Obama's decision to push the trade agreements now represents a political gamble. He seems to think that criticizing ATM fees and other clear abuses may be enough to distract protesters long enough from the fact that in the corridors of power he's pushing one of Wall Street's top priorities. At a minimum, the White House wants to jam the trade agreements through Congress before the Occupy Wall Street movement grows to a size at which politicians get chary of defying their calls for economic and environmental justice.
It's an old game -- whether it works or not is probably the first real test for a movement on the cusp of transforming a tremendous national outpouring into something more than just well-deserved rage.
Follow Glenn Hurowitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glennhurowitz
Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Colombia FTA: Blood Won't Easily Be Washed Away
Alan Grayson: "Free Trade" Fakery
Matt Petersen: Green Occupation of Wall Street
An man's actions, INCLUDING President Obama's actions" show him for what he REALLY IS, in spite of what a man may claim to be.
Obma should be, and must be judged in accordance with what he does, not what he says at political rallies.
You people said that he was trying to take on too much back then, now you're saying he should have done more then. Which is it?
A first step on this road to recovery is to dramatically reform America's corporate tax structure
Tax reform must flush more working capital into the private economy, not the government coffers.
Specifically, Congress should approve a tax holiday that encourages U.S. corporations to repatriate over $1 trillion in capital back to America.
American corporations are taxed at a 35 percent marginal rate, including profits generated outside of the country. Most industrialized nations only tax corporate profits within their borders, and at a much lower rate. It also gives them a perverse incentive to shelter capital overseas — an estimated $1.35 trillion, says a recent report by JPMorgan Chase & Co.
This is capital that should be working to grow investment and jobs here in America, not stuffed under a mattress overseas. Some of America’s most innovative companies – prolific job creators like Apple, Cisco Systems, and even Google – overwhelmingly support real reform.
Every other government in the world has realized that the U.S. has it wrong. They're saying, 'I'm going to have lower taxes, period. That's what you see all across Western Europe, that's what you see in Asia in the developed countries.”
A surge of $1.35 trillion into the U.S. economy is real stimulus.
In fact a corporate tax holiday could create nearly 3 million new jobs over the next two years.
So, at best how many years are we looking at to just resolve the massive unemplyment problems? One DECADE, TWO DECADES . . . what? Meanwhile the politicians are scrambling to just wintheir elections in a year.
The article mentions losing 159,000 jobs. However the potential exist for millions of additional jobs from increased production here, new foreign markets and better access. There is no incentive to hire. There is no incentive to increase production because ther is no gaurantee that they will be able to sell any additional production. Expansion into foreign markets will increase those odds, but the trade agreements needed to expand into those markets are unpopular. Any hiring or purchases will require them to spend in the short term, so companies are abstaining even if it means foregoing increased profit in the long term. The markets are DEMONSTRATING that companies prefer to hold on to their money. So despite the current troubled international markets, US compaines are allowing themselves to be eaten alive.
Are there problems with the trade agreements - yes need to be fixed. But doing nothing is isolating and short-sighted. This has very little to do with taxes.
Investigate the Man's family, there's plenty of money there too....
As far as experience is concerned, you got the best candidate, but are still biting at his heals to make sure he fails the public and makes his contributers (The same guys that pay both sides of the house) happy.