It's not surprising that Bill Clinton was picked to deliver the nominating speech at the Democratic National Convention Wednesday night. Two thirds of Americans have a favorable opinion of the 42nd president, the highest approval rating of any president, including Ronald Reagan and John F Kennedy.
Talk about ironic -- especially since his speech takes place two days after Labor Day. I would say his legacy should be Worst President Ever, who, like "Teflon Ron" Reagan, was able to Photoshop his tarnished reputation. And the shame has nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky and everything to do with the fact that the biggest beneficiaries of his administration were Wall Street, Chinese factory owners and U.S. banks and the biggest losers were blue collar workers. Mitt Romney may have run a company that outsourced jobs but Clinton ran a country that did.
Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."
But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers. Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs. The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.
Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguing that exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)
The facts contradict these assertions. Imports of computers and electronic parts accounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
Clinton then went on to enact NAFTA, or the North America Free Trade Act, which as American Prospect editor Robert Kuttner has observed, "was less about trade and more about making it easier for U.S. based multinationals and banks to take over Mexican companies."
As is the case too often on Capitol Hill, the revolving door between government jobs and the banking industry compromises too many decisions. As Jeff Faux observed in his must-read book, The Global Class War, it's no surprise that Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, had the gall to sell Americans on NAFTA, given that after leaving Treasury Rubin took a job as chairman of Citigroup's executive committee, where one of his roles was buying Mexican bank Banamex for $12.5 billion in 2001.
Not only did Average Joe NOT gain from NAFTA -- according to the Economic Policy Institute as of 2010 U.S. trade deficits with Mexico totaling $97.2 billion had displaced 682,000 U.S jobs. But "Average Jose" didn't make out well, either; NAFTA is very likely the driver behind the surge of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. As Faux observes, between 1993 and 2002 two million Mexican farmers were forced to abandon their land as a result of increased imports of food from the U.S. Mexican wages have also shrunk; while they were about 23% of U.S. wages in the mid 1970s by 2002 they shrank to 12% of them.
Not only has the media failed to cover Clinton's contribution to our economic downfall but there are no mentions of it on his Wikipedia page.
Wonder why it isn't just the U.S. that's facing economic doldrums -- virtually every European Union country except Germany is in the tank? Because most of these countries used to prosper by making stuff that China makes more cheaply. As Michael Casey pointed out in his book, Unfair Trade, "Look no further than the destitute 'peripheral' nations of the euro zone -- Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland -- all desperate to export their way out of a crisis that's roiling the entire global economy. Shackled to an overly strong euro, their producers are no match for the cheap products of China and the undervalued yuan, which traps them in a vicious cycle of sliding growth, rising debts, and, ironically, dependence on Beijing for financing." (This inconvenient economic reality is another reason why the euro may have been a great idea but the European Union wasn't -- but that's another story.)
So what's the solution to our outsourced economy? Obama has proposed cutting taxes for manufacturers that produce goods in the U.S., doubling a tax deduction for makers of high tech goods and expanding worker training programs, among other ideas.
Others favor tariffs. As the New York Times observed, it appears that Brazil has done a better job at convincing companies to make the products that Brazilians buy in Brazil. Last year Brazilian politicians used subsidies and the threat of high tariffs to persuade Foxconn to make iPhones, iPads and other Apple devices in Brazil.
Unfortunately, even when we try the tariff approach it isn't necessarily effective. In 2009 Obama sided with a complaint brought by the United Steelworkers against China's cheap tires, resulting in a tariff on Chinese tires. Not surprisingly, no U.S. tire manufacturers joined the complaint, most likely because most of them have factories in China. However, it's not clear if the tariff has resulted in a shift toward domestically made tires -- and even if it did it's expiring at the end of this month. According to the trade publication Modern Tire Dealer, it's not likely that "there will be any significant change in the dynamics of the tire business once the tariffs end" on September 26.
My view is that neither carrots nor sticks will do the trick since it's the lure of rock-bottom Chinese and Mexican wages that has addicted corporations to outsourcing. Given that 65% of people polled by the Council on Foreign Relations said that globalization had a negative effect on job security for American workers, it's time for Americans to put their money where their mouths are and consider refusing to buy stuff that's not made in the U.S.A. even if it does smack of protectionism. Any other ideas out there? Please post your suggestions so we can address this major economic challenge.
Our government is very weak when it comes to multinational corporations who will be the new world order in the future.
Numerous give-aways to the super-rich, bankers, greed-driven US corporations, supporting mechanisms, like the WTO & NAFTA costing millions of American jobs & increased profits for American corporations/CEO’s, the Clinton/Rubin rescission of Glass-Steagall that protected millions a betrayal of vast proportions; while we’re at it lets remember his shameful pardoning of Marc Rich, & the economic “leadership” of Robert Rubin, whose acolytes were imported wholesale into Obama’s administration.
As much as I criticize certain policies of Clinton & Obama, new RepubliCon alternatives are far-worse, overtly abandoning Americans to usury, greed, neglect, environmental degradation/poisoning & contempt for the common good. It’s the common system of greed/money/profits above all that’s destroying our republic.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/13-8
What would you suggest we do to fix what you decide is what ails this country, and how would you do that without violating Constitutional provisions protecting property and the rights of Americans to their own property? A fiscal conservative is willing to hear you out.
Apologies if this is too much to ask.
What do you mean exactly about "Constitutional provisions protecting property and rights of Americans to their own property? Sounds like bait.
Bankers & wall St use us as slaves creating wealth for themselves usually detrimental to millions; stealing the future from people while creating nothing but paper con games using money as a gun; thieves with fountain pens
Our common environment is critical to a sustainable future, national/personal health, human & economic; greed cannot poison our common environment making people ill costing trillions, destroying potentials, like marine fisheries/resources/jobs for profit.
Get money out of politics; parasites manipulating public policy keep themselves rich while millions struggle, get religion out of public policy leaving people free to express themselves, keep elected representatives free from coercion & pressure, to make decisions based on ideas, truth & conscience/good judgment rather than self-serving special interest groups, campaign cash, & lobbyist pressure.
Focus on our environment & leave decisions/information/truth to experts not politicians/fools
Neither party is free to make decisions based on unbiased information/truth, a sustainable future, freedom from usury, healthcare & quality education for all without obscene private profits or wealth as the prime-mover, both are corrupted by the war-machine & big-money.
Imports of subsidized American agricultural exports have devastated their agricultural economies and created massive unemployment tin the farm community leading to illegal immigration to America.
Much of American job loss is due to use of computers, IT (information technology) and robots in the work place and assembly line. There has been some job exports as well as some job creation in technology, manufacturing and agricultural sectors.
The trade game has worked both ways. It is too late to put this Ginnie back into the bottle.
We could safeguard ourselves by doing well in what we are good at. This includes education, healthcare, finance and banking, energy, aerospace, high technology, innovation and maintaining world peace.
The point of government isn't to guarantee full employment to everyone. That is a fantasy. Technology will always render some people obsolete for their jobs. Back in the 19th century there was a lot of violence and unrest in Britain due to the introduction of mills rendering a lot of textile workers unemployed, and they rose up to smash the new equipment and attack people. They are known as Luddites. It's not a compliment.
Are you preaching to the converted?
You need to preach to those who want to "have their cake and eat it too!"
-------
Well this was another issue (in addition to threat from Al Qaeda) that was completely ignored thanks to the Republican Congress and its total distraction with President Clinton's impeachment.
We will not forget how during this period the Congress raided the Social Security Trust Fund to balance its budget.
Good going Speaker Gingrich! Great track record.
Even when they repeatedly abuse them.
btw, we all know that the Dems have been way to the right of Reagan since, well, Reagan. none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention, but what are our choices? Green Party?
You suggest on the one hand that overwork is not a problem and should be considered a smart part of any trade agreement, then mention the high stress, long hours and substance abuse that overwork causes on the other hand. Why not have people work a healthy, sustainable amount for a living wage?
Thank you for being the truth-teller about SOMETHING this week while Michelle spins the narrative that her lawyer boyfriend was "dumpster diving" for a coffee table while his best shoes didn't fit. In addition to her growing up in seemingly tough times, which seems strange since her father was making, in today's money, almost $300,000 per year.
Credit to Bill though for entirely reinventing his tenure as President while a nation of fools turn a blind eye to the effort.
I've heard this talking point before, but I haven't been exposed to the breakdown, by the numbers, supporting the argument. Also, please define "trickle down," again providing researchable links.
Apologies if this is too much to ask.
It would be an interesting experiment wouldn't it?
One of the biggest contributors was the EPA legislation under Nixon. Maybe you forget all the acid rain and inversions during the summer, but I don't.
Once big business decided that outsourcing manufacturing jobs was better than retrofitting all the factories, we began our plummet. One added bonus was the decrease in salaries that could be paid to foreign workers, and another was NO UNIONS to contend with.
I think Clinton was merely trying to control what was already happening. American businesses were outsourcing on their own, not merely responding to government incentives put in place under Reagan.
I would not be surprised to learn that big businesses are also failing to employ in hopes of throwing this election to the republicans. Seems they just can't put America first anymore.
It gave business leaders a chance ot organize their efforts to rape our economy. . .which they did with great zest!
Usa, debt based economy to support the elite.
How the US chooses to distribute that wealth is a whole different issue, one that is not solved by attacking free trade.
Also the extent to which deregulation of the Bankers would wreak havoc was underestimated.
Lobbyists and campaign donations have to go to right the system again.
Otherwise the sensible solutions just won't be pursued.