Yesterday, I wrote that neither Sens. Clinton nor Obama are reliable on the issues of trade. Today, there is a bit more evidence to support that notion. It would be helpful if partisans of both camps stop pointing fingers so that we can have a clear-headed debate about trade.
In today's New York Times, there is a piece entitled, "Despite Nafta Attacks, Clinton and Obama Haven't Been Free Trade Foes". That is an accurate summary of the positions of the two candidates.
"The bottom line," said Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch division of Public Citizen and a fierce free trade foe, "is neither of the current Democratic candidates were in the category of leaders fighting for improving U.S. trade policy to try to come up with different terms for globalization, but in the course of their campaign they have come to see both the political necessity and the substantive problems, pushing them to some interesting new thinking."
And...
I
n the minds of hard-core opponents of free trade, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have checkered records in the Senate on trade agreements. Both voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement but supported a trade pact with Peru last year, citing the inclusion of labor and environmental provisions that were not part of Nafta.Opponents, however, said crucial provisions in Nafta that led to jobs being shipped overseas were also part of the Peru agreement. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were also among only a dozen Senate Democrats who voted for a trade agreement with Oman in 2006.
"They're hedging their bets," said Representative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat whose district in the northern part of the state has been decimated by job losses. "They're trying to have it both ways, and you can't."
I added the BOLD to Kaptur's quote. Kaptur has been one of the most outspoken opponents of so-called "free trade" and should carry a lot of weight in this debate.
As I said yesterday, partisans of both candidates are trying to gain a political advantage on an issue where neither candidate can be seen as particularly progressive on the topic. I do not believe the partisans of either camp are doing the Democratic Party--or, more important, the country--any good by ignoring the larger, fundamental issues around so-called "free trade."
This has been a fundamental reason why I have remain quite unmoved by rhetorical calls for "change." "Change" is not going to come if we tweak a so-called "free trade" agreement around the edges. Both candidates are talking about renegotiating NAFTA, using the club that the U.S. will opt out of NAFTA if enforcement is not toughened up on labor and environmental standards. "Change" will not come because of great rhetorical calls for "tougher enforcement" because enforcement is not the problem. And if that is the two candidates' positions, we are headed for more grief and severe economic stress for working people.
The fundamental problem of so-called "free trade" is the very framework that puts corporate rights and power over community and democratic rights. Neither candidate is willing to say: we have to abandon so-called "free trade" and start our thinking from scratch. The real danger, as John Edwards pointed out during his campaign, are the Chapter 11 provisions in so-called "free trade" agreements like NAFTA that give huge, broad rights to corporations irrespective of the side agreements on labor and the environment.
Chapter 11 rights allow this kind of scenario: Let's say a company doing business in a country that is a party to one of these so-called "free trade" agreements believes a law violates rights or protections the company has under the trade deal. The company can take its case before a trade tribunal, which can, then, rule that a law--say an environmental law or labor--is illegal under the so-called "free trade" regime and award tax-payer dollars to corporations. And this tribunal operates behind closed doors, with no public input or scrutiny and none of the basic due process or transparency one would expect in open courts.
These Chapter 11 rights are one of the most odious provisions of so-called "free trade" deals. They allow companies to undercut our democracy--laws that are passed by the people we elect can be overridden by an unaccountable, unelected tribunal.
Until candidate start addressing the fundamental framework of so-called "free trade", working people have very little to look forward to in a "changed, bi-partisan" world.
Clinton on Iraq --- Continue the War
McCain on Iraq --- Continue the War
NADER ON IRAQ --- IMMEDIATE, SAFE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL US TROOPS AND CONTRACTORS
Obama on Health Care -- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
Clinton on Health Care -- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
McCain on Health Care -- No Single Payer, Universal Health Care
NADER ON HEALTH CARE -- SINGLE PAYER, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
Obama on Free Trade -- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
Clinton on Free Trade -- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
McCain on Free Trade -- Supported Extending NAFTA to Peru
NADER ON FREE TRADE -- Repeal NAFTA and No More Trade Agreements Without Labor and Environmental Protections
Nader is an egomaniac for running as there"s no difference between him, Obama or Clinton. He"s just a spoiler. NOT!!!. If you're supporting Obama or Clinton you're supporting unbridled free trade, never-ending killing and maiming of our young and Iraqis and health care policy by health insurance companies. If you're supporting one of them, you're a warmongerer trying to ignore that reality.
If the Dems want Nader to be ignored, adopt the Democratic Platform he's running on.
Otherwise Nader for President.
Nader is running on EGO.
Nader is a conservative, words notwithstanding.
Nader is financed by conservatives as his last campaign was.
Nader's campaign will help conservatives win the white house.
If he had integrity he would have quit before the election, once it was clear he had no chance, and told his fanatics to vote for the dem.
Repeat after me: Nader cannot win, Thus he is a SPOILER.
Repeat after me: I support killing and maiming Americans and Iraqis because I support Hillary or Obama and will vote for them. I oppose single-payer health care. I support unbridled free-trade. I am a barbarian who can justify voting for murderers and blame those who vote against them for getting these murderers elected.
If you vote for Nader, you are voting for safe, immediate withdrawal of all US troops and contractors from Iraq. If you vote for Obama or Clinton, you are voting to continue the war and are as responsible for the blood shed and limbs lost as Bush.
Research, you Nader-baiting, Democratic Party sycophants, are the reason the murder and maimings will continue, whichever party wins in November. You call me a "spoiler", but you, and those who think like you and vote to empower the Hillarys and Obamas of the world, are simply self-deluded empowerers of murder and maimings of young Americans and Iraqis.
And as "good Germans", you blame those voting against the war for being responsible for keeping the war going. You Nader-baiters are really pathetic.
(2) Single payer universal health care is a pipe dream. It'll never happen, at least not in my lifetime. In fact, Hillary's "mandate" portion won't fly either, which is why her website presentation of the plan curiously omits it (I guess the idea is to talk it up until she gets the nomination, then drop it, saying, "Well, it was never an integral part of my plan in the first place", functionally leaving her with the Obama plan that she's been dissing for 6 months).
(3) A full repeal of NAFTA would be devastating to our economy. We need tuning, not repeal.
It's easy to sit there and float ridiculous concepts if you know your guy will never have to actually do any of them. If your goal is to keep Washington working just like it is now, keep voting for people who can't possibly win anything. That gives you the right to bitch and even lie about the other candidates, I guess, which is exactly what your goal is in the first place.
We don't don't know what they will do if elected. It's called politics.
WalMart prices and low taxes are meaningless to folks who've lost their jobs to Chinese sweat shop workers. In the long run it's not good for WalMart either. We've done this about as long as we can get away with it and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
These candidates should be telling us that:
On the first day, they will order ALL of our troops brought home from Iraq , saving us billions of dollars each month; that they will stop honoring the so called free trade agreements, and will place tariffs on finished goods entering our country; that the Bush tax cuts will end ASAP; that no child left behind will be left behind; and that the cost of higher education will be made affordable again it not free.
free trade agreements (to include wto)
health care for all
global warming
I believe that four years from now these will remain big issues. No one can distill a workable solution, a humane solution, or an acceptable solution.
Protectionism leads to higher prices and less wealth.