President Obama has pulled another rabbit out of his hat. Yesterday, as part of his sputtering "jobs plan," Obama submitted to Congress three pending Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama that were originally negotiated by President Bush in 2007. In doing so, Obama is ignoring growing opposition from his Democratic base and voters across the political spectrum to resurrect policies Congress has refused to approve for over four years. And to get his message across, he's using every trick in the book.
First is the bait-and-switch, with jobs as the lure. Just like Bush, Clinton, and the Bush before him, Obama cited trumped-up data from corporate lobbyists claiming these deals create jobs. This despite decades of evidence that NAFTA and other such deals have cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of them. But hey, if these FTAs are in the "jobs plan," they must be about creating jobs, right?
Nope. Here comes the switch. Beyond the talking points of these FTAs are a broad swath of new rights to multinational corporations that make the idea of corporate personhood seem quaint. The deals allow corporations to challenge public interest laws in international tribunals,with domestic courts powerless to stop them. Anything from minimum wages and clean water regulations to anti-teen smoking initiatives and recycling rules are vulnerable.
Additionally, they would further deregulate financial services -- a startling giveaway to the same firms that just wrecked our economy -- provide for price hikes on name-brand drugs, streamline exploitation of rural resources, and challenge such popular initiatives as local hiring preferences and "Make it in America" laws. The list goes on.
But just so we don't catch on to the true costs of "free trade," there's even misdirection. In his September jobs speech, Obama mentions none of this, instead evoking images of Kias and Hyundais prowling American streets and implying that the Korea FTA will somehow lead to "Fords and Chevys and Chryslers" garnering a similar market share in Korea. A nice thought, but misguided considering Koreans prefer smaller, cheaper, more fuel-efficient, Korean-made autos, and no FTA can change that.
The government's own U.S. International Trade Commission agrees. Even after Obama negotiated weakened efficiency standards for U.S. auto exports to Korea, the agency projects a several hundred million dollar increase in the U.S. trade deficit in autos and auto parts due to the Korea FTA. To borrow the president's metaphor, the deal will actually lead to more Kias in the U.S. compared to U.S. autos in Korea, resulting in greater job loss.
Of course, that's the big reveal. Abracadabra. These deals cost jobs.
The USITC itself projects that the Korea, Colombia, and Panama FTAs will increase the U.S. trade deficit, costing over 200,000 jobs according to the Economic Policy Institute. In a recent interview, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Obama's chief trade negotiator, went off script to say we'd be offshoring only low-wage manufacturing jobs that Americans don't want, seemingly blind to the 25 million Americans looking for full-time work.
This is a far cry from Obama's plans to "win the race to the top" by making fuel-efficient cars and semiconductors, given that "losing" sectors in the Korea FTA include electronic equipment, precision metalwork, autos and other transportation equipment, such as high-speed rail.
Unfortunately, Obama can't see that Americans recognize this act and are sick of it. They've reacted rightly in connecting the loss of nearly six million manufacturing jobs to unfair trade with China, Mexico, and other countries. A recent poll found that 69% of Americans, across party lines, view FTAs like these as job-killers.
Not only is public opposition to free trade at an all-time high, but major Democratic constituencies such as the labor and environmental movements are actively opposing the deals, and they're joined by a growing number of House and Senate Democrats. If Obama continues down this path, a reversal from his 2008 campaign position, the audience will not be impressed. And if he doesn't change his act now, he might be forced off the stage in 2012.
Leo Hindery, Jr.: It's (Still) All About (Manufacturing) Jobs
Lori Wallach: Obama Flip-Flops Off Trade Cliff
Dozens of countries have well-designed industrial policies, aligned with trade policies that serve their national interest.
We are being played for chumps.
For every dollar the rich & powerful evade giving-back to the society that makes their success possible, a dollar comes out of the pockets of the poor & middle class (soon to be poor). Demand that money & its ability to corrupt by those who control it be removed from our electoral process!
The level of self-interest & common greed in our nation & among the world’s uber-rich is astonishing; we must take them down! Deregulation (rescission of Glass-Steagall under Clinton) by their bought-and-paid-for "elected" cronies/agents allowed the derivative/mortgage scam/bundled securities theft that led directly to the current "economic downturn", a euphemism for common theft; millions lost their jobs and homes, but no one has been charged or held accountable – they got raises & billions in “bonuses”.
Now the current WH shill for corporate/banker/wall st greed, sez that further deregulation/relaxation of rules & FTA's is beneficial & necessary to provide jobs? BS! They are a continuing mechanism for theft & greed-driven abuse of ordinary people around the world used for profits, as serfs to the Plutocracy. Enough is enough!
This is just one of many examples of policy that runs counter to the progressive rhetoric Obama loves to perform in front of the cheering crowd --a trend from the beginning that continues to this hour, so it is no surprise that there isn't a singular grievance for the Wall St protests. The Democrats seem oblivious to the causes of their tanking credibility. They must think we are so blinded by Obama's star quality that we can't see the efforts Obama has made to undermine the New Deal, for example--(inacted during a previous time of economic struggle) at a time of growing economic hardship. He uses the exact same strategy as described in this article to weaken it by stealth.
Does Obama imagine that his soaring rhetoric will be the sufficient crumb tossed to the hungry crowd? When asked early in his presidency where the change was, Obama responded that it was he, himself who was the vehicle through which change flowed and that smacks of Bush and his relationship with a higher father.
Just another ego in a suit serving the master.
We are saddled with him and he is not ours..
In all free trade agreements the poor gets hurt disproportionately more. They're disproportionately more poor African Americans. Is it not obvious? Free trade agreements hurt African Americans disproportionately more!
I can't understand why of all people an African American President can't get this?
Representative Maxine Waters gets it! Others on the Congressional Black Caucus get it! And all they are according to President Obama are complainers who need to take of there bedroom slippers and put on their marching boots!
Uh huh.
When even his own experts and supporters are beginning to back away, why does the President persist in these destructive policies?