Except ... (4.00 / 3)

100+ members of the Democrats in the House voted for the Peru trade agreement.  I know everyone likes that the Dems are raising so much money .. but remember .. it comes with a cost

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 18:13:18 PM UTC

Change to Win opposed it. (4.00 / 1)

Excellent point, though, Matt.

AFL-CIO was neutral.  Maybe that is why there is a Change to Win coalition.

Too many Democrats caved to big business. 

---

by: Tom Wells @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 19:13:07 PM UTC

NAFTA + CAFTA = SHAFTA (4.00 / 2)

That's a perfect Populist reframing of the Progressive "Fair Trade" narrative.

More like this, please!!!

---

by: -ck- @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 19:20:21 PM UTC

ex-trade policy lobbyist opposes FTAs (4.00 / 2)

I confess; I used to work in government, and helped with the initial US/Canada trade agreement. I moved to the private sector, first in a trade association and then a corporation, where I worked on NAFTA. I used to be one of "them." I took myself out of that career when it became obvious even to me that I was losing my soul in the job (more than the issues, it was dealing with members of Congress that frankly left me wanting to install a shower in my office--don't even get me started on Tom DeLay and Henry Hyde!).

Fast forward to today's vote on the Peru FTA. I am not surprised at what's happened--appalled yes, surprised no.

Even if labor had presented a united front, even if environmental guardians had been granted a seat at the table, this is an agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration who have never indicated they intended to put forth significant labor and environmental protection provisions.

And the Democrats who voted for the bill? When was the last time a Democrat actually lost an election for voting yes on a bill that gave "greater access for US exports" into another country? Who in Congress, especially in a leadership role, was championing the defeat of this agreement?

Come on, folks. Follow the money, for heaven's sake. I used to "convince" members of Congress about the benefits of free trade while mentally writing my grocery list.  It's really not that hard.  Appeal to their egos, they know soooo much more than those poor folks back home.

"Yes, there may be some temporary displacement of jobs, but we have the Trade Adjustment Assistance program to help. It's not trade that is hurting these unfortunate people, it's the lack of educational opportunities, it's better technology or newer techniques that US business isn't adopting, it's just temporary. And when we get to the other side, the whole country will be better off. This is about the future, yada yada yada... Oh, and that was such a nice event yesterday, wasn't it? (translation: "Yes I gave the requisite check when I was there.") I really enjoyed meeting your chief of staff, blah blah blah."

Now, did that persuade you? No? Really? Oh, that's right--I forgot your check! My bad.

---

by: edgery @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 19:22:04 PM UTC

Opposition to Trade Deals is NOT well understood (4.00 / 1)

and many Democrats are not well versed in these concepts.  Obama is seen as a progressive yet his supporters defend his stance on the Peru trade deal.  They use the fact that the unions did not oppose the deal strenuously.  Diaries on trade rarely do well on Dailykos unless written by a well-known blogger. 

I applaud you, Matt for writing strongly and often on this topic. 

I was really not aware of the issues although I have seen myself as a liberal and progressive for a long time.  I bought the msm arguments during the Clinton years. I didn't understand what Perot was talking about. 

One reason I support Edwards is that he educates people on the issues.  I thought I disagreed with him on trade and actually agreed with Obama but decided to explore further and found that I agreed to my chagrin with Edwards and those opposed to further trade agreements.  I thought they helped workers in underdeveloped countries but now I see them as part of the corporations exploiting workers. 

Keep up the good work and keep informing people.  Might I also suggest that a good trade diary crossposted to Dailykos every once in a while would help both educating people and your traffic here. 

Join other progressives at EENRblog

---

by: pioneer @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 19:24:23 PM UTC

If I could propose a reframing (0.00 / 0)

increased immigration is a necessary part of any Free Trade agreement.

Basically, you can think of the United States as a free trade zone (internally).  There is no taxation of goods across state lines.  There are damn few barriers to the transport of capital.  This is the model for free trade on the international level.

But there is also another component of the internal free trade zone - labor can also flow freely from state to state to maximize their returns (which is why I live in NJ rather than Florida or Texas).  Free Trade demands free immigration to make it work. 

Of course, there is also a high degree (but not a perfect degree) of workplace and environmental regulations between the American states.  This, to some degree, prevents states from picking up and moving around to take advantage of weak regulation.  Free Trade demands international alignment of workplace and environmental laws.

In other words - if Mexico and Canada and the US worked under the exact same business conditions and labor could move anywhere in the three countries with the same lack of restraint that capital does, then we would actually achieve Free Trade.  At this point, all we have is corporate handouts and backdoor rewards for avoiding necessary regulation.

---

by: Xpatriated Texan @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 20:06:10 PM UTC

glorified labor arbitrage (4.00 / 1)

no, the theory of free trade, which these agreements are not, requires the goods of production to not be mobile.  This is why Ralph Gomory's mathematics proves that free trade is not necessarily a win-win.  The theory works only with a 2 model system and most importantly this variable completely static! Gomory shows what happens when labor arbitrage enters the picture.

What we have here are glorified offshore outsourcing agreements.  They have much more in common with slave economic models, the feudal system slaves, serfs, wage repression than anything.

If you make 3 billion people "mobile" you will have the race to the bottom on steroids.  That's precisely what the Corporate cheap labor lobby wants.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 21:05:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 1)

that is actually the next step beyond where I was.  My main goal was to pin the "immigration crisis" squarely on those who are demagoging it the hardest.  When supporters of Free Trade start to get down to the details where it is going to cost them something (nothing is free) the support quickly evaporates.

I haven't read Gomory's stuff.  Thanks for the tip.

---

by: Xpatriated Texan @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 02:40:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

true Progressive position (0.00 / 0)

is to connect this long term goal of corporate America to have the ability to move entire peoples around the globe per their manipulation of PPP (purchase power parity) of nation-states.

This is their goal, you can read it in the WTO, GATS mode 4 agenda.  Trading services is trading people.

So, anyone who is a true Progressive, populist who is concerned about increased immigration, guest worker Visas, insourcing and illegal immigration must also have a strong position on trade, as in completely revamping trade policy not only for US national interests, working America's interests, but also to do what we were peddled, which is raise up working people around the globe.

The two are directly connected and that's what separates out the true economic Progressives and populists from the "blame the illegals" or "open border" interest groups.

I'd say this vote proves who is bought and paid for in congress also.  No one in their right mind, examining the results from NAFTA (which has hurt workers on both sides of the border) would vote for yet another bad, corporate written trade deal.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 21:01:06 PM UTC

be careful... (0.00 / 0)

I agree with the overall point being made here, and think you can definitely draw that lesson from Tuesday's results, as well as other truly progressive populists that have managed to succeed focusing on trade (think Sherrod Brown). But two quibbles:

1) Meyerson implies that a moratorium on immigration until 2009 is a corollary to holding up on trade. I think that while the message of "more and better Democrats" might resonate ultimately in the Latino community, particularly in the face of the alternative, there's still a lot of rightful anger and disappointment not only at the failure of the (flawed) immigration reform compromise, but that even partial measures like the DREAM Act have been knocked down. Indeed, the White House's rationale for opposing cloture on the DREAM Act as a stand-alone (adopted by other ostensible GOP supporters like McCain, Specter and Crapo) was that there needed to be a "time out" from anything other than border enforcement.

2) Tester is NOT the guy you want to be citing here-- his votes on immigration have been hardline. Same for McCaskill to a lesser extent, same for other free trade heroes like Dorgan. And Webb has definitely frustrated the immigrant and Latino community folks in Northern VA who helped him get elected by helping torpedo CIR and supporting several poisonous amendments, though he at least is open-minded on the overall issue and supported the DREAM Act last month.

But generally speaking, I think we'd be better off sticking to the example of folks like Brown, Bernie Sanders and, in terms of current candidates, Rick Noriega. I have to gulp sometimes when I see the likes of David Sirota writing gleefully about "Lou Dobbs Democrats"-- not because I'm writing them off in the very least, but because they DO present an obstacle in honing a true progressive populism on the truly interrelated topics of trade and immigration.

---

by: sip1983 @ Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 21:06:23 PM UTC

Webb (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry and hate to tell you but Webb was helped by the reduced immigration groups, extensively.  The reason was his opposition to guest worker Visas, which George Allen not only endorsed, he was bought and paid for by Corporate America to get more of them. 

The reality is much of this debate is driven by wages, labor economics, costs to the American people, despite the never ending attempts to call everyone a racist xenophobe who wants existing immigration laws enforced. 

So, noting that the new Freshman Dems most assuredly didn't jump on the "Comprehensive" immigration reform shows that real labor economics which puts the American people first and foremost has a lot of power to win elections.

Comprehensive immigration reform was a corporate-written cheap labor lobby bill, most Americans know that and it's why it generated so much outrage it shut down the phones and faxes of the Senate.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 01:48:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]