With St. Obama you have to look at what he does, not what he says.
jackson_dem (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Feb-14-08 06:06 AM
Original message
Obama's current rhetoric on trade doesn't match his record
Barack Obama’s current rhetoric does not match his record on trade. With major primaries coming up in states with a large working class populations Barack Obama is suddenly tacking to the left on trade. His rhetoric his changed, but not his policies but few voters will ever look at what a candidate’s policies are and Obama knows this.
Here is what he is saying now:
-snip-
"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years," continued the senator, who is suddenly very conscious of the need to appeal to working-class voters in Wisconsin and Ohio who have been battered by trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the decision the Clinton administration to extend permanent most-favored-nation training status to China.
-snip-
But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in," Obama said
-snip-
Then Obama declared, "(When) I am president, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate--we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."
This speech represents progress for Obama, who has not up to now been a particularly strong advocate for the fair-trade policies favored by labor and environmental groups and senators such as Wisconsin's Feingold and Ohio's Sherrod Brown. The cautious contender is still a long way from embracing the full agenda of the steel and auto workers union leaders and industrial-state senators and congressmen he has been talking with at some length in recent days. And there will be appropriate skepticism about whether Obama will continue to err on the populist side after Wisconsin and Ohio have finished voting – and after key players such as Feingold, Brown and former candidate John Edwards have endorsed.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=284664Really senator? You won’t change your position based on what election it is and who you are talking to? Then why did you suddenly discover trade as a big issue just in time for Wisconsin (where four years ago Edwards nearly upset Kerry by using trade) , Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio? Why did you change your rhetoric based on where the election is and who you are talking to? How did you manage to keep a straight face when you made that statement in Wisconsin knowing full well what game you are playing with voters there? You also say you will not sign an agreement that doesn't have what the agreement you supported just two month ago didn't have?
The writer puts too much hope in Obama. This is not encouraging. This isn’t a change in his beliefs or policies. He is simply pandering to working folks in a few important states by changing his rhetoric, not his policies. Once he no longer needs these votes he will return to his usual rhetoric.
Let’s compare his current rhetoric to his record. After that we will look at his policies.
We know Obama supporters like to talk about National Journal ratings. Here is what the Journal said about Obama on trade: “based on his positions in Illinois and the United States Senate, the National Journal concluded that Sen. Obama was "the most likely presidential candidate to support further trade liberalization."
Date Bill Title Vote
12/04/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement NV
09/19/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Y
06/29/2006 U.S. -Oman Free Trade Agreement Y
07/28/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N
06/30/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N
He also voted for the Bahrain trade agreement, which passed by unanimous consent in 2005.
He is on record as saying he supports Peru trade (more on that later) and, after Edwards loudly denounced South Korea trade, his office stood tall by releasing a statement criticizing it. Still if we give him the benefit of doubt on South Korea his record is not that bad. CAFTA was considered the big one and he opposed it. However, let’s look at what he really believed about it. From his book:
“It opened up new markets for U.S. agricultural producers, and promised much-needed foreign investment in poor countries like Honduras and the Dominican Republic. There were some problems with the agreement, but overall, CAFTA was probably a net plus for the U.S. economy.” (pg. 172)
No true fair trader would feel that way. Clearly on the merits he supported the idea of CAFTA. So why did he vote against it?
“I ended up voting against CAFTA, which passed the Senate by a vote of 55 to 45. My vote gave me no satisfaction, but I felt it was the only way to register a protest against what I considered to be the White House’s inattention to the losers from free trade. Like Bob Rubin, I am optimistic about the long-term prospects for the U.S. economy and the ability of U.S. workers to compete in a free trade environment—but only if we distribute the costs and benefits of globalization more fairly across the population.” (pg. 176)
You don’t get a more clear statement from the deliberately vague Obama. He voted against it not because he opposed the bill on the merits but as a protest to the White House not giving enough attention to labor concerns (that is his explanation. The more likely reason is he did it to cover his behind from the wrath of labor). What does he mean by this? He, like most free traders, believes those jobs will be gone anyway and rightfully so and what we should do is retrain workers to get new jobs. That is great for someone who is a millionaire lawyer who is among the most powerful folks in the world but that doesn’t cut it for a middle-aged person with a high school education, a mortgage, worried about keeping his health care and paying for his three kids to go to college. The “costs and benefits” line is vintage Obama. Say something that means nothing but is vague enough to provide comfort to folks concerned about you. It is more sloganeering from Obama. To sum it up, he voted against CAFTA while he was for it.
Before getting to Peru here is an amendment you probably never heard about but it is a big deal and tells us a lot about Obama. “Sen. Obama opposed an amendment that would have prevented the weakening of laws that protect against unfair trade practices. (Hillary supported the amendment.) Sen. Obama also supports fast track authority.”
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=595...Is this true? Yes.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...YEAs ---39
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
NAYs ---60
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Dorgan Amdt. No. 1665 )
Vote Number: 232 Vote Date: September 15, 2005, 12:17 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1665 to H.R. 2862
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit weakening any law that provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices.
Vote Counts: YEAs 39
NAYs 60
Obama was one of only 11 Democrats (including then Democratic Joe Lieberman) to vote against this pro-worker, pro-fair trade amendment. Look at the other 11. DLC, DLC, DLC!
Here is an article comparing the economic outlooks of Edwards, Hillary, and Obama. Here is what the Economist had to say about Obama:
-snip-
ACCORDING to conventional wisdom John Edwards is the protectionist among the Democrats' three leading presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is the intellectual heir to (Bill's) Clintonomics, and Barack Obama will position himself somewhere between the two. Judging by their advisers and actions so far, the truth may be more complicated. Mr Edwards is running on the left flank, but less rabidly than many expected. And in some areas, notably trade policy, Mr Obama may be to the right of Mrs Clinton.
-snip-
Mr Obama has carefully avoided any such rhetoric. His trade strategy, like much else, is still short on details. Like Mrs Clinton, he voted against the free-trade agreement with Central America. But judging by his latest book, Mr Obama is more concerned with helping people deal with globalisation than trying to slow it down. One trade wonk who knows both candidates says that Mr Obama is more of an instinctive free-trader than Mrs Clinton.
Judging by the advisers surrounding him, Mr Obama may end up with more market-oriented ideas elsewhere too. While the Clinton economic team is run by experienced practitioners, Mr Obama relies on his Senate staff and a growing group of young academics, all of whom have impeccable neoclassical credentials. At the centre is Mr Goolsbee, a 37-year-old public-finance whizz. Then there is David Cutler, a top health economist from Harvard, who focuses on changing incentives to improve the quality of health care. David and Christina Romer, a husband and wife team from Berkeley, advise on macroeconomic matters. Jeff Liebman, a labour and pensions expert at Harvard, also plays an important role. He is the co-author of a bipartisan Social Security reform plan that includes individual retirement accounts.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?stor...Peru is a small country but the Peru free trade agreement is important because it is the recent trade deal and it raises troubling questions about whether Obama can be trusted on trade. Everyone can agree that no entity in the Democratic Party is more associated with and a bigger proponent of free trade than the DLC. Let’s compare the DLC’s position on Peru to Obama’s and contrast that with fair traders like Sherrod Brown, John Edwards, and the AFL-CIO.
Here's just one DLC article on trade to give a flavor of what the DLC stands for. Compare that to Obama and Hillary. The basic tenets of the Obama and Hillary views on trade are embodied in this and this is reflected by both Obama and Hillary supporting the Peru trade agreement that this DLC endorsed deal paved the way for (Edwards opposed the Peru deal).
DLC | New Dem Dispatch | May 11, 2007
Idea of the Week: Reviving Trade Policy
Some real progress emerged yesterday on an unexpected front: an agreement between House Democratic leaders, led by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), and the Bush administration on a template for future trade agreements. For the first time, the administration has agreed to the inclusion of core labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, along with a comprehensive effort to update and expand domestic programs that help U.S. workers deal with dislocations caused by globalization and other factors. This accord paves the way for congressional approval of at least two pending Free Trade Agreements, with Peru and Panama, while establishing a framework for future deals. It is a triumph for Chairman Rangel, and a very good sign for Democratic leadership on policy in the years ahead.
The agreement establishes as U.S. policy that future bilateral Free Trade Agreements -- that is, agreements which create special relationships offering partners greater access to the U.S. market than WTO rules require -- include enforcement of the fundamental workers' rights provisions set out by the International Labor Organization's 1998 Declaration on Core Labor Standards (including the right to organize unions, and bans on child labor and discriminatory practices), and of seven specific international environmental pacts.
And it commits the administration and House leaders to a "Strategic Worker Assistance and Training Initiative " to "promote education, training and portable health and pension benefits, design and implement concrete and comprehensive programs, including public-private partnerships to educate youth, update and upgrade workers' skills on the job, stimulate science education and research, provide meaningful health and pension benefits and income support, go beyond the current TAA system to provide meaningful support, training and revitalization programs for entire communities hurt by the effects of trade and technology."
The latter provision has been a long-standing goal of all pro-trade progressives. And the labor and environmental standards usefully focus on widely acknowledged international norms that will be binding on the United States and its FTA partners equally, avoiding arbitrary and unilateral efforts to impose wage rates on poorer countries that would simply make trade agreements impossible.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=108&subid=900010&c ...
Here is Obama’s statement which could have being plagiarized straight from the DLC:
"Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter's protests to the contrary. He also affirmed his support for free trade."
The voter's "protests to the contrary" are exactly right. The AFL-CIO does not support the bill expanding NAFTA into Peru, and the much-trumpeted labor/environmental standards leave enforcement up to the Bush administration, rather than empowering third parties to enforce them (like corporations have the power to enforce investor rights provisions in these same trade agreements). Leaving enforcement to the Bush administration -- or any administration -- is the biggest loophole possible. It is precisely why corporate lobbyists have bragged to reporters that the standards are not enforceable.
Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project -- a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-oba ...
Sherrod Brown:
"Congress (has) passed another job-killing trade agreement that will shut down our factories, hurt our communities, and send more unsafe food into our kitchens and consumer products into our children's bedrooms."
Brown, like the other freshmen Democrats elected to the Senate in 2006, understands something that Clinton and Obama are still missing. "Our current trade model chases short-term profits for the few, at the expense of long-term prosperity, health and safety for the many. It's a model that doesn't work. Look at our trade deficit, look at manufacturing job losses, look at wage stagnation, look at imported product recalls, look at forced labor, child labor, slave labor. Look what it does to communities," says the senator, who made changing trade policy a central issue in his successful challenge to Republican Senator Mike DeWine, as did other Democratic winners such as Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Claire McMaskill of Missouri, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, John Tester of Montana and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island – all of whom opposed the Peru deal.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=256831John Edwards:
-snip-
“Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves and against American families.
-snip-
Right now, President Bush is pushing to expand this NAFTA approach to four more countries. He has signed agreements with Peru, Panama, Korea and even Colombia, where since 1991, in this tiny country, there have been over 2100 documented cases of trade unionists being assassinated, 72 in 2006 alone.
All of these agreements replicate these terrible features of NAFTA:
• All of these agreements provide the expansive investor rights that literally create incentives to relocate U.S. jobs overseas;
• All of these agreements limit our ability to inspect imported food - even as the International Trade Commission projects that these pacts will result in a new flood of imported food;
• All of these agreements allow foreign corporations operating here to attack our environmental, health and even local zoning laws in foreign tribunals to demand our tax dollars in compensation if following our laws undermines their expected profits.
• All of these agreements even limit how we can spend our own tax dollars. These deals ban many Buy America and other similar policies. Instead of your tax dollars going to support American workers, these agreements take away one the few opportunities the government has to directly create jobs here.
But these four proposed agreements actually go even further than NAFTA.
For instance, these deals give those foreign corporations who get contracts to rebuild our nation's bridges and highways or to operate mines or cut timber on U.S. federal land special privileges superior to the treatment of U.S. firms. U.S. firms have to meet our laws, but in contrast, these agreements let foreign corporations operating within the United States who have a gripe about their contract terms drag the U.S. government into foreign tribunals stacked with their own lawyers acting as ‘judges.'
The damage threatened by these NAFTA expansion agreements extends beyond the United States. Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization. That's right, the Peru FTA could lock in the misery facing millions of the elderly and ill in that extremely poor country all to ensure U.S. firms can profit on what should be a government service available to all in the first place.
(jackson_dem’s 2 cents, this is not Edwards’ comment: I guess the people of Peru will just have to settle for “hope”)
-snip-
The Peru, Panama and Colombia agreements are also projected to displace millions of peasant farmers
-snip-
The presidents of Peru's labor unions oppose this NAFTA expansion. So does Peru's Archbishop Pedro Barreto, who calls the NAFTA expansion into Peru immoral - and a threat to the national security of his nation and ours.
http://www.art-us.org/node/282Obama, the “candidate of change” did the bidding of the special interests once again on Peru with his support for it instead of using his celebrity status to fight it. This isn’t new for the “change” candidate who “opposes” corporate influence while raising $162 million. Here is Obama working for Exelon, a nuke firm which has given him more than $200,000
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.... and the drug industry (no candidate has raised more money from the drug industry than Obama) during in Illinois
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/p... /
When you think of free trade Democrats the two names that pop into most folk’s minds will probably be Clinton and Rubin. Surprisingly, Clinton is actually to the left of Obama on trade, seemingly confirming the National Journal’s assessment. A good analysis of Obama, Clinton, and McCain on trade is at
http://benmuse.typepad.com/custom_house/2008/02/how-hav... Another good one is at
http://blog.noslaves.com /
Basically Obama and Clinton are the same. Both share the free trade philosophy. However, Clinton wants to review all trade agreements and determine if they are working for Americans. Obama wants to only review NAFTA. Hillary wants a time-out for new trade agreements, something Obama snidely attacked her for in Wisconsin with his new temporary religion on trade. He basically called her a liar without mentioning that he has not come out for a time-out, something labor has long sought. She also opposed fast track trade authority. She has other planks on trade but Obama has those same ideas, which are basically Democratic boilerplate.
An important point needs to be made about CAFTA. Don’t be fooled into thinking voting against CAFTA was somehow an indication Obama is pro-fair trade deep down inside. Only 10 Democrats voted against it. That means even most of the DLC opposed it.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...What does all this mean? Barack Obama is a free trader in the Rubin/DLC tradition. He is not what he is masquerading now in Wisconsin and he is not what many folks voting for him because of the Clenis’ NAFTA are hoping he is. They are not looking at the records and actually would be worse off under Obama than Hillary. Hope is a great thing but blind hope can be hazardous to your health—and your job.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4585898
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
