Discussion for article #232306
Good column. Well done, and I hope to hear further debate and discussion in the area of the trade deals as these proposals move forward.
There has been a lot of criticism from liberals on the internatio0nal trade deals with Europe and Asia that the Obama administration is working on. While little is yet known about them, a lot of the criticism seems to be reflexive. It seems many see any trade deal as a NAFTA-on-steroids, which inspired Ross Perot’s “giant sucking sound,” which he described as the sound of American jobs going to Mexico, with its low wages, low unionization, and poor record of support for labor right and environmental protections.
On trade deals, many fear the Asia and Europe trade deals Obama is negotiating, arguing that, just like NAFTA, they would undercut the interests of American workers and put them at a competitive disadvantage if trade barriers with low-wage nations with little in the way of labor or environmental protections were lowered, thereby encouraging American jobs to be exported to cheap labor areas with poor labor and environmental practices.
But what if this were not the case? The US-Korea trade deal (work on which was actually begun under Bush, but was rewritten under Obama) did not put us at a disadvantage – they actually opened up Korea to the American auto and agricultural industries.
And at the European Summit several months ago, the head of the European Council, citing US Republicans’ support of anti-union “Right to Work” laws and an easing of environmental regulations, expressed concerns that a trade pact with the US would lead to a loss of European jobs.
Can you believe – he was actually expressing concern for a “sucking sound” that would take European jobs and move them to the US a la NAFTA!
Obama assured him he had no intention of easing environmental regulations or worker protections as a means of luring European jobs to the US.
We need to be skeptical and vigilant, but should we just automatically assume that a trade deal negotiated under this administration, even if it were conditioned on firm labor and environmental protections to support American workers and jobs, would undercut the interests of American workers and should lead to WTO-style protests from the Left?
Many have criticized the closed-door nature of the proceedings, but since when has a trade deal been negotiated in public? Some in Congress have been opposing Obama’s call for fast-tracking the deal, and while I can understand the concerns, I would trust Obama more than this current Congress to craft a bill that supports the interests of American workers, and supports the labor and environmental protections he has championed.
Also, we need to consider context. The economy is globalized; we cannot be isolationist in our thinking. Many of our economic partners are weak and have not recovered from the global recession as well as we have. Encouraging international trade could help to “lift all boats” and also reduce the tendency towards radicalization that economic uncertainty sometimes encourages.
Also, China is making moves for their own version of an Asian common market. I would rather we get there first.
Similarly, another fear of the Left is Obama’s expressed willingness to engage the Republicans on tax reform. He has pivoted on signaling his willingness to engage by sharing his proposal to consider some tax break to expatriated capital – some trillions in overseas accounts – if it was part of an infrastructure bank or some other way to leverage investment in public capital projects. Some fear a “cave” to moneyed interests seeking a break on taxes.
What do you think the reaction might be to a deal that could allow expatriated money from Google, Caterpillar, Apple or some other firm to return to the US and be taxed at a lower than normal rate, under the condition that it be placed in a multi-year bond with the dividends tax-free or taxed at a lower rate, and the monies be used to fund infrastructure projects? Do you think the Left would be outraged and call it a “cave?”
I pose these questions because I am interested in finding ways to overcome the bottleneck in Washington and identify ways to bring a real economic recovery to our nation and the world. If done right, trade deals could help to establish wider support for increased wages, better worker and environmental protections overseas, and lay the basis for better international cooperation and prosperity. And that could simplify our foreign policy and strengthen ties between allies.
Who gives a fuck if they’re “class warfare”? Is it not time that the lower and middle classes started fighting back against the extreme upper classes, who are robbing them blind and sapping what little political power they have left?
How many times do you need to be slapped before you say “NO MORE!” ??
2 Likes
What Obama’s SOTU did, beyond being thoroughly enjoyable to listen to, was lay out the agenda for the future of the country–and the Democratic party, if they are smart enough to ‘get’ it.
Stupid Peter Baker at the NYT wonders what the use of the agenda is if there’s no hope of enacting it.
Well, SOMEBODY has to articulate an agenda that speaks for all the people and works on their behalf! Otherwise government just becomes a bunch of pettifogging bureaucrats and bribe takers, without any purpose other than self-perpetuation in office.
Obama has always had in view the good of the whole country–and yes, the world. Name one Republican who comes close to having this truthfully said about him or her.
2 Likes
The trouble with class warfare is that there isn’t enough of it.
2 Likes
Absolutely. The “conservative” (it’s really reactionary) agenda was laughed off for a few decades after it was first proposed. Sadly, by persevering the “conservatives” managed to make their hooey sound almost reasonable. Progressives/liberals, whatever you want to call us, need to sign on for the long walk, too.
1 Like
President Obama has always played the LONG GAME while the gop bags have played regressive punishing politics…Short sighted and cruel!