Obama Needs to Keep Promise to Rewrite NAFTA

The issue of trade policy -- which should be at the center of any discussion about renewing the American economy -- will finally garner some serious attention Thursday, as President Obama makes his first international trip to Canada.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, conflicting signals from the Obama camp with regard to how a new administration might renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement -- which includes the United States, Canada and Mexico -- complicated the Democratic contender's run.

At multiple turns, Obama and his aides seemed to send mixed signals. Obama's campaign criticized his Democratic primary rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, for her past role in advocating for NAFTA and her broader support of multilateral trade agreements. And Obama signaled, in major speeches --and even more aggressively in direct-mail advertising campaigns in industrial and agricultural caucus and primary states -- that he was determined to reframe existing agreements to protect workers and the environment.

"NAFTA's shortcomings were evident when signed and we must now amend the agreement to fix them," declared Obama, during a primary campaign season in which he outlined detailed plans to rewrite the trade deal.

Then came several rounds of Canadian news reports revealing that an Obama aide, senior economic adviser Austin Goolsbee -- who now serves as chief economist and staff director for the new administration's economic recovery advisory board -- had supposedly informed representatives of Canada rigidly-conservative, pro-NAFTA government that Obama was merely posturing in order to secure union support and blue-collar votes.

Even more unsettling was an interview Obama gave to Fortune magazine, after he had secured the nomination, in which he seemed to confirm the Goolsbee line. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified…" the candidate said, seeming to indicate that he would not even consider following through on a primary-season pledge to use an opt-out clause in the trade agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico to demand changes that would be more favorable to workers, farmers and the environment in all three countries.

So what is Obama saying now, as he prepares to head for Canada for meetings with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a militant free trader who was a big fan of George Bush's approaches on economics and just about everything else?

The new president sounds a lot better than Bush – or Harper – when it comes to trade policy. But Obama is still a little mushy when it comes to explaining how hard he will push to reduce the damage done by badly drawn trade deals.

"I think there are a lot of sensitivities right now because of the huge decline in world trade," Obama told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the eve of his trip. "As I've said before, NAFTA, the basic framework of the agreement has environmental and labor protections as side agreements -- my argument has always been that we might as well incorporate them into the full agreement so that they're fully enforceable."

The term "might as well" does not exactly evidence the urgency Obama should be bringing to this task.

The fact is that, for those side agreements to ever be fully enforceable, they must be incorporated into the core language of NAFTA. But even that step represents an insufficient reform of a very bad trade agreement.

"NAFTA has had a devastating, negative impact on jobs in America (and Canada) -- especially in the manufacturing sector -- and an equally damaging impact on the agricultural sector in Mexico," said Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur. "We have seen more than one million jobs leave the United States as a result of NAFTA -- and that is a conservative estimate. Unless governments quit this race to the bottom and develop a more people-centered balanced approach to trade, opposition to NAFTA and globalization will continue to rise to new levels throughout the United States and the entire hemisphere."

Kaptur has proposed a real response to what has become a very real trade crisis – U.S. trade deficits have skyrocketed to record levels in recent years. Her NAFTA Accountability Act would require the president to withdraw the U.S. from the trade agreement unless clear benchmarks that were established not by Kaptur but by proponents of NAFTA when the agreement was being developed -- gains in U.S. jobs and living standards, increased U.S. domestic manufacturing, stronger health and environmental standards, especially with respect to food imports, decreased flow of illegal drugs from Mexico and Canada, and the guarantee of Mexican democracy and human rights – are met. Calls for the renegotiation of NAFTA, and even for scrapping it if reforms are not achieved, have been voiced by a number of Canadian opposition leaders.

Demanding a radical rewrite of the deal –including the removal of NAFTA's "Chapter 11" provision, which permits foreign investors to legally challenge Canadian or U.S. laws and regulations designed to protect workers and the environment – Canadian New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton, announced last year that: "We want a new NAFTA. We want a North American fair trade agreement," the federal NDP leader told an election gathering in Hamilton. "We want a fair deal, not a sellout."

Obama will meet with Stephen Harper when he visits Canada. But he should turn to Jack Layton – and Marcy Kaptur – for serious advice about how to write trade agreements that are good for workers, farmers, communities and the environment in the U.S, Canada and Mexico.

Comments (58)

1. Nichols: it should seem abundantly clear at this point that President Obama is not at all a liberal or progressive Democrat and that he is part of as much of a corporatist, plutocratic, business-as-usual government in DC as any high official could be during a historic economic crash. His administration even objected to pay caps for bailed-out executives as part of the stimulus legislation. This had to be forced on him by Congressional Democrats who, surprisingly, managed to overcome their usual craven state. Mr. Obama has gone so far as putting card-carrying Republicans into his administration and even trying to get extremist Republicans a la Judd into high places.

   He is not going to stand up against rapaciously exploitative trade pacts.

   Posted by syfriendly at 02/18/2009 @ 9:27pm

2. He is even trying to pick a rightist Democrat to manage HHS, indicating that he has no intention of producing good reform of the health care system, and that he intends to instead working on advancing the agendas of the insurance and medical product and service industries.

   It's time to give up on "change" as a thing that will emerge from the Obama administration. Change will take something different, such as a continued growth in the huge populist anger that is resulting from the way the government is doting on failed bankers and investors during the economic crash while treating people as disposable worker robots of little consequence.

   Posted by syfriendly at 02/18/2009 @ 9:31pm

3. "as he prepares to head for Canada for meetings with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a militant free trader who was a big fan of George Bush's approaches on economics and just about everything else?"

   Okay, now WE get to pick on FROSTY for a change!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 9:36pm

4. Posted by syfriendly at 02/18/2009 @ 9:31pm

   Eugene Debs died without his idea of "the Revolution" coming....

   Norman Thomas died without his idea of "the Revolution" coming...

   But pieces of it eventually did...and that's the way it works.

   Something to consider for the several decades of your life...unless you just enjoy being miserable.

   Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 9:40pm

5. "Change will take something different, such as a continued growth in the huge populist anger that is resulting from the way the government is doting on failed bankers and investors during the economic crash ...."

   Even today as they put forward so-called "foreclosure relief" it comes with no requirement that the banks eat the consequences of their bad judgement, it simply allows values on bad loans to be set to the requirements of the issuer with the government taking the hit for any losses on payment reductions the issuer experiences. The foreclosure relief prospect is simply a conduit to justify the flow of taxpayer dollars to the banks, their management and their investors. And here you thought Obama and Geithner were just folks. :-)

   Posted by john lowell at 02/18/2009 @ 10:04pm

6. I do hope Obama takes rewriting NAFTA seriously. It was a GHWBush bill designed specifically to move manufacturing to Mexico and Canada. Granted Clinton is the one who signed it into law and he has always been a bit suspect since in my book. But the hard cold fact is until there is a concentrated effort to rebuild the manufacturing infrastucture in the US a sustainable economic recovery is not possible. Manufacturing not all that long ago employed 28% of the US workforce now it is 8%. These damned fools keep going on about how the economy will recover just as soon as the consumers start spending. Ignoring the fact they have shipped the consumers jobs out of the country. It's interesting that Canada has one of the most productive and stable economies in the world at the moment. and you can believe it's because they have good regulation of the banks if you like. It is not it's because they have a good manufacturing base, the source of the goods we buy and the money always flows to the base. It's time to admit Nixon's "service economy" and the Reagan/Bush trickle down economics represent the greatest failure in the history of the US and start to rebuild this country from the bottom up. Something I think Obama also made a point of and should keep on the front burner.

   Posted by ROinReno at 02/18/2009 @ 10:08pm

7. Okay, now WE get to pick on FROSTY for a change!

   heheh

   Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 9:36pm | ignore

   Canada sells us the best oil, and the most.

   The most potent and highest grade marijuana in existence from indoor growers according to Nat Geo's Marijuana Nation on tv right now. Ice-Weed, who knew?

   The best actors and funniest comedians known to man. Shatner, Meyers.

   And finally, the finest exported rock band known to modern day man. Nickelback.

   Posted by Benchrest at 02/18/2009 @ 10:31pm

8. don't count on it. obama has, within the span of one month, become a centrist conservative.

   Posted by darladoon at 02/18/2009 @ 11:02pm

9. Posted by darladoon at 02/18/2009 @ 11:02pm

   Would you have rather had Mccain?

   Obama, literally, has the weight of a nation on his shoulders, and is privy to a quantity and grade of intelligence information you or I cannot fathom.

   He is two weeks into the job, and is in survival mode as he learns, quickly, what being President is all about, while meeting the needs of his family as well as handling all the orbiting hyenas screaming their opinions in his ear.

   Be realistic, and give the guy the benefit of the doubt for a few months before you go tearing him a new one.

   Posted by Benchrest at 02/18/2009 @ 11:19pm

10. NICHOLS: "So what is Obama saying now, as he prepares to head for Canada for meetings with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a militant free trader...."

    Magic grants the first interview (as POTUS) to some Arabic TV network and does a humble pie begging Muslim forgiveness.......and he's now going to Canada and whine to the Canucks: "NAFTA just ain't fair! blah, blah, blah.....sniff, sniff..."

    HOPE AND CHANGE? To appease troublemakers and piss off your best friends? Guess Obama has never been taught that `A deal is a deal!'

    Too bad, "Present" may not be an option for the loonies! But give him time......he's so damned smart (not), he may find just the right speech to pacify the Koolaid bunch!

    Posted by Happy at 02/18/2009 @ 11:19pm

11. hey mask,

    remember how we "debated" (heheh) about rampant consumerism squishing our poor little planet.....

    well, looks like i won that one; not on the terms i'd have wanted, but this CREDIT SHOCK!!!!!!!!!! is doing precisely that.

    http://optionarmageddon.ml-

    implode.com/2009/02/18/video-american-standard-

    of-living-will-change-for-good/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2009 @ 11:22pm

12. harper is more of an embarrassment to canada than even nickelback or jack bauer.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2009 @ 11:23pm

13. Her NAFTA Accountability Act would require the president to withdraw the U.S. from the trade agreement unless clear benchmarks that were established not by Kaptur but by proponents of NAFTA when the agreement was being developed --

    gains in U.S. jobs and living standards,

    •• got to solve the rubber money puzzle for that one.

    increased U.S. domestic manufacturing,

    •• long gone.

    stronger health and environmental standards,

    •• got to solve the rubber money puzzle for that one.

    especially with respect to food imports,

    •• grow your own!

    decreased flow of illegal drugs from Mexico and Canada,

    •• stop buying them

    and the guarantee of Mexican democracy and human rights

    •• after 80 years of u.s. "control"? hmmmmm......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2009 @ 11:46pm

14. Wake up, guys and gals!

    There won't be ANY revival of large-scale manufacturing in the US except something subsidized by the taxpayers (of tomorrow, thank God!).

    With an overly Labor-friendly administration snugly in the Union's pockets, what capitalists in their right mind would bring back ANY labor-intensive manufacturing of any size???

    IF GM/Chrysler can't make it, and must produce what the Gov't wants, not just do thing the easy way, sell whatever they can at a profit, what should anybody conclude about `manufacturing' here in the good old US of A?

    Posted by Happy at 02/18/2009 @ 11:52pm

15. happy,

    it's inflation, not labour or environmental standards that have destroy manufacturing.

    oh, and greed.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 12:30am

16. Posted by frosty zoom at 02/18/2009 @ 11:22pm

    I'm sure all those folks going on unemployment can take comfort in how "green" they are now, FZ.

    Posted by Mask at 02/19/2009 @ 07:12am

17. What's sad is we were sold a bill of goods on NAFTA that most people knew were bad for americans and the the middle class. Yet our represenatives were beaten down by the wealthy and there lobby. Does it take a genius to know when you close a plant in America and open it someplace else that you are killing american jobs? Why should americans care about other countries when we can't take care of our own in this country? We as a nation need to hold Obama accountable for what he said on the campaign trail, that he would open up NAFTA. We are first americans and we need to look out for what's best for americans first. Who said we needed globalization, the rich that's who. Just as UBS proves how the rich will use every mechanism possible to keep there wealth and not pay taxes in this country, the country that they gained there wealth in the first place. Look at the greed that caused Enron and now the banking industry, the looting of social security and medicare. Who in Washington is looking out for average americans, it better be Obama and yes we need to hold him accountable for what he said on the campaign trail, start by opening up NAFTA.

    Posted by tylerdrew at 02/19/2009 @ 07:52am

18. What's sad is we were sold a bill of goods on NAFTA that most people knew were bad for americans and the the middle class. Yet our represenatives were beaten down by the wealthy and there lobby. Does it take a genius to know when you close a plant in America and open it someplace else that you are killing american jobs? Why should americans care about other countries when we can't take care of our own in this country? We as a nation need to hold Obama accountable for what he said on the campaign trail, that he would open up NAFTA. We are first americans and we need to look out for what's best for americans first. Who said we needed globalization, the rich that's who. Just as UBS proves how the rich will use every mechanism possible to keep there wealth and not pay taxes in this country, the country that they gained there wealth in the first place. Look at the greed that caused Enron and now the banking industry, the looting of social security and medicare. Who in Washington is looking out for average americans, it better be Obama and yes we need to hold him accountable for what he said on the campaign trail, start by opening up NAFTA.

    Posted by tylerdrew at 02/19/2009 @ 07:54am

19. Fund the oversight. Do the oversight.

    12 years of repub defunding the provisions for employment equity and environmental protections and no oversight on anything-- has to be corrected; like everything else now. (Thanks again new con blood sucking ticks.)

    And why Obama may be able to succeed:

    Pew Research Center Poll. Feb. 4-8, 2009. N=1,303 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

    "What ONE WORD best describes your impression of Barack Obama? Just the one word that best describes him."

    Intelligent/Intellectual (33)

    Change (17)

    Honest (16)

    Confident (15)

    Inexperienced (15)

    Hope/Hopeful (14)

    Smart (13)

    Socialist (13)

    Good (12)

    Charismatic (11)

    Great (10)

    ____________VS_____________

    What got us here:

    Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey. Dec. 3-7, 2008. N=1,489 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

    "Please tell me what one word best describes your impression of George W. Bush. Tell me just the ONE best word that describes him."

    Incompetent (43)

    Honest (24)

    Idiot (21)

    Arrogant (18)

    Good (15)

    Failure (12)

    Honorable (12)

    Stupid (12)

    Ignorant (11)

    Selfish (10)

    Mediocre (9)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 09:37am

20. Granted, the hsuB/cHeney admin were considered a lot more incompetent than Obama is considered intelligent, but then there's where hope comes in. Can't be said for the previous admin. (Exception: growth of new con blood sucking ticks.)

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 09:42am

21. For the last 5 years of work, I've evaluated dozens of business plans and proposals for acquisitions and mergers. Not one of them ever suggested that the road to success for the business could be realized by picking the highest taxed state, in an area with the highest cost of living, and manufacturing a low cost, high volume product manufactured by an all union labor force. It is an utter fantasy to think that millions of high paying manufacturing jobs for high school drop outs are going to be created by anyone, anywhere. And union organizing will not force anyone to start a new business. No global movement is going to create a level playing field with US health, safety, environmental, and pay regulations applied across all countries. You can't force people to start new businesses and create jobs. Unless you start a business army and conscript people. So what is going to be done?

    Posted by sntauri at 02/19/2009 @ 10:47am

22. 'Hope' opens a door where 'can't'-- locks it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 11:02am

23. Posted by syfriendly at 02/18/2009 @ 9:31pm

    Eugene Debs died without his idea of "the Revolution" coming....

    Norman Thomas died without his idea of "the Revolution" coming...

    But pieces of it eventually did...and that's the way it works.

    Something to consider for the several decades of your life...unless you just enjoy being miserable.

    Posted by Mask at 02/18/2009 @ 9:40pm

    See Mask, you can be honest about your marxism when you want to be. What you've now said is that you have to be a patient marxist.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 11:12am

24. It's interesting to be both a liberal and an economist. Philosophically, I'm with the critics of trade agreements like NAFTA, but the economics supports NAFTA. I know that this posting will generate a lot of criticism, but try to suspend disbelief long enough to hear the "liberal's case for free trade." Liberal economists push for free trade, but with protection for those who are hurt by trade agreements.

    It's too bad that the conservatives have co-opted the trade issue, because we need to be open-minded enough to realize that free trade is win-win for both trading partners. NAFTA was never about creating (or destroying) jobs. It was about raising our standard of living with the SAME level of employment. The goal is to specialize at what you do best. Every economics book explains this completely, whether the author is liberal or conservative.

    Check out the book Hard Heads, Soft Hearts, by Princeton economist Alan Blinder. Even though he is a liberal, his chapter on trade sounds just like the conservatives' statements on trade. Trade raises a country's standard of living, by allowing it to specialize at what it does best. The problem with the conservatives is that they don't want to share the wealth: they don't like asking the winners from trade to help the losers, even though everybody gains if they do! According to a Fed study, trade barriers in the 1990s alone cost the U.S. $1.1 trillion in dead weight loss that didn't benefit anyone! Think how many liberal causes we could work on with that $$$$! Instead of protecting autoworkers' jobs (and stockholders' wealth) with trade barriers, it would be FAR cheaper for society to provide complete retraining and income support for displaced auto workers. Every economics textbook explains the case for trade!

    Posted by rharris50 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:30pm

25. Okay NAFTA is bad! It is more Globalization that needs to stop and go away. If Obama continues on w/ NAFTA thats going to be another negative mark next to his name in my Obama watch list. Remember the battle of Seattle of WTO, well that is what needs to happen throughout the United States if they continue on with this scheme of Globalization. We need FAIR TRADE in the United States and with our allies. Not NAFTA and Not WTO.

    "NAFTA has had a devastating, negative impact on jobs in America (and Canada) -- especially in the manufacturing sector -- and an equally damaging impact on the agricultural sector in Mexico," said Ohio Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur. "We have seen more than one million jobs leave the United States as a result of NAFTA -- and that is a conservative estimate. Unless governments quit this race to the bottom and develop a more people-centered balanced approach to trade, opposition to NAFTA and globalization will continue to rise to new levels throughout the United States and the entire hemisphere."

    I hope Americans start getting mad and start getting mad really soon, before it is just to darn late!

    please, visit my blog @ http://enemyartistkristofer.blogspot.com

    Posted by kristofeR! at 02/19/2009 @ 1:45pm

26. "Posted by ROinReno: I do hope Obama takes rewriting NAFTA seriously. It was a GHWBush bill designed to move manufacturing to Mexico and Canada. Granted Clinton is the one who signed it into law... Manufacturing not all that long ago employed 28% of the US workforce now it is 8%. "

    The problem is that we won't get those manufacturing jobs back with trade barriers. First, the barriers cost us just as many jobs as they protect. The social cost is that they cost us our most productive jobs--the ones where we have the comparative advantage. One of many possible examples is sugar subsidies that protect sugar beet producers in South Dakota by keeping our sugar prices much higher than the world price (up to 5x). Yes, we keep some people in business growing beets, but we lose other jobs that depend on reasonably priced sugar. Lifesavers had been produced in Holland, Michigan for many years, but in 2002 they moved to Montreal, where they could buy sugar at the world price, instead of the artificially high U.S. price. Even if we had actually saved the growers' jobs, it would have been at the expense of other American workers' jobs. Even worse, we didn't save the beet growers' jobs-- without the subsidies, they certainly would have been growing something else! We simply distorted their planting/growing decisions to encourage them to grow something that was readily available for less elsewhere, instead of growing a crop for which we had the comparative advantage. How do we decide which people are more valuable to society, and which we should sacrifice with our trade barriers? I haven't even mentioned another major issue: protectionism starts trade wars, so other countries retaliate, wiping out the alleged benefits.

    Posted by rharris50 at 02/19/2009 @ 1:57pm

27. Why worry about NAFTA? Just like all major business is leaving the failed socialistic state of california for more friendly climes with less taxes, (instead of huge increases now proposed) fewer social state and city welfare programs, overpriced housing for employees, overpriced real estate, ridiculous environmental laws etc.; more will also leave the U.S.A. for the same reasons now that the socialistic pork barrel spending bill will further reduce any economic incentive!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 02/19/2009 @ 2:25pm

28. Do you know about the TRADE act? I got my understanding of it from a book I read recently - Thinking Big (http://thinkingbigthebook.com/). I'll try to sum it up: it would provide congressional space to review trade deals that aren't working (what an idea!) - it would list components that should be included and excluded from U.S. trade agreements so as to protect the environment, workers, and communities. It would strengthen the role of Congress - allowing members to review and renegotiate existing trade agreements to ensure that they comply with sustainable development goals, and also empower Congress to require that all future trade agreements comply with its provision. Thoughts?

    Posted by Olivery at 02/19/2009 @ 3:12pm

29. From a Canadian perspective NAFTA, though it increased the volume of goods between the countries did nothing for wages, for average Canadians. In fact statistics suggest the middle-class, since the 1980's saw wages fall behind, while the wealthy increased their net worth. In the U.S. the richest 27,000 families saw their net worth double from $15 million to $30 million. Working in the Lumber industry I have a different take on the fairness of NAFTA however. Anyone familiar with the file would find Elliot Feldman's article entitled, "Deal or No Deal. Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory" would be amused. For over 20 years the American coalition for free trade, a misnomer if their ever was one, fought Canada tooth and nail, accusing Canada of subsidizing their lumber industry. Canada fought at WTO and took NAFTA to its limit by challenging the coalition. Feldman, an American believed Prime Minister Harper rolled over on the file, snatching defeat from victories jaws. As I see it from one Canadian's perspective the true winners were multi-national corporations and the business elite guiding the ships of trade. Time will tell if Obama and Harper can craft a deal that gives the workers a better deal, and one with better environmental rules.

    Posted by ronmcAllister at 02/19/2009 @ 3:34pm

30. From a Canadian perspective NAFTA, though it increased the volume of goods between the countries did nothing for wages, for average Canadians. In fact statistics suggest the middle-class, since the 1980's saw wages fall behind, while the wealthy increased their net worth. In the U.S. the richest 27,000 families saw their net worth double from $15 million to $30 million. Working in the Lumber industry I have a different take on the fairness of NAFTA however. Anyone familiar with the file would find Elliot Feldman's article entitled, "Deal or No Deal. Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory" would be amused. For over 20 years the American coalition for free trade, a misnomer if their ever was one, fought Canada tooth and nail, accusing Canada of subsidizing their lumber industry. Canada fought at WTO and took NAFTA to its limit by challenging the coalition. Feldman, an American believed Prime Minister Harper rolled over on the file, snatching defeat from victories jaws. As I see it from one Canadian's perspective the true winners were multi-national corporations and the business elite guiding the ships of trade. Time will tell if Obama and Harper can craft a deal that gives the workers a better deal, and one with better environmental rules.

    Posted by ronmcAllister at 02/19/2009 @ 3:34pm

31. 'For 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system the healthiest in the world. The U.S. ranked 40th, and Britain 44th.'

    'Canada's Big Five banks made a combined profit of $8.2 billion (U.S.) last year, while the top five U.S. banks lost a total of $8.3 billion.'

    'A reformed national pension system now in robust fiscal health compared with a near-insolvent U.S. Social Security system.'

    'And "Canada has been remarkably responsible over the past decade or so," Zakaria notes, citing 12 years of federal budget surpluses. Which means Ottawa "can now spend money to fuel a recovery from a strong position." The U.S., by contrast, braced for a $1 trillion (U.S.) federal deficit even before Obama yesterday signed into law a $787 billion (U.S.) economic stimulus package.'

    'Canada's health-care system is cheaper than America's by far (accounting for 9.7 per cent of GDP, versus 15.2 per cent here)," Zakaria writes, "and yet does better on all major indexes."'

    Excerpts: TheStar.com - Business - What Obama can learn from us

    February 18, 2009 David Olive BUSINESS COLUMNIST

    Hmmmm.......NAFTA rewrite? My bet is on Canada.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/19/2009 @ 4:20pm

32. So now the new con repub blood sucking ticks are going to blame all this mess they created on 'Socialism' 24/7. Wow, increditable....

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 4:44pm

33. Found this a fond thought in passing; a blog about the current DOWn:

    "AMERICANS SHOULD NEVER FORGET THAT REPUBLICANS WANTED TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY FOUR YEARS AGO; BUT WERE BLOCKED BY DEMOCRATS CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT YOUR RETIREMENT PROSPECTS WOULD BE LIKE IF BUSH AND HIS ROBOTIC REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS HAD SUCCEEDED IN BANKRUPTING SOCIAL SECURITY LIKE THEY HAVE BANKRUPTED THE REST OF AMERICA???"

    I might hold off counting the new con repub blood sucking tick 'infestation' completely out of the picture. If there's one thing that's for sure -- they never stop sucking. Not really.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 5:36pm

34. i don't have much of a problem with NAFTA, but otherwise am 100% pat buchannon when it comes to the concept of "free trade" in general.

    i far prefer economic autarky its a "this or that" choice.

    countries who pay their workers such a pittance that its cheaper to ship manufactured shit all the way around the world than to produce it at home do NOT possess a natural advantage that adam smith saw, such as portugese port....

    they possess an unnatural advantage...

    but NOOOOOOOO!!!!! screech the ideologized uber free traders....the USA can continue to produce less and less and less every year and somehow our ponzi/debt economy will buy up all the crap everyone else around the world produces, enriching them and impoverishing us for ever and ever and ever!!!!

    fuck the world...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 5:40pm

35. It's amusing to watch all the Stalinists in training trying to legislate one-sided trade results...on second thought, some might take that as a compliment.

    Posted by pyeatte at 02/19/2009 @ 5:54pm

36. Oh lets leave it to the incompetent new con repubs, that suck BTW, to continue letting everything turn to shit. That'll be real smart! Well, ok, if one was a tick. A tick that sucks on the weak.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 6:19pm

37. Posted by pyeatte at 02/19/2009 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    you calling me a stalinist?

    the world's fucked already, bud, especially the cheap plastic crap producers who either pay their workers shit or cheat and erect trade barriers against us regardless.

    they made money because we ceased producing and went on a mad credit induced shopping spree for two to three decades...

    and now the credit is dried up and we simply can't afford to buy their crap anymore. sorry, but what the hell are we supposed to do? continue enriching them with money we don't have while we allow our manufacturing base to dwindle and disappear? what kind or economic suicide do you want?

    considering the mess we are in i question the wisdom of any of the knee jerk supposed experts whose ideologized economics has led us to this precipice.

    real economic power is the lack of needing to depend upon anyone else for almost anything, whether we're talking about natural resources OR food. we can free ourselves of much of our need for scarece domestic natural resources with investment in technology and shifting economic/production paradigms based upon scarce foriegn owned resources. we can generate secure wealth by producing finished products that our still wealthy 300+ million can purchase.

    look...no problem with open, free trade with societies who pay their employees roughly the same as do we...but i'll be damned if i support impoverishing ourselves to enrich someone who pays their workers a tenth of what we do in the name of some flawed ideologically poisoned economic theory touted by a pack of ideologized, educated beyond their intelligences, economics phd's who appear more clueless every day...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 6:21pm

38. Why is spending for 'We the people' programs-- socialism? Yet bail outs or no bid contracts for corporations not fascism?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 6:31pm

39. WHO GREASES THE WHEELS IN AMERICA POLITICAL AND COROPARTE CULTURE?

    Excess is not a new thing for us in America. The robber barons have always had the upper hand. Just a glance back at history will reveal the FORDS, ROCKEFLLERS, BUSHES or just the EAST COAST BLUE BLOODS etc. took far more than their fair share. Those fat cats religion was and is that of MAMMON JESUS talked about that.

    Political Science is a study of those who departed from the views of those and tried to problem solve for better solutions. But in those ideas adopted by people the ones who signed the checkbook seemed to get back to greasing the wheel.

    But our problem today is not about Political Science it is about who has the courage to indict, try, judge, fine then banish the outlaws against us that were allowed to run loose robbing and stealing us blind.

    They bought their way by extortions and bribery. Now that is just against the law of our land. But the BUSH BUNCH had their hand out and they looked the other way if not planned all this to come about, WHO KNOWS?

    NOW the only way to bring a sudden end to this NEED for GREED from the pinnacles of our Corporations is to launch deep and wide investigations with emphasis to prove corruption. Then prosecute to the max.

    NOW WHO AT THE TOP OF THE HEAP HAS THE COURAGE TO DO THAT??

    One thing for sure our PRESIDENT Has that courage.

    FIX for our GOVERNMENT We need our own lobby Contact Dwight Baker chairman of the Grass Roots Actions for WE THE PEOPLES LOBBY Dbaker007@stx.rr.com

    Posted by DWIGHTBAKER at 02/19/2009 @ 7:32pm

40. Our trade deficit for 2008 was 677.1 billion. Our imports mostly finished products, our exports :coal, corn, crude oil. Wow what a good deal. And our scrappy president just veered down the WTO, NAFTA highway and went with the Wall street boys. Does the president's Black Berry have Google on it? I bet the boys and gals at the census bureau would be glad to explain the numbers to him. How about inviting Paul Krugman over for a little "Tea And Sympathy", or maybe Sheila Bair? He "Obama" just invented a new put down phrase for the people who believe in fairness, "beggar thy neighbor",along with that old phrase " protectionism". I have a phrase for our president, whom I love deeply, how about beggar thy family? Where is Jeremiah Wright when we need him?

    Posted by julien38 at 02/19/2009 @ 7:41pm

41. Our trade deficit for 2008 was 677.1 billion. Our imports mostly finished products, our exports :coal, corn, crude oil....

    Posted by julien38 at 02/19/2009 @ 7:41pm

    Stop reading only lefty sources!

    Half of that deficit you cited is due to imported crude oil alone (~10 million bbl/day x 365 days x $100 avg)....not exactly "finished products" unless you like to drink it straight up!

    The commodity products you listed as our exports, don't amount to much.....probably less than $100 billion a year......Houston exports a shitload of oil field equipments, instrumentation, processes and services such as design, engineering, seismic work, etc. Boeing & other aerospace contractors are also big time exporters....same as Caterpillar, Deere & Co., GE Power Systems, GE Medical Imaging....and on and on...

    Posted by Happy at 02/19/2009 @ 8:16pm

42. Why is spending for 'We the people' programs-- socialism? Yet bail outs or no bid contracts for corporations not fascism?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/19/2009 @ 6:31pm

    why do you keep repeating this mantra?

    I know of no conservative who posts here who supported the bailouts.

    As to no bid contracts; they represent less than 1% of all govt contracts and most are issued because of a lack of competition; sole sourced because of a specific capability.

    It doesn't mean there aren't bad exceptions. Both Democrats and Republicans have equally insisted on getting pet contracts for companies in their district and/or state. I've noted my personal business experience in the past with John Murtha D-PA who was notorious for that.

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 8:27pm

43. but i support NAFTA because...

    MEXICO IS OUR NEIGHBOR.

    sure, ok...let a little wealth go there. one day when we recover it will be a great place to invest and grow...

    kinda the new south...

    all for NAFTA here.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/19/2009 @ 11:01pm

44. I'm sure all those folks going on unemployment can take comfort in how "green" they are now, FZ. Posted by Mask at 02/19/2009 @ 07:12am

    oh, i don't think any of this is good, mask.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 11:52pm

45. I'm sure all those folks going on unemployment can take comfort in how "green" they are now, FZ. Posted by Mask at 02/19/2009 @ 07:12am

    maybe this FINANCIAL MELTDOWN!!!!!! is the earth's way of telling us to slowdown.

    when our money used to be somehow connected to the earth, we could only do so much.

    but with airmoney..........

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/19/2009 @ 11:53pm

46. 'A reformed national pension system now in robust fiscal health compared with a near-insolvent U.S. Social Security system.'

    this is nonsense. social security has been receiving huge payments from the boomers who have entered their final, but very affluent phase.

    the problem is that BOTH parties have been raiding the fund, by borrowing from it and leaving treasury notes, which are just as good as money, as long as the US stays solvent.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 09:24am

47. Posted by darladoon at 02/18/2009 @ 11:02pm

    "don't count on it. obama has, within the span of one month, become a centrist conservative."

    People with actual responsibilities have a disturbing tendency to drift towards conservative policies. I wonder why that is.

    Posted by pontificus at 02/20/2009 @ 09:37am

48. Ain't gonna happen Nichols!

    From Kevin Drum at Mother Jones...

    My overall sense is that Barack Obama is better than most politicians at saying what he really believes and avoiding outright pandering to vote-rich interest groups. But everyone has his limits, and I never for a second believed he was serious when he ripped into NAFTA before union audiences during the Ohio primary. And he wasn't:

    President Obama warned on Thursday against a "strong impulse" toward protectionism while the world suffers a global economic recession and said his election-year promise to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement on behalf of unions and environmentalists will have to wait.

    ....The president's message served as a reminder of last year's private assessment by Canadian officials that then-candidate Obama's frequent criticism of NAFTA was nothing more than campaign speeches aimed at chasing support among Rust Belt union workers.

    "Much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the Canadians concluded in a memo after meeting with Austan Goolsbee, a senior campaign aide and now a member of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers.

    Obama is fundamenally a liberal technocrat. His biggest sin was never a lack of support for open trade, but simply the fact that faced with a close primary in a big state, he succumbed to demagogery -- which just goes to show that even the king of "no drama" has his limits when the presidency of the United States is on the line.

    Posted by sntauri at 02/20/2009 @ 11:59am

49. I know of no conservative who posts here who supported the bailouts.

    As to no bid contracts; they represent less than 1% of all govt contracts

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/19/2009 @ 8:27pm

    I think your greatly under/mis/representation of an already unfactual definition of what constitutes "no-bid"ing-- is astounding in it's de-emphasis of how far the hsuB/cHeney admin took their secret deals with an energy, insurance and military industrial / unitary executive / complex - anti-constitutional government.

    For the last 8 years trillions of dollars have been siphoned from 'We the people's coffers; what could have been used for our infrastructure, healthcare, education, jobs - investment-- here in the USA. Trillions upon trillions wasted on a war to nowhere / concurrent with tax cuts for the richest and their corporations. Even our back-door drafted wary soldier's future mostly goes to the 'dead'-end job in its hidden healthcare cost which increasingly leads to that six-feet-under solution. Insurance costs unchecked, energy costs unchecked, healthcare/pharm costs unchecked, disaster relief unchecked, wall street unchecked, banks unchecked, food unchecked-- ultimately from terrorists unchecked... And all so that those no bid bail outs for the rich and powerful go unchecked.

    And what got us to this sucked up point.

    No-bid only 1% of all government contracts- think again- somewhat harder. But just if you can...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/20/2009 @ 12:04pm

50. this is nonsense. social security has been receiving huge payments from the boomers who have entered their final, but very affluent phase.

    the problem is that BOTH parties have been raiding the fund, by borrowing from it and leaving treasury notes, which are just as good as money, as long as the US stays solvent.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 09:24am | ignore this person | warn this person

    As long as the US stays solvent.....a promise to pay backed by a ever diminishing ability to pay.......the now inverted demographic pyramid on which future social security benefits are to be paid. David Walker, former US Comptroller, considers this situation "insolvency." But you are right that social security isn't insolvent because of its payouts, but rather because the trust fund has been raided for general appropriations. The trust fund was supposed to fund inverted demographic pyramids.

    Posted by OneVote at 02/20/2009 @ 12:20pm

51. Gore was right about the lock box, though Clinton did NOT walk the walk.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 12:26pm

52. Gore was right about the lock box, though Clinton did NOT walk the walk.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/20/2009 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    The proverbial "cookie jar."

    Posted by OneVote at 02/20/2009 @ 12:38pm

53. Gore shrunk the gov and made it more efficient. Definitely the right direction. hsuB/cHeney expanded the gov-- but then made it the least effective than any admin in modern history.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/20/2009 @ 2:32pm

54. No-bid only 1% of all government contracts- think again- somewhat harder. But just if you can...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/20/2009 @ 12:04pm

    Care to cite something other than your opinion diatribe?

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/20/2009 @ 4:33pm

55. Gore shrunk the gov and made it more efficient. Definitely the right direction. hsuB/cHeney expanded the gov-- but then made it the least effective than any admin in modern history.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/20/2009 @ 2:32pm

    How did Gore shrink the govt when spending increased 500 billion during the Clinton Admin?

    the only reduction I can see from the budget tables was in defense spending.

    What Departments did Gore eliminate?

    Posted by antisocialist at 02/20/2009 @ 4:49pm

56. Posted by antisociali at 02/20/2009 @ 4:33pm/ 4:49pm

    Care to cite something 'official' other than your opinion diatribe that contradicts my statements?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/21/2009 @ 10:00am

57. Nichols writes:

    >>Obama Needs to Keep Promise on NAFTA<<

    Why NAFTA, why not also demand Obama needs to keep his promise on not hiring, lobbyists, and tax cheats?

    Why not also demand that he keep his promise on bipartisan politics, and transparency, instead of a 1000 page stimulus bill many of whose pages were never shown to the opposition, and not even to the Senate House conference committee.

    Why not demand Obama keep his promise on rendition, and holding battlefield prisoners in the US without trial, and extraordinary interrogation methods (torture), and not disclosing evidence involvming "state secret" to accused prisoners?

    And why not his promise regarding honoring Congressional requests that White House aids testify on dismissed US attorneys?

    On all these things, and more, Obama is backtracking, but Nichols worries that he won't renegotiate NAFTA.

    Of course he won't. He even sent an aid to the Canadians during the campaign telling them not to take his campaign rhetoric seriously.

    Nichols needs to get his memory working, or his integrity, because at least one of those is seriously out of whack.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/21/2009 @ 9:33pm

58. Antisociali/¬^¬, apparently has nothing. He and his family's ingestion of depleted uranium no doubt.

    Here-- help yourself: http://tinyurl.com/chx2fe

    Posted by hsuBfools at 02/22/2009 @ 10:53am