After losing 880,000 jobs to NAFTA, we're back for more

The Springfield News ^ | Jul 22, 2005 | Peter DeFazio

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

Proponents of so-called "free" trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which I opposed, have long promised endless riches for U.S. workers, farmers, businesses and economy. They've been wrong on all counts.

Failed U.S. trade policies have led to the export of millions of high-paying American jobs; decline in U.S. living standards; soaring trade deficits; and a significant erosion of U.S. sovereignty to international trade bureaucrats.

Despite this unbroken record of failure, the House is expected to vote before August on an agreement the Bush administration negotiated to expand NAFTA to Central America via the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The Senate has already voted to approve the deal. I will vote no. Here's why CAFTA must be defeated.

• CAFTA will increase the already record U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. trade deficit this year is running at an annual rate of approximately $700 billion, nearly $100 billion above the record deficit set last year. We must borrow nearly $2 billion every day from foreigners to finance this deficit. Prior to NAFTA, the U.S. had a trade surplus with Mexico. In the wake of NAFTA, the surplus turned to a deficit that has risen steadily. The U.S. already has a trade deficit with the Central American countries of $1.6 billion, which will only grow if CAFTA is enacted. Deficits are dangerous because they cost U.S. jobs and put our economic and national security in the hands of foreigners who finance them.

• CAFTA will lead to the export of U.S. jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicted NAFTA would create 170,000 jobs in the U.S. They were a little off. The actual result was a net loss of nearly 880,000 U.S. jobs, including more than 12,000 in Oregon. Looking at the numbers beyond NAFTA, Oregon has lost 40,000 jobs due to failed trade policies since 1994. CAFTA will be more of the same.

• CAFTA is not about exporting U.S. goods to Central America. More than 40 percent of workers in Central America make less than $2 a day. The combined economic might of the five Central American countries is only $151 billion, about what the U.S. economy produces in five days. Even if every penny of these countries' economies was devoted to buying U.S. goods, which isn't going to happen, the impact would be insignificant in the $11 trillion U.S. economy. The bottom line is that CAFTA is not about creating U.S. jobs and exporting U.S. goods. It is about creating a favorable climate for multinational corporations to export U.S. jobs and use Central America to export goods back into the U.S.

• CAFTA will erode U.S. sovereignty. CAFTA allows foreign corporations to sue our government for approving laws and regulations that may impede their ability to maximize profits. If the Oregon Legislature or the U.S. Congress approves laws to protect the public health, the environment, or consumer and worker safety that a foreign company doesn't like, they can sue to get the law overturned or to require taxpayers to pay large fines in return for keeping the law on the books. That is an unwarranted intrusion on the sovereignty of American citizens.

• CAFTA will hurt Oregon farmers. Farmers have repeatedly been promised that if we only approve another free trade agreement, they'll get rich. Family farmers are still waiting. The U.S. trade surplus in agriculture peaked in 1996 at $27 billion. The USDA predicts this year that the surplus will be zero. In the wake of NAFTA, the U.S. agricultural trade deficit with Mexico and Canada tripled from $5.2 billion to $14.6 billion. Perhaps that's why the trade committee of the National Association of State Directors of Agriculture voted unanimously to oppose CAFTA. Due to increased sugar imports, CAFTA will be particularly damaging to Oregon's many sugar-beet growers.

• CAFTA will restrict government procurement that benefits U.S. workers. CAFTA will prohibit governments from enacting procurement rules such as "Buy Oregon" or "Buy America" that prevent the export of jobs by giving preference to local contractors; promote the development of environmentally-friendly products or services; or provide preferences for small businesses, among other common procurement rules.

• CAFTA is a model for an even larger expansion of NAFTA. Finally, CAFTA must be defeated because it is a model for an even larger expansion of NAFTA to the entire Western Hemisphere via the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which is currently being negotiated by the Bush administration.

[cripplecreek]

Back when the senior Bush was in office pushing NAFTA, the owner of my factory constantly warned us that it would cost jobs.

That factory is closed now BTW.

[agitator]

Bush senior also wanted a "new world order." Quote Unquote.

[1rudeboy]

Does this mean that DeFazio (ACU Lifetime = 14) is becoming a Buchananite?

[CBart95]

Now that we are clear about what you don't want, what precisely do you want?
Do you or anyone you know of have an alternative?
Seems that little item is always missing in these 'Hate Bush" treatises.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "After losing 880,000 jobs to NAFTA, we're back for more"

Response: Absolutely!

Comment: "In declining States the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action..."-A Great Historian 1888.

[hershey]

On the History Channel not long ago, they were talking about Hadrian's Wall, and said at the end the barbarians were so desperate to have what Rome represented that they broke the wall down. That's exactly what's going on at our southern border. Rather than stay home and fix things, they want instant gratification. Cross the border and it's yours. Even better, turn it into MegaMexico or MegaEverywherelseSouth. They don't get it that the cultural, social mindset that dooms Mexico and points south will wreck the US, and if they did understand, they wouldn't care.

Yes, CAFTA will flop, for the same reasons NAFTA did. So what do we do? Build Hadrian's Wall? If so, we'd better start now and fortify it.

[hershey]

When CAFTA flops, they'll demand we think up something else to bail them out.

[Texas_Conservative2]

since the employment rate is much lower now than before NAFTA was passed... I have no idea how we have somehow lost 800,000 jobs.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Obviously some people who lacked the ability to compete globally were sheltered behind tariff barriers.

These anti-NAFTA bozos think that the American customer owes them a living and should be forced to pay for higher priced goods.

[Jason Kauppinen]

I'm sure people said the same things about Irish immigrants.

[Be Free]

"since the employment rate is much lower now than before NAFTA was passed... I have no idea how we have somehow lost 800,000 jobs."

And if the result is higher imports of cheaper goods, isn't that good for our economy and the American consumer? Also, as awful as trade deficits sound, no one has yet proven a harmful long-term effect. An example I read (Thomas Sowell perhaps?) is that, in my personal economy, I run a trade-deficit with my grocer (I buy more from him than he does from me). Is that such a bad thing?

[Oatka]

Obviously some people who lacked the ability to compete globally were sheltered behind tariff barriers.

"Global Competition" is a race to the bottom. It is a code word for "Who will work the cheapest?" Just ask the Mexicans who took our jobs away because they were cheap and compliant (read subjugated*) and have now lost theirs to the Chinese who are even cheaper and more compliant.

*Check out the Mexican labor battles in the cities or the countryside. The ringleaders always seem to be among those "accidentally" killed in the melee.

[Willie Green]

is that, in my personal economy, I run a trade-deficit with my grocer (I buy more from him than he does from me). Is that such a bad thing?

We need to know more about your "personal economy" to answer that.
But if you're following Dubya's example, then you obtain your money by gradually mortgaging your home to your grocer. Sooner or later, he'll own the whole thing and your hungry butt will be tossed out on the street. Yes, I would call that a bad thing.

[cp124]

lost 800,000 jobs
manufacturing

gained
Home Depot, Lowes, Dunkin Donuts, McDonalds, Wendys.....

[Toddsterpatriot]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce predicted NAFTA would create 170,000 jobs in the U.S.

Really? Over what time frame?

They were a little off. The actual result was a net loss of nearly 880,000 U.S. jobs, including more than 12,000 in Oregon. Looking at the numbers beyond NAFTA, Oregon has lost 40,000 jobs due to failed trade policies since 1994.

Really? Over what time frame? Were the jobs lost the day NAFTA passed? A year later? 5 years later?

CAFTA will be more of the same.

Yeah, cause the predictions of doom and gloom were so correct last time. LOL!!

[cp124]

Obviously some people who didn't want to make 23 cents a week and eat rice 6 days a week to compete globally were sheltered behind tariff barriers.

[foobeca]

Your employer runs a huge trade deficit with you.

The benefits of free trade is not matter of debate. Saying that trade is bad is like saying the sky is not blue, that the sun does not rise in the east and set in the west.

Go take a decent economics class if you don't know or understand why trade is good.

There are some legitimate concerns about sovereignty, but there is no valid argument against free trade except for environmental issues.

[Nowhere Man]

Home Depot, Lowes, Dunkin Donuts, McDonalds, Wendys.....

Um, you forgot Wal*Mart. B-P

[foobeca]

"Global Competition" is a race to the bottom. It is a code word for "Who will work the cheapest?"

You sound like a communist. Competition is a good thing-it lowers prices and improves quality.