Hillary and Obama on Trade
By: TurnVirginiaBlue
Published On: 2/10/2008 6:14:21 AM
cross posted on NoSlaves.com
While the choices for President slim down to next to none, one might evaluate positions instead of joining the various cheer leading camps. Who, overall has the best trade, economic positions to stop this global train wreck? Firstly any group name calling someone protectionist because they acknowledge the obviously massive ~5.6% GDP trade deficit, is obviously not basing their economics on anything remotely resembling reality. The reason I link to this Pro Obama group is because they want more bad trade agreements. They assessed Obama as more of a corporate free trader than Hillary. Below are some statements from the two for easy comparison contrast.
Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and non tariff barriers on U.S. exports.
Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs. I will oppose the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama Ensure that trade policies work for average Americans. Trade policy must raise our standard of living, and they must have strong protections for workers and the environment I will appoint a trade enforcement officer and double the enforcement staff at the office of the United States Trade Representative I will also systematically review every trade agreement to ensure that it is delivering benefits to American workers I will also expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program so that workers negatively affected by the global economy get the help they need. In my first months in office, I will take a time out from new trade deals to assess their impact before going forward Reevaluate free trade deals every five years to ensure that they are still meeting our national and agricultural interests
Another excellent resource is this Iowa questionnaire, from a fair trade action group. This grid has the most detailed questions I've found to date. Unfortunately neither candidate spells out enough details on their websites.
Clinton Statement I support pro-America trade. When trade agreements are negotiated without real concern for workers, or when the agreements are not properly enforced, it hurts American families. I believe trade must work for middle-class Americans. Out trade deficit is at unacceptable levels. As President, I will reinvigorate America's manufacturing base, and ensure that foreign countries do not manipulate their currencies to disadvantage American goods. The world is changing rapidly, and old assumptions about trade must be reexamined. As President, I will not enter into new trade agreements, or seek trade promotion authority, until my administration has done two things: reviewed all of our existing agreements to determine whether they are benefiting our economy and our workers; and crafted a comprehensive, Pro America trade policy that will strengthen our country in the 21st Century
Obama statement We can't stop globalization in its tracks .. We need to make sure that the rule governing trade are fair and that we're investing in our workers so that they remain the most competitive in the world ... I will work to expand our trade agenda beyond lowering tariffs and protecting our commercial interests.
Obama's statement is quite long mentioning certain details, but I could not locate any overall policy statement to reconsider all trade agreements, especially the China PNTR agreement or overall policy.
Obama does have many more public statements seemingly in support of more trade agreements and only mentions environmental and worker standards and worker retraining. Like Hillary, Obama talks about removing tax incentives to offshore outsource American jobs and also like Hillary to address China's currency manipulation (pegging the Yuan to the dollar artifically low).
Here is an in depth Economist article on their trade positions and notes Dick Gephardt, a well known opponent of NAFTA and other bad trade agreements is an adviser in the Hillary campaign. In the Senate, Obama lobbied for the Peru free trade agreement. Clinton also voted for the Peru trade agreement and both opposed the CAFTA-DR agreement. While both have flaws it appears Clinton is the best bet for a complete revamp of the United States trade agreements, but with a lot of public support.
note I ignored McCain because he is a United States trade train wreck
Comments
Follow the money . . . (JPTERP - 2/10/2008 7:36:49 AM)
I don't think there is any question that both Democrats will be substantially more pro-union than McCain. Campaign financing though strikes me as a key indicator of where a candidate's loyalties will rest post election.
I know Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn has strong business ties to anti-union busters
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
Odds are he would have a position within the administration (Edwards pressed on this question in the South Carolina debate asking if Clinton would employee any lobbyists -- of which Penn was one -- and she did not answer the question).
The only equivalent that I find on Obama's side is that one of his surrogates, Oprah, is an unreliable union ally. Somehow I don't think Oprah will have a strong hand in formulating policy in an Obama administration. (The same could be said of BET's Robert Johnson who is backing Clinton).
Obama's economists worse (TurnVirginiaBlue - 2/10/2008 2:29:33 PM)
Obama's economist is Austan Goolsbee and he's worse in terms of not even recognizing the effect trade has on US jobs and a host of other things.
More on Obama's lack of a subprime plan and his list of economic advisers.
This is where I think (Catzmaw - 2/10/2008 6:05:15 PM)
Edwards was actually strongest. Neither Barack nor Hillary is as strong for unions and worker protections as I'd like them to be; however, in terms of which one is more likely to buck the corporate powers-that-be, I tend to think Obama is more likely to do so.
Agreed (relawson - 2/10/2008 6:16:14 PM)
Edwards was a great advocate for fair trade. Huge loss for American workers when he dropped out.
I hear what Clinton is saying, but I'm not convinced she will back up her words with actions.
Why are you conviced she is more likely to revamp trade agreements over Obama, TurnVirginiaBlue? Does she have a voting record indicating that she will support fair trade?
voting records (TurnVirginiaBlue - 2/11/2008 1:38:24 PM)
She does have something that's indicative she would be better.
Remember when Dubai Ports World was happening? While Bill was lobbying for the deal to go through, Hillary introduced legislation to stop it, ban such sales.
On voting records she's slightly better but not by much, they both voted for Oman but look at the ones coming up that she says she will vote against.
Both voted against CAFTA-DR but note that Bill was lobbying for it.
that's what I'm trying to point out (TurnVirginiaBlue - 2/11/2008 1:18:00 PM)
If I would have supported anyone it would have been Edwards.
So, when the Obama fever took over I did my homework and what I found in Obama policy is truly ineffectual, more status quo on a large area of trade and economic, labor issues.
I never thought I'd see the day when I would say Hillary is better for the middle class than Obama, but looking at which actual plans, votes, economic advisers, now I have to say yes.
And even worse, nobody is looking at their actual positions and making assumptions that are not based on their position statements or record.
Not good.
I tend to think (TurnVirginiaBlue - 2/11/2008 1:39:51 PM)
I see something here very dangerous people
think Obama will do x when he says y. and you know who also that happened with George Bush. People didn't believe he would do the things he said he would do.