Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Sherrod Brown's Trojan Horse on Free Trade
By mike volpe Posted in Policy — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Sherrod Brown came out with a defense of he and his colleagues who have come out against several free trade agreements. He mentioned several issues...
The supporters of our trade policy rarely mention our exploding trade deficits. In just 15 years, our annual trade deficit has mushroomed to over $800 billion from $38 billion in 1993. With Mexico, our trade surplus evolved into a $90.7 billion trade deficit. With China, our trade deficit jumped to $250 billion today from about $22 billion. President George H.W. Bush once estimated that a $1 billion trade deficit represents 13,000 lost jobs. Do the math.
...
Advocates of free trade rarely want to debate the fact that unregulated trade with China has recently allowed toys with lead paint, contaminated toothpaste and poisonous pet food into this country. We take for granted our clean air, pure food and safe drinking water. But these blessings are not by chance: They result from laws and rules about wages, health and the environment. Trade agreements with no rules to protect our health, the environment and labor rights inevitably create a race to the bottom and weaken health and safety rules for our trading partners and for our own communities.
...
But cheerleaders for current U.S. trade policy, while mostly shrinking from a debate about the issues that matter to middle-class America, insist that those of us who want more trade – but trade under a very different set of rules – are protectionists.
Now, let's take these issues one at a time. First, in the time period Brown mentions, our economy also grew exponentially and the unemployment rate stayed below 5% more than it stayed above. His doom and gloom scenario simply doesn't mesh with the facts. If free trade with Mexico cost as many jobs as he suggests, then without it we would have had more than full employment. Since that is not actually possible, his doomy outlook is overstated.
That's because free trade is not a zero sum game as Brown suggests. A trade deficit also means that our consumers were given more choice since it indicates that Mexican goods enjoyed a healthy market in the United States. By offering more choice to U.S. consumers, U.S. consumers were by extension able to buy more stuff in general and thus boosting our economy. Furthermore, this $38 billion trade deficit was part of an economy that was north of 10 trillion. Thus, the entire allusion to the trade deficit is nothing more than a trojan horse. Our government spending alone is over one trillion yearly, and yet Brown proclaims that opposing free trade is perfectly reasonable because we added $38 billion to our trade deficit. While he makes that misleading arguement, he fails to mention all of the positives that negative trade deficit brought. (our consumers were given more choice, our companies were allowed to be more efficient, and of course our companies gained access to new markets)
Second, he extols our trade arrangement with China. He proclaims that free trade without rules leads to disaster. This is in and of itself nothing more than a trojan horse as well. That's because later on he says this...
Instead, we have a trade agreement that runs nearly 1,000 pages and is chock full of giveaways and protections for drug companies, oil companies, and financial services companies, and incentives to outsource jobs now held by Americans.
So, on the one hand our free trade agreements have no rules, and yet they run 1000 pages. I suppose in those 1000 pages there were absolutely no rules.
The last part of his piece is nothing more than a trojan horse again. That's because the Colombian free trade agreement languished in the legislature for more than two years. In fact, it was amended multiple times to acquiesce those that were concerned with civil rights and environmental issues. Still, the House simply refused to pass it. If this was merely about making the free trade agreement better, why didn't proponents spend the last two years plus doing that. Instead, Pelosi et al have simply killed it. He can't at one end claim that he only wants improve our agreements, and yet disregard that his colleagues killed the agreement outright. If the trade agreement needs to be improved, then improve it. That isn't what happened. They killed the agreement. They didn't improve it.
Furthermore, Brown not only impugns a great ally but frankly misleads if not outright lies about it.
The Colombia Free Trade Agreement is being shopped around Congress by an overzealous White House. Let's put aside, for now, the debate about rewarding a country that has done little to stem the tide of rampant labor abuses and human rights violations – including dozens of murders.
I guess by overzealous he means a White House that proposed this agreement in 2006 and waited to 2008 to demand it get signed. Furthermore, I guess reducing kidnapping and murder by nearly 80% is not stemming the tide of rampant civil rights abuses. Brown simply refuses to acknowledge that the Uribe government has nearly transformed a country once at the mercy of tyrants and drug dealers, and put it on the path toward peace. He does this for nothing more than naked partisanship.
I think it was a lot more than that in 2006
by mike volpe
however if he resorts to lying, he can be pushed back.
Look, when he throws out a number like 38 billion, that is one thing. Even though the number is misleading, that is a difficult thing to convince the masses of. On the other hand, when he flat out states that Colombia has done little to stem the tide of murder, kidnapping, and violence, when they have done exactly that then he can be exposed as a fraud and his message becomes weak.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Yes, 2006 was bad
by Aetius728
The Ohio GOP was in shambles, the war was unpopular, Mark Foley, etc. But the truly effective talking points and advertisements, at least here in Western PA where I am in the Western PA/Easter Ohio media market, was the linking of Republicans to "outsourcing jobs," and lamenting the "3 million manufacturing jobs lost." As well as the standard attacks on big oil, big business, and the rich.
It was the single biggest issue around here. And it will be McCain's single biggest impediment to picking up Reagan Dems.
And yes, you are right, such lies can be called out. Counter arguments can be made, such as pointing out that most manufacturing jobs were lost because of increasing productivity, and that trade creates markets for American goods. The problem is that the people who need to here this, the blue collar workers, don't read blogs. They don't read the Wall Street Journal. It is to them that we need to make our case. I would not count on John McCain or any other Republican doing it though.
I know I might seem like sort of a broken record, because nearly everything I write is on this subject. But trust me, with normal people around here, it is a powerful and damaging issue.
I will cede to your expertise on 2006
by mike volpe
however don't forget that right now McCain is making the case to the exact people you are talking about on free trade. Right now, he is going into all the places you mention and talking about free trade. Don't short sell McCain, he is a vet of politics. This isn't his first rodeo and I doubt very much that what you realize slipped past he and his team.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
I wish I had your confidence
by Aetius728
But telling people that trade is good will not suffice. These people are angry, because they think that deals like NAFTA have resulted in the hollowing out of American industry. This is false, as manufacturing output reaches new levels every year. But somehow I doubt that McCain even realizes this. It seems to me that when he talks about economic issues, short of fiscal conservatism, he is lost.
And I would not be surprised if it slipped past his team. These people are D.C. types, I seriously doubt that they ever go to Youngstown Ohio or someplace and simply engage people in conversation and learn of their concerns. McCain himself has repeatedly blamed overspending and earmarks as the reasons for the loss in 2006. These issues, while important, are not why we lost.
I am at a loss as to what to do besides pointing out this problem, however.
Let's spin this around
by mike volpe
if you were advising him, how would you advise that he speak to folks in these parts about these issues.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Do you know
by mike volpe
how all of these folks made the connection between job loss and free trade in the first place?
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Yep
by Aetius728
People like Sherrod Brown and Bob Casey. The most effective commercials of 2006 were Sherrod Brown and various representatives standing in front of abandoned factories and railing about the evils of NAFTA and sending jobs to China, and Bob Casey standing in front of the Capitol Building vowing to fight against unfair trade deals and for American jobs.
And I would suggest that McCain start by simply stating that free trade is a good thing, and that is why Bill Clinton was a free trader and Obama's economic advisor gave private assurances to the Canadians that he would not tinker with NAFTA. Then I would explain that jobs have been lost in manufacturing due to increases in productivity. I would also give people examples of how jobs within the United States are moving from the rustbelt to the more friendly tax and regulatory environments of the midwest and south. Then I would explain how free trade opens up markets, and give specific examples of American exporters who would benefit. Then I would vow to further increase America's competitiveness by lowering business taxes and such things. I would then explain that American workers could compete with lower paid foreign workers because they are so much more productive.
The problem is these ideas are not ideal for soundbites.
So, demonizing free trade
by mike volpe
to explain lost jobs was something engineered by Democrats like Brown himself?
I don't want to overstate things but the Nazis demonized Jewish people in a somewhat similar way to exploit the weakness of struggling citizenry as well.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
What point are you trying to make?
by Aetius728
I am saying that the opposition to free trade has been created by demonization and demagoguery by politicians like Sherrod Brown, unions, and the media. Add to that the dismal state of economic education in this country, and the lack of perceptive and articulate conservative voices explaining things to people.
That is essentially the point
by mike volpe
I was trying to make. I just never knew the roots of demonizing free trade before. The worst part is that it is totally done for nothing more than partisan reasons...meaning to appease the unions.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Ah, I see
by Aetius728
This is probably far less of an issue in other parts of the country. Around here, it is huge.
So, what did Brown do?
by mike volpe
Did he paint his opponent (his name slips my mind) as some sort of shill to big business in his support of free trade agreements and paint himself as one that will stand up to free trade and back fair trade?
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
so Casey did the same thing
by mike volpe
to Santorum? Did they do this on CAFTA?
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
So, this is totally fascinating to me
by mike volpe
what sorts of things were going on in Ohio and Pennsylvania that made this message so appealing? Also, isn't it fair to say that part of the problem is that towns like Youngstown are so dependent to their factory and so the problem isn't merely that a factory closes shop but that there are no alternatives in the economy to the factory?
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Brown is utterly worthless.
by RandomGuy
Brown is utterly worthless. I can't wait to get him out of there.
I hope if John Kascich(SP?) doesn't run for Gov. in '10 he runs against Brown in '12.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
By the way
by mike volpe
former Sec of State James Baker wrote a great piece about the importance of the Colombian trade agreement...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120891112269636667.html?mod=opinion_main...
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
Here is another piece about
by mike volpe
why manufacturing jobs are disappearing...
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/04/22/amr-manufacturing-nafta-oped-c...
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
The Fannie/Freddie situation is truly outlandish...
by blackheddLOL!
by Rod PatrickI have no other words...
by tsquareNew One: Pennsylvania: Dozen
by dld1717dglenn nt
by dglennGeneration Gap (Cont'd)
by nivlemI just got a phone call from Arnold..
by speciallistThis is a very winnable race
by dld1717I didn't think a west coaster could pull it off..LOL
by speciallistGeneration gap
by nivlemThanks...
by RottDawgspeciallist
by simpson316Also bogus ...
by LeverkuhnThere never was a 15 point lead ...
by LeverkuhnAre we there yet?
by 29VictorIn a perfect world
by Chris-64Neil says, One more step to Redstate 3.0
by speciallistFnord. (n/t)
by FinrodOh believe me
by Chris-64
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
But this is how he beat Dewine in 2006.(OK,so there were other complications, such as the Ohio GOP)
But we underestimate how powerfully anti-trade sentiment rings with "Reagan Democrats" at our own expense.