About Us

  • Eyes on Trade is a blog by the staff of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch (GTW) division. GTW aims to promote democracy by challenging corporate globalization, arguing that the current globalization model is neither a random inevitability nor "free trade." Eyes on Trade is a space for interested parties to share information about globalization and trade issues, and in particular for us to share our watchdogging insights with you! GTW director Lori Wallach's initial post explains it all.

Contact

« Dead parrot vendors in charge of morning after pill safety?! | Main | Stimulating? Or, well, not so much? »

February 04, 2008

Pre-Super Tuesday reflections

(Disclosure: Global Trade Watch has no preference among the candidates.)

A lot of folks are offering their reflections the relative merits of the candidates (see here, here, here, and here.) I was able to share mine at San Francisco's NPR station a little earlier today.

As I see it, we should evaluate trade policy on three overlapping dimensions:

  1. Who is affected
  2. How is it made
  3. What are the "surprise" implications for non-trade policy

On the first front, I'm thinking of how our trade policy has resulted in (or not helped us avoid) a skyrocketing trade deficit, largely stagnant wages and farm prices, and the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, hundreds of thousands of family farms, and an increasing number of service sector jobs. Nearly every candidate touches on this part of the issue - even Huckabee and Romney with their comments on manufacturing. (McCain has spoken about compensating losers through TAA.) With the exception of Ron Paul (who calls for scrapping the WTO, NAFTA, etc. directly), the whole field talks about the losses from trade policy for many people. They are largely silent on the trade-wage connections.

The second category relates to how we make trade policy. For four decades, our trade policy has been conceived under the undemocratic Fast Track mechanism, which takes away Congress' constitutional authority and responsibility to set our trade policy, and gives it to an executive branch that sets the terms and picks the partner countries and writes the deal, leaving Congress only an up or down vote. Obama has talked about replacing Fast Track, while Clinton has said she will hold off from asking for Fast Track until she reviews past agreements.

Finally, as we have long been arguing, trade policy these days is only marginally about trade. Much of the 600-page texts of the WTO and FTAs has to do with how we adopt policies domestically. Thus, a move to universal health care could be challenged as a limitation on market access for health insurance companies. Under our FTAs, investors can demand taxpayer money for public interest policies that limit their future expected profits. Obama has addressed investor-state, consumer protection, and domestic regulation. We haven't heard much from the other candidates on this dimension.

As we'll document in an upcoming report, both the Dem and GOP health care and climate change proposals could face WTO challenge. More specific responses to these and other questions can help voters can make an informed choice.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452507269e200e550291bfe8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pre-Super Tuesday reflections:

Comments

Dan in Bronxville, NY

Penn has created a problem for Clinton. His apparent or real conflict of interest was already known but mostly ignored in MSM. But when he met with Colombian officials he created a story. Clinton surely knew about Penn’s involvement or was oblivious to what Washington insiders knew. Either way it looks bad for her. It gives Obama’s union supporters (and all supporters) an opportunity to challenge her integrity, credibility and judgment. Doubt about whatever her past role in NAFTA ceases to be just a historical matter. Now the question is much more: What is her real position and how might she really represent her working class constituency should she become president.

The problem she has with voters about how truthful she is will color whatever she or her surrogates says about this. In turn, because this looks bad, this will potentially further diminish people’s perceptions of her honesty. That may have some impact on Pennsylvania. But the bigger problem will be with super delegates. How does a super delegate who depends on union support and argues for protecting American jobs, endorse her without a measure of risk and the need to explain himself.

There are probably background issues that will surface, as well. Who are Penn’s company’s other clients? What are the undisclosed details of the Clinton’s 2007 taxes? How well does Clinton run her campaign (how much was Penn paid?) and what does that say about her judgment? How does this expose her in a general election and does this mean that she is less electable? These may or may not be fair questions, but they will gain some traction nonetheless.

This may overshadow Bosnia.

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.

Recent Posts

Subscribe