Kerry's position on free trade is far more thoughtful than you suggest. After I went to the 2008 Take back America where I heard Sirota speak on trade, where he surprised me by praising one of Kerry's 2004 positions, I wrote this after looking back over Kerry's positions because having always been impressed with Kerry's NAFTA speech, which spoke of the problem being globalization, which was happening with or without the treaties. I never posted it as I realized that few would read something this long and not in agreement with their prior point of view. I doubt this will change your opinion of trade agreements, but I would hope that you would see that Kerry's ideas on this are not pure free trade, but that they see trade agreements as needed to protect workers in a globalized world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week at Take Back America, I attended a session called “Debt and Debacle, America in the Global economy”. The panel included David Sirota, Naomi Klein, and Sarita Gupta. Each spoke of different aspects of the impact of globalization on the economy. Each of the panel spoke of the current economic situation from different angles. Although there were many thoughtful, interesting comments , that were interesting as they went far beyond election time rhetoric to speaking of the fundamental problems that we have faced and are facing as the economy has become a global one.
David Sirota spoke of the need to reform trade policies, mentioning a Brown/Dorgan bill that proposes that each trade bill be reviewed every 5 years to assess the domestic impact of the bill. He also spoke of the need to reform trade policy and mentioned that the word “tariff” has not been spoken in years, but argued that Senator Kerry’s 2004 economic plan in giving tax preferences to companies that kept production in the US was in essence similar to a tariff and that it would be a step forward to counter jobs being outsourced. It was nice to hear Sirota, who was a strong supporter of John Edwards this year, credit Senator Kerry with a plan that recognized that we had moved too far towards free trade. This led to looking back at Senator Kerry’s speeches and comments on trade since NAFTA was enacted.
Senator Kerry’s Senate speech in 1993 on NAFTA where he described the impacts of the global economy that existed before the trade treaties – speaking in ways that anticipate John Edwards’ two Americas and are consistent with many earlier Democrats, warned that there was a fundamental problem in the economy . Here are a few quotes from that speech where he argued that the global nature of the economy had already changed the economic landscape and a response to globalization was needed.
“Millions of Americans grew up feeling they had a kind of implied contract with their country, a contract for the American dream. If you applied yourself, got an education, went to work, and worked hard, then you had a reasonable shot at an income, a home, time for family, and a graceful retirement.
Today, those comfortable assumptions have been shattered by the realization that no job is safe, no future assured. And many Americans simply feel betrayed. To this day I'm not sure that official Washington fully comprehends what has happened to working America in the last 20 years, a period when the incomes of the majority declined in real terms. “
<snip>
“Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don't go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work. “
<snip>
“Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income. Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing.”
<snip>
“Increasingly freer trade amongst nations means that competition comes from low-wage workers in developing countries, or from high-skilled, highly productive workers in the industrialized countries. The choice is a stark one: either a nation must secure more technology and become more productive or it must underbid all others for labor and other costs. Most countries understand that this is a choice they have to make.
I submit to you, Mr. President, that this is a choice which we are not making, and the consequence is that the choice is being made for us--toward low costs, leading to the unprecedented wave of downsizing underway in our economy. “
(from the Senate record on Thomas)
In 2004, Senator Kerry spoke of the need to review and fix the trade relationships we were in and spoke of why he did not support CAFTA which had been recently negotiated then. He stated:
“"Unfortunately, the free trade agreement that was signed today marks a disappointing and unnecessary step backwards in our nation's efforts to ensure that opening markets results in higher living standards on all sides and not a race to the bottom on worker rights and environmental protection.
"Therefore I will oppose the CAFTA as currently negotiated by President Bush. Instead of building on the progress of the Jordan agreement, CAFTA marks a reversal by not including adequate and fully enforceable protections for labor rights and environmental protections in the core of the agreement. “
http://www.crystalsugar.com/media/news.archives/kerry2.aspIn early 2005, at the hearing on the nomination of Robert Portman to be the U. S. Trade Representative, Senator Kerry spoke of earlier treaties and their negative impacts of workers in both the US and the other countries and reiterated that he would not support CAFTA as it was. Senator Kerry in his comments spoke of the fact that in addition to NAFTA having the known negative impact on US jobs, it had hurt poor Mexicans as well.
“Obviously, in the opposition to CAFTA in the Central American region is striking in and of itself. You’ve got small farmers, indigenous groups, environmentalists, bishops, parliamentarians. Many others have spoken out against it. And what they do is they cite the experience of Mexico as one of the reasons that they’re deeply concerned about it. In Mexico, real wages have fallen. Poverty has risen. More than a million small farmers lost their land. Many civil society groups and people of conscious believe that you’ve got an even, you know, worse enforcement mechanism and a worse starting point here. Tens of thousands of Central Americans have taken to the streets to protest this. They’re demanding a public referendum on the agreement. A recent Gallup poll found that 65 percent of Guatemalans think it’s going to harm rather than help their country. You’ve got a number of immigrant groups here in our country, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, CARACEN, Salvadorian American National-Network, others have come out against it.
Why do you think such a broad and diverse range of Central Americans here and there are against it? And what does that say about this consensus that is so necessary to proceed forward and make it work?”
(From the Portman hearings for which there is no longer a working link I can find)
Senator Kerry fought for an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee that would have added some worker’s and environmental rights to CAFTA. The amendment was defeated in the Republican controlled committee on a 10 to 10 vote and there are no such provisions in the CAFTA treaty that Senator Kerry voted against. That amendment was praised by John Sweeney , head of the AFL/CIO as:
“Senator Kerry (D-Mass.) will introduce an important amendment to the administration’s draft implementing legislation that would address a key failing of agreement by giving workers’ rights the same priority as corporate rights. His amendment would go a long way toward fixing the inadequate workers’ rights provisions in this lopsided trade deal by making protections for core labor standards fully enforceable.
The Kerry amendment would ensure that all the CAFTA countries meet international core workers’ rights standards, a change to the agreement that has been a key demand of workers in both the U.S. and Central America.”
kerry.senate.gov/v3/headlines/CAFTA-AFL-CIO.doc
Last October, Senator Kerry gave a major speech on the economy at Faneuil Hall, the last of the Faneuil Hall speeches that would have defined a 2008 Kerry run for the Presidency. Here is what he said on trade and globalization:
“What was true in Roosevelt’s day is just as true today: we must promote the right of employees to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits — at home and abroad.
There’s nothing anti-business about being pro-union. And there’s nothing that contributes more to a socially responsible corporate community than workers who know they have a place at the table in key corporate decisions.
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has pursued the most strident anti-union policies in memory. I doubt they’ve appointed one judge who has voted for workers one time in their lifetime. Then how can they talk about spreading democracy to other countries and then tell workers that they don’t have the right to sign a card and elect a union to bargain for a better wage here in America?
Congress needs to finally enact basic labor law reforms like the Employee Free Choice Act, which preserves the right of workers to organize without intimidation. And, just as important, we have to promote workers’ rights abroad — because it’s right — and because it’s the only way to create a level playing field for U.S. exports.
American labor leaders understand this. Andy Stern, head of SEIU, has been to China six times in five years. As President, George Bush has only been there once — and I’m sure he didn’t once mention worker’s rights. James Hoffa, of the Teamsters union, sees China as a new frontline for the labor movement. He understands that, at its worst, the global economy is a race to the bottom that pulls the rug out from under American workers.
So we have to make it a race for the top — because globalization isn’t going to go away. We need to put our stamp on it and create a fair playing field — because empowering America’s workers means stepping up to bat for workers everywhere.
When Democrats took over Congress we said to this President — “no more trade deals unless you fight for workers’ rights.” We held his feet to the fire in a trade deal with Peru that does protect workers. But it’s not enough to have labor rights written on a piece of paper signed in the Rose Garden. We need countries to start enforcing them — and we need a President who actually wants them enforced.”
http://www.johnkerry.com/2007/10/1/faneuil-hall-speech-plan-for-a-21st-century-economic-strategyLooking back over fifteen years of Senator Kerry’s comments on globalization and trade policy, it is amazing how accurate his definition of the problem was and how there are very consistent ideas with how to deal with the problems caused by globalization. One can also see that he avoids demonizing trade treaties, instead seeing them as a means to improve the conditions in the third world countries we are making the treaties with.
Historically, the industrial revolution led to a few employers having great power and many workers with none. This led to workers realizing that, taken as a group, the employer needed them as much as they needed their jobs. Forming unions allowed them to bargain more like equals. Globalization changed that equation, because the employer could opt for a far away labor pool. The tax incentives, that David Sirota mentioned as proposed by Senator Kerry in 2004, to influence employers to keep jobs in the United States improve the chances that some jobs that would be outsourced could stay in the US because the economic advantage from out sourcing would be decreased. The workers’ provisions in the treaties could also act to keep more jobs in the US because they raise the lower labor costs in the third world country – again leading to retaining those where the advantage was small. In addition they raise the quality of live in the third world country.
Inclusion of real workers’ protections could turn what Senator Kerry referred to in 1993 as a race to the bottom to the race to top mentioned in his Faneuil Hall speech. Following Senator Kerry’s advise that we need to stand up for workers everywhere leads to a better world both here and in third world countries. Doing so would be consistent with the true values of this country. It also has broader ramifications, as Pope Paul VI said "If you want peace, work for justice."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
