Text 4876, 101 rader
Skriven 2007-08-10 13:14:00 av TIM RICHARDSON
Ärende: Small `d' democrats
===========================
Here's something that ought to interest those who follow the continuing story
of (drum-roll in the background) `The Clintons!'


Pander Bear Hillary


By Linda Chavez


Friday, August 10, 2007


Hillary Clinton may be pulling away from the pack of Democratic contenders,
but she's still playing it safe. She's quick to stake out territory that puts
her in the mainstream of Democratic opinion, even if it means disavowing her
own past positions -- or those of her husband.


This week, Sen. Clinton deftly danced around the trade issue during a debate
sponsored by the AFL-CIO. To hear her talk about it, you'd think NAFTA (the
North American Free Trade Agreement, which removed barriers and tariffs for
products traded among the United States, Mexico and Canada) was a Republican
plot to destroy American jobs.


In reality, NAFTA was one of President Bill Clinton's few genuine
achievements during his eight-year tenure. Like all the other Democratic
candidates, Sen. Clinton was eager to disavow NAFTA before the 17,000 union
members gathered in Chicago's Soldier Field.


"NAFTA and the way it's been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers,"
Sen. Clinton said, a position she claimed she has taken "for many years."
Funny, I don't remember First Lady Clinton speaking out against NAFTA when
her husband was in the Oval Office. President Clinton managed to get NAFTA
through Congress with a lot of help from Republican members, but he was in
office for almost half of the agreement's 13-year history. If there were
problems with the agreement, you'd think he would have tried to fix them.


Just looking at the agreement's first 10 years, seven of which were on
President Clinton's watch, suggests Hillary should be touting the success of
free trade, not running away from it.


As the Cato Institute reported on the 10th anniversary of the implementation
of NAFTA, U.S. exports to Mexico tripled after NAFTA went into effect. And
there wasn't any "giant sucking sound" from jobs leaving the U.S. to Mexico,
as Independent candidate Ross Perot had warned in the 1992 presidential
debates. In those first 10 years, the U.S. added 18 million new jobs to the
economy.


Manufacturing output actually rose by 41 percent, compared with 34 percent in
the previous decade.


The Institute for International Economics estimates that trade liberalization
has added an additional $9,000 a year to the typical American household. Of
that, the U.S. trade representative's office last year estimated that NAFTA
and the Uruguay Round (modifications of the General Agreements on Tariffs and
Trade in effect between 1986-1994) alone generated $1,300-$2,000 to the
average family of four. International trade allows American consumers to buy
lower-priced, foreign-produced goods, while providing 1-in-5 American jobs
tied to exports.


And those U.S. jobs in exporting industries pay more than other jobs, an
estimated 13-18 percent more, according to the U.S. trade representative.


Hillary Clinton is too smart a woman not to know this. But acknowledging that
lifting trade barriers is good for America is, nonetheless, bad politics in
the Democratic Party. Labor unions are obsessed with "protecting" jobs --
which, of course, is a recipe for destroying jobs in the long run since it
stifles competition and increased productivity. And since unions supply much
of the money and "volunteers" -- often paid union staff -- for Democratic
candidates, candidate Clinton is not likely to buck them on trade.


Sen. Clinton tried to cast herself as a fighter in the AFL-CIO debate,
drawing hearty applause when she noted, "For 15 years, I have stood up
against the right-wing machine, and I've come out stronger. So if you want a
winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl."


But in Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears, Sen. Clinton looked more
like a Pander Bear than a principled politician. I guess she's more worried
about losing the AFL-CIO's fat contribution to her campaign next fall -- in
2004, the AFL-CIO spent $44 million to try to elect John Kerry -- than she is
about doing what's right for the economy and American families.


Linda Chavez is chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity and author of
Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American
Politics .

---
*Durango b301 #PE* 
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)