Even More News

In 1993, with Bill Clinton in the Whitehouse and Maria Cantwell serving her first (and only) term in the US House, the Democratic Party took a sharp turn away from their long established role as defender of worker’s rights and strong partner of organized labor. Over the loud objections of many labor and environmental organizations, Clinton began an aggressive campaign to move through the congress and sign into law the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA was touted as a way to reverse the growing trade deficit by promoting US exports and, in the process, create millions of new jobs for the American economy. At the time those opposed to the agreement argued that, without strong worker and environmental protections as well as some disincentive for US firms who might move their companies “offshore”, there might be great risk of job loss and even a worsening effect on the trade deficit. Due in very large part to Clinton’s personal salesmanship (coupled with Democratic euphoria in reclaiming the Whitehouse) NAFTA was passed with both Maria Cantwell in the House and Patty Murray in the Senate voting for passage.

So how has that vote worked out for America and Washington State? According to a 2005 report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) - a Labor-backed think tank of leading economists, ”The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2004 has caused the displacement of production that supported 1,015,291 U.S. jobs since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993. Jobs were displaced in every state and major industry in the United States. Two thirds of those lost jobs were in manufacturing industries.” They go on to say, ”Since NAFTA took effect, the growth of exports supported approximately 1 million U.S. jobs, but the growth of imports displaced domestic production that would have supported 2 million jobs. Consequently, the growth of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada caused a net decline in U.S. production that would have supported about 1 million U.S. jobs.”Another ramification that should not be lost on Democrats is that in 1994 the Democrats lost control of the US House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. It took another election for them to lose the Senate as well. I wonder how many of those one million displaced (Union) workers voted.

The timing of the EPI report (and its relevant data) is important as it was released on the eve of the 2005 vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). It was hoped that the data and statistics it contained might cause our representatives (particularly the Democrats) to hold out for tighter worker and environmental controls and be more mindful of the potential impact on American goods and labor. In other words, it was a plea to demand Fair Trade and not this so-called Free Trade. While passage of CAFTA was almost assured on the basis of the republican majorities in both houses of congress, most Democrats seemed to have learned from the NAFTA example and voted against CAFTA. Unfortunately in Washington State those lessons seemed to have been lost on Senator Murray and our new Junior Senator, Maria Cantwell (Norm Dicks was the only Washington Democrat in the House to vote in favor of CAFTA).

We do not know for certain that we will suffer the same effects to our labor force from CAFTA that we have from NAFTA, however we may refer again to the EPI report for some historical perspective: ”NAFTA has also failed to deliver on its promised benefits to the poorest citizens of the hemisphere, many of them living in Mexico. Real wages of Mexican manufacturing workers have fallen despite a decade of strong GDP growth (Salas 2001). There have been substantial increases in informal sector work such as street vending and unpaid family work in stores and restaurants. One major study has concluded that "NAFTA has not helped the Mexican economy keep pace with the growing demand for jobs…The agricultural sector, where almost a fifth of Mexicans still work, has lost 1.3 million jobs…" Is there any question as to where many of these unemployed workers are now?

Obviously Senator Cantwell is not alone in her support for these so-called Free Trade policies. However she, not Senator Murray, is the one up for re-election at this time and this is yet one more vote that has caused concern amongst many of her constituents. Unlike some other votes though, CAFTA was one of those issues where there was almost universal opposition from the state party as well as the various labor and environmental groups. Yet Senator Cantwell, looking into the face of the collected data and hearing the pleas from those (such as my wife and myself) who had lost jobs as a direct result of NAFTA, chose to continue down that path.

In September, we have an opportunity to choose a different path. In the Democratic Primary, we have the opportunity to choose a candidate who will say no to this sell out to America’s labor movement. In Mark Wilson we have a candidate who will fight to make worker and environmental protections integral parts of any future trade agreements. In September, exercise your right to choose; choose Mark Wilson – Democrat for U.S. Senate.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue