Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS Twitter Twitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion
Apr. 09, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Colombia trade deal

Are Democrats now the party of failed protectionism?

Free trade makes nations prosperous; trade restrictions allow the creation of artificial monopolies which drive up consumer prices.

The great historical example is the United States itself -- a nation prosperous largely because no tariffs restrict the free flow of goods and services across state borders. Because we can freely export our mineral wealth to the eastern states -- and freely import goods manufactured with those minerals -- labor is divided, economies of scale apply, and everyone prospers. Imagine what it would cost to buy a car or refrigerator if we were restricted to buying only those manufactured in Nevada.

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: With economists like these, who needs enemies?
  • LETTERS: Brace yourself for coming tax hikes
  • LETTERS: Nuclear power could be the answer for Nevada
  • EDITORIAL: Firemen's pensions past due for reform
  • EDITORIAL: Education 'consultants'
  • J.C. WATTS: Sonia Sotomayor and bootstraps
  • EDITORIAL: Internet sales taxes
  • LETTERS: So now you're in favor of regulation, eh?
  • EDITORIAL: Hoe, hoe, hoe
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Letting the looters vote on who's for lunch




    • Free trade works internationally, too. Great Britain became a world economic power in the 19th century -- as America did in the 20th -- thanks to free trade. When small-minded protectionist forces carry the day -- as with the Smoot-Hawley tariff of the 1930s -- economic conditions worsen for all except a select few who are protected by their pals in Washington from having to compete on quality and price.

    Cutting a tariff-reducing deal with a South American nation such as Colombia makes particularly good sense. Right now, Colombia sends most of its products to the United States duty-free, while American products exported to Colombia face tariffs of up to 35 percent for non-agricultural goods -- and even higher tariffs for many agricultural products.

    That hurts American industry and costs American jobs.

    But trade unions rely on the mailed fist of government to sustain their losing battle to keep capital from moving freely in search of more competitive, lower-cost environments. (If you doubt it's a losing battle, try to buy a new word processor or television set manufactured in the United States.) So the trade unions oppose freer trade with pretty much anybody.

    And America's Democratic Party is pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of the waning organized labor movement.

    So how did Democrats respond when President Bush on Monday sent Congress a proposed free trade agreement with Colombia -- a move that will force lawmakers to vote on the pact within 90 legislative days?

    Predictably.

    "The president's decision to act unilaterally in sending the free trade agreement disregards three decades of established precedent under fast-track legislation and demonstrates yet again his disrespect for Congress," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, leading off a campaign of misdirection which will argue the White House shouldn't allow American farmers and manufacturers to compete on the Colombian market until the Colombian government jumps through all kinds of new hoops, agreeing to allow the AFL-CIO to organize their army, or whatever.

    What this squabble is really about is that Sen. Reid doesn't want to see presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and/or Hillary Clinton forced to vote one way or another on this sensible trade treaty before next fall's election.

    Because, if the senators vote in favor of free trade and American jobs, the Democrats will hear cries of outrage from their financiers in Big Labor. But if Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton vote against free trade with a strong South American ally -- one standing firm against communist harassment and infiltration from next-door Venezuela -- they'll be telegraphing to the voters that all their rhetoric about "doing something" (as opposed to the current "do-nothing" administration) about American jobs and prosperity isn't really first on their agenda, at all.

    "People throughout the hemisphere are watching to see what the United States will do," President Bush said Monday. "If Congress fails to approve this agreement, it would not only abandon a brave ally; it would send a signal throughout the region that America cannot be counted on to support its friends."

    Failure to approve a free-trade deal with Colombia would encourage Venezuela President Hugo Chavez's anti-American regime and cast the United States as untrustworthy and impotent across South America, the president said. He praised President Alvaro Uribe as committed to democratic values, and he noted that since 2002, Colombia has reported declines in kidnappings, terrorist attacks, murders and violence against union members.

    But the Democrats' only hope now is to disguise what this issue is really about. Watch for their surrogates to now fan out across the country, trying to paint Colombia as some kind of fascist hellhole.

    This is about feeding the world, and getting paid for it. Would Sens. Reid, Clinton and Obama have us refuse to feed the struggling people of Colombia because their government isn't on good enough terms with the AFL-CIO? Where would they prefer America sell her agricultural and manufacturing bounty? To such beacons of freedom as China, Russia, Egypt and Syria?

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 13 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    douglas wrote on April 09, 2008 06:12 PM: apparently clinton when president got the ball rolling on this deal. and after being paid some $800k, agreed to grease the way for the deal. you'd think that he'd at least have turned the bribe money over to the gubmit. or mebbe to some union widows and orphans fund. naw.


    Don Evans wrote on April 09, 2008 11:48 AM: "Jehudi"

    Eloquently said..The article, however, appears to argue for untethered free trade agreements, not just an agreement with Colombia; ostensibly as a means of countering the purported evils of unionized American labor.

    The previous argument is not for protectionism, or against an agreement with Colombia; rather, the argument is for well considered free trade as U.S. policy.

    Free trade does work, when agreements are made with due consideration to the overall economy of the U.S. Some trading "partners", however, only offer cheap unregulated labor; a haven for businesses attempting to skirt regulation or reasonable (as in, not .50 an hour) labor costs. These countries then use our own money against us, growing stronger on a daily basis, while we grow weaker with trade imbalances and the resulting U.S. deficits.

    I'm likewise not advocating a return to the union shops of yesteryear; which cost the U.S. in competitive goods and overpriced labor..I think we need a reasonable BALANCE. Why deal with countries that keep their currencies low; the functional equivalent of placing tariffs, and then steal our intellectual property as additional reward?

    Let's not forget, U.S. jobs are still AMERICAN jobs that employ AMERICANS, who then spend their wages in our economy. Some appear to think that the money spent on these wages are akin to money flushed down the drain..This is money recirculated in OUR economy. When these jobs are lost to outsourcing, moreover, the costs of getting these people re-employed elsewhere falls on the backs of the taxpayers.

    In short, we all carry the weight for businesses outsourcing to countries that are currently beating us to death with ONE-WAY trade; transacted under the false flag of "free trade", and it's purported benefits. This should stop.


    JEHUDI wrote on April 09, 2008 11:04 AM: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120752405599893543.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
    ...
    Beyond our economic interests, this agreement will also further our national interest in a free and peaceful hemisphere. Some in the Americas today want to shove the region toward authoritarianism. This system has failed before, and it will fail again. The only question is how much harm it will cause in the meantime, and in large part that depends on us – on whether we support the vast majority of people in the Americas today who believe, as we do, that security and social justice are best achieved through liberty and the rule of law, free and fair trade, and responsible democratic governance. Colombia shares these values, and we have invested billions of dollars in our ally's success. How could we possibly retreat now?

    The fate of this agreement raises even larger questions: How does the U.S. treat its friends, especially when they are under pressure and attack? Will we remain engaged as a global leader or will we pull back unilaterally? Will we define our role in the world by confidence in our own principles or by capitulation to unfounded fears? The eyes of many nations, particularly those in our own hemisphere, are upon us, and let no one think that the choices we make will not echo around the globe.

    For more than a decade, U.S. policy toward Colombia has clearly demonstrated that Republicans and Democrats can work together, elevate the national interest above partisan politics and sustain an effective strategy to achieve critical long-term goals. It is now time to write the next chapter in this venerable bipartisan story. We must approve this free trade agreement with Colombia – for the sake of both of our peoples' success.


    Steve wrote on April 09, 2008 10:03 AM: One FACT remains...if a union is for something, it is the worst thing for the American consumer...if a union is against it, then it HAS to be great.


    Don Evans wrote on April 09, 2008 09:10 AM: Free trade is great, if it's two-way; and it's not the panacea the op-ed portrays, even when it works. Some countries don't play the game fairly. They keep their currencies artificially low, limiting trade coming into their country. They also openly allow piracy, and the theft of American intellectual property. How is this "fair"?

    "Free" trade has also resulted in the wholesale outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs, in some cases; jobs that were largely the domain of the working middle class prior to the outsourcing "craze". These displaced workers then need re-training for new jobs; or they become an additional drain on our society. Free trade, when practiced judiciously, does lower costs for consumers. Free trade is hardly ever "free", however, when it is not a truly reciprocal arrangement.

    Thankfully, many companies are reconsidering outsourcing; with the lengthy and tenuous supply chains, and business risks associated with low cost labor and unregulated manufacturing. Apparently, whoever wrote this piece needs to see more tainted heparin or children's toys to be convinced, however.


    timinator wrote on April 09, 2008 08:10 AM: Free trade does not require region or global agreements/treaties. NAFTA, GATT, FTAA, CAFTA, etc. are designed to destroy the U.S. economy. Our one-way trade with communist China is also part of this suicide-by-trade we are currently experiencing.

    This has all been by design, and was planned decades ago by the globalists. The export of our manufacturing base overseas will be followed by our food production, in order to keep our country from being independent and self-sufficient.

    Folks, this is a conspiracy and both political parties are complicit, don't let the Hegelian Dialectic fool you.

    When it all comes down, remember who to blame.


    Lawrence Hyde wrote on April 09, 2008 07:40 AM: I don't know if free trade is good or bad for this country, I am not an economist, but, what is wrong with congress voting on it? Or is this something reid don't want to do because there is no money in it for him"


    Russ wrote on April 09, 2008 07:20 AM: Good editorial if you're living in cave. Look what all the free trade has done for the U. S. We allow free trade into this country and ripped everywhere we trade because the other countries understand the concept of free trade. Make the U. S. pay through the nose to trade anywhere.


    DennisD wrote on April 09, 2008 06:47 AM: More corporate shilling from the RJ. No surprise. Have real wages gone up or down in the last 20+ years for the average working man or woman in this country? Or even kept pace with inflation?

    Yeh, "free" trade has really worked out well. Maybe when the newspaper jobs are outsourced the RJ will get the point.


    GZipa wrote on April 09, 2008 06:23 AM: It seems to me the author is more for the FTA just because labor unions are against it rather than looking at it for its own merits and flaws.

    Free trade with a country that also provides a viable market for the USA is good like the trade between the states in the US. Unfortunately the FTA with Colombia does not meet those standards and could cause more harm to workers in both countries and the economy of the USA. Colombia has made some improvements, but to become a worthy trading partner where trade benefits both countries it needs to do more. Part of the problem is the massive unchecked corruption in the country as reported in US State department and other NGO reports. It is a shame that Bush is refusing to give Colombia time to become that viable trading partner.

    One must also wonder about why the administration already signed an agreement that allowed Colombian goods to enter the US duty free while our exports to them face tariffs. Was that nothing more than allowing big corporations to make more money by moving American jobs to Colombia like Owens-Illinois did when they closed their Godfrey plants, putting many Americans out of work, moving operations to Colombia. And if one does not seriously believe the current FTA does not favor corporations in America and the rich of Colombia over the workers in both countries then they should read the FTA.

    I do not always agree with union positions, but research shows that this time they have good cause for their thoughts.


    Read All Comments