Clinton Says Yes to Peru Deal

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/clinton-says-yes-to-peru/

Clinton Says Yes to Peru Deal

By Sarah Wheaton

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, after prodding from a rival campaign, has issued positions on several trade deals currently before Congress, including her support for an agreement with Peru that is dividing her party.

A trade pact with the South American nation passed the House today with primarily Republican support—a minority of the Democrats who voted did so in favor of the measure.

The free trade issue is also dividing Democrats on the campaign trail. Saying he was “disappointed” by its passage, John Edwards criticized Senator Barack Obama for expressing support for the bill, and he repeated his call—first issued on Sunday—for Mrs. Clinton state her position.

Here’s the answer, though not the one he wanted (or, at least, not the one he said he wanted):

I have long said that we need smart trade policies that advance labor rights, the environment, and our economic standing in the world.

I support the trade agreement with Peru. It has very strong labor and environmental protections. This agreement makes meaningful progress on advancing workers’ rights, and also levels the playing field for American workers. Most Peruvian goods already enter the U.S. duty free, but our exports to Peru have been subject to tariffs.

However, I will oppose the pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The South Korean agreement does not create a level playing field for American carmakers. I am very concerned about the history of violence against trade unionists in Colombia. And as long as the head of Panama’s National Assembly is a fugitive from justice in America, I cannot support that agreement. Accordingly, I will oppose the trade agreements with these countries.

We need to vigorously enforce our trade agreements. As President, I will appoint a trade enforcement officer and double the enforcement staff at the office of the United States Trade Representative. I will also systematically review every trade agreement to ensure that it is delivering benefits to American workers. I will also expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program so that workers negatively affected by the global economy get the help they need. And as President, in my first months in office, I will take a time out from new trade deals to assess their impact before going forward.

It does sound like it was a close decision for them. It sounded like they felt good word was done by the Democrats, but that trusting Bush was a problem. Thanks again for the post - it is good to see that things are not black and white.

netroots credentials at the nearest liberal blog. :sarcasm:

It's still to friendly towards the corporations.

but if Edwards is the only candidate against it, I doubt its that bad. Personally I favor trade deals with an emphasis on protections built in and enforced. Corporations wouldn't go over there to build it and ship it back with enough of the right regulations.

In fact, one candidate actually VOTED against it today.

I try to look at more than one side.

I got it wrong. The AFL-CIO was neutral.

Funny how these organizations get corrupt...

Not that she supports it, but that she actually took a position.

With excuses and accusations in a minute.

A fucking triumph for Middle America!

Here is a link to their comment on Peru. It seems to say people can disagree. Reading it is advised as it is really a very tenuous approval. Praises Democrats for getting improvements, but hedges on an outright endorsement. At the very end (in tiny print), it says that this does not mean that the South Korea and Columbia ones are ok - siting additional problems.

http://blog.aflcio.org/

I went to the site having seen the earlier post that the AFL-CIO has oked it. This does differ from what I read advocates of rejecting it on Dkos were saying - they said no union endorsed it - which is apparently not true.

The AFL-CIO was neutral on the deal.

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/despite-dem-defections-house-approves-peru-deal-2007-11-09.html

They really do seem right on the fence, but the reservation is because they don't trust Bush. Reading this in the context of the extreme anti- free trade environment in the labor movement, I take this to mean that the bill itself really is substantially better than NAFTA and CAFTA.

These things should be considered and could lead to a more thoughtful discussion. I had seen the statement on the Finance committee's site, by Senator Baucus, the Chair, claiming that this bill added significant labor (and I think environmental rights) provisions. There are links to some hearings on this - but I didn't have time to watch.

All of those folks making $2 a day will buy our goods and services, making us wealthy.

:rofl:

Pinch me. I can't believe America in 2007.

Free trade benefits only the wealthy within countries
Some argue the following:

The wealthy own more corporate equity, which increases in value as companies are able to produce at the lowest cost in the world.
As the world's markets merge into a single global market the number of market-leading companies worldwide drops, with international take-overs of local champions by giant corporations. This process concentrates wealth in fewer corporations.
Free trade replaces low-skilled jobs often done by the poor easier than high-skilled jobs. This implication of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem is challenged on the basis that technology makes offshoring high value-added work feasible and more profitable than moving low-skilled jobs.


According to Ravi Batra's book, The Myth of Free Trade, open trade in the US has resulted in replacement of manufacturing jobs for service jobs, which pay less on average. The product trade deficit results in more investment money flowing into the US as a trade-off. This investment money mostly ends up with wealthy investors and owners; and "trickle down" is not sufficient to compensate for the loss of manufacturing jobs and wagers. After all, if a wealthy person receives money from such investments, they may spend some on foreign cars and foreign trips, which is not going to go back into the US economy. According to Batra's research, even though free trade may increase GNP, the increases do not flow to rank-and-file workers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_debate
The National Security Implications of "Free" Trade
All we hear about are the supposed benefits of this corporate written trade policy, even though those benefits are often highly questionable or just plain fabricated. But we never hear about how "free" trade policy is now being used not only to destroy America's job base, but to help arm what could be one of America's most dangerous military competitors (we barely hear it from the "strategic class" of foreign policy elites in D.C., we don't even hear it from the Bush neoncons, who purport to be serious hawks, but whose silence on this issue shows they are hawks only when it doesn't offend their corporate benefactors). That should concern not only the workers who have been displaced by corporate-written trade policies, but every single American who is interested in the long-term security of this country.

-snip
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/12/national-security-implications-of-free.html

IT'S TIME FOR VOTERS TO EVALUATE CANDIDATES ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT NOT ONLY EFFECTS ALL OF US BUT IS A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT.

WHO BENEFITS FROM FREETRADE? HILARY'S CORPORATE CRONIES.

HERE'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT:



New data from the Internal Revenue Service show that income inequality continues to widen. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/25/taxes/


It is time to carefully evaluate the Democratic candidates on this important issue. Where does your candidate of choice stand?

written of my reasons for strong opposition of her and her DLC cronies. I'll gladly outline for you since your selective memory seems to be failing you.

I've already posted my thought on freetrade above, but if you need them repeated:

*they're DESTROYING THE MIDDLE CLASS AT THE EXPENSE OF VERY FEW BY SENDING JOBS OVERSEAS.

*IT'S A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE

*IT'S TERRIBLE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

Voted for the IWR and Kyl Lieberman.

DLC has ties to PNAC:

Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a dynamic idea action center of the "Third Way" governing philosophy that is reshaping progressive politics in the United States and around the globe. He is also chairman of the Third Way Foundation and publisher of the DLC's flagship bi-monthly magazine, Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century.

As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party.

-snip

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131



Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11.
***************************
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

I am convinced that the failure of the DLC to acknowledge Gore's win in 2000 (in fact they blame his "loss" on breaking with the DLC and becoming a populist-i'll post a link below) and their active role in keeping Kerry from challenging Ohio in 2004(thanks to Clinton ally James Carville (also posted below) was calculated as to allow a HRC run in '08. If either would have taken the office they won, then HRC and her corporate cronies would not have had a chance in 2008. Also look how they try to undermine Howard Dean. Anyway, here are some links:

FIRST..GORE BROKE WITH THE DLC TO BECOME A POPULIST:

Published on Sunday, August 20. 2000 in the Boston Globe
Thank You, Al Gore
by Robert Kuttner
A funny thing happened to Al Gore on the way to his surprisingly effective acceptance speech. He became a liberal.

The speech was as liberal as anything FDR or LBJ or Jesse Jackson or one of the Kennedys might have delivered. It was built around a commitment to fight for ordinary people, against large and powerful interests. This, of course, is precisely what made it effective.

The emotional heart of the speech, Gore's honoring of four ordinary American lives, did not just salute the struggles of workaday families, the way Ronald Reagan often did. It identified who was dishonoring their struggles - corporations. He singled out heartless HMOs who pressure a family to sacrifice a child; drug companies that force a pensioner to choose between food and medicine; corporate polluters; corporations that pay workers inadequate wages.

And he identified the solution: strong, reliable public Social Security; better Medicare; welfare reform that rewards work rather than punishing the needy; higher minimum wages; and more investment in public - not voucher - schools, so that working families don't have to send kids to crumbling classrooms.

What is the evil? Corporate power. What is the remedy? Effective government.

-snip
http://www.commondreams.org/views/082000-105.htm

SECOND, AFTER GORE'S WIN THEY BLAME HIS 'LOSS' ON BREAKING WITH THE DLC:

Strange Theory on Why Gore Lost



The so-called Democratic Leadership Council has decided that Al Gore should have acted more like a Republican in order to win the 2000 presidential electoral college vote in addition to his nationwide popular vote victory. This strange finding has drawn some attention, including coverage by the Associated Press and the Environmental News Service -- we have a few excerpts from their reports for you here.
Al Gore, the self-styled environmental candidate in the 2000 Presidential election, lost his bid for the White House because he campaigned on an outdated "populist" platform that was too liberal for most Americans, according to a new report drafted by the Democratic Leadership Council.

The 40-page report, titled "Why Gore Lost, And How Democrats Can Come Back," concludes that the Democratic Party must move towards the political right -- towards the Republicans -- if it wants to regain control of Congress in 2002 and the White House in 2004.

Al From, the DLC's founder and CEO, opened a freewheeling discussion forum by arguing that Democrat Al Gore made a huge tactical mistake by continually emphasizing that he would "fight for the people and not the powerful" as the nation's first president of the 21st Century.

-snip

http://www.progress.org/goredlc2.htm

AND FINALLY, CLINTON ALLY JAMES CARVILLE'S ROLE IN THE QUICK KERRY CONCESSION:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

RESEARCH THIS FOR YOURSELVES, BEFORE YOU CAST A VOTE FOR ANY DLC CANDIDATE!

You're not in the position to call for careful evaluation after you swallowed an obviously bogus story hook line and sinker

issues (like of course I did!)

All you have to do is go to any Democratic site and read the comments. You'll find an overwhelming distrust of your candidate.

Let's hear you try to extoll the benefits of free trade.

and you kept on going as if the story was true

When a different story came up that the Clinton campaign went back to pay and tip, you still did none of that careful evaluation. Instead, you just kept at it as if the NRP story was true, even though you had reason to think it wasn't. Too bad you didn't carefully evaluate the evidence

So post as many links as you like. I'm sure you gave those links the same careful evaluation you gave to the no tip story

That somehow negates all the other stuff they've pointed out? And that other stuff is WAY more significant than a tip.

Unfuckingreal...

It shows that when it comes to Clinton, this poster is not objective or reasonable

Face it, people make mistakes, they're only human. However, when someone makes an obvious mistake, and then continues to argue that they were reasonable, their credibility goes out the window. When I make a mistake, I own up to it

It has to do with the information they've provided about ACTUAL issues.

But whatever...

if the source is not credible?

There are many sources all over the net.

Mother Jones did a recent piece on which Senators were the worst about blocking investigations.

There, who's the source for that? Me? Or Mother Jones? C'mon...

Bravo!!! That's EXACTLY how it SHOULD be done.

Too bad that poster didn't do this and instead uses the excuse that it's OK to post uncorroboratable rumors. She missed the possibility that the inability to corroborate was the first clue that the story might not be true. Even worse, she continues to claim that it's OK to post uncorroborated rumors.

http://johnedwards.com/watch/politics-of-parsing/

why don't you really watch it and try to defend her.

Pathetic. I don't care for Hillary but I would never reference something that was made in spite. Defend her position as a supporter, if you can't, then as my Mother always said - If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't....sheesh, I'm wasting my time.

Some dude in his basement did. You used it out of spite in response to The Parsing of Politics video by trivializing Edwards getting ready for an appearance. Your credibility would be a bit more higher if you could defend her position.

I really thought that was a Daily Show bit. Right around the time, they showed some other political figures getting ready.

"You used it out of spite in response to The Parsing of Politics video by trivializing Edwards getting ready for an appearance"

The poster threw it in my face because I said "Zing!" in reference to cuke bringing up that mod mom was a big cheerleader for the Clinton tip story.

The irony of the attack video is that he also gave a muddling answer to the driver's license question just a few days after the debate. Even worse in his muddled answer little clue as to the relationships between the state and federal government.

Edwards accusing his opponents of having shifting positions as a campaign tactic is as stupid as if Hillary started railing about other candidate's family values.

I was under the assumption that this was a thread about "Clinton Says Yes to Peru Deal" - :sarcasm:

how you swallowed the no-tip propoganda hook line and sinker. In fact, I don't even see where you acknoledge making a mistake. In fact, you are STILL defending your obvious mistake.

YOu can't expect me to believe a word you post if you keep denying your obvious mistake

This is a thread about free trade, and all you can do is engage in some dumb argument about whether or not she left a tip.

The one who thinks it's the DLC's fault he can't focus on the repukes and you want me to tell me what to focus on.

Boy that tip story sure comes in handy.

well that might make someone re-think their support!

(If they thought much...)

Please, sirs, can we have another?

*bends over*

:sarcasm:

She weighs issues on their merits. She doesn't reject things out of hand like the netbabies.

A shopping list of meaningless bandaids to deal with one of the biggest economic blunders in recent memory.

A "time out" from new trade deals to assess their impact before going forward?\

We should have taken a "time out" when the scaffolding for this corporate globalization was being erected by your husband.

Quit the double talk please and just admit you're a "free trader" who supports these insane agreements.

The AFL-CIO supports PERU FT. So does Obama.

All you have is nonsense bumper stickers and slogans.

http://www.laborradio.org/node/7062

Senator Obama, Labor Differ On Upcoming Peru Free Trade Vote - 10/17/07
While ten local SEIU state chapters have endorsed Presidential hopeful John Edwards this week, the 170,000-member Illinois Service Employees International Union threw their weight behind another Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. However, not everyone is happy with Obama. Sarah Manski reports:

The AFL-CIO and other national labor unions are criticizing what they say is Obama’s backing of Wall Street's push to expand NAFTA into Peru. The Bush Administration and the National Association of Manufactures is welcoming the deal, saying that the watered down labor language is unenforceable. Sue Vilbrandt, a labor unionist and Wisconsin Fair Trade Campaign member, picketed outside a recent Obama event.

: "He’s planning on voting for the Peru Free Trade Agreement in Congress and we want him to reconsider his position. He thinks that there is support from labor because it’s been slightly improved, but there is no support from labor, community rights organizations, and Peruvian labor unions. And, if Obama wants to portray himself as the candidate of hope and change then he needs to vote no on this trade deal."

more...

off in search of some Motrin.

Does this mean that she and Obama are in favor of abolishing it here?


http://www.alternet.org/story/58089 /

"Congress rejected Social Security privatization in 2005 and should reject it again in 2007 -- whether it's for Americans, Peruvians or Canadians. The promise of a secure retirement shouldn't stop at America's borders."

This was the reaction of William McNary, a leading Social Security activist, after finding out that some Democrats are supporting a Bush NAFTA expansion for Peru that would give Citibank, a major Democratic donor, the right to sue the country if it reverses its failed Social Security privatization.

Fair trade activists already knew that an important part of the push to cover the planet in trade deals is to give foreign investors new "rights," including the right to sue governments for compensation when public interest regulations wind up hurting their bottom line.

But the latest Bush trade proposal goes even further. Buried in the Peru pact's hundreds of pages are provisions that could empower foreign investors involved in Peru's privatized Social Security system to demand compensation from the Peruvian government (in U.N. and World Bank tribunals) if the privatization were reversed.

But the latest Bush trade proposal goes even further. Buried in the Peru pact's hundreds of pages are provisions that could empower foreign investors involved in Peru's privatized Social Security system to demand compensation from the Peruvian government (in U.N. and World Bank tribunals) if the privatization were reversed.

To top it all off, the only U.S. company involved in the lucrative "private retirement account" industry in Peru is Citibank, which has recently come under fire for its offshoring of U.S. service jobs, as well as its close ties to leading Democratic politicians. The amount that Citibank could demand under the "free trade agreement" (FTA) rules could be considerable. In fact, the corporation could make virtually unlimited claims for "lost" future profits, as the license to provide the private accounts is not time limited under Peru's privatization statute and can only be removed for cause. Not surprisingly, Citibank has stepped up its lobbying on trade in the new Congress. And the financial services industry has been in a mad push to support the Peru FTA, cheering the pact for providing a precedent for similar provisions in future trade deals.

Peruvian groups say the FTA provisions would severely chill their ability to reverse the privatization, because the government would not be able to afford to pay major damages for the right to restore a public service.

"For 25 years, Peru's governments have faithfully implemented neoliberal policies supported by Washington, income per person in Peru has scarcely grown in a generation," said Julio Cesar Bazán, president of the Unitary Confederation of Peruvian Workers, and a leader of a recent two-day general strike in Peru against the FTA. "The Peru-U.S. FTA not only does not get us out of this socioeconomic hole, it gives corporations like Citibank the tools to make sure we're forced to stay there

If this is true, so is Obama. This is horrendous.

I mean really... do we really expect that we could get fair trade amendments added to these bills?

IMPOSSIBLE!


And single-payer care... just cause it's been done in every other modern country... well that doesn't mean we can do it here!

Again, IMPOSSIBLE!


And getting out of Iraq?

Well that is just IMPOSSIBLE!

I wonder how much corporate America stuck in her coffers for this one. And people wonder why she is getting stuck with the label of being a corporate whore:think: