David Bonior: Senator Clinton's Wrong Priorities

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bonior/senator-clintons-wrong-p_b_71978.html

David Bonior


Senator Clinton's Wrong Priorities

Posted November 9, 2007 | 04:15 PM (EST)


The Peru trade agreement is an example of how corporate interests and their lobbyists and cronies have corrupted the Democratic Party. Like the failed free trade agreements before it, this agreement puts the interests of the big multinational corporations first, ahead of the interests of American workers and communities. Despite progress on labor and environmental standards, the guidelines outlined in this agreement are only as strong as George Bush's will to enforce them -- and we all know, trusting Bush to enforce a trade agreement is like letting Mark Penn negotiate a labor contract for workers.

Coincidentally, Senator Clinton's announcement that she supports the agreement came on the same day that the New York Times reported she would receive the endorsement of former Clinton Administration official and NAFTA architect Robert Rubin. Rubin's endorsement builds on Clinton's already robust support among Wall Street elites who favor free trade policies that prioritize the profits of multinational corporations over the needs of America's workers.

We've all seen the devastating effects of these free trade policies: in recent years our country has lost middle-class manufacturing jobs, seen wages stagnate, and run up larger and larger trade deficits. But it doesn't have to be this way. Instead of expanding the NAFTA model, we need our leaders to fight for trade agreements that strengthen and maintain, rather than undercut and erode, labor rights, environmental standards and wages.

Instead of cozying up to corporate interests, John Edwards will fight for safe and smart trade policies that put the interests of Main Street above the profits of Wall Street. By supporting this agreement, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are sending a powerful signal to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and across America that they have very different priorities.

"Despite progress on labor and environmental standards, the guidelines outlined in this agreement are only as strong as George Bush's will to enforce them"

So the problem with the Peru Trade Agreement is not the agreement but that Bush is left to enforce it?

IOW, this free trade bill is very different from NAFTA.

Even though Bonior invokes this

"Instead of expanding the NAFTA model, we need our leaders to fight for trade agreements that strengthen and maintain, rather than undercut and erode, labor rights, environmental standards and wages."

Except it wasn't a mere expansion of the NAFTA model as you just cited that there was progress on labor & environmental standards.

More double talk from the Edwards campaign.

And, as a matter of fact, her husband, Bill Clinton, on whose record she is running, had virtually the same policies with regard to trade that Bush has. There is very little difference between Clinton's and Bush's trade policies. If you disagree with me, please let me know how Clinton's trade policy differs from Bush's.

Edwards has stated that he disagrees with the Peru deal and that he will renegotiate trade agreements to improve the protections for jobs and working people in America. I support Edwards on this issue.

It is my understanding that the agreement with Peru gives Citicorp among other mega-corporations the right to sue Peru if Peru decides to end privatized Social Security. That is horrendous. What if we have a depression a la 1929 and the stock markets of the world fail? This trade agreement prevents Peru from protecting its citizens in such a situation. Clinton supported that agreement. No wonder stock market representatives like Rubin like her. Clinton does not represent my interests. She represents Rubin's interests. She represents the interests of the big corporations and investors who fund her campaign.

Please read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. It will open your eyes to the anti-social movement that is behind the free trade deals.

They object to *

And so he attacks Clinton

That's a distinct different she apparently doesn't recognize. For your reading pleasure...

Edwards Statement on Senator Clinton's Support for the Peru Trade Deal
John Edwards for President
Thursday, November 8, 2007
----
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards released the following statement expressing his disappointment in Senator Clinton's support for the Peru trade deal:

"I am terribly disappointed by Senator Clinton's support for the Peru trade deal. At a time when millions of Americans are concerned about losing their jobs and the economy, it is dismaying that Senator Clinton would side with corporations, their lobbyists and the Bush Administration in support of a flawed trade deal that expands the NAFTA model.

"As I have said before, there are real and serious differences in this presidential race, and our stands on this trade deal are another example. Whereas voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and all across America have learned that I will fight for safe and smart trade, now they see that Senator Clinton, by supporting this trade deal, has chosen to follow a very different path.

"It's time for Senator Clinton to stand up for working Americans and stop defending corporate lobbyists and a broken system in Washington."

Edit to add working link:
http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071108-clinton-peru/

"Despite progress on labor and environmental standards, the guidelines outlined in this agreement are only as strong as George Bush's will to enforce them"

So I will go out on a limb and say Edwards agrees with it.

"trusting Bush to enforce a trade agreement is like letting Mark Penn negotiate a labor contract for workers."

And there's not much they can do about * at this point, is there.