WASHINGTON TIMES

The trade collapse

Worse than a deficit: Cycle of export declines and job losses

By Richard W. Rahn |

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Excerpts:

If the U.S. trade deficit were to disappear, do you think that would be a good or bad thing? For years, many in the media and the political world wailed about the U.S. trade deficit, but it is rapidly disappearing -- and the consequences are going to be disastrous.

The table shows the U.S. trade deficit dropped 52 percent between January and May of this year, as compared to the January-through-May periods of the two previous years. During the same interval, exports of goods and services dropped 19 percent and imports dropped 28 percent. The U.S. trade deficit might disappear within the next year.

Over the past several decades, many foreign countries -- notably Japan and China -- exported much more to the United States than they imported, and as a result, they accumulated several trillion U.S. dollars. Most of those dollars were, in turn, invested back in the United States. Foreign individuals, companies and governments bought U.S. government securities. They invested money in U.S. real estate, often spending funds to renovate old hotels and shopping centers. They invested money in the U.S. stock market and in new high-tech start-ups.

Full article Richard RahnWashington Times

President Obama's Endless Deception and "Newspeak" Includes His Neglect of Free Trade

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Obama and the Clinton Legacy

Governors understand the tangible benefits of trade.

By WILLIAM MCGURN

Excerpts:

Inside the Fourth Estate, the received wisdom holds that the White House is now home to the anti-Bush. And on issues from taxes and stem cells to union elections and Guantanamo, Barack Obama is indeed taking America in a direction different from that of his predecessor.

Still, there's a persuasive case that the legacy most threatened by the Obama presidency belongs to the last Democrat who sat in the Oval Office: Bill Clinton.

Think about it. It was Mr. Clinton who campaigned on the promise to "end welfare as we know it." It was Mr. Clinton who signed the bill removing the Glass-Steagall barriers separating commercial from investment banking. Most famously, it was Mr. Clinton who assured us that "the era of Big Government is over."

Full article Wall Street Journal

WALL STREET JOURNAL Lawmaker Moves to Delay Free-Trade Pacts

By JOSH MITCHELL

APRIL 23, 2009, 12:04 A.M. ET

Full article WALL STREET JOURNAL

Excerpts:

WASHINGTON -- A Democratic senator from Ohio is moving to further tie up pending free-trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, setting up a potential clash between President Barack Obama and some members of his party.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, a free-trade skeptic, said Wednesday he will soon introduce legislation that would effectively delay congressional consideration of the proposed free-trade pacts drafted under President George W. Bush. The Obama administration has indicated it is moving forward on the Colombia deal and is optimistic about the pending agreement with Panama.

Speaking before the Washington International Trade Association at George Washington University, Mr. Brown said any effort to finalize the pending agreements would be a continuation of failed Bush policies, and he warned of opposition in Congress.

Why free trade trumps protectionism

Walter Williams

December 2, 2008, updated 10:34 p.m., December 2, 2008

Full article Walter Williams Washington Times

Excerpts:

There's a growing anti-trade sentiment in our country. Much of the dialogue is grossly misinformed.

Let's try to untangle it a bit with a few questions and observations.

First, does the United States trade with Japan and England? Put another way, is it members of the U.S. Congress trading with their counterparts in the Japanese Diet or the English Parliament? An affirmative answer is pure nonsense. When I purchased my Lexus, I had nothing to do with either the Japanese Diet or the U.S. Congress. Through an intermediary, a Lexus dealer, I dealt with Toyota Motor Corp.

LOS ANGELES TIMES

Seal the deal on Colombian trade pact

A free-trade agreement with our closest ally in South America is good for the U.S. and for Colombia.

November 12, 2008

Los Angeles Times

Excerpts:

The Colombia Free Trade Agreement is once again a political football in Washington. Almost as soon as Barack Obama won the election, it came into play. Now it is being punted, fumbled, spiked and maybe even hurled in a desperate Hail Mary pass to Congress as its chief supporter, President Bush, prepares to leave office.

Resistance to the pact by labor unions and human rights organizations, both here and in Colombia, remains stiff. And with an incoming Democratic administration, the deal faces significant new obstacles. But the gamesmanship between Democrats and Republicans, unions and rights groups should not obscure one fact: The agreement is good for Colombia and good for the United States.

The pact would balance and normalize a trade relationship that is now one-way. Colombia has almost unfettered access to U.S. markets -- 91% of its goods enter duty free -- but U.S. products face tariffs of up to 35%. Each Caterpillar truck sold in Colombia, for example, is taxed more than $200,000. This is a hindrance to prosperity for both countries. Currently, about 9,000 U.S. businesses export to Colombia, and were this deal passed, that number would skyrocket.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

October 20, 2008

Nafta-Plus

Canada looks to Europe in anticipation of Obama protectionism.

Full article WALL STREET JOURNAL

Excerpts:

Barack Obama's promise to unilaterally rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico won't go along with his ideas on labor and the environment has not gone unnoticed in Ottawa. If Canadians are going to have a tougher time selling their goods and services south of the border, who can blame them for looking east -- across the Atlantic to Europe.[Review & Outlook] AP

French President Nicolas Sarkozy looks on as Prime Minister Stephen Harper responds at a press conference, Oct. 17, 2008.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France signed an agreement Friday to begin negotiations for a free trade pact between Canada and the European Union. A Canada-EU study released last week outlines the joint economic benefits of such a partnership, with two-way trade estimated to increase 22.9% by 2014.

The proposed partnership goes a lot further than Nafta. In addition to allowing free trade in goods and services, it would harmonize regulations, open up the air-travel market, and boost opportunities in government-procurement. Most important, it would free the labor market so that skilled workers could move easily back and forth across the Atlantic.

Custom Search

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Has Free-Trade Era Died With Doha?

Posted Wednesday,

July 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Full article INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Excerpts:

Fact is, the world economy could use a little help. Having suffered housing meltdowns, financial crises, and soaring energy and food costs, many nations will struggle to grow over the next few years. Many will find themselves poorer by decade's end.

That's why the Doha Round of trade talks, named for the city in Qatar where discussions began in 2001, was so important. It would have opened key markets to the U.S. and other countries, while opening our own markets to cheaper imports. These are what game theorists call "win-win" situations.

The Detroit News---Detroitnews.com

Expanding trade is a key to winning presidency--Protectionists fail to win White House despite worries about trade's impact

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Daniel Griswold

Republican John McCain's recent free-trade tour to Mexico and Colombia highlights the stark differences on international trade between the two major-party presidential candidates. While expanding trade would be best for America, there is resistance in states like Michigan and from Democratic hopeful Barack Obama.

McCain describes himself as an unabashed free trader, and his record in Congress proves it. McCain has voted the free-trade position on almost 90 percent of the major trade bills that have come before the Senate in the past 15 years.

McCain supports the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico. He voted for a 2005 free trade agreement with five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic. He voted for permanent normal trade relations with China while opposing punitive tariffs against China over its currency. He opposed the protectionist and subsidy-laden farm bills of 2002 and 2008. He supports the proposed free trade agreement with our South American ally Colombia.

Visit: Club For Growth

July 14, 2008

Fact Sheet on U.S. Exports

Andrew Roth

The Department of Commerce just released its fact sheet (PDF) on 2008 U.S. exports through May. Some highlights:

In May 2008, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 18.2 year-to-date to $768 billion, while imports increased 12.0% to $1,063 billion.

The largest export markets for U.S. goods year-to-date through May 2008 (with X% increase over the same months of 2007) were Canada ($112.6 billion, up 12.5%), Mexico ($60.6 billion, up 10.2%), China ($30.3 billion, up 22.9%) and Japan ($28.0 billion, up 7.6%).

Exports comprised 12.7% of U.S. GDP in the first quarter of 2008. To put in historical terms, exports were 9.5% of U.S. GDP five years earlier (Q1 2003), and 5.2% 40 years ago (Q1 1968).

U.S. industrial and consumer goods exported to Colombia face tariffs of up to 35%, with much higher tariffs on many agricultural products. However, upon entry into force of the U.S.-Colombia TPA, more than 80% of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Colombia will enter duty-free immediately.

REUTERS

Democratic group urges shift in U.S. trade policy

Wed Jul 9, 2008

By Doug Palmer

Full article Reuters

Excerpts:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The next U.S. president should shift American trade policy away from an emphasis on bilateral free trade agreements to bigger accords with the world's leading economic powers, a new report from a centrist Democratic policy group said on Wednesday.

"The United States needs a new trade and financial strategy that reflects America's commercial interests," the Democratic Leadership Council said in "Winning in the World Economy (II)," a follow-up to the group's 1985 policy paper on the same topic.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

By WILLIAM MCGURN

John McCain's JFK Opportunity

July 1, 2008; Page A15

Full article William MCGURN WSJ

Excerpts:

One presidential candidate says our Latin American neighbors are "drifting away" because we do not support our democratic friends. That "our failure to help the people of Latin America to achieve their economic aspirations" is a moral and strategic tragedy. And that we need to confront those who are "exploiting domestic distress and unrest, encouraging growing dislike of the United States, working to impose Communist rule."

No, the words are not John McCain's. They are John F. Kennedy's. But on the day that Sen. McCain leaves for a quick trip to Colombia and Mexico, they present him with an opportunity: The chance to remind American voters that his opponent has more in common with the party of Ted Kennedy than the party of John Kennedy.

JFK spoke the words quoted above on the steps of a Tampa, Fla., courthouse during the 1960 campaign. As president, he would transform those words into a new Latin American policy. Though it covered many parts, the gist was that only freedom could transform Latin America, and that both our interests and our ideals compelled us to support those making brave stands for freedom.

The Washington Times

Obama fumbles NAFTA

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Full article The Washington Times

Excerpts:

Barack Obama is not quite sure where he stands on the North American Free Trade deal. He has changed his position on several occasions, all the while claiming to be consistent. Mr. Obama needs to establish a trade policy that does not shift according to the preferences of the audience he is courting.

During the Democratic primaries and caucuses, when Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton were competing in the Rust Belt states, Mr. Obama began attacking NAFTA. He stated that he would re-negotiate the treaty and even abrogate it if his demands were not met. He declared in Cleveland: "I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." Mr. Obama's statements were well-received in the Midwest where many workers blame NAFTA for the loss of jobs in the auto, manufacturing and textile industries. Yet, a media firestorm subsequently erupted when a Feb. 8 memo was leaked to the Associated Press. The memo described a meeting between Mr. Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and Ottawa's consul-general in Chicago, George Rioux. According to the memo, Mr. Goolsbee reassured the Canadian representative that Mr. Obama's statements regarding NAFTA were more "reflective of political maneuvering than policy.

MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis

This post is about trade wars, tariffs, health care, and Wal-Mart. I will tie these themes together starting with a look at Wal-Mart and health care.

I have many disagreements with Jim Jubak, but he hits the nail on the head with Let Wal-Mart fix US health care.

MISH'S Global Economic Trend Analysis

Excerpts:

I know who can fix our broken health care system -- and who can't:

Not presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. He proposes a tax credit of $5,000 per family to encourage us to buy private health insurance. Not Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She proposes universal health insurance supported by tax credits. Not Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He proposes a mix of public and private health insurance with government subsidies to those who don't qualify for government insurance plans such as Medicaid.

I say, let Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) do it. Hold your guffaws. Stifle your impulse to scoff. Control those sputters of rage.

WASHINGTON POST.COM

McCain Defends Trade Pact

As Candidate Visits Canada, His Team Bashes Obama on NAFTA

By Perry Bacon Jr.

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, June 21, 2008; Page A06

Full article By Perry Bacon Jr. Washington Post

Excerpts:

OTTAWA -- Sen. John McCain traveled to Canada on Friday to offer a vigorous defense of the North American Free Trade Agreement, as his campaign sought to portray rival Sen. Barack Obama as inconsistent on free trade.

"For all the successes of NAFTA, we have to defend it without equivocation in political debate because it is critical to the future of so many Canadian and American workers and businesses," McCain told a crowd of several hundred at the Economic Club of Canada. "Demanding unilateral changes and threatening to abrogate an agreement that has increased trade and prosperity is nothing more than retreating behind protectionist walls."

McCain said his visit to Canada was "not a political campaign trip," and his remarks centered on keeping relations between the United States and Canada strong. The Republican from Arizona did not refer to Obama by name and refused to take questions on political matters at a news conference after his speech, though he was accompanied by top political adviser Charles R. Black Jr. McCain spent much of his trip in closed-door meetings with Canadian officials.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Confessions of a Pro-Trade Democrat

By AL FROM

June 9, 2008; Page A15

Full article Al Frum WSJ

One glaring example of Frum's spin

"Trade gives poor people around the globe the opportunity to build a brighter future. During the Clinton administration, new trade programs like the African Growth and Opportunity Act helped key regions in the world succeed, while American workers stood to gain."

This was passed by a Republican congress, who, as I recall got solidly behind it, while there were numerous Democrats beholden to unions, who tried to block it.

Frum says not 1 word about Nafta, which created millions of jobs.

Of course that was the work of Republicans.

Excerpts:

Where are the pro-trade Democrats? America won't increase middle-class incomes and create jobs without them.

From jobs and incomes to gas and food prices, Democrats are absolutely right that the Bush years have been a disaster for the forgotten middle class. Every homeowner in America knows that we're poorer than we were eight years ago.

But if Democrats are serious about turning the economy around, we have to be willing to tell people that job and income growth depends on Washington's willingness to get its fiscal house in order, invest in people and technology, and, yes, expand trade.

History proves that expanding trade and productivity help create growth. We learned that the hard way when the Smoot-Hawley tariff helped crush trade and exacerbate the Great Depression. Conversely, we have seen trade drive the economy during the great expansions of the 1960s and 1990s.

Today, with the economy in or near recession, the market-opening agreements of the 1990s are proving their value. Even while domestic finance, real-estate and consumer sectors have begun to contract, manufacturing exports have jumped by $200 billion since 2005.

Meanwhile, service-sector and agricultural trade surpluses have soared, so that, along with government spending, exports to places like Europe, Brazil and China are proving to be the only spark keeping us out of a full-fledged slowdown.

CincinnatiEnquirer.Com

Pending trade agreements crucial to our growth

Carlos Gutierrez

Full article Cincinnati Inquirer

Excerpts:

Cincinnati is a city built on trade. When Ohio was on the cusp of the American frontier, Ohio River trade built Cincinnati into one of our nation's most important cities. Today, the river has been joined by airplanes, rail lines and Internet data streams that link Cincinnati to commerce around the world.

That commitment to trade has paid off. Cincinnati has exporters big and small helping the region and Ohio grow. Ohio exported $42 billion in goods last year.That's up 42 percent from four years earlier, with more than one-fifth of all manufacturing jobs in Ohio depending on exports.

Cincinnati was one of the 20 largest exporting metropolitan areas in the nation with nearly $13 billion in exports in 2006.

Trade

President Bush Discusses World Trade Week

10:54 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming; please be seated. Welcome to the White House, the South Lawn. It's a joy to welcome entrepreneurs and business leaders and folks who understand the importance of this country being competent enough to work to open up markets for our goods and products and services. Obviously some of the exporters are pretty good salesmen and women -- after all, they let you drive a tractor here on the South Lawn. (Laughter.) Imagine what the Secret Service was saying.

Speaking from the South Lawn with a backdrop of American-made products, President George W. Bush delivers remarks in recognition of World Trade Week Friday, May 23, 2008, at the White House. White House photo by Eric Draper I'm really pleased to welcome members of the Congress: Congressmen Petri and Herger are here. Thanks for coming. Petri is here because he believes the Harley Davidson is a product that people around the world ought to be able to drive by making it more affordable -- I suspect that's why you're here -- as well as some other trucks made in your state.

I want to thank the members of the Cabinet. Thank you all for being such strong advocates of free and fair trade. We've got the Secretary of Agriculture here, Secretary Schafer. His being here sends a message that the American farmer and rancher expects us to work hard to open up markets for the products they grow. So if you're a farmer out there in the heartland, seems like you'd want somebody working on your behalf here in Washington, to be able -- make it easier for you to sell your crops. And that's exactly what we're doing in this administration. Mr. Secretary, thanks for coming.

Carlos Gutierrez is the Secretary of Commerce. Trade means commerce. Elaine Chao is here from the Department of Labor. Madam Secretary, thank you. Your presence here is clear recognition that the more products we sell overseas the more likely it is somebody is going to work.

Today I'm going to spend some time so our fellow citizens understand the importance of trade by connecting trade with products with jobs. Good jobs policy is a good trade policy. I appreciate very much Sue Schwab here; she's the U.S. Trade Representative. Her job is to open up markets. I'm going to talk about free trade agreements that she's worked to put in place that open up markets for U.S. goods and services. I really appreciate John Veroneau joining us as well. He's the Deputy, his job is to also work with the Ambassador to open up markets.

I want to thank Federico Humbert, the Ambassador de Panama. I want to thank Lee Tae-sik, Ambassador from South Korea. I want to thank Mariana Pacheco, who is the Deputy Chief of Mission for the Embassy of Colombia. These are three nations I'm going to be talking about. I want to thank you all for coming. I really appreciate you giving me a chance to talk about your countries in your presence -- because I want your leaders to understand the Bush administration and a lot of members of Congress believe it's in our national interest that we have free and fair trade with your nations.

President George W. Bush delivers remarks on recognition of World Trade Week Friday, May 23, 2008, on the South Lawn of the White House. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian I thank the representatives of the companies whose products are here. I want to thank the members of the business community. And thanks for your caring about your country.

First of all, the -- you know, it's rough economic times. Small business owners know what I'm talking about; large business owners know what I'm talking about. It's a period of uncertainty. And one way to deal with uncertainty in the economy is to work from your strengths. One strength, of course, is to trust the American people -- and the best way to trust them is to keep your taxes low. We really don't need to be sending -- (applause.) If there's uncertain times, there's no worse signal to send than, you know, we may be raising your taxes. That creates even more uncertainty. There's got to be consistency in the tax code so people can plan; so individuals can plan and small business can plan and large businesses can plan. Congress needs to make the tax relief we passed permanent in order to deal with the uncertainty in the economy.

Of course, they got a huge appetite for spending your money, so it shouldn't surprise you that some up there really do want to raise your taxes. And we'll do everything we can -- we're not going to let them raise your taxes, but the best signal that Congress could send for the sake of economic growth and vitality is that we're going to keep your taxes low by making the tax cuts permanent.

Another thing Congress can do is pass trade agreements that open up markets. You know, 40 percent of our growth last year -- during a time of economic uncertainty, 40 percent of the growth came as a result of exports. So when I say "play to our strengths," one of the strengths during this period of time is to continue to export products. If the growth that we had during some quarters, recent quarters was as a result of exports, it seems like we ought to be working to create more exports, to be able to sell our goods and services into more markets.

And we have an opportunity to do that by opening up markets with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. You know, we trust you to create jobs. The government ought to trust you by opening up more markets, by making sure the playing field is level for our producers. That's all we want: We just want to be treated fairly in the world.

For some in Washington, trade is a political issue. In other words, people think it makes good politics to say we're not going to let you trade. But what they've got to understand, those voices of pessimism and voices of protectionism must understand that oftentimes opening up markets means the difference between giving employees a pay raise or a pay cut. The politicians in Washington who use trade as an issue to frighten voters must understand that opening up markets can mean the difference between expanding the number of workers, as opposed to shrinking the number of workers.

President George W. Bush delivers remarks in recognition of World Trade Week Friday, May 23, 2008, on the South Lawn of the White House. President Bush is seen with an array of products manufactured or grown in the United States. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian And our fellow citizens I understand, you know, have got concerns about trade, and the reason why we've asked you to bring some of your products here is to remind people that that motorcycle is made by American workers, and that if we're able to more likely sell those motorcycles into Colombia, for example, or Panama or South Korea, that the worker who made that is more likely to get a pay raise or have somebody else join him or her on the floor. That's the practicality of trade.

The interesting thing about trade as an issue, if you really study the issue of free and fair trade, leaders from both parties have been strong advocates for opening up markets. They really have been. I mean, generally this has been a -- not nearly as bitter an issue in the past as it is today. You know, I remember reading about John F. Kennedy's stand on trade. He was a strong believer in free and fair trade. My predecessor, President Clinton, worked hard to open up markets. It's interesting that a lot of the people that worked with the President have been here to the White House to, I guess, first test my temperature to determine whether I really was willing to strongly advocate opening up markets, and then when they realized that they had a steady ally, were willing to go out and declare publicly that they believed that we ought to open up markets.

And yet today there's just a different attitude, evidently. But I want to thank you for helping to try to change that attitude by bringing a practical -- some practical thoughts to this debate, kind of fight through all the rhetoric and remind our fellow citizens that -- of some of the facts. One, our economy grows better when we export; two, there are jobs. When we talk about trade, we're talking about helping people keep work. And it turns out, if you're working for a company that exports goods and services, you make better money. Isn't that an interesting fact? If you're working for a company that sells goods and services overseas, you're going to make more money than your neighbor in a comparable industry.

If you're a farmer, we got some products here, grown right here in the United States of America. If you're a farmer, it seems like you want people to work hard to make it easier for you to sell that orange somewhere else. Increased demand means it's more likely you'll be able to sell your crop.

Trade is in the interests of the working people here in America, pure and simple. Trade is in the interests of small business owners and farmers and ranchers, pure and simple. And that's why I'm a strong believer that the United States Congress needs to pass trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

Now, let me give you some of the practical lessons of why. Take dairy products. There's a 20 percent tariff on dairy products from the United States into Colombia; 36 percent into Korea. That means that the cost of that dairy product, chunk of cheese -- you know something about cheese, Petri, in Wisconsin -- a chunk of cheese is going to be 20 percent more expensive, which makes it harder to sell that product.

When you say "level the playing field," what I'm talking about is reducing tariffs on goods and services, which makes it easier to sell -- in other words, it's less expensive. The quality is the same; we're really good at what we make and what we grow. The quality is the same, but the price is less, which makes it more likely something is going to be purchased.

Fruits, oranges -- these oranges right here are taxed at 15 percent going into Colombia -- 15 percent more expensive, 30 percent more in South Korea and 15 percent more in Panama. Broccoli -- they got a really high tariff on broccoli at my father's house. (Laughter.) But there also happens to be one -- 15 percent in Colombia, 27 percent in South Korea and 15 percent in Panama. So those are percentages, but you need to think about the percentage in terms of, it's that much more expensive to buy. And sometimes if you're shopping for an orange, that 15 percent differential means you're not going to buy it. Motorcycle -- that motorcycle right there -- 20 percent more expensive in Colombia, 8 percent more in Korea, and 15 percent more in Panama.

And so the purpose of a trade agreement is to reduce those tariffs; is to make the products less expensive. So if we get the deal done with Colombia, that motorcycle will be $4,000 less expensive. The great quality of Harley will be the same. There will be no diminution of how cool one is when they drive a Harley. (Laughter.) But it's going to be easier for somebody to buy it.

This Case tractor -- by the way, manufactured in Fargo, North Dakota -- called a Case IH, will be $15,500 cheaper in Colombia. That could be a significant difference when it comes to somebody buying that tractor, and I hope the Case workers hear me loud and clear. The cheaper that is for somebody to buy in Colombia, the more work you're going to have.

The reason I brought these products here is it means somebody is making them today and is going to be able to make them tomorrow if we'd level that playing field. Let me tell you why I talk about leveling the playing field. The first vote coming up is Colombia. I say the first vote coming up is Colombia -- you might remember the vote has never been allowed to come up. The Speaker of the House pulled a parliamentary maneuver that sent a bad signal, so it hasn't come up yet.

Our job is to say, let the people vote, let the members of Congress vote. I like our chances if they let the members of Congress vote. Congress has a way of sorting through all the noise and all the pessimism and oftentimes reaches the right conclusion.

Most of the goods coming from Colombia enter America duty-free -- isn't that interesting? -- as a result of actions of Congress in the past. Most goods that Colombia makes come to our country without any tax. And I've just described to you the goods and services we send to Colombia are taxed. And that, frankly, doesn't seem very fair to me. It didn't seem fair to the Colombian government, either. They agree with me: Let's just treat each other fairly.

Their goods are not taxed; our goods are. It seems unfair to me. And people of Congress should understand how unfair it is to the workers in their districts, or the farmers in their districts, or the people working hard for a living in their districts, that count upon selling goods overseas.

So the agreement we reached basically says that those oranges will go in duty-free. Some of the products will go in duty-free immediately, some of them will be phased in over time, but nevertheless, the playing field will be level. So here you hear, free and fair trade -- that's the definition of free and fair trade. Colombia treats us just like we treat them. That's fair.

Secondly, the Colombia free trade vote, like these other free trade votes, have got national security implications. Colombia has got a very bold leader named President Uribe, who is a reformist. Panama has got a strong leader, who, by the way, went to Texas A&M University. He's a reformist. I had the honor of meeting the South Korean President at Camp David -- first South Korean President to have come to Camp David -- and I did so for a reason, because I wanted to send a strong signal about our friendship with the people of South Korea. He's a strong, strong leader. All these leaders have got a clear vision about enhanced prosperity in their country. They care deeply about their people.

President Uribe has got a unique challenge in Colombia. He's facing a group of narco-traffickers who are violent, who use force to achieve political objectives, who are supported by some of the countries in the neighborhood. They're a threat to peace inside Colombia, and they provide a threat to the United States, in the sense that they -- to the extent that they facilitate drug trafficking, it makes it here. And yet the President has stood strong in dealing with these folks. He is a clear example of a leader who has set an agenda that is bold, and he's following through with that agenda.

If we were to turn our back on Colombia by rejecting the free trade agreement, it would send a terrible signal to leaders willing to be courageous. It would send a bad signal to our friends, and in the case of Colombia it would send a bad signal to the voices of false populism in South America. It's in our economic interest that we pass trade agreements. Oh, I know there's great debate about that, and I hope that people listen to the facts and understand the practical consequences of opening up markets for the products made here in the United States -- then they'll understand why all of us are so passionate about making sure we're treated fairly.

There's also a significant national security concern when it comes to America turning its back on friends. The region needs democracy, the region needs rule of law, the region needs stability, and the region needs strong leaders like President Uribe. And a rejection of the free trade agreement with Colombia will undermine that which the leader -- the region needs.

It's interesting, I've been -- you know, I constantly talk to fellow leaders on the telephone, and as you know, I've been traveling as well. And I've been asked quite frequently: Why is it that your Congress won't pass a free trade agreement with Colombia, for starters? And they ask that question first with amazement. They can't believe the great United States of America is not confident enough or wise enough to level the playing field when it comes to U.S. goods and services.

And once the tone of amazement passes, then there's this serious tone of concern -- concerned about the United States becoming protectionist, concern about the United States losing its confidence when it comes to the entrepreneurial spirit that has made us great, concerned that we really don't seem to care about the plight of others, because trade helps lift people out of poverty. Trade is a powerful engine for change.

And all I can tell them is, is that politics is too strong right now. But I also tell I haven't given up hope. I haven't given up hope that that Colombia free trade agreement is going to make it to the floor of the Congress, and with your help, I hope you get it there. (Applause.) I haven't given up hope that the people will recognize that obstructionism is not leadership; that obstructing an important piece of legislation, not even allowing it to come to the floor for a vote, is not what the people expect.

And so my call on the leadership in the House is to let this trade agreement get to the floor; let the representatives of the people decide; let there be an open and honest debate about the merits of this piece of legislation -- the merits from an economic perspective and the merits from a national security perspective. And then when you pass a Colombia free trade bill, we go to South Korea and Panama and get those bills passed. And then we can go to the people who are making these products here and say we did the job you expected us to do.

Thank you all for coming. May God bless you.

POLITICO

Groups lobbying for stalled trade deals

By VICTORIA MCGRANE

Full article Victoria McGrane

Excerpts:

The drilling supply company that Susie Givens owns in western Kentucky may be only nine people strong, but it’s not too small to tell Congress to finish three trade agreements.

Givens traveled to Washington on Tuesday to deliver that message in person as part of a daylong lobbying offensive by business groups fighting for stalled trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

The business community is doing all it can to keep congressional attention on trade, especially on the Colombia trade pact, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) effectively stalled last month via the House Rules Committee.

Obama Fudges Trade Facts

WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON WIRE

May 16, 2008, 1:53 pm

Obama’s ‘Beef’ With U.S. Trade Policies

Amy Chozick

Full article Amy Chozick WSJ

Excerpts:

Speaking to a crowd of farmers in a barn, Barack Obama cited the Japanese not selling American beef as an example of how current trade policies have hurt rural communities.

“You can’t get American beef into Japan…even though we have the highest safety standards. They don’t want the competition,” he said in response to a question about trade and manufacturing jobs moving to China.

But Japan lifted its ban on American beef almost a year ago in June. The country had banned imports in 2003 after an outbreak of mad-cow disease. According to the U.S. Meat Export Federation in Denver, the U.S. currently exports over 5,000 tons of beef per month to Japan, down from 20,000 tones before the 2003 ban when Japan was the No. 1 importer of American beef.

WALL STREET JOURNAL

Keep America Open to Trade

By CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ and ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER

Arnold and Carlos write great article citing all the statistics showing that there's no doubt about the tremendous benefits to the nation by signing the Columbian Free Trade Agreement.

Unions own the Democrat Party which for its own self interests do not care about the rest of America including the 141 million American workers who are not in their small 10% minority.

Full article CARLOS M. GUTIERREZ and ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER WSJ

Excerpts:

As immigrants, we're proud of America and the strength it derives from being uniquely open to trade, to investment, and to ideas and people. Recently, prominent voices in punditry and politics have questioned the benefits of America's openness and called for an isolationist U-turn that would choke off our innovation and prosperity.

In every state of the union, such a retreat would be disastrous for jobs, economic growth and consumer choice. Nowhere is this more clear than here in Torrance, Calif., where today we are visiting a Hitachi plant that remanufactures auto parts. This "foreign" company employs 16,000 Americans -- 8,000 in California alone -- and is just one of hundreds of overseas firms that invest directly in the U.S. From where we're standing, what America needs is more openness here and abroad -- not less.

"But what about American manufacturing?" one might ask. "What about American exports?" Even at a time when our economy has slowed, U.S. exports are booming. In 2007, we saw a record $1.6 trillion in exports, up 12.6% from the prior year. And exports are growing even faster in 2008. In the first quarter of this year, export growth is up nearly 18% from the same period last year. Nearly a third of all U.S. agricultural products and more than 20% of the goods we manufacture were exported last year. Indeed, exports have been a kind of silent stimulus over the past year, helping even a slowing economy stay in the black.

May 09, 2008

POLITICO

The economy

GOP isn't letting Colombia die

Full article Politico

Excerpts:

The White House and the GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill are keeping up a steady media drumbeat on the importance of passing the Colombia free trade agreement.

The latest installment: House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today, arguing that passing the trade pact would serve as a stimulus to the economy.

Saturday marks the one-year anniversary of the Bush administration signing the trade deal with Colombia.