Don't take my word for it. See the Washington Post:
THE YEAR 2008 may enter history as the time when the Democratic Party lost its way on trade. Already, the party's presidential candidates have engaged in an unseemly contest to adopt the most protectionist posture, suggesting that, if elected, they might pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared her intention to change the procedural rules governing the proposed trade promotion agreement with Colombia. President Bush submitted the pact to Congress on Tuesday for a vote within the next 90 legislative days, as required by the "fast-track" authority under which the U.S. negotiated the deal with Colombia. Ms. Pelosi says she'll ask the House to undo that rule.
In other words, Pelosi changed the rules in the middle of our negotiations with Columbia, thus slapping a loyal and valuable ally right across the face. And all this, to defeat a treaty that is obviously in the interests of the U.S.
Economically, it should be a no-brainer -- especially at a time of rising U.S. joblessness. At the moment, Colombian exports to the United States already enjoy preferences. The trade agreement would make those permanent, but it would also give U.S. firms free access to Colombia for the first time, thus creating U.S. jobs. Politically, too, the agreement is in the American interest, as a reward to a friendly, democratic government that has made tremendous strides on human rights, despite harassment from Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.
Why has Speaker Pelosi done this? The San Francisco Chronicle has the answer:
Recession's in the air, American exports are enticingly cheap, and Washington could badly use a solid ally in Latin America.
These are all good reasons to support a free-trade pact with Colombia, which the White House has negotiated and brought to Congress.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is playing politics by pandering to free-trade foes. Instead of accepting the usual fast-track process of voting up or down on the treaty within 90 days, she plans to rip up these rules and sidetrack the matter.
It's not hard to guess why. She's clearing the field of a painful Democratic dilemma: backing wider trade that unions fear will threaten their jobs. Remember the contorted debate on the eve of the Ohio primary between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton over who was more hard-line in opposing the NAFTA trade treaty with Mexico?
Insulting a vital ally and defeating a treaty that would strengthen the U.S. economy and create jobs is price the Democrats are willing to pay for victory in November. Good thing the outside world is merely an illusion created by campaign advertising. Otherwise, we might have cause to worry.
Recent Comments