Redstate

The anti free traders have taken over the Democratic Party

By Charles Bird Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

In comparison to Nancy Pelosi and her decision to shut down any voting on the Colombia free trade agreement, the Bill Clinton administration looks positively beneficent, even to a rock-ribbed Republican. No matter what his wife thinks about it, Bill Clinton made the right decision in going against Democrat-friendly labor unions and members of his own party, taking a free trade agreement that George H.W. Bush started, and passing it. NAFTA has proved to be an economic benefit to all three countries.

Today, the Democratic Party is the Protectionist Party. Hillary and Obama are anti-NAFTA, and they join Speaker Pelosi in being anti free trade with Colombia, a nation that has made significant political, economic and security-related strides since President Uribe was elected. In almost every relevant category, Colombia's progress has been remarkable. A nation that has made such improvements should be rewarded by the United States, not slapped in the face, but that's exactly what our Democratic "leaders" are doing. Here is what Hillary said:

More below the fold...

The Colombia free trade deal, in my view, is not appropriate because of the history of suppression and targeted killings of labor organizers in Colombia. There is an argument that there has been some improvement and change by the Colombian government but it is not enough for me.

"Some" improvement and change? The murder rate of trade unionists is lower than the murder rate for the country as a whole, which happened to drop 40% in the last five years. Murders of trade unionists dropped 79% or 87% over the same period, depending on who you talk to, and most of those murders weren't even related to union activities.

But that apparently isn't good enough. Instead of strenghthening ties with a nation that has mutual interests with the U.S., Hillary and Obama and Pelosi would rather put that relationship at risk. Barack Obama is a pea in the very same anti free trade pod as Hillary and Pelosi. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the three. How's that for a "new kind of politics"?

The way in which Pelosi shut down the vote is particularly sleazy:

Today Ms. Pelosi will make an ex post facto change to House rules to avoid the required vote, withdrawing from the timetable and thus relegating the Colombia deal to a perhaps permanent limbo.

Democrats say it would have failed anyway, but at least a vote during the next three months would have forced them to show the courage of their protectionist convictions. Instead, they chose to shelve the bill in an election year while paying off organized labor and other antitrade yahoos. The gambit is especially humiliating for Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, a free-trader who has been trying to strike a deal with the Administration but keeps getting rolled by Ms. Pelosi.

For good measure, the double-cross dismantles the only process that allows any Administration to conduct good-faith negotiations with foreign nations. No one is going to take the U.S. at its word if Congress is going to change the rules when it has second thoughts and renege.

Pelosi's decision is baffling when you consider our slowing economy and the fact that the trade pact clearly benefits the United States economically:

Colombia already sells nearly all of its products to the United States duty-free. U.S. products sold to Colombia are subject to tariffs, which run up to 35 percent for non-agricultural goods and higher for agricultural exports. The trade agreement would eliminate more than 80 percent of those tariffs.

Opposing this agreement makes no economic sense, but apparently it makes political sense, serving as a sop to labor unions and other protectionists in the donkey party. Harvard professor and former New York Times reporter Edward Schumacher-Matos blows away Hillary's and Obama's and Pelosi's arguments against the agreement.

A good part of the improvement in Colombia is because FARC, the Marxist guerilla group, is losing its fight against the government. To quote Abu Muqawama, Colombia is really kicking the snot out of them these days. The result has been a safer country, and aid from the U.S. has helped in this endeavor. And why shouldn't we aid the Colombia government against FARC? Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez gives them money and arms, according to der Spiegel.

Speaking of Chavez, the socialist and wannabe dictator is continuing his grab for more power unto himself. The Economist:

The notion that Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez would ease his radical policies after last December’s humbling defeat in a national referendum on constitutional reform has been quickly disabused. His administration has launched new attacks on the private sector—taking over two food companies and in recent days announcing plans to nationalise the cement industry. The three foreign cement-makers that dominate the industry have been targeted, but few companies anywhere in private sector will feel safe after the recent government moves.

[...]

Amid higher food prices and shortages of some basic foodstuffs, in mid-March the government turned on private food businesses. It nationalised Centro de Almacenes Congelados (Cealco), the country’s largest cold storage and distribution company, and Lácteos Los Andes, a dairy producer responsible for around 30% of Venezuela milk production. These companies are to be incorporated into Productora y Distribuidora de Alimentos (PDVAL), a food distributor and subsidiary of state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).

Not satisfied with cement, Chavez has now set his sights on nationalizing steel, and his armed forces are now occupying 32 sugar plantations. Apparently, Chavez is so afraid of getting whacked with a sugar cane that he's decided to make a preemptive strike. We have a golden opportunity to strengthen a relationship with an improving Democratic nation that unfortunately is next door to a president who is a socialist kook. Too bad our Democratic "leaders" would rather let that opportunity pass.