<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1879 -- 6/19/2008 >>>>>

Presidential candidate Barack Obama did a major flip flop on NAFTA. During the primaries he gave the impression that he was determined to do something to improve the trade agreement. Now he says he will do nothing about it. This is what he said during the February 26th debate with Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/us/politics/26text-debate.html?pagewanted =all SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. 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. And that is not what has been happening so far. Now that the primary is over we are hearing something totally different from Obama. Fortune Magazine is reporting that Obama doesn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. Instead, Obama wants to open up a dialogue with Canada and Mexico to figure out how NAFTA could be made fairer. That's a far cry from his saber rattling during the debate with Clinton when he said he would wield the opt-out hammer if necessary to force a renegotiation. Make no mistake about it -- Obama agreed with Clinton who claimed she was going to stop NAFTA unless renegotiations occurred. This is what Clinton said: So what I have said is that we need to have a plan to fix NAFTA. I would immediately have a trade timeout, and I would take that time to try to fix NAFTA by making it clear that we'll have core labor and environmental standards in the agreement. Clinton's statement was nothing but flim-flam because all of the trade agreements like NAFTA have labor standards written into it -- the problem is that the only way to enforce them is through the WTO. Obama and Clinton are both guilty of passing the buck on free trade, but so far Obama is the first one to totally cave-in. Of course Clinton doesn't have to appease the corporatocrats because she is no longer running for president. Obama's flip flop on NAFTA isn't the only one either. He just announced that he is opting out of public financing for his campaign. Previously Obama pledged that he would open up a dialogue with McCain about financing both of their campaigns with public money. There seems to be a common theme with these two stories (reread the previous paragraph starting with "now that" if you didn't catch it). It may be a coincidence that Obama flip flopped on NAFTA at about the same time he changed his tune on campaign financing. After all, even David Sirota, who is a well known Obama supporter, decried Obama's NAFTA backtracking, even though he concluded with the naive notion that Obama is just "trying to make everyone happy". Just who is happy about Obama's support of NAFTA -- the 1.5 million people who have made small donations to his campaign, or the huge trans-national power brokers who slather money on anyone who supports the globalist agenda? Be sure to take a look at the NAFTA mailer from the Obama Campaign on the wwwwakeupamericans blog. That ought to make you Hillary Clinton supporters real happy. ******************* Materials Included ******************* http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index .htm Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-barack-obama-flip-fl opping-on-nafta.html Is Barack Obama Flip Flopping On NAFTA? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/memo-to-obama-you-cant-re_b_10790 7.html Memo to Obama: You Can't Represent the Uprising While Undermining It http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/19/the-problem-wi th-obama-s-public-financing-acrobatics.aspx Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/magazines/fortune/easton_obama.fortune/index .htm Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all The Democratic nominee, in an interview with Fortune, says he wants free trade "to work for all people." By Nina Easton, Washington editor Last Updated: June 18, 2008: 3:00 PM EDT WASHINGTON (Fortune) -- The general campaign is on, independent voters are up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade. In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy. Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered. Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people." Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that Obama-as the candidate noted in Fortune's interview-has not changed his core position on NAFTA, and that he has always said he would talk to the leaders of Canada and Mexico in an effort to include enforceable labor and environmental standards in the pact. Nevertheless, Obama's tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns. The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton's lead in setting a protectionist tone. In February, as the campaign moved into the Rust Belt, both candidates vowed to invoke a six-month opt-out clause ("as a hammer," in Obama's words) to pressure Canada and Mexico to make concessions. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called that threat a mistake, and other leaders abroad expressed worries about their trade deals. Leading House Democrats, including Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, distanced themselves from the candidates. Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA. On the afternoon that I sat down with him to discuss the economy, Obama said he had just spoken with Harper, who had called to congratulate him on winning the nomination. "I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people." Obama has repeatedly described himself as a free-trade proponent who wants to be a "better bargainer" on behalf of U.S. interests and wants agreements to include labor and environmental standards. In May 2007, congressional Democrats and the Bush administration agreed to a plan to include environmental and international labor standards in upcoming trade agreements. Still, later that year Obama supported one agreement (Peru) and opposed three others (Panama, Colombia, South Korea). Labor leaders - many of whom backed Obama in the primary - were the chief opponents of those pacts. Obama jumped into the anti-trade waters with Clinton even though his top economics adviser, the University of Chicago's Austan Goolsbee, has written that America's wage gap is primarily the result of a globalized information economy - not free trade. On Feb. 8, Goolsbee met with the Canadian consul general in Chicago and offered assurances that Obama's rhetoric was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," according to a Canadian memo summarizing the meeting that was obtained by Fortune. "In fact," the Canadian memo said, Goolsbee "mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off as too protectionist." In the Fortune interview, Obama noted that despite his support for opening markets, "there are costs to free trade" that must be recognized. He noted that under NAFTA, a more efficient U.S. agricultural industry displaced Mexican farmers, adding to the problem of illegal immigration. We "can't pretend that those costs aren't real," Obama added. Otherwise, he added, it feeds "the protectionist sentiment and the anti-immigration sentiment that is out there in both parties." Obama also reiterated his determination to be a tougher trade bargainer. "The Chinese love free trade," he said, "but they are tough as nails when it comes to a bargain, right? They will resist any calls to stop manipulating their currency. It's no secret they have consistently encroached on our intellectual property and our copyright laws. ...We should make sure in our trade negotiations that our interests and our values are adequately reflected." Republican nominee John McCain, for his part, is emphasizing his consistent position as a free-trader. In a press conference in Boston this week, he attacked Obama as protectionist: "Senator Obama said that he would unilaterally - unilaterally! - renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, where 33 percent of our trade exists. And you know what message that sends? That no agreement is sacred if someone declares that as president of the United States they would unilaterally renegotiate it. I stand for free trade, and with all the difficulties and economic troubles we're in today, there's a real bright spot and that's our exports. Protectionism does not work." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-barack-obama-flip-fl opping-on-nafta.html Wednesday, June 18, 2008 Is Barack Obama Flip Flopping On NAFTA? Barack Obama flip flopping? NO!!! Tell me it isn't so!!! In February,2008, Obama sent out a mailer which stated that Hillary Clinton was for NAFTA and Obama had always been against it. Fortune Magazine conducted an interview with Obama where he seems to admit his NAFTA talk during the primary, was "rhetoric" NAFTA was an expansion of the earlier Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1988. NAFTA is a treaty under international law, though under United States law, it is classed as a congressional-executive agreement rather than a treaty. (Reference) Back in March when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were fighting for the Democratic nomination for presidency, they both had some very harsh words about NAFTA, in a Democratic debate (transcript here) which was reported on extensively, because of controversy suggesting that the campaign's for both candidates were having discussions with involved countries telling them that their harsh words on NAFTA was "political positioning" and not to be taken seriously. Barack Obama's words in that debate were, "I will make sure we renegotiate. 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." In February, before that debate, Barack Obama had sent out a mailer which said, "Only Barack Obama consistently opposed NAFTA", the mailer continued on to say, "A little more than a year ago, Hillary Clinton thought NAFTA was a 'boon' to the economy." (NAFTA Mailer from Obama Campaign-Ohio Daily Blog) Fortune Magazine has conducted an interview with Barack Obama, which will be shown in full in their upcoming issue, but they spoke to him about his NAFTA positions and they headline their piece, "Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all". In the interview the report says that Barack Obama backed off of his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and when the interviewer reminded him of that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," even after nonpartisan studies had shown it has a mildly positive effect on the U.S economy, Obama said, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified." The interview asks if that means that Obama's rhetoric was overheated and amplified and he responded with, "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself." Obama spokesman Bill Burton claims that Obama has not changed his core position on NAFTA. Nevertheless, Obama's tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns. The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton's lead in setting a protectionist tone. This issue and report by Fortune Magazine has caused a heavily pro-Obama website, Huffington Post, to criticize his most recent stance on NAFTA, saying that Obama cannot talk "out of both sides of his mouth on this issue." (Obama campaign mailer about NAFTA- Photo-Ohio Daily Blog) Clearly, Fortune breathlessly overstates what's going on here (which is typical of "journalist" Nina Easton), and I think Obama could be solid on trade. However, I'd still say this really shows the persistent power of Big Money over Obama and the Democratic Party. Here you have a policy - NAFTA - that is among the most unpopular policies of the last generation, according to polls. This is a policy that is one of the key catalysts in today's populist uprising on both the Right and Left. Here you have a candidate who campaigned against it in the primary. And within weeks of getting the general election, here you have that same candidate running to Corporate America's magazine of record to vaguely reassure Wall Street about that same policy. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama spoke harshly about NAFTA publicly, in the debate transcript linked above and as evidenced by the Obama campaign mailer sent out in February of 2008, but John McCain has always been consistent in his support of NAFTA, which was Bill Clinton's "signature accomplishment", as phrased in the Fortune Magazine article. Fortune also mentions McCain's harsh words about Barack Obama at a press conference in Boston this week, where he said, "Senator Obama said that he would unilaterally - unilaterally! - renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, where 33 percent of our trade exists. And you know what message that sends? That no agreement is sacred if someone declares that as president of the United States they would unilaterally renegotiate it. I stand for free trade, and with all the difficulties and economic troubles we're in today, there's a real bright spot and that's our exports. Protectionism does not work." From Barack Obama's words in this Fortune interview, perhaps John McCain and Barack Obama actually agree now on the issue.... to a point. (The mailer shown as images in this article was sent to the writer of the Ohio Daily Blog) [Update] 6/19/08- Obama did a nice little back flip regarding public financing as well. Despite his pledge, he announced that he opted out of it. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/memo-to-obama-you-cant-re_b_10790 7.html Memo to Obama: You Can't Represent the Uprising While Undermining It stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust Posted June 18, 2008 | 05:16 PM (EST) David Sirota I'm in New York City for tonight's annual gala for the Progressive States Network. In researching my newspaper column that comes out later this week, I caught two stories on the wire that suggest Barack Obama thinks its possible to both represent the populist uprising that I describe in my book, while also undermining that uprising. Here's the first story, from the Associated Press about the Obama campaign trying to court labor unions. Yet, as Obama courts organized labor, we get this from Fortune magazine: Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all The general campaign is on, independent voters up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade. In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn't want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake." Clearly, Fortune breathlessly overstates what's going on here (which is typical of "journalist" Nina Easton), and I think Obama could be solid on trade. However, I'd still say this really shows the persistent power of Big Money over Obama and the Democratic Party. Here you have a policy - NAFTA - that is among the most unpopular policies of the last generation, according to polls. This is a policy that is one of the key catalysts in today's populist uprising on both the Right and Left. Here you have a candidate who campaigned against it in the primary. And within weeks of getting the general election, here you have that same candidate running to Corporate America's magazine of record to vaguely reassure Wall Street about that same policy. This is precisely what the populist uprising that I describe in my new book is all about - a backlash to this kind of politics. Obama is trying to find a "third way" on a binary issue. He's trying to make everyone happy - and he seems to think you can simultaneously appease Corporate America and American workers on trade rules that inherently force politicians to take one side or the other. You either have trade rules that are aimed at helping ordinary workers, or trade rules that are aimed at padding corporate profits and enriching a transnational elite. The idea that you can have both - or worse, that the NAFTA model does both - is absurd. But this is Obama's M.O. - he wants to please everyone. The problem for him is that the public - based on polls - knows that these policies are binary and are screwing them. If he talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, he will fail to represent the uprising and take advantage of this populist moment - and he will likely lose the election. That would be a huge tragedy. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/06/19/the-problem-wi th-obama-s-public-financing-acrobatics.aspx Why Obama Opted Out of Public Financing--and What it Means Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:12 PM By Andrew Romano What's worse: a broken system or a broken promise? Barack Obama is betting on the former. In a video sent to supporters at 8:35 this morning (above), the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee announced that, unlike Republican rival John McCain, he will refuse public financing for the general election--despite a previous pledge to accept it. "It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," said Obama. Advertisement "Support" is one way to put it. "Said I would opt into" is another. Asked last September on a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network whether he would "participate in the presidential public financing system" if his "major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign," Obama checked the box marked "yes," then outlined his vision for the 2008 contest. "In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election," he wrote. "My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election... If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." As expected, McCain, who publicly committed himself last March to accept public funds in the general "if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same," responded to this morning's announcement with a flash of moral indignation. Calling Obama "just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient," spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said that the Democratic nominee had "failed" "the true test of a candidate for President"--i.e., "whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people"--and that the "reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics." Obama, on the other hand, cast the decision as an unfortunate but necessary defense against Republican dirty tricks. "John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs," he said. "And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations." So who's right? It's murky--to put it mildly. If Obama had never checked the "yes" box, he'd be in the clear. It's true that our current public financing system is "broken." Although candidates themselves can only spend their allotted $84.1 million, the tax-exempt, unaccountable and completely unregulated "527 groups" that Obama refers to (think 2004's Swiftboaters) can invest unlimited sums in negative advertising designed to ruin an opponent's reputation. The result: a nastier, dirtier election. So far, the candidates have taken different approaches to the problem. At a meeting in Indianapolis on May 2, "top [Obama] fundraisers... asked his campaign donors to refrain from contributing to liberal independent political organizations in hopes of controlling the tone and message of the general-election campaign." Meanwhile, McCain has adopted a hands-off stance, telling the Boston Herald earlier this month that he "can’t be a referee of every spot run on television." The truth is, neither candidate can control what 527s do on their behalf; the groups simply don't have to answer to federal or state political finance committees. So it's no wonder that they're each following the most profitable path. For McCain, that means accepting a public check (and relying on the RNC to outspend the cash-strapped DNC). For Obama, it means arming himself with private donations--which are expected to top $300 million for the general election. Unfortunately, Obama did, in fact, check "yes." At the time, he was well-aware of the havoc 527s could wreak; after all, he'd watched the Swiftboat Veterans slime John Kerry. And it was no secret--as Howard Dean had proven more than three years earlier--that the Internet could democratize the process of funding a favored politician. "The presidential public financing system works," Obama told Larry King on Jan. 24, 2007; the next month, he co-sponsored legislation to preserve the current set-up. Since then, the 527s haven't gotten scarier, and the Web hasn't gotten webbier. What's changed is that it's now Obama (not Kerry) who's in danger of being Swiftboated and Obama (not Dean) who's rolling in the dough. So McCain's charge of "expediency" carries some weight. But that's been clear for awhile now. With its cash flow at record levels, the Obama campaign spent the first few months of 2008 attempting to backtrack, equivocate and wriggle free from what seemed, at the time, like a pledge. After telling the press in Feb. 2007 that Obama, if nominated, would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election"--language that Obama himself echoed nine months later in the MDN survey and reinforced by telling Tim Russert that he would personally sit down with McCain to hammer out a deal--Obama spokesman Bill Burton said this February that "public financing" is "an option that we wanted on the table," but added "there is no pledge." By April, Obama was suggesting, in what amounted to a justification of opting out, that his low-dollar network of online donors effectively represented a "parallel public financing system." That's why it's not particularly surprising to learn that Obama's pursuit of an agreement, now that he's the nominee, has been less than "aggressive." The official line, according to Burton, is that "our campaign counsels met and it was immediately clear that McCain's campaign had no interest in the possibility of an agreement." But McCain's lawyer Trevor Potter recalls the exchange a little differently. "This is not true!" Potter told ABC News. "I met with [Obama's lawyer] on a different subject... about 10 days ago. During that meeting, he asked what Sen. McCain’s position was on public general election funding, and I said we were for it, and hoped Sen. Obama would participate as well. There was absolutely NO discussion of 'negotiations' about participating -- the word was never mentioned." Just to recap: no negotiations, no dedicated meeting, no McCain, no Obama (who promised, remember, to sit down personally with his rival)--and suddenly that's enough for the Dems to declare that there's "no basis for any further exchange." Some tenacity. Obama, of course, long ago calculated that he could skip public financing. Most voters simply don't care enough about wonky campaign-finance details to hold this slippery maneuver against him for long, so the major plus (an overflowing war chest) easily outweighs the major minus (a bad process story in the dog days of June). Still, there's no doubt that the decision clashes with his "new kind of politics"--a fact that becomes painfully obvious watching Obama spin it as a matter of principle rather than pragmatism in this morning's video message to supporters. If we "do something that’s never been done before [and] declare our independence from a broken system," he warns, "we'll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election"--as if we should applaud him for risking life and limb to take the $300 million instead. "Let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people," Obama says -- ignoring the fact, as the AP notes that "the system he's opting out of is paid for by taxpayers who donate $3 to the fund when they file their tax returns." Now, don't get me wrong. Obama's massive fundraising machine--which thrives on small checks from 1.5 million individual donors and rejects money from lobbyists and PACs--deserves a ton of praise. It is, simply put, the most democratic in American political history. But as Obama knows, even the fairest private funding operation can't replace a public system. Why? Because the latter is equal. Both candidates get the same multimillion dollar, taxpayer-financed grant--meaning that money is eliminated from the list of potentially decisive factors. And that's the point. Obama has raised an impressive 45 percent of his dinero from donations of less than $200. But the other 55 percent still comes from people giving more--including nearly 30 percent from contributions larger than $2,300. As the candidate himself put it exactly two years ago, "if we're still getting financed primarily from individual contributions, than those with the most money are still going to have the most influence." With that imbalance in mind, a modest proposal: if Obama's own success with private fundraising has convinced him that the public system is "broken," perhaps he should consider pledging to fix it. After all, his machine is the exception, not the rule. Sadly, Obama missed a great opportunity to do just that this morning. Here's hoping he makes the promise before Election Day--and this time, he keeps it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newsletter Homepage: http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm Support this Newsletter and www.JobDestruction.com by donating: www.zazona.com/Donations.htm To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this email with UNSUbSCRIBE in the subject window - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -