|
|
| From © The Saginaw News |
| |
|
Stupak urges Congress to repeal NAFTA |
|
| |
|
March 11, 2010By Barrie Barber |
|
| |
|
A Great Lakes Bay Region congressman has introduced legislation to repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement.
U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, whose sprawling district includes part of Bay County, has joined with two Democrats and a Republican to overturn the controversial pact that eliminated tariffs between the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Because of the deep national recession, Stupak sees an opportunity to strike now, although he admits the bill faces an uphill fight.
“Tell me somewhere NAFTA created a job,” he said. “You’re not going to find very many. Tell me where people have lost jobs because of NAFTA, and you’ll find thousands of them.”
Proponents say the agreement has created new markets for U.S. exports and meant cheaper goods for consumers, among other benefits.
President Barack Obama, as a candidate in 2008, pledged to “fix” NAFTA if he won the White House, but his administration hasn’t changed the pact many blame for the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
“We’re well aware of what he said during the campaign, and we want the things reviewed and looked at,” said Stupak, noting Michigan’s 14.3 percent unemployment rate.
In 2006, the latest figures available, the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute estimated the United States had lost 1 million jobs because of NAFTA’s enactment in 1994, while Michigan proportionally lost more jobs than any state — 63,148. The agreement increased exports, but also ballooned the trade deficit while decreasing many American workers’ wages, the EPI said.
Stupak said boosters had predicted NAFTA would add 170,000 more jobs in the United States, and within two years of its enactment, create U.S. trade surpluses with both nations. Last year, the U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics reported the nation had a $20.2 billion trade deficit with Canada and $47.5 billion with Mexico.
“We think it’s run its course,” Stupak said. “All the rosy predictions they had about NAFTA have fallen flat.”
Stupak introduced the bill with U.S. Reps. Gene Taylor, D-Mississippi, Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, and Walter Jones, R-North Carolina, whose state is home to a dwindling textile industry.
The labor-oriented EPI, meanwhile, contended NAFTA created an “integrated continental economy with rules set by and for the benefit of the political and economic elite” that hadn’t lived up to its promise of “better jobs and faster growth” in any of the three nations, it concluded in a 2006 analysis.
A 'better system'
Proponents, such as the free market think tank Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, contend the agreement has increased U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada and created jobs.
“It’s not perfect, but it’s better than the system in place beforehand — a system with hurdles to the free and voluntary association of people and products,” said Michael LaFaive, fiscal policy director at the center.
“By repealing NAFTA, we run the risk rising the cost of living for all Michigan and American citizens,” LaFaive said.
The trade deficit shows the nation can afford to buy goods from other nations, he added.
“I have a trade deficit with Wal Mart and it’s been growing, how am I worse off? I buy a lot of things from them, but Wal Mart buys nothing from me,” he said. “So what. It’s an illusion that trade must always be in balance.”
Others, however, have argued major trade deficits in recent years are a sign of a weakened U.S. economy, lost jobs and mean less taxes to sustain government services.
The global financial meltdown, changes in product tastes “and bad public policy” have driven jobs out of Michigan, LaFaive said.
Free trade split
U.S. Rep. Dave Camp, R-Midland, and U.S. Rep. Dale E. Kildee, D-Flint, remain on opposite sides of free trade. Camp, who voted for NAFTA and free trade pacts before Congress since then, wasn’t immediately available for an interview, a spokesperson said this week.
But in a statement, he defended NAFTA.
“Even the president has rejected the idea of pulling out of NAFTA because of the damage it would cause our manufacturers, farmers and workers,” Camp said. “Canada has the largest market for the goods and services that are produced in Michigan. Canada is also our largest and most secure source of energy in the world. Withdrawing from NAFTA would hurt our economy, cost American jobs and further reduce our energy security.”
Kildee, a long-time free trade opponent, voted against the agreement and subsequent trade pacts that he said have lowered labor and environmental standards and hurt U.S. workers. “It was bad from the beginning, but even some of the restrictions we put in there are not being enforced at all,” he said.
The congressman recalled Flint workers at the former sprawling Delphi East complex packing equipment up to send it to Mexico to start production of auto parts there instead of General Motors Co.’s hometown. The U.S. Department of Commerce recorded the equipment sent to the new site as an export, Kildee said.
“They were exporting, but they were exporting jobs. J-O-B-S,” he said. GM razed the site on Dort Highway and Davison Road two years ago.
Kildee said his office closely monitors sugar imports from Mexico, and noted the neighboring country has accepted shipments of agricultural products such as mid-Michigan grown beans.
Stupak said it would take 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate to overturn NAFTA. Further, it would take a super majority of 60 Senate votes just to bring it up for a decision, he said.
In 1993, the agreement passed the House in a 234-200 vote and the Senate by a 61-38 ballot.
“It’s an uphill battle,” Stupak said. “No doubt about it.”
© 2010 MLive.com. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
 |