Obama and Clinton on Trade

This is another article from John Tasani and it highlights the questions and answers on trade by the 2 Democratic Presidential hopefuls.


So, it will be interesting to see how much trade really stays front-and-center once the politicians think it's not something they have to talk about. But, we can still talk about trade on the Monday before tomorrow's primary votes. Though I'm not convinced that Barack Obama will be a big improvement on trade, I think the controversy over what one of his advisors said, or didn't say, to some functionary in the Canadian government is overblown.
Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser said Sunday that Canadian government officials wrote an inaccurate portrayal of his private discussion on the campaign's trade policy in a memo obtained by The Associated Press.The memo is the first documentation to emerge publicly out of the meeting between the adviser, Austan Goolsbee, and officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago, but Goolsbee said it misinterprets what he told them. The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
What's a bit more interesting is what the Wisconsin Fair Trade Coalition just posted on its website: answers by Obama and Hillary Clinton on trade. Here are the things that struck me:...split... They were both asked this question: If elected President, would you seek an elimination of the Fast Track process? Their answers were pretty similar though there was a subtle difference. As a reminder to those less obsessed by trade: "fast track" authority allows a president to negotiate a trade deal and present it to Congress for a "yes" or "no" vote, a process that prohibits members of Congress from submitting amendments to the deal. My humble view is that "fast track" is undemocratic, undermine the legitimate authority of the Congress in matters of the economy and should be eliminated whether the president is a Democrat or Republican. Sen Clinton's response:
I oppose fast track for President Bush because he has failed to enforce our trade agreements and because he negotiates trade deals without particular concern for our workers. As President, I will take a timeout from new trade agreements. My priorities will be to review all of our existing agreements to ensure that they are benefiting our workers, and to craft a trade policy that is genuinely pro-worker, pro-American, and vigorously enforced. Our focus should not be on new trade deals, nor should it be on the fastest away of getting new deals done. It should be on enforcing the existing agreements and designing policies that benefit our workers.
Sen Obama's response:
I will not support extension of the existing Fast Track process that expired. I have not and would not support renewing Trade Promotion Authority for this President. The current Fast Track process does not mandate that agreements include binding labor and environmental protections nor does it give an adequate role to Congress in the selection and design of agreements. I will work with Congressional leaders to ensure that any new TPA authority fix these basic failings and open up the process to the American people for their participation and scrutiny.
Hmmm...I added the bold emphasis in Obama's response. Both the candidates want to preserve presidential power over trade and they believe that "fast track" is just a bad power for a Republican president to have. But, the bolded words in Obama's response seem to acknowledge that there is something inherently unbalanced in the power of "fast track" authority--but it is so lacking in specifics it's hard to know what "adequate role" means in Obama's world view. Will that mean he will only invite Congressional leaders over for lunch at the White House--or will be support returning the democratic power to Congress to help shape the agreements? On the topic of foreign investors rights, there is some interesting things to pick over there. As the Coalition describes the issue:
Existing trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA give foreign investors greater rights than U.S. residents or businesses. These trade agreements allow foreign businesses to bypass the courts and directly sue the United States in foreign trade tribunals. These pacts empower foreign investors to challenge our U.S. environmental, zoning, health and safety laws before U.N. and World Bank tribunals to demand compensation in taxpayer dollars. Since CAFTA, agreements have extended such foreign investor rights to enforcement for timber, mining, construction and other concession contracts with the U.S. Federal government.
The candidates were asked: Will your administration ensure future trade agreements do not include private investor-state enforcement systems and also ensure that state-state investment rules do not grant foreign investors and overseas companies greater rights than U.S. residents or businesses? And the envelope, please. Sen Obama:
With regards to provisions in several FTAs that give foreign investors the right to sue governments directly in foreign tribunals, I will ensure that this right is strictly limited and will fully exempt any law or regulation written to protect public safety or promote the public interest. And I will never agree to granting foreign investors any rights in the U.S. greater than those of Americans. Our judicial system is strong and gives everyone conducting business in the United States recourse in our courts. The tribunal system was created to ensure that our investors would have access to similar protection abroad. I understand the concerns surrounding this issue, and am committed to working to address them.
Sen Clinton simply answered "Yes." Obama's answer that he would strictly limit such rights is a little bit less than what the coalition is seeking i.e., a ban on those rights-and perhaps his answer is a huge loophole. On the other hand, he is publicly committing to "fully exempt" laws or regulations that promote the "public interest"--though how one defines that is a bit slippery (for example, there would be those who might argue that streamlining the building of nuclear power plants--and, thus, weakening certain environmental and safety regulations--is in "the public interest" because that would create jobs and more non-carbon energy sources). Though Sen. Clinton's answer is a simple one word reply, in theory, her commitment is much more sweeping than Sen Obama's commitment. And, respectfully, I'm certainly glad he understands "the concerns" but working to "address" them is the political blow-off. Anyway, you can read the Coalition's full work on trade or read Sen. Obama's answers or Sen. Clinton's answers.