[ close ]


Bg1

Spread this message with Digg, Del.icio.us, Reddit, or Stumbleupon, and subscribe to the RSS Feed to track articles

Economic Hemorrhaging May Not be Stopped by Obama

Published 01/10/09 Pat Choate - Print Article
E-mail - editor@economyincisis.org

Editor’s Note: The following article was contributed by Former Vice Presidential Candidate Pat Choate, author of Dangerous Business: The Risks of Globalization for America. .

President-elect Barack Obama promised Ohio voters last February that if elected he would renegotiate NAFTA and make it fair for American workers.  With that, he cut Hillary Clinton’s lead in the Ohio Democratic primary, put himself on the path to political victory and ultimately the Presidency.

However, soon after the Associated Press released a leaked memo from a Canadian Consulate official in Chicago that said Austan Goolsbee, an academic economist and long-time Obama economic advisor, had privately reassured the Canadians that those NAFTA promises were “more about political posturing than a clear articulation of policy plans.”  In short, the aide told the Canadians not to worry; Obama really did not mean what he was saying.

Obama quickly distanced himself from Goolsbee.  Senator Clinton called it “the old wink-wink.”  In retrospect, she seems to have gotten it right.  The people Obama is appointing to his Administration’s key economic positions suggest that he intends to follow the failed “free trade” policies of his two predecessors.

The arithmetic of such a course is beyond frightening.  Consider this:  the U.S. trade deficit the year that Bill Clinton became President (1993) was $70 billion.  The year George W. Bush became President (2001) the deficit had ballooned to $365 billion – a 500 percent increase over the prior 8 years.  When Barack Obama takes Office that deficit will be more than $700 billion – a tenfold increase over a 16-year period.  As we are outsourcing our production of everything from cars to food, we are becoming correspondingly dependent on foreign imports for what we consume and our national defense.

Continuing these Bush-Clinton trade policies could not come at a worse moment in U.S. economic history.  More than $6 trillion is being spent on bailing out our failed financial institutions.  Even before taking Office, the President-elect is announcing on a seemingly weekly basis expansion of his economic stimulus program whose price grows every time.

Simply put, the U.S. cannot kick start its economy while it has to finance the purchase of more than $700 billion of imports annually than it exports.  We do not have the savings, and our credit is short.  What Obama and his advisors fail to grasp is that by ignoring the trade deficit, they risk turning a deep recession into a long, deep Depression. 

The great hope about the Obama campaign’s pledge of change was that he would surround himself with advisors who had the courage, independence, and wisdom to abandon the current U.S. trade policies, stop our economic hemorrhaging and put us on a more sensible course.

Alas, I fear that it is not to be.  Obama’s key economic advisors are all hard-core “free traders,” as devoted to the theories of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Milton Friedman as the Bush appointees they will be replacing.  And, Goolsbee is back.

More important, Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration, a key advocate for NAFTA and an architect of U.S. policies for global financial deregulation, will head the Obama National Economic Council.  He will coordinate the work of other Obama economic advisors and be the gatekeeper to the Oval Office.  Summers fits the description once made about the Bourbon rulers of France “who neither learned nor forgot anything from their experiences.”  

The Secretary of the Treasury will be Timothy F. Geithner, Summers’ aide in the 1990s and now the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank – the man who failed to monitor Wall Street during the Bush years.  A former employee of Kissinger and Associates, Geithner, too, is a devoted “free trader.”

The Administration’s point person on trade will be Ron Kirk, who is glaringly inexperienced in trade policy.  In the late 1990s, Kirk was the Mayor of Dallas, Texas, and in 2002, a candidate for the U.S. Senate seat now held by his GOP opponent.  After failing to win that race, Kirk joined the giant Houston law firm of Vinson Elkins, where among other work he lobbied the Texas Legislature for the Wall Street private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co and TPG, a global investment firm. TPG has more than $50 billion of capital under management around the world.  KKR controls 51 private equity portfolio companies and has a total value of more than $68 billion.  KKR has done the largest buyouts in the history of the U.S., the Netherlands, Denmark, India, Australia, Turkey, Singapore, and France.  Besides its U.S. offices, Vinson Elkins has offices in Abu Dhabi, Beijing, Dubai, Hong Kong, London, Moscow, Shanghai and Tokyo. The principal criticism of the Clinton and Bush trade policies is that it was not about trade, but about making the world safe for U.S. investments.  It was investment policy.  Those policies, reduced to binding international treaties, facilitated and speeded the outsourcing of U.S. factories, jobs, and service work, even as they made the import of those foreign-made goods and services quota and tariff-free in the U.S.  It is about liquidating the U.S. economy and American jobs.

In fairness, U.S. Trade Representative designate Kirk has the perfect background and connections to continue those corporate-pleasing investment policies for the Obama Administration.

Consequently, Members of Congress who are concerned about U.S. trade losses need to intensely quiz Kirk about his intentions during the USTR confirmation hearings and then monitor closely what he does once he is on the job.  Too much is at stake to allow the old “wink-wink” to prevail. 

Front Page Photo -Barack Obama - Flickr © Some rights reserved and

Click Here For Solutions To America's Economic Problems

Click here to contact your Representative in Congress.

Unless the above article is already copyrighted, this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License, EIC grants permission to use this article in whole or in part provided attribution is given, preferably in the form of a link back to EconomyInCrisis.org.

MORE OF TODAY'S NEWS | Comment on this Article | Read Comments


Spread this message with Digg, Del.icio.us, Reddit, or Stumbleupon, and subscribe to the RSS Feed to track articles

Register for newsletter

Bg2

Please Donate to EconomyinCrisis.org today



Please do your part, send a donation of $5, $10, $15 or any amount by PayPal or major credit card.

Bg2

Download our Podcast from iTunes

Itunes

Bg2



Bg2

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter


Download our Podcast from iTunes

Itunes

Bg2

Additional Recommended Articles from the Archives


Bg2

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Bg2

Donate Today


Bg2

Comment on this article

Subject

Comment



Bg2

Article Comments From Readers

guest says "RE: A I G Executive Bonus Scandal Solution" on 03/19/09
Pay all bonuses due to the executives in common A I G stock at its highest price in the last 12 months. Together each executive will eventually own most of the stock and the value of the stock will be their gain or loss. They will be in control of the financial repercussions of their decision making policies.
Arnold A. Hoffman, Mount Shasta, CA.

guest says "Why Obama?" on 01/14/09
Obama is clearly in favor of free trade. He said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, not for the US, but to insure Mexico could be punished for hurting the environment. While I do care about saving the planet, another good way to do it would be to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US where we have an EPA.
Other countries do not respect our laws or our views on life, liberty etc… Why should we? We are bowing down to them, paying them to make slaves of their workers. Paying them nothing and giving them no benefits. That is how they out produce us, they do not care. We do. We need jobs here in the US if we really want to help anyone, ourselves or otherwise.

biguru says "trade deficit" on 01/09/09
Our trade deficit (from tse.export.gov) is as follows. If you use the Excel spreadsheet and plot it, you will see the the exponential nature of the chart during the Bush administration. That is frightening.

Year $Billions
1993 - 116
1994 - 151
1995 - 160
1996 - 168
1997 - 183
1998 - 233
1999 - 332
2000 - 436
2001 - 411
2002 - 470
2003 - 535
2004 - 652
2005 - 766
2006 - 818
2007 - 790
2008 - 833 (est.)