Posted on 02/12/2005 3:39:03 PM PST by yoe
Washington — Canadians often see themselves as the victims of trade clashes with the United States.
But don't tell that to U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton, who has co-sponsored a bill that would slap a cap on the soaring U.S. trade deficit — the latest manifestation of a tide of protectionism south of the border.
"I believe in trade," Mrs. Clinton insisted this week. "But I don't believe in the United States being the only country in the world that truly practises free trade."
Mrs. Clinton pointed out that last year, for the first time, more cars were made in Ontario than Michigan — the heart of the U.S. auto industry. She and the bill's co-sponsors, including North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, have demanded unspecified sanctions to curtail imports and get the deficit down.
Canada, like all of the United States' major trading partners, should brace for this kind of backlash as the record U.S. trade gap becomes a flashpoint of political debate, trade experts say.
"Trade protectionism is rising," Fred Bergsten, director of the influential Washington-based Institute for International Economics, warned ominously this week as he unveiled a proposed foreign policy for the United States.
The former top U.S. economic adviser said that, in spite of undeniable evidence that integration with the global economy makes Americans richer — to the tune of $9,000 (U.S.) per capita every year — free-traders may be losing the battle for their hearts.
Globalization "causes significant human dislocation and, thus, political backlash that could jeopardize these huge gains," he said.
Figures released this week show that the U.S. trade deficit cracked the $600-billion threshold, hitting a record high of $618-billion in 2004, or more than 5 per cent of gross domestic product. There were record deficits of $161.9-billion with China and $65.7-billion with Canada.
Mrs. Clinton is right that cars contributed to last year's imbalance with Canada. Ontario produced 2.7 million vehicles last year, while Michigan produced 2.6 million.
Bush administration officials insisted that surging imports are a sign of U.S. economic strength, pointing out that Americans are generating more surplus income to buy whatever they want from around the globe.
But others, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Dorgan, see something more sinister, including the flight of jobs. Mr. Dorgan, who, like Mrs. Clinton, is a Democrat, said the United States is headed for an economic disaster unless the trade deficit is reined in soon.
"There's no trade vaccine that will make us well," he said. "We have to have the backbone to demand fair-trade treatment, whether it's about cars or anything else."
His bill would impose a statutory trade debt ceiling and force the U.S. administration to curtail the deficit within 45 days by whatever means necessary, including trade sanctions, once the gap exceeds 5 per cent of GDP.
Mrs. Clinton likewise urged unspecified "drastic action" to close the trade gap. "We are not going to sit by year after year and be disadvantaged," she said.
The bill, one of thousands introduced in the U.S. Congress every year, stands only a slim chance of becoming law. But it nonetheless reflects a disturbing trend toward isolationism among the country's political elite, according to Dan Griswold, associate director of trade policy at the Washington-based Cato Institute. "It's disturbing that powerful politicians would propose something that is so intellectually thin."
Mr. Griswold added that "a wholesale assault" on trade liberalization in Congress is unlikely. But he acknowledged that protectionists have largely stalemated any further liberalization. They are also winning key victories at the margins, in areas such as mandatory country-of-origin labelling for beef and other food imports, he said.
This week, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns reversed a decision to lift a ban on imports of Canadian beef from older cows next month — largely because U.S. ranchers and meat packers complained that allowing the meat in would threaten U.S. jobs. The decision was made even though his own officials had already determined that imports of meat from older cows posed no risk of spreading mad-cow disease in the United States.
The trend isn't limited to agricultural products. Yesterday, the International Intellectual Property Alliance asked the Bush administration to monitor copyright piracy in 67 foreign countries, including Canada. The group cited deficiencies in Canada's copyright regime for costing U.S. software makers $486-million in losses last year.
Mr. Bergsten agreed that the United States urgently needs to lower the record U.S. trade and current account deficits.
But the way to do it isn't by thwarting imports, he said. The United States should persuade China to let its currency float, encourage Europe to spur its economy, and dramatically boosting trade adjustment aid to laid-off workers.
She is trying to address the symptoms, not the disease.
The real problems are lawsuits and overregulation of US businesses, and taxes. If we addressed those, and made the US more business friendly, we would have many more businesses stay here and able to export.
Wasn't the big economic problem during the election the deficit? Three months later it's now the trade gap? These Dems really do need to figure out what 'crisis' they are all going to latch onto before they start running around yelling the sky is falling.
You know, I know and just about every sane freeper knows she could care less about these issues - she has poll-tested them and sees them as the means for her to triangulate her way to the White House. But to the mushy middle who still decides elections, she will come across as sincere and caring about their fears. And fear wins elections easier than hope.
Just changing the way we tax could reduce the prices of our exports by 25-33%.
Hillary you are powerful as the Emperor has forseen, but you are not "ready for PRIME time" yet.
Give in to your hate of the RIGHT side, and forever will it consume you. Yes!!!Yes!!!!Yes!!!!!!!...................
She's scaring me. I hate to sound like a defeatist but I am already trying to convince myself maybe it won't be all that bad...
you still have a majority of freepers who don't even think she will be the nominee - I don't know what these people are thinking. then another group predicting a landslide loss for her. and when you ask those same people, who our candidate is, they don't know.
Maybe she should be blaming Bill Clinton for signing the NAFTA Bill that has moved all of the manufacturing jobs out of this country.
Um, I think the technical term for that would be...DENIAL.
I used to think she was the ideological one. I am not so sure anymore now that she has drunk from the fountain of power.
She is moving to the right, for sure. But, I am wondering, if elected, where she would govern from?
don't worry about that, she would govern hard left. just imagine her supreme court appointments.
Question is--who can beat her? I heard someone say the other day--we nedd to fight star power with star power. So, that leaves us with Rudy and Arnie. Arnie isn't elligible. Maybe McCain.
Notice how many Democrat liars seem to use that same formulation. Kerry nearly always did the same thing. Mrs. Clinton's "but" is a dead giveaway that the first part of the sentence is a lie.
Brought to you by the same folks who gave you, "I support the troops, but...", "I support lower taxes, but...", and "I believe in freedom, but..."
SO when does Pat Buchanan endorse Hillary?
I would vote for McCain or Rudy - many freepers would not. I wish Colin Powell would run, he could walk into the white house (even without the support of many people here).
Basically, our party stands for nothing if it allow the clintons to walk back into the white house, because we litmus test away our potentially best candidates.
Tonight, on The McLaughlin Group.
There is no doubt she will govern as a liberal, but she is doing her best impersonation as a populist conservative. She is the odds on favorite to be our next President. The GOP better get its act together soon.
McCain has learned a lot from his last run. I don't like him or trust him, but he is the most likely candidate. McCain better court social conservatives, or he won't have a chance against Hillary. Rudi is bad on issues that are most important to me, but I like Rudi as a person and trust him a heck of a lot more than McCain. I just don't see Rudi being able to get the nomination as a pro-Abortion, pro-gay candidate.
The unionized base in Ohio and Michigan are so completely brainwashed they will believe that Hilary will actually be able to do something about their jobs. She is playing to the choir, I wonder though if anything of the ignorant slouches back east will remember that Bubba signed NAFTA into law. These no brain union workers get me all fired up (relatives we have live in Ohio and they are brainwashed DUMBOCRATS).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.