Free trade's victims turning against Bush, GOP

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- This year's highly publicized job losses in North Carolina manufacturing, including the Pillowtex bankruptcy, could mean trouble next year for President Bush in a region that was a stronghold in 2000.

Bush won more than 56 percent of the vote in both North Carolina and South Carolina in 2000. But his strong support of free trade has turned some against him in the South, where U.S. trade policies are blamed for the loss of jobs in textiles and other manufacturing sectors.

Andy Warlick, chief executive officer of Parkdale Mills in Gaston County, said he doubts he will repeat his 2000 vote for Bush next year.

"He made a lot of promises and he hasn't delivered on any of them," Warlick said. "I've had some firsthand experience of him sending down trade and commerce officials, but they're just photo ops. It's empty rhetoric."

Fred Reese, the president of Western N.C. Industries, an employers' association, said executives are beginning to raise their voices against Bush and are planning education and voter drives.

"We're seeing a new dynamic where the executives and employees are both beginning to see a real threat to their interests. You're going to see people who traditionally voted Republican switch over," Reese predicted.

The hard feelings were on display days after Pillowtex's July 30 bankruptcy filing, when Republican U.S. Rep. Robin Hayes walked into a Kannapolis auditorium to meet with former workers.

"Thanks for sending the jobs overseas, Robin!" shouted Brenda Miller, a longtime worker at the textile giant's Salisbury plant.

In December 2001 Hayes -- who is an heir to the Cannon family textile fortune -- cast the tie-breaking vote to give Bush the authority to negotiate "fast-track" trade agreements, trade treaties that Congress must vote up or down with no amendments.

At the time, Hayes said he won promises from the Bush administration that it would more strictly enforce existing trade agreements and pressure foreign countries to open their markets to U.S. textiles.

"Are we pleased with the way they responded? Absolutely," Hayes said. "Are we satisfied with where we are? Absolutely not."

Jobs in many industries have fled overseas since 1993, when Congress passed the Clinton-backed North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. About half the textile and apparel jobs that existed in 1994 are gone.

Since Bush took office in January 2001, it is estimated North Carolina and South Carolina have lost more than 180,000 manufacturing jobs.

And even more textile jobs could be out the door once quotas on Chinese imports expire at the end of next year.

Republican U.S. Rep. Cass Ballenger voted for NAFTA and fast-track, and has seen his 10th District lose nearly 40,000 jobs, primarily in the textile and furniture industries.

"Certainly, there's a political cost to any controversial vote no matter which side you take," he said. "People are casting stones, but we're trying to pick them up and build something."

Democratic U.S. Sen. John Edwards voted against fast-track in 2002 after voting for an earlier version. In 2000 he voted for permanent normal trade relations with China.

Recently, though, while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, Edwards has attacked Bush's trade policies and called for fairer trade measures.

Robert Neal, vice president of the local chapter of the Pillowtex workers' union, said Hayes has worked to try to ease the impact of job losses in his district.

"Though he (Hayes) voted for fast-track, he is really concerned about the workers and their conditions in the state of North Carolina," Neal said.

Reese is organizing 1,500 manufacturing companies across North Carolina in an effort to leverage what he calls a new voting bloc.

In South Carolina, voter drives are planned for the first time at Milliken & Co., which has about 30 plants in the state. Mount Vernon Mills of Greenville, S.C., is forming a political action committee.

The company's president Roger Chastain, a one-time Bush voter, doesn't expect to support the president or Jim DeMint, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Ernest Hollings.

"We're basically liquidating our whole middle class, polarizing people on the two extremes, have and have-nots," Chastain said of the manufacturing job losses. "We'll be a Third World country."

Guess again (I realize you're being facetious). Quoth Reagan, "If one partner shoots a hole in the bottom of the boat, does it make sense for the other partner to shoot another hole in the boat?" Their machinations do impact us all negatively, I just want to avoid compounding the problem.

Well now partner I note that i have yet to be shown a quatitative analysis that shows any protective tariff doing net harm to teh American economy. For that matter I have yet to see any quantitative analysis shoing a neutral result. I have posted one on one tariff that shows a positive net result.

You are the one being facetious thinking we will not have a Democrat unless we make some progress towards fixing the problems now. Certainly using tariffs is a Constitutional means of encouraging american Industry or Jefferson, Madison, Hamiltion and Monroe would not have used them and supported them. there is no right for an individual to imprt anything into teh USA without paying the imposts and duties set by Congress becaus ethe Constitution clearly states taht Congress has the power to levy imposts and duties.

And I tried to explain to you that net benefits cannot be weighed. How do you tell how much wealth I could generate with the money were it not taken in tariffs? How do you tell what businesses I would have funded? How do you count what I couldn't afford, after paying your tariff? It's easy to point at the steel plant and say, "We saved those 4,000 jobs!" It's impossible to see how many jobs are lost in all other industries that consider steel a resource and a cost in the production cycle because the steel they require is more expensive. It's impossible to measure that which doesn't get purchased because the resources to purchase it are taxed away to feed bureaucrats. Anyone puporting to 'show' you otherwise is capitalizing on your naivete and belief that others are possessed of an omniscience you lack.

If benfits can not be measured then neither tahn costs and you have said since everything is unknowable why not go with your interpretauion of what constitutes liberty. While I say lets go with a proven policy. There is a long history of tariffs and the raising and lowering of protective tariffs results are measurable in the opinion of most economic historians. I will even grant taht some costs and some benefits are unmeasurable. how can one measure the encouragement ot innovation that protective tariffs provide were teh steamboat and cotton gin the reaper and steel plow encouraged by the fact that protective tarifffs were in place meaning that peopel knew taht in Ameirica their industry would be more rewarded/. no one can measure that either but in the final analysisi I state emasure what we can measure and use teh results to formulate public policy. Can you name oen Senator who supports your utopia of the minimal possible Federal governemnt and most of teh powers usurped going back to teh states? Might movement in that direction help get there at least peacefully?

My faith is in the natural tendency of man to settle his wants by trading effort with other men, and I realize he's better able to do that without bureaucrats riding on his back and being paid to produce nothing. I have seen firsthand the ruin that government management of trade has wrought

Ah yes the faith in teh nature of man to want to peacably trade. I will even agree a majority of individuals would probaly live up to this ideal but the fact that governments exists and criminals exist means that we can not just get rid of government and let this rule. My faith is in the natural tendency of man to settle his wants by trading effort with other men, and I realize he's better able to do that without bureaucrats riding on his back and being paid to produce nothing. I have seen firsthand the ruin that government management of trade has wrought.

the only figure who can unite the Democrat party is Hillary should it look like there is a good chance to win. She will run on a platform of government jobs and training programs along with public works to stimulate the economy. She will also supplement this by national health care. this she hopes will appeal to all the unemployed.

That is the very dragon who's voice I refered to a few posts ago (haven't gotten to it yet - slow typer...

Realisticly, I'm worried about VICE President Rodham-Clinton. Think of it:

• She keeps he promise not to run for president in '04
• Two years and one day into her term the first slotter gets arkincided
• Under Article XXII, she can still run for two full terms as the incumbent
• The Hillary!™ Decade begins
• Hillary uses the Patriot Act to it's fullest extent, and beyond
• At the end of the Hillary!™ Decade there is a National Emergency "temporarily" delaying the elections
• Under the pressure of the National Emergency, the 2nd and 22nd amendments are repealed...

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.