Free trade's victims turning against Bush, GOP

The Herald Sun ^ | August 25, 2003 | associated press

[snopercod]

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.

Not everyone feels that way.

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."

[StolarStorm]

Excuse me? Did I call you anything. I don't recall ever pinging you or commenting about you EVER. We all know this is an emotional issue (more so for those directly affected), calling someone a racist or a NAZI just elevates that emotion. Doesn't do anyone any good. The Free Traitor comments should stop too.

[hchutch]

1. If other countries want to make the mistake of subsidizing bad habits, why should we follow suit?

2. Who are we to dictate to other countries what they MUST do with regards to trade?

3. Are so sure that things won't suddenly change in those other countries? India and Pakistan have a long-running nuclear standoff that could get very ugly. The PRC's got issues with Enron-style accounting and a nasty demographic time bomb.

4. Why is it you refuse to provide proof that the LACK of tariffs on our part is the cause of the problem?

[JNB]

I think you are mistaking what you think are Buchananites with people who would have been classified 30 years ago as "Wallace Democrats". As I said elsewhere on this thread, Buchanans anti military views does not sit well with me, or other conservatives. That said, I am against globalism because I think of society is more than just profits, more than just the bottom line. The "Wallace Democrats" are GOP for social reasons, and on economics, they are nationalistic in their outlook.

As I said on another thread, if it wasnt for the "Wallace Democrats", who are white Southreners and working class Catholics in the Midwest, voting GOP downballot. the GOP would still be a 2-1 minority in congress. While you reject this notion, there are far more Ralph Hall and Virgil Goode conservatives than there are Dick Armey style conservatives.

[hchutch]

I'm glad you FINALLY said the "Free Traitor" comments should stop. There have only been some 900 posts of it!

[Poohbah]

Why are tarriffs only bad for us?

They're bad for everybody.

Are you in the business of saving people from their own stupidity?

That is really what I want to know. Not why tarriffs are bad for us, but why tarriffs aren't bad for everybody else.

They ARE bad for everybody else.

Some people are bound and determined to engage in stupid and self-destructive behaviors. I don't worry about them.

There seems to be a logical disconnect here.

Yeah. You apparently didn't understand your mother's logic of not following all the other kids in jumping off the cliff.

If you say want to get involved in the computer industry in India, to support all these call centers, etc... and you make a widget that is needed for it, you ship it into India and you pay the 70% tarriff, while the other american company that builds a plant there doesn't.

If that widget is made as well as the Indian code I debug, the 70% tariff is easily absorbed by the call center, because they'll go through domestically-produced widgets at 5X the MTBF as my tariffed, imported widget.

Tariffs allow crappy domestic work to flourish, and encourage outsiders to not engage in crappy work.

And then a weird thing happens. The people who did the crappy work suddenly discover that, even with the frickin' tariff, the market for overpriced crap is very small.

The American auto industry discovered that in the 1970s. They refused to believe it until the 1990s.

How is that good for you? Seriously. It only encourages the company that is left here to outsource into high tarriff countries.

You seem to assume that people are replaceable cogs, and that an Indian employee can make an equal number of items that an American employee can make, and that the quality is identical.

At heart, you're a collectivist.

[StolarStorm]

I'm a GW Republican, that just happens to be in a profession that is being decimated by government policies (implemented by Clinton BTW). Not a Buchananite, nor a Wallace democrat. I'm just someone who is afraid that there isn't going to be a mechanism for upward social mobility if we continue to ship the good jobs overseas. As a fairly young person, I don't 'have mine' yet... so of course my perspective is going to be different from others who do.

[dogbyte12]

Nope. I think the american worker can do much better. In an economy that says an American worker that produces 80 units of quality per hour at $15 an hour, is worse than 20 foreign workers who produce 4 quality pieces per hour at $.75 cents an hour, then I have a problem.

See, there are 20 foreigners producing 80 pieces for $15 an hour, but they don't have social security, workman's comp, payroll taxes, safety standards and the like, so they are still cheaper.

If that's the world you want to live in, be my guest, but I will fight you tooth and nail. I never question the ability of my fellow americans to produce when it counts. I didn't count on american companies walking into the world's worst slums to outsource though.

I was naive. Again, your argument makes micro sense, but I believe it fails on a macro sense. It makes sense for the 1 company to move, but if every company moves, who buys the goods? The $174 a month worker? The laid off american? We are not at critical mass yet. I am not that much of a doom and gloomer. If we move everything overseas though, we are in trouble as a nation. I know the market purists don't really care as much about the nation state as some of us do, but I depart on that note.

[JNB]

I also share your concerns. The economic path that the US is now on was started under Clinton, and pushed further along by Ropbert Rubins insane strong dollar policy that allowed Asian countries to become almost entirely dependent on the US consumer and Greenspan, buy allowing a equity and now real estate bubble get out of hand.

I am a conservative mainy on social issues. I believe in traditional Westeren Values, aka Judeo-Christian values is the basis for the US, and is what made the US great, not the secular humanistic nonsense that has dominated since the 60s. I also think that globalisim also rots society and further liberalism at a far more rapid pace than any Democrat could ever hope for by creating a massive underclass and destroying the anchors that holds society together.

I do not believe in gov control of industries, and certainly not heath care, but sadly this is what is going to happen if gloablism as now set up continues, and a majority of voters get fed up. I think tariffs that are reasonable, that mirror tarffis other countries have against the US, and 0% tariffs on countries that have similar labor and enviromental laws to the US and has 0% tariffs on US goods is the reasonable way to go.

[WOSG]

Your repost of your ignirant ravings only forces me to re-post the correct response. Clinton is long gone, but only a Clinton butt-kisser woudl falsely claim that he got '95% start to mideast peace', NO, he got 95% down a DEAD END.

You have the honesty and pawtisanship of a snake-head Carville.

Let's review the DU-inspired FUD here:

"-Bush ignored NK and now they are working on the bomb."

FALSE. NK pulled a number on Jimmy Carter (easy to do) and has been secretly working on bombs since 1994.

"-Bush ignored the Arab world and we got 9/11. "

CRIMINY. Only Cynthia McKinney believes that cr*p.
REALITY - Osama attacked the US in 1996, 1998, 2000. Clinton failed to stop him is why we got 9/11.

"-Bush ignored the economy and we got a crash. "
REALITY. Recession started in late 2000, *before* Bush took office. Bush's tax cuts saved the economy from getting worse.

"-Bush ignored post-war Iraq and it got worse."
FALSE. 150,000 troops and Paul Bremer are ignoring nothing.
more DU-style whining.

"-Bush ignored 'old Europe' and now they ignore him."
Bush bravely stood up to the world-govt Socialists on Kyoto, ICC and other issues, and forged ahead on correct policy vis a vis Iraq and War on Terror. Bush has done what a true leader would do and protected US sovereignty from the predations of the UN-types. For that, he has earned the enmity of Socialists, Greens, Communists and one-world-govt whackos.

"-Bush ignored Clinton's 95% start on Palestine peace and it got worse."

This is sure proof you are reading from DU playbook, because even asentient Bush-hater *knows* that the peace process was killed in late 2000 when Arafat "blew" his last chance to grab 97% of the west bank from Ehud Barak. whatever Clinton did only emboldened the terrorists and is and was a dead end. Oslo is dead. So is the Roadmap. Both were killed by Hamas and Arafat's minions engaged in terrorism. Admitting that seems to be a problem with people naive enough to think "peace" is a concept unrelated to security.


etc. The "Bush ignored" line is cute but has zero validity.

[janetgreen]

These threads sure bring out the foreign interest leftist wackos

Yes, and I agree that PAT WAS RIGHT about what would happen to America. Bush is carrying out the globalist plans, and some people are so enamored of him you can't even reason with them.

[StolarStorm]

Has Bush ever made a direct comment on the topic? It may be that he will act in some manner, but is waiting to see what the economy will do in the short to medium term. I don't believe he has pushed to keep the h1-b limit levels at their dot com highs, so there is hope.

[WOSG]

uh, hello ?!?! "Bush hasnt done much for the economy" ...
you complain that "all he did" was cut taxes.

Well, frankly that is all the Government *can* do to help the economy - GET OUT OF THE WAY.

It can cut taxes, regulations and Govt spending. That is the ONLY thing it can realistically do to help our economy long-term. Any other "industry policy" has tried and failed. Anything else is just making the situation worse overall.

[bluejay]

Given the technological base China is creating, that will not be true 10-20 years from now. Even now we are militarily overextended.

I think, a reality check is in order. China has never produced it's own weapon system - every Chinese tank, plane, howitzer, and APC has been manufactured under license from Soviet Union. Chinese Army is not even capable of mounting an invasion of Taiwan, let alone posing a viable threat to the United States. Having said that, it would be foolish to discount any potential threat in the next 20 years - after all we could have Howard Dean as out Commander in Chief in the near future. (Now there is a scary thought - I bet he could do more damage to our military then any amount of foreign competition over the next 20 years!)

Then you also know that they get something like two months vacation and generally work 9-5. It is true that their prices are higher but they have a much easier quality of life than we do. So it's a cultural choice.

It's more of a law then a choice (at least in France, and to a lesser extent, in Germany). In US you always have a chance to work less (and earn less money). This would effectively make everything more expensive - just like in Europe.

Our IT industry ? Again, our technological base is being transferred to Asia. IT consulting is hardly a narrow field when senior American analysts and engineers cannot find work. It is a wholesale decimation of our technological intelligentsia. Who these days would go into computer science or electrical engineering as a field ? Extrapolate that 10-20 years into the future and what does that tell you about our ability to remain the preeminent technological superpower ?

Let's do an experiment - let's make a list of computer companies. Other then Sony, most people would be hard pressed to name any non-US companies. How about large system integrators? (Hint: IBM, HP, Accenture, etc.) While most cell phones are not manufactured in US vast majority of manufacturing companies are licensing American technology (from Qualcom), except, that is, Motorola (another American Company). How about software? Take a look at Forbes 500 - out of top 10 companies, 8 or 9 (depending on the year) are American. American companies, likewise, dominate that rest of the list.

I do not know what will happen in the next 20 years. But I do know that in the past 20 years our leadership over the rest of the world increased dramatically. So extrapolating from that base makes me feel pretty secure.

Free trade briefly resulted in benefits for college educated workers at the direct expense of the jobs of non college educated American workers. Now, obviously, college educated workers are seeing that their "high quality new jobs" can be exported to Asia to be done at a fraction of their salaries. They are in precisely the same boat manufacturing workers are.

It has been just about 10 years since NAFTA was ratified; 20 years since US initiated serious attempts at trade liberalization. We are now at, what I believe is, an end of a recession (when unemployment rates tend to be the highest), yet we have, about, 6% unemployment. This number compares very favorably with lowest unemployment rates in the 70s and 80s. (Any one knows what unemployment was liked in the 60s?)

[StolarStorm]

I'd like him to support a one line law, tariffs against a country match exactly with tariffs against the USA from said country. Very fair all round. They slap a 70% tariff on us, we slap a 70% tariff on them. Guess what happens? More free trade rather than less.

[Tokhtamish]

You seem to assume that people are replaceable cogs, and that an Indian employee can make an equal number of items that an American employee can make, and that the quality is identical.

At heart, you're a collectivist

In a well run company people are supposed to be replaceable cogs. Nobody is supposed to be indispensible. Everyone is supposed to be replaceable and therefore expendable, skillwise. And it is ridiculous in the extreme, self-flattering, and even racist to insist that Indians are incapable of producing equal quality work as Americans or that Indian work is by definition shoddy.

[WOSG]

While your have pegged other ideologies well, you are wrong to call 'free market' economics 'might makes right'. An utter confusion you preach based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

Your misunderstanding and error is to borrow the Socialists' lie that free exchange of goods is somehow 'coerced' or unfree.

Free markets are if anything else about "freedom". The free and voluntary interchange of labor and goods. As such, free market economics is *not* "might makes right" but comports with the fundamental principle of Freedom that says we should all be able to make decisions for ourselves, and Justice that says each of us should get our due (as agreed upon in voluntary contracts).

[Texas_Dawg]

I wish (as I do with taxes) that tariffs were not spread out over the year and in vague, indefinable ways as a punishment to all Americans by the federal government but instead, that all Americans had to pay their tariffs (and taxes) in one big check on April 15th. So instead of just having the federal government raise tariffs to make yourself feel better about how much you love all the little people, you would have to sit down and write out your check for $1,000 or whatever amount you owed for your tariffs that year (and if you think tariffs only hurt foreigners and those damn ChiComs, then you are a fool). I'd love to see how much people cared about their beloved "Little Man" then. After all, I doubt even the most hardline paleos on FR have ever written a charity check and mailed it to their favorite factory.

[janetgreen]

Thanks for badly-needed support! The vermin were raising my blood pressure, I had to get away from them for a while.

[Texas_Dawg]

Good luck trying to defeat Bush in 2004. Sorry, but we are going to crush you.

[Poohbah]

In a well run company people are supposed to be replaceable cogs.

In your preferred GOSPLAN utopia, maybe.

In the real world, they aren't.

And it is ridiculous in the extreme, self-flattering, and even racist to insist that Indians are incapable of producing equal quality work as Americans or that Indian work is by definition shoddy.

If they're capable of producing work identical in quality to Americans, they've done a damn good job at concealing that capability.

It's not racist to observe that the work I've actually seen come out of India is shoddy. It's merely a statement of fact.