Sirotablog

By Alan Merrill and David Sirota

Billings Gazette - 3/22/07 (Permalink)

As “fast track” trade promotion authority comes up for congressional reauthorization, we felt it important to clear up a few misconceptions about this rather convoluted issue. Proponents of “fast track” would have you believe the debate is about supporting trade versus opposing trade. In fact, the issue at stake is creating trade policy that works for all Americans, not just huge multinational corporations. But to examine the issue, one must first understand what “fast track” is.

The “fast track” trade promotion authority, masterminded by Richard Nixon, gives the executive branch virtual free reign to negotiate international trade agreements, giving Congress only a simple yes/no vote and limiting debate to 20 hours. If this all seems a bit complex, perhaps we should turn to the Constitution, which may shed some light on the matter of who should regulate international trade:

“The Congress shall have the Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” (Article I, Section

Family farms disappearing
Fast track is not helping Montana’s farmers. Since 1994, when fast track paved the way for NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), over 225,000 family farms have gone belly up. Likewise, the net farm income of small family farms has dropped 200 percent. Most chilling, however, is the most recent USDA report, which found that since last August the United States has become a net food importer.

But you don’t need reports to know this. Producers know that costs have gone up, while prices have stagnated or dropped. If you spend any time in a supermarket you’ll know more and more of our food is coming from abroad.

Fast track creates jobs in China and India. In the wake of fast track, the U.S. has lost a sixth of all manufacturing jobs, and the numbers grow as high-tech jobs are outsourced.

U.S. workers can expect little in terms of reward. Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the net average increase in Americans’ pay over the last 34 years, adjusted for inflation, was 5 cents.

Fast track is causing our trade deficit. Prior to the implementation of fast track, the US maintained trade balances or small surpluses since WWII. Since “fast track”, the United States has maintained a trade deficit in all but one of the last 30 years. The past 13 years of aggressive fast track use have seen deficits explode from $130 billion in 1994 to $800 billion in 2006.

Producers in the United States are not on the winning end of the bargain. Multinational corporations that outsource production to the cheapest locale profit.

Closed-door negotiations
Fast track is not democratic or constitutional. International trade is the purview of Congress, not the president. Trade agreements negotiated using fast track are done behind closed doors, with corporate interests. Moreover, ratified agreements automatically change thousands of non-trade laws passed by Congress. Because the agreements are federal law, they trump state and local laws. Corporations can then sue states and municipalities whose statutes stand in the way of their profits. This amounts to de facto international governance of local areas.

Fast track may have been necessary 30 years ago, but in today’s world it gives too much power to the wrong people. As the Constitution states, Congress - not the president - should be negotiating trade deals. Any deals must be fair to both industry and agriculture, here and abroad. They need to address the unsustainable trade deficit fast track has left us with. Finally, they should include democratic input, and respect states’ rights to govern themselves.

We must change direction and begin to forge trade policy that works for all Montanans.

Alan Merrill of Big Sandy is president of the Montana Farmers Union. David Sirota is a co-founder of the Progressive States Network and lives in Helena.