Posted: February 26, 2008 7:00 PM
In Ohio, it's NAFTA, NAFTA, NAFTA
Email This
In the week preceding a high-stakes Democratic presidential primary contest in Ohio between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the campaigns find themselves fighting over a major trade deal signed into law by Clinton’s husband.

The North American Free Trade Agreement is a sore subject in Ohio, where thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost to cheaper foreign factories. The Wall Street Journal reported that the state has lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000 and that voters there rated the economy as the most important issue.
Clinton and Obama are now battling over NAFTA, with Obama sending out a mailer in the state tying Hillary Clinton to former President Bill Clinton’s policy. Sen. Clinton shot back that the mailer used false and discredited information and responded with both an automated call and a mailer of her own. Both candidates visited Lorain, Ohio, this week. The city and county have been rocked by home foreclosures and lost jobs, Lorain Mayor Tony Krasienko told an Online NewsHour reporter in Ohio. He is endorsing Clinton, in part because she has addressed the home foreclosure issue, he said.
Obama, speaking in the city Sunday, defended his criticism of Clinton.
“Sen. Clinton also said I’m wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA. But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president,” Obama said, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Clinton came to Lorain on Tuesday, appearing with Kransienko and speaking to a crowd of 1,500 people in the gymnasium at Admiral King High School. She told the crowd that she wanted to try to stop the flow of jobs overseas by fixing NAFTA, a sentiment that generated a big cheer from the crowd.
Clinton also told the crowd that while she doesn’t mind debating Obama on NAFTA, she doesn’t appreciate his campaign sending “false and misleading information” in the mail, referencing the Obama mailer.
Longtime Ohio Democratic strategist Greg Haas, who supports Obama, said he doesn’t think the NAFTA issue has the pull the campaigns think it does.
“I actually think the NAFTA issue is overrated,” Haas said. “It’s probably overrated on Obama’s part. On Sen. Clinton’s side, the fact that she’s been attacked in this victim role isn’t going to fly.”
Haas said that while he expects Obama to get a minor boost from his attack on Clinton’s association with NAFTA, he said it won’t compare to the support 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot gleaned in Northeast Ohio — a heavily industrial and Democratic areas — when he campaigned against NAFTA.
Tom Lahetta, a Clinton supporter and homebuilder who attended her rally in Lorain, said he is unhappy with NAFTA’s effect on Ohio, but was so pleased with the state of the country under Bill Clinton’s presidency that he is willing to overlook Sen. Clinton’s association with her husband’s policy.
The issue of trade is expected to arise during Tuesday night’s Democratic debate in Cleveland, Ohio. The forum will be the candidates’ last televised debate before March 4 primary contests in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.
While Clinton has maintained a lead over Obama in Ohio polls, the Illinois senator has lately been closing the gap. A recent polling average has Clinton with 49 percent support to Obama’s 42 percent, according to Real Clear Politics.
-- By , NewsHour with Jim Lehrer | Comments | Link


|
AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION
The term ‘Free Trade’ is usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other governmental barriers to international trade. There is no doubt that some recent free trade agreements have not been very good for the American worker. On the other hand, the agreements have been great for the large multinational corporations, particularly those that have moved their manufacturing plants from the United States to China, Mexico and other low-wage countries where they can hire people there for a few dollars a week. These corporations can now produce their products without worrying about the costs of meeting OSHA requirements, providing employee health care or pensions for its workers and then they can bring their products back into the USA to sell. These products oftentimes are not made to the same quality standards as when they were produced in America and as recents incidents involving Chineese imports have shown, these products can pose health hazards to Americans as well.
The supporters of many free trade agreements, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have always promised increased exports, better jobs and better wages. Under many of these free trade agreements, however, just the opposite has occurred. Under NAFTA, for example, the U.S. trade deficit has soared and now averages $55-65 Billion dollars per month; the U.S. has lost over a million manufacturing jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly. In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of either the United States or Mexico.
In 2005, a new mechanism was created to speed the further expansion of the NAFTA free trade agreement into a North American Union. It is called the Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)’ The SPP is designed to facilitate the establishment of a North America Union through the “economic integration” of the US, Mexico and Canada. The most important feature of the SPP is that it does not require congressional ratification or the passage of any federal legislation by the congress of the United States. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States. How else would Mexican truckers be able to begin operating in the USA over the objections of Congress, American truckers and most of the American people?
The people and their elected representatives in congress no longer seem to have a voice when it comes to international trade. This is definitely a national sovereignty issue. International trade issues that affect 300+ million Americans should be made by the people’s representatives in Congress, not by a handful of government bureaucrats and corporate elites who use their government connections to bypass congress and ignore our Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
The goal of these international trade elite is to create an integrated North American Union, complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the proposed Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the destruction of our national sovereignty. A free America, with limited, constitutional government, would just be a memory.
Not all free trade agreements are bad, but I believe that the United States of America must withdraw from any international agreements that infringe upon the freedom, sovereignty and independence of the American people.
By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
www.johnwallaceforcongress.com