Sometimes, those of us who have continually said so-called "free trade" is a very bad deal for American workers and workers around the globe. NAFTA, for example, has cost about 1 million decent-paying jobs since it was passed, thanks to the Clinton Administration. Here's a bit more information from the Economic Policy Institute:
For a better understanding of the situation, it helps to review some basics. Exports support jobs in the United States, while imports displace domestic production and jobs. In 2004, U.S. imports from Mexico and Canada were $412 billion, while U.S. exports were only $300 billion, leaving a $112 billion trade deficit (nominal dollars). By comparison, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico was only $9 billion in 1993; the increase in that trade deficit through 2004 is what is responsible for displacing 1 million jobs nationwide.
The elites and their servants in the halls of Congress will keep telling us that so-called "free trade" agreements are good things. Well, the numbers show that it is a terrible thing for average workers. This is one reason I'm hoping Jack Davis defeats Tom Reynolds in the 26th Congressional district race in New York--Davis has run using NAFTA as the central issue. The irony is that Reynolds may go down--no pun intended--because of his role in the Foley "scandal" even though, with all due respect and understanding that what Foley was inexcusable, Reynolds has hurt far more people by supporting so-called "free trade" and he should lose his re-election bid on that basis alone.