Punish the CAFTA 15

    Enough. Enough. Enough. If we ever want to make politicians take us seriously when it comes to important laws touching the lives of workers, we must punish the 15 so-called Democrats who voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)--and punish them hard.

    Not a single one of those cowardly 15 should receive a dime more of labor money. Not a single phone call should be made on their behalf. No labor endorsment should grace their re-election literature. They must pay.

    Not just on behalf of American workers. But, on behalf of the millions of workers who live in Central America for whom this is a bad deal, too. If we're going to talk about global solidarity, this is where we can practice it. If we're going to send letters to the Democratic Party and talk tough, we have to follow through.

    So, here is the roll-call of the 15 so-called Democrats, with their office telephone numbers. Print this list out and send it to everybody on your lists:

Melissa Bean, Illinois (8th District): 202-225-3711

Jim Cooper, Tennessee (5th District): 202-225-4311

Norm Dicks, Washington (6th District): 202-225-5916

Henry Cuellar, Texas (28th District): 202-225-1640

Ruben Hinojosa, Texas (15th District): (202) 225-2531

William Jefferson, Louisiana (2nd District): (202) 225-6636

Jim Matheson, Utah (2nd District): (202) 225-3011

Gregory Meeks, New York (6th District): 202-225-3461

Dennis Moore, Kansas (3rd District): (202) 225-2865

Jim Moran, Virginia (8th District): (202) 225-4376

Solomon Ortiz, Texas (27th District): 202-225-7742

Ike Skelton, Missouri (4th District): 202-225-2876

Vic Snyder, Arkansas (2nd District): 202-225-2506

John Tanner, Tennessee (8th District): (202) 225-4714

Edolphus Towns, New York (10th District: (202) 225-5936

    So, here's how to make it real:

1. Today, on the last day of the AFL-CIO convention, delegates should demand that a new resolution pass which states simply (with all the obvious "whereas" stuff): Resolved, no labor resources, financial or human, shall be expended on behalf of the 15 Democrats who voted for CAFTA.

2. Every CLC and State Federation should, at their very next meeting, pass a similar resolution, send the text to the pathetic so-called Democrat and take out an ad in the local newspaper which includes the text of the resolution and the reasoning behind it.

3. Look for people who stand up for workers. Let's find primary opponents to run against every one of the 15 so-called Democrats--knock off just one or two and watch the party tremble...you want to play in politics, it's time to get rough and bloody some noses.

Comments

[Michael Funke]

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden cast the deciding vote that sent CAFTA out of committee and to the floor of the Senate. I realize yours was a list of House members, but Wyden also needs to be singled out. The committee vote was 11-10. He made the difference. Oregon labor lobbied him hard but he chose to help the Bush Administration rather than working people. He needs to be punished, too.

[Carl]

Fucking unbelievable.

Carl

[Jan]

This is good. I was wondering when labor was going to stand up. This should have been done on the bankrupcy bill also then maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion on CAFTA.
I'm sick of these DINOs. I hope Dean gets the message loud and clear.

[Tasini]

Let's be pissed--but let's get this list around to everyone possible and get people to start bombarding their offices with calls.

[Steve Diamond]

An interesting question would be whether SEIU and IBT will support such an effort....

[Bill Pearson]

One thing we know for sure is, we'll get lots of well written, hard edged speeches on how the bastards will pay. Beyond that, history has well proven just how to tough we are to those who betrayed us.

Your piece JT, the Edifice Complex, says it all. Well ahead of it's time, you nailed it when you said we should sell the buildings in Washington and move to Mainstreet USA. Living in the shadows of the political process has blinded most of our union leaders to believing they are actually players in this great american tragedy called labor.

It's time to quit courting politicians and start talking to workers. Labor's future will only be advanced when workers become the sole (soul too for that matter) target of our efforts. Politics or people? It isn't a choice you should have to think all that hard about...unless of course you are a public sector employee and then politics is all you care about.

[Toubob]

I am outraged but not in the least bit surprised. My so-called representative, Jim Moran, supported the bankruptcy "reform" legislation and other regressive bills. BUT WHY SHOULDN'T HE? Our central labor council does nothing other than attend dinners in Richmond to honor anti-worker legislation, etc. I promise that Moran's CAFTA vote will not make any difference in Nov. '06, since our foolish leaders only heap praise on "their" candidates. Issues be damned!
I'VE NEVER FELT THIS BEFORE BUT MAYBE IT IS TIME FOR A TRUE LABOR PARTY

[RoscoeRich]

Amen Toubob. Moran's got to go!

[Info Tech Guy]

I'm not in the least bit shocked. Most Democrats in Congress have been voting pro-outsourcing and reaping the financial rewards. Democrats in Congress and Democrats in the DNC have been courting corporations as part of the DLC plan to remake the Democratic Party into a "business friendly" kinder gentler place. Democrats in Congress have been key players in the FTA votes *and* the increases in non-immigrant visa (NIV) "guest workers" under H-1b and L-1 programs. These are the programs used to replace American information technology workers in the U.S. with low-wage foreign workers. (See the CWA web site at www.techsunite.org and www.washtech.org for details.) We don't really have a "labor party". We have two parties for the rich and powerful with a lot of posturing on social/economic issues. Both parties, with a few exceptions, are at war with the middle and working classes. JT: You're dead on with everything you said about the 15 pro-outsourcing sell-outs.

[cris moreland]

this is a step closer to the trilateral commission's goal of complete economic control of the northern and southern hemisphere

[John Amman]

Isn't ironic that 2 days after the Democratic Party leadership expressed concern over what the split in the labor movement would do to their grassroots support that they'd vote yes on CAFTA. Ironic, but not surprising. And it is the lack of surprise that makes this all the more infuriating.

[Mike Donovan]

I didn't think Ed Townes had to be reminded of how he should vote on CAFTA - he's been good on so many other issues. But this is a killer for those of us in the apparel and textile industry that there's no way in hell I can ever vote for him after this.

[Shaun Richman]

I'm in Meeks' district, and called up like a good labor citizen. He's received the Working Families ballot line for every re-election. Is the WFP going to finally start hurting Democrats who hurt us? Towns and Meeks are ripe for a challenge from the WFP.

[Ian Kenny]

You know it's real convenient to vent and "punish" people who oppose you on one issue or another. However, it's really shortsighted and ultimately defeatist for you target representatives for 1) voting their conscience, and 2) possibly having a different world view on certain matters than you do. Ultimately, in a representative democracy, what you are electing is someone who can “represent you” most of the time, not parrot your views all of the time. You need to look at these 15, and the other 420 members of the House, and see how they vote on the vast majority of issues important to you. It is frankly sophomoric and unenlightened for you to focus on an issue that will have little to no impact on 99.9 percent of American workers at the expense of all others. Instead, voters and supporters need to ask broader questions of these and other Members: Do they have an overall governing philosophy that puts workers first or not? Do they support health care for all? Raising the minimum wage? Rolling back inequitable tax cuts (like the repeal of the estate tax)? Saving and securing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? These sorts of issues will have a MUCH more important impact on workers (and seniors and children) in American, than this tiny, inconsequential, trade agreement.

[Ian Kenny]

You know it's real convenient to vent and "punish" people who oppose you on one issue or another. However, it's really shortsighted and ultimately defeatist for you target representatives for 1) voting their conscience, and 2) possibly having a different world view on certain matters than you do. Ultimately, in a representative democracy, what you are electing is someone who can “represent you” most of the time, not parrot your views all of the time. You need to look at these 15, and the other 420 members of the House, and see how they vote on the vast majority of issues important to you. It is frankly sophomoric and unenlightened for you to focus on an issue that will have little to no impact on 99.9 percent of American workers at the expense of all others. Instead, voters and supporters need to ask broader questions of these and other Members: Do they have an overall governing philosophy that puts workers first or not? Do they support health care for all? Raising the minimum wage? Rolling back inequitable tax cuts (like the repeal of the estate tax)? Saving and securing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? These sorts of issues will have a MUCH more important impact on workers (and seniors and children) in American, than this tiny, inconsequential, trade agreement.

[J Jen]

Tiny?? Inconsequential? Does Ian own a job?.. at least before CAFTA sends his job to another country. The naivete of Americans is incredible. I don't know whether to barf on the constitution now or burn it. How do we get basic information to those in power?

[Katelynn Martin]

For all the issues organized labor has faced in recent times, I really have to stand up for all the unions in Florida. Everyone (CLCs, Teamsters, SEIU, UniteHERE, etc) were instrumental in the votes of our dems. Going in, Jim Davis (d-10) (who is running for the dem primary in the governor's race) was pro-CAFTA. He voted for fast track last time around, and no-one believed he could be moved. But with the hard work of those in labor and otherwise, we got him to vote right. So, I will say that although some of you may have inefective union leadership, they could obviously learn a thing or two from those in FL.

These folks did an excellent job.

(I am not union affiliated, but i have the utmost respect for organized labor)

[Shane Crump]

Thank you for the phone numbers of the Democrats who voted pro CAFTA. I will call them and thank them for voting their true feelings as opposed to voting just for special interests. As a pro-labor, past union member, once union organizer, and PRO CAFTA registered democrat, I realize how tough the persecution can be from fellow democrats. You have to believe that being pro-trade is pro-labor. And even if you do not believe this, understand that the democrats who voted for CAFTA are trying to look at the bigger picture rather than being short sighted (like the people who leave comments on this website swearing and calling names, showing their true level of intellect and lack of class.) Please go to school, study macro economics and foreign trade. Then make an educated opinion rather than mirrior what your union president screams. You may find that it is possible to actually help labor with decreases in trade barriers. Thank you.

[dan]

it is clear that labor must politically punish those dems who voted for cafta. more important trade votes will come up in the future and we must stop them. further, we can keep supporting elected officials who vote against workers' interests or do not speak up strongly on workers' behalf.

i think a good model to follow is the 2004 new york state legislature elections. in that cycle, nassau county exec tom suozzi singled out a single assemblymember in his county, fielded an opponent, and campaigned tirelessly on his candidate's behalf. the purpose was to begin to 'reform' the state legislature by pushing out nonresponsive incumbents. the genius of the strategy was that it was doable (it targets one candidate, rather than many) and it has powerful symbolic dimensions (by attacking an incumbent merely for the sake of attacking an incumbent all other state legislators begin to feel pressure and the mission of reform gets a lot of press). in fact, suozzi's reform candidate won. and somehow, this year, the state legislature passed the first ontime budget in 20 years. expect the same thing to happen in 2006.

now, if labor followed this program we would focus our energies on voting out one of these pro-cafta dems. getting rid of 15 incumbents is probably unrealistic. but, if enough unions can unite behind defeating one incumbent, our chances are quite good. we pick the congressmember most susceptible to a primary defeat, who has the most union density in his district, and who has been inconsistent on other labor issues and run a campaign centered on the cafta vote among other labor issues. then we field a primary candidate, preferably a union member to run against them.

this is both doable and meaningful. by winning a victory in such a race we would get a good labor-friendly rep, and send a single to recalcitrant dems that they cannot take labor support for granted. in fact, you can pretty much bank on labor's full political opposition if you vote against us.

and the best part: we really could win such a locally focused campaign.

[matt]

can't these people see that this so called president is killing the USA. He has not done one thing positive for the USA. Plus these 15 SO_CALLED DEMOCRATES should think seriously about getting out of politics or switching to the fat heads(republicans)

[matt]

can't these people see that this so called president is killing the USA. He has not done one thing positive for the USA. Plus these 15 SO_CALLED DEMOCRATES should think seriously about getting out of politics or switching to the fat heads(republicans)

[Ian Kenny]

May I suggest that J Jen and others read factual material, rather than political broadsides before making your claims. On the US side of the jobs equation, according to the non-partisan US International Trade Commission: "Total U.S. exports to the world are likely to increase by approximately $1.9 billion or by 0.16 percent, and total U.S. imports from the world are likely to increase by about $1.2 billion or by 0.07percent, “WITH MINIMAL IMPACT ON U.S. EMPLOYMENT AND OUTPUT” (emphasis added – link below).

And on the global side, and according to a very balanced World Bank study, passage of CAFTA will “translate into nearly half a million fewer Central Americans living in poverty by 2010 (Table 16, Chapter 4).”

http://hotdocs.usitc.gov/docs/pubs/2104f/pub3717.pdf

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/LAC/LAC.nsf/ECADocbyUnid/4668F61591FA2AC38525702A0078354C?Opendocument

[Tom]

Ian raises some good points. I think the wisest course is for the Dems, labor (what's left of it), and others to support other Dems in the primary, but then support whoever is the Dem candidate in the general election.

I also wonder if the recent AFL-CIO self-destruction and resulting loss of clout had an effect on those 15 votes. Or, say, 2 out of the 15, which is all it would have taken to defeat it.

[Texas]

This is stupid single out 15 Dems who voted for CAFTA and let slide the 202 Republicans.

It is not only idiotoc it is down right dirty pool sponsored by the Republican Propaganda machine.

[Rob]

Shane Crump claims to be both pro-labor and pro-CAFTA and then he tells us to "go back to school" if we are "too stupid" to agree with him. You claim to know so much about macroeconomics, Shane, but you know little about how unions actually work. The problem with free trade is not the trade itself, its the race to the bottom wage and regulatory competition it engenders. Labor succeeds by taking wages and working conditions out of competition through collective agreements and pro-worker regulations. It is possible to establish a transnational regulatory regime that preserves the benefits of unionization while also reaping the benefits of trade. If you want to know how to do this, you should read (among other things) Katherine Van Wetzel Stone, "Labor and the Global Economy, Four Approaches to Transnational Labor Regulation," 16 Mich. J. Int'l L. 987.

CAFTA does not do this because it contains no transnational labor standards system. In fact, the system it does have may perversely encourage all countries within it (including the Central American countries) to lower their standards. That's why most independent unions in Central America oppose this deal, just as do the US unions.

So do a little more reading and quit being so smarmy, kid.