Oh, you know, I thought I'd have a nice quiet morning, work out at the gym, read a bit...and, then, I had to look at The New York Times' editorial page, and it was all downhill from there, forcing me to fire up the computer to post this...
The Times continues its rant in support of so-called "free trade," lamenting the possible loss of "fast track" authority. Here's some of the first paragraph:
Unless Mr. Paulson and the administration do a lot more to counter that public anxiety — and growing opposition on Capitol Hill — President Bush stands to lose his fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals, which will be up for renewal soon, and will find it increasingly hard to block protectionist laws.
It's hard to understand how a paper that fancies itself as a believer in the balance of powers in government and a staunch defender of civil liberties can, at the same time, support "fast track." Way back, when I was participating in the efforts in the 1990s to stop the granting of "fast track" authority for Bill Clinton, one of the most powerful arguments, then, and still today, is that "fast track" gives way too much authority to the executive branch and takes away the rights of the people to have a say, via members of Congress, on how trade agreements are shaped. In other words, it should be declared unconstitutional or, at least, be seen by defenders of the separation of powers as quite a dangerous delegation of authority to the president.
It is also simply false to suggest that so-called "free trade" agreements can't pass without "fast track." Nonsense--they have passed. What The Times really doesn't like, apparently, is the notion that those awful "protectionists" would have a say in the shape of trade agreements.
I don't mind calling myself a "protectionist"--if one embraces the real meaning of the term: to protect. Indeed, the epithet "protectionist" is simply another version of trying to intimidate people and shut down debate, if you're inclined to wither like too many political people do when they are tarred with the, oh, no, label of being a "liberal." The whole debate about trade is not about "free trade" nor about "protectionism"--it's about the rules. THE RULES. What rules do we believe should govern the relationships between countries and cultures? Right now, it's one sided: pro-investment and pro-capital. Us awful "protectionists" want rules whose basic principles set out the idea that trade is, first and foremost, designed to advance the lives of people in communities, not just profit the few.
But I digress...sort of. To say something nice about the editorial. It does make two interesting points in a round about what after conceding that the American people don't have much faith in so-called "free trade" because of their insecurity:
Also long overdue is a plan to guarantee all Americans health care. Education is also important, although Mr. Paulson is overstating the case when he describes it as a silver bullet for making Americans more competitive.
It's quite interesting that the editorial is tying health care to trade. It's a recognition, again with the framework that so-called "free trade" is good, that one of real economic problems facing the nation is not that we don't have enough so-called "free trade" but that we spend 15 percent of the gross domestic product on health care. Insane.
And I am particularly interest in what I detect is a slight--very slight--cracking of the dominant notion that somehow education is a panacea. Today, I'll take The Times argument that the case is being overstated as a good beginning to the day when, perhaps (sure, I'm dreaming) The Times leads with an editorial that accepts the idea that education is not at all the solution to the global work crisis (psssst...it's wages).
Okay, back to my Saturday (and grumbling that U.C.L.A.'s game tonight is not televised).
Recent Comments