A Look Back At NAFTA at eighteen and what happened to legislatures who voted to destroy half the labor force

US Going Out Of Business

It was only eighteen years ago that the US government signed away about half the jobs in the US economy through the North American free trade agreement. It was largely considered a success by corporate America and its five news delivery megaphones (Disney, Viacom, GE/Comcast, News Corp and Time Warner); largely not, by the people who work for a living or took a huge pay cut in the post-NAFTA economy or any of their zero news delivery outlets. It accelerated the transformation of the US from a country of workers who were paid livable wages; into one that merely shops, and uses credit cards to attain more than they can afford. NAFTA is a story with no heroes or villains as both Republicans and Democrats linked arms with big business at the expense of the American electorate. It is a story still going forward as many of these same politicians seek to destroy the other half of the economy with their union stripping measures.

NAFTA created many jobs, as trade increased exports under NAFTA from $306 to $621 billion a year in the first ten years. In the US exports went up from $142 billion to $263 billion a year during the same time period. The growth in exports is usually where the pro-NAFTA forces tend to want to end the conversation. What they choose to ignore is the import side of the equation. According to international economist Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute, a labor backed think tank based in Washington D.C. “That’s like counting only deposits and not withdrawals in your checking account balance.” (Northwest labor press 12/19/2003)

Back in 1993 pro-NAFTA forces used the potential of job growth from exports to sell the American public on this policy. In 1993, Time-Warner played an active role in the NAFTA heist offering up their air waves for vice-president Al Gore to take apart eccentric Ross Perot, and his characterization of NAFTA as being “a giant sucking sound” of US jobs leaving for Mexico, on national television. Time-Warner allowed Perot enough time for the Americans to view him as extreme on television and then the combined US media megaphone shut off any anti-NAFTA viewpoints while playing up how crazy Perot was. The one problem was Perot turned out to be right and the combined US political and business community lied to the American people. It wouldn’t be the last time it would happen.

Gore and Perot on Larry King live

Currently the Economic Policy Institute estimates that NAFTA has cost the United States 682,000 jobs. The trade agreement made it easier for trade and investment to cross the borders but it didn’t allow for the free flow of labor.  Perhaps one of the most dramatic things was that before 1993 the US had a $1.6 million dollar trade surplus over Mexico. By 1997, the US had a $16.6 billion deficit to Mexico. Today, it hovers around $97.2 deficits to Mexico. In fact last year, due to growth in the Mexican auto exports to the United States, Mexico created more automotive jobs than the entire US auto industry. (Huffington Post 5/12/11)

Like always the US public would be made to settle for concrete job losses while being promised retraining and potential jobs in the future. The hardest hit US industries have been textiles and electronics. Both California and Texas has been hit very hard from jobs lost to its southern neighbor. The former heart of the US automotive industry: Michigan, Indiana and Kentucky have also been devastated by NAFTA as well. (Ibid) Local communities have been devastated. The US government put forward a program to re-train workers for the post-NAFTA economy. The program would end in 2003 without the jobs ever coming back or new ones appearing. 

NAFTA was also sold to the Americans as being a way to stop the flow of illegal Mexican immigrants to the United States, because of their homelands prosperity. This didn’t happen either. During the first ten years of NAFTA, Mexico created 500,000 manufacturing jobs while they lost 1.3 million agricultural jobs as local Mexican farmers were often in competition with large US agribusinesses. What NAFTA largely did was depress wages of workers in all three countries.

Clinton At NAFTA signing. One wonders what role this played in denying his wife the nomination.

So what happened to these brave American representatives that cast their votes for a bill that killed half the economy? In 2008, if president Barrack Obama had not been nominated by his party the election would have been between John McCain, a guy who voted for a bill that would cost the country almost three quarter of million jobs, against the wife of the guy who signed the bill. In the senate, before the last election twelve of the senators who helped past the job killing bill still retained their jops. Two others Arizona’s Jon Kyle and Illinois Dick Durbin who had voted for the bill in the House of Representatives had been upgraded to the senate. At least five senators who helped pass the bill no longer take indirect payments from companies, through campaign contributions, but are now directly on their pay role as lobbyists. One, Phil Gramm, was held up as the financial guru for John McCain presidency. Another, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, showed so much character that he twice flipped parties, changing believes to match his current allegiances. Another job killing senator was Alan Simpson whose work laid the ground work for him being assigned to protect the electorate’s social security payments. Showing that if you achieve a certain level it is almost impossible to do a bad enough job to fail.

In the House of Representatives out of 234 cast their votes for NAFTA 43 of them have left to become lobbyists. Twenty one of them still hold seats in the house, including both the speaker of the house John Boenher and the minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Another one casting a vote was Newt Gingrich who was forced out of the house of ethics violations, before becoming a permanent potential presidential candidate as well as an ongoing guest on a wide range of corporate “news/opinion” shows. Also voting for the job killing bill was Dick Armey, a former representative who was able to spin the general public’s frustration over the lack of jobs into the Tea Party movement which often favored putting candidates back in the power who helped destroy jobs. Also supporting this bill was Tom Delay (who left the House under ethic violations), Duke Cunningham (jailed for accepting bribes), and Dan Rostenkowski (ethic violation). One of the representative who helped pass the job killing measure was now Ohio governor John Kasich, whose collective bargaining bill appears destined to try to kill the other half of the economy under the guise of creating jobs.

It is clear that some of the jobs that were once in the US have already left Mexico as business continues to pursue cheaper labor. The problem is the politicians who have actively engaged in policies that so thoroughly run counter to their fellow citizens’ interests continue to maintain their own jobs and even if they are thrown out the companies often reach down and rescue them from falling in with the rabble. The Supreme Court has now even codified bribery in the Citizens United case. These politicians get to live in a much better life by supporting policies that harm those who they supposedly represent. The media instead treats these politicians like they are wise old scholars rather than lackeys who’ll work who’ll buy their loyalty.