Compare: trade issues.

[JDPriestly]

TRADE IS A BIG ISSUE FOR ME. (sorry about the caps which offend so many DUers-- can't underline or italicize and want to differentiate may comments)
HERE'S EDWARDS PLAN FROM HIS WEBSITE:

HERE IS HIS INTRODUCTION. IT PUTS THE ISSUES INTO PERSPECTIVE FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES. SKIP IF YOU KNOW ALL THIS:

Smarter Trade That Puts Workers First

"Trade has become a bad word for working Americans for a simple reason: our trade policy has been bad for working Americans. We need new trade policies that put workers, wages and families first." – John Edwards

In America today, most families are working harder and struggling to get by. Our economy is growing and the productivity of our workers is at an all-time high, but workers' wages have failed to keep up with the costs of health care, education and retirement. Globalization, technological change and outdated labor and workplace laws have fundamentally changed our economy and redistributed the benefits of economic growth upwards. Equally fundamental change is needed to ensure our economy once again rewards work.

* A Generation of Stagnant Wages: America has always been about building a better life for our children, but we have lost a generation of progress. Men in their thirties today earn less after inflation than did men of their fathers' generation 30 years ago, leading families to work harder. Only 30 percent of Americans think the next generation will be better off.

* An Economy Growing only at the Top: Income inequality is at its greatest level since 1928. Forty percent of economic growth over the past 20 years has gone to the top 1 percent of households. In 2005, income grew 14 percent for the top 1 percent but was stagnant for the bottom 90 percent. If all Americans shared in prosperity to the same extent they did 30 years ago, families in the bottom 80 percent would be earning $7,000 more a year.

* A Washington Run by Special Interests: Powerful special interests are doing better than ever. The number of Washington lobbyists has tripled to 36,000 since 1996, more than 60 for every member of Congress. Their impact can be seen in a broken health care system, dependence on fossil fuels, neglect of poverty, abusive lending, and subsidies for corporate farms over family farms.

Today, John Edwards proposed "smart trade" policies: insisting on pro-worker provisions in new deals, holding trade partners to their commitments, investing more in dislocated workers and communities, and ensuring that imports are safe. He believes that the U.S. should not enter any new trade deals that do not meet these tests. His agenda is based upon three principles:

* Help Workers as Well as Corporations: Trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO include special privileges for corporations, such as strong remedies for commercial rights and unprecedented rights to challenge environmental and health laws. Edwards believes that trade agreements should be judged by their effect on regular families and include strong rights for workers.

* Lift Up Families Around the World: Building the global middle class will promote balanced trade relationships and, by reducing poverty, make us safer and more secure. Edwards supports trade and foreign aid to ensure that workers around the world share in the gains from trade.

* Build on Other Efforts to Share Prosperity: Trade policy alone will not address the needs of American workers. As president, Edwards will also lead the country toward universal health care, better schools, stronger unions, and investments in innovation and skills to improve competitiveness and create new jobs in industries like clean energy and the life sciences.

HERE IS EDWARDS' PLAN (again, my comment)

Smart Trade For American Workers

After growing up in Carolina mill towns, John Edwards understands the devastating impact trade can have on workers and communities. The current account deficit exceeded $850 billion in 2006, which is 6.5 percent of our economy. An estimated 5 million jobs have been sent offshore under President Bush, and economist Alan Blinder estimates that 30 million to 40 million jobs are potential candidates to be sent offshore in the coming decades. Even when jobs are not moved offshore, competition from cheap labor overseas holds down wages and benefits in the United States.

# Be a Tough Negotiator, Unafraid to Reject Bad Deals: The American position in trade negotiations has been formulated behind closed doors with help from corporate lobbyists. Under the "fast track" procedure, Congress could not amend the resulting deals. Not surprisingly, trade deals include special privileges for American multinational corporations but not protections for worker rights. For example, while the core NAFTA agreement failed to include any labor standards, its Chapter 11 gave corporations sweeping rights to challenge national laws in secretive tribunals, putting investor profits ahead of American sovereignty and protections for health and the environment.

* Insist on Benefits for Regular Families: Edwards believes that the true test of a trade deal is not its reception on Wall Street or contribution to the gross domestic product. Instead, his primary criterion for new trade deals will be simple: considering its impact on jobs, wages and prices, will it make most families better off? He rejects President Bush's use of trade agreements to encourage countries to support his foreign policy, rather than to strengthen our economy.

* Demand Strong Labor Laws: Many overseas workers work 12 to 16 hours a day in dangerous conditions for poverty wages, without the right to form an independent union. Requiring our trade partners to adopt and enforce basic workers' rights will prevent a global race to the bottom and help build a global middle class. Edwards believes that all of our trade partners should be required to enforce at least the core labor rights defined by the International Labor Organization: the right to organize and bargain collectively and prohibitions against forced labor, child labor, and discrimination. Edwards will pursue these goals through linkage to U.S. trade preference programs, any new bilateral trade agreements, and future World Trade Organization negotiations.

* Require Environmental Standards: Edwards supports strong environmental standards so multinational companies cannot profit by exploiting weak environmental laws and enforcement in some countries. For example, after the U.S. has capped its greenhouse gas pollution as Edwards proposes, trade policy could be used to encourage similar commitments by other nations.

* Fight Currency Manipulation: Some of our trading partners intentionally manipulate their currencies to keep the price of their exports low, putting American businesses at a great disadvantage. Edwards believes that other nations like China and Japan must make meaningful progress toward ending currency manipulation. Future deals must include strong, clear language on impermissible currency practices. Edwards will also make it easier for the Department of the Treasury to act against unfair trade practices by removing the intent requirement and allowing a range of responses, such as suspending government purchases from the foreign country to taking a case directly to the WTO.

# Demand a Level Playing Field for Trade: America's trade with the world has accelerated greatly in the past 15 years. Technology reduced the cost of trading goods and services, large countries like China, India and the former Soviet bloc joined world markets, and the U.S. cut its average tariff in half. In that time, imports have increased by more than 50 percent as a share of our economy and our leaders in Washington have failed to ensure that overseas markets are open and that American workers and companies can compete on fair terms.
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/trade/

EDWARDS DOES NOT HESITATE TO PUT THE BLAME FOR OUR LOUSY TRADE AGREEMENTS WHERE IT BELONGS -- ON THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND THE NEGOTIATORS. I WOULD AD THAT CONGRESS HAS BEEN ALL TO READY AND WILLING TO GIVE PRESIDENTS INCLUDING CLINTON FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY IN THIS AREA. WE NEED EDWARDS TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE FROM HIS VIEWPOINT AS THE CHILD OF WORKERS IN A MILL THAT HAS BEEN CLOSED.

OBAMA
HIS PLAN FROM HIS WEBSITE:

Trade

Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.

* Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.
* Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.
* Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT OBAMA EXPANDS ON THESE TERSE AND VERY GENERAL STATEMENTS ELSEWHERE, BUT THIS IS ALL PRETTY VAGUE COMPARED TO EDWARDS. OBAMA DOES NOT ADDRESS FAST-TRACK AUTHORITY, FOR EXAMPLE. WHAT DOES HE THINK ABOUT IT? ALSO SHAT ABOUT CURRENCY MANIPULATION. IS OBAMA AWARE OF THAT PROBLEM? DOES HE HAVE A PLAN TO DEAL WITH IT? WILL HE AT THE VERY LEAST ADDRESS IT?

HILLARY FROM HER WEBSITE:

HILLARY TALKS ABOUT MAKING GLOBALIZATION WORK IN SPEECHES, BUT DOES NOT LIST TRADE AS AN ISSUE UNDER ISSUES ON HER WEBSITE.

FROM A COUPLE OF HER SPEECHES

So when people across Iowa ask me why it's so hard for the Bush administration to get tough on China and other trading partners, I tell them because these countries are now our bankers. We're their debtor. How can we truly enforce trade laws against a country like China when we have to borrow money to feed the massive debt that George Bush has driven up?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=4284

And I will work from day one to ensure that our trade policies actually work for American workers. That they include strong enforceable protections for labor and environmental standards, and that they deliver benefits not just for trading partners, not just for the people at the top of the income scale in America, but for all Americans.

Because look at what has happened in the past six years. Our trade deficit has doubled in just six years to $760 billion a year. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that we've lost 1.8 million jobs to China, we're paying higher prices for low cost consumer goods some of which have serious safety problems. Now the last 6 years may have been great for China, but is it the best course for America going forward? I don't think so.

It's time for a new approach, one that doesn't lead to a race to the bottom, but instead ensures that ordinary citizens not CEO's but people who do the work in America and in other nations come out ahead again.

I will start by appointing a Trade Enforcement Officer within the United States Trade Representative's Office who will be responsible for vigorously enforcing trade agreements. And I will double the size of the enforcement unit. The Bush Administration has filed roughly the same number of enforcement actions under our trade agreements that were filed during one year of the Clinton Administration. That is unacceptable. They're abdicating their responsibility, no one should get away with violating trade agreements, and when I'm President, we're going to start enforcing them again and we're not going to enter into them unless we think they're going to be good for American workers.

Next I will work to address specific problems with NAFTA. As I've said before, this agreement has some serious shortcomings. For example, I did a study last year in New York looking at the impact of NAFTA on our business people, our workers and our farmers because we share a long boarder with Canada. But what people were telling me whom I represent is they could not get their products into Canada despite NAFTA's promise of equal access. And I did a study and I sent it to the Bush Administration and I said I want answers as to why this is not working. You know I have apple farmers up along the boarder, they couldn't get their apples in but apples were coming out of Canada. I had business people who couldn't figure out how to get through all of the red tape to get their products in, but products were coming out of Canada. Now we have a great relationship with Canada. But I think it is time that we assess trade agreements every five years to make sure they're meeting their goals or make adjustments if they are not and we should start with doing that with NAFTA.

And finally, I will overhaul our Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to ensure that workers who've lost their jobs because of global competition get the income support, the health care, the job training and the job placement assistance they need to get back on their feet.

You know the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is a lifeline for workers across America who can use it. Unfortunately too few people can use it. First, service workers whose jobs are lost to outsourcing should be able to be eligible to receive TAA benefits. It makes no sense to keep excluding service workers because we know we're losing a lot of service jobs overseas. Second, TAA should cover all workers whose plants have moved abroad whether or not the plant moved to a country with which we have a free trade agreement. Believe it or not, Trade Adjustment Assistance currently does not cover workers whose jobs are outsourced to China and India because we don't have free trade agreements with them.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=3626

HILLARY DISSES THE CANADIANS FOR THEIR VIOLATIONS OF NAFTA BUT THE FACT IS THAT NAFTA WAS POORLY NEGOTIATED AND DRAFTED AND WE HAVE NOT ALLOWED SOME CANADIAN PRODUCTS INTO THE US. SHE SHOULD KNOW THESE THINGS. HER HUSBAND NEGOTIATED AND AGREED IN PRINCIPLE OT NAFTA. TAA BENEFITS ARE USELESS IF YOU CAN'T GET A JOB THAT PAYS AS WELL AS YOU THE JOB YOU LOST -- BECAUSE NO SUCH JOB EXISTS. TRADE IS A FLOP, AND CLINTON WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN CREATING THE FLOP THAT TRADE HAS BECOME.

[Hippo_Tron]

1. Fast-track authority is required to negotiate trade agreements

You can't negotiate a trade deal when you then have to submit it to congress and every congressman can nitpick at it and adjust it so that it benefits their constituency.

[JDPriestly]

3. Fast-track has all too often meant sloppy, self-interested negotiations.

[sandnsea]

2. Obama has not addressed trade enough

from a macro-global stand point. When he went to Wall Street, he talked to them more from a stand point of what working Americans would need if trade was going to continue. There are a couple of dits about China monetary manipulation on his web site, so he's aware it's a problem. He also says he will be tougher on enforcement, and renegotiate. But he will need to get more into detail on his trade policy, that's true.

I haven't completely decided on Fast Track. Previousy I had thought it was a good idea because we would have one person to point a finger at, instead of all the gibberish you get out of Congress. There was a quote from Obama on fast track where he said he thought it was unConstitutional, trade treaties are specifically the venue of Congress. That's true I suppose, but I still like to be able to point right at George Bush and say, he negotiated this shit.