I happen to like Obama, despite the provocative title of this diary. But it is true that he may be more of a corporate free trader than Clinton. The pro-Obama community on the DailyKos may wish to challenge him on this to get him on the right track.
First, Obama's chief economic advisor is Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago free market guy. The Chicago School has been at the forefront of deregulation, letting corporations run free. Check out this post explaining Obama's economic advisors' positions on economic issues. It is not good.
Goolsbee does not believe our record $800 billion trade deficit is a problem. And he discounts job losses resulting from outsourcing. He has no interest in the causes of these problems.
Second, Fast Track trade authority died in June 2007. Fast Track allowed the administration to negotiate trade agreements and shove them down Congress' throat without amendment, without filibuster, and on a 90 day timeline. Our worst trade agreements, like NAFTA and CAFTA, were passed using the Fast Track hammer.
But Bush negotiated Free Trade Agreements with Peru, Panama, South Korea and Columbia before Fast Track died. So the Fast Track rules apply. These are all NAFTA-style agreements that are pro-outsourcing, and keep our trade deficit ballooning out of control to the benefit of the multinationals.
Clinton and Obama supported the Peru FTA, which passed and is now law. Clinton and Obama voted against CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement).
But Clinton has announced her opposition to the other three FTA's - Panama, Columbia and South Korea. Obama has not.
Clinton has called for a moratorium on trade agreements, to examine and fix their problems. Obama has not.
While I like Obama on other issues, the fate of our economy rides on correcting the trade deficit. We are a net food importer now, not the world's breadbasket. We outsource low tech, middle tech, high tech and green tech jobs. China currency manipulation creates huge problems. Other countries' value added taxes are used as tariffs against the U.S. We cannot live on future jobs growth limited to the government, health and low-wage service sectors, with the now-defunct steroidal addition of booming home prices and mortgage debt.
The combination of Obama's worrisome economic advisors and his refusal to state a position on the outstanding Free Trade Agreements requires some clarification. He made some good points in this letter on trade, but where does he stand on these FTA's?
The U.S. has a strong economy, and we should keep some of the benefits for our citizens and children.
UPDATE: One commenter pointed out Obama's opposition to the South Korea FTA on broader grounds than Clinton's statement in opposition. Obama did make much of the need for labor and environmental provisions in FTA's. I agree that these items should be included, but they are weak tea. They save no jobs, farms or businesses in this country.
And why support the Peru FTA - which is NAFTA lite - if you want to drive trade policy change?