Unions make candidates sound ignorant

Linda Chavez:

Hillary Clinton may be pulling away from the pack of Democratic contenders, but she’s still playing it safe. She’s quick to stake out territory that puts her in the mainstream of Democratic opinion, even if it means disavowing her own past positions - or those of her husband.
This week, Sen. Clinton deftly danced around the trade issue during a debate sponsored by the AFL-CIO. To hear her talk about it, you’d think NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement, which removed barriers and tariffs for products traded among the United States, Mexico and Canada) was a Republican plot to destroy American jobs.

In reality, NAFTA was one of President Bill Clinton’s few genuine achievements. But like all the other Democratic candidates, Hillary disavowed NAFTA before the 17,000 union members gathered in Chicago’s Soldier Field.
“NAFTA and the way it’s been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers,” she said, a position she claimed she’s held “for many years.”
Funny, I don’t remember first lady Clinton speaking out against NAFTA.
Just looking at the agreement’s first 10 years, seven of which were on President Clinton’s watch, suggests Hillary should be touting the success of free trade, not running away from it.
As the Cato Institute reported on the 10th anniversary of NAFTA’s implementation, U.S. exports to Mexico had tripled. And there wasn’t any “giant sucking sound” from jobs leaving the U.S., as Ross Perot had warned in 1992. In those first 10 years, the U.S. added 18 million jobs. Manufacturing rose by 41 percent.
The Institute for International Economics estimates that trade liberalization has added an additional $9,000 a year to the typical American household. Of that, the U.S. trade representative’s office last year estimated that NAFTA and the Uruguay Round (modifications of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade in effect between 1986-1994) alone generated $1,300-$2,000 to the average family of four. International trade allows American consumers to buy lower-priced, foreign-produced goods, while providing 20 percent of American jobs tied to exports. And those U.S. jobs in exporting industries pay more than other jobs.
Hillary Clinton is too smart a woman not to know this. But acknowledging that lifting trade barriers is good for America is, nonetheless, bad politics in the Democratic Party. Labor unions are obsessed with “protecting” jobs - which, of course, is a recipe for destroying jobs in the long run since it stifles competition and increased productivity. And since unions supply much of the money and “volunteers” - often paid union staff - for Democrats, candidate Clinton is not likely to buck them on trade.

...

Labor appears to have mugged reason and common sense in Democrat candidates. The good news for Hillary is that hardly anyone watched the big pander to big labor. the audience for the debate was under a million viewers. While that would normally be a pretty good audience for moderator Keith Olberman, the worst person in the world to decide who is the worst person in the world, it does not show much enthusiasm for the Democrat message machine. She should probably be thankful, but unfortunately for her, some Republicans were watching and will reminder her of her mindless pandering to the no nothings of trade policy and economics.