I watched most of President Bush’s speech today. A shorter version:
–Nothing bad which has happened in the economy during the past three years is my fault.
–If we continue to do what I’ve wanted the past three years, companies will suddenly start hiring American workers, as opposed to half-price foreign workers or all the Mexicans I want to bring into the country.
Lou Dobbs had some cutting commentary on the economy last night:
No. 1, we’re not creating jobs in the private sector in this country. That has never before happened in our history. Our economists and our politicians, our leaders, need to come up with answers, not dogma.
No. 2, we haven’t had a trade surplus in this country in more than two decades. And our trade deficit continues to soar to new record levels.
No. 3, we have lost three million jobs in this country over the past three years and millions more American jobs are at risk of being outsourced to cheap overseas labor markets. That seems to me, at the least, to be more than sufficient evidence for all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, to question critically the policies of both parties that have led to us this critical juncture in our economy and our history.
Frankly, I would love to be proved wrong in my views. And I would gladly change my position if only the critics would answer a few questions factually, empirically and straightforwardly. First, how many more jobs must we lose before they become concerned about our middle class and our strength as a consumer market.
Two, when will the United States have to quit borrowing foreign capital to buy more foreign goods that support European and Asian economies while driving this nation deeper into debt.
Three, what jobs will our currently 15 million unemployed workers fill? Where and when? My critics and proponents of so-called free trade and my views on outsourcing suggest I’m a protectionist because I want to curtail the export of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets just to reduce wage levels and to eliminate our trade deficit and to pursue balanced trade policy.
Our principal trading partners include Canada, China, Japan and the European Union. All typically maintain annual trade surpluses and pursue balanced trade. Why don’t my critics call them protectionists? Why not call them economic isolationists.
My critics and proponents of the status quo are offering false choices. They say we must decide between protectionism or economic isolationism as the president said today and so-called free trade. I’m sure they believe those choices are the only ones available. I don’t question their sincerity. But perhaps they are also afraid our policymakers may soon discover a middle ground for a desperately needed new U.S. trade policy. A balanced trade policy in the national interest.
I think this criticism is on target. I’ve been fairly open to the idea of “free trade,” but it seems our current policy is leading us further and further from “fair” and “balanced” trade. At some point our deficits are going to become unsustainable. We really do need to step back and reassess the ideological dogma which has dominated the debate.
The world is changing; our policy should reflect this reality.