This is the Senate vote

Score one for Gordon Smith. On this one issue at least, he knows what a positive vote means in terms of positive outcomes for Oregon working men and women. Not to mention Peruvian working men and women.

And shame on Merkley and Novick, who would sell Oregon's economic health down river for Union campaign contributions and plaudits from Chomskyite economic illiterates.

For a much more persuasive argument for free trade than I can provide, try Ben Bernanke.

And thank you, Ron Wyden, for eschewing the easy road of partisanship and casting a vote for working class Oregonians AND Peruvians.

UPO, What positive outcomes are you expecting to see from this trade deal? More destruction of our manufacturing base? A longer period of stagnant wages for working America? Increased levels of income inequality?

It is so disappointing to see how many progressives are willing to regurgitate right wing talking points when it comes to neo-liberal trade deals. The bottom line is that trade policies designed to put American workers in direct competition with lower paid workers in the developing world are bad for American workers. This is especially true when these same trade pacts maintain protections from competition for wealthier Americans. This should be obvious even to all those Chomskyite economic illiterates out there.

John Reed, would you define "Chomskyite economic illiterates", or did you not have a definition and just like the sound of the phrase?

If you were referring to Noam Chomsky, he has said this about trade:

Globalization that does not prioritize the rights of people will very likely degenerate into a form of tyranny, perhaps oligarchic and oligopolistic, based on concentrations of tightly-linked state-private power, largely unaccountable to the public. Global Agenda

and:

The so-called "free trade agreements" are one such device of undermining democracy. They are designed to transfer decision-making about people's lives and aspirations into the hands of private tyrannies that operate in secret and without public supervision or control. Z Magazine

Or perhaps you were making sarcastic comment on Urban Planning Lord's screed. As for him, the arguments in favor of free trade are well known and fail to address several important, well-supported concerns. The Chomsky links above refer to a few. A Google search on "Fair Trade" will find about 289,000 pages to explore for more.

Excuse me if I do not accept Ben Bernanke as a good faith arbiter of the interests of multinational corporations and workers, water drinkers and air breathers.

Tom,

I was in fact being sarcastic. Thanks for the quotes and good point about Bernanke. After all, this guy has a pretty poor track record when it comes to making economic judgments.

When you look at the breakdown, both senators from Oregon and both senators from Washington voted for AFTA. In the House, Blumenauer, Walden and Hooley voted for it, Wu and DeFazio against, which isn't too schocking.

In Washington state, all congressmen voted FOR it except Republicans McMorris-Rodgers and Hastings. Mainly because prior Peruvian trade agreements have decimated the asparagus industry in those districts.

So, to me, Merkley and Novicks comments do smack of election cycle posturing. But that aside, I wonder how likely either one of them would have caved on their position if actually in office.

Glen HD28-1: If the "free trade" you're talking about:

1) the concept that is rapidly making the two most populous and traditionally impoverished nations of the world into economic powerhouses, with rapidly decreasing rates of poverty, disease, infant mortality, etc? (China and India).

2) the concept that has not reduced employment in the U.S. (our unemployment rate is the same rate as it was 40 years ago), because it has replaced jobs exported overseas with new jobs, many of them better paying and more economically productive?

3) the concept that has produced lower consumer prices for all Americans, putting more discretionary income into our pockets, rich and poor?

Or are you talking about something else?

UPO - you're fighting the good fight but I'm afraid that it is a stacked deck on this site. For some reason, the subject of free trade makes liberals stupid. Nobody really understands this strange reaction but it has been observed for many years. Some suspect it is due to the fact that the Democratic party whored themselves out to unions years ago but that doesn't fully explain the issue. After all, the longshoremen union is very strong, very rich and an obvious beneficiary of expanded trade. The abhorance of trade on the part of liberals can't be explained with data since it is rather obvious that wealth continues to increase in the USA and that trends for employment, mfg jobs, etc are generally positive and/or healthy over the long run. So we still have this mystery on our hands, why does the subject of free trade make liberals stupid? Just one of those things we'll most likely never understand.

Andy,

Your right, real liberals don't understand free trade. We don't get it because there is nothing to get - it’s a meaningless term meant to market a particular set of trade policies.

Here is a good article that refutes the conventional wisdom on current trade policy, which some on this site are parroting.

It's telling that Hillary was absent. No position, no ammunition. How astute?

This is from a farmer in Mississippi. He doesn't think much of the Peru Trade Agreement either.

John Reed,

I apologize for not reading up-thread before getting snide.

It's interesting that most progressives opposed to "free trade" agreements are more, not less, inclined to internationalism than treaty boosters. This issue is not about xenophobia, it's about manipulation of markets to further enrich those already able to buy influence.

And this should not be left out of discussion:

The prospect of extreme inflation in the cost of energy, particularly liquid fuels, makes long distance transport of low value products a dead end. The dismantling of local production capability in response to the pressures of globalism leaves us in an extremely vulnerable position. Fuel prices can raise much more quickly than production ability can be reconstituted. The high cost of future energy will make this reversion even more difficult. Every time a berry field is paved over under pressure from Latin American imports, every time sophisticated machinery is sold for scrap value as Chinese imports flood in, we move closer to impoverishing our children and grandchildren, not to mention our own retirement.

The passage of this trade agreement officially ends all credibility the Congressional Democrats have on the trade issue. At least Casey, Brown, Whitehouse, and Tester (all of which replaced Free Traders) stuck to their guns and voted against it.

Ron Wyden, I hope, will get a primary opponent or a pro-working family Republican running against him in 2010. He is nothing but a bought and paid for vote in the Senate. One expects such poor judgement from Gordon Smith, but from a supposed pro-working family Senator, it is simply disappointing.

-Harry Stark

i'm disappointed that wyden voted for this. he's definitely a glass-half-ful senator (maybe a little more than half). overall pretty good, but not everything i'd like to be that's for sure.

Bill Bodden: Are the good citizens of Mississippi supposed to pay more for their food so that this guy can make a living? How many poor Mississippians will have an incrementally poorer diet because they can't afford as much nutritious food?

As for food safety - the answer is better inspection procedures, something we should be doing for all goods, imported or domestically produced. I expect a future Democratic administration to do a better job than the current one on this topic.

As for rising energy costs - if the cost to bring low-value goods into this country goes up and makes these goods uneconomical, so be it. Energy costs are part of the cost structure for all goods - it's called the free market. I would think those pining for more textile mills and high cost farms in the U.S. would like this development.

As for losing capacity to replant farmland and rebuild industry - you are underestimating the resiliency of the American economic machine. We have plenty of farmland, and Oregon is one state that is making sure such farmland remains unpaved over in case it becomes economical to farm it again.

It's telling that Hillary was absent. No position, no ammunition. How astute?

Well, so was Obama...

How many poor Mississippians will have an incrementally poorer diet because they can't afford as much nutritious food?

Probably as many as are not paid a living wage or an honest wage for an honest day's work. Since this latest trade agreement was written by and for major corporations it will probably be as detrimental to the laboring classes as was NAFTA and CAFTA.

Right now, free trade helps U.S. business, U.S. consumers, and foreign workers, but it hurts U.S. workers. This will continue to be the case until wages in developing countries rise to match those in the U.S., which (admittedly) may take a while :-)

Obviously, environmental and labor concerns are legitimate, and there's an interesting discussion to be had about the best way of addressing these issues through trade policy, but let's not confuse our legitimate concerns for the environment and/or labor conditions in third-world countries with our illegitimate and economically illiterate fear of competition. True liberals celebrate job-creation in the third world even if it comes at the expense of U.S. workers.

Joseph Stiglitz and Haidir Rashid see hypocrisy in the policies of the U.S. and other developed countries toward trade liberalization

UBO: I'm not an economist, but I hope you will pardon me if I place more faith in Joseph Stiglitz's opinion than yours.

Long live the multi-national corporations!

Long live the multi-national corporations!

This reminds me of a rallying call in Germany in the 1930s: Heil Hitler!

UPO wrote:

"As for rising energy costs - if the cost to bring low-value goods into this country goes up and makes these goods uneconomical, so be it. Energy costs are part of the cost structure for all goods - it's called the free market. I would think those pining for more textile mills and high cost farms in the U.S. would like this development.

As for losing capacity to replant farmland and rebuild industry - you are underestimating the resiliency of the American economic machine. We have plenty of farmland, and Oregon is one state that is making sure such farmland remains unpaved over in case it becomes economical to farm it again."

Yep, this is a good summary of globalist thinking about economy, based on faith in the infinite wisdom of the Holy Free Market, Most High and Exulted Lord of All Good Things.

The belief that all F-ups are reversible grows out our last two centuries of cheap energy driven economic intoxication. It took 15 years to work ourselves out of the Great Depression, and that was with almost free energy to burn. It will not be so easy next time.

And, by the way, it is the close-in fertile ground, which is being paved over at a high rate, that we will need to feed the teeming urban masses of the not-so-fat future. Oregon is doing a good job of this. Landuse planning is, unfortunately, planning for the 20th century, not the 21st.

After we unseat Smith we can then turn our focus on the DINO Mr. Wyden.

My drool has soaked into the keyboard, so I don't have much time to respond. Thanks to these genius "free" traders who have developed the current economic miracle. Ignore the man behind the curtain.

As for Wyden, Blumenauer et al: with Democrats like these, we really don't need Republicans, do we?

David Dickey-Griffith wrote:

"True liberals celebrate job-creation in the third world even if it comes at the expense of U.S. workers."

You mean "true liberals" in the old sense like Milton Friedman, right? If you mean the kind of liberal who is likely a member of the Democratic Party, then you must be out of your mind.

Chris Lowe said: "Earl B. justified his vote in an uncharacteristically intellectually dishonest way"

Oh, Chris, if it were only so.

Please note Blumenauer's intellectually dishonest way of debating the impeachment question, or foreign policy, including Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, & Iran.

Another matter overlooked by his supporters (and denied by his office staff, who have outright misinformed) is his vote for the original authorization for Bush to use force (that only Barbara Lee opposed), from which have flowed all his and Cheney's other claims to unchallenged power.

Like Hillary, Earl is a triangulating corporatist and imperialist.

You Democrats must stop worshiping false idols.