DesperatelyObvious.com

The White House urged Congress today to renew fast track trade authority, which gives the President immense power to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries. Currently, fast track legislation gives Bush the power to “negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries without consulting Congress” and “sign an agreement before Congress votes on it.” When Congress does vote on the trade agreement they are “only permitted a yes or no vote” with no opportunity to amend the agreement.

From 1994 to 2002 the fast track authority was not in effect. Bush successfully regained the authority by pushing through the 2002 Trade Act by a narrow margin in 2002 (215-212 in the House). The legislation expires on July 1st, 2006, unless Bush is able to renew it.

It is important to understand the intended purpose of the fast track authority. Why would the President want to negotiate a trade agreement without allowing input from Congress?

First, Bush is trying to combat the “least hospitable environment for trade liberalization in recent memory” where “57 percent of Americans believe that trade destroys more jobs than it creates” and as a result American popular support for free trade agreements is even lower than European support for free trade. Congress is at least indirectly responsive to these public opinions.

For example, the America public might want guarantees that jobs are not going to go overseas with the next trade agreement. With fast track authority, the President doesn’t have to worry about these concerns because the agreements are done behind closed doors. By the time the signed deal goes to Congress for approval, legislators are likely to approve the deal even if they have some reservations.

With fast track authority, the trade agreements can be negotiated with virtually no regard to any democratic interests, as if the actual terms of the agreement didn’t affect people. This gives the President power to leverage deals in the interests of the United States, meaning the interests of those who own and run the country.

In return for increased corporate profits Bush will sacrifice labor and environmental interests. That entails more of the same for neoliberal globalization, meaning removing jobs and driving down wages both at home and abroad. It also means outsourcing pollution and other environmental problems to poor countries.

There is a lot at stake for free trade agreements. Last year the Doha Rounds, the WTO talks, fell through when developing nations got tired of being bullied around by the great economic powers. It is critical for Bush to save the next round of negotiations. There is a lot at stake for U.S. corporate interests.

For starters, free trade agreements allows unrestricted access for U.S. corporations to foreign markets. But not only are corporations allowed access to sell to foreign consumers, they are also given free reign to force their propaganda on foreign consumers to convince them that they need their products. This means whole new markets of impressionable consumers to buy useless products they don’t need or even really want.

Free trade also means using protectionist measures likes subsidizing American agribusiness to dominate foreign agriculture markets. And if our subsidized agriculture aren’t enough to completely flood a country’s markets, we will force genetically modified seeds on them to destroy their indigenous crops and create permanent dependencies on our agribusinesses.

This is the current reality of so-called free trade agreements like NAFTA. The economic “masters of the universe” are looking to keep the profits flowing into the right hands.

An alternative to fast track trade authority would be allowing real participation in the negotiation of the trade agreements by those who are actually affected. That means the farmers at home and abroad, the factory workers who will lose their job, the sweatshop workers, the local citizens who will have their water and air polluted, and everyone else who is impacted but unable to buy influence.

A trade deal that takes these parties into account would create an agreement that is much more fair, and would be positive for those actually involved. On the other hand, as long as globalization and trade are simply tools of the powerful few, they will continue to be used to exploit the rest of the world, producing horrendous results.

As Wall Street posts record annual profits, “the joy is trickling down” to the “high-end New York merchants,” the Goldman Sachs employees who averaged salaries of $622,000, and just about anyone else who counts. “All industries — real estate, car dealerships, art dealers, department stores” get to reap the rewards that the Wall Street employees will soon be spending.

One can hope that these windfall profits will spur investment and in turn economic growth for the rest of us. That is what the comforting economic theory tells us.

Last month’s New York Times article sheds some light on how these profits have spurred economic growth in the recent past. They present IRS data that shows average income has rose significantly between 1979 and 2004. These income increases came despite the fact that the bottom three fifths of Americans saw their real income decrease by five percent. The next fifth of Americans fared a little better over this period with their real income increasing by two percent.

Meanwhile the top tenth of the top one percent of Americans earned a 348% increase in their incomes. This is the the type of growth that Wall Street bankers can look forward to if things stay the same. Meanwhile, the rest of Americans can probably expect low or zero growth as usual unless they find a way to claim control over the predominate public sphere in America, the economy.

As long as we are subject to laws and prevailing doctrine that encourages concentrated control by a handful of totalitarian institution, those of us in need have little hope for relief outside of an act of God. By certain definitions we live in a democracy, meaning we have some measure of control over politics. It is possible that we can use our limited form of democracy to reclaim control over the economy from corporations, who haven’t always enjoyed legal rights that surpass that of a human being.

Corporate domination is a current reality but is not a necessity and not a law of nature. However, we can not rely on political leaders, the elite, or a miracle from above to make changes. Only with organized popular movements can we hope to see improvements in the next year and beyond.