Why Nafta Isn't Good for the U.S.

WHY NAFTA ISN'T GOOD FOR THE U.S.

Do you hear that mysterious sucking sound toward the south? If you are like many Americans, the answer is a firm, "Yes!" Well, that noise is the sound of American manufacturing jobs that have been lost to something called NAFTA. The word NAFTA is short for North American Free Trade Agreement.

Described by Thea Lee, the Chief Economist for the AFL-CIO, "NAFTA was sold to the American Public and American workers as a market-opening agreement that would create high-paying, export-related jobs here in the United States, bring prosperity to Mexico, and spur economic growth and political stability throughout North America."

NAFTA can more simply be described as an agreement which allows goods to flow between the countries of Mexico, Canada, and the United States without the international companies having to pay taxes on the goods.

This might, at first glance, sound like an acceptable deal. However, this deal has worked out horribly for the American worker and, I believe, has allowed the Mexican workers to be treated unfairly by working all sorts of hours and being paid subsistent-level wages.

Today, I hope to provide you with some sound reasons why any American should be concerned about what has happened and what will continue to happen if NAFTA stays in effect in its present form.

My views are based on three main premises. First, NAFTA has allowed workers wages to fall in all three of the involved countries. Second, Mexican workers have not been able to obtain higher standards of living promised by pro-NAFTA advocates. Last, I want to enlighten you to data that clearly shows that NAFTA allows corporations to get around environmental protection laws and puts the public health and consumer at risk.

In her recent speech, "Has NAFTA Been a Success?" Thea Lee, states that, "In 10 years of NAFTA, our combined trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has ballooned from $9 billion to $95 billion. The Labor Department has certified that more than half a million U.S. workers have lost their jobs due to NAFTA". Other sources, such as the Economic Policy Institute puts the job losses at closer to 900,000 in their 2005 reports. Either data set you choose to believe, the losses appear significant. Lee ends her speech by calling the outcome of NAFTA "a dismal failure."

The average citizen needs to be careful when listening to people, such as Robert Zoellick, a U.S. trade representative, who is hired by big businesses to cover up the losses with psuedo-data that are used to confuse and cloud the issues. Zoellick recently made statements to the Free Trade Commission trying to put a positive spin on NAFTA. In his speech, "The Pro's of NAFTA", Zoellick states "The dismantling of barriers has led to increased trade and investment, growth in employment, and enhanced competitiveness." He also adds, "Since January 1, 1994, when NAFTA entered into force, three-way trade among our countries has reached over $623 billion, more than double the pre-NAFTA level. Then he concludes with that from 1994 to 2003, cumulative foreign direct investment has brought more and better-paying jobs, as well as lower costs and more choices for consumers and producers."

What Mr. Zoellick fails to mention here is what I will refer to as the big "W" questions. We need to find out "Who" has benefited from the trade. "Where" are the better paying jobs? And "What" percent of the direct foreign investment has been within America. According to Mary Burfisher in her article "The Impact of NAFTA on the United States", even the proponents of NAFTA have had to acknowledge that the following statements are true:

 Displacement has had a devastating effect on communities and raises the question of whether to fight for freer trade or attempt to adjust to it as part of the larger global trade process.

 The study finds that at best,