Bush Trade Policy - a look
behind the scenes of a failed economic policy - its ugly!
The Bush Trade policies continue to erode our country's job
base, trade balance and long term economic viability. As shown in
previous articles (see:
Trade Deficit exceeds 600 Billion dollars for 2004 ... growing
faster than a fire ant nest!) the effects continue to
But this time we are going to demonstrate some of the behind
the scenes information that is readily available with a few minutes
and an internet search engine. The subject to be looked at is the
recent "free trade" actions with China (that is Communist China, not
Lets look at the facts first:
- President Bush in keeping with his "free trade" is good for
us policy, opened the door for China produced textiles starting in
January. Note this is just after the election, very interesting
- Initial economic reports indicate an initial surge of up to
ten times the imports as before the Bush Trade policy was
- In just January, 2005 - 12,200 jobs were lost in the U.S.
apparel and textile industries, according to the U.S. Bureau of
These are virtually undisputed facts. The excerpts from a
New York Times article below provides some verification for the
Now in a time of ever increasing Trade Deficits, continued
below expectations job performance and large federal deficits, it is
hard to see how increased exports and loss of over 12,000 jobs are
things that would be desirable. In fact the Bush Administration
claims to be surprised and dumbfounded that their new policy does
not seem to be working for the average American citizen.
So lets look at some of the background. There is a special
Trade policy advisory board called the "President's Advisory
Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations" that is supposed to
assist the President on such decisions. This Committee is appointed
by the President and is supposed to be a balanced cross section of
our country. Keep this in mind as we progress through this somewhat
When this trade policy was being debated there were of course
two views; 1) That this policy would result in increased imports and
job loss and be bad for our country and 2) That it would not have a
major impact on imports or American jobs but would increase exports
and thus create jobs and reduce trade deficit and thus be good for
An example of the view that it is bad for our country:
"This isn't like the Y2K crisis, where everyone was afraid
of a computer meltdown that never happened," said Cass Johnson,
president of the National Council of Textile Organizations, a U.S.
trade group that is pressing the Bush administration to impose
immediate limits on Chinese imports. "This is happening, and the
consequences are frightening."
An example of the view that it would be good for our country:
The National Retail Federation had predicted the opposite.
In documents submitted to court to block the administration from
imposing limits on Chinese imports, the U.S. retailer's trade
association said it did not anticipate major changes in sourcing
from any direction in 2005 for the shirts and nearly every other
product that had been limited by quotas.
So here we have both views being expressed. The second one by
the National Retail Federation turned out to be absolutely
So you would think - that President Bush would not be so
happy with the National Retail Federation for giving him such bad
advice - wouldn't you? Well that is not exactly what has happened.
While the China imports were zooming and while thousands of
Americans were losing their jobs for implementing this China trade
policy look who President Bush appointed to his distinguished
Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- The White House
announced today that President Bush has named National Retail
Federation President and CEO Tracy Mullin to the President's
Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations.
Bush Appoints National Retail Federation CEO to Trade Panel
We were shocked when we found this! What the
blazes is going on? The very person that demonstrated by his public
statements that he either was in Na Na land or was failing to tell
the Truth, is given an even more instrumental role in developing and
implementing the Bush trade policy.
This just did not make sense at first. After a
few more pieces of the puzzle were discovered it does begin to make
sense, but many of you will not like what these pieces are.
White House Rewards Donors with Slots on Trade Advisory
This is not
good government! This is not
the style of government espoused by Our Founding Fathers. This is
not even honest government.
This worship of power and money, over the basic needs of American
citizens is not government
based upon Christian principles.
The facts above are not in question. You - as
an American citizen - know what kind of government this represents.
But it is your government, elected by none other than the American
Are you going to
continue electing this kind of government?
Until the citizens make a change, it is only
going to get worse.
China textile flood?
Becker and David Barboza The New York Times
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Exports to U.S. heighten industry fears
WASHINGTON China has exceeded all
predictions on textile exports to the United States
since the lifting of global quotas in January,
according to industry figures released Wednesday,
confirming fears of American textile manufacturers.
In January, China shipped more apparel in certain
categories, like cotton trousers, than it had in the
previous year and a half, according to a U.S. textile
makers group. But an importers' group suggested this
ballooning might be partly a one-time phenomenon.
Predictions that China would flood the world market
with cheap textiles had already inflamed trade
tensions between Washington and Beijing, in part
because of concern that the Chinese unfairly subsidize
their industry and sell their goods at
below-production costs, undermining U.S. producers.
In the first month of this year, 12,200 jobs were lost
in the U.S. apparel and textile industries, according
to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The countdown to the era of a quota-free market was
looked on with fear by developing countries as well as
the United States. Poorer countries in Asia with big
textile operations, like Cambodia, are lobbying in the
U.S. Congress to win special consideration and prevent
China from dominating the world's textile trade.
But apparel and textiles are China's biggest export
earner and China was prepared to take full advantage
of the lifting of global quotas.
"This isn't like the Y2K crisis, where everyone was
afraid of a computer meltdown that never happened,"
said Cass Johnson, president of the National Council
of Textile Organizations, a U.S. trade group that is
pressing the Bush administration to impose immediate
limits on Chinese imports. "This is happening, and the
consequences are frightening."
Using figures from China's customs office, the textile
group calculated that China is selling a cotton knit
shirt at $1.71, down 45 percent from the $3.12 it sold
for last year. Those low prices helped drive up
imports of cotton knit shirts by 1,836 percent, it
The National Retail Federation had predicted the
opposite. In documents submitted to court to block the
administration from imposing limits on Chinese
imports, the U.S. retailer's trade association said it
did not anticipate major changes in sourcing from any
direction in 2005 for the shirts and nearly every
other product that had been limited by quotas.
Those statements were used to persuade the U.S. Court
of International Trade to prevent the administration
from imposing safeguards to prevent a surge in Chinese
Don Brasher, president of Global Trade Information
Services in Columbia, South Carolina, which tracks and
releases trade figures from around the world and was
the first to publish China's trade statistics, said
this upsurge should come as no surprise.
"Were going from a quota regime to a quota-free
regime, and China's one of the most competitive
producers," Brasher said. "What do you expect?"
Brenda Jacobs, the Washington trade counsel to the
U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel,
said she was wary of the Chinese figures and would
wait to see the U.S. trade figures, scheduled to be
"I just don't know what to expect. There will be
shifting of production," said Jacobs, whose group
supported the lifting of quotas. "But put this in
context - there were a lot of companies that held off
shipping goods in December in order to be sure they
would not be caught in the quota system."