Blaming Reagan and Bush Sr for NAFTA, I believe you should give thanks to Clinton even though it had begun as a Republican initiative. And I agree we are doing it wrong.
Interesting comment eazymango but, unfortunately, it is incorrect.
"The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended due to NAFTA. (Source: NaFina, NAFTA Timeline)" ~
http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_History.htm
According to the U.S. Constitution
(you know, that thing Bush Jr publicly dismissed as inconvenient), the President can
(and in the case of NAFTA, did) negotiate treaties but it is ultimately ratified by Congress. It was Bush Sr. that negotiated NAFTA. It was Bush Sr. that signed NAFTA, it was Congress that ratified NAFTA, and ultimately it was Clinton that signed it into law
(with sufficient votes in Congress to override him should he have vetoed it). It is, however true that Clinton would not have vetoed it, as by stepping aside and allowing NAFTA, it was one of Clinton's gifts to the GOP in an attempt to garner their support for some of his Democrat-initiated proposals
(including universal healthcare, wherein of course the GOP demonstrated their thanks by shooting him in the foot and impeaching him for infidelity). And, as previously indicated, had he vetoed it, his veto would more than likely have been overturned and Clinton's negotiating abilities, so early in his term, would have been thoroughly torpedoed
(yay for politics).
And then there's CAFTA, which was initiated by Bush Jr.'s staff, ratified by the GOP-held Congress and signed into law by Bush Jr. in 2005. What is missing from this picture is that China and other countries are using CAFTA as a tariff/tax free gatway to the United States, since most of the 7 countries of CAFTA have no restrictions on Asian trade. This issue was well known by the Bush administration, which pushed hard for CAFTA despite the glaringly obvious conflux of deals being made by Chinese and other Asian importers with these respective nations prior to the signing of CAFTA and the flood of trade goods
(that exceeds their production capabilities) from these nations after CAFTA's signing
(a similar, but less pronounced event occurred upon the signing of NAFTA).
And let's not forget GOP's support for WTO's advocacy of international free trade.
Sorry Eazymango, I'm glad you agree we're doing it wrong, but free-trade is a long established GOP agenda that is opposed by most Democrats in office and likewise opposed by other less-established parties. Tearing down Hostess, selling its parts and its product recipes is an anticipated result of selling out your country's goods for profit. Venture capitalists, the same people who have been disassembling Hostess
(and all firmly on the Republican ticket I venture to say), advocate free trade because it provides them more opportunities for profit.
Let's face it, selling out your country is good business. Bye Twinkie, hello Tzinkwei.
