Mike Huckabee on Free Trade Former Republican AR Governor

Trans Pacific Partnership isn't fair trade or free trade

The comments came in response to questions about why the government has kept the embargo in place against Cuba, even as trade barriers with China have been lifted. "We have basically surrendered to the Chinese market," Huckabee said. "We've not put the pressure on them."

Huckabee expressed doubts over the Trans Pacific Partnership. "If it's not fair trade," he said, "it's not free trade."

Free AND fair trade: globalize, but help those whom it harms

When jobs are lost & businesses fail, people sigh & shake their heads and angrily mutter, "Globalization." But the truth is that globalization is just one of the many reasons why individuals lose their jobs and why companies close their doors. Globalization also creates jobs, and often the benefits of globalization for outweigh the costs.

Protectionism isn't the answer; it will only make us less prosperous. If we change our policies, we won't reverse the fall of "natural barriers" around the world, such as the flow of information technology & services.

It isn't smart to give up this benefit to our society as a whole because of the adverse impact on the few. At the same time, it isn't right not to provide help to those who are harmed. We have to adopt policies that are both smart and right. We can never forget that real people are affected by these policies.

Diplomacy hasn't worked; impose sanctions on China

One of the most egregious violations China engages in, as do India and other Asian countries, is currency manipulation. They buy up dollars on the currency markets to keep the value of their money low, which makes their products artificially inexpensive here. We have a right to slap countervailing duties on these goods, but we haven't done so. We've not imposed countervailing duties for any reason for almost a quarter century on China. This year we've finally begun anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations against China.

It's a beginning. We have lots of weapons already against those who blithely break the trade rules we honor.

Supports NAFTA & CAFTA, if partners “hafta” abide by rules

A: No, I think the free-trade agreements are wonderful to have, and I supported NAFTA and CAFTA. But I always say, then you “hafta” make sure that these free trade agreements are being abided by both parties, and that’s not what’s happened.

Fair trade includes lead-free products & playing by rules

A: The main thing we have to do is to make sure that our free trade agreements involve fair trade. And that’s something that we’ve got to do a better job of enforcing, is to make sure that those products which are coming into the US are free of lead, that they’re safe, that they’re manufactured in the same kind of standards that we expect our American companies to use when they built things. And that hasn’t happened. And one of the reasons we’re losing a lot of jobs is that we’ve been in such a rush to make sure that we exemplify the boundaries of free trade, that we forgot that we’re all supposed to play by the same rules. If somebody cheats, you’re not playing the game fairly. When the Chinese send toys that have lead, they have dog food that causes our pets to die, when we have food that comes to us contaminated, when things that are created by people who have worked in sweatshops--how does an American worker expect to compete?

A free country must feed, fuel, & fight for itself

A: It’s most certainly a national security threat because a country can only be free if it can do three things.

1. It has to be able to feed itself. It has to be able to put food on the table for its own citizens.
2. It’s got to be able to fuel itself. If it looks to somebody else for its energy needs, it’s only as free as those are willing for it to be.
3. And it also has to be able to fight for itself. It’s got to be able to manufacture its own weapons of defense--tanks, airplanes, bullets and bombs.

We need fair trade because we’re losing jobs

And that’s why we’re losing jobs here, and that’s what has to change. This party is going to have to start addressing it, or we’re going to get our britches beat next year.

This country can never yield its sovereignty for any reason

A: I believe with all my heart is that this country can never, ever, ever yield its sovereignty to any other country for any reason, under any circumstance, ever That’s why I would agree that we not only need closed and secure borders, but more importantly, we need a re-understanding that we are a sovereign nation, and we do not yield ourselves over.

Trade sanctions on Saudi Arabia for persecuting Christians

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: No.
• HUNTER: No.
• KEYES: Yes.

China trade contingent on human rights & product safety

• HUCKABEE: Yes.
• TANCREDO: Yes.
• COX: Yes.
• BROWNBACK: Yes.
• PAUL: No.
• HUNTER: Absolutely. Yes. Good question.
• KEYES: Yes.

No NAFTA Superhighway from Canada to Mexico

• HUCKABEE: No.
• TANCREDO: No.
• COX: No.
• BROWNBACK: No.
• PAUL: No.
• HUNTER: No.
• KEYES: No.

Marketplace pushes innovation to top & prices to bottom

Three dominant factors in the American economy make it increasingly difficult for jobs to remain here: excess LITIGATION, excess TAXATION, and excess REGULATION combine to ultimately result in the MIGRATION of American jobs to marketplaces beyond our borders.

Farm subsidies ok because Europe & Asia do same

Keeping American farmers in business is also good for the consumer. The theory behind subsidies is that production is maintained at a higher level, driving food costs lower. This empowers consumers and generates stability in the farming economy so that America remains a producing rather than consuming nation.

Subsidies also help insulate farmers from natural disasters and spikes in the cost of fuel, feed, and fertilizer.

Enforce trade law against subsidized Canadian lumber imports.

• Whereas, the US Department of Commerce has determined that the Canadian provinces subsidize lumber production by selling timber to Canadian lumber companies at non-competitive prices for a fraction of the timber’s market value, and imposed an import duty of 19.3%;
• Whereas, artificially low provincial timber prices, minimum harvesting restrictions and other practices encourage over-harvesting and over-production in Canada to the detriment of US industry, forest land owners, workers and the environment;
• Whereas, these unfair subsidy practices have helped Canadian imports gain an increasing share of the US softwood lumber market, rising 15% from the first to second quarter of 2001;
• Whereas, highly subsidized Canadian lumber imports unfairly compete with US lumber companies and affect thousands of US jobs, and drive down the value of US forest land; Whereas an agreement between the United States and Canada on lumber trade expired in March 2001; now, therefore, be it
• Resolved, That the Southern Governor’s Association urges the Administration to continue to enforce fully the current United States trading laws and to encourage open and competitive sales of timber in Canada.

Bound under state commitment to CAFTA.

States' commitments under CAFTA:

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) compiled a list of the status of each of the 50 states with regards to CAFTA procurement. For states that have rescinded their commitment, we infer that the incumbent governor strongly opposes CAFTA (because the state made a commitment and then un-made it). For states that declined to commit, we infer that the incumbent governor somewhat opposes CAFTA. For states that committed, we infer that the incumbent governor supports CAFTA.

CAFTA is the Central American Free Trade Agreement. CAFTA expands NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement, between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico) to five Central American nations (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua), and the Dominican Republic. It passed Congress on July 27, 2005.

Opposition to CAFTA procurement rules (by Public Citizen): Should an international trade agreement determine how we are allowed to spend our domestic tax dollars? Prior to the passage of CAFTA, the majority of state governments agreed: Subjecting decisions about how to spend state taxpayer dollars to second-guessing by foreign trade tribunals is a bad idea! As a result, a bi-partisan group of governors withdrew their initial agreement to bind their states to comply with CAFTA's procurement rules. Many other governors simply avoided binding their states to CAFTA's procurement rules in the first place. Common state economic development and environmental policies are prohibited by trade agreement procurement rules include:

• Measures to stop the offshoring of state jobs;
• "Buy Local" or "Buy America" policies;
• Preferences for recycled content, renewable energy, and alternative fuel vehicles.