Jim Risch, Idaho's Republican Lieutenant Governor (and a former Governor) is running against Democrat Larry LaRocco (a former congressman) and Independent Rex Rammell for the Senate seat of retiring Republican Senator Larry Craig.
Craig was arrested for homosexual lewd conduct in a mens room in the Minneapolis airport in August 2007.
Risch is ahead and he's been expanding his lead (Pollster.com):
Craig had a good record on opposing trade barriers, but a relatively poor one on opposing subsidies. Here's the Cato Institute summary of his record (In this figure each axis shows the percent of votes against either trade barriers or trade subsidies. The higher an "X" is along the vertical axis the greater the opposition to subsidies, the further an "X" is to the right the greater the opposition to trade barriers. The votes are from the period 1997 to 2008.):
Risch's web site doesn't have anything about positions on trade issues.
LaRocco opposed NAFTA:
NAFTA HAS HURT AMERICAN
WORKERS
When I was in Congress in 1993,
President Bill Clinton put on a full court press to pass
the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA.
Clinton put a lot of pressure on me, promising new jobs
and a lower trade deficit, but I told him he wasn’t
going to get my vote. Unfortunately, NAFTA passed over
the objections of those of us who foresaw the massive
job loss and ballooning trade deficits it would bring.
NAFTA was sold to America as some
grandiose economic theory and it just didn’t add up for
me. History has now shown that I was right to be
cautious and vote against NAFTA.
According to a recent study, there
has been a net loss of more than 1 million jobs spread
across every state in the nation during the first 12
years under NAFTA. Most of the lost jobs were high-wage
manufacturing jobs, while the jobs that were created
were lower-paying service-sector jobs with few, if any,
benefits.
The same study found that NAFTA
also contributed to the growing income gap between rich
and poor in America, suppressed inflation-adjusted wages
for production workers, weakened workers’ bargaining
powers and reduced their job benefits.
The problem with NAFTA was
two-fold. First, it contained too many incentives
designed to stimulate overseas investment, especially
the movement of factories from the United States to
Canada and Mexico. And second, there were no
requirements to maintain labor or environmental
standards, thus allowing industries to save big bucks at
the expense of workers’ wages, their benefits, their
safety, and the environment.
The economist Robert E. Scott
concludes that NAFTA “tilted the economic playing field
in favor of investors, and against workers and the
environment, resulting in a hemispheric ‘race to the
bottom’ in wages and environmental quality.”
I’m proud that I respectfully
disagreed with my President and voted “no” on NAFTA.
Free trade agreements can certainly
stimulate the sales of American products overseas, but
they must be well-thought out, which NAFTA wasn’t. NAFTA
has increased imports to America far more than it has
increased exports from America, resulting in the net lob
loss. Proponents of NAFTA often cite the benefits of
exports while failing to note the effect of increased
imports. That’s sort of like balancing a checkbook by
counting only deposits and ignoring withdrawals. NAFTA
has greatly increased our trade deficit with both Canada
and Mexico – meaning that our withdrawals (jobs lost to
imports and out-sourcing) have far outstripped our
deposits (jobs gained by increased exports). The numbers
are staggering. Since 1994, the United States’ combined
annual trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has
ballooned from $9 billion to $127 billion in 2006.
I wasn’t taken in by the false
promises the first time I was in Congress, and I won’t
be now. While I’m open to trade agreements that benefit
America, I also know that the best way to kick-start the
economy is by investment in public works and critical
infrastructure, not by agreements that encourage the
loss of American jobs.
When I represent you in the United
States Senate, we’ll get this great nation of ours back
on the right track again.
LaRocco co-sponsored legislation to restrict imports of Canadian wheat
Congressional Summary: Declares that the US Government should take action to address the problem of Canadian wheat imports if the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that wheat is being imported from Canada under such conditions as to render ineffective any loan, purchase, or other program or operation undertaken by the Department of Agriculture. Declares that it is the sense of the Congress that:
- the US Government should seek an immediate understanding with the Mexican Government to define certain Canadian wheat practices as unfair;
- the United States, Canada, and Mexico should begin immediate consultations with a goal of ensuring free and fair trade in wheat throughout North America; and
- transportation subsidies and secretive monopolistic pricing should be considered unfair trading practices.
OnTheIssues Summary: Many foreign governments consider the "loan, purchase, or other program" by the USDA to be agricultural subsidies which are disallowed under international trade agreements. Agricultural subsidies are the most contentious trade issues among industrialized countries -- and the US' agricultural subsidies are no exception. The Congressmen sponsoring this bill are primarily from agricultural states where their constituents are the recipients of the USDA's "loan, purchase, or other program."
By producing more of our energy at home, we can reduce this economic uncertainty. Self sufficiency in energy and predictability in the level of supply not only stabilize and strengthen our economy, they enhance our national security in the process. Being “green” and promoting alternative energy is good for Idaho and is good for our nation.
Rammell's website doesn't have any information on his trade positions. Without more information on Risch's positions its difficult to place him in comparison to Craig.
Comments