What's the Matter with Iowa?

Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 10:59 AM on January 3, 2008.

A lot of attention has been focused on the fact that the economy has surpassed Iraq as the most important issue to voters. It seems overblown to me -- the two concerns remain one-two and are separated by only a couple of percentage points, just as they have been for several years.

But the economic outlook is certainly a vital concern, and that's especially true in places, like Iowa, that have been hit hard by the vaunted New Economy.

The good folks at Public Citizen put together some data on Iowa and Iowans' views on trade, which is both illuminating and gives me an opportunity for an easy blog-post.

On Eve of Caucus, Iowans Say Economy is Top Issue in '08 Presidential Race

Trade Policy Ranks High in Iowans' Concerns as They Head to Caucus

Iowa

• A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of Iowa Democrats conducted in September found that by 42% to 33% they favored a candidate who believes trade pacts hurt the U.S. economy over one who believes they benefit the economy; Republicans were evenly split at 39%


• In the 2006 midterm elections two Iowa House seats flipped to candidates who focused their campaigns on their opponents' support for more-of-the-same trade policies and called for a new trade model. In Iowa's First District open seat race following the retirement of Jim Nussle, Rep. Bruce Braley beat a GOP candidate whose support for NAFTA was so vocal that the GOP labeled the race a NAFTA rematch. In Iowa District 2, Rep. Dave Loebsack beat Rep. Jim Leach a long time consistent NAFTA-CAFTA-WTO supporter.

National

• According to an October Wall Street Journal - NBC News Poll by a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.


• During the 2006 election, 26 congressional NAFTA-CAFTA-supporting incumbents were defeated by fair trade challengers nationwide.


• According to a poll by Hart/McInturff released by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News on January 1, 2008, 58 percent of Americans think globalization has been bad because it has subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor, up 10 points since June 1997

Why are Iowans concerned?

• Iowa lost 5,608 manufacturing jobs during the NAFTA-WTO period (1995-2006). This figure is for TOTAL manufacturing employment, so takes into account both jobs created by exports and jobs displaced by imports, among other factors.


• The ballooning trade deficit - both with NAFTA countries and the world at large - during the NAFTA-WTO period has also cost millions of lost manufacturing jobs. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has found that over 4 million additional U.S. manufacturing jobs could have been created with a different model that emphasized balanced trade, instead of the spiraling deficit that the United States suffered under the NAFTA-WTO model.


• EPI also found that 11,409 additional manufacturing jobs could have been supported in Iowa - and over one million in the United States - with balanced trade among NAFTA countries alone. A rough estimate based on EPI's calculations suggests that Iowa could have had 45,636 more manufacturing jobs if the United States' global trade had been balanced. That means that instead of losing 5,608 manufacturing jobs relative to 1995 levels, (which Iowa did according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics) Iowa would have gained nearly 46,000 manufacturing jobs.


• American farmers have also been hit hard by NAFTA-WTO style policies. Nearly 300,000 family farms have been shuttered during the NAFTA-WTO period, while food imports continue to spiral upwards, making the U.S. a net food importer in 2005, and nearly so in 2006 as well.


• While the volume of U.S. corn and soybean exported increased as predicted by NAFTA's proponents, the prices received by American farmers declined to the lowest levels in recent memory. While American farmers received $12.64 per bushel of soybeans (in inflation-adjusted terms) when the NAFTA predecessor Canada FTA went into place in 1988, that price halved to $6.30 by 2006.


• In inflation-adjusted dollars, farmers received $4.29 a bushel for corn in 1995, the year the WTO went into effect and a year after NAFTA went into effect. But a decade later in 2005, the bushel price was at a low of $2.06, and only started increasing with the recent ethanol boom - a development that is threatened with derailment as Brazil and other agricultural exporters plot WTO challenges against U.S. corn ethanol subsidies.

Last week, we ran a really comprehensive analysis by Jonathan Tasini on where all the candidates competing in Iowa stand on trade -- if you missed it, it's here.

Tagged as: economy, trade, iowa caucuses

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.