Free Trade Accord Predictions

The debate leading up to the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) presented a classic dilemma: The Clinton Administration and its pro-NAFTA supporters (former Presidents, secretaries of state and Lee Iacocca) argued, inter alia , that NAFTA would create jobs in the United States through increased trade and international economic growth. The anti-NAFTA forces (principally, organized labor and Ross Perot) argued that the cheap Mexican labor and lax environmental standards would inevitably “suck” jobs down to Mexico and away from the U.S. Each side predicted dire consequences if its position did not prevail.

Congress has settled the question of which side was to prevail, but will we ever know which side was really right? Would it be instructive if--say three or four years down the line--we could go back and re-examine the public record of the rhetoric and prognostications of the 1993 NAFTA debate, with the benefit of knowing the ultimate result of NAFTA? I doubt it. Even if the two sides could agree on just what the ultimate economic results of NAFTA really were, it seems unlikely that they would ever agree as to what really caused those results.

RONALD J. KAYE, Carlsbad

I submit that when Dr. Feelgood (President Clinton) was hustling votes for NAFTA, the most significant representatives’ concern he had to overcome was their rightful fear of losing their position in Congress in the next election. I suggest that it had little or nothing to do with wheat, tomatoes, etc., but they had to call it something!

I find it a little more than curious that since the debate and NAFTA vote, Ross Perot has been characterized by the spinners and liberal-bent media as insane, a madman, and moreover declining in his popularity and effectiveness to American voters. Oh really?

Well, to whom it may concern: We are seeing right through this tactic as we harmonize “we’ll remember in November.”

SUSAN BRANA, Los Angeles

The giant sucking sound I hear seems to be coming from a space midway between Ross Perot’s ears.

RAY GOLDSTEIN, Chatsworth

The liberal media are against Perot because he won’t abide their nonsense.

JEROME EHRLICH, Laguna Hills

If NAFTA was a “good deal” for the United States, then President Clinton wouldn’t have had to bribe legislators with pork-barrel incentives.

If NAFTA was a “bad deal” for the United States, then legislators shouldn’t have accepted the bribe of pork-barrel incentives.

GUY CARROZZO, Fountain Valley

President Clinton has promised that NAFTA will create new jobs for Americans. It will. And we will keep those jobs until it is discovered how a pizza can be delivered, hot and delicious, from Mexico to your doorstep in 30 minutes or less.

JOHN A. WHITE, Glendale