New Mexico in Focus; 114; NAFTA and New Mexico

The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is about to turn 14 years old, but is that caused for celebration or pause? Ahead this week on New Mexico and Focus, a provocative look at the controversial economic program and its effects on our state. Plus, on this week's segment of the line, Mitt Romney brings Mormonism into the light. Its religion and the campaign trail. And a Council in Conflict, the opinions about the walk out this week of four Albuquerque City Councils, and the fallout from their boycott. Leave those lights on, the Mexico and Focus starts now. Major funding for Infocus is provided by the McHughan Charitable Foundation, enriching the cultural life, health, education, environment, and spiritual life of the citizens of New Mexico. The North American Free Trade Agreement became reality back in January of 1994.

There were a lot of predictions then about the effects of opening up our trade borders with both Canada and Mexico. But what's the reality 14 years later? Is New Mexico better off economically because of NAFTA? And what about the human impacts of the program? With International Human Rights Day coming up this Monday, it's an important question and one we hope to answer on this week's show. Also, coming up on this episode, City Council Tantrums, the role of religion and the race for president, not to mention Bill Richardson's bogus senate petitions, the exodus of two female anchors here in Albuquerque, and our take on one college's plan to make the Prairie Dog its new mascot. The first, a candid conversation about NAFTA and New Mexico. That conversation will include some of the most well-educated and plugged-in voters, I'm sorry, voices in the state, starting with economics professor Dante Di Grigorio from the Anderson School of Management over at UNM. Also here is Alberto Soliz, the manager of Albuquerque's International Trade Division. Jerry Pacheco is the executive director of the International Business Accelerator, and

Tomasita Gonzalez is with the Southwest Organizing Project, a group that works on a variety of immigrant-related issues, including economic and environmental justice. Welcome everyone, thanks for joining us. You know, very first question to each of you, maybe beginning with you, Dante, in your eyes has NAFTA now with the benefit of 14 years of hindsight been a good thing for this country and for the other countries involved? Well, I don't think you can really say in a simple matter, and first of all, I should disclose I'm not an economist, less my colleagues in the economics department think that I'm a person, I'm an international business, what I teach. It's so hard to tease out the effect strictly of NAFTA, really, but there's so much more going on, so much more meaningful stuff going on. Number one, Mexico unilaterally opened its economy in a very dramatic fashion from 1987 joining GAT. The maximum tariff drop from 100% to 20%, average tariff from 20% to 10%, NAFTA is icing on the cake, really.

Also Mexico fell into an incredible crisis at the end of 1994, and then we have everything that gets wrapped into globalization. So all the offshoring, the shifting in production, and then there's NAFTA, NAFTA is a piece of that. But I want to pin you down on this, I mean, on balance, has NAFTA been a good thing for America. It's a good thing, but the impact is nowhere near as large as its proponents would have you believe, nor as its opponents, okay. Jerry, same question. As a trade agreement, and that's what primarily NAFTA is, it's a fairly simple trade agreement, reducing tariffs, non-tariff barriers, opening up investment, banking in Mexico, certain sectors that weren't open before, on that basis NAFTA has been successful. You just look at the trade figures in North America, it's been very successful. What is very troubling, and what's become controversial, is that NAFTA has become the whipping boy of all trade agreements.

You see that in the presidential campaign, you see that being argued in the street, and I think what Professor Degorigorio was alluding to is the fact that NAFTA is a trade agreement. It's nothing more than a tool. What has transpired or not transpired in terms of creating more jobs in Mexico or in the United States, or not taking care of the immigration problem, was an issue whether or not NAFTA was ever in place or not. Mexico is suffering severe structural problems in its judicial system, in its educational system, in relying on Pemex to bail the country out in many sectors and beef up the budget, and all of that gets tagged on to NAFTA as being a failed agreement or not living up to its promises. In your view, is it in both countries' best interest to lower barriers to trade? Absolutely, because what we've seen is that it's increased, even on behalf of the state in New Mexico, which is not a primary or a large trading partner with Mexico, over the last 14 years, it's really impacted positively the state's exports to Mexico.

Tomasita, same question. I would say that NAFTA is actually failed as a model to other free trade agreements. It's based on people, or profit over people, which we always suggest it's people before profit. What do you mean by that? How does it favor profits over people? While these free trade agreements is doing just that it's giving the free trade to developers and corporations to be flexible to trade merchandise and items, but it's actually impacting the people the most because they're actually looking for the cheapest, lowest wages that they can do. Before in Mexico, you were saying that Mexico is a good example. My family is from Mexico. I have both from New Mexico and Mexico. I used to go to Mexico and people on the street would ask for extra change.

Lately, now that I go, they actually ask for your leftover foods, so it's actually increased to poverty in Mexico and other countries. New Mexico. I think there are studies that show that today compared with when NAFTA was started, poverty's actually gone down in Mexico, not up. Maybe not for everyone, of course, in some areas it may have gone down, but overall, I think poverty has gone down. And to be more specific, this actually happened in Juarez, so it's a border town where they're being more exploited by Maki La Dores and all this. Before people had land that they would actually live off of with their agricultural business. And since NAFTA, people have lost their lands just competing between these larger corporations that have the resources to outbeam, so they lose their produce. They lose their land and now they're depending on wages, which wages in the free trade agreement, they have really low human rights, like regulations, like the wages are very

poorly, they don't provide benefits. So. Maybe we can talk more about some of these particulars, but first, Alberto, what's your take? NAFTA, on balance, a good thing or no? No, my idea is my take is a good thing, because if I can take into consideration what my job is as a manager of international trade, the reason the trade division was created in the first place by the Mayor's Administration and the City Council was to facilitate opportunities for companies. And not just large corporate companies, but your small business, which is the majority of what we have, not only in Albuquerque, but in New Mexico. And a lot of times, like Jerry says, of a free trade agreement or a trade agreement is for it to be a tool to reduce barriers for markets. There will always be a trade off because of certain protectionism in these kind of trade agreements to a certain point where tariffs get reduced. But in terms of Albuquerque, for example, in terms of Mexico, I think it's an opportunity

for small businesses, medium-sized businesses, as well as large companies, to be able to enter markets where tariffs previously were at a percentage, which it wasn't cost-effective for the company to do so, or they couldn't even compete. And I can tell you in terms of Mexico, I'm also one of those cities in Mexico and US cities and I live in Chihuahua City and in Albuquerque and Anchorage, Alaska. So I can see that in Mexico, for example, there are references of three Mexico's that people different here, the North Central South, also the Global Mexico, which is a 10% of corporations at place Mexico in the Global Marketplace, the modern Mexico, which is an emerging middle class in Mexico, especially in larger cities, usually about 800,000 people or more. And then of course you have rural Mexico, and this is where you see a lot of still lack of infrastructure, maybe the educational system isn't where it needs to be, and of course you see poverty. And you also see that in urban areas, but then again you see that in Los Angeles, you see that in larger cities and industrialized nations like the United States.

So our focus is if the trade agreement as a tool creates the opportunity for companies to engage in trade, or they can not only export, but they can also import, they can engage for example in incentives or programs like free trade zone, foreign trade zone, I'm sorry, where they can import products kind of how the McElas work, where they can import products in order to export them, not pay tariffs on the imports or even indirect tariffs on the exports. What does it do? It basically facilitates for companies to become more, perhaps more globally competitive. And in today's world where things are going, like Dante was saying earlier, companies in New Mexico can't remain dependent on government contracts or just local business. We have to begin to expand and become more competitive at a global scale. Do you think, you know, and it's interesting, I think three of the four have said pretty positive things about NAFTA, has NAFTA become a punching bag for other problems that we have with globalization, you know, even if you can point to studies that show that exports

have risen on both sides of the border, say in Mexico and the United States, is there a problem of perception of anxiety where maybe the fruits of trade aren't spread as evenly as they should be, maybe starting with you? Yeah, absolutely. You mentioned poverty is down, but the gap between the rich and the poor is wider, both in terms of geographically, the divide between the north and the south in Mexico is very clear, the divide between the urban and the rural is also very clear. Do you think after a trade of view, it's like that, make that worse, that inequality? In the rural sector, to a certain degree, yes, because the rural sector is overwhelmingly driven through agriculture and the Mexican agricultural sector. Certain areas are doing quite well, but other areas, particularly the areas with small land holdings and so forth, have not done well over the last decade. And so this is a result in part of Mexico's opening its economy, that's sort of a byproduct of that.

Does that have to do with NAFTA, well, that's part of the picture, but yeah, the divide between the rich and the poor has gotten more serious. Jerry, on this point, how can a country like Mexico, let's say, or other developing countries compete on agriculture when you have developed countries like this one subsidizing their agriculture so much, and yet it seems it's okay, these agreements continue and those subsidies stay in place. That's really a controversial issue, and it's really positive or explained in terms of fair trade versus free trade. And the concept behind fair trade is we need to compete on an even playing field. So if you're referring to Mexico, the farmer that owns 40 acres and that's playing with the mule is not going to compete with ADM, producing corn, it's not going to happen. Under the NAFTA agreement, agriculture protection in Mexico, in certain cases in the United States, was given the longest phase out period, or given the longest protection period, which is

15 years. But there is, I don't believe there is anything such as free fair trade. You put me in a basketball court with Kobe Bryant, and you asked him to plan his knees, he'll probably still beat me in a basketball game. We're not going to get to a point where it's fair. But Kobe probably doesn't know how to do an import, export, or council businesses. I know how to do that. I can't play basketball. That wouldn't be so surprised about that. Well, yeah. There's comparative advantages on both sides. In Mexico, Mexico and Brazil are some of the most unequal societies in terms of rich versus poor. Last year, I had the privilege of testifying in front of the U.S. Senate in Washington as a trade expert. And I had on either side of me two agricultural experts. And it was interesting here in the agricultural side, as Professor DeGorgori was alluding to, NAFTA has not been good to the Mexican farmer. And the Mexican agricultural producer, they are not equipped technologically.

They're not equipped more importantly from a capital standpoint to compete. And when the protection runs out and they have to compete, they're not going to be able to, in most cases. But to say NAFTA, and I agree with you on that point, in terms of some of the underserved sectors in Mexico. But to say NAFTA is nothing but corporate kind of welfare or providing corporations the ability to go in and take advantage. That's not true. There are winners and losers, though, with the trade agreement like NAFTA and any trade agreement. And Tomasito, are you saying that it would be best if there weren't trade between Mexico and U.S., which are very different economically? I think the Mexican economy's 120th, the size of the American economy. There's a huge difference in wages from one side of the border to the other. I think more than any other border in the world, are you saying that there are things that we could do that would make trade benefit both? Are you saying no? That it would be best to have barriers and to have protection so that Mexican farmers

can sell to their domestic market and Americans kind of do their own thing? Why? I agree that there needs to be discussion amongst the different countries who are doing trade agreements. But the free trade agreement, again, it's only benefiting the developers. There needs to be a lot more discussion because the way NAFTA has implemented right now, it's not working. What about along the border, where you had all these Machila Doras that got started or accelerated after NAFTA? As I understand, there were a lot of people from southern Mexico who migrated to the north because those were better jobs. And there was a lot of people who were better off in Mexico as a result of those free trade zones along the border. Well, this is sort of off the topic. But you hear the many men always complaining that there's, you know, the immigrants, which I consider economic refugees because that's what they're looking for, a better economic system to survive.

And I think that when they're looking for a better job, it's not that the economic refugees are actually taking their jobs. It's actually the free trade agreement is pushing the U.S. exporting the jobs, which is limiting jobs here in New Mexico in the country, which kind of feels like people in the U.S. are actually fighting for jobs. So I think in a way, you know, if people are wherever they're migrating, it's for a reason. And whatever that reason is, there's a cause. You know Alberto, maybe we can switch real quickly to this, you know, the New Mexico and how we do with trade. One thing that was really striking that I saw was that our state, you know, Mexico is not the first trading partner that we have in terms of foreign countries. It's not the second. I think it's number five. I think Malaysia, and there may be a point of difference, number three. Maybe we can talk about this. But the point is we're on the border with this country and yet, you know, it seems like our trade with Mexico is nowhere near where it could be or should be given the cultural

ties, the language ties. What's going on? Well, the big factor that we know about those of us involved in the international trade and so on is that, at least in the larger markets in the state, for example, I'll talk about the metropolitan area, you have the semiconductor sector, you have Intel Corporation, you have companies in this technology or computer equipment sector whose components that there are being manufactured are mostly going to Asia because of demand for those products in Asia for industrial manufacturing for finished products in those markets. When you look at the manufacturing sectors in Albuquerque or you look at the Mochihuahua city or you look at them in other parts of the state of New Mexico and other parts of Chihuahua, maybe the industry is more, there are other industries in Chihuahua, mostly because of McGeele plants. The focus in New Mexico has been in terms of manufacturing, the manufacturing in some cases like food, the same things that are manufactured in Chihuahua.

What would it take for our exports to rise considerably from where they are today, New Mexico to Mexico? Well, I think, for example, what we're pushing for here in Albuquerque, one of the areas that we're trying to develop is the area of technology. We think that in the industries in Mexico, not just in the Mequila industries along the border, but also, for example, the automotive industries in Mexico City, electronic sectors in manufacturing, for example, in central Mexico, we're going to the North and Monterey. Those industries are targets that can be targets for Albuquerque based companies. I might have technologies that might make their processing and manufacturing, their operations more effective, more competitive based on technologies that we can provide. I think it's a market, whether you're looking at Mexico or you're looking at Canada, where you have opportunities based on the capacities, the institutional competencies that we have because a lot of the companies that develop in Albuquerque technology, technologically, are spin-offs from the labs or people that have licensed technology from the laboratories.

And I don't think that in the Mexican market or even the Canadian market, we're yet well-positioned as a strategic source for those kind of products and services. I think that's the challenge that we have is to say, Albuquerque has these kind of companies in metropolitan area and ensure other products like Santa Fe and so on, have these kind of products, whether they're biomed, biotech, nanotechnologies, for example, MEMS and so on. That can begin to provide solutions in the Mexican industry. Jerry, you write a lot about trade for the journal. Why isn't Mexico our largest trading partner? Well, and Dante and I have discussed this quite a bit and I'll make a few brief comments and you can dig into it because we review the stage trade figures every year. Years ago, when we were looking at the stage trade figures, we were wondering how can it be that China and Malaysia right now are number one and number two in terms of our number one trading partners. Mexico is third. We do about 700 million with China. We do almost 500 million with Malaysia and Mexico last year, I believe it was 257 million. New Mexico ranks 36 out of all US states in terms of trade with Mexico.

But if you take out one factor, if you take out the intel factor and what they're doing in Malaysia and what they're doing in China, in terms of sending their production that they have in their plants and Rio Rancho out there, Mexico is our number one trading partner. Other than that one, subset there. And if you look at our exports in terms of the size of our economy and what we rank in the United States as a state, 257 million compared to 40 billion in Texas, we can't compare ourselves to Texas, that's a giant, or even Arizona. It's not so bad. We can get better and we're trying to all make it get better for the good of the state to create jobs. But it's not so bad. Would you say? Yeah. If you pull integrated circuits out, then you have a completely different story. And Mexico is clearly our number one trading partner. We trade it. This year it'll be around 300 million or better with Mexico. And furthermore, if you look at the products by their tariff code, so you look at which products are being sent and how many different products, what you see is that we export

a much wider range of products to Mexico and also to Canada than any other market. But Mexico in particular, we have a broader range of companies that are doing business in Mexico. And then we did, last year we did a survey with New Mexico and businesses and it was sponsored by the state and the city and then Jerry's group helped us out, collaborative effort. And we found through that very clearly that businesses are engaged in doing business primarily in Mexico and Canada, but increasingly China as well, particularly on the sourcing side. Just as a curiosity. Can anyone point to an example of a company or a particular industry here in New Mexico that has directly benefited from the reduction in barriers to trade that NAFTA has brought along and accelerated? Absolutely. I mean, we've benefited as a state if you go to the border. And I live in San Eterista right on the Mexican border. We can take you to three industrial parks there on the border.

Not one single one of those companies has a New Mexican origin. They came to New Mexico to supply Mexican industry because their business went up. Mexico's economy is grown and New Mexico is exports. And specific companies would be like plastics, metals. There's even medical sterilization companies on the U.S. side of the border that are sterilizing products made in Mexico. Whereas there is all sorts of plastic injection firms, it runs the gamut. A lot of them are related or tied to the automotive industry, but some are not. And it's not just the big businesses. Small businesses have benefited. When I started in this business in 1990, 1991, New Mexico had $16,16 million in terms of exports to Mexico. If you take the last 16 years and calculate that, we're at $300 million right now during the NAFTA period. Briefly, can you cite an example where Albuquerque's economy has benefited from NAFTA? Something specific?

Sure. And I'll explain it in two ways. One, companies that are looking to expand into Mexico, for example. The NAFTA eliminated tariffs on over two thirds in different sectors, for example, pharmaceuticals, computer equipment to communications. And there are companies in Albuquerque that perhaps, if they're not manufacturing the products here in Albuquerque, they're at least exporting them from Albuquerque to the Mexican market. And you have companies, for example, Mayox, you have a company that's in the environmental product sector that is opening distribution channels into Mexico. You have companies that are doing specialty design equipment, like team technologies. A lot of these companies are still in the early stages of developing market to NAFTA, I'm sorry, in Mexico. But the point is that, knowing that they're reduced tariffs, less barriers in the Mexican market, they're able to spend more money on marketing into Mexico, whether it's a nearby market, like Seattle Huatis, or it's a larger, much larger market, like Mexico City. The other example that I would focus on that we also entertain with what we do in terms of facility and trade is inbound investments, inbound expansion.

If you look at the cement industry, you have group of cementals at Chihuahua that have been located here in Albuquerque, they're planned by Tijeras, when you're driving on the I-40, you see that plant. That's a Mexican investment. You have other kind of companies, and the Mexican companies are beginning to consider expanding into New Mexico. Why would they consider doing that, probably, because products that are bringing from Mexico into the U.S., some of their tariffs might be reduced. We had cases where we had to work with cements. The cement crisis that was a result of not only the construction boom across the United States, but also natural disasters, like the tsunami and the hurricane, created a squeeze on the cement supply. We turned to alternative supplies, and the closest one was in Chihuahua, and we have that opportunity to begin to help reduce the anti-dumping tariffs on Mexican cement that was not only collaborated by the mayor, by the governor, but also the congressional delegation that began to press on Carlos Gutierrez, the Secretary of Commerce. All these kind of things are examples of what begins to happen due to the NAF.

You know, Tomasita, I'm sorry, were you going to say something? Yeah, just what I'm hearing so far in this, about how it's benefited New Mexico, seems to hear that most of the beneficial or those who have benefited are big companies and industries. If you see, I mean, some of Barrito Mesa is here in Albuquerque, and they were in the south. They were actually visiting some of the incinerators that you were just mentioning, and it wasn't a really good site. I mean, you know, they bring these, they supposedly come into New Mexico to bring jobs, but sometimes it's limited jobs. The qualifications to get these jobs are very high. And then there's also the environmental impact that these jobs bring. I mean, New Mexico is right here, right now, is in danger of water. I mean, we're just switching over to the Rio Grande, or the San Juan Chamoná for the city

of Albuquerque's drinking water. So we have limited resources, and we always have to think if it's actually benefiting, or it's actually... You know, I think our time is running down real quick, but one thing I wanted to ask, and one thing that's been in the news recently, is that the Congress is moving towards a trade agreement with Peru in months, not that long ago, with Central America, and I think the Dominican Republic, is it fair to say that all of you think that's a good thing maybe with the exception of Tomas Sita? I think that if it gives an opportunity for a company in Albuquerque, whether it's a small or a mid-sized company or large, to expand exports into another country, I think it's a good thing. It creates jobs. And Jerry, would you support those? And see these three-degree massages for big corporations. I mean, most New Mexican companies are small, and they're benefiting. They're making up that $300 million a year. It's not Intel, out of New Mexico, exporting to Mexico. So I would say, given the history of NAFTA on a trade basis, I would say that I think positively of the new agreements coming up.

Isn't it the case, though, Jerry, that the losers in trade are much more visible? And the winners, you know, it's like victory has a thousand fathers, right? You're not going to say that it's because of expanded trade. Yeah. It's hard to make this case, isn't it? It is, but free trade agreements are structured in the sense to protect the most vulnerable sectors, and that's negotiated beforehand by the head trade negotiator for the United States. But there's going to be winners in loser shows. And on the basis of who has a global cloud, who's not on who really deserves it. Agriculture in America has political plow. California always gets protected more than anything, it seems alike. One other question I want to ask, and maybe if everyone can comment on this, it's my understanding that when the European Union was integrating, you had some poorer countries in Europe, like Spain and Portugal, and the EU actually, you know, spent a lot of money on helping get those countries infrastructure up. And it makes me think maybe we should be doing something like that with Mexico in terms of their, you know, transportation infrastructure. We don't do that. If we really wanted Mexico to be a better trading partner in other developing countries, shouldn't we be doing more like what the EU did with their poorer countries to help them rise up?

I saw you nodding your head. After your opinion, you're just so fundamentally different. I actually agree with you, but I think most people in this country absolutely do not. And you've been here presidential candidates now trying to scare people by talking about the introduction of the Amaro, you know, some sort of North American currency and so forth. It's, that's just not what NAFTA is a free trade agreement. It reduces, it mostly eliminates tariffs and gets it some of the other non-tariff bears. It's not about a customs union. It's not about a common currency. It's not about common monetary, the custom policy. The common currency side trade. Should we be thinking at least along these lines in terms of infrastructure? I would invite you and I'll take you to Wattas. You tell me that the US companies haven't improved the infrastructure in and around the plants and for the employees that are getting benefits. Are getting benefits. I mean, Mexican law labor laws more strict than the United States. You can't just hire and fire people at will. American companies and foreign companies

going into Mexico have brought investment into Mexico by the billions of dollars. Granted, Mexico needs still a lot more for its infrastructure. Should we be doing more? I would say that that's going to be impractical as Dante was saying. I don't think you'd ever get that back to Congress. Maybe throw a multilateral institution or something. What we can do is something aside from government. And I think that's something we're good at here in New Mexico is that it should be about humans, right? NAFTA is very impersonal. But there are a lot of things that we can do for integration in the communities. And so that's why we're involved at UNM in a lot of educational exchanges in Mexico. And I know that there are a number of programs, including those times running down. But I want to get at least Tomasita, both you and Alberto, in on this first Tomasita. Yeah, so yeah, I agree with you. I think, again, there should be really some really good dialogues amongst the people. And I have to disagree with Jerry about these rights that are supposedly in writing, but they're not implemented. And that if this was an actually free trade agreement

for people, why isn't there the free to cross the border with you? Briefly, Alberto is going to be the last word, I think. Yes, I think that when you have a free trade agreement like that, and you look at Mexico and you have its partner countries, United States, Canada, I think the influence it has in the benefit of, in my opinion, for a free trade agreement like this, is that sooner or later, Mexico will have to rise to a level where it's not necessarily competitive with United States or with Canada, but at a level in infrastructure education and economy, so that it provides job more jobs in Mexico. You're always going to have migration and influx of people, but I think without a free trade agreement like this, what you would see is a disparity between developed economies like the United States and Canada in Mexico, which I think the free trade agreement, sure, there are negatives to it, perhaps, but it gives an up to for a country like Mexico being a neighbor to the United States to begin to focus not only in its economy, but in elections and public policy. We're going to have to leave it there. I want to thank Dante de Gregorio,

Jerry Pacheco, Tomasita González, and Alberto Soliz. Maybe we can do this another time. Right now, it's time to check in with Jean Grant and the line panelists who've all been listening to this conversation, Jean. What have the panelists been talking about? Oh, we are about to find out, David, believe me. First, let's start by introducing this week's panel, starting with regulars, Margaret Montoya, who holds appointments at UNM's schools of law and medicine. Jim Skerantino, columnist with the weekly alibi. Our friend, Jeffrey Gardner, is back this week. He's a columnist as well, but with the Albuquerque Tribune. And we are pleased to welcome Joan Schluter to the show. She's a founding member of the group, Women Impacting Public Policy, and currently chairs the SBA's National Advisory Council. Margaret, let's get this cooking. Very interesting conversation. A lot of angles here. What was your take on that? Very interesting. Well, I agree with a lot of what Domacita had to say. If we look at NAFTA, if we think about the effects

that it has had with respect to labor standards in Mexico, environmental standards in Mexico, income inequality, if we think about what has happened along the border with respect to the social disintegration because of the displacement of people, mostly women, out of the provinces and into the border, there are many social and economic and political effects that are quite negative. I think that it is possible to say that if we look at it as a trade agreement, as Jerry Pacheco was emphasizing, that on balance, we probably would say, you know, it's probably, OK, we probably, you know, come out. Now, if we go back and we think about what Perot was saying, the criticisms that he was raising about jobs

and about immigration, he was correct. And the reason that I bring that up is that today, Obama and Clinton are both backpedaling because most Democrats today disagree with free trade agreements, and they disagree with them because of the economic effects in the United States. The million lost jobs, at least 100,000 people come into the United States out of Mexico because of what happened. And I haven't even brought up what I think is the saddest thing, and that's the tortilla crisis. What has happened in terms of, and you have to understand what biofuels have done to the ag sector in Mexico. It has driven small farmers off the land. They're not able to grow maize. The price of the tortilla has gone up by 50% in 2007. People are hungry.

You know, when Tomasita says that people used to beg for money, and now they beg for food, that is true. Tortillas are out of reach for the poorest people in Mexico. We're talking a staple here, so it's not a whole thing. We are talking something that is part of the identity of Mexico. Sure. Let me never be there for a quick second. I'll just swing the jeffery. It's funny you mentioned Clinton and Obama. Mrs. Clinton seems like she doesn't ever remember this idea. But this isn't even how. It won't be most comforting for all the viewers out there. And Margaret, of course, would be to see the rush of the Democrats to the Pat Buchanan stances of on NAFTA, which would be a shock. I'm sure for Pat Buchanan to wake up and find himself agreeing with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama or even Ross Perot. I don't think there has been a giant sucking sound, but there has admittedly been a slow hiss. Now, last week, we talked about the school board, if you remember, or we talked about the superintendent. And we said, well, why is this? And I said, well, why don't we look at the school board?

To lay the problems that Mexico is having right now. To listen to us talk about Mexico, a country that has been established, I mean, the Mayans. There were people here in Mexico thousands of years before the Spaniards rolled a Cortez came in and did what he had to do to the Aztecs. To talk about it as an emerging nation, an emerging nation, an emerging nation, when it has four of the richest 11 billionaires in a nation. Two of them run, two of them, two of the richest men in Mexico run the state-owned PIMEX and TELX. Now, I am basically the telegram. That's exactly right. The oil's in to sit there and lay NAFTA to blame for Mexico's infrastructural property. We have never, whether it's this governor, this president, previous president, ever turned to Mexico and said, you have got to find a way to get your house in order. There has always been a two-class system in Mexico. Is it getting worse? Probably.

Let me swing joyfully. Is NAFTA to blame on not entirely, OK? I agree with what you've said. But I basically believe in free trade. That's, I'm a capitalistic and I believe in free trade. However, what I did today and yesterday, what I knew we were going to talk about this, is contact all the different, some of the chambers, the organizations like ACI, like National Association, women business owners, and I went and said, OK, tell me what is done to businesses. I heard no negatives, even people that are from all over the state, no negatives, except one. And that was a chili industry. And the chili industry, what's happened there, is the, well, first of all, immigration. We're tightening the immigration. So we need a low salaries income to pick the chilies. And they can do that in Mexico. So now what's happening is the people in Mexico that were not growing chilies or growing chilies. And they're setting them over the border to New Mexico. So New Mexico's chili industry, while it was such a huge industry, is really falling apart. It's interesting, there was well-documented problems

getting labor and hatching those areas this past season. Jim Scarentino, you, you're take on this. Well, we heard, I think, was Mr. Pacheco say, there's always winners and losers in these trade agreements. And what we're hearing in the United States are the losers speaking up. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have money on the stock market in big American companies benefit from free trade. No matter what happens on Main Street in America, people who own capital, who own a share of our capital, capitalistic system, are doing well. Why? Because you're having a global market. And capital flows easily across borders, more easily than people do, although what we're seeing here is that we now have Mexicans in greater numbers coming to the United States illegally because of the losing situation for rural Mexico. In the United States, we've had the same increase in inequality between those who have the most and the middle class. What is the percentage here?

The top 2% of our country, maybe down to 5% own just about everything. And it's increasing. And it's not just Mexico, our workers have to compete now with globalization, not only against Mexican workers, but against the rest of the world where billions of people live on less than a dollar a day. They have to compete with China. I think to our manufacturing base, to our way of life and to our quality of life, China is a much more serious threat over the long run than anything we're going to see from NAFTA. So you're getting the pushback from the losers, those people who are, for whom the American dream is getting further and further out of reach. It seemed like that conversation, David had with that group. It was almost like two sets of folks in two different vacuums, labor and calculus. Margaret, how do we reconcile this issue? Clearly, labor is feeling it and feeling positive about it. But as Tomasito represented from swap, there are serious issues that folks are feeling are slipping away here. I think that the challenge for the Democratic Party is to make the argument that cheap labor

has costs for everyone, including the top half percent that now has benefited so greatly from the economic policies of the Bush administration. And what I mean by that. And Clinton, and the free trade push really came through during the Clinton administration more than ever before. So just to be fair, it's just not George Bush. But I'm really talking about something else. So I'm not talking only about free trade. So that when we see the kinds of other economic incentives that have benefited multinational corporations, I mean, that's the problem when we talk about free trade is that we do not have the time to sit here and try and tease out what is free trade and what are other kinds of tax benefits, other kinds of subsidies for ag business. I mean, there are just so many governmental incentives

for multinationals. And that's really what I'm talking about. And it's also benefit- I'm going to have to wrap this up on that note, but- There are so many benefits for capital. That's true. That's true. Jeffrey, I hear you. I'm hearing you under the table kicking. You will have another whack at this. Trust me. Trust me. Another interesting subject. Was it a case of holiday, bar humbug, or an effective political statement from the four members of the Albuquerque City Council, Ken Sanchez, Sally Maier, Trudy Jones, and Don Harris, who all walked out of, or never showed up, you had to be somewhere to walk out of this past Monday's City Council meeting and protest of the selection of Brad Winters, the new City Council president. It was an important vote, along with two other important votes that considering the president may end up serving out at least a portion of Martin Chavez's term, depending on how his US Senate race goes. Kind of complicated here, but Jim, simply, did the citizens of this city get served by those four counselors? Well, no.

The purpose was to show themselves to be laughing stocks, you know, they proved it. I can't believe these people wanted to be president of City Council. I think they proved Mr. Sanchez and Councillor Sally Maier proved they were absolutely unqualified to preside over what are very contentious and disorderly proceedings. If they can't act in an adult manner over deciding who will have the gavel for this year, there is no way either one of them could have been City Council president. I want to know what they ate and drank at Cappos, and I want to know if the taxpayers paid any part of it. And I want to know if they were hitting the bar before they went and gave their press conference. This is an utter disgrace. Oh, my God, the whole thing's like, I don't know. Oh, yeah, and here's the point. Did they violate the Open Meetings Act? You had four city counselors gathering without public notice, were they talking about city business? Of course. Over some nice Italian wine and metacardi, maybe they made fools of themselves and the whole city is laughing at these four people. Two of whom want to be mayor if you can't believe that.

I think it ripped pretty good. My paper, the journal, had a tough editorial. I mean, it just, it served, it's, when did it serve to do this? You know, I really don't know. I wrote that they were going to teach Brad Winner's or Winner's a lesson and by Jingo, look at him. He's the president now. The TGM, man. We just, oh, let's see what else we can sting him with. Sure. I don't believe he'll be serving as mayor, by the way, at any time. I think that's going to shake out in Udall's favor. But I think it was a foolish move, obviously. I think it was, everything we have said here and then some because at different point, Sanchez has almost shown some leadership on some issues and that just evaporated. It's just a curiosity to me how you could, particularly on the funding issues. The TIDs issue, well, the red light cameras, one of my personal, I think they're illegal. I think you have a right to face your accuser and godex, not my accuser. But, you're right.

They were showing what their priorities were and their priorities were not important business, dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars in tax subsidies or this contentious red light issue. It was this personal junior high school in funding, that mattered more to them. And I'm taking up too much time. But, you know what, if you're in politics, people play politics. And that's what they do. And to say Brad winner probably, he promised me this and he promised me, so I'm like to me at one point, he promised everybody he would support him, you know. Just sure you got my support, you got my, in the next thing, you know. Every council has to follow his contentious. Every one of them. I looked at them as a bunch of school children. I used to teach and I thought, you know, don't give me what I want. You're not giving me what I want and I'm going home. Take my toys and I'm going home. And to think we elected people that behave like that. What you do is you stay and you fight. You don't walk. Fight it out and stay in front of the public. Stay in front of the public. Yeah, because I have a question, Margaret. I'm personally really curious what this does to the so-called veto-proof city council makeup. We're going to have some interesting machinations

where some people are bailing out on Mr. Winter or Malay's groups, pardon me, is probably better said. Well, I think that that, I think that I may disagree. I think that that's the way democracy works. And sometimes we see people doing what they think is strategic in this case with drawing from the process. And I think that that veto-proof, you know, those alliances are extremely fragile because they're based on relationships. And those relationships really develop over conflict. I think that we're going to have to wait and see how the new council persons are integrated into the process. I think it's going to be very interesting now that Marty Chavez has one foot out because he's always played the ends against the middle with the council. Really not recognizing the kinds of divisions

that, you know, Democrat, Republican, those sorts of things, Valley, Heights, those kinds of things. We don't know yet how it's going to play out. I think that the TIDS vote was an interesting outcome there, right, that it was that Categon's vote passed, and it's now been vetoed. I think that we have some big issues that are going to face this council. And we don't yet know what the alliances are going to be. Which I would agree with you on strategic, you know, maybe it was a strategic move, but that was the wrong night for it. I mean, you do it on a night when you don't have two of the more high-profile issues. I mean, at a certain level, the red light camera, I don't know that anybody in the city has really sunk in what we're getting with the TIDS thing. I don't know that they understand that we're basically shoveling money to people when we shouldn't be. Categon does, but I'm saying to people, the people of Albuquerque, so by the same token, by the same measure, the red light issue, it's a very, it's a very important issue.

You may go to people on the street, or you just walk into Walmart sometime. What do you think about cameras, they'll tell you what they think about it. They can't more about that than who's holding the gavel with city council meetings. Well said, they do. Very, it was very odd. I showed up late at walked in. You see one half of the DSS people, there's everybody, you know. They can't all begin the battle for once. They got some important business done. So I was going to send in entertainment books to each of those four city councilors to hope that they use them every Monday night. Yeah. We'll see what happens when they show up again. I really think the less dope and they show up, the better we are. Ah, that's very well. They can very well be. New subject here, Mitt Romney's presidential hopes may turn on a speech he made on Thursday, excuse me, called Faith in America. The address was designed to clarify the Mormon candidates were religious views. Jeffrey, wow. Many people compared the speech to what Mr. Kennedy had to do back in the early 60s, fairly or unfailing, the dynamics were very, very different. Here's the question, did it succeed in why?

What was the problem he was trying to solve and did he solve it? Well, the problem is that the last great single group of Americans you can, without hesitation, slam, or Mormon. You can say virtually anything you want about it. I personally, Mormonism, you know, I'm not comfortable with it, but I'm not electing the Pope. I'm not electing the head of the Mormon Church. Did he succeed? I have, when I saw it, I thought it was inspiring. He's an excellent, it was excellent delivery. It was well, well, worded. It was pointed out here. I brought this speech with me that he used the word Mormon once. Interesting to teach you. Absolutely, absolutely. So we don't need to misunderstand. Why did he think he did that? Only using the word. Because I think that as a speechwriter, you would want to limit the opportunity for the press and us to say, well, let's start parsing Mormonism, okay? And now we're kind of going almost the opposite. Well, what is he avoiding about Mormonism? And that wasn't the overall point of the speech,

the overall point of the speech is this country was founded on pluralism, not secularism. These people came across the board to be participate, you know, Catholics, Anglicans, whatever. Well, I don't agree because I think that the voting block that he has to be concerned with is evangelicals. Evangelicals, because they vote and they can be organized fairly easily from the pulpit. And evangelicals at a very high rate think that the LDS church is occult. That it is not Christian, that they cannot vote for them because they happen to think that we should be closer to a theocracy than most of us would agree, but that what we need is to be closer to a Christian nation and therefore what we need is a Christian leader, which is why they had such high hope for George Bush, unfortunately. So here we have Romney having to persuade the evangelicals. That was his goal.

This was not a, you know, separation of church and state and let's talk about faith and let's talk about religion. Uh-uh, this was very direct to him. His entity had to convince, very conservative Democratic, already almost you would almost say Southern Dixie Krat that a New England Catholic, they are very much the same because the Southern Dixie Krat, well that may or may not be the case, but he certainly didn't want to wake up and find the South as well. I definitely, I don't agree with you. I think yet what I'm interested in Romney and with Kennedy with anybody is their political views and what they're going to do. And I think coming out with his coming out with his religion and putting it on the table and saying, here it is, this is my stand. And then let's move on and talk about what his political beliefs are as exactly what he should have done. And he didn't, you know, go through the bullet list of, here's what we believe and don't believe, etc. You know, he talked about faith versus talking about religion, Jim. Well, he also talked about the primacy of Jesus Christ in the face of the LDS church and Mormonism. And he hit on some of the fundamental points

of agreement between members of the Church of Jesus Christ who let it be saints and evangelicals. He didn't go into the differences about Jesus coming to America in the past, you know, millennia, etc., etc., where there won't be any agreement. And why should he do that? There's no point in him arguing theology. And I'm glad he didn't. I don't want to see a presidential candidate arguing about, you know, whether God was a man once and whether we become God-like at the end. And I think what he did though, and I agree a little bit with Jeff on this, he showed himself, he showed his character, his strength of character, and his integrity. And the reason the evangelicals liked him to begin with was is the kind of life he's led. He's a very upstanding person. He's got a wonderful family. They're not that bad. And I think there's little, I want to say this, you know, in defense of Mormons. I think there's little for the nation to fear from them. Mormons, I know, are wonderful, admirable, hardworking people, family-centered. And I don't think we need to fear that.

Now, with that said, I think the religious beliefs of a candidate, to me, are important. If they want to be president to bring on the apocalypse, because they think that's God's calling, I want to know. But we don't see that with Mitt Romney. We don't see that with Mike Cuckabee. We don't see that with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Right. All of whom are people of faith. Office of America, that's exactly what we expect. And so far, we've been fortunate. And I honestly believe this. George W. Bush included, he praised. So what Franklin Roosevelt prayed, if you go say to Iran, where you have the president of Iran, openly saying, I want to bring on the caliphate. I want to bring on the Holocaust. I want Armageddon. I mean, they will say that that's what their audience says. We don't do that in America. And I think you have Smith did run for president. Excuse me, but I think that there are many political issues here that I think are more salient. And they have to do with the fact that Romney used to be a moderate Republican. And he has had to move to the radical right. And the reason is the evangelical vote.

And it doesn't have anything to do with this faith. I think it has everything to do because what is going on here is that he is having to go out there and show that there is a consistency between his beliefs and his faith, that consistency, which he has shown in his personal life with his political actions. And he can't, because he has been inconsistent. He haven't been inconsistent on major issues. I'm saying now, in terms of his flip-flop. And that's the way that he's running as a candidate. In fact, when he ran his governor, this is a curious thing because Republicans can't do this. Let me finish this. OK. You can run as Hillary Clinton and say, suddenly, you're a moderate and you've got a heart suddenly. OK, let's just, you know, you've got a personality. You can be Hillary Clinton. But as a Republican, if you go the other side to appease voters who are left of you and suddenly find yourself saying, you know what, I don't think I'm going to support gay marriage or abortion. I mean, you're chastise, right?

You can, as a Democrat, you know, be Bill Clinton, and suddenly find yourself, well, you know, maybe we do need that welfare reform that I was so adamant against. I don't think there's an even ground there. I mean, people run to the market they run, too. OK, what is the old saying in Republicans, you know, you run as a Republican, you run highly conservative and moved to the moderate? It's the same thing for Democrats. She's going to run, right now she's trying to convince the left. At the end of the day, there can be no downside, it doesn't seem to me to have a stage alone, finally, as a presidential candidate, especially in the Republican party these days. And I think that's where the upside was for him. Now, time for on the clock, my personal favorite part of the show here, my own little Christmas gift to you guys. Lost the panel to respond here, right? Some gift. Respond to several questions and rapid fire fashion. And yes, the clock is running. So first up, this week, the Rio Rancho School Board voted to amend its controversial science curriculum standard. We took that on in the show back then. It allowed for discussion about intelligent design. That's the idea that the theory of evolution

can't explain all the intricacies of our existence. So a divine creator must be the answer for some of those other things in very simple terms. Jim, good decision. I hope this is behind us. And I hope they can get back to just educating our children so they can compete with the children in the rest of the world who aren't being distracted by debates like this. Margaret? I think that I joined many in the science community who are relieved that this decision has been made, and that we are not, you know, in league with Kansas and others that have really not. Let me show you, Jeffrey. Is it not fair to say that if we've got two different belief systems, let's fight it out in the classroom and let kids view it out? I don't see that. I think science has become its own little theology. And it is frightened very much by, you know, they turned it on the creationism. Now, as I do understand it, there was a teacher who taught creationism. I don't favor creationism. I do favor, it is not. Intelligent design is not, it's a deist concept.

It is not creationism. I don't know what the pain is. I don't know what the pain is. Hold up. Let's get you on in here, hey. I knew that was going to happen. I'm having taught teenagers, having taught high school kids. You let them hear both sides and let them make a thing. There you go. Stop right there. That's the answer. P&M. P&M. Public P&M. We know where they are. Don't need to say it out loud. How does hands out this week? And many people aren't too happy about it. The utility company is seeking an $82.5 million rate increase, but it won't happen without a fight. Certainly, Margaret, the opponents, I think, what? $9.19 high. Whoever made it. Yeah, well, all of the interveners came out. I mean, what a list of interveners. In your gut. Do they have a good legal case? Legal case may not be the right term. But you know what I mean? Yes. The thing is, I think that P&M, and it doesn't help that the executives, the CEOs, are getting these, you know, obscenely large bonuses. I think that if you couple that with the evidence, I think they're going to have a hard time

getting their increase. What do you think? Let's see the executions cut and pay before they come to the taxpayer. The rate pairs into Mexico. One of the poorest states in the country and asked for more money, which definitely goes to their exorbitant rates of pay. Sure. In great timing, too, just in the weather downturns, Jeffrey. You know what? This is oddly enough. There is this belief that conservatives think that we should rally around the big company, and that is absolutely not the case. As a conservative, the position would be exactly what Jim just said. You go to yourself first, you work the details out long before you come to your constituency that you have a monopoly over to begin with. There's very little I'll say good about P&M. On time's up there, still looking for the perfect Christmas gift for that someone special. How about a fighting prairie dog sweatshirt? I might wear that. The college of Santa Fe has decided to officially adopt the rascally rodent as it's new mascot.

Jim, we left you out last time. I think it's wonderful. I think they ought to be able to choose anything they want as a mascot, and long as it's not absurd. Why do they not choose the Chupacabra? No, no, no, no, no. That was one of the finalists. Very dog is a lovely little creature. OK. Warm and fuzzy. Jeffrey, I guess we're out of animals in sports world. Well, you know, South Carolina has still the best sports name, but we won't go into that right now. But I'm for the prairie dog. I love the prairie dog, but the Chupacabra I love. And my boys will tell you it's not real dad, but I can tell you it is. I can imagine the cheer with the Chupacabra. How can they miss this opportunity? Too far ahead. How did you pass that up? I don't know. What's your name? And what's your name? And what's your name? I'm a second five. I can't make too much fun of my high school mascot was the Canary. Oh my god. You're making that up. Bumble a bungee. No, a Canary. The light of the Canary. They never took it seriously. And on that note, that's all the time we have for this big segment of the line. We're gearing up for our special year end show.

It's amazing we're doing another one, which will include a look back at all the biggest stories of 2007. If you happen to have a suggestion for us, we'd love to hear it. Shoot us an email at infocusatcannemy.org Or you can visit us on the online forum at canemetv.org forward slash forum. And again, we'd love to hear from you. Thanks for watching. Just a reminder, you can watch part or all of this week's episode again online. Just head to our online forum to find the link. Once again, that address is canemetv.org forward slash forum. Until next time, thanks for watching. Bye.