Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues,americast.usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Mon, Nov 9 1992 Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 04:44:15 EST Message-ID: 11-09 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update Nov. 9, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Monday morning in USA TODAY: Trade, Pardons. TODAY'S DEBATE - FREE TRADE: USA TODAY'S OPINION: Oilseeds and white wine are no reason to go to war. But jobs and low prices that come from free trade are. And those are the stakes in the trade battle between the USA and Europe. Last week, the Bush administration threatened to slap 200% tariffs on European white wines and other goods by Dec. 5, tripling their price. The reason: The European Community, particularly France, violated previous trade agreements by using high subsidies of its soy, sunflower and other oilseed producers to block U.S. farm products from Europe. If the subsidies end, U.S. farmers might sell $1.6 billion more to Europe. That's small potatoes compared to $100 billion in annual U.S. sales to Europe. And it's a drop in the bucket compared to the $70 billion boost and 1 million jobs that the U.S. economy would add from a new world trade agreement this fight is holding up. But Bush had to act. For five years, U.S. attempts to settle the issue amicably have been rejected because France's government fears its farmers' clout. Ignoring such blatant flouting of the rules would assure that any new trade agreement had no teeth. And it would feed protectionists here who foolishly would raise barriers to all foreign goods. This nation can't afford that. The world is a $500 billion a year oyster for U.S. goods and services. And the goods imported here provide competition to make domestic industries efficient and save consumers money. But for free trade to work, its rules must be obeyed. The oilseed fight should have but one goal - to make trade fair so it can be free. OTHER VIEW: JUNE M. COLLIER, president and chairman of National Apparel Inc.: Here we go again. The ballot boxes hardly have closed, and the press is already pounding its same destructive message on the great gifts this country will receive if President-elect Bill Clinton pushes "free trade" even further. I don't know if Presidents Reagan and Bush received their divine guidance from the media, economists or some college professors. It really doesn't matter because none is credible in determining how businesses can succeed. They do, however, seem to have an inside track on failures. Our country has practically lost its industrial base with its good-paying jobs. The press, politicians, economists, Japan and Mexico (and others) tell us how great it is. It is great for Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, etc. Just wait until China comes in with a full head of free-trade steam. We'll have no jobs left. It appears that Clinton shares the same free-trade theory as Bush. I did see some hesitancy on the North American Free Trade Agreement. He wants assurances of some kind from Mexico. I hope he doesn't ask that the people of Mexico purchase a lot more goods "Made in the USA" because they can't. They hardly make enough to buy what they build, much less what we build. These past 10 years of free trade have given us the homeless, the hopeless, the jobless and the sick. They have left us with precious few good-paying manufacturing jobs. The news media have been very vocal in their attack on "protectionism" and have helped influence politicians and other people in power. Thanks, guys; we needed that. Politicians can be voted out; the media can't. It is imperative that the media really know what they're saying before they use their terrific influence to the detriment of this country. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON PARDONS FOR CASPAR WEINBERGER, OTHERS: GUADALUPE, Ariz., Sylvia Mori, 35, health promoter: I don't know. President Bush should have pardoned Weinberger at least six months before the election if he were going to pardon him. I am really tired of the Iran-contra scandal. What's done is done. What's Bush going to prove? Now, he should just let Clinton do it. CARY, N.C., Richard Langston, 37, computer programmer: Iran-contra needs to be further investigated, especially in light of the possibility Bush was aware of the goings-on and approved of the weapons-for-hostages exchanges. I wouldn't think it appropriate for Clinton to pardon them, either. We haven't gotten to the bottom of it. SPRING HOUSE, Pa., Phyllis R. Hills, 46, office manager: Absolutely not. President Bush would not be the right person to pardon Weinberger. And if he pardons them without a trial, that's saying they're guilty. Weinberger is an honorable man, and I don't think he's afraid of a trial, although I think maybe Bush is. MADISON, N.J., Wayne Allen Thomas, 18, student: No. Some still suggest Bush may have been involved. His pardoning could be a political scheme to keep them from ever providing evidence he was involved. It's very essential we understand what took place so we can fix the problem of government behind closed doors. DALLAS, Texas, R.T. Conley, 62, pastor: This would be a good time to start anew. We should learn from the Iran-contra scandal, but I don't think we should continue to hold it over individual heads. It's like Watergate. They can still dig up information on Watergate, but what we're doing is destroying ourselves. Issues & Debate Editor: Kate Coughlin. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM