-
April 30, 2007 4:45 PM
Making the Chairman of the Business Roundtable Into A Babbling Ball of Incoherence
The second in a series of live blogs from the international economic summit in Butte, Montana
We just heard from Terry McGraw, the head of McGraw-Hill and chairman of the Business Roundtable - the same Business Roundtable that is lobbying aggressively to prevent shareholders from having a say on how much the companies they own spend on CEO pay packages. That makes sense, at least for someone like McGraw - he made a cool $20 million last year as his company continues to use the provisions it lobbied for in the No Child Left Behind Act to bilk states across the country.
McGraw's speech was truly incredible, in that I really can't believe he could deliver it without breaking into laughter or at least twitching.
The kinds of propaganda he spewed is reserved for Saturday Night Live spoofs or pathological liars. For instance, much of is talk was about "free" trade and its supposed benefits to ordinary Americans. He actually said that "free trade has had a net positive impact on U.S. manufacturing jobs" and specifically chastised the Montana Senate for (with the help of the Progressive States Network) passing a resolution demanding Congress reject President Bush's request to reauthorize "fast track" trade authority. Apparently, the fact that America has lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs since the signing of NAFTA, China-PNTR and other "free" trade deals is a "net positive."
McGraw attacked those pushing for basic labor, human rights and environmental protections in trade pacts as "protectionists" and "isolationists" and then, incredibly, said "We need to stop demonizing each other in the trade debate." Topping it all off, he claimed that in Washington, "the voice of business is very, very low."
When it came time for questions, I asked McGraw a simple one: As a critic of "protections" in trade deals, does he oppose the intellectual property protections in trade deals that his company lobbies for, and on the flip side, if he supports such "protections" does he support similar protections for labor, human rights and the environment? He seemed utterly stunned, and stuttered through a truly incoherent 3 minute answer that telegraphed to the entire audience that he didn't want to deal with the question. The only thing I could really get from his answer was his one line saying that "some people want to use trade policy as foreign policy." He then ignored his own request for "civility in the trade debate" and again attacked those who demand such protections for basic human needs as a contingent of trade agreements as advocating for "isolationism."
After the speech, a bunch of folks came up to me telling me they were glad I asked the question, but that I should have expected McGraw to give a non-answer. I guess I should have, but somewhere deep down, I always hope that those I disagree with have real principles behind their positions and that such principles will come out when they are asked a straightforward question. However, when talking about basic kitchen table economic issues like trade, my naive hope that "free" traders like the chairman of the Business Roundtable can defend themselves on the merits is usually shown to be just that: naive.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
Recent CREDO Blog entries
-
This Modern World
-
November 6, 2008 -
October 27, 2008 -
October 20, 2008 -
October 15, 2008 -
October 13, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
This is why minons of the CofC and Business roundtable are afraid to appear on Lou Dobbs - their answers to off-shoring and insourcing are exposed for all to see as nothing but lies and deception.
That said, there is almost nothing we can do about these monsters. They own a considerable portion of each party and the people are too in the dark or ideological imbeciles(aka: yellow dog dems) who will support a Repub-lite just because he has a D in front of his name regardless of his behavior.
After all when was the last time any Democrat was fired for supporting "free" trade pacts or off-shoring or H1-B visa programes?
None thats how many.
I for one am perfectly willing to fire Republi-lites. They are the divisive factor in the Democratic party, regardless of how much they prate about the populist Democrats being "divisive".
As for "Maxie's Big Fundraiser", what did you expect?
Maxie rounded up a bunch of potential campaign supporters, stroked their egos, and gave them a platform to prate their propaganda. He gets campaign funding, and makes it look like he's "putting Montana on the map", like we need more part-time residents who think they don't have to pay taxes.
I would have loved to have been there and seen McGraw stammering around trying to answer a pertinent question, but as a resident of Butte, I am neither rich enough or important enough to get invited.
BTW, they shut down Montana Tech for the two days of the conference. Were they afraid that the students might want to ask questions?
Business Round Table chairman - how can McGraw be so SQUARE and still talk out of three sides of his mouth at the same time? What an ass! Maybe he's a robot and it's a tape recording. Naw, he's just another coporate ass!
I've said this often and I'll say it again. The federal government should always view "US" businesses as they would any foriegn government i.e with cautious suspicion.
The reason I say this is simple. The sole concern of business is making money. For this reason, they suffer no alligence to any country and will happily set up office in ANY country under ANY form of government be it communism, a dictatorship, a theocracy etc. as long as they see the potential for profit. A prime example of this is Halliburton who recently established their HQ in Dubai for the sole purpose of doing business with Iran thereby skirting US laws prohitbiting trade with nations that are viewed as supporters of terrorism.
Corporations that act like this are conducting for profit activities that are harmful to the interests of the United States. Given this, there is little difference between them and any foreign country that chooses to do the same. I'm not implying that these businesses be barred from setting up shop here. I am saying that when dealing with them one should remember that, despite what they say, they have no genuine interest in anyone, any nation or entity other than themselves and as such should NEVER be trusted to do what is right for an individual, a state or a country.
Join the Discussion