Letters for Thursday, February 28, 2008

• KIUC negotiating wind power

• Trade and immigration

• On political loyalty

KIUC negotiating wind power

In response to Gordon Labedz’s comments regarding the KIUC board and his concern that nothing is being done regarding windmills (“Why support KIUC status quo?” Letters, Feb. 26).

I believe that he should speak with some of the current board members in regards to this matter. I have been informed by board member Phil Tacbian that they are presently in negotiations with UPC on Kaua‘i, the same company that entered into negotiations with Maui County for its windmill project.

Phil informs me that negotiations are of the greatest importance in dotting the Is and crossing the Ts as it means entering into a long-term contract, and the members of KIUC cannot bear the brunt of failures in the future that were done through inappropriately negotiating a contract.

Calvin C. Fujita

Kapa‘a

Trade and immigration

In light of her letter in Monday’s newspaper, Katy Rose has placed herself among those 60 percent of voters who believe that foreign trade is bad (“Narrow views of immigration,” Letters, Feb. 25).

She says that “U.S. policies, such as NAFTA, have devastated the economy of the Mexican countryside, displacing millions of farmers by the flooding of Mexican markets with cheap, subsidized U.S.-grown corn.”

You have to wonder where such misinformation comes from. First of all NAFTA is not a U.S. policy. It is an agreement between nations. It was not something inflicted upon someone by the awful U.S. of A.

Secondly, in the 13 years since NAFTA came into being by agreement, Mexico’s economy has quadrupled. Average Mexican wages have risen from $2,000 per year in 1994 to more than $7,000 today. During last year alone, 600,000 new jobs were created in Mexico. Does that sound like a devastated economy to you?

Thirdly, Mexican families are bemoaning the fact that corn prices have jumped from around $2 a bushel in 2005 to over $5 a bushel today. Maybe Rose would like to explain how she came to the conclusion that “cheap U.S.-grown corn” has “displaced millions” of Mexican farmers when the price of corn has risen 150 percent?

Mexico exports to the U.S. $198 billion in goods. The U.S. exports $134 billion in goods to Mexico. Mexico is the third-largest trading partner of the U.S.

NAFTA facilitates trade and is an agreement in which the trading partners drop their tariffs and other barriers to trade. Each country benefits.

But what then are the reasons so many Mexicans want to leave Mexico? Is it the corrupt Mexican government that for a hundred years has favored the elite of that country? Is it that when they come to the U.S. they like the taste of freedom? Is it the body of law that exists in the U.S. that protects private property and the rights of individuals as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution? Rose can blame the U.S. for every kind of misdeed in the world, just as all socialists have done since forever, but she could at least get her facts straight.

I would also like Rose to explain what a nation is? If a nation cannot control its borders, is it a nation? If the laws of a nation are put aside because certain factions feel sorry for illegal aliens, are the laws of a nation immaterial and can be jettisoned at will? And inform me, please, how an inconsistent application of the law of the land will affect contracts, property rights, and all manner of legal dealings among citizens?

Michael Meek

Princeville

On political loyalty

“Local boy makes good” has always been a source of pride for us Hawaiians as it rightly should be. So it is only natural that people would question Sen. Daniel Inouye’s support of Hillary Clinton over local boy Barack Obama. Dan’s choice of words in defense of his position was unfortunate, but through personal experience I know that for Dan to do otherwise in view of the very favorable treatment that the remote little state of Hawai‘i had received from the Bill Clinton administration, would have been an ungrateful slap in the face to the Clintons.

After Hawai‘i became a state, I experienced a similar situation as Hawaii State Director of COPE (Committee On Political Education). As chief lobbyist for the AFL-CIO Central Council, I had received excellent cooperation from members of the state Legislature in the passage of several measures important to Hawai‘i’s unions. Then, my executive board instructed me to tell the legislators who had been so helpful, that any member of the Legislature who refused to publicly endorse David McClung for the U.S. House of Representatives, would not receive the endorsement of the Central Labor Council when they ran for re-election. What a stupid mistake. The resentment that rained down on me from legislators like my personal friend, Rep. Tadao Beppu, was unbearable; but the damage had been done, and it would be a long time before the Central Labor Council would recover politically.

Dan Inouye knew that his action, though it would draw the criticism that it did, would not affect the landslide caucus vote in favor of Obama. Others, like Neil Abercrombie, made sure of that. At the same time, Dan was able to affirm his loyalty to former-President Clinton, for the excellent treatment that Hawai‘i had received from his administration, thus assuring a continuation of that very valuable relationship. I wish, that in my case, I had been as wise.

Harry Boranian

Lihu‘e