June, 27 2012, 04:08pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dan Beeton, 202-239-1460
Mexico's Economic Failure is Driving Force in Sunday's Election, Says New CEPR Report
PAN’s Likely Loss Due to Mexico’s Poor Economic Performance
WASHINGTON
A new report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) looks at the performance of the Mexican economy over the past decade, including the 2008-2009 recession and recovery, and concludes that the country's economic failure is a main reason for the likely loss of the ruling PAN party.
"Mexico's economy has done terribly since 2000, and for the last three decades, by any comparison - compared to its past growth (e.g. 1960-1980), or even compared with the rest of Latin America, which has grown twice as fast in per capita GDP since 2000," said Mark Weisbrot, lead author of the paper and CEPR Co-Director.
The paper notes that after Latin America's record-breaking economic failure of 1980-2000, most of the region voted in left governments, whereas Mexico moved to the right. It looks at some of reasons for this difference.
"There is much evidence that Mexico's media duopoly has a major influence on the electorate. This was true in the 2006 election, even though it was impossible to say who received the most votes in that election," said Weisbrot.
Among the highlights of the report:
* Mexico's economic growth since 2000 has not improved over that of the long-term failure of the previous two decades. Its average annual per capita growth of 0.9 percent for 2000-2011 is about the same as the 0.8 percent annual rate from 1980 to 2000, and a small fraction of the 3.7 percent rate of the pre-2000 era.
* Mexico's economy since 2000 has also performed very badly as compared with the rest of Latin America. Its annual growth of GDP per person is less than half of the growth experienced by the rest of the region.
* Mexico suffered the worst output loss in Latin America during the 2008-2009 recession, with a loss of 9.4 percent of GDP.
* The recession wiped out almost all the gains in poverty reduction that had been made over the past decade.
* Unemployment has not recovered to its pre-recession level, but remains considerably higher at 5 percent, compared to 3.6 percent prior to the recession. However, these numbers are small in absolute terms, because the official unemployment rate does not capture the full extent of unemployment in Mexico. Movements in the official unemployment rate should be seen as an indicator of the proportionate deterioration (and recovery) of the labor market, and not as a measure of the actual level of unemployment.
* Underemployment more than doubled during the recession, from 6.3 to 13.2 percent. Nearly three years later, it is still at 8.3 percent.
* Real wages have lost ground, shrinking by 3.5 percent since 2006.
* Policy mistakes have contributed to the poor performance of the Mexican economy. The Mexican Central Bank's monetary policy was too conservative, raising policy interest rates (to 8.25 percent) just before the recession. The Central Bank could have avoided some of the increases in unemployment and poverty by lowering interest rates much sooner and lowering them further.
* The Central Bank's failure to more aggressively combat the downturn and ensure a stronger recovery, especially of employment, is partly attributable to its inflation-targeting regime, which targets an inflation rate of 3 percent.
* The fiscal stimulus, as with monetary policy, was not only too little, but too late. Mexico has a relatively low level of public debt, at about 32 percent of GDP, and especially foreign public debt - which is the more binding constraint - at about 10 percent of GDP. The government therefore had plenty of room to borrow as necessary in order to pursue the appropriate fiscal stimulus policies.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
'I Don't Like Censorship': Omar Slams Proposed TikTok Ban as Hawley Aims to Fast-Track Passage
"There are very legitimate concerns about privacy and the harvesting of private user data on social media platforms, but this proposal doesn't address those," said the Minnesota Democrat.
Mar 29, 2023
Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar on Tuesday joined the ranks of progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups voicing opposition to proposals to ban TikTok as Republican Sen. Josh Hawley plans to force a vote on his bill sometime this week.
"I am opposed to efforts by some Republicans and Democrats to unilaterally ban an entire social media platform," Omar (Minn.) said in a statement.
"First of all, I don't like censorship," said Omar. "There are very legitimate concerns about privacy and the harvesting of private user data on social media platforms, but this proposal doesn't address those. Instead, it singles out one platform—TikTok—and bans it outright."
Amid a rise in what Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) has called "xenophobic anti-China rhetoric," U.S. lawmakers have introduced three pieces of legislation that would crack down on TikTok, which is owned by Beijing-based ByteDance.
Rep. Michael McCaul's (R-Texas) DATA Act, which passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this year, would require the White House to sanction companies that are "subject to the jurisdiction" of China and "believed to have facilitated" the transfer of sensitive personal data.
The RESTRICT Act, introduced by Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and John Thune (R-S.D.), would authorize the U.S. Commerce Department to "review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries," which could trigger a TikTok ban or sale.
Hawley's (Mo.) No TikTok on United States Devices Act, meanwhile, seeks to outlaw TikTok use nationwide.
The far-right lawmaker "plans to seek unanimous consent on the floor this week" to pass his bill, Punchbowl Newsreported Tuesday. Hawley said that "this is the moment to act" after last week's "unbelievable" hearing, during which TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew was accosted by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
According to the outlet, Warner and Thune may put forth their competing bill, in which case there's a chance of neither passing the Senate before the Easter recess.
"We should create actual standards and regulations around data harvesting and privacy violations across social media companies—like many countries around the world have already done—not ban particular platforms we don't like."
"Aside from raising legitimate First Amendment concerns, this is bad policy," Omar said Tuesday. "We should create actual standards and regulations around data harvesting and privacy violations across social media companies—like many countries around the world have already done—not ban particular platforms we don't like."
With this line of criticism, Omar echoed Bowman and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), whose inaugural TikTok video on Saturday endorsed arguments made last month by defenders of digital rights and civil liberties.
Fight for the Future director Evan Greer, for instance, said in February that if members of Congress truly want to protect U.S. residents from the surveillance capitalist business model also embraced by domestic Big Tech firms, "they should advocate for strong data privacy laws that prevent all companies (including TikTok!) from collecting so much sensitive data about us in the first place, rather than engaging in what amounts to xenophobic showboating that does exactly nothing to protect anyone."
For her part, Omar stressed that "as a frequent target of disinformation campaigns, I am sympathetic to... concerns that TikTok could be used for propaganda and hate speech."
"But again, this problem is not unique to TikTok," the lawmaker continued. "Twitter, Instagram, and famously, Facebook have all been used by foreign adversaries for disinformation campaigns targeting U.S. citizens. Our regulations should address these broad issues instead of singling out one platform."
"Lastly, there are legitimate concerns about the Chinese government—including their brutal repression of the Uyghur people and their suppression of basic rights of freedom of expression in their country," said Omar. "But banning one social media company based in China will not solve those problems."
"The American model rests on our protection of those freedoms—the ability to speak publicly against the government, or if you choose, to share a 10-second video cooking your favorite meal," she added. "That is the beauty of our democracy and our constitution. That is what sets us apart from authoritarian regimes like China. And that is the example we should set for the world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
WATCH: Sanders Rips Schultz Over 'Unforgivable' Efforts to Crush Worker Organizing
"What Starbucks is doing is not only trying to break unions, but even worse," said the Vermont senator. "They are trying to break the spirit of workers who are struggling to improve their lives."
Mar 29, 2023
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is testifying Wednesday morning before a Senate committee chaired by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who used his time to grill the billionaire on the coffee giant's scorched-earth union-busting campaign that has drawn hundreds of unfair labor practice charges and dozens of complaints from the NLRB.
In his opening statement at the hearing, Sanders ran through the litany of allegations against Starbucks and said the company has launched "the most aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign in the modern history of our country."
"That union-busting campaign has been led by Howard Schultz," the senator said.
"What is outrageous to me is not only Starbucks' anti-union activities and their willingness to break the law—it is their calculated and intentional efforts to stall, stall, and stall," Sanders continued. "They understand that the turnover rate at Starbucks is high. They understand that if workers do not see success in getting a contract and improved wages they may get discouraged. So what Starbucks is doing is not only trying to break unions, but even worse. They are trying to break the spirit of workers who are struggling to improve their lives. And that is unforgivable."
Watch the hearing live:
Sanders asked Schultz a series of specific questions about his role in Starbucks' attempts to undercut unionization efforts, including whether he intends to comply with a recent NLRB ruling ordering him to record and distribute a video informing workers of their right to organize under federal law.
Schultz refused to make such a commitment, repeatedly contending that Starbucks has not broken the law—a claim that at one point prompted audible laughter in the hearing room. The billionaire also tried to downplay his role in company decision-making related to the union drive, telling Sanders that he was not involved in any move to terminate or discipline a worker for supporting unionization.
When Sanders asked whether Starbucks would pledge to exchange proposals with union negotiators within two weeks in order to jumpstart stalled contract talks, Schultz demurred, insisting that the company is already negotiating in good faith with workers, who are demanding a higher starting wage, 100% employer-covered healthcare, and other benefits.
\u201cBernie Sanders to Howard Schultz: "Have you ever threatened, coerced, or intimidated a worker for supporting a union?"\n\nSchultz won't answer no. "I've had conversations that could\u2019ve been interpreted in a different way than I intended..."\u201d— More Perfect Union (@More Perfect Union) 1680103097
Following Schultz's appearance, the committee will hear from a separate panel of witnesses, including current Starbucks worker Maggie Carter and former employee Jaysin Saxton, who was fired after he led a union drive at a store in Augusta, Georgia. Last April, that location became the first Starbucks shop in Georgia to unionize.
The NLRB filed a complaint in December alleging that Saxton was unlawfully terminated for engaging in protected union activity. Saxton is one of more than 60 union organizers fired by Starbucks since December 2021, when workers in Buffalo, New York voted to form the company's first union in the U.S.
Since then, nearly 300 Starbucks locations have opted to unionize in the face of aggressive pushback from the company, which has slashed workers' hours, withheld raises, denied new benefits to unionized shops, and shut down entire stores in an effort to crush organizing momentum.
Starbucks Workers United said that more than a dozen Starbucks employees from across the United States are expected to travel to Washington, D.C. to attend the hearing, which comes after weeks of stonewalling from Starbucks executives.
Schultz, who has been accused of nearly 100 labor law violations since early 2022, finally agreed to testify earlier this month under threat of subpoena. Schultz stepped down as Starbucks' chief executive on March 20, though he remains on the company's board of directors.
"The HELP Committee intends to make clear that in America we must not have a two-tiered justice system in which billionaires and large corporations can break the law with impunity, while working-class people are held accountable for their actions," Sanders said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Scam Is a Non-Starter': Dems Blast McCarthy's Latest Call for Painful Cuts
"Unsurprisingly, House Republicans want to make it harder for poor Americans to get food and medical care while making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
Mar 29, 2023
Congressional Democrats reiterated their opposition to steep federal spending cuts on Tuesday after Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy issued a vague outline of his caucus' demands, which include more punitive work requirements for aid recipients and steep cuts to non-military spending.
The GOP leader laid out the broad demands in a Tuesday letter to President Joe Biden as progress toward an agreement to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a default remains nonexistent.
McCarthy (R-Calif.) called for another meeting with the president to discuss the debt ceiling standoff, which is a result of the House GOP majority's insistence on painful budget cuts as a necessary condition for any borrowing limit increase. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the U.S. will default on its debt this summer unless Congress acts.
McCarthy wrote that House Republicans' demands include "but are not limited to" cuts to "excessive non-defense government spending" and stronger "work requirements for those without dependents who can work."
On the latter point, the California Republican favorably cited former President Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform law that doubled extreme poverty. Biden supported the law as a senator.
As president, Biden has demanded a debt ceiling increase without any accompanying spending cuts. In response to McCarthy's letter, Biden pushed House Republicans to release a detailed budget plan but stressed that spending talks "must be separate from prompt action on Congress' basic obligation to pay the nation's bills and avoid economic catastrophe."
Bloombergreported last week that House Republicans are in the process of "finalizing" a budget offer that's expected to propose capping spending "at 1% growth annually for a decade" and imposing more strict work requirements on food aid recipients. One recent analysis estimated that more than 10 million people could lose federal nutrition assistance if the GOP gets what it wants on work requirements.
Republicans are also pushing for legislation that would ease the permitting process for oil and gas projects.
In a Tuesday appearance on CNBC, McCarthy said he is prepared to recommend $4 trillion in total spending cuts—but he didn't provide specifics on which programs would be cut and by how much, drawing mockery from Democratic lawmakers.
"If he comes to the president's office with no specific plan, no specific details about what the Republicans want to cut, what are they going to talk about? The weather?" asked Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, tweeted in response to McCarthy's letter that "this scam is a non-starter in the Senate."
"Unsurprisingly, House Republicans want to make it harder for poor Americans to get food and medical care while making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes," Wyden wrote.
\u201cUnsurprisingly, House Republicans want to make it harder for poor Americans to get food and medical care while making it easier for rich people to cheat on their taxes. This scam is a non-starter in the Senate.\u201d— Ron Wyden (@Ron Wyden) 1680030424
Last week, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) released warnings from federal agencies that would likely be targeted by the GOP's austerity spree in an effort to highlight the far-reaching impacts of spending cuts the party has floated thus far.
"The draconian cuts would take away the opportunity for 80,000 people to attend college and impact all 6.6 million students who rely on Pell Grants," DeLauro said, citing agency estimates. "If implemented, 200,000 children will lose access to Head Start, and 100,000 children will lose access to childcare, undermining early education and parents' ability to go to work."
DeLauro wrote Tuesday that "Republican calls to cut government funding put everything from child care to opioid treatment and mental health services to nutrition assistance at risk for millions."
Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy, echoed concerns about the potentially devastating effects of the House GOP's plans.
"The recent turmoil in the banking system pales in comparison to the chaos and harm that could ensue if House Rs force a debt-limit impasse and default: recession, lost jobs, and critical payments to seniors, veterans, businesses, families, and states unpaid," Parrott wrote Tuesday following the release of McCarthy's letter.
"A letter isn't a budget," Parrott continued, "so it conveniently allows House Rs to hide that these cuts—in basic food assistance, healthcare, and programs that fund child care, schools, and more—would go to cover some of the cost of more tax cuts for the wealthy rather than to reduce the deficit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.