That time Heidi Cruz schooled William Weld -- two dissenting views on economic freedom

Weld and Johnson: Libertarians in name only?

With Ted Cruz and Gary Johnson garnering significant media attention for stops in Austin over the weekend we thought this would make for both some interesting Sunday reading and a much-needed reality check.

Keep this one in the top drawer of your file cabinet the next time one of our Libertarian friends attempts to sell you on a Johnson-Weld ticket over the Republican nominees.

It's no secret that not only is former New England Republican Gov. Bill Weld a gun-grabbing moderate, but once upon a time he signed off on a study which had little problems with proposing the erosion of national sovereignty in the name of global trade. Worse: he was the co-chairman of the task force that wrote the study. Facts like these have not been lost on many Johnson supporters.

Heidi Cruz

Heidi Cruz, wife of former presidential contender, Sen. Ted Cruz, also signed off on the report. However, a look at Heidi's objections -- and the total lack of Gov. Weld's -- shows a sharp distinction of political philosophy. It's one that deserves some attention.

Please take a read at a few snippets of that report below, or you may download the report: http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102

Weld, a two-term governor of Massachusetts (1991-97), and Assistant U.S. Attorney General, wrote (emphasis ours) ...

Our vision of North America is one of three sovereign states whose formal collaboration must reflect their mutual interdependence while respecting their differences. 

... We focus our recommendations on the creation of a single economic space that
expands the economic opportunities for all people in the region, and the establishment of a security zone that protects the region from external threats while facilitating the legitimate passage of goods, people, and capital. [....] 

To realize the full benefits of economic integration, and to ensure that these benefits are distributed broadly, Mexico must increase and sustain a rate of growth commensurate with its development goals. Mexico must devise a set of policies that commands broad public support and decide on the steps it will take to attract investment and stimulate growth. In conjunction, the United States and Canada should support Mexico by establishing a North American Investment Fund to create infrastructure to link the poorer parts of the country to the markets in the north, and to support education and technical training for Mexican states and municipalities committed to transparency and new development. The fund should be seen as a productive investment by all three countries in the future competitiveness of North America’s economic zone.

While this sounds benevolent, please note that nothing at all was written about cutting taxes and freeing the Mexican people from burdensome regulations. This was a recipe for pork-barrel spending in another country.

As a contrast, and from the section titled "Additional and Dissenting Views," Heidi Cruz defended free market dynamics. Mrs. Cruz, an energy investment banker and economic director for the Western Hemisphere under Dr. Condoleezza Rice, wrote:

"I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America. Economic prosperity and a world safe from terrorism and other security threats are no doubt inextricably linked. While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector. There is no force proven like the market for aligning incentives, sourcing capital, and producing results like financial markets and profit-making businesses. 

This is simply necessary to sustain a higher living standard for the poorest among us—truly the measure of our success. As such, investment funds and financing mechanisms should be deemed attractive instruments by those committing the capital and should only be developed in conjunction with market participants."

See the difference?

In all fairness, the report itself doesn't amount to a hemispheric power-grab as certain paranoid theorists have penned. In reality, it's a white paper penned by banksters and global trade advocates in the wake of doubts regarding the viability of NAFTA. A common trade tariff and a shared security perimeter are the more notorious of the calls made by the white paper.

Immediate goals were more innocent, and included fostering bilingual education efforts, Internet-based learning, teacher exchanges, terrorism data sharing, and recognition of professional standards across borders as a means of fomenting greater cooperation between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

Some pie-in-the-sky goals included relaxing border controls, establishing checkpoint-free highways between the countries and expanding migrant worker programs. Things you'd expect from the usual gang of folks interested in setting up a trade cabal to rival the European Union (which cast a much bigger shadow at the time).

An ambitious plan to create a North American "Border Pass" was suggested in the report's final draft, but a plan to establish a common currency (the "Amero," as conspiracy theorists loved to call it) was rejected in a committee well-before the report was drafted.

Anti-toll road activists were somewhat successful in pointing out how the now-suspended Trans-Texas Corridor network was in harmony with many of these goals. Without talk of the "Amero" and a border checkpoint-free superhighway this paper would have likely gathered dust on a shelf. Instead, it became quite a flash-point of public opinion during the mid-oughties.

A call to create a North American investment fund to help build infrastructure in Mexico -- on top of the fact that the paper was drafted in Mexico City -- led many observers to suspect it was an attempt by Mexican leaders to draw in U.S. and Canadian money a la a supercharged NAFTA agreement.

The rest is best left to writers who are more knowledgeable on world politics. The bottom-line is that the paper suggested more government as the answer -- and Mrs. Cruz rose up as a lone voice to defend the free market with no help from Gov. Weld, who now helps carry the torch for the party which claims to be for maximum economic freedom.

Remember that at the ballot box this November, especially if you're considering alternatives to the Trump-Pence ticket.