Posted on 07/27/2005 9:14:44 PM PDT by RWR8189
WASHINGTON - The House narrowly approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement early Thursday, a personal triumph for President Bush, who campaigned aggressively for the accord he said would foster prosperity and democracy in the hemisphere.
The 217-215 vote just after midnight adds six Latin American countries to the growing lists of nations with free trade agreements with the United States and averts what could have been a major political embarrassment for the Bush administration.
It was an uphill effort to win a majority, with Bush traveling to Capitol Hill earlier in the day to appeal to wavering Republicans to support a deal he said was critical to U.S. national security.
Lobbying continued right up to the vote, with Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez tracking undecided lawmakers.
The United States signed the accord, known as CAFTA, a year ago with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, and the Senate approved it last month. It now goes to the president for his signature.
To capture a majority, supporters had to overcome what some have called free trade fatigue, a growing sentiment that free trade deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada have contributed to a loss of well-paying American jobs and the soaring trade deficit.
Democrats, who were overwhelmingly against CAFTA, also argued that its labor rights provisions were weak and would result in exploitation of workers in Central America.
But supporters pointed out that CAFTA would over time eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers that impede U.S. sales to the region, correcting the current situation in which 80 percent of Central American goods enter the United States duty-free but Americans must pay heavy tariffs.
The agreement would also strengthen intellectual property protections and make it easier for Americans to invest in the region.
"This is a test of American leadership in a changing world," said Rep. Kevin Brady (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a leading proponent of the agreement. "We cannot claim to be fighting for American jobs and yet turn our backs on 44 million new customers in Central America.
A question...hasn't the working population of the US also increased significantly in ten years? Wouldn't that mean that job creation has outpaced natural population increases?
You're hopeless. Real means it's adjusted for inflation. Is this why you fear competition? Poor comprehension skills?
"I just wish that free trade didn't come with quasi governmental organizations that suddenly get power over the American people."
Yeah. NAFTA was so great, let's expand it. /s
"Wouldn't that mean that job creation has outpaced natural population increases?"
Well that's true. And in-sourcing is outpacing in-sourcing, according to Roger Hedgecock.
And in-sourcing is outpacing in-sourcing... er... in-sourcing outpacing out-sourcing? Or is it out-sourcing outpacing in-sourcing? Whatever it is, it's good.
If you step back a few paces and see it for what it's worth (and realize they don't have any power.....which is probably why they're mad all the time), it can be amusing.
The 25 Republicans who voted against it are great Americans.
The Chicoms, Castro, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, wannabe Marxist dictators throughout Central America and unfortunately, some here at FR, are greatly disappointed.
All around, a great day!!
And I guess you wanna blow kisses at the Democrats who voted against it? LOL!
$0.06 per hour per year.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!
When I consider the fact that since the late sixties the number of women who entered the workforce (usually by choice I might add) was HUGE and we have still managed to decrease our unemployment rate...well, capitalism is an amazing thing.
That said, my guess is that women entering the work force since 1973 have done more to reduce the real wage rates than free trade agreements. Simply because the laws of supply and demand would suggest that women were initially less "qualified" and therefore would work for less. I bet, however, that is changing rather rapidly.
In addition, there is a tremendous amount of work that is being brought back home because cheaper labor is not always the best labor. We all need to remember that. If we quit whining and work hard, we are still the best doggone workers in the world. There just isn't much incentive to DO A GOOD JOB when you are underpaid...or even not paid at all. We can complete with that. Because with capitalism—quality still matters in a whole lot of areas.
Beware the Red Queen.
For she and/or her minions
Will ride down on you.
So Todster, you're completely comfortable with an international trade organization deternining whether our immigration laws meet their approval?
This article explains CAFTA and it's real purpose, but you are probably too arrogant to look at it.
http://www.cfr.org/pub8173/robert_a_pastor/a_north_american_community_approach_to_security.php
OK...........as a born again Christian for nearly 50 years who has studied Scripture, I'd like for you to show me, using specific references, how any verse/verses tell you that trading goods with other countries in the Americas has ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING in Scripture.
Read that again...I actually didn't say anything about free trade, I said the evildoers will be done with sooner than later...Psalm 37...
Pat Robertson wrote a book in regard to Free Trading and explained quite well the importance of free trading...for our economy...
Beware the Red Queen.
For she and/or her minions
Will ride down on you.
Quote: Your family came here from somewhere, but that was Ok then.
MY family came her legally via Ellis island and did not jump the border like a thief in the night.
Quote: Yeah, I say Wal-Marts commercial of the 55 year old woman, telling everyone how proud she is to work at Wal-Mart. I personally can't believe what I am seeing and hearing.
Any company that has to put out commercials telling how great they are for the community or how their employees are "proud" to work there should immediately raise a red flag of suspicion.
Beware the Red Queen.
For she and/or her minions
Will ride down on you.
Toddsterpatriot:
Did we produce more farm products in 2004 than in 1994? Did we just export a record amount of ag products last year?
It gets tiresome refuting the same DNC/AFL-CIO/E.P.I./Public Citizen misinformation all the time. Here it is again:
To understand how much NAFTA has benefited U.S. exporters, compare our export performance to Canada and Mexico since 1994 with our performance to the rest of the world. The difference is startling. Between 1994 and 2005, global U.S. agricultural exports have increased from $46.2 billion to a projected $60.5 billion, a total gain of $14.3 billion. During the same period, exports to Canada and Mexico increased from $9.5 billion to a projected level of $19 billion in 2005, a gain of $9.5 billion. This means that our NAFTA partners – Canada and Mexico – now account for 31 percent of overall U.S. agricultural exports and two-thirds of the worldwide increase in U.S. exports since 1994. Of that $9.5 billion increase, $5 billion was to Canada and $4.5 billion to Mexico. As a result, in 2005, they will be our two largest export markets in the world and, along with China, our fastest growing markets since 1994 - by a wide margin.
Myths Regarding the Impact of NAFTA on U.S. Agricultural Trade
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.