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.
Do you think nairBResal would be surprised to know that real wages for all workers fell 8% in the decade before NAFTA was passed?
He may also be surprised to learn that we gained about 2 million construction jobs from 1994-2004, which paid well. In 2004, the average hourly wage for construction workers was $19.23 up from $14.38 per hour in 1994. Construction wages showed losses in the 1984-94 pre-NAFTA period.
Hourly Earnings for All Workers
I always thought construction was one of the industries the protectionists have said was a prime example of wage arbitration and the race to the bottom. Hmmmm. Could they be wrong about other things too?
$0.06 x 40 x 52 = $124.80
$8.20 x 40 x 52 = $17056.00
$124.80 / $17056.00 = 0.7%
Only a PIMP could be proud of this kind of performance.
You have a cut and paste of the actual CAFTA agreement that gives an international trade organization the power to approve or disapprove our laws?
Yes, I admit that rising wages are better than falling wages.
Yep. He shares his daddy's dreams.
"A thousand points of light" and an "ownership society" are merely
euphemisms for gated communities in a plutocratic Banana Republic.
Bush wins, the middle class loses. BIG TIME!!!
"To accomplish what you tin-foilers are claiming, our government would have to amend the Constitution. Bush struggled just to get CAFTA passed by congress and you think that the U.S. is imminently going to change our Constitution in favor of becoming the Union of North America!"
According to my copy of the Constitution, Article VI
says: all treaties made-----shall be the surpreme law of the land-
How do you get that the Constitution will have to be amended?
Finally!
Part of me says that it might not be a good idea to gloat; but you and I both know that now that this tax cut has passed that those guys are going to start making up reasons why anyone's a traitor who doesn't love say, the IRS.
See#397
DINGDINGDINGDINGDING! And we have a winnah -- ! :)
Good thing all the keywords were added. If I hadn't been searching for the keyword, "trollsforbuchanan", I might not have seen this thread. ;-)
Must be much truth in your post judging by how many got their shorts in a twist by it.
I saw #397, didn't see anything in CAFTA that gives an international trade organization the power to approve or disapprove our laws.
Nobody "rules" in the unrestrained capitalistic system as described above.
Think American West circa 1870-90 and the Klondike and Yukon in the 1890's - 1900's.
btw, that's serfs with an "e".
YEP!
Maybe we'll need an entirely new Constitution if we are no longer going to be the United States of America. This seems similar to what the EU is going through. Isn't that your fear?
Of course, even if the president could surrender our sovereignty through a treaty, wouldn't that require a two-thirds vote by the senate for approval?
Bottom line here is you're dealing in irrational hypotheticals based on wild assumptions and intentional misrepresentation of language.
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.
Like I said, I personally can't believe what I am seeing and hearing.
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.