In Bush Win, House Narrowly Approves CAFTA

Associated Press ^ | July 27, 2005 | JIM ABRAMS

[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.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Let's say Marx believed that free trade would lead to the demise of the nation-state. Are there any examples of that being the case? Simply saying that it might happen in the future is not enough.

That's an excellent point. And I have to admit that I don't know enough of world history to be able to hazard a guess. I'm trying to think if, in this nation's history, the subject of "free trade" and our colonization and later independence might qualify. Is it feasible to argue that introducing elements of "free trade" to the colonies helped precipitate the conditions that later led to the "break-up" of what could have been considered a "nation-state" (Britain + colonies)?

In more modern times, did "free trade" play any role in the Balkans? And what about the movement of the European Union? That idea seems to carry with it the potential for nations to lose their sovereignty, although at this point it's not the case -- and was dealt a blow by voters in Europe recently. Has free trade contributed in that area, I wonder? (these aren't rhetorical questions; they're sincere, and I'm asking them "aloud")

[nopardons]

There really wasn't a middle class, as you know it, in France, at the time of the Revolution and the one in Russia was tiny. Neither were "destroyed", so that the revolution could happen.

Yes, you really shouldn't try to discuss things you know so little about.

[Age of Reason]

You're just angry because we created 21 million jobs since NAFTA. You sound silly.

And LEGAL population has increased by 32+ million since NAFTA.

[hedgetrimmer]

Also, Marx's beliefs on class warfare

If you are interested in further understanding of the class warfare aspects of "free trade", just go to www.wto.org.

Search their documentation, and see how often they use the concept of "rich" countries vs "poor" countries. The World Bank and the IMF are the same. The WTO has predicated it policy of multilateralism as a way to 'advantage' the "poor" countries so they can be convinced to sign away their sovereignty via "free trade".

[ThermoNuclearWarrior]

Bush hasn't said he is favoring the Cornyn-Kyl bill. Where did you hear that he was? I highly doubt he will favor it unless there are significant changes to it. Bush doesn't want to back the McCain-Kennedy bill because he knows most republicans won't support it. Instead I think he will try to get significant changes made in the Cornyn-Kyl bill that will make it useless. There is no way Bush will support the Cornyn-Kyl bill as it is. Do you seriously believe he will?

Bush is so afraid of offending Latino voters he won't seriously do anything to stop illegal immigration. He's looking for a bill that will be backed by business groups and immigrant advocates. Any bill that gets that kind of support will be worthless to this nation and probably cause more harm. Bush and other Republicans are afraid to get tough on illegal immigration because many of the businesses who donate to the RNC are against it. Democrats are the same but you would expect that kind of irresponsibility from them.

[hedgetrimmer]

Why the new jobs go to immigrants

Wall Street cheered and stock prices rose when the US Labor Department announced last Friday that employers had expanded their payrolls by 262,000 positions in February. But it wasn't entirely good news. The statisticians also indicated that the share of the adult population holding jobs had slipped slightly from January to 62.3 percent. That's now two full percentage points below the level in the brief recession that began in March 2001.

Why the apparent contradiction? Reasons abound: population growth, rising retirements. But one factor that gets little attention is immigration.

In the past four years, the number of immigrants into the US, legal and illegal, has closely matched the number of new jobs. That suggests newcomers have, in effect, snapped up all of the new jobs.

"There has been no net job gain for natives," says Andrew Sum, an economist at Northeastern University.

Something similar has happened in Western Europe. Each year, about 500,000 to 800,000 illegal immigrants enter the 15 member nations of the European Union (not including the 10 new members as of last May), estimates Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the Migration Policy Institute in Washington. While it's more difficult for immigrants to get into Europe legally, once in they have more social and labor rights and protections than legal immigrants in the US do, says Mr. Papademetriou. And in Europe, illegal immigrants have a relatively bigger underground economy in which to find work.

If anything, the job outlook for native Europeans is bleaker than for Americans. Unemployment remains high in most of Europe. It hit 12.6 percent in Germany last month, the highest since World War II.

So with people from poor nations striving to get in and natives often losing out in the competition for many new jobs, the US and EU might be expected to have coherent immigration policies. Instead, chaos reigns.

Concerned with extremely low birthrates in Western Europe, the European Commission has suggested common policies to attract immigrants to fill longer-term needs for labor. Instead, national policies vary enormously.

In Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, for instance, illegal immigrants flood across the borders, despite efforts to stop them, and then once inside are frequently legalized by government edicts.

"There is no rhyme nor reason to much of this," says Mr. Papademetriou.

In the US, President Bush calls for giving millions of illegal immigrants a kind of guest-worker status as a legal path to US citizenship. So far, no specific legislation to implement his suggestion has been put before Congress.

Meanwhile, US border patrols spend millions of dollars a year trying to keep illegals out. And yet, they keep coming, evidently little discouraged by recession or the 9/11 attacks. In the past four years alone, the number of immigrants ran some 2.5 million to 3 million, of which about half were illegal.

They come for jobs, of course. And the Bush administration makes barely any effort to enforce current law. In 2003, a total of 13 employers were fined for hiring undocumented employees.

In fact, neither Republicans nor Democrats have promoted enforcement of immigration law prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants, says Mr. Sum, head of Northeastern's Center for Labor Market Studies.

Of course, not every job filled by an immigrant is taken away from a native American, a native German, a French citizen, or other national.

Most immigrants take jobs at the bottom of the ladder, jobs which many natives won't seek because they are considered too hard, pay too little, or have lost status, Papademetriou notes.

And the people they do displace often have little political clout. Sum sees immigrants as one factor behind today's historical low employment rate among US teenagers. Barely more than a third hold jobs. Over the past four years, the number of employed teens has declined by nearly 1.3 million.

Teens used to take many of the entry level jobs offered by restaurants, retail stores, landscaping companies, factories, and other businesses. Now more teens are going to college, and many may not want or need to work. But a new study by Sum and his colleagues at Northeastern finds that 2.5 million teens last year were unemployed, underemployed, or had stopped looking for work in the past month. They faced severe competition for jobs from young adults, older women, and immigrants - most of whom are young.

That lack of employment has social implications. The study notes that youths who work more during their high school years have an easier time transitioning to the labor market upon high school graduation, especially those not going on to college. Jobless teenage women are more likely to get pregnant, and economically disadvantaged boys and girls are more likely to drop out of school if jobless.

In occupational fields with many immigrants, native-born workers tend to have higher jobless rates. The four occupations with the largest number of newly arrived immigrants (1.4 million in construction, food preparation, cleaning and maintenance, and production workers) employ 21.4 million natives, and have more than 2 million unemployed natives.

What employers really want in many cases by hiring immigrants is to hold down wage costs, experts say.

[Toddsterpatriot]

And LEGAL population has increased by 32+ million since NAFTA.

So we'd really be screwed if we hadn't added all those jobs. I guess it's a good thing that the only sucking sound Ross Perot heard was the wind blowing thru that hole in his head.

[nopardons]

It's been posted all over an Internet Conservative forum called FREEREPUBLIC; I suggest you read it.

You have less than no idea what the president thinks about much of anything and your crystal ball is cracked; Miss Cleo.

[panaxanax]

"And LEGAL population has increased by 32+ million since NAFTA."

Thanks for saving me the time to look this up. I was just about to search for population increase and scrolled down to your post. The government created chart shows non-farm jobs, which would include the "created jobs" in government social programs. What he needs to do is find a similar chart that shows the huge increase in government employees since NAFTA!

'Nuff said.........thanks again. Goodnight.

[panaxanax]

Untwist your panties and go get some sleep. You're getting on everyones nerves.

[Black Tooth]

You're just angry because we created 21 million jobs since NAFTA. You sound silly.

And LEGAL population has increased by 32+ million since NAFTA.

That's right. And we are going from population of 300 million, to 1 billion. I suggest investing in real estate. On the other hand, I am glad I won't be around to see the billion mark.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You'd better go. Wouldn't want you to miss Jerry Springer.

[Toddsterpatriot]

What he needs to do is find a similar chart that shows the huge increase in government employees since NAFTA!

I heard the government added 50,000,000 employees since NAFTA. ROFLMAO!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

What he needs to do is find a similar chart that shows the huge increase in government employees since NAFTA!

It's getting easier to make you look stupid. Maybe you'd better get some sleep.

NEW!

Data extracted on: July 29, 2005 (12:37:03 AM)

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id:     CES9091100001 Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector:  Government Industry:      Federal, except U.S. Postal Service NAICS Code:    N/A Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
1994	2247.7	2239.6	2234.9	2222.0	2212.4	2199.6	2187.8	2180.2	2175.4	2161.0	2152.9	2148.8
1995	2132.5	2127.8	2121.2	2120.4	2112.4	2110.2	2098.4	2091.9	2077.5	2077.4	2054.6	2050.0
1996	2042.6	2043.6	2034.6	2023.8	2015.0	2014.7	2008.9	2003.7	1999.0	1978.3	1978.3	1972.7
1997	1976.5	1969.2	1966.3	1966.2	1956.1	1959.5	1913.6	1909.4	1903.1	1922.4	1925.3	1915.9
1998	1902.0	1898.0	1892.4	1880.6	1888.8	1883.0	1892.3	1895.1	1888.3	1889.3	1896.9	1886.4
1999	1874.0	1882.3	1876.7	1883.5	1873.3	1875.8	1874.7	1886.1	1881.5	1883.1	1882.3	1881.1
2000	1887.3	1915.5	2002.0	2026.6	2363.6	2125.9	2063.5	1978.7	1867.9	1857.7	1858.0	1866.0
2001	1872.8	1870.3	1877.3	1880.8	1886.6	1903.6	1911.6	1909.9	1896.9	1894.4	1892.9	1886.1
2002	1893.1	1898.0	1900.4	1904.8	1910.8	1916.2	1922.4	1928.5	1937.4	1952.5	1960.0	1962.2
2003	1967.8	1971.0	1975.1	1952.9	1956.9	1952.0	1953.1	1947.4	1947.9	1941.7	1937.8	1941.8
2004	1937.6	1940.0	1940.8	1957.2	1943.2	1946.3	1939.2	1945.5	1946.8	1940.1	1946.4	1939.5
2005	1937.2	1939.8	1943.2	1937.1	1938.1(p)	1932.5(p)
p : preliminary

 

Frequently Asked Questions | Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey
Privacy & Security Statement | Linking to Our Site | Accessibility

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Postal Square Building 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE Washington, DC 20212-0001

Phone: (202) 691-5200 Fax-on-demand: (202) 691-6325 Data questions: blsdata_staff@bls.gov Technical (web) questions: webmaster@bls.gov Other comments: feedback@bls.gov

In case you're not that good at math, the current government employment figure is smaller than the figure when NAFTA passed. LOL!

[hedgetrimmer]

In case you're not that good at math, the current government employment figure is smaller than the figure when NAFTA passed. LOL!

LOL!!! You're really funny tonight. Here is some more information for you, in case you're not that good at anything except insulting people!

Because the government is using public/private partnerships now, unconstitutionally I might add, to provide services that the government used to do itself.

I might also add, that a lot of assets have also been sold "privatized" in the name of the WTO trading rules, to private companies, so that could contribute to the lower numbers they are showing.

Even though the government created the Dept of Homeland security, the Rand Corporation and the CSIS do a lot of the work for the DOH, unconstitutionally, I might add.

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL!!! You're really funny tonight. Here is some more information for you, in case you're not that good at anything except insulting people!

Showing someone that government employment has shrunk since NAFTA is somehow insulting?

Because the government is using public/private partnerships now, unconstitutionally I might add, to provide services that the government used to do itself.

Scary!! You have any real stats? Maybe a link. And please, no John Birch Society links.

I might also add, that a lot of assets have also been sold "privatized" in the name of the WTO trading rules, to private companies, so that could contribute to the lower numbers they are showing.

So, if the government privatizes an asset and the former government employees now work for the private company, we can't subtract the no-longer-working-for-the-government employee from the government employee numbers? That's funny!!

Even though the government created the Dept of Homeland security, the Rand Corporation and the CSIS do a lot of the work for the DOH, unconstitutionally, I might add.

The DOH can't give work to private firms? What part of the Constitution do you get that from?

How's that CAFTA headache working out for you? Did you try the aspirin? Or did you go straight for the Jack?

[1rudeboy]

That is until they lose it all (or the threat of such) and have the total smackdown on them.

I am so tired of this "argument." Every job I've lost in my life was because the powers-that-be decided some yob could do it more cheaply than I. And I've gotta' tell ya', I didn't come here with a chip on my shoulder and an entitlement mentality.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Ronald Wilson Reagan's tireless (and historically validated) championing of free trade, as a bedrock conservative principle, is easily enough demonstrated, beyond any possible hope of logical refutation.

You sure you don't mean bedrock neoconservative principle?

It's alternately pitiful and hysterical that you almost certainly believe that sentence wasn't the tragically inevitable end result of a fontanel that never sealed properly.

Pitiful just barely ekes out the win, however. By a hair.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Yes, you really shouldn't try to discuss things you know so little about.

It's heartless and cruel, condemning a man to lifelong status as a mute. :)

[AnimalLover]

Now, there is NO machine tool industry in this country. Everything is overseas.

You have a link to back up this theory of yours? Or did you hear it on Oprah?

No I don't have a link but my husband worked in the machine tool business for many years before he died. His last position was representing Japan Machinery. He mentioned in many conversations that machine tool builders had moved to Korea, Japan, Poland and now of course China. He mentioned the big name that was no more was Cincinnati Machine Tools.

Should I dig back into his files for more information?