Posted on 02/02/2005 9:29:05 PM PST by Coleus
WASHINGTON · Congress is gearing up for a battle royal this winter over a pact to slash trade barriers with Dominican Republic and five Central American countries.
Backers of the U.S.-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, sent lawmakers letters Wednesday urging speedy passage to help expand U.S. sales overseas.
The Bush administration seeks congressional hearings as soon as mid-February and approval by summer.
The opposition is lobbying hard too, from organized labor to the American sugar industry. The AFL-CIO and other labor groups have held back firepower against other free-trade pacts, aiming their biggest guns at CAFTA.
There's one more hitch: Guatemala. The Guatemalan Congress passed a law the U.S. pharmaceutical industry considers a rollback of patent protections in CAFTA. Until Guatemala reverses the measure, showing that U.S. trade partners will respect the pact, proponents concede they won't be able to muster the votes for CAFTA.
"We are optimistic that it will be resolved," said Calman J. Cohen, a CAFTA advocate and president of the Emergency Committee for American Trade. "Guatemala's neighbors have been saying: `You're holding up the agreement for all of us.'"
Proponents are racing against the clock.
The deadline expires this summer on the president's power to propose complex trade pacts that Congress can accept or reject without amendment -- a power called trade promotion authority. Congress could pass a resolution denying Bush a chance to extend that power for two more years.
The Business Coalition for U.S.-Central America Trade met with 23 key members of the House this week to push CAFTA, among them U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Bartow).
"We will focus initially on the House, but we're not taking the Senate for granted," said coalition member Cohen.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Mexico Presses U.S. on Immigration Deal
Goodbye to Independence? Deceptive trade agreements have already sent millions of American jobs offshore, now they are threatening our very freedom.
A UN Pedigree, Under UN Power. Examining the FTAA’s Tripartite Committee and following the money trail back to the United Nations exposes the UN’s behind-the-scenes control.
FTAA Relaunch - The United States and Brazil will soon relaunch FTAA negotiations.
Online Petition to Congress. Preserve Our Borders: Say NO to AMNESTY and the FTAA!
The vote on the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is quickly making its way towards Congress. If CAFTA is passed, it will serve as a steppingstone to the FTAA. With the CAFTA vote on the near horizon, many realize the urgency in publicizing these deceptive trade pacts.
"Deceptive trade agreements have already sent millions of American jobs offshore, now they are threatening our very freedom."
Nope. Lazy Americans, especially union members, unwilling to work for market wages are sending jobs offshore. If you are an employer who do you want to hire? (a) A guy from Mexico who works as long as you need him to for $4/hour, or (b) some couch potato who joined a union and wants $20/hour + benefits and won't work more than 9 hours a day. If you are honest, the answer is (a). So quit trying to subsidize union duffers with the money of entreprenuers. Sorry, but if companies are forced to pay outrageous wages beyond market, then they will go out of business.
BTW, I checked out the website about stopping the FTAA. It sounded alot like every lefty commie protectionist dork I've ever heard.
I hope the central planning office for free trade in the Americas is placed in Mexico City. Then maybe some will wake up.
"Nope. Lazy Americans, especially union members, unwilling to work for market wages are sending jobs offshore. If you are an employer who do you want to hire? (a) A guy from Mexico who works as long as you need him to for $4/hour, or (b) some couch potato who joined a union and wants $20/hour + benefits and won't work more than 9 hours a day."
Get your facts straight. The reason Union members are losing their jobs isn't because of laziness.
It's because of "kickbacks." That's right. They now hire illegals in Vegas at $30 and hour, $20 of which is kicked back to the Unions and honchos.
Pure corruption.
BTTT It's time to get on your homeboys and make it very clear there will be no Party voting in the coming elections. They'll either represent the American citizens or we'll elect someone who will.
I support CAFTA, although it has been attempted several times before (CARICOM being the most recent) with little success.
1000+ page documents are not free trade.
" 1000+ page documents are not free trade."
Milton Friedman said of Nafta: Nafta is not free trade, it is "managed" trade.
And those few that benefit by it will manage it.
"Bad lazy Americans. They go to foreign countries and give their lives so others can have better ones."
I'm talking about Americans who are lazy. There's quite a few of them. If a Mexican or an Indian or a Chinese guy is willing to work for less, then you have to be too. Don't like it? Start your own business. Of course, they are probably too lazy.
"I hope the central planning office for free trade in the Americas is placed in Mexico City. Then maybe some will wake up."
Well, if tax money is going to support it, and it is cheaper to put it in Mexico City, then put it in Mexico City. I'm sick and tired of the government wasting money.
You know the "americans are lazy" and "start your own business" are the free traders talking points. How about coming up with something original?
I'm sorry if the "talking points" are hackneyed in your view, but they remain true. Why don't you protectionists come up with something better than complaining that you are entitled to your jobs?
The main article cites AFL-CIO opposition to CAFTA and then whines about sugar subsidies being on the block. Great, you guys are defending two big examples of socialism. Why are you arguing in favor of socialism here? Why not complain about market forces on a lefty website where somebody cares?
As an attorney I've >>DONE<< NAFTA chapter 11 arbitrations thank you very much. (OK, the senior partner argues these, but I've done a lot of work on these.)
There is no loss of "sovereignty" involved in NAFTA. Yes, the US agrees to abide by NAFTA arbitration as a condition for being a member. Much like, if you have a credit card, the contract most likely states that as a condition for using the card you have to waive your right to sue over disputes with the credit card company. Instead, you agree to binding arbitration to settle disputes. Don't like it? Get rid of your credit card. Nobody is forcing you to have one.
Same thing with NAFTA - no country is going to agree to a free market area if there is no supra-national forum to settle disputes. If the US (or Canada or Mexico) doesn't like it, then they leave NAFTA and forgo the benefit of the free market. Submission to NAFTA arbitration is voluntary.
Moreover, we reap a lot of benefit from NAFTA arbitration. NAFTA chapter 11 has allowed many US corporations to knock down bogus environmental and labor protections in Canada and Mexico. These protections, nominally for the environment and labor, really functioned as an ersatz tarriff blocking US competition. You see, everybody wins under NAFTA - that's why neither Canada, Mexico, nor the US has left.
Don't let lefties fill your head with paranoid rhetoric about "one world government" and loss of "sovereignty". This sort of garbage is spewed by marketplace losers that can't compete.
If your job is about to go to Mexico, I recommend offering to take a pay and benefits cut. Lots of employers are more than willing to stay in the US if they can contain labor costs. In fact, when you factor in sunk capital, higher education levels in the US, and various hassles that result in dealing with another nation, you will still be able to command a higher wage than your Mexican counterpart. Yes, I know a pay cut sucks, but that's the market.
"That sir is loss of sovereignty."
Please define 'sovereignty' since I don't think that we are talking about the same thing. One attribute of sovereignty is the ability to enter into binding agreements like treaties. Says so in the Constitution.
"US citizens did not vote on allowing a supranation agency to manage our trade."
Read the constitution. US citizens "vote" on treaties via their representatives.
"Many congressmen who voted for NAFTA apparently never read it or deny knowing what it would do."
What is your point? Most legislators only read summaries of legislation. And if the legislator is not a lawyer, it might not help even if they did read it.
"We have had our food security impaired because under NAFTA rejection of low standard or contaminated produce can be considered a trade violation, where before NAFTA it was only a health and safety issue."
Give an example, please. NAFTA allows for legitimate use of laws to protect safety. 10 to 1 any law that was ruled against in arbitration (a) went to far, and (b) was a giveaway to agricultural interests.
"Since your livelihood depends on NAFTA arbitrations..."
Small part of my practice. I work in the litigation department of my firm. But my job and expertise does put me in a better position to judge the truth of concerns about NAFTA than "other Americans".
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.