CAFTA: Last Nail in the Coffin?

The American Conservative ^ | May 9, 2005 Issue | Patrick J. Buchanan

[A. Pole]

With U.S. prisons filling up with aliens, 10 million illegals here and counting, Californians fleeing east, savage Salvadorian gangs battling with machetes inside the Beltway, and Minutemen headed for the Arizona border, Rip Van Republican has awakened to the threat of open borders. Meanwhile, the White House dozes on.

But just as the chickens are coming home to roost on the Bush failure to defend America’s frontier, so they will soon be coming home on Bush’s embrace of free-trade fanaticism.

As I write, the Department of Commerce has just released the trade deficit numbers for February. Again, the monthly trade deficit set a record, $61 billion. In January-February 2005, the annual U.S. trade deficit was running $100 billion above the all-time record of $617 billion in 2004.

In the mail this week came the annual graphs and tables from Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, who has patiently chronicled the decline and fall of the once-awesome U.S. industrial machine. Since 1992, when some of us urged the president’s father not to grant MFN to China, the returns are these:

• Between 1993 and 2004, the U.S. trade deficit with Beijing grew 700 percent to $162 billion.
• In the last decade, China’s total trade surplus at U.S. expense was $805 billion.
• China’s leading exports to us, which account for almost half her $162 billion trade surplus, came from shipments of computers, electrical machinery, and parts.
• Leading U.S. exports to China (Boeing alone excepted) were, in ascending order: meat, meat offal, fibers, ore, slag, ash, organic chemicals, fertilizers, copper, cereals, raw hides, skins, pulp of wood, cotton, and the big seller—oil seeds and oleaginous fruits (soybeans). All very, very high-tech stuff.

China’s surplus, the largest one nation has ever run against another, provides her with the hoard of cash to buy Russian and Western weaponry to menace Taiwan and the 7th Fleet and pile up the T-bills that give Beijing the leverage it enjoys today over the sinking U.S. dollar and shaky U.S. prosperity.

In the 1993 battle of NAFTA, the Clinton-Gore-Dole-Gingrich globalists predicted our trade surplus with Mexico would grow, Mexico would prosper, and illegal immigration would be easier to control. Either they deceived us, or they deceived themselves. For since NAFTA passed:

• The U.S. trade surplus with Mexico has vanished and the annual trade deficit is now running above $50 billion a year.
• The cumulative trade deficit with Mexico is now over $300 billion.
• 1.5 million illegal aliens are caught each year crossing our border and 500,000 make it in to take up residence and enjoy all the social programs a generous but over-taxed America can provide.

With Chrysler now a German company, GM and Ford down to less than half the U.S. auto market, and GM paper looking like Argentine bonds, Americans now import $188 billion worth of autos, trucks, and parts, three times what we export. Motown is no more king of the road.

With three million manufacturing jobs lost under Bush, the U.S. dollar looking like Monopoly money, trade deficits exploding, and our dependence on foreigners for oil, the critical components of our weapons, and the cash to finance our insatiable appetite for consumer goods all growing, one would think even Bush Republicans might pause before taking another great leap forward into a future of global free trade. One would be wrong.

For CAFTA, son of NAFTA, is at hand: the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The White House will bring it up, but only if enough Republicans can be bamboozled into going along. In return for access to our market, we get access to five Central American markets and the Dominican Republic—with a total economy the size of New Haven’s—47 million consumers, half of whom are living in poverty by their standards.

The highest per capita income in Central America is $9,000 a year in Costa Rica, which is less than the U.S. minimum wage. But CAFTA will enable agribusiness and transnational companies to set up shop in Central America to dump into the U.S. and drive our last family farmers out of business and kill our last manufacturing jobs in textile and apparel.

If there are any Reagan Democrats left still loyal to the GOP, CAFTA may see them off. For if the GOP passes CAFTA over Democratic opposition, Hillary’s party may just be able to take back North Carolina, Ohio, and a couple of bright red farm states as well.

[hedgetrimmer]

Florida FTAA, Inc. is the private-public entity led by Governor Jeb Bush, City of Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Alvarez and officials throughout the State of Florida with the mission that Miami, Florida become the site of the Permanent Secretariat of the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Florida FTAA is chaired by Ambassador Charles E. Cobb, Jr. and managed by President Jorge L. Arrizurieta. The administrative offices are located at the Biltmore Hotel Conference Center of the Americas in Coral Gables, Florida. Florida FTAA, Inc.

Secretary of State Glenda Hood Leads Florida FTAA Trade Mission to Brazil

Can you say "Conflict of interest"?

[Havoc]

The main feature of CAFTA is the elimination of tariffs on US exports, something which is clearly in our interest.

Yeah, removing tariffs was so much in our interests that the founding fathers threw a tea party for the King when he did it. Why, because the King was driving colonists out of business on their own soil. And now what the King did is seen as some sort of glorious insight afore missed by the founders. To the contrary, the founders protested and led a revolution to put end to the tyrany. Something that may be done once again before it's over because the King will no more listen now than he would then.

[B4Ranch]

See Posts 54 & 59. If you wish I will give you a much more expanded view in the morning. Just ping me tomorrow.

[eskimo]

Bottom line is that all those agreements eventually reduce government interference and reduce and/or eliminate tariffs. That's a good thing.

I don't know anyone foolish enough to believe that.

[jpsb]

"But there's not much point in using logic "

The GOP policy on trade is to open our market to allow consumers to benefit from lower prices of low wage producers. Meanwhile our trading partners keep thier markets closed to our products as they develop their own high tech manufacturing infrastructure. Resulting in huge job loses for USA workers. The GOP is brain dead, open borders, unfair trade, borrow and spend big government. The GOP committing suicide.

[Mase]

Huge agrobusiness is not the best model

You must be joking. American Agribusiness taught the world to feed itself (green revolution) and now has to compete with the very people they saved (Brazil and India for example) who have much lower costs of production.

This has forced consolidation in the food industry and has made our food growers and processors much more efficient. The family farm was the casualty but the net benefit to society is pretty obvious.

for many reason (some of them being the lowering quality of food and damaging the environment).

Again, you must be joking.

Food wholesomeness has never been better and the amount of food borne illness is at an all time low.

The amount of food available to consumers today boggles the mind and the best distribution system in the world ensures freshness and incredible variety.

Consumers can shop at Piggly Wiggly and get products with lower quality but at a price that fits their budget or, they can shop at Whole Foods and buy products made with the finest ingredients sourced from suppliers all over the world.

To walk through any modern day supermarket and not marvel at the bounty that our free market system has created is most unfortunate.

[Mase]

Why the freemarketeers call themselves conservatives if do not want to conserve anything?

Conservatives believe that the market should determine how resources are allocated and at what price.

What ideology do you think believes that the state should intervene in the economy to correct perceived inequities?

One can direct the economic changes

I just knew the command economy argument would surface in this debate at some point. You cannot command an economy. If there is one thing we should have learned in the last century it is this.

Your arguments are running left at a very fast pace and smack of Naderism more than any conservative I am aware of.

[A. Pole]

"Why the freemarketeers call themselves conservatives if do not want to conserve anything?"

Conservatives believe that the market should determine how resources are allocated and at what price.

The very word "conservative" derives from the word "conserve". What is that freemarketeers want to conserve?

What ideology do you think believes that the state should intervene in the economy to correct perceived inequities?

Do you think that the ideologies are the only game in town?

You cannot command an economy. If there is one thing we should have learned in the last century it is this.

You certainly can influence, regulate and steer the economy. It is being done all the time, everywhere.

[Mase]

It also proves the point that the free traders promote socialism, not individual rights and personal freedom

More government control of the economy promotes free market capitalism and protects individual rights and freedoms??

I believe you believe that but I didn't study economics at Berkeley.

unless it is planning to do away with those rights and institute a type of collectivism.

Think about all the governments of the past century that practiced collectivism and name one that believed in free markets. Name one that protected individual rights at the expense of the collective.

Berkeley is a bad place for a conservative to study economics.

[Mase]

When the United States has no farming or agriculture left because "free trade" put all the farmers out of business is it possible this scenario will play out here?

That is just a bizarre statement. I take it back. Even Berkeley has minimum standards for admission.

[Mase]

I don't know anyone foolish enough to believe that.

You might want to broaden your circle of conservative friends. Then you might not think conservatives like Milton Friedman and William Buckley are foolish.

[hedgetrimmer]

More government control of the economy promotes free market capitalism and protects individual rights and freedoms??

Actually, any American knows that when government preserves individual rights, it generally means less government.

But global socialists promoting free trade would prefer that Americans ignore that fact.

Think about all the governments of the past century that practiced collectivism and name one that believed in free markets.

There is no "free market" in this world today. Your insistence that "free trade" means "free markets" or has anything "free" about it is worthy of Joseph Goebbels. "if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." What is free about using USAID, the USDA, the EPA, the department of Justice, the department of Labor, the Inter-American development bank and every other US taxpayer supported organization to establish "free trade" in foreign countries? What is free about a nanny government telling the American people, we are not going to preserve your rights, we are going to establish an unconstitutional global system to regulate trade for Americans. We are going to negotiate those deals with an unconstitutional representative called a "trade minister". We are going to keep much of our negotiations secret-- the press is never invited to report the G8 conferences and there is no instrument like the congressional record to provide information to the American people so they know what their "representatives" agree to at those meetings or what they discuss.

The "Free trade" system you talk about is so far removed from the idea of our constitutional government it would be laughable, except it is irreparably harming American citizens. You haven't studied economics anywhere if you think "free trade" has anything "free" about it.

[A. Pole]

You might want to broaden your circle of conservative friends. Then you might not think conservatives like Milton Friedman and William Buckley are foolish.

Why not? Are Milton Friedman and William Buckley some type of infallible prophets? Cannot they be the learned fools?

Why do you need a broader circle of "conservative" freemarketeering friends? To brainwash you in the false cult of freemarket?

To repeat, neither socialists nor liberals (the true original name for freetraders) are conservative. But certainly the XIX century popes were conservative. If they were not not then who could be?

Read what the Pope Leo XIII had to say about the twin ANTI-conservative errors of socialism and liberalism(free marketeering): Encyclical Rerum Novarum, 1891

[hedgetrimmer]

Figures. Its pretty typical for the people supporting "free trade" to make up insults rather than carry on a rational discussion.

[eskimo]

You cannot command an economy. If there is one thing we should have learned in the last century it is this.

Yet many who believe such seem willing to turn over implementation of their ideal dream to a gang of corporate appointed global bureaucrats armed with 100s of thousands of pages of unratified international law. Are they so desperate for the fantasy that they have lost sight of reality or are most of them just deceitful profiteers?

You certainly can influence, regulate and steer the economy. It is being done all the time, everywhere.

In America, Congress is charged with regulating trade in the best interest of the American people. I'm certain the global money mongers find that inconvenient. So do many in Congress who are willing to abdicate their responsibility in this area.

[eskimo]

You might want to broaden your circle of conservative friends. Then you might not think conservatives like Milton Friedman and William Buckley are foolish.

I think I would rather not be around those I perceive to be so infatuated with creating the utopia they crave at any cost including the rights of their fellow humans.

[hedgetrimmer]

You've made some good points.

[eskimo]

You've made some good points.

Thanks. I was just echoing the opinions of myself and a few other really old conservatives I know. I guess we just do not understand how so many can be fooled by all this political theater.