Posted on 05/14/2005 7:47:26 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
MONTERREY, Mexico (Reuters) - The Bush administration will not renegotiate a controversial free-trade pact with Central America despite strong opposition from labor groups and the sugar industry, U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said on Friday.
As President Bush stepped up his bid this week for congressional approval of the U.S.-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, Gutierrez told Reuters the plan would not go back to the drawing board even though lawmakers are skeptical of its ability to pass.
"It's a treaty that has already been negotiated and even approved by the congresses in three Central American countries," Gutierrez said in an interview during a hemispheric forum in Monterrey. "We don't feel the need to renegotiate anything."
On Thursday, Bush promised Central American leaders in Washington he would fight for the pact, by far the most controversial of the six free-trade agreements he has negotiated since taking office.
Few Democrats have come out in favor of CAFTA, making it likely the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives will have to supply most of the votes it needs to pass.
In the U.S. Senate it faces obstacles because of sugar and textile industry concerns. Opponents say it does not meet labor and environmental standards, among other flaws.
Leaders from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras and the Dominican Republic met with Bush after visiting 10 U.S. cities this week to drum up support for the pact.
They lobbied members of Congress on Wednesday, but that has not yielded any new endorsements.
The Bush administration argues that the labor and environmental provisions meet guidelines set by Congress in 2002 and are as strong as those in free trade pacts with other nations, which were backed by Democrats.
"There is always strong debate at first with free-trade agreements, but the details of CAFTA are so logical and of such benefit to the United States and Central America that we feel that when they are known it will have support," Gutierrez said.
SHAFTA ping
Thanks for the ping. I agree.
In your opinion, what are some pro's and con's in reference to CAFTA?
Thanks for the info. Will any Americans lose their jobs due to CAFTA? Will CAFTA make it easier for American business to outsource to these other countries?
I skimmed over the info and so far I only see it mostly helping everyone but us. Kind of like bleeding the US so as to improve the other countries economy.
The immediate threat posed by CAFTA is job losses, the most important reason to oppose CAFTA is that it would be a steppingstone to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).
The idea is to gain more jobs than you lose.
No. It is already easy to outsource to these countries, as most of their products already enter the U.S. duty-free.
Ok. So basically, opening up the market would cause more competitiveness amongst all countries involved. Will this hurt American business?
I swear by all that's holy, I did not make this up.
Notice how they conveniently leave out the imports from that report? We have been in deficit trade with all of those countries for years. Will CAFTA turn that around. No way. We will now be able to import more cheaply from those countries boosting their economy only to allow them to buy a couple of American cars. It's another lose situation for us. Just like NAFTA.
Some of us like how CAFTA lowers our import taxes and gives us more freedom to shop where we want. I understand you want to raise my import taxes, you want to limit my shopping freedom, and you want to force me to support an American minority that you think is more disserving than the majority of Americans.
I told you what I believe-- don't try and say I believe something else.
If I misstated your point of view (I know, it happens), please tell me which of the beliefs that I hung on you --that you don't agree with. I want to understand your position-- I figure there's always the possibility that you may be right.
Careful... If you give too much info too fast you'll lose them! LOL
To the free trader, job losses are irrelevant.
Those would be jobs that employ non-college educated Americans, the low class scum for whom they have nothing but contempt.
Who's the minority and who's the majority in your equation?
Excellent question. The article mentions "sugar and textile industry concerns". Presumably this means that CAFTA is supposed to lower the price of sugar and cloth. That's good for the Americans who buy cloth and bad for the Americans who make sugar and cloth. I would bet that the percentage of people in the US who buy sugar and cloth (or at least use what's bought for them) is darn near 100 percent. I would also be willing to bet that the percentage of people in the US who make and sell their own sugar and cloth is less than 50 percent -- looking over the BLS data it looks like we're talking about more like three or four percent.
This is why I generally see opposition to CAFTA as coming from tiny bunch of welfare cheats looking for a free ride off of an increase in everyone's taxes.
Are you in favor of California instituting trade barriers with Alabama since they have a different cost of living? Do you think making goods more expensive for California citizens will improve the California economy?
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.