We're not seeing a lowered standard of living. We're just seeing record bankruptcies, a nonexistent savings rate,
record time between jobs, and if the unemployment rate were really 5%, Bush would have been reelected in a landslide.
Posted on 05/24/2005 7:08:18 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
It really matters where the jobs that Americans lose go. That's what CAFTA is about. It's not about destroying textile jobs in the Carolinas. They're history, anyway--if not this year, then in five years. CAFTA is about keeping work in our hemisphere that would otherwise go to China.
The Central American Free Trade Agreement would cut tariffs on commerce among the United States, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala. The Dominican Republic, which is in the Caribbean, also wants to join.
Though President Bush is battling hard for the accord, some observers declare it all but dead. The generally pro-trade New Democrat Coalition has just jumped ship. But new Democrats should think again and back CAFTA. So should old Democrats.
Organized labor doesn't want to hear this defeatist talk about managing losses. That's understandable. But while labor has been dealt a bad hand, it still must play the cards. That means choosing the least bad of bad options.
Some labor critics point to NAFTA as a reason to shoot down CAFTA. The 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement covered the United States, Canada and Mexico. Foes of these accords note, for example, that there were 127,000 textile and apparel jobs in South Carolina before NAFTA. Now there are 48,000.
The truth is, the United States was bleeding these kinds of factory jobs decades before NAFTA. And it's unclear how large a part NAFTA has played in the years since.
Many of these jobs were not sucked down to Mexico but over to China and other Asian countries. And of the lost jobs that can be traced to Mexico, how many would have simply gone to China instead, had it not been for NAFTA? Even Mexico has seen factories move to China.
Labor-intensive industries in America continue to fight a hopeless war against competitors paying pennies-an-hour wages. The futility of it all can be seen in the following numbers, provided by A.T. Kearney, a consulting firm:
It costs $135 to make 12 pairs of cotton trousers in the United States. It costs $57 to make the trousers in China and ship them here. It costs $69 to do so in other parts of the world.
In this business, the United States is clearly out of the running. But many low-wage countries are still contenders with China--especially if they can ship their products here tariff-free.
Americans would be better off if their imports came from Managua, rather than Guangdong. After all, our Latin neighbors are more likely to buy the things we have to sell. That's why farmers producing beef, pork and corn are all for these treaties. So are U.S. companies that make machinery, especially for construction.
Then there are foreign-policy considerations. CAFTA partners would include very poor countries with fragile democracies. More trade with the United States could stabilize them--and reduce the pressures on their people to come here illegally. And if the workers make more money, they'll be able to buy more American goods.
Some Democrats argue that these poor countries compete by exploiting their workers. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., for example, opposes the accord because, he says, "the basic rights of working people in Central America are systematically repressed."
He has it backward. Economic desperation creates the conditions for oppression. Workers are strongest where jobs are plentiful. CAFTA could empower workers and lift them from grinding poverty.
Rather than protect jobs that will eventually leave America, labor and its Democratic allies should protect the people who lose them. Trade Adjustment Assistance is a federal program that offers financial help and training for Americans who lose jobs because of imports.
Democrats complain that the program is underfunded, and they are right. So why not make more money for Trade Adjustment Assistance a bargaining chip to win support for CAFTA?
There's no exit door out of this global economy. Parts of the American economy will do well in it; other parts will not. Free trade in the Americas is about joining with our neighbors in a common defense against China's growing power. Those are the true stakes, and fighting futile battles will only distract us from what matters.
Inflated house prices, which people are in hock up to their ears to afford.
Oh, and I forgot record levels of household debt.
And you are blaming NAFTA, specifically, or free markets in general?
Now you know that net worth includes debt. We're just doing better and better. Despite the crybabies.
Does it include Pell Grants?
Well put.
I think the DIMRATS are in bed with, feeding, worshipping etc. the globalists.
Some Repub's too. Others are intimidated by, coerced by or threatened by the globalists into stoogedom.
imho.
Actually Americans have an average of 56.1% equity in their household real estate.
See page 112.
It was the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the Swift Boat Vets who reelected Bush and that by the skin of his teeth. Thanks to dropping standards of living for blue collar Americans the Reagan Democrat is in play again. That is why Ohio was so iffy right down to the wire.
FDA officials say the link to Mexican onions wasn't made early enough for a
warning, but even if the agency were more responsive in such cases, the
American public would still be at risk. It is a matter of a redundant
bureaucracy and the magnitude of the task. The Agricultural Department
inspects beef, pork and poultry, while the FDA is responsible for vegetables
and fruit, seafood and, oddly, eggs and milk. Many Americans probably will
be surprised to learn that produce causes nearly as many illnesses as beef
and poultry combined. Yet the FDA has only about 1,000
inspectors compared with a USDA force of 7,600.
Imported vegetables pose a greater risk than those grown domestically. In an
FDA test three years ago, produce samples from other countries were more
than three times as likely to contain harmful organisms. Meanwhile, imported
vegetables and fruits are a growing portion of the American diet.
FDA inspectors are visiting Mexican onion exporters linked to the recent
hepatitis A cases, and it's not yet clear what caused the contamination. It
could have been rinse or irrigation water tainted by sewage, or infected
workers handling the onions. Whatever its findings, the FDA doesn't have the
authority to regulate Mexican farming practices, although the agency could
restrict importation from those farms.
Only Congress can address the most serious shortcomings in laws protecting
consumers. Food inspections should be handled by a single agency that is
more independent from political influence, but until that day comes, the FDA
obviously needs more resources to inspect imported produce. And lawmakers
should be more responsive to the needs of consumers rather than the food
industry.
A bill that would require a country-of-origin label on all imported food is
being undermined by House Republicans, who would delay implementation until
2006. Grocery stores and vegetable importers oppose the law because they
believe it will make it more difficult to sell imported produce and meat.
Maybe it will, but Americans should know where the food they eat is being
grown.
The deaths in Pennsylvania should be warning enough that the inspection
program for imported produce is not adequate to protect American consumers.
Yes, the FDA will act very quickly when it comes to food contamination that results in death and, in some cases, they are able to determine, with certainty, what actually caused the illness. The comment made though was "in most cases, it is impossible to determine where food gets contaminated." This is true.
It's estimated that food borne diseases cause 76 million illnesses every year. What percentage of those do you think the FDA traces back to the actual source? Even when they do it is still very hard to prove. Was it the grower, the processor, the transportation company, the restaurant workers or the grocery store? Maybe the end consumer handled it incorrectly. What was the pathogen to begin with?
Food borne illnesses leave more questions than answers.
Surveillance of foodborne illness is complicated by several factors. The first is underreporting. Although foodborne illnesses can be severe or even fatal, milder cases are often not detected through routine surveillance. Second, many pathogens transmitted through food are also spread through water or from person to person, thus obscuring the role of foodborne transmission. Finally, some proportion of foodborne illness is caused by pathogens or agents that have not yet been identified and thus cannot be diagnosed.
OASIS CHARGE: HEPATITIS A VIRUS (HAV)
CODE: INSANITARY
MFR INSAN
RECOMMENDING OFFICE: CFSAN, Office of Compliance, Imports Branch (HFS-606)
REASON FOR ALERT: In September 2003, there were two outbreaks of Hepatitis A
Virus (HAV) in Tennessee and Georgia. Subsequent investigations and
epidemiological data implicated fresh green onions (scallions) from three
firms in Mexico as the cause of the outbreaks. There were 77 cases reported in
Tennessee, all of which were associated with a restaurant in TN. In the
Georgia outbreak, 25 of the 200+ cases were associated with restaurants. FDA's
investigations implicated Mexican green onions (scallions) from sources in
Mexico.
HAV is excreted in feces of infected people and can produce clinical disease
when susceptible individuals consume contaminated water or foods. HAV is
primarily transmitted by person-to-person contact through fecal contamination,
but common-source epidemics from contaminated food and water also occur. Poor
sanitation and crowding facilitate transmission. Contamination of foods by
infected workers in food production facilities/processing plants and
restaurants is common. No known non-human sources of the virus exist. This
fact, in conjunction with the epidemiological evidence, leads FDA to believe,
that the implicated green onions were contaminated as a result of insanitary
conditions in the production or packing facilities, e.g., poor worker hygiene,
inadequate worker sanitation facilities, and/or contaminated water supply.
FDA believes that green onions (scallions) imported from Mexico appear to be
adulterated under Section 801(a)(3) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act
(Act) because they appear (1) to contain Hepatitis A Virus, an added poisonous
or deleterious substance that may render food injurious to health within the
meaning of section 402(a)(1) of the Act and (2) to have been prepared, packed,
or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have been rendered
injurious to health within the meaning of Section 402(a)(4) of the Act. In
addition, the green onions (scallions) violate section 801(a)(1) of the Act in
that they appear to have been manufactured, processed, or packed under
insanitary conditions.
GUIDANCE: Districts may detain, without physical examination, all raw fresh
and raw fresh refrigerated green onions (scallions) from the firms identified
in the Attachment to this Import Alert.
If a firm, grower, processor, packer, or importer believes that their product
should not be recommended for detention under this import alert, they should
forward information supporting their position to FDA at the following
address:
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Office of Compliance/Imports Branch (HFS-606)
5100 Paint Branch Parkway
College Park, MD 20740
Would you please define what a "globalist" is. I would like to know who I'm allegedly protecting.
The FDA has no authority in Mexico. The NAFTA says that phytosanitary practices of the "parties" may not be used as a "non-tariff barrier to trade". You can try to obfuscate the issue, but there it is for the rest of the readers of this thread.
So they DO know how to pinpoint contamination. And if they couldn't, the terrorists would have a field day with us, wouldn't they?
****
ATTACHMENT LIST OF FIRMS/PRODUCTS THAT ARE ON DETENTION WITHOUT PHYSICAL
EXAMINATION 10/28/04
Firm Name and Address: Product/codes:
Dos M Sales De Mexico 25J [ ][] 04, 25L [] [] 04, 25J [] [] 99,
Ave. Cairo 315 Villa Fontana
Mexicali, B.C MX
FEI: 3002565013
a.k.a.
2 M Sale De Mexico, Sa De Cv 25J [ ][] 04, 25L [] [] 04, 25J [] [] 99,
Av Durango Y Benjamin Hill #205
San Luis Rc MX
FEI: 3002397969
Agricola La Laguna, S.A. De C.V. 25J [ ][] 04, 25L [] [] 04, 25J [] [] 99,
(a.k.a. Sun Fresh)
Rancho La Laguna S/N. El Real
Ensenanda, B. California MX
FEI: 3002824398
Tecnoagro Intenrnacional, S.A. De C.V. 25J [ ][ ] 04, 25L [] [] 04,
Km. 18 Carret. A Riito, Ejido Islita 25J [ ] [ ]99
San Luis Rio Colorado MX
FEI: 3003962780
a.k.a
Tecno Agro Internacional S.A 25J [ ][] 04, 25L [] [] 04, 25J [] [] 99,
Av. Lazaro Cardenas #81
Ensenada MX
FEI: 3004060704
NAFTA says that a country must apply its phytosanitary standards evenly, and not use artificially higher standards to protect domestic producers from overseas competition. Think Japan's insistence that US automakers install "kimono guards" on their vehicles before they were sold in Japan.
Nice try, though.
Article 712: Basic Rights and Obligations
Right to Take Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
1. Each Party may, in accordance with this Section, adopt, maintain or apply any sanitary or phytosanitary measure necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health in its territory, including a measure more stringent than an international standard, guideline or recommendation.
Right to Establish Level of Protection
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, each Party may, in protecting human, animal or plant life or health, establish its appropriate levels of protection in accordance with Article 715.
Scientific Principles
3. Each Party shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure that it adopts, maintains or applies is:
a) based on scientific principles, taking into account relevant factors including, where appropriate, different geographic conditions;
b) not maintained where there is no longer a scientific basis for it; and
c) based on a risk assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances.
Non-Discriminatory Treatment
4. Each Party shall ensure that a sanitary or phytosanitary measure that it adopts, maintains or applies does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between its goods and like goods of another Party, or between goods of another Party and like goods of any other country, where identical or similar conditions prevail.
Unnecessary Obstacles
5. Each Party shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure that it adopts, maintains or applies is applied only to the extent necessary to achieve its appropriate level of protection, taking into account technical and economic feasibility.
Disguised Restrictions
6. No Party may adopt, maintain or apply any sanitary or phytosanitary measure with a view to, or with the effect of, creating a disguised restriction on trade between the Parties.
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.