Skip to comments.
Senate Panel Narrowly Endorses CAFTA
AP ^
| June 29, 2005
| JIM ABRAMS
Posted on 06/29/2005 9:44:25 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
A Senate committee on Wednesday approved a trade agreement with Latin American nations, moving Congress a step closer to a decision on an accord that may have minimal effects on the U.S. economy but is of considerable political import to the Bush administration.
The Finance Committee approved the agreement by a voice vote, although it was closely divided on the issue. The bill now goes to the full Senate for a vote as early as this week. Passage in the Senate, traditionally more sympathetic to trade agreements, could give the measure some momentum in the House, where there is stiffer opposition.
The Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, would end trade barriers now encountered by U.S. goods in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. It also would ease investment rules, strengthen protections for intellectual property and, according to supporters, solidify economic and democratic stability in the region.
But the agreement has run into vigorous opposition from labor groups, and their Democratic allies, who say its provisions on labor rights are weak, and from the U.S. sugar industry, which claims that an increase in Central American imports, while small, could open the door to ruin.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), D-N.M., a key undecided vote on the Finance Committee, announced he was supporting the pact after the administration answered some of his concerns about the "serious lack of attention to the enforcement of worker rights."
He said he had pledges of an extra $40 million over four years to promote labor laws. The administration also told him it will spend $30 million over five years to help subsistence farmers in three Central American countries who might be displaced by an increase in U.S. agriculture imports.
The Bush administration has waged a relentless lobbying effort in the past month. President Bush invited all six CAFTA presidents to the White House and hailed the agreement in several recent speeches to Hispanic-American and other groups. U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns are constantly on Capitol Hill, talking to undecided lawmakers.
Johanns met Monday with senators and representatives of the sugar industry, and again on Tuesday with lawmakers, to discuss proposals to assure that CAFTA will not undermine the industry's future viability. Those plans included the government buying up increased sugar cane imports from Central America to be used in the production of ethanol.
Republican Sen. Craig Thomas (news, bio, voting record), whose state of Wyoming has a large sugar beet industry, told the Finance Committee that "it distresses me a little" that only now, when a final vote on CAFTA is looming, is the administration getting serious about the sugar issue.
But Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., suggested that there could be repercussions for the industry, always well-protected by Congress, if it succeeded in scuttling the agreement. "This could be devastating to them if not handled right," he said.
The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record) of sugar beet-growing Montana, opposes CAFTA, breaking with his usual support of trade agreements.
In addition to saying that the agreement was bad for the sugar industry, he criticized the administration for rejecting a proposal to help U.S. service industry workers who lose their jobs because of foreign competition and for not consulting more with Congress.
"They appear to want to win by the thinnest of margins," he said,
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bastrds; cafta; freetraitors; ftaa; hemispheric; integration; nafta; redistribution; sovereignty; thirdworldherewecome; traitors; wealth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-113 next last
To: traviskicks
Most hispanic citizens I've met (I live in AZ, there are plenty) are very pissed about the illegal immigration situation.
It makes them look bad.
They want the border closed, too.
Limiting the # of people allowed in is a GOOD thing, btw.
61
posted on
06/29/2005 12:09:49 PM PDT
by
adam_az
(It's the border, stupid!)
To: traviskicks
teeming with people
You got that right. The CAFTA open borders people forsee a USA with a population of 1 billion people by 2050.
Our constitutional govnerment as designed cannot effectively represent that large a population, but the way the trade agreements are written, it won't matter. There are supranational agencies waiting in the wings, some already acting in the place of natinal governments. What you advocate is the demise of the only free people on earth.
To: traviskicks
And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago
Are you serious? With all the missile batteries and no fly zones that didn't exist 8 years ago? The street cameras, the metal detectors and bomb sniffers? Come on!
To: hedgetrimmer
The word from On High is shut up, be happy with your cheap chinese imports, and take it like the serf you are being turned into.
64
posted on
06/29/2005 12:19:30 PM PDT
by
adam_az
(It's the border, stupid!)
To: traviskicks
You said..."What do you propose we do then?"
There is usually no easy fix to things...
In general...I believe that a 'carrot and a stick' is the answer to many problems...make business in this country more competitive across the board...not just for politically connected companies.
Abolish most forms of corporate welfare and special loophole tax breaks...while reducing or eliminating many taxes.
Negotiate trade agreements that will give American companies the ability to set up operations in foreign countries...and produce goods for that country alone...as a means of building up the infrastructure of the host country.
I'm open to any and all other suggestions...
I don't have a problem with free trade of goods....its the free trade of services that causes problems...services can be defined very broadly. I would limit services to include temporary specialized labor...such as consulting services...which the user country does not have a capability in.
For example...there is a big difference with importing guest workers into this country to do conventional blue collar jobs on a semi to permanent living basis...at below market rates...and hiring a consultant to go to Costa Rica and set up a communications network for people who don't have the technical knowhow.
Yet...in this agreement...there seems to be no distinction on the American side...jobs is jobs.
On the other side of it...you bet there are distinctions...
65
posted on
06/29/2005 12:22:03 PM PDT
by
Dat Mon
(will work for clever tagline)
To: hedgetrimmer
free trade is not a socialist idea. Communism = no trade, self sufficiency. Free trade is on the opposite spectrum.
Free trade does not mean the demise of nationalism. On the contrary, our freedom will make us prouder than ever of our country.
That is really a shame if the CAFTA agreement is written so only corporations can participate in it. Are you sure that is written in there?
66
posted on
06/29/2005 12:22:22 PM PDT
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
To: hedgetrimmer
In 1790 the US population was 3.9 million. Today it is almost 300 million. The idea of limiting the power of government will suffice for any population, indeed, its the reason so many flocked here.
At least mulinational corporations exist for profit and work to create wealth. Government exists to steal and thieve wealth.
67
posted on
06/29/2005 12:25:15 PM PDT
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
To: Dat Mon
well, we are mostly in agreement then. You seem to be in favor of free trade with 'conditions'. I'd argue that those conditions will hurt rather than help and destroy jobs rather than create them.
I think incremental steps towards liberty ought to be taken and I think CAFTA is one of them.
And I do think external taxes (tarrifs imports etc..) work better than internal taxes.
68
posted on
06/29/2005 12:29:00 PM PDT
by
traviskicks
(http://www.neoperspectives.com/scotuspropertythieving.htm)
To: traviskicks; Carry_Okie
free trade is not a socialist idea
CAFTA is to "raise Central America out of poverty". Have you read it? It is purely socialist in its doctrine. "trade capacity building" is merely the transfer of US wealth to the third world so they can trade and be "lifted out of poverty". That is nothing less than socialism practiced on a hemispheric scale.
CAFTA promises "sustainable development". Sustainable development is the socialist control of natural resources and wealth generation that was first proposed by two global socialists, Gro Harlem Bruntlandt and Maurice Strong. It was quickly picked up by the "free trade" globalists who see it as a way to control populations and destroy private property rights. There is NO coincidence that the US supreme court voted against private property at the same time a "free trade" agreement that supports sustainable development is to be voted on in Congress. No coincidence at all IMO.
To: adam_az
I wonder what those of an evangelical disposition think of that list.
To: traviskicks
the idea of limiting the power of government will suffice for any population
How many representatives in the house, when the population is 1 billion? How will that work? And 100 senators to 1 billion people? How good will the representation be? Or will the senators just kowtow to the transnationals,as they do now, because there are fewer of them and its easier?
To: lonewacko_dot_com
"I wonder what those of an evangelical disposition think of that list."
I'm not a Christian, so I don't understand why someones faith would made a difference to seeing their liberty dissolved in the freedom-solvent of bureaucray?
72
posted on
06/29/2005 12:36:27 PM PDT
by
adam_az
(It's the border, stupid!)
To: hedgetrimmer
RINOs selling us out - People we have to stop voting for Republicans and start voting for principled conservatives. Bush and McCain are RINO elitists - they could care less about honest hard working Americans.
73
posted on
06/29/2005 12:41:33 PM PDT
by
sasafras
(Enforce the border, take away all the benefits and penalize employers who hire illegals)
To: traviskicks
You said..."You seem to be in favor of free trade with 'conditions'."
In general thats correct. Thats where the 'stick' comes in.
If you see that as a philosophical inconsistency...it is to some extent ...but so is your accepting of a comprehensive government negotiated and supervised trade agreement.
Many things are by necessity a paradox...we just have to choose the best compromise.
One other caveat....I do believe China falls into a special class of countries...and a special class of trade.
China is not a benevolent trading partner....but thats a topic for another thread!
74
posted on
06/29/2005 12:42:35 PM PDT
by
Dat Mon
(will work for clever tagline)
To: adam_az
Here's a suggestion: someone could take that list, add some URLs to it, and post on evangelical-oriented forums asking what their members think of Bush's various moves.
To: Ultra Sonic; Dillybird; Tarantulas; AnOldCowhand; livefreeCA; Petruchio; Entebbe; river rat; ...
76
posted on
06/29/2005 1:56:56 PM PDT
by
madfly
To: hedgetrimmer
Your new neighbors. If this passes, you will wish you lived in one of these S**t H*le countries.
77
posted on
06/29/2005 2:23:15 PM PDT
by
Ramonan
(Honor does not go out of style.)
To: hedgetrimmer
YOU SAID..."There is NO coincidence that the US supreme court voted against private property at the same time a "free trade" agreement that supports sustainable development is to be voted on in Congress. No coincidence at all IMO."
There does seem to be a 'perfect storm' brewing....when you factor in the illegal immigration angle...Social Security totalization proposals..Social security 'reform'...Prescription Drugs...spiraling Health Care and Insurance Costs..out of control judiciary and powerful trial lawyer advocacy groups..misc special interests and pols protected by the ubiquitous CFR...and even the bill Santorum introduced the other day regarding product labeling.
I do believe that all of these effects taken together...combined with the welfare and entitlement mentality people like Ted Kennedy push...have a synergistic effect which acts against individual liberty and opportunity.
Instead of the American Dream as we have traditionally understood it...we will have crony capitalism for some politically connected individuals...and 'managed' opportunity for everyone else.
78
posted on
06/29/2005 2:38:18 PM PDT
by
Dat Mon
(will work for clever tagline)
To: Dat Mon
In my research, I have found indications that the reason for Social security 'reform', is to allow foreign investment in our social security system via the financial services clause that will be implemented in the FTAA and through the WTO. The 'reform' to "private accounts" is just laying the foundation for foreign companies to get involved in the huge amount of money our social security laws require to be collected from the American people.
To: Moral Hazard
I find it amazing that so much of our trade policy seems to be centered on the idea of protecting domestic sugar producers from competition. I wonder. Do you support "protecting domestic" pharmacological companies "from competition"?
80
posted on
06/29/2005 2:54:49 PM PDT
by
A. Pole
("Truth at first is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and then it is accepted as self evident.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-113 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson