Posted on 07/15/2005 8:36:53 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
President Bush's tour of a North Carolina textile mill takes him to the kind of business that critics say would be damaged by his free trade pact with Central America.
Ahead of that visit Friday, Bush was to meet at the White House with President Antonio Saca of El Salvador, one of the countries that is a party to the trade agreement.
The Central American Free Trade Agreement passed the Senate on a 54-45 vote two weeks ago. It could come up as early as next week in the House, where its fate is less certain. It faces near-solid Democratic opposition and only lukewarm GOP support.
Bush was scheduled to tour the Helms plant of R.L. Stowe Mills in Belmont, in the Piedmont region of central North Carolina, and then give a speech at nearby Gaston College. Both are in the district of Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., the only one of North Carolina's 13-member House delegation to publicly endorse the measure.
The trade agreement, signed by the United States a year ago, would end or sharply lower trade barriers with the five Central American countries of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. It would also apply to the Dominican Republic, a Caribbean nation.
The measure "is important to supporting emerging democracies in Central America," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
It would also help stabilize trade between the United States and the region, McClellan said. "Right now, when 80 percent of the imports from Central America come in here duty-free, that creates an unlevel playing field. We want to make sure the markets are open and that there's a level playing field."
North Carolina is one of the hotbeds of opposition to the pact, which is modeled on the North American Free Trade Agreement passed 12 years ago that established free trade among the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Critics contend CAFTA will cost U.S. jobs by making it easier for U.S. companies to relocate operations in Central America, where labor costs are lower. The White House argues the opposite, asserting it will bring jobs to the United States.
Bush contends the pact would be "good for American workers, good for our farmers and good for small businesses" and "help increase sales abroad and job creation at home."
The textile industry is divided on CAFTA.
Some are opposed because of an inherent mistrust of any free trade deal. Others say it will help the U.S. industry because it will help Central American manufacturers, who buy material and yarn from the United States. Chinese textiles, by contrast, have little or no U.S. content.
CAFTA would further open a market of 44 million people by eliminating trade barriers to U.S. manufactured and farm goods, protecting trademarks and other intellectual property and establishing legal frameworks for U.S. investment. Last year the region purchased about $15 billion worth of U.S. goods.
Many Democrats argue that inadequate worker rights provisions in the agreement will lead to labor abuses. It is also opposed by lawmakers from sugar beet and sugar cane-growing areas, and others who link free trade to America's soaring trade deficits.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the fact that GOP House leaders haven't yet brought the bill up could be a sign that it lacks the votes.
"I can't really speak with authority on the number of Republican votes that are 'no' on CAFTA, but I hear that it is a significant number," she told reporters. "I know that there are only a small number of Democrats who would be supporting it, so I think they are in trouble on CAFTA."
"So you are happy with merely 71%, as it stands now, and not 90%?"
Tout a positive projection, evade the downside. We've been down that road before, and know where it leads. You're going to have to "sell" harder than that.
What tripe. I'm amazed that you can argue "downside" while keeping those Central American tariffs on our textile exports in place.
"What tripe."
What salesmanship. A real winner.
"Yeah, right . . . like your mind hasn't been made-up already."
In contrast with your refreshingly open and honest approach? No agendas with you, no siree... everything's comin' up roses.
Seeing that duty-free access will on occur to goods containing U.S. manufactured textiles, I cannot see how you expect this to happen.
I can see how you are offended by my "agenda," seeing that it disagrees with your "opinion," which is all you've provided so far.
__________________________-
What, we ship how much scrap steel to Japan, Korea and China. So by all this 90% school of thought, all these cars that are built outside the US with US scrap steel in them are a good thing? Now this is going to apply with everything else? Or are we under the assumption that we export the raw material to a CAFTA country, and in turn they sell us the goods back in return. HA! That CAFTA country will get US raw materials cheaper than any other place in the world. They in-turn will sell it on the world market, (ASIA) making more of a profit from selling it than actually making something out of it. Then Asia produces the same products and sells back the manufactured product to United States consumers. Central America makes money, Asian companies get raw materials from the United States at a lower price than directly purchasing them from the United States. Asian companies make money because of the lower cost of raw materials. The United States gets screwed, with a higher trade deficit to Asia and getting take to the cleaners for producing raw materials at reduced prices and exporting them to a CAFTA country.
"I can see how you are offended by my "agenda," seeing that it disagrees with your "opinion," which is all you've provided so far."
Don't quit your day job.
You might want to re-visit your definition of "raw material." Cotton is a "raw material." Fabric made of cotton is not.
Neither do I. And if it's true this ties us to WTO and WHO and takes away our rights to purchase health supplements in the USA then I'm 1000% against CAFTA.
This may be one of those "win by one vote" capers. What happens is that when the powers that be are pushing something that's bringing up too much bad publicity, they ration out the 'no' votes and force the minimum necessary to vote 'yes'. It ends up looking like a squeaker, but it's a done deal from day one; it just means that the most people possible get to say they "tried to stop it but..."
We need CAFTA-DR so let them pull what ever it takes. There's lots of people out there who're freaky about CAFTA-DR, just like there're lots of people who actually think we're in the worst economy since Hoover.
"get raw materials from the United States at a lower price than directly purchasing them from the United States"
Reverse colonialism. Plunder natural resources, no value added.
"Seeing that duty-free access will on occur to goods containing U.S. manufactured textiles, I cannot see how you expect this to happen."
Gradualism. Treaties come, treaties go.
"U.S. fabric mills exported 2.6 billion dollars' worth of goods to the CAFTA-DR region in 2004."
Do you have the dollar figure on how much we imported? You must profit in some way from the one-way trade imbalance we have with the rest of the world because you're always cheerleading. Do you work for the state department? Are you a foreigner? Do you gain financially from CAFTA? Answer honestly if you will.
"It'll be years before you figure out that apparel made of U.S. material already enters the U.S. duty free under the Caribbean Basin Initiative."
Hardly. Do you find snideness to be a successful means of getting your point across? It's not working in this instance.
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.