Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CAFTA Should Be Rejected, Just Like the EU Constitution
Eco Logic Powerhouse ^ | 15 Jul 05 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 07/18/2005 12:40:00 PM PDT by datura

Since democracy is the worldwide goal of the Bush Administration, we must face the stunning fact that the integration of different nationalities under a common European Union (EU) Constitution was rejected by decisive democratic votes. President Bush can thank conservative leaders for saving him from the embarrassment of endorsing the EU Constitution, shortly before it was so soundly defeated in France and the Netherlands.

The EU Constitution was defeated, because Western Europeans don't want to be politically, economically, or socially integrated with the culture, economy, lifestyle, or history of Eastern Europe and Muslim countries. Western Europeans recognized in the proposed EU Constitution a loss of national identity and freedom, to a foreign bureaucracy, plus a redistribution of wealth from richer countries to poorer countries.

Will the political and business elites in America hear this message, and stop trying to force CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) on America?

The Senate Republican Policy Committee appears to be tone deaf. Its just-released policy paper argues that CAFTA should be approved, because its purpose is "integrating more closely with 34 hemispheric neighbors - thus furthering the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA)," which the 2001 Quebec Declaration declared would bring about "hemispheric integration."

Americans don't want to be "integrated" with the poverty, corruption, socialism, and communism of our hemispheric neighbors, any more than the French want to be integrated with the Turks and Bulgarians.

Just as the French and Dutch were suspicious of the dangers lurking in the 485-page EU Constitution, Americans are wary of the dangers hiding in the 92-page CAFTA legislation, plus the 31 pages that purport to spell out the administrative actions the U.S. must take in compliance. No wonder CAFTA's supporters are bypassing our Constitution's requirement that treaties can be valid only if passed by two-thirds of our Senators.

The Senate Republican policy paper argues that CAFTA "will promote democratic governance." But, there is nothing democratic about CAFTA's many pages of grants of vague authority to foreign tribunals, on which foreign judges could force us to change our domestic laws to be "no more burdensome than necessary" on foreign trade.

We have had enough impertinent interference with our lives and economy from the international tribunals Congress has already locked us into, such as the WTO (World Trade Organization) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Americans don't want decisions from another anti-American tribunal any more than the French and Dutch wanted their lives micro-managed by Belgian bureaucrats.

The EU political elite ridiculed the French and the Dutch for not realizing that globalism is on the march, and we should all get on the train before it leaves the station. The French and Dutch woke up to the fact that the engineers of the EU train are bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Luxembourg, who invent regulations and judge-made laws, without so much as tip of their hats to democracy.

The pro-EU political bosses blamed the "non" vote by the French on worry about losing their jobs to the cheap labor of Eastern Europe and Turkey. But the worry was grounded in reality, and Americans are likewise correct, to worry about how CAFTA will put U.S. jobs in competition with low-wage Central America, where the average factory worker is paid about one dollar an hour.

CAFTA would even prohibit U.S. states from giving preference to American workers when taxpayer-funded contracts are granted.

CAFTA is not about free trade; it's about round-trip trade. That means multi-national corporations sending their raw materials to poor countries, where they can hire very cheap labor and avoid U.S. employment, safety and environmental regulations, and then bringing the finished goods back into the United States duty-free, to undersell U.S. companies that pay decent wages and comply with our laws.

The promise that CAFTA will give us 44 million new customers for U.S. goods is pie in the sky, like the false promise that letting Communist China into the WTO would give us a billion-person market for American agriculture. Or, the false promise that NAFTA would increase our trade surplus with Mexico to $10 billion when, in fact, it nosedived, to a $62 billion deficit.

Knowing that Americans are upset about Central America's chief export to the U.S., which is the incredibly vicious MS-13 Salvadoran gangs, the Senate Republican policy paper assures us that CAFTA will diminish "the incentives for illegal immigration to the United States." That's another fairy tale, like the unfulfilled promise that NAFTA would reduce illegal aliens and illegal drugs entering the U.S. from Mexico.

By stating that CAFTA means the implementation of a "rules-based framework" for trade, investment, and technology, the Senate Republican policy paper confirms that free trade requires world, or at least hemispheric, government. You can't have a single economy, without a single government.

CAFTA may serve the economic interests of the globalists and the multinational corporations, but it makes no sense historically, Constitutionally, or democratically. Americans will never sing "God Bless the Western Hemisphere" instead of "God Bless America."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: cafta; freetraitors; schlafly
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 321-323 next last
To: Sam the Sham
non-college educated Americans who are bearing the brunt of free trade

Hogwash. What about high-tech jobs heading to India? I have a masters degree. I guess I should "re-train" myself to become a waiter.

101 posted on 07/19/2005 8:02:46 AM PDT by gonewt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Digger
Fool me once.....

It's long past time for us to have the PEOPLE VOTE on THESE TREATIES!!!!
Just think, we could do what the French and the Dutch PEOPLE did.

Our elected politicians would faint.

102 posted on 07/19/2005 8:06:14 AM PDT by meema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mase

He's right. These trade agreements are selling out our sovereignty & middle class.

But I guess that's all good, just like illegal immigration, right? It's all capitalism, right?


103 posted on 07/19/2005 8:06:54 AM PDT by gonewt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: n-tres-ted

There is no tax cut or Fed policy that will level the playing field between Joe Sixpack and the third world.


104 posted on 07/19/2005 8:08:42 AM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham

The Fair Tax Act (HR25/S25) would repeal federal income taxes, payroll taxes and death taxes, replacing them with a national sales tax on new goods and services for final consumption. This would mean foreign producers pay the same taxes our producers pay, so the field would be as level as possible. Studies have shown it would make the US much more attractive to capital investment. Add a monetary policy that truly provides a stable dollar and the US would return to a country that provides good work opportunities and a rising standard of living to our people. That is as level as the playing field needs to be. Other countries will copy that approach and raise their own standard of living. This is a much better approach than protectionism, or defeatism.


105 posted on 07/19/2005 8:22:08 AM PDT by n-tres-ted (Remember November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: gonewt
But I guess that's all good, just like illegal immigration, right? It's all capitalism, right?

Trade does not cause illegal immigration. Politicians from both parties who refuse to enforce our laws do.

Congress can back out of any trade agreements they choose. No one is forcing us to maintain the agreements. There is no loss of sovereignty. Other than your feelings, do you have any proof that trade agreements are selling out the middle class?

106 posted on 07/19/2005 8:42:51 AM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
I don't see how your references conflict with the statement I made. In fact, they buttress my comment that the trade agreements give us an opportunity to eliminate many of the liberal-imposed laws and regulations which hurt our competitiveness.

I have often wondered where you get some of the stuff you post and now I see. That is a leftist website championing environmentalism and "workers right".

The first article was in 1998.

PARIS -- An American law protecting sea turtles was overturned by an appeals panel of the World Trade Organization on Monday, angering U.S. environmentalists and setting up a possible confrontation between the United States and global trade's governing body.

U.S. officials -- who are caught between American support for the WTO and President Clinton's commitment to the environment -- said they would consult with Congress on how to respond to the ruling.

The decision ``does not suggest that we weaken our environmental laws in any respect, and we do not intend to do so,'' said U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky.

The decision overruled a U.S. law stipulating that any shrimp imported into the United States must be caught with nets using special devices that allow trapped turtles to escape.

That shows that we were not overruled by the WTO and that Congress had the choice to abide or not, exactly as I was saying. Besides, that is one of those stupid environmental rules that cost us money. Have you looked at the price of shrimp? To think forbidding imports of shrimp unless caught in sea turtle friendly nets is stupid and counter productive does not mean one does not love those cute sea turtles.

LOS ANGELES - 09/09/04 - For the third time in as many weeks, the World Trade Organization has handed down decisions against US ruling against US anti-dumping and cotton subsidy policies, and rejecting Washington's appeal of an earlier ruling upholding Canadian wheat subsidies.

Once again, the policies the WTO says we need to eliminate ARE ones we need to eliminate. Regardless of what the WTO ruled, the last I heard we are still subsidizing cotton.

We will always have the choice of whether to abide by those rulings or not. We are not giving up soverneignty. Thanks for the softball.

107 posted on 07/19/2005 8:47:31 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Mase
So your answer would be that there is no settled or pending legal challenges to fast track

Why should it be that?

It took several years for the legislature to figure out that the line item veto was unconstitutional. And it was unconstitutional just the same.

You are very elitist to presume that no citizen can understand the intent of the language of the constitution, and that only the courts know what it means. It flies in the face of the purpose of the document.
108 posted on 07/19/2005 8:53:47 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Mase
If I wanted to take the time and look I could find numerous threads where you have strongly defended price supports (welfare) for sugar beet and cane farmers.

You didn't and you can't.
109 posted on 07/19/2005 8:54:52 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Mase
Every year each farmer receives an average of $35,000 in payments

If this were 'trade capacity building' it'd be ok with you. Besides that, in your words, its 'peanuts'. $35,000 does not make anyone 'rich' in this country. So you should probably take that statement back.
110 posted on 07/19/2005 9:01:09 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Mase
By spending to increase trade kill off domestic industries, the government is violating the Constititution and its directive to protect individual liberties.
111 posted on 07/19/2005 9:03:01 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: gonewt; hedgetrimmer; Mind-numbed Robot
These trade agreements are selling out our sovereignty

From the USTR:

Trade agreements fully preserve a state’s right to regulate.

Nothing in the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), or other Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) prevents the United States or any state and local government from enacting, modifying, or fully enforcing domestic laws protecting consumers, health, safety, or the environment. The agreements ensure that state and local agencies continue to have an absolute right to set environmental, health, and safety standards at the levels they consider appropriate.

The agreements simply provide that the legitimate standards that governments impose must be non-discriminatory and transparent, and not be used as disguised barriers to trade.

Trade agreements do not automatically preempt or invalidate state and local laws.

WTO, NAFTA and other trade agreements do not in any way preempt or invalidate federal, state, or local laws that may be inconsistent with those agreements. This is because, while the United States has committed itself to adhere to the rules set out in the WTO and the NAFTA agreements, those rules do not automatically override any domestic laws.

Trade panels cannot overturn or change U.S federal, state or local laws.

WTO, NAFTA (including NAFTA Chapter 11 investor-state) and FTA dispute settlement panels have no authority to change U.S. law or to require the United States or any state or local government to change its laws or decisions. Only the federal or state governments can change a federal or state law.

If, ultimately, the United States cannot reach an agreed settlement with the country that brings a dispute settlement claim, that country may withdraw trade benefits of equivalent effect. However, under trade agreement rules, the United States retains complete sovereignty in its decision of how to respond to any panel decision against it

112 posted on 07/19/2005 9:03:32 AM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
By spending to increase trade kill off domestic industries, the government is violating the Constititution and its directive to protect individual liberties

Yeah, and you don't advocate price supports for sugar beet and sugar cane farmers? You've never been accused of being consistent.

113 posted on 07/19/2005 9:06:16 AM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: gonewt

Before outsourcing of high tech people, there was the deindustrialization of the Rust Belt. And before the steel and auto workers of the Rust Belt there was what used to be a light industry Black working class.

They took it on the chin before you did.


114 posted on 07/19/2005 9:08:49 AM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: n-tres-ted
The Fair Tax Act (HR25/S25) would repeal federal income taxes, payroll taxes and death taxes, replacing them with a national sales tax on new goods and services for final consumption

You could argue this would be fair because all the illegal immigrants they are going to let in because of CAFTA would then pay at least some taxes on their consumption. Problem is they send 80% of the money they earn out of the country as remittances, so its lose lose for the American citizens again.
115 posted on 07/19/2005 9:10:12 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: n-tres-ted

So shifting the bulk of the tax burden to people who live paycheck to paycheck will somehow address the issue that the American standard of living means that Joe Sixpack's labor costs more than the same labor in the third world ?

This is about labor costs due to a higher standard of living. Period.


116 posted on 07/19/2005 9:16:57 AM PDT by Sam the Sham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Mase
Trade agreements fully preserve a state’s right to regulate.

Not really. I hate to call the USTR a liar but:

NAFTA and the WTO provide powerful incentives for governments to harmonize standards and regulations even when they are not legally required to do so by the pacts. NAFTA and the WTO also set constraints on member countries' domestic laws by naming certain international standards as the presumptively permissible ones, and by establishing binding international dispute resolution processes where non-conforming domestic laws can be challenged.
--HARMONIZATION HANDBOOK Accountable Governance in the Era of Globalization: the WTO, NAFTA, and International Harmonization
117 posted on 07/19/2005 9:17:09 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Mase

Is sugar the only domestic industry? Gee I didn't know that. Thanks for clarifying.


118 posted on 07/19/2005 9:18:27 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
$35,000 does not make anyone 'rich' in this country. So you should probably take that statement back.

Guess you forgot about all that land they own and the fact that they get to charge two to three times more for their sugar to a captive American consumer. The huge farming co-ops receive about 80% of all subsidies. Are you telling me that these co-ops are not well off?

There is no return on spending for price supports. Americans get hosed twice by the govt. when they give the farmers our tax dollars and then again when they force us to pay two to three times more for sugar than the rest of the world. Does increased trade create more wealth, jobs and tax revenue?

You sure are generous with other peoples money. How about you give your money to whomever you choose and let me decide the same. Stop trying to pick my pocket. It compromises my personal sovereignty.

119 posted on 07/19/2005 9:21:16 AM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Mase
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

Because domestic standards that do not conform to international standards must satisfy a battery of NAFTA or WTO tests in order to avoid being considered barriers to trade, the burden of proof falls on the country defending a stronger domestic health or environmental law. Thus, the pacts create significant incentives for the U.S. to avoid exceeding international standards. The threat of a costly NAFTA or WTO trade challenge may also chill innovative solutions to consumer and worker health and safety, environmental, labor rights, or other social or economic development problems.

--HARMONIZATION HANDBOOK Accountable Governance in the Era of Globalization: the WTO, NAFTA, and International Harmonization
120 posted on 07/19/2005 9:24:51 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 321-323 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson