CAFTA Should Be Rejected, Just Like the EU Constitution

Eco Logic Powerhouse ^ | 15 Jul 05 | Phyllis Schlafly

[mbraynard]

I'd also add that CAFTA has almost no impact on imports coming into the US. The nations that are part of CAFTA already export into the US Duty free. What this does do is allow us to export to them sans tarrifs. There's a lot of great stuff in CAFTA.

[inquest]

I think this whole anti-Free trade argument is a fraud to cover up the horrific, horrific regulations and taxes that the US puts on it's own economy. Starting with sugar subsidies.

Does CAFTA repeal all these things?

[mbraynard]

Not really, no. It may reduce farming subsidies here. Mostly it eliminates tarrifs foreign governments put on our exports. A good hint that this is the right thing to do is that China is lobbying the DR-CAFTA nations to reject it because they want to limit the USA's and expand their own sphere of influence down there.

There is a lot of ignorance about what CAFTA does. See more here.

[inquest]

A good hint that this is the right thing to do is that China is lobbying the DR-CAFTA nations to reject it because they want to limit the USA's and expand their own sphere of influence down there.

Actually that's a good hint that CAFTA, despite its name, is more than a "free trade agreement"; it's a step in the direction of political unification.

There is a lot of ignorance about what CAFTA does. See more here.

From your link:

The transfer of authority contained in CAFTA to various supranational and United Nations entities such as CODEX, WTO, and the International Labour Organization (ILO) is in fact a key reason CAFTA has yet to gain approval in the Republican controlled United States House.

Hmm...

[hedgetrimmer]

Bump for later

[Paul Ross]

The fact remains that the EU was a plan for a supranational government that masquerades as a trade agreement.

Absolutely dead on. The French electorate and the Dutch saw that...and vomited it out. The next step, if they are able to maintain unity and consistency, will be to expel...and dis-elect... all the marxist quislings that continue in the attempt to foist it upon them...

They had the clear example of the heavy-handedness of the bureaucrats in Brussells already...and they saw that they were handing these tyrants a legitimacy and authority that would have been a final abdication.

America is going down precisely the same path, with the idea of a Western Hemispheric Bloc, the FTAA, so near and dear to the President.

[Paul Ross]

The problem is the rules which give too much power to those with seniority. Another problem is the power of the committees and sub-committees.

The term-limits constitutional amendment, also would curtail the "seniority" problem issue. And you are too quick to incline against the cure. Granted, it would be nice to hang on to good representatives. But it is not working, because of the systemmic temptations built in. Even the good ones succumb. Term limits would drain the swamp. Everyone becomes a lame duck after one term. Or we could just rescind the 17th Amendment, and go back to State Legislatures appointing the Senators, then presumably, there would be more accountability.

I have seen far too many conservatives go soft in their dotage, having been parties to too many compromises. Let's just not let it get to that point, and get this Amendment rolling. And think about this: No more Teddy Kennedy's, Patrick Leahy's, and on our side... no more Spectre's, no more McCains.

Rather than opine it would be futile...a naysaying nullity, let's try it. Where is that Can-Do spirit? Are we Americans, or slaves? Stand UP, man, show some spine. We don't have to settle for this.

[Paul Ross]

But success does not lie down the path of withdrawal and protectionism.

Who said anything about withdrawal? We always had the technology to sell, before China demanding it be surrendered by their partners, and our buyers previously didn't have it. That is what made for trade. But by their unilateralist controls, and positions, China is destroying our future prosperity, with the manifest intent of displacing us.

Hence, Free trade is not what is happening, it is foreign government controlled, China-Monopolization...usurping our economic position.

Proof of the Economic Colonization: They sell us manufactured goods, we ship them raw materials and supplies. And even then, the ratio of our trade balance is 5-to-1 in their favor. As Hawkins, Smith, and every real conservative has been alerting the public to...

Our country is big enough to be prosperous with Free trade within our nation, which was the way it was intended by Alexander Hamilton. Foreign countries trade, however, should always be case-by-case bilateral relations. No blanket abdications of the Constitution, with foreign entities usurping the role of our Courts, our Congress, and the rights of the People to enforce their own sovereignty.

I hope that are not become so doctrinnaire that you now oppose Protecting the Constitution...if it gets in the way of your economic views.

[Paul Ross]

Who is going to enforce the rulings of these international tribunals?

As I said before, the WTO itself does, if the U.S. threatens to disregard its rulings, then it, and it's member states (138 Nations currently) sanctions trade war against the U.S. Witness the EU's threatened sanctions....when GWB waffled over the WTO's Steel ruling. He caved. And that caving was despite being in the right. That was a clear case of the WTO violating the U.S. rights to prevent industry destruction by dumping...a right supposedly guaranteed in the original bylaws of the WTO... Remember what you said about enforcement being only as good as the personnel? There is a clear anti-american prejudice by the members of these tribunals. Although they occasionally rule in the U.S.'s favor, more often than not, we face a "Stacked-Deck"

Hence, by allowing these blocs to be formed, and subjugate the previous bilateral relations, we are seeing sovereignty and diplomatic flexibility being eroded, and ultimately destroyed...and a supranational government..hostile to our republican form of governance, arising, where there is no Right of We the People.

[Mase]

Interesting article. Looks like a Mississippi court awarded $500 million in damages ($75 million for emotional distress and $425 million in punitive damages) to an American company for a business valued at just $8 million. I guess they learned the hard way just how out of control our tort and jury systems are. They settled for $175 million before Loewen went to the tribunal

Attempting to hold the US Govt. accountable of the excesses of the Mississippi judicial system is troubling but I read that some 20 cases have been filed under Chapter 11, resulting in Canada and Mexico having to pay damages to American investors, but the US has not yet paid anything to foreign investors.

Like with the WTO, the US can just decide to ignore the rulings of these tribunals which, it seems, happened here. Even though this only applies to NAFTA cases, congress should further clarify or change chapter 11.

Typical NYT's though: The author speaks of potential liability and that the courts could have their judgments circumvented. He also said tribunals have the potential to upset American constitutional order. It's pretty safe to make those sorts of statements but nothing nefarious is apparent.

Naturally, the author never mentions that under chapter 11, the U.S. has never paid a thing to foreign investors. If I was a foreigner looking to do business in the U.S., Mississippi would be the last place I'd consider. These kinds of jury awards are obscene and will stifle foreign investment in a state that needs all the help it can get.

The other case identified in the article was denied by the tribunal.

[inquest]

...but I read that some 20 cases have been filed under Chapter 11, resulting in Canada and Mexico having to pay damages to American investors, but the US has not yet paid anything to foreign investors.

And how long is that situation going to continue before there start to be greater and greater demands that the U.S. "pay its fair share"? And what happens when we cave? This is what's been happening in Europe, so why won't it happen here? And why even set that precedent? Are the economies of the other CAFTA countries (which total about the size of the economy of South Central L.A.) so important to us that we need to be creating these precedents at all?

[inquest]

The next step, if they are able to maintain unity and consistency, will be to expel...and dis-elect... all the marxist quislings that continue in the attempt to foist it upon them...

Unfortunately, it's looking like the EU will continue right on as before, absorbing new authority here and there, constitution or no constitution. But hopefully the Europeans will wake up (especially the Brits; I don't know why they weren't out of that thing a long time ago).

[Paul Ross]

I can't vote in your district, I am not a Democrat. :-)

Several points:

(a) Minnesota does not require Party-registration. So WHATEVER you are, you could vote here...and for any party... if you moved here and registered.

(b)I am a Goldwater/Reaganite. I was, and remain, a Reagan Revolutionary. I have loyally defended GWB through two elections, but I don't believe the same loyalty is always reciprocated to the country...the people... that put him in power. GWB is a nice man. But he is not a true conservative. Not even a good republican at times. Interfering in state political selections, backing so called 'moderates'. Philosophically, he is a Big-Government, No Borders, supra-nationalist. Underfunding US Defense Production, and making Rummy go along with Unilateral Disarmament of our MX's, cutting in half our B-1s, and even a third of our Tridents. Now he wants to eliminate half our ability to produce subs and fighters.

(c) I successfully helped defeat two democrats in succession for our House seat (both incumbents...due to redistricting), and ...assisted in capturing another district's House seat, so as get our House delegation up to a 50-50 split. I helped elect Tim Pawlenty. I helped elect Senator Norm Coleman. And, my Congressional district has no democrats at any level representing it at the State Legislature...and yeah, I had a big hand in that too. These results have had a noticeable chastening effect on the state's democrat delegation. Not enough, but still noticeable. Our job is not done. Mark Dayton's seat remains...and it is going to be tough.

(d) Continued evisceration of our Constitution, our Sovereignty, and our long-term national security, will force me to call into question any "R"epublican who abets these actions...and whether I can continue to support them. And the continuing internal battle we wage brings to mind Reagan's poignant farewell address, warning us against the very things we see happening:

Reagan's Farewell Address

Excerpted paragraphs of Farewell:

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are fee. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.

But back in the 1960s, when I began, it seemed to me that we'd begun reversing the order of things - that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, "Stop." I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do.

I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded the people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.

......

Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past eight years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over thirty-five or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family, you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea of the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed, you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the midsixties.

But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rate. It's fragile; it needs protection.

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important: Why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those thirty seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, four years ago on the fortieth anniversary of D day, I read a letter from a young woman writing of her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, "we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did." Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

And how stand the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after two hundred years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for eight years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger. We made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

And so, good-bye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

[Paul Ross]

but it is a substantial increase in purchasing power for the recipients.

And how is this a vital national U.S. interest? Not!

I would prefer that US-made goods be in their markets available for purchase.

China is not a member of NAFTA or CAFTA or the prospective FTAA...yet you can bet that those "recipients" of our money are buying Chinese goods over ours in at least as big a ratio (5-to-1) as our trade balance is with China. In other words, China is sopping up a great deal more U.S. dollars than our direct trade would reveal. And they aren't buying our goods 1-to-1. They are buying up our assets, securities, corporate, governmental and industrial.

Chalk up a win-win for both the US and the other economy.

Wrong. Wrong assumptions. Wrong Conclusion. Your reasoning is in fact based on a nonsequitur fallacy. The Mexicans and Canadians don't have to buy our goods. Why would they? We don't. I.e., it is not a "win" for the U.S.

So, I am sorry to say, you guys have failed to repeal David Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages.

[Mase]

And how long is that situation going to continue before there start to be greater and greater demands that the U.S. "pay its fair share"?

You guys get so worked up over hypotheticals that it's a wonder you ever get any sleep.

And what happens when we cave?

Ping me when this happens and then we can discuss the implications and ramifications.

Are the economies of the other CAFTA countries (which total about the size of the economy of South Central L.A.) so important to us that we need to be creating these precedents at all?

The 45 million people in the CAFTA-DR countries buy more from us ($15 billion annually) than the 1.5 billion people in Russia, India and Indonesia combined.

Fabric mill products is the leading manufactured export category to the CAFTA-DR group, with 2004 exports to the region of $2.6 billion (16 percent of the U.S. total).

Other top manufactured exports to the CAFTA-DR region in 2004 were computer and electronic products ($2.2 billion), apparel manufactures ($1.6 billion), chemical manufactures ($1.2 billion), and petroleum and coal products ($961 million).

Central America purchased $642 million in American-made agricultural equipment in 2004 which represents a gain of 28% over 2003.

From 2000 to 2004 export shipments to the CAFTA-DR group expanded by 16.4 percent, more than three times the 4.8 percent growth of overall U.S. exports.

Source

These are not small numbers! These sales are responsible for creating a lot of jobs and wealth here at home. Add to this the fact that the CAFTA-DR members are in our back yard, at a time when thugs like Ortega and Chavez are becoming more brazen, and you have more important reasons for the passage of the CAFTA.

[Paul Ross]

Add to this the fact that the CAFTA-DR members are in our back yard, at a time when thugs like Ortega and Chavez are becoming more brazen, and you have more important reasons for the passage of the CAFTA.

We already trade with these countries. Don't need no stinking supranational "agreement"...bilateral relations is good enough. And WTO-controlled trade regimes won't stop Chavez and his merry band of marxist thugs. Hasn't yet.

In fact, the case can just as easily be made it is enabling them...and further "agreements" will just be pouring gasoline on the fire.

Recurrent Old Lie: "I'm from the State Dept. and I am here to help the United States...just sign on the dotted line for these spiffy, "trade agreements" we thoughtfully prepared for you. Their 'Win-Win' Trust us."

[inquest]

[And what happens when we cave?]

Ping me when this happens and then we can discuss the implications and ramifications.

No, given our history of caving in already to the WTO, there's no need for us to keep going down that path again and again. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Add to this the fact that the CAFTA-DR members are in our back yard, at a time when thugs like Ortega and Chavez are becoming more brazen, and you have more important reasons for the passage of the CAFTA.

Ortega, of Nicaragua? That's one of the CAFTA countries. You're saying further consolidation with his regime will be better for us?

[inquest]

By the way, that $15 billion annually - is that even 1/10 of 1% of our GDP?

[mbraynard]

It is inevitable that there are disputes in free trade agreements - especially in that the agreement tries to address 'reverse tarrifs' (IE - subisidies) and scales down the tarrifs rather than doing them all at once. These disputes would need to be settled by a neutral party.

You can't agree to have free trade and then not have free trade. Having a neutral arbiter seems reasonable given the likelyhood of disputes.

And no, China's opposition is not a hint about 'political unification' - it's about trade and economics. Your logic doesn't follow. It is in the US's interest and not in China's interest for the US to have more vital trade with that region than for China to have more vital trade with that region.

[Mase]

We already trade with these countries.

Why, yes we do. My previous post summarized some of that trade. Eighty-percent of exports from Central America already enter The U.S. duty-free. The reason this agreement is good is because it opens markets to the remaining twenty-percent of goods and services, and for the first time opens markets for farm products from the United States. I've always seen increased exports as a good thing.

In fact, the case can just as easily be made it is enabling them...and further "agreements" will just be pouring gasoline on the fire.

You can make up anything you choose but the facts say that there is a direct correlation between economic freedom and per capita income.

Countries that embrace economic freedom experience stronger economic growth than those that seek to thwart the market through regulatory hurdles and policy restrictions.

According to Heritage:
Evidence from the 2005 Index of Economic Freedom illustrates that free countries have a per capita income twice that of mostly free countries and that mostly free countries have a per capita income more than three times that of mostly unfree and repressed countries. Countries that maintain policies that promote economic freedom provide an environment that facilitates trade and encourages entrepreneurial activity, which in turn generates economic growth.

2005 Index of Economic Freedom

From the link below:
The DR-CAFTA countries have come a long way from the days of dictators, civil chaos, and conflict, but more reform is needed (see Table 1) and should be encouraged. For example, none of the DR–CAFTA countries has a strong rule of law, and the maze of business regulations (e.g., labor, zoning, and licensing) makes operating a busi­ness excessively complex and encourages cor­ruption. With the exception of Costa Rica and El Salvador, all of the countries have extensive bar­riers to foreign investment and capital flows. Because these barriers make participation in the economy difficult, many of these countries still have large informal economies.

As living standards rise and people enjoy better lives, their interest in preserving these benefits also increases. Because they have more to lose from a crisis, they strive to preserve peace and stability. As a result, the likelihood of civil conflict decreases. At the same time, the improved domestic situation reduces the incentives to leave home in search of a better life elsewhere. Therefore, they are less likely to emigrate illegally to other, more prosperous countries like the United States

The Democratic Benefits of a Free Trade Agreement with Central America

No offense Paul, but I'll accept the analysis of Ana Eiras over the isolationism and protectionism of Hawkins and others such as yourself. The WTO may not be able to stop thugs like Chavez and Ortega but the people can and will. They've already proven so.