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."
A call for action without reason? Sorry, I prefer to sleep at night. If this issue had any legs your guy, Pat Buchanan, would have gotten more than 0.005% of the vote in 2000, long after NAFTA had passed and the impact was known.
The fact is candidates who embrace freer trade do better in elections than those who don't. Even John Kerry gave up on the Benedict Arnold CEO's crap because it provided him no benefit.
Ortega, of Nicaragua? That's one of the CAFTA countries. You're saying further consolidation with his regime will be better for us?
His regime? What are you talking about? His commie party has been soundly defeated in free elections but, he still maintains a stranglehold on the courts and is using them as a comeback vehicle. Why would anyone advocate consolidating with a Castro communist? Oh, wait, we have Castro Communists (CISPES) right here at home who are against CAFTA. You are known by the company you keep.
Here's an article that explains how CAFTA will help Nicaragua keep Ortega from gaining more power.
When you have a minute, find a company here in the U.S. with $15 billion in annual sales and look to see how many people they employ. Then consider how many others have jobs supplying that company with products and services. Then tell me again just how trivial these volumes are.
Finally, pretend your job depends on these exports to the CAFTA-DR countries. Not so unimportant anymore, is it?
BTW, what percentage of our annual GDP is supplied by exports? What percentage of our total annual exports does the $15 billion comprise? Our overall export growth between 2000 and 2004 was 4.8% but, with the CAFTA-DR countries, the growth rate was three times that or 16.4%. If you've ever run a business you'd know that growth in sales and earning is what endears you to shareholders. You would also know how hard growth is to come by.
Hence, the loss of sovereignty. That's reason enough to be opposed to these agreements.
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.
Most supporters of these FTA's insist that economics is not a zero-sum game, that one party's benefit is not another's loss. Do you agree or disagree?
I must be doing pretty well if you're trying this tactic out for size.
The fact is candidates who embrace freer trade do better in elections than those who don't.
And how many people have even heard about the FTAA so far? Must be millions and millions, seeing as how Bush just couldn't stop talking about it during the campaign. < /sarc>
Oh, wait, we have Castro Communists (CISPES) right here at home who are against CAFTA. You are known by the company you keep.
Not even close. They're opposed to it for completely different reasons.
This, incidentally, explains why conservatives have so much trouble getting through to the public. Do you think the Castroites could give a flip less that some conservatives happen to agree with them? But for some reason, many conservatives react like a Victorian maid at the sight of a mouse, whenever they notice liberals agreeing with them. That allows the liberals to capture the mainstream and marginalize conservatives, each and every time.
You forgot the part about comparing that number to the total number of jobs being held in the country. Kinda changes things, doesn't it?
Finally, pretend your job depends on these exports to the CAFTA-DR countries. Not so unimportant anymore, is it?
To me, or to the U.S. as a whole? Lots of things are important to me personally that make little difference to the country.
BTW, what percentage of our annual GDP is supplied by exports? What percentage of our total annual exports does the $15 billion comprise? Our overall export growth between 2000 and 2004 was 4.8% but, with the CAFTA-DR countries, the growth rate was three times that or 16.4%. If you've ever run a business you'd know that growth in sales and earning is what endears you to shareholders. You would also know how hard growth is to come by.
And I'm sure you could come up with all kinds of other fascinating angles to look at these numbers from, too, but no matter how you slice it, $15 billion is $15 billion. And that constitutes a pretty insignificant fraction of our total economy. Certainly not something that's worth compromising our independence over.
It's not a loss of soveriegnty - the nation itself has DECIDED that it wants to trade freely with another country. That is an example of real soverignty. If this trade agreement was forced on the US by the UN, for example, that would be a real loss.
Most supporters of these FTA's insist that economics is not a zero-sum game, that one party's benefit is not another's loss. Do you agree or disagree?
Economics is not a zero sum game, but war is not. If a given nation has more important trade relations with the US than with China, and China is trying to set up, say, a military base in that nation (extreme example), the US will be better able to get that other nation to deny China's request. This is a national security issue.
We were not big enough to be prosperous by ourselves in 1929, nor are we today. Our foreign trade fell so sharply upon passage of Smoot-Hawley that the federal budget dropped from surplus into deficit. Hoover compounded the error of signing S-H by proposing a very sharp increase in income taxes, which the Democrats were happy to help him do in the election year of 1932. No, we don't want that kind of "sovereignty" from world trade again.
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.
The Constitution ought to be paramount in all that it governs. When our government enters into agreements with other governments, it is reasonable to have neutral bodies to determine issues in dispute. Our recent steel tariffs were an example, as were the subsidies to farm products being sold into Europe. This is not yielding sovereignty; it is simple entering into voluntary, advantageous contracts. Thanks for your comments and inquiry.
No, it isn't. You have conclusively proved you do not understand the Doctrine Against Excess Delegations. These agreements aren't even Treaties, as required by the Constitution. To wholesale abdicate jurisdiction outside of Congressional review, and reducing it merely rubber-stamp role to implement changes ordered by these tribunals...That is beyond the pale, as it attempts to make appear reasonable, an unreasonable abdication...indeed, perversion... of the Role of Congress, the People's House.
Removing the element of fact-finding and political accomodation from the Congressional jurisdiction, and our judicial branch, instead to the executive, and thence further delegating outside to foreigners.
And as for "neutrality", no amount of huffing and puffing will justify the encroachment on, and usurpation of our sovereign rights under false colors. And no, "WE" did not get to vote on these trade bills. Put THEM to a vote with the populace, and I think you would get a radically different result.
The arguments you make also implicitly misrepresents the actual performance of how these international tribunals are staffed and perform. Anything but neutral.
And how is this a vital national U.S. interest? Not!
Would we prefer to have more poor people in our neighboring countries, or more prosperous ones? Are they more likely to buy our goods and services with more money or with less? Of course it is in our national interests to have more prosperous economies in our hemisphere, and we should be as responsible for it as possible. That is what President Bush's "ownership society" is all about in our own country. People who have a stake in an increasing standard of living are not nearly as likely to buy into the "homicide bomber" argument.
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.
The buying in Central America will be done by individual citizens and businesses making their own decisions about what is in their best interests. If we want to serve their interests, we have to compete. If they buy into our products, services or assets, they share more common interests with us, and they pay good money for what they get.
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.
Neither we nor the Central Americans will get guaranteed sales from CAFTA. We and they will have to compete for customers. I'm sure our government would not have negotiated the agreement if they did not have good reason to expect increased sales by US firms. Do you really think we would negotiate such a deal that would simply bear out the fears you express? I don't think so.
So, I am sorry to say, you guys have failed to repeal David Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages.
The principles of economics treat everyone dispassionately, without regard to borders or politics. Our responsibility is to learn them and apply them in our own conduct and in public policy so that we advance rather than lapsing into regression.
Yes, you've done a good job convincing me you are a protectionist and an isolationist in the mold of Pat Buchanan.
Must be millions and millions, seeing as how Bush just couldn't stop talking about it during the campaign. < /sarc>
My point exactly. This issue has no legs in this stellar economic environment. Protectionism is a hard sell during good times.
That allows the liberals to capture the mainstream and marginalize conservatives, each and every time
As evidenced by the recent ascension of liberals to publicly held offices like governorships, state legislatures, the presidency and congress? LOL
Liberals are clinging on to the judiciary but that too will slip their grasp in the near future. Face it, the public just doesn't share your paranoia about losing our sovereignty to a bunch of NGO's and other supranational organizations. If they did, 3rd parties would be doing better. They aren't. Sometimes I think all these debates are really nothing more than trying to find an issue to provide the impetus for a new political party.
Absolutely not. Thousands of jobs are thousands of jobs. They're important to the economy but are critical to those who hold them despite your lame attempts to trivialize them.
To me, or to the U.S. as a whole?
All politics are local. I vote my wallet. Am I different than most Americans? Unfortunately, there are those who want to vote my wallet for me.
And I'm sure you could come up with all kinds of other fascinating angles to look at these numbers from, too, but no matter how you slice it, $15 billion is $15 billion.
You are too funny! Pretending like this is all pocket change. From your comments it's easy to tell you've never run a business or been responsible for building sales, controlling costs and delivering on a profit commitment every quarter/year. If you had, you'd treat $15 billion, 16% growth and the jobs dependent on this, with much more respect.
Certainly not something that's worth compromising our independence over
I'm still waiting for one of you guys to prove (other than with hypotheticals) where we lose our sovereignty participating in FTA's that are approved by congress.
No, but keep desperately clinging to that notion if it makes you feel more secure. Having to back up your position with a real argument is so much tougher, isn't it?
My point exactly. This issue has no legs in this stellar economic environment.
It's still not a foregone conclusion that CAFTA will pass the H.R. A lot of Republicans don't like the idea of compromising our sovereignty. The fact is, if CAFTA and the FTAA were popular, Bush would have made a campaign issue out of how much he's in favor of them. Instead, he and the rest of his associates decided to keep it under wraps until the last moment. They know how the public feels about these things.
If you're still having trouble understanding that, you might want to ponder why in 1994 Congress waited until the lame-duck session to sign on to the WTO.
As evidenced by the recent ascension of liberals to publicly held offices like governorships, state legislatures, the presidency and congress?
As evidenced by the way Republicans, despite having the White House and controlling both houses of Congress, still keep growing the public sector by leaps and bounds. Non-defense spending has increased faster under Bush than under Clinton. On just about any given day, you can see people on FR raising these kinds of objections, and Bush's supporters responding that the Republicans have to do these things in order to stay in power.
there was a large ad today from a union against cafta.
one reason to be for cafta.
It's decided more than that. It's decided to give authority to supranational bodies, as you acknowledged. The fact that it voluntarily cedes sovereignty doesn't alter the fact that it's ceding sovereignty.
Economics is not a zero sum game, but war is not. If a given nation has more important trade relations with the US than with China, and China is trying to set up, say, a military base in that nation (extreme example), the US will be better able to get that other nation to deny China's request. This is a national security issue.
So you are admitting that this is more than an economic agreement. This is a step (however slight at first) toward some form of political consolidation. That's the point I was making.
How important? Give me some numbers to put them in perspective.
...but are critical to those who hold them despite your lame attempts to trivialize them.
Considering that the jobs that purportedly would be created by CAFTA don't even exist yet, it's hard for me to take that comment seriously.
From your comments it's easy to tell you've never run a business or been responsible for building sales, controlling costs and delivering on a profit commitment every quarter/year. If you had, you'd treat $15 billion, 16% growth and the jobs dependent on this, with much more respect.
Pure splenetic overemotionalizing. $15 billion represents a very tiny portion of the U.S. economy. Accept it.
I'm still waiting for one of you guys to prove (other than with hypotheticals) where we lose our sovereignty participating in FTA's that are approved by congress.
One of your allies on this thread posted a link in an attempt to show that CAFTA would be nothing to worry about. I quoted from it at #164.
Really, now? Please don't be concerned for my security. You'd be alone. As for your position on these sorts of issues, I can't see anything in your posts that would lead me to conclude otherwise, your protestations notwithstanding. Instead of telling us what your against, maybe you should explain to us what you are for.
It's still not a foregone conclusion that CAFTA will pass the H.R. A lot of Republicans don't like the idea of compromising our sovereignty
There is no guarantee CAFTA will pass the house. I have to think that the president would not have sent it to them if he didn't think he had the votes. The house whip, Roy Blunt, said that it would be close but he had the votes...we'll see.
Don't delude yourself into thinking CAFTA is about sovereignty. If the provision allowing a minuscule increase in imported sugar was not in this agreement, there would be no doubt of it passing.
They know how the public feels about these things.
Right. When was the last time a free trade agreement was defeated? I thought you were sarcastically chiding the American voter for not knowing about these agreements when you said: And how many people have even heard about the FTAA so far? Must be millions and millions, seeing as how Bush just couldn't stop talking about it during the campaign. < /sarc>
Which is it? Either the public knows about these things or they don't.
Your argument was that conservatives are not getting through to the public. I say they are (despite the runaway spending) and use recent elections as proof.
Naw....I think I'll allow you to defend your position that $15 billion is not a lot of money and that thousands of jobs don't matter.
Considering that the jobs that purportedly would be created by CAFTA don't even exist yet, it's hard for me to take that comment seriously.
You're the one who suggested that $15 billion in trade with the CAFTA-DR countries was nothing significant By the way, that $15 billion annually - is that even 1/10 of 1% of our GDP? and equating their economies to that of South Central LA...no, nothing pejorative there, eh?
Would eliminating tariffs on American goods in the CAFTA-DR countries increase exports or not? The American Farm Bureau says that CAFTA will increase sales of American food products by $1.5 billion a year. Those products do not currently have access to the CAFTA-DR countries. That's just one product category. Do these increases in sales create new jobs? Only someone with no knowledge of business could claim that they won't.
You have no idea what it takes to create products or services that will generate $15 billion in sales. If you had any kind of clue you wouldn't be so flippant.
One of your allies on this thread posted a link in an attempt to show that CAFTA would be nothing to worry about. I quoted from it at #164
Do you even know what Wikipedia is? I can write anything I want to in Wikipedia and they will post it. It's a good place for general information but not a great place for facts.
Here are some more reliable sources for info on CAFTA other than Wikipedia:
The CAFTA Briefing Book
CAFTA and U.S. Sovereignty
The Case for CAFTA
So while the agreement itself does not immediately effectuate the destruction of the State's regulatory role, or U.S. sovereignty, it will be implemented gradually piecemeal pursuant the tribunal litigation. The talking points are not what is actually going to happen. They aren't prophets, and the "good intentions" don't count for a hill of beans even if they were honest. But they most likely aren't being honest...or else those "trade in services" clauses wouldn't be there.
So far, I don't see any information from you that suggests otherwise. You said that you don't think Wikipedia is reliable, but haven't said that it is wrong.
I thought you were sarcastically chiding the American voter for not knowing about these agreements
You thought wrong. I wasn't chiding the voters.
Which is it? Either the public knows about these things or they don't.
They don't know about the specific proposals in advance. It's kept that way deliberately, because the backers of these agreements know that the public generally isn't in favor of "free trade" gambits in general.
Your argument was that conservatives are not getting through to the public. I say they are (despite the runaway spending) and use recent elections as proof.
If the candidates in recent elections espoused conservative principles as a way of getting elected (like they did in 1994), then I'd agree with you. But they didn't.
And what has kept them from getting their ownership society? I'll clue you...it is not the U.S. trade policies. And those same factors which are the real fault won't be going away.
That is what President Bush's "ownership society" is all about in our own country. People who have a stake in an increasing standard of living are not nearly as likely to buy into the "homicide bomber" argument.
???? What the heck are you talking about with those insanely liberal talking points? Homicide bombers? That is an Islamo-Nazi problem pure and simple. And, if you didn't know, it turns out that virtually all of the "bombers" are middle-class or above.... Mohammed Atta, et. al. GWB is just pandering to liberals when he is talking like this. Didn't you get the Memo? And as for us having to be taxed for the betterment of these countries... NO SALE. We're not buying what your selling.
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.