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

Skip to comments.

Bush Wins CAFTA But Loses Wider War
Oxford Analytica ^ | 07.29.05

Posted on 07/29/2005 7:57:25 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer

The House of Representatives today approved the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in a vote of 217 to 215. The vote is a major victory for President George Bush and the Republican House leadership. However, it comes at the expense of increased partisanship and mounting disarray in the conduct and management of U.S. trade policy. Before the treaty comes into effect, ratification by Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica is necessary, and this is not guaranteed.

The congressional debate over CAFTA has proved the most inflamed and controversial since the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. Economic arguments dominated the debate, with both sides exaggerating the impact. Left unstated in the congressional deliberations were more important political ramifications. The White House knew that a defeat would have eroded even further President George Bush's ability to enact the rest of his political agenda.

CAFTA supporters argued that rejecting the agreement, which had taken years to put together, would undermine the administration's credibility to pursue future free trade deals. They noted that foreign governments would not be able to negotiate seriously with the U.S. if the Bush team could not implement an agreement that provides significant economic and geopolitical benefits. While approval partially alleviates these fears, the very narrow margin of victory and hard-nosed terms of the agreement will impact the administration's mandate for negotiating future trade-liberalizing deals.

A key underlying problem for the administration is that the growing partisan divide in Congress over trade issues, particularly labor standards, provides traditional protectionist interest groups with considerable influence. The CAFTA vote is likely to force the administration to reevaluate its "competitive liberalization" trade strategy. While domestic politics may mean that free trade accords are still possible where U.S. trade is modest and labor conditions are not an issue, the administration's aggressive FTA program may now be stopped in its tracks.

The CAFTA debate in Congress has served as a proxy for deep concerns about the effects of trade agreements, along with record trade deficits, on U.S. workers. Polls showing that more than 50% of U.S. households do not support such trade initiatives buttressed the opposition of many Democrats. However, the same polls show that a majority of the U.S. populace supports deeper trade integration if they are given enhanced tools and training to compete effectively against foreign workers. Devising and implementing such schemes could be pivotal to prospects of reconstituting a bipartisan consensus in favor of trade liberalization.

The rancorous CAFTA debate will undermine the Bush team's ability to provide trade leadership and pursue its trade strategy. In the longer term, the sharp partisan divide over CAFTA underlines a fundamental schism over the direction of trade policy. Unless this divide can be bridged, U.S. leadership in favor of a liberal world trading system will be even more severely tested in the future.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cafta; ftaa; hemispheric; integration; nafta; redistribution; wealth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-151 next last
To: hedgetrimmer
This means that Congress cannot amend the agreement. You can see that is unconstitutional can't you?

Someone needs to challenge this then! Yet, not one person or organization does. Only silence.

Why is Ron Paul and his PAC not standing against this abrogation of the Constitution? Fast Track has been going on for 30 years now yet there has not been one challenge to it that you can cite.

101 posted on 07/29/2005 10:32:12 AM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Porterville

It is amazing how often Bush wins but is still consider in a worse spot than before.

That is EXACTLY the thought that was running thur my mind after reading this tripe.


102 posted on 07/29/2005 10:34:36 AM PDT by MNJohnnie ( Iraq is a Terrorist bug hotel, Terrorists go in, they do not come out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon
I don't know that I'm an expert although I've followed it closely.

My guess is that it'll have no effect on the prices of produce at least for quite some time. What will eventually happen is that the inefficient Central American farmer will be displaced by the more efficient corporate farmer and the price of produce in today's dollars will come down. To some extent, that was already happening anyway, but CAFTA will probably hasten that process.

103 posted on 07/29/2005 10:39:16 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Eagles Talon IV


USDA Policy Statement on Sustainable Development
Guiding Principles for USDA Sustainable Development
USDA Council on Sustainable Development
President's Council on Sustainable Development (PC
104 posted on 07/29/2005 10:40:45 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
The film, based on journalist MARIE BRENNER's Vanity Fair article In The Kingdom Of Big Sugar, will follow the fortunes of a young female attorney fighting abusive labour practices, who confronts a powerful sugar baron, who is renowned for exploiting his immigrant workers.

LOL! The sugar barons are on your side. They were, with the leftist democrats and extreme right, the biggest opponents of CAFTA.

105 posted on 07/29/2005 10:42:24 AM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The sugar barons are on your side

There you go! We don't have an aristocracy in this country, unless creating one has been part of the "free trade" agreements you champion. And if they are on our side, why are leftists like Foster making movies about them using your own method of defamation? Wouldn't she call them a different name than the fake conservatives do?

Besides that, the Fanjuls never cared whether the CAFTA passed or not, they have 20,000 employees in the Dominican Republic, they make money regardless. Since you all worship "free trade" so much you should appreciate them and not call them names. You know, is it just coincidence that they named the CAFTA, CAFTA-DR?? I wonder.
106 posted on 07/29/2005 10:48:49 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg
Believe me, I am trying to see the good in Cafta. I am hoping for the best. Today I heard some good reasons, like keeping those South American Countries on our side, rather than having them influenced by Castro, and other corrupt goverments.

Nafta has been very detrimental to Idaho's economy. Mostly because of the Canadian goverment. I can explain further, but it will take more time than I have now, as I am leaving for the day.
107 posted on 07/29/2005 10:50:56 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Demonization is their speciality. Its so communist, and so unAmerican talk about fellow citizens like this.

I wish you could make up your mind, hedge. Last time we were all fascists.

Like "Big Sugar"? You should read what these guys said about the sugar producers of this country.

I did read what you said about big sugar though:
"To summarize, a price support program that literally pays for itself keeps American sugar producers in business, gives us a self-sufficient sugar supply( a goal other countries feel is important too)."

You keep forgetting the fascist motto:

"Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."

Sound familiar?

108 posted on 07/29/2005 10:52:14 AM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: cambridge

"Unions are agains it, Bush is in favor. Sounds good to me."

I noticed that a whole bunch of pro-CAFTA people signed up in the last month or so. Do you guys get a membership card and a secret decoder ring? Do you all work in the Beltway somewhere? Who is the president of the pro-CAFTA club? Dane? Dog Gone? 1Rudeboy?


109 posted on 07/29/2005 10:54:13 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dane; hedgetrimmer
the buchanan/tancredo side is with the DUmmies in their hate Bush campaigns.

Not surprising at all since Buchanan tried to team up with Nader in 2000.

110 posted on 07/29/2005 10:55:04 AM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
And if they are on our side, why are leftists like Foster making movies about them using your own method of defamation?

My own method of defamation?

Whatever, the fact still remains that the sugar industry and barons were against CAFTA(i.e on your side).

111 posted on 07/29/2005 10:55:14 AM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
like keeping those South American Countries on our side

Thats for diplomatic treaties to do, not trade agreements. If the adminstration followed the Constitution, they would do it that way.
112 posted on 07/29/2005 10:57:56 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; Brilliant

I appreciate the honest answers. The answer IMO is 1.0 for now and for the foreseeable future.

As to your comment..."What will eventually happen is that the inefficient Central American farmer will be displaced by the more efficient corporate farmer and the price of produce in today's dollars will come down."

Free market theory would predict that...but these countries operate with government controls...as does our own economy, unfortunately. When the government gets involved...who knows.

That is part of the concern I have with large complex, internationally governed trade agreements such as this one.

An example of government controls at work...Why is it that my formally relatively undeveloped township (with lots of trees and open farm spaces) now has a higher tax rate (property and income) despite the fact that there are a lot more stores and office buidings in one corner of it? More tax receipts from business should mean more revenue for the township...and a reduction in taxes.

Never seems to work out that way.

My other concern is what happens to those displaced farmers who are largely dirt poor and uneducated. I hope they dont start coming up here en masse and add to those already here doing those infamous jobs we wont or cant do.

Better have some good border security once this agreement starts to kick in.


113 posted on 07/29/2005 11:00:48 AM PDT by Dat Mon (still lookin for a good one....tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Mase
I did read what you said about big sugar though:

I said nothing about "big sugar", you did. I talked about American sugar producers, just in case you have trouble with your reading comprehension.

You keep forgetting the fascist motto:

No, I never learned it, like you have.

I do know this one, however:
I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, - a democracy in a republic, a sovereign nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable, established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its Flag; and to defend it against all enemies.
114 posted on 07/29/2005 11:02:21 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Gosh, how did we get barons in this country? Like I said, was there some secret side agreement passed in the CAFTA that created an aristocracy when the rest of us weren't looking?


115 posted on 07/29/2005 11:03:17 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Mase

Let's see, that's how many times you've given Buchanan free publicity on this thread?


116 posted on 07/29/2005 11:03:55 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Whatever, the fact still remains that the sugar industry and barons were against CAFTA(i.e on your side).

Yet I have told you the Fanjuls have sugar plantations in the Dominican Republic. How does that put them on "my side"?
117 posted on 07/29/2005 11:04:57 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Dane

The number of posts here on FR where W was a lock to be a one term President like his father before him was astronimical.


118 posted on 07/29/2005 11:05:26 AM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dane

YOU SAID..."The sugar barons are on your side. They were, with the leftist democrats and extreme right,..."

Not quite true.

I may be extreme..but dammit...I USE HONEY EXCLUSIVELY!

Sugar is bad for you.


119 posted on 07/29/2005 11:08:22 AM PDT by Dat Mon (still lookin for a good one....tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

I know, I am looking for reasons for me to feel better about it.


120 posted on 07/29/2005 11:08:31 AM PDT by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-151 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