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.
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.
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.
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.
LOL! The sugar barons are on your side. They were, with the leftist democrats and extreme right, the biggest opponents of CAFTA.
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?
"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?
Not surprising at all since Buchanan tried to team up with Nader in 2000.
My own method of defamation?
Whatever, the fact still remains that the sugar industry and barons were against CAFTA(i.e on your side).
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.
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?
Let's see, that's how many times you've given Buchanan free publicity on this thread?
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.
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.
I know, I am looking for reasons for me to feel better about it.
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.