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.
It is amazing how often Bush wins but is still consider in a worse spot than before.
Talk about not being equally yoked....
imo
I think the Pubbies just handed the Executive branch back to the RATs in 2008 - and maybe the House in 2006 ...
Bleh.
All we can hope for now is that the other countries shoot down CAFTA.
But still, this is bad. When the ability to change your fate is no longer in your own hands, that's a bad sign.
In the 2008 election no one will remember CAFTA. The election debates will all be about some scandal from the Vietnam era which involves one or both of the candidates.
Bullcocky - We'll have two new conservative SC Justices by then. They'll be no reason for people like me (who want to see immigration laws enforced) to vote for either of the major parties.
Probably true to form for our Pols.
Based on what I have read, I like CAFTA. It essentially lowers or removes tarrifs on American imports from other countries. We have for a long time kept tarrifs low on foreing imports to promote low cost and stay inflation for American Consumers. Some of the fringe stuff in CAFTA is weak.
What is the dissenting position?
"I think the Pubbies just handed the Executive branch back to the RATs in 2008 - and maybe the House in 2006 ..."
It's starting to look like it's intentional.
"mounting disarray?"
My view is that our trade policy is finally beginning to gel. No sense in getting too upset about international trade. The economy is in high gear. I don't hear a "giant sucking noise."
"This appears to be a win situation for us and aside from the unions whining that it will cost jobs, for which there is no proof, there seems no down side.
Explain where I am wrong and how or why this will impact on the elections of '06 & '08"
I second this thought and would also like to understand the argument against CAFTA.
Regardless of how one feels about CAFTA, the idea that any "victory" that is opposed by the other party is somehow less than a victory is silly.
PNTR maybe a suicide belt strapped around the GOP by Clinton as he left office.
Winning for the sake of winning isn't worth much if it costs you your ideals.
Bush having a hangnail to them means the Pubbies lose in 08.
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.