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.
I agree with you. On balance, it's a net gain for us.
We don't grow too many pineapples, coconuts, and bananas in this country anyway. It's hard to see how Central Americans are going to offer much competition to American workers.
I think the Pubbies just handed the Executive branch back to the RATs in 2008 - and maybe the House in 2006 .
-----
While maybe not reality, your statement does make a good point about what is behind this rabid push for CAFTA. If it does happen, it will be a win for the BUSH DYNASTY, but a MAJOR LOSS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and for the others in the other countries who also see it as very undesireable.
Never openly discussed or put before the voters, this entire scenario of creating ONE AMERICA, one way or another, starting with trade, is an ugly proposition. It is an agenda NOT OF OR FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, but by elitist politicians with utopian agendas of grandeur.
I would agree that like the way the whole immigration and border issue is being "HANDLED", the CAFTA scenario is also another undesireable scenario, being designed, supported and RABIDLY PUSHED by the Bush White House...ask yourself WHY ???
Well sure, but this article seems to suggest that winning isn't worth much if the democrats were opposed to you, which is silly.
Maybe you should have us removed big fella.
It'd not just about tariffs. It's about labor and immigration.
So what do you think is meant by 'enhanced tools and training'?
I think it's a lie. Prove me wrong, please.
"Winning for the sake of winning isn't worth much if it costs you your ideals."
What ideals? What are you talking about?
More demand for Amercan Made Goods is a very good thing for Americans.
Sheesh all I do is give my opinion that you are a perpetual malcontent, and you get all defensive.
Unions are agains it, Bush is in favor. Sounds good to me.
LOL, ok I got it.
If you go back to the early to mid-1990s, you'll find that the NAFTA and GATT trade agreements had absolutely ZERO impact on the Congressional and Presidential elections. Just think about it:
1. Perot was the only candidate in 1992 who opposed these agreements. This was a non-issue in the 1992 presidential election because both major candidates were on the same side.
2. The strongest supporters in the Federal government of free trade were the GOP and Bill Clinton. The strongest opponents were Democrats in Congress. The biggest losers on the national scene in the 1990s were Congressional Democrats, and the biggest winners (from an electoral standpoint) were the GOP and Bill Clinton.
My guess is that CAFTA will become the 2006 or 2008 version of "the environment" in the early 1990s -- the issue that everyone claims to be "concerned" about, but actually ends up being totally inconseqential when they step into the voting booth.
There is no post here that presents a ligitimate argument against CAFTA. Someone here suggests that the bill concedes part of our soverienty. Others say that it encourages illegal immigration. I do not see it.
If American goods are in more demand in 7 other countries and companies have to hire more folks, build more distribution centers, more factories, plants, etc, then more jobs are required. More tax payers, healthier economy, lower taxes, etc.
I agree in 2008 CAFTA will be a non-issue. The only people who will remember it and vote against the Republicans, were highly unlikely to vote Republican in the first place.
Enhanced tools sounds like welfare to me. If most people are for increased trade then they need to be made to understand that this increased trade by definition means more jobs here. But if we can't build the widget at a competitive price then Outer Slobovians aren't going to buy the thing. This is where productivity comes in and it is the best thing we have going for us. We cannot compete with $1.00 foreign labor who can turn out 6 widgets an hour unless we can get out $12.00 an hour widget maker to turn out at least 75 per hour. I'm not sure the immigration issue is pertinent here. Stopping immigrants and forcing our mfr's to hire people they must pay twice as much only drives up the price of the finished goods and makes them uncompetitive in the marketplace. It would seem to be simple enough to force all of us to only buy TV sets made in America by our workers but then you would pay $375.00 for the same set you can now by for $189.00 made in China. Which one are you buying? To erase the price advantage the Chinese have we would have to put a Tariff on the sets amounting to about $190.00. hello trade war, goodbye economy, ours theirs and probably everyone else's.
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.