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.
CAFTA gives alot of control over US trade policy to nameless, faceless bureaucrats at the WTO.
There is no post here that presents a ligitimate argument against CAFTA.
-----
** READ THE ENTIRE CAFTA DOCUMENT **
...and then explain WHY you are FOR IT, as opposed to taking a position, like most here (who obviously have not read it) that well, "IT CAN'T REALLY HURT US", or "IT IS A NET GAIN"... or some other rationalization for the fact that Bush has rammed it down our throats without explanation, discussion, and open talk. Just like the open border issue...
Rationalize all you want -- it won't change the facts. Read the CAFTA agreement before you stuff a cigar in Bush's mouth.
Well....you know how "morons" are. :o)
I think you are correct but there is more to come. Afterall the pubs have to be sure.
My understanding is that free trade is what let the West rise and the lack of it is what doomed Communism.
You're pretty good at name calling, pretty poor at factual defense of your opinions.
I will be remembering this sell out of the middle class in 2008.
Senate voted last month 54/45 or something like that R's yea, D's nea.
...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...
They want enhanced tools and training to learn how to do roofing or yard work for five bucks an hour or less?
Learn to eat dirt, that's all the training you need.
Stupid sheep.
Might help to explain the adoption of the K-Toon.
Why? Because globalists make terrible Presidents, that's why.
Flame away, I'm long past the point of caring.
That would be true, except that the vast bulk of their exports to the US are not subject to significant tariffs anyway. That's not to say that it won't have any impact, but it would be minimal, and may very well be a net benefit to the US since most of those countries have very high duties on American imports.
The idea that our federal government exists to protect individual rights, and not make a mockery of our Constitution, and erase our borders to integrate us with the rest of the western hemisphere so a bunch of transnational corporations can control global trade.
-----
Kudos! Nice to see SOMEONE HERE GETS IT!!!
Your understanding is incorrect, the usa for most of it history was a high tariff protectionest state, it is only recently that the usa has openen it's market to the world. And most of the "world" is still high traiff/protectionest including the fastest growing economies of China and India, Russia (10% growth) dido.
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.