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'm long past the point of caring.
-----
Sorry to hear it - I think that is what Washington is counting on to erase what little is left of accountability in what they choose to do.
It destroys our sovereignity by placing important decisions in the hands of unelected international committees and will open the floodgates to anyone who wants to storm across our borders.
It will lower American wages to the level of the Guatemalans, but will do little if anything for them. Unfortunately, American workers will still be living in a high priced world with their third world incomes. That is until the housing market collapses.
You won't see it for three to five years or more,but by then it will be too late.
A bolshevik in pin stripes.
Protectionism and tariffs require that government's choose 'winners', i.e. that they're actively involved in industrial policy and hence the allocation of resources. China does this because it's a communist state. I believe that a free market is the best way to organize an economy.
I suggest that this argument is dropped because its a bad argument. The results of NAFTA is that illegal immigration and the costs that come with it have qualdrupled. This has not created any measureable job opportunities in Mexico, otherwise hordes of illegals would not be coming here for economic reasons, which by and large is the sole reason they are coming here in the first place.
"What ideals? What are you talking about?
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."
Transnational PHARMACEUTICAL companies....
Check out this article at Newsmax...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/7/28/160002.shtml
"The treaty will have the effect of delaying the introduction of generic competition, thereby prolonging a patent holder's monopoly over the marketing of a medicine. When generic drugs cannot enter the market, drug prices are higher and fewer people have access to medicines.
The Administration claimed that this issue had been resolved by a "side letter" protecting access to drugs. But, this letter carries no real legal weight.
A number of legislators who opposed the treaty cited its impact on access to medication."
Why would our Big Pharma companies do something like this???
It is a heads I win, tails you lose deal. No stupid consumer, you can't have your vitamins, herbals, or any food supplements, AND we are going to keep the patents on our chemicals in place to make certain no generics come into play until we have reaped all profits possible from them.
Those of you who claim this CAFTA thing is a non-issue, simply have no idea what you are talking about. It is going to be the biggest issue in the 2008 campaign and republicans need to collectively remove their heads from their butts and recognize that if they don't get wise about this fight like Rep. Paul in Texas, this conservative momma and people like her will never vote for them again.
Jenny Hatch
We don't have a lot of banana farm here, so yea, there topical fruits, vegetables, spices and such enter duty free. How ever which CAFTA investors in plants and factories will be protected so now it is save to move plants and factories to CAFTA countries, I sau again the GOP admitted that US jobs would go to CAFTA counties in the debate on the floor of the house. Better then China was the reasoning
Yup. US citizens and US industry.
Liberals love to claim they are progressives. In reality they have regressed into a reactionary/isolationist party. Just like our Paleoconservative friends like Pat Buchanan.
There is certainly dishonesty regarding this issue but it's not coming from the pro-CAFTA side.
Fast track does not dilute the power of Congress to regulate trade:
Under fast-track authority, trade agreements are submitted to Congress for an up or down vote under rules barring committee or floor amendments. Fast track does not give the President a blank check to negotiate trade agreements, nor does it undermine the constitutional prerogatives of Congress, which defines the objectives and limits of the President's negotiating authority in the legislation granting fast track. During any trade talks, the Administration must consult frequently with the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Finance Committee, and special advisers designated by Congress. Only Congress has the final say on any trade agreement negotiated by the President.
Fast-Track Negotiating Authority: The Facts
Fast Track and trade agreements have been going on for a long time. If they were unconstitutional, as you are trying to claim here, they would have been challenged in court a long time ago. Are you aware of any pending or settled litigation challenging the constitutionality of trade agreements or Fast Track?
Ron Paul is also trying to sell this turkey and is a director of The Liberty Committee, which is a well funded PAC. Certainly he could use these resources to challenge this in court. Or, maybe, he knows he has no real argument and is just continuing to use this non-issue as a means for receiving media attention, raising funds and creating a national base of support. Do you think he has higher aspirations than the House of Representatives?
Liberals love name calling, which is all I read in your post.
Good one!
It absolutely blows me away how the MSM ALWAYS follow this script - in order:
1) Bush is an idiot and cannot breathe without instructions - in picture form
2) Bush got lucky, or Bush got some unexpected help
3) Sure, Bush won, but he lost the war, or his base is unhappy, or he hasn't yet realized the full consequences of this yet, blah, blah, blah...
It's the same thing with the economy. Good news upon good news is reported as tenuous to a shaky economy.
Man, I'm tellin' ya I'd sure like to be as "dumb" as Bush is!
We're still waiting for a definition for Paleoconservative.
Paleocon must be someone who has heard of that Constitution thingy and can read.
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.