Bush Wins CAFTA But Loses Wider War

Oxford Analytica ^ | 07.29.05

[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.

[hedgetrimmer]

Under fast-track authority, trade agreements are submitted to Congress for an up or down vote

This means that Congress cannot amend the agreement. You can see that is unconstitutional can't you?

[moehoward]

"We don't grow too many pineapples, coconuts, and bananas in this country anyway."

Pretty sure we get those compliments of our 50th state.

[Dog Gone]

LOL, they call themselves Team America. They ought to rent the DVD.

[hedgetrimmer]

Its remarkable how frequently you guys bring up the Buchanans. Maybe you secretly support them because you post their names so frequently. A lot of old school radio people used to say --there's no such thing as bad publicity, because anytime you get your name in the public forum, you are getting publicity.

As far as I can tell, you're pretty much the only people, besides Toddsterpatriot maybe, that ever posts these names on this forum.

[ex-snook]

"We're still waiting for a definition for Paleoconservative."

I'll help out.
A pejorative used by international interest neo-cons and RINOs to demonize Americans who are for America first, last and only.

[hedgetrimmer]

to demonize Americans

Like "Big Sugar"? You should read what these guys said about the sugar producers of this country.

Demonization is their speciality. Its so communist, and so unAmerican talk about fellow citizens like this.

[Dane]

As far as I can tell, you're pretty much the only people, besides Toddsterpatriot maybe, that ever posts these names on this forum.

The buchanans are running tancredo's PAC and given the rabid frothing vitriol of the tancredo supporter linked in reply #63 of this thread and the paranoia of bay's e-mail, it just shows to me that the buchanan/tancredo side is with the DUmmies in their hate Bush campaigns.

[hedgetrimmer]

given the rabid frothing vitriol of the tancredo "free trade" supporter

Pot calling kettle...

[Eagles Talon IV]

"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.

Ok, where is this agreement and how can I read it in it's entirety?

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.

So, in other words the laws of supply and demand re workers and wages will be repealed? People will work for sub living wages because...because..why? And. oh yes that darn "bubble" It must be so because so many "experts" say it is. Problem is that I have seen as many "experts" say that there is no nationwide bubble. I can attest to that anecdotally because I just spent time in NC and purchased a new home down there for 1/3 of what it would have cost me in the New England area (MA). Taxes are a fraction of here and most everything else is cheaper as well. Looking back 3 years in that area shows increases in housing costs to also be a fraction of what it has been on the coasts and in Fla., where in fact there has been outrageous escalation of home prices. However 5 States do not a bubble make and there is at least as good a chance for demand and prices to slow as there is for a collapse. Why you here so much about the "bubble" is simple to explain. Bad news sells and good news or no news does not. I have lots of investing experience and have for many years followed the markets closely. I have learned over this time that when it comes to being a "pundit", anyone can do it an have their own predictions be as successful as those we see today prognosticating. These guys guess to a greater extent then you will ever believe.

[Dog Gone]

As far as I can tell, you're pretty much the only people, besides Toddsterpatriot maybe, that ever posts these names on this forum.

I guess you've never heard of Willie Green.

[Dat Mon]

YOU SAID..."We don't grow too many pineapples, coconuts, and bananas in this country anyway. "

Heres some amazing news...I went to the grocery store the other night...and actually BOUGHT some those items...have done so for years.

Don't know where they came from though.

Who among the CAFTA proponents such as yourself is willing to stand up NOW and make a prediction as to what the median cost of these items is going to be AFTER CAFTA is ratified by all countries. Normalize the present cost to 1.0.

Anybody want to take a guess?

[hedgetrimmer]

Look who's on your side..another hollywood leftist.


JODIE FOSTER is set to return to directing with a controversial movie about a violent sugar baron.

The revered and reclusive actress, who last directed a movie a decade ago (HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS), will take charge of new movie SUGAR KINGS - and may also appear in the project.

The film, based on journalist MARIE BRENNER's Vanity Fair article In The Kingdom Of Big Sugar, will follow the fortunes of a young female attorney fighting abusive labour practices, who confronts a powerful sugar baron, who is renowned for exploiting his immigrant workers.

The film marks a busy return to the spotlight for single mum Foster - she'll also appear in new sky-high thriller FLIGHT PLAN in September (05) and she has signed up to star alongside DENZEL WASHINGTON and CLIVE OWEN in SPIKE LEE's INSIDE MAN.

LOL! She even calls them sugar barons.

[Brilliant]

I'd say 1.0 We don't have a very high duty on them anyway.

[Dat Mon]

Youre an expert on CAFTA. Want to take a stab at my guesstimate stated above?

[Mad Dawgg]

"CAFTA will increase our job-killing U.S. trade deficit and further weaken our already suffering dollar."

Average Unemployment rate for last 40 Years: 5.7%...

Latest Unemployment figure: 5%

Hadn't you better get another argument being that all evidence is to the contrary?

[Eagles Talon IV]

It would appear the Supreme Court ruling re property rights is being dealt with as we speak and States will pass laws that will prohibit what happened in Conn from happening again.

So there is no actual formal agreement and this has actually not even begun to be implemented much less written and ratified. You may be right in what you claim the results will be but I've an idea that like the USSC decision on property rights it will never be allowed to stand or in my opinion become formalized.

You claim that it has already been implemented so can you give me some examples aside from the USSC decision mentioned above.

[Mad Dawgg]

"You won't see it for three to five years or more,but by then it will be too late."

NAFTA is ten years old and we are still waiting for that giant sucking sound you all been talking about.

[Black Tooth]

True modern conservatives support CAFTA, only the Buchananite paleo-cons oppose it. You know I'm right.

True modern conservatives?

Modern = Neo-conservatives

I prefer the old conservatives and military greats of the past, like General Omar Bradley, General George S. Patton Jr., Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower General Douglas MacArthur, General Omar Bradley, Admiral Chester Nimitz etc.

Most can't even name an American general in Iraq.

Know why? Because this war is being run almost exclusively from D.C.

The split between the liberal, open border, corporate conservative lights, and the real American conservatives is widening daily.