Fred Barnes: Bush Hadta Have CAFTA (The lame duck wins again)

The Weekly Standard ^ | August 8, 2005 | Fred Barnes

[RWR8189]

PRESIDENT BUSH WENT TO BED at the normal time, roughly 10p.m., on the night the House of Representatives voted on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. But he was awakened by White House staffers to talk to wavering Republicans on the House floor. A cell phone with the president on the line was passed by Bush's chief congressional lobbyist, Candida Wolff, from congressman to congressman. Then Bush watched the vote count on C-SPAN before giving up. The total for CAFTA looked to be stuck at 214, not enough for passage. He went back to bed, only to be called a few moments later by Karl Rove, his political adviser and deputy chief of staff. Three Republicans--Robin Hays of North Carolina, Steve LaTourette of Ohio, Mike Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania--had simultaneously voted for the treaty and it had won. Relieved, Bush went back to bed again. It was after midnight.

Bush worked harder for CAFTA--and stayed up later--than he had for the vote in 2003 on his Medicare prescription drug benefit. The White House, indeed Bush's entire administration, was mobilized for this vote. For days, Bush met with House members individually and in small groups. He traveled to Capitol Hill to address the House Republican conference on the morning of the vote, speaking passionately for nearly 45 minutes with no notes, then answering a dozen questions. Rove was deeply involved, too, making calls and office visits and having lunch with one House member whose vote was critical.

Why the extraordinary effort? It wasn't because the treaty with Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic was so important to the American economy. Exports from the United States to the six countries total about $15 billion a year. That's roughly the buying power of the greater Sacramento metropolitan area. True, the treaty does integrate the six economies more tightly with our own. And it has symbolic value: the big guy to the north embracing his little brothers to the south.

But more important to Bush than its economics or symbolism is CAFTA's national security value. Fidel Castro and his acolyte, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, are desperately trying to undermine the democratically elected and mostly pro-American governments of Central America. They would like to see the Marxist Sandinistas regain power in Nicaragua, for instance, and Chávez is pumping money from his country's oil wealth into that project, among others. (He also provides cut-rate oil wealth to Castro's Cuba.) Both Bush and the democratic leaders in Central America believe CAFTA will bolster their economies and strengthen them against leftist radicals of the Castro/Chávez ilk. Thus, in his address to House Republicans, the president devoted much of his speech to this issue.

A second reason for Bush's enthusiasm for CAFTA is his trade agenda. Presidents have usually gotten their way when they've pushed for more open trade, but after a half century, the free trade consensus on Capitol Hill has collapsed. Meanwhile, countries all over the world--in the Middle East especially--are clamoring to negotiate free trade treaties with the United States. If CAFTA had failed, Bush's entire trade agenda would have been off the table for the remainder of his second term. Instead, it lives. Why does that matter? To qualify for a trade agreement with the United States, countries must adopt the practices of democratic capitalism, which means a treaty might achieve what it took a war to accomplish in Iraq. In the past, trade treaties sailed through the Senate, but CAFTA was ratified only 54-45--and that masks how difficult it was for Republicans to put together a mere majority. The House has traditionally looked even less favorably on free trade.

There's a third reason CAFTA was so important to Bush. It's exactly what you'd think: politics. After seeing the prospects for enacting Social Security reform fade, Bush needed a victory. Or at least he had to stave off a Democratic win. For the first time in the post-World War II era, the leaders of a party made it their policy to defeat a free trade agreement. Democrats offered a series of unconvincing explanations for their opposition, but their transparent motive was to deal a serious blow to Bush. Had they succeeded, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi would be gloating on national TV about the demise of the Bush presidency. And it would be true. Instead, Bush is revived and ready to take another shot at overhauling Social Security, plus take up tax reform.

Two Republican leaders played significant roles in passing CAFTA. Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is an ardent free trader and a genius at drafting legislation that only he understands fully. Thomas is also pragmatic. He allowed a vote on a bill requiring the monitoring of China's trade practices to come before CAFTA. It passed, dissipating some of the anxiety over China. The other Republican who mattered was whip Roy Blunt. He promised all year that he could produce enough votes to ratify CAFTA, and he finally persuaded the White House. Better yet, he delivered.

For all the media chatter about Bush as a diminished force in Washington, he and congressional Republicans have put together a string of impressive victories with more to come. With John Roberts as his nominee, the president is on his way to transforming the Supreme Court into the conservative body that Republicans have dreamed about for decades. Meanwhile, the economy is so robust that Democrats rarely mention it. Is Bush a lame duck? He sure is. He may be the most energized and successful lame duck in the history of the modern presidency.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

[jeremiah]

The Democrats see you as evil, who is right? The cabinet of either parties President come from the same place. The President seems to get along well with the EEEEEEEEEEEvil x42. His father is boating and have a few brews with the man. Now if the man you think is great, thinks the man you know is evil is just okey dokey, who is right?

[jeremiah]

The problem is not that buggy manufacturers are going out of business, but that "buggy manufacturers are moving to the cheapest labor. There are how many billions of people, that do not live in the US, how can workers here compete and still afford a $200,000 mortgage. Or better yet, the rent to keep the man who owns the house from kicking you out? I guess we pitch tents on the Kings land, and sharecrop to eat.

[newzjunkey]

Barnes is grasping at straws. There's no way Roberts is anything but a GUESS which Barnes himself has all but suggested on Fox's All Stars panel. Roberts is not transformative considering he's replacing a middle-right GOP nominee rather than Souter or Ginsberg.

CAFTA is a yawner is in no sense a major victory. Social Security, which Bush never even had an endorsed bill form of, would have been a major victory. He campaigned on fixing Social Security back in 2000 and *still* hasn't done anything. He saw it was too hard and cut and run. And we can forget about meaningful tax reform.

The man has no fortitude!

[seadevil]

You probably missed the point of my post. The government cannot be the guardian of your job. That's your responsibility. You want the very same government that makes it almost prohibitively expensive to conduct business in this country mandate that these very same companies remain in this country? Do you really think THIS will contribute to economic growth? Look beyond your own selfishness. You don't screw someone else to pay you back for being screwed.

The answer is and always will be...educate yourself in the skills required to remain competitive in the current climate and if that means you need to seek other employment or move to a different state to realize your full potential, then it's incumbent upon you to do so. It isn't the role of government to do this for you.

As to your "$200,000 house" comment....so what. Find a cheaper house in an area where they are cheaper. Learn to live within your means. Stop spending money you don't have or stop spending money based on an unrealistic idea of your future earnings.

You'll notice I use the word "you" a lot. That's because YOU need to learn how to control your OWN destiny instead of expecting others to determine your destiny for you; while at the same time expecting an outcome you "demand". That's the "responsibility" part of that "freedom" thing.

[Kitten Festival]

Barnes' last two reasons amount to about 2% of the reasons. The first reason, about Hugo Chavez-Fidel Castro-Daniel Ortega, amount to about 98% of the reason. That is one hell of a developing security problem.

[international american]

"For all the media chatter about Bush as a diminished force in Washington, he and congressional Republicans have put together a string of impressive victories with more to come. With John Roberts as his nominee, the president is on his way to transforming the Supreme Court into the conservative body that Republicans have dreamed about for decades. Meanwhile, the economy is so robust that Democrats rarely mention it. Is Bush a lame duck? He sure is. He may be the most energized and successful lame duck in the history of the modern presidency."

Well Fred, it must be nice for you to go home to your 2 million dollar home with iron gates, and a security company to keep the ollegal drug dealers and other inveterate scum out. Yeah baby, we be doin fine.

[jeremiah]

A 2 bedroom 1 bath house is going for $200,000 now just about anywhere. The problem isn't moving to a different state where conditions are more favorable to employment, it is accepting a less than minimum wage job. I have no problem with work, or money. I am a painting contractor, and am independent and busy. I can see the day when landscapers and painter et al, will be low paid jobs. The solution is to become large enough to command a bigger market share, I realize that. How about those working under me? Shall their wages dip below $10 and hour? $7? How about $5? There are people in Mexico that will do the job nearly as well as a journeyman painter in the US, but for 1/4 the cost. Is my obligation to my workers? Or to the almighty dollar. A Dickensian answer, is to the bottom line, of course that was before the revelations in "A Christmas Carol".

[international american]

" $200,000 mortgage"

Wher I live, 200m is a down payment for a 3 bed 2 ba shack.
Course we got 3 illegal families in one home kickin up the rents

[Howlin]

LOL!

[ncountylee]

Disgusting pile of dog poop!

[McGavin999]

But more important to Bush than its economics or symbolism is CAFTA's national security value. Fidel Castro and his acolyte, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, are desperately trying to undermine the democratically elected and mostly pro-American governments of Central America. They would like to see the Marxist Sandinistas regain power in Nicaragua, for instance, and Chávez is pumping money from his country's oil wealth into that project, among others. (He also provides cut-rate oil wealth to Castro's Cuba.)

People don't see the real reasons behind these things.

[RWR8189]

I remember claims that NAFTA would not create a net loss in US jobs

Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id:     CES0000000001 Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector:  Total nonfarm Industry:      Total nonfarm NAICS Code:    N/A Data Type:     ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
1993	109725	109962	109916	110223	110496	110660	110960	111119	111359	111638	111901	112203
1994	112473	112665	113133	113490	113829	114139	114498	114801	115155	115361	115786	116056
1995	116377	116588	116808	116971	116962	117189	117260	117538	117777	117926	118070	118210
1996	118192	118627	118882	119047	119376	119647	119875	120078	120296	120534	120826	121003
1997	121232	121526	121843	122134	122396	122642	122918	122911	123417	123756	124063	124361
1998	124629	124814	124962	125240	125641	125846	125967	126322	126543	126735	127020	127364
1999	127477	127873	127997	128379	128593	128850	129145	129338	129525	129947	130242	130536
2000	130781	130901	131377	131662	131882	131839	132015	132004	132122	132110	132326	132484
2001	132454	132546	132511	132214	132187	132029	131941	131803	131549	131172	130879	130705
2002	130581	130478	130441	130335	130326	130377	130277	130295	130250	130309	130315	130161
2003	130247	130125	129907	129853	129827	129854	129857	129859	129953	130076	130172	130255
2004	130372	130466	130786	131123	131373	131479	131562	131750	131880	132162	132294	132449
2005	132573	132873	132995	133287	133391(p)	133537(p)
p : preliminary

Nearly 22 million new jobs created since since NAFTA's passage...

Where's the net loss?

[FOG724]

Keep marching lockstep, rdb3.

You are the last person I would think of as a lock step kinda guy.

[SupplySider]

I will take the best goods at the best price over economic serfdom out of misplaced nationalism any time.

Me too. And we would be lucky to even get misplaced nationalism. Normally we just get vote buying by corrupt congressmen with campaign contributions from big corporations looking to buy protection from the competitive marketplace.

[SupplySider]

Companies who let Govts bully them into making bad business decisions end up bankrupt fairly quickly

How true. Remember Japan Inc? They were going to buy all of New York and take over America, according to the Democrat and Republican protectionists. Instead, they got bankruptcies and a deep fifteen year recession for their misinvestments.

[SupplySider]

There are how many billions of people, that do not live in the US, how can workers here compete and still afford a $200,000 mortgage. Or better yet, the rent to keep the man who owns the house from kicking you out?

With lower taxes, tariffs, and regulations, private capital would be better rewarded for innovation and risk-taking, and we'd get more of them. That would produce the products and services and jobs of the future. Reagan's tax cuts and Milkin's alternative bond market fueled a tech expansion that created many of the jobs we're now worrying about. That will happen again, in unpredictable ways, if we reduce government restrictions further.

The transitions can of course be very painful, but going forward is the only way. With information technology and a liquid global capital market, it's now a very small world. We will never keep two billion Indians and Chinese on farms.

[MJY1288]

"free trade is simply a giveaway to corporations who want to offshore jobs and plants to lower cost locales,"

Spoken like a true democrat Labor Union lemming. Conservatism is all about competing and succeeding, their is no succeeding without competition. I see no reason to protect the labor unions here in the United States. They are responsible for our trade deficit today with their Socialist approach to manufacturing

[MJY1288]

BINGO!

The only segment of our society that has suffered since NAFTA is the Labor Unions. The same bunch who guarantee their workers less than half of "Minimum Wage" when they "Strike" while the Labor Union Big Wigs are climbing aboard their "Private Jets" and heading for the next Democrat Fund Raiser.

The sooner the AFL-CIO, UAW and the TEAMSTERS go under, the better off we will be and the worse the Democrats will be. Big labor is the last big donor the Democrats know besides the Global Socialists who recognize the US Democrat Party is their only hope for their Socialists Utopia

[skr]

If Hillary were to win, it may not be the best indicator of Pres. Bush's legacy. I wouldn't be surprised if many Hillary votes aren't cast for a feeling of making history by voting for the first woman president and the first president who is the spouse of a former president. It may take longer to really see what George W. Bush's legacy is, particularly in how the Supreme Court makes future rulings.

[MEG33]

I see the importance more after reading this article..Thanks..