Skip to comments.Good Reasons To Reject CAFTA
Posted on 07/18/2005 3:01:46 PM PDT by Osage Orange
Good reasons to reject CAFTA
By Bill Graves
Congress is debating the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), also known as son of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). America presumably benefits from "free" trade, and CAFTA allegedly will open up billions in trade between the United States and Central America. However, here's the other side of the story.
With CAFTA, as with its membership in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, America will surrender more of its sovereignty as a nation and its states' rights to outside tribunals. For example, California's legislature passed a bill in 2004 to dispose of millions of scrap tires by recycling them into asphalt for road construction. When Mexican rubber producers claimed the bill violated NAFTA, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, citing NAFTA supremacy, vetoed the bill.
U.S. courts were overruled by a NAFTA tribunal in a dispute between Canadian and American firms. Afterward, a NAFTA tribunal judge said, "If Congress had known that there was anything like this in NAFTA, they never would have voted for it." He shouldn't be so sure. Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Warr Acres, who voted for NAFTA, believes that "U.S. sovereignty is less important than fostering interdependence and cooperation among nations with international bodies and tribunals."
Since NAFTA's passage, the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico was replaced by a trade deficit above $50 billion annually and a cumulative trade deficit exceeding $300 billion. The trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size. Moreover, 500,000 illegal immigrants annually make it across the border to take up American residence and enjoy the numerous social programs provided by overtaxed Americans. That will increase under CAFTA.
John Sweeney, AFL-CIO president, is firmly opposed to CAFTA because it is an extension of NAFTA. He said, "NAFTA has cost U.S. workers 900,000 jobs and job opportunities." Meanwhile, NAFTA didn't help Mexican workers as its supporters predicted, but Mexico's real wages fell and the number of poor increased.
Pat Buchanan said that with CAFTA, in return "for access to our market, we get access to six Central American markets with a total economy the size of" that of New Haven, Conn. Thus, about the only things the United States will be exporting to Central America are jobs, industry and capital as more factories seek to escape the U.S. tax and regulatory burden. In exchange, the United States will get even more illegal immigrants who are greatly attracted to the U.S. welfare state.
Despite all the talk about free trade, CAFTA's real purpose is not free trade. On May 31, President Bush said there is a "geopolitical, as well as economic, concern for CAFTA" in order to "support young democracies" in the region.
The columnist Charles Krauthammer said CAFTA gives America a chance to pull millions "out of poverty." Since when is it Congress' job to get non-Americans out of poverty? CAFTA, rather than being a "free trade" pact, is a disguised form of foreign aid.
Oklahomans should urge their congressmen to put not Central America's, but America's, economy first and reject the globaloney of CAFTA.
Graves is an Oklahoma City lawyer and former state representative.
Because federal price-supports for sugar make it more expensive here than in Canada? What do I win?
"How big a loss must we take on our economy so you can win?"
These twits think they're buying world peace. That's what it all boils down to, that, plus Making The World Safe For Walmart
I thought those were AFL-CIO talking points?
"Which U.S. groups oppose CAFTA?"
Nearly every single politician, Republican or Democrat, in the state of NC, with the odd exception of Sue Myrick. Wonder why?
Are you saying CAFTA countries don't have a cost-of-production advantage over the United States? Clearly they do.
How do you propose that advantage is turned into a "level playing field" as you internationalists like to say it will under CAFTA?
One is lower than the other, so lets think this through. If one is lower, to make them 'level', you can raise one, or you can lower the other. Do you think the cost-of-production will be raised for the CAFTA countries? I don't think you are THAT disingenous, but we'll wait for you to answer.
Heck, yes! Lower the other!
Nope those came from your friends at the CFR.
"Are you saying that LifeSavers would not have relocated in the absence of NAFTA?"
I suppose, in your view, that it's just a miracle that any domestic manufacturing exists at all, or ever existed for that matter.
You guys are going to reduce us all to selling junk back and forth to one another on e-Bay.
Non-answer, but a nice attempt nonetheless.
Lowering our cost of production means that property owners will see a wholesale crash of the value of their property. But it doesn't matter if the sovereign indivdual loses money on this deal, as long as the transnational corporations win.