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.
Apparently Canada has no problem with that so-called "dirty" sugar, nor does our gov't who allows the sweets to be imported from Canada. Nor have we heard of mass poisonings from ingestion of Canadian LifeSavers.
BTW, another foe of CAFTA is Sandinista Danny Ortega, who is attempting to regain power in Nicaragua through elections (remember the Contras?)
I wouldn't know, having never been to that website. But that text came directly from the Council on Foreign Relations talking points for CAFTA.
Lord I hope so. Why should taxpayers send them a one billion-plus check per year?
Well, now you know.
Yeah, Reagan did a horrible job.
"Nope. Your friends at the AFL-CIO."
You seem altogether too gleeful at having handed so much ammunition to that bunch of socialists. You don't recognize the problem in having done that, because to you it's just a neat little label, a way to tar conservative opposition to your little globalist do-gooder treaty, which is merely the latest salvo in a long string of globalist do-gooder treaties. You have the gall to hold this up as a way to "avoid" doing business with China, but who the hell was it that made China into the export powerhouse that it is today? The very same people who are touting CAFTA-DR. You, and people just like you, plus your puppetmasters at the UN.
Everyone's property values will go down. Then we wouldn't have any money left to put in the Pell grant fund! You could get hurt by it too!
Nice. And no one will afford hedgetrimmers! Whatever will you do?
oh, hedges ALWAYS need trimming. Those globalist elitists that run the transnationals don't like seeing a TWIG out of place.
"Why should taxpayers send them a one billion-plus check per year?"
Taxpayers? You don't seem especially concerned about taxpayers. Taxpayers are voters. Wonder how many of them are employed by companies that could ostensibly be targeted by GATT, NAFTA , CAFTA-DR, and whatever you reverse colonialists dream up next, like SAFTA for South America? I guess it's costing you too much to load your bong or something, gotta target "Big Weed" next.
An assertion defeating its own premise. Well done.
Are you suggesting that I am indifferent to the amount of taxes that I, or we, pay? That is the logical outcome of your reasoning.
And neither is this disingenuous attempt at labelling all opposition as being some sort of union ploy.
Give it a rest. I responded to the following comment:
Labor unions, including the AFL/CIO, say CAFTA will result in a net loss of U.S. jobs, and that the agreement fails to provide adequate education or job training for those left unemployed.
I merely pointed out that the above statement is correct. Disingenuous, indeed.
"I merely pointed out that the above statement is correct. Disingenuous, indeed."
You "merely" attempt to tar conservative opposition to your pet treaty by association with the AFL/CIO. Indeed, disingenuous.
person A: Group 1 says this, and these are Group 2's talking points.The only disingenuousness you see is in your imagination.
person B: They also happen to be Group 1's talking points.
"The only disingenuousness you see is in your imagination."
That's called "tarring with the same brush" in my neck of the woods. You'll find that I'm not the only one, with such an imagination.
"Fair enough. I'll accept your second definition."
Whatever. Go forth, 1rudeboy, and propagandize.
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.