Posted on 07/22/2005 8:24:29 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
The Bush administration's free-trade agreement with Central America would cost taxpayers $50 million a year in loan forfeitures by sugar farmers, the Congressional Budget Office says.
An administration official said Thursday that the analysis was unrealistic and that there would be virtually no cost under sugar provisions in the deal.
The CBO released its estimate as House leaders planned for a vote next week on the Central America Free Trade Agreement. It would remove or lower trade barriers with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and he Dominican Republic.
Overall, CAFTA would cost the U.S. about $4.4 billion over the next 10 years, primarily in lost tariffs, the CBO said.
Under CAFTA, those countries could ship more sugar to the United States. The CBO said the influx would push prices down and force farmers to forfeit government loans on their crops, costing taxpayers on average about $50 million annually through 2015.
"Not only would CAFTA threaten the livelihoods of thousands of U.S. sugar farmers and workers, but now we have proof that it's a bad deal for taxpayers and would be a revenue loser, too," said Republican Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a state where sugar beets are grown.
Wariness from sugar farmers has generated fierce opposition on Capitol Hill, although a broad array of other farm groups support the deal. The Senate endorsed CAFTA last month on a 54-45 vote.
In a concession from the White House, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns has promised to use his authority to keep excess Central American sugar off the U.S. market.
Johanns can buy excess sugar from CAFTA countries to use for things other than food, such as sugar-based ethanol fuel. He can also give away other U.S. crops to CAFTA countries that agree not to ship sugar to the United States.
"If I own a company in Costa Rica and decide I want to come locate to Napoleonville, I can bring my business and all the people that work for me and I don't have to go through all of the information processes," Melancon said. "As I appreciate it, they're not necessarily bound by the laws of the United States because that's part of the deal with Central America."
--U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville
The costs of CAFTA keep growing.
Who will have to raise taxes?
I can't imagine anyone voting for this. We need to let them know what the costs will be ....... unemployment due to lack of votes.
CAFTA can fail if US Citizens who opposed to such trade agreements would go ahead and pay the higher costs of USA made goods, when possible. We need to support US Industry- not play nanny to Countries who are capable of helping themselves.
CAFTA and NAFTA are purely political and drive up costs to US Citizens. Why are US Citizens giving in to what I can only call blackmail? We should demand that point of origin be placed on all products so we can buy products produced in the USA whenever possible and not accidentally support foreign regimes.
But..but CAFTA is goooooood.....baaaa baaaa went the sheep
Yeah, it's getting to where I have to carry shears just to walk down the street unimpeaded.
BTW, George Allen '08?
Please excuse my stupidity..who is he?
"Please excuse my stupidity..who is he?"
Stupidity excused...j/k :)
He is the former gov and current senator from VA:
http://allen.senate.gov/
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/George_Allen.htm
Based on what I've read he's as close to a conservative you can get these days, although he did vote against a ban on suing gun manufacturers (blaming them for crime) and he voted for the socialist prescription drug plan. He sounds tough on borders though.
He's too closely tied to the CFR for my taste.
Thanks for the link..I'll check it out.
His vote on suing gun mfgs. bothers me a bit, but I admit I have become a one-issue voter and right now that issue is controlling illegal immigration. So, he's worth looking at.
Do you have a citation for that?
If so, I will have to revamp my tagline.....
Sounds good....then we can throw more money at socialist education and implement a socialist healthcare system (ie gov't enforced death)....then no one will have any money, we can all be "equal"!!!! YAY!!!!!!
You are truly clueless.Raising the price of goods by $4.4 billion costs consumers $4.4 billion and doesn't save taxpayers anything.
You want consumers to have less money and the government to have more!! Alinski? Ha, you're a big government liberal.
The federal government doesn't have the right to decide that based on a "free trade" agreement. If they want to cut off any price support program thats one thing, but to do it because they favor foreign producers in a "free trade" agreement is really in opposition to the idea that the purpose of goverment is to DEFEND INDIDIVUAL RIGHTS, no to pave the way for transnational corporations to put domestic industries out of business.
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.