Senate Panel Narrowly Endorses CAFTA

AP ^ | June 29, 2005 | JIM ABRAMS

[hedgetrimmer]

A Senate committee on Wednesday approved a trade agreement with Latin American nations, moving Congress a step closer to a decision on an accord that may have minimal effects on the U.S. economy but is of considerable political import to the Bush administration.

The Finance Committee approved the agreement by a voice vote, although it was closely divided on the issue. The bill now goes to the full Senate for a vote as early as this week. Passage in the Senate, traditionally more sympathetic to trade agreements, could give the measure some momentum in the House, where there is stiffer opposition.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, would end trade barriers now encountered by U.S. goods in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. It also would ease investment rules, strengthen protections for intellectual property and, according to supporters, solidify economic and democratic stability in the region.

But the agreement has run into vigorous opposition from labor groups, and their Democratic allies, who say its provisions on labor rights are weak, and from the U.S. sugar industry, which claims that an increase in Central American imports, while small, could open the door to ruin.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (news, bio, voting record), D-N.M., a key undecided vote on the Finance Committee, announced he was supporting the pact after the administration answered some of his concerns about the "serious lack of attention to the enforcement of worker rights."

He said he had pledges of an extra $40 million over four years to promote labor laws. The administration also told him it will spend $30 million over five years to help subsistence farmers in three Central American countries who might be displaced by an increase in U.S. agriculture imports.

The Bush administration has waged a relentless lobbying effort in the past month. President Bush invited all six CAFTA presidents to the White House and hailed the agreement in several recent speeches to Hispanic-American and other groups. U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (news, bio, voting record) and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns are constantly on Capitol Hill, talking to undecided lawmakers.

Johanns met Monday with senators and representatives of the sugar industry, and again on Tuesday with lawmakers, to discuss proposals to assure that CAFTA will not undermine the industry's future viability. Those plans included the government buying up increased sugar cane imports from Central America to be used in the production of ethanol.

Republican Sen. Craig Thomas (news, bio, voting record), whose state of Wyoming has a large sugar beet industry, told the Finance Committee that "it distresses me a little" that only now, when a final vote on CAFTA is looming, is the administration getting serious about the sugar issue.

But Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., suggested that there could be repercussions for the industry, always well-protected by Congress, if it succeeded in scuttling the agreement. "This could be devastating to them if not handled right," he said.

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Max Baucus (news, bio, voting record) of sugar beet-growing Montana, opposes CAFTA, breaking with his usual support of trade agreements.

In addition to saying that the agreement was bad for the sugar industry, he criticized the administration for rejecting a proposal to help U.S. service industry workers who lose their jobs because of foreign competition and for not consulting more with Congress.

"They appear to want to win by the thinnest of margins," he said,

[Moral Hazard]

" I wonder. Do you support "protecting domestic" pharmacological companies "from competition"?"

Generally no, beyond allowing them patents on specific drugs. Even there I think it would sometimes make sense for the U.S. government to buy the rights to the drug and allow free competition.

[hedgetrimmer]

The US government 'bought' the rights to flu vaccine. That's why we have shortages, and why the vaccine never quite matches the virus that is the most threatening.

Remember last winter? They US government was going to put people in jail if they got a flu shot and they weren't 'qualified'.

You should be careful what you wish for.

[Moral Hazard]

The government took over the supply of the flu vaccine, they didn't just buy the rights to it.

To be honest I do not know the detail of the patents on the Flu vaccine. I know each years has a new strain of the virus, but that the original patents on flu vaccines must have passed the 17 year expiration mark long ago.

[meadsjn]

I don't quite understand those who wish to expand government to protect their jobs. If you need government to protect your job...

Obviously, you don't read so well. CAFTA is an expansion of government, except it is expansion to the detriment of U.S. citizens, and in the interest of thieves wanting to steal more wealth from U.S. citizens and redistribute it to the socialist neo-cons and their comrade third-world socialists.

He said he had pledges of an extra $40 million over four years to promote labor laws. The administration also told him it will spend $30 million over five years to help subsistence farmers in three Central American countries who might be displaced by an increase in U.S. agriculture imports.

And according to the article, the bastards already know the poor folks in the targeted countries are not going to benefit from CAFTA, just like NAFTA only benefitted the corrupt bureaucrats and racketeers.

[Nowhere Man]

LOL the Losertarians are for open borders - but at least they don't pretend any differently.

I do like "The People's Party" (Populists) but they are not all that big. Consitution Party is another good one and I think H. Ross Perot's Reform Party had a lot of good points, they did have a chance for a while.

[Nowhere Man]

Are you serious? With all the missile batteries and no fly zones that didn't exist 8 years ago? The street cameras, the metal detectors and bomb sniffers? Come on!

It's a shame it is like that now. Just seeing the news in the last hour or so with the Capitol evacuation and Shep on Fox doing a story about one plot to poison the milk supply, I do have to concur. I know we didn't ask for 9-11 and I think maybe we could have done something to stop it, maybe not, but I don't like what we are morphing into. I did vote on the poll a while back to cut back the Patriot Act when it comes up for renewal, yes, there are some good stuff there but I think there are other things that are bad like checking library records and so on. Crap, I miss the Cold War, it was saner then. B-P

[Nowhere Man]

The word from On High is shut up, be happy with your cheap chinese imports, and take it like the serf you are being turned into.

And as Bobby McFerrin and "Wet Willie" always says, "Don't Worry, Be Happy" (1988) and "Keep on Smilin'" (1970) respectively. B-P

[bert]

Please wake up and look at a calander..... it's 2005.

We must do everything possible to make life in central America better for the citizens. There must be development of a middle class.

The best way to deal with them is to make the choice of either staying home or leaving for the USA difficult. If the marginal cost of leaving can be raised to the point it is only slightly better than staying, they will stay at home.

Cafta will assist in that process

[hedgetrimmer]

We must do everything possible to make life in central America better for the citizens

I don't think the founders had in mind that the American people would be the do gooder police force for the world.

CAFTA won't help them. "Free trade" actually destroys local economies, especially agriculture. Thats why the $30 million to help the peasant farmers if CAFTA is passed.

US taxpayers pay taxes to support their country's infrastructure and the essential services of government. Our tax dollars are not up for grabs as a global charity or to smooth the way for transnational corporations to destroy the fragile economies of third world countries,yet somehow people have been elected to office that are misusing their office to send our money abroad, and without the consent of the American people at that. The 'civil society' council system that CAFTA helps to put in place does not promote freedom, or liberty or protect these people with a Bill of Rights. Therefore they will never be as successful as the American people, and there WILL be economic refugees (aka illegal immigrants) to this country.

The very best thing for these central American countries to do is to adopt a system of free enterprise (NOT "free trade") and put in a constitutional legal system to support it. My tax money and yours will not do that for them, they must do it for themselves, and they must instigate it, not us.

CAFTA however doesn't allow for free enterprise and sets up a supranational council system for governing these people in the name of "free trade". They are going to be getting global socialism, not FREEDOM.

Don't you see? In Africa, in the 1960s and 70's the powers that be tried to start a "green revolution" ostensibly to feed the African people. They set up transnational agribusiness (mostly European) in these countries. Their plan failed on 2 counts, and resulted in the famine deaths of millions of people. The first was that they forced temperate climate agricultural techniques in climates that were unsuitable for them. The second is that they contracted with farmers to grow commodity crops to sell in Europe. For example, many African farmers invested in heavy equipment and started growing peanuts to suit the global trade. The small producers that had been growing the food crops saw cash in peanut oil and stopped growing for local markets. The upshot was a lot of these farmers failed because the market could not support the flood of new production, and famine ensued because no one was providing food crops for the region anymore.

CAFTA has the potential for the same disaster, except the US taxpayer wil pay and pay and pay to keep people from dying. A global scam of global proportions.

[janetgreen]

The 'reform' to "private accounts" is just laying the foundation for foreign companies to get involved in the huge amount of money our social security laws require to be collected from the American people.

BTTT

[hedgetrimmer]

USTR Rob Portman Statement Regarding Senate Finance Committee Approval of CAFTA-DR

"CAFTA-DR is a great agreement that levels the playing field for American workers, farmers and businesses, will boost U.S. exports offshoring and will promote stability and democracy among our friends and neighbors in a fantasy world.

[traviskicks]

I agree that part is terrible. I bet that money gets spent uionizing and destorying those peoples lives down there. Or perphaps its little more than bribery, but bribery to improve the lives of its citizens.

I've laid out my opnions on this thread if you'd like to go back and read them on this issue. Pealing back government restrictions on trade is worth these minuses. (IMO)

[traviskicks]

Many things are by necessity a paradox...we just have to choose the best compromise.
---

Well, I understand where you are coming from and you where I am coming from. I take it if the 'free trade' uptopia we have discussed existed you would enthhusiastically support it.

So, we just disagree to what degree of compromise is necessary as a step to achieve that ends.

That is a disagreement I can live with.

[traviskicks]

If the marginal cost of leaving can be raised to the point it is only slightly better than staying, they will stay at home.
---

Thats what I don't understand. Many of the anti-free traders are also the most outspoken opponents of outsourcing and immigration. These beliefs do not jive because they are actually opposite each other. The more we restrict qualified foreign workers from coming to be employed here by US companies, the more the US companeis will go overseas. The less trade we have with other countreis the worse their (and our) economies will be, higher unemplyoment and the more people will flock to the US. etc.. etc.. etc..

[traviskicks]

I don't think your argument is a valid one because our population has increased x 10 since the constitution was ratified and although we have our problems, I don't think we can say it is because of our population growth. doubling or trebbling the population won't cause any harm, in fact it would strengthen our power and influence in the world, much less make the lives of those who come here infinitly better.

In fact, if the thieving federal government would give back all the land it has stolen from the states out west, we'd have plenty of space.

[hedgetrimmer]

We have less representation than before.

This is significant, and if the population were 1 billion, how many people is that per senator? Isn't something like 1 senator per 10,000,000,000,000,000 people? How do you get adequate representation with those numbers?

[Dat Mon]

YOU SAID..."I take it if the 'free trade' uptopia we have discussed existed you would enthhusiastically support it."

It depends on your definition of utopia.

In MY model of Utopian free trade, countries would be more or less symmetric trading partners, and would utilize comparative advantage in a way which maximized production efficiencies in each others country. Wealth would increase for both...and jobs would be secure. Trade functions in your ideal model of individual to individual...or company to company. I certainly support that.

The first question arises...can you have free trade with a country that does not have a free democratic government? How about if they are an enemy of the US?

A second problem arises in the real world. Should comparative advantage lead to job elimination in each country..due to the demands of efficiency. Don't we need, for example, certain classes of jobs...such as technical jobs / engineering in this country to maintain our own technology and standard of living....not to mention our military and defense capabilities. Should engineering be a protected labor category...or subsidized...by virtue of defense programs? But doesn't that defeat the purpose of comparative advantage?

Once again...a paradox.

The issue with REAL free trade always comes down to jobs. I don't equate free trade with the outsourcing of jobs overseas...as that IMO constitutes trade in labor...not goods.

Another example...efficiency demands that certain classes of factory production jobs are to be eliminated...but shouldn't they be replaced by another industry which can utilize people who are trainable for a production skill level. Without jobs at all skill levels..not just the manager level...society eventually degenerates into either anarchy or totalitarian socialism. But we don't want government deciding on winners and losers in industry.

Another paradox.

I also believe that Utopian free trade probably requires a radically different tax and revenue structure to support its existence. IMO, our present tax system, coupled with the legal burden and the many entitlements and loopholes have created a mess in which free trade as we are practicing it now doesn't raise the standard of living for society as a whole...but serves to redistribute wealth. For example...if most major American companies outsourced much of their workforces overseas, and increased profits...it would create wealth for some...but at the expense of others.

Would you support free trade with the provision of removing all income taxes and replacing taxes with tariffs or consumption taxes or a combination of both?

Honestly...I have more questions than answers...and I believe that many classical theories of economics will probably be revised over the next ten or twenty years or so, as people examine how free trade really functions on a global scale.

But...I'm just an engineer....let others weigh in on this.

[Paul Ross]

My particular brand of conservatism believes in the Constitution. Ron Paul nails it very well, what all the free trade types are upto:

I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

[Paul Ross]

Is GWB pushing LOST still?

[meadsjn]

Pealing back government restrictions on trade is worth these minuses. (IMO)

What kind of twisted reasoning does it take to consider 20,000 additional pages of trade law as "pealing (sic) back government restrictions on trade"?