MaxedOutMama
Thursday, July 28, 2005
CAFTA Passes House Narrowly
This one is going to be an issue in the 2006 elections. CAFTA passed the house 217-215 and now awaits President Bush's signature. The bill will eventually eliminate tariffs for Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic:
The president took some political risk placing the relatively small trade pact at the top of his economic agenda. He and numerous administration officials advertised the agreement as a tool to give fragile Latin American democracies the opportunity for stability and prosperity.Democrats aren't happy:
The House vote, supposed to take 15 minutes, dragged on for an hour as negotiations swirled around the floor among GOP leaders and rank-and-file members reluctant to vote for the agreement. In the end, 27 Republicans voted against CAFTA, while 15 Democrats supported it.
"I don't see any benefits for workers, for sugar people," said Democratic Rep. Charlie Melancon, who said his family owed everything to 225 years of sugar production in his home state of Louisiana.In theory at least, if we become dependent for all our manufacturing on foreign countries it is a security problem. However, it would be better to be dependent on a bunch of countries rather than just a few Asian countries. I think that it would be better for the US to foster strong trade relationships with the rest of the Americas and India. Still, this is a bitter pill for workers who continue to see their earning power erode.
"We've given away textiles. We've given away steel. We've given away fruits and vegetables," Melancon said. "Now let's just go ahead and give away everything and be dependent on every other country for our food and our defense."
Comments:
<< Home
It's a wash, in my opinion. You are right to say that we are better off dealing with more than a few countries, but in the end, agriculture based economies are really subject to terror issues/threats to the food supply. It's not that hard to get into Guatamala.
Any way, if it is a wash than I would tend to opt for a wash that spread opportunity for development as widely as possible.
I think the clue to addressing the genuine plight of low-paid workers in the US is to control illegal immigration, not to institute protectionist barriers.
Post a Comment
I think the clue to addressing the genuine plight of low-paid workers in the US is to control illegal immigration, not to institute protectionist barriers.
<< Home
