CAFTA

Bad trade legislation and conservative pork

August 6 , 2005

CAFTA almost failed to make it through the House because (take your pick): The Democrats are out to make Bush look bad! The Democrats want to please the top union brass! Republicans want to keep illegal immigrants out of the States!  Notice, nobody is blaming the measures' near-failure because of the legislation’s flaws… And not enough people are talking about the massive pork doled out in the Energy and Highway bills to buy CAFTA votes.

MYTH: Everyone else, but not the legislation itself, is to blame for the near-failure of CAFTA

Anyone who doubts that the Democratic Party has nearly become a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Labor bosses should take a look at the roll-call votesUnited on trade issues…. The Big Labor bosses vociferously opposed CAFTA, ...

Compared to the 1990s, however, the Democratic Party has now clearly gotten the Big Labor's message. Having funneled hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to the Democratic Party from unionized workers' paychecks, the bosses have turned the Democratic Party into an aggressively protectionist party.

--Editorial, “Big Labor, CAFTA and the Democrats,” Washington Times, 7/29/05

The vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement was heartening, but on the long canvas of free-trade activity it is discouraging. What stands out is not the success of the CAFTA bill, but the weakness of its support. To get the critical two votes on CAFTA, Mr. Bush practically had to promise individual congressmen that he would pave their driveways the next time a highway spending bill comes up….It was just before midnight on Wednesday that one congressman from North Carolina came around….In ten years, 200,000 North Carolinians have lost their jobs as textile workers as tariffs edged down. On his other side was the president of the United States and the brass of the party, asking for his fealty as a Republican — as also for his fealty as a capitalist.

--William F. Buckley, Jr, “Steep Road to Free Trade,” National Review, 8/1/05

Debate leading up to Wednesday night’s narrow House passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) did not distinguish itself with nuance or refinement. Both supporters and opponents engaged in absurd hyperbole, claiming that the measure would either bring about massive job losses here and Dickensian slavery in Central America, or create huge new opportunities for American exporters and repulse Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Of course, it won’t do any of those things. CAFTA supporter Rep. John Linder, a Republican from Georgia, injected a welcome dose of reality by pointing out that it is just a “modest foreign-policy agreement.” However exaggerated the rhetoric, the supporters clearly had the better argument.

--Mark Krikorian, “Bordering on CAFTA,” Washington Times, 7/28/05

REALITY

Last week, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passed Congress by a very small margin—it came down to W courting Congressmen for 2 deciding votes. The final voting tally was 217-214, with the breakdown being House Republicans voting 202-27 in favor of the bill and House Democrats voting 187-15 against the bill. Obviously this could be construed to be a very partisan vote. Was it?

Maybe W and the partisan Republicans should have taken the diminishing support of Democratic Congressmen for CAFTA, and free trade agreements in general, as an indication that perhaps the legislation has a few flaws and needed to be reconsidered. Of course, this would have required DeLay and W. to consult with Democrats, and conservatives to think about something other than their insatiable desire to blame the Democrats for everything.

Democrats should not be faulted for voting against a piece of bad legislation. Looking at the list of Democratic senators who voted against CAFTA, many of whom have demonstrated interest in international affairs and aiding disadvantaged populations, should the assumption be that these senators voted against CAFTA because it is bad legislation and not because they are trying to make W. look bad?

The Wall Street Journal, in addition to other media outlets, has tried to pass CAFTA off as the next-generation NAFTA. Thus, if Republicans were nice enough to pass President Clinton’s NAFTA, then Democrats should be willing to pass W’s CAFTA, because it is the exact same thing. This is not true.

First, let’s dispel the notion that NAFTA has been an unqualified success. It hasn’t. Many groups contend that NAFTA hasn’t done anything to help trade for any of the three parties. Other people suggest that NAFTA has actually been a negative for the participants, with US companies relocating manufacturing to Mexico to take advantage of cheaper labor. Pro-Mexico groups have argued that NAFTA has been a relative failure for them, because the promised markets for Mexican goods have not been opened in the United States. In addition, some environmental and labor laws have been circumvented by NAFTA.

Building from NAFTA’s flaws, CAFTA has added many new flaws of its own. Polianna profiled some of DR-CAFTA’s problems in early July. Other groups have also put together very thorough and comprehensive informational packets about the dangers of CAFTA. A few of these are sources are StopCAFTA, Quest for Peace, and Quixote. These sources detail some of the problems of CAFTA, including (but certainly not limited to) the lack of labor standards in some of the included countries and the agriculture-heavy nature of the legislation.

Regardless of the problems that CAFTA presents, Democratic senators should not be criticized for voting against a piece of legislation they feel is faulty. This is not partisan politics. And the contention that senators voted against CAFTA to make W look bad is ridiculous. If nothing else, it exposes an inherent weakness of the right—if legislation is bad, don’t point out its faults and generate a healthy public discussion, just bully the Democrats who have the smarts to say no.

It is also inherently wrong to suggest that Democratic Congressmen voted against CAFTA to maintain the support of unions. Let’s see, what is it that unions seek to do? Make sure their members have relatively good wages and health care benefits? Wow—that’s just pure evil. Perhaps the Democrats are giving due consideration to the members of the labor force who stand to be hurt the most by CAFTA—those in the industrial and manufacturing sector. What happens when manufacturing operations move to a Latin American nation so that Big Company X can shave a few dollars off the cost of its manufacturing process? When these jobs go south, literally in this case, what happens to these displaced workers? The workers—American workers that used to be able to support a family of four on wages obtained from a blue-collar manufacturing job. McDonalds? Wal-Mart? Needless to say, these McJobs don’t compare to manufacturing jobs, either in wage or benefits.

In addition to the animosity some members of the right had for dissenting Democrats, Republican Congressmen who voted against the legislation were questioned, too. One theory put forward by the right, and by Mark Krikorian in particular, was that Republicans voted against the legislation because it did not go far enough in its attempts to limit illegal immigration. Krikorian cites this as a main criticism of NAFTA, which failed to limit illegal immigration to the extent promised. Republican Congressmen desired a CAFTA that took a stronger stance towards illegal immigration. Of course, other Republicans support CAFTA because it would allow American businesses to contract cheap Latin American laborers legally, in their own countries, without having to shoulder the risk of employing illegals in America and having to pay them higher wages and even, gasp, provide them with health benefits. They still get cheap labor, but this makes it legal!

The final thing to keep in mind when thinking about the implications of CAFTA is the pork that resulted from it. How many deals did House leaders and the White House have to make with Republican Congressmen to persuade them to vote for in favor of CAFTA? How many extra “projects” were tucked inside the energy bill and the bankruptcy bill? We will never know the true cost of CAFTA. However, if you want to get a feel for the cost, just wait a year and ask the gentleman working behind the counter at McDonalds what HE thinks the cost of CAFTA was…