By John Nichols The Capital Times Organized labor is opposed to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Progressive farm groups are opposed to CAFTA. Environmental groups are opposed to CAFTA. Civil rights groups are opposed to CAFTA. Human rights groups are opposed to CAFTA. Virtually all of the organizations that are associated with what is loosely defined as the Democratic coalition are opposed to the trade deal that Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin says "will hurt American workers, hurt the workers of Central America and create instability in Central America that will force more immigration into the United States." So, of course, Senate Democrats must have been united in opposition to the Bush administration's proposal to expand on the failed model of the North American Free Trade Agreement which has wreaked havoc with the economies of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to create a free trade zone that extends from the Panama Canal to the Arctic Circle. Right? Wrong. When the Senate voted on CAFTA last week, a dozen Republicans abandoned the administration to vote "no." That meant that, if Democrats had been united in their opposition, the trade deal would have been easily defeated, and the president's plan to make it easier for multinational corporations to exploit workers, communities and the environment throughout the hemisphere would have been dealt a fatal blow. Instead, 10 Democrats New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman, Washington's Maria Cantwell, Delaware's Tom Carper, California's Dianne Feinstein, Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln, Washington's Patty Murray, Florida's Bill Nelson, Nebraska's Ben Nelson, Arkansas' Mark Pryor and Oregon's Ron Wyden as well as Vermont independent Jim Jeffords, who caucuses with the Democrats, voted for the president's proposal. As a result, CAFTA was approved on a 55-45 vote... Do regular American citizens recognize that this policy is indifferent from hate of most Americans and most Central Americans? That it affirms sweatshops over U.S. Jobs at decent wages? Economic globalization without a globalisation of the value of each child born anywhere and everywhere, of each family surrounding that child, of each community in which that family resides, is indifferent from selective hate. One of the many reasons why considering the Dems "opposition" is truly tragicomic.
But, but, but... Democrats are the Great Liberal Hope, right? I mean, if it weren't for the Democrats, a far-left moonbat like myself would be left without representation, right? And isn't the country becoming more polarized? Aren't the Democrats moving farther to the left? I hear it every day -- it must be true.
More proof that Democrats and Republicans are virtually indistinguishable...except on intractable social issues that they use to get elected time and time again and then do nothing about once they are in office.
Well this just proves that dems are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they will use dirty partisan politics to obstruct anything with his scent on it, just to make him look bad.
The Washington Post is saying that it will fail in the House, due largely to Democratic opposition. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/05/AR2005070501345.html
Say no more. I'm for it! This is quite possibly the most stupid thing Dick Durbin has ever said.... oops, nevermind. Once again our lefty friends are failing to see the forest for the trees. The idea behind both NAFTA and CAFTA is to help create jobs for our Latin American neighbors, thus mitigating the need for them to illegally immigrate to the US (can we at least agree that illegal immigrants are a drain on government funds?). Before coming back with "but NAFTA is already a disaster...", take a look at the job growth numbers in the US during the period since NAFTA has been enacted. That's right Lenin, they have grown every year. I think the general goal in creating this legislation goes a lot more with what Democratic ideals than you give it credit for. Creating more jobs in poorer parts of the world benefits everyone in many different ways. They have no need come to the US illegally because they now have jobs at home and you and I get reasonably priced goods here in the US. There's an old saying that I think applys here: "Give a man a fish (or a ride to America to suck on the government teet), and he will eat for a day (or take away construction jobs from US citizens). Teach a man to fish (or enact legislation that will help create jobs in his own country), and he will eat for his whole life (or he'll make an honest living for him and his family in his own country and we'll do the same in ours)." ...or something like that Cue the influx of neg reps (I wear them like red badges of courage)
We can look forward to more of the same in terms of decent paying jobs here: And more sweatshops in service not of humans and worthy wages but of corporate interest. Great. If by "great," we actually mean totally and undeniably ********ed. Up.
Yeah the language kinda sucks, in that "hmmm, this is about to become a political tool" way...for example, all it will take is for the Faux News/CNBC machine to attach "protectionist" both to the rallying Dems in the House and to notions of hating America (and American "business"), as this Post article has in fact intimated, and this "revolt" will crumble like ITN's moral sentiment. I'm almost always relaxed; but then, in this case, it's not gonna be me who gets his/her ass kicked. Those folks best not relax, and best stay on their Dem reps all the way through the coming media seige and protectionist charges...
The European Union codifies, in the fabric of its decision-rules, things like the Precautionary Principle and a hundred other things I've taken pains to post elsewhere. As Rifkin submits, the "European Union...has come closest to balancing market dynamism and social protection." That is, it takes social protection so seriously it makes it the fabric of its set of decision-rules. Ironically, the reason - one of the reasons - why it was rejected in France, for example, is that some French didn't think it went far enough; one of the reasons it failed in the Netherlands and one of the reasons it might have/might fail in teh UK is because some people think the social protections go too far. My sense from all that is that they've probably got it right, for Europe. But when you can point to the social protection fabric of these "free trade" agreements that ensure trade justice, you can compare these solely economic, skewed endeavours to the EU project. You'd have done better comparing these things to the EEC framework, and you'd still be wrong in that even the EEC is tied to the social protection framework of the EU.
Not that I believe one line off of your chart created by a pseudo-communist think tank, but where does it say on your chart how many jobs are lost each year by illegal immigrants coming in and taking American jobs? By the way, I think your chart is skewed by the fact that the categories of jobs that are currently being created are a bit different than the ones that left when NAFTA started. Low paying manufacturing jobs are being replaced by higher paying high-tech jobs and management positions that require bit more education (I could be wrong). I also could find an "independent" think tank to back me up with some skewed numbers.