Why No Democratic Support for CAFTA?

Daniel Drezner has a reading comprehension problem.

He writes:

danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: Free trade democrats, R.I.P. (1934-2005): Beginning with the passage of the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, there has always been a signifcant contingent of Democrats who supported the expansion of foreign trade -- even when Republicans were mostly protectionist. That was then.... Look, CAFTA is not perfect.... [W]hile it's undoubtedly true that one can point to protectionist Republicans who are members of Congress, one can't say that the entire party is behaving in a protectionist manner. That's no longer true of Congressional Democrats.

Drezner's wrong. And the story he cites does not say what he claims it says. It does not say that free-trade Democrats are gone. Its conclusion is very different, very different indeed:

CAFTA: [A] core group of as many as 50 pro-trade Democrats are voting against CAFTA.... They complain that the administration failed to consult them during negotiations, taking their votes for granted. And they say past trade agreements were accompanied by increased support for worker-retraining programs, education efforts and aid to dislocated workers -- support that the president has not provided.

"Free and open trade is an important component to widening the winner's circle for all Americans, but it's not a Johnny One Note part of the puzzle," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher (Calif.), a co-chairman of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, who voted for the most contentious trade bills of the past half-dozen years....

When Clinton pushed permanent normalized trade relations with China in 2000, he secured the support of 73 Democrats.... The tally on CAFTA, expected after the Fourth of July recess if the White House can find the votes, could yield just 10 Democratic supporters.... [O]pponents say the deal steps back from previous commitments to stronger environmental and labor standards....

Administration officials are inoculating themselves against Democratic attacks with a letter from former president Jimmy Carter imploring support for CAFTA. "Some improvements could be made in the trade bill, particularly on the labor protection side," Carter wrote, "but, more importantly, our own national security and hemispheric influence will be enhanced" by passage. Other Democratic supporters include a who's who list from the Clinton administration, including former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Cabinet members Warren M. Christopher, Henry G. Cisneros, Dan Glickman, William J. Perry and Donna E. Shalala, not to mention the presidents of the CAFTA countries....

Two business lobbyists -- one Republican, one Democrat -- said some corporate groups will be sympathetic to the Democrats' position. In a highly charged partisan atmosphere, Republicans intentionally marginalized free-trade Democrats during negotiations and then presented them with a take-it-or-leave it deal, goading them to oppose it, said the lobbyists, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid harming relationships on Capitol Hill....

Comments

[me]

One thing I notice about the list of democrat supporters - not one of them is elected to office and has to field calls from constituents that have lost their jobs due to "free trade".

[Tom Cecere]

It's more than that; the Democrats in support have spent the latter part of their careers responding to "macro" issues, whereas congresspeople have a tendency to respond on a "micro" level. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong.

The relative lack of worker protections is to be expected from the Bush administration. Nonetheless, the key questions are:

1. Will the US be better off? Probably.
2. Will the other CAFTA countries (and their workers) be better off? Almost certainly.
3. Can Democrats get a better deal from this administration? No way.

I'm a Democrat and I am in support of CAFTA.

[drduster]

Republicans intentionally marginalized free-trade Democrats during negotiations and then presented them with a take-it-or-leave it deal, goading them to oppose it

It is beyond this democrat why any democrat would vote for CAFTA.

It is time for the 45 democrats in the Senate to wake up and come to understand that they will be an ever shrinking minority until that act so as to make it possible for someone in states, like mine, to run against Republican encumbants.

I live in Missouri and it would really help a Democratic Senate candidate if Talent were forced to vote for CAFTA. No democrat should vote for any bill, ever, until we are back in a majority.

Idiots

[Bernard Yomtov]

Whence this newfound Republican regard for Carter? Not long ago they were calling him a traitor.

[me]

Tom, I also support CAFTA but it galls me to see Republican cotton and siugar growers continue to receive protection. I am afraid I afree with drduster that if we are for the republican version of CAFTA then we should vote republican. The only way to delineate the issues clearly is to force republicans to carry Bush's water. 2006 is coming up and I refuse to believe the republicans have any edge on social security, healthcare, the economoy, pensions, or extremist judges. Oh, idd I mwention the depleted military chasing pipe dreams in Iraq? People know Rove is trying to replace communism with terra. People aren't buying. Bush thinks he has a mandate with 50% of the vote, let him prove it. 2006 will be 1994 redux.

[me]

Tom, I also support CAFTA but it galls me to see Republican cotton and siugar growers continue to receive protection. I am afraid I afree with drduster that if we are for the republican version of CAFTA then we should vote republican. The only way to delineate the issues clearly is to force republicans to carry Bush's water. 2006 is coming up and I refuse to believe the republicans have any edge on social security, healthcare, the economoy, pensions, or extremist judges. Oh, idd I mwention the depleted military chasing pipe dreams in Iraq? People know Rove is trying to replace communism with terra. People aren't buying. Bush thinks he has a mandate with 50% of the vote, let him prove it. 2006 will be 1994 redux.

[nk]

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&contentID=253294

http://www.mdf.coop/communication/cafta.htm

* How do U.S. agriculture subsidies hurt the economies of small, developing nations? Is ag a much bigger proportion of the economies in developing nations than in the U.S.?

* In general, does the U.S. have up-to-date policies (re-training grants or loans, tax relief for affected workers, etc) for portability and transition (workers, owners) in the U.S.? (textile industry, auto industry, agriculture industry, etc) Does the U.S. have domestic plan for transition to freer trade?

* In general, does the U.S. have incentives or plans for countries to improve corporate governance, human rights, ecologically sensible development, and supporting institutions?

Should the latter two * be part of a specific trade agreement? Could they be addressed in future policy and legislation?

[nk]

How will CAFTA affect other parts of the world?

(How will CAFTA affect U.S. relations with Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa?) (How will CAFTA affect interaction of other parts of the world excluding the U.S.?)

[Tom Cecere]

"Me", I cannot agree more about the sugar and cotton lobbies. Every time a Republican says, "I'm for lower taxes" some Dem ought to ask, "Then why do you always vote to make sugar more expensive for poor folk?" It waddles and quacks like a tax and most people can understand that it's a particularly Republican kind of tax -- take from the poor, give to the rich.

I also agree that the actual Democratic congresspeople should not necessarily vote for the treaty. They do have 2006 politics to consider. If I were there, I would vote for it, but Vermont has been helped enormously by NAFTA, so either position would be accepted here.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/business/worldbusiness/25textile.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Fraying of a Latin Textile Industry
By GINGER THOMPSON

SAN SALVADOR - Mondays are hiring days at the hulking garment factories that in the last 15 years helped lift El Salvador up from war and bring some 90,000 families out of extreme poverty. By 7 a.m., hundreds of women like Gloria Campos are lined up, hoping to get a tiny piece of prosperity.

But shifting global trade rules threaten to reverse El Salvador's industrial revolution. Employment in the garment industry, until recently a source of growth, declined in 2004 for the first time in a decade.

The government puts the number of jobs lost at nearly 6,000. Managers of assembly plants said the number was almost twice as high. Thousands more jobs will be lost this year, they predicted, threatening to drive up El Salvador's largest export to the United States: its people.

Trouble in the garment industry, brewing for years, has heightened here and in other struggling parts of Central America, as an end to global textile quotas at the beginning of the year spreads textile and clothes manufacturing to other parts of the developing world, particularly China.

But as close and nimble neighbors of the United States, El Salvador's exporters seemed to think that buyers in the United States would keep their workers busy in order to have a fast and easy alternative to Asia. And free trade agreements promised to buffer the region from outside economic forces.

That thinking comforted exporters throughout Central America, where an estimated 1,000 textile and apparel factories have employed some 500,000 people. But now, with quotas ended, merchants in the United States and Europe buy where it is cheapest. And here, as in Mexico, the trade agreements have led to more disappointment than promise.

As the biggest-name clothing brands hunt for bargains halfway around the world, the factories that became the engine of Central America's formal economy are starting to sputter....

[T-do]

I don't understand what is so difficult about being a pro-trade democrat. Why aren't there any democrats saying:

"Look, trade is beneficial for our society and others. But there are winners and there are losers to trade and I understand this. The world is changing, and as a society, and as individuals, we ARE going to have to evolve. That's why I support programs like unemployment insurance, job training, nationalized health care, I support higher education, etc. etc. etc. Republicans want to CUT these programs that provide you a means to evolve and some minimal level of protection from the global economy. They don't want to protect you from the changing world. Forget compassionate conservatism, we need compassionate capitalism." There, that was easy - so what's the democrat's problem?

Also, nk asks:
"How will CAFTA affect other parts of the world?

(How will CAFTA affect U.S. relations with Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa?) (How will CAFTA affect interaction of other parts of the world excluding the U.S.?)"

It won't. At least not in any significant way.

[Jussi]

nk:

"How do U.S. agriculture subsidies hurt the economies of small, developing nations?"

Agricultural subsidies hurt: if they lead to over-production which is then dumped in the form of 'aid', then where is the motivation for locals to produce their own food? Chronic underinvestment means there is no alternative to agriculture, so they can find themselves locked in poverty.

The question for me is always: how does the developed world keep its farmers and means of food production, without disadvantaging less prosperous people?

And the almost crippling question is: how do we get countries/organizations to agree to a solution?

[draw the line]

this is an action alert from the Democracy Cell Project.

(excert of article)

I am deeply troubled by the article in today's New York Times about the American Psychological Association's failure to categorically distance the organization and its members from ANY participation in the interrogation of prisoners (at Guantanamo or elsewhere) that might be construed as torture.

The Times reports on a new report from the APA which the organization issued in response to earlier reports about the possible participation of psychologists in U.S. interrogations of alleged terrorists.

Dr. Stephen Behnke is the the Director of the Ethics area. His number is 202-336-5930. Please contact him and let him know how YOU feel!

Please blogswarm...thanks

http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/2005/07/psychologists_s_1.html

http://www.democracycellproject.net

[anne]

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/601.html

March 3, 2003

Why Mexico's Small Corn Farmers Go Hungry
By TINA ROSENBERG

MEXICO CITY

Macario Hernández's grandfather grew corn in the hills of Puebla, Mexico. His father does the same. Mr. Hernández grows corn, too, but not for much longer. Around his village of Guadalupe Victoria, people farm the way they have for centuries, on tiny plots of land watered only by rain, their plows pulled by burros. Mr. Hernández, a thoughtful man of 30, is battling to bring his family and neighbors out of the Middle Ages. But these days modernity is less his goal than his enemy.

This is because he, like other small farmers in Mexico, competes with American products raised on megafarms that use satellite imagery to mete out fertilizer. These products are so heavily subsidized by the government that many are exported for less than it costs to grow them. According to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis, American corn sells in Mexico for 25 percent less than its cost. The prices Mr. Hernández and others receive are so low that they lose money with each acre they plant....

[anne]

Jussi

Nice comment to a terribly difficult problem. Commodities reliant developing countries are continually set at risk by subsidized competition from developed countries. That several Asian countries could not depend on commodity exports in developing added to the emphasis placed on intellectual and technical development. So we find Singapore and hopefully China and India.

[nk]

"The question for me is always: how does the developed world keep its farmers and means of food production, without disadvantaging less prosperous people?"

proposed (not probable or complete) answer: consolidation and productivity gains through technology. Labor is re-allocated to areas where the U.S. has comparative advantage. Government programs, or tax relief (current and future tax rate reductions for dislocated workers and owners), could facilitate re-allocation. Awareness programs might help too, so people are not caught unawares and can plan.

another possibility: the U.S. producers could find differentiated niches (natural, organic, non-gmo) and could avoid direct competition in commodities with developing nations. there are differences even in stuff like rice.

[nk]

another problem may be volatility and unpredictability of commodity prices. the govt. subsidies act somewhat as an insurer against volatile prices?

is it possible for the ag industry to develop its own insurance? (options - puts, calls, etc)(trade associations and co-ops with sophisticated financial risk-management).

[save_the_rustbelt]

Dan D. likes outsourcing, but doesn't seem to have any ideas about displaced workers in the U.S. But since they are just high school graduates with callouses on their hands, why would anyone in academia care?

Dan is a good guy with a blind spot, the same blind spot shared by most free trade advocates.

[nk]

strongly recommended:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/07/content_415840.htm

more optional:
http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-11/04/content_278155.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-10/15/content_272117.htm

[Movie Guy]

Let's not forget those surpressed CAFTA U.S. labor reports. Well worth the read.

Copies of U.S. labor reports (made available on 29 June 2005)
http://www.laborrights.org/

Nathan Newman: Suppressed CAFTA Labor Rights Reports
http://www.nathannewman.org/laborblog/archive/003140.shtml

Truthout: US Blocked Release of CAFTA Reports -- The Associated Press
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062905E.shtml

Sirota: Bush Tries to Bury Report On CAFTA
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/06/bush-tries-to-bury-report-on-cafta.html

My DD: CAFTA Advances Why We Weren't Looking
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/29/132123/579

Stakeholder: Death of CAFTA?
http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/003083.html#comments

Hangleft: The CAFTA coverup
http://hangleft.blogspot.com/2005/06/cafta-coverup.html

AP: U.S. Blocked Release of CAFTA Reports
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/ap_on_go_ot/free_trade_studies_5;_ylt=ApI0sVKdJjmlCJm1T3Xr5SN11AEB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Movie Guy]

Let's not forget those surpressed CAFTA U.S. labor reports. Well worth the read.

Copies of U.S. labor reports (made available on 29 June 2005)
http://www.laborrights.org/

Nathan Newman: Suppressed CAFTA Labor Rights Reports
http://www.nathannewman.org/laborblog/archive/003140.shtml

Truthout: US Blocked Release of CAFTA Reports -- The Associated Press
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062905E.shtml

Sirota: Bush Tries to Bury Report On CAFTA
http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/06/bush-tries-to-bury-report-on-cafta.html

My DD: CAFTA Advances Why We Weren't Looking
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/29/132123/579

Stakeholder: Death of CAFTA?
http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/003083.html#comments

Hangleft: The CAFTA coverup
http://hangleft.blogspot.com/2005/06/cafta-coverup.html

AP: U.S. Blocked Release of CAFTA Reports
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050629/ap_on_go_ot/free_trade_studies_5;_ylt=ApI0sVKdJjmlCJm1T3Xr5SN11AEB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[nk]

Tangentially related to CAFTA (free trade may mean less auto jobs at U.S. auto companies):

I have an idea. Maybe someone will read this, and Democrats and Republicans can find common ground. It should be no big surprise: GM has told everyone they are going to reduce the workforce by 1000s, if not tens of 1000s, in upcoming years. The recent "employee discount" surge will probably not prevent or stop this. This downsizing\reallocation is going to be a difficult time. There will be Type I and Type II errors. Some people will lose time spent toward seniority in an organization. There will be no easy answers.

One thing the govt could do to help is give people tax relief. Workers that are part of big downsizings (reductions in workforce of some amount\size) could be given tax breaks (bigger tax relief per # dependent, lower overall tax rate), both in the current year and over a number of future years. This will help ease the burden of transitioning to something new and will encourage people to find new jobs.

The Roth 401(K) is great for people who have jobs and the ability to save\invest. What about people who are in transition?

[Walker]

nk, nice suggestion but "tax relief" is not as meaningful to those whose incomes have are reduced, say from losing a job.

[Jussi]

Anne:

"Commodities reliant developing countries are continually set at risk by subsidized competition from developed countries."

Certainly, not to mention the fact that many are undiversified, leaving them vulnerable to market volatility.

I have a question for you on the subject of subsidies. Yesterday I read a statement from the EU Commission in their 'Agriculture News Digest':

"In Europe, we have completely revolutionised the way we subsidise our farmers. Our support payments are no longer linked to what farmers produce, making them non trade-distorting. Instead, they aim to ensure high environmental and animal welfare standards and encourage innovation and diversification in rural areas."

...and which apparently makes them 'Green box' subsidies under WTO rules.

What's your take on this?

[anne]

Jussi

Frankly, I love this form of ecological or green subsidy and can only hope for a spread. This is highly promising for agriculture everywhere and might well allow a narrowing of aid focus in developing states. Here is a remarkable European innovation. Thank you so much for raising the issue.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=3243&u=178|301|...

Brown Thrasher
New York City--Central Park, Azalea Pond.

[Jussi]

"Here is a remarkable European innovation. Thank you so much for raising the issue."

I was asking for a serious opinion, Anne.

Would you give one, please?