Utah has been betrayed by our congressional delegation. With their recent votes in favor of the Central America Free Trade Agreement, our U.S. representatives collectively thumbed their noses at all of us.
Earlier this year, the state Legislature voted in favor of a resolution to keep us out of these free-trade agreements. This apparently fell on deaf ears with our national representatives.
If even one of Utah's congressmen had voted against CAFTA, it would not have passed. This was one vote where Utah could have made a difference.
How is it that our representative from northern Utah, Congressman Rob Bishop, was firmly against CAFTA until the moment of the vote? Could it be that he suddenly saw the light? Or is it more likely that he finally succumbed to the tremendous pressure from the Washington establishment?
I also find it ironic that Bishop can vote against the World Trade Organization, and yet be in favor of CAFTA. CAFTA's charter makes it perfectly clear that it is wholly subservient to the WTO.
As Bishop himself admitted, CAFTA has more to do with politics than trade. The ultimate goal of these agreements is progressive regionalization. Once we succumb to regionalization, it will not be difficult to incorporate these regional bodies into a world government envisioned by the founders of the United Nations.
When our elected officials vote for regionalization, they vote against representative government, against our Republic and against the Constitution. It's past time we held them accountable.
Jeff Wheelwright
Morgan
Mr. Wheelright's commentary centers, of course, on the cluster of issues that go to the merits of free-trade agreements themselves. And although he takes aim at the entire Utah congressional delegation, I'm simply going follow Mr. Wheelright's lead and focus on the actions of our own Rep. Bishop, who's supposed, in theory at least, to be especially responsible to the needs of the citizens of Northern Utah.
It can be said with certainty that the rapidly-expanding body of international law encompassed by international agreements such as CAFTA, will not only transform the foundations of our economic, legal and political systems but will also drastically effect our very culture itself. As the economic "playing field" is globally "leveled" by the dissolution of existing trade barriers between nations, we're bound to witness plenty of disruption, as American wage and price levels decline, and international courts begin enforcing our international treaty obligations.
We've already seen some interference in our domestic legal system, as local state legislative acts have been effectively "annulled" by conflicting provisions in NAFTA. We'll likely see lots more of this in the future, as individual international disputes wind their way into the international courts. Domestic wage and price levels have been in decline since the passage of NAFTA, too, and both US manufacturers and wage-earners are clearly feeling the pinch. Jeff Wheelright is right on track in his concern about Rep. Bishop's sudden performance turnaround. If there are readers here who'd like to discuss any of these issues, I'm offering this article so we can do just that.
There's also a second "cluster" of issues though, that come to the forefront here. By this I'm referring to questions that arise concerning the relationship of a U.S. Congressman to his citizen constituents, and what duties and obligations are owed by him when we send him to Washington with specific instructions on how to vote on particular legislation. What do we do about a congressman like Rob Bishop, who promises one thing, and does entirely the opposite -- in the middle of a hot Washington night?
That's exactly what Congressman Bishop did in this particular CAFTA instance. Although he campaigned and was re-elected on his promise to oppose heavy-handed international trade treaties, he then turned around and did precisely what he promised not to do. "CAFTA isn't nearly as bad as NAFTA," he meekly assures us, and besides -- it's all far too complicated for country bumpkins back in the province to understand anyway.
I don't know about the rest of you folks, but here's how I look at this problem: Congressman Bishop is analogous to an errand boy for the people of Utah, who's there in Washington at Utah citizens' bid and call. When we send him there to deliver a package of specific principles, we don't expect him to deliver a different one -- one that's put together by Tom DeLay. I don't know about you folks, but I'm growing pretty tired of political errand-boys who who start exercising complete and unbridled discretion, the minute they're out of earshot.
It seems to me that there's only way to deal with an errand-boy who carroms off on a tangent or personal "lark." What we do with such an errand boy is fire him.
This issue also has local implications too, I think. What do we do locally when we have a pack of errand-boys who ignore our instructions and do whatever they damn well please? Do we keep them employed, in the hope that they'll occasionally get it right every now and then, or do we simply cut them loose and replace them?
I'm throwing out this topic at the suggestion of one of our gentle Weber County Forum readers, who's also responsible for the "Stop the FTAA" graphic that now appears in the WCF right sidebar. I mention this only because it has been suggested on another thread, that I'm not fully-attuned to some of the issues that are important to some of the readers here. We can't have that now, can we?
If anyone would like to discuss the actual merits of international free-trade agreements, why not do that here? And how about this "errand-boy fidelity" question? Does anyone have additional thoughts on that?
Your comments, as always, are invited. Let's hear what you think on this topic.
8 comments:
Although I share Mr. Wheelwright's displeasure at Congressman Bishop's flip-flop, it isn't quite right to claim Bishop's single vote turned the trick for CAFTA.
("If even one of Utah's congressmen had voted against CAFTA, it would not have passed. This was one vote where Utah could have made a difference," said Wheelwright.)
The Republican leadership would've held that vote open for as long as it took to get the tally in CAFTA's favor. They would have found the vote somewhere; it was just a matter of which member yelled Uncle first over his or her twisted arm. And it was Our Rob. This happens regularly in the House of Representatives; neither party has a monopoly on the technique.
Will address errand boy fidelity question, having nothing to say about the merits of international trade agreements.
I absolutely agree. Bishop is there to protect our interests. We here in Utah.
I think actually, that Bishop, in Washington, became exposed to the concept of The Big Picture. He probably was all ready to vote in our economic and other interests until he was informed that There Is More At Stake Here.
In other words, the well-being of Utahns paled into insignificance when compared with The Global Threat of Communism.
I think he should have said, "That's not my job." I look at his job as consisting of looking out for Utah and leaving Global Threats to those employed by the government to deal with them.
Of course, it could be argued that a Global Threat would ultimately affect Utah. But the costs to Utah, as pointed out, are a very steep price to pay for a perceived, (operative word, "perceived,") Global Threat. And furthermore, there are as of yet no guarantees that CAFTA will even work in the way of staving off the perceived Global Threat.
This vote was made for the purposes of supporting a shaky government which is then supposed to strengthen with that support to then be a bulwark against the perceived Global Threat. The positive impact of this is based entirely on what happens in the future-----If that government continues to stand, If it is successful is forming its bulwark, Then the Perceived Global Threat will be averted. The benefit to us is as of yet intangible, and dependent on future events. Yet the cost of it is real, and tangible, involving real goods, real money, and real jobs, among other things.
Seems to be a governmental trend, doesn't it?
Can some one out their explain in plain and simple english just what the hell this CAFTA thing is and does and smells like?
If you are for it please tell us why, and the same if you aren't. No imflametory retoric please, just the fact mamme, just the facts.
People like me need the facts before we can get up the energy to get on our high horses and ride into battle! I don't like this phony Bishop any better than the next person, but I would like to know just how he stiffed us on this one, and what it means to the average schmo on the street.. Hell, as far as I know he did us a great service by his vote.
There's a government website on it here:
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/CAFTA-DR_Final_Texts/Section_Index.html
It is the Central America /Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. What it has done is knocked down the barriers previously up to give those countries freedom to sell product in the United States. It also begins to knock down a few barriers that have prevented us selling to them. The Government site says that:
"CAFTA-DR will immediately eliminate tariffs on more than 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial products, phasing out the rest over 10 years." meaning that they view this as a plus because our companies will no longer have to pay those tariffs to sell to those countries.
The government site also says:
"Eighty percent of CAFTA-DR imports already enter the United States duty free under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, Generalized System of Preferences and Most Favored Nation programs; the CAFTA-DR will provide reciprocal access for U.S. products and services."
That is why they think it's good, because we can now sell to them with the same ease with which they sell to us.
The reason I think it is not good is that the Central American standard of living is lower than ours is and labor is much cheaper. One of the things this probably has done is made these countries suddenly attractive to American corporations, who might begin to move manufacturing there to save costs, since the barriers to selling goods from there to here previously in place are gone. It also might create competition for the American manufacturer in the sense that suddenly, it might find itself being undercut by a Central American corporation that can sell those things for a lower price than we can make them here.
Furthermore, is selling to those countries as good as it sounds, in view of the fact that some of our products would have to be sold at such a low price that it might cut profit ? Or not be viable all together?
The other trade agreement, NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which opened up free trade between Canada and us, hit some US industries hard because the Canadian dollar is "cheaper" than ours. The things that I mentioned above happened with NAFTA, in that American companies suddenly realized that with all these American dollars, they could make incredible profits if they produced things in Canada rather than here. And they did.
Put it this way---if I were the owner of a huge corporation, I would see this as my golden opportunity to go to Central America, just as I went to Canada a few years ago, and cut my production costs immensely. I would then be laying off or firing all my employees who did not want to go with me, or whom I decided I did not need because labor over there can be had for a fraction of the salaries I have to pay here. A trend like this will not help the American economy. It's great for big business that wants to open overseas operations. Very good for them, and a huge hole here where they once were.
Maybe they looked at all these issues and decided they wouldn't affect us that much---I have no way of knowing if or how they did----and I am certainly not an expert on the particulars of what kind of imports/exports we are talking about here, except that I do know that we will see a lot of agricultural imports, which will not help American farmers any.
That's how I see it at least, at this point.
Central America Free Trade Agreement....get it done cheaper there than here but with inferior workmanship and material. Less duty on their exports and our imports but not much passed our way. Our job force takes a beating.
Dian tells it much more profound.
I put the "Stop FTAA" graphic link in the always-informative WCF sidebar, so that people who are presently "in the dark" can "get some light."
Please click the "graphic to get more information. It's a good starting point for anyone interested in the so-called "free trade" treaties.
While you're at it... why not click a google ad every now and then, just to demonstrate your support for this site?
CAFTA was stoutly opposed by U.S. agricultural and textile producers who are reeling from the economic impact of NAFTA and who are understandably worried that CAFTA will trigger another flood of imports and another hemorrhage of industrial jobs.
Rather than promoting what could honestly be called free trade, CAFTA amounts to a foreign aid program -- using nonreciprocal access to U.S. markets as a roundabout subsidy for agricultural programs in foreign nations.
The purpose is to create a union of countries in the Western hemisphere like the European Union in Europe. Through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) the U.S.joined with Mexico and Canada in an embryonic political and economic union. CAFTA is the next step in the plot to integrate the hemisphere.
The economy of the six CAFTA nations is miniscule amounting to a market the size of New Haven, Connecticut. The CAFTA nations are an economically stagnant population of 46 million people, more than half of whom live below the poverty level (defined by their standard of living, not ours). Costa Rica, the wealthiest CAFTA nation, has a per capita GDP of $9,000. -- roughly one-quarter of ours. Every nation other than Costa Rica displays emigration, meaning that their citizens are leaving home in search of economic opportunity. This is not a potentially lucrative U.S. export market. This is a classic outsourcing agreement in which the only significant U.S. export will be more manufacturing jobs.
The six CAFTA nations will be granted immediate access to U.S. food markets. However, U.S. food producers will have to wait for years, or even decades, in order to be granted reciprocal access.
Even worse for persons taking vitamins and dietary supplements
Section 6 of CAFTA discusses Codex as a regulatory standard for nations that join the agreement.
CODEX rules were implemented by the United Nations in the 1960s to "harmonize" food and supplement rules between all nations of the world. Under Codex rules a doctor's prescription is required for basic vitamins and minerals.
The European Union has already adopted the Codex regs that will be in effect all across Europe next year. This is all tied into the World Trade Organization (WTO)
which Congress has complied with regarding the WTO order to change our tax laws.
The bottom line is that Congress has given up our sovereignty in certain areas in order to sign these treaties. Congress has signed away basic freedoms we have enjoyed and given control to bureaucrats who do not answer to American voters.
There is nothing this bill nor the proposed FTAA treaty does that is beneficial for U.S. citizens.
Congress and the Bush Administration have sold us out one more time. I feel very angry at and betrayed by Utah's Bishop, Matheson, Bennett and Hatch who delivered this victory for the president. They certainly ignored their oath of office to serve Utah voters with fidelity.
Certain leaders since the 1940s have talked about a one world government. I thought they were crazy. Now it is evident that our elected officials have also gone mad.
Dorothy, thank you for writing that post. There is a lot there that I didn't know before.
After I wrote mine, I was left thinking why would the government do these things that are causing so much damage to the American economy? The possibility that the government is allied to and/or a tool of big business did of course occur to me, but somehow, in view of the cost to the country as a whole, this is either too simplistic or too diabolical for me to accept as the entire reason.
I thought back to something that had intrigued me when Bush first came into office, before 911. The entire agenda then seemed to be focussed on trade agreements. I remember this, and it puzzled me, in view of all the problems this country was and is facing internally.
And then I too thought of the One World government concept. Thought---could it be that they don't really believe that they are giving these things away, but are instead achieving more territory through the possible creation of these other nations' economic dependence on and relationships with us? Do they really believe that the justification of the weakening of our sovereignty lies in the fact that at some point in the future, all the Americas will be joined together and it won't matter anymore?
If that is true, I still say that the cost is too great. With every agreement we make, we are eroding our standard of living. We are getting more and more poverty and crime. And if we are also getting into a situation where the American people will no longer have a voice on certain things, as you say regarding CODEX, this is indeed serious. We might just turn into a gigantic territory with less benefits, and a lower per capita standard of living than we had before. And it would take a long time to get back to where we were, I think.
Post a Comment