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.
