Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, read this if you want to see how free-trade-supporting Democrats can come out against CAFTA. DeLong is pro-free trade in a big way.
|
Did you actually read what the Blog said. These comments are from the "Center for American Progress". Not exactly an unbiased source. Not really a free trade group. The purpose of a free trade agreement is to increase free trade. And CAFTA does that. All these criticisms of CAFTA critisize it for not doing things that have anything to do with free trade. Its only crticisms are:
1) by imposing, for example, obligations to provide certain forms of intellectual property protection....
Is this such a terrible thing. Protecting intellectual property.
2) the rule of origin in the textile provisions is sufficiently restrictive that it may impede the ability of industries in the DR-CAFTA countries to remain competitive....
This makes no sense to me.
3) The refusal of the Administration to include enforceable labor standards in the agreement, despite the well-documented absence of basic international labor protections in some of the DR-CAFTA countries, is a missed opportunity....
This is a free trade agreement. Not a international labor agreement.
4) the Administration is not dedicating the long-term resource and financial commitments necessary to realize the environmental goals of the agreement.
They should be happy it has environmental goals. Again this is a free trade agreement.
5) The Administration's insistence on a provision that forbids DR-CAFTA countries from using test data submitted by one pharmaceutical company to approve a similar drug of another pharmaceutical company could increase the cost of much-needed drugs in the region....
This needs more explanation but is getting pretty nitpicky.
6) Existing safety net programs such as extended unemployment insurance and trade adjustment assistance (TAA) already fall far short of needed support. Yet... the Administration has tightened the eligibility requirements....
Again - nothing to do with the Free Trade Agreement.
7) On DR-CAFTA, as with each previous trade agreement, the Administration has failed to engage in bipartisan consultation.
This is such BS. It is either a good agreement or not whether or not he kissed up to egotistical and childesh congressman.
As much as the Dems try and cloud the issue, this Agreement reduces tarrifs and subsidies. That is always a good thing. Every group that matters (to me anyway) supports this agreement. Are you saying the DLC is wrong to support it?
