Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
God help me, I'm going to try one more time. Then I will say no more about it.
Let's think of it in terms of a hypothetical. Let's assume that there is a "perfect" (defined as "including everything that Spanky wants, and nothing else") draft free trade agreement between the US and Hypoistan. Hypoistan is a Third World country that is (outside of South Carolina) the only source of Hypoicide, a chemical essential to the USAF's new B-3 Really, Really Invisible Bomber, as well as the active ingredient in a very tasty new Frito-Lay product called HypoChips. They also provide call center services for Microsoft, and make very fashionable leather bags.
Let's assume that there is a group of Spankists in Congress who agree with President Spanky, but not enough of them to pass or ratify the "perfect" agreement.
Let's assume that just to the left of the Spankists are a group who like free trade, but who think that the "perfect" agreement needs to require Hypoistan to enforce its laws on child labor so that 5 year olds actually stop spending 18 hours a day in the dangerously unsafe Hypoicide factories, and enforce the environmental laws on pumping sludge into the water. This group thinks that this non-enforcement makes Hypoistan's products cheaper than they would otherwise be, since there are significant cost savings associated with using child labor and in freely pumping sludge. They, added to the core Spankists, will equal enough votes for passage.
Let's assume that just to the right of the Spankists are a group who like free trade, but who (a) are from South Carolina, and are worried that the influx of foreign Hypoicide will cripple their local factories, or (b) are national defense hawks, and are very concerned about what will happen after cheap Hypoicide floods the market, putting US companies out of business, and forcing the DoD to rely upon a foreign source for this essential chemical. The rightists also add enough votes to the core Spankists to get a deal passed.
President Spanky (after trying to crack a few heads) is pissed to discover that he can't get a "perfect" agreement passed, so he grumbles a bit, and decides to cobble together an unpure, imperfect deal. Since the rightists are members of his political party, he goes to them for the votes. He assures the rightists that the DoD will give no-bid contracts to domestic Hypoicide producers, ensuring that South Carolina will keep its factories and that the US will not have to rely on a bunch of commies for this vital part of the national defense. The treaty, as modified into a no longer "perfect" or pure free trade agreement, is approved.
Given all that, how, exactly, are those who would vote for a free trade bill with Hypositan if it had the labor/environmental provisions any less partisan than the president who caved on pure free trade to appease his party? Or the ones who only voted for it when the subsidy was added for their benefit?
|
I am going to assume that the volume of all the other trade we have with Hypositan greatly outweighs the trade of Hypoicide. If the "Free Trade Agreement" actually increases the restriction on Hypoicide and the rest of the trade does not count for much I wouldn't make that deal. In other words if we buy a lot of Hypoicide from Hypoistan, but with the treaty we will buy a lot less I would have a lot of trouble pushing it through. But assuming this bill will greatly increase the volume of trade, and American companys get full access to their market then great.
1) The left wing guys that voted against the agreement because it did not have any labor or environmental provisions I would have no problem with. They are against free trade and I understand that. They are voting against the bill because they are against it, not just because I am president.
2) It is the congressman that say they are pro-business and pro-free trade when they ran for congress and then voted against this deal I would have a problem with. I would say they are choosing partisan politics over free trade policy. If you believe in free trade, lower tariffs are good no matter what else happens. That is what people think you mean when you say your are pro-free trade. That is what business expect when you say you are pro-free trade. But don't try and say you are pro-free trade and then vote against the bill because there are no environmental or labour restrictions. If they vote against the bill it is not because they are against it, it is because I put it forward.
3) If these pro-free trade congressman came to me and said that their problem with the treaty was the set aside for the Hypoicide was a problem then I would have sympathy. Especially if their consitutuents would benefit from cheaper Hypoicide. Then their complaints about the treaty not being a free trade treaty would e legitimate.
Note: In CAFTA the pro-free trade Democrats that voted against the treaty voted against it because the enforcement mechanism for the treaty for the labour and environmental protectsio were not strong enough. Not that it did not have these provisions. These pro-free trade Democrats are not really pro-free trade or they are putting partisanship over principles.
Another note is that when negotiating the treaty I would not have any problem asking that Hypostan enforce its child labour laws and to increase their environmental protection. But I would not ask for any restrictions or regulations that put such a heavy burden on their businesses that they couldn't be completitive. LIke a really high minimum wage. In addition, if they turned me down I would not sacrifice any of the pro-free trade sections in this treaty. The tariff reductions are paramount. If there is no treaty they will continue to abuse their child labour and pollute the environment. With a free trade treaty their GNP will increase which will provide a permamanent solution t these problems (it is in poor countries where the children are more exploited and the environmental degredation is the worst). The treaty will help the GNP of this country and our country. The labour restrictions and environmental regulations are a bennie but not a deal breaker.
On the other hand I would have to be extremely coerced and have to be convinced that the deal could not be passed any other way to leave any tariffs on Hypostans products or to continue subsidies on any US products. In addition, the increases in free trade made by the treaty would have to greatly outweigh these subsidies and tariffs.
