Politics is in the air and as usual it stinks.
Nancy Pelosi has probably effectively canned the Colombian Free Trade Agreement catering to the Democratic talking points, one of which is that free trade agreements are bad for American workers.
Ironically, in a very twisted way, this puts her in direct alignment with leftists in Columbia as well as Central and South America who are opposed to the free trade agreement but for different reasons.
This is where it gets really weird.
The Democrats would argue that workers in Columbia don’t have the same rights and benefits that American workers have therefore they are able to be paid less causing an unlevel playing field. Also, the democrats would use the free trade agreement to manipulate social change in Colombia such as protection for union workers, control of the drug traffic and protection of of endangered species.
Here’s the irony. The leftists in South America see all of these things … these assurances that the Democrats want, the better pay and benefits for Colombian workers … as the United States forcing it’s “imperialistic” ways on South and Central American countries.
Now, if you can get through Toni Solo’s Marxist gibberish, you can see he’s opposed to the trade agreement for all of the assurances that would have to be in it for the Democrats to approve it.
Since Colombia is already sending its goods to the United States tariff free, the trade agreement would remove the current high tariffs on American goods exported to Colombia. This would help large manufacturers such as Caterpiller and help to create much needed jobs in the industrial sector, something both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama repeatedly say they are in favor of.
From the above article:
If the agreement levels the playing field between the two nations, why is there so much criticism of it?
Good question. Certainly not because of the substance. It was probably best expressed by [House Ways and Means Committee] Chairman [Charles] Rangel, who said, “It’s not the substance on the ground—it’s the politics in the air.”
At the recent conference in New Orleans on NAFTA, even New Orleans mayor came out in favor of the trade agreements which are beneficial if not crucial for New Orleans recovery from Katrina:
It has also divided Democrats. While Mr. Bush reveled in the expected support of American business executives who gathered in New Orleans under the auspices of the United States Chamber of Commerce, he also found an ally in this city’s Democratic mayor, C. Ray Nagin, who on Monday evening said trade benefited the city, still reeling under the ravages of Hurricane Katrina.
Frankly, I’m not in blanket agreement with the free trade agreements and even share some of the concerns of the leftists in Latin America for the same reasons they oppose it, that these agreements give foreign powers too much influence over our sovereignty.
Frankly, I don’t think we have any more business telling other countries how to run their affairs than they have telling us how to run ours.
The bottom line on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement is that it removes tariffs on U.S. goods being exported into Colombia, levels the playing field in that respect making it both good for American businesses and American workers.
If I can make that distinction,then why can’t Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?
When is doing something good for Americans bad for a political party?
Filed under: News | Tagged: Barack Obama, Charles Rangel, Colombian Free Trade Agreement, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Hurricane Katrina, Nancy Pelosi, New Orleans, New York Times, Ray Nagin, U.S. News and World Report |