Trade & Politics: Revisiting (and Reworking) NAFTA

by David R. Butcher | January 23rd, 2008

Email |

Print |

Post Comment

As presidential candidates jockey for position in the primaries, free trade has taken a more prominent role than anyone expected. And with the nation grappling with the threat of recession, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been coming under fire. A recently introduced bill would require improving NAFTA — or withdrawing from it.

Related Stories

NAFTA and OSHA Cut the Red Tape

The Pros and Cons of NAFTA

How and When Will Obama Approach NAFTA?

Reps. Nancy Boyda (D-Kansas), Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and five others last month introduced legislation ordering the government to renegotiate the controversial United States-Mexico-Canada free trade treaty. The NAFTA Accountability Act, H.R. 4329, would require evaluation of NAFTA impacts and renegotiation or withdrawal from NAFTA if certain conditions are unmet.

According to Congresswoman Boyda’s Web site last month:

The bill finds that, since NAFTA was enacted, the American trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has climbed to $919 billion. Outsourcing has devastated the U.S. manufacturing base and cost America over a million living-wage jobs, and poor border security has contributed to the illegal importation of methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana from Mexico.

According to news reports earlier this month, dozens of Mexican farm activists in Ciudad Juarez blocked one lane of the border bridge leading into El Paso, Texas, to protest the unrestricted imports of U.S. corn, beans and sugar as part of a 36-hour demonstration. A new contingent of farmers this week joined a march heading toward the capital in rejection of NAFTA.

A week after the first protest, Mexican President Felipe Calderon defended NAFTA, saying the trade agreement has generally “been beneficial for Mexicans because it has given consumers access to a greater range of high-quality products at better prices.”

Trade using surface transportation between the U.S. and its NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico hit an all-time high in October, according to recently released data from the Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

Imports into the U.S. from these two countries increased nearly 11 percent in October over the previous year, reaching $74.2 billion, while exports also rose significantly.

Trade with Canada rose 14.1 percent to $47.68 billion in October, while trade with Mexico rose 6 percent to $26.57 billion, according to the government data.

The top-tier Republican candidates for most of last year all support a conventional pro-trade agenda. The top-tier Democrats on the other hand, oppose a conventional trade agenda. (Rather than flat-out opposing lower barriers to trade or endorsing explicitly protectionist measures, Democratic candidates often couch their views in terms of environmental concerns and workers’ rights.)

Yet even supporters admit NAFTA is flawed, but nobody had the guts to fix the problem.

The NAFTA Accountability Act, an omnibus bill that lawmakers approved to fund 12 government departments and various agencies, includes a provision asking the Bureau of Labor Statistics to study the impact of NAFTA. If the negotiations do not produce five specific, concrete improvements, the bill says the U.S. must withdraw from NAFTA.

The following are the five conditions:

1) Gains in U.S. jobs and living standards (by the Secretary of Labor);

2) Increased U.S. domestic manufacturing (by the Secretary of Commerce);

3) Improved health and environmental standards, with respect to food imports and to U.S.-Mexico border areas (by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Food and Drug Administration, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency);

4) Reduced flow of illegal drugs from Mexico and Canada (by the Attorney General); and

5) Mexican democracy and human freedoms (by the President).

“NAFTA is dragging down our economy, weakening our borders and devastating our manufacturers,” Boyda, the lead sponsor, told a radio show announcing the H.R. 4329 bill. “After 14 years, it’s time to either fix NAFTA or get the heck out of it.”

Should the next U.S. president walk the walk of protectionism? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Earlier: The Pros and Cons of NAFTA

Email |

Print |

Post Comment |

Follow Discussion |

Recommend | Recommended (0)

Comments:

A is A

January 23, 2008

What we need is complete lassiez-faire captialism and open borders with far less restrictions on immigration.

The only restrictions on immigration ought to be on those persons with contagious diseases, terrorists, bona fide criminals and foreign soldiers having the intent of invasion.

Reply to this comment

JOHN

January 25, 2008

A is A: You offer the right to immigrate to anyone who chooses to do so. With every right comes responsibilities.

What responsibilities would you place on un-fettered immigration? Would they enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of US citizens? Would they have paid taxes to support the social, welfare and educational opportunities that long time citizens and/or their extended families have supported for decades, with or without the use there-of? Would they be required to spend and/or
invest their earnings within the US as the VAST majority of US citizens do? Would they be prohibited from creating and then living in slum conditions, abet better than where they came from, and sending the majority of the US economy supported wages to a foreign country to be held there until they can return and live at a higher standard than most? Would they be required to learn and speak the language of their new home so that they could be fully assimilated into the society and customs, or would they continue to live and demand conditions similar to their native country and education in their native tongue?

Any immigrant who does not conform to adoption of US customs, investment in US economy and the love of country that native born possess are in fact, FOREIGN SOLDIERS, having the intent of invasion, that will change the way of life that has made this country the desirable place it is to live and work…

The only difference is they do it without a soldier’s uniform and as infilitrators in the night…terrorists, admittedly, unintentedly, but surely and slowly overthrowing our way of life… becoming a cancer from within that you want to encourage with full rights and no responsibilities.

This is the difference in idealism and political correctness and the results that it leaves for others to content with.

Reply to this comment

See More Comments

Harold Steves

January 26, 2008

Canada may have had some trade benefits from NAFTA but it is certainly not the average Canadian who has benefited. The decline in social programmes in Canada is totally in sync with the rise of NAFTA. The infrastructure of our cities is suffering and our farms have been devistated. Over the past decade our federal and provincial governments have cut health and social programmes,seniors, affordable housing and childcare programmes and hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for our cities. There are line-ups and waiting lists at our hospitals.

Support programmes that helped farmers in the hard times have been eliminated as Canadian farms are devastated by cheap imports. At the same time as our health care is cut, Canadians can give thanks that they can get sick more easily as NAFTA rules have reduced environmental standards to the lowest common denominator allowing foods laced in pesticides and other chemicals to be imported into the country.

The latest Statistics Canada statistics show that small farmers across Canada are disappearing like the dodo as farms are being gobbled up at Wal-mart prices by agribusiness, developers, speculators, and absentee owners. The only exception is British Columbia where farmland has been protected from development since 1973.

I’m a “redneck” farmer from British Columbia. Please vote Democrat!

Reply to this comment

A is A

January 27, 2008

All human beings retain their individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness by the fact that they are human whether they were born under a tyranny or a constitutional republic. The fact that they can exercise those rights under our constitutional republic is beneficial to both.

Gradual fully open immigration is essential to the health of America and to the individuals that comprise it because: immigrants bring determination, creativity, and the willingness to work hard to succeed precisely because they appreciate the value of freedom to choose-what to think, where to live, what kind of work to do, and to live free of coercion. This is the moral and the practical. It is moral because every human being has the same rights and it is practical because it gives immigrants a chance to live in a free (albeit now semi-free) society and that history has shown that America has benefited from embracing immigrants is beyond calculation.

Being an immigrant does not automatically grant citizenship status, but citizenship is a goal they may or may not want to achieve. But immigrants have the right to pursue citizenship status with all that entails.

Responsibilities of immigrants are similar as are those of natural citizens, i.e., working for a living, paying their bills, raising their families just as they have done since the beginning of this country.

Reply to this comment

A is A

January 28, 2008

Harold Steves:

In lieu of the debacle and devastation that socialism has visited on Canada, Canada ought to fully embrace lassiez-faire capitalism.

Reply to this comment

JOHN

January 29, 2008

A is A:

You have never seen neighborhoods devestated by three and four times the normal number of persons in a one or two bedroom home, most of whom have no employemnt, are fearful of reporting the crime upon themselves committed by their own because the fact that they are even here is a crime in itself.

You have not been the owner of a business near an area where the illegals congregate in the morning waiting for day work pick-up and watched your business that you have perhaps invested a life’s savings creating be devestated because your customer base is afraid to park their vehicles and have their family walk to your door.

You have not needed the services of an emergency room in a city hospital that is so crowded that the seriously ill whose tax dollars support the hospital, must wait hours for service while the staff is overrun with illegals with a variety of need that they cannot get in the proper channel because they have no insurance as they are illegal and come to emergency rooms because they, by law, MUST be served.

You have not wondered how far you and your family will need to drive if they require emergency room care because the hospital nearest to you closed their emergency room because financially, they could not continue absorbing the cost of treatment to illegals who did not or could not pay…or just plain disappear after treatment.

You have not sat on a local school board that is trying to figure out how to hire teachers versed in Spanish to teach the children of illegals since, one, they can’t find them and two, if they could how would they pay them, since the tax base just is not being fed by the illegals.

You have not been the court system, that has found that they have additional costs for every appearance of a Mexican illegal for either criminal or civil cases since they must provide a translater and a court reporter who are in such demand that they can earn a substancial wage for the work.

Get off the soap box of platitudes and politically correct ideals and face the real world of problems that face the common citizen that are a direct result of criminals entering our borders illegally. Without proper entry visas, ANYONE who crosses into this country with the intent to stay has broken the law, has committed a crime. In my view, anyone who provides help and support has aided and abetted that crime and is to that extent a part of it.

If you don’t agree with current immigration laws, and I support your right to your position, work to change the law, vote for candidates who will do that, but do not put the right to live whereever one chooses as a among the declarations of our Bill Of Rights. Do not go so far as to assume that all who come here illegally are making or will make the our country a better place to live. You need to get in your car, drive around a major US city and see for yourself the destruction that illegal immigration has brought with it. You need to talk with a city police officer who deals on a daily basis with the crime in areas with concentrations of illegals.

In short, put down the philosophy books and spend a little time in the real world of illegal immigration.

Reply to this comment

A is A

January 29, 2008

John:

If you are speaking about yourself, I am sorry to hear that you are having a tough time. You have your pragmatic government officials to thank for your troubles.

You ought to be complaining to your government, as they are the ones that created the present mess and they have refused to take responsibility and accountability for their short-range blindness in both domestic and foreign policy. When you complain you ought to complain for the right reasons and not for false alternatives. But you must know the right reasons to do so.

The trouble with our government is that they have deliberately turned away from the philosophical principles on which this country was founded as they have been generally advocating socialism for at least the last century.

The political correctness and platitudes you complain about are all attributes of socialism, not of lassiez-faire capitalism nor of any of my statements.

Advocating viable principles based on an integrated philosophy that holds man’s life as the standard value is the fundamental means of changing the world in which we live for the better.

One way of changing the world for a better future: one must know first where we have been and where we are now in terms of ideas because human beings run their lives on ideas (by necessity consciously or unconciously) and men run the world.

I have not mentioned the Bill of Rights at all. You should read what I say more carefully. It will help you to direct your thinking more appropriately. As you have the right to go anywhere in this country so does anyone else.

It is not right for you to presume what I do in life. I live in the real world and work for a living like most of us do.

That you are angry and blind does not preclude others from listening and seeing the necessity of challenging the contradictions and fallacies of one’s own thinking.

Reply to this comment

JOHN

January 30, 2008

A is A:

I have no tough time. I am near retirement, I have worked in, owned, and worked for various segments of the US economy for well over 55 years. I have no debt and my concerns revolve about what the country will be for my grandchildren. My immediate ancestors were immigrants to this country from both Europe and the middle east. They CAME to be US citizens and by CONTRIBUTING to the country, help themselves and not JUST to help themselves and so what if they contribute to the country.

In the interest of knowing where we have been: You seem to be among the many who wane about the philosphy of the founders and what their positions were about our nation at that point in time. You would be amazed if you bothered to investigate…they offered Washington the position of KING! They believed in slavery; held that one must be a property owner to vote, if you had paid taxes; held that women could not vote and that children could be chatles and that indentured servitude was acceptable.

The position that you must come here through legal channels with a set of rules for conduct while here seems to pale in comparison to the basic rights for all in the mind set of the founding fathers. Thank goodness we have turned away from some of the principles of our founding.

You are correct, you did not refer directly to the Bill of Rights, only the language that it professes and protects. I take exception to your statement that your philosphy and comments will direct my thinking in a more appropiate fashion. What gall, what conceit! I made no comment about what you do for a living, I could not care less; only suggested that you look at the real results of unfettered, illegal immigration as it affects citizens in their everyday life. I to work, not for a living but because I want to, and believe I have something to contribute the growth of the business that pays me!

Yes, you are correct I have the right to go anywhere in this country and so does anyone else [and you left out the next proper words] WHO IS A CITIZEN. I, however, do not have the right to go anywhere I like in any other country. I need a passport, visa and other documents because very entity on the globe has the right to be secure within its own borders as that is an extension of the right to be secure within our home.

Your concerns about socialism are a proper worry, fueled by both real problems and the need to be politically correct. If you disavow it so completely, at retirement, refuse Social Security; refuse to send your children to public education, it is funded by a “collective” called a school corporation and all in the collective are required to participate in the funding regardless of need or use; do not call the local Fire or Police departments for the same reasons.

We do not nor could we live in a socialistic free, true democracy…never have, never will, this is a democratic republic…we pledge our alligence to the flag….”and to the republic for which it stands”…not the socialistic free democracy. I suggest that the country you desire as little to do with the intended direction of our founding fathers, but what you have romanticized their ideas to be in the guise of political correctness and an idealized notion of the rights of all of mankind.

Further, YOU would be wise to heed your last statement, for the best advise one can receive is generally that
you give unsolicitedly to another!

Reply to this comment

A is A

January 30, 2008

John:

America is constitutional republic. It is not a democracy. Ancient Athens was a democracy and it allowed the ruling mob to destroy the individual named Socrates. Facts are facts.

I do not wane about our founders, I wax with enthusiasm about their great achievements.

I speak of our founders of laying down certain principles and structures of government that allowed its people to enjoy an unprecedented freedom for life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness in the whole history of mankind up to that time. Observe the explosion of wealth creation that followed the founding of this country. I did not say the founders did not make egregious errors. In view of their great achievements in their era of history, the errors are minor.

The fact that George Washington refused to be King speaks volumes for his integrity. You forget that our founders lived in a time when the certain acceptable behaviors were the norm. That they had the foresight and courage to challenge many of those behaviors is to their great credit. Hence, America.

Your third paragraph makes no sense.

If you had an active mind, ideas based on reason and logic, I would challenge you to check your premises. You still can.

In your fifth paragraph: Disavowing life is not a viable alternative, changing the system is.

Your sixth: You do not understand what a constitutional republic is nor what democracy is. I doubt, though you claim to be a businessman, that you even understand what socialism or capitalism mean, so unfortunately the following will probably read as Greek to you, John.

I advocate complete lassiez-faire capitalim. This will only work under a constitutional republic that recognizes the individual as the basic social unit and protects individual rights as absolute. That life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are absolutes. That force is banned from all human relationships is absolute. That the government can only use retaliatory force should some entity initiate its use is absolute.

Seventh: The choice is yours, John. We will have a constitutional republic with complete lassiez-farie capitalism, though it may not be in America, and it won’t be tomorrow; but it will happen, simply because rational minds will create it. The guiding philosophy now exists.

Eighth: By addressing me in your posts, you are soliciting my response. I initiated this particular discussion and I am ending my participation with John in this my last posting to you because you, John, offer nothing but mess and confusion.

Reply to this comment

Russell

March 11, 2008

Free trade is better for all. Americans as consumers want the products they purchase at the lowest marginal cost. Protecting US jobs for the sake of keeping jobs in the US is not the most efficient use of America’s resources. The US needs to produce more goods and services that we have a comparative advantage in providing over other countries’ capabilities, specifically the countries where we share in open trade. Now imposing trade barriers because of ethical reasons is a whole different discussion that I have no interest in entertaining because it is a lose-lose proposition.

Reply to this comment

2012	2011
2010	2009
2008	2007
2006	2005
2004	2003
2002	2001
2000

Thank you for commenting	close

Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.

Error	close

Please enter a valid email address