Bush Pushes More Trade Agreements
Posted by Joshua Price on February 15, 2008
As if the destruction of our domestic production abilities by NAFTA and other free-trade agreements weren’t enough, the Bush administration is pushing for yet more such agreements.
From today’s Washington Post:
As the Bush administration races to push free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea through Congress before leaving office next year, it is meeting a level of resistance observers call high even by the normally contentious standards of such debates.
If you’ve read this blog consistently you know that I am a proponent of fair, not free trade. Far too many of our current trade agreements have resulted in one-sided benefits to the other country or region (see NAFTA).
What is really starting to get me, however, is that if you’re opposed to a prospective trade agreement you are automatically called a “populist,” “protectionist,” or “anti-capitalist.” I am certainly not anti-capitalist, nor a populist, but I am interested in protecting America’s interests first.
You see, my loyalty lies, not in the value of the dollar versus other currencies, but to my country, America. I am not a “citizen of the world” as the globalists and liberals want me to be.
But if I dare make these comments or insinuate the more free-trade agreements aren’t the answer right now, listen to what the the Commerce Secretary would say to me:
“It’s very alarming,” Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez said. “This is the very time for us not to have second thoughts or convey a lack of confidence in free trade to the world.”
Now why on earth would anyone have of a lack of confidence in free trade to the world? Could it be because we almost always get stabbed in the back by our so-called trading partners (i.e. Mexico and China)? Could it be that we’ve been sold a bill of goods stating that free trade is good for the American consumer due to lower prices? Yes, but at what cost?
I’ll tell you the costs. Massive trade deficits, declining value of the dollar, lost jobs, and the eradication of manufacturing in this country.
The result: it’s only a matter of time before we begin to outsource the production of items related to our national defense. Dubai Ports anyone? Yes, I recognize that that did not involve the production of anything related to defense. It just related to the actual security of our ports!
But you see, we need CAFTA because as the greedy globalists have told us it’s our responsibility to remove trading barriers to the lesser developed countries. Now mind you they don’t care about the people of the LSDs. They care about find more and more ways to fill their retirement coffers. But when is enough, enough?
Is it enough when you finally sell the last piece of America off? Make no mistake: America is being sold off one sector at a time.
The bottom line is that I am all for a fair and equitable trade agreement with any country as long as it does not affect national security. Further, it is not America’s responsibility to trade with countries just to grow said country.