PDA

View Full Version : U.S. lawmakers urge Scrapping of NAFTA



Combatbookworm
03-10-2010, 02:34 PM
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=2663187

WASHINGTON -- The Harper government sought Tuesday to fend off a new trade threat from U.S. lawmakers pushing legislation to scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The anti-NAFTA bill, which has 28 Democratic and Republican sponsors, comes only a month after Canada and the U.S. reached a deal to end a protracted dispute over Buy American provisions in the $787-billion economic stimulus package.
With U.S. midterm elections coming in November and the American economy still losing jobs, the legislation could portend another wave of protectionist sentiment on Capitol Hill.
"We are closely following this bill, of course," International Trade Minister Peter Van Loan told reporters in Ottawa. "Our evaluation is that this is certainly inconsistent with the direction that the Barack Obama administration has chosen."
At issue is legislation introduced last week in the House of Representatives by Representative Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat who cited America's near-10% unemployment rate as the motivation for trying to kill the trade agreement involving Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
Mr. Taylor, a member of the influential Blue Dog caucus of conservative Democrats, is a 10-term congressman who voted against passage of NAFTA in 1993. He blames the treaty for a 29% drop in U.S. manufacturing employment over the ensuing 17 years.
"At a time when 10 to 12% of the American people are unemployed, I think Congress has an obligation to put people back to work," Mr. Taylor said when introducing the bill. "Timing is everything in life and it's the right time to pass this legislation. Proponents have had more than enough time to make this work. It didn't."
The legislation proposes the U.S. withdraw from NAFTA within six months of the bill's passage.
Mr. Taylor has assembled an eclectic crew of Democratic and Republican co-sponsors for the legislation. On the political left are Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich, a perennial presidential candidate, and Pete Visclosky, the Indiana lawmaker responsible for inserting the Buy American language into last year's stimulus bill.
Among the three Republican backers of the bill is Texas Representative Ron Paul.
Mr. Paul, a former GOP presidential candidate, has stoked fears of a NAFTA superhighway "the width of several football fields" that would stretch from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico.
The anti-NAFTA lawmakers face a tough challenge in advancing their legislation at a time when Congress is focused on passage of a health care bill. They also face significant resistance from President Barack Obama, who used his state of the union address in January to champion free trade as a way for the U.S. to grow its way of the recession.
The Buy American deal struck in February between Ottawa and Washington was a "demonstration of the Obama administration's commitment to free trade," Mr. Van Loan said.
"And as such, we are optimistic this [anti-NAFTA legislation] will not come to pass."
Still, Canadian officials are wary because anti-NAFTA sentiment tends to spike ahead of elections. One national U.S. media outlet has described an "outbreak of protectionist fever" in Congress as the November midterms approach.
"NAFTA has become a moniker for anxiety about globalization and worries about the economy," said Maryscott Greenwood, executive director of the Canadian American Business Council.
"There's a lack of awareness about the important role that Canada and the United States play in each other's economies. There is just a real fundamental misunderstanding about how integrated our supply chains are."
NDP Leader Jack Layton, who favours renegotiating NAFTA, said he hoped the U.S. bill might bring renewed political pressure on the Obama administration to renegotiate environmental and labour agreements in the treaty.
"So maybe what we're seeing here is the beginning of a shift in the U.S. Congress that could lead toward some renegotiation which we think is -- it's high time that that happened," Mr. Layton said.
In addition to the anti-NAFTA bill, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown last week introduced his own legislation that would require the U.S. to review all existing trade agreements before entering into new deals.
"We need hard data on the effect our trade agreements have on American wages and jobs, so that we know what we are getting ourselves into before we move forward," Mr. Brown said.
Other lawmakers continue to write Buy American provisions into other pieces of legislation. New York Senator Charles Schumer, for instance, this week introduced Buy American amendments into a green energy bill. It was aimed at requiring only U.S.-made equipment be used in power plants fuelled by renewable energy, such as wind


Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=2663187#ixzz0hnuOzBBd
The National Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today. (http://tcr40.tynt.com/ads/13/0hnuOzBBd)

Combatbookworm
03-10-2010, 02:36 PM
Our neighbors to the south better think twice about this. Do you really want to pay full cost from your largest supplier of Oil, natural resources...?

SoftLion
03-10-2010, 02:39 PM
Our neighbors to the south better think twice about this. Do you really want to pay full cost from your largest supplier of Oil, natural resources...?

A veiled threat! Love it. Don't worry pardner, just political posturing. After all, you know what they say about Canada: its like a loft apartment above a great party.

Podman
03-10-2010, 02:44 PM
Protectionism IS on the rise in Congress. That said, this goes way to far and will never happen short of an all out, worldwide trade war. Just look at the supporters. It's the loony right and loony left; the Paul-Kucinich axis.

Canadians might worry about what this would do to their economy and it would be bad for the US. But that's nothing compared to what it would do to Mexico. This would simply torpedo Mexico given their economic problems and narco-civil war.

Combatbookworm
03-10-2010, 02:52 PM
I realize that NAFTA is not going to be scraped any time soon. But what I am afraid of is the small changes. These can cause Billions in lost revenue for Canada, and thousands of jobs. The softwood lumber dispute is a good example, albeit wrong doings where present on both sides but you see what I am getting at.

Podman
03-10-2010, 03:15 PM
Oh, I could definitely see a rise in smaller, bilateral disputes. Since the public perception (true or not doesn't matter) is that Obama is focusing more on his healthcare bill than jobs, the public may want to blame the Democrats in November if the economy doesn't improve. In that case, I could see the Democrats looking for a scapegoat and demogoguing the trade issue big time. With their union base it's been a traditional stance for them so they would be making the unions happy plus scoring points with the general public.

I certainly hope it doesn't happen, but I could definitely see them picking on some bilateral US/Canada issues to score some cheap points.

khalifah
03-10-2010, 05:46 PM
Canadians might worry about what this would do to their economy and it would be bad for the US. But that's nothing compared to what it would do to Mexico. This would simply torpedo Mexico given their economic problems and narco-civil war.

not only that, but im sure all the border regions with mexico ( South Texas for example) are gonna suffer from this greatly. As young as i am, i can remember when the valley(S. Texas) was all still agriculture/undeveloped land. then gradually this place began to grow. Thanks to NAFTA.

personally, i wouldnt want to live at home if NAFTA got bumped off and the valley goes back to the dark ages : /

ex Strathcona
03-10-2010, 06:04 PM
A veiled threat! Love it. Don't worry pardner, just political posturing. After all, you know what they say about Canada: its like a loft apartment above a great party.

looks like bash is almost over. although we did enjoy the pizza and booze we stole while you were busy with the guys from the basement apartment that crashed the party.

LineDoggie
03-10-2010, 06:38 PM
Democrats are heavily supported by the Unions Leadership, and the Unions are crying about NAFTA.

Stupid really, but there it is......

Roy Batty
03-10-2010, 06:49 PM
NAFTA was a fricken rip off to Canada in the first place.

Podman
03-11-2010, 10:54 AM
NAFTA was a fricken rip off to Canada in the first place.

My guess is that if you asked people from all 3 NAFTA countries (or most trade agreements really) they would say that their country got ripped off. Fact is trade agreements hurt some groups in each country, benefit other groups in each country and, net/net, have an overall benefit for all countries involved.

It's why countries do trade agreements in the first place.

SoftLion
03-11-2010, 11:26 AM
looks like bash is almost over. although we did enjoy the pizza and booze we stole while you were busy with the guys from the basement apartment that crashed the party.

The Messicans and their dirt weed must have numbed our awareness while you slipped in to steal the za and booze. Next time we will be flying high on their coke that they acquired from their SA drug mule neighbors and you won't be so lucky.

Think America = Deer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRQ_R68E1UY

sct1886
03-11-2010, 07:17 PM
NAFTA was nothing more than big business finding lawful means for taxpayer funding to move operations to cheaper labor markets with little or no regulation. There is a huge difference between free and fair trade.

Combatbookworm
03-12-2010, 01:04 PM
^^^ and that is exactly the type of votes they are looking for. There is some truth to that in the Case of Mexico...(especially if you are in the Mikey Moore Camp) But Can/US have essentially had free trade with the Auto Pact since the 1960's. NAFTA just formalized other areas, and Reagan was smart enough to see that having greater North American economic integration would help the US gain influence lost in the 1970's. Statistically it was a win for everybody, and of course their where losers. With the amount of resources the US consumes, NAFTA is not going anywhere, unless the US wants to pay full cost from your largest supplier of oil.

Atlantic Friend
03-12-2010, 01:22 PM
Ah, the splendor of protectionnism.

IconOfEvi
03-12-2010, 06:08 PM
Thank God if this actually goes through. Its like actual bipartisanship, although probably not what BO had in mind ;).

As for influence, what influence? Our cultural influencing product flowed freely whether in free trade or not. Back then, and still, both Canada and Mexico to some degree hate us. Both of them seem to think we should shoot our own workforce so that they can get jerbs.

Combatbookworm
03-13-2010, 12:42 PM
Thank God if this actually goes through. Its like actual bipartisanship, although probably not what BO had in mind ;).

As for influence, what influence? Our cultural influencing product flowed freely whether in free trade or not. Back then, and still, both Canada and Mexico to some degree hate us. Both of them seem to think we should shoot our own workforce so that they can get jerbs.


The U.S. has more Mexicans living in it than all of the population of Canada. If your worried about U.S. jobs, then maybe getting your house in order might be a good place to start. Protectionism does not work, do you think that American companies should not sell products in Canada or other countries in the world? Of course not, this is politicians trying to blame others for their own problems. Canadian politicians do this as well by blaming America for all sorts of ****. Its just union propoganda and blind nationalism that leads to this type of rhetoric.