Alabama Representatives Flip Flop on Free Trade
Posted by BrianAlabama’s five GOP U.S. Reps voted for CAFTA, but voted against the latest free trade deal that would have opened up trade with Haiti and Vietnam. Our two Dem Reps voted against CAFTA, but voted for the latest measure. Go figure.
WASHINGTON - Any question about whether Alabama’s House Republicans regret their support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement last year became clearer Friday as Congress voted on similar pacts with Haiti and Vietnam.
All five of the state’s Republican lawmakers reversed their votes on CAFTA and opposed the new trade measure, which allows duty-free imports of apparel from Haiti and establishes normal trade relations with Vietnam.
In a twist, Alabama’s two Democratic congressmen, Bud Cramer of Huntsville and Artur Davis of Birmingham, voted for the more recent measure after voting against CAFTA.
Insert John Kerry joke here, botched or otherwise.
By and large, free trade benefits all involved. We’re able to get lower cost goods and the economies of the Haitis and Vietnams of the world get a boost from the increased employment. Some diligence should be exercised to ensure a relatively level playing field, though.
Related content:
December 12th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Here’s the problem with free trade: It’s costing the middle class BIG TIME. We’ve had nothing but trade deficits for 30 years, and NAFTA has made it steadily worse. Sure, we get lower cost goods, but only because they’re made by lower cost workers in other countries. Meanwhile, our working class is given the pink slip. Suddenly, saving $10 on a pair of sneakers doesn’t seem like such a great deal when you’re unemployed as a result. (And I shouldn’t forget to mention that the quality of the sneakers is $20 less.)
The funny thing is that corporations are starting to hurt from outsourcing, as well. Reports from groups who originally supported outsourcing are now saying that it creates a huge problem for corporations. CEO’s are so far away from the action that they can’t respond quickly to an issue and they are left clueless in the operation of their company. Locations in politically unstable parts of the world create a potential supply issue, and the other branches are not able to pick up the slack. Quality issues are also a concern. American companies are actually LOSING money because people want a better quality product, not necessarily a cheaper one. (Just ask Ford, which outsources much of its manufacturing to China.)
The only people that benefit from free trade agreements are the poorest countries, who gain more jobs and money from huge trade imbalances created as a result. So far, countries like China and India have seen some great benefits. We’ve seen nothing but lost jobs and money from huge trade deficits. Think of it as being three bodies of water in a row. One is full to the brim, one is filled midway, and the last has nothing in it. If you tear down the walls that separate them, they will level out into one body of water. It is easier for boats to go back and forth between them, but the largest body of water doesn’t have as much as it once did. Add another area with little water to the equation, and it will lose even more in the leveling process.
I’ve vowed never to vote again for a politician, be that a Dem or a Reep, who votes for free trade agreements. It’s just not good for Americans. If that makes me a xenophobe, then so be it.
December 12th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Xenophobe, no. Economic protectionist, yes. Are you a big Lou Dobbs fan?
Your points about the downsides of globalization from a quality perspective are well founded. Similar situations can be found within economies at all levels. Costco pays better wages than Sam’s Club, therefore they have less turn over. That leads to better service, which is why I shop at Costco. But, there is still a market for Sam’s Club because some people prefer cost over quality.
What, by the way, are your definitions of the middle class and working class? People always talk about the middle class, but no one ever defines the criteria.
December 12th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
The term “middle class” generally refers to the group of people who are neither at the bottom of socio-economic status nor at the top. I would probably say that, if you are not in the top 2% of earners or below the poverty line, you would be considered to be “middle class.” You would have some small degree of economic independence but very little social influence or power.
Keep in mind that, when someone refers to a move that will “affect the middle class” but only seems to affect blue collar workers, they are referring to a “trickle up” effect. With fewer people working in the blue collar jobs, fewer people will be able to afford services from people working at the next level up, and so on. This eventually causes a domino effect of job loss.
I do watch Dobbs’s show, but I didn’t start doing so until a few weeks ago. The feelings I have about free trade were actually established before I’d ever even heard of the guy. My mom was the one to introduce me to his stuff, oddly enough. She would never listen to me when I said some of the exact same things, since she’s far right and I’m what she’d call a “liberal” (meaning “anything not far right-wing”). But she started forwarding me this guy’s newsletters and stating her shock, even though I’d been telling her the exact same things for years. Anyway, I had to check him out…