High Praise: Being Attacked By The Times

    Here I was going about my usual business this morning, flipping through the paper of record, only to find that The New York Times has decided to pick on little 'ole me--and many of you'all who weighed in with your interesting comments in yesterday's debate over the CAFTA 15. I'm pasting the editorial below--see bold. And going back to writing my regular TomPaine.com column, which will hammer the same points.

New York Times Editorial Published: July 29, 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/opinion/29fri2.html)

In the wee hours yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement by a sliver of two votes. Fifteen Democrats joined 202 Republicans in voting to open up trade between the United States and El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. Anyone who believes, as this page does, that the benefits of free trade outweigh those of protectionism should give a pat on the back to the Democrats who chose principle over politics and defied their party's leaders to vote for the trade pact.

Trade votes are always cliffhangers, and Cafta was no exception. The vote, which started just after 11 p.m., took almost an hour as some Republicans, many from textile states, jockeyed over who would be allowed to vote against the bill and save face back home. But the Republicans who voted for Cafta at least did so knowing that they were ensuring for themselves the approval of their party leaders, including President Bush. Many of the Democrats who voted for the pact knew that they were practically guaranteeing themselves a primary fight come next election. Indeed, organized labor was already talking yesterday morning about extracting revenge. "Punish the Cafta 15" was a headline in Working Life, a pro-labor blog.

Labor unions should obviously give their support to anyone they deem fit. But the Cafta 15 deserve respect for their independence and good judgment. Cafta is a modest trade pact, hardly likely to lift the six countries' economies into the 21st century. But it may be enough to lift them into the 20th century by lowering tariffs and helping job growth in a needy region. It should help export growth in America as well. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimated that Cafta could increase United States agricultural exports by nearly $1.5 billion a year; the National Association of Manufacturers said it would add about $1 billion a year to the value of United States exports of manufactured goods.

Finally, Cafta will benefit the most underrepresented constituency in America: consumers, particularly the lower-income consumers who find that a 50-cent difference in the price of a T-shirt actually means something.

Comments

[Robin O. Hunter]

Total tripe. Even though the editorial notes that the CAFTA measure stunk so bad that even Republicans were drawing straws to see who could "save face" with the voters, the Times applauds the "good judgement" of the 15 dumb Dems who voted for it, including my congressman, Jim Moron (moran).

Evidently the Times' editorial writers are in dire need of cheap T-shirts, but they won't find them in this deal. Go to any clothing store where you can find shirts with a "Made in USA" label and you'll often find the identical shirt is made in Guatamala, Taiwan, Bangladesh and elsewhere all identically priced. That big 50-cent savings the Times thinks will go to the consumer is pocketed by the brand maker, a host of middlemen and a shipper. And the third-world worker who made the item often works long days in squalid conditions six or seven days a week. Ahh, but life is good and all is right with the world if you are peering out the Times' editorial window.
Of course, the Times wouldn't fire an editorial writer for carrying out the company policies, but as a penance to its readers, it should perhaps assign that editorial writer to do an investigative story on sweatshops by actually working in one for a year or two.

[John Q]

"But the Cafta 15 deserve respect for their independence and good judgment."

What a joke. They did it because they're whores.

[Brendan]

Though I am not entirely surprised that the Times editorial board would attack labor for trying to protect the jobs and living standards of workers in this country, I am appalled with the casual attitude and lack of analysis that went into this statement:

"Cafta is a modest trade pact, hardly likely to lift the six countries' economies into the 21st century. But it may be enough to lift them into the 20th century by lowering tariffs and helping job growth in a needy region."

Haven't they paid any attention at all to how utterly terrible NAFTA has been for the average Mexican?

Besides, if one reads the bill it gives oddly preferential treatment to the US by forcing the other nations to drop many tariffs quicker than this nation does.

A for instance you ask? Try tobacco.

According to the USDA, four of the countries, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, will have to immediately drop their tariffs on the crop, the Domincan Republic and Costa Rica have ten years to do so--and the US, well we are supposed to gradually phase ours out over 15 years.

Pretty unbalanced deal for the poorer nations, both economically and healthwise. They get flooded with less desirable American tobacco, harming the income of farmers who depend on the crop to live and the lungs of smokers there who will now enjoy the full benefit of dealing with even greater amounts of the pesticide and additive laden weed our factory tobacco farms produce. Meanwhile, US tobacco farmers (and screw that old saw about small farmers here, with this cash crop they are all giant businesses) get to maintain a barrier against imports of the crop for a full 15 years (I'd like to see the phase out plan...).

A disclosure, I am a smoker and have been for many years. With any luck and dedication, this coming month will end that addiction.

Anyway, keep up the great work with the site Jonathan. I, and many others I know, appreciate the work you do here.

[Charles Barley]

Good point, Robin. Guess Jeans has been running sweatshops for years, and have they passed down savings to consumers, when they pay workers cents on the dollar? Perhaps in the world of this special NY Times editor, we'll all be wearing T-Shirts soon enough.

[Phil]

Finally, Cafta will benefit the most underrepresented constituency in America: consumers, particularly the lower-income consumers who find that a 50-cent difference in the price of a T-shirt actually means something.

I can't believe I just read that. I think these people are foreign agents seeking to destroy our manufacturing base and eventually our consumer purchasing power. Manchurian candidates abound.