A Pro-Trade Party No Longer (Cont'd)
A few words with Nick Lampson (Charles Kuffner, Off the Kuff)
Lampson says he would have opposed the CAFTA bill because it was not fair to American workers' interests. "We need a fair playing field, with comparable conditions - environmental and labor - for all sides," he said. He spoke at length about shrimp fishing in the Gulf versus imported farmed shrimp from Asia as an example. Imported shrimp are supposed to be tested for certain chemicals, but often aren't because of a familiar problem - inadequate funding for the agency responsible, in this case the FDA. Make the importers play by the same rules that the Americans are subjected to and the Americans will be able to compete.
It's really hard to find a pro-trade Democrat these days.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 08/29/05 22:39 | American Politics | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
You should start numbering these like Danger-Train sightings.
Posted by R. Alex @ 09:08 on 08/30/05
I'm a pro-trade Democrat. I'm also a pro-level-playing-field Democrat. Should I take this post to mean you want inadequately tested, possibly dangerous food to enter the country? Or that it's OK for US workers' wages to continue to plummet?
Posted by another precinct chair @ 11:14 on 08/30/05
apc: Wages are "plummeting"? You must be getting your economic news from Paul Krugman. It is laughable to suggest that the "playing field" of international trade is unfairly slanted in favor of developing nations when the US engages in so many protectionist practices. What would you suggest? Maybe a little hyperinflation to get their wages up to "level" with ours?
Posted by Ethan @ 12:23 on 08/30/05
I can respect the Ron Paul notion that you don't need hundreds of pages of agreements to codify "free" trade.
But the notion that the trade agreements need MORE provisions to "equalize" various aspects of social justice moves them far from "free" trade agreements in my mind.
CAFTA is not my ideal libertarian pro-trade agreement, no. The ideal would be a few pages long (if that many). But folks who oppose it because it doesn't impose enough restrictions on trade really shouldn't call themselves pro-trade.
Posted by Kevin @ 13:06 on 08/30/05
OK, plummeting is probably a little too strong. Sorry about that. I got into "stump speech" mode. I should have said falling in relation to constant dollars, especially in contrast with the way CEO's salaries are skyrocketing (a term that may not be strong enough) in relation to the common worker's wages. There are reams of statistics pointing to the fact that the uber-rich are getting richer and richer while the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting poorer.
And let's not pretend that other countries haven't erected trade barriers of their own.
Posted by another precinct chair @ 08:31 on 09/01/05
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.