I spent a good deal of today watching CSPAN and the House Rules committee and was a little bit puzzled by some of the assertions the representatives
For the most part they are still divided along party lines however, what did strike me is how even some Republicans spoke out against CAFTA and yet
others were in favor of it citing reasons of National Security as did Pres. Bush in his speech.
The rationale was that if we didn't pass CAFTA then Central America would be our next border problem with the poorer class coming here.
It was further postulated that CAFTA would be a good thing and Gdubbya even commented on BushHog of Alabama being in a position of selling more
equipment to Central American farmers.
Am I missing somethig here? The economics of selling requires the purchaser to first have the money, and second the desire to buy at an affordable
price. Isn't the economy down there (I'm conglomerating all of Central America here)so bad that they need CAFTA in order to remain a viable entity?
(maybe this is why its being pushed through?)
(Further, the trickle down economics that was so spouted years ago doesn't seem to trickle fast enough and the reasoning to me seems simple enough.
How can you build autos paying workers $22/hr and try to sell to workers making $6/hr as one example.)
Also, as stated by a number of reps from various States this would actually cost more jobs with manufacturers taking business there in order to get
the job done at a cheaper labor rate.
Another thing, instead of the 20 hrs that could be afforded the House to debate new resolutions, CAFTA was just ruled a mere 2 hrs , all 3600 pages of
it, and that as someone had asked, why are these things pushed through at night which affords them little opportunity to review/prepare for the
A number of the CAFTA beneficiaries have what I would deem to be dubious governments at best and entrenched within those powers were the rebels etc..
Can sending industry down there be good considering that they are the have's the people are the have nots and giving them more money would only
enhance their political influence in the global arena?
It was heated with short speeches around the table and from what I gathered they decided via unanimous vote (republicans natch.) that the ruling
stood, 2 hours only.
Once passed, the right to challenge it would be gone and it would become law.
If something as monumental as a decision that affects the entire nation can be pushed through in spite of a good number of objections, I can just
imagine how fast the lesser bills are passed/rushed through.
Case in point, and this was so fast it was kind of anti-climatic, was the ruling about limiting medical malpractice award payments in which one
particular representative stated that if a certain state needed to have a cap on its payouts, maybe they should re-train their doctors.
Also stated was the billions of dollars gift the government made to the Insurers, the only business that got a government payout that was making money
to begin with, that these insurers were already taking in more money than they were paying out in awards etc.
The Republican Party is for the big businesses obviously and the only thing I took heart in the whole charade was the minority opposition party trying
to fight them tooth and nail. They lost (majority rule) but at the very least, many citizens were watching and know what goes on in the echelons of
government and maybe next time a majority Democratic rule will be in place. (or independent... if only we knew who would be good for us and all voted
for him lol)
Did anyone else see the debates? It kind of had the atmosphere of a rapid-fire let down but it was good to see that there is at least a measure of
It was an interesting day to say the least and I am kind of anxious to see what tomorrow brings since they are (by todays ruling) only allowed to
debate CAFTA for a mere 2 hours. This will be a hot one if you get the chance to watch it.
I might be wrong in my take of todays hearings but it kind of got me thinking about the motivations behind a lot of these representatives and their
almost urgency in trying to push CAFTA through. Cited was NAFTA and how there were stipulations that still hadn't been adhered to, namely (I forget
the exact term they used) the backdoor payouts(?)
and that NAFTA was afforded 8 hrs to debate.
If I can watch the whole thing I'll give you a breakdown of anything noteworthy although really, it seems like business as usual if a minority has no
power to stop it.
[edit on 28-7-2005 by keybored]