Decision ‘08

Misleading Headline of the Day

CAFTA Passage May Hurt Other Deals, says the Miami Herald, and naturally I was intrigued: how can the passage of a free trade agreement hurt other free trade agreements? Let’s take a look:

After the House early Thursday passed a trade agreement with five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic by the narrowest of margins, supporters in Washington, Miami and Central America hailed it as a major win.

But the reality, analysts say, is that CAFTA-DR’s slim and mostly partisan 217-215 vote raises doubts over the future of other hemispheric trade pacts that are in the pipeline, including the Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA, and a trade pact with three Andean nations that negotiators hope to complete next spring.

”That it was so close, instead of an overwhelming victory, and so clearly split on partisan lines even in states such as Florida that depend on trade with Latin America and the Caribbean, indicates that the pro-trade consensus that used to prevail in Congress is on life support,” said Eric Farnsworth, with the Council of the Americas, a pro-trade group based in New York.

And so, this means by passing CAFTA, we have made it more difficult to pass other agreements? Of course, the reality, as even the article acknowledges implicitly, is that partisanship on the part of Democrats who are intimidated by labor union threats is what makes passage of free trade agreements difficult, and that partisanship is reflected in the close vote.

That CAFTA was able to pass in such a charged atmosphere, on the contrary, is nothing short of a miracle, and a real shot in the arm to free trade boosters (not to mention, it’s a good agreement in and of itself). I know the authors of newspaper pieces seldom pick the headlines, so shame on whoever it was that came up with this one…

8 Responses to “Misleading Headline of the Day”

1 Ryan Bonneville Says:
July 29th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Even the New York Times was behind this one, which makes it perfectly clear exactly who was directing the Dems’ votes.
2 louielouie Says:
July 29th, 2005 at 7:52 pm
louielouie was on the same side as the NYT????
louielouie hangs head.
louielouie closes page.
louielouie leaves website.
3 Mark Coffey Says:
July 29th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
Hey, don’t feel so bad…I’m sure it was all a big misunderstanding…
4 Fred Says:
July 29th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
Winning by a few votes doesn’t always mean a bill almost went down to defeat. Typically the party in power will simply not pressure members from marginal district on controversial issues if they already has enough votes to pass the legislation. The question should be “was the 3 vote margin all they could possibly get or just all they needed” to win?
5 Mark Coffey Says:
July 29th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Fred, I think in this case it was all they could get…there’s a good piece at the NY Times website about the backstory of the vote here.
6 Fred Says:
July 30th, 2005 at 5:16 am
Well, I’m a strong supporter of free-trade. So I’ll take all the wins we can get.

And in my opinion, this case was particularly strong. If jacking up the price of a basic food stuff is justified then why stop with sugar? Why not tax bread, meat and veggies too!

I guess I just don’t see the political, economic or moral case to be made in voting against lower food prices for Americans and higher incomes for poor third-world farmers.
7 Mark Coffey Says:
July 30th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
Fred, you said it…
8 Andy Says:
July 30th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Ditto Fred.