Dr. A. H. Krieg Published in the Herald Bradenton FL as editorial comment.
Dr. A. H. Krieg
Dr. Krieg was a advisor to the USDC from the beginning of the Regan administration to the appointment for Ron Brown under Clinton. He has been strenuously opposed to all of the agreements. He resides in Bradenton with his wife Audrey and is an author.To begin with everyone should be aware that the aforementioned are called agreements because the only one enacted so far NAFTA remains an illegal act of the Clinton administration. One of the numerous facts unreported in newspaper editorials is that NAFTA was enacted by Executive Order [EO] our constitution strictly limits the making and enactment of law to the legislative branch of government. [Constitution Art. 1 Sect.1] Thus the executive is prohibited from enacting law, a treaty or trade agreement is law. All that aside, we can rapidly gain an understanding of what the effect of CAFTA will have by a scrutiny of NAFTA. The pronouncement of the pro side on this issue reminds me very much of the predictions made prior to the enactment of NAFTA, all of which proved to be wrong. The very first series of NAFTA pronouncements by the USDC, which together with the Mexican government, was its prime supporter, was that it would increase our exports stimulating our economy, allow Mexicans the income the purchase American cars, and drive down prices in America. Let us now examines the facts: Since its enactment about 9-½ year ago America has begun its long economic slippery slide into oblivion. Ten year ago we had a trade surplus with Mexico of $5.7 billion annually. Today we have a trade deficit of $ 34 billion annually. Mexican blue-collar income has risen from $1.44 per hour to $1.57 per hour, how many American cars can you purchase with this income? One of the requirements of the NAFTA accord is that the government reports the results of NAFTA to the American people annually. The last report that was quashed by the Clinton administration (1996) that saw all copies shredded when the administration found out the enact results. All subsequent administrations refuse to release any reports on NAFTA. Just over 2,000 American manufacturing plants had by'96 moved to Mexico, 3.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost, over 50,000 family farms went out of business, American manufacturers built plants in Mexico for $ 2 billion per year whose total production would be exported to America. European and Pacific Rim manufacturers built plants in Mexico whose total production was intended sales in America employed another 4 million Mexicans. So the apparent result of NAFTA was a loss in trade of $ 39.7 billion annually, the loss of 7.4 million jobs and the loss of by this time just over 2,500 manufacturing plants. I think the assertion that prices would go down need not be introduced we all know better. To go just one step further the reported action of NAFTA was to reduce trade barriers, more exactly to reduce all duties between its three trading partners [Mexico, Canada and America] by 10% per year to 0% in ten years. The NAFTA agreement consists of two volumes, both 8-1/2" x 11" volume one is 1-1/2" thick and Volume 2 is 1-1/4" thick pages are not sequentially numbered for the sole purpose to prevent anyone form stating the obvious. The intent without doubt, as borne out by a reading of the accord, is far beyond the scope of a simple trade agreement. To tell U.S. farmers that they will gain by the enactment of CAFTA is not just dishonest it is criminal. How are our tomato growers doing in competition with Mexico? The ludicrous statement that we can compete against a group of economies where the average daily income is less than 1/3 of our minimum hourly wage is beyond the scope of reason. Furthermore the assumption that CAFTA member nations citizens will purchase American produce is beyond silly. All these member states are tropical and produce more produce than they can consume at costs that are minuscule compared to those of their Northern neighbors. Their annual income precludes the purchase of anything not a necessity, all of which are far cheaper when imported from China. In view of all this why would an organization like the American Farm Bureau Federation support this outlandish proposal? That is very simple to ascertain. The AFBF is the mouthpiece for industrial agriculture and certainly not the voice of independent family farmers. These huge agrarian corporations obtain 90% of all federal farm subsidies, produce world wide, wherever the production cost is lowest, and government subsidies are highest, and are multi-national conglomerates. [I farmed for 15 years and speak by experience] Like all multi-national corporations they care nothing for America, American workers or anything except corporate profit at the expense of the indigenous population. Adrian Krieg may be reached through his site www.a2zPublications.com USDC United State Department of Commerce CAFTA Central American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement FTAA Free Trade Aria of the Americas Local Tel # for verification is 322-2739 |