# CAFTA passes



## quackattack (Sep 27, 2003)

CAFTA has officially passed in the House of Rep today. It could mean an end to alot of farming in the Red River valley and surrounding areas.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/27/bush.cafta.ap/index.html

:eyeroll: :eyeroll:

uke:

We farm around crookston, and alot of our money comes from beets. In my eyes its a big Loss for local farming.

:lost:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Huge, huge loss for up and down the RR Valley!!! Bush has lost some of my support for muscling this one through!!!!! I am very disappointed in this one. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Well, at least I can count on having a job for three years or so.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Hey, we "had" to do it for our national defense. :roll:

I don't understand this move at all by Bush. NAFTA went over like a lead balloon with most republicans back in '93 and now they pass this??? What a crock.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

:bs:
What a poor outcome to an even poorer trade agreement.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

CAFTA is going to have a huge effect on the economy of the Red River Valley. Just imaging the economic impact to the Valley if the Bush Administration had also been successful in its efforts to close the Grand Forks AFB. Such a nice reward for those loyal conservatives from ND that voted for Bush.

Remember this when the next election rolls around.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

I am not a supporter of this agreement either, but before you go and bash all repubs, there were 16 dems that voted for it also. Would have been the difference right there.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am afraid many more of these will be passed in coming years democrat or republican in the white house. I often get on landowners on here, but I do have a purpose. I try to alarm them of the failing public relations that will lead to more bills like this passed. I may come off as anti landowner at times in my effort to open their eyes. Landowners and sportsmen have been allies for years, but that is dying with the lease hunting. Now they are not looked at as neighbors, but just another business like the gas station, the hardware store etc. We will see corporate farming in North Dakota in the not to distant future, and it will all be down hill from there.

Sad, but I think the following sequence will happen:
Less government support prices and other agriculture programs.
More leasing hunting so the farmer has more income.
Less farmer support from the general public.
Corporate farms move into the state.
Lease hunting prices increase again.
Fifty to seventy percent of hunters drop out.
Animal rights activists, and anti gun organizations increase their efforts.
And on and on. Say good by now, it will not last for your grandchildren (farming or hunting).


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Sad but unfortunately true Plainsman. :-?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I don't know very much about CAFTA as far as it's impact on the US, pro or con. However I do know the US produces 8,200,000 tons of sugar annually. CAFTA will allow 164,000 tons to be imported. That's less than 2% of what we produce so I'm having a hard time understanding how this is going to devastate our farmers. Is there anyone that can explain to me why CAFTA is so bad for the USA and use real numbers and statistics and not the political sound bites I'm seeing thrown out. I'm also aware that the sugar industries uses a quota system that artificially keeps the price of commodities high that uses sugar, such as candies and the like. A little self-serving on their part I would think. I guess what I'm asking is convince me which way I would/should have voted were I in congress.


----------



## cbass (Sep 9, 2003)

I am not in favor of the passing of cafta either, but the crying needs to stop. You people think that farming in the valley is going to stop just because the poor beet farmers can't grow beets, it will be many years if ever that this happens. The valley land is some of the best in the nation, think it will be left idle, i think not. If the sugar industry does go to hell you will see elevators being put up on farms faster than they can put them up. It will look like southern Minnesota up and down the valley corn, corn, corn. It seems like the majority of the farms in southern minn have elevators and a drying system set up directly on the farm to handle corn, plus the majority have their hands in the beet industry, but they chose to diversify. So is the end of the valley, not hardly it is just putting the beet farmers on the same playing field as everyone else in ND and Minn. Every industry has their problems, but beet farmers seem to think that they need to be catered to because they have it so tough. Wheat is simply a rotational crop for them, for all the other farmers it is their lifestyle, their existance. Here is my cry- Looked at the wheat market lately?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

cbass, the sugar industry means millions to the valley. If the sugar trade falls off, even a little, there will be repercussions up and down the rr valley. From the guy that sells vehicles to the guy that checks eyes. Everyone will be affected. I would guess that if your area were to be so affected you to would not like it.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

Why would anyone think that after a similar agreement (NAFTA) failed so misserably, that an addition to such an agreement (CAFTA) would provide any desirable results? Since the initiation of NAFTA, the US has suffered a 235% increase in its global trade deficit. Not only that, but the thousands of jobs/family farms that were lost due to NAFTA. This is bad for the US.

Oh, and Central America isnt exactly smiling either:

CAFTA does not require compliance with international labor laws. This is not a step forward for the 5 Central American countries.
Also, there has been strong oppostion in the Central AMerican countries by the "working" public. An influx of subsidized exports from the US will diminish agricultural jobs in these countries. Ag jobs make up almost 2/3 of the work force.

I dont see any positive notes about this trade agreement :down:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I thought in the paper this am that there was a provision about some new labor laws for central amaerica but they though they were worthless because they would be next to impossible to enforce!!! Maybe I misread that ??


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

We look at our little piece of the pie and forget what goes into the entire pie. Currently other than sugar trade goods coming into the US from these nations, those goods are duty free, but our goods are not duty free going into theirs.

The cattle industry and a host of other Ag related products are going to see a 20-80% duty immediately removed. What that means is we need to look at everything that went into the pie.

One thing that was in the Mlps papers on this is how many other jobs related to sugar this is going to save in the US. Many companies food and candy have left the US because of the high cost of sugar.

This agreement will reduce that outflow. Soft drinks,confectionery candy,cereal mfg, even packaging of frozen bread products. The list was impressive and so where the dollar impacts that this will have nation wide, and compared them to the possible loss in the Valley including jobs.

The Red River Valley was a small blip on the big scale, I do not like to see anything local hurt, but common sense tells most of us that it remains in the overall US interest to do this deal. More jobs will be saved than lost that becomes the most important issue!!!!!!!!


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

Ron,
I dont remember the "hype" from NAFTA when it was in its beginnings (I was younger back then and didnt care too much), but im sure it had similar benefits proposed. 
Can anyone tell me one good thing that has come from NAFTA? Im not trying to be sarcastic, I just dont know of any.

Throw champagne in my face once, shame on you. Throw champagne in my face twice, shame on me. 
We must learn from history in this case, not try to repeat it.


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Help me out - we guarantee sugar beet farmers they can sell their crop for a price about 50% above the open market price. If that is such a good system why don't we do it for wheat, corn etc. We could even do it for anything made in ND. --- just set a guaranteed floor for any product we want to make in ND.

What about the 8000+ jobs that have moved overseas in the candy making business - mainly because they can buy sugar cheaper. Not to mention all the meat packing industry jobs that were lost and will not come back becasue the Mad cow deal in Canada.

I am not good at physics, but I do remember for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. I think the same holds true for economics. Plus if you don't like CAFTA quit shopping at Target and Walmart.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Plus if you don't like CAFTA quit shopping at Target and Walmart.


What is the point here. Please tell me why target and walmart are involved in CAFTA.



> Help me out - we guarantee sugar beet farmers they can sell their crop for a price about 50% above the open market price. If that is such a good system why don't we do it for wheat, corn etc.


Ethanol......That great product that actually takes more energy to produce than it delivers???? Are there not market supports in place for other crops?? 50%...maybe not but there are market supports for other types of crops.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

> Plus if you don't like CAFTA quit shopping at Target and Walmart.


 :idiot: Huh?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

NAFTA and CAFTA are alike mainly in the fact that both are trade agreements. This one is much different in the fact that it eliminates tariffs against US exports not imports.

Back in the late 90's the US Senate and House passed a resolution that waived import duties on most products from these countries to promote economic development. This was done to bolster fledging democracy's and it worked. Pres Clinton signed this resolution. What CAFTA is doing now is removing trade tariffs against US products going to these countries. That should help our Ag sector greatly across the US.

Cinder points out one of the biggest factors in job loss with sugar consuming products! Our price support at 50% above world market levels. Now I am not opposed to continued support, but we cannot ignore other sectors like beef,poultry,and Ag crops such as rice, beans,corn and wheat. You did not see a united front on this issue from farm groups. Even within organizations, state to state the same national organization had different takes on this issue.

NAFTA has been a no gain no loss program, some sectors of employment have been hit hard. Others saw great increases. The GAO determined that dollars of tax revenue rose with NAFTA but not at the rate anticipated. The consumers of the nation however did benefit greatly in lowered cost of products while quality increased. So once again was the overall affect of the agreement a bad thing? One's view may depend upon how the agreement affects you!

I try and look past the rhetoric on these issues and look to the substance of the issue. No action goes through without consequences both good and bad. Right now the good nation wide will out weigh the bad, even though it may affect our region of the state in a small negative manner. Yet it should impact other regions of the state in a positive manner. In a perfect world we would have both gaining, but in the real world it seems we need to take the overall best.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Ron, It is all about the Pork. I will worry about ather ares of the country at the same time they are stealing from our area (ie-Missouri River Water). I maybe have an egocentric view of the world but we need the sugar industry here in the valley. I will believe that CAFTA is good when I see results, not before. As Muskat pointed out, NAFTA was supposed to be a boon to the US also.


----------



## cbass (Sep 9, 2003)

DJ,

You are right everything will be affected. They won't be buying new vehicles every one-two years they might have to wait 4-5. All i am saying is that 90% (guess) of farmers in the state do not raise beets. They have to try every year to make money with other crops, where the beet farmer is all but guaranteed a profit whether they grow a good crop or not. Reality sucks but reality is what they "might" face in the future.


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

Cbass,
Where do you think those farmers buy their trucks? Where do they spend all that money that they make? 
Input answer here:
ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. Everyone will be affected, eventually.

CAFTA is the stepping stone to FTAA. Ag, in all forms, will become affected by this at some point in time (and Im not talking positively).


----------



## NDHONKER (Aug 6, 2004)

Cinder the US imports sugar because we do not produce enough for demand. Corn, beans and wheat are exported because of excess production. Sugar prices are very import sensitive. The sugar program is set up, if run properly, at no cost to the tax payer by limiting the amount of sugar coming into the US to keep the domestic price profitable for US growers. Yes the world price of sugar is around 1/3 the $ of the US market but what you do not see is other countries pay their sugar farmers direct payments to make up the difference in price. This is why they want to get their sugar into our market, think about it good prices for their sugar here and a gov't payment on top of that sounds pretty nice. When candy makers moved out of the US to buy sugar cheaper did you see a drop in candy prices on the shelf? I don't think so. Did you ever consider them moving for environmental reasons and cheaper labor? It is easy for them to blame high sugar prices on the farmer and make themselves look like the victim. When are we going to take care of business at home before we go helping all these other countries. CAFTA may be a good deal for other commodoties or cattle I do not know the answer on that, but Sugar should have been left out of the deal. When other countries pay their farmers the difference between world price and US price, that sugar should not be allowed to enter the US. Yes the amount of sugar in CAFTA is small but it grows over time and there are lots of other agreements in line behind it, it sets the bar. For me sugar beets have been a profitable crop to grow in the red river valley. Yes I have done well with them and that causes jealousy from some people. Do you think sugar farmers should lay down in the grave and call it quites after investing big$ in this crop? Of course we are mad and screaming and people look and say what a bunch of whinners. Here is a plan for you if we have it so good go to your banker (which is what I did) ask for $1,000,000 loan, buy some beet equipment and stock, get a set of balls and take a huge risk, and be ready to invest some major time and hard work. All I want from my government is to keep subsidized foreign sugar out of the US and keep the sugar industry(that includes farmers, direct, indirect jobs of sugar) flourishing in the US. On a side note I also farm other crops and want them to be profitable as well. All farmers need to work together on these deals but it is tough to find the right one where everybody gets what they want. I am by know means a good writer and just felt like I needed to speak my peace.


----------



## quackattack (Sep 27, 2003)

I couldn't have said it any better myself NDHonker. :lol:

:beer:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Found this very intresting...................

"Under the terms of the agreement, sugar exports from DR-CAFTA countries to the United States would increase to barely 1 percent of U.S. production. The agreement even includes safeguards that allow Washington to pay foreign suppliers not to export their product if the U.S. sugar industry is "threatened.''

Even with the paltry concession and additional safeguard, the U.S. sugar industry is leading the opposition to DR-CAFTA, fearful that the agreement would represent the beginning of the end of a very sweet deal they've enjoyed for decades. The United States has long protected its sugar industry from low global prices with a combination of loans and quotas, making U.S. sugar prices as much as three times higher than the world average. Talk about an artificial sweetener.

According to a 2000 General Accounting Office report, those higher prices cost U.S. consumers between $800 million and $1.9 billion a year. That money ends up, by GAO estimates, in the pockets of sugar companies such as the one owned by Cuban exiles Alfonso and Jose Fanjul. Thanks to the generous federal program, the Fanjuls receive a $60 million annual bonus, enough to keep them (and their yachts) comfortably afloat.

In turn, the sugar industry has rewarded politicians handsomely. In 2004, the industry gave more to congressional candidates from both parties -- $2.4 million -- than any of the 46 agricultural sectors tracked by the Washington-based Political Money Line".

You can read the entire article here.........
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04145.html


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

NDHonker that is the rhetoric I am talking about!! Gohan did what I have done on this issue. Looked at the facts regarding the trade agreement. Your interests are protected. We will not see mass sell offs of beet operators. Trying to balance this within the state is crucial to our state, not just the Red River Valley.

Growers of pea's in Minot and or Carrigtion are as important to the states economy as sugar beets. Cattle raised around Tappen or Steele or Noonan also are important! Cattlemen have never had nor received a fair shake in supporting their way of life. Yet to listen to the rhetoric you would think they have! This trade agreement is a step in the right direction. It will continue to keep Argentine, and Australian beef from taking over the markets we currently have. It will allow other livestock meat to be expoted from our country. It continues to protect the sugar industry and benefits all of ND as a whole instead of a segment!


----------



## muskat (Mar 5, 2002)

Ron, I hope your right...........but Im skeptical.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Why is Honkers statements rhetoric????( I thought it was well said Honker)To say that because he states a fact...That foreign producers are paid up to a certain value is true Ron. And then Gohon finds an article that was written in a publication and that is the gospel. I think, Ron, you know better than to believe all you read. (no offense gohon, just using your article as an example) Because one is a statement and one is a quote from someone elses statement makes one more right than the other......Please explain that logic to me. The foreign producers of sugar recieve aid for their crop as well as ours do so don't tell me we are on a level playing field. Also the minimum wages set here have a lot to do with the high cost of producing sugar from beets. The labor used in central american countries is way less than that used here.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dano we won't agree on this, my point should have been directed to the part of the statement that points to the GAO reports. These are unbiased reports. The information on this issue locally has been one sided, similar to the information concerning ethanol.

The fact is that it has passed and will be signed. It will become the way we go forward from here! 5 years from now the acres of beets will be the same or larger than today. Especially if more corn goes into ethanol reducing it from availability of making sweetener.


----------



## Van Wey (Jul 15, 2005)

Ron, you are exactly right. I coudnt have said it any better myself!!!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Looks like a lot of the Nations farmers will benefit like Ron says

CAFTA called an export builder
Trade agreement helps corn farmers, Illinois group says

By Robert Manor
Chicago Tribune staff reporter
Published July 29, 2005

Illinois farmers will see stronger exports because of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, agricultural observers said Thursday.

"Illinois is a leading export state, so this trade agreement is essential to the livelihood of our corn farmers," said Roger Sy, president of the Illinois Corn Growers Association. "We will be a major beneficiary of this legislation."

The CAFTA trade agreement was narrowly approved by the House of Representatives Thursday. The Senate approved the trade bill last month and it is expected to be signed into law soon by President Bush.

The agreement ends most tariffs on approximately $33 billion in goods traded between the U.S. and Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Agriculture exports from the U.S. are expected to jump by $900 million in the first year of the agreement.

Illinois farmers are well positioned to market their products to Central America because the bulk of the state's food exports already pass through ports on the Gulf of Mexico.

The growers group estimates corn exports will jump by 40 million bushels a year, out of a total Illinois crop that sometimes totals 800 million bushels.

The Illinois Soybean Association is also enthusiastic about CAFTA.

Rebecca Richardson, director of operations for the association, said U.S. soybeans and soybean meal and oil have been largely blocked by the CAFTA nations.

Those countries have tended to buy soybeans from Brazil or elsewhere in South America.

"We export a large amount of our soybeans all around the world," Richardson said. "But we don't compete in Central America."

She said she expects that situation to change.

Illinois is by far the largest grower of soybeans, with average harvests of 374 million bushels worth $2.75 billion. About half of the crop is exported.

CAFTA was opposed by labor unions and others who fear that it will export jobs. It was likened to the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, which organized labor says has cost the U.S. more than a million jobs.

But if CAFTA is anything like NAFTA, it will significantly increase both exports and imports. Trade between Mexico and the U.S. more than tripled after NAFTA was adopted.

The upper Midwest dairy industry also expects to benefit from free trade with Central America.

"CAFTA is an emerging market for dairy products," said Connie Tipton, president of the International Dairy Foods Association.

Under the agreement, duties on many dairy products will be reduced in the first year and eliminated within 20 years.

The U.S. won immediate and duty-free access for whey and lactose. After 20 years, duties and quotas on cheese will disappear.

The dairy industry joined with an advocacy group called the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste in praising a provision that allows the U.S. to import a small amount of sugar from CAFTA producers.

Sugar interests in the U.S. fought any relaxation of the rules against sugar imports, which keep the price here higher than elsewhere in the world.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

AS to the real reason sugar is where it is

Sugar Import Quotas and Subsidies

Since 1789, there have been many federal laws and trade agreements governing the protection of the sugar industry. The most recent are the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Farm Act of 2002.

*Why:* To increase the price of domestic sugar.

*What it does*: The federal sugar program has two prongs: Tariff-rate quotas impose a high tariff on sugar imported into the country over set quotas, and a federal loan program props up the price of domestically grown sugar.

*Cost*: According to GAO, *Americans pay $1.9 billion annually in higher costs* for sugar and products containing sugar because of the federal programs. "*The only protection provided *by the sugar program *has been to a handful of wealthy sugar barons*," reports Citizens Against Government Waste. "Less than 1% (17 cane sugar growers) of the nation's sugar growers gobble up 58% of the program benefits. In fact, *one grower alone received $65 million*. Contrary to popular rhetoric, these are not small family farmers. Rather, they are wealthy members of the sugar cartel, which pumps millions of dollars into congressional campaigns to protect their precious subsidy."

Constitutional provision: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 gives Congress power: "To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."


----------



## Cinder (Sep 2, 2003)

Ron, BobM and some others (in my opinion at least) have done an excellent job of making the points I was trying to make in my post. So I won't go into that area further.

I was asked what shopping at Walmart and Target have to do with Cafta. It may not have anything to do directly with CAFTA but I think in the larger context of protecting American jobs and outsourcing it has a lot to do. Americans want to save money when they buy things and go to excellent companies like Target and Walmart. However, in my opinion at least, a good part of Target's and Walmart's low prices is due to the fact that the products are being made in countries that have a lower wage scale than in the USA. Hence if you want to save American jobs, just buy products made in Amercia and pay $1000 for a TV instead of $500.

Also, I would add an additional point regarding the War on Terror --- if a farmer in a third world country can't sell his sugar (or other products) at a fair price in the USA because of tarrifs --- he may be forced to do a lot of things he would not do if he could earn a living and support his family in his own country. Also, I read an interesting article about food aid from the USA --- it would be much cheaper and more effective to just buy the food closer to the area it is needed. It would also help local farmers in the area. However we don't do that, one because of the influence of shipping companines and two the influence of farmers on the Food for Peace Program.

One last point: Several posts have mentioned that sugar production is subsidized in other countries. Could someone point out the actual level of support that producers in other countrys receive. I have seen statements in this regard a number of times but never any specifics.

Thanks for listening and even though I don't know what this thread has to do with ND Outdoors I am enjoying the discussion --- and learning.


----------

