Fast Track Authority Trade
This is an excerpt from the paper...
There is an ongoing debate with respect to fast-track authority trade legislation. Fast-track authority gives the President of the U.S. broad authority to negotiate global trade accords. It allows the President to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can approve or reject, but cannot modify or change. Beginning with President Ford, U.S. Presidents have enjoyed such trade negotiating privileges. Without such privileges, one proponent of fast-track authority notes, “Without that provision, negotiating trade agreements with the U.S. is pretty pointless, since you can count on a minimum of 535 changes before it’s ratified” (Barshefsky, 1997, 4). Despite such sentiments, in 1994 when the legislation expired Congress locked in bipartisan bickering and fearful of anti-trade lobbies refused to extend the privilege to President Clinton. However, in August of 2002, President Bush signed legislation approved by Congress granting him fast track authority among other sweeping trade reforms.Many proponents of fast-track authority view it as a vital piece of legislation for expanding choices of American consumers and raising the standard of living. Increased prosperity, economic growth and stronger relations with partner nations are also viewed as benefits of fast-track authority legislation. Proponents of fast-track authority and liberal trade legislation view such moves as the cause behind America’s increasing trade de
. . .
beralization argue that job losses and the deficit have spiraled in the face of such legislation. Due to growing trade deficits, every state in the nation has lost manufacturing jobs. The availability of cheaper facilities and labor in other nations has caused the defection of many trade-related corporations from the U.S. The following chart shows the net U.S. job losses due to trade deficits from 1989-2000:
(Scott 3)
Critics of FTA and other trade liberalization argue that such policies are responsible for the growing U.S. trade deficit, as the number of imports continues to rise much more than the number of exports. So, too, they argue that a decrease in exports and an increase in imports equates to lost jobs for Americans. Increases in exports are outweighed by the enormous growth of imports. Because of this, the 1994 U.S. trade deficit of $182 billion increased 141.6% to $439 billion by 20002 (Scott 4). Exports may help the U.S. gain non-trade jobs but it also causes a significant loss in trade-related jobs for millions of Americans. As the chart below clearly demonstrates, the net increase in exports created 2.8 million jobs for Americans, but the dramatic rise in imports caused a loss of 5.8 million jobs for Ame
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
President Bush, Trade American, Americans Increases, NAFTA FTA, Ford Presidents, NAFTA Mexico, Bush Administration, Bush Congress, House Five, Authority INTRODUCTION, trade liberalization, president bush, trade-related jobs, trade deficit, fast-track authority, trade agreements, free trade, standard living, growing trade, trade legislation, loss trade-related jobs, growing trade deficit, raising standard living, fta president bush, fast-track trade authority,
Approximate Word count = 1977
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Fast Track Authority Trade
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
