And This Man Wants To Be President? ...

As you most likely know, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) recently made an appearance in "Wedding Crashers", an "R" rated movie with little redeeming value. The movie is heavily laden with sexual content and many of the characters seem to have no morals. Although I will not go to see the movie, the point of my note is not to persuade you not to see it either, but to get you to think about the Senator's decision making abilities. Remember, this is a man who has ran for President in the past, and may do so again.

In my opinion, McCain has shown very bad judgement by appearing in this movie. First off, it seems in very bad taste for a U.S. Senator to appear in a T&A flick. In my opinion it besmirches the office of the Senate and brings the Senator's moral character into question. For these reasons alone it shows bad judgement. In Senator McCain's case, though, it also shows him to be a hypocrite.

Indeed, just a few years ago, Senator McCain held hearings in the Senate where he criticized the movie industry for marketing R rated movies to children under 17. Given "Wedding Crashers" has been marketed in the same ways as other movies, why is Senator McCain all of a sudden willing to appear in an "R" rated film? Well, it turns out that the dim-witted Senator said he did it because it "impresses my kids." Fucking Brilliant!!! Here is a U.S. Senator who is willing to give up the moral high ground to impress his kids! The man is willing to sink to the lowest common denominator to impress his kids... And this man wants to be President?!?!

Voters, do the Unites States a favor and do not vote for this knucklehead. Do not vote for him for President, and if you happen to be from Arizona, don't vote for him for the Senate either. I believe our politicians should be held to a higher standard. In my opinion, Senator McCain's decision-making skills seem questionable. His decision to be in "Wedding Crashers" at the minimum makes him a hypocrite and at the worst makes him seem easily swayed by what others think about him. Neither of these traits make him Presidential material (or Senatorial material for that matter), in my opinion.

A reply from Congressman Rush Holt on CAFTA.

Unlike Senator Lautenberg, Congressman Holt seems to have actually read my letter. The Congressman addresses many of my concerns and has given thoughtful responses. Whether or not he is right or wrong about the position he is taking (I believe he is right), Congressman Holt shows the proper way to respond to a letter from one of his constiuents. Congressman Holt has earned my respect with his thoughtful response to my letter and likely my vote in the next election in which he takes part. The Congressman's reply to my letter is below. The letter I sent him is below his reply.

Dear Mr. Nef :

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the proposed US-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). I appreciate learning your perspective about U.S. trade policy, and I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you may know, former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick led the team of U.S. negotiators who concluded what they consider to be a good trade agreement in the DR-CAFTA, and President Bush signed it the summer of 2004. This agreement will not take effect, however, until it is formally submitted to the Congress for a straight up-or-down vote, pursuant to the fast-track trade negotiating authority that Congress approved in 2002. This submission to Congress recently occurred, and on June 30, 2005, the U.S. Senate narrowly approved the DR-CAFTA by a vote of 54-45.

Fast-track trade negotiating authority was first approved by Congress when the Trade Act of 1964 was enacted. As a result the Congress cedes much of its power to amend trade agreements negotiated by the President.

I voted against giving the President a 5-year extension of fast-track trade negotiating authority in 2002. Fundamentally, I believe Congress ought not cede such open-ended, blanket trade negotiating authority to any President. Nevertheless, the DR-CAFTA agreement has been negotiated by the President's representatives and will come before Congress.

International trade is not just inevitable, it is a good thing. But lowering the cost of goods and increasing their availably is not the single goal of trade. Trade done right helps lift the global standard of living and works to protect the irreplaceable environment we inherited. Trade is about values.
Trade agreements are not just about goods and commodities; they are also about what constitutes acceptable behavior in environmental matters, worker's rights, intellectual property, and so forth. We should make sure we export the goods we produce and not the workers who produce them.

Each new trade agreement entered into by the U.S. should be very closely scrutinized. Each ought to include the strongest enforceable worker rights and environmental safeguards attainable, like those included in the U.S.-Jordan agreement of 2000. Each should also include enforceable rules to protect intellectual property rights and guarantee access for U.S.-base corporations to foreign markets. This can be achieved in trade agreements if we enter negotiations with clear principles.

I voted against the Chile and Singapore trade agreement, for example, because the inadequate labor and environmental provisions included in them, in my estimation, failed to meet the negotiating objectives that Congress carefully spelled out in the 2002 law extending fast-track negotiating authority to the President. They did not provide, for example, that trade dispute settlement mechanisms within those free trade agreements afford equivalent treatment to trade-related labor and environmental protection as intellectual property rights and capital subsidies, and the impending DR-CAFTA fails in this regard, too. The agreement between the US and Jordan , on the other hand, is a fine example that good agreements are achievable.

I am troubled by the DR-CAFTA that President has signed. The DR-CAFTA does not contain strong, enforceable provisions to protect internationally-recognized worker rights. Nor does it have any provisions for environmental safeguards. Such provisions are critical because they both preserve existing labor laws and environmental standards in the affected countries, and because they ensure that American companies will be competing on a more level playing field with our Central American neighbors. Without such provisions, U.S. companies and employees are forced to compete with countries that have no labor wage, working conditions, or environmental protections. The people of all countries lose in such a "race to the bottom". I will vote against the DR-CAFTA when it comes to the floor of the House of Representatives.

Again, thank you for sharing your concerns about U.S. trade policy and the seriously-flawed DR-CAFTA that has been negotiated and signed by the Bush Administration. I believe it will do more harm than good for most of the people in all of the countries which may become party to it. Please feel free to contact me about other issues of interest.
Sincerely,

RUSH HOLT

Member of Congress

My letter to the Congressman:

June 15, 2005

Congressman Rush Holt
U.S. Congress

Dear Rush,

I strongly oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) for the following reasons:

1. NAFTA, has not been good for America. I believe jobs have been lost because of it. If Congress really wants to do something useful, then pass legislation to better guard our border with Mexico.

2. International tribunals set up under NAFTA have been ruling on U.S. cases, claiming the authority to supersede U.S. court decisions. As a United States citizen, I find this distasteful. My advice to you is to read the constitution, and then vote for bills that adhere to the Constitution and vote against those that don't. This country was born a republic. It has now dropped into a socialist democracy. If you read the Federalist Papers, you will see a strong argument by Thomas Jefferson against democracies. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers then look at your voting record and see how it stacks up. Can you look me in the eye and tell me you are proud of it? Can you?

3. The argument that the CAFTA countries can provide valuable markets for American goods is phony. The CAFTA countries are among the world's poorest and their economies among the world's smallest. The only things we will be exporting to these countries are U.S. jobs, industry, and capital. Even some of the U.S. firms that moved to Mexico would likely move further south to cheaper labor markets.

Please let me know that you will vote against the CAFTA agreement if and when it is signed and presented to Congress. The same goes for the misnamed Free Trade Area of the Americas. The FTAA would remove authority over many matters, in addition to trade, that properly belong to Congress. My final thought for you is this. If from here on out you begin voting in ways that uphold the Constitution, then I will vote for you when the time comes. If you do not, then know that my vote will go against you.

Sincerely,

Wayne

File this in the "What Goes Around Comes Around" category.

Many people (myself included) are sickened by the Supreme Court's decision in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" eminent domain case. The attached link is a story about one man's answer to this travesty. Supreme Court justice David Souter currently lives in Weare, New Hampshire. Logan Darrow Clements has sent a letter to the code enforcement officer of Weare proposing to build a hotel on Souter's property. The hotel would be called the Lost Liberty Hotel! He also wants to put a Museum on site, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Finally, he also wants to open a restaurant called the "Just Desserts Café". There are five people on the town's board of Selectmen. Clements will need three votes to have his idea approved. His arguement is that the hotel would certainly garner more tax revenue than Souter's use of the property as a home...the same arguement used in the Kelo case. To me, it is fitting that New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free Or Die". http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

An Update On "A Discourse With Senator Lautenberg On CAFTA

Here is an update from my discourse with Senator Lautenberg from June 16th. The "caring" Senator has gotten back to me about my reply to his letter. Look familiar? It should, the jackass sent me the same exact form letter he sent me the first time. I doubt he, or anyone on his staff even read my letter! They likely put it in a scanner and scanned for key words to see what I was griping about and then sent me the appropriate form letter. To me, it is obvious that the Senator cares very little about what his constituents have to say about important issues. Since this is the case, vote against him next election time. I know I will. See the return letter below, and our prior discourse under the June 16th heading.


Responding to your message

June 23, 2005

Dear Wayne:

Thank you for your correspondence expressing your views about theU.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). I appreciate yourinput on this important issue.

Please be assured that I share your concerns about CAFTA. I, too,worry that CAFTA might exacerbate the pervasive social and economicinequality already present in many of the Central American countries. Iworry about whether CAFTA will perpetuate or perhaps worsen the currentpoverty plaguing many citizens of Central America. I also worry thatCentral American products could put U.S. producers, including those inNew Jersey, out of business, because Central American firms havecheaper labor costs. U.S. firms competing with Central American imports haveclearly registered this concern. As the negotiations progress thisyear, I will continue to monitor the labor standard provisions of theproposed agreement, as well the environmental standards and exportsubstitution rates.

Despite these reservations, CAFTA could generate economic benefitsfor the region. Economists indicate that though the effects of thetrade agreement might be small on a macroeconomic level, they will increasethe profits to the local firms affected by the regional trade. ForU.S. producers, access to new markets for goods such as agriculturalproducts could become advantageous. In general, U.S. companies couldbenefit from the opportunity to increase their foreign investment in thisregion. Finally, CAFTA may reinforce political stability in these fiveCentral American countries by providing institutional structures thatwill reinforce recent progress made in efforts to strengthen the rule oflaw and to fight terrorism, organized crime, and drug trafficking.

Thanks again for contacting me. I will carefully monitor theprogress of the CAFTA negotiations to ensure that any new trade agreementmeets the highest standards for labor, environmental, and social protection.

Below are two emails that I sent to Senator Lautenberg in New Jersey, and an email in between that he has sent back to me in reply to the first. His reply to my second email I have left for a post of its own.

A Discourse With Senator Lautenberg About CAFTA

Name withheld

June 15, 2005

Senator Frank LautenbergU.S. Senate

Dear Frank,

I strongly oppose the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) for the following reasons:

1. NAFTA, has not been good for America. I believe jobs have been lost because of it. If Congress really wants to do something useful, then pass legislation to better guard our border with Mexico.

2. International tribunals set up under NAFTA have been ruling on U.S. cases, claiming the authority to supersede U.S. court decisions. As a United States citizen, I find this distasteful. My advice to you is to read the constitution, and then vote for bills that adhere to the Constitution and vote against those that don't. This country was born a republic. It has now dropped into a socialist democracy. If you read the Federalist Papers, you will see a strong argument by Thomas Jefferson against democracies. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers then look at your voting record and see how it stacks up. Can you look me in the eye and tell me you are proud of it? Can you?

3. The argument that the CAFTA countries can provide valuable markets for American goods is phony. The CAFTA countries are among the world's poorest and their economies among the world's smallest. The only things we will be exporting to these countries are U.S. jobs, industry, and capital. Even some of the U.S. firms that moved to Mexico would likely move further south to cheaper labor markets.

Please let me know that you will vote against the CAFTA agreement if and when it is signed and presented to Congress. The same goes for the misnamed Free Trade Area of the Americas. The FTAA would remove authority over many matters, in addition to trade, that properly belong to Congress. My final thought for you is this. If from here on out you begin voting in ways that uphold the Constitution, then I will vote for you when the time comes. If you do not, then know that my vote will go against you.

Sincerely,

Wayne

Senator Lautenberg replies:

June 16, 2005

Dear Wayne:

Thank you for your correspondence expressing your views about the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). I appreciate your input on this important issue.

Please be assured that I share your concerns about CAFTA. I, too, worry that CAFTA might exacerbate the pervasive social and economic inequality already present in many of the Central American countries. I worry about whether CAFTA will perpetuate or perhaps worsen the current poverty plaguing many citizens of Central America. I also worry that Central American products could put U.S. producers, including those in New Jersey, out of business, because Central American firms have cheaper labor costs. U.S. firms competing with Central American imports have clearly registered this concern. As the negotiations progress this year, I will continue to monitor the labor standard provisions of the proposed agreement, as well the environmental standards and export substitution rates.

Despite these reservations, CAFTA could generate economic benefits for the region. Economists indicate that though the effects of the trade agreement might be small on a macroeconomic level, they will increase the profits to the local firms affected by the regional trade. For U.S. producers, access to new markets for goods such as agricultural products could become advantageous. In general, U.S. companies could benefit from the opportunity to increase their foreign investment in this region. Finally, CAFTA may reinforce political stability in these five Central American countries by providing institutional structures that will reinforce recent progress made in efforts to strengthen the rule of law and to fight terrorism, organized crime, and drug trafficking.

Thanks again for contacting me. I will carefully monitor the progress of the CAFTA negotiations to ensure that any new trade agreement meets the highest standards for labor, environmental, and social protection.

My reply to Senator Lautenberg:

June 16, 2005

Dear Frank,

Thank you for your reply. However, I think you missed the point of my letter. It is evident in the third sentence of your reply. You state: " I, too, worry that CAFTA might exacerbate the pervasive social and economic inequality already present in many of the Central American countries. I worry about whether CAFTA will perpetuate or perhaps worsen the current poverty plaguing many citizens of Central America." Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about the citizens of Central America. I care about the citizens of the United States. As a senator, you should put the well-being of United States citizens first over those of the citizens of Central America.

In the seventh sentence of your reply you wrote: " CAFTA could generate economic benefits for the region." my reply to you is yes, and I could win the Lotto. The fact remains that the CAFTA countries are among the world's poorest and their economies among the world's smallest. The only things we will be exporting to these countries are U.S. jobs, industry, and capital. I am all for charity. I give to a number of charities that I believe in. I hope you do too. However, I expect that when you give charity, it is with your own money and not with the tax payer's money. By voting for CAFTA, I believe you are giving charity to people outside of the United States at the U.S. citizen's expense.

In sentence ten of your reply you state: "In general, U.S. companies could benefit from the opportunity to increase their foreign investment in this region." I would remind you that U.S. companies are not citizens of the United States. Any investment that companies make outside of the U.S. necessarily limits the funds available for those companies to invest within the United States. As I have stated in the past, your responsibilities are to the U.S. citizens. Not corporations, or the citizens of Central America. I expect you to do your duty as a senator from New Jersey and vote in accordance with what is right for your citizens...not what is right for corporations looking to expand overseas.

Finally, I would like to point out that your letter did not answer the one question that I sent to you. I asked you to "Please let me know that you will vote against the CAFTA agreement if and when it is signed and presented to Congress. The same goes for the misnamed Free Trade Area of the Americas." While you did state that you would "carefully monitor the progress of the CAFTA negotiations to ensure that any new trade agreement meets the highest standards for labor, environmental, and social protection.", you did not state that you would vote in accordance with the Constitution and that you will put the needs of the United States citizens above those of Central America. When you go to vote on CAFTA, please keep the U.S. citizen in mind. The voters in New Jersey elected you. We can easily vote for someone else next time if we don't believe you are voting on important legislation with our (not the large multi-national corporations) best interests in mind.

Thank you for your time,

Wayne

Note to readers: The United States is our country. It is up to each of us to stand up and be heard about the issues that we care about. If you believe, as I do, that CAFTA is bad for the United States, and is a baby step towards giving international tribunals the right to supercede U.S. court decisions, then write your congressmen and senators and let them know how you feel.I sent my letters by email. You can too.