The debate over the Central American Free Trade Agreement
Re: “CAFTA and Colorado,” June 19 Perspective articles.
I read with great interest the debate about CAFTA. Essentially, the argument against CAFTA seems to boil down to: We dare not trade with Central America because we’ll lose agricultural jobs. Yet again, economic ignorance about trade rears its ugly head.
Fred Bauer (“… But it could hurt farmers”) asks the greater American public to pay higher prices for sugar and other subsidized products. Ah, the old concentrated-benefits-for-a-few-at-the-expense-of-the-many raw deal. If CAFTA passes, these sugar-beet farmers may well have to find new crops to grow. That’s better for all of us! Not only would American consumers get cheaper sugar (and we Americans consume a lot of sugar), we would also get a wider variety and cheaper crops. The American consumer wins. True, inefficient farms might go out of business. That’s Schumpeter’s creative destruction at work: An inefficient allocation of resources is redirected toward a better use. This leads to more jobs and higher wages.
Moreover, if Central America dumps its products on the open market below cost, let them – and let the American masses benefit.
Tim Collins, Lakewood
…
Congratulations on putting CAFTA on center stage for a change. Now, can’t we get a full and fair treatment of the issue?
The two “sides” represented don’t come close to airing the implications of this treaty. Scott Johnson claims it will “level the playing field” for ranchers (“Pact could help cattlemen …”); and Fred Bauer claims it will hurt farmers. Both articles are about markets exclusively, as if markets work like a planetary system, entirely apart from other economic and social implications, not to mention political and judicial ones.
Consider this unmentioned provision of CAFTA: If a corporation feels that its profit interests have been impinged by the laws of a nation or one of its states, including the laws of the U.S., that corporation has the right to claim damages in the billions. Not even the U.S. Supreme Court would have standing to interfere with such claims.
CAFTA works well only for multinational corporations; it harms the interests of individuals and of democratic systems. The local effects will be what the effects of NAFTA have been: degradation of local economies and the loss of jobs in the service of ensuring obscene profits for multinationals.
You wouldn’t know any of this from the articles in last Sunday’s paper. How about some actual investigative coverage that goes beyond this or that opinion?
Elizabeth Ermarth, Lakewood
…
CAFTA involves more than globalization. It is also about multinational corporations that owe allegiance to no country, only to their profits. They can sue any country whose environmental, labor and health laws interfere with those profits.
Anita G. Brown, Colorado Springs
Support for Darfur region
Re: “Global response to Darfur pitiful,” June 16 Ved P. Nanda column.
Tragically, the U.N.-backed estimate that Ved P. Nanda mentions for the number of dead in the Darfur region of Sudan is probably grossly inaccurate: According to a recent analysis done by the Coalition for International Justice, up to 400,000 (not 180,000) Darfurians have died due to the mass destruction caused by the Sudanese government and the government-sponsored Janjaweed militias.
As Colorado citizens, there are some important advocacy measures that we can all take for the more than 2.5 million Darfurians who have been violently displaced from their homes. For one, we should all write and call Sen. Wayne Allard about Darfur. He has failed to sponsor the Darfur Accountability Act, an important Senate measure that helps to expand the protection mandate of the African troops already in Darfur. The same goes for lobbying Reps. Bob Beauprez, Diana DeGette, Joel Hefley, Marilyn Musgrave and John Salazar, none of whom have yet sponsored a comparable House bill.
Finally, we should let all our political leaders know that only a substantial multinational intervention will end this genocide.
Nikki Serapio, Greenwood Village
Senate apology for lack of anti-lynching laws
Re: “An apology for sins of the past,” June 20 editorial.
Your editorial suggesting that “the apology was long overdue” for the fact that the U.S. Senate had failed to pass a federal anti-lynching law was appropriate. Some persons today would like to forget some of the stains upon our American democracy caused by the racist acts of a few. Others would ask, “What difference does it make? None of us were responsible for those despicable acts.” Both of these responses do not acknowledge the significance of the oft-quoted statement, “They who do not remember the past are likely to repeat it.”
In 1964, I was a 30-year-old Methodist minister from Boston who spent the summer in Palmers Crossing, Miss. (near Hattiesburg), engaged in voter education and registration. I was in Mississippi during “the notorious murder of three civil-rights workers in Neshoba County, Miss.” (Post editorial). The belated autopsy of Emmitt Till, and the conviction of Ray Killen for the murder of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner, bring to the surface memories that I have suppressed but never forgotten.
I have not forgotten, not because I am African-American, but because I am an American. If we suppress those memories of the past so that we forget them, we fail to remind our nation of where we have been and how far we have come from that place. Thank you for understanding the significance of the Senate apology. Late, yes, but better late than never.
Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell, Denver
Western power-line plan
Re: “Frontier Line will boost renewables,” June 19 guest commentary.
In his guest commentary praising renewable energy, Jim Sims uses its distribution as justification for the construction of a $3 billion electric transmission line from Wyoming to California, called the Frontier Line.
Sims is clearly enamored of renewable energy. In the first half of his column, he uses the word “renewable” nine times. Adding synonyms for renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, clean) gives us a total of 18 mentions in the first 15 sentences. In his enthusiasm for the Frontier Line, he points out that this line will be able to transmit many more renewable kilowatts than we can produce: 25 times more wind energy than Colorado’s capacity; twice as much wind energy as the entire country can produce.
Why would we want to build a $3 billion power line that will be used at 4 percent of capacity? In the second half of his column, Sims drops a comment about adding electricity generated in coal-fired power plants to this transmission line. Hey, we have this huge power line. And California wants to buy electricity. Why don’t we build some coal-burning plants?
Sims’ column appears to be a bait-and-switch tactic for a massive public works project that will benefit the energy-extraction industry.
Sims, who is an adviser to President Bush’s National Energy Policy Task Force, is right that more passionate environmentalists oppose any expansion of fossil-fuel power generation. But his rhetoric suggests he has trouble communicating with even moderate environmentalists.
Mark Laitos, Longmont
Wal-Mart and health care
Re: “Another reason to hate Wal-Mart; Taxpayers likely paying for working poor’s health insurance,” June 10 Marie Cocco column.
Marie Cocco calls out Wal-Mart, as some of its associates utilize state-sponsored health care programs. What her column fails to note is that Wal-Mart is moving people off public assistance. Based on a survey by The Segmentation Co., we estimate more than 160,000 people have moved off the list of America’s uninsured by coming to work for Wal-Mart. The survey also showed 7 percent of hourly store associates were on Medicaid three months before joining Wal-Mart, dropping to 5 percent once they join, and then 3 percent after two years.
Wal-Mart provides good, affordable health-care coverage to both full- and part-timers, but some state programs make many working people eligible. In Georgia, families of four earning up to $44,000 are eligible for PeachCare. For $70 or less, recipients get medical, prescriptions, dental and vision coverage with no co-pay or deductible required. In Connecticut, a family can earn more than $58,000 and be eligible.
It’s understandable how some people – perhaps some undergoing a personal crisis – would choose the lower premiums of state programs. The net result of Wal-Mart employment, however, is taking people off these programs – not adding to them.
Legislation designed to single out individual companies doesn’t take one person off the list of America’s uninsured. Wal-Mart understands that health-care coverage is a challenging national issue. We continue to stand ready to help solve this crisis.
Sarah Clark, Director, Corporate Communications, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, Ark.
Lesson in bad leadership
Last Saturday, I was out for a run in my neighborhood and stopped to watch a baseball game. I enjoy seeing the enthusiasm of young people playing a great game. However, I was shocked to see the coach of this middle-school-aged team verbally abuse his team. One of his players had struck out swinging at a very high pitch. The coach came unglued and was practically foaming at the mouth in anger at the poor young man. He attacked him with mean words and jumped all over the team. He was out of control and abusive. I am amazed the parents watching did not intervene.
As a parent, how could anyone let someone talk to his or her kids like that? How could an adult let another adult abuse their child? What made it OK to treat these young people as if they had no worth at all?
This petty tyrant of a coach acted as if his whole life was destroyed by a simple mistake in a game. Aren’t games supposed to be played for fun, building skills, and at best for the positive development of a human being? If a teacher was treating students this way, they would quickly be out of a job.
I highly recommend that parents demand from their coaches respect for their children; that coaches and parents see sports as a game and ideally a great opportunity to help young people develop and grow in positive and healthy ways. Settling for less is to sell the future short of the rich possibilities inherent in each human being.
Joseph Bernard, Denver
Immigrant sheepherders
Re: “Tending our flocks; Western sheep ranches depend on foreign herders,” June 19 news story.
Most Americans would not be able to comprehend the desperation that compels ranch workers to come here on temporary “guest worker” visas.
Only the most wrenching poverty would force someone to consider a job where he will work or be on call seven days a week, 24 hours a day, isolated from society, fed only salted and canned food, drink from a stream, face possible injury and extreme mountain weather, and see their families on another continent only every three years.
Although many ranchers are responsible employers, at other ranches workers do not receive medical care when injured. Workers with head and spinal injuries, lost fingers and broken bones have had to beg or flee to get medical treatment.
Some workers are held captive because the employer holds their passports and other documents, they have no access to telephones, are not allowed to travel off the ranch, their mail is opened, and/or they’re weakened by injury or lack of nourishment.
Those who flee are more likely the survivors. Those left behind hope that they won’t be blacklisted from future contracts and that maybe the next tour of duty will be better.
All this for a government-sanctioned salary of $700 per month.
Patricia Medige, Denver
The writer is an attorney for Colorado Legal Services, Migrant Farm Worker Division.
…
I was absolutely horrified to read of Western sheep ranchers’ use of “foreign herders,” who perform sheep castrations with their teeth, following their “native traditions.” Excuse me, but these people are no longer in their “native countries,” and isn’t this the United States of America, where we have laws to protect “livestock” and domestic animals from this kind of cruelty? Why are these “foreign” herders allowed to continue this kind of practice?
In addition to the extreme pain and anguish that these innocent sheep endure, not to mention the lack of any kind of anesthesia, how many are lost to uncontrolled bleeding and/or shock? Why is this allowed to continue? I find it difficult to understand how ranchers can be so insensitive to their animals’ pain and suffering in a country that supposedly prides itself with enforcement of humane laws and prevention of illegal immigration.
This is the United States of America, where any immigrant must abide by our laws – not the arbitrary, chosen laws of their prior country.
I am totally ashamed of the ranchers who perpetuate this extremely cruel practice, as well as potentially illegal immigration, and exhibit complete disregard for the suffering animals that help line their pockets.
Kathy Hixson, Lakewood
The lines at Disneyland
Re: “Disneyland turns 50,” June 19 travel story.
Your Sunday edition last week ran great articles about Disneyland, but I think the general public needs to be aware of the other side of the story. I moved here from southern California about a year ago. I lived just a few miles from Disneyland and went frequently during the off-season. The advice given to beat the crowds was just as applicable to the off-season, because I haven’t been there yet when it wasn’t extremely crowded. My last visit was at a time when we thought it would be a good day – but it was so crowded, you could barely walk without getting hit by a stroller.
The lines were horrendous and even those with the “fast pass” were experiencing long delays. It was anything but fast, and certainly not the happiest place on earth. Not only were the guests at the park short and irritable, but the staff was as well. I wrote to Disney with my frustrations and concerns, and what I got in return was a letter totally dismissing the issues. The bottom line is they turn no one away at the gate, no matter how crowded the park gets, and they will not tell you how crowded it is.
So, for those families venturing to the happiest place on earth for a fun family vacation, beware! Bring your anti-anxiety medication and lots of patience.
Jan Litchfield, Denver
Presidential conduct
Re: “Wisdom of voters runs deep,” June 19 John Andrews column.
I hope Bill Clinton gets The Denver Post. What a relief it must be for him that a fine, upstanding, modern Republican like John Andrews recognizes that presidential “gray areas in conduct” can and should be forgiven. Of course, he was talking about Richard Nixon and George Bush. Still, I can’t imagine that a fellow with his integrity would apply that standard differently to a Democratic president, can you?
Patricia Bermon, Larkspur
TO THE POINT: Short takes from readers
Our out-of-town visitors are always amazed at the air pollution, water bans and urban sprawl. As a citizen of Denver, I would like to see Gov. Bill Owens vote to support our needs for energy-efficient programs, water-conservation programs and our need to protect open space.
Alison Tomlinson, Denver
Alaska’s governor is proceeding to kill 1,400 wolves, all better-looking and probably smarter than he is. And U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, one of Bush’s worst appointees, won’t stop him. Why can’t these noble animals be sent to wolfless Colorado?
Mary H. Jackson, Denver
Let me get this straight: Wasn’t it just a year ago that Xcel Energy raised rates because of a long, cold winter? Now they’re raising rates again because of the “warmer-than-normal winter.” As consumers, isn’t this called “getting hosed”?
Pam Manresa, Arvada
Florida’s Jeb Bush is acting more like an enraged Rottweiler than a governor in his latest vendetta against Michael Schiavo. He is a disgrace to the Bush family and to the Republican Party, and he can kiss his further political ambitions goodbye.
Richard F. Proud, Parachute
An unintended consequence of the placement of a 40-foot-tall blue bruin at the Colorado Convention Center is the approbation of UCLA alumni in the community and everywhere.
Craig Marshall Smith (UCLA 1973), Highlands Ranch
To have your comments printed in To the Point, please send letters of no more than 40 words to openforum@denverpost.com (no attachments, please) or 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202. Writers are limited to one letter per month.
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
