Trade Bill Defeated
- Thread starter davegolf
- Start date
Meh. This would've passed easily had it been some other president seeking it. The only discernible reason I can find for so many Republicans to have opposed it is antipathy towards Obama himself. They don't trust what he might do with promotion authority -- despite virtually every modern president having had it for other trade deals.
The opacity of the TPP certainly didn't help matters.
Sure, the unions exerted their influence over Dems to win their opposition. And that certainly contributed to the bill's defeat. But this wouldn't have been enough on its own.
If the unions still held that big of a political stick, no Democratic president would have been pushing this.
Plus this wasn't even a vote on the bill itself. This was a vote for fast track authority which is basically congress stripping itself of any power to make changes to the bill when it comes up for vote. And yes, I think a lot of republicans voted against it simply because the scary black guy in the White House wants it. They've either voted against or used an unprecedented amount of filibusters for everything else he's tried to do. At least their blind hatred finally did something good...or at least kept something bad from happening.
Oh. Then why didn't more republicans vote to pass the TAA? That would have made both bills pass. Something like 180 republicans voted no on the TAA bill.
Last edited:
Oh, right, that "liberal" media. Ok, so, now you want republicans to get credit for defeating the bill? Well, Dave, if they ("liberal" media) did that, then they wouldn't be able to brag about "liberals" not backing President Obama. Which way do you want this? It can't be both.
It goes back to my original point the Union still wield a lot of power.This is an extremely unique situation and the Unions won at least for now. I do not know enough about the law to make a conclusion on worthiness and I have enjoyed the interactions and political posturing.
Those damn unions looking out for workers again. Nothing gets under my skin more.
Do you know what the TAA portion of this bill is for? It's basically a pot of money that's to be used to retrain workers who lose their jobs as a result of the TPP, you know, even though they won't lose jobs because of the TPP, but we'll still retrain them when they lose their jobs...even though they won't *wink*.
Speaker Boner wanted to pay for the TAA portion by taking the money out of Medicare, but democrats said no. Then Boner wanted the dems to vote to cut the money from Medicare, then immediately hold another vote to put the money back in Medicare. Boner basically wanted dems on record as having voted to cut Medicare so he and other republicans could run 30 second ads saying that all these dems voted to cut Medicare.
I too have enjoyed the political posturing.
The stories are written that way because political reporters like man-bites-dog stories much more than they like dog-bites-man stories. Here, Democrats voted against a Democratic President. If you're a political reporter, that isn't just a good story, it's the only story.
But in truth it's Republicans who control the House, and if they'd supported the bill, it would have passed:
In the wake of Friday's failure of a key part of Barack Obama's trade agenda, most people are blaming House Democrats, who voted 144 to 40 against Trade Adjustment Assistance. TAA, which helps workers who lose their jobs as a result of foreign competition, is a program that Democrats traditionally support. Obama traveled to Capitol Hill to personally lobby in favor of the legislation, so the lopsided vote against the program was an embarrassment to the president.
But it's worth remembering that Democrats are in the minority in the Republican-controlled House. And Republicans voted against the TAA by a margin that was only slightly less lopsided: 158 to 86.
For anyone who's interested in the politics, this is a good explainer.But it's worth remembering that Democrats are in the minority in the Republican-controlled House. And Republicans voted against the TAA by a margin that was only slightly less lopsided: 158 to 86.
Don't put words in my mouth I respect Unions and their goals I just wish the pubs gave them more respect.
Last edited:
You're gonna lose your republican membership card going around respecting unions. They have been absolutely demonized and crushed since Regan declared war on unions and the workers they represent back in the 80s.
Like most students of economics, I long supported free trade agreements. Yes, they tend to bring our workers into more direct competition with lowly paid workers in other countries where companies operate without modern labor or environmental laws, and this will cause disruptions in our labor markets. But, I thought, everyone will benefit from the higher economic growth that trade produces, and we can provide support to workers adversely affected by foreign competition. In theory, things will work out just fine over time.
I've realized, however, that things aren't working out just fine. In fact we're doing little to aid displaced workers -- like all those before it this TAA package provides little benefit to working people and mostly just gives political cover to politicians who need to defend trade votes that may be unpopular with their constituencies. And the benefits of higher growth aren't being broadly shared. It's now beyond doubt that growth is flowing almost exclusively to the top of the income distribution, and it isn't "trickling down" from there. The benefits are concentrated at the top, while the pain is spread among everyone else. This is a shitty deal for average Americans, even if trade agreements are pro-growth.
I don't oppose free trade agreements generally. But I do oppose them unless and until we act to ensure that displaced workers really will be protected, and the benefits of growth really are broadly shared. Given the reality that our current politics are dysfunctional, though, we won't do any of those things, so operationally I do oppose trade agreements like TPP.
I've realized, however, that things aren't working out just fine. In fact we're doing little to aid displaced workers -- like all those before it this TAA package provides little benefit to working people and mostly just gives political cover to politicians who need to defend trade votes that may be unpopular with their constituencies. And the benefits of higher growth aren't being broadly shared. It's now beyond doubt that growth is flowing almost exclusively to the top of the income distribution, and it isn't "trickling down" from there. The benefits are concentrated at the top, while the pain is spread among everyone else. This is a shitty deal for average Americans, even if trade agreements are pro-growth.
I don't oppose free trade agreements generally. But I do oppose them unless and until we act to ensure that displaced workers really will be protected, and the benefits of growth really are broadly shared. Given the reality that our current politics are dysfunctional, though, we won't do any of those things, so operationally I do oppose trade agreements like TPP.
They are using fear to sell this deal. It pretty much goes "we can't let CHINA DICTATE international trade rules." They'll get the words "China", "Chinese", and "Dictate" (to make people think "dictator" & "dictatorship" as much as they can)... Basically make this bill more about fear and hatred of all that is China in order to get support for the bill. A lot of ill informed voters will be watching Fox News and saying "looks likes them darn democrats want them chinamen runnin' everything ".
I actually take the China stuff seriously. In this typically thoughtful piece, James Fallows responds to this from Peter Beinart:
On Monday, Lindsey Graham announced his presidential candidacy in a speech devoted mostly to foreign policy. He mentioned variations of the word “Islam” six times. He said “the nuclear ambitions of the radical Islamists who control Iran” constitute the “biggest threat” to the United States. He twice emphasized his devotion to Israel. And once, about halfway through his remarks, he mentioned China.
In American politics today, especially in the GOP, Graham’s priorities are typical. Two years ago, during Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel’s contentious seven-and-a-half-hour grilling by the Armed Services Committee, senators mentioned Israel 178 times and Iran 171 times. The number of references to China? Five.
The emphasis is odd because it’s likely that the “biggest threat” to America’s national security is neither Iran nor “radical Islam” writ large. It is China.
Fallows thinks Beinart is absolutely right that our fixation on radical Islam is misplaced. He says that he "would have no comment about [Beinart's] new essay beyond 'please read it' if, instead of saying that China was a bigger threat to America than ISIS, al-Qaeda, Iran, etc., it had said that China was more important."In American politics today, especially in the GOP, Graham’s priorities are typical. Two years ago, during Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel’s contentious seven-and-a-half-hour grilling by the Armed Services Committee, senators mentioned Israel 178 times and Iran 171 times. The number of references to China? Five.
The emphasis is odd because it’s likely that the “biggest threat” to America’s national security is neither Iran nor “radical Islam” writ large. It is China.
Fallows:
I think there’s no reasonable dissent to the view that, for the foreseeable future, America’s management of its relationship with China matters more than its relations with any other country. Economically, environmentally, for matters of war and peace—in these and other matters, if things go badly between the U.S. and China, they go badly for everyone. (You think it’s difficult working out an Iran deal with Russia and China sitting on the same side of the table as America? Imagine if they moved to the other side.) If they go better between the U.S. and China, there’s more hope.
You could call the bad side of that equation a threat. But it’s a “threat” of a very different sort from the one via ISIS or al-Qaeda, which from the U.S. point of view are of course threats and nothing else. The China “threat” is also different from the ones Beinart mentions via Pakistan, Iran, and the Israel-Palestine impasse. In all of those cases, from the U.S. perspective there’s an asymmetry: benefits if things go well, but much, much larger dangers if they don’t.
So let’s say that China is more important than the countries U.S. politicians spend the most time declaiming about—and important because of the potential benefits and the potential risks. That’s different from being the “biggest threat.” The United States needs people who think and talk more about China, not “more China hawks.”
That sounds right to me. Obama is pushing hard on TPP because (I think) he correctly sees China's muscular assertiveness as a challenge to our interests and our power. (For example, we're now having tense military interactions with the PRC navy in and around the Spratly Islands.) It would be a good thing for us to strengthen economic alliances in Asia, and we really ought to reestablish the pivot to Asia that the Obama administration initially intended.You could call the bad side of that equation a threat. But it’s a “threat” of a very different sort from the one via ISIS or al-Qaeda, which from the U.S. point of view are of course threats and nothing else. The China “threat” is also different from the ones Beinart mentions via Pakistan, Iran, and the Israel-Palestine impasse. In all of those cases, from the U.S. perspective there’s an asymmetry: benefits if things go well, but much, much larger dangers if they don’t.
So let’s say that China is more important than the countries U.S. politicians spend the most time declaiming about—and important because of the potential benefits and the potential risks. That’s different from being the “biggest threat.” The United States needs people who think and talk more about China, not “more China hawks.”
I think all of that is important. It just isn't as important as the threat that rising inequality in both wealth and income poses to our own society.
Obama has no idea what the word negotiate means.... He thinks it means that he tells people how it is and any discussion should stop and people just agree with him. Just like this article.... shows his idea of negotiating....come in and tell the representatives in his own party that they are wrong and doesn't take any questions. He's ignored them all of his time in office and he thinks he can just march over there and tell them how to vote.
Well, I certainly agree with that sentiment -- generally speaking. Obama is very much a "my way or the highway" kind of president.
But I'm not sure it's really operable here. I'm sure there are details to which we're not privy -- heck I know there are, and by design. But trade promotion authority is, for the most part, a "yes" or "no" thing. There really isn't much to negotiate -- Congress either gives that authority to the president or it doesn't. The particulars of Trade Adjustment Assistance, I suppose, are up for negotiation. But I get the impression that most of the votes against this, particularly the Dems, aren't up for winning. The Republican votes against it seem more rooted in the president seeking the authority -- they don't trust him and, understandably, aren't feeling all that charitable about further empowering a president who has (in their opinions, and mine) overstepped his bounds on a number of occasions. Make this another president -- even Hillary -- and a lot of the Republican No's would probably turn into Aye's.
But the Democrats opposing this are thinking more about the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA and other such trade pacts. What could Obama (or Paul Ryan & Co, for that matter) negotiate to assuage those concerns? It would have to be something in TAA -- and, personally, I think Democrats are right that this amounts to little more than political window dressing.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Pacers take it to Milwaukee tonight tie the series 1-1
- Latest: PhyloeBedoe