House Rejects Trade Bill, Rebuffing Obama’s Dramatic Appeal

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/politics/obamas-trade-bills-face-tough-battle-against-house-democrats.html

by elahd • 11 years ago

77 45 11 years ago

nytimes.com

Implicated2• 11 years ago

“We want a better deal for America’s workers,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California.

I can only imagine what this quote would say if these people spoke in truth about what they really want.

Happydayz• 11 years ago

likely have constituents who work in an industry that would be threatened with greater trade integration.

Nationally a detrimental move with greater costs, but locally they might very well be better off without it.

The standard story trotted out about trade are the steel tariffs implemented by Bush 43. Highly beneficial for the small number of steel workers in the US, but an effective tax on every other consumer. Forgot the figures from way back when, but IIRC we could have paid every steel worker $2-300,000/yr for the rest of their lives and still come out far ahead as a country.

x0x03• 11 years ago

Except we don't.

The story of trade they tell in undergrad econ is that the country as a whole will benefit while individuals / individual sectors will be hurt. The country as a whole will benefit so much that we can help those that are hurt and still come out ahead. Unfortunately, this is america, so we virtually never get around to helping those that are hurt, or when we do, it's not at all effective [1]. So trade, in practice, is a transfer from those less well-off to those more well-off.

Not to mention that Obama is a liar and the purpose of this treaty is to remove worker protections. See, eg, the position of labor in vietnam: they widely oppose the TPP. We're a rich country and we can afford to not use virtual slave labor to make our clothes.

[1] http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/in-essence/no-help-displa...

elicash• 11 years ago

What are you suggesting is the secret reason she's opposing? Do you really doubt she's to the left of the president and trying to get a bill that's more liberal?

Implicated2• 11 years ago

I'm not suggesting anything other than the stated reason isn't likely to be the real reason she's opposing this version. I don't presume to have ANY IDEA what really is going on, I just don't believe she's got the best interest of "America's workers" in mind. Her interests don't have to be more liberal to not be in line with what's best for her constituents.

randomname24• 11 years ago

Roll call on TAA: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll361.xml

Roll call on TPA: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll362.xml

The Democrats downvoted the TAA section, it will get a new vote next week and then it goes straight to the President (both have to pass at once).

walterbell3• 11 years ago

The earlier Senate vote also had two iterations - the first failed, with many headline articles. The second succeeded, with less hullabaloo.

A repeat of the House TAA vote has been scheduled for next Tuesday. What could cause a change in votes between today and Tue?

kabdib• 11 years ago

"Campaign contributions"

randomname24• 11 years ago

This reminds me of TARP.

TARP lost 228-205 in a first vote. Then the stock market went down a bit and despite constituent phone calls being 300-1 against TARP, Congress added 448 pages (of mostly pork) to the bill and passed it anyway.

Animats• 11 years ago

Good. The secret TPP agreement is awful. See the EFF's analysis.[1] It's not about tariffs; it's a wish list for the RIAA, big pharma, and other lobbyists who want to override consumer protection laws through a trade bill.

[1] https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

rayiner• 11 years ago

Don't forget big tech companies: http://tppcoalition.org/about (Apple, EBay, Facebook, Microsoft, HP, Oracle, and Xerox).

walterbell3• 11 years ago

Or Wall Street - the lead TPP negotiator is ex-Citibank, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wal...

"Noting deep ties between the country's top trade negotiator and Wall Street banks, ten groups representing millions of Americans are calling on the White House to make public all communications between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the massive financial institutions that stand to benefit from proposed trade deals."

More on lobbyists, http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-...

".. Many of the industry representatives are themselves former USTR officials ... Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, “Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules. … This is a very pleasant surprise.”

mathattack3• 11 years ago

One thing to be aware of is we don't know what the final deal looks like. Many times things are put out in negotiations to be taken away later. This is why "people" say, "The two things you never want to see being made are sausages and laws."

whyenot• 11 years ago

We don't even know what the current deal looks like. Even lawmakers have had only very limited access to the terms of the proposed treaty. if the country, and by extension, the American people, are going to give up some of their sovereignty in exchange for ...something, that should be an open discussion not this corrupt backroom nonsense.

nsxwolf• 11 years ago

Does anyone like this - left, right or center?

Matt Drudge just posted the headline "PELOSI SAYS NO TO OBAMATRADE; TAKES BRAVE STAND FOR AMERICA" ... stuff's getting weird, man.

rthomas62• 11 years ago

There's a Robert Reich article from a year ago that predicted this kind of division on issues. He says that the two new sides are "populist" vs "establishment". It looks to me like he was right.

http://robertreich.org/post/84984296635

It really explains a lot, like why a lot of people feel so differently about Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders, or Jeb Bush vs. Rand Paul. I think we could say that Sanders and Paul are members of a new invisible party of populists, while Bush and Clinton are members of a pro-establishment party.

randomname24• 11 years ago

Or as other people have called this: Washington DC vs Everyone else.

All presidential candidates except Paul and Sanders are firmly on the "establishment" side.

But I'm sure we'll also hear the other candidates give plenty of lip service to the populists this election cycle and turn around and forget about all that as soon as they're elected.

mentat• 11 years ago

The establishment is also the new "families of rulers" pattern which is pretty disturbing.

martinflack• 11 years ago

Sounds like the authoritarian/libertarian axis labels on the 2D political map concept: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

It's why Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would occasionally team up on an issue - they're both in the bottom half of the graph.

pjonesdotca• 11 years ago

"When the going get's weird, the weird go pro" - HST

That's about the only thing I can think of if Drudge is saying good things about Pelosi

randomname24• 11 years ago

Not that weird, considering this:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/11/conservative-t...

rthomas62• 11 years ago

It's interesting that on this issue the democrats disagree with the president, but the GOP backs him fully.

unk• 11 years ago

That should be an indication of how bad an idea this is.

jtd514• 11 years ago

Wait, so is Obama still our savior? So confusing...

happyscrappy3• 11 years ago

Wait, I thought the government was bought by corporations?

gtaylor• 11 years ago

There are numerous corporations that would be negatively impacted by this trade deal. It's not a white-and-black "all corporations would love this deal" type situation.

happyscrappy3• 11 years ago

So corporations control the government but more are negatively affected by TTIP so it didn't pass? This is stretching the bounds of logic.

NoMoreNicksLeft• 11 years ago

They have a leash on the dog, but once in awhile it acts up.

Give them a few months, they'll have it in line.

RexRollman• 11 years ago

I don't know if this agreement is good or bad but I do have an issue with any trade agreement being ratified without it being viewed first by the public. And I question the intentions of those who want an agreement passed without public review.

yohui2• 11 years ago

There would be public review before voting to accept or reject. Congress would have months to process it before voting.

The trade agreement would be public; only the negotiations that produced the agreement would remain confidential (so that countries can bargain and compromise more readily).

What President Obama is asking for right now is not approval of the trade deal, but the ability to make the deal. This power (trade promotion authority, or "fast track") is not new, but rather the renewal of a piece of legislation that dates back to 1974 and is standard for such trade agreements, having been in effect for most years since then.

happyscrappy3• 11 years ago

The information you are providing, while accurate, undermines outrage and should be withheld in order to stifle business interests.

mathattack3• 11 years ago

Very good point. I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong!) that every trade deal in recent history required this type of authority. It basically doesn't allow folks to see the sausage as it's being made. I believe (again, please correct me if I'm wrong) that our constitution was negotiated behind closed doors for similar reasons.

House Rejects Trade Bill, Rebuffing Obama’s Dramatic Appeal

Related Stories