Obama Administration Refocused On Trade Agreement Passage

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Economy
Posted on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 10:50:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

From my perspective, this is good news:

The Obama administration and trade advocates in Congress are trying to put a series of long-delayed trade pacts back on the front burner, despite widespread skepticism on Capitol Hill about the benefits of expanded international commerce. On the heels of the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said Monday that a delegation from Panama will visit Washington this week to try to resolve disputes over the U.S.-Panama trade deal. Kirk added that President Obama hopes to clear remaining obstacles to a separate pact with Colombia.

[MORE . . .]

Ultimately, Obama — who met with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe during the summit — believes that “a resolution of the Colombia trade agreement would be a good thing for both economies,” Kirk said. . . .

Labor, which, as Greg Sargent notes, is already not pleased with Obama's passivity on EFCA, is not happy with this development. From the CQ article, other opponents of free trade agreements are also up in arms:

Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch program, which is critical of recent trade agreements, argued that Kirk was trying to “create a sense of momentum on something that is highly contested and not decided . . . and has a huge political liability domestically.”

An interesting debate awaits.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Leahy Promises Torture Investigation >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Administration Refocused On Trade Agreement Passage | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

More ways... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Dadler on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:02:18 AM EST

...for the U.S. to sell out its own workers is all these agreements end up being. No other country relishes destroying its manufacturing and labor base as we do. We have an absolute fetish for watching our neediest workers be flattened under the bus. Our ruling class absolutely gets off on it. Fact is, it's not good for the planet or its inhabitants to be burning millions of tons of fossil feuls shipping stuff all over the world, the vast majority of which is entirely capable of being produced at cost right where they are consumed or used.

Didn't Obama (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by jbindc on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:46:20 AM EST

oppose the Columbian Free Trade Pact back in the primary?(Answer: Yes - "on the grounds that the Colombian government has done little to stop the "targeted assassinations" of hundreds of Colombian trade unionists." He also said, "Because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.")

Has he reversed himself now or was he just parroting the Dem party line to win? Do you think the unions that helped get him into office are going to be pleased by this next slap down (after the whole auto-company loan / smackdown of the UAW)?

Sure he reversed himself (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:47:11 AM EST

I knew he would. I have written on that subject often.


: I know (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:51:58 AM EST

It was a bit of snark, and I'm not surprised.
And by the way, the conservative blogs are already loving it.

: And did you (none / 0) (#26)
by Catch 22 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 01:06:13 PM EST

hope Obama would flip-flop on the deal?

It is good news (none / 0) (#1)
by CST on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 10:57:37 AM EST

And if it forces Obama to push harder for EFCA all the better.

You gotta be joking (none / 0) (#3)
by Catch 22 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:19:51 AM EST

EFCA and free trade are polar opposites. Seems like you don't understand the issues at all.


Sure I do (5.00 / 0) (#5)
by CST on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:27:55 AM EST

I just don't have black and white views on this.

I think American workers should be able to organize as they see fit without threats from management and union busting tactics.

I also think we need to have healthy trade with other nations in order to move into the next century. Globalization is here, it's not going anywhere. That doesn't mean we can't also take care of our workers here at home.

I support unions,that doesn't mean I agree with them on 100% of all issues. Shades of gray do exist in politics.


There are no shades of gray (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Catch 22 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:52:33 AM EST

when it comes to free trade vs unions.

I suggest you go to the big and small union websites and read their views on free trade. They lobby against it not for it. As a result of free trade unions in this country have not only become weaker they are almost becoming extinct. You can support one or the other, not both.

Do you think unions or their workers want to or can compete with .75 cents an hour that is paid in third world countries? Why do you think corporations want to produce in those countries and not here? Because it is good for the American worker? What do you think has destroyed our manufacturing base and the families that worked in those now empty factories?


I think the whole point trade is to raise the (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by vicndabx on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:24:49 PM EST

standards of living in those countries so we don't have to compete w/$0.75/hour.


I think the whole point (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Catch 22 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:52:00 PM EST

is to raise the wages in this country that have been stagnant for almost a decade. While you support raising wages in places it may never happen I support raising them here. Guess whose side the American worker is on. Yours or mine?

If other countries want to raise the standard of living for their people then let them. They can raise their peoples wages and build a middle class society just like we did primarily on domestic production and domestic consumption.

This argument that the American worker and our middle class society must sacrifice and suffer so that the rest of the world can grow is BS. Let the other countries attract capital and build a middle class manufacturing base and a middle class society. Then every one is happy.


Let's just say I don't agree with you. (none / 0) (#27)
by vicndabx on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 01:57:14 PM EST

Let the other countries attract capital and build a middle class manufacturing base and a middle class society. Then every one is happy.

The other countries are already attracting capital - in the form of those banks and Wall Street types you've been advocating around here the last few weeks. Problem is since there's no trade agreement in place, and given the penchant for companies & Wall Street to, put more emphasis focus heavily on share price, those American workers you purport to worry about are getting the shaft as the companies who employ them outsource work, and purchase materials on the cheap.

Lastly, regarding your strawman:

While you support raising wages in places it may never happen I support raising them here.

I didn't say anything like that. That's your own supposition, so I won't address it any further.


Oh yes you did. (none / 0) (#28)
by Catch 22 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 02:22:20 PM EST

I think the whole point of trade is to raise the standards of living in those countries so we don't have to compete w/$0.75/hour.

I don't see how you can deny what you said. You said to raise wages elsewhere just like I posted you did.

The whole point of your response to my post was that other countries should pay more than .75 cents. And in saying that you are supporting free trade. If you think the weak trade agreements we make are going to give those people a raise you are dreaming. You say we have no trade agreements in place? Where is that?

FTAA ASEAN Initiative NAFTA MEFTA APEC CAFTA-DR

Australia FTA Bahrain FTA Chile FTA Colombia FTA Israel FTA Jordan FTA KORUS FTA Malaysia FTA Morocco FTA Oman FTA Panama TPA Peru TPA Malaysia FTA Singapore FTA SACU FTA Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs)

Look if you support support raising wages in places it may never happen then you support free trade with the Wall Street Types. So right back at you.

And no I haven't supported the Wall Street types. I support Obama's plan because that is the plan we have and it isn't going to change in the near future if at all. And in supporting that plan I support American workers because getting the banks back to healthy again is instrumental in fixing the economy and creating jobs. I also support unions who are against free trade at any pay scale because they know the rising wages argument you make is BS and will never happen.


: Geez..... (none / 0) (#29)
by vicndabx on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 04:40:25 PM EST

You implied that I don't support raising wages here just because I think we need to raise wages worldwide to help eliminate incentives to move businesses elsewhere.
That's what I disagreed with. Obviously the agreements we have in place need to be re-done to address the issues you allude to.

subject should read (none / 0) (#20)
by vicndabx on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:25:24 PM EST

whole point of trade


Um, no offense man (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:25:35 PM EST

but protectionism only works when the rest of the world shuts up and takes it, when the rest of the world responds in kind it basically destroys the Global economy- I mean if you can make some sort of great argument as to how protectionism wont just lead to retalitory actions by China, the EU, etc. I'd love to hear it.


: See (none / 0) (#24)
by Catch 22 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:53:54 PM EST

my post above

: Some benefit more than others. (none / 0) (#31)
by reslez on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:06:34 PM EST

The US is a net importer. That is the difference between now and the 1930s. A drop in world trade would stimulate domestic production here. We have nothing to fear from protectionism.
There would be temporary pain. But that's inevitable anyway. A system built on gross imbalances, a system which can't continue forever, won't continue forever. Even were the dollar to be tossed as reserve currency, all that would do is force our ruling class to stop wasting so much money on militaristic adventures and propitiating the health care industry. Gas would be more expensive which would spur mass transit and renewables.
We should not sacrifice the American middle class on the altar of free trade and then congratulate ourselves for it. The US can't afford to be the dumping ground for the world's exports; US consumers are overstretched. Free trade has created wage imbalances domestically which weaken democracy and are exceedingly difficult to reverse. Free trade goes over like a dead skunk to voters trudging through a multiyear recession who have never seen its benefits outside Wal-mart. First world democracies built up their industries with targeted protectionism. Does forcing third world countries to dismantle their industry protections really help them, or just help first world conglomerates?

True (none / 0) (#22)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:28:14 PM EST

but in the long run Globalization works- there's a reason that Nike, etc. keep jumping nations in the East- economies rise to a level that Labor savings no longer exist, eventually Corporations will run out of countries to jump to.


: Have you heard of banana republics? n/t (none / 0) (#30)
by reslez on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 10:36:59 PM EST

Can the personal stuuf (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:26:21 AM EST

BTW, I think the argument CST is making is that in order to assauge labor due to consternation on free trade, they might make more noise on EFCA.

I am skeptical of that - in fact I worry about the reverse, to assuage labor on not doing anything on EFCA free trade policy might suffer.

but these are just opinions.


That is what I'm hoping (none / 0) (#6)
by CST on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:31:33 AM EST

not sure the support is there in the senate for it though.


Excuse me? (none / 0) (#10)
by Catch 22 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:43:38 AM EST

What personal stuff? I simply stated it didn't appear he understood the issues. That is not personal that is addressing ISSUES.

BTW, Free trade hurts unions, as we have seen. Free trade also hurts EFCA as a result. Free trade weakens all US workers.


Not from where I sit (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:46:05 AM EST

Don't use that phrasing again please.


: Therewas nothing wrong with what I said (none / 0) (#17)
by Catch 22 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:58:28 AM EST

And I'm not going to make an issue of a non-issue. I'll just say that if you addressed every post here that disagreed with someone else's understanding of the issues you would be one busy guy. I had several posts that did just that to me yesterday. I saw others addressed like that to other posters. Nothing was said to any of those posters. I would hope that you would treat all posters equally.

While we should have Labor and Enviromental (none / 0) (#18)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 12:23:24 PM EST

conditions in Free Trade pacts (if for no other reason that to prevent neo-colonialism, and the destruction of American Industry), Free Trade can be a good thing.


: So far in this thread (none / 0) (#25)
by Catch 22 on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 01:03:45 PM EST

your argument in support of the American worker, the American standard of living, and unions is very compelling. /snark
It seems that from some here the class warfare against the Wall Street types the American taxpayer is disingenuous. How can one be against Wall Street when they support those same Wall Street types shipping of our jobs overseas? The very people that some here say they loath are the very same people whose other actions some support. Cognitive Dissonance.

EFCA not gonna happen (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:37:16 AM EST

There aren't 60 votes. The only way it gets passed is by eliminating most of the provisions so it will be toothless.

It's further away from 60 votes now (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:38:09 AM EST

than it has been since January. I think it's the kind of legislation that will never pass.


What if (none / 0) (#9)
by CST on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:43:23 AM EST

Specter loses the primary, Dems win the general, and Franken gets seated. We can't get the Dems???

This may be wishfull thinking on my part, but I wouldn't call it impossible.

You'd think union support would be going up in these economic times...


: If that happens, then the pressure (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 22, 2009 at 11:45:29 AM EST

will be on Blanch Lincoln and Ben Nelson. They will go to the highest bidder IMO.