Friday, June 12, 2015

Obama Finally Figured Out Where Congress Is, But It Was too Late to Save his Trade Bill

Belatedly realizing that he was facing defeat in what he considered a trophy trade bill, President Barack Obama went to Capitol Hill in person this morning to plead for his own Democratic Party's support. But, Democrats ignored him, leaving in tatters the prospects for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the biggest free trade deal in history. In a dramatic vote, Obama's own Democrats, as well as Republicans, failed to produce enough support to approve a bill that would have given aid to workers who lose their jobs as a result of US trade deals with other countries. The measure was soundly rejected in a 302-126 vote. Its chances for adoption now look grim, unless Republicans can quickly revive the set of bills and save Obama's biggest second-term legislative priority. The House decisively rejected the first in a series of trade bills today, with Democrats voting against a program that would have helped workers displaced because of the free trade bills. Because of House procedural rules, the defeat meant the vote on the so-called "fast track" bill that followed was only symbolic. ~~~~~ Obama’s unscheduled lobbying visit to Congress was his first in two years and put his reputation on the line in a very personal way. He met privately with the entire House Democratic caucus, making what one pro-trade Democratic representative called a “powerful presentation.” Less favorable members pushed back, and Obama left the meeting unsure whether his party would support him : “I don’t think you ever nail anything down around here. It’s always moving.” House Democrats, unhappy at being asked to take a series of “yes” votes on issues they usually don't support, decided against supporting their President. They voted overwhelmingly against a measure needed to pass the overall package. ~~~~~ Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the defeat was that it took Obama's White House so long to realize what everyone else had known for a long time -- it was not going to be easy to get the free trade bills through Congress. After the defeat, White House spokesman Josh Earnest described the defeat as a tactical loss, noting that the Senate last month rejected the package before voting to adopt it. “It’s déjà vu all over again,” Earnest said. “To the surprise of very few, another procedural snafu has emerged. These kinds of entanglements are endemic to the House of Representatives.’’ Earnest normally would have blamed a "dysfunctional" GOP House caucus -- but today he had to indirectly admit that it was the Democrat caucus that abandoned their own President. Earnest said he was optimistic that the House would find a way to pass the bills. ~~~~~ However, the New York Times disagrees with the White House, saying it is unlikely that Obama will get his legacy-defining trade accord covering America's Pacific partners : "In a remarkable rejection of a President they have resolutely backed, House Democrats voted to kill assistance to workers displaced by global trade, a program their party created and has stood by for four decades. By doing so, they brought down legislation granting the President trade promotion authority -- the power to negotiate trade deals that cannot be amended or filibustered by Congress -- before it could even come to a final vote." ~~~~~ The Democratic congressional leadership also seems to disagree with the White House. Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, said : “We want a better deal for America’s workers.” Pelosi has guided President Obama’s agenda for two terms and was personally lobbied by Obama until the last minute, to no avail. ~~~~~ Republican leaders tried to find enough support from their own party for trade adjustment assistance, a program they derided in the past as an ineffective waste of money and a sop to organized labor. Not enough Republicans were willing to save the program. So, Republican leaders then passed a stand-alone trade promotion bill, 219 to 211. But, that measure cannot go to the President for his signature because the Senate bill combined both trade adjustment and trade promotion. Republican leaders now have the difficult task of finding in two legislative days, beginning Monday night, enough votes to save the trade adjustment legislation. Representative Kevin McCarthy, the GOP majority leader, said : “We are not done with this.” Republicans now hope that House Democrats will panic at the prospect of trade promotion authority passing the Senate alone, without worker assistance. But the large number of lawmakers who would have to change their votes makes passage a second time unlikely. ~~~~~ Dear readers, today's vote was an extraordinary blow to President Obama. His lameduck status is now confirmed. But, his loss today is the result of his hands-off indifference to his Democratic congressional delegations and to the Republican congressional leadership. It started with his election in 2008 and has continued until today. A President who has long kept Congress at arm’s length paid the price in today's trade defeat. Representative Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat, put it in clear terms. Cuellar said today that Obama mustered rousing applause this morning as he went through the battles he had fought with fellow Democrats -- on labor organizing, health care access and environmental protection. But Cuellar said Obama could not change minds, : “I wish there had been much better outreach.”

8 comments:

  1. Finally, 'The King is Dead - Long live a New King.'

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Obama administration, House GOP leader John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would have sold out American sovereignty. Their so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission would have had sweeping authority over trade, immigration, environmental, labor and commerce regulations.

    As alert watchdogs both U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest and U.S. Rep Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. Warned that by adopting fast-track, Congress would be formally authorizing the President to finalize the creation of this Pacific Union and would have surrendered its legislative prerogatives. Before a single word, a single line, a single paragraph, or page of this plan would have been made public, Congress would have agreed to give up its treaty powers in total. In effect, one of the most sweeping international agreements seen in years would have been given less legislative scrutiny and process than a Post Office reform bill.

    Today’s vote after 6 plus long years of leaderless voting, this vote was a sign that American lawmakers inside the beltway bend way over, but they do straighten up when needed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have been told for weeks by Conservative pundits that I should be in favor of this hodge-podge of trade deals that Obama went to Capitol Hill today to find support for. If these Trade Bills were truly about “FREE TRADE” then I would be for them as a firm conservative free-trader. But Free Trade was not really the issue here.

    The real issue here was one more assault by Obama and his Progressive Socialists on the U.S. Constitution. And if I had to choose between a falsely identified trade agreements (that is still after today’s sounding rejection vote in the House draped in cover sheets marked SECRET) I would choose the Constitution hands down.

    Outside the Beltway bubble, a broad coalition of voters from the left, right and center opposes the mega-trade deal. Supporting free enterprise in America does not mean supporting a global free-for-all for every last $2.00/hour entry-level foreign tech journeyman.

    What part of “Stop selling out America!” does D.C. not understand?

    ReplyDelete
  4. De Oppressor LiberJune 12, 2015 at 5:41 PM

    Was Obama Really Pushing Free Trade? Many free trade advocates have questioned why the negotiations with foreign nations ought to be secret. Inherent in that question is a deep distrust of President Obama – a distrust he has certainly earned with his commentary about the free trade agreements themselves.

    Obama said this would be “the most progressive trade bill in history. It will have the kinds of labor and environmental and human rights protections that have been absent in previous agreements.” We have no idea what those “progressive” priorities look have looked like in practice.

    Pure free trade agreements are wonderful. President Obama, however, had little interested in negotiating a pure free trade agreement. He has other priorities.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In order for the entire ObamaTrade package to work, the House had to pass both the TAA and the TPA. The TAA is legislation that spends big money compensating workers for lost jobs (Unemployment) and other social welfare programs (among other things). In short, the TAA is what Democrats get/want and the TPA is what Republicans get/want.

    But John Boehner is good at one thing – helping Democrats spend more of t our money. Boehner wasn’t about to let Democrats hold TPA hostage over their desire to see more money spent. So immediately after TAA failed, Boehner called for a vote on TPA. Boehner knew he had the votes for TPA and he knew that as long as TPA was passed, he could fatten the deal on TAA and bring it back to Democrats next week for another vote.

    So now TAA is likely to come back for a vote on Tuesday with a heck of a lot more spending that will help get unions back in the corner of their Democrat allies. If Boehner can get Democrats to support TAA, the deal is done and ObamaTrade lives on. In other words, it’s very possible the House passes ObamaTrade with even more spending than previously planned.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) does not stop Congress from blocking any trade agreement that the executive branch reaches; it merely requires that the agreements have an up-or-down vote in Congress within a specified period of time after the president signs them. Economists have understood that free trade is mutually beneficial, even with relatively poor nations, for centuries. As conservatives who care about economic growth, job creation, and a higher standard of living, free trade should always be encouraged wherever it can be found. For this reason, fast-track authority for trade agreements has been a conservative priority for decades.

    On the other hand, there is Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Under this program, the government gives subsidies—in the form of job training for workers and direct financial assistance for firms—to those purported to be harmed by increased international trade. From a public policy standpoint, trying to “correct” for job losses in particular sectors as a result of increased competition is simply wrongheaded. In order for an economy to grow and thrive, industries need to be flexible and able to change with changing market conditions. Trying to prop up industries that cannot compete on their own merely delays the inevitable and inhibits growth.

    The process economist Joseph Schumpeter referred to as “creative destruction” is a necessary and positive feature of innovation and competition and in the end benefits everyone. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) essentially offers bailouts instead of letting the market naturally adjust, and makes about as much sense as subsidizing typewriter production after the invention of the computer.

    Conservatives shouldn’t be afraid to support free trade, and allowing the president Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) may yield some good deals in the future—especially if a conservative is elected to the White House in 2016. But Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is unambiguously bad policy with a proven record of failure that only continues the practices of corporate cronyism and bailout culture.

    ReplyDelete
  7. De Oppressor LiberJune 13, 2015 at 11:07 AM

    All but 54 courageous Republicans sided with President Obama to approve giving this president fast-track authority to OK trade deals.

    As a result, trade pacts will require only a majority vote in each house rather than the two-thirds specified for treaties in the Constitution. And no amendments will be allowed. Debate will be limited and no filibusters permitted.

    The spectacle of Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, fighting to give this president more power — and Congress less — is revolting.

    And there is nothing to stop him from inserting anything he wants in the trade pacts. He can use them to advance his climate-change agenda or to allow unrestricted immigration (free flow of labor). Obama promises not to do so, but what are his commitments worth?

    So now don’t trust Speaker John Boehner or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Congressman Paul Ryan when they protest Obama’s executive power grabs. They handed him this one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe Obama has finally figured out that America doesn't want to or isn't buying what he is selling.

    ReplyDelete