Forums

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• Spanky: Bush busted his derriere to get CAFTA passed.
  
  Me: How so?
  
  Spanky: He invested a lot of political capital to get it through.
  
  Me: In what way did Bush spend political capital on CAFTA?
  
  Spanky: He got it through didn't he?
  
  Me: Can't come up with anything, huh?
  
  Spanky: I already told you twice.

I'm sure you gave as good an explanation as you can.

Anyone with any political sense knew that it was incredibly tough to pass CAFTA with all the Unions and the Dems united behind it. That is why I said:

Originally posted by Spanky
They don't need to spend political capital till it is up for a vote. To get CAFTA through Bush had to get almost unanimous support from the Republicans (as the Dems completely abandoned him). He had to get support among many Republican congressmen that voted against NAFTA. He spent all sort of political capital to get unanimity. He got lots of Congressment, from strong Unions states like Michigan, to vote in favor of CAFTA. That didn't come cheap.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Only Nixon could go to China.

Followig that logic we should keep the Repubicans in control to increase restrictions on firearms and to raise taxes.

Originally posted by Spanky
In days of yore, many Republicans understood that diplomacy is a two-way street, and that sometimes you have to give to get. Now y'all seem to think that diplomats exist to explain that the other side hasn't surrendered yet.

This is complete drivel. When it comes to Doha the dispute is between the EU and the third world. All we can do is try to mediate.

Originally posted by Spanky Well, to take just one aspect of it, if the part of the European press that is pro-free trade is reporting that the choice of American negotiators reflect a lack of seriousness and commitment because they don't have stature or the ability to deliver, that suggests that our approach to Doha is crippled. If the FT doesn't think you're doing a good job on these issues, what's left?

When did the Financial Times become the entire Eurpean Pro Free trade press. Doesn't the economist count? Why can't you cite anyone else (or hell why can't you cite the FT?). The administration picked a person with credibility among business leaders and therefore congress. How would the Europeans know if this were or were not true. Can you cite anyone in the European free press by the FTs - and you haven't cited the FT. But below is the Economists view.

Originally posted by Spanky And the answer is, the American business press and American lobbyists. you are talking about people whose frame of reference is domestic politics. (With the exception, perhaps of the Economist, although they have a problem that I'm happy to raise if you care, and the WSJ's news department, as opposed to their op-ed page, but I infer that you're talking about the latter.)

In other words, I think we're talking about very different perspectives here. But you assume that I'm posting as a Democrat, rather than as -- say, a FT-reading free-trader -- and so you don't seem to be considering that there might be more to this conversation than "Bush is good" and "Bush is bad."

I am a free trader. You are not. Give me a break. You argued with me on CAFTA. Was the FT against CAFTA? Did they think it was bad because Bush didn't consult the Dems (in other words put more riders in that sucked up to the Unions)? We argued for pages and pages about CAFTA. My position was the same as the Economist. That is the Free Traders bible and you constantly argue against their positions.

Originally posted by Spanky I started with the proposition that Bush hadn't invested political capital in free trade. If you're telling me that his heart is in the right place, in a way that's even more damning. He still hasn't produced. (And don't tell me how wonderful CAFTA is. Compared to Doha, it pales.)

I would like Bush to put more into free trade. But he has been much better on it than any president since Reagan. Among free traders that is conventional wisdom. And considering he has been involved in two wars it is amazing he got anything done at all.

Originally posted by Spanky
You haven't really said anything about how they're "acting." You just keep saying that their hearts are pure and that business loves them. What actions?

Doha has been stalled and AFTA has been stalled so Bush had been pushing for all sorts of bilateral agreements with many countries. Of course multilateral is better, but until Europe is going to negotiate on the CAP Doha is not going anywhere, and until we get more free trading heads of State in South American, AFTA is not going anywhere. He pushed CAFTA through. You said Bush was pushing free trade just because he was sucking up to business. That is not true. He lobbied for it as Governor of Texas and campaigned on it. And he has taken advantage of every opportunity he has had.

Originally posted by Spanky
If we want Doha to work, we're going to have feel some pain. E.g., our sugar industry is going to have to be exposed to competition. But Bush doesn't want to take the political hit in Florida from the sugar industry, or from the corn farmers in the Midwest who make corn syrup. That sort of hit.

Total B.S. Bush said all that stuff is on the negotiating table. He said all farm subsidies and steel tariffs are up for negoatiations. The third world is happy with us, they are mad at the Europeans because the CAP is not on the table.

Originally posted by Spanky
As I said above, only Nixon could go to China. Make it part of a package deal.

This would be disastrous for Republicans, who would much rather have the issue.

You are the only one on the planet that thinks the Dems will step up on free trade. Everyone knows the Democrat congressmen won't. The unions are paying for their takeover. The unions wouldn't tolerate it. Pelosi has never seen a free trade agreement that she has liked. Hillary is a free trader, and so her election would not be a bad thing (and maybe she could go to "China") for free trade (Gore in 2000 would not have been bad either and Bill was pretty good on it) but a Democrat congress is bad for free trade. The leadership is against free trade and the Dems almost voted unanimously against CAFTA. You are just trying to rationalize a Democrat takeover. I accept that Republican control is not good for a women's right to choose. You simply need to acknowledge that Democrat control of congress is bad for free trade.

No one with any credibility would argue against that.

Here is the free trade Bible's view on the subject:

Trade policy

Slow track
Nov 2nd 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

A more Democratic Congress would not help the cause of free trade

WITH George Bush still in the White House, it is easy to exaggerate the economic consequences of a Democratic victory on November 7th. For all the talk of rescinding the Bush tax cuts and doing more to help the middle class, Mr Bush's veto pen will limit how much the Democrats could do even if they were to take over both chambers of Congress.

The stalemate of divided government might well lead to better policy, particularly on the budget. But in one area Democratic control of one, let alone both, parts of the legislature would mark a clear change for the worse. Mr Bush's trade agenda would be stalled. And as the economy slows, the White House might then find it harder to hold off protectionist pressure from Capitol Hill.

The most obvious casualty would be “trade promotion authority” (TPA, or “fast track”), the negotiating licence that the White House uses to conclude trade deals. Mr Bush narrowly won this authority from Congress in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. It runs out in June 2007. Although Charles Rangel, the top Democrat on trade policy in the House of Representatives, has not ruled out extending a revised form of TPA if he is in charge, few on Capitol Hill believe him. Democrats would be in no mood to give Mr Bush any political victories, and TPA extension would be a juicy prize.


For the same reason several bilateral trade deals would look less likely. The Bush team has signed free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia. It is negotiating with others, including South Korea and Malaysia. All would have trouble passing a Congress with more Democrats in it. (To avoid this fate, the White House might try to push the Peru deal through the lame-duck Congress later this month.)

It is tempting to conclude that none of this matters very much. After all, the Doha round of trade talks—for which TPA is needed—lies comatose after five years of fruitless negotiations. The bilateral deals, with the exception of South Korea, are small. With so little at stake, so what if the trade agenda is stalled?

The reason to worry is that Democrats' aversion to trade deals goes beyond thumbing their noses at Mr Bush. Lawmakers in both parties have become more sceptical about trade, but the Democrats are clearly the more protectionist party. A generation ago both the House and Senate contained large bipartisan groups of free-traders. In the House of Representatives, that coalition has long since fallen apart as the ranks of free-trade Democrats have dwindled. Democratic success in the Senate on November 7th may push the chamber in the same direction.

The most vulnerable Republican senators are free-traders. Their challengers range from rabid protectionists to moderate trade sceptics. At one extreme is Sherrod Brown, a congressman from Ohio's rustbelt and one of the most militant foes of free trade on Capitol Hill. He has written an entire book denouncing trade (“Myths of Free Trade”) and wants to renegotiate all America's big trade deals, especially NAFTA. Bob Casey, the Democratic challenger for a Senate seat in Pennsylvania, “opposes any trade law that sends American jobs overseas”. Jim Webb, the Democratic challenger in Virginia, wants to impose tariffs on countries that refuse to bring their labour and environmental standards into line with America's.

Some of this may be campaign bluster. The Senate has always had trade sceptics, but some of today's challengers seem of a different hue. As Doug Irwin of Dartmouth College points out, they are not industry-based protectionists—people who want support for specific products, such as textiles or steel. Rather, they sound dubious about free trade on all fronts. Worse, that scepticism is rising in the party's upper ranks. Although Max Baucus, the Democrats' top man on trade in the Senate, is a moderate liberaliser, neither the party's Senate leaders nor those in the House are champions of freer trade.

That bodes ill for new trade deals and increases the risk of backsliding. In the past few years there has been lots of protectionist rhetoric, but little action. Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham, two senators who shouted loudly for huge tariffs if China did not revalue its currency, recently withdrew their bill. But if the economy slows and the number of congressional Democrats rises, it may get harder for Mr Bush to stick up for free trade.