The "Make Him Do It" Dynamic In Action: Dems Pass Buy America Law Over McCain's Poison Pill

by: David Sirota

Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 21:43


Sen. John McCain's amendment to gut Buy America laws was soundly defeated in the U.S. Senate tonight. Additionally, Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) passed an amendment simply restating that the Buy America language does not violate America's trade agreements. Here's Brown's statement:

"This will help ensure we are doing all we can to promote U.S. businesses and create jobs, which is the purpose of the economic recovery bill" Brown said. "I applaud Senator Dorgan's leadership and my Senate colleagues for putting American workers first. This vote affirms that Buy America provisions do not violate trade laws. It affirms that when we can, we should use U.S. tax dollars to create U.S. jobs. The next step is to focus on implementation and enforcement of these provisions as we work to strengthen our economy and rebuild our nation's middle class."

Count these votes as another big win for the progressive movement, and another win for the "Make Him Do It" Dynamic. Senate Democrats, joining with progressive movement allies like organized labor, consumer groups and the blogosphere, forced President Obama - possibly against his own will - to stand by his campaign promises to support Buy America laws.

We're 2-for-2 today, winning both the Buy America fight and forcing Obama to reverse his earlier opposition to executive pay limits. On the Buy America laws, we still have to make sure they survive the conference committee, and with the executive pay restrictions, we still have to make sure as many loopholes are eliminated as possible. But this is a big day and real progress.
David Sirota :: The "Make Him Do It" Dynamic In Action: Dems Pass Buy America Law Over McCain's Poison Pill

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The "Make Him Do It" Dynamic In Action: Dems Pass Buy America Law Over McCain's Poison Pill | 99 comments
Will the House .. (0.00 / 0)
take up whatever passes? .. or will it go directly to conference?
probably to conference (4.00 / 1)
The differences have to be hashed out, then a unified bill will go to the House and Senate.

At that point we'll see how many Repugs place their party over their country.

[ Parent ]
I didn't know if they'd .. (0.00 / 0)
give it one shot in the House again .. depending on what exactly passes the Senate .. since the Republicans have no power or leverage in the House .. no matter how much Boner whines
[ Parent ]
Still....depends on how different the final senate bill is (4.00 / 1)
The house is already plenty frustrated with the senate. Not likely they'll bow to substantial changes without a conference.
[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 4)
I read on thehill.com today that Pelosi is going to be very aggressive in conference... she's pretty pissed that she's pretty much taking all the public blame for all the BS.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Good for her (4.00 / 1)
The House can push the Senate more to the left. We saw during the GOP years, how the House bills would always be more conservative and would always worsen a bill in conference.

Hopefully the opposite dynamic is gonna take place here. No, I don't want all the easy-to-demonize STD funding thrown back in, but could we at least cut out some of the auto/house tax cuts? This new housing credit for up to $15,000 is slanted towards the rich, doesn't seem limited to first time buyers, and does nothing to keep folks in their homes. The same for the vehicle sales tax holiday, which would cut taxes on a person buying a Hummer here in L.A. by about $3625.

[ Parent ]
The house/car thing is a good idea, IMO (0.00 / 0)
More houses need to be sold.... period. Housing started this problem, fixing it even ever so slightly will help relive it.  It also will help with the societal ills caused by decaying abandoned neighborhoods.  The tax credit is NOT geared towards the rich, it caps out at $150,000 house... that's hardly a mansion.... hell, on the east coast, that's not even a hovel...

As for cars, there are a lot of cars made in America, both by our big three friends and foreign automakers.... encouraging car consumption creates American jobs in this all important industry.  The purpose of this tax break isn't to make cars cheaper for peoplele, but to encourage buying to stimulated jobs.  It's a good amendment.

These two amendments will probably stay... at least the house one, since that is key to get the moderate republicans to avoid a filibuster.  The car one is probalby supported by unions, so it stays, I think.


REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
$150,000 sale price on the house... (0.00 / 0)
...wanted to be clear on the limit... it's 10% of the price up to $15,000 total credit.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
wouldn't it be more effective to reduce taxes on the sale of a house if it has to be tax-related? (4.00 / 1)
house prices are way way down now anyway, and most people either can't sell what they have -- or get a loan to buy -- or are losing their houses now bec of the mortgage thing and/or foreclosure, no?

people aren't buying houses for very good reasons, and can buy a foreclosed house for peanuts if they want to also now -- it's already a buyer's market, and it's sellers and existing homeowners that need the most help now, no?

[ Parent ]
Well, it's no cureall... (0.00 / 0)
...the biggest problem is folk who are upside down in their houses... they can't sell and they can't get out... many simply foreclose and take the credit hit...  that's not good for anyone...

But, if a tax credit pushes people to buy more houses, it could relieve much of these problems, even for existing homeowners.

The republicans also wanted to create government guaranteed low rate mortgages to encourage refinancing.... the caveat being, you can't refinance if your home isn't worth enough...  such a plan can be forced by Obama on TARP banks, though, and that's where we are heading, I believe....

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Anything for renters? (4.00 / 1)
My guess is that most of the working poor are renters.  Renters rarely, if ever, get these tax goodies.
[ Parent ]
That's why there are so many incentives to buy a house... (0.00 / 0)
...and nowadays, you can get foreclosures in nice neighborhoods for pennies on the dollar.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Good. (4.00 / 1)
I'm plenty pissed as well.
[ Parent ]
bravo (0.00 / 0)
go nancy!
[ Parent ]
The unions (4.00 / 5)
It's for this reason that I'm convinced the Snowe/Collins/Nelson plan to strip $100 billion in spending will go nowhere. It's not because progressives are in favor of that spending, or because Paul Krugman is in favor of that spending. It's because the LABOR UNIONS, which are the grassroots GOTV force for nearly every Democratic senator, are definitely for it.

We may not get meetings with these senators. But governors, mayors and union leaders do. And they are pushing this thing hard.

Specter, Collins and Snowe have received support from labor unions in the past. If they want that support to continue, they will not strip millions of jobs from the bill. Nor will the vast majority of Democrats.

The Club for Growth doesn't get the voters out for the Democrats. The unions do. That's what's really going on here.

Well I hope so (0.00 / 0)
Then the problem is with the highway slush fund amendment. Which we desperately need to defeat.
[ Parent ]
Whose amendment is that? (0.00 / 0)
Is that the Boxer/Inhofe one I've heard about? Still trying to figure out what that amendment entails.
[ Parent ]
Yeah it's Inhofe (0.00 / 0)
Don't think Boxer has signed on yet. More a danger of giving it her blessing.
[ Parent ]
What's up with Boxer? (0.00 / 0)
she had her name attached to that corporate outsourcing tax cut amendment yesterday
[ Parent ]
I don't know (0.00 / 0)
some people think it's because she's scared of running against Schwarzenhoweveryouspellhissname in 2010. I haven't seen any background quotes on what her thinking is.
[ Parent ]
She is scared of running against the Gropenator? .... (0.00 / 0)
when he is busy running CA into the ground?
[ Parent ]
That was someone's guess (0.00 / 0)
who knows though. Like I said, I haven't seen any anonymous staffers quoted or anything like that, so I have no idea what's going on.
[ Parent ]
I'm even feeling more optimistic (4.00 / 4)
I was feeling pretty down about it all today, but the way the votes have gone on the amendments in the senate has gotten me feeling a lot better. It looks like it won't be shrunk by nearly as much as was being talked about. Maybe a decent bill will survive the Senate.

There was also good news at interior canceling those oil/gas leases, the SCHIP expansion was signed into law and there was a limit put in executive pay for recipients of the TARP program (even if it's mostly toothless.)

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

Thank God we expanded SCHIP before Obama.... (4.00 / 3)
...embarked on his stupid bipartisanship power giveaway...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Also of note (4.00 / 3)
Wyden and Snowe will introduce an amendment that would force TARP recipients to pay back any bonuses over 100k from the lats year. That would be another big step forward.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
A limit of 500k is no big whoop, and our local news is (0.00 / 0)
broadcasting along with the rah rah sales pitch that it is not retro, and it will end up only applying to 2 or 3 of the TARP CEOs.

I would like to remind Obama that they forced the auto execs to take one dollar for money they have to pay back.   So in the name of fair play, I say the TARP crooks take one dollar a year too.    

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Obama's gonna go against all the Corps & Foreign Govts -- & Congressppl (0.00 / 0)
that are all demanding it not be in?

how likely is that -- seriously? On this he's gonna NOT give in to all the pressure when he does so readily for everything else?

He'll sign what he gets (4.00 / 1)
Unless the bill turns completely insane, he's gonna sign whatever gets to his desk. If we can keep the Buy America provisions in and get it through the Senate they should stick, since the house is more likely to push for a more progressive bill.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
but he's telling Congress to make it GOP-friendly (even friendlier, actually) (0.00 / 0)
and has repeatedly said he doesn't want anything "protectionist" or that will hurt "trade" in it. His people too.

[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for the good news.  I needed it )
Am I the only one in the room (4.00 / 1)
who is solidly opposed to the Buy America provisions?

On an unrelated note, why the heck is everyone talking about our inability to get 60 votes? Have the Republicans seriously threatened to filibuster? I hear more Democratic hand-wringing than anything else. If the Republicans really do filibuster, it seems to be that would be a wonderful thing (politically speaking). I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you're going to deal with the devil, why don't you at least expose the devil for who he is before you do so?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

Well (4.00 / 1)
The worry isn't so much that the Republicans would filibuster, but that the Democrats in the Senate would gut the bill out of fear that the Republicans would filibuster...

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
[ Parent ]
yup -- they need to force them to actually filibuster (4.00 / 3)
right now all they do is pre-emptively cave in to empty threats of a GOP filibuster.

the whole 60-vote thing is a crock.

why are you opposed? we need jobs and industries here -- we're hurting terribly, and can't live on part-time WalMart jobs w/o benefits.

Plus, the economy can't revive until enough of us are working again, and making enough to start spending again -- consumer spending is 70% of the entire economy.

[ Parent ]
For the life of me I don't understand (4.00 / 1)
why Reid won't make them do it, other than that they either have something on him, he's a coward, or he's an idiot who cares more about irrelevant senate "comity" than about getting things done. Or perhaps the caucus doesn't want it and he's too weak to say no.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
the Senate is more conservative overall than the House, (0.00 / 0)
and it's clear that Obama is telling them not to do anything that is oppositional or "partisan", etc -- especially on his very first piece of legislation -- the stimulus.

There's also a weird game going on between the House and Senate Dems -- the House puts stuff in we want, knowing that the Senate will strip it out, but they still get the credit and make Dems look like they care about us -- i think.

Reid sucks tho -- enormously. Pelosi too.

[ Parent ]
Well, he never made them do it in the 110th either (4.00 / 3)
So it's clearly not just Obama. The Dems continue to suffer from a simply massive fear of failure that causes them to act in ways that are so gutless, self-defeating and predictable that, ironically, they end up failing anyway. It's the Anakin Skywalker syndrome, except without the dark powers and cool hardware. Or, Hamlet meets Groundhog Day.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
they also agree w/the GOP too much -- esp on Corp. stuff and Foreign policy -- (0.00 / 0)
it's not just their cowardice -- Schumer is more pro-Wall St than most GOPers, for instance, and on all Military and Trade stuff, both parties are all for it always.

No one's listening to us in the Senate anymore. It's only the House where they're at least still partly responsive to us (bec they need our votes more often, and their seats aren't all safe lifetime ones)

[ Parent ]
McCaskill too (4.00 / 2)
It's so weird that she's now seen as a populist hero, given how establishmentarian most of her votes have been. What we're seeing is the political, economic, foreign policy, M-I and media establishment fiercly resisting change with everything that they've got, and only being defeated when one of them really screws up, like Stevens or Allen, or when things get so bad out here in the real world that voters kick them out. It's totally Versailles.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
It was designed like that (0.00 / 0)
the Senate was never supposed to be partisan, the House was.

That's why the house runs every 2 years and the Senate every 6 (and before 1912, not elected at all).

Founding Fathers designed the Senate to not be ruled by public opinion.  

[ Parent ]
They also designed it to be selected by (4.00 / 1)
each statehouse, I believe, until it was changed to popular election in the 20's I believe. But whatever it was intended to be, the senate has clearly been partisan in recent decades, ever since Dole stepped down. Not that he was any great shakes, but it got really partisan after he left, especially since Bush was "elected", where the GOP rammed through whatever it wanted when in the majority, and obstructed whatever it wanted when in the minority.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
that's because the GOP Senators were all ideologues and they governed to the base.

It's a pretty good reason why they're in the minority now.  

[ Parent ]
The GOP pushed policies that were never supported (4.00 / 2)
by a majority of voters, by and large, and destroyed itself due to that eventually. Dems would not be pushing minority policies, though, if they stood up to Repubs, so it would only be partisan if you consider 60-70% support to be partisan. The country has rejected RW ideology and policy. It's time for senate Dems and Obama to get that.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Eh (4.00 / 1)
not all our policies are supported by the majority. The GOP's policies were supported by the majority at times too, but they still faltered. Perhaps we could've gotten a spending bill rammed through, but the media still would've destroyed it and forced popular opinion down before it got out of Congress...these things aren't going to be passed in one day.

Anyway, I was watching the Senate today and it sure seemed like we're ramming through what we want...Republican amendments were falling one by one.

The #1 problem overall is the media.

[ Parent ]
Name one major policy (0.00 / 0)
or more than a couple of minor ones that the public isn't with us on.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
They can't (0.00 / 0)
something in the provisions that the cloture vote that requires 60 is to commence debate on the bill, not end the debate. Therefore there is no real filibuster unless cloture passes and it moves to an actual debate...and if cloture passes, the filibuster would be killed anyway.

There's some misinformation about this...a couple of Congresses ago, the Senate under Trent Lott moved to eliminate the actual filibuster by putting in this provision.

I have to research it further, but at ABC back during the nuclear option days, I asked someone in Senator Byrd's office about this and what they told me is the reason they won't actually filibuster is because debate actually hadn't commenced on the bill.

[ Parent ]
Are you sure about that? (0.00 / 0)
I've never heard this before. Do you know where it says this in the rules?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
I can't actually find it (0.00 / 0)
but basically the rule is they don't actually filibuster in the traditional sense, they just keep said bill from being debated at all (which is where the traditional filibuster would take place)

I'm trying to look for it...there was a diary about it about a year or so ago on one of the blogs, I think DailyKos.

[ Parent ]
My understanding is all that's really changed (0.00 / 0)
Is that both sides agreed that they'd never be an actual filibuster, and that the mere threat of one would suffice to allow a cloture vote that would effectively kill the bill, after a certain period of debate for an agreed-upon time. If the cloture vote fails, then the actual bill can never be voted on, and either debate resumes, which would be pointless, or the bill is tabled permanently, and thus killed.

I think that what you're referring to is that the colture vote is a substitute for a filibuster, because in a real filibuster the side trying to kill the bill would talk forever, forcing the other side to finally call for a cloture vote to end it and thus be able to persue other matters, but if it never called for one, the other side would literally have to keep talking forever, which was not only exhausting but would prevent anything else from being taken up, and thus would eventually give up and allow the actual vote to take place.

All that really changed, I think, is the agreement to no longer actually filibuster. It was a gentleman's agreement, I believe, not an actual rule change.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I thought it was a rule change (0.00 / 0)
meant to actually prevent filibusters so they can keep legislation moving...well regardless, it's not like the media would cover a filibuster anyway...and even if they did, they'd probably just spin it as "Unreasonable Democrats forcing Republicans to block wasteful liberal spending plan"

[ Parent ]
Maybe, maybe not (4.00 / 1)
I think that it would make for great theater, for a night or two, until the public got bored and the Repubs looked stupid. And all the Dems would have to say was that they were ready for an up or down vote to save the economy and the Repubs wouldn't let them have one.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
lol who would let them say that? (0.00 / 0)
Unless the entire country watches C-SPAN, the only people feeding that information to the public would be the media, who would find some way of spinning a filibuster to be the Demcorats' fault.

[ Parent ]
I disagree (0.00 / 0)
As I do on principle with any dismissive remarks about how that's just not how things work in DC. Things change, slowly, but they do. You may have noticed a recent change or two that just a few years ago most people would have laughed at had someone suggested that they might happen. But specifically, on this, it would make great theater, and the media would cover it. Not the entire filibuster, of course, but enough to give people the idea, and make Repubs look stupid and craven as they struggled mightily for the noble cause of giving rich people more tax cuts and allowing the economy to tank further. It would absolutely work in Dems' favor and make the GOP look bad.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
No :-) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Would you care to elaborate? (4.00 / 2)
I'm curious to know why you're opposed to the buy American provisions. To me, there are some good reasons to be skeptical about them, and I wonder if they match up with your reasons.

I remember that in the Seventies, many of us on the left had serious discussions about what it meant to have 20% of the world's population consuming 80% of the world's resources. I even remember post-Earth Day discussions of global wealth sharing as a zero-sum game -- mostly decrying the idea on moral grounds. When we asked each other what could be done to disprove this evil idea, the environmentalists thought that capitalism's grow-or-die premise was at fault, and could only be overcome by turning our backs on growth, and by implication, on capitalism. The more traditional left envisioned something like a communist international, but without the cant. If capital could flow across borders, and in the process evade or ignore national laws regulating the exploitation of labor, then labor would have to organize globally.

Well, we all know how that turned out. Capitalism still acts in some ways like cancer, and cultural differences and xenophobia still outweigh solidarity.

What none of us expected, though, was an increased standard of living to erupt in China, India, and Southeast Asia, fueled by Western capitalism's hunger for cheap labor, and technological solutions to the marketing and transport problems of outsourced production. We also didn't foresee the consequent abandonment of manufacturing in the US, and the negative implications of relying exclusively on a service and finance-based economy. (The disappearance of high-wage blue collar jobs, the death of unions, the increasingly successful ideological attacks on the legacy of the New Deal, etc. Capitalism without fear has proven to be far uglier than we imagined.)

If we had foreseen the development of global capitalism in the nearly forty years since Earth Day, our 1970's left perspective might have thought that it was at least in part a good thing. The economic situation in the third world would improve, albeit at some expense to our domestic standard of living, but perhaps the trade-off might prove worth it. We still would have rejected the notion of a zero-sum game, though, and looked for some way to gain a measure of rational control over the re-distribution of wealth which advanced capitalism had dumped in our laps.

The echoes of those arguments, and to some extent, a nostalgic fondness for my younger and more earnest self has left me still skeptical about the narrowness of vision implied by Buy American as a bumper sticker for the Left.

So no, you're not the only one in the room, but I wonder, are the reasons for your opposition anything like mine?

[ Parent ]
my reasons are much shallower than yours (4.00 / 1)
Essentially, I think the U.S. should lead by example, embrace the global economy rather than run away from it, and put pressure on China and other countries to reduce their trade barriers.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
Mmm.... (4.00 / 2)
And what of the differential costs of production from country to country? Would lowered trade barriers alone be enough to convince the Chinese to buy American products which are inherently more expensive than their own?

For my own part, I don't think that the race to the bottom is an illusion. If it's to be halted, it can only be halted in a true global economy, where costs -- and wages -- are roughly the same wherever you go. All else remaining equal, I suppose we'd arrive there eventually, but if history is any guide, all else won't remain equal. Ask a family of steelworkers in Ohio, or autoworkers in Michigan, whether or not they think rising wages in China will eventually make their labor competitive again, and whether or not they can afford to wait and see.

If we don't address this issue with our eyes open, class war may well be the most benign outcome we can expect. On this side of the looking glass, where Senators and Presidents express great confidence in their ability to restore the status quo ante, all of this looks like a comfortable and familiar problem. On the other side, things are a good deal darker, and it's a lot less certain that the future will always look enough like the past to be recognizable, let alone manageable.

Is this an overstatement of the risks we're facing? Possibly, but if you think so, it's time to ante up. No one can afford the luxury of sitting this one out, not if they want to avoid becoming history's latest lump of dogmeat.

[ Parent ]
all valid points (4.00 / 2)
There are definite downsides to free trade. But there are upsides too, and then there is the inevitability problem. The U.S. can embrace globalization or it can resist it, kicking and screaming all the way. My feeling is that the U.S. should embrace it, leverage it, and work its damnedest to beat back the problems you describe. Don't get me wrong, my position isn't free trade at all costs. For example, I'm furious at the damage NAFTA has done both to American labor and to the Mexican environment. But I still think that NAFTA should be renegotiated rather than abandoned completely.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
Dismissing the destruction that trade in its current (4.00 / 2)
form has done to the American worker and families as "the down side" is shocking.  Upsides?  Given the trade deficit, what might those be?  

If we had any semblance of equal trading opportunities as measured by the trade deficits, we could have a conversation on the "up side".  Until then, there isn't one, and I'm 100% for buy American.  Our national security is dependent on us being self-sufficient.  Our current trade policies have made us financially dependent, like children living off their parents and subject to their rules.  .  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Until then.... (4.00 / 2)
What of the rest of the world? Are we not really all in this together? And what sort of national security can be purchased by the exclusion and suffering of others?

In our present circumstances, that last may appear to be a purely rhetorical question, but it's not. The problem with until then is that then is coming a lot quicker than we thought, and in fact, we're already on the wrong side of it.

If we don't lend ourselves to some sort of international system which looks for ways to include subsistence farmers and industrial laborers, et al., no matter where they are, in our dreams of a stable prosperity, we'll eventually need all twelve of our aircraft carriers, and warlords far more competent than the comic opera generals currently running the Pentagon.

[ Parent ]
You really haven't spelled out what those upsides might be. n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I agree to some extent (4.00 / 2)
Imagine if, during the last 40 years, we had invested in our infrastructure and human capital. Rather than endless tax cuts for the rich, we actually raised money, when we has some, to invest to meet the challenges of the new century. Then globalization would look much more appealing or at least less threatening. Over the long term, the "intelligence" of the markets look pretty stupid. A little foresight by government could have gone a long what toward mitigating these looming problems.
[ Parent ]
Buy American (4.00 / 2)
doesn't solve anything, but I'm at a loss for a better idea.

If worldwide labor and envirnomental standards were in place,theoretically a fair capitalist global system could emerge.  To some extent this may be occuring.  However, the reduced power of unions and the refusal to enact even permitted labor protections is eroding the United States' standard of living.  But more important, I'm not convinced that globalization will lead to some happy worldwide economic equilibrium, since there's so much profit in cheap labor.

My sympathy for US workers is only comparative - the global recession is hell on poor countries.

I oppose free trade without labor and environmental standards, but I suspect that practically and even in theory capitalism can't grow without an exploited labor pool, so this is just a way of saying I ultimately oppose free trade.

The alternative is to start back on the road of protectionism (not a bad word, in my vocabulary), which will result in lost opportunities and slower economic growth.  But if the economic growth isn't enjoyed by the bulk of the country, I'm not too concerned about it.

Buy American is a small, probably futile, push against the injustices of global capitalism.  

[ Parent ]
Exploitation is eternal (0.00 / 0)
I tend to view exploitation as an inherent part of the capitalist system, but also as a spectrum. You can't get rid of exploitation without radically changing every culture in the world and probably a fair amount of human nature too.

What you have to do is to mitigate it. So it's alright for somebody to have relatively low pay, provided they don't starve, they have a roof over their heads, they're looked after when they can't work and they or their children can better themselves through their own efforts. It's alright when the exploitation is optional, and they can go out on strike and demand less exploitation. It's alright provided that there is a choice more meaningful than "do what you're told or starve".

A level of protectionism might help. Free trade with labour and environmental standards might help. Acceptable levels of tariffs in a nation being index-linked to GDP might help. But the way I figure it, it's a cluster fuck. Buy American doesn't help the average member of the African or Asian urban proletariat, but it probably doesn't hurt them much either. There's less to lose and it's easier to build it back up. If it does help Michigan or Ohio, even if only a little, then it's worth it.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
A clear pattern appears to be emerging (4.00 / 2)
that can actually be traced back to right after his Iowa caucus victory over a year ago:

1 - Obama, for whatever reason, perhaps feeling like he's got the political capital and thus overconfident, makes a dumb move. Or, at least, one that appears to be directly counter to progressive interests.

2a - A backlash from progressives (other than diehard apologists) quickly ensues, yelling at him that he's making a mistake and/or letting down the left and embracing the right, and he backs down and rights course, and does the smart/right thing, and things work out ok.

2b - Or, he sticks to plan, stumbles and falls, and THEN rights course and does the smart/right thing, and things work out ok.

E.g. feeling flush with a surprise win after Iowa, he coasts a bit in New Hampshire, Clinton sees an opening, and trounces him there. Realizing that it's going to be harder than he thought, he gets back into the fight, and finally pulls it out--but not after several more such cycles.

Or, he coasts after the convention, McCain sees and opening, makes the most of his Palin pick, and picks up steam. Obama realizes that he's slipping, picks up the intensity and pace, and wins (of course, the tanking economy and Palin's idiocy certain help).

Or more recently, he picks Daschle, sticks by him through the heat over unpaid taxes and close ties to the health insurance industry, then finally backs down after the pressure becomes too great. Or, he tries to backpedal on executive compensation, the left screams bloody murder, and he backs down and supports pay caps. Or, he kisses up to the GOP over the stimulus bill, the left screams bloody murder AND the GOP kicks him in the teeth, and he finally backs down and goes after the GOP.

It's like some bizarro passive-aggressive stuck in spin cycle until you whack the machine on the side real hard dynamic is going on here and Obama doesn't seem to be able or willing to break out of it. Time and again he tries the same exact stupid crap, which basically comes down to either getting into coasting mode and taking it too easy, or kissing up to the right and giving in to its demands, and then, beaten up either by the left, or by reality, he backs down, rights course, and does the right thing. Why does he keep doing this, and not just do the right thing from the start? Doesn't he get how it works by now? Does he still believe in magical bipartisan ponies after all that we, the country and now he has been through? And does he not understand that this is no time for coasting?

I realize that there's this mantra about how we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and perhaps that's true, but do we have to let the so-so or unacceptable be the enemy of the good? Is all this kissing up to the GOP necessary, or helpful? I think not. Sometimes you want to just grab and shake him and say "Wake up Barack, game on!". More often than not, he ends up doing the right thing, but only after being screamed at and/or being confronted with failure. This is no time to cut the other side any slack or experiment with Broderite bipartisanship, which DOES NOT WORK AND NEVER WILL, or water down our agenda with halfhearted efforts or free gifts to the human scum that is the modern GOP. He has a golden opportunity to do the right thing, and he's got to make the most of it, and not hedge his bets with all this BS bipartisanship and half measures.

I swear he can give a bald man gray hairs.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

but there's always less than meets the eye in "the right thing" too -- (3.20 / 5)
he talks big, but is not putting it into legislation or written regulations at all.

Gitmo didn't close, and torture/renditions/etc didn't stop-- he just ordered them to review it all and report back to him. And a Judge refused to halt the fake trials and Obama said nothing.

the recent salary cap thing is all loophole too, and we don't know if it'll be made law or binding regulation either.

rinse and repeat...

[ Parent ]
you see it in hires too -- (3.00 / 4)
Summers caused an uproar, so Obama just brought him in as "senior advisor"

Sunstein too. Powers too. ... (I bet Daschle does too)

[ Parent ]
Powers is actually a good choice ... (4.00 / 1)
it's her husband(Sunstein) and Summers that suck rotten eggs
[ Parent ]
It's an obvious character flaw of his (4.00 / 3)
I can almost see it in his face, a certain sort of repressed anger and petulant refusal to do the right thing, covered up with an easy smile and "Who, ME?" expression, not so much because he disagrees with it, but because it's the harder nd risker path that he really doesn't want to take. It's like he KNOWS that he's wrong, but does it anyway, because he doesn't want a fight and instinctively runs from one. Clinton all over again, really. For all the talk about Chicago rules, he's more talk than fight so far.

What is it about guys with missing fathers and strong mothers and risk avoidance tendencies? Is it about seeking approval from older male father figures (Biden, McConnell, Broder, Gates, Jones, Lieberman--even McCain)? I don't get it.

He REALLY needs to get over this tendency.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
goes along to get along -- (0.00 / 0)
he really believes he can bring people together -- and he doesn't care about the issues most, or the reasons why we fight for and against policy and law and rights, etc.

Plus, he and his people actually genuinely agree with the GOP on tons of things -- far more than Clinton did.

Clinton did fight tho, and did care about the issues, and know them intimately -- he knew tho, that the GOP (and media) were never going to be his friends no matter what -- his first budget shut them out entirely and that was fine with him -- and he started out bold and stayed bold til he was shot down -- on real universal healthcare and opening the military, at least.

[ Parent ]
I guess (4.00 / 2)
if we exclude NAFTA, deregulation, welfare reform, etc.    

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
i know -- many things were wrong and bad for us -- (0.00 / 0)
i guess i mean style and process overall -- and whether that stuff matters more than doing stuff.

for me at least, Clinton never made other things more important than issues. And he walked into the WH knowing that the GOP and media weren't his friends nor would ever be, nor did he think that they were supposed to be.

[ Parent ]
I'm not convinced that Obama doesn't care about the issues (4.00 / 2)
I just think that he wants to believe that there's a friction, risk, blood, sweat and tear-free way to advance them that doesn't go right through the GOP and involve taking lots of hits. I'm not a football fan so excuse me if I get this wrong, but it's like his play book is entirely about long passes, field goals and clever double-lateral end runs. It seems like he wants to rewrite the book on how politics is done, not at the margins with new developments like the internet and texting, but at its heart, where deals are made and things actually get done. But that book is thousands of years old and will never be rewritten. For one side to win, the other must lose, which means that it must be taken on and beaten. Politics IS a zero-sum game.

Sooner or later he'll get it, that he's swimming with sharks, and those teeth are meant for HIM. Maybe this is all some preliminary super-clever way of setting them up as the bad guys, because he, he tried to make friends with him and look at how they responded! But I don't think so. I think that he really believes in this crap, and is still not getting that it does not work. Perhaps he doesn't want to get it, because that would obviously call for a change in strategy, from a finesse game to a throwing elbow game.

Damn, I get it now--does he really believe that he's the political Michael Jordan, i.e. so talented and cool that he doesn't need to throw many elbows?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
getting others to do the dirty work (4.00 / 1)
is what he should be doing if he doesn't want to do it himself, but i don't see Rahm or Biden or any of them fighting for good things for us, do you? he can play good cop if he has bad cops fighting for good legislation but even that's not happening.

and the GOP is entirely driving the messaging -- with little to no pushback from the administration that i can see.

[ Parent ]
left coaster had a good thing on this -- (0.00 / 0)
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/... -- Unable or Unwilling To Fight
[ Parent ]
Eh (4.00 / 1)
I don't know about DNA, as I think that Obama has it in him to fight back if forced to. But as history shows, he needs to be pushed or cornered into it to do it, as it's not his natural MO. He's sort of like the Hulk this way. But we're in a fighting kind of environment. As Grover Norquist once said about Dems, but which applies now to Repubs:

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans Democrats. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

Obama needs to find the snips.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
i've seen him fight -- only (0.00 / 0)
when it personally hurt him and his brand/image/message and his ambition -- that's it.

i've never seen him fight about issues or policy.

[ Parent ]
i wish -- that's what we the people want -- and we're all "partisan" (0.00 / 0)
if Obama's telling Dems to change the stimulus and remove the "partisan" stuff and to add taxcuts, etc, it's not likely he's gonna start fighting anytime soon.

i think he's more invested in proving he can make "bipartisanship" happen than in the content -- or effect -- of policy.

[ Parent ]
This is the same dude (0.00 / 0)
who said Obama was weak and couldn't win a general election.

[ Parent ]
Our problem is that people who are politic enough to come out of nowhere (0.00 / 0)
backgrounds and win are, y'know, politic. Someone like Bush has an unending sense of entitlement, so he's entirely convinced he can comfortably screw what everyone else thinks. There are traits that it takes to win without a legacy, especially in a modern media environment, that aren't somehow mitigated upon election.
       
[ Parent ]
One thing that I will concede (0.00 / 0)
is that being president is unlike any job in the country. Nothing even comes close, head of the Joint Chiefs, senate majority leader, house speaker and CEO of a major firm being as close as it gets, but even then not nearly enough. It's a job that you learn to do on the job, which takes time, and Obama's still very much growing into it.

Still, until you do master the job, it seems to make sense to not give anything away at the start, especially to the other party. I'm all for principled and reasonable bipartisanship. But that doesn't come from conceding points before real negotiations have begun, or before you've figured out how to do it as president.

Plus acting in a way that at least appears to be motivated by the desire to be liked is a really bad way to govern, as it'll only make the sharks smell blood. Obama needs to re-read The Prince and Sun Tzu. When it comes to enemies, it's better to be feared or hated than loved.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
wait a sec (4.00 / 1)
so this provision wont over ride our free trade agrements? is that not helpful then?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...
it sucks -- thanks for that -- i didn't know they weakened it even more -- (0.00 / 0)
it means it's now toothless entirely -- especially for raw materials (like all the infrastructure stuff would need).  
[ Parent ]
Not really (4.00 / 2)
I actually don't mind if counties like the EU, Canada, and even Mexico are exempted. They (esp. EU and Canada) treat their workers well and I don't think EU steel and iron can compete so well with US steel and iron. It still costs money to ship goods and when you don't have distorted wage disparities (like with China and the US) any competitive edge that those countries would have (save Canada) will be very small. This is really about keeping cheap chinese steel out of US infrastructure improvements.
[ Parent ]
but this will just further weaken our own industries -- (0.00 / 0)
the private companies will simply go for the cheapest materials to increase their profits no matter where they come from -- unless they are required to buy here, no?

we need to be strengthening what little we have left -- not just doing business as usual.

[ Parent ]
and we have trade agreements with China too -- (0.00 / 0)
with most countries we have some sort of "trade agreement" -- that language is very broad -- it's not just about the NAFTA things.
[ Parent ]
"applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements." (0.00 / 0)
that's not just about NAFTA/CAFTA/etc.
[ Parent ]
Here's the relevant passages (4.00 / 1)
The United States has made commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization to provide trading partners such as Canada, Mexico, Japan and the EU with access to its government procurement market and has received similar commitments in exchange.

But other countries such as China, Russia, India and Brazil are not party to those pacts so would not have any protection from the language passed by the Senate on Wednesday.



[ Parent ]
i hope so, but this is not govt procurement -- (0.00 / 0)
it's going to be private companies -- Obama said 90% of the total stimulus will go to private companies, and states already use private companies more than they do things themselves, no?
[ Parent ]
Well we should do a little more homework on this (4.00 / 1)
but the steel and iron provisions are most likely going to highways, transit and government buildings, no? And if that's the case, I believe the buy american provisions will apply to them because the project will be funded with 100% taxpayer money.
[ Parent ]
if state and local contracting/bidding/subcontracting/etc is covered under the Fed (4.00 / 1)
govt procurement rules, then i'd be relieved, but i don't think they are. Very little of the infrastructure stuff is going to be directly awarded in DC from what i've read.

I don't even know if the usual laws/regs on competitive bidding/minority set-asides/equal opportunity/labor laws will apply to projects funded by this -- New Orleans contracts were exempted, and the usual regulatory/legal process wasn't followed there, for instance.

[ Parent ]
Davis-Bacon wage laws in New Orleans (4.00 / 1)
were reinstated in 2006 I believe. Not sure on the exact date, but I know they were reinstated.

And yes, this will fall under procurement rules because otherwise Jim Oberstar would not be supporting it because he sure as hell wants that iron and steel to come from US sources.

It's good to be wary and skeptical, but I think you can relax at this point and know that this will have some teeth to make sure that at least most steel and iron comes from US sources.

[ Parent ]
ok -- we'll see (0.00 / 0)
on this point especially there are way too many powerful interests fighting it -- from govts to lobbyists to big corps to administration people to congresspeople to Obama himself to ...
[ Parent ]
the IT and "green" stuff too -- (0.00 / 0)
Verizon stands to get 1 billion + from this -- they're not bound by govt procurement rules if they're not actually signing contracts with the federal govt. to do things -- and they won't be required to, i'm sure.
[ Parent ]
No we don't have a trade agreement with China (0.00 / 0)
They are just a WTO member. I saw somewhere that there was a list of like 50 nations that it applies to. So that's probably all 26 EU member states (taking up half the list).

[ Parent ]
don't we have int'l agreements/treaties/etc, and are signatories to/members of int'l orgs (0.00 / 0)
that cover us and China (and many other countries as well)?

this would seem to also cover all the rules/regs of the WTO, and UN things, and all treaties, and G8/G20 agreements/rules too, etc, no?

[ Parent ]
I think it only covers trade agreements (4.00 / 1)
where government procurement standards (i.e. buy american) are explicitly laid out in trade agreements. The only way that would work for china would be if we had such an explicit agreement with them or if there was a blanket WTO rule covering all member states. Which it doesn't look like there is (I doubt China and India would agree to such a thing, they want to support their own industries, which is why they now would be subject to this buy american provision).
[ Parent ]
it seems we're having to allow other countries' stuff in but they won't have to do the same -- (0.00 / 0)
individual EU countries --and others too -- are doing country-specific and industry-specific and protectionist stimulus packages too and aren't being told not to.

China is as well.

[ Parent ]
Obama Dishonesty (4.00 / 1)
  Obama knew very well we could not simply craft legislation that violated existing trade agreements and if he didn't know this he should have. Now how many products don't fall under a trade agreement? I am sure we can purchase Bananas from Greenland and Cars from Rwanda but most major categories from major supplying nations is covered by some agreement.  His proposal is meaningless unless he actually reverses or cancels some of the actual trade agreements which I doubt he will do.

We don't need legislation we need Americans to buy American. Do we really need to import bottled water from France? Why aren't liberals buying American Cars? You claim you support the UAW but in practice you prefer foriegn automobiles according to a NY Times article.

 " Among their findings: buyers of American cars tend to be Republican - except, for some reason, those who buy Pontiacs, who tend to be Democrats. Foreign-brand compact cars are usually bought by Democrats - but not Mini Coopers, which are bought by almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. And Volvos may not actually represent quite what you think."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04...

We don't need legislation we just need more Patriotic Democrats.  

Let's Get Trade Policy Right (0.00 / 0)
Don't get me wrong, I favor buying American, but there is a legitimate concern with this approach, best illustrated by the alarm it raised in Canada.  The U.S. has a very, very beneficial trade relationship with Canada.  We enjoy a small surplus in trade in manufactured goods with Canada, and they are our no. 1 source of imported oil.  Why would we want to anger Canada?  

We need to restore a balance of trade, but we need to do it the right way.  We don't want to anger everyone.  We'll need to have countries like Canada on our side.  To get our trade policy right, we need to understand the root cause of our enormous deficit.  It's not currency valuations, low wages or unfair trade practices.  It's mostly a function of population density.

One need look no further than the U.S.'s trade data for proof of this effect. Using 2006 data, an in-depth analysis reveals that, of our top twenty per capita trade deficits in manufactured goods (the trade deficit divided by the population of the country in question), eighteen are with nations much more densely populated than our own. Even more revealing, if the nations of the world are divided equally around the median population density, the U.S. had a trade surplus in manufactured goods of $17 billion with the half of nations below the median population density. With the half above the median, we had a $480 billion deficit!

Our trade deficit with China is getting all of the attention these days. But, when expressed in per capita terms, our deficit with China in manufactured goods is rather unremarkable - nineteenth on the list. Our per capita deficit with other nations such as Japan, Germany, Mexico, Korea and others (all much more densely populated than the U.S.) is worse. My point is not that our deficit with China isn't a problem, but rather that it's exactly what we should have expected when we suddenly applied a trade policy that was a proven failure around the world to a country with one fifth of the world's population.

What's needed is a system of tariffs on manufactured goods that's indexed to population density, focusing trade policy like a laser on the real root of the problem.

To learn more about why population density is a factor, I encourage you to visit my web site at PeteMurphy.wordpress.com.

Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"

The "Make Him Do It" Dynamic In Action: Dems Pass Buy America Law Over McCain's Poison Pill | 99 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox