Pelosi's Trade Move: The Good, the Bad and the Potentially Ugly

by: David Sirota

Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:49


This just off the Reuters wire:

The House of Representatives will decide on Thursday whether to put off indefinitely a vote on the Colombia free-trade agreement that President George W. Bush submitted to Congress this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. Pelosi, announcing the move to reporters on Wednesday, would not give a time frame for when the trade pact might be debated and put up for a vote on passage in the House. The vote on Thursday would change rules for considering the deal by eliminating a 90-day deadline for Congress to approve the Colombia trade deal.

This is good news, bad news and potentially ugly news.  

David Sirota :: Pelosi's Trade Move: The Good, the Bad and the Potentially Ugly
The good news: Finally, a Democratic leader is trying to use some modicum of legislative power to halt our economically destructive and wildly unpopular trade policies. It's a start.

The bad news: Pelosi has yet to say she will work to kill the pact outright. In fact, she issued a press release earlier this week merely worrying that Bush's tactics jeopardize the final passage of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Meanwhile, other top Democrats like Jim Clyburn have gone on record saying they want this deal to pass (Clyburn has since amended his statement - but sometimes the truth is in the first reaction).

The potentially ugly news: Is Pelosi throwing America's fair trade majority a meaningless bone that ends up helping lobbyists pass this deal?

While it certainly is good in the short-term that Congress is postponing passage of the Colombia deal, if Democrats are ultimately aiming to pass it anyway, then the delay may actually be a bad thing, in that it would serve to give K Street lobbyists more time to pressure Congress to pass it. It's quite possible (probable, really, based on the Democrats willingness to sell out on this issue) that this postponement (if it passes) will let them cut a deal with Bush to modestly increase Trade Adjustment Assistance funding in exchange for the free trade deal. That would be a terrible bargain for workers, giving them a few crumbs while robbing yet another loaf of bread out of their hands.

In fact, Pelosi's press release this morning seems to suggest she still wants this bill to pass:

"I thought there was a risk, the President sending it to the Congress now.  If brought to the floor immediately, it would lose.  And what message would that send?"

See that? Her big fear is not the deal passing, thus hurting American workers and validating the murderous Colombian government. No, her big fear is that the deal would NOT pass right now.

If Pelosi is successful in engineering this rejection of fast track - rather than the rejection of the Colombia FTA  - it puts the timetable for the vote firmly in her hands. She will be able to engineer the vote's timing so that it passes (imagine, for instance, Pelosi calling a vote on this bill in the post-election lame-duck session, in a wink-and-nod deal with corporate campaign contributors). And rest assured, that if this bill does not get outright rejected, the lobbying pressure to pass it will only increase over time.

This issue is obviously a moving target. Stay tuned.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Does it matter that much? (0.00 / 0)
Now, don't get me wrong, I would vote against the free trade agreement with Colombia, but that has to do with Colombia -- the country's rightist government has a horrendous human rights record. In particular, the country's evident tolerance for assassinations of labor leaders dictates that, as far as I'm concerned, we should not make a trade agreement with that country without very concrete progress on the rights of Colombian workers to organize.

However. Characterizing the potential deal involving an increase in trade assistance for displaced workers in exchange for support of the CFTA as "giving (workers) a few crumbs while robbing yet another loaf of bread out of their hands" is completely over the top. Colombia's GDP is around $125 billion, or roughly 1% of the US. Their total exports to the US are around $10 billion, and the vast majority of that is commodities (coffee, metals, petroleum). The idea that any trade deal with Colombia would result in meaningful US job losses (no matter how unfavorable the terms of said traid deal) is laughable.

The fact is, the US is losing manufacturing jobs to Asia, not to Latin America. I understand the symbolism in opposing trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, and this Colombian deal (if you want to talk about trade, such deals provide an opportunity), but to argue that getting rid of such deals would significantly help stem US manufacturing job losses is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Myself, I would argue that especially with respect to Latin America, the proper trade policy would be one that uses our substantial economic clout to foster human and labor rights, expand economic development, and help eliminate poverty in that region. None of that is going to have a particularly large impact on our own economy in the short run, though in the long run obviously a vibrant Latin American economy would be very good for the US.

None of this should be taken as endorsing our current trade policy of allowing US corporations to write our trade agreements, which I regard as harmful to consumers and workers both here and abroad, and certainly has very little to do with "free trade." I know Mr. Sirota has mentioned this previously, but I think people who are critical of US trade policy should really hammer home this point; advocates of these agreements have been allowed to use the term "free trade" while getting very little pushback, especially considering that it's total nonsense.


gosh (0.00 / 0)
do we really need one year terms for all electeds?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Donate to Open Left








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
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search