MyFox
 

sarge-m's Blog

by sarge-m from Imlay City

Last Post 54 days, 20 hours Ago


Bush Losing 'Fast Track' Trade Powers By JIM ABRAMS (Associated Press Writer) From Associated Press June 29, 2007 7:35 PM EDT WASHINGTON - President Bush loses his power Saturday to seal "fast track" trade agreements without intervention from Congress, where Democrats blame recent deals for sending U.S. jobs abroad. Since 1975, only one other president, Bill Clinton, has been stripped of that trade promotion authority, designed to speed the reduction of trade barriers and open new markets with other countries. Bush won't get it back again, and the next president might not either. House Democratic leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, whose Ways and Means Committee handles trade policy, said in a written statement Friday that their legislative priorities "do not include the renewal of fast track authority." "Before that debate can even begin, we must expand the benefits of globalization to all Americans," they said. In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said he had other pressing trade issues, such as extending relief to trade-hit American workers. "I have always said that it is more important to get trade promotion authority done right than to get it done fast." Rather than promoting new free trade accords, the government should concentrate on rewriting old deals such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, going after countries such as China that manipulate their currencies, strengthening product safety and pushing anti-sweatshop legislation, said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. Nonetheless, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Congress on Friday to renew Bush's trade promotion authority. Without it, she said, "America will lose an important diplomatic tool that has proven essential to bringing foreign leaders to the negotiating table and advancing our nation's broader foreign policy interests." Rangel got a similar pitch in a letter from U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab. "More than 100 bilateral trade negotiations are currently under way among our trading partners," she wrote. "It is important that the United States not sit on the sidelines as other countries lock in new preferential trading arrangements with our competitors." Democrats say they support expanded trade as long as it's fair to American workers and doesn't exploit developing countries. They complain that Bush pushed too many trade deals at the expense of worker rights and environmental protections. Fast track authority, which dates back to the Ford administration in 1975, gives the president the right to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can accept or reject, but cannot amend. Every president since then has enjoyed it, although the law lapsed between 1994 and 2002, when Democrats suspicious of trade agreements joined with Republicans hostile to the Clinton administration in opposing its renewal. The revival of the law in 2002 came only after Republicans agreed to Democratic demands to expand a program assisting U.S. workers hurt by foreign trade. The expiration of fast track won't affect four outstanding bilateral trade pacts that Congress must consider before they take effect. Negotiations with Peru and Colombia are finished, the United States and Panama signed a deal Thursday, and the free trade accord with South Korea is to be signed in Washington on Saturday, just before Bush's authority expires. U.S. and South Korean negotiators cleared their final hurdle Friday when the Koreans acceded to new U.S. guidelines demanded by Democratic lawmakers calling for stricter labor and environmental standards. Democrats reached a broad agreement with the Bush administration last month that worker rights and the environment will be core parts of future free trade agreements. That improved prospects for congressional action on several of the accords, although there are still sticking points, such as violence against labor leaders in Colombia and South Korea's restrictions on U.S. auto imports. The top Republican on the Ways and Means panel, Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, noted that since Bush took office in 2001, the United States has implemented 10 free trade agreements with countries such as Australia, Bahrain, and Chile, and that the U.S. trade deficit with those countries has fallen by $7.3 billion. He and other Republicans warned that without fast track, countries leery of congressional tinkering won't come to the negotiating table. "We risk losing market share around the world," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif. But Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., argued that "trade agreements have given us the largest trade deficits in human history." Last year the U.S. trade deficit reached $836 billion. --- On the Net: Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/ Office of U.S. Trade Representative: http://www.ustr.gov/
105 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 105
Page 1 of 7
1
Last
sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 6:18 AM

We are being sold out with this and immigration.

shockhazard read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 8:23 AM

We are allways being sold out . I think this is a way for the dems to knock down the stock market before election time .

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 8:44 AM

Do I still think Bush supports America? Yes. Free trade and capitalism are the backbone of the American economy.

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 9:23 AM

well we see what nafta did for us.... and on the immigration issue bush picked the wrong topic to push.... I will admit this to anyone... 2000 I worked had on his campaign. I worked with folks who came up from tx. Right atfer he was elected from jan till 911 he was siding with the democrats on every issue... those that attack on no child that was kennedy and mrs bush's work... 911 he showed he was strong.. got my support for the war on terror but has not got an ounce of it on domestic issues. 2004 I tried to work on his campaign I went in for 1 thats ONE day thats all i could give him of my time...

I think non terror histroy will be good to the man.. the rest he will be right up there with the great ones... wislon,hoover,carter and gw bush as some of americas worst!

Tim I fully understand what your thinking about free trade i thought the same way as you that it was good for this country. It is good for business but for the people not so good!

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 9:24 AM

one more thing sarge the entire govt is selling us out it is not a left or right thing!! its both of them..

sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 9:34 AM

Colt, You are right. The problem is for the last years, there was no balance in Govt. Republicans could push through anything they want. Yes, Dems would not be any better, but if enough where in office, it would have kept the Republicans in check.

sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 9:38 AM

Tim, I too used to think that way, but it has gone to far. They are driving wages down which is not good for the economy.

Free trade is a good thing if it is only really fair to all. Americans invent and improve things only to be given away to other countries. People invest money and time into education and make things work only to have those things taken away and now that education is useless.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 9:40 AM

Indeed, NAFTA did do a great deal of good for this country. Combined with the Reagan tax cuts and deregulation free trade allowed this country to go into one of the longest periods of economic growth that was matched by the rise in per capita GDP and personal wealth. Of course Michigan did not fair too well because of NAFTA, but that was due to the concentration Michigan had on the auto industry as a result of union intervention in government policies regarding subsidies and trade. The American Auto Industry was already doing very poorly with our protectionist policies (evidenced by the need for a government bail out during the 1980's) which only served to protect inflated wages forced to be paid by unions.

As for Bush, I think Bush did fairly well on fulfilling his campaign promises. He promised to cut taxes across the board, he did. He promised increased military spending, it happened. He, whether we like it or not, promised to reach across the isle and include Democrats in policy making, that is what he was doing. 9/11 happened and he showed true leadership.

Free trade is essential to this nation. How would you feel if the government banned Walmart and Mejiers, what do you think would happen? Prices would go up because there are fewer companies therefore fewer competition. Do you think we should ban or high regulate trade from Ohio? Do you think "the people" would be better off if we did? Of course not. We have free trade among every State in the Union and we are the strongest, richest country in the world as a result of it. All free trade means i

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 9:40 AM

All free trade means is that we are taking that principle given to us by Adam Smith and expanding it to more countries creating more competition bringing in more resources and making life better for everyone.

The only thing that bothers me about our trade policy is that it has no rhyme or reason to it. I would like to see a system of benchmarks for determining our trading policies rather than the whims of a politician. This will allow us to expand economic progress to those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs and hedge against possible losses through higher tariffs against countries that do not practice democracy or capitalism which may "nationalize" our businesses if it pleases them, such as the case is in Venezuela right now.

Luvs1964 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 10:09 AM

Ok MEN..the only thing u should be debating on is what to get me for my bday tommorrow, lmao..kidding...and Sarge no more 1864....lol and about this blog....still have NO idea who or if im voting at all for...Hope your haveing a GREAT weekend..Luvs

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 12:07 PM

tim dereg did more for growth of employment and wages then nafta will ever do.. Sorry to say ross paroit was right on the giant sucking sound.

Michigan_Man read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 1:16 PM

What evidence is there to back that up? The 1990's was one of the largest periods of economic growth in this country's history. Reductions in tariffs is deregulation, it is part of taking down barriers put up out of ignorance and xenophobia. Tariffs do for trade what taxes do for spending.

sarge-m read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 3:34 PM

Tim, If we deal with a country such as China. They allow slave labor. How can Americans compete with that? These policies are driving down the wages of all auto makers. I am a skilled trades man and I always made less than the auto workers, but should I be paid the same as someone with no skill? That is what is happening.

colt19112 read my blog view my photos
Jun 30, 2007 | 3:43 PM

Tim will never get it. I agreed with the dereg it was great for many things for example the phone company but nafta has had a huge negitive effect on this nation and its employment.. I know tim you are going to offer the business side on this issue yet again. I will say it is great for the corps but for the american worker it is killing us. How can we purchase products when either you are out of work or you cannot afford them due to a cut in income?

SmittyLongsleeves read my blog
Jun 30, 2007 | 4:14 PM

All I know is our trade deficit is getting bigger and bigger by the day due to jobs leaving America. We import more than we export. NAFTA has not been good for America at all.

Page 1 of 7
1
Last


Write your comment below:




sarge-m

I am married with two kids. I like hunting, fishing and the shooting sports. I am born and raised in northern Michigan and moved down here to the city in 1999 to receive better wages. I am a Centrist. I vote for whom I feel will be the best candadate; Libertarian, Republican or Democrat. I believe free trade is a good thing, only when the playing field is level. China is not a level playing field. "Competeing" with China is just a lie to try to silence true Americans. It is not possible to "compete" with China when their labor, environmental laws are non existent. The use of tax breaks for business's to send jobs overseas and creating the path for business to do the same is traitorous and should be abolished.

Member Since: 11/11/2006