I touched on this in last night’s Roundup, but it’s really something. Republicans in the Senate are using the means at their disposal offered to them by the failure to enact Senate rules reform to hold a Cabinet position hostage in exchange for some ideologically favored trade agenda.
Congressional Republicans Monday threatened to block votes on key administration nominations until President Barack Obama submits trade deals with Colombia and Panama to Congress for passage.
The move is the latest in a GOP-led effort to force the White House to ratify the two Latin American agreements on a similar timeline as a trade opening deal with South Korea that the White House is eager to see passed.
In a letter signed by 44 Senate Republicans, including Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and GOP whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, the legislators pledged to “use all the tools at our disposal to force action, including withholding support for any nominee for Commerce Secretary and any trade-related nominees.”
A few things on this. First of all, “gentlemen’s agreement,” we hardly knew ye. Mitch McConnell signed on to this deal, so it’s not the work of some rogue Senators forcing cloture, but the considered opinion of the leadership and pretty much all of the rank and file. Second of all, fortunately Republicans are only holding hostage the meaningless position of Commerce Secretary. The Administration should take the opportunity to dissolve the Department and move its parts into other federal bureaus, and blame Republicans for forcing his hand to boot.
Third, let’s look at this trade agenda that McConnell, Kyl and the Republicans seek. They want trade deals with Panama and Colombia to happen on the same timeline as the South Korean trade deal. Colombia’s murderous stance toward trade unionists makes such a deal distasteful, and frankly, the South Korea deal doesn’t offer much of interest to American workers either. But in the grand scheme, these are pretty small markets and small trade actions, more symbolic than anything. The one area of global trade where the US could really make some big change is by sanctioning China for manipulating their currency and benefiting their home industries. Millions of American manufacturing jobs have been lost as a direct result of currency manipulation. Just last year, Democrats and Republicans came together and passed a bill that would label China a currency manipulator and sanction them if they failed to remedy the situation. It got 335 votes in the House, including roughly half of all House Republicans. But this new House leadership doesn’t want to vote on the bill. Why?
But attempts to address the problem have hit a Great Wall here at home. Senior House Republicans are putting the brakes on the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act of 2011, a bill that would make China’s currency practices punishable under US law. They oppose it, says an inside source familiar with the negotiations, because “US multinationals with operations in China really don’t like it.” These mega-companies fear that China will retaliate by crimping access to its markets—not to mention that their manufacturing operations in China will make less money selling goods back to American consumers without the subsidy.
“I think it is fair to say that Wall Street firms seeking financial business in China, and multinationals like Caterpillar with big manufacturing activities in China, have lobbied both Republican and Democratic administrations against action,” Morici says. “Goldman Sachs’ and Caterpillar’s interests are more aligned with China than with the US economy.”
And the Republican interests are similarly aligned. So while the GOP Senators hold the Commerce Department hostage over trade deals, they stand silent in the face of the only trade policy that would actually have a positive impact on US jobs.
Meanwhile, expect the Obama Administration to send a written letter asking “How high?” at this command to jump. US trade representative Ron Kirk said in committee last week that he expected deals on the Colombia and Panama agreements this year.




26 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Sounds like a fair trade to me. The trade deals are shitty. So are O’s appointments. Letem both grind to a halt.
Isn’t it kind of hard to come down on China for currency manipulation after QE2?
The currency manipulation approach is just demonization anyhow. No matter how high China’s currency went, it wouldn’t create many more jobs in the U.S., but it would cost U.S. consumers a helluva lot more more to buy stuff.
Setting aside for a moment how bad these trade deals really are, just when are the Democrats going to learn you can’t trust a Republican?
I pointed this out last night when I said that it’s a good thing that they made a “gentleman’s agreement” in the Senate rather than enacting real reform. The Vichycrats strike again! They can’t wait to surrender what little leverage they have to their abusers.
Not to Republicans. No doubt they admire the Colombian stance towards trade unions.
No doubt they’d like to emulate it…
Didn’t Scott Walker more or less indicate that he’d do something like that by blissfully acknowledging that he’d bring in outside agitators to rile up the crowd… in order that the crowd could be…. (you fill in the blank)?? Not all that far afield, imo.
Thank you. I thought I was the only person who saw minimal gains.
And I’m with David, now is the time to put the Commerce Dept out of our misery.
But Obama should take credit for it, rather than blame the GOPers. Eliminating a cabinet dept would show fiscal conservatism.
Boxturtle (Stop laughing! Obama’s spine of pudding will harden if baked long enough!)
Is it wise in this current political climate for a real dem to be doing a trade deal like NAFTA with Korea? NO
Unions are in a total up roar!
Every Dem senator that votes for these trade deals may suffer the same fate as Gov. Walker. Unions are not in a happy state of mind.
Voting on a NAFTA Type deal in the middle of UNION CAT 5 HURRICANE may end your Trojan Horse Dem career.
this is one of the Vichycrats favorite Kabuki games.
Dem trojan horses will say the following
“the GOP made us give more USA jobs away, so we could get a Commerce Sec.”
Yet again Obama tells every Union and Progressive F U! remember Obama wants the Korea NAFTA deal, that will help China.
Don’t be shocked if Obama invites Gov. Walker over to the WH for a beer
I have done many many regressions on the influence of currencies on international trade. I know whereof I speak.
China needs to pursue an economic policy to encourage domestic consumption at this point in its development.
But what should be done & what would be done, feh.
The thing is, DDay, you;’re not asking “what set off this tiff?”
How did Obama get to be in the position of “needing” a new Commerce Secretary, who the Republicans promptly took hostage?
The answer is: Obama set this off, doubtless knowing the Republicans would go into blocking mode (if he didn’t, Harvard needs to re-examine their degree-granting and admissions criteria), by replacing his China ambassador with his Commerce Secretary (or vice-versa – I forget who moved where, and it doesn’t matter) and opening up the Commerce job to Republican obstruction.
Obama set this off so he could get the trade deals through.
All the gentlemen kept the agreement. It looks like somebody blindly equated “senator” with “gentleman”, however.
Boxturtle (Not a mistake any around here would have made)
That’s what he told prank call “Koch”.
Ding. We have a winnah.
The Senators were referring to themselves and presumably, each other.
Obama: the Vichycrats’ own Marshal Petain`
could have not said it better
Obama is needs the GOP to protect him from UNIONS anger
Obama acts like UNIONS don’t alreadu consider him the anti-christ
Obama will scream that the GOP made him do the KOREA NAFTA deal, the same deal he loves.
Bottom line: We need to produce products in America that people want and can afford. For the last 10-15 years, America’s only real innovation has been financial instruments like CDOs or pooled, parted out, mortgage backed securities.
Boxturtle (Though we have made great advances in drones….)
I think it’s too late for that in the U.S. The race to the bottom is too advanced to be reversed at this juncture, even if the PTB wanted it and would agree to do it.
I meant that the Chinese should encourage domestic consumption, not export led growth. That would be a start in rebalancing global economic growth. But the Chinese won’t change their economic policy either. The Chinese PTB want enough reserves so they can thumb their noses at the WTO, IMF, WB. And after what those orgs have done to wreck developing economies, you can hardly blame China.
(And safe military jail sleepwear, too.)
(Not to mention
enhanced interrogationtorture techniques)All Kabuki. I suppose Obama will now have to grudgingly concede.
I agree – the currency thing is a con-job
China is mainly used for cheap assemble of high value parts made elsewhere – Japan/Germany/wherever
And where it is not simply assembly, the US corporations have sold out the US worker by agreeing to transfer all trade secrets to a partner in China and into a jointly owned operation that will produce the high value good in lieu of US production – and that sunk capital precludes moving the jobs back.
If they were serious about trade and jobs they would change the tax laws and set up some internal barriers to foreign entry of goods – they add a small VAT SO WE WERE ON THE SAME PAGE AS TO HOME COMPANY COST ADVANTAGE AS THE REST OF THE WORLD.
End of rant…
Again I agree with most that you say – but “The race to the bottom is too advanced to be reversed at this juncture” I suggest is wrong – we got out of the colonial supplier mode via trade policy – tariffs and internal barriers – and it would work again. The alternative is to end all prior trade agreements and WTO membership – and start over.
Consumer goods might cost a bit more – for a time – but we get in return a viable economy that generates jobs.
Don’t forget the wars we exported with so much success. That made lots of money for some MIC.
Of course, now we need real economy exports. The big problem with these trade deals is they were first negotiated by Bushies and we need better now.