Allies Line Up Against Obama's State of the Union Plea on Trade

[Purveyor]

By Carter Dougherty Jan 20, 2015 10:54 PM ET

Even as President Barack Obama was calling on Congress to grant him expanded powers to negotiate trade agreements, some of his staunchest allies were raising objections.

“I’m the first one to admit that past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype,” Obama said on Tuesday in his State of the Union speech in Washington. “But 95 percent of the world’s customers live outside our borders, and we can’t close ourselves off from those opportunities.”

The difficult battle ahead to win the so-called fast-track authority he is asking for was illustrated by opponents -- including Democrats and labor leaders -- who began issuing statements before Obama had even finished speaking.

The Communications Workers of America said they support many of Obama’s initiatives but wouldn’t stand with the president “to send more U.S. jobs offshore.” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka applauded Obama’s initiatives on taxes and wages, but added “our opposition to fast-track trade deals that are giant giveaways to big corporations must be resolute.”

Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, announced a press conference for Wednesday in which fellow party members would demonstrate a lack of support for fast-track authority.

MORE...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-21/obama-highlights-trade-powers-as-top-goal-in-state-of-the-union.html

[tblue]

1. Yeah. Not this awful thing.

Please give it up, Mr. POTUS, sir.

[merrily]

2. I oppose TPP, but:

The Constitution gives the President a lot of power in dealings with foreign nations. Why does he need Congressional permission to negotiate with them? Because Congress has power over commerce with foreign nations?

[misterhighwasted]

3. Isn't that the bain of TPP though? Doesn't TPP strip that Congressional power?

Correct me if I'm wrong on this. And I do hope I am

[merrily]

4. I thought it was state legislatures?

But, that still would not deprive the President of Constitutional power to negotiate with foreign nations treaty would it?

The Senate would have to advise and consent before the US became a party to any treaty he negotiated. So, they'd get their say at that point.

Dunno. I have a migraine today and international trade relations are way above my pay grade. I'll leave this one to DU's best and brightest.

[misterhighwasted]

5. It is complicated, indeed. I will have to check back later also.

Am just not sure of the details of Tpp.
But what I have read sounds like some Corporate takeover.

Take care of your head.
I get migraines when low pressure weather systems move through. Feels like an anvil strapped to my head. It forces my eyes to close & just have to sleep through it all.
Miserable & stops my daily functions completely.
Rest you head.

[merrily]

6. Awww, thanks. That is so nice.

[Jim Lane]

8. TPP will involve changes in tariffs, which are set legislatively.

The President may negotiate with foreign leaders all he wants, with or without Congressional permission. If he reaches an agreement that involves changing tariffs, though, he can't just unilaterally order it done. It requires a bill approved by the House and then the Senate (House first because it's a revenue measure).

Tariff changes are just one example. There are other provisions in this far-reaching deal that go beyond what a President can do by executive order.

[merrily]

9. Thank you. Unfortunately, I have little doubt the President will get what he wants this time.

If a Republican takeover of Congress had been orchestrated, it could not have been better timed to get this done while letting most Democrats off the hook.

It's like Reagan raising taxes and Clinton ending welfare "as we know it" and repealing Glass Steagall.

[Jim Lane]

11. I'm glad to say I have some doubt that it will pass.

Trade deals produce some odd political lineups. With NAFTA, we liberals had a choice between supporting it and siding with Newt Gingrich, or opposing it and siding with Pat Buchanan.

On TPP, there are Democrats in the Warren wing of the party who'll oppose it because of its many bad effects. There are some flag-waving xenophobic Republicans who are persuaded by the "giving up our sovereignty" argument. There are other Republicans who might like the deal on its merits but who, because of their Obama Derangement Syndrome, will be inclined to vote against it as soon as Obama endorses it. I see a decent chance that these voting blocs, combined, will defeat TPP.

The flip side of the Obama Derangement Syndrome is that there are some Democrats with substantive misgivings about the deal, but who'll support it out of party loyalty. If the exact same deal were to be proposed by a Republican President, some Democrats would switch from supporting to opposing and some Republicans would switch the other way.

[merrily]

12. Part of the so-called Republican ODS was making sure Democrats did not get "credit" for

accomplishing anything that Republican voters and donors might like, or much of anything in general.

As you know, that is a very old political consideration. It gave Truman his "do nothing" Congress. Many years after Watergate, Kennedy cited it as the reason he refused to worked with Nixon on a health care plan, even though Kennedy was a lifelong advocate of affordable care. With a historic, jaw dropping victory in 2014, Republicans need not worry about that as to TPP. Taking credit will be easy peasy for them.

I don't think the Warren wing of the party in the Senarte is very large. I am not even sure it exists. Moreover, they don't need many Democratic votes anyway.

My prediction: it will be a very close vote as to Senate cloture, because that is what D.C. kabuki is for, and it will pass.

[TimeToEvolve]

7. good..

the TPP needs to be vanquished!
i called my reps and voiced my opinion; as well as alerting my fiends and family and urging them to call and write emails as well.
i do what i can. if everyone did what they could; the TPP would be dead in the water.

[merrily]

10. I am not at all optimistic that some calls and emails will halt this, even many calls and emails.

Way too much money involved and it is too far down the road. Also, I cannot remember the last time calls, letters or emails changed anyone's vote.

Still, we should all always do what we can, whether we do it optimistically or not. I have sent many an email and made many a call with 99% certainty that I was accomplishing nothing, other than letting them know I was on to them. And that is important, I think. But thinking we are changing the course of history with an email is not backed up by history and is not reality.

I consider that illusion very dangerous to people ever getting what they want because someone clinging to that illusion will dash off an email in the sincere belief that that is all it is going to take to stop a war or frustrate some multi trillion dollar plan of ALEC. The most it will lead with most of our elected officials is D.C. kabuki, with each caucus being very careful which of its members do or do not vote for or against.

Most of them don't even think listening to us is part of their job description and media agrees. Supposedly, they should "lead" not simply follow instructions. Supposedly, they know stuff we don't, etc. Supposedly, they got elected to use their judgment. They will sometimes cite public opinion as a reason for something they were going to do anyway, but that's it.