Pelosi Blocks Columbia Trade Vote

[RMNIXON]

Pelosi to block vote on Bush's Columbia trade deal
Jim Abrams - Associated Press Writer - 4/9/2008 12:15:00 PM


WASHINGTON - Defying the White House, Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday the House will change its rules to avoid a required vote this year on a hotly disputed free-trade agreement with Colombia.

Pelosi said she will bring a procedural change to the House floor on Thursday that would remove the timetable under which Congress would have had to take up trade bills within 90 legislative days after they are received from the White House.

"The president took action" in submitting the Colombia free trade agreement to Congress on Tuesday, she said. "I will take mine tomorrow." Pelosi said that Bush called her Monday to tell her he was sending the agreement to Congress.

The White House has aggressively pushed Congress to approve the trade deal with Colombia, arguing that helping a key ally in South America is in the political and security interests of the United States.

House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement that Pelosi's proposed rule change "would be cheating." He asked what nation "would conclude a treaty with the United States knowing that Congress can change the rules of the game after it is negotiated?"

But most Democrats, backed by organized labor and some human rights groups, are against it. They have cited violence against union organizers in Colombia and have also made clear they won't consider further free trade agreements until legislation is passed to expand current programs to help American workers displaced by foreign trade.

"Our focus on Colombia is the continuing violence against trade unionists," said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO's legislative director. He said he thought Pelosi's action would effectively stop any action on the agreement this year.`

Pelosi to block vote on Bush's Columbia trade deal (OneNewsNow.com)



And it might stop any vote before the election. How responsible is that? Maybe Hillary will think better of Pelosi after she hears about this. She would benefit the most by getting this out of the news cycle as quickly as possible considering her recent staff problem and her Husband who she cannot fire!


Interesting article by Dick Morris here:


HILL & LOBBYISTS: MORE THE MERRIER at DickMorris.com

[Rouger2]

Get rid of those dam free trade deals. We just end up getting the shitty end of the stick. We always go from a trade surplus to a trade deficit with those dam things. Look at Mexico after the Nafta deal we now have gone from a big trade surplus to a gigantic trade deficit, and even larger trade deficit with Canada than the gigantic trade deficit we already had with them. Just think of all those billions of dollars going out the door.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Get rid of those dam free trade deals. We just end up getting the shitty end of the stick. We always go from a trade surplus to a trade deficit with those dam things. Look at Mexico after the Nafta deal we now have gone from a big trade surplus to a gigantic trade deficit, and even larger trade deficit with Canada than the gigantic trade deficit we already had with them. Just think of all those billions of dollars going out the door.

The experts would tend to disagree:
The Effects of NAFTA

To disentangle the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement from those of the other influential factors discussed in Chapter 2, the Congressional Budget Office constructed a model of U.S. trade with Mexico.(1) Results from the model indicate that:

Changes in trade between the United States and Mexico since NAFTA went into effect have been determined primarily by factors other than the agreement.


Without NAFTA, both U.S. exports to and imports from Mexico would have grown almost as much as they did with NAFTA, and they would have fluctuated almost identically to the manner in which they did with NAFTA.


NAFTA has had a comparatively small, but growing, positive effect on U.S. exports to Mexico (ranging from 2.2 percent in 1994 to 11.3 percent in 2001) and a similar effect on U.S. imports from Mexico (ranging from 1.9 percent in 1994 to 7.7 percent in 2001).


The effects of NAFTA on the U.S. balance of trade in goods with Mexico have been positive in most years, and very small in all years, since the agreement began. The decline in the balance since 1993 is completely attributable to the peso crash in late 1994, the associated Mexican recession, the prolonged U.S. economic boom from the early 1990s through 2000, and the Mexican recession in late 2000 and 2001 (with the effect of the peso crash itself--exclusive of the associated recession--being relatively minor).
CBO estimates that the increased trade resulting from NAFTA has probably increased U.S. gross domestic product, but by a very small amount--probably a few billion dollars or less, or a few hundredths of a percent.


The rest of the report: The Effects of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexican Trade and GDP

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Washingtonpost.com

The administration insisted the deal would be good for the United States economically because it would eliminate high barriers that U.S. exports to Colombia now face, while most Colombian products are already entering the United States duty-free under existing trade preference laws.

I don't know too much about the specific deal, but I don't see why anyone would disagree with the pact based on the above. We pay to export to Columbia but Columbia doesn't pay to export to US.

What is the holdup here? What is Columbia going to get out of the deal?

I've read the complaints about problems with unions in Columbia and violence, but preventing this trade pact isn't going to change the situation. I wish I knew more, but from what I can tell the Dems are grandstanding on pure ignorance. Maybe someone can show me where I'm wrong?

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

The experts would tend to disagree:
The Effects of NAFTA

To disentangle the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement from those of the other influential factors discussed in Chapter 2, the Congressional Budget Office constructed a model of U.S. trade with Mexico.(1) Results from the model indicate that:

Changes in trade between the United States and Mexico since NAFTA went into effect have been determined primarily by factors other than the agreement.


Without NAFTA, both U.S. exports to and imports from Mexico would have grown almost as much as they did with NAFTA, and they would have fluctuated almost identically to the manner in which they did with NAFTA.


NAFTA has had a comparatively small, but growing, positive effect on U.S. exports to Mexico (ranging from 2.2 percent in 1994 to 11.3 percent in 2001) and a similar effect on U.S. imports from Mexico (ranging from 1.9 percent in 1994 to 7.7 percent in 2001).


The effects of NAFTA on the U.S. balance of trade in goods with Mexico have been positive in most years, and very small in all years, since the agreement began. The decline in the balance since 1993 is completely attributable to the peso crash in late 1994, the associated Mexican recession, the prolonged U.S. economic boom from the early 1990s through 2000, and the Mexican recession in late 2000 and 2001 (with the effect of the peso crash itself--exclusive of the associated recession--being relatively minor).
CBO estimates that the increased trade resulting from NAFTA has probably increased U.S. gross domestic product, but by a very small amount--probably a few billion dollars or less, or a few hundredths of a percent.


The rest of the report: The Effects of NAFTA on U.S.-Mexican Trade and GDP

That rosy picture is painted because the Bushes government is so tied to big business, or multinationals they don't give a dam about us, and they would do and say anything to make the thing look good. It is good for Texas and states that trade with Mexico a lot but no one else. Trade deficit means your losing, trade surplus means your winning, and that peso thing was before Nafta. Even some Liberals like these things because it sends all that pollution south of the Border making Mexico City one of the most polluted cities in the world, just like the Capital of China our other big trading partner even they should wake up to what is going on.

[David Octavius]

The whole thing is unconstitutional anyway - any treaties negotiated by the Executive branch must be approved by two thirds of the Senate as per Article II Section 2.

Joint Resolutions like this undermine this fundemental power of the Senate by only needing majority votes in both chambers. Which in a two party system is much easier to get then a two thirds vote in the Senate.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

The whole thing is unconstitutional anyway - any treaties negotiated by the Executive branch must be approved by two thirds of the Senate as per Article II Section 2.

Joint Resolutions like this undermine this fundemental power of the Senate by only needing majority votes in both chambers. Which in a two party system is much easier to get then a two thirds vote in the Senate.

The Pres can make nearly any agreement he wants in foreign affairs. Treaty power only has to do with whether his agreements are binding upon any person or government.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

That rosy picture is painted because the Bushes government is so tied to big business, or multinationals they don't give a dam about us, and they would do and say anything to make the thing look good. It is good for Texas and states that trade with Mexico a lot but no one else. Trade deficit means your losing, trade surplus means your winning, and that peso thing was before Nafta. Even some Liberals like these things because it sends all that pollution south of the Border making Mexico City one of the most polluted cities in the world, just like the Capital of China our other big trading partner even they should wake up to what is going on.

the CBO works for Congress, not the executive branch

we export more to Mexico than we import, so in your book we are winning with trade with Mexico (btw I don't agree with your definition)

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Phantom

The Pres can make nearly any agreement he wants in foreign affairs. Treaty power only has to do with whether his agreements are binding upon any person or government.

This free trade act - if approved - becomes legally binding, it affects our laws by repealing any that affect trade with Columbia adversely to the agreement and instituting a new set that is in accord with the agreement.

An agreement that becomes like law which affects dealings with a foreign nation is a treaty and as such does not involve the House of Representatives. The constitution makes it very clear what the procedure is here but it gets ignored.

Which isn't a surprise, constitutional war powers gets ignored via the war powers resolution and any convert action undertaken by the government - and then we wonder why the executive branch is so powerful

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

An agreement that becomes like law which affects dealings with a foreign nation is a treaty and as such does not involve the House of Representatives. The constitution makes it very clear what the procedure is here but it gets ignored.

Care to re-think this?

I don't think I need to give examples of why this is silly.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Care to re-think this?

I don't think I need to give examples of why this is silly.

If your disagreeing that a treaty acts like a law and supersedes other laws ie a peace treaty supersedes the laws in a state of war, then your disagreeing with men like James Madison and sorry Phantom, I believe him over you

And no, the president cannot constitutionally make any agreement with other nations that he wants

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

If your disagreeing that a treaty acts like a law and supersedes other laws ie a peace treaty supersedes the laws in a state of war, then your disagreeing with men like James Madison and sorry Phantom, I believe him over you

And no, the president cannot constitutionally make any agreement with other nations that he wants

My disagreement was with the section in bold. Your statement was entirely too broad. You're kinda right about the hierarchy of treaties and laws, but state of war has nothing to do with it. The later in time of federal law or treaty controls.

As for constitutionality, you're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion does not reflect the current state of the law in the US.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Phantom

My disagreement was with the section in bold. Your statement was entirely too broad. You're kinda right about the hierarchy of treaties and laws, but state of war has nothing to do with it. The later in time of federal law or treaty controls.

As for constitutionality, you're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion does not reflect the current state of the law in the US.

Your right, my opinion (about constitutionality) is not the reality today - which is based off precedents of dubious legality - but its one reason why the executive has way too much power and how our leaders find ways to skirt the checks built in to impede the very ideological dominance that is happing now

[RMNIXON]

Dare to disagree!

Although the point is some Democrats want to sweep this whole business under the rug in an election year.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the CBO works for Congress, not the executive branch

we export more to Mexico than we import, so in your book we are winning with trade with Mexico (btw I don't agree with your definition)

It is my understanding that we have had a big trade deficit with Mexico for quite a while maybe not in the ninties but that was long ago. If that is true, and I believe it is, we are losing like we are with China who have all those dollars to buy our debt with and even threaten us with. Maybe the CBO works for Congress but you take the Bush government and republicans, throw in the Clinton big business free trade people and what does it matter if Congress is suppose to control the CBO.