It would appear that the latest "Specially Elected" Congressman is against Free-Trade. John Tusani posted this blurb on the Working Life Site.
"One of the very under-the-radar things that happened when the Democrats took the seat in Mississippi was that the newly-elected Congressman, Travis Childers is a "fair trade" proponent and won't support any so-called "free trade" deals:
Childers has signed a pledge not to approve any international trade agreements if he's elected, saying that deals such as NAFTA have made jobs disappear."
For those of you reading this that think this is normal for Democrats think again. He was elected in one of the most conservative thinking districts in the United States. Northern Mississippi is tough on Democrats, I know I lived there for a time. This is very progressive and very beneficial to the Labor movement.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Free Trade or Fair Trade...?
Joh Tsuani, who has more time to read than I, found this in the Wall Street Journal about what Sherrod Brown had to say about the Colunbia "Free" Trade Agreement.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, one of the best legislators in the Congress on just about every issue but certainly on trade, had an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that called "Don't Call Me a Protectionist". Taking on the issue of the so-called "free trade" deal with Colombia, here's the key passage:
Let's focus on the merits of the agreement. Supporters sell it as a free-trade agreement, a great opportunity for American companies because it eliminates tariffs on our products. If that were true, the agreement would be a few lines long.
Instead, we have a trade agreement that runs nearly 1,000 pages and is chock full of giveaways and protections for drug companies, oil companies, and financial services companies, and incentives to outsource jobs now held by Americans.
Nafta. The Central American Free Trade Agreement. China. Now Colombia. We have a pattern in our trade policy that aims to protect special interests, but betray our workers, our environment, our communities.
Let's stop accusing one another of being protectionists. And let us agree that U.S. trade policy – writing the rules of globalization to protect our national interests and our communities – is worthy of a vigorous national debate.
Readers of this blog know that I've made this repeated argument--that we should debate trade and the rules being set up, not dumb marketing phrases like "free trade". Good for Sherrod for pushing this point.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, one of the best legislators in the Congress on just about every issue but certainly on trade, had an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that called "Don't Call Me a Protectionist". Taking on the issue of the so-called "free trade" deal with Colombia, here's the key passage:
Let's focus on the merits of the agreement. Supporters sell it as a free-trade agreement, a great opportunity for American companies because it eliminates tariffs on our products. If that were true, the agreement would be a few lines long.
Instead, we have a trade agreement that runs nearly 1,000 pages and is chock full of giveaways and protections for drug companies, oil companies, and financial services companies, and incentives to outsource jobs now held by Americans.
Nafta. The Central American Free Trade Agreement. China. Now Colombia. We have a pattern in our trade policy that aims to protect special interests, but betray our workers, our environment, our communities.
Let's stop accusing one another of being protectionists. And let us agree that U.S. trade policy – writing the rules of globalization to protect our national interests and our communities – is worthy of a vigorous national debate.
Readers of this blog know that I've made this repeated argument--that we should debate trade and the rules being set up, not dumb marketing phrases like "free trade". Good for Sherrod for pushing this point.
Democratic Super Delegates and Trade
John Tusani bring this article to you discussing what the Super Delegates might be thinking. If only it comes out to be true.
I've said before that I believe that the Democratic nomination fight is over, though the hype may drag on for a bit. But, a nice chunk of super delegates--perhaps as many as a dozen or more--may make their choice based on where the candidates stand on trade. And that's a good sign for people who actually care about choices made on the basis of issues.
In early March, I pointed out that Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (both from Ohio) were remaining undecided because they wanted to actually get a very clear understanding of where the candidates stood on trade, particularly on the fate of the so-called "free trade" agreement with Colombia. Congressional Quarterly reported earlier this week that:
According to one list, there are 21 House Democrats in the group of lawmakers that wants to force the candidates to take detailed stands on a series of trade issues such as how they would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, whether they would address trade disparities the lawmakers attribute to the use of value-added taxes in foreign countries, how they would use the tax code to encourage American businesses to keep facilities in the United States, and what steps they would take to create jobs by investing in domestic infrastructure needs.
The group still includes at least 12 undecided lawmakers: Kaptur, Reps Michael H. Michaud of Maine, Bart Stupak of Michigan (who will only be a superdelegate if the Democratic Party seats a delegation from his home state), Joe Donnelly and Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana, Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon, Jason Altmire and Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania, John Sarbanes of Maryland, Ciro D. Rodriguez of Texas, Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.
Of particular interest is Heath Shuler, not simply because of the upcoming primary in North Carolina. In the 2006 midterm elections, Shuler won in the 11th congressional district by beating incumbent Charles Taylor, in no small part because of Taylor's failure to vote against the so-called "free trade" Central American Free Trade Agreement. Shuler ran two television ads on trade policy during his campaign.
In Indiana, in 2006, Joe Donnelly defeated incumbent Chris Chocola, who supported so-called "free trade" deals like NAFTA, and Brad Ellsworth won his seat in the 8th Congressional district by campaigning against expansions of so-called "free trade".
All this is good news. One of the things that we can take from this election cycle is that we are winning the campaign to move to a much more saner discussion and policy on trade and globalization. It's clear that the Democratic Party candidates, from the outset, have understood that the voters are much more advanced in their grasp of the damage being done by so-called "free trade" (whether the candidates have truly changed their position or not is a different issue). If you want to judge by the results in 2006, expanding majorities in Congress, in the House and the Senate, will be easier if the Democratic Party's candidates reject so-called "free trade" and pledge to embrace a sane approach to globalization and trade--not just because of the moral imperative but as a matter of electoral realities since even Republicans are opposed to so-called "free trade".
So, while I find the machinations and hype over the the race-that-is-over pretty boring, there is a lot of hope to be found in the bubbling up of voter sentiment reflected in the dynamics of the political insider game.
I've said before that I believe that the Democratic nomination fight is over, though the hype may drag on for a bit. But, a nice chunk of super delegates--perhaps as many as a dozen or more--may make their choice based on where the candidates stand on trade. And that's a good sign for people who actually care about choices made on the basis of issues.
In early March, I pointed out that Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (both from Ohio) were remaining undecided because they wanted to actually get a very clear understanding of where the candidates stood on trade, particularly on the fate of the so-called "free trade" agreement with Colombia. Congressional Quarterly reported earlier this week that:
According to one list, there are 21 House Democrats in the group of lawmakers that wants to force the candidates to take detailed stands on a series of trade issues such as how they would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, whether they would address trade disparities the lawmakers attribute to the use of value-added taxes in foreign countries, how they would use the tax code to encourage American businesses to keep facilities in the United States, and what steps they would take to create jobs by investing in domestic infrastructure needs.
The group still includes at least 12 undecided lawmakers: Kaptur, Reps Michael H. Michaud of Maine, Bart Stupak of Michigan (who will only be a superdelegate if the Democratic Party seats a delegation from his home state), Joe Donnelly and Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana, Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon, Jason Altmire and Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania, John Sarbanes of Maryland, Ciro D. Rodriguez of Texas, Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.
Of particular interest is Heath Shuler, not simply because of the upcoming primary in North Carolina. In the 2006 midterm elections, Shuler won in the 11th congressional district by beating incumbent Charles Taylor, in no small part because of Taylor's failure to vote against the so-called "free trade" Central American Free Trade Agreement. Shuler ran two television ads on trade policy during his campaign.
In Indiana, in 2006, Joe Donnelly defeated incumbent Chris Chocola, who supported so-called "free trade" deals like NAFTA, and Brad Ellsworth won his seat in the 8th Congressional district by campaigning against expansions of so-called "free trade".
All this is good news. One of the things that we can take from this election cycle is that we are winning the campaign to move to a much more saner discussion and policy on trade and globalization. It's clear that the Democratic Party candidates, from the outset, have understood that the voters are much more advanced in their grasp of the damage being done by so-called "free trade" (whether the candidates have truly changed their position or not is a different issue). If you want to judge by the results in 2006, expanding majorities in Congress, in the House and the Senate, will be easier if the Democratic Party's candidates reject so-called "free trade" and pledge to embrace a sane approach to globalization and trade--not just because of the moral imperative but as a matter of electoral realities since even Republicans are opposed to so-called "free trade".
So, while I find the machinations and hype over the the race-that-is-over pretty boring, there is a lot of hope to be found in the bubbling up of voter sentiment reflected in the dynamics of the political insider game.
Teamsters might be "Free At Last"
This is from John Tusani of Work Life. It is interesting but explains a little on why Obama got the Teamster endorsement.
The Wall Street Journal has this interesting story today:
Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.
And...
Neither Sen. Obama nor Teamsters President James P. Hoffa has spoken publicly about easing up federal oversight, a top priority for Mr. Hoffa since he became union president in 1999. On the campaign trail, Mr. Hoffa stresses Sen. Obama's criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement as the big factor in winning the 1.4-million member union's support.
But John Coli, vice president for the Teamsters central region, who brokered the Teamsters endorsement, said Sen. Obama was "pretty definitive that the time had come to start the beginning of the end" of the three-member independent review board that investigates suspect activity in the union. Mr. Coli said that Sen. Obama conveyed that view in a series of phone conversations and meetings with Teamsters officials last year.
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board "has run its course," because "organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined." Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year.
The promise to end the government oversight, according to the article, had nothing to do with the Teamsters' endorsement of Obama:...split...
Bret Caldwell, a Teamsters spokesman, said the union's endorsement was "predicated in no way, shape or form" on the consent decree. Mr. Caldwell said that only a court can do away with the oversight, not the president. "The only way that this is going to be resolved is through the court system, there can't be a political solution," he said.
But Mr. Caldwell said the president could appoint people to the Justice Department and courts who also favored ending the consent decree.
"It certainly wouldn't hurt to have a president who came out and said that they would support getting the oversight out of our union," Mr. Caldwell said.
The oversight of the Teamsters dates back to 1989 when the union's leadership agreed to the deal:
The consent decree required the direct election of the union president and other officers by rank and file members, in an election overseen by a court-appointed election officer. (Before, the president was elected by delegates.) It also set up a three-member independent review board to investigate corruption within the union. These elements of the decree are in effect today, while others, like oversight of union finances, have ended.
As an aside, it needs to be pointed out that a number of unions conduct their elections via the convention route, not by direct membership election. I've heard the arguments pro and con on convention elections versus direct membership vote and I don't think that either is the panacea of necessarily better than the other.
The real question is: should the oversight end? It costs the Teamsters $6 million per year to keep up with the decrees' demands. On the one hand, some pretty bad people have been booted out of the union and gone to prison; it's hard to argue--and I don't think that even Hoffa would argue--that that would have happened absent outside intervention.
On the other hand, no union should want the government--given the hostility of the government to union power generally--to control how it operates and have access to its records. And this decree creates some pretty onerous and even preposterous situations that, in the real world, civil libertarians would be up in arms over--there are numerous instances of people being suspended from office for pretty minor things and one would even say acts that amount to having had innocent conversations with people they've known for years.
When is the job done?
View article...
The Wall Street Journal has this interesting story today:
Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.
And...
Neither Sen. Obama nor Teamsters President James P. Hoffa has spoken publicly about easing up federal oversight, a top priority for Mr. Hoffa since he became union president in 1999. On the campaign trail, Mr. Hoffa stresses Sen. Obama's criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement as the big factor in winning the 1.4-million member union's support.
But John Coli, vice president for the Teamsters central region, who brokered the Teamsters endorsement, said Sen. Obama was "pretty definitive that the time had come to start the beginning of the end" of the three-member independent review board that investigates suspect activity in the union. Mr. Coli said that Sen. Obama conveyed that view in a series of phone conversations and meetings with Teamsters officials last year.
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board "has run its course," because "organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined." Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year.
The promise to end the government oversight, according to the article, had nothing to do with the Teamsters' endorsement of Obama:...split...
Bret Caldwell, a Teamsters spokesman, said the union's endorsement was "predicated in no way, shape or form" on the consent decree. Mr. Caldwell said that only a court can do away with the oversight, not the president. "The only way that this is going to be resolved is through the court system, there can't be a political solution," he said.
But Mr. Caldwell said the president could appoint people to the Justice Department and courts who also favored ending the consent decree.
"It certainly wouldn't hurt to have a president who came out and said that they would support getting the oversight out of our union," Mr. Caldwell said.
The oversight of the Teamsters dates back to 1989 when the union's leadership agreed to the deal:
The consent decree required the direct election of the union president and other officers by rank and file members, in an election overseen by a court-appointed election officer. (Before, the president was elected by delegates.) It also set up a three-member independent review board to investigate corruption within the union. These elements of the decree are in effect today, while others, like oversight of union finances, have ended.
As an aside, it needs to be pointed out that a number of unions conduct their elections via the convention route, not by direct membership election. I've heard the arguments pro and con on convention elections versus direct membership vote and I don't think that either is the panacea of necessarily better than the other.
The real question is: should the oversight end? It costs the Teamsters $6 million per year to keep up with the decrees' demands. On the one hand, some pretty bad people have been booted out of the union and gone to prison; it's hard to argue--and I don't think that even Hoffa would argue--that that would have happened absent outside intervention.
On the other hand, no union should want the government--given the hostility of the government to union power generally--to control how it operates and have access to its records. And this decree creates some pretty onerous and even preposterous situations that, in the real world, civil libertarians would be up in arms over--there are numerous instances of people being suspended from office for pretty minor things and one would even say acts that amount to having had innocent conversations with people they've known for years.
When is the job done?
View article...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
