Democrats play politics with trade. America may end up paying the price.

[GaryC 7]

Smoot-Chavez

Democrats play politics with trade. America may end up paying the price.

April 7, 2008

Trade legislation debates are usually about dry-as-dust topics like reciprocity and dumping. But sometimes they really matter. Take the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which the Bush administration will send to Congress this week. If Congress rejects it, the loss wouldn't be just measured in dollors or pesos. It could have profound geopolitical effects that would hurt the U.S.

Colombia is a democratic ally of the U.S. in a tough neighborhood. Alvaro Uribe, its president, has been battling a left-wing insurgency that has used kidnapping, murder and drug trafficking in an attempt to overthrow his government. An impressive body of evidence shows the insurgents, known as the FARC, have been encouraged and financed by Venezuela's strongman, Hugo Chavez. Mr. Chavez, who already has allies in charge of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, would love to extend his influence in Latin America.

The trade agreement shouldn't be controversial. Colombia's economy is doing well, with growth rates of some 6% a year, and more than 90% of its exports to the U.S. already are duty-free under previous agreements. The new proposed trade pact would strip dozens of high tariffs Colombia erects to restrict the flow of U.S. goods and services in.

American unions demanded that the agreement incorporate labor and environmental standards. They got their wish, but that wasn't enough for some unions, which leaned on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to make opposition to the agreement a theme of their presidential campaigns.

* * *

Although Mrs. Clinton has long been a fierce critic of the accord, it was revealed last week that her top strategist Mark Penn was hired by the Colombian government to push the agreement through. Mr. Penn promptly called a recent meeting he had with Colombian officials on the agreement an "error in judgment" and promptly left their employ. Yesterday he quit the campaign too.

The agreement's supporters held out hope for Mr. Obama. But faced with a critical primary in heavily unionized Pennsylvania later this month, Mr. Obama took the occasion of his speech before the AFL-CIO convention in Philadelphia last week to announce that he too would oppose it. "The violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements," he said.

But in truth, the Uribe government has made great strides in reducing violence in Colombia. Since 2001, the number of kidnappings has dropped by over 80%, acts of terror are down over 75%, and the murder rate associated with trade unionists is down almost 80%.

President Uribe made clear how disappointed he was that the Democratic front-runner had chosen domestic politics over geopolitical stability: "I deplore the fact that Sen. Obama . . . should be unaware of Colombia's efforts," he said in a statement. "I think it is for political calculations that he is making a statement that does not correspond to Colombia's reality."

The simple truth is that the opposition to the trade agreement--from the Democratic presidential contenders to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi--has nothing to do with reality. Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, admitted as much recently: "It's not the substance on the ground--it's the politics in the air."

* * *

There was another period when raw politics was allowed to trump what many in Congress privately admitted was common sense. In the spring of 1930, as the economic downturn set off by the previous year's stock market crash set in, Congress was debating the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill that sought to raise U.S. import barriers to record levels.

Most of the leading economists of the day opposed Smoot-Hawley. A front-page New York Times headline on May 5, 1930, read: "1,028 Economists Ask Hoover to Veto Pending Tariff Bill." But for entirely selfish and shortsighted reasons, both Congress and President Hoover went along with the protectionist hysteria. As a result, the Great Depression was probably deepened and extended for years.

Today, another no-brainer trade vote is before Congress. The foreign-policy benefits of the agreement are immense and the economic costs are minimal. "This is a test of whether the Democratic Congress is ready to accept the responsibilities of the majority," says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.

Everyone plays politics with trade. But there are times when the stakes are too important. The Colombia agreement is another example of when politics must take a back seat for a larger good. We certainly know how Hugo Chavez is rooting for the congressional vote to turn out.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1207512991...political_diary

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

[GaryC 7]

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

I would argue with it in fact. Much of the problems Bush is dealing with started or got worse with the last dem in the white house. I am very worried. Obama will be very bad for this country IMO.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Somehow the Union manages to survive no matter who is in the White House...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

I would argue with it in fact. Much of the problems Bush is dealing with started or got worse with the last dem in the white house.

That's a fairy tale. Bush inherited a balanced budget. The National debt clock was turned off under Clinton. Things were going well. Yes, there was an economic slowdown at the end of Slick's term and the 9/11 attacks didn't exactly help get the economy back on track. But Bush's been fcuking up things all on his own from there forward. The huge deficits and the resulting current economic crisis was not made by Clinton, my friend.

[GaryC 7]

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

I would argue with it in fact. Much of the problems Bush is dealing with started or got worse with the last dem in the white house.

That's a fairy tale. Bush inherited a balanced budget. The National debt clock was turned off under Clinton. Things were going well. Yes, there was an economic slowdown at the end of Slick's term and the 9/11 attacks didn't exactly help get the economy back on track. But Bush's been fcuking up things all on his own from there forward. The huge deficits and the resulting current economic crisis was not made by Clinton, my friend.

The balanced budget was based on the fantacy of the internet bubble. There was never a real balanced budget. The eggs that Bubba layed hatched and came home to roost when Bush came to office.

[Dan J 277]

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

I would argue with it in fact. Much of the problems Bush is dealing with started or got worse with the last dem in the white house.

That's a fairy tale. Bush inherited a balanced budget. The National debt clock was turned off under Clinton. Things were going well. Yes, there was an economic slowdown at the end of Slick's term and the 9/11 attacks didn't exactly help get the economy back on track. But Bush's been fcuking up things all on his own from there forward. The huge deficits and the resulting current economic crisis was not made by Clinton, my friend.

The balanced budget was based on the fantacy of the internet bubble. There was never a real balanced budget. The eggs that Bubba layed hatched and came home to roost when Bush came to office.

By that same logic, shouldnt we have had a balanced budget during the housing bubble?

[Peikko 1,575]

Wrong thread, oops!

Edited April 8, 2008 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

I would argue with it in fact. Much of the problems Bush is dealing with started or got worse with the last dem in the white house.

That's a fairy tale. Bush inherited a balanced budget. The National debt clock was turned off under Clinton. Things were going well. Yes, there was an economic slowdown at the end of Slick's term and the 9/11 attacks didn't exactly help get the economy back on track. But Bush's been fcuking up things all on his own from there forward. The huge deficits and the resulting current economic crisis was not made by Clinton, my friend.

The balanced budget was based on the fantacy of the internet bubble. There was never a real balanced budget. The eggs that Bubba layed hatched and came home to roost when Bush came to office.

You make it too easy on W here, Gary. He fcuked it up pretty good. The budget was balanced - or at the very least near balanced - whether you like it or not. Not all credit to Slick - the Republican Congress has been party to that success as well.

[Donna A 4]

why is that the first statement a republican always says, the dems fukced it up first and the republicans just had to follow the mistake. how long has bush had now to straighten up this mess clinton suposidly started?

[GaryC 7]

why is that the first statement a republican always says, the dems fukced it up first and the republicans just had to follow the mistake. how long has bush had now to straighten up this mess clinton suposidly started?

I think the last 6 years were pretty good. It's only lately that the economy has gone bad. I know I have been much better off while Bush was president than when Bubba was president. And I don't think the economy is as bad as it's made out to be.

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

I would argue with it in fact. Much of the problems Bush is dealing with started or got worse with the last dem in the white house.

That's a fairy tale. Bush inherited a balanced budget. The National debt clock was turned off under Clinton. Things were going well. Yes, there was an economic slowdown at the end of Slick's term and the 9/11 attacks didn't exactly help get the economy back on track. But Bush's been fcuking up things all on his own from there forward. The huge deficits and the resulting current economic crisis was not made by Clinton, my friend.

The balanced budget was based on the fantacy of the internet bubble. There was never a real balanced budget. The eggs that Bubba layed hatched and came home to roost when Bush came to office.

By that same logic, shouldnt we have had a balanced budget during the housing bubble?

The housing market wasn't driving the stock market like the internet bubble was. Apples and oranges.

[GaryC 7]

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

I would argue with it in fact. Much of the problems Bush is dealing with started or got worse with the last dem in the white house.

That's a fairy tale. Bush inherited a balanced budget. The National debt clock was turned off under Clinton. Things were going well. Yes, there was an economic slowdown at the end of Slick's term and the 9/11 attacks didn't exactly help get the economy back on track. But Bush's been fcuking up things all on his own from there forward. The huge deficits and the resulting current economic crisis was not made by Clinton, my friend.

The balanced budget was based on the fantacy of the internet bubble. There was never a real balanced budget. The eggs that Bubba layed hatched and came home to roost when Bush came to office.

You make it too easy on W here, Gary. He fcuked it up pretty good. The budget was balanced - or at the very least near balanced - whether you like it or not. Not all credit to Slick - the Republican Congress has been party to that success as well.

We can argue who had the better economy. For me the last 6 years were better than the 8 years Bubba was in office. But that isn't what I fault Bubba for. He turned a blind eye to the terrorist forces drawing against us. He ignored the first WTC bombing. He ignored the bombings of the African embassies. He ignored the USS Cole. He ignored the fact that UBL declared war on us. He had the chance to get him and let him go. If he had taken care of business we wouldn't have had 9/11. Without that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't have happened. So in effect a lot of the things you hate Bush for were caused by Bubba's inattention. IMO Bubba was the worst president of the 20'th century. I hope we never see the likes of him again.

[Dan J 277]

why is that the first statement a republican always says, the dems fukced it up first and the republicans just had to follow the mistake. how long has bush had now to straighten up this mess clinton suposidly started?

I think the last 6 years were pretty good. It's only lately that the economy has gone bad. I know I have been much better off while Bush was president than when Bubba was president. And I don't think the economy is as bad as it's made out to be.

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

I would argue with it in fact. Much of the problems Bush is dealing with started or got worse with the last dem in the white house.

That's a fairy tale. Bush inherited a balanced budget. The National debt clock was turned off under Clinton. Things were going well. Yes, there was an economic slowdown at the end of Slick's term and the 9/11 attacks didn't exactly help get the economy back on track. But Bush's been fcuking up things all on his own from there forward. The huge deficits and the resulting current economic crisis was not made by Clinton, my friend.

The balanced budget was based on the fantacy of the internet bubble. There was never a real balanced budget. The eggs that Bubba layed hatched and came home to roost when Bush came to office.

By that same logic, shouldnt we have had a balanced budget during the housing bubble?

The housing market wasn't driving the stock market like the internet bubble was. Apples and oranges.

Wrong. Many mortages were turned into securities that were traded just like stocks.

[GaryC 7]

why is that the first statement a republican always says, the dems fukced it up first and the republicans just had to follow the mistake. how long has bush had now to straighten up this mess clinton suposidly started?

I think the last 6 years were pretty good. It's only lately that the economy has gone bad. I know I have been much better off while Bush was president than when Bubba was president. And I don't think the economy is as bad as it's made out to be.

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

I would argue with it in fact. Much of the problems Bush is dealing with started or got worse with the last dem in the white house.

That's a fairy tale. Bush inherited a balanced budget. The National debt clock was turned off under Clinton. Things were going well. Yes, there was an economic slowdown at the end of Slick's term and the 9/11 attacks didn't exactly help get the economy back on track. But Bush's been fcuking up things all on his own from there forward. The huge deficits and the resulting current economic crisis was not made by Clinton, my friend.

The balanced budget was based on the fantacy of the internet bubble. There was never a real balanced budget. The eggs that Bubba layed hatched and came home to roost when Bush came to office.

By that same logic, shouldnt we have had a balanced budget during the housing bubble?

The housing market wasn't driving the stock market like the internet bubble was. Apples and oranges.

Wrong. Many mortages were turned into securities that were traded just like stocks.

But the internet bubble was purely stocks. Apples and oranges. You need to understand the past a little better Dan. But I guess you were to young then to really understand.

[Heracles 417]

The country did just fine with the last Democrat in the White House - arguably a heck of a lot better than with the current Republican administration. You really ought to stop worrying about it so much.

Different era back then. Almost a different game. Russia was bankrupt. While China and India where unheard of.

Different story now.. Even Russia is coming back strong.