|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 11, 2007 17:18:11 GMT -6
The best current commentary of the latest free trade info and potential Democratic sellout of workers comes from David Sirota. Sirota is keeping up with the latest in this new "trade deal" between Democratic legislator elites (Pelosi, Rangel, Levin, McDermott, Baucus, et al. Though there has been much commentary about the latest trade "agreement" between the White House and Dem elites, there are no details available. I recommend going directly to Sirota's site to get the latest information.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 12, 2007 15:30:13 GMT -6
I thought it might help to post Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown's comments about Friday, May 11th's Free Trade "Agreement" (Sell-Out) between Democratic leaders and the Bush dictatorship. This comes from David Sirota's Working for Change forum. " Friday, May 11, 2007
Sherrod Brown: "I Have Significant Concerns" About Secret Democratic-Bush Trade Deal
This press release just came out from the office of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), one of the leading fair traders in Congress and the author of the book "The Myths of Free Trade":
"Yesterday’s announcement by Chairman Rangel, Chairman Levin, Chairman Baucus and Ambassador Schwab is the result of millions of voters speaking out in November against a fundamentally-flawed trade policy. It is the result of the largest ever bipartisan coalition formed against the NAFTA-model trade pact. It is the result of tireless efforts by fair trade advocates in the U.S. and across the globe fighting every day for a new direction in trade. The proposed changes recognize the inherent flaws in the current approach to trade and signal some willingness to address long- held concerns over labor and environmental standards. However, I have significant concerns about the enforceability of the changes. Given the administration’s failure to act against on known violations in Jordan and China, among other nations, those concerns are well founded. Time will tell whether yesterday is the beginning of efforts toward a better trade model or just a brief tactical retreat on the part of the administration. I look forward to reviewing the changes in these agreements in their entirety, and working with my colleagues on a trade policy that is acceptable to the millions of voters who sent us to Congress."
Still no word on the full details of the trade deal.
Posted by David Sirota at 3:31 PM" Sirota's post is also available at www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/sherrod_brown_i_have_significa.html
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 17, 2007 17:55:08 GMT -6
Below is an excerpt from David Sirota's "Working Assets" forum on the Democrats' Free Trade Sellout from 5/16/07. " Six days after the press conference announcing a secret free trade deal between Democratic congressional leaders and the Bush White House, a full-scale revolt appears to be brewing on Capitol Hill. Rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers have demanded an immediate debate about the deal, and Democratic leaders have responded by rejecting such a request. A top Democratic senator says K Street is receiving a "wink and nod" from the White House that the final legislative language - which has not been made public - will allow the Bush administration to avoid enforcing any of the much-touted standards in the deal. GOP leaders, meanwhile, are signaling that the deal will not be incorporated into the core text of trade agreements at all. And, of course, almost every news outlet has refused to report that top K Street lobbyists have said they have received "assurances" that the deal's provisions on labor and the environment will be unenforceable. Here's today's full news report.
EMANUEL NIXES DEMS' DEMAND FOR OPEN DEBATE ON THE SECRET DEAL: As first reported on this website yesterday, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) nixed a bid by rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers to hold a Democratic Caucus meeting to discuss the secret trade deal. The request, first made by lawmakers in a letter to Emanuel last week, was initially "rebuffed," then accepted, and then at the last minute, Emanuel pulled the plug. Emanuel was one of the key players in pushing NAFTA through Congress as an aide to President Clinton in the early 1990s. Responding to the reporting of this story, a spokeswoman for Emanuel's office this morning emailed me to say that the cancellation of the trade debate occurred because of "time constraints" and that Emanuel has now promised the caucus "we would continue with our plan to have a trade-focused caucus meeting soon." He did not set a date certain for that meeting.
GOP AND WHITE HOUSE SAY TRADE DEALS WILL NOT BE RE-WRITTEN AS PROMISED: Yesterday afternoon, industry newsletter Inside U.S. Trade reported that House Ways and Means Ranking Member Jim McCrery (R-LA) "said it is his preference and that of U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab that the new obligations for free trade agreements announced last week not lead to a reopening of the Peru free trade agreement." This follow's McCrery's claim yesterday that the secret deal can be completed "in a way that does not require Peru's political system to revisit the deal all over again." In laymans terms, the enforceability of the promised labor and environmental provisions hinge on the Peru and Panama free trade agreements being reopened so that their texts can be modified. As NAFTA has shown, so-called "side agreements" that are not written into the text of the actual trade texts have proven entirely unenforceable because they are not part of the core agreement. If the Peru and Panama deals are not, in fact, going to be reopened and renegotiated, then the highly touted promises of adding enforceable labor and environmental provisions to the core texts of trade agreements appear to be in question. This may explain why the Bush-connected head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has told reporters he has received "assurances that the labor provisions [in the deal] cannot be read to require compliance."
KOREAN GOVERNMENT SAYS IT WILL REFUSE TO RENEGOTIATE: The Korea Herald reports that "South Korean negotiators are not going to give in to a possible request by U.S. trade negotiators for renegotiations of their recently concluded bilateral free trade agreement." The secret deal would supposedly require South Korea to add labor and environmental provisions to a previously negotiated - but not yet ratified - trade agreement with the United States. But "the Korean government firmly says renegotiations are out of the question."..." The remainder of the article can be found at David Sirota's Working Assets forum at the following link Free Trade Sellout.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on May 18, 2007 10:45:23 GMT -6
Emmanuel is a complete sell out. He sounds more like a republican than a democrat stifling debate.
He is not just a traitor to his party but country as well.
He should be a major target for defeat at the hands of a populist canididate in the next election..
He is clearly not representing the interests of the IL citizens, a state that has been one of the hardest hit by the negatives of "free" trade.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 22, 2007 13:46:08 GMT -6
Below is an excerpt from David Sirota's Working Assets Forum detailing the latest news in the trade sellout by the Democratic leadership. " The White House now says the secret trade deal between a handful of Democratic congressional leaders and Bush administration officials will most likely not mean adding labor and environmental standards into the core text of trade agreements, but instead will mean merely unenforceable NAFTA-esque "side agreements" or even weaker "letters" of understanding. A group of House Democrats is responding to the secret deal by demanding a hearing on a resolution that would prevent Democratic leaders from bringing fast track to the floor of the House if a majority of Democrats oppose it. And the pundit attack machine pushing the deal is out in full force. "Journalists" Cokie and Steve Roberts say "Democrats can't afford to listen to the labor movement" and Clinton administration free trade architect Gene Sperling praises Democratic dealmakers for triangulating against their own party. Here's today's update.
WHITE HOUSE SAYS DEAL WILL NOT BE PUT IN TRADE PACTS' CORE TEXT, BUT WILL MOST LIKELY END UP BEING "SIDE AGREEMENTS" OR "LETTERS": Industry newsletter Inside U.S. Trade provides clues as to why so many K Street corporate lobbyists are saying they have been given "assurances" that the much-touted labor and environmental provisions in the secret deal will end up being unenforceable. The newsletter reports that the White House is looking for ways to make sure the trade deal does not force a "reopening [of] the Peru and Colombia free trade agreements." Business sources tell the newsletter that "they have received signals from USTR this week that one possible way to approach the issue would be an exchange of letters" - a potentially weaker route than even the NAFTA side agreements, which proved to be unenforceable because they were not written into the pact's core text. This approach is sure to raise the ire of many of the most powerful fair trade lawmakers in Congress. Just last week, five senators held a press conference to attack the concept of "side agreements" or "letters" with Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) saying, "If the plan is to offer side deals, then nothing new is on the table except a $5.00 Rolex." To date, the draft legislative language of the deal remains secret, and Inside U.S. Trade has previously reported that Democrats are delegating responsibility to the White House to finalize the legislative language.
FAIR TRADE DEMS CRAFTING RESOLUTION AS HOUSE LEADERS STILL PREVENTING OPEN DEBATE: Inside U.S. Trade reports that "House Democrats critical of the process that led to the announcement of last week's free trade agreement template are still waiting for the leadership to allow the detailed discussion on trade they are demanding in the caucus." Said Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH): "We are still trying to figure out what the deal is." A May 22nd meeting has been tentatively scheduled and "would provide an opportunity for discussion of a resolution proposed by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA)" stating "that Congress should not consider any extension of trade promotion authority unless it is supported by a majority of Democrats."
COKIE AND STEVE ROBERTS SAY "DEMS CAN'T AFFORD TO LISTEN TO THE LABOR MOVEMENT": Millionaire "journalists" Cokie and Steve Roberts penned a syndicated column this weekend saying "Democratic leaders cannot afford to listen to the labor movement as the country approaches a major debate over trade policy." Like the rest of the country, the Roberts have not seen the legislative text of the secret deal. Nonetheless, they claim as definitive fact that "the agreement says that future trade pacts have to protect workers' rights and promote the environment" while attacking the deal's critics for being having "reactionary, head-in-the-sand views." Cokie Roberts continues to bill herself as an objective "journalist," yet in her column, she acknowledges that she is an "ardent free trader" who has "long been skeptical of including labor and environmental rules in trade deals" because she claims "they smacked too much of protectionism." She does not say whether she believes strict patent, copyright and intellectual property provisions already in trade deals "smack too much of protectionism."..." This sounds kind of like the latest Senate Comprehensive Amnesty Bill. No one knows exactly what it says, but everyone is expected to go along with it.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 23, 2007 15:04:58 GMT -6
Below is an excerpt on the latest information on the Democratic Leadership's sellout of the American worker from David Sirota's Working For Change forum. " In a stunning interview with reporters, House Democratic leaders began bragging that the reason they kept the deal secret in the first place - and perhaps the reason the legislative text of the deal remains secret - is because they feared the concessions they were making to K Street lobbyists, the Bush administration and top congressional GOP leaders would elicit opposition from the majority of their own congressional Democratic colleagues. The interview came after a contentious House Democratic Caucus meeting where these leaders faced angry colleagues who are now resorting to coordinated House and Senate floor speeches to shine a light on the deal. Meanwhile, Colombia's president, who has been connected to paramilitary gangs assassinating union organizers, is coming back to Washington in the wake of the deal to attempt to seal final approval for the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Here is today's report.
RANGEL BRAGS THAT DEALMAKERS PRIORITIZED GOP AND K STREET CONCERNS OVER DEM CAUCUS: CongressDaily reports that Rangel bragged to reporters that the reason dealmakers kept negotiations secret - and perhaps the reason why the legislative language remains secret - is because they feared rank-and-file Democrats would oppose the concessions that were needed to appease the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, GOP Sen. Charles Grassley (IA), GOP Rep. Jim McCrery (LA) and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), who last year traveled to India to trumpet job outsourcing. "Every time we had them all together, someone jumped off," Rangel told reporters after the meeting, referring to that group. "So we said, we can't wait for the Caucus. When we got everybody holding hands, bam! Seal it and catch hell. We did both." The fact that Rangel now admits the Chamber of Commerce was so intimately involved in the negotiations may explain why the Chamber continues to say it has received "assurances" that the much-touted labor provisions in the deal will be rendered unenforceable.
REUTERS/BLOOMBERG - DEM LEADERS FACE "HOSTILE" COLLEAGUES "ANGRY" ABOUT THE TRADE DEAL: Both Reuters and Bloomberg News report that House Democratic leaders yesterday faced "hostile" rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers at a Democratic Caucus meeting forced on them after the leadership tried to prevent such a meeting from happening. These rank-and-file Democrats are "angry" that the deal fails to de-NAFTA-ize trade pacts, and that even the few standards that may be added to new trade deals will be rendered unenforceable. In both stories, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is claiming that opposition to the deal is coming from just a small number of Democrats at the very same time that Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) admitted to David Broder last week that he believes about three-quarters of all Democratic lawmakers could end up opposing it.
FAIR TRADE DEMS TAKE PROTEST TO THE HOUSE FLOOR: In a series of coordinated speeches on the House floor this week, a group of fair trade Democrats berated the secret deal and the secrecy surrounding it. The move was led by Illinois Rep. Phil Hare (D) and included speeches from Reps. Lipinski (IL), Ellison (MN), Sherman (CA), Schakowsky (IL), Sutton (OH) and Michaud (ME). You can read the speeches here...." The full article by David Sirota can be found at David Sirota's Working For Change.
|
|
|
Post by judes on May 23, 2007 18:32:56 GMT -6
Argh, this whole thing just infuriates me, I am disgusted. What is the point of electing representatives if it only takes a handful to make laws in secret meetings. I really don't understand how this is anything close to representing a democracy. Is this one of the benefits of Bushs fast track authority? I'm really confused how this works. If our trade policies don't change fast we are in deep doo doo, and it doesn't look like it's ever going to change.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 25, 2007 15:04:14 GMT -6
Argh, this whole thing just infuriates me, I am disgusted. What is the point of electing representatives if it only takes a handful to make laws in secret meetings. I'm with you on that sentiment. As if things weren't bad enough already, it appears Hillary Clinton has actually accepted money (bribes?) from the Columbian government to push "free" trade policies with Columbia. Below is an excerpt from David Sirota's latest commentary on this: " Well, it’s a bad week, and the hits just keep on coming. In a stunning new report from the Associated Press, we find out that the Colombian Government - the government that the Washington Post notes collaborates with paramilitary gangs to execute union leaders - is now paying top aides to Sen. Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to help get Congress to pass the U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement:
“According to Justice Department filings, Colombia agreed this month to pay $300,000 to public relations firm Burson-Marsteller - whose president, Mark Penn, is a senior advisor to Sen. Clinton - to help “educate members of the U.S. Congress and other audiences” about the trade deal and secure continued U.S. funding for the $5 billion anti-narcotics program Plan Colombia.The filings also show that last month Uribe’s government put The Glover Park Group, a Washington D.C.-based lobbying firm that includes former Clinton spokesman Joe Lockhart, on a $40,000 a month retainer.”..." Sirota's full commentary can be found at davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/05/25/ap-clinton-aides-being-paid-by-colombian-government-to-push-trade-deal/
|
|
|
Post by judes on May 25, 2007 15:22:10 GMT -6
Is there any end to the corruption? It's no surprise Hillary would be a sell out, her husband sold us out on trade too. I don't think I can vote for any of the candidates running. What is John Edwards stance on trade? I can only find sound bites no real substance. This oligarchy we have is getting worse and worse, I'm beginning to question if voting even matters anymore?
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 25, 2007 20:45:56 GMT -6
Is there any end to the corruption? It's no surprise Hillary would be a sell out, her husband sold us out on trade too. That's my thinking as well. It sounds like we'd get Bill's free trade advocacy with a Hillary Clinton Presidency. I don't think I can vote for any of the candidates running. I'm having trouble with that also. Right now I'm leaning towards Ron Paul. What is John Edwards stance on trade? I can only find sound bites no real substance. I'd like to know where Edwards stands on trade myself. I thought I knew, but he's said nothing whatsoever on the subject. This oligarchy we have is getting worse and worse, I'm beginning to question if voting even matters anymore? I agree that the oligarchy (or plutocracy) is getting worse. It's now metastasized into the Democratic Party. Again, it looks like the only non-plutocratic, non-oligarchic candidate running is Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinich would also fit the bill (though I disagree with his pro-amnesty position.) Eventually we're going to have to have a 3rd party. And we also need 100% public financing of elections. And candidates need to be strictly limited as to how much money they can spend, regardless of where it comes from. The amount of money currently available for campaigning results in nothing except more misinforming and dis-informing of the American public. There is too much meaningless non-informative political propaganda, and too little honest statement of positions on issues. We need public financing, and the limits need to be much lower than they are now. More is not better in this case. More simply leads to more spin, more distortion, and more outright lies.
|
|
|
Post by judes on May 25, 2007 22:06:35 GMT -6
I'm having trouble with that also. Right now I'm leaning towards Ron Paul. Yeah, I like his view on some issues, but I'm having problems with others. I read somewhere he didn't like tarriffs on imports, can't remember where. And some of his tax and social policies bother me. Eventually we're going to have to have a 3rd party. And we also need 100% public financing of elections. And candidates need to be strictly limited as to how much money they can spend, regardless of where it comes from. The amount of money currently available for campaigning results in nothing except more misinforming and dis-informing of the American public. Agreed, the other day on Lou Dobbs they had a survey that showed about 40% or so (cant remember exact) of people identify as independents. It was higher than either of the other partys. So now is the time for a party for the people, by the people. I wonder what Ross Perot is doing these days? I voted for him both times he ran back in the day because of his stance on trade. I was listening first hand to the swishing sound of jobs leaving even back then as he was campaigning. There is too much meaningless non-informative political propaganda, and too little honest statement of positions on issues. We need public financing, and the limits need to be much lower than they are now. More is not better in this case. More simply leads to more spin, more distortion, and more outright lies. I agree with the public financing too. As it is now, there is absolutely no chance a normal, non-wealthy concerned citizen that identifies with the masses could ever hold office. Another statistic I heard the other day, over 50% of our congress are millionaires yet only about 1% of the total population are millionaires, hows that for skewed representation?
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on May 25, 2007 22:43:54 GMT -6
You can bet most of the Congress weren't millionaires before they got elected.
Seeing the Dems cave on Iraq funding, seeing Gonzo survive, and the staunch anti-alien Senators like Sessions looking to cave on amnesty makes me wonder if Bush's illegal wiretapping wasn't aimed first at Congress people and their staffs. How else could Bush win on these things, except by extortion?
GB
|
|
|
Post by judes on May 26, 2007 7:10:11 GMT -6
Ok, I found this article by Ron Paul. And he clearly is against NAFTA, CAFTA etc. But to me it isn't for the right reasons. He is against it because it creates more government, which in itself isn't bad, but he says we don't need those orginazations to have free unrestricted trade. Basically just let any country trade with us without tariffs and no government intervention. Some of his views seem extreme to me. www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 26, 2007 13:21:22 GMT -6
Judes,
Thanks for finding that article. It was very informative. I definitely do not like the sound of Paul's underlying reasoning on tariffs. Paul's idea that we can let other countries put tariffs on our goods, and not put tariffs on those countries' imports into the United State, is not reasonable. It'll simply cause American Multinationals to move their production facilities overseas to take advantage of 3rd world wages, and then ship those cheap-labor produced goods back to the United States without tariffs. Along the same lines, American investors will put their money into foreign production facilities, as returns will be higher on those investments if labor costs are lower, and there are no tariffs on those goods when they are imported into the United States.
I agree that Paul's stated reasons for opposing free trade agreements are terrible. However, there is one good side to his trade position. He strongly believes Congress has the sole authority to regulate trade policy, as is specified in the Constitution. What Paul did not exactly say, but did imply, is that it is only Congress that should determine whether tariffs are used or not. Thus a "President" Paul would not be writing trade regulations, only Congress. And though a "President" Paul could veto a tariff he didn't like, I suspect he would not do so in most cases.
Needless to say, Paul opposes presidential Fast-Track authority. No trade agreements should be rammed through Congress without any amendments. In fact, trade pacts should originate in Congress, not in the White House.
It's also worth considering the "extremeness" of Paul's opposition to current "free" trade legislation. Paul doesn't think we just need to "revise" or "rewrite" any of these agreements. He believes we need to throw them all out-- NAFTA, CAFTA, China PNTR, the WTO, and all the rest. To my knowledge, he's the only candidate who'd go that far. I completely agree with him there.
I agree with him on his opposition to the WTO, as well as his reasoning that it allows WTO decisions to supersede U.S. legislation. I partially agree with his general sentiment about the International Labor Organization. But under present conditions, I disagree that we should not use their standards. (Putting ILO standards in free trade agreements is better than nothing at all. But I'd prefer we simply made no more "free" trade agreements at all.)
Ron Paul most likely opposes all government agencies and policies that facilitate outsourcing, such as the export-import bank, and tax breaks that encourage outsourcing. Paul would probably not be pounding the pavement to get other countries to "liberalize" their markets to American investment. (This is simply my own guess, however.) And without such "liberalization," America's outsourcing-induced jobs losses would never have occurred, even without tariffs. The capital needed to build competing foreign production facilities would not have been available without American investors. (60% of China's production facilities are foreign owned. Without foreign investment, especially American, there would have been little competition from cheap-labor produced Chinese goods.)
To some extent, one must consider Paul using an old adage: "Actions speak louder than words." Or the reverse of another old adage "Do as I do, not as I say." Paul's actual votes on trade have been highly favorable to American workers, regardless of the reasoning behind them.
Again, I share Paul's general anti-globalist views, and his opposition to anything leading to a Globalist One-World government.
In general, I agree with Paul's trade positions, but I disagree with much of his reasoning. I believe a Paul presidency would be better for American workers than that of any other possible candidate, based on his unwavering opposition to all free trade agreements, and his opposition to unrestricted illegal immigration.
To me, Paul's biggest shortcomings are his view on taxes. However, it's worth pointing out that no other current candidates, other than John Edwards, are even talking about reversing Bush's reverse Robin Hood tax cuts. As a result, the effect of a Paul presidency on tax policy would likely be no different than that of any of the other candidates, including Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by judes on May 28, 2007 8:49:22 GMT -6
Yes, you make some good point, which I will consider. There is still some time, I will be keeping my eye on the cadidates.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 28, 2007 16:37:43 GMT -6
I'm still hoping Edwards will separate himself from that pack and denounce outsourcing and unrestricted free trade. Why he hasn't said something about this is still a mystery to me. I hope he hasn't gone over to the dark side on the trade issue.
|
|
|
Post by Grapple on Jun 4, 2007 9:55:49 GMT -6
If Government is not there to protect the people what purpose does government have?
Under Cokie’s ideas we should disband the police, fire department, military, etc etc because “they smack too much of protectionism”.
Now you can argue about the level of protectionism but to dismiss it out of hand is to dismiss government. Especially since if you are going to get rid of labor and environmental rules in trade deals why not get rid of them in the USA as well since if you are allowed to import any product no matter how it is made then such products will undercut US manufacturing. Especially since even labeling requirements are considered to be too much an interference for the “free trade” globalist true believers.
Hey I wonder if Cokie will mind if I build a sweatshop next to her Washington home since she loves “free trade” so much.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 9, 2007 16:56:07 GMT -6
David Sirota has posted some good news at his site on free trade. It appears both Hillary Clinton & John Edwards oppose the Korean Free Trade DealThis bill was part of the secret pact negotiated by the Democratic sell-outs in the latest trade "deal" with the Bush plutocracy. Hopefully Clinton's and Edward's opposition here is representative of their future positions on globalization and free trade sellouts. But I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 13, 2007 4:02:31 GMT -6
Below is an excerpt from David Sirota's Working Assets forum, titled SECRET TRADE DEAL - DAY 29: Can the Clinton Machine Get Congress to Deliver Another NAFTA?, discussing Hillary Clinton's collusion with Corporate America's globalists in the latest trade "negotiations." " This is another in a series of ongoing posts following the announcement of a secret free trade deal on May 10, 2007 between a handful of senior Democrats and the Bush administration. That deal encompasses free trade agreements with Peru, Panama, South Korea and Colombia, and is designed to pave the pay for the passage of presidential fast track authority - the authority that lets presidents eliminate all labor, environmental and human rights provisions from trade agreements.
Can the Clinton machine deliver another NAFTA? That is the question in Washington on trade these days, as dynamics similar to the NAFTA debate begins to take shape. The Colombian government, which has been tied to paramilitary gangs that execute union organizers, is spending lavishly to enlist top Clinton administration officials - including Hillary Clinton's top campaign strategist and President Clinton himself - to pressure Democrats on Capitol Hill to pass the Colombian Free Trade Agreement - an agreement that is part of the bigger secret deal. This campaign is being backed up by a wide array of businesses such as Wal-Mart and Citigroup. To date, the legislative language of the secret trade deal has still not been released - but that hasn't stopped the furious efforts to build a coalition of Clinton administration officials-turned-lobbyists, a handful of top Democrats in Congress and corporate interests to ram the secret deal through Congress. Here is today's report.
WSJ - COLOMBIA HIRING CLINTON-CONNECTED LOBBYISTS TO PUSH TRADE DEAL: In a situation eerily reminiscent of the merging of K Street and Democratic leaders during the push for NAFTA, the Wall Street Journal notes that currently, the Colombian government "is putting together a richly financed lobbying campaign piloted by ex-Clinton White House officials, complete with advertisements [and] a rapid-response media team," spending "about $100,000 a month" on the campaign. This is the same Colombian government that the Washington Post reports regularly colludes with right-wing paramilitary gangs to execute union organizers, and whose "U.S. ambassador acknowledges that Colombia's trade-union murder rate is the highest in the world." Additionally, Reuters notes that "Colombia remains the world's largest producer of cocaine" with the latest U.S. government figures showing the country produced "8 percent more coca leaf used to make the drug than a year earlier." Nonetheless, the campaign to award Colombia with a free trade deal is being led by "the public-relations firm of Burson-Marsteller, headed by former Clinton pollster Mark Penn, who is also a top adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign." Penn's "firm has set up a campaign-style operation to respond immediately to any critical news about Colombia." Additionally, "Glover Park Group, which includes former Clinton White House spokesman Joe Lockhart and lobbyist Susan Brophy, works on Capitol Hill with the lobbying firm of Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart Inc., including Republican Peter Madigan and another Clinton-administration lobbyist, William Danvers." Meanwhile, "a business coalition, headed by Caterpillar Inc, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Citigroup Inc., is making lobbying calls and is planning an advertising campaign to push the trade deal."
GORE REFUSES TO SHARE STAGE WITH URIBE, WHILE CLINTON ACCEPTS AWARD FROM HIM: The Wall Street Journal reports that former Vice President Al Gore "pulled out of an environmental meeting in April rather than share a stage with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe because of what a Gore spokeswoman calls the 'troubling allegations' in Colombia." By contrast, former President Clinton will accept an award from Uribe at a New York dinner in a move that is designed to serve as"a signal to Democrats that Colombia isn't politically radioactive." The Financial Times reports that Colombia's advances toward Clinton are a deliberate attempt to get him to use his political capital to steamroll Democrats in Congress as he did with NAFTA.
K STREET TARGETS SPECIFIC DEM GROUPS IN PUSH FOR SECRET DEAL: The Hill Newspaper reports that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who is under a cloud of scandal in connection to right-wing paramilitary gangs and ant-union violence, "will lobby members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition." He will also meet with Rangel, Ways and Means trade subcommittee Chairman Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and GOP Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.). His lobbying efforts are being backed up by, among others, Caterpillar, Citigroup and Wal-Mart. "The three companies chair the Latin American Trade Coalition, which will brief House staff Thursday on all three Latin American trade deals," the Hill reports. "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also preparing a campaign to push all three deals forward."..." The entire article can be found at www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/06/secret_trade_deal_day_29_can_t.html
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 29, 2007 17:48:09 GMT -6
Below is an excerpt from David Sirota's blog about today's reported trade deal victory" A major victory today for the progressive movement and millions of people represented by consumer protection, environmental, agricultural, small business, labor organizations and the courageous Members of Congress fighting the good fight: The Secret Trade Deal of 2007 has been officially delayed. Though the dealmakers are publicly claiming the deal was put off because of Peru and Panama’s domestic laws, it’s clear (not just from the late Friday press release) that K Street and their cronies in Congress are too afraid to bring the deals to the floor, for fear they will be defeated by a growing populist backlash in Congress. Here’s the scoop, fresh off the wire from Bloomberg News:
“Democratic leaders in Congress put off a vote on trade agreements with Peru and Panama until those countries revamp their laws to comply with new labor and environment standards in the accords. The demand is a blow to the Bush administration, which pressed the Democratic majority in Congress to have the Peru agreement approved next month…Two other agreements, with South Korea and Colombia, face further hurdles before Congress will consider them, the Democrats said. Even though Pelosi and Rangel worked out an agreement with the administration last month to revamp the four pending free-trade agreements, they aren’t assured passage in Congress. Many Democrats say they won’t support those or any other agreements reached by the Bush administration. ‘We need to play defense against all these agreements,’ Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, said yesterday.”
In the same story, though, we see exactly why we have to keep the pressure on - namely because they still intend to ultimately try to ram the deal through, even though it delegates all power to enforce the much-touted new labor and environmental provisions to the Bush White House. This delay represents fear - a fear by the handful of Democrats who agreed to this deal, by the Bush White House and by corporate lobbyists that if they try to pass this deal into law right now, it will be defeated. That we’ve created that fear is an incredible step forward - but you can bet the forces pushing this deal will be spending the next few months doing whatever they can to steamroll the opposition:
“Representative Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, will lead a delegation oflawmakers to those countries in August to help them work through those changes, Democrats said in a statement. ‘We are hopeful that this trip will lead to the swift passage this fall in Peru and Panama of the necessary legislation to change laws and implement fully the respective agreements,'’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rangel and other Democratic leaders said in a joint statement today.”...
Public Citizen’s Lori Wallach is going to be on Bill Moyers PBS show tonight to update us on the Secret Trade Deal of 2007. Check local listings - and tune in!"
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 1, 2007 11:33:48 GMT -6
Thanks for the link to the Lori Wallach piece on Moyers. I had unfortunately missed it when it was aired thanks to good ole' crappy airline service, but got to watch it on the link provided.
Lori is a true champion of working people in this country
Side note - if the airlines are any indicator of what a service economy is supposed to be like - boy are we in trouble!!
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 2, 2007 23:30:54 GMT -6
|
|