Top Dem Announces "Grand Bargain" to Undermine Election Mandate on Trade

So let's see - Democrats win Congress by using a strong opposition to lobbyist-written trade policies as a key way to gain ground among traditionally conservative voters. As USA Today noted, fighting our current trade policy "especially helped Democrats woo voters in traditionally Republican rural areas. Yet now, just three days after the election, we read this in the New York Times:

"Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who could soon become the head of the Financial Services Committee, said he and other Democrats who have been advising Ms. Pelosi are planning to propose a ''grand bargain'' with business interests. If business groups support the Democrats' efforts to increase the minimum wage, extend student loans and expand affordable housing programs, Mr. Frank said, then the Democrats would support efforts to reduce trade barriers and burdensome regulation. 'We are liberal internationalists,' Mr. Frank said. 'Businesses know they have an interest in working with us.'"

Barney Frank has done some great, courageous and commendable work on trying to regulate exorbitant CEO pay packages and on economic inequality in general. But make no mistake about it: "reduced trade barriers" is political language for continuing our current trade policy that includes no basic protections for labor, environmental or human rights - a trade policy that sells out both American and foreign workers and has exacerbated the economic inequality that Frank himself has focused on.

This doesn't sound like a "grand bargain" - it sounds like laying the groundwork for selling out just a few days after an election where a major mandate for change on trade was very clear (just read Public Citizen's incredible new report, and you will see how clear this message really was across the country). Look, no one wants "high" trade barriers - but this kind This is why, as I have said before, the fight only began on November 7th. Making sure the new Congress stays true to what it was elected on is going to be a major battle. There are many Democratic staffers-turned-corporate-lobbyists running to reporters bragging about how much influence they will have now - influence that will be used to make sure the election's mandate on issues like trade is ignored in the new Congress. It is up to us to make sure it isn't, and that we don't sit idly as these forces perform a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party.



Display:


Hi, I'm No One And I Want High Trade Barriers (none / 0)

Look, no one wants "high" trade barriers
That makes me "no one," since I want high trade barriers.  The notion that short-term economic efficiency is the be-all and end-all of economics (and, in turn the be-all and end-all of social policy generally) simply ignores that fact that we live in a physical--as well as a social--world which economics treats mostly as an "externality" that it ignores. This is simply an objectively false view of the world.  High trade barriers can be a very effective way of translating the longterm realities that the market can't see into short-term realities that it can't ignore. And the political process is precisely the mechanism that ought to be used to do this.

Just one concrete example should suffice to demonstrate whate I mean:  Under NAFTA, Mexico reduced high tarrifs that kept cheap US corn out of its markets.  US corn was unfairly cheap compared to Mexico, partly because of our profligate use of fossile fuels in growing it.  Our extravent use of fossile fuels to grow corn does not make sense in a long-term energy/resource depletion/global warming perspective.  But that perspective does not show up in the market.  It's an unpaid, externalized cost.

Tear down the barrier protecting Mexico, and another cost suddenly appears: the rapid erosion of the near-subsistence corn farming economy of rural Mexico leads to dramatic migrations, both into urban Mexican centers, and into the United States, where it is misperceived as an entirely unrelated "immigration problem" which the right wing, with its genius for muddled analysis, immediately connects to the threat of terrorism!

So, like I said, I'm no one.  And I want high trade barriers.

p.s. Of course, it should go without saying that the political process can also be used by special intersts to screw things up even further.  There's no guarantee that any particular policy regime in general won't be used in service for specific mischief.  There's just no substitute for an engaged citizenry.


by Paul Rosenberg on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 07:46:48 PM EST

Re: Hi, I'm No One And I Want High Trade Barriers (none / 0)

Look, no one wants "high" trade barriers

That makes me "no one,"

Dear No One,

You may not be the only no one.

The no one who founded the Democratic Party thought tariffs along with land taxes and lottery revenues should fund minimal government.  His Declaration of Independence was repealed along with the Constitution by our "do-nothing" Congress, including Sherrod Brown, who some people think for some illogical reason is a liberal.

Ever since no one founded it, the Democratic Party has been chock full of no ones as opposed to the other major parties - the Republican and Connecticut for Lieberman Parties.  For some reason, the no ones in the Democratic Party are led by the very important people that characterize the other major parties in their entirety.

I hear we elected some no ones Tuesday.

Wish there were more of them.

Best,  Terry


by terryhallinan on Fri Nov 10, 2006 at 11:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.