Might that be why?

So we regain the House...and it seems like these idiots think it's a good idea to return straight to the 1980s version of House Democrats that succeeded in getting us thrown out not so long afterwards?

Idiots.

In general, Congress is and has been disconnected from the American people for decades, primarily due to the fact that Congressional campaigns require huge amounts of financing from special interests, particularly the large corporations that dominate all sectors of the American economy.

The best way to figure out why certain Congressional representatives do what they do is to look at who their campaign contributors are.

Giving fast track authority to the president is one of the subterfuges that Congress uses to deflect blame for the manner in which U.S. trade policies harm our domestic industries and destroy jobs.

he's in love with being the Chair of Ways and Means?

This is curious, and I think that what Rangel's trying to say is that he would grant Fast Track Authority so that the Bush administration can put legislation for the passage of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to comply with WTO agreement.  

So say that Ukraine joins the WTO, if my understaning is right that means that as part of our WTO responsbilities the US would have to post the same tarriffs against Ukraine as any other WTO member.  Ukraine sparked off a collapse in steel prices a few years back, so you can see where this is headed.  The US can't pass tarriffs against Ukranian steel alone unless we claim dumping, but even then the Ukranians can take the matter to WTO arbitration and argue for damages.

By limiting fast track to Doha, I think that Rangel is saying that the president would only have the power to present treaties for an up or down vote where it's PNTR for new WTO members, or other agreements relating to meeting WTO obligations.

I could be wrong on this.  I still think that this is a mistake. We should withdraw from multilateral trade arrangement like the WTO, and conclude biliateral trade agreements instead.  Congress has the power to advice and consent to treaties, not just consent.  It's the expansion of executive power yet again.  The basic phenomena at work here is what got us into Iraq, Congress ceded power to the president.  And these trade agreements are honestly more important in the long term than Iraq.

The answer is easy.  Business is the dominant force in American society and the Dems believed that they had to pledge themselves to NAFTA to avoid a full-court business opposition to electing Bill Clinton in 1992.  The Democratic leadership then found socially liberal/ economically conservative suburban constituencies in states like NY, PA, CT, and New Jersey to whom that kind of message appealed.  In relation to the presidential campaign, it appears that Hillary Clinton would still go for business-oriented comprises with labor, consumer groups, and environmentalists.  Edwards and Obama seem less pro-business, but also appear to be extremely naive about the power of business interests to hobble a Democratic presidency.

Perhaps he likes the Doha round because it's the round that is principley dealing with agricuture subsidies that primarily benefit the farm belt redstates; also, the Doha round is favored by mostly poor agricultural countries that believe that they are being unfairy hurt by American subsidies and trade restrictions that keep their farm products out.  The poor countries that are for Doha include Latin American and African countries.  I believe Rangel voted in favor of the last free trade accord with Africa.

The Doha Round is extremely important. The Dems are doing the right thing and I'm actually surprised by this since the building opposition to trade deals was the main thing I was worried about with the new Dem Congress. Give Bush the fast-track, get the Doha  Round signed, and share in the credit. It reduces farm subsidies, opens markets for the least developing countries, and opens up trade in services. It will be very good for the world.

J.S.

Charlie has always been a little more free trade than other progressives.  I know that he's interested in helping  some of the islands in the Caribbean and he feels that some free trade agreements may help them over helping China or other Asian manufacturers.

As chairman of ways and means he has a lot of authority in this area.  And I may be giving him more progressive cred than warranted, but I think he thinks the horse is already out of the barndoor on globalization so you might as well get as much benefit to folks as is possible.

Charlie also does indeed want to raise money for the party and he wants to do it through him.  He loooves being Chairman of Ways and Means.  It's why he ran again this time, why he worked so hard raising money in 2006 and it impacted his marriage. His wife wanted him to stop....and well they're not together anymore.  He wants to stay chairman.

And remember Charlie has been in congress a long time.  He remembers a more congenial, bipartisan time.  

I honestly don't remember what he did or said re NAFTA.

This is really interesting stuff.  Please write more.  

I'm a New Yorker as well, and you can't get to hard on Rangel as it would seem like this move is in line with his constituents. Rangel's district is almost entirely in Manhattan. It's probably fair to say that there's not a single major manufacturing operation there, and to the extent that there is given the cost of space there's probably a reason, and it's not likely to suddenly move to India to save a few pennies. That horse left the barn of Harlem in the 50's. NYC's economy at this point is a lot more helped by free trade than hurt most likely.

But framing NAFTA as a progressive vs. corporatist issue isn't really fair in my opinion. It's pretty clear that many of the proponents of NAFTA honestly believed that it was a way to help the poor as well as perhaps some corporations.

As a progressive myself I am torn... if free trade kills manufacturing in Ohio but lifts many people in the third world out of poverty - even slightly - that's a hard call. People in other countries are no less people than my fellow Americans. Though I understand the political implications.

The problem with "free trade" at least in part is that it's not free, not that it is free. What we do to protect certain industries and eviscerate the homegrown industries of certain regions, especially wheat, cotton, sugar, and textile production regions is not remotely free, and if that's the subject of trade barrier lowering I'm for it. If it's just a way to dodge that issue while sloughing off environmental regulations to some other place and put american skiled labor out of work, then it's not so good.

Like they say at Justice, it's complicated. Again as a progressive who's general instincts are in favor of free trade I'm very glad there's a vigorous debate about it. I think it's sad that in the 90's it was free trade democrats versus free trade republicans, and that very real concerns had absolutely no voice at all. That said, let's hope we don't  just write off future trade talks rather than work to make them "good." Despite the very well deserved criticisms of globalization from many fronts, there are certainly aspects of it that represent hope for the vast majority of this world living below subsistence levels.

Rangel is in a position of considerable authority and ability to affect the outcome of these talks, and I don't see his views as out of step with his constituents nor without a place in the progressive movement as a whole.

So much of this debate is at the level of whether "free trade" sui generis is good or bad, not about whether specific classes of agreements bearing the "Free Trade" brand name are good or bad.

But framing NAFTA as a progressive vs. corporatist issue isn't really fair in my opinion. It's pretty clear that many of the proponents of NAFTA honestly believed that it was a way to help the poor as well as perhaps some corporations.

As a progressive myself I am torn... if free trade kills manufacturing in Ohio but lifts many people in the third world out of poverty - even slightly - that's a hard call. People in other countries are no less people than my fellow Americans. Though I understand the political implications.

If a "free trade agreement", like NAFTA, kills manufacturing in Ohio and at the same time tends to push many very small rural producers in the third world off their plots and into desperate poverty in big city slums, then its a much easier call.

Bear in mind that 80% of the text of NAFTA has nothing to do with trade, and is focused on removing fetters on wealth flows across national boundaries. And since channeling wealth is how corporations exercise power, that translates into 20% of NAFTA was focused on trade issues, and 80% was focused on increasing corporate power.

An actual balanced free trade system would be a tremendous benefit to low-income nations participating and a modest benefit to the US ... but the NAFTA type system is not a balanced trade system at all, and more generally is not primarily about trade in the first place.

I am generally pro-free trade (as long as the agreements are designed to ensure that country X's environmental and labor standards get closer to ours), but I am against giving Bush Fast Track power even though I was for Clinton getting it.  

To me the difference between Clinton and Bush is not just ideology competence or party label, but that Clinton was popular during the fast track period, whereas Bush is a rouge president.

Bush couldn't give two sh!ts if what was agreed to was something Congress or the American people would like, he just is looking out for his rich friends.  Clinton on the otherhand genuinely cared about environmental and labor practices in other countries.  He was able to get consessions on that basis as well.