Our TPA Happy Senate says: What - Me Worry?
Our TPA Happy Senate says: What - Me Worry?
Date: Friday, May 24, 2002 4:35 PM
*** H-1B NEWSLETTER ***
Get the Facts on H-1B at
www.ZaZona.com
H-1B has all sorts of worker protections. They didn't work too well did
they? That's because all the so-called protections were nothing but a
bunch
of loopholes hand crafted by corporate immigration lawyers.
Now our government claims that they are going to give us cash payments
when
we are forced into lower paying jobs by the Trade Promotion Authority.
They
even want to give unemployed and destitute people a 70% tax break on
health
care. Of course I'm not sure what difference it makes to get a tax break
when you are jobless.
The Republicans and Democrats are fighting over how much money should be
paid to American workers as TPA destroys their jobs. jobs. None of them
deny
that TPA will destroy the careers of working Americans - they just can't
decide how much money will keep Americans from an armed insurrection.
The first article brings the bad news: The Senate just approved TPA
The second article by a pro Republican cheer leader in the Arizona
Republic
should make you feel real good about what he considers to be "the
erection
of a new welfare system for dislocated workers". Notice he never talks
about
the corporate welfare that Bush wants to give to these greedy
multi-national
corporations. He, like most of our bought off politicians, believe that
the
corporate oligarchy should be able to do whatever they damn well want to
do.
Yes, we are entering a worker be damned period in our history and now
our
corrupt House is the only thing that can stop TPA from happening.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1453-2002May23.html
washingtonpost.com
Senate Approves Trade Authority
Bill Adds Billions for Workers Hurt by Foreign Competition
By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 24, 2002; Page A01
The Senate voted overwhelmingly last night to give President Bush
broader
authority to negotiate trade agreements, coupling it with a
multibillion-dollar expansion of aid to workers who lose jobs because of
foreign competition.
Under the legislation Bush would get most, but not all, of the authority
he
sought to negotiate trade pacts without amendment by Congress.
Democrats,
meanwhile, would get a two-fold increase in funds to shield American
workers
from the downside of trade expansion.
Bush considers the trade bill a priority, saying other countries will
not
negotiate trade deals if they believe the pacts can be picked apart by
protectionist forces in Congress.
Final details must be worked out with the House, which last year
narrowly
approved a bill with stronger negotiating authority but no worker
assistance. Key senators predicted the negotiations will be difficult
but
ultimately successful and that Congress will enact a compromise version
later this year.
The Senate's 66 to 30 vote followed a two-week debate during which
pro-trade
forces fended off several threats to the Senate leaders' fragile
bipartisan
agreement to promote trade while protecting workers.
"This is landmark legislation . . . the most forward-looking trade bill
that
Congress has passed in 15 years," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.),
chairman
of the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade issues. Sen.
Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the committee's ranking Republican, said it
will
"move one step closer to reestablishing U.S. global leadership and
credibility in trade."
Bush, traveling in Russia, said in a statement: "Today's passage by the
Senate of a vital package of trade legislation is a critical step in
advancing America's trade agenda and strengthening the U.S. economy. As
I
begin my trip here in Europe, the passage of this bill sends an
important
signal to our trading partners that we are committed to free and open
trade."
At a time when Congress is bitterly divided along partisan lines on
trade
issues, the vote was conspicuously bipartisan, although support was
stronger
among Republicans. Forty-one Republicans, 24 Democrats and one
independent
voted for the bill, while five Republicans and 25 Democrats voted
against
it. Virginia senators voted for the bill, and Maryland senators voted
against it.
The Senate action represented a significant victory for Bush, who had
pressed Congress for "trade promotion authority," formerly known as
"fast-track," in time for a new round of trade talks aimed at reducing
tariffs and other barriers to international commerce. But, like energy
legislation and other administration initiatives that have moved through
the
Senate since Democrats took over a year ago, it came at some cost to the
president's priorities.
Under Bush's proposal -- which the House approved in December without
change, and without a vote to spare -- Congress could accept or reject a
trade pact but not alter it. The last five presidents had this
authority,
but it lapsed in 1994 and was not renewed, in part because of
hostilities
between the GOP-controlled Congress and President Bill Clinton.
Although arguably more pro-trade than the somewhat protectionist House,
the
Senate last week voted to limit the all-or-nothing provision in a
significant way. In a lopsided, bipartisan vote that alarmed the
administration, the Senate rewrote the measure to allow Congress to vote
separately on any trade-pact provisions that weaken anti-dumping or
other
trade-remedy laws. Such laws are meant to combat unfair practices by
other
countries, such as subsidized or cut-rate exports.
The White House has threatened to veto the whole bill if this constraint
is
included in the final version. But the laws are popular with many
lawmakers,
and several expressed concern that the administration might bargain them
away to win concessions on other points.
Some lawmakers have speculated the exemption for trade-remedy laws might
be
used as a bargaining chip in conference to win House approval of the
worker
protections. But Grassley said last night he expected the provision to
be
dropped without qualification.
Reflecting another Democratic priority, the Senate bill includes worker
rights and environmental protection, along with tariff reduction and
stronger dispute settlement rules, as a priority for trade talks.
The worker protections are a top priority for Democrats. "Without them,
the
bill is in deep jeopardy," Baucus said. While they were not proposed by
Bush, the Senate package arose from negotiations that included White
House
officials.
It would expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program -- created 40
years
ago to help workers who lost jobs because of trade expansion -- to
include
more workers and benefits, including new subsidized health care
provisions.
Preliminary estimates indicate the Senate proposal could double the
number
of participants, to 100,000 workers, and double the cost over the next
decade, to as much as $12 billion.
Its centerpiece is a refundable tax credit, payable in advance, that
would
cover 70 percent of the cost of health insurance for workers eligible
for
trade adjustment aid to tide them over while they seek new jobs.
It also would add 26 weeks to the 52 weeks of unemployment insurance
that
trade-dislocated workers can receive, and it would increase funding for
job
training. Coverage would be extended to workers for companies that
supply
goods to firms that are hurt by trade and to people engaged in farming
or
fishing.
A pilot "wage insurance" program would be created to help workers over
50
when they lose jobs because of trade and then accept lower-paying work.
The
government would pay half the difference between their earlier and
present
pay, up to $5,000 a year, if they give up other benefits. The program
would
be capped at $50 million and end after two years.
The expanded authority would cover agreements negotiated by June 2005,
with
a possible extension for two more years.
Another important provision of the bill would reinstate duty-free trade
preferences to encourage Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru to turn
away
from drug trafficking in favor of producing and exporting other goods.
The
law creating the program expired last year, and an
administration-ordered
extension lapsed earlier this month.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
http://www.arizonarepublic.com/opinions/articles/0522robb22.html
U.S. tariffs, subsidies threaten trade role
Bush's actions stepping on toes overseas
May 22, 2002
The United States is in the process of abdicating its role as the world
leader on international trade.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration is as much part of the problem as
the
solution.
George W. Bush has been a staunch verbal supporter of free trade, as a
candidate and as president.
But lately, actions of his administration have undermined the case and
support for free trade, domestically and internationally.
Recently, of course, it slapped protectionist tariffs on foreign steel
and
Canadian lumber. The recently enacted farm bill reverses declared
American
intent (if not practice) of phasing out subsidies. Official government
policy, approved by Bush, is now to subsidize farm products
indefinitely.
The Bush administration also clearly views trade not simply as mutually
beneficial commercial relationships between countries, but as an
instrument
of American foreign policy.
The United Nations recently acceded to a U.S. proposal to retool trade
sanctions against Iraq. And on Monday, Bush explicitly linked trade to
internal reforms in Cuba, a linkage he explicitly rejected for the
People's
Republic of China.
These measures have roiled the international trade structure. Japan is
developing a retaliatory tariff against American steel. The European
Union
is designing a range of retaliatory duties against steel and a broad
array
of other products.
Both plan complaints against the United States before the World Trade
Organization, as does Canada about the lumber tariff and Brazil about
the
farm subsidies.
Expanding international support for free trade becomes more difficult
the
extent to which it is regarded as an instrument of American foreign
policy.
For example, developing nations are understandably skeptical of American
recommendations that they open their markets to foreign goods and
investment, when some of the highest U.S. protections are afforded food
and
textiles, in which they can be the most competitive.
The Bush administration's inconstancy has given protectionist sentiment
in
Congress the upper hand.
The president is seeking trade promotion authority, in which Congress
agrees
to vote trade agreements up and down as a whole, not subject to
amendment.
Such authority is necessary because other countries will not agree to
reduce
their trade barriers in exchange for a crapshoot with the U.S. Congress.
In addition to outright opposition, congressional protectionist
sentiment is
manifested in two ways.
The first is to pass trade authority in name only. The Senate bill would
allow Congress to amend individual provisions of trade agreements that
changed or waived U.S. laws that protected domestic producers. But
accomplishing that is precisely why other countries would enter into
trade
agreements with the United States.
The second is more subtle, the erection of a new welfare system for
dislocated workers.
Trade certainly has disruptive effects, as does any functioning market.
Some
businesses and workers do better, some do worse.
But as with a domestic market, one of the beneficial functions of
international trade is to stimulate a more effective deployment of
resources, both capital and labor.
Congressional Democrats want to cushion this reallocation with lucrative
benefits to workers hurt by trade: a 70 percent tax credit for health
insurance and up to $5,000 a year in wage support.
Defining and containing eligibility would be a nightmare. As
importantly,
disrupting the reallocative function of the market will result in less
effective deployment of domestic resources, and lower incomes generally
over
time.
Arizona's delegation has been a mixed bag on trade issues.
Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have been steadfast, voting against killer
amendments to trade promotion authority and against the farm bill. All
members of the House delegation voted for trade promotion authority,
except
Democrat Ed Pastor. But only Republicans Jeff Flake and John Shadegg
voted
against the farm bill.
While there are exceptions, U.S. markets are generally more open than
those
in other countries, including those of the recent chorus of critics.
But the abdication of U.S. leadership in trade is already being felt.
The
WTO reports the volume of international trade fell last year by 1
percent,
and the value declined by 4 percent.
More importantly, trade growth is expected to lag behind global output
during the current recovery.
That's not good, for the United States or the world.
Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8472. His
column
appears on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Back to archives