Congressional Democrats have a problem. Their agenda is stymied in Congress and their poll numbers are no better than the President's. Bluntly, they need to get something done. After being elected because they weren't Republicans, they still have to govern to establish long-term credibility with the voters.
To their credit they're starting, barely, to make progress on an issue where compromise is possible, striking a deal with the Administration on trade issues. The agreement paves the way for passage of trade pacts with Peru and Panama. Larger and more significant agreements with Columbia and South Korea still face substantial obstacles though.
The Washington Post rightly pointed out that while the Peru and Panama deals are useful, the other two have much more value both in economic and foreign policy. Will those tougher agreements with Columbia and South Korea come to fruition?
The aforementioned agreement still has to be sold to some rank-and-file members of the Democratic majorities, who are increasingly and disturbingly hostile to even modified trade agreements. In addition, Columbian leaders evidently received an unnecessarily chilly reception from Democrats on the Hill recently (and even if one accepts a more moderated version of the gloomy picture painted by the "Prince of Darkness" at the related link, it's still a short-sighted response to give to a desired ally in the region).
Such deals have real value in this trade-dependent state, a view generally reflected in the positions of most of the state's Democrats in Congress. Now, even those deprived of great knowledge in economics and geography can see the potential benefit to Washington of a trade deal with South Korea, the 3rd largest economy in Asia and one of the top 12 in the world.
How will local Democrats in Congress respond? Will they take on a challenging leadership role to help their party govern? Or will they bow to pressure from organized labor and related elements of their base?
This state will be better off if they lead rather than follow.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 13, 2007 06:39 PM | Email ThisWho benefits with a trade agreement like this?
American companies?
American workers?
We need fair trade, not "free" trade.
We need a trade agreement where the end game is us exporting as much to South Korea (and China) as we import. If they can't handle it, add tariffs till the tariff makes up the difference. I don't mean all at once, but ladder it.
Just because Nike makes their shoes in 3rd world countries, it doesn't make them any cheaper to the consumer. We are getting screwed at every level. The Dems, and a few cons from what I understand are beginning to figure it out....
Posted by: Facts on May 13, 2007 07:23 PM> We need fair trade, not "free" trade.
What does this mean, really?
If it means:
We need a trade agreement where the end game is us exporting as much to South Korea (and China) as we import.
Well, that is just impractical. What does America make anymore? What will the South Koreans and Chinese buy from us?
While it is quite true that the Chinese Middle Class does become as addicted to consumerism as the average American, there isn't any particular reason why the Chinese should prefer to buy American-made products rather than the Chinese-made products which Americans buy.
As to the remedy which you propose: "If they can't handle it, add tariffs till the tariff makes up the difference."
You know that these tariffs will harm the American consumer a whole lot more than they will harm the Chinese producers? The Chinese could probably find plenty enough buyers for their products (as there are 1.4 billion Chinese and next door 1.1 billion Indians) but the Americans will find it very difficult to find new producers.
It isn't like these factories still exist in America. Nor are the skills found in America, either. America gave both the factories and the skills to the Chinese, a profited a huge amount in the process, too bad that the price of those profits included the future bankrupting of the United States of America.
Nor am I so confident that America would take all of these jobs back even if we could. Americans are about the most entitled obese people in this world. Americans feel like the entire world owes us their impoverished labor because we just deserve the cheapest priced consumer goods on the planet.
So America is now in the uncomfortable position of not being able to go forward nor able to go back. Americans are stuck in the treadmill and we won't escape this trap without losing our prosperity, wealth, and entitlement.
Things are going to get really ugly in America over the next several decades. Americans can no longer afford the American Way of Life. Not only are we exhausting the resources which make this lifestyle possible (oil, natural gas and coal) we are also exhausting the world's willingness to loan money to a bankrupt superpower (China and many other impoverished countries are financing our debt).
America's future is bleak. That much is certain. We will live long enough to witness the end of the United States of America.
Posted by: David Mathews on May 13, 2007 08:57 PMI think public approval of congress would be a lot higher if it wasn't for all those Republican Congressmen resigning, pleading guilty, or being found guilty. Not to mention the ones that have yet to be indicted, or were trying to im the pants off of children, while their boss was trying to cover it up. Duncan Hunter, Jerry Lewis, and the rest of the Abramoff gang could be indicted any day. Jefferson may have been indicted, but it appears he was entrapped. Still guilty in my book though. When it comes to corrupt congressmen, I want all the crooks locked up, regardless of what party they belong to. I guess that makes me special.
Posted by: Facts on May 13, 2007 10:42 PMReally.
Lies, the fact is that right now, the democrat-led Congress has an approval rating of 35%, no matter how much you spin the numbers.
And your hypocrisy reeks: If you wanted ALL the crooks locked up, you'd be howling for the scalps of Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy (Patrick and Ted) and Jefferson.
Yeah, you're a leftwing whackjob, who sees himself as a legend in his own mind.
Posted by: Hinton on May 14, 2007 04:49 AMReally.
Lies, the fact is that right now, the democrat-led Congress has an approval rating of 35%, no matter how much you spin the numbers.
And your hypocrisy reeks: If you wanted ALL the crooks locked up, you'd be howling for the scalps of Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy (Patrick and Ted) and Jefferson.
Unfortunately, you're not all THAT special: actually, you’re just another self-delusional a leftwing whackjob (Like ol’ Dave, here.) who sees himself as a legend in his own mind.
Posted by: Hinton on May 14, 2007 04:54 AMThe talking sock puppets, refusing to deal in reality and facts, can yammer all they want. Such fun entertainment listening to utter jibberish.
Ohh, speaking of talking sock puppets, Factless and DM, probably the same moron with a split personality, appear once again, like a bad penny that just keeps coming back.
How my 22 yr old son would succinctly sum up:
Cuckoo!!
Posted by: Hank on May 14, 2007 06:07 AM> Free trade, like lower tax rates, has been proven to be prosperity enhancing for all parties involved.
You are seriously mistaken, Hank. Free trade is an effective technique to exploit the impoverished and the lack of environmental and labor regulations in impoverished countries.
Do you suppose that the Chinese laborers who are working 18-hour days for approximately $2 of income a day have benefited so much from free trade?
Do you suppose that the mindless consumer -- the passive, easily manipulated obese American shopper -- actually benefits from buying cheap, disposable consumer products at the mall?
I don't.
This world would be a better place if the Americans were not buying nor the Chinese producing.
Basing the world's economy upon the greed & gluttony of the obese Americans is unhealthy, dangerous, unsustainable and leading to an inevitable catastrophe.
We will live long enough to witness this catastrophe with our own eyes.
Posted by: David Mathews on May 14, 2007 06:33 AMAnd the winner is: "Hinton"
Posted by: dcat on May 14, 2007 06:41 AM"You are seriously mistaken, Hank. Free trade is an effective technique to exploit the impoverished and the lack of environmental and labor regulations in impoverished countries."
What free trade has done is to give formerly unemployed people an income. These impoverished people have a higher standard of living now than they had prior to free trade. I'm sure, in your arrogance, you believe that was better for them don't you?
"Do you suppose that the Chinese laborers who are working 18-hour days for approximately $2 of income a day have benefited so much from free trade?"
Yes, and they will continue to benefit, as time passes they will undoubtedly stop working 18 hr days. BTW what proof have you that they are working 18 hr days? Is this just typical leftwing propaganda? I don't doubt that it's possible that people are working 18 hr days but I have never seen proof that is the norm. Also I have no doubt that they prefer 18 hr workdays to 24/7 unemployement. As usual the left would rather the caste system of the really poor, and wherever the arrogant libs put themselves on that ladder, remain as it is.
Let the loonies spout and spew...we actually need them to do so... but we do NOT need to engage them for it as they manage to be loonies without our additional help.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 14, 2007 08:15 AMHow do you suppose these "slaves" would react if they knew that the kind, compassionate David Mathews decreed that they would no longer be exploited. In their minds you just cost them a job. You impoverished them worse than they already were.
There are some points you are overlooking.
1. After they have their standard of living rise they will begin to expect more; e.g. we no longer will work these crazy hours.
2. The cost of living in these countries is lower and while 1-2 dollars a day obviously aint much it still goes farther there than it does here. Your problem with understanding this is that you are a socialist and have no comprehension of economics.
Actually, David is worse than that. He hates humans and loves the earth. His goal is not to reduce the exploitation of Chinese workers. He does not care about their lives. It is clear that he would rather 100's of millions of Chines starve to death because that would lower the world's population and save mother earth.
Posted by: Eyago on May 14, 2007 10:05 AMPlease lead by example and kill yourself.
Thanks.
Posted by: John Galt on May 14, 2007 12:44 PMDavid M,
Talking to you would be like paying 5 bucks for an argument on a Monty Python skit for an argument! I very seldom come to sites to comment bash but it is fun once in a clear day here in loony left Washington State. I'll comment when I feel like it and you can't stop me!
I am outside enjoying wildlife right now such as the raccoon that seems to be smarter then you. I mention democrat and it shows its teeth!
Posted by: dcat on May 14, 2007 07:51 PMtypos:
Talking to you would be like paying 5 bucks for an argument on a Monty Python skit!
Happy?! Probably not your a liberal!
No I refuse to argue with you! Your five min. are up! DAVE!
Posted by: dcat on May 14, 2007 09:20 PMMay 15, 2007
Congress Approval Down to 29%; Bush Approval Steady at 33%
Both ratings are slightly lower than 2007 averages
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27589
Well good job David Matthews!
Got anything credible for that statement?
Meanwhile in the real world Alan Reynolds asks the pertinent question: If Offshoring Is Net Job Loser, Where's Proof?
Note how Mr. Reynolds quotes former Clintonista parasite and school teacher in the Krugman vein, Alan Blinder who is one of the leftists' loudest lead singers in their Cassandra choir...
Posted by: juandos on May 15, 2007 09:11 AM