Tag Archives: TPP

Rep. Capuano on the Trade Adjustment Assistance and Trade Promotion Authority bills

Posted on by

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill was voted down by the House yesterday. The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill squeaked by.  Here’s Rep. Mike Capuano‘s take from his June 12, 2015 e-mail newsletter to constituents, supporters, and other interested subscribers:

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)

The trade bills this week were considered under a Rule that prohibited any amendments. Unlike the Senate, which at least had the opportunity to improve and amend the bill put forward, the House was not allowed to offer a single amendment. Under this Rule, the House considered a motion related to Title II of H.R. 1314 renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs, which are intended to help workers who lose their employment as a result of increased trade. Some sectors of the economy are more significantly impacted than others. These programs have been providing education, training, and other assistance for years. Unfortunately, this legislation just doesn’t go far enough to assist impacted workers. Public sector employees, for example, whose jobs might be outsourced are not eligible to receive any assistance through these programs. Furthermore, in a cynical political maneuver, this proposal was tied to Fast Track (see below). If this passed, Fast Track would pass. In effect defeating TAA was the only way to stop Fast Track. I voted NO. The motion FAILED to pass. Under the Rule, because the House did not pass the motion, the overall bill, including Fast Track, fails unless the vote on TAA is reversed.

 

YEA

NAY

PRESENT

NOT VOTING

REPUBLICAN

 86 158 0 2

DEMOCRAT

 40 144 0 4

TOTAL

 126 302 0 6

MASSACHUSETTS

 0 9 0 0

 

Note: Immediately after TAA failed, the Speaker made a motion to reconsider the vote next week. His hope is to switch enough votes so TAA passes, thus allowing Fast Track to move forward to the President’s desk.

 

“Fast Track”/Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)

Even though the TAA portion failed, the House still voted on the TPA portion. As you may know, Congress will soon consider two trade agreements. Historically, Congress has had the authority to agree, reject, or amend any proposed trade agreements submitted for ratification. If amended, the President was then required to re-negotiate the agreements to incorporate the changes made.

The Obama Administration, like past Presidents, requested Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), more commonly known as “Fast Track”. I do not support TPA because it significantly limits the voice of the legislative branch. By approving TPA, Congress agrees to give up its right to amend the trade agreement and instead simply takes an up or down vote on it. In this case, the House voted to grant TPA before any trade agreement was even finalized.

I think it is unwise for any Member of Congress to surrender our constitutional responsibilities without knowing exactly why this step is necessary and what specifically Congress is agreeing to. I voted NO. The motion for TPA passed, though the overall bill failed, and the entire vote is recorded below:

YEA

NAY

PRESENT

NOT VOTING

REPUBLICAN

 191 54 0 1

DEMOCRAT

 28 157 0 3

TOTAL

 219 211 0 4

MASSACHUSETTS

 0 9 0 0

UPDATE 6/14/2015:  Some additional background on the TAA and TPA bills and the votes from Robert Kuttner here.

Continue reading →

Josh Bivens, More Notes on the Gains From Trade and Who Gets Them

Posted on by

From Josh Bivens’ post today on the EPI blog (emphasis mine):

… The overall net benefits of trade are much smaller than commonly advertised, but the regressive redistribution trade causes is considerable.

First, on the gains from trade policy (i.e., how much we should expect national income to rise if we sign trade agreements), [NYT reporter Binyamin] Appelbaum refers to a piece from the Peterson Institute of International Economics claiming that trade liberalization added 7.3 percent of GDP to American incomes by 2005—about $9000-10,000 per American household. This is just not true. It’s a wildly inflated number that should not be in the policy debate (and if you need much smarter and better-credentialed people making the some point—here’s Dani Rodrik). This number is an effort to bully people into going along with today’s trade agreements by making them think the stakes are utterly enormous. In fact, even if it was correct (again, it’s not) this study would be irrelevant to today’s trade policy debates because the sum total of economic gains from all post-1982 trade agreements (this includes NAFTA, the completion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the formation of the WTO, and the permanent normal trading relations with China) is estimated to be just $9 per household, meaning that  99.9 percent of the gains from trade estimated in the study happened before 1982. So even if trade liberalization really did spur mammoth gains at some point in the (distant) past, the effects were over by the early 1980s.

Continue reading →

Let’s make a deal

Posted on by

Barney Frank was on Radio Boston today discussing the TPP.   As usual, he was very sharp.  He understands both the significance of the TPP and the value of making deals with the opposition party.  His suggestion:  Get some legislative concessions from Republicans now in exchange for supporting the TPP because you’re not going to get any concessions from them once the TPP passes.  Conditional support for the TPP is leverage.  Use it.

You can listen to the interview here:

 

Thought for the Day: 06 May 2015

Posted on by

Brad DeLong has a recent post, The Debate Over the TPP.   Commenter Nils:

Can anyone detail the *actual problems* facing international trade, which would be fixed all or in part by TPP? And I don’t mean “my pharmaceutical company isn’t getting to charge as much as it wants to for every dose of its patented products sold in the world.” That’s not a trade problem, it’s a whine.

 

The TPP is a really bad deal – Part 5, What part of getting kicked in the face do you not understand?

Posted on by

Dean Baker, Getting It Wrong on Trade: TPP Is Not Good for Workers (emphasis mine):

The big money is sweating big time since it seems large segments of the American public have caught wind of the Obama administration’s plans for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. After several decades in which trade has been a major factor depressing the wages and living standards of the country’s workers, the Obama administration is going back to the well to push for more….

Many prominent economists, including many strongly pro-trade economists… have argued the TPP should include rules on currency manipulation… According to calculations by Bergsten and others, actions of foreign central banks to raise the value of the dollar have added several hundred billions of dollars to our trade deficit and cost us millions of manufacturing jobs.

Continue reading →

NAFTA was a bad deal for U.S. workers. That’s one of the reasons I expect bad things from the TPP.

Posted on by

I’ve made multiple TPP-related posts of the past months – find them as well as older ones here.  (Just click the “TPP” tag over on the right.)  In terms of what we might expect if the TPP is enacted, it’s worth looking back at NAFTA and it’s consequences.   NAFTA was enacted in 1994 under Pres. Clinton.  From my perspective, Ross Perot got it right was accurate with his prediction.  It’s turned out to be an awful deal – an estimated 700,000 U.S. jobs lost.

Economic Policy Institute (EPI) economist Jeff Faux and UC-Berkeley economist Brad DeLong had a public exchange last summer re the merits of NAFTA – Faux taking the position that it’s turned out to be a bad deal and DeLong taking the position that it’s been a net benefit:

And Robert Scott of EPI adds his two cents on Faux vs DeLong:

If you’re an investor I can see why you might view NAFTA favorably.   If you live in the U.S. and work for a living I do not see how you could view it favorably.

(For what it’s worth, I’ve cited DeLong favorably dozens of times.  NAFTA and his inclination to support the TPP are rare – but predictable – instances where I believe he is badly wrong.)