Senator Max Baucus Confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to China

[alp227]

Source: Bloomberg

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus was confirmed as ambassador to China, elevating the chamber’s top leader on taxes, trade and health care to one of the toughest U.S. diplomatic posts.

The Senate vote was 96-0, with Baucus voting “present.” Baucus will head to China at a time of tension in the relationship between the world’s two biggest economies. His successor in the Senate will be chosen as early as this week.

The Montana Democrat said at his confirmation hearing that he’d place a priority on boosting trade while pressing China over computer-security breaches and crackdowns on political dissidents.

Baucus is “an excellent choice to represent America’s interests in China, a growing power in a global economy,” Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said on the Senate floor before today’s vote.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-06/senator-max-baucus-confirmed-as-u-s-ambassador-to-china.html

[hrmjustin]

1. Won't miss him in the senate.

[TrollBuster9090]

7. Hope the doorknob doesn't hit him in the ass on the way out.

But if it does, he's got an only SOMEWHAT progressive healthcare plan to take care of the resulting roids. NO THANKS TO HIM, of course.

[valerief]

2. Wonder how he's going to fuck us up in that job. nt

[TrollBuster9090]

6. By coming BACK at some point?

That's the only thing I can think of.

The only 'economic interests' we have with China is the obvious interest we have in CANCELING all of our TRADE agreements with them. And, maybe, putting sanctions on them until they stop reverse-engineering all of our stuff, stealing our copyrights, and flooding our markets with cheap, imitation, knock-off products.

[pampango]

8. We don't have any trade agreements with China. Only Switzerland, New Zealand, Iceland,

Costa Rica, Peru, Chile, Singapore, Pakistan and the Asian countries in ASEAN have trade agreements with China.

There are negotiations ongoing with Norway and Australia.

http://fta.mofcom.gov.cn/english/fta_qianshu.shtml

[TrollBuster9090]

11. What would you call this?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hr4444

I guess it's technically not a 'free trade agreement,' but it does a fantastic impersonation of one.

[pampango]

12. It was necessary for China to join the WTO.

China joined the WTO at the end of 2001. Russia (the last major country to join) joined in 2012.

In 2001 (the last year that trade with China was not governed by the WTO) we imported about $102 billion from China. In 2011 we imported about $399 billion. Our imports increased by a factor of 4. (In 2001 our imports were 5.3 times our exports with China. In 2013 imports were 3.6 times exports.) Being in the WTO does not seem to have helped China.

In 2001 we imported about $6 billion from Russia. In 2011 (the last year before Russia joined the WTO) we imported about $34 billion. Our imports increased by a factor of almost 6. Our imports from Russia (when it was not in the WTO) increased faster than they did from China (when it was in the WTO).

I am not sure you can make a case that not letting China join the WTO would have slowed down China's industrialization or trade growth or improved their environmental record. Not being in the WTO did not slow down Russia's trade growth nor improve its environmental record. I see no reason to believe that keeping China out of the WTO would have slowed it down any more than it did Russia.

Indeed membership in the WTO seems to have slowed down China's export growth and worsen their ratio of exports to imports with the US compared to what happened during the same period with Russia which was not in the WTO.

[AleksS]

3. From Montana, eh?

That could easily be one more step closer to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Unless you all know something about Montana that I don't, I have a feeling that it's unlikely a D will get in there again.

No matter how crappy he was on many votes, he could at least be counted on in most procedural votes to support the (D) position. That allowed a lot of votes to come to the floor that would never have been considered with an (R) SML. With the fillibuster having been nuked, every vote counts, even (especially?) on some of the boring procedural ones.

On the other hand, I don't know Montana. Was he really the best D we could get? Is there a chance for a better D to take his spot, or is this pretty much a gimme for the rethugs?

Edited to add:

Upon further research, it sounds like this might have actually been one of the reasons they're giving Baucus this position, so my ignorance of Montana politics shines through:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/12/18/four-reasons-why-the-white-house-is-sending-max-baucus-to-china/

Gov. Steve Bullock (D) will be tasked with appointing a replacement for Baucus -- one who could also run for a full six-year term in 2014. The clear early front-runner for the pick is Lt. Gov. John Walsh (D). Walsh is already running and is liked by national Democrats. If appointed, he would suddenly have the advantage of incumbency (think Dean Heller in Nevada circa 2012) and could use it to craft a moderate profile through things like pushing for Obamacare fixes, for example.

[Swede Atlanta]

4. Baucus was a "blue dog" Democrat....

He was, if I recall correctly, the main reason why single payer never had a chance.

I will not miss him in the Senate. He was going to retire anyway.

That said, I was born and raised in Wyoming and what a lot of people miss about Montana and Wyoming is that they are conservative but not of the rabid variety. They view Washington and anything east of the Mississippi with suspicion, love them some guns and hunting and have no love for the queers (I can say that as a gay man).

But you are much more likely to have a Democratic governor in these states than you are in Georgia, Kansas or Utah. They have both had both U.S. representatives and Senators from the Democratic party in recent memory.

But it is important to consider that the Democrat from these states must be a bit "blue dog" to win election. Often their interests are more aligned with those of other sparsely populated, generally rural and agrarian states. They represent the interests of their constituents.

I fear the possibility of losing the Senate. I differ with Ed Schultz that we should be pouring more money into taking back the House. That is a long shot. The most important thing now is to retain a simple majority in the Senate. At least we can get nominees through and should Ginsburg or another Justice die or retire we have a fighting chance of getting a progressive confirmed.

Should the Republicans control both Houses I suggest this President's presidency is all but over. He can issue all the EOs he wants but the Rs will do nothing thinking that by maintaining control of the House and taking control of the Senate the "murkan people" have spoken and want nothing to get done.

[groundloop]

9. Don't forget Joe Lie-berman regarding single payer not getting through

Joe Lie-berman was, IMO, the main reason single payer was killed. Of course Baucus was a close second.

And I think you're right about being careful that we hold onto the Senate. It would royally suck to lose that.

[TrollBuster9090]

5. Okay, great. You've sent him to China. I have only two things to say about that:

1. Why the f-ck didn't you do this FIVE YEARS AGO! If not for that a--wipe, we'd have had a public option in the ACA, and sensible gun safety laws, to name only a few things he sabotaged. And,

2. What are you doing to make sure the a--hole doesn't come BACK?

[pangaia]

10. I sure hope he speaks Chinese.