Emanuel Blocks Dem Debate on Trade Deal ...breaking from Sirota.

[madfloridian]

Emanuel Blocks Dem Debate on Trade Deal As White House Signals Real Agenda

Breaking news out of Washington today, five days after a handful of senior Democrats and the Bush administration announced a secret deal to push a package of free trade pacts just months after Democrats successfully used opposition to lobbyist-written trade deals to win the 2006 election.

According to sources on Capitol Hill today, after the Los Angeles Times confirmed that Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) earlier this week agreed to demands by rank-and-file congressional Democrats to debate the secret trade deal at this Tuesday's Democratic Caucus meeting, Emanuel abruptly took trade off the agenda prior to the meeting, preventing the meeting on trade from taking place. Additionally, Emanuel, one of the chief architects of NAFTA as a top Clinton administration staffer, refused to agree to set a date to discuss the secret trade deal. Meanwhile, White House and GOP participants in the deal are now signaling that the deal's much-touted labor and environmental provisions are designed to be kept out of the core text of trade agreements and thus potentially rendered utterly unenforceable. To date, the specific legislative language of the secret deal has been kept concealed from the public.

On May 10th, six Democrats followed Democratic Caucus rules and filed a formal letter to Emanuel requesting a caucus meeting. That request, according to the Hill Newspaper, was "rebuffed" and hours after the letter was sent, Democratic leaders appeared at a press conference to announce the secret trade deal with the Bush administration. The legislative language of the deal has still not been released either to reporters or to rank-and-file lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Meanwhile, industry newsletter Inside U.S. Trade this afternoon reports that House Ways and Means Ranking Member Jim McCrery (R-LA) "said it is his preference and that of U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab that the new obligations for free trade agreements announced last week not lead to a reopening of the Peru free trade agreement." This follow's McCrery's claim yesterday that the secret deal can be completed "in a way that does not require Peru's political system to revisit the deal all over again."

[Bullet1987]

1. This is beginning to piss me off...

[madrchsod]

2. he`s a snake in the grass

this is one illinois democrat that i have no use for. he backed duckworth over cegalis and lost...now there may have been vote tampering...

[Lasher]

3. This is real creepy

I wonder where the people are who are really in control.

[Maat]

4. Shameful (Rahm Emanuel's behavior, that is)(n/t)!

[AtomicKitten]

5. Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel are in that caucus too.

I wonder why Sirota didn't mention their names. Hmmmmm. Oh, yeah, that's right. Because they don't invoke the response he's looking for. He bangs the pot, incites the outrage, and points at a familiar target: Rahm Emamuel. The same Rahm Emanuel supported by the AFL-CIO in his congressional run. But I digress.

Is it lazy journalism? No, it's more cynical than that. Jerry Falwell also dealt in sensationalism. He rallied venom based on familiar targets, in his case gays. Sirota prefers his prey come in the form of Democrats. And nobody bothers to do the hard work of doing the research to read the whole story, something that often isn't found on blogs.

And why should Sirota bother to report the story when he can write it with that special twist of *breaking news* ... "The Dems f*cked up again and it's Rahm Emanuel's fault." The caucus is playing hardball, and Sirota bangs the pot, rallies the venom and outrage, and points to Emanuel. He's the one. Get him.

Here's what Charlie Rangel's, yes it was Charlie that negotiated with Bush, negotiations looked like. And, btw, the details of the provisions haven't even been released yet, but it's never too soon for the gnashing of teeth.

However, in March, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, with a mixed voting record on trade issues, proposed a "New Trade Policy for America" that sets conditions for the administration to win Democratic support for recently negotiated trade agreements with Panama, Peru, Colombia and South Korea.

Rangel would make all trade agreements require enforcement of core International Labor Organization (ILO) rights--such as the right to organize and prohibitions on child labor, forced labor and discrimination in employment--through the same dispute settlement mechanisms used to enforce business interests, like intellectual property rights. His proposal, hastily endorsed by the House Democratic Caucus, also insisted on enforcing multilateral environmental agreements, establishing a fair balance between poor countries' access to drugs and pharmaceutical company patents, ensuring that government procurement promotes worker rights and guaranteeing that foreign investors in the United States are not granted greater rights than American investors (reversing one of NAFTA's most controversial provisions).

Rangel's proposal also called for more strictly enforcing existing trade laws, pressuring China to revalue its currency, opening markets for U.S. exports, increasing assistance for retraining displaced workers and expanding help to the world's poorest countries.

Bush administration officials did not dismiss the proposal out of hand, but they are unlikely to accept it without modifications, which would then lose crucial Democratic support. Fair trade advocates were cautiously optimistic. "It's a good step trying to fix what's awful," says Slevin, deputy director of Global Trade Watch. The AFL-CIO did not immediately endorse the deal, but Policy Director Thea Lee says, "This is a good step forward, but if there's any weakening, all bets are off."

The administration doesn't want to include ILO core rights, preferring to require only that countries enforce their own laws or the equivalent of American labor laws. Free trade ideologues argue that including ILO-defined rights in the agreement could lead to challenges under future trade agreements to American labor laws. "In a rare show of honesty by the administration, they acknowledge in their proposal that labor standards in the U.S. are so bad that they fear they no longer meet ILO standards," AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Rich Trumka says. In any case, neither Democrats nor unions would accept anything short of ILO core rights.

But the issue is not only standards but also writing tougher enforcement mechanisms into any agreement. Despite requirements under the Central American Free Trade agreements to strengthen worker rights, recent reports in the New York Times and Washington Post about Guatemala highlighted the use of child labor, an assassination of a labor leader and other labor rights violations. Serious labor rights violations also have occured in Jordan, even though the Clinton-negotiated labor rights provisions there were the strongest of any recent trade agreement.

Bush's new trade agreements faced an uphill battle even before Rangel's challenge. Unions and human rights advocates will oppose any agreement with Colombia, where 77 trade unionists were killed last year. And American auto, agricultural and other industrial interests, as well as unions, have spoken out against the Korean trade deal, which South Korea's unions and farmers oppose. U.S. fair trade advocates also criticize the Peru and Panama agreements but more for the damage they're likely to cause those countries than for harm to the United States.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/mobile/article/making_trade_work_for_everyone/

[Tellurian]

7. In support of Rahm's decision to block Bush's rush to a vote

enlightening read:

Too many loose ends regarding labor protections..and it looks like Big Pharma isn't too happy because of the delay (read at end of article) Thats a good sign-

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/despite-deal-future-of-some-trade-accords-is-uncertain-2007-05-11.html

[wyldwolf]

14. Even using the term "lazy journalism" in reference to Sirota is an insult to lazy journalists

Sirota is a jaded rabble-rouser.

[Adelante]

17. This is bad?

Rangel would make all trade agreements require enforcement of core International Labor Organization (ILO) rights--such as the right to organize and prohibitions on child labor, forced labor and discrimination in employment--through the same dispute settlement mechanisms used to enforce business interests, like intellectual property rights. His proposal, hastily endorsed by the House Democratic Caucus, also insisted on enforcing multilateral environmental agreements, establishing a fair balance between poor countries' access to drugs and pharmaceutical company patents, ensuring that government procurement promotes worker rights and guaranteeing that foreign investors in the United States are not granted greater rights than American investors (reversing one of NAFTA's most controversial provisions).

Rangel's proposal also called for more strictly enforcing existing trade laws, pressuring China to revalue its currency, opening markets for U.S. exports, increasing assistance for retraining displaced workers and expanding help to the world's poorest countries.

[AtomicKitten]

19. details haven't been released

but it's never too early to complain, right? :eyes:

[Morgana LaFey]

21. When they're too afraid or ashamed or whatever to release them

it's a safe bet to speculate there are highly objectionable things IN them. Too, it's okay to complain for the very reason they haven't released any details yet.

Or do you also believe that the reason Bush&Co. are so secretive is because they're doing good things for the nation, but just don't want a lot of publicity about it?

[AtomicKitten]

22. really?

" afraid, ashamed ... "safe bet to speculate there are highly objectionable things in them.""

... a subjective critique with ZERO objective findings as of yet; so very DU.

I have posted Rangel's bullet points in the negotiations upthread. They seem pretty reasonable to me.

I believe the Democrats that negotiated this are entitled to the benefit of the doubt until the details are released, but you go right on ahead and pillory them presumptuously, prematurely, and contemptuously if you like.

[Greyhound]

37. Absolutely, we should always wait until it is all over, then we get to see how

badly we get screwed, again.

[karynnj]

6. The Senate Finance Committee is discussing trade preference progams at 10 AM

It is probably worth watching to see where the Democrats are. Baucus is the Chair of this committee. They should have a link here later to view it -
http://www.senate.gov/~finance/sitepages/hearings.htm

[karynnj]

9. Actually the link is on this page

(I'm nowhere near as good at this as Tay Tay who gets the link right the first time.)
http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearings.htm

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. Three time the article calls this a 'secrect deal'

If it really were a secrect, why does everyone seem to know about it? :shrug:

[w4rma]

10. Untrustworthy slime. (nt)

[OHdem10]

11. This is why I am losing enthusiasm for Democratic Party.

and why the Democrats had better be concerned over the next
election.

Pray tell me what is the difference between the parties on
this issue??? None.

[w4rma]

12. It's the DLCers, the Clintonites that are pulling this BS and are in control.

Always target the exact people who are responsible.

[The2ndWheel]

13. Does it really matter if it's secret?

Globalization is not something that is going to stop. Not when business is everything. Not when you have to pay to exist.

That's why unions are dying. That's why a middle class will be short and sweet. For a time, labor had the upper hand(because capital wasn't as mobile as it is today). Now capital has access to billions around the world, all competing for the right to pay to exist.

It may not happen today or tomorrow, but humans are slowly losing. The rest of life already lost, they're not productive enough, other than whatever we can cram into a factory. Oh, wait...well, at least we still get paid something. We're almost obsolete though, so there is a little more work to be done. Afterall, it will make us free.

[wyldwolf]

15. Hmmm.. Sirota quoted "The Hill." I wonder why he left out THIS part?

Six House Democrats had sought to get House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to put off the announcement of a deal until after the caucus reviewed it, but were rebuffed. - - - The Hill


..now, we'll take up MadFloridian's quote of Sirota:

According to sources on Capitol Hill today (that would be the 14th), after the Los Angeles Times confirmed that Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) earlier this week (actually, that would be LAST week)agreed to demands by rank-and-file congressional Democrats to debate the secret trade deal at this Tuesday's Democratic Caucus meeting, Emanuel abruptly took trade off the agenda prior to the meeting, preventing the meeting on trade from taking place.


Hmmm... Let's see. Pelosi rebuffed Six House Democrats who had sought to review the trade specifics, followed by Emanuel doing an about face on it. Yep. Sounds like Emanuel was following Pelosi's instructions. Pelosi? The "Progressive?" Former member of the Progressive Caucus???

[unlawflcombatnt]

20. Sellouts

We've got several Democratic sell-outs on trade, including, but not limited to Emmanuel, Pelosi, and Rangel. It seems like they've forgotten who they represent and who voted for them in the election.

We've truly gone from 1-person, 1-vote,
to 1-dollar, 1-vote.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

[madfloridian]

16. Latest this morning.

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/secret_trade_deal_day_6_senato.html

"Six days after the press conference announcing a secret free trade deal between Democratic congressional leaders and the Bush White House, a full-scale revolt appears to be brewing on Capitol Hill. Rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers have demanded an immediate debate about the deal, and Democratic leaders have responded by rejecting such a request."

Something is wrong with this picture.

This morning from Sirota:

"Responding to the reporting of this story, a spokeswoman for Emanuel's office this morning emailed me to say that the cancellation of the trade debate occurred because of "time constraints" and that Emanuel has now promised the caucus "we would continue with our plan to have a trade-focused caucus meeting soon." He did not set a date certain for that meeting."

We will see, won't we. Read the rest of the post.

[jgraz]

18. Emanuel needs to go

And if he was following Pelosi's lead, she needs to be gone as well. Enough with the faux-progressives. We need to find some primary opponents that will challenge these corporatists.

[AtomicKitten]

24. ah, the call for a purge

the not so natural selection

[jgraz]

25. Absolutely. Only I tend to call it "democracy"

The pro-corporate Dems still don't seem to get who the people voted for in 2006. (Hint: it wasn't them).

[wyldwolf]

27. I suggest, then, the Dem party has made you unhappy quite often

The Democratic party has never been about "progressives," faux or otherwise. That notion is a relative new one.

There are "progressive" parties out there, though.

[jgraz]

28. Love it or leave it, huh?

There are also more authoritarian parties out there, though I suspect you already know about them.

[wyldwolf]

29. oh, not at all. Just don't walk around like you own the place.

Do I know of more authoritarian parties out there? Yes, just as well as I know of the more liberal ones. Why? Because I research things and my political existance didn't begin with Howard Dean.

[jgraz]

30. "my political existance didn't begin with Howard Dean"

That's funny, cuz our control of Congress did.

[wyldwolf]

31. "That's funny, cuz our control of Congress did."

The only people who believe that are people whose political experience began with Howard Dean.

[jgraz]

32. Yeah, not so much

I'll be happy to debate that point with any honest poster who hasn't proven to be immune to facts. You, however, can go direct your silly personal suppositions at someone else. Run along now.

[wyldwolf]

35. well, yeah, completely

Seems you and I have a different definition of fact. I believe facts are provable events. You, on the other hand, go with what feels right.

Run along now.

[jgraz]

36. See, the problem here is not that you're just dishonest and uninformed

It's that you're so depressingly unoriginal. If you're going to come on this board and spout right-wing talking points, at least try to be a little more creative about it. :boring:

[wyldwolf]

39. no, the problem here is you're looking at the matter from the perspective of a newbie

...one who has been only aware for four years or so. And before you start finger wagging about people on this board, I suggest you compare join dates and post counts.

[illinoisprogressive]

23. Yep. one of the NAFTA sell outs. How very corporate of them.

[Cameron27]

26. How is this a sellout?

This is what Rangel's proposing:

• All trade agreements require enforcement of core International Labor Organization (ILO) rights--such as the right to organize and prohibitions on child labor, forced labor and discrimination in employment
  
  
• Enforces multilateral environmental agreements, establishing a fair balance between poor countries' access to drugs and pharmaceutical company patents, ensuring that government procurement promotes worker rights and guaranteeing that foreign investors in the United States are not granted greater rights than American investors (reversing one of NAFTA's most controversial provisions).
  
  
  
• Calls for more strictly enforcing existing trade laws, pressuring China to revalue its currency, opening markets for U.S. exports, increasing assistance for retraining displaced workers and expanding help to the world's poorest countries.
  
  

[pampango]

34. Sounds like "fair trade" not "free trade". Are we against that, too?

Those that argue against free trade (which is easy to do, since there is no such thing as "free trade") often say they are in favor of fair trade. It will be interesting to see how much support there is here for "fair trade" if these deals have enforceable labor and environmental agreements. (Of course, "fair traders" can always contend that the labor and environmental agreements are "not good enough.")

Or will we back away from "fair trade" in favor of "no trade", since the wage level advantage that exists in Third World countries will still give a competitive advantage to companies locating and exporting from these countries?

[madfloridian]

45. Rangel..."bam, seal it and catch hell"

I was trying to find another source, since some here find Sirota distasteful...but guess what, I can't find that much. It is just not getting that much coverage. I don't think it could be considered fair trade because it is apparently unenforceable, and according to Rangel expected to get great criticism.

RANGEL BRAGS THAT DEALMAKERS PRIORITIZED GOP AND K STREET CONCERNS OVER DEM CAUCUS: CongressDaily reports that Rangel bragged to reporters that the reason dealmakers kept negotiations secret - and perhaps the reason why the legislative language remains secret - is because they feared rank-and-file Democrats would oppose the concessions that were needed to appease the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, GOP Sen. Charles Grassley (IA), GOP Rep. Jim McCrery (LA) and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT), who last year traveled to India to trumpet job outsourcing. "Every time we had them all together, someone jumped off," Rangel told reporters after the meeting, referring to that group. "So we said, we can't wait for the Caucus. When we got everybody holding hands, bam! Seal it and catch hell. We did both." The fact that Rangel now admits the Chamber of Commerce was so intimately involved in the negotiations may explain why the Chamber continues to say it has received "assurances" that the much-touted labor provisions in the deal will be rendered unenforceable.

http://www.workingassetsblog.com/2007/05/secret_trade_deal_day_13_dem_l.html

I have seen other assessments that agree that the labor provisions are unenforceable.

[Greyhound]

38. Because it is all bullshit. "requiring enforcement" in countries that

do not recognize those rights, and where there is nobody that will call for the enforcement if they did, amounts to nothing.

"Enforces multilateral environmental agreements, establishing a fair balance between poor countries' access to drugs and pharmaceutical company patents..." amounts to guaranteeing that the countries cannot procure, or produce, the drugs for themselves and are captive of the pharmaceutical companies. Mustn't let anymore of those people get medicine without paying our campaign contributors.

"Calling for" and "Pressuring" translates as continue to do what you've always done, but know that we don't like it. *Harrumph*

[rocktivity]

33. WHY keep it a secret

Why NOT discuss this where the rest of Congress, and the rest of America, can see and participate?

:shrug:
rocknation

[PassingFair]

40. Don't MAKE me sic THIS guy on you....

Don't!

[bobthedrummer]

41. kick

[Odin2005]

42. Somebody hang that treasonous DLC bastard on the end of a rope.

[AX10]

43. Emanuel is a Carville "Democrat".

He will sell us out everytime!

[bobthedrummer]

44. .