Congressional Dems Displeased With Trade Policy
One day after releasing the administration’s outline for its 2010 trade policy, which was roundly criticized by free trade opponents, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk told the Christian Science Monitor that the issue should unite rather than divide.
“We can’t allow trade to become the next wedge issue,” Kirk said, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
That, however, is more fantasy than reality and short-lived.
Soon after the USTR’s office released the report, numerous Congressional Democrats, who have never been able to achieve unanimity on trade issues, expressed their displeasure with the administration’s handling of international trade, perhaps exposing a deep divide in the party and a serious impediment to meaningful action on trade issues.
"While I appreciate that the President's Trade Agenda is strong on trade enforcement and reciprocity, there is no emphasis on ensuring that the trade policies we are pursuing actually benefit the United States. We still need Ambassador Kirk to develop an action plan to address any negative effects from existing trade agreements,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) said in a statement.
A long-time opponent of free trade policies that have cost his state thousands upon thousands of manufacturing jobs, Brown said the administration should support the TRADE Act, which would completely overhaul the way America conducts trade. By forcing a review of existing trade agreements, the bill also has the potential to improve flawed agreements that are already in place such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Kirk, in testimony in front of the Senate Finance Committee, said that it would be unwise for the nation to “take a timeout from trade,” but that is exactly what Brown wishes to do through the TRADE Act.
"The Administration appears to be moving forward on a trade agenda without showing how it would reduce the trade deficit and create new jobs,” he said in a statement.
Other Democrats appear to be just as skeptical of the administration's proposed trade policies this year. While some were willing to applaud the administration for at least paying lip service to stronger enforcement of existing trade agreements, they acknowledge that that will do little to stem the tide of job losses created by flawed trade policies.
“While I am pleased President Obama’s trade policy agenda includes enforcing our trade agreements and doubling our exports, I urge the Administration to focus more on making manufacturing a priority,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) said in a statement. “For years, we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs to countries overseas in large part due to our trade policies.”
Others were not as forgiving when it comes to the administration’s enforcement of existing trade policies.
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) questioned Kirk about the administration’s handling of last year’s influx of defective Chinese-made drywall that destroyed the homes of thousands of Floridians.
“We need the U.S. government slamming its fist on the table in dealing with the Chinese," he said during the hearing.

This Work, Congressional Dems Displeased With Trade Policy, by Dustin Ensinger is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.
Copyright © 2010 EconomyInCrisis.org
Sign up for our Newsletter
advertisement
Economic Crisis in US news, analytics, recommendations
Donate Today!
Recent Articles
Want to get involved? Sign up today!
Recent Comments
- So what? Perhaps a little
2 min 45 sec ago - I would make sure no high
2 hours 44 min ago - Does anyone remember the 1st
4 hours 34 min ago - An Alternative to Capitalism
6 hours 40 min ago - NO VAT necessary IF:
8 hours 35 min ago - now you're talking rush
10 hours 21 min ago - Here's my suggestion: We
10 hours 44 min ago - at least you're not a rush
18 hours 34 min ago - An honest analysis of this
18 hours 37 min ago - Where was the outrage when
18 hours 52 min ago






While it is desirable that we should not restrict imports from balanced trade countries, problem arises where we buy energy from countries such as Iraq that we need but they can not buy everything we produce. That is where we need a council to manage these adjustments.
Could someone provide a synopsis of the TRADE act? To review the existing trade agreements is a necessary first step. Next step is to say what kind of a declaration by the U.S. should replace all these agreements.
I say tear all them up and write a new declaration of U.S. trade policy which will focus on how to restrict imports until the U.S. achieves more nearly equal trade (all our exports equal to all our imports). I do modify that extreme by saying that we should restrict only manufacturing goods and that restrictions should be limited to the nations whose trade surplus with the U.S. is creating our trade deficit.
I see no reason to restrict imports from those nation whose exports to us are nearly equal in value to the goods we sell to them.
How near does the proposed TRADE act come to the position outlined above?
Post new comment