Thursday, January 4, 2007
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
The devil is in Max Baucus' details
I've received more than one query about what to make of Max Maucus' Wall Street Journal op-ed on trade policy(subscription only). Here's an excerpt: Some think that the new Democratic congressional majority will be bad for trade policy. While it is true that some candidates criticized trade in their campaigns, I believe that the new Congress will have both the desire and opportunity to renew U.S. trade policy, with a unifying purpose that Americans can understand and support. Through trade, we must bolster the nation's innovative economy in an increasingly global marketplace. At the same time, we must tackle with equal vigor the negative domestic consequences of globalization, from trade deficits to job losses.There are three ways to interpret this essay: 1) Baucus, representing pro-trade Democrats, is laying down a marker against protectionist Democrats. For Sherrod Brown, Byron Dorgan, James Webb, etc., he's saying, "It's great that you won your elections with economic populism, but now you have to actually try and craft policy that does not trigger trade wars, runs on the dollar, global recessions, economic development, etc. We agree that cushioning the losers is important, and we're with you on bolstering labor and environmental standards, but let's play like grown ups, shall we?"I'll be charitable and say that the op-ed is 40% of (1), 25% of (2), and 35% of (3). One last point -- Baucus embrace of a service pact with the EU, coming so soon after Angela Merkel's quasi-TAFTA proposal, makes me wonder if the Bush administration will become more enthusiastic about the proposal -- or run away, scared it's an EU-Blue State conspiracy. posted by Dan on 01.04.07 at 03:58 PMComments: For sure, Baucus wants less in the way of free trade than we have now. And less than we would have with a Republican congress. I guess Prof. Drezner isn't going to mention these rather obvious points. posted by: y81 on 01.04.07 at 03:58 PM [permalink]Three factories within 40 miles of my house announced major permanent layoffs or closings so far this week. The TAA is the biggest farce on the planet. The Bush-ites have interpretted it in uselessness. "We agree that cushioning the losers is important..." That is a hoax, there is nothing but lip service from either party - so far. People are going to vote their pocketbooks, and that's why Sherrod Brown is a Senator and Mike DeWine is a retiree. posted by: save_the_rustbelt on 01.04.07 at 03:58 PM [permalink]For sure, Baucus wants less in the way of free trade than we have now. And less than we would have with a Republican congress. Are you talking about the GOP Congress that voted to raise farm subsidies, and that didn't oppose Bush raising of steel tariffs? Are you talking about the GOP Congress that voted to raise farm subsidies, and that didn't oppose Bush raising of steel tariffs? I think he’s thinking of the Democrats who wrote the Senate version of the 2002 Farm Bill and this time won’t have to compromise with a GOP controlled House that favored less in the way of subsidies. As far as steel tariffs go, since Bush sent VP Cheney to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate killing attempt to reauthorize the Byrd Amendment which gave the president statutory authorization for said tariffs, it isn’t even an issue unless the Democratic-controlled Congress follows Baucus’ suggestion and tries to restore the law.
Post a Comment: |
|