Posted on 11/21/2015 9:42:15 AM PST by Isara
According to the Des Moines Register, Cruz said he is "deeply concerned" with the trade pact.
"While Cruz said he supports free trade, he believes the Trans-Pacific Partnership would undermine U.S. immigration laws and the nation's sovereignty," reported the Des Moines Register.
"There are a number of Republicans on that (debate) stage who support TPP, who support (the Trade Promotion Authority)," Cruz stated. "I voted against TPA and I intend to vote against TPP."
TPA - Trade Promotion Authority - is the legislation that Congress passed in June that granted President Obama fast-track trade authority so that trade deals - such as the TPP - only get an up or down vote by Congress, which cannot offer any amendments.
"I believe we can negotiate a much better agreement with a strong conservative president than we have with Barack Obama," Cruz stated.
Cruz was visiting the Hawkeye state following a recent endorsement by Iowa Congressman Rep. Steve King (R-IA).
A member of the Republican Party of Iowa's governing board, Loras Schulte, a according to the Des Moines Register, "announced Friday that he would resign his position and endorse Cruz."
...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Is it “inside baseball “ to give this president and this congress this kind of power?
Was it really a good idea when we are talking about Obama,Orange Cheetos ,Mitch turtle policy wonk Ryan.
Really ?
Cruz explained his vote on this very well. TPA was supposed to be the vehicle that gave congress a say in trade. In addition, McConnell told him Ex-Im would be killed. He was lied to. You can go after him for believing McConnell. That’s a fair criticism, but to say he was swayed by globalists is unfair. Cruz has been consistent on his opposition to crony capitalism. Trump, on the other hand, has “bought” politicians and used eminent domain to take private property.
Thank you, Marcella. I appreciate that is true. And, I understand what happened, but was disappointed to see anyone get jacked by McConnell, especially over the sage objections and counsel of Jeff Sessions, who had no skin in this game, and no globalist interests as his donors, unlike McConnell......, and others, from the Wall Street connected TPP crowd.
I said weeks ago that Cruz nor Rubio will be caught dead backing TPP again, at least in public, and least of all now, that TRUMP from the beginning exposed this “fair trade” ruse, and subsequently dismantled the TPP supporters running rampant under the GOP full court press.
Here’s what makes me shiver— I wonder whom it will be, among these candidates, that will trade off their run as a conservative for the backing of the GOP to attempt to damage Trump in the General Election.
The Trump Card, LLS, avoids disclosure of donors because it is not a pac, as you know. Like the Clinton Foundation, it is indecipherable who exactly these donors are, but they are not a PAC. They are a COMPLEX, to break our front runner.
I really believe even Soros fears a Trump nomination and will funnel money into the LLS. The rest of the field is much weaker against Hillary, imho, and the money guys know it. They will take Hillary.
If Trump should get taken out, no one will stand, but the one who acquiesces to the demands and handling of the GOP Donors/Wall Street/K Street/Business Round Table/Koch Bros/Democrat Donors/Soros, all of them, who are pushing TPP. This is getting obviously dangerous for a Republic.
imho.
But the Trumpkins keep saying he’s for it!
I’m surprised you haven’t seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaWgFoVI4JU
It’s pretty historical. It explains why Cruz voted the way he did. 0 was going to get his TPP. TPA was supposed to give congress negotiating power and was part of deal to kill Ex-Im. McConnell lied, Cruz calls him out. He even explains why he trusted McConnell.
It gave congress a say in trade,WOW, Holy sh@t,that’s great.
Because this congress has had the best interest of the American people as its only objective,and has done so well.I mean,just look at how they have fought Obama tooth and nail,just bloody outright war.
Yea, lets give Barack TPA,and if he try’s to pass a bad deal we will fight him to the bitter end,just like we’ve been doing for the American people the last 7 years.
The phrase “giving Obama this power” really doesn’t make sense. Obama was going ahead with TPP whatever congress did. TPA was supposed to bring congress into the mix.
Goldman wants TPP, Cruz wants to vote against it, sooooo, Cruz can now vote against it and still get a pat on the head from Goldman and all the others who benefit from US trade law being made anywhere except in the US.
NAFTA wasn't enough to wake people up so, it'll have to get worse before they do.
Whether that'll be too late to recover remains to be seen.
JMHo
Another thread about Cruz filled with people that can’t get past his one significant blunder, but somehow managed to get past an entire career of them and vote for a guy that BBQs dead aborted babies, fathered homo marriage in America, Invented the basis of Obamacare and was partners governing lockstep with Ted Kennedy.
It would be funny if people weren’t so pathetic.
We won’t even get into Don’s “Sorry conservatives” remark that launched his campaign or the ‘who cares’ attitude people have about his condemnation of Pam Gellar over Muslims.
But no. Just keep slamming away on the guy with a 97% lifetime rating while bemoaning the evil ‘purists’.
That word...I do mot think it means what they think it means.
O was going to get his TPP,so we make it easier for him by giving him TPA?
Reducing the amount of votes to pass?
Really?
When you don’t want something to pass, you take no action whatsoever that will make it possible for it to pass.
Voting for TPA was a massive mistake. Cruz actually thought he could trust McConnell? That’s just lame.
You vote no on TPA because it was necessary for TPP to pass.
It was the same logic on the Corker Bill.
Cruz is touted as on sharp cookie, but there are times when his disproves it.
Too late—Cruz voted to make TPA inevitable, with a gobbledygook explanation—which teed up TPP for Obama perfectly.
Where’s the leadership?
Like I said, that makes no sense. “Easier for him.” What does that mean? If TPP failed 98-1 (Grahmansty failing to vote), it was still going to happen. Just like the Iran deal: Obama was going to get a deal with Iran, it didn’t matter who did what.
Ah, I made my fourth donation to Cruz on Tuesday.
I know you didn’t specifically call me out, but I have low tolerance for bullshit.The people defending Cruz’s vote on this need to stop.They are the same people who were posting nonstop for TPA,with their canned answers ad nausem.
I accept people are not perfect,and I think Cruz has had more than one bad vote,but I still support him financially.He is the only true conservative in the race.
But ,bullshit is bullshit,Obama and THIS congress should not be given any more power to dismantle America,than they already have.
Note that the quaint Democrat Party blog The Des Moines Register is attempting to discourage support for Cruz. Iowa is a prime beneficiary of the TPP, exporting huge amounts of grain, meat and ag equipment (and even ethanol) to those Asian countries that now have high tariffs on their imports from the USA.
I’m not sure the TPP has been voted on yet.
My point re: Cruz was to stay away from it,it’s third rail and its going to burn.
You know it is a little discouraging to see how Cruz’s position on TPA and TPP are so misunderstood, yes TPA is somewhat complicated maybe for someone in middle school but beyond that it is fairly simple to understand what Cruz was wanting to do, I don’t know how many times I’ve read here on FR the idiotic statement Cruz has voted for TPP and they still say it no doubt it will probably show up on this thread as it almost always does.
Cruz will still win despite all the foolishness but it is aggravating to contend with the simple minded.
Oh here we go again. No wonder Cruz doesn’t poll well. Perhaps the majority is right and you are simple minded. People are sick of this Cruz is more brilliant than anyone else the the world BS. Could be why many are opposed to him. His “brilliance” doesn’t seem to rub off on many of his supporters. If a doofus like McConnell can fool him, I have to worry.
Bet that never crossed your “simple mind”.
Thank you for pointing that out to me. Please keep in mind that the article was a few months ago before they added Ex-Im bank deal to TPA.
Senator Cruz entirely understands the widespread suspicion of the President. Nobody has been more vocal in pointing out the President's lawlessness or more passionate about fighting his usurpation of congressional authority.
Senator Cruz would not and will not give President Obama one more inch of unrestricted power.
There have been a lot of questions and concerns about the ongoing Pacific trade negotiations. Many of those concerns, fueled by the media, stem from confusion about Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Let's unpack the issues one by one.
What are TPA and TPP?
TPA stands for Trade Promotion Authority, also known as "fast track". TPA is a process by which trade agreements are approved by Congress. Through TPA, Congress sets out up-front objectives for the Executive branch to achieve in free trade negotiations; in exchange for following those objectives, Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade agreements without amendments. For the past 80 years, it has proven virtually impossible to negotiate free-trade agreements without the fast-track process.
TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is a specific trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States and 11 other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China is not a negotiating partner. There is no final language on TPP because negotiations are still ongoing and have been since late 2009. Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP. There will be no vote on TPP until the negotiations are over and the final agreement is sent to Congress.
Some Key Facts:
Does TPA give up the Senate's treaty power?
No. Under the Constitution, there are two ways to make binding law: (1) through a treaty, ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, or (2) through legislation passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress. TPA employs the second constitutional path, as trade bills always have done. It has long been recognized that the Constitution's Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives' involvement.
Does the United States give up Sovereignty by entering into TPP?
No. Nothing in the agreement forces Congress to change any law. TPA explicitly provides that nothing in any trade agreement can change U.S. law. Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law, and Congress is the only entity that can change U.S. law. Nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.
Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPP?
Senator Cruz has not taken a position either in favor or against TPP. He will wait until the agreement is finalized and he has a chance to study it carefully to ensure that the agreement will open more markets to American-made products, create jobs, and grow our economy. Senator Cruz has dedicated his professional career to defending U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. He will not support any trade agreement that would diminish or undermine either.
Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPA?
Yes. Senator Cruz voted in favor of TPA earlier this year because it breaks the logjam that is preventing the U.S. from entering into trade deals that are good for American workers, American businesses, and our economy. Ronald Reagan emphatically supported free trade, and Senator Cruz does as well. He ran for Senate promising to support free trade, and he is honoring that commitment to the voters.
Free trade helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers; indeed, one in five American jobs depends on trade, in Texas alone 3 million jobs depend on trade. When we open up foreign markets, we create American jobs.
TPA also strengthens Congress' hand in trade negotiations, and provides transparency by making the agreement (including TPP) public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on any final agreement. Without TPA, there is no such transparency, and the Congress' role in trade agreements is weaker.
Is TPA Constitutional?
TPA and similar trade authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional for more than 100 years.
Does TPA give the President more authority?
No. TPA ensures that Congress has the ability to set the objectives up-front for free trade agreements.
Trade Promotion Authority has been used to reduce trade barriers since FDR. When Harry Reid took over the Senate, he killed it. History demonstrates that it is almost impossible to negotiate a free-trade agreement without TPA. Right now without TPA, America is unable to negotiate free-trade agreements, putting the United States at a disadvantage to China, which is taking the lead world-wide. It is not in America's interests to have China writing the rules of international trade.
Moreover, Obama is going to be president for just 18 more months. TPA is six-year legislation. If we want the next president (hopefully a Republican) to be able to negotiate free-trade agreements to restart our economy and create jobs here at home then we must reinstate TPA. With a Republican president in office, Senate Democrats would almost certainly vote party-line to block TPA, so now is the only realistic chance.
How can Senator Cruz trust Obama?
He doesn't. Not at all. No part of Senator Cruz's support for TPA was based on trusting Obama. However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress. If the Obama Administration tries to do something terrible in a trade agreement, Congress can vote it down. And most congressional Democrats will always vote no-because union bosses oppose free trade, so do most Democrats-which means a handful of conservative congressional Republicans have the votes to kill any bad deal. That's a serious check on presidential power.
Isn't TPP a "living agreement"?
That particular phrase-a foolish and misleading way to put it-is found in the "summary" portion of one particular section of the draft agreement. That section allows member nations to amend the agreement in the future, expressly subject to the approval of their governments. Thus, if some amendment were proposed in the future, Congress would have to approve it before it went into effect.
But isn't TPA a secret agreement?
No, it is not. The full text of TPA (fast track) is public. What the Senate just voted for was TPA, not TPP.
Right now, the text of TPP is classified. That is a mistake. Senator Cruz has vigorously called on the Obama administration to make the full text of TPP open to the public immediately. The text being hidden naturally only fuels concerns about what might be in it. Senator Cruz has read the current draft of TPP, and it should be made public now.
Critically, under TPA, TPP cannot be voted on until after the text has been public for 60 days. Therefore, everyone will be able to read it long before it comes up for a vote.
Couldn't Obama use a trade agreement to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants?
No. There is one section of TPP that concerns immigration, but it affects only foreign nations-the United States has explicitly declined to sign on to that section.
Moreover, Senator Cruz introduced a TPA amendment to expressly prohibit any trade deal from attempting to alter our immigration laws.
Two Republican Senators (Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul) blocked the Senate's consideration of that amendment, but the House of Representatives has agreed to include that language in the final text of the trade legislation. Thus, assuming the House honors that public commitment, federal law will explicitly prohibit any trade deal from impacting immigration.
And, regardless, no trade agreement can change U.S. law; only Congress can change U.S. law.
I break with some of my fellow Cruzadors on this one.
Ted Cruz was always for fast track (TPA), is still for fast track, and though ultimately havingg voted against it, Cruz did so only because he knew it would pass. Ted Cruz always wanted fast track for his Presidency, and that’s exactly what he got. (In fact, he said it straight out yesterday, He said it directly yesterday— “I want to negotiate TPP.”)
And, in that regard, there’s been such absolute nonsense spewed in this thread; especially by some who are normally sane people. The Trumpers trumpet from on high how they want the Donald to negotiate or renegotiate trade deals. You know the YUGE ones that will bring back jobs to America, and it will be beautiful, and good, and make us great again. Well, thanks to Cruz, he now has the fast track mechanism to do just that— the Dems can’t block him! Why would Trumpeters not want fast track as a tool for the Donald to make America Yuge and great?
Now, as to TPP, Cruz never expected it to pass, because he assessed the political landscape of 2016, and made a judgment that the Dems would not support it (e.g. Hillary Clinton) — and an equal judgment that the Pubs would be foolish to support when the odds are that there will be a GOP President to re-negoiate it in 2017. It won’t pass! Cruz knew this!
Cruz thus secured fast track with the knowledge that it would not benefit Obama.
Now, if TPP passes, then certainly, people can criticize Cruz for his wrongful strategy. If it doesn’t pass, however, then hopefully (though doubtfully) some will give credit to a master strategist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.