Posted on 06/15/2015 9:21:35 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Just what we need. A squishy (or fluffy, depending upon how you view cellulite) northeast governor considering a run for the presidency visits Iowa and uses talking points lifted directly from progressive propaganda to attack Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie took aim at 2016 Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) on Friday, accusing him and other lawmakers of “hypocrisy” over federal disaster relief.
“We have Sen. Cruz, who voted against Sandy relief. Now he says he’s got floods in Texas. He says, ‘Hey, we need some help down here in Texas.’ It’s great, right?” Christie said in the early-voting state of Iowa, according to CNN.
Christie similarly criticized Colorado lawmakers who opposed federal disaster relief following Superstorm Sandy but then sought relief after major flooding in their state in 2013. Sandy caused significant damage in New Jersey and along much of the East Coast.
This nonsense has been floating around the left for a while and, like so many egregious lies, it has a grain of truth that makes it plausible to nitwits. So, yes, New Jersey was hit by a major hurricane, Sandy, back in 2012. Christie celebrated by hugging Obama as Mitt Romney was running for president. For what, we’re not really sure. The hurricane hit New Jersey on October 28 and an aid bill wasn’t passed until January 29, 2013. And Ted Cruz really did vote against the aid package. Let’s turn to Heritage Foundation for some insight:
Apart from that, much of the $60.4 billion in requested emergency spending is aimed at either mitigating future events and repairing or replacing federal assets.[5] Of Obamas requested items, less than $23 billion of the $60.4 billion involves addressing emergency damages sustained by state and local governments, private-sector businesses, and individuals.
As a point of perspective, with the vast majority of homes and businesses privately insured, the total cost estimate for the entire private industry is just more than $20 billion.[6] Why is the federal spending proposal three times as large?
Yes, you read that correctly. Not only did the bill not pass until 91 days after the event (by contrast the Katrina relief bill passed 11 days after the event) but 2/3 of the bill was simply pork barrel spending that had nothing at all to do with disaster relief. It was spending that was bootstrapped into a “must pass” bill in order to avoid scrutiny.
This is not to say Ted Cruz is above criticism. But if the best Chris Christie can do is regurgitate DailyKos talking points he needs to reconsider his qualifications to be president.
Totally false. As already noted above (and reiterated here by Catos Dan Ikenson and here by the Congressional Research Service), Congress under TPA retains total control over the international trade authority granted to it by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Any trade agreement negotiated by the president (which he has constitutional authority to do under Article II) still must be approved by Congress.
As noted by the CRS, TPA reflects decades of debate, cooperation, and compromise between Congress and the executive branch in finding a pragmatic accommodation to the exercise of each branchs respective authorities over trade policy. It represents a gentlemans agreement between the legislative branch and the executive branchwith the former promising the latter fast track rules for the requisite congressional approval of an FTA, if, and only if, the latter (i) agrees to follow a detailed set of congressional negotiating objectives for the agreements content; and (ii) engages in a series of consultations with Congress on that content. As discussed more fully below, each branch of government retains its constitutional authority to abandon this gentlemans agreement, but doing so will essentially kill any hope of signing and implementing new FTAs. So, with limited exceptions, Congress and the executive toe the line.
Because neither branch gets expansive new powers or short-changed, Congress has granted every U.S. president since FDR some form of trade negotiating authority (source):
Pretty boring when you think about it, huh?
Mostly false. As already noted, TPA sets congressional negotiating objectives on a range of issues (some more palatable than others), but, contrary to the statements of TPA antagonists and even some supporters, these objectives are not legally binding on the executive branch. Instead, the president retains his authority to negotiate with foreign governments, and, as Meese notes, thats a good thing: under well-established constitutional rulings, it would raise serious constitutional concerns for Congress to try to mandate the President’s negotiating positions.
The president and his U.S. trade representative thus technically have discretion to ignore these objectives, but doing so would obviously jeopardize any final congressional vote. As the CRS explains:
To take the fullest advantage of these benefits, Congress, drawing on its constitutional authority and historical precedent, defined the objectives that the President is to pursue in trade negotiations. Although the executive branch has some discretion over implementing these goals, they are definitive statements of U.S. trade policy that the Administration is expected to honor, if it expects trade agreement implementing legislation to be considered under expedited rules [i.e., fast track].
The negotiating objectives constitute one part of the gentlemans agreement between Congress and the president: follow our wishes when you negotiate, and well limit our meddling when a final deal is struck. If the president doesnt follow them, then the deal is off.
Which brings us to
Totally false. Not only does the latest version of TPA include new language expressly stating that the House or Senate can dismantle the fast-track rules for various disapproval reasons, buteven more importantlyCongress has always retained this power because it has plenary authority over its rules of procedure, including fast track.
The new TPA, like previous versions before it, acknowledges this fact in Sec. 106(c), which states that the fast-track rules are enacted as as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate, but with the full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that House. The CRS summary of TPA reiterates this fact: Congress reserves its constitutional right to withdraw or override the expedited procedures for trade implementing bills, which can take effect with a vote by either House of Congress.
Such power is not merely theoretical. It is precisely what then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did to the Colombia FTA in 2008 after President Bush submitted its implementing legislation. Her move effectively dismantled the fast track procedures and thus delayed congressional consideration of the agreement indefinitely.
In short, Congress retains total control over the FTA implementation process under TPA and can only be bound by the fast track rules if it wants to be bound.
Sensing a theme here yet?
Totally false. Probably the most-repeated myth right now isnt even related to TPA but instead to the TPP, which is still being negotiated. According to the anti-TPA script, the TPP is so secret that nobody knows whats in it, andmuch like Obamacare legislationnobody, not even Congress, will know whats in it until the agreement is passed into law. Once again, however, nothing could be further from the truth:
Today's history lesson: Nutty ol' Perot on NAFTA's scary secrecy. Sound familiar? #TPP #TPA https://t.co/YLjlJfusUr pic.twitter.com/l1LGWPftzV
— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) June 5, 2015
Yes, protectionists have been using the same secrecy lines for over 20 years. In fact, if you replaced NAFTA with TPP in those old Ross Perot commercials, theyd be almost indistinguishable from the ones on our TVs today.
Bottom line: when or if TPA is passed, the general public will have monthsand if the presidential elections interfere, maybe yearsto review the TPP before Congress acts on it. Think thats crazy? Well, its precisely what happened to U.S. FTAs with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, which were signed by President Bush but sat around (online) for years before they were submitted to, and passed by, Congress in 2011.
Totally false, as Watson and I explained last year:
FTAs embody unenforceable promises governments make to each other. Domestic governmentshere, Congressretain the sole authority to ignore those promises and violate international commitments, and they (unfortunately) do so frequently. Foreign governments cannot force their trading partners to comply with the terms of an FTAthe only extra-national consequence of a violation is that other parties to the agreement may abrogate their commitments in a commensurate amount (e.g., by raising tariffs on imports from the United States from levels that were lowered in the FTA). Moreover, every U.S. trade agreement permits the parties to act outside the agreed disciplines in the name of, among other things, national security, public health and safety, or environmental protection. Thus, the idea that TPA and FTAs violate U.S. sovereignty or regulatory autonomy is patently false.
These principles hold true for the TPP, including its dispute settlement and controversial investor-state provisions. Despite what Warren (and some media outlets) would like you to believe, there is nothingabsolutely nothingthat can force the United States to comply with an adverse dispute settlement ruling issued under the TPP or any other U.S. trade agreement. Period.
But, hey, if you dont believe me, heres Attorney General Meese again:
Future trade deals would not be unconstitutional, nor would they undermine U.S. sovereignty, if they contained an agreement to submit some disputes to an international tribunal for an initial determination. The United States will always have the ultimate say over what its domestic laws provide. No future agreement could grant an international organization the power to change U.S. laws.
A ruling by an international tribunal that calls a U.S. law into question would have no domestic effect unless Congress changes the law to comply with the ruling. If Congress rejects a ruling or fails to act, other countries might impose a trade sanction or tariff, but they are more likely to impose high tariffs now without any agreement. The fact remains that no international body or foreign government may change any American law. Moreover, Congress may override an entire agreement at any time by a simple statute. Nations also may withdraw from international agreements by executive action alone. That is one reason why such agreements do not interfere with the underlying sovereignty of each nation to chart its own course in the world. In short, the U.S. Constitution and any laws and treaties we enact in accordance thereto are the only supreme law of our land.
If thats not clear enough for you, then I dont know what is.
Totally false. Various politicians and pundits have sought to arouse suspicions by claiming, among other things, that TPA will permit President Obama to bypass Congress and use the TPP as a backdoor to, among other things, lawlessly expand immigration, curtail gun rights, or restrict Internet freedom. At this point, however, I hope you can see just how ridiculous these claims are. Regardless of the issue, the fact will always remain that nothing can be implemented via the TPP unless Congress agrees to implement it via a formal vote.
This would include things like new work visas (something that U.S. FTAs havent actually done for years now) or Internet regulations or gun rules or minimum wages or whatever: it all has to become law before it has any legal force, and the only people making law are Congress (and, again, according to their own procedural rules). So, if in the TPP the president committed the United States to toss every AR-15 into the Atlantic Ocean, those guns arent going anywhere unless Congress formally agrees, subject to all of the constitutional, procedural, and transparency rules already discussed.
And, really, do you think this Congress is going to do anything of the sort? Really? (For more specific debunking of these crazy ideas, go here, here, here and here.)
We still dont know precisely whats in the TPP, and final judgmentby Congress and the publicshould therefore be withheld until we do. But the idea that TPP, empowered by TPA, will grant President Obama any new legal authority to ignore or change U.S. immigration or gun or whatever laws without Congress is simply ludicrous.
Mostly false. There is little doubt that FTAs benefit some U.S. corporations and workers, while harming othersthats kinda free-market competitions thing.
SHOCK: FTA predicted to reflect/amplify USA's comparative advantages & disadvantages: http://t.co/PUgLrpL3O8 pic.twitter.com/INypfluXSk
— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) March 16, 2015
In general, however, the corporate winners (who tend to be in growing, innovative industries) from U.S. FTAs outnumber the losers (who tend to be in archaic, uncompetitive ones). And every legitimate economic analysis of the TPP confirms this general rule. FTAs also contain rules and exceptions for well-connected stakeholders. As Ive repeatedly discussed, this is a big reason why FTAs are third best option for U.S. trade policy.
Nevertheless, there is also little doubt that (i) FTAs are pretty much the only trade liberalization game in town these days; (ii) while unpalatable, the cronyist exceptions in U.S. FTAs, are relatively minor compared to the overall liberalization; and (iii) the biggest winners from such liberalization arent corporations or the mega-rich, but consumers, particularly poor ones.
Hey, average American [especially low-income ones], heres how you benefit from free trade http://t.co/0T2XnveplW pic.twitter.com/sLf8p6p62c
— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) May 20, 2015
(More here.) These gains wouldnt be possible without FTAs (as much as we free traders wish they would be).
Good oped from NRF's Matt Shay on how US FTAs, made possible by #TPA, benefit US consumers: http://t.co/PLck4zo6dI pic.twitter.com/0IYlQwwV0L
— Scott Lincicome (@scottlincicome) May 11, 2015
Thus, the idea that FTAs like the TPP, or any other reduction in global trade barriers, benefit the 1 percent at the expense of working class is just not true. Indeed, as we at the Cato Institute are constantly pointing out, the real cronyism in trade policy takes place on the anti-trade side of the ledger: corporations and unions lobbying government to shield them from free-market forces, always at consumers expense. Its precisely for this reason that many of the U.S. lobbying dollars spent on TPP arent from pro-export mercantilists (although there are plenty of those, too) but from those anti-competitive industries (autos, steel, textiles, sugar, etc.) and unions that are seeking to scuttle the deal or secure their own special exemptions.
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.