Posted on 05/22/2015 9:50:40 AM PDT by Mariner
As the House inches closer to a vote on the long-awaited Trade Promotion Authority bill, conservatives who have traditionally been hard-liners in their opposition to deals with the White House are taking a softer approach.
While many on the right are still hedging their position on the TPA, there appears to be some conservative support for the trade process legislation. And with congressional Democrats increasingly taking a firmer line against the TPA, which would give expedited consideration to the Trans-Pacific Partnership under negotiation with 11 other countries, conservatives could be the key to getting the TPA over the finish line.
At a monthly panel discussion for conservative lawmakers Wednesday, a cross-section of the House GOPs most needling members expressed views ranging from support to little more than light opposition to the TPA bill. Most Republicans in attendance Justin Amash of Michigan, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Raúl R. Labrador of Idaho, Jim Jordan of Ohio and Ken Buck of Colorado all said they were leaning no on the fast-track authority. (Dave Brat of Virginia said he was leaning heavy no.) But Cynthia M. Lummis of Wyoming said she was undecided, and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, perhaps GOP leaderships biggest critic, even sounded supportive.
(Excerpt) Read more at 3.blogs.rollcall.com ...
They didn't author this bill...It has been negotiated without the interest of me and other persons. Do I or you have a say in the forming of bills? My Congressman cannot change the bill, but merely vote for it, yes or no. That does not represent the commons, but the lobbyist and other trading partners.
The fact that so few GOP Senators voted against TPP goes to show yet again that the Republican Party is all about fake opposition. They’re always full of bluff and bluster about how much they oppose Obama and the Democrats’ agenda, and may fight him on lesser issues to create a public spectacle, but on issues that actually count, like trade and immigration, Obama’s so-called “opposition” now marches lockstep with him. Surprised? I’m not. That’s what happens when you have a single political party masquerading as two.
Capitalization is like liberals yelling their point.
What they fail to mention in most of these articles is that fast track also changes the requirement for treaties from 2/3rds to a simple majority. This trade agreement will never happen without fast track. If TPA (fast track) is passed there will be no other debate and TPP will become law. It may even allow a few Senators to be on record voting against it knowing full well that it will have 51 votes anyway. I suspect that Cruz will be in this category since he already voted for fast track.
When it comes to certain issues, the uniparty brooks no dissent. Whoring out America to so called “free trade” is just one of those issues.
Lots of dramatic theatre for public consumption, but the die has already been cast.
SO WHAT
I trust Cruz, too. He is supporting the 2.2 million jobs in his state that rely on exports.
You betcha! Keep up your good work!
It is impossible for the Senate to pass a treaty with a “simple majority.”. The Constitution forbids it and Senate rules don’t trump it.
What a “simple majority” allows is no immediate hassle with the bill and the ability to undo it whenever the Senate so deems.
You may be right, but isn’t Cruz’s willingness to stand on principle and his willingness and eloquence in defending his positions against MSM critics, a big reason why so many of us have been attracted to him as a candidate? If, for the sake of expedience, he starts to abandon that which made him stand out from all the others, then sadly, he risks becoming just like all the others
Your senator can and should always vote “no” for things for which he/she doesn’t know or agree.
What’s the problem?
The fate of this bill will be determined by fast track. Those who supported fast track have shown their position on the treaty.
NAFTA has not been a problem. Our problem has been trade with China which requires China’s partial ownership of every business and the stealing of said intellectual property.
Treaties can’t be undone, but a simple Senate majority, can.
“Those who supported fast track have shown their position on the treaty.”
What treaty are you/we talking about? There are no treaties. Do I need to explain this to you all over?
If you can point to a treaty, we have a different discussion yet to be had.
The same issues would continue to exists under non-fast-track, because the same things can still be passed by a simple majority. “Fast-track” doesn’t change this. Can you prove otherwise?
If there is no fast track the bill will go to the floor as a treaty requiring a Senate supermajority. Fast track is the maneuver used to change the rules. Are there other ways they could go about this? Perhaps, but historically fast track is the only one that has ever been used on treaties. The fact that our politicians prefer to call it by another name (TPA) is telling.
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.