1) What he's saying is that TPA is like all the other trade bills since FDR, and that there have been a lot of them. This is broadly verifiable, since he says TPA is a public document. Can someone settle this?
2) Trade is good. Check that: Trade is essential. There is no development or wealth without it. Thomas Sowell has always told us so, and I believe him.
3) Freer trade is better trade. Pat Buchanan is wrong on this. Truly freer, that is: Not just freer for contributors to the party in power who want to import cheap stuff and let the regs entangle everyone else. That got us the Civil War, if you remember. But the key is that putting shackles on trade is putting shackles on innovation, competition, and ultimately on American prosperity. Example: For decades, we protected the auto unions in Detroit by keeping Japanese cars out of the country. All that did was remove incentives for Detroit to keep improving their cars. Finally, the restrictions and tariffs were lowered, and the Japanese cars came in—having developed in more competitive markets. They clobbered Detroit. Not just on price, but on design, performance, reliability, service, and INTELLIGENCE. Without protecting our lax and corrupt auto industry, our cars would have improved 35 years earlier, and we probably wouldn't have lost that whole city in the meantime.
4) Does the vote on TPA truly function as a cloture vote on TPP? I'd like to see confirmation of this. Has anyone asked the Senator this, and has he responded, or refused to respond? Is TPP genuinely unbeatable by anything short of a hurricane making landfall in the District, no matter how bad the bill is? Can someone truly demonstrate this? So far, I haven't seen Cruz make empty claims, which that would imply. But I would consider evidence. As I read them, the responses cited are logical and clear, and consistent with what I know.
The main collision here seems to be between the free trade view and the tariff view of the world—which is the Democrats' turf. That's where your goal is to pass special tariffs to protect your friends and contributors—as opposed to a free-for-all that rewards innovation. My read of history is that the latter system is more just and involves less government interference, and embodies what has made America succeed.
My objection (hanging together here) is not the favorable history of trade agreements of yesterday, nor even the moving target of the contents, nor is it even the process of these two bills. It’s the TIMING and it’s OBAMA. Period.
I don’t want to see his signature on anything for fifteen months. I don’t want to hear his voice on issues for fifteen months. I want him frozen in place as near as that is made possible, for fifteen months.
Yesterday is gone, as Rubio said. Trust is dead. Our government is corrupt. We have evidence! :)
That's what the protectionists would have you believe. But the truth is, the 535 are free to vote as they will, having heard at least 60 days' worth of input from their constituents, re the final version of TPP.
The main collision here seems to be between the free trade view and the tariff view of the world—which is the Democrats' turf. That's where your goal is to pass special tariffs to protect your friends and contributors—as opposed to a free-for-all that rewards innovation. My read of history is that the latter system is more just and involves less government interference, and embodies what has made America succeed.
That's absolutely true!