Posted on 06/23/2015 5:43:39 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) has penned a column for Breitbart explaining his shift from support to opposition on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the “fast track” legislation that would enable the current president and his successor to negotiate trade deals that Congress would then be able to vote up or down, but not amend.
Senator Cruz, a contender for the GOP presidential nomination, still supports free trade and, in principle, sees fast-track as helpful to that end. Nevertheless, he says GOP leadership’s sleight-of-hand has convinced him that, if not amended, the current TPA bill will become a scheme for passing bad legislation having little to do with trade — namely, immigration “reform” and reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
In his initial vote in favor of TPA, the senator intimates that he was misled by Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), who, when pressed on the matter, testily represented to him that there were no side-deals on Ex-Im. Cruz opposes reauthorization of the bank, which is scheduled to expire at the end of this month. He describes Ex-Im as “a classic example of corporate welfare” and cronyism at its worst” — a position Veronique de Rugy has repeatedly and (in my view) compellingly argued here on the Corner. (See archive, here.)
Because a bipartisan group of senators who support Ex-Im — led by Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.) and presidential hopeful Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) — blocked TPA when it first came up for a vote in the Senate, Cruz suspects a deal was being pushed to obtain their support for TPA in exchange for a vote to reauthorize the bank.
Though McConnell promised him there was no such understanding, Cruz suggests that this flies in the face of what happened in the House. There, several Republicans proposed to Speaker John Boehner that they would support TPA if he agreed not to cut a deal with Democrats to reauthorize Ex-Im. Cruz writes, “Boehner declined. Instead, it appears he made the deal with Democrats, presumably tossing in the Ex-Im Bank and also increasing tax penalties on businesses.” Moreover, Cruz observes, Boehner is punishing conservatives who opposed him, “wrongly stripping Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.) of his subcommittee chairmanship, and reportedly threatening to strip other conservatives of their chairmanships as well.”
Add to this the specter of TPA as the fast track to immigration amnesty that President Obama and bipartisan “reform” advocates have been unable to pass through the normal legislative process. Senator Cruz notes that he and Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) were blocked by Republican leadership from votes on amendments they proposed to bar fast-track treatment for any trade deals that attempt to impact U.S. immigration law.
Cruz recalls that he and Senator Sessions were told their fears about the abuse of trade legislation to remake immigration law were “unfounded.” At this point, however, he says he is done with such oral assurances — he wants commitments that are written expressly into the laws:
Enough is enough. I cannot vote for TPA unless McConnell and Boehner both commit publicly to allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire—and stay expired. And, Congress must also pass the Cruz-Sessions amendments to TPA to ensure that no trade agreement can try to back-door changes to our immigration laws. Otherwise, I will have no choice but to vote no.
Cruz further castigates GOP leadership for consistently caving in to Democrats and “disregard[ing] promises made to the conservative grassroots.” The full column is worth reading.
I have argued here against the meritless contention that TPA is unconstitutional. Furthermore, if you think trade agreements are good for the country, the chance of getting good trade agreements without fast-track authority is unlikely. From a strategic standpoint, I continue to believe we are more likely to get bad legislation if Congress can amend these agreements to make them marginally more palatable (but not materially better); a bad deal is more likely to lose in a straight up-or-down vote.
That said, while trade agreements are (or can be) very beneficial, they do not come in a vacuum. Like everything else, the authority for making them in a fast-track mode has to be weighed against other considerations — and trust is a big part of that equation.
If I were convinced, as Senator Cruz appears to be, that TPA — regardless of its legal and policy soundness — had become a smokescreen for slamming through non-trade legislation that would be worse for the country than trade is good for the country, I would not support it either.
Oh, puhleeeeze.
“When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When you don’t have the facts, Call Names.”
How embarrassing for you.
xzins...you do not come across as speaking for Sen Cruz. The article's author claims to know what Sen Cruz "intimated".
You've been EXTREMELY laid-back and level headed in your posts, thoughts and input on this...and every other post (that I can recall).
I read the 1st TPA and it gave no such powers to Obama. Several notable people said the same thing.
If it gave Obama power, then why did the democrats defeat it? They defeated it so that they could have the chance to amend it so that Obama would be given power. And that’s how the 2nd TPA came about with Boehner’s assistance.
But you have been told this countless times and you refuse to acknowledge it.
Here’s the rock solid proof (posted for the umpteenth time):
http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/heres-what-this-fight-is-all-about
Cruz is now saying that TPA #1 was flawed.
“5. When Ted Cruz read the Wiki-Leaks leak on the TPA and found out the Immigration language was still in the TPA and Additionally, when McConnell refused to let the Ex-IM bank expire (Corporate Welfare and Corporate Cronyism to the tune of Hundreds of Billions of Loan Guarantee) Cruz refused to vote for it on the second vote. “
So, I take it from that statement that Cruz was willing to vote yes to something he never read???
Certainly one is now left wondering whether Cruz is really for it or against it (giving Bammy and likely H! more freedom of action). It’s now impossible to tell though were Cruz to be against until a Conservative might become POTUS I’d view him with favor. Too early to tell at this point.... Cruz has become subject to closer scrutiny of action.
So, were Gowdy and Cruz mislead by McConnell?
It just seems to me that the boys didn’t do their homework, on the moving target (contents), of TPA.
Sessions however, seemed to have a grasp from the beginning on both TPA votes. (Grant it, Sessions had the time to grasp it, because he isn’t running for president, and he isn’t running the Benghazi Special Committee.)
Thanks, Jane. I was not speaking for Cruz. I had already copy/pasted the quote, so I assumed hostage hadn’t seen my original post on the subject. That’s why I again copy/pasted the section of the article in which it is report that ‘the senator intimates’ he had been misled.
There really isn’t any running from that quote.
That is a big concern. I figured that Cruz was for TPA so as to not totally piss off the GOPee and totally tank their future support for his POTUS run should he come out on top later.
What are you talking about now? What does the word ‘intimates’ have to do with the issue at hand?
xins is trying to take an excerpt out of context and claim that NOW Senator Cruz is against the first TPA. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ted Cruz never mentioned any such thing.
I read the 1st TPA. There was nothing wrong on paper with the 1st TPA. It gave no harmful powers to Obama.
In fact the democrats were in a panic that it gave Obama no real power for their leftist agenda.
That is made crystal clear in this link that I have posted too many times to keep count:
http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/heres-what-this-fight-is-all-about
My fundraising letter was different than yours. I had a video link. I’m not anti-Cruz. I’m just not one to have blinders on. These are politicians. None are to be trusted.
I’ve donated $150 so far to Cruz’s campaign. Whether or not I continue to donate is not assured. I won’t twist myself into a pretzel to explain these guys actions and make excuses for them.
Who didnt recognize that TPA1 was bad for America?
“So, were Gowdy and Cruz mislead by McConnell?”
Everybody in Congress knows McConnell is a liar, will lie with alacrity to push his/Obama’s agenda. He also cuts deals with taxpayer money. They didn’t read the bill if the truth was known.
Clear as day, FRiend ;-)
Bingo. Not only 0bama but also 4 yr of H! should she successfully run the gaunlet.
There is no way you can read the above quote from the article as Cruz suggesting that TPA #1 was fine and dandy. He's presented as suggesting he was misled on it. IOW, it's FAULTY!
Maybe I just come out of a literal interpretive hermeneutic for the bible, and that methodology is getting in the way of my seeing what you're saying.
A recent fundraising letter I received told me about all of the sacrifices he/his family are making, to run for Prez...and asked me to make a sacrificial gift.
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.