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.
> “There really isn’t any running from that quote.”
Says who? You and Jane Long? I don’t see a great support for your assertion. In fact I see your assertion is false on its face.
You haven’t explained how a national review story on Ted Cruz voting NO leads to a conclusion that he REGRETS not voting NO on the 1st TPA.
He was ‘misled’. So what? As if that doesn’t happen everyday in Congress?
Senator Cruz read the 1st TPA and concluded it was not harmful and in fact would be helpful for him as President.
I read the 1st TPA carefully and I agree with Ted Cruz. It was not harmful at all and could only help. And I was not the only one. Plenty of notable conservatives reached the same conclusion.
You offer nothing but conspiracy based on innuendo and misinterpretation.
There is no way to get from “misled”, “intimates” to REGRET for voting on the 1st TPA when in fact the 1st TPA was good for America.
“Cruz read the Wiki-Leaks leak on the TPA “
Well, you are being “less than honest”. If he had to read it in WikiLeaks then he obviously didn’t read it as an official document.
Don’t try to call someone a liar that isn’t as that is lying.
No representative is perfect. Cruz was crusin’ good until this. Now I see that he is better but not different in kind from the others. It’s a reality check.
I received that one as well. I never open the snail mail requests I receive. I have had phone calls from the Cruz campaign as well.
But now I find out that they don’t want money. It’s just for the publicity:)
> “These are politicians. None are to be trusted.”
Ted Cruz agrees with you. Take a few minutes to listen here:
Time 1:12:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sznh5AjageI
And try to keep your eyes and ears open to the fact that Ted Cruz is under attack by people that are hacks. And though they are not winning, they won’t stop until November 2017.
If you’re a Cruz donor, then you should expect that the left and the GOPe are going to throw every ounce of mud at him they can gather. you should be ready for it.
Of course he is a no vote - now that he knows there are sufficient numbers of his fellow GOP quislings to pass the treacherous garbage .... He need not dirty his image as “Mr. Constitution” ... After all, he does need to guard his presidential ambitions from a full frontal assault by genuine conservatives. His Goldman-Sachs wife must be thrilled - they can have their cake and eat it too!
> “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!”
That’s your opinion that belies the facts,
You have no sense of context if you read into that statement the things you conclude.
Ted Cruz and several other notable conservatives read the 1st TPA, as did I. I would bet yoyu did not read it. There was absolutely no mention of renewing the EX-IM Bank in it.
What you are taking out of context is the 2nd TPA where democrats were allowed to renew the EX-IM Bank with Boehner’s assistance. That’s where the relevance of ‘misled’ is applied.
I note that you are not actively raising any concerns about Boehner or McConnell. You are actively trying to hang Ted Cruz for the crime of being ‘betrayed’.
If someone is going to vote NO on a good bill based on fear and notions of betrayal, then they shouldn’t be in Congress because they’re useless.
To say that everyone should NO on a good bill because Boehner and McConnell are corrupt, translates to never voting for anything good.
There were sufficient votes the first time. So your pitiful attack fails.
In other words, Ted Cruz supported TPA before he read it then decided not to support it after he read it in WikiLeaks.
Fact remains, Ted Cruz supported TPA without having read it, and I will not support anyone prone to doing that.
> “Fact remains, Ted Cruz supported TPA without having read it, and I will not support anyone prone to doing that.”
Fact remains? Laughable!
He indeed did read the bill as did several other notable conservatives, as did I.
There was nothing in the 1st TPA that was wrong. It was a good bill.
Anyway, I think people forget that politicians are crooked. No one is a special snowflake, you can't get that high in office without being corrupt. The best you can hope for is that every now and then they will accomplish something that you believe in. Usually around re-election time.
I continue to be entertained by the purists for which Cruz is damn if he voted for TPA and now damned for voting against it.
Here’s an idea. Why don’t the Cruz haters share with the rest of us who they prefer as their candidate.
Don’t give me the typical nonsense about “well, I am still making up my mind”
Tell us which candidate for you walks on water.
All representatives need to be held to account. Cruz has acted stupidly here. Trying to blame it on Ditch Mitch is lame. Cruz needs to own up that any support for 0bama is, at this point, totally uncalled for.
“If you say so ... If you say so ... If you say so ...”
Puppet with a string coming out of your back, eh? Can I pull it on your next go around? I do like the sound of broken records. Really I do. /s
> “Cruz is now saying that TPA #1 was flawed.”
The problem with your saying that is that he never said that. And if you continue to say that he did, then you are putting words into his mouth and trying to speak for him.
You are trying to put together some sort of false inference that “misled by McConnell” translates to “1st TPA was flawed”. It won’t work because Ted Cruz never connected those things.
You’re sending money to a flip-flopper?
Cruz didn’t read about the TPA in Wikileaks. The TPA was NEVER secret.
You do know that don’t you?
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.