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.
The Democrats defeated it because Obama was selling out their Union base!
It is going to cost American jobs.
No power should have been given to Obama by a GOP led Congress.
> “The second TPA was not changed and the ExIm provision was not in the TPA that Cruz voted against. What happened was that the dems were promised by McConnell and Boehner that the ExIM would be renewed if they supported TPA and rammed it through.”
Not true. Speaking with knowledge that McConnell would allow an amendment for EX-IM reauthorization to the 2nd TPA, Boehner agreed to let the dems get their EX-IM amendment target passed. The Boehner-McConnell scheme was confirmed by their orchestrating a show vote on a separate NDAA bill.
Cantwell spoke with House dem leaders to confirm that she had the green light to attach an EX-IM amendment rider to the TPA bill sent from the House. The EX-IM is a renewal authorization and so does not need a vote from the House; it merely needs a House Bill originating as a revenue bill to attach to which would be TPA. Conervatives tried to explicitly get amendments into the 2nd TPA to stop this abuse of process but were blocked by Boehner/McCarthy.
The parliamentary tactics applied here are not what’s important. What is important is that your agenda is not working and will not work. Your agenda is to take down Cruz and it will not work because when Cruz saw what the 2nd TPA was representing in terms of pending amendments, he reversed his vote. And when he talks to the grassroots he has a Reagan like ability to get the truth out and the result is the grassroots is responding to his honesty because he tells the truth. But even with that good news, he cautions the grassroots to not trust any politician, instead he advises they demand “Don’t Tell Me! Show Me!”. Ted has shown his fight in the Senate for better trade rules (1st TPA) and he has shown his fight against bad trade rules (2nd TPA).
Cruz was not wrong and he was not duped. The 1st TPA was a good bill in the tradition of past TPAs and Cruz as well as others voted on the wording of the good bill. That McConnell/Boehner and Obama schemed to defraud the process via shifty parliamentary maneuvers is not Cruz’ fault but you are trying your hardest to make it his fault or to label him a flip-flopper.
Your agenda won’t work because the grassroots are not as dumb as you think they are. They see the below the belt jabs that Cruz has taken and it only makes them support him more.
The only way your ilk is going to take Cruz down is to have him assassinated. That’s not likely to happen either. So there’s really no hope for you.
Cruz is going to win because he speaks better than you, he has more people trusting him than you and your group.
Nothing is any of this trade saga points to Cruz having done one thing wrong; not even an error in judgment. He does not control McConnell or Boehner. Yes he has been defeated on defunding Obamacare, on offering sensible amendments to the Gang of 8 immigration bill, on stopping cloture of the Iran Deal and now TPA. But those defeats are not of his account. Those defeats are accountable to McConnell, Boehner and Obama. And the grassroots sees that clearly.
TPA is not secret. TPA is also not a trade deal. TPA is like the rules of the road for trade agreements. It’s been around for decades and it has to be renewed on occasion. It is up for reinstatement because Harry Reid killed its renewal the last go-round.
Irrelevant.
> “The fact is that Cruz should not have been for the 1st TPA since it gave power to Obama-period.”
The 1st TPA did no such thing. If it had, then the democrats would not have defeated it.
> “The Democrats defeated it because Obama was selling out their Union base!”
No. The democrats defeated it because it would give power to a President Cruz.
Evidenced here clear as a bell:
http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/heres-what-this-fight-is-all-about
And this link has been posted many many times on this thread and others. The fact that you are still making stuff up without reading the clear evidence otherwise shows you have an agenda to take down Cruz, to blame him for the corruption of McConnell/Boehner. It’s not working, it won’t work.
> “Well, the founders did not intend that the sovereignty of the United States could be negotiated away on a simple majority vote. That is why they required that treaties (such as Nafta and TPA) would need a 2/3 agreement of the Senators (which at the time were the representatives of the States and elected by State Legislatures)”
How is that the fault of Ted Cruz that McConnell decided to use a revenue bill originating in the House? How was Ted Cruz supposed to stop that and say it had to be a treaty when it was only renewal or reinstatement of TPA? He read the TPA bill as evidenced by his citing and quoting it in townhalls, interviews and social media. There was nothing in the TPA that negotiates away sovereignty. You;’re making up crap and trying to tie it to Ted Cruz; won’t work.
> “Gatt was a treaty and ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. It was not fast tracked.”
You have a reading problem. I said “Post WWII trade expansion governed by GATT and enforced with the Marshall Plan.” What part if “trade expansion” do you not understand?
The trade deals governed by GATT were fast-tracked by US Presidents, all of them. They still were until Harry Reid failed to renew the last TPA because he was trying to get money for the unions he represented.
> “That is post modern argument. The founders intended that any agreement between nations that bound the United States beyond the election of the next president was a treaty and needed 2/3 of the Senate to become law.”
That is your opinion and it is a fringe opinion because nearly every reputable and respected Constitutional Scholar disagrees with such an opinion as of today.
It is true that Obama and his hard core leftists are mixing things up and making clever schemes and fraud. That is not Ted Cruz’ fault. Your concerns are misplaced and that can only be because you are driven by an agenda.
Why do you call those that question Cruz's decision on TPA haters? I Think his vote in both cases was very unwise but I do not hate Cruz, in fact he is the best of the lot, but for Freepers to proclaim him infallible as the Pope is not the best way to win hearts and minds.
Most Freepers knew this was not going to turn out well and we are not professional politicians.
Get out of here! Now I know you are a nut!
You might not realize this but Democrats disagree just like Republicans do.
And the fact that it is bad for the American worker.
As for Republicans the same can be said on the other side, it might well give Hillary that same power for the next 6 years.
Something Cruz should have thought of as well!
Yep - formed an opinion with partial info and won't let facts get in the way because the opinion feels comfortable and it opens the door to trash a conservative and give us a Hillary or worse to follow Obama, which we all know is the principled thing to do...- same old same ol'
River in Egypt
Now YOU are admitting Cruz was tricked.
I don't know what your plan is, Hostage, but if it's to re-generate support for Cruz, then you need to come up with a different plan. This trade and immigration stuff is really dragging him down.
I'd go back to his Christian social positions, to his opposition to ObamaCare, to his opposition to big government stepping on states, to his solid support for a strong American defense, and to his call for fiscal sanity.
When playing poker, it's generally good to discard the unhelpful cards in your hand.
You are in denial both about the SECRET proObama
proCommunist proIslamic Agreement (called “Trade”),
and the impact that Toast Cruz’s attack on the
US Constitution for Obama/ObamaTRADE/?Goldmann Sachs
has had irreversibly on his reputation
and his now dimmed chances for being the GOP candidate.
Really?
TPA originated in the Senate
TPP originated in the White House.
Trade agreements all are all negotiated and signed by the president before being submitted to congress, so how can they be considered as originating in the house.
Unless the trade bill is authored by a congressman, negotiated and submitted to the house and Senate before the president signs it, then it is a treaty.
TPP cannot even be amended in the house. It is only subject to an up or down vote. It is not a "bill". It is a treaty.
The constitution is not a living document.
UR so right he voted for it and then when it came back for another vote it only took 51 votes and he could vote no and tell us he voted against bill. He is no better than Rubio…...
Surely he can read the bill and he has a staff. Sounds like a damn excuse.
Where was Cruz and his staff? Surely his staff plus he had access to the Bill. Real leaders do not make an excuse(s). They accept responsibility for their action(s) or inaction(s).
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.