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.
Reagan would not have given Obama more power?
Prove it, Toast Diogensis
It had a lot of free market elements, among them the elimination of tariffs. I don't think anyone can argue that that's not in the direction of free markets.
Free markets don't come without costs, however, which I'm happy to acknowledge.
The Cruz Derangement Syndrome (CDS) is on par with Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS)
That means President Cruz is inevitable.
Since the Fast Tracked 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement revealed what really was at stake with the arcane Nixon-era procedure, getting any Congress to delegate years of blank-check Fast Track authority has been a very hard sell. Since 1988, only Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush persuaded Congress to grant the multi-year Fast Track delegation President Barack Obama seeks.
Nope, let me help you out:
(1) Did Reagan ever meet Obama? No
The Cruz detractors are desperate.
Which is hilarious.
Do you have a problem with reading?
1.) Gowdy WROTE that the TPA contained wording that prohibited the treaty being used to override U.S. immigration law.
2.) Cruz just said that it DOES NOT CONTAIN THAT LANGUAGE!
3.) I didn’t go into Gowdy’s motive; I just said that he lied. Can you justify another conclusion?
See post #88
Or several others. :)
Could Cruz have thrust a stake through the heart of the legislation had he opposed it sooner.
I don’t do hypotheticals.
Cruz explained his reasoning very well.
Revisit the Levin interview.
Did TPA pass the Senate last time by 1 vote?
Answer: No
> "I am SOOOOOOO SURE that was the case."
> "I mean, if you look at his record, it is so chock-full of examples where he chose expedience over principle, right?"
> "I mean, if you really wanted to, you could post a lot of examples where Ted Cruz acted not from Principle, but simply out of selfishness and self-interest, right?"
According to the anti-Cruz trolls, Ted and Heidi are waiting for their big payday from Goldman-Sachs so why would they need donations from the 'little' people?
To conservativegranny, I also received the same email and it was not so much for money as it was for publicity. In fact here is exactly what was said:
Dear xxxxx,
Please keep an eye out . . .
. . . I overnighted you an urgent letter because your quick reply is critical to our campaign plan.
I cannot overstate the importance of you keeping an eye out for this confidential correspondence, Michael.
On June 30th, all presidential campaigns must file financial reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), detailing every single contribution and expenditures for the 2nd quarter.
Once the results are made public, all the media outlets – from the “mainstream” newspapers to influential conservative magazines and websites – will immediately access every single FEC report so they can run stories about how the presidential “horse race” is shaping up.
If we post strong fundraising numbers, we will get priceless media coverage and strengthen our position within the “Top Tier” of Republican campaigns, which will determine who holds the upper-hand heading into summer and the first primary debates.
The reporting deadline is June 30th, so please don’t delay. Please make your most generous gift of $25, $40, or $50 today.
For liberty,
So allow me to ask you conservativegranny, why would Ted Cruz' campaign team be OVERNIGHTING a letter if they needed money? The answer is IT'S not the money but the PUBLICITY. This is a campaign operation to buy favorable PUBLICITY.
So what what’s your point? Did you even bother to read the TPA bill that was originally sent from the Senate to the House?
I did. I didn’t see one thing wrong with it and I read it carefully.
So again what’s your point?
Bttt
“You can only lie, if you know the truth is something else.”
I think that when Cruz admitted the bill contained no immigration prohibition, he was telling the truth. Would that qualify as an answer to “if you know the truth is something else”? Cruz’s statement runs counter to what Gowdy wrote.
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.