Not really, but the hit’s on our blog site have been down a little this week so we thought we would go tabloid. It could not be because of our otherwise scintillating writing, so it must be because of the arcane topic matter we have concentrated on. Too bad. It’s important to the nation, and the goings on say a lot about the Republican Party. Patience dear readers everything is coming to a head soon and our Tea Party conservative teamwork may be wining.
Andrew McCarthy writing at National Review, a writer certainly among our many betters, but capable of a clunker now and then, has issued one as regards TPA and TPP. Read his article here. Yes on Trade Promotion Authority . . . Which Does Not Mean Yes on the Trans Pacific Partnership
We are of the opinion, no to TPA at this time, and from what we know of TPP through Wikileaks and concerns expressed by Senator Jeff Sessions, no on that. Here are our comments in response to McCarthy:
Not his most convincing case statement.
We hate to challenge someone of his standing but his clearest statements seem to support forgetting TPA and just giving trade bills and treaties through a normal bill approval process as provided for in the Constitution, but that is not what McCarthy calls for. His tentative concern expressed about the secrecy of TPP doesn’t compel him. TPA/ fast track is being handled in a high-handed way, and that is not enough to give him pause. If it passes in the House it will be with primarily Republican support which, given the pull-out-all-the-stops effort by Boehner-Ryan et al proves that when they want something, they will do everything to get it done. On the issue of border security, preventing Iranian nukes, social issues — not so much.
As regards TPA, we suppose it is separable in theory from TPP, but we would hope bad timing would give cause to McCarthy to support killing TPA given the current chief executive whose perfidy McCarthy keeps acknowledging. We will reconsider TPA in a less charged atmosphere but we are leaning against even the theory of it. It infantilizes individual congressmen and senators. It substitutes arm twisting for leadership. It arguably strengthens self-serving lobbyists.
The TPA (fast track) might be more acceptable if it were not so clearly a precursor to approval of things that are not trade bills of limited scope but to facilitate far-reaching mult-lateral treaties. Now if fast track truly defined what is a treaty and what is a trade agreement and limited the scope of trade agreements under its auspices, something that Ryan claims to have made moves to do in other legislation it might mollify resistance. Unfortunately what Ryan has done is window dressing.
The big question is whether such terms would have any efficacy even if they were directly part of TPA (fast track authority). The procedural arrangement of TPA could still facilitate a bad trade bill which in reality is a treaty. All TPA can do is set procedural rules not the substance of the other bills. Points of order will be approved or denied by the same leadership suspects that want TPP and all it promises.
In other words if the TPP multi lateral trade “bill” is presented whether or not it abides by the unenforceable admonitions in other legislation, the procedural aspects are still there and a willful leadership still calls the vote. A bad TPP trade bill, (we maintain it is a treaty or should be treated as such) may still pass. The subject matter folderol is unenforceable because a court (and leadership) will say there was a conscious decision to ignore an internal rule which is an extra constitutional non justiciable matter anyway or supplant earlier legislation.
McCarthy’s arguments are mostly divorced from the arguments of why TPA is bad anytime and especially now with reference to Obama. It’s purpose is to fast track complicated multi lateral treaty while he continues the narrative that it is just trade agreement. If TPP from what has been revealed in Wikileaks is but a trade agreement then trade agreements are more important than treaties and should be subject to the stricture of super majority approval and Republicans should have the discretion to do so.
All of McCarthy’s disjointed talk of the reality of international agreements and how they are interpreted (basically it’s all about the President) makes the case for the poor timing of pushing TPA (fast track) now. It speaks to me with the spirit — use the normal process of treaty ratification and forget TPA for now and scrutinize TPP.
Strangely McCarthy quotes Jefferson on the Constitution supposedly relevant to this matter. We think it would be better to quote someone from the era who signed the Constitution. George Washington, James Madison and John Blair signed for Virginia. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were the authors of the Federalist Papers.
While unrelated to McCarthy’s article we will add that the scare “if we don’t do something China will step in” is BS. The Pacific nations can read our newspapers and wait, they can also see China’s faltering economy and figure out what shirttail to grab in the meantime.
We have seen or heard too often now the defense of TPA and TPP as regards Obama that “well a stopped clocked is still right twice a day.” Paul Ryan and columnist George Will most recently. That is entirely too insouciant with what we know or rightfully fear about Obama’s motivations and sense of honor.
R Mall
