Congress passed three trade deals yesterday which reminded of the words of a previous Democrat Congresswoman from CD-1 in New Hampshire. (note: original press link dead)
This disconnect between the Panama FTA and the current needs to restore our economy will make any vote on this FTA difficult to justify.
She goes on to suggest it would not be good for the US or create jobs. Everything else the left voted on in 2009 would supposedly "create jobs" and didn’t, but something that actually would? Can’t support that.
HR 3079 and it passed the House 300-126, meaning some Democrats had to vote for it. Most likely those in more contested districts.
But back in the day when the Democrats controlled all of the Federal government, and Republicans we were told were destined for the dustbin of history, Carol–who get’s most of her funding from Unions and Union funded Democrat Leadership PAC’s,–believed what she was told by Nancy Pelosi, in direct opposition to the obvious. Letting us trade freely in Panama would hurt the US job market. And the entire Democrat party line on Free Trade, top to bottom, was the union line. It will cost American jobs. Don’t send jobs overseas.
But as I pointed out here, the Panama agreement simply made it easier for us to sell goods in Panama by lifting tariffs and opening their market to us. A longstanding disadvantage that Democritus believe turns less on whether it is true and more–in the case of Obama– on if the campaign optics are good.
President Barack Obama said (yesterday) passage of the agreements was "a major win for American workers and businesses."
"Tonight’s vote, with bipartisan support, will significantly boost exports that bear the proud label `Made in America,’ support tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs and protect labor rights, the environment and intellectual property. … I look forward to signing these agreements."
So two and half years later, same idea, same results, and the figurehead of the Democrat party contradicts all the same arguments used against passage by the Democrat controlled House in 2009.
So what would Pelsoi-Flack and Union puppet Carol SEIU-Porter do?
Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, said the "job-killing" agreements were a "complete flip-flop for President Obama, who won crucial swing states by pledging to overhaul our flawed trade policies."
…
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said that before taking up free trade agreements the House should be considering legislation passed by the Senate on Tuesday that would punish China for keeping its currency undervalued
…
To address Democratic objections to the deals, the White House demanded linking the trade bills to extension of a Kennedy-era program that helps workers displaced by foreign competition with retraining and financial aid. The Senate went along; the House passed it Wednesday, 307-122
I find the last bit troubling only because there should be no displaced workers in the US. These agreements all make it easier for us to sell U.S. made products in the respective countries. So any money allocated for this unnecessary purpose could only get pilfered by Obama s another hand out to his union buddies.
But to answer the question? I think Carol would do whatever she was told. Whatever would improve her chances of staying in office. She was never interested in the trade agreements or how they might benefit the US or New Hampshire, she just wanted to keep her financial backers happy. Being a Union hack, I think we can guess what that means.
