A vote with consequences

July 29, 2005

Much of the Dem grassroots expressed quite a bit of frustration yesterday with the 15 Dems who broke party ranks and voted with the GOP on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. The aggrieved will be pleased to know that Nancy Pelosi is at least as livid as they are.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), angry that some of her own betrayed the party on a key trade vote, called a last-minute, Members-only meeting tonight to review the early-morning balloting and the reasoning behind defectors’ votes.

Pelosi called for the special session of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee at a private whip meeting this morning, during which she said she “had a sleepless night” over the Central American Free Trade Agreement vote that narrowly passed early in the morning. Sources in the room said Pelosi was furious at the outcome and the votes of some of the 15 Democrats — notably some in safe districts — who joined the Republicans to pass the bill.

“I’ve never seen her like that,” described one Democratic aide who attended the meeting.

While sources insisted Pelosi has not called for any retribution in the Democratic Caucus, she left open the likelihood that defectors’ committee assignments would be reviewed at tonight’s meeting of the Steering Committee, which helps determine Members’ placement on panels.

“There’s going to be a lot of discussion at the meeting, however it’s going to focus on a certain group of Members who have no explanation for their votes. That’s what it’s going to focus on,” said a senior Democratic aide. “There are a handful of members who have explaining to do.”

When the aide referred to Dems who “have no explanation,” he was probably referring to lawmakers who voted for CAFTA, but who faced no real pressure pushing them to do so, such as Reps. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Ed Towns (D-N.Y.), both of whom represent safe seats, and both of whom enjoy sought-after committee seats.

Pelosi’s reputation is not as well known as some of her predecessors, but she takes party discipline for more seriously than a lot of people realize.

If some of the CAFTA 15 suddenly find that their phone calls aren’t being returned, and their committee-assignment requests are getting “lost,” they shouldn’t be surprised.

Party discipline is one thing – and I’m all for it – but maybe the CAFTA 15 were voting for what they thought was best for their districts… Nay, more likely what was best for certain campaign contributors.

  • It’s about freaking time!! For these DINOs (Dems in Name Only) to not understand that there is a real war on in government, and that their votes with the opposition — when there is no political gain for them personally in their own districts — is completely unacceptable. Jeesch…

  • Or, maybe they were voting for what was best for the USA. I guess the smart, free trade, NAFTA-Clinton-Bill Daley Democrats are dead.

    Protectionism kills. Like what Bush did with his steel tarriffs.

    Congrats to Melissa Bean. Not for doing what was right for her re-election, but what was a smart ecconomic vote.

  • NAFTA was a disaster for the middle class of the US. CAFTA will also be another disaster.
    Who can this possibly be good for? Not the people of Central America anymore than it was good for Mexico. Certainly not for the US as we will once again lose more jobs. The only people who will gain are the rich and the multinational corporations. The global economy line has destroyed the US manufacturing.
    When all of the Rethugs have their way the only classes left in the US will be the rich and the poor and let me tell you, there will be alot of poor.
    What everyone fails to realize though is when most are poor who will be left to buy anything.
    This is just one more nail pounded into the middle classes coffin. Everyone of those Democrats who voted for this are NO MORE a democrat than W himself. They all need a visit to the woodshed and I say give them HELL.

  • NAFTA hasn’t hurt me or my neighborhood at all. In fact, it’s helped. Helped the farmers downstate. Helped a few exporters I bank.

    Oh, and if you think a guy with a spouse, three kids, not in the top tax brackett, a 6 figure mortgage and is elected to a school board isn’t middle class, then you don’t understand what middle class is.

    NAFTA was/is good policy. CAFTA is, too.

  • Do you actually believe that multi-national corporations going to Mexico, Central American countries setting up sweat shops and polluting everything in site is good?
    Also if you take a count of the manufacturing jobs that have been lost from this country since all of these trade agreements have started it will far out number any that are left.
    IT jobs gone, manufacturing jobs gone. Oh I know. We can be a service country flipping burgers.
    Aren’t 95% of all mtg’s 6 figures?

  • OT–
    Chuck,
    How about a link to support your claims. I won’t argue that NAFTA hasn’t hurt you or your neighborhood, but America consists of more than just you. I’d like to see the big picture about job creation and income change consequent to NAFTA from a reputable source.

    I think the burden of proof is on the GOP here. Given that they do not bother to hide their venality and dishonesty anymore, I must confess to being skeptical that anything they do is for the good of Americans. If anyone beyond their cronies has benefitted, I’m quite confident that the effect was unintended or of secondary importance.

    Back on track, I wonder whether these 15 Dems were suborned by the pork feeding frenzy that went on during the time extension of the CAFTA vote. Part of me hopes they didn’t go cheap, but then I remember that it’s horsetrading like this that bloats the national debt. After all, it’s not like the GOP is spending its own money here.

  • Norm Dicks (D-WA) is on the list, and I can’t for the life of me understand why. His district cover the Olympic Peninsula and west side of Puget Sound. Lots of miitary bases, what’s left of Washington’s logging industry, and tons of federal park and forest land. Why cave on CAFTA?

  • Lots of miitary bases, what’s left of Washington’s logging industry, and tons of federal park and forest land. Why cave on CAFTA?

    to protect those bases from closure, maybe? Sure seems strange.

  • I’ve got to ask – mostly because I’ve observed the effects of party discipline on the other side of the aisle, mostly to my disgust – do we (the Democrats) really want to go down the road of party discipline? Of things like retribution and stifling dissent within the party?

    Also, do we really want to go down the road of protectionism? That just seems like a huge political loser for the Democrats. Most people understand that barriers to competition are preferable. I think Clinton had it right, that is: endorse free trade, but vigorously support the retraining and movement to new sectors of the workers whose jobs will necessarily be lost. Balance expected job loss by facilitating job creation.

    My position is that I’m generally for lowering our trade barriers but not necessarily strongarming weaker economies to lower theirs. Cowboy has it right, globalization is destroying our manufacturing sector, but closing our doors, introducing subsidies and tariffs won’t reverse that. We no longer have the comparative advantage in manufacturing, we’re too advanced now. What are we to do? We have to adapt, and shift our focus away from manufacturing to the stuff like information industries we have advantages in.

    What really concerns me is that lowering the barriers to investment basically means Central America is vulnerable to American companies gobbling up all their industries and turning them into wholly-owned subsidiaries of America, Inc. That’s imperialism. Let them develop their own, home-grown, domestically owned and controlled industries, ones that will represent and serve and enrich their own countries, not our stockholders.

  • I’ll try to get a link when i get a few minutes to do some searching. As to NAFTA costing manufacturing jobs, with many of those going to China, I don’t think we can blame that on NAFTA. Nor the tech jobs that have gone to India.

    It’s a global market now. Compete or die.

    Sucks, but it’s true.

  • Chuck says that protectionism is bad, and in many ways I would agree. That is why CAFTA is bad. It offers industry specific protections to ramp up profits and exploit both the U.S. and Central American worker.

    One of the protections granted by CAFTA is the prohibition of generic prescription drugs in Central America. This will require many to go without vital medications and they will die.

    Did things like that have to be in CAFTA? No! CAFTA is protectionism in disguise, but instead of protecting the U.S. it protects the mighty corporations.

    I don’t know about you, but I am not a corporation.

    I am in one of the DINOs districts, though. It’s goot to see Pelosi mad. Now they just need to do something about it. If you don’t agree to the rules, don’t play in our sandbox.

  • For a somewhat different point of view, check out Jonathan Tasini”s Working Life blog, including today’s “Now, I’m Into Spanking” and its link to yesterday’s “Spanking the CAFTA 15.”

    Free trade is nice in theory, but then there’s the real world.

  • Rian,

    A couple of responses to your comments. First, party discipline is much more critical when one is in the minority than when in the majority; that goes at least double in the House of Representatives today, where the Rethugs have almost completely eliminated anything approximating representative democracy, debate, or bipartisanship. When we have the opportunity to do something that is good for the vast majority of those that Dems represent, then party discipline is critical since the opportunites are exceedingly rare right now.

    Second, both NAFTA and CAFTA share the same fundamental flaws: they do not require that fair wages and labor/workplace protection standards for the workers there, AND there are no requirements that the environment and energy obligations for U.S. manufacturers be met in the foreign countries before their goods can be marketed back to the U.S. under either NAFTA or CAFTA. Clinton failed to force these requirements under NAFTA, and we have paid the price in a huge drain of jobs to Mexico (and even Canada) and in huge trade deficits with the NAFTA partners.

    Dems (I hope) have learned the hard lessons of NAFTA — we must have the Central American manufacturers/distributors meet minimum wage, safety, working conditions, and environmental standards — in order to truly achieve “fair trade”. Otherwise, you get the “large sucking sound” regarding our U.S. jobs about which Ross Perot warned in the 1992 Presidential Campaign.

    THIS is why party discipline was so needed on the CAFTA vote, and why it is so disappointing when Dems who should know better, who should have the larger Dem values firmly in mind ALL the time, are so infuriating with their myopic action of helping to “lose the war” (i.e., the vote on CAFTA’s passage) without regard to whether they needed to “win the battle” (i.e., did they need to vote ‘yes’ to keep them in their seats?).

    For further information, check out these sites:

    (A) The Center for Economic and Social Rights:

    http://www.cesr.org/

    (B) The National Labor Committee:

    http://www.nlcnet.org/news/

    (C) The Third World Traveler:

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/

    All three of these sites give a non-CCCP (Compliant Complicit Corporate Press) and usually progressive view on what is happening in the world, in terms that most of us here will both understand and appreciate.

  • Thanks, AL, and let me correct myself. When I said “Most people understand that barriers to competition are preferable.” I meant the opposite, most people understand that free trade is preferable to barriers to competition, all things being equal.

  • Under NAFTA and now CAFTA a foreign company can sue the federal government because of legislation(local or federal) that restricts a companies ability to profit (or restricts potential profits). The case is decided by a tribunal determined by the governing trade body. Thus, foreign companies are allowed to gain money from us because we (or someone else in the country) wants to protect themselves from environmental harm (the same works for US companies that want to sue the federal government of other companies in the treaties). Doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

    Also, since “free” trade is a myth, we will only be able to start making “fair” trade deals when there isn’t such a knee-jerk reaction from people whenever they hear “free” trade.

  • I just went to the three web sites from AL’s comments. It is enough to make you cry. How sad that we ( the US ) has to be a part of the misery imposed on these poor people. It’s not enough that our country is being destroyed we have to turn these people into modern day slaves.
    Is there any chance America will ever wake up? Unfortuneately I doubt it. Too many people are fooled into believing the talking points of the corporations
    I hope every one of those 15 Dem’s lose the next election to a decent thinking person.
    The Global Economy? Disaster for the world!

  • By promoting trade with nations while ignoring basic rights of their workers, the USA is essentially promoting slave labor. What else would you call it when workers in China, for instance, work 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, for $50-150/month? This is common practice in China, and its apologists would tell you that these people are happy to have those jobs. Of course they are, given that or nothing! (I know whereof I speak, I’ve spoken to our Chinese employees who are intimately familiar with the situation). But happy? Show me one sane human who is happy to work 12 hour days with never a day off.
    But it all fits, doesn’t it? We have the bread and circus to keep us pacified, just like the old Romans. What else are we missing? Slaves, of course. Well, we’ve got them too. Granted, most of us don’t have them at our side peeling our grapes. We just have them in China or elsewhere, working their asses off at the People’s Electric Grape Peeling Machine Co. Ltd. Buy yours at WalMart today!

    • Comments are closed.