Did Senate Democrats trade TPP/TPA for a meaningless Ex-Im vote? …Mayyybe?

Well, this is interesting:

The Senate on Thursday voted to break a filibuster to advance legislation that would empower President Obama to complete a major, 12-nation Pacific trade accord, an integral step toward approval of a key piece of the president’s ambitious trade agenda.

The 62-38 vote to end debate on a carefully brokered deal to give the president trade promotion authority came in a dramatic moment, when Democratic senators secured a commitment from Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and majority leader, that the Senate will vote on an extension of authorization for the Export-Import Bank, which faces extinction June 30 without congressional action.

…And yes, more than half of my readers are gonna hate, hate, hate that deal. I’m not that fond of extending Ex-Im myself, although I should note that McConnell was extremely precise on what he’s promising. If the House doesn’t approve Ex-Im, then it won’t matter at all whether Mitch McConnell would let the vote get to the Senate floor or not. And the House is, ah, dubious on the topic: “In the House, though, conservatives say a majority of Republicans now oppose reauthorizing the bank. On Thursday, the 170-member Republican Study Committee — a conservative House group — will come out formally in favor of its extinction.”

Notice, by the way, that the New York Times unaccountably forgot to mention its own reporting on the Export-Import Bank’s status in the House. Well, OK, we all know why the NYT did that, but still. They could have at least put in a blurb on how reauthorizing Ex-Im is going to be heavy lifting in the House…

Moe Lane

4 thoughts on “Did Senate Democrats trade TPP/TPA for a meaningless Ex-Im vote? …Mayyybe?”

  1. Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…
    Same as it ever was…
    And the days go by.
    .
    *sigh*

  2. If the fast-track leaves the trade treaty in the hands of the Senate as ‘take it or leave it’ I have no objection, because that is how I have always thought Senate votes on treaties ought to be. Any actual objections ought to be transmitted before/during the negotiations so that foreign powers understand this crucial, Constitutional point: whatever is done here has to clear the US Senate, so let us address their concerns now rather than later.

    It might have been better if Mister Wilson had made that point abundantly clear early and often; but as a genius poli-sci-talking-guy he was likely irked at these buffoons that got in the way of his master plan

    So often does genius wreck itself on arrogance. And I am not surprised one bit that Barack Obama never checked with the Senate to find out what terms would be acceptable. Why, it’s almost like he wanted that Treaty to fail!*
    *I would agree with that except that the example of Wilson who really was smart and knew better is available and lo! Wilson went ahead and the treaties were turned down and he had a stroke.
    Lesson: Massage the egos in Congress – it is a cheap expenditure of political capital but it has great mileage.

  3. I rather expect the Republicans to fold and authorize the ex-im bank.
    Because cynicism is just an ugly word for pattern recognition.

    1. I would expect that as well .. and I would advise those who observe to Follow The Money.
      .
      Mew

Comments are closed.