So now the Congressional Democrats have killed the US-Columbia free trade agreement by changing the rules and not voting on it within the required time. Here we are, sitting on the precipace, with a fragile economy many think is on the brink of a Depression to rival the Great Depression and what do the Democrats do? Clamp down on free trade. Does the name Smoot-Hawley* ring any bells? Talk about history repeating itself!

The Democratic Party's protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America.

The Colombia trade pact was signed in 2006 and renegotiated last year to accommodate Democratic demands for tougher labor and environmental standards. Even after more than 250 consultations with Democrats, and further concessions, including promises to spend more on domestic unemployment insurance, the deal remained stalled in Congress. Apparently the problem was that Democrats kept getting their way.

So on Monday, President Bush submitted the bill to Congress over liberal protests, which, under a bargain between Congress and the White House for trade promotion authority, mandated an up-or-down vote within 90 days. Today Ms. Pelosi will make an ex post facto change to House rules to avoid the required vote, withdrawing from the timetable and thus relegating the Colombia deal to a perhaps permanent limbo. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778566399303309.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks
So the Democrats have managed to damage our economy at the worst posible time, to insult one of our closest allies in the region and for what? Politics, nothing else. 90% of imports from Columbia already come into the US without tariffs, while our exports face a 35% tariff. This deal was a no brainer.
*
The Hawley-Smoot Tariff (or Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act)[1] was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, and, in the opinion of most economists, worsened the Great Depression. Economists have now generally regarded this Tariff Act (i.e., tax increase on imported goods) as the greatest policy blunder in American economic history, coming as it did after the 1929-30 recession and preventing the economy from a full, natural recovery which had already started by the Spring of 1930. Many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half.

Why should we continue to export jobs during a recession?

I don't know what's sadder,

the apparent sincerity of a description of a denial of the Colombia "free trade" BS as significant protectionism somehow comparable to the Smoot-Hawley imposition of tariffs,

or the probable accuracy of the description of Colombia's government, vicious and corrupt narco-terrorist dominated colluder in crime and dependent in power that it is, as one of America's closest allies in the region.

Seems to me that anyone who has been objecting to the flood of refugee illegals from "free trade" agreements with Mexico et al, would be wary of too hasty free trade agreements with a place like Colombia.

Why should we continue to export jobs during a recession?

Because two world wars were started because of that attitude.

I don't know what's sadder,

the apparent sincerity of a description of a denial of the Colombia "free trade" BS as significant protectionism somehow comparable to the Smoot-Hawley imposition of tariffs,

I'm not the only one making this comparison:
There was another period when raw politics was allowed to trump what many in Congress privately admitted was common sense. In the spring of 1930, as the economic downturn set off by the previous year's stock market crash set in, Congress was debating the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill that sought to raise U.S. import barriers to record levels.

Most of the leading economists of the day opposed Smoot-Hawley. A front-page New York Times headline on May 5, 1930, read: "1,028 Economists Ask Hoover to Veto Pending Tariff Bill." But for entirely selfish and shortsighted reasons, both Congress and President Hoover went along with the protectionist hysteria. As a result, the Great Depression was probably deepened and extended for years.

Today, another no-brainer trade vote is before Congress. The foreign-policy benefits of the agreement are immense and the economic costs are minimal. "This is a test of whether the Democratic Congress is ready to accept the responsibilities of the majority," says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute.

Everyone plays politics with trade. But there are times when the stakes are too important. The Colombia agreement is another example of when politics must take a back seat for a larger good. We certainly know how Hugo Chavez is rooting for the congressional vote to turn out. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120751299198893191.html?mod=opinion_journal_poli tical_diary
Should the Democrats take the presidency and increase their numbers in congress we'll see more of this "protectionism". This may be just the tip of th iceburg and might add up to Smoot-Hawley 2. The effect of this, combined with the huge tax increases they would also pass (just by not renewing the Bush tax cuts) could push us from recession to depression.

Commerce and Trade

Petroleum ranks as the principal export of Colombia. Other leading exports include coffee, vegetables, chemicals, coal, textiles, fresh-cut flowers, bananas, sugar, gold, emeralds, and cattle. Illegal drugs also rank high among the country’s exports.

The most important imports are mechanical and electrical equipment, chemicals, food, and metals. Colombia’s annual exports earned $13.1 billion and its imports cost some $13.9 billion in 2003.

http://www.columbiaexport.com/

the apparent sincerity of a description of a denial of the Colombia "free trade" BS as significant protectionism somehow comparable to the Smoot-Hawley imposition of tariffs,
”
I'm not the only one making this comparison: Of course not. That doesn't make it any more reasonable. It's some kind of ridiculous political stuff from the people who brought us the "death tax" vocabulary and deregulated banking action.

This may be just the tip of th iceburg and might add up to Smoot-Hawley 2. The effect of this, combined with the huge tax increases they would also pass (just by not renewing the Bush tax cuts) could push us from recession to depression.
Or not, depending on whether reality ever intrudes into actual events. In the past, it has.

But I've been wondering how the coming economic hard time, brought to us by the least competent, most irresponsible, and most fiscally imprudent federal administration the US has ever had, will turn out to be the fault of people other than the ones in complete control of its arrangement.

of course it will be. Make a mess and then blame it on the guy who cleans it up.

If we don't exert some measure of protectionism, it will be a race to the bottom in terms of wages for American workers. What do we make here anymore? It cannot be good for our national security to be so dependent on foriegn countries for industrial products.

Let me ask you Mad, since you and the Republicans are big free traders, why does the North American Free Trade Agreement not allow me or any American to purchase prescription drugs made by American manufacturers from Canada?

Could it be that so called Free Trade is not so Free and more of a special interest piece of legislation?