----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: "lbo-talk" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 9:57 AM Subject: Daschle's plan
> [Taking a break from opening his mail, Daschle gave a speech a
little
> while ago outlining the Dems' economic plan. Here's an advance
> summary from his office.]
>
> America's Economy: Rising to our New Challenges
> Senator Daschle Outlines A New Growth Agenda for the American
Economy
[snip]
> 5) Open New Markets and Expand Trade Adjustment Assistance
>
> Passage of Fast Track (Trade Promotion Authority) legislation in
concert
> with expanded Trade Adjustment Assistance. Expand the coverage of
trade
> adjustment assistance to so-called secondary workers, those people
who work
> for contractors and suppliers of trade harmed companies. For the
first time,
> expand the coverage to include farmers. Expand benefits to address
the main
> problems these people face, such as the loss of health coverage and
sharp
> declines in wages upon re-employment. The proposal includes a new
wage
> insurance initiative for older workers for whom re-training is an
empty
> promise and wage loss is most acute.
=================
I'd be interested in Nathan's and others take on why the Dems [and Reps], want to scuttle-violate Art. I section 8? I know the easy answer but would be interested in some complexification if there's time.
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..."
I got "Trading Blows: Party Competition and US Trade Policy in a Globalizing Era" for xmas and of course everyone from both parties is represented in the text are rational maximizers...but still, issues of free trade vs. protectionism aside, if the parties can't make the case for an optimal policy to the voters, why would they want to wreck the C in order to get what the Fat Cats want? Do they think it will hold up in court when they get sued? Are the Bushies calling it 'Trade Promotion Authority' in order to pull a Clintonian definitional maneuver when they're in court--"we're not regulating commerce, we're *promoting* it." There seems to be a very serious issue involved simply on the legal front, political economy aside.
Ian