Do we need a new Federal Dept? The Department of International Commerce?

I know many of you are gagging on your coffee/beer on this one. I will throw it out anyways.

First, I pre-amble that I support the decreasing of federal Departments, in general. First and foremost Education. There are more.

However, accords like the WTO, NAFTA and now TPP, among others, have largely been negotiated by Corporations, themselves, which naturally follow their interests. Not particularly in the nation's interests.

A Federal agency that has the mandate to approve/disapprove international trade agreements based not only on the advantages to specific Corporations but also in America's interests. They could include long range employment issues, wages, environmental, and political issues.

Specific over-site and public disclosure would be part of the mandate.

Here's my reasoning. First, there really is no viable alternative to Corporations. The current mess merely gives fuel to socialist/Communist principles and agendas.

So how does one fix it without breaking what one is trying to fix? Obviously, the current system, be it State or whatever combination of Departments have 'failed' at this task.

Trade deals are needed. They should, ideally, be representative of the whole nation. Not merely a few, be it labelled the 1%ers or select major Corporations.

The debates would be represented by every facet of U.S. interests. Union, small business, big business, banking, State and military reps., environmental experts and any others that are apropos. Each with a vote, publically broadcasted discussions/debates on a C-SPAN type venue.

That vote decides the merit of that agreement.

I'm way out of my depth on this and my be more naïve than practical but it is a possible improvement on what's being occurring up to now.

My views are obviously 'lay'. Yet there seems to be a need for some solution.

Thought's?

a reply to: nwtrucker

I can't believe I am saying this, but this isn't a terrible idea. I do agree our interests as the people aren't being represented in these negotiations. I despise anything Federal, but international trade agreements are probably one of the few powers I would leave to a federal entity. Good OP.

a reply to: Metallicus

Likely neither party would come up with something like this. Perhaps a candidate who wants to escape from the pack might entertain something similar.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm not sure it's the sort of thing that needs an entire new department to handle. There were two main issues with TPP:

The first issue was that it was written in absolute secrecy and no one could comment on it. Transparency is a good thing, and if the whole bill was even semi transparent it could have gotten some reasonable input as it was being drafted.

The second issue is a little more complex. One of the strengths we've lost in Congress over the years is having a diversified skill set among the legislature. Most who go into government these days are just lawyers and a few doctors. While it's great for there to be lawyers in Congress we need more professions represented because that results in more points of view on any given topic, which in turn leads to better legislative outcomes. Diversification is a really difficult thing to implement though.

Personally, I would settle for Congress just doing it's job. They're supposed to oversee these activities already, but it was locked away in secret and few could see it. Those who could, couldn't do anything about it, including discussing it with others who read it. Unfortunately, I don't expect much from Congress in that area because many in Congress have gotten there on a platform of making things not work, and many more are running on that same platform. These things cease to be issues when competent people are elected rather than people who promote causing trainwrecks.

a reply to: Aazadan

Still, this could be workable. If for no other reason than it IS a proposal. Something none of the candidates or elected members of either party have addressed with any solution.

As a idea, it is a start....perhaps.

it would be no different than the agencies that we have now, it would not be immune to political influence from some senator or representative. who in turn is working for some corporation.

bureaucracies and bureaucrats are just as crooked if not more than politicians.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I don't disagree. I had the same thought.

Still, the cross-section of representatives, each with their own vote and the public viewing of these debates would, I believe, lessen the manipulation.

A perfect solution? Hell, no. An improvement? For sure, methinks.

I actually agree with Aazadan to the degree better if Congress did it's job. The trouble is they're not going to do so. That's the difference between the moderates and the conservatives. They still believe that doing the same things will, somehow, bring a different result.

We do not.

Again, just an idea...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I actually agree with Aazadan to the degree better if Congress did it's job. The trouble is they're not going to do so. That's the difference between the moderates and the conservatives. They still believe that doing the same things will, somehow, bring a different result.

Of course they're not going to when you elect people who run on a platform of shutting everything down and making it dysfunctional. Even if we had this department Congress would try to make them ineffective by defunding them and shutting down the entire government, which includes them. That's why you don't elect people who campaign on a platform of making things not work, because when you do things, even important things tend to not work.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I actually agree with Aazadan to the degree better if Congress did it's job. The trouble is they're not going to do so. That's the difference between the moderates and the conservatives. They still believe that doing the same things will, somehow, bring a different result.

Of course they're not going to when you elect people who run on a platform of shutting everything down and making it dysfunctional. Even if we had this department Congress would try to make them ineffective by defunding them and shutting down the entire government, which includes them. That's why you don't elect people who campaign on a platform of making things not work, because when you do things, even important things tend to not work.

This pure Bull, and you know it. Your sides fear of a shut down takes away a Constitutional tool that keeps the Executive in alignment with the Legislative. You've done nothing but empower the Obama Administration. Unless you show....no, prove, by act, rather than rhetoric your support of grass-root issues the right will continue to grow. Your support and base shrink.

Surely, you see that it IS occurring. That's your conundrum, how to appease the Corporate support without disaffecting the base.

All your spin cannot change that conflict of interest. You will fail...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Maybe,


The Department of American Citizen Regulatory Control

a reply to: callofbooty23

Awesome! I love it...

a reply to: nwtrucker

How do you run a department of foreign commerce if it's always being run under the assumption that it's budget needs to be cut, and that it's dealing with shutdowns every year, and then that it's dealing with the overtime expenses of those shutdowns?

Shutting down the government is only one of the things that are going on. And honestly, if that's all it was it would be tolerable. But the government is being attacked in other ways. Endless states rights battles, constant defunding threats, and then worst of all incompetent management at the top.

The people who get into these positions get them on the understanding they'll cause nothing to get done. Which provides reason to cut their budgets and see that nothing gets done. Look at the IRS right now, we have people seriously trying to defund the IRS so that they're incapable of collecting taxes, and thus it forces a stop to all spending.

Do you seriously think that that's the right way to go about things?

If you wanted to depower Obama it would have taken less than a minute, and he even gave you opportunities to do so since he's such an incompetent president (especially the first couple years). Call him out on the fact that you have a better health care plan. That would have taken the wind out of his sails. But you know what? It's 7 years later and no alternative plan has been suggested because the truth is, no one has one. Obamacare is ripped right from the Heritage plan in 1988. Hillarycare was shredded. Romneycare is unsustainable. And going back to what we had isn't an option since we had something even worse. It's been 7 years and no one has put forward an actual replacement plan.

originally posted by: callofbooty23
a reply to: nwtrucker

Maybe,


The Department of American Citizen Regulatory Control

Regulatory bodies need to pull from the industry they're trying to regulate. They also change as the presidents do. The system is broken because you cannot pull out a high level executive, have them regulate their industry for 4/8 years, and then go back to their industry. It creates a huge conflict of interest to have a job in the future. Yet that is exactly what we do with every regulatory job.

The only way this works is if we make regulators a career path, but the issue there is the longer you regulate, the less current you are with the industry. Eventually this path devolves into people who know nothing of an industry, regulating it. And that's no good either.

a reply to: callofbooty23

I trust you don't buy into Aazadan's post.

It is confusing, contradicting spin to say the least. He would allow things to continue as they are. He fears change. Our situation demands it.

Yes there are risks in changing the basis we do business.

The people on this committee wouldn't be elected, therefore, not subject to the same political pressures as members of both parties currently are. A point he avoids.

Besides, there have been 17 Federal gov't shutdowns from the 1970s to the 1990s. No disasters resulted. It takes both sides to shut down a gov't, not one. Another obvious point he avoids.

Bottom line is shut downs aren't really connected to this idea anyways. He's taken the idea of topic and has spun it in his own vested interests.

As in the OP, there needs to be accords between nations. We need to oversee these agreements more and more as the gov't gives us less and less access to the details of them. Both parties are culpable and We The People, need to make adjustments accordingly. A rather minor fix to a problem when taken in context of the whole picture.




P.S. There is NO conflict of interest taking an industry representative and using his views in this kind of body whatsoever. He is expected to put forth and extoll the virtues...or harm... an agreement would cause his field. He is supposed to be an advocate for his area of expertise!

His is countered...or validated... by the vested interests of the other members. The combination of which represents the vested interests of the United States and it's citizens. His spin is obvious.

a reply to: nwtrucker

So what do you do when a decade from now some deficit hawks say the department of international commerce is restricting free trade and interfering in the markets, and we need to fix this by defunding the department?

a reply to: nwtrucker

No, we need Congress (and the POTUS) to do their goddamned jobs and levy tariffs on imported goods. ANYTHING not made in the USA should be taxed to a degree which makes domestic production a more attractive option. Of course, to make this work, the obstructionist agencies like the EPA must be brought to heel and informed that domestic growth is as important as REAL environmental concerns, and far more important than radicalized environmental fear mongering.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: nwtrucker

No, we need Congress (and the POTUS) to do their goddamned jobs and levy tariffs on imported goods. ANYTHING not made in the USA should be taxed to a degree which makes domestic production a more attractive option. Of course, to make this work, the obstructionist agencies like the EPA must be brought to heel and informed that domestic growth is as important as REAL environmental concerns, and far more important than radicalized environmental fear mongering.

Any sign they are going to do their jobs?? If there was even a small chance, I wouldn't have bothered with the thread.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: nwtrucker

So what do you do when a decade from now some deficit hawks say the department of international commerce is restricting free trade and interfering in the markets, and we need to fix this by defunding the department?

My getting desperate, aren't we? Aligning the trade agreements will allow a recovery of our economy. I highly doubt that any such move would be considered without considerable backlash.

A decade from now? Yawn....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Any sign another federal agency is going to do even one small thing to aid the average working American?? If there was any reason to believe they wouldn't just become another tax dollar sinkhole and lead to even more money stolen from each paycheck I'd... ah, who am I kidding, I'd still hate the SOBs. America needs to be for Americans, not for the government which has become an untenable hell on those of us trying to live our lives and provide for our families.

The country is a body and the federal government is a cancerous tumor growing inside us. Instead of spreading more lesions and tumors, we should be taking a scalpel to it all, cutting away large chunks of the tumor until it is small enough to be fully controlled by the body.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm confused, you are trying to take a part of government that is Constitutionally delegated to Congress and offering to push it off to a government agency (which would fall under the purview of the Executive Branch)? Am I understanding that correctly?