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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?

I don't 'think' so. I'm thinking that it's more of an added mechanism 'in addition to' that which already exists. An extra approval level...before signing into law.

The purpose being exposure to the general public, the input of those usually outside the so-called good old boy network and whether that particular agreement/tariff would help or harm their particular interests.

In other words, a mechanism that would mitigate potential damage due to agreements that benefitted only the signatories while harming the over-all nation.

Just an idea, probably not very workable.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Understood.

This is would be a body of non-government individuals, representing those outside gov't/corporate interests that would input how deals like NAFTA, WTO and TPP effect their areas. Enough negative votes and it kills the deal, at least without modification.

Hey! It's just a thought....LOL

originally posted by: nwtrucker

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....

I'm not getting desperate at all. It is 100% what would happen, and I know this because it happens to literally every other government agency there is. Just look at the IRS, the one government agency that can show actual additional revenue produced for every dollar spent on it. Even that agency is facing the prospect of deep and severe budget cuts.

What will happen here is there will be cries that this agency is limiting business by negotiating treaties and dictating how they do business, these cries are already echoed with the EPA, FCC, FDIC, Treasury Department, FRB, FAA, FDA, NLRB, SEC, NLRB, and NRC, and those are just the major ones I can think of.

And yes, if your plan is going to face serious issues a decade from now it is not a good idea. That's the whole problem we have with our government in the first place. Short term solutions are sought to what are long term problems. This is an inherent weakness of Democracy, but that's no reason to magnify the problem.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker

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....

I'm not getting desperate at all. It is 100% what would happen, and I know this because it happens to literally every other government agency there is. Just look at the IRS, the one government agency that can show actual additional revenue produced for every dollar spent on it. Even that agency is facing the prospect of deep and severe budget cuts.

What will happen here is there will be cries that this agency is limiting business by negotiating treaties and dictating how they do business, these cries are already echoed with the EPA, FCC, FDIC, Treasury Department, FRB, FAA, FDA, NLRB, SEC, NLRB, and NRC, and those are just the major ones I can think of.

And yes, if your plan is going to face serious issues a decade from now it is not a good idea. That's the whole problem we have with our government in the first place. Short term solutions are sought to what are long term problems. This is an inherent weakness of Democracy, but that's no reason to magnify the problem.

This isn't really a 'government agency' is it? It's more like The People's Agency. Therefore, not only outside the dynamics you cite but actually more likely to become a 'third rail'. Untouchable.

An over-site outside the Constitutional mechanism, if you will.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
This isn't really a 'government agency' is it? It's more like The People's Agency. Therefore, not only outside the dynamics you cite but actually more likely to become a 'third rail'. Untouchable.

An over-site outside the Constitutional mechanism, if you will.

And who is placed into this department to make the decision?

If you put it under the Legislative it's no different than it is now.
If you put it under the Executive, they would be placed through Presidential appointment which makes it subject to the same problems all regulatory agencies have now.
If you put it under the Judicial it's completely removed from public opinion.
If you put it under the purview of the general public rather than a body of officials you're advocating a move from a republic to a democracy, complete with all of the downsides that entails, like the fact that the general public doesn't have an expert understanding of the subject they're voting on.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: nwtrucker
This isn't really a 'government agency' is it? It's more like The People's Agency. Therefore, not only outside the dynamics you cite but actually more likely to become a 'third rail'. Untouchable.

An over-site outside the Constitutional mechanism, if you will.

And who is placed into this department to make the decision?

If you put it under the Legislative it's no different than it is now.
If you put it under the Executive, they would be placed through Presidential appointment which makes it subject to the same problems all regulatory agencies have now.
If you put it under the Judicial it's completely removed from public opinion.
If you put it under the purview of the general public rather than a body of officials you're advocating a move from a republic to a democracy, complete with all of the downsides that entails, like the fact that the general public doesn't have an expert understanding of the subject they're voting on.

Not "under" anyone. The president can appoint a Secretary' that oversees the proceedings, but the members would be selected by the industries and interest groups themselves. They choose their own representatives. They can sink or swim based on their choice. It could even be legal Reps. (There you go, you still can have a job...)

It all follows the same procedure that Trade deals follow now, except the added endorsement/veto based on a vote of all the representatives. Approval means the deal goes straight through for Executive signing. Veto means it goes back to the legislative/ negotiating body that cam up with it. It then is modified for resubmittal or ended as they choose.

No change other than one added endorsement...Simple. Well, sort of....LOL

P.S.. This also allows a 'political' not our fault 'out' that takes the pressure off of the political side...."We tried our best" to pass it....Shrug, oh well....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Not "under" anyone. The president can appoint a Secretary' that oversees the proceedings, but the members would be selected by the industries and interest groups themselves. They choose their own representatives. They can sink or swim based on their choice. It could even be legal Reps. (There you go, you still can have a job...)

So you want a group of business leaders to dictate national policy? We already have enough of a problem with that happening, the last thing we need is to exacerbate the problem of companies like GE, Exxon-Mobil, Goldman Sachs, Google, Microsoft, and others dictating policy to the government.

a reply to: Aazadan

Business leaders aren't monolithic. Each will promote their own agenda. With business leaders will be union leaders, environmental leaders, experts in fields and area of expertise OUTSIDE the realm of those that support that specific trade deal. Including employment/job experts.

Our current system is already owned by those business types, as you well know, this allows input by those both helped by the deal and those hurt by it.

A complete representation of the cross-sections of the U.S.. That is what is missing in the current system.

You know all this. Your too sharp to not know it. Stop being a smart-ass twit. This isn't your college course-room. Either contribute valid concerns or shut up.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

A valid concern: TPP had large amounts of input from the private sector. So why would your plan have produced a different result?

a reply to: Aazadan

A valid response: The 'private sector' as you label it, is unknown. Which corporations were involved. It is a safe assumption that those pushing this agreement wouldn't also include those portions of the private sector that would react negatively to it.

Take the Boeing deal to build a plant in China. Good for Boeing, bad for their workers AND the smaller secondary and tertiary businesses that support Boeing. Then there the revenues lost to the city, county and state. On and on.

Lets say it's all on the up and up. A valid agreement. Then the "Committee' via it's members rubber stamp it and off it goes..

The point is, if they had the hoops to jump through and knew it in advance, it is more likely to include aspects that benefit more than Boeing. It would include positive aspects for a much broader spectrum than one Corporation.

I use the Boeing deal as an analogy. Businesses can make their own deals as they choose....free market.

However, when a legislated agreement is made in the form of a trade deal, then it moves beyond 'free market' principals. It becomes the business, interest and input by all affected by that deal. Hence, this concept.

Look, it's not gonna happen. Neither party would broach the idea for fear of alienating donors.

A Presidential Candidate in need of a boost in the polls??? Not impossible.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Individual sectors give input to how a law is written. A financial portion of the law will be handled by banks like Goldman Sachs for example, or a piece on automobiles will get input from Ford.

Secondary and tertiary businesses don't get input unless their revenues are in the billions, your suggestion wouldn't change that unless you expanded such a bill out to getting input from thousands upon thousands of professionals. At which point what you'll find is that a few will form up to represent the interests of many and you're back in the situation where a handful of powerful lobbies have the legislators ears.

a reply to: Aazadan

One Rep. per general class. Keep it simple...,as long as possible, that is.

Amount of money isn't an issue.

Look, you can invent reasons why not, all day. Some will likely end up valid, others not.

I can't say whether the TPP would pass muster as we know too little anyways. Reason to suspect it wouldn't for that very reason.

Perhaps the XL Pipeline would have passed muster. Obama could have still said no. But then again, it might have been a political mistake to block it. Sufficient support could given impetus for a bi-partisan, veto-proof majority in Congress.

Lots of possibilities...no matter how creative you get on debunking it.