Going back to NAFTA more than two decades ago (wow, time flies when Administration after Administration screws workers year after year, eh?), deals have been made by presidents to buy votes. With Bill Clinton and Robert Reich promising a whole host of goodies, NAFTA passed narrowly--my favorite deal struck in memory was Clinton's promise to establish a North American Development Bank with $3 billion...which bought the votes of a few Democrats like Rep. Esteban Torres (D-CA) and Rep. Ed Pastor (D-AZ). The bank? Ooooopppppssss...didn't happen beyond a trickle.
You see, the sale of one's soul--and the livelihoods of millions of people--for a piddling appropriation turns out to be a bad deal just on the narrow merits of what's promised:
Most deals are broken.
Let's be clear: we should be calling and targeting Congresscritters based on how bad this shit is. I don't need to repeat the reasons: people understand why fast track is a scar.
BUT...for all those Congresscritters who think they are going to get something done for them (which is really likely for the pathetic Democrats who are going to vote "yes", especially those who have flipped), it's important to remember what Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch tells these folks:
Indeed, a review of the last two decades of presidential promises made to extract trade votes facing passionate public opposition reveals that members of Congress who have exchanged “yes” votes for such IOUs have more often than not seen the promises broken, leaving them exposed to voters’ anger over their vote against the opinion and interests of the majority. In many cases, this exposure has contributed to subsequent electoral losses, costing members of Congress their jobs.
And:
Over the past two decades, administrations have repeatedly made such promises in attempts to buy votes for past iterations of Fast Track and Fast-Tracked trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA. Common promises have included safeguards against import surges of specific agricultural or manufacturing commodities; selection of districts for small business funding and other projects; labor and/or environmental enforcement or “capacity building”; and increases in the funding or scope of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) to help workers who would be displaced by a trade deal. Time and again, the promises have proven empty. Members who trusted the pledges and traded their vote have been voted out of office.[emphasis added]
I've already written here
how the TAA is just fancy words for burial insurance.
But, even the most narrow, craven buy-offs go bad. Public Citizen's report recalls that:
In a 2005 report (“Trade Wars: Deals for Trade Votes Gone Bad”), Public Citizen reviewed 92 deals from 1992 through 2004 in which members of Congress delivered unpopular “yes” votes on Fast Track and Fast-Tracked pacts in exchange for promises of favors to provide political cover. Only 17 percent of the promises were kept. Pledged import safeguards never materialized, promised funds for community development or worker assistance proved illusory, and dreams of new infrastructure projects remained dreams[emphasis added].
The Tomato fiasco promise to buy votes including from Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-
Fla.):
One of the most infamous NAFTA agriculture deals concerned tomatoes, a major product in Hastings’ district. In a letter from the Clinton administration to the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, the U.S. Trade Representative at the time promised that the USITC would monitor imports of Mexican vegetables and “expediteany request for relief under the fast track provisional relief procedures,” which could provide safeguards to domestic farmers through tariffs. Numerous Florida House Members relied on this promise–
which was laid out in detail with new, special USITC Fast Track review and safeguard
provisions –in deciding to support NAFTA.
The Clinton administration never fulfilled this promise. The USITC monitored the post-
NAFTA surge of imported tomatoes and extensively documented the U.S. tomato industry’s demise. Before NAFTA, Florida had a $700 million tomato industry with 250 growers; within two years of NAFTA’s import surges, revenues had dropped to $400 million with only 100 growers remaining. Many Florida Democrats and Republicans were under political attack for their NAFTA “yes” votes as the Florida industry was decimated. Yet, the Clinton administration refused to take meaningful action based on the data.
Yeah, well, I'm shocked that a Clinton went back on a promise...that would never happen.
Anyway, read the report. It's pretty thorough.
Warning: deals you make for a vote today will come back to bite you.