Cato Forum on WTO issue. - Page 2

oldbookguy · #11 07-24-2007, 07:52 PM

This I believe to be correct, congress will need to approve this based on a meeting sometime back with Sen. Rockefeller's office.

From what I gathered, it may be solely a Senate issue though since it involves a treaty, though this is a trade agreement, and may require both.

There is a good thread in the archives of this meeting.

obg

Legislurker · #12 07-24-2007, 08:32 PM

One thing to bear in mind is this has NEVER been done before.

Another is the timing of withdrawing commitments and sanctions. Antigua is entitled to sanctions UNTIL the negotiations are complete with ALL parties. I think given the EU's track record helping small countries at the WTO they may drag their feet and demand the maximum to make this as painful for the US as possible. India and China(via Macao) have pending complaints with the US at the WTO now, so they arent going to help them out. Japan and Australia are in for self-interest as well, and Canada and the US ALWAYS have a trade dispute going.
Remember, the USTR has lied, lied, and lied at every stage, so taking any position they have as truth would be naive. Harrahs has Veroneau(spelling) on their payroll, and he is the spokesman.
I think if the Executive wanted to, they could have the Treasury pay Antigua straight up. The treay was approved and they may be able to just give them Treasury bonds, then send the bill to Congress for a treaty they approved. Its not a question of going ot Congress, they are good at finding ways to circumvent the Constitution. Congress will have to go at them, and that will doesn't exist in the Senate. Oldbookguy's talks with Rockerfeller are the best thing I've seen, and thats lukewarm sounding/pleading past ignorance.
We will have to wait till the end of the appeal of the sanction, and see what is approved, and how the negotiations on recommitments goes. We have to hope HARD that the complaining countries drive hard bargains. Here's to hoping our own country gets [censored].

JPFisher55 · #13 07-24-2007, 08:37 PM

If the USTR actually agrees to compensation then Congress would have to approve it. However, I doubt that the USTR will ever agree to any compensation. Compensation awarded by the WTO in the form of retaliatory measures does not need to be approved by Congress.
I would like to know how the USTR gets away with ignoring US statutes that state that the USTR must request Congress to enact legislation that complies with final WTO rulings?

Legislurker · #14 07-24-2007, 08:44 PM

Because the WTO treaties have been confirmed by the Senate already. The Constitution gives the Executive power to enforce the treaty. This is not a new treaty, its making right obligations already approved. I WISH it was the other way, but it would take a big lawsuit to make it go that way. But, I think its more likely the USTR will just let the penalties occur and ignore it. We haven't scored a prime time news story on this yet. As long as we aren't front page, O'Reilly, Couric, Williams, Dobbs, material they will get away with selling the people and gamblers up the river with no reprecussions. I think on a side note, we are about to see the WORST, most traumatic lame duck presidency ever in terms of shenanigans, corruption, and low politics. Buckle your seat belts.

Uglyowl · #15 07-24-2007, 09:34 PM

Can't get much worse than 25% approval...so why should he care at this point.

Legislurker · #16 07-24-2007, 10:30 PM

Can't get much worse than the fact 25% of the people still support him. I hate myself every day for voting for him, twice in 04.

JPFisher55 · #17 07-25-2007, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Can't get much worse than the fact 25% of the people still support him. I hate myself every day for voting for him, twice in 04.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel your pain. I was a Republican then. I hate to say it, but Kerry could not have been worse than Bush.

tangled · #18 07-25-2007, 09:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Because the WTO treaties have been confirmed by the Senate already. The Constitution gives the Executive power to enforce the treaty. This is not a new treaty, its making right obligations already approved. I WISH it was the other way, but it would take a big lawsuit to make it go that way. But, I think its more likely the USTR will just let the penalties occur and ignore it. We haven't scored a prime time news story on this yet. As long as we aren't front page, O'Reilly, Couric, Williams, Dobbs, material they will get away with selling the people and gamblers up the river with no reprecussions. I think on a side note, we are about to see the WORST, most traumatic lame duck presidency ever in terms of shenanigans, corruption, and low politics. Buckle your seat belts.

[/ QUOTE ]

But where is the money for the payoff going to come from? The administration may be able to agree to anything they want to, without Senate ratification, but somebody has to sign the check (unless Ollie is lurking somewhere behind the scenes [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]). In our system it is Congress that signs the checks. And both houses. Or am I missing something?

oldbookguy · #19 07-25-2007, 09:31 AM

In this case it will not be 'signing the checks' so to speak by the government as much as by American companies.

American companies may have to pay increased tarriffs to export goods AND foreign companies may get discounted import fees, both of which will put American companies at a disadvantage and can cost American jobs.

As to Antigua, they are asking to be allowed to legally 'pirate' software in a sense.

obg

PoorLawyer · #20 07-25-2007, 10:14 AM

The PPA is a joke. I work just a few blocks and in theory could have attended. Unfortunately, the PPA sent a notice about this event at 10PM last night for an 11am meeting the following day.