Sen. Bunning Gets Lit Over Canadian Anti-Smoking Law

According to Inside U.S. Trade, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) has placed a hold on the nomination of Miriam Saprio to the post of Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, due to concerns about …Canadian legislation to prevent tobacco marketing to kids?

Bunning has apparently halted the nomination proceedings to focus the Obama administration on the Canadian anti-smoking legislation, which some U.S. tobacco interests fear will block exports to Canada. The law is known as the Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act, and was passed in the Canadian Senate in October. It has already been criticized as a so-called trade barrier, and has been placed on the WTO's Technical Barriers to Trade committee meeting agenda for this week. A U.S. source said that Brazil will likely speak in opposition to the law, but USTR has yet to decide if it will take a position.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has criticized Bunning’s move, saying the Obama administration “cannot dictate how the Canadian legislature does its job, any more than the Canadian Parliament can dictate how we do ours.” If Reid likes this, he should check out the recent USTR 2009 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, which criticizes Canada and a number of American allies for their domestic safety and health laws.

The Stuff Nightmares Are Made of…

Just in time for Halloween, we’ve found a truly scary article about unprecedented NAFTA expansion: Erik Heinrich of CNN predicts that the upcoming conclusion of a “free trade” agreement between the European Union and Canada will likely begin a push for a NAFTA-EU trade zone, which would encompass nearly a billion people and would account for more than half of the world’s total GDP.

The president of Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, the country’s largest trade and industry association, has said “the largest benefits will come from economic integration,” referring to increased foreign direct investment and access to government procurement, the very provisions of NAFTA fair traders have flagged as some of the most damaging aspects of the agreement and others based on the NAFTA model.

According to Steven Schrage of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), (who opines that “it makes sense to integrate NAFTA with the EU,”) the Bush administration had a NAFTA-EU deal on its radar, but failed to make progress: “The ball is in the Obama administration’s court.” CNN does concede that a NAFTA-EU trade deal would likely be met with stiff opposition in the United States.

What an interesting way to sell this deal to the Obama administration: “The Bush administration thought this was a great idea!” I am comforted that Obama has expressed that he is fully aware of what he calls “NAFTA’s shortcomings” and has made a variety of trade promises that suggest he has no interest in continuing the Bush administration’s failed trade initiatives. As for Congress, the desire for a new trade agenda is illustrated by support for the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act, which currently enjoys support from 123 Democrats and two Republicans in the House of Representatives, including 10 committee chairs, 52 subcommittee chairs, and wide swaths of the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition, Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the New Democrat Coalition.

It still freaks me out, though.

How NOT to Seek Higher Office

It's really hitting the fan for Congressman Kendrick Meek, the likely Democratic contender for the 2010 Florida Senate seat. Meek recently withdrew his cosponsorship from two key pieces of legislation for progressives: the Single Payer Health Care bill (HR 676), and the TRADE Act (HR 3012).

Congress Daily (Oct 23rd, 2009 - subscription only) reports on the fury Meek's flip-flop has unleashed on himself:

Labor unions are furious with Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., for his decision this week to withdraw his name from a bill rapidly gaining support among House Democrats to renegotiate or scrap several major trade agreements.

One labor source called it "spineless," and people familiar with the matter said some unions were threatening to withdraw support for Meek's 2010 Senate bid. "It's very disappointing, especially considering he's got a pretty good labor record," said Lisa Kinard, director of federal legislation and regulation for the Teamsters Union.

The Hill additionally notes Meek's "abrupt" and conspicuously-timed reversal on the two measures:

The Florida AFL-CIO endorsed Meek for the Senate at an Oct. 7 meeting, which Meek touted in a press release on Wednesday, the same day he changed his sponsorship.

Thea Lee, a lobbyist for the AFL-CIO, said her organization supports Michaud’s legislation and that Meek’s decision to drop his sponsorship would be a subject of discussions.

Congress Daily notes another conspicuous fact:

The fracas was a step backward for Meek after good news arrived late last week, when Rep. Corinne Brown, D-Fla., announced she would not challenge Meek for the nomination.

Congressman Meek's statement on the floor offered not so much as an attempt at an excuse as to why he would changes his mind, but his spokespeople sound an awful lot like the Chamber of Commerce misleading talking points against the TRADE Act.

Working people in Florida will have to watch Meek closely to see whether his actions side with them and for reform of our unsustainable job-wrecking economic model, or with the Chamber of Commerce business as usual.

(Disclosure: Global Trade Watch has no preference among candidates for elected office.)

Offshoring airline safety

Last week, NPR ran a three-part story on U.S. airlines sending airplane maintenance work - formerly a high-paying, unionized domestic profession - offshore, particularly to Central America and Asia. The lead story, To Cut Costs, Airlines Send Repairs Abroad, summarizes much of the relevant information, but the entire three parts are worth a read. Also note that this is not the first time that this issue has made headlines in recent years. At issue here are both the offshoring of quality jobs and the problems with regulating safety under today's trade model. Some of the money quotes from the first NPR story regarding the latter:

"The FAA does not require airlines to report exactly where they send their aircraft for which kinds of repairs. So, FAA inspectors are not sure which of the roughly 700 foreign repair shops they should inspect... The FAA's inspectors didn't even show up at some foreign repair stations to monitor their work for as long as three to five years."

The second story in the series details some of the questionable practices at one Salvadoran repair operation, Aeroman:

...[Aeroman] mechanics say managers keep pressuring them to fix the planes faster. For instance, if there's rust on a metal beam, but it's just a little over tolerance, "the supervisor says, 'Oh, just leave it like that,'" the mechanic says, through an interpreter. "'There's no need to repair it.'" [...] Another mechanic ticked off other problems at Aeroman. Some employees don't store glues at the required temperatures, he says. That means the glues could fail — which potentially means that parts of the airplane could fall apart... And this mechanic says some workers can't even read the airlines' repair manuals. The manuals are written in English, but some mechanics at Aeroman can't read English — including him.

Walking the Line

Up here in the Global Trade Watch field loft, we love a good picket line. This one, however, brings a special joy to our heart. Autoworkers from the UAW's Local 174 based in Romulus, Michigan made a trek down to Brownsville, TX to protest our broken NAFTA-style trade policies. 

The Brownsville Herald Reports that the picketers denounced the greed that drives NAFTA-style globalization:

"We are losing our jobs on this side, and (American corporations) are paying workers low wages on the other," Local 174 UAW President John Zimmick said at the protest, wiping a sweaty brow. "Why can’t they pay workers what they are worth?

Its heartening to see these unionists take a 28 hour drive to stand in solidarity with their brothers and sister autoworkers, regardless of nationality. These UAW leaders and activists demanded better for auto employees in both the U.S. and in Mexico. The Herald continues:

This was the second demonstration staged by the group, which took to marching in front of the Hidalgo-Reynosa International Bridge Monday afternoon. At that time, workers also gathered at a street corner on the Mexican side of the bridge to protest what they said were unfair layoffs at a TRW Automotive maquiladora in Reynosa. TRW Automotive is a supplier for Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler.

"We want trade, but we want it to be just," said Martha Ojeda, executive director of the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, adding that the 600 TRW Automotive workers dismissed from their jobs did not receive severance pay or unemployment benefits as they would in the United States.

Couldn't have said it better ourselves. We need FAIR trade, just trade, like envisioned in the TRADE Act to rebuild our economy. That's why the TRADE Act is supported by nearly half the House Democrats and two Republican Representatives as well.

Check Out Rep. Levin's Guide on the Chinese Tire Case

As the media continues to cover the Obama administration’s recent decision to impose tariffs on tire imports from China, Congressman Sandy Levin has released a very useful guide covering the primary issues and arguments involved in the dispute - it is especially helpful in terms of distinguishing fact from fiction in the case.

Lobbyists React with Fury and Threats to Obama Administration Decision

A few weeks ago we reported that the Obama administration was considering taking an important step towards fulfilling the campaign promise of reducing the influence of special interests in Washington by removing registered lobbyists from influential advisory committees.

This decision has been confirmed by the official White House blog which states, “the President has made a commitment to close the revolving door that has in the past allowed lobbyists and others to move to and from full-time federal government service…the President made a commitment to the American people to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington out of a belief that lobbyists have too often in the past achieved disproportionate impact on government decision makers at the expense of broader voices from the public at large. If we are going to change the way business is done in Washington, we need to make sure we are not simply continuing the practices of the past.” According to a senior White House official, the panels have been excessively dominated by lobbyists: “It is one of the ways special interests have historically shaped policy to the detriment of the public interest.”

Lobbyists have reacted with “absolute fury” to the decision, and some are brashly threatening to circumvent the policy in order to retain their influence on advisory panels: Dave Wenhold, president of the American League of Lobbyists (ALL) stated, “If lobbyists want to stay on boards, they will just deregister.” 

According to The Hill, an estimated 1,000 federal advisory committees were established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and many of them include registered lobbyists. The trade advisory system is made 28 advisory committees of about 700 individuals, approximately 30 percent of whom are registered lobbyists. For example, the textile and apparel advisory committee, which includes registered lobbyists from three industry apparel and textile trade groups, stands to lose a large percentage of its members due to the decision. For more on the trade advisory system, check out our book.

Calman Cohen, president of the Emergency Committee for American Trade and a lobbyists for IMB, Oracle, and eBay Inc, laments that the administration should “take account of all citizens, whether they are a lobbyist or not…”
Hmm…is Cohen suggesting that it’s time for a Lobbyists' Bill of Rights? 

Trade a Flash Point Issue in Pennsylvania’s Democratic Primary

As Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) is set to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) for his U.S. Senate seat in the upcoming Democratic primary, trade policy has surfaced as a point of contention between the two candidates. Both have criticized the other as being supportive of unfair trade agreements and Specter agreed with the accusation that Sestak is “weak on trade.”

The candidates have a mixed vote record on trade. Specter voted for both NAFTA and the WTO, but has made occasional fair trade votes in recent years, by voting against China PNTR and CAFTA. On the Senate floor in 2005, Specter said of CAFTA,

“This trade agreement would adversely affect this job loss in the United States… many U.S. corporations would have to shut down their operations, export their jobs, and leave skilled workers jobless. This agreement would aggravate the problem. In addition to job loss, this agreement fails to enhance workers' rights…Ultimately, CAFTA would create downward pressure on wages because it would force our American workers to compete with Central American workers who are working for lower wages. This would allow foreign based companies to expand while leaving America more dependent on imports from abroad, which in turn would lessen the demand for domestic production and create even greater economic instability.”

Sestak for his part voted to deny fast-track treatment to the FTA with Colombia and has said that he plans to vote against the Korea and Colombia FTAs.

Yet, both candidates voted for the Peru FTA in 2007 and at this point, neither has cosponsored the TRADE Act – a key demand of fair traders.

The fact that the two candidates are analyzing each other’s trade policies and referring to specific trade agreements shows that political candidates are becoming more educated about trade policy and are using the issue as a platform for (re)election. In other words, trade continues to be a major election issue.

CAFTA Signatory Honduras Falls Victim to a Coup

Recently ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was in Washington, DC earlier this month and met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Zelaya was roused from bed at gunpoint by the Honduran military, forced on a plane, and flown to Costa Rica in June. Since then, the de facto government has violated civil liberties left and right: The Huffington Post reports that Zelaya supporters have been killed, hundreds of people have been assaulted by armed forces, and over a thousand have been illegally detained. Meanwhile, press and media outlets have been shut down and journalists have been arrested and detained. 

Zelaya was criticized by Honduran elites for his progressive policies: During his tenure, Zelaya’s administration raised the minimum wage, gave out free school lunches, provided pensions for the elderly, distributed energy-saving light bulbs, decreased the price of public transportation, expanded scholarships for students, and passed legislation to protect the environment. He enjoys broad popular support, especially from unions, human rights groups, indigenous groups and peasant associations. 

The situation in Honduras has a number of important implications: Fair traders have long argued that NAFTA-style deals promote instability and now Honduras, a signatory to CAFTA, has suffered Central America’s first coup since the Cold War. CAFTA was approved in Honduras by local elites, the same interests who are threatened by Zelaya’s progressive policies. The instability in Honduras is an illustration of how NAFTA-style trade agreements can undermine democratic governance in member nations.

OK, We Get It.

President Obama is meeting as we speak with Mexican President Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Harper, us trade wonks aren't in denial that there's some pretty big issues on the front burner ahead of NAFTA. Drugs cartels and violence. Immigration. Economic meltdown. Anyone? Anyone?

Here's our full statement:

Ok, We Get NAFTA Renegotiation Isn't Obama's Top Priority (Amidst Economic Armageddon) but Americans Expect Him to Deliver on His Commitments to Fix Our Job-Killing Trade Policies...

 

President Obama's Guadalajara, Mexico, "Three Amigos" meeting Sunday with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper can't but remind Americans of Obama's oft-repeated campaign commitment:  "One of the first things I'll do as president will be to call the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Mexico and work with them to fix NAFTA."

 

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is not slated to be a major topic of conversation at the summit. But with U.S. unemployment nearing 10 percent, polls showing Americans' anger about NAFTA-style trade policies and Obama spending this week campaigning in battleground states on the impact of his economic policies, the president cannot forget, "It's the global economy, stupid."

 

Millions of Americans are still waiting for Obama to deliver on his campaign commitment: "NAFTA's shortcomings were evident when signed and we must now amend the agreement to fix them." Since the election, President Obama has reaffirmed his plan to renegotiate NAFTA - including in the face of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's pressure not to do so during Obama's February Canada trip.

 

That NAFTA - its expansion, not renegotiation - is not the main topic of this summit is noteworthy. The Three Amigos process was created for "deepening" NAFTA among its first three nations and pushing NAFTA expansion to 34 nations in the hemisphere through a now-dead Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Now instead of more NAFTA being discussed, the main trade talk will be about problems caused by NAFTA, among other trade irritants to be aired in bilateral sessions. (Mexico and Canada have trade challenged U.S. truck safety, dolphin protection, food labeling laws and more.)

 

Americans expect relief from the NAFTA trade model that has led to the loss of five million manufacturing jobs - one out of every three- since NAFTA. Last year, Obama committed to fix the core provisions of NAFTA that push down wages, cost U.S. jobs and lead to unsafe food imports. Instead of discussing tweaking the edges of NAFTA, he targeted: 

• NAFTA's EXTREME FOREIGN INVESTOR PRIVILEGES THAT PROMOTE OFFSHORING  Obama answered "yes" to the question: "Will you commit to renegotiate NAFTA to eliminate its investor rules that allow private enforcement by foreign investors of these investor privileges in foreign tribunals and that give foreign investors greater rights than are provided by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by our Supreme Court thus promoting offshoring?"  He also said: "While NAFTA gave broad rights to investors, it paid only lip service to the rights of labor and the importance of environmental protection. We should amend NAFTA to make clear that fair laws and regulations written to protect citizens in any of the three countries cannot be overridden simply at the request of foreign investors."

• NAFTA's MISSING LABOR RIGHTS  "We'll add binding obligations to protect the right to collective bargaining and other core labor standards recognized by the International Labor Organization. And I will add enforceable measures to NAFTA, the World Trade Organization (WTO), CAFTA [Central America Free Trade Agreement] and other Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) currently in effect." "The rights of working people should be equal to those of commercial interests and their protections in trade agreements should be the same. Again, this was a fundamental failing in the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements." 

• NAFTA'S ENVIRONMENT GAP   "We must add binding environmental standards so that companies from one country cannot gain an economic advantage by destroying the environment." "The protection of the environment is just as critical as the protection of commercial interests and must be subject to the same mechanism for protection." 

• NAFTA'S PROCUREMENT POLICY MEDDLING   Obama answered "yes" to the question: "Do you support renegotiating trade agreements so they will allow us to use "Buy America" and "Buy Local" procurement policies?"

What Would Cesar Chavez Do?

WWCCD? If someone was selling such a bracelet, I have to admit I'd jump at the chance and wear it with pride.

The photos from last week's Cesar Chavez Day celebrations are rolling in from across the country, and it occurs to me that Cesar Chavez' legacy contains inspiring lessons for fair traders to the point that a more than annual reminder would be in order.

The movement is growing to win recognition of a national Cesar Chavez Day, and fair traders especially should strive to follow the footsteps of this leader for labor rights, civil rights, and immigrant rights.

Imagine if Congress sought the advice of visionaries like Chavez as they ponder how to deal with Bush's leftover NAFTA-type deals with Panama, Colombia and South Korea? If they were to tirelessly advocate for marginalized farmworkers and farmers, as United Farmworkers (UFW) union co-founder Chavez did, they would certainly come to a fair-trade conclusion and demand reforms that put small farmers and workers first in devising trade policy.

The campesino and farmers movements in all four countries (U.S. as well!) could expect solidarity from brother Cesar in their opposition to the hangover FTAs for this model's proven record of displacing rural people and forcing them to immigrate to where they are exploited as cheap labor. United Farmworkers co-founder Delores Huerta (equally praiseworthy for her vision in forging the UFW) has been an outspoken advocate of fair trade, advocating along with other Latin@ and labor leaders to fix our broken trade policies. This makes great company for groups like the Panamanian farmers and farm-workers organization ONAGRO, who state their opposition to the U.S.-Panama FTA in these terms.

Groups like the UFW and countless local organizations like San Antonio's Cesar Chavez Legacy and Educational Fund are keeping on, marching to remember the works of brother Cesar, and to forward the struggle he left behind. Here's hoping that you marched or otherwise have had a chance to remember brother Cesar, and that you take some strength from it into the fight for fair-trade reform that lies ahead.

Note: The closest we can find to a WWCCD bracelet can be ordered online from the United Farmworkers.

(Photos Courtesy of Flickr user sandy richard under a Creative Common License, and from Cesar Chavez Legacy Foundation, respectively)

Fair Trader Wins Salvadoran Presidency

Count one more fair-trade government in Latin America. The Washington Post reports the winner is Mauricio Funes:

Funes, a dynamic speaker and political outsider who compares himself to President Obama and pledged to be an agent of change in the small Central American nation, was leading the polls late Sunday night with 51.2 percent of the vote and more than 90 percent of the ballots counted...

Funes's opponent, former National Police chief Rodrigo Ávila, who represented the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA), was trailing with 48.7 percent of the vote. Ávila conceded defeat, telling supporters, "We will be a constructive opposition."

The Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES) is hopeful about the prospects for the country under the new government:

CISPES also wants to pass on a profound congratulations for the Salvadoran people, who today triumphed over fear and joined the countries of Latin America who are proving that indeed another world is not only possible, it is in formation!

Amen to that!

Fair Traders Hang Tough in Salvadoran Elections

The Salvadoran fair-trade party FMLN (Frente Farabundo Marti de Liberacion Nacional) - vehement in its opposition to CAFTA - is leading the presidential race, but facing typical last-minute shenanigans from the right wing. And given the recent interventions by Republican congressmen - not unlike Bush administration's meddling in the CAFTA Referendum in Costa Rica - the FMLN is holding its breath.

A recent Washington Post piece reveals that while polls show the fair-trade FMLN candidate Mauricio Funes up by 18 points on the CAFTA-fans and privatizers' candidate Rodrigo Ávila of the ruling ARENA party, there's always a chance that something will give.

The February polls show Funes up 49 percent to Ávila 's 31 percent, but Aguilar [a commentator] cautioned that the race remains dynamic. Other polling shows the race to be a virtual dead heat.

That something might just be the not-so-veiled threats made by GOP congressmen yesterday, orchestrated to dominate the Salvadoran headlines the final moments of the campaign. As highlighted by CISPES, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (who also urges you to take action to make the clear U.S. neutral position):

Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) stated, “Those monies that are coming from here to there I am confident will be cut, and I hope the people of El Salvador are aware of that because it will have a tremendous impact on individuals and their economy.” Indeed, these threats carry considerable weight for Salvadoran voters, as 25% of the Salvadoran population lives in the U.S., and 20% of the nation's economy consists of remittances from those family members.

This sort of meddling was full anticipated, which is why Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) coauthored a letter signed by 33 members of Congress to the State Department, calling for a preemptive declaration of U.S. neutrality in the Salvadoran elections. Now we clearly see why this was necessary.

You can see Grijalva's press conference here, or below on yesterday's Democracy Now:

The Post reports on Funes' own reaction to the scare tactics:

During his speech in Metapan, Funes promised that "we will end the economy of privilege for the few," a reference to the so-called 14 major families of the Salvadoran elite, who have dominated the country for generations. He urged the crowd not to believe ARENA's "propaganda." "They're desperate because they know they're going to lose," he said. "If you vote for me, light is at the end of this tunnel."

Eyes on Trade will be watching and will keep our readers posted.

House Members to White House: We Got Your Back

A large bloc of House members sent President Obama a letter describing a trade reform agenda about which they are excited to work in cooperation with him. On issues ranging from renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and creating new import safety policies to remedying the failed U.S.-China trade relationship, the letter focuses largely on implementing Obama's campaign pledges to transform U.S. trade and globalization policies.

The letter, which was initiated by House Trade Working Group co-chair Mike Michaud (D-ME) was signed by a prominent group of members, including 6 Committee chairs and 17 Subcommittee chairs representing 24 states from Hawaii to Maine, from Georgia to Oregon, and stretching far beyond the Rust Belt. See the press release and letter here. One choice except of the letter to the President:

We heartily agree with your conclusion that trade policies “are not sustainable if they favor the few rather than the many.” Rebalancing our trade and globalization policies so that they create and retain good jobs in the United States, foster sustainable and equitable development worldwide, and provide government with the policy space necessary to solve pressing economic, climate, and other challenges is critical to prosperity and security at home and around the world.

 

This four-page letter was endorsed by key congressional leaders and members of diverse Democratic caucuses (Blue Dogs, New Democrats, Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, Progressive Caucus and more).

(Photo used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user Stella's mom).

Hearings Set for Obama's Trade Change Agent

(Note: Hearing has been postponed until Monday March 9, 2009, at 5:00 p.m.)

The Senate Finance Committee posted official notice that the hearing for President Obama's choice to head the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) will being at 3pm on Thursday, March 5th.

This will be fair trader' first in-depth look at former Dallas, TX Mayor and USTR nominee Ron Kirk's personal views on trade policy, and to hear how he plans to implement the litany of reforms committed to by President Obama on the campaign trail.

You can join in spirit what's sure to be an swinging hoppin' viewing party here at Global Trade Watch - either on cable, or by tuning in online at C-SPAN.org for all the fun.

I sure hope they're planning to devote some extra bandwidth to this programming. If just a small fraction of our friends who voted for fair trade last November decide to show up to the online auxiliary viewing part, it'll be quite the crowd!

(Photo courtesy of Flickr user Rob 1914)

It's Because She's a Fair Trader - Not a Good Ol' Boy - Isn't It?

GOP Senators are blocking confirmation of President Obama's Labor Secretary pick and fair trader Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.). Seems like they'd prefer someone with no family background of actually laboring and no history of support for people who perform labor for a living - you know, people like them. 

They say its another tax issue that's been dug up about Solis' husband, but here's the San Francisco Chronicle on the what are likely the real GOP objections:

Republicans on the committee have challenged Solis over her support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize. They also suggested that her position as an unpaid board member for the pro-labor group American Rights at Work amounted to a lobbying role, which Solis denies.

We should also note that those same GOP Senators might not be too jazzed that Solis has an almost 100% fair-trade voting record representing her California constituents. Just a hunch.

But labor leaders like John Sweeney and Andy Stern are coming to Solis' defense. Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO, reiterated his support for Solis yesterday:

Congresswoman Hilda Solis is eminently qualified for this post, and will be a vigorous advocate for the kinds of programs that our nation is working people need the most. She will fight to improve skills development and job creation programs, including development of "green collar" jobs. She will work to assure that workers get the pay they have earned and that they work in safe, healthy, and fair workplaces. She is ready to address the retirement security crisis and will work hard to protect every worker from job discrimination, regardless of race, sex, veteran status, or disability.

She understands that working men and women deserve the freedom to choose whether to form a union without employer interference.

Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union, put out a video calling this obstruction "unacceptable."

We'll be watching closely as hearings over this fair-trade cabinet member-to-be develop.

(Photo of Rep. Solis courtesy of Flickr user Barack Obama used under a Creative Commons License)

Saskia Sassen on monarchism; me on good books

Saskia Sassen has a fascinating piece on how the current era of globalization has increased executive power at the expense of Congress and democratic deliberation more generally. What will this mean for Obama?

The development of a global corporate economy has further strengthened the executive branch and weakened the legislative. This process started long before the second Bush administration and cuts across political parties. It began in the 1980s, when the current globalization phase took off, and has continued since...

In fact, economic globalization has had its own autonomous effect in sharpening executive power and in weakening the legislature. This is separate from questions of national security and abuses of executive privilege. It will take more to stop this consolidation of power than having an administration that does not abuse its executive power and that would eliminate the Patriot Act, though this would certainly make a difference...

A new president genuinely willing to respect the balance of power and willing to cancel the Patriot Act will still be in a structural position of growing power in today’s liberal state. A hollowed-out Congress confined to domestic matters weakens the political capacity of citizens to demand accountability from an increasingly powerful and globally oriented executive. Today, the liberal state produces its own democratic deficit.

There is an ironic possibility in all of this. Can a president intent on fighting for a better and more just democracy actually use that expanded executive power to do this?

Also, for those of you interested in some good book recommendations, check out my essay on David Rothkopf, Ha-Joon Chang and Mark Engler's latest over at the Dissent website. The conclusion seems appropriate for this week of change:

THIS OCTOBER, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank meetings came to Washington, and, as they do every year, an impassioned bunch of activists mounted protests, decrying the neoliberal agenda that has deregulated markets, pitted worker against worker, and devastated local communities and the environment.

The difference this time around was that, in the wake of the most significant financial meltdown of our times, the bankers were echoing the protestors’ calls for re-regulation. Indeed, as the number of people protesting the global institutions has shrunk since September 11, 2001, the mainstream acceptance of their basic critiques has swelled...

As economic conditions worsen, there will be a bevy of rich individuals and governments attempting to claim the reform mantle as their own. The WTO, IMF, and World Bank are already attempting to reposition themselves as the ideal brokers for solutions to the climate, finance, and food-price crises—despite their role in creating or exacerbating them. Decades of political marginalization have left too many progressives too timid to lay out their alternative visions in a meaningful policy form. If they fail to do so now, the current “told you so” moment will be sweet but short.