-
May 1, 2007 10:11 AM
Baucus & Rubin Dodge Direct, Simple Questions On Trade
The fifth in a series of live blogs from the international economic summit in Butte, Montana
At a press conference with Sen. Max Baucus (D) and Citigroup executive Bob Rubin that concluded just moments ago, I had the chance to ask two questions. I asked Sen. Baucus for an offiical reaction to the Montana State Senate overwhelmingly passing a resolution asking him to not support President Bush's request to reauthorize "fast track" trade authority - the authority that allows the president to strip labor, human rights and environmental standards out of trade deals. Baucus categorically refused to answer the question, instead delivering a filibuster expounding on the wonders of the current economic conference here in Butte. I later asked Rubin whether he views labor, environmental and human rights provisions in trade deals as "protectionist" or "isolationist" since those two epithets are being thrown around by the major keynoters at this event. Rubin agreed that these were important "goals" but reiterated that he does not think the United States should not sign trade agreements with countries that refuse to agree to basic standards. I followed up by asking him if that was his view on protections for humans, did he also have the same view on protections for profits. Specifically, should the United States also sign sign trade agreements with countries that, say, refuse to agree to intellectual property and copyright standards? At this, Rubin began babbling about how each trade deal should be looked at individually on the merits - but he refused to answer the question directly.
I'll have the audio from these interchanges by the end of the day. I'm going out into the main auditorium now to listen to Rubin's official speech.
Discussion
Wow David - you must have made a whole bunch of friends today. What, did they think holding the conference in Butte would mean they could slide through a series of boilerplate presentations without getting called on it?
When you're rich you really don't have a clue what its like to not be rich, or to worry about getting a decent job. All of those guys, except for Tester, are hypocritical beyond belief.
We are being "protectionist". We are trying to protect human rights, and the right of everyone to have clean air and water, decent working conditions, and uncontaminated food.
We need to own the word. They handed it to us, let us take charge of it and re-define it and use it for our own purposes.
If we are protectionist, they are anti-protectionist, they don't want people to have fair wages, clean water and air and decent food.
We are pro-human protectionists, they are anti-human, anti-protectionists.
Join the Discussion