Geez, I dunno, Jake.

I don't know about "Changing the rules after the fact...". Are the "rules" that Congress has to ratify presidentially negotiated trade agreements.

But, to my knowledge, the U.S. has no free trade agreement with China, yet look what that has done to your economy!

Might Columbia be your "best ally" in Latin America because you send boodles of anti-drug $$$ their way?
How do "security interests" get affected by rejecting the agreement?

It's awfully hard for the U.S. to come out a winner in any free trade agreement when the other party has extremely low wages, not to mention other factors like working conditions and environmental impact that manufacturers may cause.

Maybe my job heading to India in July has tainted my thinking (which has no free trade agreement helping it along).




>Changing the rules after the fact seems to be a trend with this bunch. However, this time it is not simply affecting a house vote's timing or the Democratic primary, this time they're damaging the ability of the President (office not current occupant) to engage in good-faith treaty negotiations.
>
>"The Democratic Party's protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America."
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778566399303309.html