On November 5th, liberal Democrat Henry Waxman of California launched a campaign to unseat 82 year old Democrat John Dingell of Michigan as chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Dingell has been the champion of the Detroit auto companies, Waxman is a committed environmentalist.
John Broder profiles the contest in yesterday's New York Times: A Power Duo, Dingells Battle on Two Fronts.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over trade issues. Moreover, any bailout for the auto industry next year will go through this committee. Subsidies may trigger trade concerns: The Auto Bailout and Trade Tensions (although Simon Lester, the author of this post, isn't sure that proving a violation of WTO rules will be easy).
Waxman and Dingell have similar records on trade barriers, but Waxman has a somewhat better record on trade subsidies. The Cato Institute says that Waxman voted against trade barriers 52% of the time since 1997, and that he voted against trade subsidies 58% of the time. In the most recent Congress (the 110th) he actually opposed trade barriers 67% of the time, and opposed trade subsidies 100% of the time.
John Dingell's lifetime Cato record is very similar on trade barrier votes: he opposed trade barriers 51% of the time. However it's much worse on trade subsidies, which he only opposed 11% of the time. In the most recent Congress, he opposed trade barriers 67% of the time, but opposed trade subsidies only 33% of the time.
The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), looking at a slightly different set of votes, gives Waxman a "B" on support for trade in the 110th Congress. To score a "B" he only had to vote pro-trade on five of the 12 votes they looked at; this put him more or less in the center of the Democratic pack. A score of nine or more earns an "A+". NFTC gives Dingell a "B" for five pro-trade votes.
Tory Newmeyer reports for Roll Call that leaders of two moderate Democratic groups, the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats coalition were trying to rally support for Dingell among their members: Roll Call: Waxman Coup Worries Moderates:
The coordination marks a departure for the groups, which have not traditionally worked together, and a shared fear that with Democrats preparing to take control of all levers of political power, moderates could get steamrolled by emboldened liberals....
Aside from broadly centrist tendencies, the two groups don't have much in common. While most Blue Dogs represent socially conservative, rural districts, most New Democrats hail from socially progressive, suburban districts. On policy, Blue Dogs are fiscal hawks that have been singularly focused on defending pay-as-you-go budgeting rules. New Democrats have trained their attention on promoting free trade and a high-tech agenda. They mostly backed the Wall Street bailout, which split the Blue Dogs, and are now focused on regulatory modernization of the financial markets....
The New Democrat support for free trade is a relative thing - a quick look at the Cato scores for some 56 members suggests the average average proportion of votes against trade barriers was 56%, and 29% for opposition to trade subsidies.
Comments