|
Ron Johnson on Free Trade
|
|
|
Yes to trade adjustment; Yes to fast-track
Ballotpedia.org analysis of Congressional voting record on trade issues:- Voted YEA on Trade adjustment assistance (TAA): On 5/22/15, the Senate passed the TAA measure in HR 1314 by a vote of 62 to 37. TAA is a federal program providing
American workers displaced by foreign trade agreements with job training and services.
- Voted YEA on Trade promotion authority (TPA): On 6/24/15, the Senate passed a TPA measure by a vote of 60-38, as part of HR 2146 .
TPA would give the president fast-track authority to negotiate trade agreements sent to Congress without the opportunity for amendment or filibuster.
Source: Ballotpedia.org coverage of 2016 Wisconsin Senate race
, Jun 24, 2015
Protectionism isn't the answer
Republican candidate for Senate Ron Johnson, a free trade advocate, toured a printing company in Onalaska where workers are nervous about being displaced. "Protectionism isn't the answer,"
Johnson told the equipment engineers on a day that also included a stop at the headquarters of family-owned Kwik Trip. "That'll harm everyone's economies," Johnson said. "Real jobs are created" by keeping money "in the hands of the private sector."
Source: Morning Roundup in Milwaukee Business Journal
, Aug 4, 2010
Sponsored sugar quotas & import tariffs to stabilize prices.
Johnson co-sponsored Sugar Reform Act
Congressional Summary:Sugar Reform Act:
- Requires that sugar allotments be appropriate to maintain adequate supplies at reasonable prices, taking into account all domestic supply sources, including imports.
- Revises sugar tariff-rate quota adjustment provisions so that the ratio of sugar stocks to total sugar use at the end of the quota year will be approximately 15.5%
- Extends flexible marketing sugar allotment authority through crop year 2017
- Repeals the feedstock flexibility program for bioenergy producers.
Proponent's argument for bill:(Senators' opinions reported on politico.com) "We subsidize a handful of wealthy sugar growers at the expense of everybody in America," said Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.), whose home state boasts the chocolate giant, Hershey's. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), warned her colleagues against unraveling the commodity coalition behind the farm bill: "We forget that this is much bigger than a sugar program.
It's much bigger than any one single commodity. When you single out one commodity, you threaten the effectiveness of the overall farm bill."
Opponent's argument against bill:(Food and Business News, May 2013): Users claim the sugar program nearly doubles the price of sugar to US consumers and has resulted in lost jobs as some candy manufacturers have moved operations to other countries. Producers claim the program has resulted in more stable sugar supplies, provides a safety net for growers and that world prices are often lower because of subsidies in origin countries, which would put US growers at a disadvantage should import restrictions be lifted. Producers also note that US sugar prices have declined more than 50% from late 2011 highs. They also maintain that jobs have been lost or moved out of the US for reasons other than sugar prices, mainly labor and health care costs, noting that candy makers' profits have been strong in recent years.
Source: S.345/ H.R.693 13-S345 on Feb 14, 2013
Voted YES to kill reauthorization of Ex-Im Bank.
Johnson voted YEA Export-Import Bank Reform and Reauthorization Act
Heritage Action summary of vote# S206: The Senate voted to table (kill) an amendment by Sen. Kirk to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Sen. Kirk recommends voting NO. Heritage Foundation recommends voting YES because the "Ex-Im Bank is little more than a $140 billion slush fund for corporate welfare."
OnTheIssues explanation: Voting NO would allow a vote on reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. Voting YES would kill the bill for reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank.
Congressional Summary from previous Ex-Im bill S.824; the Ex-Im Bank shall:- Provide technical assistance to small businesses on how to apply for financial assistance;
- Establish programs under which private financial institutions may share risk in loans & guarantees.
- The Bank may enter into up to $25 billion worth of contracts of reinsurance or co-finance.
Sierra Club reason for conditionally voting NO (from previous bill S.819):Sen. Shaheen's bill S.824
reauthorizes the Ex-Im Bank without undermining Obama's Climate Action Plan. The Sierra Club supports the bill because it makes both financial and environmental sense for the US and all of its taxpayer-backed financial institutions--including Ex-Im--to stop investing in dirty and dangerous fossil fuels like coal.Cato Institute reason for voting YES to kill the bill:The Ex-Im Bank's reauthorization buffs contend that Ex-Im fills a void left by private sector lenders unwilling to provide financing for certain transactions. Ex-Im's critics [say that] by effectively superseding risk-based decision-making with the choices of a handful of bureaucrats pursuing political objectives, Ex-Im risks taxpayer dollars. It turns out that for nearly every Ex-Im financing authorization that might advance the fortunes of a single US company, there is at least one US industry whose firms are put at a competitive disadvantage. These are the unseen consequences of Ex-Im's mission.
Source: Supreme Court case 15-S0995 argued on Oct 19, 2015
Rated 50% by the USAE, indicating a mixed record on trade.
Johnson scores 50% by USA*Engage on trade issues
Ratings by USA*Engage indicate support for trade engagement or trade sanctions. The organization's self-description: "USA*Engage is concerned about the proliferation of unilateral foreign policy sanctions at the federal, state and local level. Despite the fact that broad trade-based unilateral sanctions rarely achieve our foreign policy goals, they continue to have political appeal. Unilateral sanctions give the impression that the United States is 'doing something,' while American workers, farmers and businesses absorb the costs."
USA*Engage at Work- Developing the Case: USA*Engage explains the benefits of economic engagement, and the high cost of sanctions for American exports, investment and jobs.
- Education: We recruit respected foreign policy and economic experts to speak out against sanctions, actively engage the media and provide outreach to key target states and Congressional districts.
- Contacting Government Officials: USA*Engage directly contacts Congressional, Administration, state and local officials.
VoteMatch scoring for the USA*Engage ratings is as follows :
- 0%-49%: supports trade sanctions;
- 50%-74%: mixed record on trade engagement;
- 75%-100%: supports trade engagement.
Source: USA*Engage 2011-2012 ratings on Congress and politicians 2012-USAE on Dec 31, 2012
Page last updated: Jan 09, 2019
