I link to the roll call votes so we don't have to clutter up the site with that database tallies. That said, look at the Democrats on the list who claim to be "for the middle class". Their constituents are: WA: Microsoft, Boeing, AK: Wal-mart, OR: Intel, CA: Cisco, G.E.,IL: Caterpillar (Iowa as well);

You can see who the bought and paid fors are by campaign contributions, "favors" for their family relatives, magically they get hired at some company and so on, revolving door, where they get their money after they "retire" or before they got into politics....

It's pathetic.

"why is it economists get Nobel prizes but not engineers? Engineers, the actual inventors really should be more public acknowledgment."

Great idea.

Here's the live link -- market-ticker post 'Intentional fraud that is pushed by multinational corporations'

the ever widening trade deficit should be all the evidence one needs that free trade does not contribute to GDP

the trade defict is the measure of jobs, technology and wealth leaving the country

RECENT VOTES ON FTAs in the U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Representatives who "never saw a FTA they didn't like" -- In this category, there are 26 Democrats and 213 Republicans (including Micelle Bachman)! Yes, that's correct more than 88% of Republican representatives are flat out anti-American on trade! (As are about 13.5% of Democrats.)

If that isn't disturbing enough, the count of Republicans who voted against all three FTAs is exactly ... 2! Those two are David McKinley (WV - 1) and Chris Smith (NJ - 4). McKinley is the only Tea Party freshman (first elected in 2010) who voted against all three FTAs. Smith has been in Congress since 1981 and is dean of the New Jersey Congressional delegation.

(Maybe I have missed in my count ... please ... someone correct me! I hope there are more than just the two Republicans opposed to the FTAs!)

Well, Ron Paul did not vote on any of the FTAs -- and he is a declared opponent of the WTO system, although in the next breath, he tells us that he wants the U.S. to unilaterally drop all tariffs! (So who needs a WTO to unilaterally surrender to China? This is like Paul's opposition to the Fed, and then we just go over immediately to gold! Here again, someone correct me ... PLEASE!)

Honor Roll

As noted above, there appear to be just two Republicans who voted against all three of the FTAs. As for the Democrats, there appear to be 118 who deserve to be on the Honor Roll, 118 Democrats who support the American people (against the FTA agenda), demonstrating that by voting against all three of the FTAs. That's 61% of all Democrats. Democratic leaders Pelosi and Hoyer, of course, cannot be found among that 61%!

Support from Democrats for any of the FTAs was greatest for the Panama FTA and least for the Columbia FTA. About 10 Democrats voted for only one of the FTAs (voting against two of them), and of those 10, about 7 broke with the majority of Democrats to vote for the Korea deal.

Three Democrats did not vote in any of the three roll calls (apparently not present), as also was the case for Republican Ron Paul.

Here are the totals for the three roll calls, per clerk.house.gov (roll call #s 781, 782, 783) --

Here's the Honor Roll (those who voted against all three FTAs), with the two Republicans in bold --

Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow

Bass (CA)
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)

Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano

Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)

Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers

Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cummings
DeFazio

DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle

Edwards
Ellison
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge

Garamendi
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez

Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinchey

Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda

Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur

Keating
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin

Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe

Luján
Lynch
Markey
McCollum
McGovern

McIntyre
McKinley
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)

Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano

Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters

Pingree (ME)
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Roybal-Allard

Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes

Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Smith (NJ)

Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney

Tonko
Towns
Velázquez
Visclosky
Waters

Watt
Woolsey
Yarmuth

There may be an inaccuracy here and there in the information from the House -- for example, the clerk.house.gov shows a "Watt (MN)" voting on one Roll Call, even though the only Watt in the House is Mel Watt of North Carolina and there is no Rep. Watt from Minnesota.

Sometimes it hurts to grow older. I can remember when the Republican Party was the party of tariffs and protectionism! Well, all we can say now about that Grand Old Party is 'Rest In Peace', because it's dead and long gone. The same is true for most of what was once real unbiased major TV news coverage (including NPR).

Here's from current EP-linked Eyes on Trade (Public Citizen's blog on trade and globalization) --

Vast Majority of Dems Abandon President, and Media Misses It

It's typically treated as pretty newsworthy when a majority of a president's own party votes against a signature presidential initiative. Double that when over two-thirds do so. Triple the newsworthiness when it's the first time that magnitude of opposition has occured in a president's tenure.

Quadruple for when talking heads are debating whether elected officials will carry the banner of a wide-ranging new progressive protest movement that has declared its independence from that same president. And quintuple when the president has presented a two-plank carrot-stick deal with Republicans - controversial trade deals that won't create jobs plus stimulus spending that will - and when the Republicans move forward with the job-killing plank. But the job-creating plank? Not so much.

This describes precisely what happened with last night's votes to expand NAFTA-style deals to Korea, Colombia and Panama. But you wouldn't know it from any of this morning's press coverage of the vote, which lauded the "bipartisanship" of a deal that was supported by only a tiny cohort of corporate Democrats.

DISCLAIMER: Economic Populist (EP) is dedicated to objective reporting on the economy from a macro-economics point of view, and generally avoids the usual political discussions. My intent here is to summarize recent pro-FTA activity in the Senate as objectively as possible; however, my own political views will probably show through. My opinions can be fairly described as anti-WTO and anti-FTA, and may or may not represent the views of EP or of bloggers at EP.

The first name on the list is President Obama. He has never seen a FTA he doesn't like. This is very nearly true of the entire Republican Party also -- which leaves us pro-America voters splitting the ticket, and/or voting for alternative party candidates, in 2012.

Maybe there's no real vote count at least in some states,  but if there is anything like that, we're taking names and we will remember.

U.S. SENATE

Honor Roll

Here's the Honor Roll for the Senate, 12 senators who support the American people (against the FTA agenda), demonstrating that by voting against all three of the FTAs:

Blumenthal (CT), Brown (OH), Casey (PA), Hagan (NC), Harkin (IA), Manchin (WV, Merkley (OR), Reed (RI), Reid (NV),  Rockefeller (WV), Tester (MT), Whitehouse (RI).

All are Democrats; not one Republican voted against all three FTAs. There's a message in there somewhere, saying something about the party that was once known as the tariff party (for over 100 years)!

THE UNIQUE CASE OF SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK)

Senator Coburn (R-OK) is recorded as not voting (NV) on any of the three FTAs as well as NV on S. 1619 (currency bill). However, when in the House, Coburn voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO and NO  on fast-track authority!

From Senator Coburn's official senate.gov webpage --

It is my belief we must never surrender our sovereignty to the World Trade Organization (WTO) or any other unelected international bureaucracy. The WTO has become a vehicle for other nations to destroy our agricultural trade, and as your senator I will fight any effort by the WTO to dictate American farm policy.

Honorable Mention

Here's the list of runners-up, 11 senators who support the American people (against the FTA agenda) two times out of three:

Akaka (HI), Begich (AK), Boxer (CA), Cardin (MC), Franken (MN), Gillibrand (NY), Mikulski (MD), Sanders (VT), Snowe (ME), Stabemow (MI), Udall (NM).

It's unclear to me why Sanders did not vote on the Korea FTA (recorded as not voting or 'NV').

The Usual Suspects

Here's the list of 12 senators who at least could manage to vote against the FTAs one out of three times, but also voted for the FTAs two times out of three:

Collins (ME), Coons (DE), Durbin (IL), Leahy (VT), Inouye (HI), Klobuchar (MN), Kohl (WI), Lautenberg (NJ), Levin (MI), McCaskill (MO), Menendez (NJ), Schumer (NY),

In the Senate, the greatest opposition was to the Columbia FTA, for many good reasons -- violent repression of labor organizers, money-laundering and implications for illegal drug trade.

The greatest support was shown for the Korea FTA. Of the 15 Nay votes against the Korea  FTA, there is only one Republican, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. Senators Coburn (R-OK) and Sanders (I-VT) were recorded as not voting, although both are known for their anti-fast track and anti-WTO positions.

SUMMARY

We can summarize briefly, as follows:

FORGET THE GOP EXCEPT FOR THE MAVERICKS. The only Republican senators who are not allied with Obama in never seeing a FTA that they didn't like are Coburn, Collins and Snowe.  Coburn takes a clear anti-WTO position in general. Collins and Snowe are known as the last of the "liberal Republicans" in the Senate. None of the three can be much appreciated by the Republican National Committee -- nor do any of them owe anything to the RNC.

THE 18 DEMPUBLICANS. 33 out of the 51 senators who caucus with the Democratic majority opposed at least one of the three FTAs. But there are 18 who never saw a FTA they didn't like. These Dempublicans are the senators that the Republicans can count on to join with them on such issues as trade. Here's a list of the 18 Dempublican senators --

Baucus (MT), Bingaman (NM), Cantwell (WA), Carper (DE), Conrad (ND), Feinstein (CA), Johnson (SD), Kerry (MA), Landrieu (LA), Lieberman (CT), Murray (WA), Nelson (NE), Nelson (FL), Pryor (AR), Shaheen (NH), Warner (VA), Webb (VA), Wyden (OR).

Some of these senators have earlier taken positions against fast-track authority and critical of the WTO system. Tim Johnson (SD), in particular, voted against NAFTA and CAFTA. Senator Conrad (ND) has expressed similar criticism of FTAs from the point of view of agriculture.

A few of the Dempublican senators who never saw a FTA they didn't like are going to be up for re-election in 2012, unless they decide not to run. These include Bingaman, Cantwell, Conrad, Feinstein, Lieberman, and Nelson (FL) -- all known for their positions in favor of 'free' trade (fast track) FTAs.

Webb's Senate seat (VA) is coming up for election in 2012, but he has announced that he won't be running.

Senators identified on the Honor Roll or as Honorable Mention who are scheduled for 2012 elections include Brown, Cardin, Casey, Sanders, Stabenow, Tester, and, Whitehouse.

Senators Coburn and Sanders -- although coming from very different philosophical positions -- are the best in terms of telling it like it is regarding trade issues. Coburn, re-elected in 2010, has announced that he will not be running for a third term in the Senate in 2016. (Sanders' seat is up for election in 2012.)

______
In the next few days, I will probably be posting a comment summarizing activity in the House.

This piece was linked by the Teamsters.

We're an independent site, but we do math here. It's unbelievable how the main stream press doesn't report the actual details of these trade agreements, or the projected job losses.

If you go into Google News, Yahoo, you'll see over 6000 articles and in the U.S. all of them are superficial "yeah rah". Not a single trade treaty fact, from even one agreement, or a quote from just one politician who might have actually read them, or even a look at the U.S. own analysis that these will lose jobs, increase the trade deficit, in the lot.

This is common when it comes to multinational corporation's wish list agendas to see "article plants".

We're independent, call 'em as we calculate them.

Goldman Sachs is an exceptionally well capitalized Bank by Basel II Standards. GS primary ration is 18.8% and total capital ratio is 23.9%. The ECB today is hoping to get the Euro sector up to 9% primary capital. But look closer at GS.

Total Revenue is almost $40Bn and Expense is $19Bn on 12/31/2010. All compensation is $9Bn. Executive Comp is the lion's share. Of 585Million Common Shares authorized, the restricted stock plans hold 60 million shares, and 231 Million shares are held in treasury. So over the last 4 years, GS has issued 11% of its common shares to executive comp plans or $8.4 Billion.

This number is set against total assets of $911 Million  and Equity of $77 Million. So paying out sums like this is a big deal. GS turnover is 40 times its assets. All the action these days is in its derivative portfolio of of $20Billion. Now according the NYTimes on Friday, GS is heading for a loss. This time who is the Uncle Warren to buy some more preferred shares?

Most important, how would GS or any bank more poorly capitalized, issue more common equity when it's executives have taken such a huge share already? The Euro sector banks have similar compensation but much poorer capital ratios. Dodd-Frank has restricted use of bailouts.

All things economic are about choice. You can't do it all at one time. The banks cannot do profligate executive compensation and also recapitalize with more equity. The failure to bring up capital ratios effects macro economies and executive compensation is in the way of better capital rations. 

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/drawFiling.asp?docKey=136-000095012311020067-4KJPN489V5P2LPN44QIT0PG9JV&docFormat=HTM&formType=10-K