Charlie Stenholm was always hostile to independent farmers making money.  When he was on the House Agriculture Committee, he fought against producer interests so meat packers could gain control of the industry.   The National Cattlemen's Beef Association hired him as a lobbyist on Farm Bill issues, to help packers maintain control of markets.

Now he is retained by folks upset that crop farmers are making some money from ethanol. 

Charles Stenholm, a former Democratic congressman from Texas who was influential in agriculture policy, is now a lobbyist in Washington. His clients include pork, dairy and oil interests, according to lobbying records. They all agree, he says, that "you need to let the market be the biggest determinant for ethanol."

"Letting the market work" is universal code language for letting the big guys distort markets with their market power. When the little guy makes money, the big guys get really irritated.

Just as long as you make money, right Charlie?

Here's an amazing graph showing the cumulative floor space of Wal-Mart and friends, compared to the landmass of Manhattan.

The Washington Post editorial board is a favorite punching bag of mine.  They are irrevocably self deluded on free trade.  If a document has one page or 1,000 pages, they like it if the words "Free Trade Agreement" are positioned at the top of the first page, in capitals and bold letters.

But the WaPo folks don't want the International Court of Justice to trump U.S. law.  They titled their editorial, a weighty and serious, "The Law of the Land."  Fine with me. 

But what about NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO agreements that can or have stricken many U.S. laws?  Far more U.S. laws than the ICJ has ever thought to challenge.  What about that?

Anyone?  Anyone?

Canada's cattle herd has mad cow disease.  USDA shut the border in 2003 when it was  discovered.  Every country in the world had, at that time, barred imports of cattle and beef from any country with mad cow disease.  USDA worked hard to open the border, despite the risk posed to the U.S. cattle herd, and even after more diseased animals were found.

Canadian cattlemen are suing the U.S. government under NAFTA seeking $350 million in restitution for the border closure. Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows this suit to proceed.

Public Citizen explains the process:

If a company believes that a NAFTA government has violated these new investor rights and protections, it can initiate a binding dispute resolution process for monetary damages before a trade tribunal, offering none of the basic due process or openness guarantees afforded in national courts. These so-called "investor-to-state" cases are litigated in the special international arbitration bodies of the World Bank and the United Nations, which are closed to public participation, observation and input. A three-person panel composed of professional arbitrators listens to arguments in the case, with powers to award an unlimited amount of taxpayer dollars to corporations whose NAFTA investor privileges and rights they judge to have been impacted.

Private foreign businesses could not sue other governments before NAFTA.  A full list of NAFTA Chapter 11 cases by foreign companies against U.S. governmental bodies is here (PDF file).

The Peru, Panama and other pending trade agreements have this same stupid chapter within them.  That's what happens when Congressmen can't amend the deals, but must conform to an "upperdown vote" under Fast Track.