by Robert Reich:The Trans Pacific Partnership is a travesty.

[elleng]

It would make it more difficult to improve health, safety, environmental, investors, and labor protections in the U.S. and in every nation that signs it, and make it easier to outsource labor abroad. Yet the TPP is still moving forward. Congress will vote on it after the November elections.

And here's the really infuriating thing: Even though Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are both against it, the committee that's drafting the Democratic platform voted against a provision rejecting it.
Please join me in adding your name to my petition asking the full Democratic Platform Committee to do the right thing, and reject the TPP.'

http://act.democracyforamerica.com/sign/stopTPPinDNCplatform/?source=160703tppdncrr

[snot]

1. K&R'd!

[modestybl]

5. Um, Dr. Reich, Hillary Clinton is FOR the TPP...

... she was one of the architects, and referred to it as the gold standard of "trade deals". Her surrogates on the platform committee are pushing this through. She has only "tacked left" because of Sanders. For some insane reason, Obama wants this as part of his legacy, and is counting on HRC to insure that legacy.

We absolutely have to push back on this. If for no other reason, I am glad that Sanders hasn't capitulated, and will take the primary season to the convention.

[red dog 1]

24. "Hillary Clinton is FOR the TPP"?

I don't think so.

Back in March, Hillary Clinton was asked:
"If elected President, would you oppose holding a vote on the TPP during the 'lame duck' session before you take office?"

She replied:
"I have said I oppose the TPP agreement - and that means before and after the election."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027828507

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. The pudding has yet to be made. In it, we will find the proof. nt

[PoliticalMalcontent]

45. Would be a lot easier to determine where she stands if she stood against it from the get-go.

As it stands now it feels like political opportunism.

She backed it vehemently until people came out against it.

[Avalon Sparks]

47. ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️ This

[George II]

50. "Vehemently"? I don't think so. And the "TPP" that she was originally in favor of is not the TPP..

...that has ultimately been proposed. They are completely different.

[sulphurdunn]

54. How so?

Some specific examples of how they are completely different would help support your comment.

[George II]

56. She said how in her formal statement when she came out against it.

[sulphurdunn]

57. Got a link?

I don't recall hearing about anything that completely changed the agreement.

[George II]

58. hillaryclinton.com

[sulphurdunn]

59. Can't find a word

about the TPP at hillaryclinton.com

[reflection]

60. Can you please link to it

I went to hillaryclinton.com and I can't find anything about it. Now granted, I didn't inspect the entire site map, but I looked at the categories under "issues" that appeared to be relevant to the TPP.

I will crawl over broken glass to vote for Hillary, and it will be about that pleasant, but I feel confident she will vote for the TPP the first convenient minute she is elected. Would love to be wrong.

[dvduval]

61. This search

Fo this Google search
Site:hillaryclinton.com tpp
Tons of info

[dvduval]

62. Wants to redo nafta too

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/06/28/beyond-the-reckless-rhetoric-trumps-ideas-on-trade-sound-oddly-familiar/

[reflection]

67. Thank you

I thought I looked it over real well but missed that. Boy I hope she follows through.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

68. I guess my question would be why push for something when it's not a finished product...

or could morph into something that you would end up not supporting in the future. Considering her history of changing stances on the issues (See: gay rights, criminal justice, Iraq war, health care, XL pipeline, etc.) it's not exactly a stretch to think she'd change her tune on the TPP out of political expediency.

To back up my claim of her pushing it vehemently (Edit: Perhaps vehemently isn't the right word, but numerously and from a place of power):
45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes - CNN
Hillary Clinton flip-flops on Trans-Pacific Partnership - Politifact - rated Full Flop

My concession to you:

Hillary Clinton says she didn't endorse the TPP trade deal until it was actually negotiated - Politifact - rated Half True

So.... back to the original question... why push for something when it's not a finished product and you don't have all the information? That sounds like something she's done before with Iraq. That's not a positive trait to have in a leader. I guess we're stuck with it, but people really should have seen this coming instead of putting on the blinders. Pretty disappointing, in my opinion.

We're extremely lucky to be going up against such a terrible candidate this cycle, because I don't think Clinton would get elected against most Republican candidates, historically.

[George II]

69. Why push for something before it's finished? If every public official waited for something.....

...to be completed, when would that "product" ever be worked on and written?

[PoliticalMalcontent]

75. Yes, you push for things you support before they are finished.

She was helping to craft the TPP before it was finished. Perhaps things changed, but what changed? It seems very likely to me that the main thing that changed was that she went from Secretary of State to running for President. Those jobs require different things. As Sec. of State you push the President's agenda. As a person running for President you do what you think will be popular.

That's what I think a majority of this flip-flopping was about. A simple job change. Did she specify what made her change her mind? That's something I would like to ready, though honestly, politicians lie. Their entire purpose is seemingly to try to move up the ladder (and that's something that is EXCEEDINGLY clear in Clinton's case).

She's still the best option, but it's hard to her seriously when she doesn't appear to have many scruples.

[George II]

78. Yes, she explained why she changed her mind. Basically she saw what many other people saw...

...when they change their mind, about anything.

While she thought the original concept was promising (as did many of the other people who are now against it), the final product did not fulfill that promise.

How many times have people gone into something thinking it is good, only to find out that it wound up not being what they expected? If that was the case with this document, why did it take years to write with innumerable revisions?

Have you read the entire document of thousands of pages, or have you relied on executive summaries written by others who may or may not have done so with objectivity?

[liberal from boston]

71. Clinton majority voted for the TPP

"In a Friday night showdown at the Democratic Party platform-drafting committee, the Clinton majority outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5, rejecting any language specifically opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Instead, the majority substituted generic language that trade deals should protect workers’ rights and the environment, and a misleading sentence that claimed that Democrats are divided on trade. A year ago, 85 percent of House Democrats voted against a fast track on the TPP."

Link to article: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democrats-draft-platform-doesnt-oppose-tpp-thats-bad-policy-and-bad-politics/

[scscholar]

76. This. He stands against the Party, thus us, on this issue (ntxt)

[Arizona Roadrunner]

2. TPP ISDS and the Democrats

As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

By not voting against the TPP outright, the Democrats have given Trump a great opportunity to tie the Democrats to the "establishment" and "corporate America". He can also use this position to raise questions about the Democrats "really caring about you and your job". This is a loser position for the Democrats for the "down ticket" candidates too. By the way, the US Chamber of Commerce is not worried about Clinton being "currently" against TPP. They figure after she gets into office, she will find a way for her to be "currently" in favor of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html

[elleng]

3. Exactly!

[bhikkhu]

6. That's not what happened in Egypt, Veolia v. Egypt

Veolia is a French company that had a waste management contract with the Egyptian government in Alexandria. It included provisions that if costs increased, the company's compensation would increase. Egypt raised their minimum wage, which increased the labor costs to Veolia, so by contract Veolia should have had their compensation increased for managing waste collection. The government didn't agree, and the venue for resolving such disputes is ISDS arbitration.

If there were no trade agreements with pathways to arbitration and settlement, the risks of doing business would be much greater, and the old greased-palm, back-room deals and corruption (or perhaps bankruptcy if you don't play it right) would be the rule again.

[fasttense]

14. What right does any corporation have to do business in a foreign country?

Just because they are a corporation or business does Not gurantee them the right to make profits in a foreign country. Since when has that even been an expectation? Yes, there are risk in business, there are even more risks when you move to a foreign country and do business. If they want fairness then can stay in their own country.

By the way, Egypt is a fledgling militaristtic democracy did they really expect to not face huge hurtles to profits?

Corprations have no rights to guaranteed profits.

[pampango]

20. Corporations do not have that right but national governments have the right to allow foreign

companies to operate in their countries if they so desire.

Corporations should have no guarantee of a profit. However, if a government and corporation agree to certain terms then both should have recourse if the other does not live up to those terms. Obviously in the case of Egypt, suing the government in a court controlled by the militaristic dictatorship would be a waste of time.

If Egypt or any other country does not want ISDS provision to apply to their trade disputes they can withdraw from the WTO (several countries do not belong) and they won't have to worry about it. Egypt has the sovereign right to do that.

[bhikkhu]

34. Its just standard contract law

If the two parties signed a contract that provided for an increase in compensation in the event of cost increases, and if costs did increase, arbitration will probably find in favor of increasing compensation (depending of course of the exact details of the provision in the contract).

It has nothing to do with whether one party was governmental and one private, nothing do do with whether the parties are from different countries, and nothing to do with guaranteeing profits - just contract law.

Its likely the clause protecting against increased costs was there because of the risks involved, and the government was free to not agree to it. But if they did agree to it, then they should honor it as agreed.

[fasttense]

55. huh, I remember contracts made with unions and workers that were trashed

And I remember countries unilaterally taking over businesses and forcing the corporations out. Once in the US, it was not profits that corporations had to show to remain in business but benefits to society.

Contracts are not universally enforced and why should corporations have an extra special enforcement mechanism that workers do Not?

[forest444]

7. One for the bookmarks!

Even Tom Donowhore at the Bedchamber of Commerce knows that the recent conversions we've seen by some against the TPP are pure political theater.

[red dog 1]

23. + 1

[Vattel]

4. Reich is wrong about one thing: Hillary is not really against TPP.

[REALforever]

9. May I ask you WHY you feel that way, concerning Hillary? Sources,links and quotes please...

[Vattel]

11. I can't be sure, but given her earlier very strong support of TPP and other trade deals,

and the timing of her shift to opposition, and the vague rationale she gave for her opposition, it seems highly likely that she came out against it merely for political reasons.

[SHRED]

13. +10

[modestybl]

17. A little bit of recent history...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/hillary-clinton/what-hillary-clinton-really-said-about-tpp-and-gol/

Her recent "evolution" appears to be a reaction to the Sanders challenge.

[Marr]

38. Yep. After the election, I've little doubt that she will proclaim

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 12:36 AM - Edit history (1)

the TPP as having been 'fixed', and say the concerns she had have been addressed (because of her concern). And she'll sign it.

[sangfroid]

43. So True

This has spoken about by a number of folks: two or three sentences will be "changed" and a paragraph will be dropped. Suddenly, the TPP will be back to being the "Gold Standard." I have a Gold Double Eagle riding on Hill signing the TTP within three years of her being sworn in with a maximum of four changes.

Of course, this means having to sit through endless postings from those who will have just discovered the TTP is the greatest trade deal ever.

[SheilaT]

51. Yep.

The TPP is a genuine horror, and if it goes through we are all totally screwed, even worse than we are at present.

And anyone who thinks she's really and truly against it and won't change her mind back is incredibly naive.

[jtuck004]

64. She will be referred to as having "evolved". Lots of evolving going around. n/t

[AntiBank]

30. Chamber of Commerce Lobbyist Tom Donohue: Clinton Will Support TPP After Election

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html

In an interview from Davos with Bloomberg TV on January 20, Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue, a top lobbyist for the pro-corporate-power Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP] agreement, assured viewers that if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidential election, Clinton will support the TPP, even though she opposes it now.

Reporting on the interview, Inside U.S. Trade noted:

The Chamber president said he expected Hillary Clinton would ultimately support the TPP if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president and is elected. He argued that she has publicly opposed the deal chiefly because her main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has also done so. “If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job,” he said.

Donohue also said TPP will not be voted on prior to the election because Senate Republicans do not want to do anything that could jeopardize Republican Senators in close races. But he said he believed there was a 75 percent chance that TPP would get done in the lame-duck session after the election.


snip



Hillary Clinton flip-flops on Trans-Pacific Partnership

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/

"I still believe in the goal of a strong and fair trade agreement in the Pacific as part of a broader strategy both at home and abroad, just as I did when I was secretary of state," Clinton said in an Oct. 7 statement. "I appreciate the hard work that President Obama and his team put into this process and recognize the strides they made. But the bar here is very high and, based on what I have seen, I don't believe this agreement has met it."

It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but we rate Clinton’s reversal as a Full Flop.

snip



The Democratic Party’s Draft Platform Doesn’t Oppose the TPP—That’s Bad Policy and Bad Politics

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democrats-draft-platform-doesnt-oppose-tpp-thats-bad-policy-and-bad-politics/

In a Friday night showdown at the Democratic Party platform-drafting committee, the Clinton majority outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5, rejecting any language specifically opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Instead, the majority substituted generic language that trade deals should protect workers’ rights and the environment, and a misleading sentence that claimed that Democrats are divided on trade. A year ago, 85 percent of House Democrats voted against a fast track on the TPP.

Both Presidents Clinton and Obama have maintained that their deals, from NAFTA to the TPP, had better language on the environment and workers’ rights than any previous trade agreement. The issue, of course, is that not a single agreement has provided anything meaningful for workers or preventing climate change or protecting consumers. The language may be better, but it is virtually unenforceable, especially compared to the reparations multinational corporations receive through their right to sue in private tribunals known as investor-state dispute settlement.

snip

One positive result is that there is much more attention to the evils of the TPP and growing pressure on the White House to not send it to Congress. Stopping the TPP will require massive resistance far beyond the Democratic convention. For Bernie supporters, and hopefully millions of others, the alarm has been sounded. We are waking up, standing up, and fighting back.

snip

[Fast Walker 52]

65. oh boy--

I hope that doesn't get you into trouble.

[AntiBank]

66. they asked for links

[Fast Walker 52]

73. I know

I just feel like Big Brother is watching.

[bhikkhu]

8. I wish there was a point-by-point summary somewhere of what is wrong with it

because I would be happy to agree with more people here and oppose it. I can see the problem with putting more power in the hands of multi-national corps at the expense of governments, but I don't see where that actually happens in the TPP. I've gone through the roles of cases the WTO has heard (which established a similar platform for lawsuits and such) and I don't see any abuse really, just a long list of generic disputes that need a platform for resolution. If you take away the ability to resolve disputes, how is that better?

In any case, this is what I've looked at lately, and can't see what's wrong with it:

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/summary-trans-pacific-partnership

There are 30 chapters summarized by the US trade representative. Can anyone point to any chapter and explain what's wrong?

[REALforever]

10. I agree.. It seems like there's a "ANY Trade Agreement is Shit" Movement afoot.

I don't think President Obama, who has fought for workers wages and jobs since day-one, would be pushing this if it was another "NAFTA"..

It's like just because the Iraq War was a disaster, that there can be no more military action on our part. Quite an ignorant perspective, IMO

[fasttense]

16. You got it. ALL free trade agreements are sh*t.

The whole basic concept is a false premise. It is based on discredited voodoo economics and trickle down theory. The US should scrap them all and start over.

[pampango]

22. Great point. There are good trade agreements - like FDR's - and bad trade agreements.

Just like there are good climate agreements and meaningless bad climate agreements.
Just like there are good nuclear disarmament agreements and meaningless bad ones.
Just like there are good peace treaties and ones that foster the next conflict.

Only the most conservative republicans oppose ALL trade agreements, climate agreements, nuclear agreements, peace treaties, etc.

[modestybl]

29. This isn't really about trade...

...and BTW, good trade agreements would not have resulted in our gargantuan trade deficits... so yes, we haven't had any decent ones in decades.

The TPP is about how multinational corporations get to override democratic laws and regulations. Otherwise known as "technical barriers to trade"...

[cherokeeprogressive]

37. Do you believe "trade agreements" are negotiated with people in mind rather than corporations? nt

[fasttense]

15. It's the special tribunals just for corporations to sue nations

Like with NAFTA and the WTO agreements, these extra special avenues for Only corporations to attack democracies are an insult to self governance.

But you knew that. Have fun paging through that mubo jumbo. It's designed to be difficult to understand so that the masses don't bother with it and the elite can pretend it makes sense to give up sovereignty to faceless corporations.

[bhikkhu]

35. I understand the concern, but we already have that with the WTO

I've looked through the cases there more than once to understand the issue better, and I don't really see abuse. A better question would be, looking at the cases themselves, what if there were no avenue for recourse, no forum to arbitrate disputes? How would that be better?

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm

[modestybl]

18. Part of the problem - we aren't allow to read the treaty itself...

... but Elizabeth Warren was...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/tpp-elizabeth-warren-labor-118068

[pampango]

21. The full text is right here:

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

[modestybl]

27. That is a lot... but section 8 alone should scare you...

....The Parties shall cooperate with each other, when
feasible and appropriate, to ensure that international standards, guides and recommendations that are likely to become a basis for technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures
do not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade...

Who gets to set these standards? Who gets to rule on whether environmental or safety laws of a given state or federal governments violate these "international standards"?

This is what alarmed Elizabeth Warren. In particular, as watered down as it was, Dodd Frank is now vulnerable to these Trade in Services Agreement protocols.

It ain't about trade. It's about Corporate profit trumping democratic protections.

[modestybl]

19. Even in the summary... section 7 should scare you...

"Technical barriers" to trade include enviromentatl and safety laws and regulations.

[Egnever]

63. No they don't

2. The Parties recognise the sovereign right of each Party to establish its own
levels of domestic environmental protection and its own environmental priorities,
and to establish, adopt or modify its environmental laws and policies accordingly.

[modestybl]

70. Yeah, they so ... it will cost...

https://medium.com/economic-policy/president-obama-dodges-pacific-trade-deal-threat-to-the-environment-7f9b4ff44c91#.oba9j3prk

[Egnever]

74. Pretty hard to rectify that nonsense with the actual text from the TPP

[modestybl]

77. Nonsense to question environmental safeguards?

Nonsense?
How did labor and environmental safeguards work for NAFTA?

I'll try to break this down a little.

Problem is, the elites get what they want up front... the "regulation" is always a lower priority item and impossible to enforce. And who comprises the international panel that oversees all this?

For instance, the "sanitary" and "phytosanitary measures"... are anathema to corporate profit. This has nothing to do with trade - what government imposes to protect its citizens... and all about deregulation. These "SPS" rules are the most restrictive, if "mutual recognition" can easily mean adopting the most corporate-friendly standards.

And all of this judged by whom? Safety experts? Environmentalists? Or corporate lawyers?

[Egnever]

80. Nonsense to claim the TPP prevents them in any way

When in fact it raises standards for many of the signatory nations and explicitly states that all countries participating have the right to enact stronger environmental legislation.

[silvershadow]

12. That's an understatement. nt

[red dog 1]

25. I've already signed that petition

and I also posted an OP about it this morning.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512234015

I agree with Robert Reich 100 percent on this important issue.


K&R

[chwaliszewski]

52. Just signed it!

[AntiBank]

26. Robert Reich under the bus as a TPP denialist by the corporatist patrol on 3,2,1...

[guillaumeb]

28. Recommended Ellen.

Up to your regular standards.

The TPP, if approved, will be another disaster for the bottom 90%. What good are cheap slave labor shirts if a laid off worker has no money to shop?

[Else You Are Mad]

31. Well...

Who cares if the bottom 90% of Americans will lose under TPP? Think of the top 10%! If we pass TPP, they will be able to buy their third multimillion dollar yacht! The top 10% have a lifestyle they have become accustomed to and it isn't fair if the lower class 90% take it away from them just because they want to eat!

[guillaumeb]

41. True. and if they get even richer

they will need more servants.

[elleng]

33. Thanks, guillaumeb.

[MohRokTah]

32. Reich is wrong. A lot. eom

[Marr]

39. I've noticed you never actually make an argument on this.

You just proclaim critics wrong.

[guillaumeb]

42. You are not alone in noticing.

The silence is deafening.

[eridani]

40. The only good trade agreement is one that deals with mutually agreed tariff reductions--

--AND NOTHING ELSE!!!!

[liberalla]

44. K&R

[ornotna]

46. K&R

And done.

[billhicks76]

48. If Hillary Against It Then Tell Them To Reject It

Last edited Wed Jul 6, 2016, 02:30 AM - Edit history (1)

How can we win an election with corporate smoke and mirror games. I thought we were trying to win this election.

[elleng]

49. Good idea. Dem ptb can't, apparently, bring themselves to do the right thing.

One reason, POTUS?

[colsohlibgal]

53. Yep

Big money almost always trumps not so big money. It is so discouraging.

Just got the Frontline four part four hour doc "Money, Power, and Wall Street". I learned that at least one big Wall Street financial entity said they did not need a bailout during the near crash...but were required to take it. Unbelievable, just as with no limits at all on executive pay. No conditions at all really.

I constantly wonder where we are headed if somehow we cannot get to public funding of elections.

[modestybl]

72. Elizabeth Warren is alarmed by this...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

[lonestarnot]

79. And for those who do not know this, they should read your link. Thanks for posting.