General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama hopes to enlist GOP in push for trade pact, despite Democratic resistance
By David Nakamura
December 26 at 12:01 PM
President Obama is preparing a major push on trade that seeks to enlist Republicans as partners and test his premise that Washington can still find common ground on major initiatives, even after he angered the GOP with a recent slew of executive actions.
It also will test his willingness to buck his own party in pursuit of a legacy-burnishing achievement. Already, Obama is facing fierce blowback from fellow Democrats, who are accusing him of abandoning past promises on trade and potentially undermining his domestic priority of reducing income inequality.
The dynamic, as the White House plots strategy for the new year when the GOP has full control of Congress, has scrambled traditional political alliances. In recent weeks, Obama has rallied the business community behind his trade agenda, while leading Capitol Hill progressives, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have raised objections and labor and environmental groups have mounted a public relations campaign against it.
The administration is moving aggressively in hopes of wrapping up negotiations by the middle of next year on a 12-nation free-trade pact in the Asia Pacific before the politics become even more daunting ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign.
more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-hopes-to-enlist-gop-in-push-for-trade-pact-despite-democratic-resistance/2014/12/26/81236a34-8600-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
djean111
(14,255 posts)No fucking vote from me for who votes for the "trade" deal, no support or vote for Hillary. She helped write it, and is shilling it.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)feel he can do no wrong answer me please.
I supported him in both campaigns but if TPP passes forget about my support from then on. TPP is against everything he promised in 2008.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Look beyond the label of "Democrat," and look beyond all of Obama's phony, half-hearted rhetoric in all of his phony, half-hearted speeches, and look at Obama's actions, and you'll learn exactly what the man believes...and you don't need any phony "11 dimensional bi-partisanship" BS to see that Obama is a charlatan.
Liars lie
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)He promised to help the middle class
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I don 't want to play 20 Questions.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They want this to be an easy argument. If you don't believe it will hurt working class Americans you are Third Way. The end.
It's ODS they think should be easy. Thus the response you go below. Not willing to explain it, because they can't.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)If your local has anti fracking laws to protect your water you will lose in the same 'court'.
If you have anti-GMA laws you will lose in the same 'court'.
If you have Buy American clause in your contract ditto.
There is something to hurt the average working class American on every page of the secret agreement.
TBF
(32,047 posts)NAFTA was the precursor.
We have lost over one million jobs and income inequality has grown starker: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html
Now, I really don't have a problem with bringing down borders. But it's got to be a 2-way street or safety nets have to be in place. If you're going to take a million jobs overseas either start a works program to rebuild the damned bridges or something (some kind of mass government program to rebuild infrastructure would be ideal) or set a minimum income that folks will be paid (as Switzerland has accomplished). Give me that and I will give you TPP (except for the provisions that give sovereignty to corporations - that is straight up bullshit).
There's your answer, comrade.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that sets a universal wage floor, establishes working condition standards, and imposes environmental standards?
That IS the administrations negotiating position. http://www.ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It is a 'secret' deal except for the few leaks, THANK YOU AGAIN WIKILEAKS, which told us what is being planned by these Global Corps regarding our Environmental laws. THEY will not have to abide by our hard fought for environmental laws. Imagine a foreign Corp free to violate US law?
And we learned what they plan regarding the Internet. Another travesty if it is allowed to pass.
I don't know where you are getting the idea that a Global pay scale is going to benefit Americans, more likely it will level the working class pay scale DOWN which is what these Corporations have wanted for so long.
This bill must not pass! It is unconscionable that our elected officials have denied access to what is in this bill.
People need to call ALL members of Congress, Republicans AND Democrats to try to stop this, 'worse than NAFTA' travesty.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What we have "learned" from the leaks is the negotiating positions of the various parties, not what any deal looks like as no deal has been struck.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
You're right that we haven't learned the final deal. If Obama has his way (getting fast-track authority), we'll learn that only at the end of the process, and when the package will be handed to Congress under a tight and mandatory timetable. That by itself is highly objectionable. If you're unwilling to criticize the agreement because you haven't seen it, will you join in what I see as the logical corollary, namely opposition to fast track?
As to the frequent refrain of downplaying the leaks as mere proposals:
1) Some of the leaks have been of current working drafts, and so, while not necessarily the final deal, reflect the product of more than two years of negotiation, and probably give a good indication of the broad outlines of what will emerge.
2) We as Americans can certainly criticize Obama when our country's very proposals would, if adopted, be harmful.
For that second point, here's a report on one leak from 2012:
Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.
The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign.
"We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications," reads the campaign document.
Source: "Obama Trade Document Leaked, Revealing New Corporate Powers And Broken Campaign Promises"
What that HuffPo article characterizes as "campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party" is actually the 2008 Democratic Party platform. No individual candidate can be assumed to agree with every word of his or her party's platform. To that extent, HuffPo is overstating. Nevertheless, if Obama, at the head of the ticket, disagreed with that statement, he could certainly have had it removed, or he could have expressed his disagreement during the campaign.
Substance aside, candidate Obama did campaign on a call for a more transparent and inclusive process in negotiating trade agreements. His handling of the TPP reflects, instead, the same corporate-friendly way that Bush dealt with trade issues. (Or maybe not. In the linked article, a representative of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign says that Bush was better than Obama.)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(as well as the public) can read, comment and vote it into, or out of existence?
Are you or have been in a union (or do you support unions) because this is exactly how union contracts are made. So ... NO, I have no problem with this process ... fasttrack and all.
My bottom line here is ... I recognize that my under-graduate economics degree does not give me the capacity to really understand this (or any other) trade, but Paul Krugman, with his PhD (and Nobel Prize) does ... and the trade deal doesn't seem to worry him too much, even the leaked parts.
That's good enough for me.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Unlike some progressives, I'm not upset about the no-amendments aspect of fast track. A multilateral agreement has to be negotiated once, then approved or rejected by each country (unless rejections lead to a multilateral renegotiation). If the U.S. (through Congressional action) could amend the deal, then each other country could do so as well, and each amendment anywhere would nullify all prior approvals.
The real drawback of fast track is the "fast" part. It's not realistic to say that any problems in the final deal can be brought out in the public discussion when that discussion would be so constricted. Let's suppose that Obama gets the fast-track authority that he's asked for. The actual deal (which you insist we wait for) is then finally made public for the first time and Obama asks for its approval. Here's the process:
If the President transmits a fast track trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees must introduce the implementing bill submitted by the President on the first day on which their House is in session. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) Senators and Representatives may not amend the President’s bill, either in committee or in the Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged, and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).)
In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), the bill must originate in the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate received the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)-(g).) Thus the entire Congressional consideration could take no longer than 90 days.
(Source: the "Procedure" section of the Wikipedia article on Fast track)
One thing we do already know for sure is that this will be a huge and complicated proposal, with ramifications in many areas. Understanding those ramifications could not be achieved within the deadlines of fast track. (At least, it couldn't be achieved by Congress, by NGOs, or by the public. Big-business interests have been involved in the negotiations and already know what's in it, while we've been shut out, as Senator Ron Wyden has pointed out.)
I've never seen any cogent argument for why fast track is necessary -- other than the obvious one that, if there's a full and fair opportunity for Congress and the public to analyze the proposal, there's a greater chance it will be rejected. I hope you agree with me that that, at least, is an illegitimate argument.
Yes, I've been a union member, but a collective bargaining agreement isn't comparable. I've never seen one that was anywhere near as long as the TPP. Furthermore, a CBA is generally just a markup of the previous deal. The union members have to evaluate a few changes, and those few relate to a subject they know personally.
You express confidence in Krugman. He also hasn't seen the final agreement. (Why are all objections waved away as based merely on leaked proposals, but any comment in support is given full credence?) More important is that he's an economist. His analysis is of the economic impact but there are many other considerations. As a lawyer (am I right that you're one, too?), I know more about law than Krugman does. Other TPP critics also know more their areas of expertise than Krugman does -- such as the AFL-CIO on labor issues, the Electronic Frontier Foundation on internet freedom, and the Sierra Club on the environment. I think Krugman's argument was that trade agreements don't have a big macroeconomic impact (unemployment rate, trade deficit, etc.). That may be true but macroeconomics isn't everything. Suppose a state or local government bans fracking but then can't enforce that ban against a foreign corporation. Maybe the fracking employment just replaces conventional oil-drilling employment elsewhere. OK, so the macroeconomic impact is negligible, but there are now some people who can set their drinking water on fire. A few of us crackpot leaflover environmentalists think that's a big concern.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)60 days is more than enough time to review the trade agreement ... It's not like there won't be hundreds of people reading and commenting on it.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,174 posts)It said that the committee has 45 days maximum. Being the Debbie Downer I tend to be, they COULD report it out in just a few days. Then the 15-day clock starts ticking...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and cast an informed vote on a trade agreement.
This IS the information age.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,174 posts)I just think their "informed vote" will be based on their pimps informing them that they'd better vote yes on it, or no more goodies for them.
(Not only a Debbie Downer, but a cynical Debbie Downer at that!)
(Meant as a reply to 1StrongBlackMan, but my cursor took on a mind of its own. Yeah, that's the ticket.)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I mentioned just three NGOs, in the areas of labor, internet, and environment. Taking those examples: The full text is released, and the NGO starts reviewing it. One of the leaked chapters, for example, was more than 50 pages long, and some issues would be affected by more than one of the 29 chapters. The NGO circulates it to various experts, several of whom have to engage in careful analysis of existing statutes, regulations, case law, and industry practices to see what the actual effect would be. They don't all come to the same conclusion. It takes a while for the NGO's in a particular issue area to develop a good understanding of what would happen. A deal this complex almost certainly has some advantages and some disadvantages, which have to be weighed.
Once a comprehensive evaluation is ready, THEN they can start the process of educating and mobilizing the public. Meaningful public involvement would entail website analyses and posted comments, with a lot of back-and-forth discussion. Furthermore, even in this information age, there would also be some material in the Gutenberg media, and even some public meetings with speeches. Fast-tracking would effectively exclude everyone who doesn't immediately plunge into learning about this issue.
Of course, these limitations wouldn't apply to the big-business interests who've been at the table and involved in the drafting. They'd have a big head start in the battle for public opinion.
And what I still haven't heard is: What's the advantage? Why should such sweeping changes be rushed through under extraordinarily tight deadlines? The agreement has been in negotiation since March of 2010. No one has pointed to any sudden emergency that makes the normal legislative process unacceptable.
Pardon my cynicism, but I think the motivation for fast track is precisely that it creates such huge practical problems for the opponents. The administration and its corporate allies will be ready with their PR blitz, and they'll hope to railroad it through.
Even if, when you see the final agreement, you conclude that it does more good than harm, that's a separate issue from whether the fast-track rules should be imposed.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
What do you suppose they do in committee?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)After the bill's introduction in the House, the committees would have 45 days to report it, or it's automatically discharged. The House must vote within 15 days of the report or discharge. It then goes over to the Senate, where the Finance Committee would have 15 days to report it or it's discharged, and then the Senate has 15 days in which to vote. At no stage are amendments allowed.
For all the details, see the "Procedure" section of the Wikipedia article on Fast track.
In sum, fast track authority doesn't completely bypass the committees, but it puts them on a very tight time frame (tight considering the magnitude and complexity of the agreement).
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this is exactly how union contracts are made.
They time to debate/comment on the agreement is the time between when the trade partners agree to terms and present them to the respective governing nations and when those governments vote on the agreement.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The vote ratifies the contract.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)without that vote there is no trade agreement. The vote ratifies the trade agreement.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)partners agree to terms and present them to the respective governing nations and when those governments vote on the agreement."
You IGNORE the FAST TRACK limit on debate.
Are you paid to be this obtuse?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)No. But can read and know a little something about government.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)"INVESTMENT
With trade following investment, we are working to ensure that U.S. investors abroad are provided the same kind of opportunities in other markets that we provide in the United States to foreign investors doing business within our borders. That is why we are seeking to include in TPP many of the investment obligations that have historically proven to support jobs and economic growth, as well as new provisions to take on emerging investment issues.
Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:
Liberalized access for investment in TPP markets, non-discrimination and the reduction or elimination of other barriers to the establishment and operation of investments in TPP countries, including prohibitions against unlawful expropriation and specified performance requirements;
Provisions that will address measures that require TPP investors to favor another country’s domestic technology in order to benefit SOEs, national champions, or other competitors in that country; and
Procedures for arbitration that will provide basic rule of law protections for U.S. investors operating in foreign markets similar to those the U.S. already provides to foreign investors operating in the U.S. These procedures would provide strong protections to ensure that all TPP governments can appropriately regulate in the public interest, including on health, safety, and environmental protection. This includes an array of safeguards designed to raise the standards around investor-state dispute settlement, such as by discouraging and dismissing frivolous suits, allowing governments to direct the outcome of arbitral tribunals in certain areas, making proceedings more open and transparent, and providing for the participation of civil society organizations and other non-parties."
That is directly copied from your link. It's not a trade agreement, but a rules agreement. Trade barriers are virtually non-existent and the WTO is the proper venue to make changes in that arena anyway.
Liberalized access for investment? That means free flow of capital. It means hot money inflows, ala Asia in 1998, Spain up to 2008, Latin American in late 1970s, etc. It's a policy of permanent bubbles throughout the "trade" zone.
Provisions about SOEs and national champions? It means the government of a country will give up its right to direct investment where it wants. Want to require that foreign investors have to team up with domestic investors in order to spread the wealth? Too bad for you!
Basic rule of law protection for investors? I'm sure that's mighty comforting to the victims of the National Mortgage Settlement. I'm sure the investors whose property was expropriated in favor of the banks and their servicers, who were demonstrably at fault, will be thrilled to read about this provision. After all, the rule of law worked great to protect them!
Participation of civil society organizations and other non-parties? That means modern stakeholder governance. In other words, it means continuing the same failed policies of listening only to the favored when it comes to policymaking. It's the equivalent of allowing criminals to comment on the laws being made to prevent their crimes.
P.S. This sounds really obnoxious. Sorry about that. I got a bit carried away.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Here's a simple for instance. I manufacture in the US but buy some of our materials (because they aren't made here) from Korea. To import the raw materials, there is a 9% tariff. But if the product is made from Korean materials and manufactured in Korea, there is NO TARIFF. This is because of the 2007 Korea Free Trade Agreement. With a minimum wage in Korea of about $4.50 an hour, that is pretty difficult to compete with as an American worker with a minimum wage of $10 (in my state). So tariffs and wages make the cost of a product produced in the US almost double. Products from China, India and Vietnam are about 90% less.
So tell me, how are American workers supposed to compete with this?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But that not what we are talking about here ... we're talking about the yet to be developed/agreed upon TPP.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)because there hasn't been laws that provided for same sex marriage or requiring health insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions ... Things are the same until they are not.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's just a fact. We have to deal with it some way. Without a trade agreement, it could be worse.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Most especially what has been linked from the TPP. Here's a clue: not the American working class.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that doesn't serve anybody.
Each one will work differently.
The economy in the 90s was good. I don't know how NAFTA impacted that. If it were that bad, we wouldn't have had a good economy then.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,583 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)And this one move will wipe all that good will away 
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)Even more so if it's just to get a deal for the sake of getting a deal. Nothing worse than "we gotta do SOMEthing" legislation.
For chrissakes, the goddamned republicans who HATE his guts WANT this!!!
WTF!!?? 
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
benz380
(534 posts)Release the Clinton!
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who points out how horrible this legislation is. The talking points are prepared, no doubt.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's anti-intellectualism.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
True, it is highly unlikely that the Republicans are correct on this issue and the Dems aren't, but any argument that could convince me otherwise is an argument I would like to see.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)"This time it is different!" isn't some kind of spell of making.
We heard it just fine, it is the same bullshit as always on this topic.
It is goofy anyway, if you want to argue to do something then it is on you to explain the benefits.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it may or may not be BS. People disagree. And people should take each issue on its own merits, rather than the emotionalizing they do. They could think about it. When they don't want to, they resort to snide remarks about how the apologists will be coming, etc. That's not argument, it's just fallacy.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)When some DUers raise substantive objections to the TPP and to fast track, and other DUers dismiss those objections as "ODS", does that constitute a snide remark?
For my part, I don't think I've ever used "ODS" to disparage critics of a particular Obama policy, nor have I used "Obamabots" and the like to disparage supporters.
cilla4progress
(24,726 posts)What is he thinking?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)They tend to blithely ignore his Wall Street/Free Trade/Third Way Activity and this one's a whopper.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)to sell the working man down the river with this trade agreement. What does it tell you that Obama needs Republicans to get it passed while many prominent Democrats oppose it?
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)Is that complaint now moot?
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Complaint #1: The TPP is being negotiated in secret. (You got that part right.)
Complaint #1A: The Obama Administration apparently intends to try to get it through Congress on the "fast-track" process, which puts harsh time limits on the ability of the public -- including labor unions, internet freedom advocates, and environmental organizations -- to analyze a lengthy and complicated proposal. I put this as a subcomplaint under secrecy because it compounds the vice of secrecy.
Complaint #2: Well, it isn't completely secret. Some of the big business interests who'll be benefited have had a seat at the table. They not only know what's happening, they're shaping what's happening. It's secret only in the sense that the negotiators intend to exclude us peasants in the general public.
Another exception to #1 is that, although Obama and the other principals have wanted to keep it secret, they haven't completely succeeded. Fortunately, there've been some leaks. And that leads us to...
Complaint #3: Based on the leaks that we've seen so far, the TPP will be substantively horrible, even aside from the foul procedure being employed to draft and ratify it.
By the way, your use of the dismissive phrase "complaint du jour" conveys to me a connotation that anyone who has a problem with any of this is just a persistent whiner whose criticisms have no basis and who will be on to some other fancied gripe tomorrow. If you didn't intend to convey that disparaging view of the many decent people who are upset about TPP, you should clarify. On the other hand, if that is in fact your view of us, you certainly have a right to express it, and thank you for your honesty.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)Complaint 1: Do you have any evidence that multinational trade deals have ever been negotiated in any other fashion, and any reasonable argument that they practically could be?
Complaint 2: Business interests are the ones who engage in trade. They obviously should have a seat at the table at a trade negotiation. But what specifically is your information that businesses are being included while other stakeholders are excluded?
Complaint 3: In other words, the draft proposals that have been leaked are the ones horrible enough to motivate someone to leak them, while those that aren't....aren't.
As for my "use of the dismissive phrase 'complaint du jour,' would you seriously deny that a large part of this is indeed "persistent whiners whose criticisms have no basis and who will beon to some other fancied grip tomorrow?" That doesn't have to preclude the legitimacy of serious complaints here - just acknowledge that this seems to have attracted the attention of a...dubious...contingent.
I'm not defending TPP, whatever it is (neither of us knows, since the leaks were of proposals). But I do demand that liberal politics be based on facts and not hysteria.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I excerpt your responses to my complaints, then give my replies.
As to your first question: You're defending an Obama Administration policy on the basis that it does not constitute change. Does that strike you as a wee bit ironic? When I went door-to-door for Obama in 2008, should I have been urging people to vote for him in the interest of "Stagnation we can believe in"? As to your second question: I don't think all discussions should be conducted on CNN, but more transparency would be possible and desirable; see the next point for elaboration.
Let's first note that the lead negotiator, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Ron Kirk, is a former lobbyist for Energy Future Holdings (coal/nuclear utility) and Merrill Lynch. As for the specifics of corporate involvement, this has been widely reported and is well known to people who've been following the TPP issue. It took me only a minute or two on duckduckgo to find an excellent explanation from a source I trust, Senator Ron Wyden:
It was our Founding Fathers’
intention to ensure that the laws
and policies that govern the American
people take into account the interests
of all the American people, not just a
privileged few.
Yet, the majority of Congress is
being kept in the dark as to the substance
of the TPP negotiations, while
representatives of U.S. corporations—
like Halliburton, Chevron, PHRMA,
Comcast, and the Motion Picture Association
of America—are being consulted
and made privy to details of the
agreement. As the Office of the USTR
will tell you, the President gives it
broad power to keep information about
the trade policies it advances and negotiates,
secret. Let me tell you, the
USTR is making full use of this authority.
As the Chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee’s Subcommittee on
International Trade, Customs, and
Global Competitiveness, my office is
responsible for conducting oversight
over the USTR and trade negotiations.
To do that, I asked that my staff obtain
the proper security credentials to
view the information that USTR keeps
confidential and secret. This is material
that fully describes what the
USTR is seeking in the TPP talks on
behalf of the American people and on
behalf of Congress. More than two
months after receiving the proper security
credentials, my staff is still barred
from viewing the details of the proposals
that USTR is advancing.
Source: Congressional Record -- Senate, May 23, 2012, pp. S3517-18 (emphasis added)
I do think it would be feasible for the administration to be more open with Congress and to accord progressive NGOs some of the same access that's being given to big business.
Sorry, I'm not following you here. TPP is long and complex. Public Citizen has stated that it has 29 draft articles (see the quotation posted by PumpkinAle in #27 in this thread). Are you saying that the leaking of several horrible provisions means that the rest are unobjectionable, and that this constitutes some kind of defense of the TPP?
Yes, I absolutely would deny that. If you look outside DU at the progressive movement in this country as a whole, you'll find widespread activism over this issue. In my post I mentioned three important components (labor unions, internet freedom advocates, and environmental organizations), but there are others. I don't know what makes a contingent dubious. I do know that, although not always agreeing with them, I have respect for Ron Wyden, for Public Citizen, for the AFL-CIO, for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and for the Sierra Club. Are any of them "dubious" in your eyes?
Some DUers seem to believe that other DUers live solely to criticize Obama. Maybe the "dubious" ones are criticizing him for the TPP but, if he weren't doing it, would be criticizing him for not doing it. Even assuming that there are in fact some DUers who are anti-Obama hypocrites, I definitely don't see them as "a large part" of the concern over the TPP.
I absolutely agree with basing decisions on facts. Perhaps you'll even join me in taking the logical next step: Decisions should be based on facts and on a full and fair opportunity to analyze those facts. That's why fast-tracking this decision would be especially bad. (This is my Complaint #1A that you skipped over.) As you say, neither of us knows exactly what will be in the TPP that's proposed. Neither do the NGOs or the members of Congress. If Obama succeeds in getting the fast-track authority that he's asked for, he'll be able to disclose those details, submit the proposal to Congress, and rush it through:
If the President transmits a fast track trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees must introduce the implementing bill submitted by the President on the first day on which their House is in session. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) Senators and Representatives may not amend the President’s bill, either in committee or in the Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged, and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).)
In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), the bill must originate in the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate received the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)-(g).) Thus the entire Congressional consideration could take no longer than 90 days.
(Source: the "Procedure" section of the Wikipedia article on Fast track)
On that timetable, it would simply be impossible to meet your demand that politics be based on facts. Understanding the ramifications of what's finally proposed could not be achieved within the deadlines of fast track.
ETA: I referred to Ron Kirk as the USTR, which he was at the time Wyden made the statement I quoted. I forgot, however, that he's since been replaced. The current USTR is Michael Froman, a Robert Rubin protege who used to work at Citigroup. Somehow this change fails to raise my comfort level.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)lost their right to see Trade Deals which THEY are responsible for, before they are asked to sign them into law?
It IS secret, except for the leaks which we HAVE seen, thank you Wikileaks, re the Environment and the Internet, so far. Sad isn't it, that members of Congress charged with overseeing these trade deals, have to turn to Wikileaks to find out what is going on regarding this country's laws?
If you like Foreign Corps over riding our Environmental laws, you will love this legislation. They do.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)but that really isn't their Constitutional job. They vote on treaties - they don't negotiate them.
Trade negotiations have nothing to do with "laws." It's not a law until Congress passes it. If they're such nincompoops they'd pass something without fully reading and vetting it, that's on them. And on us for electing such assholes.
And the proposals that have been leaked are the ones that would motivate someone to leak them. That's called Selection Bias.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have demanded, to 'play more of a role in negotions', especially the Committee whose job it is to do just that. They have been DENIED access to any negotiations, and not because they haven't been fighting hard to gain access.
You don't seem to understand that we have lost control of this country to Corporate Entities, many of them not even American.
See the Longshoremen's fight against Global Corps if you want a preview of this 'DEAL' is going to mean, over the past number of years.
How do you like foreign Corps refusing to abide by our labor laws? They're already doing that, again see the fight the Longshoremen have had against these monsters. And that was BEFORE this 'agreement' so I can only imagine what this will do their livelihoods and so many others.
You are very trusting of people you don't know and of 'deals' not even Congress can get to see.
As for the leaks, they are from what we are learning, only the tip of the iceberg.
Is there some reason why you are defending this? Congress is the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH of our Government. They are supposed to be intimately involved in any legislation that is going to be presented for a vote.
I cannot imagine ANY defense of Foreign Corps denying OUR CONGRESS the right to represent the American people on something as vitally important as this.
IF this President or any Democrat, goes along with this, it just might be the end of the Dem Party. However, so far, most Democrats, other than the President, have been outraged for years over it. Let's hope none of them cave to pressure.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)And we haven't lost anything - we've abdicated it. You want it back, take it back. The people who want to dictate their terms to you aren't magical beings, they're just people. Just assholes like us, only with more money.
I am not trusting of those negotiating this treaty. I just refuse to substitute paranoia in the place of facts, because I've seen what that does - and it sure as hell doesn't empower working people. Name one - just one - case where a deal like this was positively impacted, let alone defeated, by this kind of hysteria.
And once again, I'm not defending anything other than basic reason. What PROPOSALS (you seem to keep forgetting that word) get leaked are the ones heinous enough to motivate someone to leak them.
Trade deals are treaties. The Executive negotiates and the Legislative votes on treaties. You want to change that, change the Constitution.
Too bad so few of "us" turned up to vote in November, huh? Actions (and the absence of actions) have consequences.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Treaties require 2/3 to pass.
Get your facts straight.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)referring to as 'hysteria and paranoia'. The proposals leaked are what were available to leak, and from what we know, unless Dems in Congress are just 'HYSTERICAL and PARANOID' also, what we've seen is nothing to what is in there.
Anytime Corporations fight so hard to keep something secret, it IS time to become as HYSTERICAL as it takes to stop them.
The old talking points rear their heads again. Every time the PEOPLE stand up to Corporations and the War Machine they are just 'paranoid' and hysterical', well according to those who a lot to lose when the people do stand up.
Words like that mean nothing anymore, other than a defense of the indefensible. That's when they are always pulled out of the old talking points bag.
I remember we were called 'paranoid and hysterical' for opposing Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. Same exact attacks on the people rather than on those who are ripping this country off and destroying the Working Class.
We were right to be hysterical back then as it turns out. The 'war' wasn't going to be over in 'months, weeks maybe' was it?
Sorry but anyone trying to defend this catastrophe needs to present FACTS rather than name calling.
Where are YOUR facts that this is all going to be just fine?
Nothing to be 'hysterical and paranoid' over??
I'd like to see those FACTS.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Just like every previous trade deal.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We don't know what's in it. So how do we know it's so terrible?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)because the leaks are what's in the agreement and the U.S. negotiating position is not ... because the leaks didn't leak it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No one has ever considered both sides of this argument and for many here, there is no intention to.
There's simply a demand you be against it or you are a corporatist Third Way, etc.
We are told it will do terrible things, but only in conclusive terms. Never is there an explanation or facts supporting why this is the case. It will lose us jobs. If there is an argument it will gain us jobs, it is not to be considered.
It's all emotion and labeling and very little substance. Almost none.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You could be for the TPP and yet against placing artificial time constraints on Congress's consideration of it. The agreement has been under negotiation since March of 2010, so it's hard to see why it needs to be rushed through Congress in a maximum of 90 days.
If you'd present the argument in favor of fast track, I'd be grateful.
As for delineating the terrible things that TPP would do, every post along those lines is met by the stock response that we haven't yet seen the final version of the agreement. All arguments in opposition to TPP are dismissed as being based on leaks that are merely drafts or proposals. If you want to see "an explanation or facts supporting why" there's concern, I've previously posted links to preliminary analyses by the AFL-CIO, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Sierra Club. There are, of course, many more such analyses readily available online.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)After a number of times of setting up a situation to cave, here comes another. When are we finally going to realize that this caving is the Good/Bad Cop plan and not the part of faulty strategy.
He needs repub votes to pass this trade mess, so do you think they will play nice? They're going to demand an extra piece of the American people's flesh to play Obama's trade game and he will pretend opposition and then cave.
These nice social progressive issues (immigration,Cuba) are just the set-up for the shaft.
We must start defining progressives by BOTH our social and financial principles.
The people must always come first!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)April 2008
"What I came to understand was that when a plant shuts down, it’s not just the workers who pay a price, it’s the whole community. I saw folks who felt like their government wasn’t looking out for them and who had given up hope. So I worked with unions and the city government, and we brought the community together to fight for its common future. We gave job-training to the jobless and hope to the hopeless, and block by block, we helped turn those neighborhoods around.
...But we also know this is a problem that goes beyond the failures of George Bush – because for decades, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, we’ve seen the number of American-owned steel companies dwindle down. For decades, our economic policies have been written to pump up a corporate bottom line, rather than promote what’s right, without any consideration for the burden we all bear when workers are abused or the environment is destroyed.
It’s an outrage, but it’s not an accident – because corporate lobbyists in Washington are writing our laws and putting their clients’ interests ahead of what’s fair for the American people. The men and women you represent haven’t been getting a seat at the table when trade agreements are being negotiated, or tax policies are being written, or health care and pension laws are being designed because the special interests have bought every chair.
That’s not the America I believe in. That’s not the America you believe in. And that’s why when I’m President, we’ll make sure Washington serves nobody’s interests but the people’s.
You know, there’s been a lot of talk in this campaign lately about who’s “in touch” with the workers of Pennsylvania. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are singing from the same hymn book, saying that I’m “out of touch” – an “elitist” – because I said a lot of folks are bitter about their economic circumstances.
...For America to win, American workers have to win, too. If CEO pay keeps rising, while the standard of living for their workers continues to decline, that’s not a win for America.
That’s why I opposed NAFTA, it’s why I opposed CAFTA, and it’s why I said any trade agreement I would support had to contain real, enforceable standards for workers.
That’s why I believe the Permanent Normalized Trade agreement with China didn’t do enough to ensure fairness and compliance.
Now, you can have a debate about whether my position is right or wrong. But here’s what you can’t do. You can’t spend the better part of two decades campaigning for NAFTA and PNTR for China, and then come here to Pennsylvania, and tell the steelworkers you’ve been with them all along. You can’t say you are opposed to the Colombia Trade deal, while your key strategist is working for the Colombian government to get the deal passed.
That’s not respect. That’s just more of the same old Washington politics. And we can’t afford more of the same.
We need real change, and that’s what I’m offering. I’m offering a new, more transparent and more inclusive path on trade so we can help promote an integrated global economy where the costs and benefits are distributed more equitably. And it starts with a principle I’ve always believed in – that trade should work for all Americans...."
http://www.cfr.org/elections/obamas-speech-manufacturing-trade/p16018
I really wish, more than anything, that this had been sincere.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Can we get all the progressives, EW and Bernie leading the way, to read and/or play this video over and over again in the Congressional chambers?
pampango
(24,692 posts)At least in the administration's goals for the TPP there are enforceable labor standards. Of course the labor chapter has not been leaked so we don't know if they are in there or not.
http://www.ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives
markme88
(22 posts)Brian Westbury "a Fellow of the George W. Bush Presidential Center” is not an impartial source.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5733531
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5729833
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Why was he replaced with a corporate stooge?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Actions speak louder than.
pa28
(6,145 posts)Our best hope at this point seems to be Japan, Australia or another one of the key signatories backing out or slowing down.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)
neverforget
(9,436 posts)
Boreal
(725 posts)Translated this means a further race to the bottom. I remember Bush 41 and Clinton, especially, spewing that "America needs to be more competitive" bullshit (I was paying close attention back then). If we are going to have manufacturing in the US then, by God, wages will be lower and any benefits will be nixed or shifted to the taxpayers. THAT is "competition" in globalization speak.
^^That right there is how a very skilled liar and bullshit artist panders to the true believer base. Obama is a MASTER at his game. "Oh, we have to have this trade agreement to protect worker's rights in Vietnam!" Ugh, the stupid, it hurts but I remember that same idiotic reasoning when Gore was pimping NAFTA and liberals falling for it. Shameful and embarrassing.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation and the president is the CEO. Some CEOs are more likeable than others or make better decisions (for the stakeholders - in this case global corporations) or do a better job at conning the the public but the direction of the corporation is fixed and not changing. It does not matter if it's Obama or Romney. The direction is exactly the same - corporate fascism that uses any and all means to achieve Anglo-American hegemony. That includes trade agreements, economic warfare, using terrorist proxies and the military, a police state at home and lies piled upon bullshit to convince the public it's something other than what it is. The USA is the British empire on steroids only the empire and it's slave colonies raised the standard of living for Brits. In our case it's about raising the standard of living for the filthy rich. Anyone who wants to understand how it works needs to study the East India Company. It's the EXACT blueprint for Bush 41's "New World Order". Remember that? "Now we can see a New World Order coming into view...". Well, this is it.
pa28
(6,145 posts)That's standard playbook for neoliberal Democrats trying to cover up their pursuit of Republican policy objectives. You just add conditions that supposedly fix the damage you knowingly cause.
Cutting Social Security? Add protections for the very poor. All fixed!
Gutting the labor market and destroying good paying jobs with new free trade agreements? Raise the minimum wage. All fixed!
Now we're supposed to believe worker standards in Brunei and Vietnam are going to be enforceable and beneficial to their competing American counterparts. The leaked TPP docs dealing with the environment chapter have already revealed the administration is backing away from the "protections" trumpeted in this very article.
It's all rhetoric. All B.S.
lol, I love that. You nailed it. It's bunch of window dressing for the gullible.
Ramses
(721 posts)This so called trade agreement is really really bad. It wont protect foreign or US workers. It protects profits and "expected future profits" with binding legal agreements that will bankrupt municipalities throughout this country. Very disturbing shit
PumpkinAle
(1,210 posts)Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules.
The TPP would even elevate individual foreign firms to equal status with sovereign nations, empowering them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to challenge public interest policies that they claim frustrate their expectations.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/10/despite-outcry-opposition-obama-pushes-horrific-trade-deal-asia
Just who is Obama representing?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)AKA give them everything they want in their wet dreams.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)A study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research finds that were the TPP to be Fast Tracked through Congress, all but the wealthiest among us would lose more to inequality increases than we would gain in cheaper goods, spelling a pay cut for 90 percent of U.S. workers.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/12/04/obama-ready-defy-base-order-advance-trans-pacific-partnership
Broward
(1,976 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)12/25/14
Around 600 corporations and a few labor unions with stakes in the talks have seen a draft. Except for a few chapters released by WikiLeaks last year, Congress and the public have not.
But here’s what we do know: This so-called partnership is an insult to U.S. workers. And it’s especially bad news for women.
According to Doctors Without Borders, for example, the agreement’s intellectual property clauses could cut off access to generic drugs for people living with HIV/AIDS—who are increasingly women and children.
And the Communications Workers of America union said the pact will make it easier for corporations to outsource majority-female jobs—not only in low-wage workplaces such as call centers, but also higher-wage sectors like human resources.
So it’s no surprise that women in Congress have been leading the opposition to the TPP for some time.
In the House, Democrats Rosa DeLauro and Louise Slaughter pointed out in a forceful Los Angeles Times op-ed that the agreement would force Americans to compete against workers from extremely low-wage countries. It would also, they argued, roll back environmental standards and U.S. laws that protect food and drug safety.
In the Senate, Democrat Elizabeth Warren has expressed worries that the secretive agreement could weaken financial regulations. She opposed the appointment of Michael Froman as the U.S. trade representative—a job that has made him the chief arbiter of the treaty-making process—because he flatly stated his opposition to more transparency in the negotiations.
And there’s another little-known provision.
Under the proposed rules, businesses incorporated in TPP countries—any of them—would be guaranteed equal treatment with U.S. firms when bidding on government contracts.
That means our tax dollars could go to underwriting companies in countries like Brunei, which imprisons unmarried women for getting pregnant and allows the stoning of gays and lesbians....
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1163803-tpp-is-bad-news-for-workers-and-worse-news-for-women/
Dear Mr. President: The organizations signing this letter want to express our deep concerns regarding some of the provisions under negotiation in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). These provisions could seriously impact access to affordable medicines by delaying generic competition as well as impacting governments’ ability to advance public health policies in the U.S and around the world.
While we have different perspectives and interests, we are united by our shared concerns regarding access to affordable medicines and the need to ensure competition in the pharmaceutical market in the U.S. and abroad....
http://infojustice.org/archives/33702
99Forever
(14,524 posts)You should be.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)deals I draw a line!
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,939 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Exceptionalism.
We need Hillary to Help push this through!
GO HILLARY!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Maybe they aren't that stupid.
Cerridwen
(13,256 posts)Based on everything the repubs have done against anything/everything the administration has put before them (or tried to put before them) I would guess they'll stop this as well?
It may be interesting to watch as they fight against the man they hate rather than fight for a pro-trade agreement. Or maybe they'll just claim it as their own.
grover norquist once quoted dick armey who said, "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."
n2doc
(47,953 posts)They did just work together to pass the crommnibus...
Cerridwen
(13,256 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)In airing their concerns, opponents have reminded Obama of his 2008 campaign, when he spoke skeptically about NAFTA and pledged to renegotiate it once he took office.
“I’m hoping he remembers that campaign and being in Ohio and speaking directly to folks who lost their job because of a trade agreement he was campaigning to renegotiate at that point,” said Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who opposes the TPP.
In the past several weeks, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) held a strategy session with House Democrats about ways to slow the deal; Warren sent a three-page letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman detailing concerns over provisions she said could undermine financial regulations; and the AFL-CIO launched an anti-TPP advertising campaign in Metro stations in the Washington area.
In response, the Obama administration has launched a “whole of government” campaign to build support in both parties on Capitol Hill. In addition to Froman, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Labor Secretary Thomas Perez have been involved in discussions with lawmakers.
In a recent address to the Business Roundtable, Obama acknowledged an uphill battle to convince his base that liberalizing trade policy and increasing global competition would not exacerbate wage stagnation after a long period of financial unease among middle-class Americans.
“There’s no doubt that some manufacturing moved offshore in the wake of China entering the [World Trade Organization] and as a consequence of NAFTA,” Obama said. “Now, more of those jobs were lost because of automation and capital investment, but there’s a narrative there that makes for some tough politics.”
***************************************
The roots of the TPP stretch back to the George W. Bush administration, which first engaged in talks with a far smaller group of Pacific nations. When Obama took office, he put the effort on hold while his administration, in consultation with outside experts, examined trade issues.
***************************************
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-hopes-to-enlist-gop-in-push-for-trade-pact-despite-democratic-resistance/2014/12/26/81236a34-8600-11e4-b9b7-b8632ae73d25_story.html?hpid=z1
Would love to know who these "outside experts" were....
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Having a black president who calls himself a democrat enact these far right policies was absolute genius on the part of the oligarchs.
riversedge
(70,186 posts)pushing for the trade deal for a long time.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)to pass it.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)their shit stained fingers at the democrats for the next 30 years.
Turbineguy
(37,317 posts)to have its effects felt.
rock
(13,218 posts)(You know the old saying, "When you sup with the devil ..."
