Elizabeth Warren takes on another Obama Administration secrecy problem

[Proud Public Servant]

Elizabeth Warren Free Trade Letter Calls For Trans-Pacific Partnership Transparency

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Thursday sent a letter to President Barack Obama's nominee to head U.S. trade negotiations, expressing concerns about the administration's lack of transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a major trade deal being negotiated largely in secret.

Labor unions, public health advocates and environmental groups have long decried so-called free trade policies for undermining important regulations in the pursuit of corporate profits. The letter signals that Warren's tough stance on bank regulation extends to other major consumer and public interest matters.

What the public does know about the TPP has been learned through leaked documents. According to those documents, the Obama administration is seeking to grant corporations the ability to directly challenge regulations in countries involved in the talks -- a political power that was typically reserved for sovereign nations until the 1990s. Obama opposed such policies as a presidential candidate in 2008. The leaked intellectual property chapter of the deal includes provisions that would increase the costs of life-saving medicines in poor countries.

Warren's letter does not take issue with specific terms of the negotiations, but rather the secrecy surrounding the process. Members of Congress have been allowed to see TPP negotiation texts. Some have said they were insulted by the complex administrative procedures the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, or USTR, imposed to actually access the texts -- barriers not imposed on unelected corporate advisers.

More here, including a link to the letter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/elizabeth-warren-free-trade-letter_n_3431118.html?ref=topbar

Boy, remember when we elected a president who promised a historically transparent administration? What ever happened to that guy?

[William769]

1. Better be careful, the dogs are rabid today.

Must not question President Obama.

[Fuddnik]

8. The Spanish Inquisition will be along shortly.

Nobody expects them.

Probably getting their BS points together now.

[villager]

2. Who knew that secret corporate trade deals, and secret data gathering, represented "change?"

[Autumn]

3. It is a "change"

a change from what we voted for. What do you want? A fucking pony?



I so love Elizabeth Warren.

[villager]

5. I want rainbows! While I clutch at my pearls!

[JDPriestly]

18. I want a president who makes transparency in government a priority.

That is really very little to ask.

[villager]

24. It would seem so.

Yet according to some here, it's asking for the moon.

[newmember]

64. ha ha good luck on that from Obama

[nikto]

95. There is...

Exactly ZERO% chance of transparency in Gov't coming from the GOP.

I'm sure you agree.

[Skittles]

96. the freak republic awaits you

[bvar22]

83. Well, if you wanted TRANSPARENCY, you should have voted for THIS guy in 2008!

Whatever happened to THAT guy.
He would have made a great President.

[xtraxritical]

90. No different than Clinton and NAFTA.

[woo me with science]

93. He was better in a debate, too.

[dotymed]

77. So far, so good

with Elizabeth Warren.
I have become so jaded by most politicians (oligarchs) and I have learned not to trust most of them. Ms. Warren has so far, lived up to her Progressive rhetoric and I am glad. I hope she keeps going and we have another Bernie Sanders type of "people first" politician.

Our nation was going down hill after Reagan (democratic pols helping them) and has rapidly increased its free-fall since bush's. I was a Clinton supporter until he left office and the destruction he caused became more apparent.

Greed has destroyed America. It has been devastating as an FDR Democrat, to watch as politicians with a "d" behind their names have actually increased the people last policies of both bushes.

Clinton signed NAFTA into law after bush I negotiated it and Obama, whom I worked my ass of for in his first POTUS campaign, has actually increased the evil and constitution shredding that bush II worked so hard on.

Now, the dlc is pushing hard for Hillary to become our next POTUS, I do not think average Americans or our infrastructure could survive Hillary's victory. Of course, it would be the same out of any of the current GOP politicians.

The ONLY viable alternative IMO is to form a Progressive party and elect a POTUS that has proven their responsiveness to America and its average citizens. Maybe he/she could reform campaign finance, "free" trade, the Big Brother apparatus, etc..

We have suffered so much since Reagan and most elected politicians (d&r) have only made it worse. We must have a peaceful revolution, hopefully from the voting booth. Currently I do not see it happening from any party supported politicians.

IMO, we must have real progressives splinter from their current parties and form a progressive party, an honest one. Even without the billion$ currently spent on POTUS elections and no MSM support, I believe the people would elect a true, people first President.
Yes, a strong, majority supported president can turn the tide against corporate politicians.

[Autumn]

80. I agree with everything you said.

We can no longer vote for more of the same. When one party is destructive and the other party is only willing to temper the destruction just a "little bit" to ensure they get our vote ( because after all the other side is worse than us, and what choice do we have ) and big money for their elections, nothing that is needed gets done. And the status quo continues, but not to the peoples benefit. To continue down the path we are on is insanity. No more, I will no longer vote against a politician because he's not as bad as the other guy, the Democratic Party can give me someone to vote for or they will not get my vote. 2016 is going to be very interesting.

[xtraxritical]

91. I think Elizabeth Warren is positioning herself for a run, and she'll get my vote.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The way it's going now it will be a violation of National Security to say we have a government.

[Left Coast2020]

74. The movie THX-1138 comes to mind.

[WhiteRocker]

76. What was good for Bush ,is bad for Obama .

G. Bush could do no wrong ,however he can't go to Europe he'll get arrested for War Crimes in Iraq.
But Obama ,he got Osama Bin Hiding ,can do no right ,he can go to Europe with out getting arrested.
Bad is Good ,Good is Bad . Only in America where China is OK but Cuba is still the Evil Communist.
Drink your Lemon Aid.

[90-percent]

6. If Elizabeth keeps this up

She will be given a CIA prepared PRIVATE AIRPLANE, as an anonymous gift of the Koch Brothers!

I wonder if Senator Paul Wellstone was also the recipient of such lavish gifts prior to his accidental death in a private plane?

-90% Jimmy

[AnotherMcIntosh]

11. Do you ever wonder when the plane "accidents" started? Was it with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs?

He, of course, was on the Warren Commission. His last airplane ride occurred after he expressed his disbelief in the "magic bullet" theory and his interest in starting a Congressional investigation.

[90-percent]

16. "accidents"

I know little more than the jokes/cliches we share on DU.

BUT, there is a list of deaths that were really really convenient for the ruling parties at their time. From memory, there was Karl Rove's IT guy who crashed shortly after he possibly flipped the 2004 Election in Ohio to GWB. There was Wm Casey, who died real quickly after he stated he was going to reveal something about Iran Contra. Wellstone of course.

Hopefully another DU'er with more motivation than I can come up with a better list.

-90% Jimmy

[loudsue]

65. You're so right: There are a lot of convenient deaths.

What was the dude's name in England, (David someone? ) the one that supposedly committed suicide, that Judith Miller was the last person he talked with, or some such?

Do I have my memories mixed up?

[90-percent]

66. yes, David something, an English scientist

That had info the Iraq war was bogus. He died before his info went public.

Pat Tillmann's death had some mystery about it. I think the official story is friendly fire, but he was about to go public big on his distaste of the Iraq War.

the security expert that got driven out of the cia because he was apeshit about Al Quaida and he's head of world trade center security and dies in 9-11?

Some guy in D.C. that was a anthrax scientist got suicided.

Wasn't a DC Madam suicided?

some in the flight out of DC had ironic connections to future whistle blowing?

A lot of HOW VERY CONVIENIENT FOR THE PDB these people died stuff. Impending whistle blowers or others with damning info unflattering to the GWB Admin.?


-90% Jimmy

I got to think about the beginnings of my DU term paper here.

[xtraxritical]

92. Did not RFK hot shot Marilyn Monroe?

[OnyxCollie]

13. "One of these days,

thought Winston with sudden deep conviction, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face." -George Orwell, 1984.

[Enthusiast]

53. Anyone that repeats that quote ends up on a "list".

Better watch it!

[Maedhros]

7. Anyone tired of seeing this phrase?

"Obama opposed [policy] as a presidential candidate in 2008" in a story about how he is pushing said policy?

Has anyone kept tally?

[Hydra]

23. We wouldn't need to

If he hadn't done such a good job of explaining why all of these policies don't work during his run for president.

Despite my hesitancy to believe that he would actually follow through, I was very impressed how well he laid out his arguments and how specific he was during the debates. That sort of no-nonsense approach to the law is one of the things we thought we were getting vs. the "trust us" of the Bush admin.

[Maedhros]

37. I agree: That's why I voted for him in 2008.[n/t]

[CarmanK]

9. For some reason, US trade negotiators have willing surrendered AM wker rts and protections

in order to allow foreign trade to move freely within US borders. However, we the people are regularly being shafted by these agreements which open markets but do nothing to advance labor. These agreements need to have public scrutiny. Instead of asking WHAT WOULD JESUS DO, perhaps some of these representatives should be asking WHAT WOULD THE PEOPLE DO?

[liberal_at_heart]

10. instead they ask WHAT WOULD CORPORATIONS DO?

[JDPriestly]

19. And then our government pretends to be shocked when foreign

countries spy on our electronic media or find out where the cables that carry the electronic data are under the sea.

It's all a sham. The more we learn, the more we realize that the corporations have replaced countries and governments as the authorities.

[KoKo]

12. Recommend... TPP needs major scrutiny. But, we won't get it until

it's a "done deal." That the way things work these days. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to be aware of the secrecy. Although we have little power to influence it getting rammed through in probably a "dead of night vote" just before Congress leaves for one of it's breaks late this Summer or early Fall.

[East Coast Pirate]

14. He has no control over that.

Boy, remember when we elected a president who promised a historically transparent administration? What ever happened to that guy?

[mercymechap]

62. Maybe he got tired of being

too transparent only to realize that he was giving Republicans an opportunity to prepare ammunition against him?

[Marr]

73. lol, right.

He was *too* transparent.

[ProSense]

15. Sen. Warren Calls on U.S. Trade Representative Nominee Michael Froman to Pledge Transparency...

Sen. Warren Calls on U.S. Trade Representative Nominee Michael Froman to Pledge Transparency in Trade Negotiations

Says Openness and Public Accountability Critical in Establishing Trade Agreements

WASHINGTON, DC -United States Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) today, in a letter to United States Trade Representative (USTR) nominee Michael Froman, called on his support for increased transparency in trade negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Sen. Warren expressed concerns about the Administration's record of transparency specifically during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

"If members of the public do not have reasonable access to the terms of the agreements under negotiation, then they are unable to offer real input into the process," Senator Warren wrote in the letter. "Without transparency, the benefit from robust democratic participation - an open marketplace of ideas - is considerably reduced."

Sen. Warren highlights the Administration's unwillingness to provide to the public composite bracketed text relating to the negotiations. This text includes proposed language from the United States and other countries, and serves as the focal point for negotiations. She noted that the Bush Administration, while not embracing full transparency, at least released a scrubbed version of the bracketed text in 2001 during negotiations over the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

In the letter to Froman, Sen. Warren asks the USTR nominee if he would immediately make public the bracketed text of the TPP, or at least support the Bush Administration's half-measure toward transparency. She also asks Froman to provide information on the level of detail on negotiations made available to advisory committees, so that those groups can give complete and accurate advice to the Administration during the development of the agreement.

The full text of Senator Warren's letter is available here.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=158

June 13, 2013
Michael Froman
Assistant to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Froman,

As you know, trade agreements have considerable impact on our economy. Trade agreements affect access to foreign markets and our levels of imports and exports, as well as a wide variety of significant public policy issues, including wages, jobs, the environment, monetary policy, the Internet, pharmaceuticals, and financial services.

It is no surprise that many citizens are deeply interested in tracking the trajectory of trade negotiations and the language under consideration. But if members of the public do not have reasonable access to the terms of the agreements under negotiation, then they are unable to offer real input into the process. Without transparency, the benefit from robust democratic participation – an open marketplace of ideas – is considerably reduced.

President Obama made transparency and inclusion a centerpiece of his election, and in many areas, he has opened the doors of government to ensure that the product of governing can withstand public scrutiny and is not the product of back-room deal making.

While I have no doubt that the President’s commitment to openness is genuine, I am concerned about the Administration’s record of transparency regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Specifically, I am troubled by the Administration’s unwillingness to provide to the public the composite bracketed text relating to the negotiations. As you know, the composite bracketed text includes not only proposed language from the United States but also proposed language from other countries. These different proposals are brought together in one text, and negotiations focus on ironing out the various proposals and getting to agreement on common language. The lack of transparency in this area is troubling because, as you know, the bracketed text serves as the focal point for actual negotiations. I appreciate the willingness of the USTR to make various documents available for review by members of Congress, but I do not believe that is a substitute for more robust public transparency.

- more -

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/Letter%20to%20Michael%20Froman.pdf

[JDPriestly]

30. My comment is in my signature line.

[Cha]

56. Thanks ProSense.

[SamKnause]

17. TPP

The TPP trade deal is NAFTA on steroids.

No president, or politician that had the best interest of the U.S. would consider for one second implementing this monstrosity.

Isn't it wonderful that corporations, (you know people) have such wonderful representation ?

When will the living breathing citizens, (you know breathing humans) of the U.S. have representation ?

[MotherPetrie]

20. K&R. Yes, I remember. Obviously, he lied.

[sabrina 1]

21. How long before Elizabeth Warren joins Alan Grayson, Amy Goodman, the ACLU et al under the bus?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. As soon as they can confirm that she has (Gasp!) boxes in her garage.

[sabrina 1]

27. She's smart enough to have disappeared any boxes in her garage by now, don't you think?

But there's always photos in boxer shorts, well, that might need photo shopping, They'll think of something, after all that's what we pay them billions of dollars for isn't it?

Remember when Anonymous exposed the emails of HB Gary and they were preparing a contract that included finding a way to 'smear Glenn Greenwald'. Another enemy of the state.

What a country. Just 'watch what you say and you'll be okay'! Ari, he's back and thrilled to bits with the administration 'keeping Bush policies to protect the American people'.

[questionseverything]

52. here is the article with the details

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8354

Two of the three members of Team Themis --- Berico and Palantir (the latter's name was on the slides used to demonstrate the Bank of American plan for attacking WikiLeaks, including a scheme to try and discredit Salon journalist Glenn Greenwald) have issued public statements distancing themselves from the third member, HBGary, in the wake of these revelations. Berico's is here [PDF]. Palantir's is here.

Each announces that they are severing ties with HBGary and its CEO Aaron Barr who, according to the emails, is seen as the most aggressive of the Team Themis members --- though that may be because it was Barr's emails which were released publicly by Anonymous. What we've learned up until now comes largely via the perspective of Barr's emails to the others, and so we've only seen snippets, to date, from the other members of the (very real) conspiracy coming together at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce via quoted text of replies to and from Barr's own notes to Berico, Palantir and the DoJ-recommended H&W law firm.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

59. I heard she didn't light a match after using a public restroom.

Just a downright nasty person, that Senator Warren!

- In case it's needed.

[ProSense]

26. I certainly,

"How long before Elizabeth Warren joins Alan Grayson, Amy Goodman, the ACLU et al under the bus?"

...am not going to throw Senator Warren "under a bus" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023008743#post15), but I wonder how many people would do so if she ends up supporting the trade agreement.

[JDPriestly]

31. If she does support the trade agreement, she will bother to tell

us what is in it and why she is supporting it. That is more than Obama is doing.

In addition to the surveillance program and the trade negotiations, what else is Obama refusing to tell us.

[ProSense]

35. And she

"If she does support the trade agreement, she will bother to tell"

...and all of us will likely know because the administration fulfilled her request.

[Marr]

86. Are you actually praising Obama for hypothetical possibilities now?

You know, if it somehow turned out that Justin Bieber had a time machine and he was the one who actually killed Hitler, he should get a medal.

GOD DAMN, you've got to admire than Bieber bravery, don't you?

[sabrina 1]

32. If she did that, she would not be who we thought she was, would she? So she would lose most of the

credibility she has now. And rightly so. But so far, I see no sign of her doing so. Otoh, DC seems to have something in the water that turns decent, defenders of the Constitution, which they are sworn to defend and protect,

[ProSense]

36. So she would lose "credibility" if she supported the agreement?

Do you know what's in it?

[sabrina 1]

41. Yes, she would. She is opposed to agreements such as this that give such power to foreign

corporations to challenge OUR laws. If she voted for it without changes that curb Corporate power, especially foreign Corporations, then of course she would lose credibility. Politicians who do not stand by their stated principles always lose credibility. Why are you surprised by that?

[ProSense]

43. Where does

"She is opposed to agreements such as this that give such power to foreign corporations to challenge OUR laws."

...she say that? I don't see an issues page on her Senate site, but this is from he campaign site.

To grow our economy, we need to sell our products to the rest of the world. But we have to have a level playing field - strong trade laws and strong enforcement. That means labor and environmental standards. It means protecting our intellectual property rights by getting tough on the knock offs that undercut our ability to compete and, in the long run, cost us money and jobs. And it means putting pressure on foreign currency manipulation that artificially makes our goods less competitive. As a Senator, I will look hard at any trade agreement to determine how it would impact jobs here in Massachusetts.

http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/jobs-and-the-economy

[Maedhros]

38. I support policies, not people.

If Warren acts in favor of the policy I support, I will support her. If she acts against the policy I support, I will disagree with her.

[ProSense]

40. Right, but

"I support policies, not people. If Warren acts in favor of the policy I support, I will support her. If she acts against the policy I support, I will disagree with her."

...does that mean that if she eventually supports this policy, anyone who agrees with her is supporting "people," not policies?

[sabrina 1]

42. Do you agree with her position right now? I do & am very glad someone is speaking out against this

agreement.

[ProSense]

45. It appears

"Do you agree with her position right now? I do & am very glad someone is speaking out against this agreement."

...to me that her issue is the transparency. She's speaking out to demand transparency. She didn't indicate whether or not she supports the agreement.

I agree with her that there should be transparency, and that the administration should release the information.

[sabrina 1]

47. You don't think she knows what this agreement contains? She's not the first to express shock

over the secrecy, nor the fact that something as threatening to our very sovereignty as this, is even being considered.

So what if she backs off and decides it's okay to keep it all secret? Would her credibility remain intact or not?

I know for me it would not. I don't like being manipulated, lied to, receiving promises to get something, then the breaking of those promises. Not in my personal life, and certainly not from politicians.

[ProSense]

48. What does

You don't think she knows what this agreement contains? She's not the first to express shock

over the secrecy, nor the fact that something as threatening to our very sovereignty as this, is even being considered.

So what if she backs off and decides it's okay to keep it all secret? Would her credibility remain intact or not?

I know for me it would not. I don't like being manipulated, lied to, receiving promises to get something, then the breaking of those promises. Not in my personal life, and certainly not from politicians.

...any of that, including the hypothetical questions, have to do with the point that her current demand is for transparency, and that she did not express her position on the agreement?

[sabrina 1]

57. Well, if she trusted that everything was okay she would not be asking for transparency.

I know enough about that agreement that I want transparency and a national debate on what they are trying to do. If I had did not know anything about it, I wouldn't be concerned. She seems concerned.

However, just sticking with her current request, if she changes her mind and decides we don't need transparency, she will lose credibility.

[Maedhros]

71. No.

It just means I will disagree with her.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. It is way crowded down here

[MannyGoldstein]

46. They tried. They failed.

Obama launched her out of CFPB, but the good people of Massachusetts voted her into office. And I suspect we'll keep her in that office, unless the entire United States gets a clue and puts her in the White House.

[rhett o rick]

70. Well she better have a clean record or the NSA will vilify her. Just sayin. nm

[Major Hogwash]

54. It depends on how she votes.

Amy Goodman does not have a vote.
Neither does the ACLU.

[treestar]

25. Good for her, she is doing her job

Whatever the final legislation is, will she filibuster it? That will be interesting to see.

[bvar22]

94. Yes. She IS "doing her job"... EXACTLY!

So where are our other "Democratic" Senators.
Why aren't THEY doing their jobs too?

That is the really sad thing about Warren's notoriety.
She is "just doing her job"....and she Stands Out in the Crowd of those who are NOT doing their jobs.

I really wish there was nothing noticeable about Warren.
I really wish the only comments she earned here were,
"Ho-Hum. SO what? She IS a Democrat.
That is what Democrats do....look our for the Working Class.

It is really sad that she is One-of-a-Kind in what passes for today's Democratic Party.


[font size=3]CENTRISM!!!....because it is so damned EASY!
You don't have to STAND for ANYTHING,
and get to insult those who DO!

[xchrom]

28. Du rec. Nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

29. It is imperative this mega-ALEC be stopped and eliminated. Corporations writing law...

Thank you Elizabeth! Sodlidarity!

[krhines]

34. I will be very

Disappointed if she doesn't run for president in 2016.

[harun]

39. Kneel

[Union Scribe]

44. OMG THANK YOU Senator!

We need as much light shed on this looming abomination as possible.

[Dustlawyer]

49. The corporations bought and paid for the government they want and that is what they got!

We allowed this to happen. While we worry about republicans and fight over Gay rights, guns, abortion... they do this shit. Not to say that those are not very important issues, but if we had publicly funded elections we could go a long way to solving most of our major problems!

[Enthusiast]

50. "What ever happened to that guy?"

That guy was a carefully crafted illusion.

[theplanfor2016]

51. I am always amazed at Elizabeth Warren.

I hope she maintains her principles and vigor as she continues her career in Washington.

[avaistheone1]

58. Sometimes it looks like things might get

a lot better in this country.

Thank you Elizabeth Warren.

[JEB]

60. TPP is the wire brush

the Corporations will use on our backsides. With TPP they will rape us into full on Fascism.

[DeSwiss]

61. Elizabeth is STILL......

...not giving any Fucks!

- Give 'em hell Lizzie!!! K&R

[watoos]

63. I heard whispers

that after TPP, a trade deal with the EU is in the works.

[Proud Public Servant]

69. That's true

It's called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, and negotiations are just starting.

[woo me with science]

67. FINALLY, some pushback against the secrecy.

This government has been operating like a junta for far too long.

[G_j]

72. she proves again that she will ask the questions

that need to be asked. This also puts a harsh light on the complicity and cowardliness of our elected officials who refuse to act.
She is with the 99% asking the taboo questions of the 1%.

[G_j]

68. Yes, Yes, Yes!

She picked the the most crucial target to take aim at! Right on Elizabeth!

[BrotherIvan]

75. Where are the apologists?

Senator Warren is making Obama look bad! She must be stopped! For the good of the country!!!

[Puglover]

79. Upthread.

I'm surprised people aren't dizzy with all of the spinning.

[wildbilln864]

78. k & r!

Indeed. What ever did happen to that guy?

[wildbilln864]

81. k & r!

Thank you Mrs Warren!

[G_j]

82. kick

[bvar22]

84. What ever happened to that guy?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[blkmusclmachine]

85. Campaign Obama was a false image foisted on an unwitting public by the Banksters/1%.

President Obama, on the other hand, is the real deal.

IMO

[Teamster Jeff]

87. Kick & Rec

[99Forever]

88. Elizabeth Warren 2016

[Jackpine Radical]

89. Now you know for sure why Obama, Rahm & the Clintonites did what they could

to get Blue Dogs & DINOs elected in the last few years (Blanche Lincoln v. Bill Halter, for example).

Those Goddam progressives are nothing but troublemakers.

[Logical]

97. Love her!! n-t

[proverbialwisdom]

98. Related.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/6/obama_backed_trans_pacific_partnership_expands