= new reply since forum marked as read
Good morning Cali 
You rock as an advocate. Why do you think there's a good chance it won't pass? I've been discouraged at how little attention this is getting, especially from labor. The Teamsters are a major exception.
I can't say one way or the other but I haven't been on it like you have. Why do you think it might not pass? Give me some good news in the morning please 
There's an odd coalition forming in the House. Some writer referred to it as a "Baptists and Bootleggers" coalition. It's comprised of teabagger types and liberal dems. The teabaggers just won't vote for anything that President Obama wants and the liberal dems won't vote for it because they oppose the TPP. A group of new dems wrote a letter to Pelosi, and they aren't the only ones opposing it.
so here it is, my dear, our good news for the day.
The Odd Bipartisan Coalition That Could Sink Obama's Free-Trade Legacy
Executive-power-wary Tea Partiers and labor-aligned Democrats could block "fast-track" authority for two huge agreements.
Back when he was first seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for president, Barack Obama often questioned free-trade agreements like NAFTA. By the end of his first year in office, however, President Obama had already notified Congress that the U.S. would join Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free-trade negotiations. In October 2011 -- albeit with considerable prodding from Republicans -- he submitted free-trade agreements negotiated by the Bush Administration with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea to Congress. During this year's State of the Union address, Obama reaffirmed his commitment to the TPP, and announced that the U.S. would also pursue a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free-trade agreement with EU countries.
The sheer scope of these deals is staggering. The TPP negotiations now include Brunei, Chile, Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Vietnam, Peru, Malaysia, Mexico, and very soon, Japan. These nations have a collective GDP of about $11 trillion. For some perspective, U.S. annual GDP is $15 trillion; China's is $7.3 trillion. U.S. joining the TPP is like entering into a deal with a country that has the world's second-largest economy. It could add an estimated $76 billion per year to the U.S. economy. To put this in context, that's equal to about 90 percent of the money saved by this year's sequester. The TPP is also crucial to the administration's "Asia pivot." China is pursuing free-trade agreements in Asia, and the TPP is an effort to balance out Chinese potential dominance in the region.
And the TTIP is even bigger. It would create the largest free-trade zone in the world and produce a $1 trillion annual increase in GDP for the economies on both sides of the Atlantic, according to a European Commission study.
If Obama could negotiate and implement just these two agreements, he would almost without question be the most successful trade president in U.S. history. But the Constitution charges Congress, not the president, with regulating commerce, which means Congress has to pass legislation implementing any agreements the president negotiates. And this is where the administration may have a huge problem on its hands.
<snip>
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/06/the-odd-bipartisan-coalition-that-could-sink-obamas-free-trade-legacy/276938/
Over two-thirds of Democratic freshmen in the U.S. House of Representatives have expressed serious reservations about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement (TPP FTA) negotiations and the prospect of delegating Fast Track “trade promotion authority” to the President. They voiced their concerns in a letter sent to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Ranking Ways and Means Member Sander Levin on June 11, 2013, that was spearheaded by Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan and signed by 35 other House freshmen.
<snip>
http://www.citizenstrade.org/ctc/blog/2013/06/11/democratic-revolt-against-tpp-and-fast-track/
<snip>
Republicans have indicated support for TPA, but Tea Party Members of Congress quietly have indicated their reluctance to grant the President more powers. In the past, Presidents might have counted on Republican votes for negotiating free trade. Today, at best the Republican Party probably would split.
New USTR Michael Froman, at a July 18 Ways and Means Committee hearing, effectively reported that leadership on TPA would not be coming from the White House: the Administration was, he said, “ready to engage and to help in that process as requested.” Two weeks later, he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – the leading champion of TPA – that “we stand ready to provide technical assistance and are doing so as required.” On July 30, the President himself declared his interest in TPA, but said he would pursue his interest by providing support to Congress.
A substantial number of Members of Congress from the President’s own party are complaining that they must define the objectives of trade agreements, have access to all information throughout the negotiating process, and be fully informed. They are complaining, with specific reference to the TPP, that they have not had access to information, have not participated in framing negotiating objectives, and have not been kept well informed.
As congressmen complain that negotiations have been “secretive” and they have been excluded, Ambassador Froman told the Chamber of Commerce that, "It’s an incredibly complex negotiation," an observation that could hardly comfort legislators being asked to surrender authority to the judgments and choices of the President.
<snip>
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/tpp-ttip-and-congress-the-elephant-in-80924/
In 2002, the TPA passed the House by the slimmest of margins- 215-212. The opposition this time around seems greater. No doubt, all the stops will be pulled and we will see some massive arm twisting.
Now if we the people would only pay more attention and pump up the pressure so fence-sitters think twice before voting for this.
Thank you Cali, I'm feeling better about this now
!!! 
!!!
Thanks for the reminder vid, markiv. 
TYY
government does best for it's job #1, i.e., none of this promote the general welfare stich. 
