Let's debate the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- history's largest trade deal -- before OKing it

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-reich-trumka-tpp-trade-fast-track-20150303-story.html

By ROBERT REICH, RICHARD TRUMKA

This spring, President Obama and Republican leaders in Congress want to use an outdated process used to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement more than 20 years ago — a rule called “fast track” — to force through trade deals without a real debate or any amendments. And fast track would be used to speed passage of the giant Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, trade deal.

If you haven't heard much about the TPP, that's part of the problem. It would be the largest trade deal in history — involving countries stretching from Chile to Japan, representing 792 million people and about 40% of the world economy.

Yet it's been devised in secret, with a disproportionate amount of advice coming from corporations and Wall Street. This secrecy is the norm since NAFTA. Most of the details that are known to the public have come through WikiLeaks. Instead, we'd like to see the negotiating texts made public, so there can be an honest and open debate.

A fast-tracked TPP would lock in a rigged set of economic rules, lasting potentially forever, before most Americans — let alone some members of Congress — have had a chance to understand it thoroughly. If the administration gets fast-track authority, it could hand a completed deal to Congress, which must then vote yes or no, without amendments and little debate, within 90 days.

FULL story at link.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Nah you have to pass things before people know whats in it these days...

[Hoyt]

2. Come on Reich, it was good enough for you and Clinton. Fact is,

there will be plenty of time for debate. And, what I've heard from Obama so far is that he's trying to correct some of the important stuff you and Clinton left out of NAFTA.

Plus, I don't believe Obama is going to endorse a crummy agreement. I realize that goes against those who believe Obama has been screwing us for 6 years.

The final TPP may be flawed, assuming it is ever finalized. If it is, Obama won't endorse it. But, the fact is, world trade needs a better platform than we've had. I'm willing to see what Obama comes up with before condemning it.

I'm beginning to think Reich is concerned Obama is going to show him up.

[appal_jack]

5. (cue Doge meme) Such delusion! Much Party Line. So Loyalty. Wow. nt.

[Hoyt]

8. Maybe you are as wrong about this, as you were wrong about net neutrality.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5797071

[appal_jack]

19. Yeah, sure. Except the part about me being right then, too.

First of all, it's weird and stalker-ish to bring up unrelated posts from 4 months ago, but whatever.

Secondly, in November 2014, Obama had not done a thing of substance on behalf of net neutrality. I believe that the better outcome since that time resulted thanks to the incredible grass roots campaign of letter writing, social media, etc. (in which I played my own tiny role).

You are free to believe that net neutrality resulted purely from Obama's beneficience, but you don't have a shred of evidence to support such a conclusion.

-app

[Hoyt]

20. You don't know what he did behind the scenes, besides appointing someone who'd take his orders.

It's just like TPP. You guys have no idea what has happened behind the scenes except what you read from sources that also have no idea. Nor do you have any idea of the long-term implications of what might eventually materialize.

Not saying I do either, but I don't think the world -- and Obama -- are out to get me. So, I'll wait and see what materializes. I am sure that sitting on our rears and doing nothing is not going to produce positive results in the long-term.

[appal_jack]

21. Accept TPP Processed Doge Product! Much preservative. Trust ingredients. Such mystery meat. Wow.

[Hoyt]

23. Again, you have been wrong before about such things, but learned nothing.

[appal_jack]

34. On 'Trade,' er, 'Agreements' I have been right for more than 20 years.

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 04:50 PM - Edit history (1)

In the early 1990's, I was a member of the International Forum on Globalization, opposing GATT, the WTO, and NAFTA. Back then, Corporatist Clintonistas posing as Democrats patronizingly letured me about how wrong I was. There were side agreements on labor and the environment! Nothing to worry about!

Two million lost jobs later, as the biosphere itself creaks and groans under the strain of corporate capitalism facilitated by these 'Agreements' (to which I certainly did not agree) on 'Trade' (more about corporate power than free or fair trade), I am confident that my initial estimations have been borne out by painful experience.

And now, here you come along: a corporatist Obama loyalist posing as a Democrat patronizingly leturing me about how wrong I am. Nothing to worry about!



-app

[Hoyt]

35. Krugman: "People I normally agree with, blame NAFTA for things caused by other factors." n/t

[djean111]

9. Fast Track means either the whole stinking thing is passed - or nothing is passed.

This thing sets up Investor courts that supersede sovereign courts, staffed and judged by corporate lawyers, with the taxpayers picking up the tab, seeing their laws and regulations rolled back in the name of profits. With no say in the matter. Obama knows this, Hillary helped write this, and Obama wants Fast Track so nothing can be changed. Only five parts of this agreement have anything to do with trade. But - just think, Vietnam, known to have filthy shrimp to sell us, can now sue in a corporate court because our standards affect their profits. Icing on that rotten cake - no labels to tell us where food comes from - because that may affect profits. No wonder Fast Track is being sought.

[Hoyt]

11. You need to read up on the "Investor Courts." As to Fast Track

Congress still gets to approve the agreement, and the other dozen or so countries party to TPP would have to approve as well. Further, Obama would have to endorse and submit any final agreement to Congress.

Tell me something, if you were a foreign government, and we came to you to negotiate a trade agreement and told you that our Congress would debate, and potentially change, every nit-picky issue in the agreement from font size to worker rights and environmental requirements, would you be inclined to negotiate in earnest? Or would you just say, "hell, the US Congress is full of dumb asses, I'm not wasting my time . . . . . . ."

[djean111]

12. I have seen that there are demonstrations against these agreements in other countries.

And perhaps, in those other countries, the agreements are also being concocted in secret, with only corporate representatives. Interesting that you equate workers' rights and font size and environmental requirements as nit-picky issues.

http://www.citizen.org/investorcases

Among the most dangerous but least known parts of today's "trade" agreements are extraordinary new rights and privileges granted to foreign corporations and investors that formally prioritize corporate rights over the right of governments to regulate and the sovereign right of nations to govern their own affairs. These terms empower individual foreign corporations to skirt domestic courts and directly challenge any policy or action of a sovereign government before World Bank and UN tribunals.

Comprised of three private attorneys, the extrajudicial tribunals are authorized to order unlimited sums of taxpayer compensation for health, environmental, financial and other public interest policies seen as frustrating the corporations' expectations. The amount is based on the "expected future profits" the tribunal surmises that the corporation would have earned in the absence of the public policy it is attacking. There is no outside appeal. Many of these attorneys rotate between acting as tribunal "judges" and as the lawyers launching cases against the government on behalf of the corporations. Under this system, foreign corporations are provided greater rights than domestic firms.

This extreme "investor-state" system already has been included in a series of U.S. "trade" deals, forcing taxpayers to hand more than $400 million to corporations for toxics bans, land-use rules, regulatory permits, water and timber policies and more. Under a similar pact, a tribunal recently ordered payment of more than $2 billion to a multinational oil firm. Just under U.S. deals, more than $38 billion remains pending in corporate claims against medicine patent policies, pollution cleanup requirements, climate and energy laws, and other public interest policies.

[Hoyt]

13. There are demonstrations against everything. The tribunals are for trade disputes. If you worked

for a US company that Japan was allegedly treating unfairly, would you want to have to depend on the Japanese courts to determine if Japan was favoring it's products over yours, even though the USA was allowing their products to be sold here.

I agree there can be some seemingly nutty/unfair rulings in these things, but that doesn't mean the tribunals aren't helpful. Most of the ruling make sense when you get into the facts. The tribunal process might have to be changed, like most things.

You will also find that the judges are not necessarily "corporate lawyers." In fact, each country gets to appoint one of the three "judges," which are often university professors or other experts in the field. Fact is, countries do take advantage of folks from other countries in how trade agreements are handled.

These tribunals have been used for decades by most countries party to trade agreements. It's possible any final TPP -- assuming there is a final agreement submitted to all countries for approval -- might improve the tribunal process.

Again, I think Obama and our trade representatives (who are government officials) have the sense not to submit a bad agreement to Congress. I also think they know more than we do, and for that reason alone I'm willing to wait until I see the final things before assuming Obama is out to sell us down the river.


I'm still convinced Obama will not endorse a final agreement that sells us down the river. I know there are plenty who thought he'd gut Social Security, push the pipeline, work against net neutrality, etc., but he hasn't.

And I believe Obama when he responded to Matt Yglesias a few weeks ago by saying: "Where Americans have a legitimate reason to be concerned is that in part this rise has taken place on the backs of an international system in which China wasn't carrying its own weight or following the rules of the road and we were, and in some cases we got the short end of the stick. This is part of the debate that we're having right now in terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade deal that, you know, we've been negotiating. There are a lot of people who look at the last 20 years and say, 'Why would we want another trade deal that hasn't been good for American workers? It allowed outsourcing of American companies locating jobs in low-wage China and then selling it back to Walmart. And, yes, we got cheaper sneakers, but we also lost all our jobs.'"

"And my argument is two-fold. Number one: precisely because that horse is out of the barn, the issue we're trying to deal with right now is, can we make for a higher bar on labor, on environmental standards, et cetera, in that region and write a set of rules where it's fairer, because right now it's not fair, and if you want to improve it, that means we need a new trading regime. We can't just rely on the old one because the old one isn't working for us."

"But the second reason it's important is because the countries we're negotiating with are the same countries that China is trying to negotiate with. And if we don't write the rules out there, China's going to write the rules. And the geopolitical implications of China writing the rules for trade or maritime law or any kind of commercial activity almost inevitably means that we will be cut out or we will be deeply disadvantaged. Our businesses will be disadvantaged, our workers will be disadvantaged. So when I hear, when I talk to labor organizations, I say, right now, we've been hugely disadvantaged. Why would we want to maintain the status quo? If we can organize a new trade deal in which a country like Vietnam for the first time recognizes labor rights and those are enforceable, that's a big deal. It doesn't mean that we're still not going to see wage differentials between us and them, but they're already selling here for the most part. And what we have the opportunity to do is to set long-term trends that keep us in the game in a place that we've got to be. . . . . . ."

http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-foreign-policy-transcript

[DanTex]

22. Good post Hoyt.

[magical thyme]

29. When Nestle Corp tried to expand its pumping from Maine's aquifer

YOU'RE GODDAM RIGHT I'M GLAD THEY HAD TO SUE IN OUR LOCAL COURTS.

Nestle's CEO believes all water should be privatized. They would have happily pumped our aquifer dry so they could sell water in plastic bottles, ruining our agriculture, forcing my neighbors and me to buy water from them.

You really think it would be better to have a tribunal made up of bought-off friends of Corporations to decide that we were hurting poor wittle Nestle's profits by refusing to let them take our water?

THANK EFFING DAWG when they sued tiny, poor Maine village after tiny, poor Maine village they were unable to buy-off our local judges.

Unlike poor Florida, who's governor sold them out.

[Hoyt]

31. Gosh darn, that's not the kind of law suit that would go to a tribunal.

You need to read up on the issue before making such assumptions. Their Poland Springs water is not very good anyway.

[magical thyme]

33. prove it.

"The leaked text reveals a two-track legal system, with foreign firms empowered to skirt domestic courts and laws to directly sue TPP governments in foreign tribunals.

There they can demand compensation for domestic financial, health, environmental, land use laws and other laws they claim undermine their new "TPP privileges"."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503459&objectid=11365319

"But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

...ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next.

...consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, big corporations."

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

[Scuba]

10. I wish I had that kind of faith in Barack Obama.

Justice declines to pursue allegations that CIA spied on Senate Intelligence Committee
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014843337

Obama DOJ Asks Court to Grant Immunity to George W. Bush For Iraq War
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11781446

NDAA on trial: Obama Administration DOJ fights ban on indefinite detention of Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101748688

DEA and DOJ Struck Deal with Mexico's Most Notorious Drug Cartel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4410768
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-government-and-the-sinaloa-cartel-2014-1#ixzz2qKWem3w8

Chilling Legal Memo From Obama DOJ Justifies Assassination of US Citizens
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654954

DOJ lied to Supreme Court about domestic surveillance
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140514/06214727229/doj-still-trying-to-hide-fact-it-flat-out-lied-to-supreme-court-about-domestic-surveillance.shtml

The Obama administration/DOJ war on whistleblowers and federal unions
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5586389

DOJ Mysteriously Quits Monsanto Antitrust Investigation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021911441

Holder/Obama administration seeks to legalize lying in response to Freedom of Information requests.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5586380

NSA Phone Spying Cannot Be Challenged in Court, Feds Say ..
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/1014542562

The Obama DOJ urged the Supreme Court's endorsement of strip searches for minor traffic stops.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5586369
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002521527

Holder overlooks DEA abuse of spying information, construction of false evidence trails against Americans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1168570

DOJ goes all the way to the SC to argue for warrantless GPS tracking on cars
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5586375

Obama/Holder War on Journalism coming to a head (Risen)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101699216
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/04/obamas-war-journalism-coming-head
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1269998

Obama/Holder more hostile to medical marijuana patients than any president in history
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002650922
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5585204

Feds seek hard prison time for rural Washington pot growers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014801804

DOJ spying on AP reporters, editors re: leaks; other news organizations
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/opinion/spying-on-the-associated-press.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014487549

US DOJ drags out Tesoro investigation (Refinery Explosion) for 4 years; no criminal charges vs. Big Energy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025407823

DOJ drags feet at accountability on Deepwater Horizon
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/04/22/doj-sits-on-its-thumbs/

DOJ Allows Bank of America to Deduct $12 Billion of $17 Billion Settlement
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5427407

Exporting Corruption (Asset Forfeiture), DOJ Looks for Lucrative Overseas Partnerships
http://www.forfeiturereform.com/exporting_corruption_doj_looks_for_lucrative_overseas_partnerships

Obama/Holder Leak Investigations Outrageous and Unprecedented
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/05/obama_s_justice_department_holder_s_leak_investigations_are_outrageous_and.html

The DoJ under Holder refused to prosecute anyone for torture...but Holder had no problem prosecuting a CIA agent who leaked the name of a torturer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022846735
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/former-cia-officer-pleads-guilty-in-leak-case.html?_r=0

Too Big to Jail: Letting criminal banks and bankers off the hook
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024906501
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017201343
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025558689
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014571503
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025503531

Justice Department Sues Telecom for Challenging National Security Letter
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014170619

DOJ Argues ‘No Constitutional Right Not to Become an Informant’
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10025309330

Operation Choke Point- The DOJ using banks to shut down industries they don't like
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024880788

Holder Looks To Overturn Ruling That Would Apply Fair Sentencing Act Retroactively
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023334909

How Eric Holder Facilitated the Most Unjust Presidential Pardon in American History
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023253563

Holder and Obama Dishonesty On Mandatory Minimums, the Drug War and Mass Incarceration
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023492539

US & NSA Accused of (Holder defends) Criminal Privacy Violations in Dozens of Nations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023086724

DOJ defends NSA's Associational Tracking Program; No justification even in Patriot Act
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023455121

US declares socialists Freedom Road a terrorist organization
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2010/09/raid-s29.html

ACLU sues as DOJ ignores surveillance transparency law
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/aclu-sues-doj-ignores-surveillance-transparency-law

Obama Justice Department has launched twice as many Espionage Act prosecutions against domestic leakers as all previous administrations combined.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022276941

The only official punished by DOJ for the illegal NSA program was the one who discussed it. The same is now true of torture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/27/obama-war-on-whistleblowers-purpose

DOJ Drone Memo revealed: Government can overrule 4th amendment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11784727

Heavy Redactions in DOJ Memo leave doubts on Data Surveillance Program
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101952

Justice Department And NSA Memos Proposing Broader Powers For NSA To Collect Data
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023114180

DOJ's outrageously aggressive prosecution of internet activist, Aaron Swartz
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/al-franken-eric-holder_n_2934627.html

Bradley Birkenfeld, UBS Whistleblower, Finds Himself in Federal Prison
http://www.cnbc.com//id/41257962

Holder/DOJ sided with Rove in politically motivated prosecution of fr. AL governor, Don Siegelman,
Then, the person who handled the paperwork, got onto the Supreme Court.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Elena-Kagan--Willing-Acco-by-Michael-Collins-100622-971.html

[nationalize the fed]

25. + 54

[TheKentuckian]

15. This isn't Obama's first trade deal. Tell us all about his revolutionary changes.

[Hoyt]

16. Why don't you tell us how those trade deals have hurt us, and how doing nothing would have made

things better.

[TheKentuckian]

17. I may but don't have to because I'm not the one advocating here you are

The burden of proof is on you if there is any.

You argue that this agreement will be beneficial where previous efforts were not because of the involvement of Obama but refuse to explain what is different with Obama's deals that make them more beneficial to American workers when it would seem the direct evidence of a working example would really bolster the central logic of the case you are making which I think is really, really strange.
Why not make the argument more of a slam dunk if it holds water?

I say you got nothing and know it so you are appealing to faith and authority.

[Hoyt]

18. So you don't have anything. These agreements usually have long-term impact, not short-term.

Unfortunately, they often preserve much of what we already have as opposed to doing nothing and watching it dwindle faster.

It's tough responding to naive people on these type issues.

[Fumesucker]

24. The Republicans think the TPP is a good idea evidently

I haven't heard much if any screeching from the right about the TPP.

[pampango]

26. Republican POLITICIANS love it. Their BASE hates it much more than our base does. n/t

[Hekate]

3. I'm for that.

[Populist_Prole]

4. Yeah. When TPTB are pushing this hard for it, you know it's rotten to the core

We can't get a little bit pregnant either: Fast-tracking this thing is an all-or nothing deal...one that can't be fixed if ( ahem...when ) it goes wrong, as the "wrong" will be glibly rationalized away.

At least without fast-track, there's at least a better chance of this thing being picked apart to the degree that the corporatists who wrote it will find less appeal to having it passed since it won't be lucrative enough to satisfy their greed.

[appal_jack]

7. Indeed. I regret that I have but one rec to give... Kicking Anyway. nt

[msongs]

6. obama values: in secret and fast track/up or down only vote to shut off changes nt

[NCTraveler]

14. You can't understand it.

We just need to pass it so you will know how good it is for you.

[pampango]

27. And let's publicly debate the content of the Iranian negotiations (Bibi and repubs would love that).

BTW, the agreement with Iran - if it happens - will be on the ultimate 'fast track' since it will not be submitted to congress at all, unless republicans get their way.

At least the TPP - if it happens - will be debated and voted on by congress.

Too bad we couldn't debate the negotiations with Cuba when they were being conducted, but we did not even know about them. The same goes for the climate agreements with China and India. Secret negotiations, no public debate about their content and the 'ultimate fast track' to approval.

Or are the potential for nuclear war in the Middle East or the 3 largest polluting countries in the world reducing pollution and combatting global climate change not as important as a trade agreement?

[KG]

28. what's to debate? it must be chock full of jobs, pay raises and soybean shitting unicorns

because, well, obama!

[mmonk]

30. Thanks.

[woo me with science]

32. kick