7
   

The new trade agreements

 
 
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 07:46 pm
I haven't seen a thread about this. It seems we are in the process of getting sold out by both political parties in the guise of free trade. Do you have any thoughts about it?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/04/18/obamas-trade-agreements-are-gift-corporations




On Thursday, legislation moved forward that would give President Obama authority to negotiate two contentious trade deals: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). But for the most part, these aren’t trade agreements at all. They’re a gift to corporations, here and in partner countries, that claim to be restrained by domestic regulations.

If these deals pass, the pharmaceutical industry could get new leverage to undermine regulations requiring the use of generic drugs. The tobacco industry has used similar “trade” provisions to attack cigarette package warnings.

A provision in both deals, known as Investor State Dispute Settlement, would allow corporations to do end runs around national governments by taking their claims to special tribunals, with none of the due process of normal law. This provision has attracted the most opposition. It’s such a stinker that one of the proposed member nations, Australia, got an exemption for its health and environmental policies.

To get so-called fast-track treatment for these deals, the administration needs special trade promotion authority from Congress. But Obama faces serious opposition in his own party, and he will need lots of Republican votes. He has to hope that Republicans are more eager to help their corporate allies than to embarrass this president by voting down one of his top priorities.

But the real intriguing question is why Obama invests so much political capital in promoting agreements like these. They do little for the American economy, and even less for its workers.

The trade authority vote had been bottled up while the Senate Finance Committee Chair, Orrin Hatch of Utah, and his Democratic counterpart, Ron Wyden of Oregon, worked out compromise language in the hope of winning over skeptical Democrats. The measure announced Thursday includes vague language on protections for labor and environmental standards, human rights, and Internet freedoms. Congress would get slightly longer to review the text, but it would still have to be voted on as a package that could not be amended.

Wyden trumpeted these provisions as breakthroughs, but they were scorned by leading labor and environmental critics as window dressing. Lori Wallach, of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, points out that the language is almost identical to that of a 2014 bill that had to be withdrawn for lack of support. Only about a dozen House Democrats are said to support the measure — and many Republicans won’t back it unless more Democrats do.

But why would they, at a time when Hillary Clinton sounds more populist and momentum is increasing for campaigns to raise the minimum wage? Speaking last week at the Brookings Institution, Jason Furman, chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, proclaimed that, according to an elaborate economic model, by 2025 the Pacific deal would increase US incomes by 0.4 percent, or about $77 billion.

That’s pretty small beer. And as Furman admitted, the projection is only as good as its economic assumptions. One such heroic assumption is full employment, but this deal might well reduce US employment by increasing our trade deficit.

The TPP was rolled out with great fanfare in 2012 as part of Obama’s “pivot to Asia.” The subtext was that a Pacific trade deal would help contain China’s influence in its own backyard.

Since then, Beijing has unveiled a development bank that rivals the US-dominated World Bank, and our closest allies — Britain, France, Germany, Italy — are lined up to join. It’s not at all clear how the TPP, whose only large Asian member would be Japan, helps contain China, whose economic influence continues to grow.

Basically, ever since the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1993 (NAFTA), trade policy has been on autopilot. Tariffs are now quite low, and these deals are mainly about dismantling health, safety, consumer, labor, environment, and corporate regulations.

These agreements are conceived and drafted by corporations, and sponsored by both political parties. For the Obama administration, the key official negotiating these deals is US Trade Ambassador Michael Froman, a protégé of former Citigroup and Goldman Sachs executive Robert Rubin, who was a big promoter of NAFTA while serving as Bill Clinton’s top economic official.

Mainly, these deals help cement a corporate alliance with the presidential wing of the Democratic Party and divert attention from the much tougher challenge of enacting policies that would actually raise living standards. In the closing days of the Obama era, this is what passes for bipartisanship.

Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine, as well as a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the think tank Demos. He was a longtime columnist for Business Week, and continues to write columns in the Boston Globe and Huffington Post. He is the author of A Presidency in Peril: The Inside Story of Obama's Promise, Wall Street's Power, and the Struggle to Control our Economic Future, Obama's Challenge, and other books.
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 08:33 pm
Difficult subject. I am opposed to Obama pushing the TPP without having
any transparency for other lawmakers to counteract and/or decide if he is
getting us into hot water.

I am afraid with Obama's track record that core factors won't be resolved - China will never sign to our pollution requirements, nor will they allow quality control in their factories. American workers will have to compete with Asian counterparts who make anywhere from $2.00 to $3.00/hour - impossible to do!

Personally, I am very concerned that we allow quantity over quality to enter the U.S. and that the big corporations (Chevron, etc.) are the only ones profiting from it.

He for sure won't get Hilary Clinton to support him. She will need the support from unions and other liberal sources to help her in her campaign. Hilary has dealt with TPP for a long time and Obama should consult her and take her recommendations. Elizabeth Warren is already cautioning that the Senate does not have enough insight in the complicated trade agreements and that the American working population will get shafted.

NAFTA took many manufacturing jobs away from Americans, TPP will do the same and then some more.

Despite having voted for Obama, I can see his weak points and his indecisiveness as well as his misunderstanding of how other nations operate. TPP foremost will help China, Malaysia, Vietnam and perhaps Chile and Peru, not so much Japan, Australia , New Zealand and the United States.

My 2 cents!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 08:59 pm
I have been reading bits about it from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and they make it seem too dire. Like it's perhaps the final piece to total dominance over the American people.
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 09:13 pm
@edgarblythe,
It will affect the entire world, edgar, here is a passage I took from the TPP site
"TPP raises significant concerns about citizens’ freedom of expression, due process, innovation, the future of the Internet’s global infrastructure, and the right of sovereign nations to develop policies and laws that best meet their domestic priorities. In sum, the TPP puts at risk some of the most fundamental rights that enable access to knowledge for the world’s citizens."

That's major in my book. We become absolutely transparent while our
government goes the opposite way.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Apr, 2015 09:26 pm
The part that says they will be able to do end runs around a nation's laws and take their case to a committee that can overturn a government's ruling is pretty disturbing too.
CalamityJane
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2015 12:05 pm
@edgarblythe,
Elizabeth Warren is criticizing Obama on the trade agreement and I tend to agree with her.

Now Obama is shooting back.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/22/401521322/obama-says-elizabeth-warren-is-wrong-on-trade
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2015 12:24 pm
@CalamityJane,
I read about that. She and Bernie Sanders in particular have our backs on this. Pelosi and Reid seem against it too, if I remember the news very well.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2015 08:44 pm
@edgarblythe,
I have read articles that say that it might have trouble in the house. WERE SCREWED!!!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 01:37 pm
The Senate has rejected Obama's fast-track authority for the TPP in a stunning victory for workers and the environment. Now it's nearly impossible for the corporate trade deal to pass before Congress begins recess on Memorial Day. SHARE if you will vote against any member of Congress who votes to send jobs overseas! http://bit.ly/1zWUF1n
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 01:43 pm
@CalamityJane,
I saw this by Warren, cjane:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/11/us-trade-obama-warren-idUSKBN0NW1N020150511
I agree with her too.

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 06:18 pm
Are people as passive as they seem about this issue or is it they are just waiting to see what happens?
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 06:26 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Are people as passive as they seem about this issue or is it they are just waiting to see what happens?


Stunned into passivity. What does Obama gain from pulling this crap?

Elizabeth Warren wrote:
This isn't a partisan issue. I don’t often agree with the conservative Cato Institute, and I suspect they don’t often agree with me. But the head of Cato’s trade policy program said:

"[ISDS] raises serious questions about democratic accountability, sovereignty, checks and balances, and the separation of power... Sen. Warren’s perspective on ISDS is one that libertarians and other free market advocates should share."
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 06:58 pm
It's similar to the tactics used by Bill Clinton. Play to the constituents, with certain "acceptable" themes, but pass stuff that helps big business over them at the same time.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 07:17 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/sherrod-brown-trade-bill_n_7269594.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has been the public face of the Democratic Party's feud with President Barack Obama over his trade agenda. But behind the scenes, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) quietly united his party behind a strategy that resulted in a major defeat Tuesday for the president.

Brown's weeks of work came to fruition when Democrats voted to block legislation that would have given Obama so-called fast-track trade authority. Fast-track authority would strip Congress of the ability to amend trade deals negotiated by the president and is essential for the passage of Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal the administration is negotiating with 11 Pacific nations.

Brown’s opposition to giving Obama expedited powers to funnel a trade deal through Congress is no surprise, but his hand in uniting Democrats, specifically those supporting fast-track, proved pivotal on Tuesday.


Democrats held up the fast-track legislation in the Senate Finance Committee for months, until Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) cut a deal with Obama and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), securing a handful of Democratic concessions. But Hatch didn't package those concessions into the fast-track bill itself. Instead, they were included in other pieces of legislation that were considered at the same markup hearing. Trade Adjustment Assistance, a program that provides job training and financial aid for workers who lose their jobs to foreign trade, was presented as its own bill, as was a customs enforcement bill.

Hatch allowed a handful of other Democratic amendments to sail through in the enforcement bill. The two most important items cleared with bipartisan support. Both were Brown projects that would significantly alter TPP and the enforcement of other existing trade deals.

To get Senate leadership on board, Brown immediately reached out to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) following the Finance Committee’s markup of those bills, arguing they should be voted on as a package. "Hatch was already making noises that he would pull out TAA and pull out customs," Brown told reporters after Tuesday's vote, referring to individual provisions. Reid took it from there, threatening, in an interview with The Huffington Post on May 4, that Democrats would block moving to a fast-track bill unless all four measures were considered together.

“It seemed to be coming together right from the start, from the moment I talked to Senator Reid about it,” Brown said.

Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, Brown said he made some 25 calls to members of his caucus, urging them to vote against bringing the fast-track bill to the chamber floor because it did not include commitments on enforcement.

“I talked to people particularly who were pro-TPA,” Brown said. “Some people [I called] two or three times, mostly talking to people who were already for TPA, some that were undecided.”

One Democratic aide told The Huffington Post that Brown “gave a pretty impassioned plea in caucus and has been calling his colleagues over the past few weeks to encourage them.” The aide added Brown had “many” one-on-one conversations with leadership.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) confirmed Brown’s role in rallying Democrats behind a strategy that called for a vote on all four trade bills.

“Sen. Brown brought it up to me right away," Durbin said shortly before the vote. "He thought keeping them as a package was critical and he worked the caucus on it."

Brown was the only senator to sign a letter with Warren firing back at Obama, after the president accused her and other trade critics of being "dishonest" about the trade debate.

Brown scolded Obama for his comments toward Warren, calling it “disrespectful” by “referring to her as her first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps?"

Brown said it’s now up to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to decide whether he will bring the bill up again.

“If McConnell thinks it's killed, it's killed," Brown said. "If McConnell wants to bring it back with all four provisions, it would be on the floor today and we'd be debating it and the amendment process would begin.”

McConnell indicated earlier on Tuesday that he was willing to loop Trade Adjustment Assistance to fast-track, but not the customs enforcement bill.

The Senate fight, however, is just a warm-up for the House battle, which promises to be even more difficult for backers of the trade bill. In the House, tea party Republicans are deeply skeptical of the trade deals, with many grassroots activists considering TPP to be a step toward a one-world government.

"The House doesn't have the votes to pass any one of these individually," Brown said, except a small one that relates to Africa and Haiti. "They've got to figure out how they hold the four together [in the House]. It's not my job to figure out how to pass something in the House."

For his part, McConnell said he remained committed “to processing TPA and TAA, and other policies Chairman Hatch and Senator Wyden can agree to” after Tuesday’s vote. “But blocking the Senate from even debating such an important issue is not the answer,” he added.

Still, Democrats want more, including an amendment offered by Brown and Wyden during the committee markup that would ban products made with forced labor from entering the U.S. It's a straightforward human rights project that received nine votes each from Republicans and Democrats. But three countries currently involved in TPP talks -- Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei -- are forced-labor hotbeds.

While the Obama administration has persistently argued that TPP will include robust labor protections, most Democrats remain skeptical that those standards will be enforced. The administration has a poor record of enforcing labor rules in existing trade deals, but the Brown-Wyden amendment wouldn't depend on trade staffers sorting out foreign worker abuses before international panels. It would direct domestic law enforcement to send back any products made with forced labor. While that would almost certainly be permitted under TPP, it would reduce the value of the deal for Vietnam and Malaysia.

The other amendment, penned by Brown and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), would combat currency manipulation by foreign governments, a top priority for Democrats. By devaluing their currency, governments can make their own goods cheaper overseas without lowering standards of living domestically. While China is the most notorious currency manipulator, Japan and other countries involved in the TPP talks have been almost as aggressive.

The Schumer-Brown amendment would require the U.S. Department of Commerce to include the effects of currency manipulation in considering whether to bring a trade case against a foreign country. It isn't limited to TPP, and could apply to cases that American firms want to bring against China.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 07:46 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

The Senate has rejected Obama's fast-track authority for the TPP in a stunning victory for workers and the environment. Now it's nearly impossible for the corporate trade deal to pass before Congress begins recess on Memorial Day. SHARE if you will vote against any member of Congress who votes to send jobs overseas! http://bit.ly/1zWUF1n


I never saw a plan or an explanation for how The Professor planned to bring the D's onboard. Was there ever one? Is this yet another case where he expected to get his hearts content without ever doing the work to make it happen? I have a bad feeling that what he was driving towards was "**** you all, I tried, dont blame me for nothing getting done". It would be a complete lie but it leaves him walking away thinking that he smells like a rose.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 08:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
“I believe in this,” Obama said of the trade deal, “the same way… that I believe in a higher minimum wage. The same way that I believe in stronger protections for workers who are trying to get a voice in their company. The same way I believe in equal pay. The same way I believe in paid sick leave.”

But Obama’s actions haven’t matched his words, and he didn’t require Republicans to accept any of those priorities before he joined them in pushing for free-trade legislation. Senate Republicans drove more Democrats into opposition when they declined requests to bring up other trade-related bills other than legislation offering a meager (and reduced) amount of training funds for workers who lose their jobs.

At the White House, press secretary Josh Earnest called Tuesday’s vote a “procedural snafu.” But Obama was undone by more than procedure. His would-be successor, Hillary Clinton, was not courageous enough to take a position on the trade legislation, but her silence gave Democrats more freedom to oppose it. And Democrats in Congress bristled at Obama’s disparagement of opponents of the trade bill as emotional, illogical and dishonest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/populist-democrats-hand-obama-a-stinging-defeat-on-tpp/2015/05/12/aec9be02-f8e7-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html?hpid=z2

Well ****, how does it feel to be on the receiving end of The Professors hostile tantrum? I wont hold my breath waiting for the D's to object when the emotional blowtorch is turned again on the R's, they well again take their place in the peanut gallery to cheer him on.
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 09:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Well ****, how does it feel to be on the receiving end of The Professors hostile tantrum? I wont hold my breath waiting for the D's to object when the emotional blowtorch is turned again on the R's, they well again take their place in the peanut gallery to cheer him on.


If I may change the subject, how do you feel about the actual trade deal?
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 09:19 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:

The Senate fight, however, is just a warm-up for the House battle, which promises to be even more difficult for backers of the trade bill. In the House, tea party Republicans are deeply skeptical of the trade deals, with many grassroots activists considering TPP to be a step toward a one-world government.


I thought they were only against world governments of a democratic nature.

Well, we can only hope this prediction comes true. I won't look a gift horse in the mouth.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 May, 2015 09:21 pm
@Kolyo,
Kolyo wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Well ****, how does it feel to be on the receiving end of The Professors hostile tantrum? I wont hold my breath waiting for the D's to object when the emotional blowtorch is turned again on the R's, they well again take their place in the peanut gallery to cheer him on.


If I may change the subject, how do you feel about the actual trade deal?


I cant very well comment on a government plan that the government refuses to release detail on.

Quote:
If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.
If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.


And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/secrecy-eroding-support-for-trade-pact-critics-say-117581.html#ixzz3Zz8zcSPh


we are after all the country that runs secret courts and the writes secret laws.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 May, 2015 06:51 am
I believe that when a bill of this magnitude gets this far, some form of it is very likely to pass, eventually. Hope I am wrong. We can only wish if it does the very bad parts are modified.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The new trade agreements
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/02/2024 at 06:25:38