The new trade agreements

If they are secret, how do you know what we are agreeing to?

But no, I am not ok with corporations forcing congress to change our laws.

You dont know what the deal is because the government will not tell you, but you should if you are not stupid take the FACT that the government will not tell you as a bad sign.

It is probably a mistake for the administration not to publish the trade agreements. They may have their reasons, but politically, it makes it look like they have something to hide. As well, there are probably things in there in which liberals and independents would not agree with. I hope the agreement does not have all the things in it which I have been hearing like corporations and oil companies having the right to run their companies as they see fit regardless of our laws. That is the one which is worrying me the most.

In any event, our country can not be isolationists in the global market, we would be left behind and it would weaken our position in the world.

I need to hear the explanation if there is one. Till then I will proceed as if there is not one...I am a show me kinda guy.

Since the Carter years we have done a ton to further advantage those who hold the societies financial wealth, I am pretty damn sure that a lot of this putting the finger on the scale advantage rich has not been a good idea. We had to do something after the 70's, the economic rot was clear then, but just about every damn thing can be toxic if we get too much.

Grassroots, Unions Threaten Dems With Defeat Over Trade Support
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/10/fast-track-trade-2016_n_7555966.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Don't know how strong this stand is, but I support the unions and others who fight the trade bill.

I'll say this, if blacks, unions and the youth boycott this election because they feel burned by washington then we are going to have the R's running everything.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Tuesday handed President Barack Obama the biggest legislative victory of his second term, with a dramatic vote clearing the way for major trade agreements with Pacific Rim nations and the European Union.

The 60-37 vote all but ensures the passage of legislation that will allow Obama to "fast-track" his negotiated trade pacts through Congress, preventing filibusters or amendments. Liberals have long assailed Obama's trade agenda, but Republicans successfully wooed a bloc of Democrats led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to secure enough votes to overcome a filibuster.

With the 60-vote threshold cleared, the path is now open for the Senate to take a final vote on the legislation on Wednesday.


The fate of the bill, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, hinged on whether backers of the fast-track legislation could win over Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Chris Coons (Del.). All three had pushed Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to allow a vote reauthorizing the soon-to-expire Export-Import Bank as part of any deal on TPA. They didn't get one. On his way to the Senate floor, Coons lambasted the chamber for letting financing for exports lapse by failing to reach a deal on the Ex-Im Bank, but it wasn't enough to sway his vote. All three Democrats voted to move forward.

The vote still came down to the wire, thanks to an eleventh-hour reversal by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who announced his opposition in a bombastic op-ed for Breitbart News that sent McConnell scrambling for additional Democratic support.

Still, the razor-thin margin of the final vote count masks the fact that McConnell had slightly broader support at his disposal. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) stood by the table in the well of the Senate for most of the vote, waiting for the measure to get across the threshold of 60. As soon as it did, with a vote by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Cardin voted no, suggesting he had been willing to vote yes if needed.

As Heller rushed onto the chamber floor, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), standing right outside the door, smiled at him and shouted: "Here's Mr. 60!"

Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), both opponents of the trade legislation, missed the vote, as did supporter Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

The revival of Obama's trade agenda follows a wild month of congressional maneuvering during which House Democrats nearly derailed the entire project by defeating a Trade Adjustment Assistance measure that would provide financial aid and job training to workers who lose their jobs due to foreign competition.

Although Democrats overwhelmingly support TAA, they revolted against it in the House for tactical reasons. Because the TPA bill depended on TAA's passage, the Democratic defection on TAA dealt an embarrassing, although ultimately temporary, blow to the prospects for Obama's trade pacts.

Now, the fate of the TAA bill remains undecided. Many Senate Democrats insisted their vote on Wednesday was conditional on the passage of separate TAA legislation. The Senate will likely pass that legislation on Wednesday, but the bill faces steeper challenges in the House, where Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it. Obama has said he wants both TAA and the fast-track bill to be enacted. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he will deliver the votes necessary for its passage.

Murray, on her way to the Senate floor, told reporters she'd been given assurances by McConnell and Boehner that Congress would take up assistance to workers displaced by the deal. In the prior Senate vote on TPA, which took place in May, Murray had urged Democrats not to vote with McConnell without major concessions from the GOP leader. She and Cantwell ultimately cut a deal with McConnell to get a vote reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. McConnell embarrassed Murray by delivering only a nonbinding vote on the measure.

Democrats now hope to attach a reauthorization to a highway bill as an amendment.

Wyden said Tuesday that Boehner's late promises helped win votes.

"I thought the Speaker's news release this morning was helpful in that regard," Wyden said. The senator added that he had spoken to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (Wis.) about a separate customs bill that would plug loopholes in trade enforcement, but did not reveal whether Ryan had committed to a path forward for it.

Votes on the trade deals themselves will come later in Obama's tenure, and the fast-track authority will extend into the next presidency. First in line, however, is the Trans-Pacific Partnership with 11 other Pacific Rim nations. Democrats, labor unions, environmental groups and open Internet advocates have sharply criticized leaked drafts of the pact, saying it will exacerbate income inequality and undermine key regulations. Obama, Republican leaders and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have all said the deal will boost economic growth.

While the TPP pact is all but certain to pass the Senate, the deal's critics now hang their hopes on tea party Republicans in the House and the complexities of the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are White House hopefuls who are dependent on tea party votes, and both voted against the fast-track bill on Tuesday. The House last week narrowly approved fast-track 218 to 208, with 50 Republicans opposed, a number that will have to increase if opponents hope to defeat TPP.

Ryan Grim and Laura Barron-Lopez contributed reporting.

Everyone seemed really happy when we were told Affordable Care Act would be partly paid for by 'savings' from Medicare to the tune of 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 billion over a ten year period. Of course, AARP's joyful support cost them one member, though I doubt they miss me very much.

I have been bad mouthing AARP for a long time. They are basically feeding off the old people.

Me too. Cheap dues, and what wonderful benefits. An offer a week for health insurance, life insurance, and all the targeted advertising you can stand. We were a valuable resource.

But, but you get 1/2 of 1 % off your motel bill if you present an aarp card.

That's all? I think they do better than that. Denny's does. They're good for 15% and as a veteran I only get 10%. That alone would pay the annual dues, but I be stubborn.

Robert Reich
1 hr ·
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman will travel to New Zealand Feb. 4 to join 11 other trade ministers in a formal signing ceremony for the Trans Pacific Partnership. After that, it’s up to Congress to pass it. The Obama administration wants a majority vote before Election Day.
Today the nonpartisan Peterson Institute for International Economics issued the most comprehensive analysis to date on the likely consequences of the deal. It finds that the TPP will boost American exports by 9 percent a year and increase overall economic growth. But it will not increase the number of jobs in the U.S., and could force 50,000 U.S. workers each year to find new jobs. Those displaced workers “may experience serious transition costs including lasting wage cuts and unemployment,” according to the report.
So, do we want to grow the economy and add to the nation’s overall wealth (presumably, mostly at the top), but cause a significant number of Americans whose wages are already dropping to face even lower wages and more job cuts? That’s the direction we’ve been going for the past 35 years. The Trans Pacific Partnership will only hasten it.

Robert Reich
1 hr ·
This week's essay:
The Truth About Trade Deals
I used to believe in trade agreements. That was before the wages of most Americans stagnated and a relative few at the top captured just about all the economic gains.
The old-style trade agreements of the 1960s and 1970s increased worldwide demand for products made by American workers, and thereby helped push up American wages.
The new-style agreements increase worldwide demand for products made by American corporations all over the world, enhancing corporate and financial profits but keeping American wages down.
The fact is, recent trade deals are less about trade and more about global investment.
Big American corporations no longer make many products in the United States for export abroad. Most of what they sell abroad they make abroad.
The biggest things they “export” are ideas, designs, franchises, brands, engineering solutions, instructions, and software, coming from a relatively small group of managers, designers, and researchers in the U.S.
The Apple iPhone is assembled in China from components made in Japan, Singapore, and a half-dozen other locales. The only things coming from the U.S. are designs and instructions from a handful of engineers and managers in California.
Apple even stows most of its profits outside the U.S. so it doesn’t have to pay American taxes on them.
Recent “trade” deals have been wins for big corporations and Wall Street, along with their executives and major shareholders, because they get better direct access to foreign markets and billions of consumers.
They also get better protection for their intellectual property – patents, trademarks, and copyrights -- and for their overseas factories, equipment, and financial assets.
That’s why big corporations and Wall Street are so enthusiastic about the Trans Pacific Partnership – the giant deal among countries responsible for 40 percent of the global economy.
That deal would give giant corporations even more patent protection overseas. And it would allow them to challenge any nation’s health, safety, and environmental laws that stand in the way of their profits – including our own.
But recent trade deals haven’t been wins for most Americans.
By making it easier for American corporations to make things abroad, the deals have reduced the bargaining power of American workers to get better wages here.
The Trans Pacific Trade Partnership’s investor protections will make it safer for firms to relocate abroad – the Cato Institute describes such protections as “lowering the risk premium” on offshoring – thereby further reducing corporate incentives to make and do things in the United States, using and upgrading the skills of Americans.
Proponents say giant deals like the TPP are good for the growth of the United States economy. But that argument begs the question of whose growth they’re talking about.
Almost all the growth goes to the richest 1 percent. The rest of us can buy some products cheaper than before, but most of those gains would are offset by wage losses.
In theory, the winners could fully compensate the losers and still come out ahead. But the winners don’t compensate the losers.
For example, it’s ironic that the Administration is teaming up with congressional Republicans to enact the TPP, when congressional Republicans have done just about everything they can to keep down the wages of most Americans.
They’ve refused to raise the minimum wage (whose inflation-adjusted value is now almost 25 percent lower than it was in 1968), expand unemployment benefits, invest in job training, enlarge the Earned Income Tax Credit, improve the nation’s infrastructure, or expand access to public higher education.
They’ve embraced budget austerity that has slowed job and wage growth. And they’ve continued to push “trickle-down” economics – keeping tax rates low for America’s richest, protecting their tax loopholes, and fighting off any attempt to raise taxes on wealthy inheritances to their level before 2000.
I’ve seen first-hand how effective Wall Street and big corporations are at wielding influence – using lobbyists, campaign donations, and subtle promises of future jobs to get the global deals they want.
Global deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership will boost the profits of Wall Street and big corporations, and make the richest 1 percent even richer. But they’ll contribute the to steady shrinkage of the American middle class.

No. Corporations can't do that because of a treaty. A treaty can be withdrawn from even if signed and ratified. Instead of being forced to change laws, Congress can just pass a law to withdraw from the treaty.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35300-fools-or-liars-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership
The TPP will put into question every health, safety and environmental regulation that governments at any level seek to implement. The assurances from the Obama administration to the contrary on this front are absolutely worthless. The TPP sets up an extra-judicial system, not bound by precedent and not subject to appeal, which can impose large fines for any measure it chooses. Former President Obama will not be pulling money out of his personal bank account to compensate anyone if his assurances prove to be wrong.

But the most pernicious part of the deal is its extension of protectionism in the form of stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. This will raise the price of the protected products, most importantly prescription drugs.

While the public in the United States has been focusing on making drugs cheaper, our TPP negotiators were working to make them more expensive. High drug prices are a serious problem in the United States; they can prove deadly in poorer countries where large segments of the population can't afford to pay Pfizer tens of thousands of dollars for the drugs on which it holds patent monopolies. Incredibly, it doesn't seem the Peterson Institute folks included the impact of these protections in its modeling of the TPP.

The long and short is that the TPP offers almost none of the classic benefits associated with free trade, since it does very little in terms of reducing trade barriers. The deal is about increasing corporate profits at the expense of the public in all of the countries that are parties.