Slowing The Fast Track Down
There's a big political fight happening in Washington, but for once it does not break down easily along partisan lines. There are free-traders among both the Democrats and the Republicans, and opposition exists on both sides as well. But the main skirmish in this fight is currently happening between President Obama and some of his fellow Democrats. While both sides have valid points to make in this disagreement, I find that both sides are also being a bit disingenuous in their rhetoric and their tactics.
First, the facts. Here's where we are, at the moment. The Obama administration has been hammering out a Pacific Rim trade agreement with many countries in order to open borders and reduce costs to trade around the Pacific Ocean. They have not released a draft of the agreement they have so far negotiated. Drafts have reportedly been available to hundreds of corporate executives in the United States, however, for them to make comments and suggestions. Drafts are provided to Congress, but the text remains "classified," meaning that Congress is not exactly free to comment upon it to the public (lest they be accused of leaking classified information).
Congress will get a chance to vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (or "T.P.P.") agreement, and the text will become declassified before they do. The public will indeed get a chance to see what's in it before Congress votes on it. But this week Congress is voting on a related bill, which gives the president "fast-track authority" on trade agreements. This is essentially Congress tying its own hands, and giving up some of its legislative power to the executive branch. Fast-track authority is not a new thing -- other presidents have been granted this power by Congresses reaching back to the 1970s -- but the earlier laws have lapsed, meaning Obama does not currently have this power. Fast-track means Congress only gets an up-or-down vote on any trade agreement proposed by the president; they cannot amend it or otherwise change the text of the agreement in any way. They can only accept it or reject it, as is.
Progressive Democrats are currently leading the fight against both the T.P.P. and against giving President Obama fast-track authority. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been the most prominent voice in this debate, so far. Progressives worry that if Obama is granted fast-track authority, it will mean the T.P.P. has enough votes to pass, and they won't have any say in what it contains.
On the other side, President Obama has been pretty dismissive of the complaints, getting downright personal at times in his scathing rejection of the T.P.P. critics. Obama is refusing to make the draft of the agreement public until after the fast-track vote is held, though. By the time the public gets to debate the details, the only options for Congress will be to accept or reject it. Obama, back when he was a candidate running for president, had some very harsh things to say about NAFTA, a free-trade law signed by President Bill Clinton. Now, he assures us, he's gotten a much better deal that solves many of the problems NAFTA had. But all we have, at this point, is his word that this is the case.
Both sides are being disingenuous, though, at least to some degree. Some Progressives are hoping to deny Obama fast-track authority so that they can send the T.P.P. draft through the full congressional legislative process. This means "death by committee," because they know they'll be able to tinker with the details so much that the other countries pull out of the agreement (Congress will, essentially, be negotiating with itself over the agreement, without the input of the other countries involved). By doing so, these Progressives know that they've got a good chance of killing the deal one way or another -- something which may not be possible if Congress only gets an up-or-down vote on a static draft. Some Progressives are saying: "We're for free trade, but it's got to be fair trade (as we define that term)," to try to sound reasonable, but what they are really saying is: "We think we can sabotage the entire effort, because we're against these deals on principle."
President Obama, however, is also being disingenuous. He keeps trying to convince the media (and wavering Democrats in Congress) that all the criticism over the T.P.P. draft language is completely unfounded and not based in the reality of what the text says. Obama has also been using a strawman argument, since he's attempting to paint all critics of the draft as being "anti-free-traders." In some cases, this label might actually apply, but not in every case. There are Democrats who genuinely do want to reach a trade agreement, but also want their specific concerns addressed before the draft language is set in stone. But the real disingenuousness from Obama is that he's making a case which cannot currently be accurately verified, by either the press or the public. The draft is still classified, so the public has no idea what it actually says. This makes it tough for Obama to address specific critiques, but then it's always tough trying to sell a pig in a poke. Instead of actually addressing the specifics, Obama is left questioning the motives and politics of his critics.
Both sides have a point, though. There is an excellent reason why the executive branch conducts international negotiations of this type. The reason is that it is downright impossible for other countries to negotiate with 535 members of Congress. We'd never get any international deals if every little committee in Congress got their own chance to monkey with the language. We can barely get domestic business done in Congress, after all, without occasional government shutdowns. This is precisely the reason fast-track authority was created in the first place. Past Congresses knew they'd just screw up any negotiations, so they handed all the negotiating power over to the White House.
Progressives, though, have an even stronger point of their own. The whole secrecy blanket that's been thrown over the T.P.P. process is insulting to the public. How, after all, can a document of this type be "classified material" when hundreds of corporate executives have already gotten the chance to read it and offer changes? This not just stretches the definition of "classified" beyond recognition, it also makes a complete mockery of the democratic process. Big Business gets to weigh in, but the public doesn't even get to read the text? If anyone can explain why this isn't just naked oligarchy (or plutocracy), I'm all ears. People speak of billionaires buying politicians and buying elections, but this is even worse -- because it represents nothing short of multinational corporations writing the laws themselves, in secret.
President Obama could have handled this differently, of course. He could have been making the case for what is in the T.P.P. directly to the public. His administration could have could have launched a media blitz to explain all the details in the best light possible, in an effort to lobby both the public and Congress on the virtues of the deal. They didn't. If they had, Progressives could have made their case for strengthening certain provisions in the deal while it was still actively being negotiated. The administration's negotiators could have gone back to the bargaining table and told the other countries "this is unacceptable to our Congress, therefore if this remains in the deal we will not agree to it." But this was not done, so this opportunity may have been lost.
One has to wonder what, exactly, they're keeping so secret. What are we going to find out about the deal after the fast-track vote in Congress? What odious little clauses, oversights, and loopholes will be revealed? We have no way of knowing, as things stand. The White House is saying "trust us," but it refuses to reveal concrete details.
Much of the attention in this fight is on the T.P.P. agreement itself, but the fast-track authority will outlive this one agreement. Whether the T.P.P. is ultimately agreed to or not by this Congress, the fast-track bill is actually the more important of the two, since it will outlast even President Obama's term in office. This means the Progressives are right in trying to derail the fast-track bill right now. Whatever their motivations (whether they're against all free trade agreements, or whether they're just concerned over this particular one), if Congress refuses to agree to fast-track authority this week then Obama will have little choice but to make the T.P.P. draft public before he can expect to gain the fast-track authority he may need to get it passed.
This doesn't necessarily mean the death of the whole deal, though. Congressional leaders from both parties could agree to hold a future vote on fast-track before they vote on the T.P.P. itself. This would avoid the death-of-a-thousand-cuts in committees that could kill the T.P.P. altogether, but this way the vote on fast-track could be taken after the public knows what is in the deal on the table. If the deal truly is better than NAFTA and past trade agreements, as President Obama maintains, then it should prove to be popular among both the public and Congress. The public is going to find out the details in any case, before the final T.P.P. vote in Congress, but there's no valid (or believable) reason to refuse to let this happen before fast-track authority is granted.
The fast-track bill may fail to gain the 60 votes it'll need in the Senate this week, and it could have a rough ride in the House as well. There's really no absolute reason Obama shouldn't be granted fast-track power, since many other presidents have been given such authority in the past. But that's just the general case. Voting for fast-track right now is, obviously, coupled to a very specific deal. Congress should refuse to do so before the T.P.P. draft is made public.
Giving a president fast-track authority means Congress is giving up a little of its own power. Because there is a deal on the table right now, Congress would be entirely justified in refusing to grant Obama this power until that deal is made public. Congress can always revisit the subject after the details are known by all, and hold another vote on fast-track authority before the final T.P.P. vote. By doing so, the public will be able to participate in the debate, and both sides will have ample opportunity to make their cases. Elizabeth Warren will be able to adequately cite exactly what she's opposed to, and President Obama will be able to refute her by citing the exact language in question as well. There will be no "just trust us" argument to be made, at that point. This is all the Progressives are really arguing for, at this point, and it's an eminently reasonable argument. By insisting on keeping the details from the public until after fast-track authority is granted, the White House wants to make it impossible for any changes to be made before the final vote. Progressives are arguing for complete transparency on the deal before fast-track authority is granted. To me, the Progressives have the stronger argument right now. The text of the deal can't be kept secret forever, and at this point there doesn't seem to be any reason for the public to wait any longer to see what's in it.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Senator Elizabeth Warren has been the most prominent voice in this debate, so far. Progressives worry that if Obama is granted fast-track authority, it will mean the T.P.P. has enough votes to pass, and they won't have any say in what it contains.
Well, that's just too bad. You see, Elizabeth Warren just doesn't understand how the real world works. Once an international agreement like this is negotiated, no one in their right mind or who understands these sorts of things would expect to have 535 legislators in one country foul up the whole thing for everyone.
This kind of thinking and behavior was on full display during Warren's chairmanship of the financial oversight panel back in 2009/10, especially when Treasury Secretary Geithner was testifying and trying to help her understand why an AIG bankruptcy wasn't in the cards.
She is far from presidential material. But, then again, how does that matter? Given the current crop of candidates who have announced so far, I mean.
Some Progressives are saying: "We're for free trade, but it's got to be fair trade (as we define that term)," to try to sound reasonable, but what they are really saying is: "We think we can sabotage the entire effort, because we're against these deals on principle."
That's why I am as likely as not to loathe Progressives ... they are against progress, surprise surprise.
Let me rephrase that ...
That's why I'm more likely than not to loathe Progressives ...
Progressives, though, have an even stronger point of their own. The whole secrecy blanket that's been thrown over the T.P.P. process is insulting to the public.
Progressives, generally speaking, are far too easily insulted. They are quite a hyper-sensitive group, I've discovered.
Big Business gets to weigh in, but the public doesn't even get to read the text? If anyone can explain why this isn't just naked oligarchy (or plutocracy), I'm all ears.
Try this on for size, Chris ...
The public have not demonstrated a sufficient knowledge base about much of anything, let alone about a complicated international trade deal. And, I count myself among those who are not qualified to review the ah, sensitive, dare I say, negotiations surrounding an international trade deal.
President Obama could have handled this differently, of course. He could have been making the case for what is in the T.P.P. directly to the public.
Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!
Unfortunately, he and his administration have been proven quite incapable of eloquent communication when it comes to delivering a message to the public and improving the understanding of any given issue. In fact, this has been my biggest disappointment in this administration, almost from day one.
Congress should refuse to do so before the T.P.P. draft is made public.
I think that is what's called a classic catch-22, no?
Elizabeth Warren will be able to adequately cite exactly what she's opposed to, and President Obama will be able to refute her by citing the exact language in question as well.
You make a good point, Chris. No, you make a very good point.
:-)
Ahem. Personally, I'd like to see it play out that way.
Great commentary on the T.P.P.
While the progressives for the time being are making the strong argument for public disclosure as you so aptly point out and for the time being are behaving in acceptable fashion...
I am however curious about why you did not dedicate a few pica's to the deafening silence about the positives of the bill. It is not as if there have been leaks surrounding these kinds of deals in the past and one would think that if this treaty did not contain more than a few odious little gifts for the corporations we would have been gifted with a few nuggets. Classified or not that has not stopped past congresscriters or administrations from leaking for their own benefit.
While it is important to bring attention to the subject of fast tracking a "secret deal" I think that it is equally important to shine a light on the deafening silence in the halls of congress.
But this week Congress is voting on a related bill, which gives the president "fast-track authority" on trade agreements. This is essentially Congress tying its own hands, and giving up some of its legislative power to the executive branch.
Ha! Seriously?
I am however curious about why you did not dedicate a few pica's to the deafening silence about the positives of the bill.
Well, I think that's because this isn't a commentary on the TPP.
But, it does bring up a good point about why the president should have fast tracking authority. Ahem.
goode trickle,
I am however curious about why you did not dedicate a few pica's to the deafening silence about the positives of the bill.
Well, I think that's because this isn't a commentary on the TPP.
But, you do bring up a good point about why the president should have fast tracking authority. Ahem.
This is essentially Congress tying its own hands, and giving up some of its legislative power to the executive branch.
Are you suggesting that it violates the vesting clauses?
I don't think it does. Congress (or more precisely, each house thereof) can make its own rules. If it wants to have only a yes/no vote on a particular type of bill, it can. The legislation is still enacted by the power of Congress, not on the authority of any department or officer of the executive branch.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/2191
Actually, what's constitutionally dodgy (as I read it) is taking the treaty-making power away from president-plus-Senate and giving it to Congress in the guise of an "implementing bill". Congress never had any power to write or amend treaties in the first place.
If the deal truly is better than NAFTA and past trade agreements, as President Obama maintains, then it should prove to be popular among both the public and Congress. The public is going to find out the details in any case,
Is this the same public that votes largely on the basis of name recognition, insofar as it bothers to vote at all? I think you're being a bit disingenuous yourself here.
I am completely in CW's corner on this...
Obama is being completely disingeneous.. This was no more apparent when her argued with Warren...
Warren made the claim the a future administration could change the details of the deal to the benefit of Wall Street and/or Big Business...
Obama's response??
“She’s absolutely wrong. Think about the logic of that, right? The notion that I had this massive fight with Wall Street to make sure that we don’t repeat what happened in 2007, 2008, and then I sign a provision that would unravel it?”
-President Obama
Hello!?? McFly!!!???
Warren didn't say that OBAMA would sign a provision to unravel it.. Warren said that a "FUTURE Administration" could sign a provision that would unravel it..
Duuhhh...
And CW also hit the nail on the head when he said it's a matter of trust...
Obama is saying, "It's a good deal. Trust me"...
Now honestly.... Forget all partisanship.. Completely ignore any political ideology whatsoever.. Look at this issue completely politically agnostically...
Has Obama's actions in the past made it possible for the American people to trust him??
Of course not.. Obama has proven beyond ANY doubt that he will lie, knowingly and blatantly lie, if it will further his agenda..
When Obama says "Trust me", the American people should be very VERY worried...
NOW.....
Having said all of that, there IS a very valid reason to keep the TPP secret from the general population..
But there is absolutely NO reason to keep it secret from those in Congress who oppose Fast Track... Let them read the TPP draft and, if they are comfortable with it, then they can vote on Fast Track...
Matter of fact, that would be a good process for ALL trade agreements..
If Obama wants to get Warren on board for Fast Track, then he needs to show her the agreement that she will be Fast Tracking...
If Obama is afraid to show Warren the trade draft, then THAT is probably a very good reason NOT to give Obama Fast Track authority...
"Simple logic"
Michale
CW,
Two commentaries in just a few days that I am completely on board with and supportive of...
ONE of us should be very worried!! :D
Michale
It's really REALLY simple..
If the TPP is such a good deal to warrant Fast Track authority, all Obama has to do is PROVE IT to Congress and he will get Fast Track authority...
What's to think about??
Michale
Progressives, generally speaking, are far too easily insulted. They are quite a hyper-sensitive group, I've discovered.
Amen to THAT!!! :D
Michale
Very rarely do I agree with Dana Milbank..
"Let’s suppose you are trying to bring a friend around to your point of view.
Would you tell her she’s emotional, illogical, outdated and not very smart? Would you complain that she’s being dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with his knee-jerk response?
Such a method of a persuasion is likelier to get you a black eye than a convert. Yet this is how President Obama treats his fellow Democrats on trade — and why he’s in danger of losing."
-Dana Milbank
But in this, he is dead on ballz accurate..
But this has been Obama's MO since he was elected..
He call's political opponents all sorts of heinous names and then wonders why no one wants to work with him...
Michale
The scope of the agreement is breathtaking. So is the level of secrecy. The socioeconomic ramifications are open to dispute. Congress gets 90 days to guesstimate how it's going to all pan out in the coming decades. The public won't know who to trust.
This is the Jurassic Park Lost World of International Trade Agreements. Given the plot outcome of the prequel Jurassic Park, what can possibly go wrong?
Heed the plot line perils of the prequel.
Gigantism. Poorly understood ramifications. Hucksterism. Only the rich can afford to visit. People will be eaten. Madness. Shut it down.
Only the rich can afford to visit.
"Oh of course... We'll have a "Coupon Day" or something like that.."
-Blood Sucking Lawyer, JURASSIC PARK
:D
Michale
TS,
This is the Jurassic Park Lost World of International Trade Agreements. Given the plot outcome of the prequel Jurassic Park, what can possibly go wrong?
Any plans to see JURASSIC WORLD??
The wife and I haven't been to a movie since the premiere of AVATAR... We usually just wait til they come out ....er... on DVD... :D
But we're planning on seeing JW in the theaters... :D
Michale
There are two problems here: the TPP itself, and then the process by which it will or won't be approved.
The Fast Track Authority requested by the President requires that opponents of the TPP be willing to trust their concerns will be met. Instead the President and other treaty supporters are attempting a series of deflective moves: don't worry about "x" because over here "y" is a good thing!
Every claim being made is debatable and many concerns are being glossed over. The fact that several very specific corporate "wishlist" items are built-in (patent protections for Big Pharma, for instance, opposed by Doctors Without Borders among many others) while Labor was entirely shut out has raised legitimate red flags among interested parties. The "job creation" claims are highly suspect -- we've heard those sorts of rosy pronouncements over and over in many contexts and they almost never pan out. The "we'll insist other countries have to abide by environmental and labor standards has also been previously claimed and found to be of limited effectiveness, at best. The claim that this Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism won't enable corps to sue countries for "limiting their profits" -- appears to depend on a number of assumptions which could turn out to be wrong. There's been a lot written also about the Trade Deficit -- imports are not addressed in the treaty (so I've read) -- nor, if I understand correctly, is currency manipulation.
I'm not claiming deep knowledge of the intricacies and will not engage in debates about them here. I do say that there are many highly-regarded people who DO claim such knowledge and they express considerable concern. (Sherrod Brown, Dean Baker, Robert Reich, etc.) Given the failures to live-up-to-the-hype of NAFTA and the fact that the details are being withheld from the public I think skepticism is fully justified.
Elizabeth says basically "why release to the public when they don't know enough about it to be useful"? I think that is disingenuous. The "public" at large isn't the issue. If the details were released the activist community, labor leaders, economists, etc. -- people who ARE knowledgeable -- would be able to weigh in. Similarly to the Net Neutrality debate -- most Americans knew nothing about it but enough knowledgeable people contacted the FCC during the open comment period to sway the decision in the right direction.
Given the concerns noted I don't think Fast Track should be granted. I support the President in most areas but not on this one. As Chris said, he can release the details, there can be debate and a vote for Fast Track AFTER the details are known.
^^^^
What she said....
:D
For the most part anyways... I don't have a problem with the GenPop not knowing the details.. Liz is right when she says that Joe and Jane SixPack won't understand it...
There are valid reasons for the secrecy insofar as the American people are concerned...
But there is no reason members of Congress shouldn't have access to it so they can see that their concerns are (or are not) being addressed...
The ONLY reason to keep the draft away from people like Warren et al is BECAUSE the draft doesn't address their concerns..
We elect our representatives to know what we can't, or don't WANT to, know and then THEY make the decisions for us...
THAT's how the system works..
If Obama won't release the draft of the TPP to the American People's representatives then Fast Track should NOT be granted..
It's really that simple...
Michale
M-21
Unlike stew or chili, movies don't tend to improve a bit with reheating.
Star Wars was amazing and still holds up well in the original cut. Empire Strikes Back was pretty good too. Return of the Jedi was a commercial for plastic collectibles. I was dragged to one or two more of the franchise by my children.
Raider of the Lost Ark was brilliant. I've forgotten the name of the sequel, but I found it terrible. Surprisingly, The Last Crusade was just as good as Raiders, maybe better - Sean Connery and a Hindenburger. Between LA and LC, the last one I've seen is always the best. Off hand, this is the only sequel I can think of that truly measures up to the prequel.
I'm a fan of Pirates of the Caribbean, but it nosed over in all subsequent extensions.
There is a pattern here. Sequels don't measure up. A small movie on a big screen does not become a good movie. It may be worth a viewing on small screen, where you and like minded friends can go all Mystery Theater 3000 on it without provoking a lot of shushing.
I enjoyed Jurassic Park, less so subsequent milking of the same cautionary tale. The Official Trailers for Jurassic revisit don't look hopeful. I'm cheap, but I have friends who like the familiar....as in: repeat visits to Disney parks AS ADULTS WITHOUT CHILDREN IN TOW!!!!!! I may well get dragged to the multiplex...
For President Obama...
"You can't... always get what ya want..."
-Rolling Stones...
:D
Democrats filibuster Obama’s trade bill
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/12/democrats-filibuster-obamas-trade-bill/
Awaiting cries from the Left over the "obstructionist" Democrats and their gosh darned filibusters!! :D
"Kirk, my old friend. Have you heard the old Klingon proverb, 'Revenge is a dish best served cold'?? It is very cold in space.."
Khan Noonien Singh, STAR TREK II, The Wrath Of Kahn
Nothing like Blue on Blue (political) violence to liven up my day, eh?? :D
I know, I know.. I shouldn't be so utterly pumped about this.. :D
Michale
Raider of the Lost Ark was brilliant. I've forgotten the name of the sequel, but I found it terrible. Surprisingly, The Last Crusade was just as good as Raiders, maybe better - Sean Connery and a Hindenburger.
I have to agree.. Last Crusade was the best of the Indiana Jones series...
But I have always had a soft spot for my namesake.. :D
I'm a fan of Pirates of the Caribbean, but it nosed over in all subsequent extensions.
POTC was great with the JACK/WILL/ELIZABETH arc... Once that was resolved in POTC:AWE, it should have ended the series...
I enjoyed Jurassic Park, less so subsequent milking of the same cautionary tale. The Official Trailers for Jurassic revisit don't look hopeful. I'm cheap, but I have friends who like the familiar....as in: repeat visits to Disney parks AS ADULTS WITHOUT CHILDREN IN TOW!!!!!! I may well get dragged to the multiplex...
Due to the new technology, I think JW will capture the old Jurassic Park magic again...
Plus I really REALLY liked Chris Pratt in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY which is why I think JW will be great...
Michale
And Charles says it well: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a34958/round-one-to-the-senator-professor/
Love E. Warren. One of the commenters there made the point that every Obama-hating republican who voted FOR Fast Track, including the principled luminaries Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, need to have those votes publicized far and wide.
Sunlight. Lets see what's in the treaty.
Sunlight. Lets see what's in the treaty.
Here, here!!
Michale
One of the commenters there made the point that every Obama-hating republican who voted FOR Fast Track, including the principled luminaries Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, need to have those votes publicized far and wide.
One should ALSO make the point of what would have been said of Paul and Cruz if THEY had made the comments about Warren that President Obama had made...
I'm just sayin'....
Michale
Due to the new technology, I think JW will capture the old Jurassic Park magic again...
Plus I really REALLY liked Chris Pratt in GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY which is why I think JW will be great...
I am also looking forward to the John Hammond/Richard Attenborough tribute in JURASSIC WORLD...
I hear it's a real tear jerker....
Michale
Apparently, I am not the only one who noticed the sexist comments by Barack Obama..
"I think the president was disrespectful to her by the way he did that...made this more personal.
I think referring to her as her first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps--I've said enough."
-Sherrod Brown-D, Ohio
Michale
Addendum to (27) -- this vote today wasn't against Fast Track, it was a procedural vote about starting debate about Fast Track. A bunch of Dems who will probably vote for fast track want a deal re: "a customs-enforcement bill, trade-adjustment assistance, and measures to crack down on currency manipulation" (from Steve Benen at Rachel Maddow) and McConnell wouldn't accept. So, as Benen says, this wasn't the end of Fast Track, it's the beginning of horse trading. The next round commences --
Paula,
people who ARE knowledgeable -- would be able to weigh in.
People who are knowledgeable are already weighing in.
Sunlight. Lets see what's in the treaty.
There is no treaty. What public-interest advocates and protectionists aren't seeing (and select plutocratic insiders are seeing) is the stuff going back and forth as the treaty is negotiated with other countries.
It's prima-facie plausible to say that diplomats should be allowed to negotiate under conditions of confidentiality. Diplomats of various countries can then do their best to convince each other that they're credible, using more-or-less real information instead of using only what the countries involved are willing to officially admit to.
There is a check on treaties: they're between sovereign countries. Any party to a treaty is still sovereign after the treaty is made, and is free to repudiate the treaty, subject only to the incentives created by other countries' likely responses. So treaties are not really all that binding at best; more often they're barely worth the paper they're written on. Producing such documents is a power that, in the framers' view of things, could be given to "the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate".
(34) When "diplimats" negotiate they are presumably trying to gain terms they feel are beneficial to their coutry's interests and therein lies the rub. If the plutocrats have a place at the table and get to promote their interests and their interests directly conflict with the interests of the citizenry only the citizenry doesn't have representatives at the table then whose interests are being served?
Yes, I know it isn't a final treaty as yet -- it is, as you say, the stuff going back and forth. It's also what isn't going back and forth.
I suspect the Pharmaceutical companies will consider their desired patent extensions to be pretty damned binding, even if the protections for labor organizing, as an example, turn out not to be worrth the paper they're written on.
Why do you all think President Obama is investing so much time and effort into the TPP ... and, into the larger Asia-Pacific pivot, such as it is?
Addendum to (27) -- this vote today wasn't against Fast Track, it was a procedural vote about starting debate about Fast Track
Toe-MAY-toe, Toe-MAA-toe... :D
So, as Benen says, this wasn't the end of Fast Track,
It will be the end of Fast Track unless Obama releases the draft of the TPP...
This was a shot across Obama's and the GOP's bow...
To paraphrase Lenoge...
"Give us what we want or we won't go away.."
Michale
Why do you all think President Obama is investing so much time and effort into the TPP
You know our POTUS as well as anyone does...
The answer is simple..
The same reason he invested so much time in TrainWreckCare...
The same reason he invested so much time in the Iran Giveaway...
EGO....
He's right and anyone who doesn't agree with him is "emotional, illogical, outdated and not very smart."
Anyone who doesn't agree with him is "just a politician" with an agenda...
It's all about Obama...
Michale
Mr. Obama’s tirades on trade have included accusations that these liberal Democrats are ignorant about trade policy, insincere when offering their opinions, motivated by politics and not the national interest, and backward looking towards the past. Obama’s repeated attacks against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), in which he charged that Warren’s concern about the trade bill is motivated not by a reasoned view of what is right for America but by her personal political motivations, is one of the most dishonest and repellant examples of character assassination and contempt by any American president, against any leading member of his own party, in my lifetime.
For the President to suggest that he knows more about trade then all of them do, and that they are all ignorant about the trade bill and trade policy, is staggeringly false and contemptuous of many who have been working on trade policy far longer than he has and know far more about trade, in truth, than he does.
-http://observer.com/2015/05/obama-hurls-insults-at-liberals-on-trade/#ixzz3a0ZLErcz
No one listening to Obama the last week or so as he savaged Democrats who disagree with him could come away from the sad debacle without thinking it's about Obama's ego..
Michale
Ya'all just have GOT to admire the perfect LOSE-LOSE situation that Obama has gotten himself into over TPP..
If Democrats foil Obama's plans, the headline reads, "OBAMA LOSES ON TRADE DEAL!!"
If Obama gets his way, the headline reads, "REPUBLICANS WIN ON TRADE DEAL!!"
Irony can certainly be delicious, eh? :D
Michale
I have one word for you, Michale ...
...geopolitics.
This topic could be so interesting to discuss but, certainly, and sadly, not in this forum.
I have one word for you, Michale ...
...geopolitics.
In the context of Trade???
I agree with you that there are very good and valid reasons to keep the trade negotiations secret... At least from the general population..
But there are no good reasons to keep the negotiations secret from Congress.. ESPECIALLY if Obama NEEDS something from Congress..
About the only reason I can think of that Obama would keep the negotiations secret from Congress is that Obama doesn't trust Congress to keep their mouth's shut..
Fine.. Then Obama needs to explain that...
Michale
Star Wars was amazing and still holds up well in the original cut. Empire Strikes Back was pretty good too. Return of the Jedi was a commercial for plastic collectibles. I was dragged to one or two more of the franchise by my children.
Interesting tidbit... RETURN OF THE JEDI was actually supposed to be called REVENGE OF THE JEDI...
But TPTB decided 'revenge' wasn't a Jedi trait..
" I just want you to know that even though you tried to terminate me, revenge is not an idea we promote on my planet."
"Oh. Well, that's good."
"But we're not on my planet, are we?"
-Toy Story
:D
Michale
Michale,
The TPP has EVERYTHING to do with geopolitics and the outcome of these negotiations will impact upon America's role in the increasingly critical Asia-Pacific region far into the future.
Unfortunately, the comments here have not taken any of this into account and so the discussion has been extremely limited to domestic US politics and completely misses the larger and more important context.
The answer is simple..
The same reason he invested so much time in TrainWreckCare...
The same reason he invested so much time in the Iran Giveaway...
EGO....
He's right and anyone who doesn't agree with him is "emotional, illogical, outdated and not very smart."
Anyone who doesn't agree with him is "just a politician" with an agenda...
It's all about Obama...
Even our Arab allies have said the exact same thing..
With so many different kinds of people saying the EXACT same thing, shouldn't it be at least CONSIDERED??
I mean seriously.. If you have 10 separate people with totally different viewpoints and agendas ALL saying the exact same thing...
Certainly that gives credence to what they are saying, no???
Michale
he TPP has EVERYTHING to do with geopolitics and the outcome of these negotiations will impact upon America's role in the increasingly critical Asia-Pacific region far into the future.
Unfortunately, the comments here have not taken any of this into account and so the discussion has been extremely limited to domestic US politics and completely misses the larger and more important context.
I get it... There are probably some good things about it..
But, here's the thing..
We only have Obama's word for that..
And, let's face the facts...
His word ain't worth much these days..
That's why it's important for Obama to reveal the draft of the TPP to Congress...
If Obama won't, then the ONLY logical assumption is that he has something to hide...
Michale
We only have Obama's word for that..
Hardly.
You really need to broaden your horizons, Michale. :)
We only have Obama's word for that..
Hardly.
For example???
Michale
Michale,
We have far more than Obama's word that the TPP should be pursued and that it will benefit the US in a number of ways.
Heck, if I relied on Obama, I wouldn't know anything about the TPP. Seriously!
One of my favourite sources for all things Asia-Pacific (or, my preferred phrase, Indo-Pacific) is The Diplomat. You should check it out - I'll think you'll soon be hooked on it!
One of my favourite sources for all things Asia-Pacific (or, my preferred phrase, Indo-Pacific) is The Diplomat. You should check it out - I'll think you'll soon be hooked on it!
I am cornfused..
How can The Diplomat have details on the TPP when our own Congress can't get the details???
Michale
No, it is I who am confused.
There are 12 countries involved in these negotiations and only the negotiators, not the legislatures of these nations, have all of the details.
What makes the US Congress so special? You know what, don't answer that question. :)
Besides, one doesn't have to know the details of the negotiation to understand the benefits of the TPP, geopolitically speaking and otherwise.
There are 12 countries involved in these negotiations and only the negotiators, not the legislatures of these nations, have all of the details.
Do you know this for a fact??
Besides, one doesn't have to know the details of the negotiation to understand the benefits of the TPP, geopolitically speaking and otherwise.
Yes.. In THEORY, there is a lot of good about TPP...
Just like, in theory, there was a lot of good about NAFTA..
Now, as yerself.. Did all the good that was promised from NAFTA come to pass??
Nope...
Did a lot of the BAD that NAFTA had threatened come to pass??
Yep....
Michale