Obama pushing hard for job-killing, Constitution-undermining TPP

[brentspeak]

How does a billionaire heiress speaking fondly of NAFTA make those of you struggling to pay the bills feel?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/05/us-usa-trade-idUSBREA1401220140205

U.S. trade relationships need an 'upgrade': Pritzker

By Christine Murray and Julia Symmes Cobb
MEXICO CITY Tue Feb 4, 2014 7:19pm EST

(Reuters) - The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other U.S. trade relationships are outdated and need an "upgrade", U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker said on Tuesday during a trade visit to Mexico. Attitudes toward labor and the environment as well as e-commerce and new technology have shifted trade concerns since NAFTA was signed, so the U.S. government is focusing on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would establish a free-trade bloc stretching from Vietnam to Chile, she said.

"NAFTA was a groundbreaking agreement 20 years ago and it has served all of the North American countries well," Pritzker said of the 1994 treaty between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. "But now it's time to be looking at how can we upgrade our trade relationships."

Mexico and the U.S. are two of 12 countries negotiating the TPP, which would encompass about 800 million people and almost 40 percent of the global economy. The Obama administration is seeking the authority to fast-track trade deals, like the TPP, to reassure the 11 other countries involved that any agreement, once signed, would not be changed later by Congress.

When asked whether there was any push to change the NAFTA agreement specifically, Pritzker replied that the administration was focused on getting TPP done. Pritzker, a businesswoman and heiress to the Hyatt Hotel fortune who has been a prolific fundraiser for U.S. President Barack Obama, is in Mexico on a five-day trade mission along with representatives from 17 U.S. companies, ranging from railroads to the medical supply industry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html

U.S. Economy Lost Nearly 700,000 Jobs Because Of NAFTA, EPI Says

When the North American Free Trade Agreement was first signed in 1994, proponents said it would eventually create jobs for the U.S. economy. 17 years later, a new report estimates, the American worker only has hundreds of thousands of job losses to show for it.

According to a report by Economic Policy Institute economist Robert Scott, entitled "Heading South: U.S.-Mexico trade and job displacement after NAFTA," an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs have been "lost or displaced" because of the agreement and the resulting trade deficit.

...

Perhaps the most drastic switch post-NAFTA has been in the two country's trade deficit. In 1993, before the signing of NAFTA, the U.S. held a $1.6 billion trade surplus over their neighbor to the south, which supported 29,400 jobs. By 1997, the tides had turned, and Mexico laid claim to a much larger surplus of $16.6 billion. As of 2010, it's not even close. Mexico's trade surplus now hovers around $97.2 billion.

Jobs continue to be lost to NAFTA today. In the years 2007-2010, the U.S. economy has lost 116,400 as a result of the trade deficit created by NAFTA. And last year, the growth of Mexican auto exports to the United States alone created more Mexican jobs -- 30,400 -- than the entire U.S. auto industry.

It's the U.S. manufacturing sector that has suffered most mightily from NAFTA, alone accounting for 60.8 percent -- 415,000 total -- of the jobs lost to the agreement. Specifically, those making computer of electronic parts have accounted for 22 percent of all job losses, and motor vehicle and parts workers accounted for 15 percent of job losses.

[grahamhgreen]

1. "fast track" really means bypassing the Constitutional requirements for treaty ratification. No job

discussion is complete without talking about these costly trade agreements.

[brentspeak]

3. Do you know if fast-track ever been challenged in the courts?

Seems fast-track legislation of any type would (or should) be considered unconstitutional by default.

[rhett o rick]

4. I agree. How can one branch of government relinquish it's Constitutional powers to another branch?

If this is possible then what's stopping Congress from relinquishing all of it's powers to the Legislative Branch?

[Scuba]

25. Actually, it seems the Executive has relinquished most powers to the House.

[rhett o rick]

28. Do you think that's Constitutional? nm

[fredamae]

2. I swear I heard

Schweitzer on the Ed Show---say that NAFTA (love from Clinton admin) already takes power away from congress and POTUS--TPP was all go from the start-all this hand wringing etc from our "anti-TPP" politicians is a ruse to fundraise...

Please, someone who understands these things better than I-say it isn't so......

[rhett o rick]

6. What I think I hear you saying is that even those few that are against the TPP are only against it

to raise money?

[fredamae]

10. That's not what I'm

saying-I'm saying I heard it on MSNBC's Ed Show (Fri I believe) from Schweitzer...and I'm asking for verification...not so much for the fund raising thing--but the fact we never had the rights to say No to begin with based on the Clinton Admins NAFTA deal....which could answer the question of fundraising off of the pretense of stopping it...

[rhett o rick]

14. Sorry if I misunderstood. I guess I dont understand how technically it can be a "done deal". nm

[fredamae]

32. No, no-that's my point

I'm hoping someone who understands the terms of conditions under NAFTA/CAFTA-can answer that---I understand the US cedes Congressional/Legal and POTUS powers To corporations re: environment, work place/workers rights, etc. under TITP/TATP/TPP etc.
I heard that NAFTA/CAFTA signed into law under the Clinton Admin Already ceded Great powers to big corp-rendering it "un fightable" by congress even if they Did Not want TPP to pass.
So, if true--and iow--under the terms of NAFTA/CAFTA; ceding those powers back in the '90's---fighting TPP et al Now is futile because was already a "done deal"

The current trade deals among other things-enhances/broadens those powers to corps--

[rhett o rick]

33. I think they are just taking another bite out of the poison apple. nm

[BrotherIvan]

8. Sounds about right

Fundraise, vote for it, throw up your hands and mewl about how you had no choice. Rinse, repeat. For some special fun, have your minions belittle anyone who says anything bad about such behavior with cries of "Party Unity™" and "Are you gonna vote for Republicans?" and "Racists Paulites!"

Bonus: Watch the little people fight amongst themselves while you take calls for insider trading info.
Extra points: if your husband or immediate family members benefits hugely from such deals (i.e. Feinstein, Pelosi in my state alone!)

[bbgrunt]

16. careful, the truth can set you free.

[pscot]

5. TPP stands for Toilette Paper Pact

American workers are about to get another enema.

[n2doc]

7. Translation, "We've done as much screwing as we could under NAFTA"

"So we need TPP to rape and pillage other markets"

Another corporate party scam. Watch and see who votes for this, and you will get a good idea of the corporate party's membership. We know Obama is a main member of it.

Watch- both major party nominees for President in 2016 will be corporate party members. The people will not be allowed a choice.

[factsarenotfair]

9. Could this be what the Republicans are referring to when they say Obama is lawless?

[Scuba]

26. No, they love the TPP.

[pampango]

29. Repubican politicians love it, not republican voters. n/t

[Swede Atlanta]

11. Obama is no friend to the American middle class...

He talks big about the middle wage and extending unemployment benefits BUT

he LOVES the TPP and the job-killing and wealth-concentrating effects as well as the Canadian pipeline.

I'm sorry but he is a sad excuse for someone who claims to be "for the people".

He has talked big but delivered small. I know, I know...he did the Lilly Ledbetter Act, etc. but the current push is for things that hurt Americans and favor the wealthy.

No doubt he has checked his bank account and realized that if he is going to be a comfortable "fat cat" when he leaves office he had better get in line with them. So slowly he is doing their bidding while trying to tell us otherwise.

I voted for this guy twice (not that it counted here in Georgia) and campaigned for him. I feel betrayed.

[DeSwiss]

12. Obama doesn't give a rat's turd what Democratic voters think.

It's the Battered-Dem-Syndrome. He knows Democratic voters will scream and complain and gnash their teeth. But he also knows that in the end they'll all trundle down to the voting booths to pull-it for the Blues.

Besides, he's got a job he was hired to do. So he's gonna do what he's being paid to do. By his handlers. Not those who think they voted for him. That was a foregone conclusion. So he's got nothing to lose at this point, and a helluva lot to gain.

- And quite frankly, it's a little late for buyer's remorse......

[Populist_Prole]

19. Pains me to say it; but you're right

I don't mean to say it pains me to say that you are right. But that we're between a rock and a hard place and will get crumbs as we're forced to go for the lesser of two evils.

[JDPriestly]

13. Public Citizen study on the effects of NAFTA.

The Public Citizens Report is an indictment of free trade. I can't seem to figure out how to copy and paste from the pdf document, but please check it out. The numbers of jobs lost, the damage to our environment, the hoax of the thing, it's enough to turn us off to any further trade agreements.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

I especially encourage Democrats who support Hillary Clinton to read this and think long and hard about what a pro-free-trade-with-no-real-restrictions-on-labor-and environmental-practices would do to our country. Hillary's for this sort of sell-out you can be sure.

Don't take my word for it. Ask her.

[solarhydrocan]

20. She helped to write it and promote it as SOS

of course she's for it.

Don't take my word for it, here she is

Lots of people don't care. They just want to "win".
Even if it means selling out their fellow citizens.

[sulphurdunn]

15. Obama is a puppet

of Penny Pritzker's and other billionaire democrats. I guess it shouldn't have come as any big surprise. It did anyway.

[frwrfpos]

17. the TPP

will destroy whats left of the middle class in this country

[Enthusiast]

18. We don't want this TPP, Mr. Obama.

Why won't you listen?

[leftyohiolib]

21. i wish he pushed this hard on single payer - free choice act etc

I am so sick of voting in democrats only to get republicans

[liberal_at_heart]

23. exactly. He'll fight hard for ACA, TPP, military option for Syria, but

when it comes to restoring funding to public institutions, or fighting for unions, or a real living wage(15$/hr), or SS, or single payer there just aren't enough votes for that so why even put up any kind of fight what so ever.

[bvar22]

24. Fight Hard for ACA, but ONLY after ditching the Public Option he used to get elected.

If I were Hillary, I would be pissed that President Obama passed HER Health Insurance Plan after ridiculing her proposal for a Mandate without a Public Option during the debates.

[whathehell]

27. Are you saying that, essentially, he has no other choice, because

"there just isn't enough votes for that.."?

If that IS what you are saying, I'd have to disagree..At this point there "isn't enough votes" for the TPP -- Harry Reid

has come out dead against it, along with about 150 Dems and 17 Repukes, and yet he's STILL campaigning for it.

[liberal_at_heart]

30. That is the excuse he uses. That is what I am saying. That is the excuse many democrats here on

DU use as well. Anytime anyone suggests we fight for single payer or free college tuition or a $15/hr minimum wage all we hear is there aren't enough votes for that.

[whathehell]

31. I get what you're saying..

though I think many times those using this excuse are lying.

[maddiemom]

22. At the time NAFTA came to be, I was teaching in a "suumer youth" program

which involved "at risk" teenagers who were being paid to work at community/state jobs (such as taking care of public parks and recreational areas). They were also being paid to improve their English and math skills in weekly classes. I was involved with this program for several years, and worked with a number of kids I'd known as an active substitute teacher. A different situation . While a few were hard to deal with, most were very happy to learn, knowing they were being paid for learning the same as for physical labor. We always spent some time on current events, and NAFTA was a major freak out for those kids. A plus that they were paying attention to the the story, but much impotent outrage, on the other hand. These were kids whose options were already narrow, and had seen grandparents' jobs gone to the then non-union south. They then saw that all advantages their parents might have had leaving the country, Talk about "seriously pissed." More sadly, hopeful discussions just don't seem to exist less and less.