What POTUS wouldn't tell Ezra Klein: The scary truth about America's new trade deal

[bigtree]

Andrew S. Ginsburg ‏@GinsburgJobs 57m57 minutes ago
What POTUS wouldn't tell Ezra Klein: The scary truth about America's new trade deal http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/what_potus_didnt_tell_ezra_klein_the_scary_truth_about_americas_new_trade_deal/ … via @Salon

excerpt from article:

“There are a lot of people who look at the last 20 years and say, why would we want another trade deal that hasn’t been good for American workers,” President Obama says to Matthew Yglesias. And he does not deny this reality, saying that a prime goal of the TPP is to effectively nullify the older deals. “Right now it’s not fair, and if you want to improve it,” Obama says, “that means we need a new trading regime.”

This is a strange position coming from a President who has actively supported these older-style deals. In 2011, he signed corporate-written free trade deals with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, precisely what he calls “not fair” in the Vox interview. Indeed, since the South Korea Free Trade Agreement was put into place, the bilateral trade deficit has gone up 50 percent. Small business exports to Korea have declined 14 percent since the agreement took force, and manufacturing exports have also fallen. So arguing that we need a new trading regime to fix the old trading regime that Obama presided over as President shouldn’t inspire much confidence. (Maybe the new trading regime should be to not sign a free trade agreement, since U.S. exports to non-FTA partners have grown over 30 percent more per capita than to FTA partners).

Then, Obama reiterated his argument stoking fears of Chinese dominance in Asia. “If we don’t write the rules out there, China’s going to write the rules,” Obama said. But as Zach Carter and Dana Liebelson point out, this only makes sense if decent labor standards can be brought to signatories like Vietnam, a key offshoring site for China. And the Vietnamese have been reportedly fighting the labor portions of the deal.

Moreover, the United States frequently doesn’t enforce the labor terms of its free trade agreements. In November, the Government Accountability Office looked at recent free trade agreements in Central and South America – including one signed by President Obama with Colombia – and found weaknesses in the monitoring and oversight. In fact, violence against trade unionists continues to exist in Colombia, years after the President vowed that an action plan embedded in their free trade agreement would put a stop to it. As of last April, seventy-three trade unionists have been murdered since the plan went into effect.

President Obama conceded that TPP won’t live up to even a minimal labor goal when he made the rhetorical statement that organized labor wants union recognition in Vietnam or open markets in Japan, replying, “well, I can’t get that for you.” (indeed, the U.S. just dropped their effort to require Japan to open their auto markets in the deal, something that has led to the displacement of over 800,000 jobs). He says that the best possibility is to make something somewhat better than the status quo. But Obama is a terrible messenger for this message, having spent six years presiding over and passing trade agreements that fit neatly into that status quo, and of course remaining mute on the real goals of TPP: expanding corporate power over sovereign countries. And an incremental improvement won’t alter the balance of power between the U.S. and China, which Obama says is his overall goal.

But the most amazing part of Obama’s pitch on new trade deals is this statement: “Those experiences that arose over the last 20 years are not easily forgotten, and the burden of proof is on us, then, to be very transparent and explicit in terms of what we’re trying to accomplish.”

Maybe Obama didn’t realize he was talking about one of the most secretive major policy deals in recent history...


read more: http://www.salon.com/2015/02/10/what_potus_didnt_tell_ezra_klein_the_scary_truth_about_americas_new_trade_deal/

related:

Vox interview, Part one: Domestic policy
http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-domestic-policy-transcript?utm_campaign=promo&utm_content=shortener

Vox interview, Part two: Foreign policy
http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-foreign-policy-transcript

watch: http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-interview-video

[djean111]

1. The TPP is not good for anyone but the 1%, the corporations, and, evidently, Obama.

The rest of us - shat upon.
And please, uncritical Obama fans, stop saying this will improve labor conditions. That is not going to happen.
A simple (and simplistic) "Obama is wonderful and would never ever champion anything bad and eleventy dimensional chess" would be more appropriate, really.

Then, Obama reiterated his argument stoking fears of Chinese dominance in Asia. “If we don’t write the rules out there, China’s going to write the rules,” Obama said. But as Zach Carter and Dana Liebelson point out, this only makes sense if decent labor standards can be brought to signatories like Vietnam, a key offshoring site for China. And the Vietnamese have been reportedly fighting the labor portions of the deal.

Moreover, the United States frequently doesn’t enforce the labor terms of its free trade agreements. In November, the Government Accountability Office looked at recent free trade agreements in Central and South America – including one signed by President Obama with Colombia – and found weaknesses in the monitoring and oversight. In fact, violence against trade unionists continues to exist in Colombia, years after the President vowed that an action plan embedded in their free trade agreement would put a stop to it. As of last April, seventy-three trade unionists have been murdered since the plan went into effect.

President Obama conceded that TPP won’t live up to even a minimal labor goal when he made the rhetorical statement that organized labor wants union recognition in Vietnam or open markets in Japan, replying, “well, I can’t get that for you.” (indeed, the U.S. just dropped their effort to require Japan to open their auto markets in the deal, something that has led to the displacement of over 800,000 jobs). He says that the best possibility is to make something somewhat better than the status quo. But Obama is a terrible messenger for this message, having spent six years presiding over and passing trade agreements that fit neatly into that status quo, and of course remaining mute on the real goals of TPP: expanding corporate power over sovereign countries. And an incremental improvement won’t alter the balance of power between the U.S. and China, which Obama says is his overall goal.

But the most amazing part of Obama’s pitch on new trade deals is this statement: “Those experiences that arose over the last 20 years are not easily forgotten, and the burden of proof is on us, then, to be very transparent and explicit in terms of what we’re trying to accomplish.”

Maybe Obama didn’t realize he was talking about one of the most secretive major policy deals in recent history..

[raouldukelives]

4. It's good for corporate shareholders as well. It is what they collectively strive towards.

If not vocally, in the only way that really matters anyway, monetarily.

[pampango]

7. Everyone who disagrees with you is not an 'uncritical Obama fan' or thinks that he is 'wonderful'.

And please, uncritical Obama fans, stop saying this will improve labor conditions. That is not going to happen.
A simple (and simplistic) "Obama is wonderful and would never ever champion anything bad and eleventy dimensional chess" would be more appropriate, really.

I suspect that each and every poster who disagrees with you is not an "uncritical Obama fan" or does not believe that he "is wonderful and would never ever champion anything bad and eleventy dimensional chess".

Some may want labor and environmental standards in our trading rules and hope Obama is the best chance to achieve this. Some may believe that to the way to improve international trading rules (and improve the flaws in previous deals) is through international negotiations and agreements. Otherwise how do improved rules get into trade?

Some may be believe that there are good trade agreements, and bad ones (that they are not all bad by definition), and will be disappointed if Obama delivers a bad one, but refuse to be paralyzed into inaction by fear of another mistake.

It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

[Andy823]

13. I couldn't agree more.

Thank you for posting this. The one thing that I can't understand is posters here are "always" pointing out just how super "SECRET" this deal is, yet they buy into every single so called "leak" that comes out the says how bad the deal is as fact! Yet when others, like you, post links to the government site that explains things, the refuse to accept anything there.

[aspirant]

23. Why doesn't the govt. site

just publish the agreement?

If they don't, then why isn't their posted links also called "leaks"?

[F4lconF16]

14. That quote of yours

sums up a pretty stupid idea, I think. There's a lot of FDR I like, but not that. Doing something for the purposes of doing something can be much, much more harmful than simply doing nothing. If the TPP is bad (which, at this point, it almost certainly will be) than it will do a lot to harm the 99% and will further cement the corporate elite's political and financial power gains. I'd rather see no trade agreement passed than a bad one, because it's a lot harder to undo than just admitting it and trying something else. Plus, if it was bad, you think that Democrats will admit it? Unlikely, if you ask me.

Edit to add this from another post in this thread:

10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.

[Oilwellian]

19. Do you think FDR...

would agree that a trade agreement written by corporations is something worth trying?

[Elwood P Dowd]

20. The "FDR supported free trade" story by this poster is an old corporate/republican talking point

dating back to the 1990s. Its no longer effective like it was in those days because liberals and progressive have now figured out it is nothing more than bullshit, propaganda, and happy talk. FDR would NEVER agree with the corporate written trade deals of the past 3 decades. The trade policies of his day are in a different universe compared to what we have seen starting with the Reagan years.

Hell, you can go back in time and discover when republicans supported civil rights. You can bring out quotes from republican politicians from the 1960s that supported civil rights and then say, "See, all the republicans just love all these black people and minorities",

[GoneFishin]

2. Will TPP make moot any gains regarding Net Neutrality and Keystone XL?

It would explain why for the first time POTUS is very vocally supportive of the 99% against the 1% on the matters of Keystone XL and Net Neutrality, but supports a trade agreement that will absolutely fuck over the 99% for the benefit of the 1%.

It all makes sense if these two issues are just bones tossed to progressives, tethered by a metaphorical fishing line so they can be yanked back after TPP is rammed through.

For example, could the telecoms or the Kochs sue for lost potential profits caused by the Net Neutrality and the blocked pipeline decisions?

[appal_jack]

3. Excellent questions. k&r, nt

[djean111]

6. Yes, they are bones.

The Keystone XL may not be profitable enough to build, anyway, or could just be slipped back in later.
I would not be surprised one bit to see the pipeline used as a bargaining chip, either, for votes on Fast Track.

Net neutrality? The fine print - the FCC will STOP regulating prices. It is, IMO, a lot easier for the internet companies to just raise rates across the board, than to set up some labyrinthine schema to have slow lanes and fast lanes and deal with individual website owners. And regulating prices is soooo old-fashioned, we are told. So - unregulated public utility. Probably has the government paying for and subsidizing upgrades and repairs. But not able to regulate cost to consumers. Sweet deal.

[zeemike]

11. He can be for any liberal idea now that he has a GOP congress.

And knows for sure that nothing he says will be acted on.
Lame duck is just another word for freedom to tell us what we want to hear.

[Vincardog]

16. Yes and Yes. And the case would be heard by a "Court" of judges picked from the Corporation's Lawers

The TTP is TREASON

[2banon]

21. I agree. Those are excellent questions, I think we can predict what will follow.

[rhett o rick]

5. They seem to be willing to speak a little about the actual trade deals but how about

all of the other "agreements"?

Here are Sen Sander's concerns:

1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.
2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws before international tribunals.
3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.
4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.
5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.
6. Buy America laws could come to an end.
7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of drug companies will go up.
8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.
9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human rights.
10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.

[djean111]

8. Shhhhhh.....eleventy-dimensional chess. n/t

[woo me with science]

24. Thank you.

[AgingAmerican]

9. It will drive American wages down

...obviously

[Scuba]

10. I'd like to believe him, but ...

Geithner, Summers, Emmanuel, et al, make me suspicious.

[BrotherIvan]

15. When people lie to me, it makes me mad

Very, very mad.

[ananda]

12. I've been wondering why..

.. Obama is so invested in the TPP, as bad as it is for the 99% both here
and across the globe.

I know he and Rahm Emanuel are Siamese buddies, but still ...

[bigtree]

17. »

[KoKo]

18. Thanks "Big Tree" and a Kick & Recommend for this:

[woo me with science]

22. K&R. Another great OP.

Thank you.

[GoneFishin]

25. Look at the bright side. The competitive market pressures should keep down the prices of cat food

and cardboard boxes, so our food and shelter needs will be covered.