A progressive’s lament about the TPP (Katrina vanden Heuvel)

[Proud Public Servant]

Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

She gets it:

A progressive’s lament about the Trans-Pacific Partnership

By Katrina vanden Heuvel April 28 at 9:01 AM

It has come to this.To sell his trade treaty — specifically the fast-track trade authority that would grease the skids for passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), President Obama is mobilizing a coalition anchored by corporate lobbies, the Chamber of Commerce and Republican congressional leadership. He is opposed by the majority of Democratic legislators, the labor movement and a broad array of mainstream environmental, consumer and citizen organizations.

Democrats are stunned by the intensity of the lobbying effort mounted by the administration. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a staunch supporter of the president, noted that Democrats have been “talked to, approached, lobbied and maybe cajoled by more Cabinet members on this issue than any issue since Barack Obama’s been president. That’s just sad. I wish they put the same effort into minimum wage. I wish they put the same effort into Medicare at 55. I wish they put the same effort into some consumer strengthening on Dodd-Frank.”

. . .

The president accuses his opponents of arguing about the past, not the present. But he is recycling the same tired arguments that have been used to sell trade deals for more than 20 years. He touts the increase in jobs that might come from more exports, without even acknowledging the loss of jobs that results from expanded imports. He says export jobs pay more, which is true, but won’t admit that the jobs lost to imports pay even better.

The United States has had over two decades of experience with these trade deals, and it has racked up an unprecedented $11 trillion in trade deficits this century alone. Since 2000, 63,000 factories have been shuttered and millions of good jobs lost. Under Obama, we’ve run trade deficits of about 3 percent of GDP a year. That’s the equivalent of Americans sending $500 billion abroad each year. It is virtually impossible to run a full-employment economy with rising wages if we’re facing that hole every year. Corporations not only ship good jobs abroad, they use globalization to threaten workers, helping to drive down wages and contributing directly to America’s sinking middle class and extreme inequality.

And so much more at the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-progressives-lament-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/04/28/6627523e-ed18-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html?postshare=1611430226521941

To my mind, everyone on DU who has dismissed objections by saying "I stand with the President" needs to be honest and say instead, "I stand with the GOP, the Chamber of Commerce, and multi-national corporations (especially Big Pharma)." And then explain why.

EDIT: This is from today's Washington Post. It turns out that there's a pro-TPP op-ed in the paper today as well. It's by . . . Paul Ryan.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I guess it needs a kick.

:kick:

[pampango]

2. I don't know how many here have said "dismissed objections by saying "I stand with the President"',

but I don't look at him as the enemy and I'm willing to take a look at it when negotiations are finished.

... needs to be honest and say instead, "I stand with the GOP, the Chamber of Commerce, and multi-national corporations (especially Big Pharma)."

Largely because those are not the sum total of who supports the TPP. The Democratic base supports it and fast track. And their are 'strange bedfellows' on both sides. The republican base does not like the TPP and hates fast track with a passion.

And opposing the TPP because the status quo of trade deficits is unacceptable raises more questions than it answers.

[mikehiggins]

4. What part of the Democratic base supports either TPP or Fast Track?

I haven't seen any such thing. Instead I see/hear/read large numbers of people who voted for President Obama (admittedly there was no one else to vote for except Tweedledeedee and Tweedleleedum) and now are dismayed at how this whole thing is being handled.

The more average people learn about this atrocity, the more they oppose it. Why else do you think the Administration has kept it a secret?

[pampango]

8. Here you go:

Democratic support for both treaties is stronger than that of Republicans: 60% of Democrats see TTIP as a good thing compared with 44% of Republicans, while 59% of Democrats look favorably on TPP compared with 49% of Republicans.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/07/why-cant-we-all-get-along-challenges-ahead-for-bipartisan-cooperation/

Poll: conservative and moderate republicans oppose fast track (for the TPP) by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

On the question of fast-track authority, 62 percent of respondent opposed the idea, with 43 percent “strongly” opposing it. Broken down by political affiliation, only Democrats that identify as “liberal” strongly favor the idea. Predictably, a strong Republican majority oppose giving the president such authority, with both conservative and moderates oppose it by a ratio of 85 percent or higher.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-poll-only-strongest-obama-supporters-want-him-have-fast-track-1552039

The more average people learn about this atrocity, the more they oppose it.

That certainly may be true but I have not seen polls to confirm that. If you know of them I would love to see them.

Why else do you think the Administration has kept it a secret?

Probably for the same reason that FDR kept his trade negotiations secret and Obama kept the Iranian and Cuban negotiations secret - that, for better or worse, is how international negotiating is done.

If all of congress has to be involved in all of our international negotiations, I suspect we can give up on the idea of concept of resolving international issues through diplomatic negotiations. The alternatives to solving problems through peaceful negotiations are not pleasant one.

[raindaddy]

13. Your polls are a bit out of date...

These polls came out before anyone had any idea what was in the TPP so they reflect a basic trust Democrats had for a Democratic President more than this specific trade agreement.

As for keeping the negotiations secret, let's be honest they haven't been kept secret from the global corporations that in large part wrote them. And they haven't been kept secret from our elected representatives. They've only been kept secret from the American people. And the one reason for that as Elizabeth Warren suggested is, if the American people knew what was in it they wouldn't like it.

After the devastating effects that NAFTA had on middle class manufacturing jobs, I find it deplorable that a Democratic President would expect anyone let alone Democrats to be anything but skeptical about another trade bill that soul purpose seems to be to once again increase corporate profits and power at the expense of the middle class.

[pampango]

22. They are. That's why I was asking if the poster had more up-to-date polling information.

The figures may have changed. I tend to agree that Democrats are more supportive of Obama in general and trade agreements in general so this poll may have reflected that more than TPP knowledge. But there were plenty of "don't knows" in the poll so those ones who did have an opinion at least knew enough not to say "I don't know".

The reason FDR kept his trade negotiation secret may or may not have been because the American people wouldn't have liked them if they knew the contents. Why else would FDR have kept them secret? Why did Obama keep the Iranian and Cuban negotiations secret? Because people would not like them if they knew the details?

After the devastating effects that NAFTA had on middle class manufacturing jobs, I find it deplorable that a Democratic President would expect anyone let alone Democrats to be anything but skeptical about another trade bill that soul purpose seems to be to once again increase corporate profits and power at the expense of the middle class.

Perhaps Obama knew there would be skepticism but there was also some support for renegotiation of existing free trade agreements. And there was some dissatisfaction on the left with the effect of existing WTO trading rules. If he had done nothing to change the existing FTA's with Canada, Mexico, Australia, Chile and Peru and had left WTO rules applying to the other countries, he might have been criticized for doing nothing.

[aggiesal]

14. How many Republicans are against this because ...

the President is for it?

What if a Republican President was pushing this, how would the numbers look then?
I'm willing to bet that Republican numbers would be in the 80's or 90's percent.

I have no proof of this, of course, but lets see how many Republicans actually vote for this.

[pampango]

24. Undoubtedly many, many of them but the republican base has not approved of the WTO and trade

agreements for a long, long time.

What if a Republican President was pushing this, how would the numbers look then?
I'm willing to bet that Republican numbers would be in the 80's or 90's percent.

I have no proof of this, of course, but lets see how many Republicans actually vote for this.

I think all polling shows the republican base is very skeptical of almost every international agreement and organization, trade agreements like the TPP and the WTO included. Wanting the US to withdraw from the WTO was in GOP state party platforms in 2008 and 2012. And that was not the GOP establishment pushing those platforms planks. And nothing similar was in any Democratic state party platform as far as I know.

You are certainly right that republican politicians will vote almost the complete opposite of the base's opinion. That will not be the first or the last time for that to happen and is hardly shocking. Other polls have shown that republicans in congress who vote for fast track run a far great risk of retribution from their base than do Democrats from their base. Now whether the republican base ever follow through on those attitudes against fast track remains to be seen because their politicians are going to sell them out.

[raouldukelives]

12. The ones who are partial owners of the corporations sending out the lobbyists.

They are supporters in the only way Wall St truly cares about.

[JDPriestly]

16. How much experience do you have with the trade courts?

A lot of the people who support the TPP do so because they have no understanding of international law.

Do you know offhand without checking or referring to any source such as Wikipedia what some of the differences are between our system of law which is based on common law and the civil law that is, in various forms, applied in many other countries?

Do you know anything about law in Viet Nam or China?

I oppose the TPP because I know enough about those topics to know that this agreement will necessarily be a corporate coup. Corporations are basically setting up a legal system that will dominate and dwarf ours.

Our Constitution and our democracy are doomed if we agree to the TPP.

Our Constitution is based on the concept of the balance of powers. The president and the Congress are elected directly or indirectly by the people in a somewhat democratic fashion. Our judicial branch is partly elected and partly appointed.

The TPP courts will be appointed and will have the authority to dominate our President and Congress as well as our local legislative and other elected governing bodies on many very important issues.

The TPP is a direct and serious threat to our balance of powers, to our democracy and to any vestige of self-government when it comes to many important aspects of our lives.

Sorry. But I feel that people who support the TPP are just ignorant when it comes to the law. Some of them probably have degrees in what is called "government," but they don't really understand what the TPP will mean for American law. I seriously doubt that many of them have ever read the provisions in our laws that incorporate the NAFTA agreement on the NAFTA courts.

I seriously suspect that the only people who support the TPP are people who are either paid by corporations in one way or another (campaign contributions? corporate lawyers?) or who are ignorant as to what international commercial courts like the court the TPP will set up do. So far most cases have been rejected based on procedural grounds, but that will change. That will change. Why would any corporation choose to appear in our courts possibly before a jury of ordinary citizens if it could choose instead to appear in a TPP court and sue us, the American people, that way. The arbitration system is secretive enough, enough of a threat to us. We do not need TPP courts telling us what we owe to corporations. We do not need them usurping our justice system. We do not need them nullifying our laws.

I realize that Obama will still have two daughters to educate when he leaves office, but I cannot imagine that he really thinks that more trade agreements that set up more international courts that are operate without regard for democratic principles and that are primarily vehicles for the domination of the world by fighting corporations will be good for his daughters after he has put them through college.

I question Obama's motives in agreeing to yet another trade deal when our balance of trade is so shockingly bad.

[pampango]

25. If there are high standards on labor rights and the environment in the TPP or any other agreement,

how can you enforce them on countries that are not meeting those standards voluntarily. If you force them to comply with high standards are you infringing on the sovereign right to follow whatever labor and environmental policies they want because they are an independent country.

Obama claims that labor and environmental standards will have the same compliance mechanism as do corporations and investors. Is maintaining national sovereignty more important than labor right and environment? (Obviously, if high, enforceable standards are not in the agreement then we will all oppose it.) You seem to be making a case that national sovereignty is more important than anything else and other countries and international organizations should never, never have anything to do with our environmental standards and labor laws (which are not exactly high compared to Canada, Japan and Australia.) We are exceptional and no other country can ever advise us on how to handle anything.

I question Obama's motives in agreeing to yet another trade deal when our balance of trade is so shockingly bad.

Many on the left may question Obama's sanity if he does not renegotiate existing trade deals and modify WTO rules as much as possible and just leaves the balance of trade as is now is.

[JDPriestly]

26. If you think that the TPP trade courts are going to enforce the labor

and environmental provisions in the TPP agreement, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you.

The claimants or plaintiffs in the TPP trade court are going to be primarily corporations. And the judges and if they have them juries will be paid for by corporations and the nations states. Labor and the environmental will not get the hearing or the sympathy that corporations will get.

Obama is just wrong on what will happen. His experience as a lawyer was too limited.

There will be no juries of ordinary people in these courts.

I wish I could tell you all that I know and why I feel so strongly about this, but I cannot.

Forget what you hear from Obama. He does not know what many others know on this issue.

The TPP is a big trap for Americans.

We could enforce our agreements on labor and environmental issues if we entered into one-on-one agreements with specific provisions for choice of law, that is the choice of the location of the law and jurisdiction that would govern disputes.

Further if instead of trade groups, we trade with one country and have agreements with individual countries, we can shut our very large and accessible markets to countries that do not enforce labor and environmental standards.

With the TPP we will have great difficulty extricating ourselves from trade with a country that violates the promises in the agreement without destroying the entire agreement.

The concept of the TPP and of NAFTA, a trade group including nations of such diverse cultural, political and economic developments is just crazy. It will not work. Look at what is happening in the European Union. I'm talking specifically about Germany and France v. poorer countries like Greece. It's a mess. We will have a worse mess if we agree to the TPP.

[pampango]

27. If Obama is wrong and you are right, then I will end up agreeing with you about TPP.

Further if instead of trade groups, we trade with one country and have agreements with individual countries, we can shut our very large and accessible markets to countries that do not enforce labor and environmental standards.

So the US sets the rules for the world and everyone plays by our rules or they can go home. That is certainly a patriotic approach. And, of course, if every other country has the right to do the same, I can see a repeat of the 1920's and the decline of trade under republican rule.

With the TPP we will have great difficulty extricating ourselves from trade with a country that violates the promises in the agreement without destroying the entire agreement.

Of course, there should be substantial penalties in any international agreement of any kind if anyone is to expect it to be implemented. We should not have to destroy and agreement in order to make it work.

The concept of the TPP and of NAFTA, a trade group including nations of such diverse cultural, political and economic developments is just crazy. It will not work. Look at what is happening in the European Union. I'm talking specifically about Germany and France v. poorer countries like Greece.

The problem is with the Euro not the EU. Only the far-right is trying to break up the EU. No one else. Syriza is certainly not doing that.

It would seem that you would not have been on board with FDR's International Trade Organization that was a large international group, over 20 countries, that was to enforce not only trading rules, but standards on labor rights, investment rules, business regulation and other issues. Should FDR have just negotiated a bunch of individual agreement with each of the countries then told them all what rules the US required them to follow. That would have certainly protect our national sovereignty more than submitting us to enforcement of rules formulated by an international organization. Shame on FDR. Fortunately (unfortunately?) the republican senate never approved the ITO so it died.

[JDPriestly]

28. The US should set the rules for the US.

And negotiate individually with other countries for the right to import and export goods.

FDR's idea of a large trade area has been tried and tested several times, and has failed every time.

NAFTA has meant a terrible loss of American jobs and economic opportunities for ordinary people.

The WTO has failed to live up to expectations in terms of enforcement of environmental and labor standards -- to the extent there were any such expectations for the WTO.

The European Market has precisely the same problems that a TPP group will have. No uniform financial organization.

Poorer countries will, in the hope of increasing development within their borders, make themselves attractive to investment by failing to enforce agreed labor and environmental standards. That is our situation right now. It will get worse. There is absolutely no way that we will be able to enforce labor and environmental standards, however nobly the language may be written in the agreement, against poor countries.

The ultimate result will be a worsening of our employment situation, still more reduction in investment in our infrastructure and economy (in part because of reduced tax revenue from manufacturing incomes in the US and other tax avoidance by large corporations and the wealthy), worsening social and other discrimination, increase in economic disparity, increasing police brutality, increasing social unrest -- just overall a downgrade in our quality of life and economic productivity, creativity and resilience.

I can think of few things worse than the TPP and NAFTA for our country.

Trade should be country by country. FDR and Obama -- and many other people are just wrong on this issue.

Economists favor world trade because they are more interested in the abstract, in the numbers, than in the real life, day-to-day effects of these agreements on our society and our personal lives.

I utterly oppose the TPP.

[pampango]

29. If FDR and Obama were/are wrong and you are right, I will end up agreeing with you about TPP. n/t

[JDPriestly]

30. You will find out that I am right, but it may be too late to change

the economic decline that the experiment with the TPP will impose on Americans.

[pampango]

32. And your superior wisdom will be obvious to all, even if too late to stop the decline

of the US that FDR's ITO would have forced on us decades ago. Damn FDR! He should have stuck to the high tariffs and the US telling he inherited from Herbert Hoover. And stuck with Hoover's republican system in which we told the rest of the world what to do if they wanted to trade with us.

[JDPriestly]

33. FDR did not have the experience of NAFTA and the extent to which it

has devastated our economy for working people in the US. He did not have the information we have. We should judge this trade agreement not on the basis of what FDR thought but on what we have learned from not just NAFTA. but other trade agreements and attempts to form trade groups that include economies at various levels of development.

[pampango]

34. That is true. He only had a Great Depression to deal with. He was lucky not to have a NAFTA on his

plate. The Depression "devastated our economy for working people in the US" although perhaps not as much as you think NAFTA did.

If you believe that we should not pay attention to "what FDR thought" (and I guess we shouldn't since you think that he and Obama are wrong) then by all means, please proceed with your solutions - which seem eerily similar to those of Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover as far as trade is concerned.

[JDPriestly]

35. I am not opposed to trade.

I believe, however, that we should be in control of our trade. We need to be able to use the leverage of our very large, single-language, integrated market for foreign goods to encourage environmentally responsible, labor favorable industrialization processes in less developed as well as more developed countries.

These large trade groups sound wonderful, but so far have not worked out at all well.

And the trade courts are inimical to the values of our Constitution, especially of the Seventh Amendment guarantee of the right to a jury trial in cases valued over a certain amount and to the separation of powers clause. Inimical. Hostile. Destructive. Incompatible. Can't work. Can't be justified.

The NAFTA agreement has had terrible effects on the American economy. So have our other trade agreements. We should not be entering into yet another agreement that will endanger both our political and economic sovereignty.

Trust me. I know why this agreement is being pushed by big corporation, and I know how devastating they will be to our environment and our labor law. Just devastating. As I said, I wish I could tell you more and why I know what I know and why I am so adamant on this issue, but I may not.

[pampango]

37. As long as you alone get to set the rules and others have no say. That's were you split from FDR.

You would have to destroy the WTO and all existing trade agreements that the US belongs to. That would probably cause just a 'tiny' bit of chaos and bring back the wonderful era of Coolidge and Hoover. Back in those glorious days we were "in control of our own trade" what little there was. There were no "large trade groups". There were not any trade groups. And the glorious result of all this hyper-sovereignty - the worst income inequality in our history. Yeah, economic sovereignty will solve our problems.

I believe, however, that we should be in control of our trade. We need to be able to use the leverage of our very large, single-language, integrated market for foreign goods to encourage environmentally responsible, labor favorable industrialization processes in less developed as well as more developed countries.

Since we are big and strong we should get our way at the expense of the poor and weak. That sounds like a liberal agenda. Again, FDR went more with the "we are all in this together" and should form multilateral organizations that we all govern to resolve global issues and problems.

Republicans did not like that idea any more than you do. They rejected the FDR's ITO before it could get off the ground. Now their base wants to withdraw from the UN, the WTO and practically every other international organization in order to preserve sovereignty. In their world view, it is every country for itself and may the strongest - not coincidentally the country those republicans happen to live in - country set the rules and win.

Truly progressive countries have followed FDR's lead: formed large trading organizations, raised taxes on the rich, provided safety nets, protected and promoted unions and worried less about precious national sovereignty and focused more on the health of the middle and working classes. It may not be 'economic sovereignty' but guess what? It works, just like FDR planned that it would.

[JDPriestly]

38. You present false choices.

It is not a choice between trade organizations on the one hand and no trade on the other. We can have trade that is fair if we negotiate agreements one by one country by country.

As for this:

Since we are big and strong we should get our way at the expense of the poor and weak.

It is not a matter of getting our way at the expense of the poor and weak. It is a matter of a) making sure that our international trade benefits all Americans and not just the richest (it now mostly benefits the richest) and b) making sure that those who trade with us produce products so as to protect both the environment and the wage and safety rights of their workers. Something no one talks about much is the working conditions in a lot of the factories and other places people work. We have the EPA and OSHA. They don't do as good a job as they should in enforcing our environmental and workplace safety laws, but they do much better than most of our third-world and developing world trading partners.

I oppose TPP because it will allow us to take advantage of people in other countries. One on one trade agreements will give us the best ability to insure that the safety standards for the environment and for working people are as high as our own. On that we should insist.

It is not right that our industry "invests" in underdeveloped, poor countries meaning that they produce products in dangerous ways that we would never allow in our country and then import those products to us to be sold at the prices we are willing to pay. These greedy people care nothing about the lives and safety of the people they employ or the damaged environment they will leave to the children and grandchildren of the people they employ/ They import their cheaply produced, dangerously produced foreign products, fire American workers, make a fortune on the difference between the costs of production of the products (lowered by the negligent safety standards in the production facilities and in the environments of the countries in which the facilities are located) and then hide those products in tax shelters overseas.

We Americans are fools to put up with that. It's sort of a strange modern version of first they came after the Communists.

First they lowered workplace and environmental standards in China and Viet Name . . . . then they came here.

And the TPP courts will bring those low workplace and environmental standards to our front doors, yours and mine, and the front doors and front yards of our children and grandchildren.

The TPP is a huge mistake. It is a corporate coup. Nothing less. A corporate coup.

[pampango]

39. We trade much less than any actual progressive country in the world. Trade is not the problem.

FDR knew it. Modern progressive countries know it.

We could cut our trade to zero, as we almost did in the 1920's under Coolidge/Hoover and income inequality would mirror the record levels it reached back then.

By focusing our ire at trade, particularly trade with poor countries, and trade organizations we ignore the fact both FDR back in his day and modern progressive countries understand that trade is complimentary to a strong middle class and healthy economy. And FDR saw and modern progressive countries still see multilateral trade organizations as the way to achieve that trade.

It is not a choice between trade organizations on the one hand and no trade on the other.

I did not think that was the choice you were presenting. If I left that impression, I apologize. It seems to me that the choice in your eyes is between FDR's ITO and the modern EU, on the one hand, and the pre-FDR Coolidge/Hoover trade regime of telling countries what the US is going to do rather than negotiating with them, on the other. You support trade as long you get to dictate what the terms are.

I suppose Canada, Germany, Sweden would like to be able to be able to tell the rest of the world, "Here are the terms in which you will trade with us. It's my way or the highway." Somehow they have learned to survive and have a healthy middle class despite recognizing that this is a world where countries negotiate mutual issues rather than issue unilateral proclamations informing the world of their terms.

b) making sure that those who trade with us produce products so as to protect both the environment and the wage and safety rights of their workers.

And the only way to achieve that is to ignore FDR and the EU and take unilateral American action? No other country is interested in those issues so we cannot bring them on board for any multilateral action. The world will reek with pollution and slavery if we follow path of negotiations with others rather than just telling them to clean up their act or else. I am sure that many countries will smile at the thought that the US is a haven for strong labor unions and worker protections. And many of them as equal or better environmental records.

It is a matter of a) making sure that our international trade benefits all Americans and not just the richest (it now mostly benefits the richest)

ALL of our economy currently benefits primarily the 1%. Why focus our attention on international trade (22% of the economy) and not the vast majority (78%) that is domestic production and consumption? If we taxed our rich (like FDR/EU), if we supported our unions (FDR/EU), if we provided a decent safety net (FDR/EU), if we regulated our corporations (FDR/EU), etc. then the benefits, not only of international trade, but of the much larger domestic economy would benefit the 99%. Perhaps then we could encourage trade (FDR/EU) rather than trying to limit it.

The TPP is a huge mistake. It is a corporate coup. Nothing less. A corporate coup.

You may well be right. There are good and bad international agreements. Just as we have good and bad domestic legislation. If the TPP is bad it should be defeated.

However, when you argue against ALL trade organizations and agreements (apparently past, present and future) your critique of the TPP looks more like a generic indictment of agreements and organizations than one aimed specifically at this one example. That is where we part company. If one argued that FDR was and the EU is right in terms of trade policy BUT that the TPP is not consistent with that policy, I would give that critique of the TPP more weight than an argument that all trade organizations and agreements are bad so the TPP must be bad too.

A commitment to American unilateralism and a suspicion of international cooperation through negotiated organizations and agreements is not the liberal approach epitomized by FDR and exemplified by the EU and progressive countries today. It is more representative of the old pre-FDR republican trade mentality and the modern republican fringe that wants the US out of the UN, the WTO and every other international organization and views NAFTA as a step towards a (mythical) North American Union and eventual One World Government.

[JDPriestly]

40. I think the core of our argument is expressed in these paragraphs:

I

t is a matter of a) making sure that our international trade benefits all Americans and not just the richest (it now mostly benefits the richest)

(My words.)

ALL of our economy currently benefits primarily the 1%. Why focus our attention on international trade (22% of the economy) and not the vast majority (78%) that is domestic production and consumption? If we taxed our rich (like FDR/EU), if we supported our unions (FDR/EU), if we provided a decent safety net (FDR/EU), if we regulated our corporations (FDR/EU), etc. then the benefits, not only of international trade, but of the much larger domestic economy would benefit the 99%. Perhaps then we could encourage trade (FDR/EU) rather than trying to limit it.

(Your words.)

You are right in that if we did all the good things you list, international trade might be quite good. But, we should not be entering into international trade agreements at this time when our middle class is disappearing. Because the trade agreements will hasten the destruction of our middle class.

We need first to correct our economic situation at home. FDR was in an economy that was emerging from isolationist trade policy into a world trade policy. He did not just advocate for trade agreements. He passed legislation at home that strengthened the middle class. And in the years of his presidency and thereafter, legislation was passed and a liberal Supreme Court made decisions and trade and industrial policies were implemented that did strengthen the middle class. Since the election of Nixon and especially Reagan we have lost the momentum that was strengthening the middle class and raising up the poor. The TPP will further weaken the middle class and further increase poverty because we do not have the economic and social policies in our society that we need at this time.

Obama and the relatively conservative legislatures and presidents we have had beginning in 1968 and worsening with Reagan have have passed and enforced laws that have seriously weakened our domestic economy and our middle class. And a lot of that trend is due to the free market theories that are leading to these trade agreements. The theory is wrong and the trade agreements growing out of it will seriously harm our country.

So, before we enter into trade agreements that will, based on past experience with NAFTA and WTO and other agreements, further weaken the economic stability and strength of our middle class, we MUST strengthen our middle class and end the process that is steadily enriching the wealthiest among us and impoverishing the rest of us. And that means realizing that the Chicago school economic theory does not work.

A major problem is that Obama is making the signing and entering into this TPP agreement his priority without making sure that our economy can deal with the shock of the competition and stress of the TPP.

We have no business entering into the TPP. Obama has not been an FDR. FDR's opening of trade was accompanied by putting industrialists and cheaters on the stock market in jail and then reorganizing our banking system, providing government jobs for the unemployed, encouraging the middle class, helping people buy homes, providing Social Security for the elderly even though they had not paid into it and other programs that strengthened the middle class. In contrast, Obama (and that is a shorthand for Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress because I include them in those who are at fault in this) suggested a chained CPI for Social Security, put no big bankers in jail and basically furthered the interests of the very wealthy at the cost of the middle class and poor. The stage is set for damaging our middle class, the engine of productivity in our country, more.

Then, on top of that, there is the fact that the international trade courts represent the interests of the wealthy and the corporations and impose the international rule of the oligarchs on what is supposed to be our democracy. You can either have the international trade courts with their oligarch parties, judges and lawyers imposing fines, fees and punishments on democratic governments. on THE PEOPLE of the US Constitution, or you can have democratic governments and the US Constitution. You cannot have trade courts and maintain the rule of law under the US Constitution for very long. The trade courts are the tools of the oligarchs, not of the American voters.

So there are several major problems with these trade groups as I see it.

FDR's trade policy was part of his overall policy of building and strengthening the middle class. Strengthening our middle class that has been weakened by over 30 years of right-wing economic policy needs to be our first priority before we get into any more trade agreements. Functioning well in international trade requires policies at home that spread the wealth and that prevent strengthening the economic and political power of the oligarchs. We are nowhere near there. Neither is Mexico for example.

Say no to the trade courts. They are incompatible with self-government. They are incompatible with democracy. They are incompatible with our Constitution. They are incompatible with continued national sovereignty for the American people. We own our country. And part of the rights of ownership are being able to decide for ourselves what we do in our country and being able to reject and exclude others including rulings and values imposed by the international trade courts (NAFTA as well as the TPP). International criminal courts might be OK, but trade courts? No. Economic and trade policy should be set by the elected officials of the country in which the policy is to be applied.

We can still enter into one-on-one trade agreements. As for imposing our will with regard to trade on other nations. That is what it means to be a sovereign nation. I am not some sort of kooky right-wing sovereign nation supporter. I am talking about the basic reality of the American sovereignty that we won in our Revolution and established in our Constitution. Nothing nutty.

Just being a country with our own government and the right not to be told by foreign courts what standards we should have about the ingredients in our food or other products and not to be required to refrain from labeling the country of origin of the food we buy, not to be required to let in products we don't want in our country, being allowed to put health advisories on products like tobacco if that is what we want to do. And this trade agreement with its international trade courts will, in time, limit that kind of ordinary sovereignty that we take for granted.

No to the TPP. It really is a corporate coup.

[pampango]

41. "You are right in that if we did all the good things you list, international trade might be quite

good. But, we should not be entering into international trade agreements at this time when our middle class is disappearing. Because the trade agreements will hasten the destruction of our middle class."

It would seem that we agree on a long term goal. Progressive countries provide great examples when it comes to trade, taxation, safety nets, unions and regulations. And they exemplify the success of the policies FDR brought to the US.

We may still disagree on shorter term considerations. Unless we do something about progressive taxes, protecting and promoting unions, providing a decent safety net, regulating corporations, etc., nothing is going to improve for our middle class, no matter what we do or don't do about trade.

The middle class suffered record levels of income inequality under no/low trade regimes like Coolidge/Hoover before FDR due to regressive tax, union and regulatory policies. Now the middle class suffers near-record levels of income income inequality under higher trade regimes due to regressive tax, union, safety net and regulatory policies.

Imports are 13% of our economy. They are 31% in Germany, 32% in Canada, 30% in Sweden, etc. (Imports from China range from 1.5% of the Swedish economy to 3.5% in Canada; 2.5% in the US.) Yet their unions and middle classes are much, much stronger than ours.

Why does trade "destroy" our middle class and not theirs? Self-inflicted wounds like Taft-Hartley and other anti-union legislation, tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, cuts to the safety net, etc. No foreign country forced us to adopt those policies. They were all inflicted on working Americans by 1% Americans. They are all similar to republican policies of the pre-FDR era. They are all policies that FDR must have thought he had banished forever. All policies that have been avoided by Germany, Canada and Sweden.

The ghost of FDR is probably shaking his head in amazement that we can adopt the same policies that Coolidge and Hoover promoted and wonder why we have a shredded middle class and levels of income inequality that are approaching those experienced under his republican predecessors.

TPP may well not make things better. An agreement that forced countries to abide by high labor and environmental standards would be a liberal success - one that would have warmed FDR's heart - even though 'forcing' them requires an enforcement mechanism that overrides a national government's desire to ignore those high standards. (Such an agreement would blunt the 'advantages' that countries with low standards have now.) The EU is like that. Once you join you cannot decide that your country has the 'sovereign' right to ignore the standards that you agreed to meet.

But TPP may well not be that agreement.

[JDPriestly]

42. There are serious questions in my mind about the TPP courts.

One that comes to my mind is whether they will be a means for foreign corporations and interests to avoid the bar in our highest Court against political cases,, that is cases that present issues that should be decided through the political processes set forth in our Constitution and other laws.

Another question I have is why, since the TPP is to be An agreement between nations, it grants the authority or standing to corporations to file and present cases in the TPP court, We citizens cannot, cannot, that is that we flesh and blood humans will not, unless extremely wealthy be able to present our grievances in similar fashion to this court,

Lets say that someone is injured due to a product or a labor practice of an internationall corporation. We must ask whether that injured individual will have the abikity to address that injury in the TPP court or will be limited to presenting a claim for damages in a US court.


Lets say that the injured flesh and blood person brings a lawsuit in an American court and receives a damage award which is followed by legislation or regulation barring sale of the product in the US. Will the producer of the product be able to sue for restraint of trade. in the TPP court?

These are just a couple of serious problems with the concept of trade courts and how they can jeopardize national sovereignty and the rights of the peoples of member nations to self determination.

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Best article on the TPP for those who need a

quick initiation.

[polichick]

5. The emperor is butt naked - and I do mean his ass is showing! k&r

[bbgrunt]

6. k and r. k and r. k and r. k and r. k and r.

[zeemike]

7. Who better to sell this onerous trade agreement than a Democratic president

Who has a fan base to help him sell it to us?
A lot of people will ask themselves can we ever trust a Democrat again. Clinton burned us and now Obama is doing it too, and we expect people to vote for a Clinton again?

This will not go down well.

[daleanime]

9. K&R.....

[Enthusiast]

10. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

If we cannot agree that Paul Ryan is a lying asshole we can't agree about much. The Chamber of Commerce is never concerned about your welfare, never, not in the slightest. If you favor the TPP you are misinformed.

[Stonepounder]

11. Bill Clinton, a good Democrat President sold us on NAFTA.

There were those of us warning that it was not a good deal for us working stiffs. The 'Democrat base' supported it. It was going to be 'good for America' and 'create jobs'. And look what it got for us.

Oh, wait. It was great for the 1%.

Now we have TPP. We are hearing the same old shit about how the "Democrat base' supports it. How it is going to be 'good for America' and 'create jobs'. Something like 85% of the negotiators are corporate lawyers and executives. When was the last time anyone here had a corporate lawyer or executive do something 'good' for them?

And how about the (whatever the hell it is called) trade-dispute-resolution-court thingy? Where corporations can sue for lost profits (and win in front of the 3-corporate-lawyer panel) if some country dares try and do something good for its citizens - like impose emission standards - that might cost a foreign corporation future profits? Think about it, lawyers overriding Federal law. That really sounds like a good idea!!

So don't count this progressive, Democrat base, voted in every general election for the last 45 years, old hippy, loves Obama, as one of the supports of Fast Track, or of TPP, without knowing a whole lot more about it!

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Let's not leave out the good parts. NAFTA was a Bush project negotiated and signed by Bush, Clinton

supported it when he got elected and walked it through Congress with far more Republican support than Democratic.
NAFTA passed the House 234 to 200. House Democrats voted against it 156 to 102. Bernie Sanders, Independent, voted against it. Republicans supported it 132 to 43.
Senate Democrats 27 for, 26 against. Senate Republicans, 34 for, 12 against.

The base we call Democratic was not in fact in favor of NAFTA as the Congressional vote reflects. Both Clinton and Bush supported NAFTA. Ross Perot was not an acceptable alternative for a wide variety of reasons. So for most Americans, Republican or Democratic, that Presidential election was NAFTA either way.

[dpatbrown]

15. Senator Brown

I agree with what Brown was quoted as saying, that it's to bad that Obama didn't push as hard for progressive causes, like universal health coverage, higher minimum wages, Dodd-Frank, stronger Social Security, etc. What I have said before, when it comes to hugging corporations, there is no difference ( with a couple exceptions) between the two parties.

[KoKo]

17. K&R....!

[Populist_Prole]

18. Excellent reading

Bookmarked for later

[historylovr]

19. K & R

People are arguing about the past, Mr. President, because it is instructive.

[WillyT]

20. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Elwood P Dowd]

21. K&R. (nm)

[colsohlibgal]

23. This Is A Sellout On Steroids.

Listening to Obama railing against trade deals while running in 2008 makes you wonder if he said it just to get elected. It wouldn't be the only big issue he misled us on, remember his saying we needed more Wall Street regulation? How did that go?

He lost a good deal of his credibility with me some kind ago.

The TPP is not good for almost all of us in the 99%.

Paul Ryan is really down with this deal, that should tell you all you need to know.

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. Call your Senators, Representatives and Whitehouse to express your opposition to this global

corporate coup' d'états.

Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111

United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121