Here's Why Democrats Don't Believe Obama's Trade Promises

[geek tragedy]

I'm about the furthest thing from an Obama-basher on this site, and generally agnostic on the TPP. But this article really drops the hammer on the "enforcement for good" arguments Obama has been making.

Until this record of non-enforcement changes, hard to buy the administration's arguments.

**************************************
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/obama-democrats-trade_n_7160716.html

The trouble with Obama's promises to implement strong new labor standards for countries like Vietnam, according to the AFL-CIO labor federation, is that the administration doesn't really enforce the international labor agreements it already has at its disposal.

On Monday, the AFL-CIO filed a legal brief detailing widespread abuses in Guatemala, including the murders of several union leaders amid contract disputes. The AFL-CIO said the wage theft and outright violence were clear violations of the Central American Free Trade Agreement that the U.S. approved in 2006.

“Prolonged, widespread impunity has profoundly distorted the labor market in Guatemala, and taken an unconscionable toll on workers and their families,” the document reads.

...

But that, the AFL-CIO notes, is exactly the problem. The labor group has been pressing for action on Guatemalan violations for Obama’s entire term in office, and the dispute has not been resolved. In 2013 and 2014, according to the labor federation, 17 labor activists were murdered in Guatemala while the Obama administration pursued diplomatic action. Three of the slain union workers were reportedly killed during a dispute with a local government over unpaid back wages.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. You mean Unions. And Unions should support the TPP if only to protect those union workers

in those countries by giving the United States' trade agreements "teeth" to go after violators - something that's nonexistent in past trade agreements (especially under CAFTA labor provisions), but what President Obama seeks to change with the TPP. CAFTA's labor provision is only enforceable by the respective country itself; there's nothing other countries can do, even the United States, except register diplomatic protest. Trumka knows this, so why the push of misinformation?

Fact of the matter is, the only thing the United States can do under current CAFTA violations is file a diplomatic protest with the CAFTA member country. The United States simply can't sue CAFTA countries for labor violations. Under the TPP, we can. So that's why it's so curious why Trumka is so against the TPP!

I would like to know what Trumka would like this president to do within his power now other than what's already been done under current law. Launch a war? Send in the CIA to take out the murderers of those union workers? What? It would be nice for Trumka to tell us what he expects this president to do - while he's, at the same time, demonizing a stronger trade agreement that would actually globalize worker's rights with real labor protections and what would protect those union workers he's oh, so concerned about.

It's disingenuous of Trumka to fault President Obama for violations of labor provisions in sovereign CAFTA countries, and I'd be highly skeptical of Trumka for trying to use this as a way to demonize the TPP that would actually give our president the "teeth" in order to enforce those labor protections.

[cascadiance]

2. Well, if TPP is so much better than older agreements then WHY IS IT SECRET DAMMIT?!!

If they want to sell us on this being a fix for those problems in the past, then this agreement should be made public, so that we can review it and verify that it is DIFFERENT from those agreements in the past, and is working for us in this case when the same promises of it "increasing jobs", etc. that have been made for NAFTA and other agreements in the past have been found to have been really LIES to get us to go along with us passing them.

If they want to depart from the past, and have this truly be a different and not just another advancement of the oligarchy that past agreements have been, then some effort should be made to sell this to the public, instead of having this fast track bill to have it go through congress with simple majority report with limited time to pass it and no opportunity to amend it. If the only people that are really allowed to be a part of the process to create this bill are mostly corporate leaders, then do they really think that we are THAT STUPID to think such a process is being created to serve us? COME ON!!!!

[pampango]

6. Why are all other international negotiations secret?

FDR trade agreements were an "departure from the past" of republican high tariffs. He negotiated them in secret.

Obama's negotiations with Cuba and Iran were a "departure from the past". They were negotiated in secret.

... no opportunity to amend it.

Because what all Democrats want is a chance for John Boehner and Mitch McConnell "to amend it" and fix the mistakes the Obama may have made.

If defeating fast track is the best way to defeat the TPP, and I agree that it is, then I understand the train of thought here. But none of us here really wants John and Mitch to have the ability to change what Obama negotiates to suit themselves, do they?

[BlueCaliDem]

7. Can you tell me *which* international trade agreements had been broadcast via C-Span before Obama's

TPP? No? Then tell me why exactly you believe it should be different with this president? COME ON!!!!

[cascadiance]

10. And which international trade agreements haven't screwed the American public...

... for the benefit of the rich elites that have engineered their details?

Whether or not they need to be hashed out in secret or not DOES NOT explain why so many of who negotiated it were corporate leaders and NOT government officials elected by us. If it were truly working for us then those corporate leaders wouldn't be the ones secretly putting it together and elected officials would keep it secret, if they truly saw that it was going to be beneficial to their constituents. That is if it is as how you and others contend, they need to be negotiated in secret to avoid delay of them being ruled upon.

Can you blame a public that finds out that only corporate leaders know about and have helped put this together, and leaks show it to be the CRAPPY legislation that works for the benefit of these elites in unprecedented ways? WHY should we trust what we hear about this agreement when what we hear is so bad... AND past history shows that just about all previous agreements have screwed us and give us this big trade deficit that we have now. Had that trade deficit been used to benefit the masses instead of the wealthy, then the Republicans would be all over this as a monster that would put this country in to more serious debt, that they always rant about. They just know that this debt it creates is something that serves THEM and their 1% backers, which is why they as REPUBLICANS support this POS!!!! Why do you like secret bills that Republicans like? WHY?

[BlueCaliDem]

12. So you *are* judging President Obama's trade deal with those of past presidents.

How prejudiced of you. And not very open-minded. And I blame "the public" for not trusting this president when they've known him for nearly SEVEN YEARS and that he's always, always worked on behalf of the middle class and the American worker.

Why the undeserved disrespect and distrust now?

Anyway...

President Obama has campaigned on renegotiating NAFTA's horrible enforcement provisions, and he's doing just that in the TPP. This Admin's goal is clearly detailed at the U.S.T.R.'s site.

Members of Congress - including Senators Warren and Sanders - have access to the drafts so far negotiated but what can change and are not yet set in stone. All changes, too, will be accessible to Senators. Anyone saying that's untrue is a liar and lying to pry open the wallets of their constituents.

By the way? President Obama is STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF NEGOTIATIONS. Nothing is set in stone, however, the latest TPA (aka fast track) compromise by Congress gives Congress and the American people a full six months - as opposed to 90 days in prior TPA pacts - to consider an agreement. That change alone should be touted as proof that a Black man has to work TWICE as hard for half the credit (or, in President Obama's case, NO credit).

Then, for the first 60 days after an accord is reached and even before the president can sign it, the trade agreement will have no action from Congress but will be fully open to public comments. Then you and other anti-trade Americans have more than enough time to demonize pick-a-part review the negotiated deal in public, via C-Span, via MSNBC, via CNN, via Fox "News" Channel, via all broadcast media giants and affiliates, via all print media, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera... Following that, Congress would have another 120 days to take an up-or-down vote.

Congress, for the first time, is also imposing a human rights negotiating objective, and 60 senators can end this authority at any time should they deem that the final deal did not meet objectives set out by Congress.

In summation...if the American people loathe NAFTA and CAFTA so much and want to change it, and if they distrust China more than they do President Obama, they would do well to support, not demonize or attack, the Trans-Pacific Partnership now in the able hands of this president.

[cascadiance]

14. History shows that BOTH Democrat and Republican presidents have signed CRAPPY trade deals...

... and the worst before this TPP was NAFTA that was signed by Bill Clinton, who's wife was negotiating this TPP with other countries as Obama's SOS and is now running for president where she's not making any comments on what the TPP will or won't do for us!

Jayme Diamond is LAUGHING at you for saying that Obama has *always* worked for the middle class, when CRIMINALS like him are getting off scott free along with all of the other banksters because Obama's DOJ refuses to do its job and prosecute them for breaking laws that even Ronald Reagan prosecuted similar crimes for when he went after crooks of the Savings and Loan crisis!

You know why it is Democratic Party presidents like Clinton and Obama who are asked by the PTB to put through the WORST of these trade agreements such as NAFTA and TPP? It is because they know that they can get people like you that will support a Democratic president in whatever they do without question, even if it is all about screwing over most Americans, and perhaps even screwing our democratic system of government with these kangaroo courts that can overturn our elected government's laws.

You DON'T make the case of saying that you are going to "fix" NAFTA's problems by only working with 600+ corporate representatives and NO congress people in a very secret negotiation process that elected officials will only see for a limited time and only get to vote with no amendments an up or down vote afterwards when most treaties as envisioned by our founders when treaties can even have more weight than our constitution itself required a 2/3rds majority to pass earlier.

I trust more progressive democrats than I do Republicans who reject this treaty while Republicans embrace it.

I'm sorry, I just don't think this lame duck president is making a good enough case to the American people on why we should believe that he won't screw us over to get a nice retirement deal for himself that appears to be what he's negotiating for in reality.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. In short, your answer is "Yes". Clearly. Then there's nothing more to say to you.

It's hard to change a prejudiced mind and I won't waste my time trying. You've received enough links from me to form an informed opinion regarding the TPP and the process. You choose to hold tightly to your prejudice of all trade agreements and won't give this president the benefit of the doubt despite his incredible track record that's benefited the American people more than the last seven presidents combined. Well, have at it. I can only hope people like you are in the minority.

[Cha]

16. Thank you for your valualbe input on this thread, Blue Cali. I believe the President and not those

trying to "Demonize" it.

Good Luck!

[BlueCaliDem]

17. You're so welcome, Cha, and thank you for your support. Finding support for President Obama is hard

to come by on Democratic Underground these days, so it's always nice to see a response to my post that doesn't try to take him down.

Based on his progressive accomplishments in the past six years, President Obama has earned our willingness to trust him. But he can't catch a break with a few loud DUers who'll back a candidate for president despite the lack of hard work in their resume that could push this country forward outside of loud yelling at Wall Street and criticizing this president. I'm convinced, however, that that's got nothing to do with President Obama's successful record and more to do with...personal "feelings" regarding this president as a man.

[Cha]

18. Now Obama is doing this.. "Obama to announce eBook initiative for low-income students"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141081167#top

There's no way I expect any respect or reasoning from those who have knee jerked their contempt for the President over the last 7 years. They ignore his accomplishments and but jump on any thread where they think they smell blood in the water. It's too pathetic. Their loss.

[cali]

3. that's a very good article

Thanks for posting.

[hifiguy]

4. Excellent summary of the reasons why people are so suspicions.

[moondust]

5. K/R

Rules and laws are meaningless w/o enforcement. Republicans sure don't like enforcement unless it turns a profit for their sugar daddies.

[Rex]

8. Capitalism loves the wealth and hates the laborer, it really is that simple.

And since every part of our government is owned by capitalism...easy math. YEAH I've been pointing this out since we started talking about the TPP...China is going to LOVE this deal!

I hampers the TPP partner-nations into huge restrictions to corporate conglomerates while never enforcing any of the laws!

[Recursion]

9. AFL-CIO has sued other countries IIRC 70 times now under NAFTA/CAFTA

And, yeah, this is a huge problem with the framework: the US government just doesn't do the enforcement and leaves Labor to do it on their own.

Now, AFL-CIO has had a very impressive track record so far with their suits, but the consulations period is so long that it usually takes a decade for a lawsuit to finally get to a national court (I don't think any of the CAFTA lawsuits have made it that far yet though I could be wrong).

[pampango]

11. Interesting information, Recursion. Thanks for posting it. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Neither CAFTA nor NAFTA have any "teeth" to go after violators. That's why we NEED the TPP.

Man! There's so much misinformation and untruths out there about NAFTA and CAFTA that it's no wonder that some American people are against the TPP. If they believed in this president just a smidge, they wouldn't be so terrified about him negotiating another, stronger trade agreement on behalf of the American people. This man is no dummy, and he's always worked in favor of the (ungrateful) American people. Always.

What President Obama seeks to do now is renegotiate weak/unenforceable provisions in past trade agreements via the TPP that will allow other countries to go after violators of the trade agreements. This would go a LONG way in stopping the murder of union workers in Guatemala.

For the life of me, I don't understand why this is a bad thing to Trumka.

CAFTA's labor provision is only enforceable by the respective country itself; there's nothing other countries can do, even the United States, except register diplomatic protest. Sure, the AFL-CIO - just like the U.S. Trade Representative, can and has file suits in those CAFTA countries, but again, labor provisions as written under CAFTA are only enforceable by the respective country itself. Trumka knows this, so why the push of misinformation? What would he have the president do? Declare war on Guatemala and Columbia for violations of provisions of CAFTA? Would you want war over this? Or would you rather choose renegotiating our trade agreements to strengthen worker's rights and environmental protections - which the TPP seeks to do - and then have the "teeth" to really go after these governments for violations of trade provisions?

I choose the latter. And judging by your past posts, I'm certain you do, too, Recursion.