There's a simple way Obama could bring everyone on board to support the TPP.

[Kablooie]

Release all the details.
If it's as wonderful for the US as he says it is, releasing the details could only help and would quiet down most of the opposition.

So Mr. O, how about it?
Open it up to the public and show us why we all should support it.

Not doing so simply confirms that no one would like it and so our opposition is justified.

[Hoyt]

1. He will when it's finished. I'm betting 95+% who are saying it's bad won't read it.

Everyone will have plenty of time before Congress votes to tell us how Obama is selling us into slavery, and how Clinton is his accomplice.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. When it's finished is too late.

Then we get zero input on stuff that will affect us.

That's no good.

[Hoyt]

3. No it's not. Congress can vote it down. They can even tell Obama to go back to the table

and change some things, or Congress will vote No.

In fact, you will see it before Obama formally sends it to Congress, assuming he decides it is good enough.

How much time do you think you need?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I'm not sure why you think we'll get to see it. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I think 6 months minimum would be enough time to read and debate it.

[Hoyt]

8. Well you'll probably only get three months, so take a refresher on speed reading.

Besides, you should be familiar with the real issues when it's released.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. Three months would work. And I am a pretty fast reader.

[Hoyt]

11. Good deal.

[Exilednight]

37. We only get 60 days. That's all that TPA allows for and it is reported to be

15000 pages. That's a lot of details with many devils. You have to read an average of 250 pages a day, and that is providing all you do is read it in 60 days. Takes away any time for debate.

Congress can not send him back to free table unless it fails to pass. It's a straight up and down vote with no amendments or changes allowed.

Either we do it, or we don't.

[Hoyt]

41. Actually it can be sent back to Prez. First if it doesn't meet the standard Congress placed in the

TPA, the fast track is off. And Congress can always informally tell Obama that it won't be approved without his getting changes.

If they vote, they can only approve or disapprove it.

But, nothing stops them from NOT voting, other than it might derail the whole thing. If they don't like something, I suspect they'll be fine with that.


According to NYT, the TPA will include language that:

". . . . . . . the full agreement would have to be made public for 60 days before the president gives his final assent and sends it to Congress. Congress could not begin considering it for 30 days after that."


I would be interested in any creditable source that says 15,000 pages. I think NAFTA is close to 1200 pages, not a daunting task for someone already familiar with trade agreements. Plus, there are probably only a few chapters most folks will be interested in reviewing.

[Hoyt]

8. Sorry. Duplicate from Chinese phone.

[Recursion]

14. Because that's the law

If TPA is passed, Congress has to publish it in the record and vote on it within 3 months.

I suppose if TPA doesn't pass Congress could just bury it and we'd never know.

[bluesbassman]

12. So if it's that simple, why the big push for fast track.

If Congress can just "send it back" to the President to fix it that pretty much makes the TPA moot, so why is he pushing for it?

[Recursion]

15. Amendments and filibusters

Without TPA Mitch McConnell or Rand Paul (or Bernie Sanders) can offer an amendment, and if that amendment passes, we have to go renegotiate the new language with all 17 other countries. (Amendments are basically a "cheaper" way to kill a treaty; same reason we didn't officially end World War 1 until just before World War 2 started). Also, without TPA all the Senate's Byzantine procedural rules apply, and would probably never even see a floor vote.

[DCBob]

25. It's amazing with so much cussing and discussing this issue few understand these simple facts.

They prefer to scream about how Obama is selling out the country for personal gain. This place is simply crazy at times.

[bluesbassman]

32. The system is broken, but the system is what our Democracy was designed to run on.

So what the TPA does is bypass the system and allows for an up-down vote. With a partisan Congress you're going to get a bad decision either way it goes depending on one's personal viewpoint.

All fast tracking does is takes the procedural part of the process out of the equation. Is that really how we want our lawmakers to govern?

[Hoyt]

21. It's the way to get the best agreement.

"Conclusion

Globalization is here to stay, and failure to pass TPA or to conclude the TPP will not change this. However, TPP is a key opportunity for the U.S. to continue to determine the terms of globalization and to ensure that its development supports U.S. growth and welfare.

The TPP is an agreement that will support a U.S. economic future that is geared towards innovation in high-end manufacturing and services. The TPP will also underpin a global economic system that is rules-based, consistent with U.S. values, and strengthens the ability of U.S. businesses to compete in TPP markets. Such a system will ensure that the U.S. benefits more fully from the global economy—and the opportunities here are significant. Currently, 95 percent of the world’s population lives outside the United States. Global middle-class consumption is projected to grow from $21 trillion in 2009 to over $56 trillion in 2030, with most of the growth happening outside the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region. [8]

The TPP will also support other strategic goals of the U.S. in the region. As noted, the TPP is a central part of the U.S. rebalancing towards Asia. In this way, the TPP will underpin U.S. alliances with TPP parties such as Japan and Australia and provide opportunities for the U.S. to deepen its relationship with emerging strategic partners such as Vietnam.

Thus, the TPP is an important trade agreement that will produce economic and broader strategic gains for the U.S. The TPP negotiations can be concluded this year but achieving this will require Congress to pass TPA. It is time for Congress to act. "


http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/04/09-trade-promotion-authority-trans-pacific-partnership-negotiations-meltzer

[billhicks76]

18. Really?

I mean I see that you're really pushing for TPP on all these threads but this is an obvious corporate power grab. The cheerleading isn't selling it around here as far as I can tell. Opting out of this treaty doesn't make us isolationist as we are and always will be involved in international trade. I just really have to question your reliance on Congress for oversight...they are mostly republican and big supporters of NAFTA, TPP and stripping away workers rights in general. Not to mention the bat shit crazy religious wing is virtually in control.

[Hoyt]

22. I agree with you on Congress, but this agreement is important to our future.

[billhicks76]

35. "OUR" Is The Operative Word

If it's like everything else then it just applies to the 1% and/or corporations benefit.

[Hoyt]

36. Do you work for a corporation? Do you think you'd be in a better position

if there were no corporations and we just traded/bartered among ourselves. Personally, I think we'd still be like many of the poorer countries without them.

Now, I'll admit we need more socially conscious mangers, etc., but the small businesses I've worked for were run by some of the most ruthless, racist, right wingers I've ever met.

[billhicks76]

43. Not Against Corporations

But I'm a pragmatist and they have taken over to the point of fascism. Private prisons are a perfect example.

[Hoyt]

44. A totally different matter, but I agree about prisons. Government officials want to shirk

responsibility.

I used to work for a state Medicaid agency -- absolutely best job I ever had, BTW -- so I follow what goes on.

Most states, nowadays, outsource claims processing and even management of patients to private corporations. It's primarily because legislators won't provide funds/authorization for more government employees; and it's better to blame a separate entity for something that goes wrong (and it will), than have to blame yourself. It's also "easier" to write one check, and let the private corporation handle people, equipment, paper clips, etc.

It's really sad.

The one positive thing I can say about outsourcing is that if a government isn't going to invest in the expense of a prison or big data processing systems, it does make sense to let a private company do it and pay for that investment over time. Yeah, you probably pay more, but the government officials can say they slashed costs or some such BS.

I'm in a cheap assed red state that sees investing in people as a cost.

[billhicks76]

45. I Have A Friend Just Out Of Private Prison

He and his innocent girlfriend each got 6 years for a couple pounds of cannabis. Inside he said it cost $500 to get a blanket. They save money by cruel and inhumane condition worse than many POW camps.

[GoneFishin]

29. You are correct. It will be too late. Once fast track is passed, we're done. And it is too late.

Fast track is a mind game to create the appearance of a choice when there will be none. Once fast track is passed, our fate is sealed, which is why the draft will not be released until after the fast track door has been slammed shut.

They won't release a draft prior to fast track authorization, and the reason is obvious on it's face. The outcry would be widespread and demands would be made to remove many corporate giveaways, and the whole international corporate circle jerk might fall apart.

TPP is every bit as unfair, and as big a screw job to American workers as it appears.

TPP propagandists can go shit in their hat.

If your job is not laying by the pool waiting for your dividend checks to come then TPP is going to hurt you.

[joshcryer]

4. Oh I assure you the annexes will have something to be fraught over.

The MSM will pick that thing apart until there are months worth of articles all of which will point out the bad in it.

The question is whether there will be a SOPA / net neutrality style fight over it. My guess is that it's being fed as this terrible thing early so that the masses are apathetic when the final thing comes out because no one will care about X country getting some deal over X product. No one cares about preferential tariff treatments or most favored nation details. Their eyes glaze over except for the markets where that is an issue.

[Jim Lane]

19. Then, when he releases it, Congress can consider fast track.

Once the TPP is published, Congress will have a better idea of whether the arbitrary deadlines imposed by the TPA (a/k/a fast track) will provide enough time for proper consideration. There's no need for Congress to vote on TPA now.

Some proponents have argued that the other countries in the negotiations want assurance that the United States is serious, by which the proponents mean immediate passage of TPA. That doesn't make sense to me. Countries that have been negotiating this since 2010 will petulantly pick up their marbles and go home if there's a possibility that approval will take more than three months? That would be silly. If the other countries took that stance then they would know for sure that there would NOT be a deal. It's much more sensible for them to conclude the negotiations and hope that Congress approves the final product, with or without fast track.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. Congress won't read 95% of it. nt

[Hoyt]

30. Probably not true, but their constituents darn sure won't. They'll be too busy saying

how bad it is because NAFTA ruined their lives even though we'd been losing jobs since the first transistor radio and VW Beetle came here, and technology -- including the failure to adapt to modern technology -- probably cost a lot more job losses.

[AgingAmerican]

6. Queue the bizarre lines of reasoning

...I have heard the last few days as to why he supposedly can't.

The weirdest one I heard was that he can't say what's in it, because all the participating countries must keep their positions secret from each other. Yes, someone actually said that.

See bullet point number 5 of this OP if you don't believe me!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6650059

[msongs]

7. eliminate the fast track provisions. took 5 years to "negotiate" another year won't hurt the filthy

rich corporations and their political stooges

[barbtries]

13. agree.

stop being secretive.

[BrotherIvan]

16. Open your mouth and close your eyes and you will get a big SURPRISE!

[Scuba]

17. Yep, if it's so great he should be overjoyed with everyone reading it.

[99Forever]

20. I don't know that I can read it and understand the convoluted language it's surely written in.

But like any life altering contract, I want MY attorneys to take it apart, line by line and examine each and every detail BEFORE I grant anyone authority make it the law. Period. And no, I don't trust Obama. Or any other neoliberal, for that matter.

People who sign on to shit they don't understand are fucking idiots. Maybe that's why the Teapublicans love this piece of shit, job-killing monster.

[JaneyVee]

23. It's not even finalized. Why release texts that may not even be in the deal?

When it's done it will be open to public viewing.

[eloydude]

24. We'll see it after it's signed, sealed and screwed.

No other way around it.

No, Fast Track and TPP are out of the question.

[alc]

28. why? to negotiate a deal that is most likely to pass congress

I know some in congress can see the text now. But those in congress who like it now may change their mind when they get public feedback (corp & think tank feedback not joe-i-am-not-a-lawyer-but-i-hate-it) .

If there is text that should not be in the deal because it will kill passage, it would be good to know before the agreement is made. And if there is text that would be acceptable IF there is other text to explain/restrict the questionable text, then it would be good to get the additional text in before the agreement is made. It would suck for supporters if the agreement is made but one paragraph (included or missing or ambiguous) kills it.

If you don't think one paragraph can be make-or-break, look at the ACA. If the phrase "exchanges established by a state” was changed to the word "exchanges" we wouldn't have the current court case which can potentially kill the ACA. It would be good to have as many proponents and opponents read this over as carefully as possible for as long as possible and make sure the final text doesn't have any make-or-break phrases that will kill it. If that one phrase exists, it can kill passage. And if it exists but isn't recognized in time it can kill implementation.

[jwirr]

39. If he was not asking for a vote on this now before it is done there would be not be such an outcry

now.

[think]

27. 600 corporate lobbyists worked very hard to help draft this treaty. We don't need congress,

Last edited Mon May 11, 2015, 10:58 AM - Edit history (1)

The unions, or the American people messing it up....

{Edited: to add the word "help". US trade officials get the credit for the actual drafting of the corporate treaty.}

[Hoyt]

31. Actually, not true. The US Trade Reps did it, and they are mostly career diplomats.

Unions were at the same meetings as corporations.

[think]

33. Career diplomats like Micheal Froman who got a $4,000,000 bonus from Citigroup before joining USTR?

Wall Street Pays Bankers to Work in Government and It Doesn't Want Anyone to Know

Ctigroup is one of three Wall Street banks attempting to keep hidden their practice of paying executives multimillion-dollar awards for entering government service. In letters delivered to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over the last month, Citi, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley seek exemption from a shareholder proposal, filed by the AFL-CIO labor coalition, which would force them to identify all executives eligible for these financial rewards, and the specific dollar amounts at stake. Critics argue these “golden parachutes” ensure more financial insiders in policy positions and favorable treatment toward Wall Street.

~Snip~

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman received over $4 million in multiple exit payments from Citigroup when he left for the Obama Administration.

~Snip~

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120967/wall-street-pays-bankers-work-government-and-wants-it-secret

[Hoyt]

34. He hasn't worked for them in years and has a long history of diplomatic work.

Besides, do you want some high school dropout negotiating our future in international trade/law/economics. I prefer to have someone with a lot of government and international experience, which he has with Obama and before.

Do you work for a corporation? Heck, Bernie Sanders deposits his campaign contributions in a corporate account, of all things.

[Psephos]

42. You might want to catch a few episodes of House of Cards sometime. n/t

[jwirr]

38. Or at least it confirms that someone will not like it.

[pampango]

40. Why would he release something that is still being negotiated. He didn't do it with Iran or Cuba or

the agreement with Russia on Syrian chemical weapons or any other diplomatic negotiation that I can think of. If liberals are going to support the policy of international negotiations to resolve world problems rather than the 'cowboy diplomacy' of the previous administration, we have to understand how diplomatic negotiations work.

I'm sure republicans would have been ecstatic if he had released the text and negotiating positions of all the parties in the Iranian nuclear negotiations. That would have scuttled the talks very quickly - a republican and Likud wet dream.

If many oppose the nature of a negotiation - as republicans did with Iran and as many here do with TPP - I understand the strategy of urging a release of negotiating documents as an effective way to torpedo the negotiations. It is a good tactic whether you agree with it all the time or not.