"Who is writing the TPP?" by E Warren & R DeLauro

[RiverLover]

Who is writing the TPP?
By Elizabeth Warren and Rosa DeLauro May 11, 2015
Boston Globe

Advocates of the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive 12-country agreement, sell this proposal as a free trade deal — but the United States already has free trade agreements with half of the countries at the negotiating table, and only five of the treaty’s 29 draft chapters reportedly deal with traditional trade issues. While reducing traditional barriers to trade with countries like Japan will facilitate some international commerce, the TPP is about more than reducing tariffs.

The president argues that the TPP is about who will “write the rules” for 40 percent of the world’s economy — the United States or China.

But who is writing the TPP? The text has been classified and the public isn’t permitted to see it, but 28 trade advisory committees have been intimately involved in the negotiations.

Of the 566 committee members, 480, or 85 percent, are senior corporate executives or representatives from industry lobbying groups. Many of the advisory committees are made up entirely of industry representatives.

A rigged process leads to a rigged outcome. For evidence of that tilt, look at a key TPP provision: Investor-State Dispute Settlement where big companies get the right to challenge laws they don’t like in front of industry-friendly arbitration panels that sit outside of any court system. Those panels can force taxpayers to write huge checks to big corporations — with no appeals. Workers, environmentalists, and human rights advocates don’t get that special right.

Most Americans don’t think of the minimum wage or antismoking regulations as trade barriers. But a foreign corporation has used ISDS to sue Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage. Phillip Morris has gone after Australia and Uruguay to stop them from implementing rules to cut smoking rates. Under the TPP, companies could use ISDS to challenge these kinds of government policy decisions — including food safety rules....

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/05/11/elizabeth-warren-and-rosa-delauro-who-writing-tpp/2FQZAV6uz9GGQI6pe3cd0K/story.html

What bothers me is that regulations, which generally protect people &/or planet, by their very nature cut profits. So any US law regulating industry is conceivably on the table. And its just the luck of the draw who will be deciding the outcomes in ISDS cases.

Of course industry wrote it like this & are spinning hard to make it seem it's in our best interest.

It isn't.

[leftofcool]

1. I thought Warren was privy to this?

If she can read it wouldn't she know for sure who is writing it? Can she tell us or does she have to keep that secret?

[RiverLover]

2. She has read it. They've made it classified, she can't give details about what's in it.

Only generalities.

She wants the citizens to be able to see it & have a say, but Fast Track prohibits that.

And the TPP is so bad, they won't even try without TPA fast track.

Says all we need to know.

[hifiguy]

45. Yep. No notes, no details, no nothing.

This explosive turd is being held nearly as closely as was the Manhattan Project.

Gee, I wonder why........

[sabrina 1]

29. Only after years of growing and massive public outrage over the fact that Congress,

including the Trade Commission, were refused access to these negotiations, the outrage slowing down the process of getting passed, did Obama relent finally and 'allow' (imagine having to even use that word regarding Congress whose job is to legislate on behalf of the American people) Congress to take a peek at this agreement, under such draconian restrictions that is impossible for them to have read it without holing up in the one room where it is located for weeks, without leaving.

We already know that Corporations are writing this legislation, in fact corporations seem to write all of our legislation these days.

And there are the leaks. Not to mention that it is unconscionable that even after being FORCED to 'allow' Congress to take a peek at this monstrosity of thousands and thousands of pages, they were GAGGED regarding 'allowing' the American people to know what is in there.

Thanks to Whistle Blowers however, a small portion of it was released, and what was in that portion only confirmed what members of Congress had said, that 'if the American people know what was in it they would oppose it'. They were correct.

So if what we have seen is in any way representative of the rest of it, there is NO WAY any responsible member of Congress should even consider fast tracking this.

I don't know why we have a Congress anymore, is it just for show? I mean Corporations write our laws, then hand the to Congress for a rubber stamp.

THAT is what should be causing outrage even more than this particular piece of legislation.

It should certainly cause any Constitutional Lawyer to be outraged.

[cali]

3. Thank you Senator Warren and Representative DeLauro

and thank you, River for posting this.

Some of us have been warning people about the advisers to this deal for years, and been met, from the pro-tpp contingent, with "that's bullshit".

[RiverLover]

5. I don't get being pro-tpp, not for the average citizen.

If they're informed from what we do know about it. Unless they profit from it of course, those who aren't concerned with the greater good. Which to me, is the major reason I'm a Democrat. The greater good trumps all.

[cali]

6. I think I do. They may find it too technical and confusing and they may just

decide to put their trust in President Obama. We certainly see a lot of that on DU.

[tridim]

14. I trust Obama, you never have.

Move on cali, it's so fucking old.

[think]

17. I use to trust Obama. But no. I do not just "trust him" any more. I like much of what he does

but he's on the wrong side with the TPP and it is glaringly obvious.

When you have Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, & Paul Ryan all pushing for fast tracking the TPP it should serve as a warning as to what's really going on..

Here is a current list of who's on record as being for or opposed to the fast tracking of the TPP:

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/241114-whip-list-dems-bucking-obama-on-trade

[cali]

20. False. I trusted him for a couple of years and I was a big early supporter

stop making shit up, tridim. it's so fucking old. And no, I intend to stay on the tpp. I could care less about Obama or his motives. I'm not an unthinking adorer of pols like too many people are. I care about issues and policy- even if you don't. Your thing is endless defending of a politician which I see as a waste of time.

[tridim]

35. I completely agree that you couldn't care less about Obama.

That is 100% obvious.

I trust Obama because he has earned it over about 8 years. I am sorry you simply can't recognize trustworthiness.

[cali]

37. I'm sorry that you don't grasp some very, very basic things:

trustworthiness isn't an absolute value or "truth". It is a subjective measurement.

Complete trust in a politician is, from my perspective, a dangerous game.

You believe he's earned your trust. Fine. That does not make it a fact that he's "trustworthy".

Try to learn to distinguish between opinion and fact.

Oh, and by not caring, I mean that I'm not interested in his motivations or character. I'm interested in what he does and whether his rhetoric dovetails with his actions.

[hifiguy]

46. My BS detector went off before he was inaugurated.

Appointing one of the chief arsonists of the financial meltdown - Geithner (who was also a protege of Larry Summers) - as the main firefighter told me two things; Wall Street criminals would walk, and, secondly, he ain't working for us.

[Trajan]

31. I'm with Cali on this ..

It's not old - it's the subject de jeur ....

[bvar22]

41. Your post is bogus.

Cali was one of the earliest and most vocal supporters Obama had on DU.
She was the leader of the "Lets give this guy a chance" contingent at DU.

It took a few years of betrayals, bad deals, and "reaching across the aisle" before she had had enough.
Once Cali has "had enough", you are in trouble.
She really doesn't tolerate fools or blind partisans.

[cui bono]

49. You trust Obama blindly.

Move on tridim, it's so fucking old.

You are trusting in someone who is siding with the GOP. The GOP that is extreme right wing. Why is that?

[bigwillq]

4. Glad to see DeLauro taking an active role here.

I am glad she is my US REP.

[Nite Owl]

7. If Obama were truly serious

about not doing harm to people or the environment unions and environmental groups would have been at the negotiating table. There is such a lack of respect for the citizens of this country. Any demands from us are looked upon as naive, as if we don't know what is good for us. The corporations, the banks Obama shows the greatest respect. He once said he is like the old liberal Republican and he really is, in that he was being honest.

[RiverLover]

8. That is so true.

Great post - so many truths wrapped up in one short post.

[Art_from_Ark]

11. He didn't even say "liberal" Republican

He said "moderate '80s Republican", the same type of Republican who supported Ronald Reagan.

I get the feeling, though, that he was confusing "'80s Republican" with "'80s Democrat", 'cause I don't remember too many '80s Republicans who were supporting the stuff he was talking about. The Republicans of that day embraced trickle-down "voodoo" economics.

[Nite Owl]

34. You're right

he did say moderate and as the poster below brought out Eisnenhower was a liberal R. and he isn't like him at all. He's been one continuous lie. When he was running he hung out with a lot of the infamous and now almost extinct Blue Dogs. That was clue to me not to expect very much. Then appointing Rahm and the other corporates. So wish I was wrong back then. He seemed to be the better of the group and Romney was so bad, we needed someone who could win and not bring us into more wars.

[hifiguy]

47. We were had, and royally

Chumped, and sold down the river. And we have nobody but ourselves to blame and I include my self among those chumped and rolled.

[Dont call me Shirley]

16. And the negotiations would have been an open process.

[pampango]

18. "He once said he is like the old liberal Republican ..." Eisenhower was a liberal by our standards.

The highest income tax rate was 91%. He was pro-union. Infrastructure spending was high. He supported the safety net. He warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex. He preceded over the end of the Korean War and started no new ones, including a specific decision not to get involved in Vietnam.

Civil rights were bad but that was true under FDR also and Ike did aggressively enforce Brown vs Board of Education.

When one says that any modern politician is a "old-time liberal republican" that is not such a bad thing, except in terms of civil rights and social issues which were both bad in both parties given the influence of Southern and conservative Democrats back then.

[happyslug]

38. Eisenhower intervened into Lebanon and what became the Bay of Pigs started under his Presidency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lebanon_crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

Lets not forget Guatemalan and Iran (Eisenhower was president from January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961, the planning for both occurred only after January 20, 1953:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Anti-Communist and Anti-then existing Government of Indonesia in 1957-1958:

http://www.us-foreign-policy-perspective.org/index.php?id=308

When the French decided to withdraw from Vietnam in 1954, it was the Eisenhower Administration the opposed the move and did all it could to undo that agreement, the "American Vietnam War" did not begin till 1957, when the Viet Cong Started guerrilla activities in South Vietnam, after the Communist members had been forced underground by the practice of the South Vietnamese Government (under increasing influence of the US) started to arrest anyone suspected of being a Communist OR anyone advocating for the vote on unification agreed to in the Geneva Treaty of 1954. US military aid to South Vietnam started in 1956, but the 90% of the "French" Aid since 1946 had been from the US, so the US was just cutting out the Middleman not changing the Aid being supplied;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Vietnam_%281954%E2%80%9359%29


On the Domestic Front, Eisenhower did say he supported Unions, but then signed into law the 1958 "Labor Reform Act" whose purpose was to "Reform" corrupt unions (mainly the Teamsters) by requiring extensive reporting bu the Unions and Union officers to the National Labor Relations Board, but like the Taft-Hartley Act, it was passed claiming it was to help workers, in effect it impose additional restrictions on workers trying to form an Union including the following:

State courts and state labor relations boards were given jurisdiction over cases declined by the Board under its jurisdictional standards.

Secondary boycott prohibitions were tightened and hot cargo agreements (under which employers committed themselves in advance to boycott any other employer involved in a dispute with the union) were outlawed.

A new unfair labor practice made it unlawful for a union to picket for recognition or organizational purposes in certain circumstances.

http://www.nlrb.gov/who-we-are/our-history/1959-landrum-griffin-act

Due to the Supreme Court decision in Brown vs Topeka Board of Education, desegregation of Public Schools started. Lyndon Johnson then arranged for the passage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act, but do to lack of support from Eisenhower, Johnson had Eastman, Chairman of the Senate Judicary Committee so weaken the bill to make it almost useless (Compared this to what LBJ did, as President, in 1964 to get the much more effective 1964 Civil Rights Acts passed).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957

At the time, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was 28 years old and a developing leader in the civil rights movement; he spoke out against white supremacists. Segregationists had burned African-American churches, centers of education and organizing related to voter registration, and physically attacked African Americans, including women, who were activists. King sent a telegram to President Eisenhower to make a speech to the South, asking him to use "the weight of your great office to point out to the people of the South the moral nature of the problem". Eisenhower responded, "I don’t know what another speech would do about the thing right now."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957

More on how LBJ used the Office of the President to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act Passed. something Eisenhower refused to even consider:

As Richard Russell, the South’s leader in the Senate during the 1960s, put it to a friend a few days after Kennedy’s assassination: “You know, we could have beaten John Kennedy on civil rights, but not Lyndon Johnson.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/what-the-hells-the-presidency-for/358630/

As to Eisenhower's action in Little Rock, it was do something. Thus he sent in the 101st Airborne to prevent unrest, then withdrew them and left the National Guard handle the rest. The National Guard had been first called out by the Governor of Arkansas to prevent integration, but when Eisenhower sent in the 101st, he also nationalized the National Guard, putting them under the command of the 101st.

Thus Eisenhower was reacting to events, not leading events in Little Rock and he did the least he could do AND still appear to be in charge, much like Bush jr did in New Orleans after Katrina (Sent in the minimum as things had already improved, then withdraw them and claim the improvement was do to his actions).

http://www.blackpast.org/aah/little-rock-crisis-1957

Now, the Red Scare died out during Eisenhower's Administration, but it died out due to having gone to far.

In 1950 the McCarren Internal Security Act had been passed by Congress, over Truman's Veto. Truman then ignored the act, but Eisenhower did try to enforce it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran_Internal_Security_Act

Eisenhower expanded the Red Scare:

The press recognized the revolutionary nature of the new executive order. The Washington Post said that it established not a loyalty test but a "suitability test." Some in government referred to their new "integrity-security" program. Some of those the press expected to be excluded from federal employment included "a person who drinks too much," "an incorrigible gossip," "homosexuals," and "neurotics."

Truman's earlier Executive Order 9835 applied only to the State Department and select military agencies. Executive Order 10450 extended to all employees of the federal government, notably the armed forces. Anyone enlisting was required to sign a statement swearing that he had no connections with an organization deemed subversive. Joining such an organization at any time during military service was grounds for immediate discharge from the military

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_10450

Yes, Truman had passed a narrow Executive Order to cover those groups the then GOP Controlled Congress were saying were under Communist control. Eisenhower expanded that order to cover ALL federal Employees and even employees of Federal Contractors and expanded it to include not only Communists and other "enemies" of the US, but anyone who MAY be disloyal.

Yes, a lot of the mess we have today can be traced back to Eisenhower's administration. From Civil Rights to the Middle East. Eisenhower wanted the cheap way to solve problems and failed to understand that it is often more expensive in the long run (i.e. force the South to integrate was HARD, but to leave segregation fester, as he did, cost more in the long run, but costs NOT revealed till 10 to 30 years later).

[bvar22]

42. Nope.

He said he was an 80s Moderate Republican....NOT and Eisenhower Republican (50s)
(Though I wish he were. At least UNIONS would have a friend in the White House,
and we would b spending our money on OUR infrastructure, and NOT throwing it down a bottomless pit in the ME.)

Lets take a look at who was president for most of the 80s.
Surprise, surprise....Ronald Reagan was your "Moderate Republican).

[daleanime]

9. K&R.....

[Duppers]

10. That's ALL we need to know.

Thanks!!

[think]

12. The current USTR TPP frontman got $4 million dollars in bonuses from Citigroup when he left

Wall Street Pays Bankers to Work in Government and It Doesn't Want Anyone to Know
By David Dayen - Feb 4th 2015

Citigroup 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

https://ustr.gov/about-us/biographies-key-officials/united-states-trade-representative-michael-froman

[RiverLover]

22. This is who is in charge. Wall Street. Thanks for the reminder of Froman the front man

What's not to trust?

[think]

13. The former USTR TPP frontman is now part of a law firm that lobbies on behalf of US Chamber & GE

Ron Kirk from 2013 to the Present day works for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher:

https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=70905


You can see Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's major clients here which include the US Chamber of Commerce & GE here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000000686&year=

(On this page you can change the years to see how much was given each year. In 2010 GE paid this firm $1,730,000 for lobbying on their behalf.)

[RiverLover]

23. Its one big scam with so many players. I'd never heard of Ron Kirk. Thanks for info, think!! /nt

[think]

30. TY as well for this thread! Ron Kirk's Wikipedia bio for those wanting further information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Kirk

Here is is the information specifically related to his time as the USTR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Kirk#U.S._Trade_Representative

[sabrina 1]

15. And the goal of this provision is that after losing, which is guaranteed when you have

Corporate Tribunals run by Corporate Judges and Lawyers, the people of countries like the US and Australia who have decent environmental and labor laws, compared to third world countries, the laws will eventually be relaxed. How many billions of dollars would have to be paid out due to these lawsuits (6,000 Corporations will have access to this country should this pass) before Congress decides that these laws are costing the country too much money?

And as far as the president claiming Americans won't lose jobs. EVEN if that were true, which is extremely doubtful, these corps can sue based on our Minimum Wage laws. After all why do business here if there were standards for workers regarding livable wages, when they can go to Korea and raise their salaries by a dollar or so, while suing this country claiming losses in profit.

In the end, this could lower the wages of Americans, perhaps raise slightly the wages of Third World countries, until they meet somewhere at the lower end of the scale.

Someone needs to ask this president what protections there are for the working class to be paid a livable wage in this 'deal'.

[RiverLover]

25. He said the S Korean trade deal would create US jobs, but it's caused loss of 75000,

& a trade deficit now with S Korea of $12 billion.

And this~"In the end, this could lower the wages of Americans, perhaps raise slightly the wages of Third World countries, until they meet somewhere at the lower end of the scale."

Globalizing peasant wages for all blue collars.

This sums up the "globalization" argument nicely~

...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.

The president charges his opponents with wanting to lock out the world: “The idea that we can shut down globalization, reduce trade … is wrong-headed. That horse has left the barn.”

But the president’s foes aren’t arguing against globalization or trade; they are arguing that the rules that govern our trade and investment strategies have been rigged by global companies and banks to benefit themselves, not American workers. ...

A progressive’s lament about the Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Dont call me Shirley]

19. The corporations with their secret tribunals will bankrupt countries involved in the TPP. So much

so that one corporation could end up owning one entire country. This "trade deal" is so bad for the common man, sovereign countries, the environment. It truly is a corporate coup d'états. Monsanto will own the US...

[RiverLover]

26. Yep, Monsanto & Walmart & Verizon & Shell & Goldman & Google & Pfizer & all those others who are

writing this corp coup.

[bvar22]

43. They will sit on each other's boards,

and vote themselves pay raises, bonuses, and golden parachutes.

[CharlotteVale]

21. K&R

[RiverLover]

27. Thanks Charlotte! /nt

[Octafish]

24. ''A rigged process leads to a rigged outcome.''

Somehow, that sounds like US history since the Warren Commission.

[kentuck]

28. It shows how difficult it is to fight these multi-national corporations.

They make their own rules. The people have no say in the matter.

[KG]

32. Who is writing the TPP? wise men, smarter than us citizens. kind and benevolent, with only the best

of intentions.

[jalan48]

33. Why would any Democrat support a trade agreement written by large corporations in secret, and

Last edited Tue May 12, 2015, 10:46 AM - Edit history (1)

which is supported by the Chamber of Commerce and the Republican Party? A trade agreement which is opposed by labor and environmental groups. Have some Democrats and DUer's secretly become Republicans?

[RiverLover]

36. That's what I ask.

Its mind-boggling. Be authentic, if you're republican, Go, be it! But stop giving the Democratic Party a bad name by acting republican while calling yourself a "Democrat". It shouldn't be allowed to become meaningless.

[bvar22]

44. If they need funds from the DCCC or DSCC for the next election,

they need to keep the vultures at the top happy.
Otherwise, you will get Kuciniched, Feingolded,...or even Wellstoned.

[WillyT]

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

[ananda]

40. This is creepy.

..

[glinda]

48. kick!