NPR on TPP: "It's A Beast"

[ucrdem]

Just How Big Is The Asia Trade Deal Obama Wants? It's A Beast
MAY 26, 2015 9:03 AM ET - DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN

{snip}

The 12 nations involved in TPP make up about 36 percent of global gross domestic product, or GDP, according to data from the International Monetary Fund. That sets the TPP well apart from the 14 free trade agreements the U.S. currently has in effect with 20 countries (to be fair, the U.S. accounts for nearly 23 percent of global GDP by itself).

Not only that, but these nations together account for about one-third of global trade, according to the Brookings Institution.

. . . . Another way the TPP is gargantuan is tougher to quantify in a bar graph: its scope. It not only covers basic trade issues like tariffs, but also a variety of other areas like labor and environmental and intellectual property. The size and scope of TPP matter because they are at the center of the debate. The Obama administration sees the deal's broad reach as positive — the agreement, the administration says, will open up the U.S. to all kinds of new markets and business.

Agribusiness companies, for example, are excited about having new avenues for their products. The labor and environmental provisions, the administration also argues, will force other nations to up their game on those issues, "leveling the playing field."

Not only that, but the TPP's size is all the more important for the one economic superpower that isn't included in it: China. One of the administration's top arguments for the deal is that in negotiating TPP, it "writes the rules" for trade with a large swath of eastern Asian countries before China can with its own trade agreements.

{snip}

However, some wish the pact went further — environmental groups like the Sierra Club, for example, believe the provisions won't do enough to address overfishing.

{snip}

If Congress grants the administration fast-track (also known as Trade Promotion Authority), it will mean two to four months for public comment before Congress gives the deal an up-or-down vote, with no amendments or debate.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/26/408832953/just-how-big-is-the-asia-trade-deal-obama-wants-its-a-beast

[Cha]

1. Mahalo ucr~

[ucrdem]

2. Aloha Cha!

Hey thanks! I get why many are concerned but from my perspective that's a whole lot of harmonious relations in one deal and if it takes closed-door negotiations to get everyone on board so be it. The more the merrier in fact because the alternative is conflict, disruption and deprivation and history is sadly littered with hot and cold wars fought over access to resources and markets.

[Cha]

3. Nice perspective.. May we get the best deal possible for all concerned..

snip//

"Yes, it is secret from you and me. As Ruth Marcus correctly explained, “This is not secrecy for secrecy’s sake; it’s secrecy for the sake of negotiating advantage. Exposing U.S. bargaining positions or the offers of foreign counterparts to public view before the agreement is completed would undermine the outcome.” But TPP is not secret to Warren. She has read it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/05/23/warren-and-democrats-should-be-down-with-tpp/?postshare=911432413204877

Senator Ron Wyden is happy..

snip//

"In Washington state, for example, exports of everything from apples to airplanes have soared 40 percent over four years to total nearly $91 billion in 2014, according to The Seattle Times. About two in five jobs there are now tied to trade.

Small wonder that U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, a liberal Democrat from neighboring Oregon, has strongly supported fast-track authority."

snip//

"But then we have Warren stating with a straight face that handing negotiating authority to Obama would “give Republicans the very tool they need to dismantle Dodd-Frank.”

Huh? Obama swatted down the remark as wild, hypothetical speculation, noting he engaged in a “massive” fight with Wall Street to get the reforms passed. “And then I sign a provision that would unravel it?” he told political writer Matt Bai.

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/the-left-is-so-wrong-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_left

snip//

"Warren's amendment split Democrats, with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asking senators to vote "no" and suggesting ahead of the vote that Warren was trying to combat a problem that didn't exist.

"We have never lost an investment dispute case and never paid a dime in penalties. Here's our record: 17 cases, 17 victories," Wyden said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/243002-senate-rejects-warren-amendment#.VV_WE5t6wbA.twitter

[JDPriestly]

6. I strongly disagree. It is the TPP that will lead to disagreements, tension and quite

possibly wars. The imposition of verdicts by kangaroo courts in which the decisive vote on a three-judge panel is picked by the corporate plaintiff? You've got to be kidding if you think that will bring harmony. It will not. What it will bring is eventually corporate rule instead of democracy.

People who cannot understand this fact need to go back and review the history of English law and how democracy developed. It is simply naive to think that the TPP will bring anything positive to Americans.

We lost a case in one of these courts and can no longer and never again choose to require country of origin labelling on certain foods. I want to know where my meat comes from. I do not want to eat meat from animals grown in countries with questionable standards of hygiene and feed and water.

[Enthusiast]

7. Thank you, JDPriestly. I agree with your take.

"We lost a case in one of these courts and can no longer and never again choose to require country of origin labelling on certain foods. I want to know where my meat comes from. I do not want to eat meat from animals grown in countries with questionable standards of hygiene and feed and water."

This is fucking horrible. It perfectly illustrates why these "deals" are not in our best interests.

[ucrdem]

14. What case did we lose?

Per USTR we've never lost one:

Despite having 50 ISDS agreements in place, the United States has never lost a case and nothing in our agreements has inhibited our response to the 2008 financial crisis, diluted the financial reforms we put in place, or has challenged signature reforms like the Affordable Care Act or any of the other new regulations that have been put in place over the last 30 years.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds

[JDPriestly]

17. World Trade Org. decided agaunst us last week om meat labellimg.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-wto-rules-against-yet-anohter-consumer-protection-policy-06-29-12.pdf

[ucrdem]

19. That press release is three years old. nt

[Hoyt]

26. Where did you get "decisive vote" is picked by corporate plaintiff.

It's the same UN/ WTO arbitration rules used for decades. The third jdge is not picked by the corporation.

And nations keep signing these agreements because they like the process.

[cantbeserious]

4. Yes - A Job Killing Beast

eom

[Enthusiast]

8. +1

[Javaman]

11. +1000 nt

[JDPriestly]

5. The investor arbitration courts are very dangerous.

Contrary to Obama's misinformed opinion those arbitration courts will impose through monetary penalties pressure to pass and accept laws that coflict with the will of the American people.

That article or the quotes From it in the OP? Sheer corporate propaganda.

The TPP is a corporate coup. Our tariffs are low enough. It is a corporate coup.

[Eleanors38]

12. Traditional American conservatism ended when sovereignty was quietly disposed of. nt

[JDPriestly]

13. Yes. The concept of habeas corpus is just hobbling along, barely making it.

We still have it domestically, but what the trade courts take from Americans is one of the elements basic to due process: the right to appear. Yes. Our government may pick an arbitrator/judge and may have some input into a third one. But we, the people, will not sit in the jury. We will have no say yet we will pay the damages awards against us.

Not good. A betrayal of a basic tenet of due process: the jury trial in civil matters over a certain value in federal courts.

[ucrdem]

15. USTR on ISDS: "the United States has never lost a case"

Despite having 50 ISDS agreements in place, the United States has never lost a case and nothing in our agreements has inhibited our response to the 2008 financial crisis, diluted the financial reforms we put in place, or has challenged signature reforms like the Affordable Care Act or any of the other new regulations that have been put in place over the last 30 years.

https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2015/march/investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds

[JDPriestly]

18. False.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/press-release-wto-rules-against-yet-anohter-consumer-protection-policy-06-29-12.pdf

We lost a WTO case on meat country of origin labeling. Based on the NAFTA regulations, I believe.

[ucrdem]

20. That document is three years old.

It's also from Public Citizen which has very good intentions I have no doubt. But as far as credibility it has none whatsoever based on claims I've previously waded through its purple prose and defective PDFs to try to figure out.

[JDPriestly]

21. This was in the news last week, I am pretty sure.

From what I can tell, the D.C. Circuit ruled in 2014 that no country of origin labeling was required and this came out last week.

Here you go:

May 26, 2015 in Opinion
Outside view: WTO ruling on labels highlights trade deals’ double edge

The World Trade Organization’s recent ruling against a U.S. food-labeling law highlights how international trade rules can override national priorities, including ours. At issue is a 7-year-old U.S. requirement that beef and pork products be labeled to disclose their country of origin. On May 18, the WTO ruled for the fourth time that this mandate violates international agreements because it harms Mexican and Canadian meat suppliers without delivering commensurate benefits to consumers. Coming just as the Senate is debating a bill to put future trade agreements on a fast track, the timing of the decision couldn’t be worse for the Obama administration. But it’s an edifying reminder that we can’t ask our trading partners to eliminate artificial trade barriers without doing so ourselves.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/may/26/outside-view-wto-ruling-on-labels-highlights-trade/

I remember reading about it last week on my "new" IPad while visiting family.

That's why I was so sure that the decision was recent.

Please correct your posts. Not up to date. Sorry.

[ucrdem]

22. Okay it looks like the Obama admin appealed this decision last Nov. and got turned down

by the WTO. Note that the rule only applied to certain cuts of beef and pork, not fruits or vegetabls, and that was the basis of he WTO's claim that it was discriminatory, which it no doubt was. If the rule is rewritten to apply to all meats, I imagine it will pass muster as a safety regulation, but rules designed primarily to protect US industries from foreign competition are going to run afoul, yes. I don't see that as problematic but if others do that's fine.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-appeals-wto-meat-label-ruling-1417209053

[JDPriestly]

23. These courts do not respect our right as a nation to pass the laws that we the people want.

They do not permit our claims to be heard by juries of our peers. They do not comply with traditional English law concepts of due process.

These courts do not comply with the provisions of our Constitution about civil trials.

[ucrdem]

24. Traditional English law

England fought its neighbors for centuries over trade and if Obama had been around then they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble like inflation, starvation, impoverishment and plague consequent to blocking their ports from receiving grain from the continent as they fought over wool exports. Of course it's not the upper crust that ever starves so they wouldn't have listened anyway.

[JDPriestly]

25. This agreement imposes on the signators in other countries obligations they cannot enforce

like respecting our copyright and patent rights. We will end up at war trying to enforce our rights under the agreements. The government of Mexico either cannot or will not enforce drug laws.. Similarly a lot of other countries cannot enforce or will not enforce other provisions in the TPP.

I predict that the TPP will either fall apart as the Euro group is or that we will end up in wars or violent skirmishes over broken agreements in the TPP.

The TPP is a waste of time. It is best to have a system in which you can stop trading with a country with which you have a trade dispute or in which the enforcement of international law is too lax.

The TPP will prohibit us from retaliating peacefully against countries that violate our rights as a nation.

Corporations like it because they think that the sons and daughters of Americans like me will fight the wars that are required to enforce the agreement which doesn't give me or you any additional advantages but will promise to protect corporate interests. The TPP is a CORPORATE COUP.

Stiglitz says it in different words but agrees with me about much that I say.

You may not like to hear what he has to say, but he is a brilliant man and an expert on economics.

The TPP will lead to more war, not less.

Promises (like the TPP) are made to be broken. Sorry, but that is how the world works.

[Hoyt]

27. We are not required to change the labeling law under the WTO ruling.

[djean111]

9. Yes. A nasty job-killing beast. And cutting Medicare in order to "retrain" those who lose jobs.

[whathehell]

10. Gutting medicare -- Pitting seniors against workers -- God forbid they'd raise taxes on bilionaires

to achieve that kind of "savings".

The whole thing STINKS to high heaven -- It's hard to believe Obama would turn against the people like this,

but I think he has.

[ucrdem]

16. Now that IS desparate.

There's nothing about Medicare in TPP and if the Dem delegation had any sense they wouldn't make it necessary to cut deals with the GOP to get the damn thing done. In any case whoseever asinine amendment this is I have little doubt that it will die shortly.

Except on DU of course where it will live forever.

[whathehell]

28. "There's nothing about Medicare in TPP"

You think not?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/16/1385285/-ALERT-DFA-Warning-New-TPP-Provision-Would-Cut-Medicare-700-Million-to-Help-Pay-for-Trade-Aid

[ucrdem]

29. Not. It's a gimmick dreamed up by this guy's pals:

In other words it's not in the TPP or in the TPA legislation approved by the senate. It's just a dumb GOP gotcha inserted into the House TPA billl that has yet to be voted on much less reconciled or sgned into law:

a provision slipped into a measure to extend and increase the government's Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of trade deals. . . . introduced by Rep. David Reichert (R-Wash.), proposes covering some of the $2.7-billion cost of the extension by slicing $700 million out of doctor and hospital reimbursements for Medicare.

{snip}

The Medicare cut is slated to go into effect in fiscal 2024, which gives it the flavor of a budget gimmick. The chances are good that lawmakers will revisit the cut long before it goes into effect--and the budget landscape a decade from now is certain to look very different from today's. The $700 million cut is the equivalent of about 14 hundredths of one percent of Medicare's budget today ($500 billion).


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-25/house-adopts-plan-to-boost-u-s-war-funds-while-cutting-medicare

If it smells like a stinkbomb and it's tossed by stinkers, you can bet without doing any googling that it's a stinkbomb. But I did it anyway and sure enough, it's a stinkbomb.

[whathehell]

30. Not approved by the Senate,

but still could be approved by the House?

Whatever. The TPP stinks to high heaven even without it.