Nation: "The Democratic Party’s Draft Platform Doesn’t Oppose TPP—That’s Bad Policy and Bad Politics

[99th_Monkey]

The Democratic Party’s Draft Platform Doesn’t Oppose the TPP—That’s Bad Policy and Bad Politics
Working-class Americans have had enough of trade policies that accelerate the race to the bottom.
By Larry Cohen * June 26, 2016 * The Nation

In a Friday night showdown at the Democratic Party platform-drafting committee, the Clinton majority outvoted the Sanders delegates 10-5, rejecting any language specifically opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Instead, the majority substituted generic language that trade deals should protect workers’ rights and the environment, and a misleading sentence that claimed that Democrats are divided on trade. A year ago, 85 percent of House Democrats voted against a fast track on the TPP.

Both Presidents Clinton and Obama have maintained that their deals, from NAFTA to the TPP, had better language on the environment and workers’ rights than any previous trade agreement. The issue, of course, is that not a single agreement has provided anything meaningful for workers or preventing climate change or protecting consumers. The language may be better, but it is virtually unenforceable, especially compared to the reparations multinational corporations receive through their right to sue in private tribunals known as investor-state dispute settlement.

Last fall, as Bernie Sanders made opposition to the TPP one of the major issues in the campaign, Hillary Clinton switched her position to opposing the TPP. When Clinton was secretary of state, she and her staff played a major role in outlining an agreement and picking new trade partners—Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and Singapore. Foreign-policy arguments, then and now, were at the center of the pro-TPP argument. Both Obama and Clinton argued that a trade deal would move those four nations closer to the United States and away from China.

Most importantly, once adopted, the TPP can never be reversed or amended without the agreement of all 12 nations.

President Obama continues to lead with this foreign-policy argument as he prepares to send the TPP to Congress for a lame-duck vote after the election. Amazingly, despite opposition from virtually every environmental, consumer, immigrant-rights, and labor organization, the president has made it clear that he will do everything possible to pass the TPP, with the support of Republicans in Congress. Now, Clinton Democrats are preparing to make passing the TPP even easier, despite the net loss of jobs and the permanent harm to the environment that will almost certainly result from it. Most importantly, once adopted, the TPP can never be reversed or amended without the agreement of all 12 nations.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democrats-draft-platform-doesnt-oppose-tpp-thats-bad-policy-and-bad-politics/

[TwilightZone]

1. Yes, the Democratic Party platform committee was going to take a swipe at the president of the US

and de facto head of the party.

That makes a lot of sense.

[think]

2. The policy is HORRIBLE for America. It wasn't supported by the House Democrats at all. Obama

needed the majority of the GOP House to get fast track passed.

190 Republicans in the House voted for it. Only 28 Democrats in the House voted for it:

https://ourfuture.org/20150615/the-28-democrats-who-voted-for-fast-track

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/245417-house-approves-fast-track-218-208-sending-bill-to-senate

[MohRokTah]

8. The policy is BRILLIANT for America.

It should already be ratified, IMO.

[think]

11. It's corporate law written by corporations for corporations. The GOP loves it

The House Democrats only had 28 members vote to fast track this corporate garbage.

It took 190 House Republicans to push it through.

The unions are against it. The environmentalists are against it. Doctors without borders are against it.

It's going to be passed in a lame duck session.

But it certainly doesn't surprise me that YOU think it's great.

[MohRokTah]

12. It's a Democratic trade agreement proposed by a Democratic president.

This Democrat loves it.

[think]

20. Again 190 Republican voted for it. Only 28 Democrats. The unions hate it as do envirnmentalists

Even Joseph Stiglitz doesn't like it.

It's corporate trash and everyone who is honest about it knows it all too well....

TPP 'worst trade deal ever,' says Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz

CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2016 8:45 PM ET Last Updated: Apr 01, 2016 4:51 PM ET

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the Trans-Pacific Partnership may well be the worst trade agreement ever negotiated, and he recommends Canada insist on reworking it.

"I think what Canada should do is use its influence to begin a renegotiation of TPP to make it an agreement that advances the interests of Canadian citizens and not just the large corporations," he said in an interview with CBC's The Exchange on Thursday.

~Snip~

Stiglitz, a professor at Columbia University in New York, was a keynote speaker at a conference at the University of Ottawa on Friday about the complex trade deal.

Read more:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/joseph-stiglitz-tpp-1.3515452

[MohRokTah]

23. Even blind squirrels find nuts

The unions, environmentalists and Joseph Stiglitz are all wrong.

[think]

24. I'll stick with the Nobel prize winning economist over your blind squirrel references thank you.....

[MohRokTah]

25. I'll stick with my president over an economist with an extremist anti-trade agenda. eom

[think]

27. Is calling a Nobel prize winning economist policy positions extremist suppose to impress people?

[AntiBank]

45. Going to through the UN under the bus too? U.N.’s Legal Expert Calls Proposed Trade Deals Illegal

(TPP, TTIP, TISA, and CETA)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027957446

Alfred de Zayas, the U.N.’s Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order, is assigned the task to apply the standards of international law to proposed treaties, to determine whether they’re in accord with international law. On Friday, June 24th, he issued his finding on three large proposed treaties regarding international trade among Atlantic countries: TTIP, TISA, and CETA. Earlier, on February 2nd, he had issued a similar finding on the proposed TPP treaty between Pacific countries, and his conclusion there was the same: that the proposed treaty violates international laws, and is inconsistent with democracy.

snip

“Asymmetrical investment protection” refers to the power that these proposed treaties grant to international corporations to sue (for alleged loss of their profits) nations that increase regulations to protect the safety of the public from toxic products, and from environmental harms, and that protect workers’ rights and other human rights that can also, in some circumstances, reduce corporate profits. “Asymmetrical” refers to the absence in the proposed treaty of any symmetrical power granted to a government to sue an international corporation that violates its laws to protect the public. De Zayas goes further than merely charging that these treaties are “asymmetrical”: he adds that, “In case of conflict between trade agreements and human rights treaties, it is the latter that prevail. States must not enter into agreements that delay, circumvent, hinder or make impossible the fulfillment of human rights treaty obligations.”

[Mojorabbit]

31. It is nice to see critical thinking instead of blind support for what authority puts before one.nt

[appalachiablue]

59. Correct, TPP is just another mega disaster Hafta trade deal as the evidence

proves and the experts know; 25+ years of these global, neoliberal and disagreeable market 'agreements' is more than enough.

[KPN]

22. So why should those who are currently skeptics

love it. How is it beneficial to the average American in real terms? What evidence can you point to that shows these benefits are real and tangible?

If Obama, the Democratic party leadership can't convince the average democrat that it's a good deal, it is clearly bad politics if not bad policy.

[pampango]

37. Polls show that most Democrats do support it. Apparently

Obama has convinced the 'average Democrat'. He hasn't had as much success with the 'average republican' who still oppose 'Obamatrade' according to those polls.

[KPN]

39. Polls? I'd like someone to explain to me how this agreement

benefits the average American. There is no evidence that any of our free trade agreements have improved the average American's economic well being. So how is this one different? How does it do a better job of creating good paying jobs for the working class, as opposed to economic windfalls for corporations and stock-owners?

[pampango]

40. This agreement may be no better. The polls show that Democrats think that it is, while

republicans think it is more of the same. (republicans did not support the earlier agreements either.)

I was reacting more to the: "If Obama, the Democratic party leadership can't convince the average democrat that it's a good deal ..." (which apparently they have done) than arguing that TPP is actually a good deal.

[AntiBank]

43. if you think that Democrats crafted the vast bulk of the TPP

I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

[ljm2002]

34. 190 Republicans voted for it, while only 28 Democrats voted for it...

...that ought to tell you something.

But while you are so busy telling us how BRILLIANT it is, perhaps you could spare a moment and explain the reasoning that led you to that conclusion?

Or not.

[arcane1]

53. 190 Republicans in the House voted for it. Only 28 Democrats in the House voted for it

Yet people are still pretending that it's some sort of "progressive" policy.

Obama and the republicans are on the same side here. Period.

[840high]

7. TPP is bad. I can't

worry about President Obama.

[MohRokTah]

10. TPP is great.

I should be supported by the platform.

[Ford_Prefect]

15. you also support NAFTA wholeheartedly?

No reservations about recent events, perhaps?

[ciaobaby]

26. This may or may not open your eyes to the problems with this and previous trade agreements

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/06/26/transcanada-files-nafta-suit-demanding-more-15-billion-keystone-xl-rejection

[Pharaoh]

21. Lol..........

I can't believe you said that.

if you had said

that would make too much sense.......

it works better!

[arcane1]

51. They chose to side with the republican-led congress that supports TPP

Brilliant!

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. It gives Hillary wiggle room.

[99th_Monkey]

48. Giving Hillary wiggle room is not wise IMHO. nt

[SoLeftIAmRight]

4. Who gets to write the platform?

Many here say Sanders should have no input.

[onecaliberal]

5. There was only 1 person running who was actually for the people.

We are completely fucked

[840high]

6. Yes we are.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. We are. Completely.

[KMOD]

13. Yup, and the people

chose her.

We are in good hands with an exceptional candidate who is more than ready to get stuff done. Can't wait.

[avaistheone1]

16. The stuff to get done is worrisome then.

[KMOD]

17. If you are liberal minded it really shouldn't be.

I'm very excited about our future.

We just gotta keep knocking down Trump. He and like minded people are the danger.

[Jopin Klobe]

14. "The Democratic Party’s Draft Platform Doesn’t Oppose TPP ..." ...

... why ... why ... why-why-why who could have seen that coming??? ...

[Arizona Roadrunner]

18. TPP ISDS process and the Democrats

As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

By not voting against the TPP outright, the Democrats have given Trump a great opportunity to tie the Democrats to the "establishment" and "corporate America". He can also use this position to raise questions about the Democrats "really caring about you and your job". This is a loser position for the Democrats for the "down ticket" candidates too. By the way, the US Chamber of Commerce is not worried about Clinton being "currently" against TPP. They figure after she gets into office, she will find a way for her to be "currently" in favor of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html

[99th_Monkey]

49. +100

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Bad policy, Bad politics...but..it pays well. K&R

[yourpaljoey]

56. Politicians dipping their beak in the big money trough

[LuvLoogie]

28. The party platform takes no position for or against.

[ljm2002]

35. Yes, that was the point of the article. n/t

[Exilednight]

50. it's designed that way to give Hillary political cover.

[cstanleytech]

29. So then how many times in the past 50 years have the issue of trade deals been part of either

parties platforms and of those times how often have they ended up playing a major part in winning an election?

[PatrickforO]

30. The Nation is quite right. So are economists Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Reich.

So am I. I'm sorry but there is still controversy within our party on this issue. That controversy might not be considered acceptable here, but it is good for the party and good for the American people.

The ISDS provisions of TPP are the death knell of local, state and national democracies since they allow corporations to 'sue' governments if they think regulations, such as environmental or safety ones are inhibiting them earning the maximum profits. And then, the 'case' is adjudicated not by a public court, but by corporate-paid 'arbitrators,' and their decision is binding.

Sorry, the TPP is a piece of trash that will finish killing off the American middle class that made this nation great in the first place. It will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, good ones that have benefits and that you can raise a family on.

If TPP is so great, then why was it negotiated in secret? Why were members of Congress allowed to only read it in a designated room and not allowed to even take notes? Why was a 'fast track' vote rammed down our throats to prevent filibuster and allow a straight up/down vote in Senate? (on edit) Why has there been no platform for public debate?

Sorry, but I'm NOT in consensus around 'free trade' and will never be. It is a disastrous, bad policy. An example? We don't have single payer healthcare even though the Dems had majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2009. We were told that there weren't enough votes, but that could have been changed by the President using the bully pulpit and calling for the millions who campaigned for him, including myself, to march on DC to pressure and shame the Congress into making it happen. Into making the right thing happen! You know why we don't have single payer?

It is against the strictures set forth in another 'free trade' treaty: the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of 1995. That's right. Single payer would have created what GATS calls a 'service monopoly.' Of course, we COULD have negotiated a waiver with the other signatories on the grounds that health care is a basic right ENJOYED BY THE REST OF THE WORLD EXCEPT FOR US. Or we could have simply overturned GATS in favor of DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Free trade? Bad idea. Bad policy. We already HAD free movement of goods and services over borders. Free trade treaties are about moving capital. Again, bad idea. Bad policy.

Thus I agree with both Stiglitz and Reich. Check out Reich's short video polemic about TPP on You Tube: The ISDS provisions of TPP are the death knell of local, state and national democracies since they allow corporations to 'sue' governments if they think regulations, such as environmental or safety ones are inhibiting them earning the maximum profits. And then, the 'case' is adjudicated not by a public court, but by corporate-paid 'arbitrators,' and their decision is binding.

Sorry, the TPP is a piece of trash that will finish killing off the American middle class that made this nation great in the first place. It will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, good ones that have benefits and that you can raise a family on.

If TPP is so great, then why was it negotiated in secret? Why were members of Congress allowed to only read it in a designated room and not allowed to even take notes? Why was a 'fast track' vote rammed down our throats to prevent filibuster and allow a straight up/down vote in Senate? (on edit) Why has there been no platform for public debate?

Sorry, but I'm NOT in consensus around 'free trade' and will never be. It is a disastrous, bad policy. An example? We don't have single payer healthcare even though the Dems had majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in 2009. We were told that there weren't enough votes, but that could have been changed by the President using the bully pulpit and calling for the millions who campaigned for him, including myself, to march on DC to pressure and shame the Congress into making it happen. Into making the right thing happen! You know why we don't have single payer?

It is against the strictures set forth in another 'free trade' treaty: the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) of 1995. That's right. Single payer would have created what GATS calls a 'service monopoly.' Of course, we COULD have negotiated a waiver with the other signatories on the grounds that health care is a basic right ENJOYED BY THE REST OF THE WORLD EXCEPT FOR US. Or we could have simply overturned GATS in favor of DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Free trade? Bad idea. Bad policy. We already HAD free movement of goods and services over borders. Free trade treaties are about moving capital. Again, bad idea. Bad policy.

Thus I agree with both Stiglitz and Reich as well as the Nation. Check out Reich's short video polemic about TPP on You Tube:

[Tal Vez]

32. It's not very important to me that silence about a treaty might seem to be bad policy.

Policy isn't very relevant unless our candidate gets elected and then has the power to implement policy.

As for the politics, I prefer to leave that to the political experts. I have never run a presidential campaign. Whether or not a party platform should expressly oppose a treaty is a question best left to people who know more than I know about how to elect a president.

I think it is imperative that Clinton be elected. I want Clinton to hire the people who know best how to get her elected. And, I want those people to decide if it will or will not be helpful to expressly address my favorite issues in the party platform. I want Clinton elected so that she will be in a position to convert my favorite ideas to laws.

I feel the way that I do because I trust Clinton on policy and I trust her people on politics. I recognize that she may not be able to do all that I hope that she can do, but I am certain that she will be able to do nothing for me if she doesn't get elected.

[ljm2002]

38. "I prefer to leave that to the political experts."

"I trust Clinton on policy and I trust her people on politics."

So we should not pay any real attention to the details of policy, apparently. Just trust them, we like them, they'll do the right thing. For sure.

[Tal Vez]

42. Hillary Clinton is not George W Bush.

I didn't trust George W Bush. I do trust Clinton.

Some people may not be able to distinguish between Bush and Clinton. I am not one of those people. I do trust Clinton. Perhaps that's the source of our disagreement.

[ljm2002]

44. OFFS...

...no one said Clinton was like Bush. But blind loyalty is blind loyalty, whichever direction it comes from.

[Tal Vez]

47. I'm not blind.

There really is a difference between Clinton and George W. Bush.

Let's do what we can to get Clinton elected. Let her create the platform that she believes will help her get elected. She can't do anything for any of us if she doesn't get elected.

[ljm2002]

58. But your statement was that of a blind loyalist...

...to wit:

As for the politics, I prefer to leave that to the political experts. I have never run a presidential campaign. Whether or not a party platform should expressly oppose a treaty is a question best left to people who know more than I know about how to elect a president.

(...)

I feel the way that I do because I trust Clinton on policy and I trust her people on politics. I recognize that she may not be able to do all that I hope that she can do, but I am certain that she will be able to do nothing for me if she doesn't get elected.

IOW, you won't be questioning anything Clinton does during the campaign (you don't address anything after the campaign, so neither will I). That is the position of a blind loyalist.

TTFN

[Tal Vez]

60. I am not arrogant enough to pretend

that I know as much about how to get Hillary Clinton elected president as the political experts that she has hired. So, yes, unless she starts doing crazy things, I will defer to her and to the experts that she has hired to chart the appropriate political path. So long as she is leading in the polls, I will trust that she is properly handling her campaign.

I know that there are people who believe that if she just signs on to any campaign platform that is placed in front of her, that all of the wishes placed on the list will magically become law. But, those people are just naive. Those people have not won the nomination of a major party for president. We need a victory, not a wish list.

The first job is to win and to become president. A related goal is to fill our legislature with friendly faces who will assist in passing the laws that we want. If we do that, our wish lists might have some real meaning.

Let's let the people who have a record of winning elections decide what is best to include in a platform. If someone wants to let the world know what is on his political wish list, he can write a book or a letter to the editor. But, he shouldn't be permitted to use that wish list to hinder or cripple the chances of a candidate who is winning without the list.

[Scuba]

33. It appears Hillary's committee delegates know her actual stance on this issue.

[ljm2002]

36. +10000! n/t

[Marr]

46. +1, that's it in a nutshell. /nt

[arcane1]

52. She'll support it, and half its opponents will pretend they loved it all along n/t

[Scuba]

54. Your sigline is worth 1,000 recs.

[arcane1]

57. Thanks, and likewise

[vintx]

41. Sickening to see the same mistakes made over and over

[MisterP]

55. why wouldn't they? we'll still not only vote for it by the millions, but rally our relatives and

drive them to the booths and break up with our FB friends if they don't back the TPP

[A Little Weird]

61. I'm very underwhelmed by the platform so far

I hope they make some revisions.