Martin O'Malley's Comprehensive, Progressive Trade Policy

[bigtree]

Oct 9 | O'Malley Trade Policy

Today, the United States is negotiating trade agreements that are unprecedented in their ambition, size, and scope. Agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are endeavoring to align the global economy around a common set of rules, governing not just trade in goods but labor rights, intellectual property rights, financial regulations, and more. The future of American workers, businesses, and innovation depends on us getting the rules right.

In our increasingly global and interconnected world, trade is a powerful and vital tool. Done well—through high standards and carefully crafted rules—trade can open new markets for U.S. businesses, lift standards for workers in developing countries, protect our environment from climate change, and support a thriving middle class. Done poorly—by relying solely on market forces and hoping for the best—trade agreements can unleash a global race to the bottom.

As president, Governor O’Malley will support free trade agreements—but only those agreements that establish strong and enforceable rules for fair competition, creating opportunity for American workers while lifting standards in our partner nations.

The United States already has the leverage we need to meet this high standard, including in the TPP. Other nations sought to join the TPP in order to receive privileged access to the U.S. market. We should do everything in our power to assert a progressive trade agenda, rewarding countries with high labor and environmental standards—and encouraging those with weaker standards to make meaningful changes in order to join any trade deal.

As president, Governor O’Malley will support and negotiate global trade agreements only if they meet the following benchmarks. This includes the TPP, which after years of being negotiated in secrecy, will soon become public. Together, the following principles clearly define what it means for a trade agreement to be in the best interest of the United States. Agreements that meet these criteria will support American jobs, innovation, and businesses, while lifting standards in our partner nations and building a stronger global economy that works for everyone.

Going forward, every significant trade agreement negotiated by the United States should:

1. REJECT SECRET TRADE AGREEMENTS

The TPP was written behind closed doors, with corporate lobbyists and other special interests sitting at the negotiating table—without adequate representation from labor, environmental, or consumer groups. In fact, the American people still don’t know what is in the agreement, because it is yet to become public, even though our representatives in Congress were forced to vote to rubber stamp it several months ago. But, because special interests are buying our elections and our democracy, they’re able to protect their special access to our trade agreements—making them into just one more way to rewrite the rules of our economy to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Democratize Trade Negotiations. America’s leadership in the world demands that we make good, fair trade agreements. But we shouldn’t let the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their allies dictate the terms alone. Businesses big and small should be engaged in the writing of trade agreements, alongside and equal to labor unions, consumer groups, health and environmental advocates, and all others who have a stake in the outcome of a deal.

2. PROHIBIT CURRENCY MANIPULATION

Nations that are part of the TPP—or are likely to join in the future—have artificially undervalued their currencies in the recent past, boosting their own exports by making them cheaper on the global market. Their actions have come at an enormous cost to U.S. manufacturers, causing thousands of factories to close and millions of American workers to lose their jobs.

We cannot afford to lose any more manufacturing jobs to countries that gain unfair advantages by breaking international rules.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Prohibit Currency Manipulation in Global Trade Agreements. Currently, the Treasury has no clear definition of what constitutes currency manipulation and imposes no consequences for those who engage in it. Worse, currency manipulation is not addressed within the TPP.

As president, O’Malley will take action to end currency manipulation. In agreements such as the TPP, he will clearly define currency manipulation—as a prolonged, one-way, large-scale foreign exchange intervention that prevents appreciation or forces a currency to depreciate—and prohibit all signatories from engaging in it. Then, if a country deliberately tries to depreciate its currency, it would lose its preferential access to the U.S. market and other privileges granted under the free trade agreement.

Hold Cheaters Accountable. Well-designed currency manipulation protections will not impede U.S. monetary policy or freely floating exchange rates. Rather, such provisions will prevent important trading partners from cheating, using their desire to join the TPP and other agreements as leverage to establish fair trade rules that are in the best interests of American workers and jobs.

3. PREVENT CORPORATE POWER GRABS

Global trade agreements increasingly include a provision called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. This is a process that corporations use to sue—outside of the legal system—governments that seek to protect public and environmental health and the well-being of workers. And companies are now using this process to try to weaken or overturn regulations they don’t like more aggressively today than they ever have before.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Oppose ISDS in Trade Agreements. ISDS was designed 50 years ago to protect business investments in developing nations where corporations feared they would face discriminatory laws or have their assets expropriated. Today, ISDS is no longer necessary. Corporations that invest in uncertain markets can buy political-risk insurance to protect themselves against the possibility of a loss. And investors in the United States know they face no such legal risk. ISDS should not be included in the TPP agreement—and in past agreements, ISDS provisions must be revised.

Put Public Interests First. Corporations have abused ISDS, using it to ensure their interests always trump public ones. Through ISDS, they have challenged local laws that require safety warnings on cigarettes, limit mining and hydraulic fracking in sensitive areas, or reduce reliance on nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster. Eliminating ISDS, including from the TPP, is one of the most important ways to stop big business from using trade agreements to rewrite the rules of how our economy works” at the expense of workers and the public.

4. LIFT LABOR STANDARDS

Countries that join the TPP or other free trade agreements gain better access to the U.S. market. The United States should reward only those nations that have robust labor standards in place—setting a high floor that encourages our trading partners to meaningfully and continuously improve conditions for their workers, creating high-paying and high-standard jobs. We should not be satisfied with trade deals that reinforce the status quo when our partners inadequately protect their workforce.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Protect Core Labor Rights. By assuring strong labor rights, the United States can leverage nations’ eagerness to join agreements to lift standards globally—while ensuring American companies are not be placed at a competitive disadvantage for paying higher wages and respecting their workers’ right to bargain. At a minimum, free trade agreements should guarantee freedom of association and the right to collectively bargain; uphold the rights of migrant workers; and prohibit forced labor, child labor, and employment discrimination. And for developing countries, free trade agreements should include a mechanism to ensure that labor rights and standards continue to meaningfully improve long after a deal is signed.

PSet and Enforce Meaningful Labor Standards. Strict oversight and enforcement—including regular compliance monitoring and tariff snap-back provisions when rules are violated—are fundamental to ensuring that labor rights are actually respected. In the past, toothless enforcement mechanisms have made the labor and environmental chapters of trade agreements meaningless. Going forward, we must get the rules precisely right.

For the TPP, this means partner nations must change their laws before the agreement goes into effect. Consider Vietnam, which has never allowed workers to choose their own representatives; the country’s single labor union is controlled by the Communist Party. Or Mexico, where—despite promises made while negotiating NAFTA—freedom of association and the right to collectively bargain are severely limited. Both nations—as well as Brunei and Malaysia—will have to responsibly update their labor laws and practices in order to implement the TPP.

In addition, the TPP and other trade agreements must have strong labor chapters that allow for labor abuses to be investigated and actively monitored, require that labor disputes be quickly resolved, and, when parties fail to remedy labor violations, provide for the benefits of trade agreements to be suspended. Finally, partner nations must have the resources, institutions, and political leadership in place to ensure full compliance.

5. IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The United States has entered free trade agreements in the recent past that provide little to no meaningful protection of our land, water, air, and wildlife. At best, the environmental chapters of these agreements have covered a broad range of topics—from whaling and wildlife trafficking, to deforestation and illegal fishing—while lacking language actually prohibiting nations from engaging in these activities. And no trade agreement has recognized or sought to counter the risks posed by climate change.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Ensure Real and Enforceable Environmental Standards. Even the best agreements are only as strong as our commitment to enforce them. But to date, the United States has never once brought a trade dispute against another nation for violating the environmental provisions of trade agreements. When our trading partners pollute and destroy the environment in misguided efforts to gain a competitive advantage, they should lose their benefits under trade deals.

Enforce Delivery of International Climate Commitments. Every TPP nation, with the exception thus far of Brunei, has made international commitments to the UNFCCC on curbing their emissions of carbon pollutants. The TPP should have made delivering on these commitments a condition of continued preferential access to U.S. markets.

Oppose ISDS in Any Agreement. If trade agreements allow for investor-state cases against governments, any potential benefits of environmental provisions could quickly be wiped out. That’s because corporations have overwhelmingly used ISDS to challenge regulations that protect our air, water, and climate. The best way to protect the environment through trade agreements is to ensure that they don’t include ISDS provisions from the start.

6. UPHOLD STRONG FINANCIAL REGULATIONS

Increasingly, trade agreements are not about reducing traditional barriers to trade—trade in goods is already quite free—but rather about rewriting the rules of how the global economy works. This includes “harmonizing” between nations regulations governing corporations, banks, and pharmaceutical companies. As with ISDS, these industries often have an incentive to rewrite the rules in ways that weaken regulations and pad their own profits.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Protect the Dodd-Frank Financial Reforms in Trade Agreements. The biggest banks are already lobbying aggressively over the details of future trade agreements, particularly the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)—a proposed deal between the United States and the European Union. It is very likely that they will try to use the agreement to undermine Dodd-Frank’s capital requirements and leverage ratios, derivative compliance rules, and other protections. If the largest players in the global financial industry win out, American banks could shift business to Europe (or even reincorporate some of their activities there)—where financial rules are much weaker than in the United States—in order to sidestep Dodd-Frank altogether.

IN ADDITION, O’MALLEY WILL STRONGLY OPPOSE ANY TRADE PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE NEW FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS TO BE SCREENED (or even slowed down) BASED ON HOW THEY MIGHT IMPACT TRADE. NO TRADE AGREEMENT SHOULD BE USED TO DELAY IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPORTANT FINANCIAL REGULATIONS AGAINST THE PUBLIC'S WILL.

7. PROVIDE FOR FAIR ACCESS TO MARKETS

The rules of any trade agreement must be written to ensure that benefits accrue to the nations that are party to them—limiting countries’ ability to take advantage of loopholes and impose non-tariff barriers to protect their domestic markets, at other nations’ expense.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Require Robust Rules Of Origin. When a nation grants trading partners preferential access to their market, they expect to receive the same treatment in return. Strong “rules of origin” protect this dynamic—strictly defining the extent to which inputs from countries outside an agreement can be incorporated into products that benefit from duty-free treatment. Such rules are especially vital to the U.S. automotive industry, because other nations—particularly Japan—import significant quantities of auto parts from outside the TPP bloc.

All trade agreements should include rules of origin standards that meet or exceed those established under NAFTA. Reports indicating that the TPP includes weaker rules of origin are disconcerting.

Ensure Fair Market Entry for U.S. Products. It is inconsistent with the spirit of TPP and similar agreements to keep in place non-tariff barriers that effectively exclude U.S. products. This has been a salient issue in the past, and it is likely that the existing version of TPP does not move sufficiently far to remove all such barriers.

8. PROTECT ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE MEDICINES

Many countries and non-profit organizations rely on affordable generic medicines to treat life-threatening diseases, including in TPP nations. Access to generic medicines depends on each nation’s laws and regulations, as well as trade and other international agreements, including rules governing intellectual property. As a result, the global community in the past has sought to ensure that countries can overcome barriers that restrict access to medicines—preventing patent monopolies from blocking life-saving care and providing for competition in the generic drug market. In this way, commercial interests are respected but not allowed to trump global public health concerns.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Balance Access and Innovation to Provide Needed Medicines. The United States must ensure that trade agreements do not place onerous restrictions on the use of new medicines by partner nations, particularly in low-income countries. These medicines and treatments are a major American contribution to the world. It is critical that we provide access to needed medicines, even as we establish strong intellectual property protections that allow for pharmaceutical innovation and progress. While the TPP agreement takes steps in a better direction, we must carefully review the final agreement to ensure that it takes the right approach.

9. SUPPORT INVESTMENT IN THE U.S. ECONOMY

While trade agreements can open markets for American goods and services and create wealth around the world, they have often done so unequally—further concentrating wealth among a small number of corporations and investors at the expense of everyone else. This has happened both because past trade agreements have failed to guard against a global race to the bottom—and because the United States has failed to enact commonsense policies to help American workers and businesses thrive in a globalized world.

As a nation, we can do far more to boost our competitiveness, seizing new opportunities to create jobs, drive investment, and lift incomes for all families.

As president, Governor O’Malley will:

Tie Trade Agreements to Investments in the U.S. Economy. O’Malley will work with Congress to ensure that free trade agreements are forged in concert with policies that help the middle class and advance our own economic competitiveness—such as raising the minimum wage, passing comprehensive immigration reform, and making robust investments in our nation’s infrastructure.

Ensure That U.S. Corporations are Taxed Fairly, Including on Their Global Activities. It has become too easy for very large U.S. corporations to shift the reporting of their global activities – solely to reduce their tax burden. These corporations, their executives, and their owners benefit from the laws and resources of the United States – including the public goods that we provide. The only way to sustain these public goods—and the functioning of our government—is with a fair revenue system that includes fair taxes on corporations. Governor O’Malley will be putting forward his plans to reform the tax code in the coming weeks and months.


read: https://martinomalley.com/policy/trade-policy/

[Hortensis]

1. Good for O'Malley! Hopefully putting this out there will help focus

national discussion further.

Our legislators get their power from popular movements. When the nation said "we need to get off the backs of business" and then paid no attention to how their power was used, business took it and used it to sack the nation.

[bigtree]

3. there was a lot of talk before the campaigns began about the need for progressive challenges

...to the Clinton candidacy. It would be nice to see folks here show more appreciation for the efforts of O'Malley to bring that challenge against high odds and meager resources in comparison to the two frontrunners. I daresay Sanders own advocacy has been bolstered to a great degree by O'Malley's efforts - Clinton's positions hardened in the face of that unified, progressive opposition.

Where's the love?

[Hortensis]

5. Bigtree, remember, O'Malley is FREE to challenge. Since he's a Democrat,

he can't try to manipulate us with talk of rapist Mexicans, but he benefits as much as any GOP candidate from statements that get national attention.

I admire him tremendously for issuing a statement that contains many complex sentences, instead of just sticking a verbal knife in the frontrunner. I just hope it works better for him, and us, than appealing to responsibility and intellect usually does.

[bigtree]

6. I understand that folks can't be aware of his every effort

...but he provides retail politics with heart, passion, and eloquence to match his specific policy intentions. His political practice is to formulate solutions and act on them. That's reflected in this policy he's offering.

I would think, if this is such a 'free' environment for challenging Hillary's policies, we'd have more than just two progressive campaigns.

[Hortensis]

7. Well, hers is a third, after all. Remember, progressivism refers

to using government to solve big problems, not political orientation per se. Hillary's been progressive since she was a kid, just not left enough lately to satisfy the new hunger for change.

[bigtree]

8. maybe progressives need a new label

..'liberal' is the term I'd give Hillary. She just hasn't been aligned with the depth and breadth of most progressive politics and policies in the past decade or so, and her rhetorical embrace of some of the tenets of progressive policy is either compromised by timidity or politics, or part of an election season conversion.

That's not as damning to me as it may be to others, but there must be a way to define her policy and politics from the tenor and content of the Sanders and O'Malley candidacies. I don't think Sen. Clinton is speaking the same language.

[Hortensis]

10. Bigtree, liberal and progressive have well established meanings.

People need to learn what they are and use them correctly. The reason many liberals are using "progressive" is that the right wing redefined "liberal" into a dirty word in the 1980s by using mass-market advertising techniques. You guys are running the enemy's ball toward their goal.

We should all wear "liberal" proudly -- those of us who are actually liberals of course. It was the ideology of our founding fathers, after all, and is embedded in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Our liberal roots and overall liberal direction since that time are the reasons we are an advanced nation, in spite of continual conservative pressure to return to pre- Enlightenment thinking.

"When words lose their meaning, peoples lose their liberty." Confucius (This kind of manipulation of language is what he meant. Obviously, it's been going on a long time.)

[bigtree]

11. the term certainly did evolve from liberalism, for whatever reason

... but legislative and social politics has found many long-time liberals defending or representing policies which fall short of the changes those who align under the progressive banner today expect and demand. That's not just an exercise in semantics. There are real and important differences within our party which have been outlined, in this campaign and in the national debate. Blurring those differences by sidling up to a few planks of progressive policy in a campaign (and away from past statements and efforts) doesn't make them any less profound or important.

[Hortensis]

12. Sorry, charlie. I'm a progressive liberal, just like generations of

progressive liberals who came me, and you can't corrupt it for your own purposes. If you need to differentiate yourself, you'll have to use one of the terms political thinkers think appropriate for you, or just come up with a completely new term for yourself.

Hortensis
Lifelong Proud Progressive Liberal

[bigtree]

13. well, we really differentiate ourselves by the views and positions we hold and promote

...it's just not credible to just lump the three together under the progressive banner and ignore the profound differences in the issues they represent and have supported. I'm merely pointing out the fallacy in defining her politics or campaign as progressive. It would be infinitely more 'corrupting' for her to posture as if she's been aligned all along with the depth and breadth of progressive politics or policy over the past decade or so; at least as most here would define the term and political principle. I think most folks here understand the differences, even if there's disagreement on the degree or reality of those.

[Hortensis]

14. My FIL was a progressive conservative Republican (the "conservative"

Last edited Fri Oct 9, 2015, 04:12 PM - Edit history (1)

in GOP has not always been a given). He's been gone for a while now, but he was proud of voting for Truman, went home to the GOP to vote for Eisenhower -- who NOTABLY was quite progressive himself. He crossed the ballot again to vote for Johnson's progressivism and against Goldwater, then back for Nixon -- who NOTABLY also had many progressive policies.

So, on my FIL's behalf, you guys can't hijack HIS conservative progressivism either. As I explained, these terms have long-established meanings.

As for our Democratic Party candidates, OF COURSE they're all progressive. There almost is no such thing as a nonprogressive Democrat; I'm not sure what that would even be. In any case, how progressive is a matter of degree. Calling a democratic socialist progressive would be very redundant, of course, but Bernie is progressive strictly speaking.

So, you see, you can call legitimately yourself a strongly progressive whateveryouconsideryourself, as opposed to moderately or radically progressive, or socialist.

As for those who follow Bernie, they should just identify themselves as progressive democratic socialists. Again, the "progressive " would be redundant, but they seem to like the term and nobody'd care. After all, isn't it time his followers stood up proudly for what they support? He does.

[bigtree]

15. no one is 'hijacking' the term

...the meaning, as it describes our presidential field, is well understood here.

[Armstead]

22. Honest Answer

I admire O'Malley's effort to offer specific solutions, and offer a more progressive alternative. I'd certainly feel more comfortable with him than Clinton, if it came to that.

But he lacks two things that has enabled Sanders to capture more of the "zeitgeist."

1) Authentic passion and anger. At this point, anger is a necessary element in actually fixing things. Part of the problem with Democrats over the last 30 years is that they have not challenged the systematic problems that have been building over the last 35 years. Instead of calling out the GOP in fundamental terms on issues of Wealth and Power, or offering a different message, they have been enablers....And as a result they have allowed -- or participated in -- the formation of an Oligarchy dominated by the billionaire class and Massive Corporate monopolies........Average people may not think in terms of oligarchy, but they know they're getting screwed. Bernie expresses that, and explains it in fundamental terms....O'Malley tends to follow the pattern of detailed proposals, while not conveying a sense that we really do need to challenge a bad system.

2) Consistency ad Credibility. Sanders consistency over the years is an asset for many people (including me). Since the early 90's, he has been among the handful of real progressives in Congress who have been fighting to point out and prevent the AVOIDABLE problems that have become overwhelming and ingrained. Sanders was among those trying to halt the damage being done by excessive deregulation, privatization, corporate CONservative "free trade" etc. That gives him a lot of credibility.

[bigtree]

23. tell me though

...how many appearances of his have you seen?

O'Malley has been described by those who have had the opportunity to attend his events as passionate, engaging, well-prepared and informative, as well.

This comment of yours really isn't supported by anything I've witnessed in the countless appearances I've watched from beginning to end in this campaign:

"O'Malley tends to follow the pattern of detailed proposals, while not conveying a sense that we really do need to challenge a bad system."

I've had the opportunity to witness the passion and commitment of Gov. O'Malley in my state of Md.. It was an asset to his progressive legislative successes that he waged his political fights armed with solutions to match his rhetoric, and it didn't limit him from doing the harder and necessary work of selling his proposals and initiatives to the public.

He waged many of his campaigns that way as well, with substance, and an ability to engage the public debate with deftness of purpose - not just bluster and scorn. I think we'll see a demonstration of that quality in the upcoming debate. He's preparing for that appearance in much the same way he prepares for all of his political battles...

TIME today:

The former Maryland governor is known as an assiduous debate preparer, mastering long lists of fact sheets and minute policy differences. He has practiced a series of particular phrases during his months of campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire this year, including “new Americans” and “new leadership.” Advisors say the self-proclaimed policy wonk has pored over the data in preparation.

“He was very disciplined,” said former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich, who faced O’Malley in debates in 2006 and 2010. “He knew what he wanted to say, and he was just going to say it. He went on some riffs, he knew his base and he always brought a lot more people to the debates than we did.”

...more to the point, O'Malley defining his view of his efforts:

"I am the only candidate (on that stage) who will be able to point to fifteen years of executive experience, actually pulling people together to get difficult things done, things that many of the other candidates will only be able to talk about, whether it was making college more affordable, making our schools number one, passing a living wage, passing comprehensive gun safety legislation, Dream Act, marriage equality. These are all things that I've gotten done. They were actions, they weren't words, and that is what people are looking for right now."

"I think in the opening rounds of this presidential selection process that in both parties in our search for a new leader I believe that voters gravitated to those candidates that most firmly repudiated the establishment. And in the Republican Party that candidate was Donald Trump. And in our party it has been Bernie Sanders. But what people say to me whenever I'm in Iowa after they have come out and kindly heard what I have to offer and the vision for a future where our economy works for all of us again, people say I'm glad to know we have an alternative. I've never heard of you before. I'm glad I came out today. So that tells me people are shopping. People are looking for a new leader. And neither party ever nominates angry."

[Armstead]

24. I've seen him...It's been limited but...

my impression was he was putting things in such positive way -- and ironically too focused on specific proposals -- that it seemed more like the centrist "everything's fine as long as we keep out the GOP" message that has been a straight jacket to more fundamental reform for 35 years.

(The GOP is definitely a big part of the problem, but the other half is a systemic bi-partisan enabling of bad policies and an echo of the CONservatuve message when it come to issues of Wealth and Power.)

I was impressed by his passion (and chutzpah) when he went after the debate schedule at the DNC meeting.

As I said originally in response to your question "Where's the love?" I personally am open to him as an alternative choice to my main man Bernie, if it comes to that down the road.

[FSogol]

2. K & R. n/t

[artislife]

4. This is excellent

He clearly understands what is at stake with the TPP. It is so good to have his voice added to the mix in our primary. I hope whatever happens in this election, he continues to be a force that shapes our future politics. I may not be on board with everything he has done or is for, but there are so many strong points to this man.


He also is very clear and thorough.

[askew]

9. This is an incredible plan. Thanks for sharing.

I think at this point O'Malley is the only one who has released a detailed trade plan.

I particularly like the part about ISDS agreements. That is a key detail that no one else is talking about.

[bigtree]

16. 'detailed' is his O'M in this campaign

...he owns 'detailed.'

[bigtree]

17. sorry ass response to these excellent proposals

...is it trade policy folks here care about, or just pure politics?

[elleng]

19. Clearly, politics.

(Sorry didn't see it earlier, bigtree.)

[bigtree]

20. it's hard to accept there are so few here willing to post about O'Malley

...of course, you are the anchor of his campaign here. From what I've seen, four or five (six) core supporters at DU.

Oh well, let me go back to pretending not to notice.

[elleng]

30. I agree, it IS hard to accept, bigtree,

and there are times it gets me down. Nice day today, so will check out the local scene.

[FSogol]

25. Supporters of other candidates here are so unsure of their candidate that

they cannot admit when another great candidate has better, more workable, more comprehensive proposals. They can't even admit it is a good plan.



It just proves that they don't really care about the issues.

[Armstead]

26. Okay, part of the problem is skepticism against these elephantine "free trade" agreements

Individually many of his specifics are great.

But I would prefer to see individual trade agreements with individual nations to account for specifics (Canada isn't Mexico) -- and which are focused on actual trade, not with creating new baroque frameworks for one-size-fits all under gthe guise of "free trade."

There are a lot of alternatives to big "take it or leave it" packages.

But again, as I said above, for me personally, at this point it is preferring another candidate, not opposition n to O'Malley.

[bigtree]

27. I think addressing the 'new baroque frameworks' is central to changing the corrupting process

...so much of the TPP is reportedly written to dodge existing law and corporate accountability, it's nothing more than a Trojan horse.

It's remarkable how similar the language O'Malley uses to define his own trade policy, and the language Obama, for example, uses to sell the TPP. The key to exposing the subterfuge is to broker transparent agreements. That's the best part of his policy.

[Armstead]

28. Anything that focuses and CLARIFIES trade policy and agreements is good

It's like most issues. Most people don't want to get into the weeds of intricate details of issues. But they want to understand the outline (the truthful outline) and be able to trust that political leadership will do what they say they'll do.

The true implication of trade policies have eitehr been ignored or presented in a secretive and/or deliberately obscure and convoluted fashion for too long.

It's a good thing when any politician, O'Malley, Sanders, Clinton (ha) or whomever, levels and gives straight talk abut it, and follows through.

[elleng]

31. I'll give you that, Armstead,

most people don't want to get into the weeds.

[elleng]

18. 'As president, Governor O’Malley will support free trade agreements—but only

those agreements that establish strong and enforceable rules for fair competition, creating opportunity for American workers while lifting standards in our partner nations.'

[bigtree]

21. —trade can open new markets for U.S. businesses, lift standards for workers in developing countries,

'—protect our environment from climate change, and support a thriving middle class. Done poorly—by relying solely on market forces and hoping for the best—trade agreements can unleash a global race to the bottom.'

[elleng]

32. So right,

Done poorly—by relying solely on market forces and hoping for the best—trade agreements can unleash a global race to the bottom.

[McCamy Taylor]

29. Hurray for real, lifelong progressive Democrats!

[elleng]

33. IMAGINE THAT!

and APPLAUDED!

THANKS!

[elleng]

34. KICK