The TPA is an anti-democratic surrender to autocracy, mostly designed to thwart Democrats

[bigtree]

Last edited Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:42 AM - Edit history (1)

The trade promotion authority that President Obama is asking Congress to grant him is an outrageous subversion of the democratic process. The trade deal under consideration involves a third of the world economy; as opposed to the 10% that NAFTA covered. It's a major undertaking which will govern concerns raging from the environment, workers' rights, currency, and employment.

HuffPo:

The “trade promotion authority” bill, or TPA, would allow the White House to cut new trade deals with Asian and European nations, and then pass them through Congress using expedited procedures. Under these rules, the deals cannot be amended or obstructed, and they get a simple up-or-down vote.

The fast-track authority would likely pave the way for both the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement with the European Union, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership with a dozen Asian nations. Both deals are vastly larger than NAFTA, and would involve about two-thirds of the entire world’s economy. Currently, the United States has trade agreements covering just 10 percent of world trade.

I agree with Sen. Chuck Schumer, the man most observers expect to lead the Senate Democrats when Harry Reid resigns; and Sen. Sherwood Brown; that the fast track authority the WH wants is a 'abdication' of Congress' responsibilities.

Sen. Schumer:

“This process is not good...We are supposed to vote on TPA, tie our hands and not vote on amendments, before we’ve seen what the Trans-Pacific Partnership is. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

If passed, the agreement between Senate republicans and Democrats on granting TPA, would permit President Obama to expedite the process of authorizing trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – currently being drafted by the US and 11 other Pacific nations – and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union.

Yes, the TPA would allow two months before the President signs the trade pacts; four months before Congress votes on it...

Examiner:

If the agreement, negotiated by the United States trade representative, fails to meet the objectives laid out by Congress — on labor, environmental and human rights standards — a 60-vote majority in the Senate could shut off “fast-track” trade rules and open the deal to amendment.

Also, in a sop to Wyden, there is extended support to retrain workers displaced by off-shoring (I thought that wasn't supposed to be a consequence.&quot

The supermajority required to shut down fast track is a non-starter for the Democratic minority. Even though no one expects a majority of Democrats will vote for the trade pact, there appears to be sufficient amount of republican votes, coupled with a handful of Democratic supporters of the TTP which makes that olive branch to critics in Congress an insincere and obviously compromised one.

In effect, this fast track authority isn't some device which is designed to keep the republicans from thwarting an initiative from our Democratic president (they very clearly support this corporate-crafted trade agreement); it's a tactic designed to keep members of President Obama's own party from altering the trade pact with their decidedly progressive interests and concerns. That makes President Obama's complaints of betrayal from Democrats over their vocal opposition to reported provisions in the pact self-serving, cynical, and knowingly insincere.

Make no mistake about it, the President knows full well that he has as many votes as he needs to ram an already signed trade pact through Congress. All that's left for him now is to, somehow, get Democrats to knuckle under and pipe down so his victory party won't appear to be, mainly, a republican-sponsored affair.

[stillwaiting]

1. Wow, the Republicans are for this strongly progressive legislation that covers...

... the environment, workers' rights, employment regulations, health care and pharmaceutical rights, and on and on.

That's covers so many of the issues I care so strongly about.

And, the Republicans are for it and the Democrats are against it. My, oh my.

[bigtree]

2. amazing, really

...after years of opposition and obstruction from their party on almost every initiative concerning the 'environment, workers' rights, employment regulations, health care and pharmaceutical rights, and on and on.' Something about a corporate-crafted trade agreement opposed by environmentalists, unions, and health-care professionals concerned about the undermining of care and drug plans and policies in countries affected by the agreement just brings out the best in republican demagogues.

[stillwaiting]

3. You know the funny thing is...

... that the TPP just might be the most "progressive" "trade" agreement that's been brokered.

But, that would only be on a relative scale, and it would only highlight and reveal how truly god-awful EVERY preceding "trade" agreement was.

Bottom line: If this massive deal that covers so many different areas is so strongly supported by Republicans and opposed by progressive Democrats (that have read various drafts), then it just can't be progressive. I see no conceivable way that it could be.

[bigtree]

4. that's one of the most damning things about the TPP

...not withstanding our Democratic president's advantaging himself of their support.

[cascadiance]

5. The TPP is as "progressive" as the Third Way claims that the "Progressive" Policy Institute is!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2477776

NOT!!!

And the Third Way has been trying to redefine what "progressive" means much in the same way that corporatist comrade in arms Rush Limbaugh did with the term "liberal" earlier.

We should look at details, not labels. And "progressive" is only a label for TPP when it is anything BUT progressive in the traditional definition of the word. That's why I think "populist" is a better term to use today to rally behind, as it would be a lot harder for corporatists to define the term "populist" as applying to them, as it is more pointedly against corporatism than the term "progressive" has been, when they try to apply it to themselves (the Third Way) on social issues, where they don't really care on what happens with them if it doesn't affect the key agenda items of corporatist ideology these days.