General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill TPA passage potentially mean a Republican controlled government without a filibuster in 2016?
A lot of people are concerned about how Fast Track was passed because of what will happen when TPP is subsequently passed.
A lot of Democrats rationalized their reason for voting for Fast Track with what they claim is needed for their localities in TPP, like our congresswoman gave at a picnic over the weekend here locally, even if many of us feel that there is selective reasons being used, and that in total TPP as it stands is a bad deal, has been too secretive and has many bad things in it too like the ISDS.
What is not discussed is what will in effect potentially happen in 2016, if and when potentially a very frustrated country is manipulated in to electing a Republican president and continuing majorities of Republicans in both the Senate and the House.
TPA, or Fast Track continues through the whole presidential term of the president elected in 2016! By having TPA in place, there is a mechanism then in place where potentially EVERY bill the Republicans want passed then could be classified as a "trade bill" or passed as a part of a "trade bill", and a Democratic Party minority in the Senate won't be able to stop it as they won't be able to filibuster it when passed under these rules. The Republicans will be able to get EVERYTHING they want done then, and Democrats won't be able to stop them AT ALL! THIS is what the TRAITORS who voted for Fast Track in the Senate and the House voted for when they voted to pass TPA!
We might know of TPP and TISA and one or two other trade bills on their way, and how even they seem bad now. But imagine what could be a whole lot worse later when we have no way of stopping anything (either with a veto or a filibuster!)
Budget reconciliation was used as a way around the filibuster in the past as a one time deal that involved budgetary items per congressional term. This is how Bush got his tax cuts passed, and how Obama got Obamacare passed. But with TPA, they won't have to go through this mechanism that they can only do once then to prevent a filibuster.
Diane Feinstein was one of a handful of senators who voted AGAINST changing the filibuster rules that Senator Merkley proposed to force a minority doing a filibuster to speak for a while on why they are filibustering a bill to speak to the American people why they are holding a bill up, but ultimately gave the majority power an ability to get by a filibuster. She did this at the same time where her doing so in effect allowed the Republicans to filibuster and STOP her assault weapons bill she was vocally pushing for after the Sandy Hook massacre at the start of that congressional term. It felt she either didn't care that her bill passed or not, only that she was seen as trying to pass it, and that she supported the filibuster then.
Now her vote FOR the TPA makes it sound like she's voting AGAINST any kind of filibuster, and won't even give the minority a chance to speak why passing a bill is such a bad thing like the older proposed filibuster rules would have done that she voted against.
Why is this happening? It seems to me that they want to pass the buck to those who want to just use corporate power to rule to me and to do so quietly which is why DiFi for example didn't like Merkley's rule changes, and therefore in 2016 is when the gloves will come off and we the people won't be able to do anything about it then. Even if Clinton gets elected then, the only thing left will be the veto pen of hers in that situation, and if she votes the way her contributors want, the way Obama has been pushing this TPA/TPP passage so hard, she might not stand in the way of certain corporate serving bills too.
The big questions we should make vocal now is WHAT ways can any bill be made in to a "trade" bill that would fit the criteria of such and have it passed through TPA. We need to have that firmed up before 2016. That is something that Democrats in congress, especially progressive ones can push hard, and fight the media's effort to avoid asking these questions, so that it can be an issue in the 2016 election for us to take back the Senate then at a minimum, to avoid the no filibuster power that TPA might throw to the Republicans, or some power structure that has corporate controlled politicians in control of it.
Given that there are things like copyright rules, and other laws that have questionable "trade" value, etc. that are thrown in as part of ISDS courts through TPP, I'm guessing we'll be seeing an even greater "bending" of these rules later to qualify legislation through TPA to take away our democracy then.
If others have specifics as to why TPA can NOT be used in this fashion, please feel free to post them here so that we can review them and discuss. It would be good to see if there are solid protections in place, and even if so, whether they are rules that can be bent in ways that we don't want them to be.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
northoftheborder
(7,571 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)So that they can use TPA to get us to expand the H-1B program...
http://thrasherbacker.com/8250-house-sends-key-trade-bill-to-obama/011340/
Pressed by liberal independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who is fervently opposed to the trade deal, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton suggested last week she would have voted against fast-track authority.
But Obama worked with Republican leaders to outmaneuver Democrats.
But she insisted that Democrats wouldn’t shy away from rigorous pressure on USA negotiators to reach the best deal possible with America’s trading partners. In addition to that, other treaties can be advanced without the normal congressional processes of review of the amendment and filibuster…I believe the mindset in the Republican establishment now is anything that says trade bill, we do not even have to read it, there is no such thing as a bad trade agreement. Elsewhere in the world, the H-1B visa program is seen as a part of free trade and calls to restrict its use protectionist. Fast-track was staunchly opposed by most Democrats, and in the House, they almost killed the package by voting down TAA, which is popular in their party, for the sake of stopping TPA.
TPP began as a free trade agreement (FTA) between New Zealand and Singapore, then became the Pacific 4 (P4) when Chile and Brunei joined. The program has always been unpopular with Republicans. President Obama, you’ve got the authority you sought; the ball is now in your court. This propels the 12-nation pact, a central element of Mr Obama’s foreign policy pivot to Asia, over the finish line, while boosting hopes for completing an ambitious trade deal with the European Union.
...
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... on American jobs here too with the newer corporate friendly rules they can push on us and prevent us from making protections for our own jobs through it.
http://www.epi.org/blog/tisa-a-secret-trade-agreement-that-will-usurp-americas-authority-to-make-immigration-policy/
In the United States, this means the L-1 intra-company transferee, B-1 business visitor visa programs, and any other applicable visa programs could be used to permit temporary employees from abroad to work in the United States, and no economic needs tests (i.e., testing the labor market) could ever be imposed by Congress. To translate, that means that foreign firms would not be required to advertise jobs to U.S. workers, or to hire U.S. workers if they were equally or better qualified for job openings in their own country. (It should be noted that the L-1 is already restricted in this way, as a result of the United States’ commitments under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATS).) These visa programs are already under-regulated and abused by employers, but since neither the L-1 nor the B-1 visa program is numerically limited by law, this means that potentially hundreds of thousands of workers could enter the United States every year to work in these 38 sectors.
This is worrying and problematic, not because there shouldn’t be any foreign competition from service-providing companies in the United States, but because the competitive advantage foreign companies will get from TiSA is the ability to provide cheaper services by importing much cheaper labor to supplant American workers. They’ll do this by paying their workers the much lower salaries they would earn in their home countries (as they often already do in the L-1 and B-1 visa programs), and the United States might even be prohibited in future from imposing minimum or prevailing wage standards (at present, neither the L-1 or B-1 visa program has a minimum or prevailing wage rule).
There is clear precedent for this. The multilateral GATS agreement, to which the United States is a party, includes limits on the U.S. government’s ability to change the rules on H-1B and L-1 guestworker visas. That’s why when Congress wants to raise visa fees, as they did in 2010, the Indian government cries foul and threatens to formally complain to the World Trade Organization. The U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore trade deals also included new guestworker programs similar to the H-1B and constraints on the U.S. government’s ability to set rules on L-1 intracompany transfers.
The TiSA draft annex on Movement of Natural Persons would also likely restrict the ability of the current and future administrations to continue some of the basic immigration procedures it currently follows, such as requiring an in-person interview with L-1 applicants. The draft treaty might even prohibit common sense legislative proposals that Congress has considered over the past few years, including minimum wage rules for companies seeking to hire guestworkers in the L-1 visa program. This is particularly disturbing since the L-1 visa program has been a primary vehicle to facilitate the offshoring of high wage jobs and for replacing American workers with cheaper guestworkers.
...
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I wonder how they or at least us tax payers will feel if multinational ag companies that aren't located here in the U.S. who don't like our farm subsidies basically helping our ag companies dump exported products below costs with those subsidies in other countries will sue through ISDS courts our government that we should pay ag subsidies to them as well to have a "free market" where they don't have something obstructing their profits too. Now, would congress say that instead of us paying them subsidies as well that we would just shut down all ag subsidies to those companies and their BOUGHT congress critters who helped push passing the TPA/TPP? Umm... NO! Fat chance! We the taxpayers will be left footing the bill, or those who benefit from other government assistance that have those programs cut to pay these bills will suffer!
This was an issue back in 2002 too with foreign companies/countries wanting to limit our ag subsidies then through the WTO...
http://www.mrt.com/import/article_0fa736ac-0c84-515f-ab9f-2a623d1a9ada.html
House to Vote on Farm Subsidy Boost - MRT.com
But the bill's subsidy boost has angered foreign competitors, and the European Union said Thursday it was considering challenging the payments before the World Trade Organization. Under WTO limits, certain U.S. farm subsidies cannot exceed $19.1 billion annually.
"The United States is increasing trade-distorting support for (American) farmers that will harm developing countries. This is what we are fiercely opposed to," EU spokesman Gregor Kreuzhuber.
A congressional critic of the bill, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., planned a last-ditch attempt to derail it. He was proposing that congressional negotiators be directed to set new limits on payments to big farms and use the savings for conservation needs and other programs.
A similar proposal passed the House 265-158 last month but the vote was not binding on the negotiators.
...
Another reason Corporate America loves farm subsidies is that it affects most the foreign farmers that are put out of work who can't compete and are driven to move up here for low paying jobs in this country as undocumented workers, that helps their profiteering agenda two fold!
mmonk
(52,589 posts)I'm on the border about leaving the party of my life who always gives enough support for stuff like this to pass over this continual crap. Feel my anger yet?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Therefore I'm going to encourage others to JOIN the party, even if only temporarily through primary season so that they can help him get nominated.
I guess in some states like California with open primaries, they don't have to worry about this.
But Oregon, where I'm HAPPY that grass roots members of all parties voted down the top two primaries measure last election, we still need to be party members to help get the primary vote to happen right. One of these days hopefully we'll get instant runoff voting, so that we don't have to worry about this crap. Even then, I still might register as a Democrat in situations like this to help get a good candidate like Bernie winning their primary, but candidates like him then more likely would be running in the general election with IRV in place.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)Self-defense.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And we should both remind those that chant that there are so many registered Democrats (and perhaps growing during 2016 election season) as a testament that this party is doing the right thing for people, we should remind them of the factor that has so many registering as Democrats is us wanting to nominate Bernie that nullifies that line of reasoning. Ask them to clarify those statistics for those states that have open primaries and those that don't to really see if the Democrats are "growing" as a party in open primary states.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,399 posts)or give Republicans complete control? They won't be able to make anything and everything into a "trade bill" (I think?). Anyway, there is no guarantee that the Republicans will hit a "trifecta" in 2016 or even maintain both chambers in Congress.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)If so, please post a link here on what constitutes the rules for a bill being a trade bill, so that we can know what kind of legislation can be made in to a trade bill?
How does it affect the filibuster? Well the TPA basically removes the cloture process that normally other bills go through in congress that allow a minority party to filibuster it and demand 60 votes to "close" it before it goes to the floor for a general vote yes or no. That is how the Republicans stopped so much of our bills the last few years, except ACA, which was passed through budget reconciation that also avoids the cloture step. As I noted it was budget reconciliation that allowed Bush to pass his tax cuts too without the Democrats filibustering it as well. But you only get to do budget reconcilation once per term, meaning you have to strategically line up what you want in this bill that's really important to you to have it all voted on at once.
With TPA, the question I have here is how do we decide that a bill is a "trade bill" to allow it to go through the different process that TPA allows for? If any bill can be "made" to fit this description, then the corporate coup has already happened, and Democrats, especially if they have the presidency later, perhaps won't be able to stop Republian agenda by veto then or a filibuster like we have now for the remainder of Obama's term. If there is a will and a weakness in the rules, the Republicans WILL use it to maximize their control over us later.
I really don't think that Democrats should have this sort of control either, especially if you have corporate Democrats in leadership positions as well.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,399 posts)It had never occurred to me that somebody might try this or that Congress would have such sweeping powers to classify all kinds of bills as "trade bills". Seems doubtful that it would be that easy (but never turn your backs on Republicans). I thought that the Fast Track Authority (based on my admittedly shallow knowledge of it) just gives POTUS more flexibility to negotiate trade agreements and Congress to approve it on an up-or-down vote. I never imagined they might be able to use it on all kinds of things (like ACA repeal)
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and I don't see the media or others in power asking that question, which has me wondering if like so much of these trade deals have intentionally been not looked at or made visible to the public to see the ugly details of what makes them up.
There may be good rules to prevent this? But if not, then the future could be very ugly if we don't find out before the 2016 election. If there are ways to make this happen, you know the Republicans will try to make it work for them later. And ways to work around this would be a big reason why they so heavily voted for TPA the last few weeks.
If we can get details either confirming this or dismissing this as a possibility, then we can perhaps make this a big election issue as to why the Democrats who voted against this largely undemocratic mess of a bill be the ones we reelect and perhaps get newer blood that would align with them, and get someone like Bernie Sanders in as president to avoid this power being misused too.
Maybe there can be a push before the 2016 election to undo any bad language as long as we have Obama in power who would be more apt to veto bad legislation or sign good legislation even if he's been for TPA heavily. If the language that is shown in the details is clearly damaging, those who would sign against it would be supported it, and those supporting such language could be committing electoral suicide (APPROPRIATELY!) in 2016 before much damage is done.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The law spells that out.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... that's outside of the law, then this breaks down. How many ways of writing treaties and perhaps with companies with similar corporate controlled governments where the treaty creates an unaccountable body or other piece of legislation that they agree on (with corporate blessings), but works outside of our regulatory environments. The ISDS court is one example that scares me like this. I'm sure that there other "secret" ideas that are being looked at in the future to so similar things.
Now, perhaps there are some good restrictions. I'll try to study things a bit more later when I get more time, but I just don't even see this aspect being discussed enough to feel like loopholes that might exist such as this are dealt with appropriately.
The TPA then is the way of passing trade bills such as TPP in a unnatural legislative fashion that bypasses many of the provisions our constitution and congressional rules, etc. have in place to protect legislative actions from being abused.
Then just like the TPA is a way to pass these "international treaty ('er agreement that is)" bills, then these trade bills also become a conduit for setting up other even less regulated and more independent entities such as ISDS that are completely outside of U.S. law and sovereignty. If we have one trade bill that if passes provides the ability for other legislation to get passed without any form 60 vote cloture requirement (maybe some sort of surrogate 'virtual' country entity that other "trade" bills could have treaties with), then this sets up the Republicans with what they will want if they can put together a presidential win along with a gerrymandered House majority as well as a Senate majority with a lot of less populated states to control our government even if most Americans don't want them to. If there's a way through TPA To pass a trade bill in this fashion, I'm sure that Republicans are working hard on how this could be done. You KNOW that they would want this, and therefore would even side with Obama to get that avenue for them to happen.
The whole process of building a separate TAA bill, having it funded through medicare, the strange way it was voted on in the House and Senate, shows how much manipulation is really going on over this "trade" legislation.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, if that's a weakness, it exists already.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)(1) The term “implementing bill” means only a bill of either House of Congress which is introduced as provided in subsection (c) of this section with respect to one or more trade agreements, or with respect to an extension described in section 3572 (c)(3) of this title, submitted to the House of Representatives and the Senate under section 2112 of this title, section 3572 of this title, or section 3805 (a)(1) of this title and which contains—
(A) a provision approving such trade agreement or agreements or such extension,
(B) a provision approving the statement of administrative action (if any) proposed to implement such trade agreement or agreements, and
(C) if changes in existing laws or new statutory authority is required to implement such trade agreement or agreements or such extension, provisions, necessary or appropriate to implement such trade agreement or agreements or such extension, either repealing or amending existing laws or providing new statutory authority.
(2) The term “implementing revenue bill or resolution” means an implementing bill, or approval resolution, which contains one or more revenue measures by reason of which it must originate in the House of Representatives.
(3) The term “approval resolution” means only a joint resolution of the two Houses of the Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: “That the Congress approves the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to the products of XXXX transmitted by the President to the Congress on XXXX.”, the first blank space being filled with the name of the country involved and the second blank space being filled with the appropriate date.
The President has to submit a signed treaty for TPA to apply, and the President must submit an implementing bill. A dispute over whether or not a bill qualifies would be referred to the Parliamentarian.
