Exclusive: Obama committed to TPP Trade Deal, even as opposition spreads

[nationalize the fed]

Reuters, March 9, 2016

WASHINGTON - U.S. President Barack Obama is fully committed to pushing for Congress to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal despite anti-trade sentiment gaining steam on the presidential election campaign trail, National Security Adviser Susan Rice said on Wednesday.



Voter anxiety and anger over international trade and the 12-nation Pacific trade pact have helped propel the campaign of Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, as well as Senator Bernie Sanders, who is running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

"The president remains fully committed to working to achieve ratification on the U.S. side and encouraging all of our TPP partners to move through their domestic processes to do the same," Rice told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday.

For Obama, the TPP is a legacy issue, and standing firm on the pact reassures other nations with high expectations for the deal. At the same time, it highlights a division with Clinton, a close political ally, who has been grappling with Democratic anxiety about trade on the campaign trail...snip
more: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-obama-committed-pacific-trade-deal-even-opposition-213412696--finance.html

[PoliticAverse]

1. "it highlights a division with Clinton" - what "division"? Someone thinks Clinton opposes...

"the gold standard in trade agreements"?

[7wo7rees]

2. O please, never forget that 3 degrees of chess thing. ?

[GoneFishin]

3. For Obama it's a retirement issue. After he pushes TPP through his speaking fees will be $500K each.

[nationalize the fed]

6. +1

Wasn't this forum repeatedly told that a second term would allow the real Obama to emerge?

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican." -- Barack Obama, 2012

[GoneFishin]

8. Yes. And so he has.

[jknudsen]

4. How sad

I knocked on doors for him. How little did I know.

[A Little Weird]

5. Disappointing

I hoped he would come around on this and see how wrong it is.

[earthshine]

12. Certainly not. He's spending what's left of his political capital to get it done.

Literally, he sells it with political capital not logical argument.

He sees how fabulously wealthy the Clintons have become after Bill's presidency. He wants it for himself.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

7. Clinton is also "grappling"with the FBI

[pampango]

9. Krugman: "The case for TPP is very, very weak. ... if a progressive makes it to the White House,

he or she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things."

A Protectionist Moment?

Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins — but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.

But it’s also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization ... I’ve always been clear that the gains from globalization aren’t all that great ... less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation.

The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization — not because it’s technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ... Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.

But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements — including TPP, which hasn’t happened yet — is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, he or she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/?_r=0

The statement "the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins" is key. In Europe with its high taxes, strong unions and effective safety nets, the benefits of 'trade liberalization' are redistributed to the middle class. Here due to our regressive taxes, weak unions and porous safety nets, the benefits of trade (and the benefits of the 80% of the economy that are not trade-related) are concentrated in our 1%.

[Albertoo]

10. This is part of why Obama was great

Civil liberties, free trade and socialized health care.
A tough act to follow. Hope Hillary follows in his footsteps.

[Hortensis]

11. The TPP is going to be hugely influential. We're going INSIDE

so we can control it. If we don't, China will. Yes, President Obama is committed to it being us.