If Hillary Clinton Picks Elizabeth Warren, the TPP Is Dead

[think]

If Hillary Clinton Picks Elizabeth Warren, the TPP Is Dead

By Eric Levitz - July 7, 2016 3:01 p.m.

Last week, the Democratic Party’s platform committee declined to call for the death of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. On one level, this decision was not surprising: The sitting Democratic president has named the trade agreement one of his administration’s top second-term priorities.

But from another vantage point, the position looks a bit curious: A majority of elected Democrats in both the House and Senate voted against advancing the trade agreement last year. And a majority of appointees to the platform committee are officially opposed to the deal. As are both 2016 major-party nominees. That’s a pretty broad base of opposition to what is almost certainly the most consequential legislation that has a chance of passing within the next 12 months.

Contrary to the way debate over the agreement is often framed, the TPP is about a lot more than “free trade.” The United States already has trade agreements with 6 of the 11 participants in the deal, and beyond the provisions that reduce tariffs on dairy products, Malaysian shark fins, and Vietnamese whale meat, the TPP contains a bevy of protectionist measures that insulate the American pharmaceutical and entertainment industries against competition, by strengthening international patent and copyright laws. In the case of the former, that means exporting America’s insanely high drug prices to parts of the world that can scarcely afford them, while making it even more difficult for American progressives to pass reforms that would significantly reduce domestic drug costs. Which isn't to say that there are no positive arguments to be made on behalf of the agreement, in terms of promoting global growth or increasing the United States’ geopolitical influence. But the point is that the TPP isn’t some niche issue — it is a vast collection of controversial policies that will need to be accepted or rejected en masse....

Read more:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/clinton-picks-warren-the-tpp-is-dead.html

[underpants]

1. Not necessarily. VP's often get told to go sit over there

and be quiet. Just saying.

[think]

3. Glad she's speaking out now. People need to know that the corporations rigged the TPP rules

as she says in the video below. (It can can also be found at the link in the original article)

[SheilaT]

2. The Vice President doesn't set any policy.

It's almost a purely ceremonial position.

Since Warren didn't run for the nomination (personally I wish she had) she needs to remain in the Senate. Plus, doesn't Massachusetts have a Republican governor? Who'd appoint a Republican to fill her seat.

[emulatorloo]

4. Biden had his own portfolio and is a trusted advisor. So will Warren. And Reid has it covered.

Harry Reid's found a way that she would not need give up her Senate seat until the last minute. And a special election would happen immediately after. Governor will not be in a position to appoint anybody.

[Hortensis]

5. Clinton has not approved a final form.

There's lots of room that does not include refusing to become part of the partnership.

But, IF we did refuse to join, the TPP would not be dead at all. That notion is deluded. The Pacific member nations would formulate policy that would affect us but without internal control from us.

[emulatorloo]

6. My main interest here is refuting the notion that modern VP's are powerless figureheads

And the idea that Warren would be replaced by a Republican gov. I'm very excited about the possibility of Sen. Warren.

[Hortensis]

7. I'd love it to be Warren. Her commitment

to economic reform would signal HRC's direction. Certainly if she were offered and accepted the VP slot it would signal that they had reached agreement on how to proceed with the TPP.

[Exilednight]

9. Reid doesn't have it coverere

That's what Reid wants to happen, but he has not actually cut a deal, nor does he have the authority to control Massachusette's governor.

The law says that a special election must be held within, I believe it is 60 days. The governor does get to appoint a replacement for those sixty days.

If I were a governor I would drag my feet and go for the whole 60 days and slow down the first 100 days agenda.

[Ash_F]

8. Why is Obama so adamant about TPP?

I never heard anything good about it.

It is basically the NAFTA of Asia right? That is seen as a disaster to the Democratic base.


I feel like I am missing something. He should just let it go.

[Exilednight]

10. He's afraid China will cut its own deal without us and control trade.

[Ash_F]

11. With other Asian nations?

How could that harm us?

[Exilednight]

12. TPP is not just parts of Asia. it includes

Canada, Mexico, Chile, Australia, New Zealand and six other countries.

If China cuts a deal without us, the argument goes, then they could strip away environmental practices and workers rights.

In the economics community, opinion is divided.

Personally, I believe it's a very bad deal with little in there for supporting environmental protections or workers rights. And even if China did cut its own deal there is nothing to stop us from making our own deal with tougher provisions - so long as they don't interfere with China's deal.

Example: China cuts a deal that says all exlorts entering its country must be made by workers making a minimum of $3 per day. What's there to stop us from making a deal that says imlorts entering our country must be paid $10 minimum per day? It still meets China's demands.