Lame duck TPP vote could be disastrous for Dems—and America

[cali]

In terms of style and substance, tenor and tone, the two parties’ conventions could not have differed more dramatically. Whereas the Republican gathering focused on fear and division, the Democratic convention called forth hope and constructive action.

And yet, almost paradoxically, there was a common message reverberating through the convention halls in Cleveland and Philadelphia: The system is rigged.
While the causes and consequences of the public perception are many, there’s one hot-button issue in this campaign that exemplifies what people see as wrong with the system: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Negotiated in secret under the advisement of multinational corporations, the TPP gives handouts to the multinational corporate class at the expense of the middle class. It pits workers here against those abroad, boosting profits of multinational corporations while our workers see downward pressure on wages. It allows fossil fuel corporations to sue governments in private tribunals to overturn policies that protect our families and our environment. It gives the pharmaceutical industry monopoly protections while consumers endure skyrocketing prices for medicine.

Despite these concerns, it is an open secret that an overwhelming number of Republicans and a few of their Democratic counterparts are quietly seeking to push TPP through during the lame duck session of Congress. That period after the November elections is when legislators are least accountable. With a lame duck vote, Members of Congress who lost their November elections would still able to throw their weight behind the extraordinarily unpopular deal. Newly-elected Members would not have a voice. And reelected legislators would feel free to take a controversial vote that would please their corporate benefactors, confident that voter anger over their decision will subside in the two years before their next election.


<snip>

Much more about how this could be a big boost for Trump and harm HRC's campaign.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/290791-lame-duck-tpp-vote-could-be-disastrous-for-dems-and

[Hoyt]

1. I am not against the TPP, but I would be against a lame-duck period vote.

--I don't consider foreign workers as scabs;
--Don't mind BMW or Toyota opening a plant in rural South Carolina or Alabama bringing needed jobs to the area;
--Don't get excited about tribunals which have been in trade agreements since 1959, have been signed by hundreds of countries who seek foreign trade, and the actual tribunal rulings (not the filing of a law suit which anyone can do through tribunals or in country's courts) seem to be fair when you actually dig into the specifics of the cases;
--Think developing a trade alternative so that we can tell China we are not going to accept their dumped steel and other subsidized goods, without reprisal, is a good alternative;
--Recognize that other agreements like the Paris Accord (or currency manipulation agreements supported by Clinton) can help resolve related issues because it is folly to think a trade agreement can solve all our global problems;
--Believe more global trade will help poor people in foreign countries, the world, and us in the future;
Properly taxing our international companies who profit from global trade will help pay for health care, jobs, welfare or guaranteed income, education, etc. (that trading among ourselves will not);
--I am not a Nationalist or American Firster;
--Believe global trade will help prevent armed conflict in the future;
--And much more.


But, I'm not for skirting the national debate by pursuing a lame-duck vote.

BTW -- is there any evidence a lame-duck vote is in the plans, or is this just more unsubstantiated speculation like the TPP was not going to be released for five years after ratification?

[cali]

2. I know. We've discussed our differing views on the TPP many times. But I'm

glad you don't support a lame duck vote. It's dangerous for democrats in the election.

There's a slew of bad news for dems today. Yesterday, I was thinking, it's all over. That was dumb.

Btw, you neglected to note who authored the piece- a certain John Conyers.

[zipplewrath]

3. Joe Biden

Mr Biden told a crowd of Australia’s business people yesterday the TPP was as much a foreign policy document as it was an economic agreement.

“It’s going to be hard to pass in both our countries, maybe not as hard for you, we’re going to try do a lame duck session in the US congress,” he said.

That good enough evidence for you?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/transpacific-partnership-biden-all-optimism-except-on-trade-deal/news-story/22111ee7b0fad4f8d0f7176a8d99b296

[cali]

5. It's so stupid. Putting aside my opposition to the TPP, it's politically

a huge misstep.

[zipplewrath]

4. Lots of belief

That's a lot of belief there. Is this a faith based policy?

I'm curious if you have historical examples to support these beliefs?

Because we had extensive foreign trade with Japan and Germany prior to WWII

What enforcement provisions are in the Paris Accord and what evidence do you have that those kinds of accords actually accomplish anything?

What evidence do you have that our international campanies will be "properly taxed"? Was it in the TPP?

What makes you think we currently DON'T have trade alternatives to China's dumping?

What examples of tribunals actually helping American labor or environment can you provide? Yes, they have been outstanding at protecting the profits of multinationals. Not that those profits have been particularly shared with the rest of the workers, much less the governments of ANY of the countries in which they operate.

The TPP does not make any attempt to ensure that any worker protections are actually enforced, much less that they will be well treated or share in the success of the companies. So what makes you think it will "help people in poor countries" especially considering that we ALREADY trade with these countries.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, BMW and Toyota already have factories here, the TPP isn't necessary for that.

[Hoyt]

6. As long as Clinton, Reid, etc., are against doing it in LD session, don't believe it will happen.

[Hoyt]

7. So, why does every country in world stand in line to sign these agreements - European, Scandanavian,

Latin American, Asian, etc. There are trade, jobs, and even self-defense reasons to do so.

[Demsrule86]

9. Self defence maybe but I don't know about jobs...have to look at it.

I will say that it is not an easy issue...in Ohio, our steel industry depends on trade with China...China sneezed this year and workers including hubs got laid off (engineer) he got a new job pretty easily retired from the autos after 30 years but...the old way of thinking that all trade agreements are bad is simply not true...but there are bad trade agreements. Let's make sure this is not one of them.

[zipplewrath]

10. Because of who it favors

You think this is the only country in which the monied interests have out sized influence?

By the way, I presume your answer means you DON'T have historical support for your beliefs. Where do these beliefs emanate?

[Hoyt]

11. My beliefs are that foreign worjers are not scabs, trade and globalization is better than

Nationalism, America Firstism, Isolationism; we will not produce the funds necessary for healthcare, education, jobs, etc., trading among ourselves; poor foreign countries deserve a chance to share in the wealth we have taken more than our fair share; and more. I, like Paul Krugman, believe people blame NAFTA for things caused by other factors. There's more, but I'm typing on a phone.

[zipplewrath]

12. and your historical proof?

Right now it sounds like so much "tickle down" theory. Which is really to say hypothesis. Do you have any support for this position? Because much of history doesn't support it. And it didn't com out of the ether you know. Doesn't mean he was "correct" but he identified a problem that Adam Smith doesn't address at all.

The reality is how do you address income distribution WITHOUT government intervention? And how does the TPP address that?

[Hoyt]

13. Simple, I'd rather have the income to redistribute than to grouse while the world passes us by.

[zipplewrath]

14. So that'd be "none"

That isn't historical and there is no "proof" in what you'd "rather".

[Hoyt]

17. What is your "historical" support? Besides, I'm more concerned with the future, and the world is

different and will be different tomorrow.

[zipplewrath]

22. The total failure of similar efforts

"globalism" in terms of trade has repeatedly failed. You can go all the way back to the Roman empire and see the corrosive effects of such efforts. England has tried it. The Persians went down this path. It consistently ends up enriching the few and impoverishing the masses. Trade in and of itself is not a problem. It is unrestrained, unregulated trade that is the problem. The TPP wouldn't be a problem if it treated labor, taxation and the environment the same way it treats intellectual property rights.

[Hoyt]

24. Yeah, the Romans where very proficient at moving products to the edge of the flat earth.

[zipplewrath]

25. Actually, bringing them from

But they were under no illusions of a flat earth. Any culture that sailed had figured that out long ago.

[think]

16. Yet when these third world workers are murdered for their union work you say that shouldn't be

an area where the trade deals get involved. So let these these poor people be murdered for trying to get a decent wage and let the free trade go on unabated by these murders.

Pathetic....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026573471#post57

[Hoyt]

18. They are less likely to get "murdered" when foreign corporations are involved.

[zipplewrath]

23. Prove it

Your long on assertions and short on data. I'm not sure where you get such an idea. Mexico is neck deep in international corporations, and not just American ones. And it is neck deep in murder right now.

[pampango]

26. That is consistent with FDR's vision. He inherited isolationism and 'America First' mentality.

He changed policy to one of internationalism and spreading peace and prosperity globally through international cooperation and multilateral organizations like the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, the ITO and a host of others.

It seems to me that the 'FDR era' of internationalism is coming to a close - if the door has not been shut already. Conservatives seem to want out of all of our treaties and agreements, in order to enhance our national sovereignty and to get out of the liberal goals of these agreements. On the left, proposed agreements are either 'not enforceable enough' - just pretty words but no effective enforcement - or 'too enforceable' - binding arbitration or other mechanisms that violate our national sovereignty.

FDR warned not to let perfectionism get in the way of international cooperation, but in modern times no international agreement is 'perfect' enough to satisfy anyone it seems. Trump is leading the way away from FDR's internationalism and back to Herbert Hoover's isolationism but the Donald has plenty of company of all political perspectives.

[Hoyt]

27. It is quite disappointing actually, and another reason we are called "greedy Americans."

From back in my gambling days -- I remember the player who came in, won everyones' money (wealth and resources in the thread context), and then left not giving the other players a chance to share in the wealth.

[Armstead]

19. They are often controversial within other countries too

Similar dynamics as in the US. The Elites are all for it...the people not so much. (and/or there is apathy because of the secretive and overly complex nature of these agreements.)

But I'm glad you're not for lame-duck passage. The whole damn nature of these things need to be discussed and debated and rethought in a more public way. The door has finally been opened to that. It should not suddenly be slammed shut again.

And I agree with Cali. It would be bad politics for the Democrats.

[cali]

20. Hey, A. You're actually agreeing with John Conyers, who penned the piece.

[Armstead]

28. I often agree with Conyers

He's one of the good guys on many issues, including trade

[Demsrule86]

8. I think we need to make sure that

it does not allow companies to sue in terms of clean water or force people to accept pollution. We do not want to lose our sovereignty...also I heard it allows slavery if that is so, it must be changed.

[cali]

15. Enforcement provisons are notoriously weak

I've been slogging through the entire thing since December.

[Demsrule86]

21. I know but we have to try

And we need enforcement mechanisms that will force compliance which is why a second look is needed. I know because here in Ohio more than a few manufacturing jobs are now related to China...that there are jobs at stake on both sides...now those jobs are not as well paying as say autos which could be badly hurt. I believe in tariffs if the agreements are not followed.