I was wondering what these Progressive-Populist champions thought about the Transpacific Partnership deals, et al -- being negotiated on behalf of our nation -- under the cover of closed-doors, where only key corporate lobbyists are given a seat.
I thought you might be wondering this too. So here is what I found out.
First some background on the secret negotiations, and the latest hot-button issue that has become a proxy for the talks themselves: 'Fast-Track'
Do Global Trade Deals Hinge on 'fast-track' Tactics?
by The Conversation UK, economywatch.com -- Jan 5, 2015
[...]
A fast track on trade
The current trade impasse took form last January, when President Obama formally asked Congress to grant him Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), also known as “fast-track.” In essence, fast-track allows the White House to negotiate a trade deal and then get an up-or-down vote in Congress. This delegation of power has been a tool used by most presidents since its creation in 1974, and the White House considered it critical to moving forward with ongoing trade negotiations.
The first of these negotiations, to create the Transpacific Partnership (TPP), is set to eliminate key trade barriers between the United States and 11 Asian countries, including Japan. The second, called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), could be of even greater significance. It would merge the world’s two largest economies, the United States and the European Union, into a more deeply interdependent trading zone.
[...]
So, what are the chances that a deal between the President and Congress can be struck, and what might that deal look like? An adjusted, narrower form of fast-track could work, specifying which countries and on which issues the authority applies. Or Congress could extend the traditional 90-day fast-track window to provide more room for debate. Or it could even demand more regular consultations during the negotiations.
[...]
Here's is how Senator Sanders recently described the TPP -- it's a 'fast-track'
race to the bottom:
Not So Happy New Year: Obama Pushing Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2015
by Jim Miller, obrag.org -- Jan 5, 2015
[...] While the lofty sentiments in these symbolic international agreements might give us hope, the real world implications of the TPP will push us further and faster toward a grim future. As Bernie Sanders puts it:
Let’s be clear . . . The TPP is much more than a “free trade” agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system. If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.
Well, the people don't always have a 'right to know' in our brave new shrinking world ... or so it would seem.
Here are 3 technical nits that Senator Warren has decided to unravel, in the ongoing secret deals, taking place on our behalf:
Senator Elizabeth Warren fights the White House over the Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership #TPP
by Matthew Rimmer, infojustice.org -- Dec 22, 2014
[...]
[Elizabeth] Warren, [Tammy] Baldwin, and [Ed] Markey highlighted concerns with three specific provisions that could be part of the TPP. First, the Democrat politicians raised concerns about the investor-state dispute settlement process: ‘Including such provisions in the TPP could expose American taxpayers to billions of dollars in losses and dissuade the government from establishing or enforcing financial rules that impact foreign banks.’ Warren and her colleagues warned: ‘The consequence would be to strip our regulators of the tools they need to prevent the next crisis.’
Second, Senator Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues were concerned about including provisions in the TPP that would commit the American financial sector to ‘market access’ rules. She observed: ‘Such rules could be interpreted by international panels to prohibit basic, non-discriminatory restrictions on predatory or toxic financial products -- such as particularly risky forms of derivatives -- because those restrictions deny access to the U.S. financial markets.’ Warren and her colleagues observed: ‘To protect consumers and to address sources of systemic financial risk, Congress must maintain flexibility to impose restrictions on harmful financial products and on the conduct or structure of financial firms.’
Third, Warren and the other Democrat politicians were concerned about the inclusion of terms in the TPP that could limit the ability of the government to use capital controls: ‘If the TPP were to include provisions from past pacts that required unrestricted capital transfers, it could limit Congress’ prerogative to enact not only capital controls, but basic reform measures like a financial transactions tax.’
[...]
And here Senator Warren tells us what
she "really thinks" about the trade deals -- that for some reason, have to be done behind "closed doors" ...
Elizabeth Warren Reveals Inside Details of Trade Talks
by George Zornick, thenation.com -- May 15, 2014
[...]
“From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill,” [Elizabeth] Warren said. “I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.’”
[...]
“Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day -- those people, people without an army of lobbyists -- they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen.”
These audacious Senators just might have a point.
What would people say if they only knew ... that they lost their jobs for the "good of the country" ... for the "good of the world economy"?
How are we expected to compete with desperate, poverty-driven workers from around the world, many of whom are willing to "work for a dollar a day"?
Their dirty little secret is -- that we're NOT ... expected to.
'Market Forces' have simply demanded it ...