Remember the Trans-Pacific Partnership? You know—that clandestine trade deal that’s been in the works since like 2005. Well, it finally seems to be on the verge of approval. Several weeks ago,
Reuters reported that U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman told U.S. lawmakers the agreement could be finalized in months. Last week, an Australian trade official said it was more like, "
weeks."
It's a deal that would cover 40 percent of the world's GDP and about a third of world exports. But here’s the problem—almost nobody except the negotiators knows what’s in it. President Obama isn't talking about it, and the media isn’t asking very many questions.
Media Matters recently released a study showing that for the past 1.5 years, the evening news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC have made “no mention” of the agreement, while CNN and Fox News have made two mentions each over the same time period. Thankfully, PBS Newshour has devoted eight “substantive” segments to it and MSNBC's The Ed Show has covered it 71 times. That’s partly because Schultz is convinced it’s a raw deal for the American worker that will depress wages and send jobs oversees.
He may be right. But we can't possibly know because we have no idea what’s actually in the deal. One of the biggest dumps of information about the agreement was published by Wikileaks in November of 2013. Yes, that's right, it was leaked.
In order to complete this trade agreement, President Obama will need “fast-track” authority from Congress, meaning lawmakers will have to vote on it—probably sooner rather than later.
Please read below the fold for more on this story.
Here’s what Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is deeply skeptical of the deal, told Schultz last Thursday about the lack of transparency.
The truth of the matter is, that I as a senator or any other member of Congress, we cannot even look at the agreement—in terms of copying the agreement, in terms of bringing experts in to look at this highly legal and complicated document. We’re not even allowed to do that.
So as a starting point, no member of Congress should think about voting for fast track when you don’t even know what the hell is in the agreement.
For a White House that should be trying to sell this agreement to the American people, President Obama has said precious little about it. That’s probably partly because it’s got more Republican support than it does from his own party.
Schultz posed this question to his viewers and then answered it himself:
Why hasn’t the president of the United States done a sit-down interview with somebody that wants to talk exclusively about trade? I don’t think this president can sell it.
Sanders agreed about Obama’s relative silence on the matter.
I think the president is an honest guy, and I don’t think he can sell it.
That's because they believe it's a bad deal for the American worker.
NPR's Diane Rehm recently devoted an hour-long segment to it. Economist Paul Krugman has written about it, albeit a year ago. He thinks it "no big deal" in terms of its effects on trade but can't understand why the president is pushing it. Economist Dean Baker counters that it is, in fact, a big deal, but not so much in terms of its effects on trade.
[I]t is a misunderstanding to see the TPP as being about trade. This is a deal that focuses on changes in regulatory structures to lock in pro-corporate rules. Using a "trade" agreement provides a mechanism to lock in rules that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to get through the normal political process.