At Common Dreams, David Cay Johnston, author of The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use "Plain English" to Rob You Blind, writes—The Trans-Pacific Partnership Threatens Our Liberty:
I have been a longtime critic of the agreement, especially since WikiLeaksobtained a draft of its intellectual property provisions, showed a clear bias in favor of corporations.
Since Washington made the text public in October I have come to see some very real benefits in the agreement — but not nearly enough to warrant making it the law of the land. What I see now is a pact that would make government subservient to corporations, posing a real threat to freedom and self-governance.
There are two chief reasons to reject the TPP. First, the partnership does little for the U.S. on tariffs. In fact, the TPP was only minimally about U.S. tariffs on imports, which overall are insignificant at 1.5 percent, amounting to only a fraction of a penny of each dollar of federal tax revenue. However, the same is not true for exports: Some U.S.-made goods are subject to tariffs of up to 70 percent. Tariffs on U.S. goods imposed by the 11 other countries fall to zero, encouraging more exports of machinery, automotive parts and other manufactured products. But these issues could be resolved in bilateral negotiations without expanding corporate powers.
Second, the agreement would allow foreign corporations and governments to challenge federal, state and local laws in every other partnership country. The arbitration panels will likely to be composed of trade lawyers agreed to by each side. Despite some precedents in existing treaties, this raises fundamental questions of sovereignty, especially since corporate agents, not judges in courts of law, would make decisions binding on the body politic. That no case brought against the United States under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example, has resulted in damages should not blind us to the fact that huge damages could be awarded under the TPP.
The TPP would create a system of arbitration run by insiders, who could be advocates one day, arbiters the next, an arrangement almost guaranteed to produce corrupt backscratching for the benefit of corporations and at the expense of we the people.
Worse, no matter how economically damaging, unfair or just plain wrong the decisions of TPP arbitration panels, the rulings will not be subject to review by any court. This is justice of, by and for corporations, which means it cannot be justice. [...]
HIGH IMPACT STORIES TOP COMMENTS
TWEET OF THE DAY
BLAST FROM THE PAST
At Daily Kos on this date in 2002—Posters, billboards and white privilege:
Though a lot of attention has been focused on the racism and privilege inherent in recent remarks made by Republican presidential candidates, designed to garner support from the party's southern and tea party base, and the actions of elected officials like Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, too often, fingers are unfairly pointed at our warmer climes as being the sole site of racist activity and/or attitudes. Frankly, the history of racism in the U.S. has no regional boundaries; it was embedded in our roots from the moment indigenous occupants were attacked and removed. Hand in hand with systemic racism goes what those engaged in civil rights struggles and the academic study of racial disparity have dubbed "white privilege," which is a cornerstone of the academic discipline of Critical Race Theory (CRT).
A northern case in point is Duluth, Minnesota, where there has been controversy over a recently launched campaign designed to confront racism and white privilege.
|
On today’s Kagro in the Morning show, Greg Dworkin reviews the most recent Dem debate, and of course, all the latest polling. Tesla’s newest innovation rolls out in the UK. McDonald’s manages to take the shine off kale. Meet Ted Cruz’s new GOP wunderkind, same as the old GOP wunderkind.
Find us on iTunes | Find us on Stitcher | RSS | Donate to support the show!