Trade Deal Update — TTIP Starting To Die; TTP Still Possible, Perhaps Likely, in Lame Duck Session

These are your Democratic Party Fast Track villains in the Senate, at least the visible ones. (Notice VP nominee Tim Kaine in the group, and Patty Murray, whose leadership star is rising.) If the part of the universe that loves actual people were just, each of them would be applying for work on K Street for their sins.

by Gaius Publius

While the big U.S–European Union trade deal (TTIP) is starting to die, the U.S.–Asian trade deal (TTP) still looks likely to get a vote in the lame duck Congress at the end of this year. TTIP first, then TPP.

France Calls for End of TTIP Talks

France has joined a growing list of EU nations increasingly dissatisfied by the heavy balance of TTIP benefits to the U.S. One French trade minister said the treaty contains "nothing but crumbs" for France and cites growing popular dissatisfaction with the proposed deal.

So France wants out. John Queally, writing at Common Dreams:

'Another Day, Another Death Knell' for TTIP as France Calls for End of Talks

Describing ongoing negotiations as producing "nothing or just crumbs," French Junior Trade Minister Matthias Fekl says there is "no more political support in France" for the corporate-friendly deal

Though the office of the U.S Trade Representative on Monday said efforts to seal a trade deal between the U.S. and the European Union were still "making steady progress," the attempt to put an optimistic spin on the struggling negotiations was undermined once again on Tuesday as France's financial minister called for the outright suspension of talks.

Describing the ongoing negotiations with the U.S. over the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) as producing "nothing or just crumbs," French Junior Trade Minister Matthias Fekl said on Tuesday there is "no more political support in France" for the deal at this point.

"France calls for an end to these negotiations," Fekl said during an interview on RMC radio in France. He indicated there is no longer any hope that the countries involved could secure an agreement by year's end. "France would rather see things as they are and not harbor the illusion that an agreement will be struck before the end of the U.S. president's term in office."

While backers of the corporate-friendly deal, including U.S. President Barack Obama, have vowed to push ahead, its critics see the wave of public declarations by top ministers as proof their campaigning against the deal is paying off.

It seems the Europeans too are wary of the loss of state sovereignty under ISDS provisions of the treaty, as well as the way it tilts the playing field on other corporate matters.

Just a few days earlier, Germany expressed similar sentiments, saying that the treaty had "de facto failed."

"Negotiations with the U.S. have de facto failed, because of course as Europeans we couldn't allow ourselves to submit to American demands," Sigmar Gabriel told the German news station ZDF in an interview that will air at 7pm German time Sunday, according to Der Spiegel.

"Everything has stalled," Gabriel said.

What does "de facto failed" mean in practice? According to The Independent, after 14 rounds of negotiation, three of those rounds in the previous six months, none of the 27 chapters being deliberated had been agreed to.

Your bottom line — If TTIP is to pass, the next U.S. president will have to take over the negotiations. Barring a drastic change, tt looks like the current one, President Obama, has failed.

TTP Still Very Viable in This Year's Lame Duck Session

The same is not true for TPP, the Pacific agreement, which is much further along. You're probably hearing about how Paul Ryan in the House and Mitch McConnell in the Senate are saying TPP will not get a lame duck vote. According to Public Citizen's trade expert, Lori Wallach, this is just a negotiating posture by the Republicans and their corporate backers to get Obama to sweeten the pro-corporate deal even further.

In other words, don't count TPP dead until the lame duck fails to bring it up or to pass it. (And even then don't count it dead, as I see it.)

Other things to keep in mind when contemplating the fate of TPP:

• Fast Track is a one-use tool per trade agreement. If Obama tries to force a vote this year, and that vote fails, Fast Track rules no long apply to TPP. So the stakes are high.

• Corporate donors to both parties, including the Republican Party, are desperate for TPP to pass. In Wallach's estimation (and mine), Ryan and McConnell are stalling to get Obama to make the deal even more corporate-friendly — by extending patent and IP protections, for example, which drug companies consider to be inadequate in the current agreement (meaning, those new provisions are very lucrative, but still not lucrative enough).

• Obama can't force a vote; he can only "start the Fast Track clock." The clock allows a window of 90 session-days within which a vote must be taken. But since there aren't 90 session-days left in this Congress, the Republicans, if they wish, really can block the treaty by not bringing it up for a vote and letting time run out in this Congress. (Think of it like the shot clock and the game clock in basketball. The shot clock may show 20 seconds before they team with the ball has to shoot, but if there are only 10 seconds left in the game, the shot clock is moot.)

• Obama might call the Republicans' bluff and try to force a vote anyway by starting the clock without making changes. Remember, Fast Track can only be used once per treaty. If he does this, it then becomes a question of how much of the big-money pie do über-wealthy Republican donors want to settle for — all but the last small piece, or do they want that piece as well?

• Finally, the votes may not be there this time, as Wallach explains. Still, you never know. Congressional Democrats always finds enough people on their team willing to do the dirty work so the rest of the team can pretend to be opposed (looking at you, Schumer and Pelosi). This will take constant vigilance.

Now over to Lori Wallach, who really is the tireless, go-to expert on all of these really bad trade deals and the reasons to oppose them. Writing in the Huffington Post, she says:

TPP Is Not Dead, Unfortunately

The reports of the Trans-Pacific Partnership's death have been greatly exaggerated, unfortunately.

It would great news if the pact, which would mean more power for corporations over our lives and government, and fewer good jobs for Americans, were ready to be boxed and buried.

But more urgently, if last week's news stories convince the growing transpartisan movement fighting the TPP to stand down, the prospects that the pact's powerful proponents can succeed in their plan to pass it after the election [i.e., in the lame duck session] will increase.

Last week Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said at the Kentucky Farm Bureau: "The current agreement...which has some serious flaws, will not be acted upon this year." This generated a wave of press coverage declaring that there would be no lame duck vote on the TPP....

Note that McConnell said the "current agreement" would not get a vote. A few weeks ago House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) said: "I see no point in bringing up an agreement only to defeat it...it is not ready, the president has to renegotiate some critical components of it." Immediately after McConnell's speech, a Ryan spokesman said: "As we have said for months, timing will be determined by progress on the substance - and the administration has a lot of work to do there."

Wallach's reason for Ryan and McConnell's opposition is mine as well — "progress on the substance," or sweetness, of the deal itself (my emphasis):

Those statements need to be understood for what they are: negotiating for changes to obtain even more corporate goodies - longer monopoly protections for pharmaceutical firms' high medicine prices, elimination of an exception protecting some tobacco regulations from TPP attack, and more. So far the corporate "we-want-more-or-else" tactic has pushed the White House into caving on Wall Street firms' demands to "fix" TPP rules allowing governments to limit movement of financial data across borders. Since the administration has made no parallel moves to address criticisms coming from its own party, a very bad deal is getting even worse.

About the game of "chicken" Obama is playing with the money people pulling the GOP leaders' strings:

It's also possible congressional Republicans will jump into gear to pass the deal in the lame duck session even if they do not achieve that last one percent of corporate goodies for the one percent. Thanks to Fast Track, President Obama gets to decide if the TPP vote clock is started - not the Republican leadership. It is risky, but Obama could call the GOP leaders' negotiating bluff.

Fast Track is a one use tool. Failure to pass the TPP once a president starts the clock means that Fast Track for the TPP is "used up." Knowing that corporations that fund the Republicans want the TPP, Obama could gamble that the GOP leaders would fold on their demands and start pressuring their members to vote "yes" if he submits the implementing legislation....

Because there would not be the required 90 congressional session days to force floor votes under Fast Track, the Republican congressional leaders would have to bring the TPP to a vote quickly or run out of time. (That is why Sen. Bernie Sander's statement last week, praising McConnell for announcing he would "block" the TPP was so very sly, because of course McConnell said no such thing.)

Make no mistake, though. The entire U.S. corporate universe, which finances both parties, wants this deal to pass, as do almost all of the leaders of those parties, even while, as Wallach says elsewhere in the article, congressional votes for it are starting to disappear — or starting to appear to disappear ahead of the election.

Your bottom line — TPP is very likely not dead in the lame duck session. I consider it highly likely to come up for a vote.

GP
 

TPP, the Democratic Party, and Obama's Presidential Library

by Gaius Publius

[W]e were told by a high up staffer who works for Joe Biden that Obama did it [endorsed Patrick Murphy] to get contributions to his uber-expensive presidential library, ostensibly from Murphy's rich, crooked father, from the super-wealthy Saudi family that sponsors Murphy (the notorious Al-Rashids) and from Schumer's Wall Street patrons. (source)

There's always a question about who politicians are primarily working for. Are they working mainly for the country and its people, for their political party and its access to power, or for their own personal fortunes? In the case of Obama and his headlong rush to pass the billioinaire-written TPP, I think we have a perfect petri dish for isolating the answer, at least in this one case.

Again, the questions are:

• Does Obama want to pass TPP so badly because Americans need it?
• Does he want to pass TPP because his party needs it?
• Or because he needs it personally?

Obviously, the answer could be Yes to all three. In the case of the TPP, however, we're going to find two No answers, leaving just one candidate. I'm going to keep this as brief as I can. It's really not a hard question to answer.

Does the Country Need TPP?

No. It's been documented here and a great many other places that the country not only doesn't need TPP to pass, it desperately needs it not to pass. It really will be a NAFTA-style job killer, as well as a killer of national sovereignty (see also here). If you doubt me, check the links, or read anything from Public Citizen's Eyes on Trade pages.

Does the Democratic Party Need TPP?

Again, no. In fact, the Democratic Party also needs TPP not to pass. As Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, wrote recently in The Hill (my emphasis):

Obama's TPP campaign could drag down Democrats

How much is President Obama willing to harm the Democratic Party in order to win approval for the deeply unpopular Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) "trade" agreement? We may soon find out.

On Tuesday, Politico broke the story that the White House will be "making an all-out push to win passage of the deal in the lame duck session of Congress, organizing 30 events over the congressional recess." The effort will be designed to put pressure not only on Democratic members of Congress, but also on swing Republican votes, by lobbying important business interests in their districts.

Trump is far behind Clinton in the polls, and it seems unlikely that Obama would have launched a public campaign of this magnitude for the TPP in the heat of an election season if the race were looking like a serious contest. But there is more at stake: millions of potential Republican voters will stay home in November if Trump is losing by a wide margin. Many others will stay home simply because they don't like him.

And yet...

[M]any of these disaffected voters could be rallied to the polls if they think that Clinton, and her party, are going to bring them another failed "trade" agreement. (On the other side, some potential Democratic voters could abstain or switch sides for the same reasons). All this could make the difference between the Democrats taking the Senate, and in a big enough landslide, even the House of Representatives.

After looking at how close the Fast Track vote was, Weisbrot makes a striking point — to pass TPP, Obama will need the help of politicians in both parties who lost their jobs in the 2016 election, not those who won — politicians who can, in effect, trash their political futures and that of their party for lucrative personal next-jobs as lobbyists:

So [TPP] is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the last three elections was about 80.

Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org, we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists. (An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).

So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.

But note, it's not just the electorate that will be "rendered completely irrelevant" — the fortunes of both political parties will be damaged as well. Including Obama's Democratic Party. Were Donald Trump to develop a surprisingly competent campaign, the push for TPP could lose the White House for Democrats, and with it, the Senate.

Obama is asking the Democratic Party to take a huge risk. Even if they win the White House in 2016, 2018 could shape up as brutal for them. Pushing for, and passing, TPP will spark another Sanders-like backlash, in both parties.

So Why Does Obama Need TPP?

For the final question, Weisbrot hints at the answer:

Why is Obama willing to risk so much to get the TPP passed this year? Many press reports insist that it is because he wants it for his legacy. It is strange to think that he would want such an unpopular agreement for his legacy. There are less flattering reasons that seem much more plausible.

I'll do a little more than hint. The Obama Library (and any future foundation he may launch with other people's money) is his ticket to the next phase of his life. Not his party's life; just his own and his family's. As Howie Klein wrote in the quote at the top of this piece:

[W]e were told by a high up staffer who works for Joe Biden that Obama did it [endorsed Patrick Murphy] to get contributions to his uber-expensive presidential library, ostensibly from Murphy's rich, crooked father, from the super-wealthy Saudi family that sponsors Murphy (the notorious Al-Rashids) and from Schumer's Wall Street patrons

TPP offers a much larger payday than endorsing Patrick Murphy, a mere senator. TPP is wanted by nearly every American industry with money, from Wall Street to Big Pharma to Silicon Valley to Hollywood and every stop in between. As Weisbrot said above about the Congress people Obama is targeting:

It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table.

As Weisbrot hints (and I'm willing to say), that statement is also true about Obama. The Big Money people who want Congress to pass TPP also want Obama to make it pass, even if he sacrifices his own party's future to do it, and they're clearly willing to pay to "make it so." (After all, what's the point of having too much money if you can't buy things with it.) Obama's obviously on board; his recent actions scream how eager he is. To see if I'm right, watch his presidential library list of donors, if he releases it.

Money doesn't talk, it swears. Though maybe its song is sweeter when Democrats listen.

GP
 

The TPP And The Democratic National Convention

John Laesch our old friend-- a union carpenter and the former Illinois congressional candidate who began the process of ending Denny Hastert's disgraceful career-- is still very much a Democratic Party activist in Illinois. When the House voted to grant President Obama fast track authority to ram the TPP through Congress with minimal fuss and bother, Illinois House delegation was split-- 9 for and 9 against... but then a few days before the vote one of the crooks in the delegation, pro-TPP Aaron Schock, was forced to resign in a corruption scandal that's still unfolding. In the end, every single Illinois Republican plus one disreputable New Dem, Mike Quigley, voted in favor and all the other Democrats-- even fake Democrat Dan Lipinksi-- voted NO. It passed 219-211 and Obama and Paul Ryan are trying to make sure its voted on in the lame duck session of Congress right after the election, when it's relatively easy to pass unpopular legislation. Last week Laesch wrote a post for the Progressive Fox, which he asked us to share here.


We NEED To Undercut President Obama's TPP At The Democratic Convention
-by John Laesch

At the last Democratic Party Platform Committee meeting in St. Louis, Secretary Clinton’s surrogates on the platform committee voted to keep the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) off of the platform agenda.  We also saw the language and strategy that they are employing to allow the Clinton campaign to quietly shift positions on the TPP; giving the Obama Administration one last chance to pass this disastrous trade bill.

According to the Washington Post, during the platform meeting, Rep. Elijah Cummings (Clinton) said, “I don’t want to do anything as he ends his term to undercut the president of the United States.”

Dr. Cornel West (Sanders) effectively countered Cummings when he said, “the responsibilities of citizenship should transcend loyalty to the president.”

I would like to go a step further-- We need to undercut President Obama’s TPP. It is not good for America or working people anywhere in the world. It is not good for the environment. The TPP extinguishes democracy; replacing it with corporate government. We don’t need the TPP. The president is wrong and he needs to reverse his position on the TPP. The time to send this message is at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. If you need to read more about the TPP, this in-depth analysis from Public Citizen titled, "Secret TPP Text Unveiled: It is worse than we thought,” is worth the read.

Some labor leaders are OK with this public neutering by Clinton and her corporate allies, because in private she has offered them the reassurance of her opposition to the TPP. I would encourage those labor leaders to join David Sirota and simply ask the former Secretary of State to share her State Department e-mails on the topic. Sirota received a letter saying the e-mails would not be available until after the November election. What is the big secret?  More importantly, how can we trust someone who flip-flops so much? Do we think that Secretary of State Clinton’s e-mails regarding the TPP reflect her real views? Or, do we think that candidate Clinton’s position on the TPP is real? Or, are the most recent views by her platform committee surrogates the real view?

The Presumptive Presidential Nominee Directs the Democratic Platform:

In 2012, Democratic Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz repeatedly underscored that a political party’s platform represents the views of the presidential candidate.

In this exchange with Anderson Cooper, Cooper asked Wasserman Shultz, “you’re saying he (Mitt Romney) directed the writing of the platform, at least that’s the claim you make in your fundraising e-mail?” Wasserman Schultz cuts Anderson off and says, “That’s the responsibility of a presidential campaign.” Throughout the interview she resolutely and emphatically claimed that the presidential candidate directs the writing of the platform.

In this case, the presumptive nominee, Hillary Clinton, is directing the platform. Using the DNC chairs emphatic statements and the recent platform vote, it is safe to say that Hillary Clinton herself now supports the TPP.

What Do We Do to Stop the TPP?

For those who still appreciate the benefits of organized labor and the scraps of democracy that we enjoy with a main course of oligarchy, the TPP is suicide. I think labor leaders need to take this more seriously. One thing you can do is contact your labor union representatives and underscore that we need to undercut President Obama at the Democratic Convention in July.

In asking the question, “who do we trust?” I still trust Bernie Sanders.  Sanders has launched a petition calling on the U.S. Congress to vote no on the TPP. Please sign Bernie’s petition.

Disclosure: I am a proud union carpenter with Local 195 (Carpenters Officially oppose the TPP) and I am a #StillSanders delegate to the Democratic National Convention. I will be standing strong against the TPP at the convention.

It is time for President Obama to listen to the people and put the brakes on the TPP, fast track, “smart track,” or anything else that further dissolves our democracy and offshores American jobs to sweatshops in foreign countries. Instead, we should be talking about an exit from NAFTA-- an Obama pledge from his 2004 U.S. Senate race.

Does Cruz Exit Help Sanders? Will Hillary Appoint Bill Her "Minister of Jobs and Trade"?

Clinton wants to bring her husband "out of retirement."

by Gaius Publius

The two topics in the headline are related.

We're in the next phase of the campaign, with an uncontested candidate in the Republican Party (who knew that would happen first?) and a still-contested race on the Democratic side. How much does this change the dynamic?

For one thing, if Sanders continues to battle to the convention, as he's promised again and again to do — and also to combat Clinton regarding the culture of corruption (my phrase) in the Democratic Party — Clinton will have to fight on two fronts, Sanders and Trump. Whether she will fight on two fronts, or whether she'll just "pivot" to the right, battle Trump, and try to attract those "mythical centrist moderates," is anyone's guess.

Does she think she's such a shoo-in that she needn't bother further with Sanders voters and their issues, that they're going to along for the ride anyway? There are some indications of that, like this...

Two Clinton Advisors Support TPP "Adjusted on the Margins"

From a recent report sourced to the AP (my emphasis):

Laura Rosenberger, foreign policy adviser for the Clinton campaign, said Clinton still supports the goal of a TPP that advances US interests in the region. However, she said, the pact in its current form doesn’t meet three conditions needed for a trade deal: to create good jobs in the US, raise wages at home, and advance US national security.

Kurt Campbell, who was Clinton’s top lieutenant on East Asia at the State Department and is now advising her campaign, describes TPP as a “strategic commitment” to engage in Asia. The 12 participating nations account for about 40 per cent of global GDP, and other Asian nations are interested in joining.

Campbell said that a full-scale renegotiation would be “very difficult”, but that adjustments could make it more politically palatable in the US[.]

“There are always opportunities to adjust on the margins and figure out how to ensure that we’ve got an agreement which legislators can sell back home,” Campbell told the Truman Centre think tank last week, without giving specifics.

So Clinton plans to "adjust TPP on the margins" so legislators can "sell [it] back home." Does that sound like a firm commitment to "good jobs" and "raising wages"? Or a commitment to making things simply look that way? This certainly sends a TPP signal to Sanders voters. It also sends a TPP signal to her big-money campaign contributors.

And then there's this...

Bill Clinton's Role in the Next Clinton Administration

In the clip at the top, the reporters frame Hillary Clinton's comment regarding Bill's role as being about "jobs," but as you can hear in this longer, though still edited, clip, the context of the discussion is trade. Here's one interpretation of the session:

During a campaign event this week, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton capitalized on the nostalgic popularity of Bill Clinton when she told a room full of supporters that she plans to put Bill to work because he has so many “good ideas.”

Clinton was talking extensively about trade, an issue that she has gotten a fair amount of push-back on from opponent Bernie Sanders.

Clinton is clearly pivoting to the right on TPP, though only the readers of the first piece above — and now you — know that yet. And she plans to make "NAFTA" Bill Clinton her virtual "minister of trade"? Before the primary is even over?

That's quite a pivot. Just the optics alone are horrible, even if Bill just works to create a "manufacturing renaissance," as asserted here. The man is still, in most eyes, Mr. NAFTA. That was the core of his 1992 campaign against Ross Perot. Is this Ms. Clinton's new message, that "the guy who got killed your last job, will now get you your next one"?

... or question their agents as well.

I hope Bernie Sanders is all over this, from now until the last vote is cast. Because...

Will Pivoting to the Right Hurt Clinton Badly in the Primary?

Yes, in the primary. Remember, Ted Cruz has now dropped out, and we're still in the primary on the Democratic side, not the general election. In a piece called "5 Reasons Bernie Sanders Wins Big With Cruz Dropout" writer Seth Abramson includes these as the second and third reasons (bolded emphasis mine):

2. Sanders will pick up a huge number of what would otherwise be Trump votes in states where voters are still able to register for upcoming Democratic primaries, or are able to cross over and vote in the Democratic primary due to being a registered independent.

Sanders’ vote share in nearly every upcoming primary and caucus just increased, though we don’t know by how much. In some instances, it could be a substantial bump, given that there’s no strategic reason to cast a vote for Donald Trump anymore — now that the Republican National Committee has officially declared him the presumptive nominee and a John Kasich dropout is likely imminent.

3. Clinton will have to start spending a great deal of money to fight a two-front war against Donald Trump, who’ll begin his ultra-negative primary campaign against Clinton immediately, and [against] Bernie Sanders, who will avoid attacking Clinton directly but has nevertheless vowed to take the Democratic primary to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

This is the worst imaginable scenario for Clinton, as her negatives have always gone up when she’s in the midst of a campaign — and now she’s in the middle of two at once. With Clinton’s attention divided, her ability to respond to any Bernie Sanders surge in upcoming states will be limited.

And by ignoring Sanders completely in order to deal with Trump — as it certainly looks like she's doing — she risks even further the loss of (a) independent and Democratic voters in the primary, and (b) Sanders voters in the general election.

Sanders Can Still Win the Nomination with Pledged Delegates

Yes, the path is narrow, but not impossibly so. After his win in Indiana — and hopefully, after Clinton's betrayal (that's the word) of her implied, though heavily parsed, objection to TPP — Sanders starts the fourth quarter of this four-quarter game very strong. As I have it calculated, he could fairly easily enter the convention less than 50 pledged delegates down. And with a string of very good wins in the many states favorable to him, he could even overtake her by something like 5-10 delegates.

In other words, not over. As Abramson wrote in the same piece:

Sanders was already looking strong in Oregon, West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky, North Dakota, and California, but given that he’s within single digits in New Jersey (where Trump is very popular) and performed incredibly well with nonwhite voters in Indiana (meaning New Mexico could be in play), it’s not unthinkable that Hillary Clinton could lose all of the remaining primaries and caucuses and therefore as many as thirteen or fourteen contests in a row to finish the Democratic primary season.

It's not out of range that Clinton loses every remaining contest but New Jersey and DC. If that's the case, losing by how much will tell the tale. And even if she wins the pledged delegate total — just one of the three simultaneous races being run — that's how she enters the convention, a loser in almost all of the fourth-quarter contests.

What will the nation think as they watch her nominated, if they do get that sight?

This isn't over. As I've been recommending for a while now — Block to the whistle. Tackle to the ground. Play till the end of the game. It's the only way you win the tough ones.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, now is the time. Please go here. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP
 

Trade Policies That Send American Jobs Overseas Are Republican Policies That New Dems And Blue Dogs Support

It became clear during the 2008 Democratic primary that Obama knew what was wrong with NAFTA and knew he could use it effectively as a weapon against his neoliberal, free-trade-supporting opponent, Hillary Clinton. Once Obama got into office he seems to have forgot his NAFTA-related trade promises-- and worse. We'll get to the TPP in a moment. Recall that on November 17, 1993-- quite late at night-- the House voted on NAFTA, the George H.W. Bush "free trade" bill that he tried to pass but couldn't. Bill Clinton assured Wall Street he would get done. And it got done. Clinton hired Rahm Emanuel, then a little known White House aide already fashioning himself an image as a bully and an asshole, to ride roughshod over reticent Democrats opposing job killing "free" trade policies. With Tom DeLay working one side of the aisle and Emanuel working the other side, they bribed, blackmailed and beat up enough Members of the House to get NAFTA passed 234-200. 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voted for it. 156 Democrats (+ Independent Bernie Sanders) voted no, as did 43 Republicans.

These Wall Street-backed trade deals are part of the Republican agenda and one of the problems with the bribed, conservative Democrats-- like Hillary Clinton-- is that they sell themselves to these policies over and over for cash. Yes, I know she always loves to say that the $42,160,423 she's taken in campaign contributions from the Finance Sector-- which doesn't even touch the millions she and her husband have been paid personally in lightly-disguised personal bribes in the form of "speaker's fees," for the speeches she refuses to let the public see now-- never influenced her on policy. Ever hear of a politician say that the bribes they took influenced a decision they made. You don't believe it when Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell says it; why would you believe it when Hillary Clinton, who takes far more in bribes from Wall Street than both of them combined and supports the same ugly trade policy agenda they do, says it?

When the House voted on fast track authority for TPP last June it passed 219-211, 191 Republicans and just 28 Democrats-- virtually all from the corrupt Blue Dog/New Dem/Clinton wing of the party-- voted for it. This was pure Republican/Wall Street legislation that was backed with the slime of the Democratic Party-- your Debbie Wasserman Schultzes, your Kurt Schraders, Gregory Meeks, Ami Beras, Jim Himes, Ron Kinds, John Delaneys, Jim Coopers (the Nashville Blue Dog who is one of the new Dems left in Congress who voted for NAFTA)-- Team Hillary!

Pressure from Bernie forced her to finally back away from the TPP treaty she's ardently supported and even helped negotiate. Few people believe her opposition will last longer than the campaign. If she gets into the White House, all those millions she's gotten from the banksters will dictate that she pushes it through, perhaps with some much-ballyhooed but superficial adjustments. The dishonesty of the Democratic political establishment when it comes to trade policy-- part of the pathology exposed by Thomas Frank in his new book, Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened To The Party Of The People-- speaks loudly to the abandonment of working families and their interests by the Establishment/Hillary-wing of the party. Earlier in the week, Lee Fang, writing for The Intercept exposed how Japanese government lobbyists in America are gaming the system in favor of the TPP here in America at the same time that the Boston Globe exposed how the Obama administration has been using the old unethical Rahm techniques to push the TPP forward.

New Balance is renewing its opposition to the far-reaching Pacific Rim trade deal, saying the Obama administration reneged on a promise to give the sneaker maker a fair shot at military business if it stopped bad-mouthing the agreement.

After several years of resistance to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pact aimed at making it easier to conduct trade among the United States and 11 other countries, the Boston company had gone quiet last year. New Balance officials say one big reason is that they were told the Department of Defense would give them serious consideration for a contract to outfit recruits with athletic shoes.

But no order has been placed, and New Balance officials say the Pentagon is intentionally delaying any purchase.

New Balance is reviving its fight against the trade deal, which would, in part, gradually phase out tariffs on shoes made in Vietnam. A loss of those tariffs, the company says, would make imports cheaper and jeopardize its factory jobs in New England.

The administration has made the pact a priority. It could be voted on by Congress later this year, though possibly not until after the November elections.

...The company employs about 1,400 people at its five New England factories-- one in Brighton, one in Lawrence, and three in Maine. Company officials say they are looking to add workers to those plants, and they see a major military contract, with potentially as many as 200,000 shoe orders a year, as a way to help reach that goal.

One of the worst of the congressional Dems-- if you want to call him that-- on the Wall Street neoliberal trade agenda is Oregon Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, one of the 28 Democrats to cross the aisle and vote with the GOP on Fast Track authority. His opponent in the Oregon primary is Dave McTeague, a Bernie-backing former state legislator. Former Oregon Congressman Les AuCoin endorsed McTeague pointing out that "Oregon doesn't need a self-proclaimed Blue Dog Democrat," adding that it's "time for a real Democrat in Oregon's 5th District" and asserting what anyone who watches Congress carefully already knows, namely that Schrader is nothing but a "Democratic impostor who now holds the seat for the special interests."

Democrat Dave McTeague and Blue Dog Kurt Schrader debate the TPP

McTeague, who has said Shrader's supporting for the job-killing trade bills was a big part of the motivation for running, attacked Schrader for his vote on the Panama Free Trade that led directly to the Mossack Fonseca financial scandals. McTeague: "Congressman Kurt Schrader’s vote for the Panama U.S. Trade Deal aids and abets Panama’s status as a tax haven for the rich and corporations to hide their assets from U.S. taxation... Once again, Congressman Schrader ignored the testimony of organized labor and citizen groups like Public Citizen. They objected to the Panama deal chiefly because of that country’s role as a haven for money laundering and tax avoidance by U.S. corporations. The AFL-CIO warned Schrader and others, that 'Panama is known as a tax haven with a history of attracting money launderers and tax dodgers.' Schrader should know that Panama is one of the world’s major tax havens where 400,000 foreign firms and numerous wealthy individuals use its dual tax system, banking secrecy and shady incorporation laws to dodge taxes. Panama is also used by Mexican and Colombian cartels’ for money laundering operations according to the U.S. State Department. This trade deal did nothing to curb Panama’s status as a tax haven where many U.S. firms are incorporated, avoiding their obligations at home. Instead Congressman Schrader rewarded Panama with a trade deal worth billions."

Last week when McTeague and Schrader faced off in front of the Willamette Week editorial board, they sparred over trade deals like the TPP, with McTeague emphasizing how it undermines labor rights, environmental protections and consumer rights, while Schrader just spewing all the same old lies that Clinton was using to defend it before she finally raised the white flag and agreed it sucks and that she'd oppose it. If you'd like to help Dave McTeague and the other congressional candidates running, along with Bernie, against the TPP and the neoliberal "free" trade agenda, the thermometer will take you to the place:

It's Not Just TPP. Can a President Kill NAFTA? Al Gore Thought So. Hillary Clinton Too.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama discuss NAFTA in the 2008 Cleveland debate.

by Gaius Publius

Moderator Tim Russert: Al Gore said the following: "If you don't like NAFTA and what it's done, we can get out of it in six months." ... Will you, as president, say we are out of NAFTA in six months?

Clinton: I have said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously, you’d have to say to Canada and Mexico that that’s exactly what we’re going to do. . . . Yes, I am serious. . . . I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America. . . .

Cleveland debate, February 26, 2008

The big news is Bernie Sanders' announcement that as president he will reject TPP, the "job-killing trade deal" that Barack Obama, many Republicans and the money wing of the Democratic Party is so eager to see passed.

From a Sanders campaign press release:

Sanders Vows to Reject Job-Killing Trade Deal

As the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact was signed by the United States and 11 other countries, Bernie Sanders promised to "fundamentally rewrite our trade policies to benefit working families, not just the CEOs of large, multinational corporations."

Sanders has opposed the Pacific trade deal, the North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normal trade relations with China since day one. The North American Free Trade Agreement led to the loss of 700,000 jobs. The trade deal with China led to the loss of 3.2 million jobs. And since 2001, nearly 60,000 manufacturing plants have been shut down and 4.7 million jobs have been lost. ...

“As your president, not only will I make sure that the TPP does not get implemented, I will not send any trade deal to Congress that will make it easier for corporations to outsource American jobs overseas,” Sanders said.

If I read this right, the following is true. If Sanders is president, TPP is dead, whether it passes Congress or not. Something to think about — and something for the signers of TPP to think about, especially those leaders who put their careers on the line with their own countries' compromises. All for naught?

What About NAFTA? Can We Really "Get Out In Six Months"?

But there's more than just the news of the potential death of TPP at the hand of a President Sanders. One obvious question is — What about Ms. Clinton? Will she make the same statement? If I were the Sanders campaign, I'd ask that again and again.

But there's more. It turns out that according to Al Gore in his debate with Ross Perot, we can get out of NAFTA "in six months" if the president wants to. Let that sink in, in light of what Sanders just said. I'd be overjoyed if Sanders would confirm this and promise to do that as well.

But on the Clinton side, there were some very specific promises made in the 2008 campaign, and specifically during the February debate in Cleveland moderated by Tim Russert. Those promises are so specific that they should be revisited — and reverified. Another something that the Sanders camp could easily do.

Here's what happened. During the debate in Cleveland, candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama discussed what they would do to "fix" NAFTA. Here's the relevant section from the transcript. Note the introduction and Al Gore's comment. I'm trimming and emphasizing what I think is key in this. Ellipses and emphasis mine. Hyphens are part of the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you both about NAFTA because the record, I think, is clear. ... Senator Clinton. Senator Obama said that you did say in 2004 that on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America. You did say that. ... You said in '96 it was proving its worth as free and fair trade. You said that -- in 2000 -- it was a good idea that took political courage. So your record is pretty clear.

Based on that, and which you're now expressing your discomfort with it, in the debate that Al Gore had with Ross Perot, Al Gore said the following: "If you don't like NAFTA and what it's done, we can get out of it in six months.["]

The president can say to Canada and Mexico, we are out. This has not been a good agreement." Will U.S. president say we are out of NAFTA in six months?

SEN. CLINTON: I have said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously, you'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do. ...

MR. RUSSERT: Just because -- maybe Clinton --

SEN. CLINTON: Yes, I am serious.

MR. RUSSERT: You will get out. You will notify Mexico and Canada, NAFTA is gone in six months.

SEN. CLINTON: No, I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America.

Then, after she pivots to Obama's comments (fair enough in a debate), this:

SEN. CLINTON: ... But let's talk about what we're going to do. It is not enough just to criticize NAFTA, which I have, and for some years now. I have put forward a very specific plan about what I would do, and it does include telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards -- not side agreements, but core agreements; that we will enhance the enforcement mechanism; and that we will have a very clear view of how we're going to review NAFTA going forward to make sure it works, and we're going to take out the ability of foreign companies to sue us because of what we do to protect our workers. ...

MR. RUSSERT: But let me button this up. Absent the change that you're suggesting, you are willing to opt out of NAFTA in six months?

SEN. CLINTON: I'm confident that as president, when I say we will opt out unless we renegotiate, we will be able to renegotiate.

This is an amazing exchange. You may want to read it a second time, just to be sure you read it right.

"Opting Out" of NAFTA

Two takeaways, I think, are apparent from this:

1. A president can opt out of NAFTA in six months, according to Al Gore, who really ought to know, since his administration negotiated it. Neither candidate in the above debate disputes that point, nor does the moderator.

2. This suggests obvious questions for Sanders and Clinton. Will you promise to opt out of NAFTA as soon as you take office? Or barring that, will you threaten to opt out to force renegotiation?

In particular, for Clinton, will you do the following, as promised?

• "renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards -- not side agreements, but core agreements," and
• "take out the ability of foreign companies to sue us."

The second is a reference to the ISDS, or Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause, the "corporations can sue sovereign nations" provision that has people like Elizabeth Warren so exercised (see video below at about 3:15).

"A rigged process produces a rigged outcome." Warren's comments on ISDS, the ability of corporations to sue countries, starts at 3:15.

We're well beyond generalities and vague beliefs with this. There's plenty to get specific about. I urge the Clinton campaign to take up the challenge and affirm that she stands side by side with Sanders — for the American people and against TPP and NAFTA. After all, we know from the 2008 debate and her own recent comments that she understands these deals the same way Sanders does. The question is, what will she actually do?

The head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has publicly said he expects a President Clinton to support TPP. This is her opportunity to prove him completely wrong. I hope she takes it.

Economic Justice and Racial Justice

One final word. A very large percentage of our racial justice problems starts with wealth and income inequality. To take an obvious example, you'd have to be blind not to see that racism helped create the Flint crisis. And you'd have to be blind not to see as well that the devastation of largely minority cities like Flint and Detroit have their roots in "job-killing trade deals" like NAFTA.

Put simply, without GATT, the WTO, NAFTA and similar agreements, would the American auto industry and all of its supply chain and service companies have been decimated and shipped to Asia? U.S. automakers have made a number of mistakes, but nothing was as devastating as the financial attraction to CEOs in all industries of doing almost all manufacturing abroad. Flint and Detroit lived by manufacturing, and were killed as viable cities by the loss of it.

I understand there will be a debate in Michigan, in particular, in Flint. If so, I'm glad to hear that. I hope, at some point in the discussion, NAFTA is mentioned as one of the great causes of the devastation that state has suffered.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP
 

TPP "Trade" Agreement to be Signed This Week in New Zealand

by Gaius Publius

I had meant to mine the terrific New York Review of Books article, "The Clinton System," for the next few days since it's so rich in detail. For example (my emphasis):

[D]irect payments to Hillary Clinton’s political campaigns, including for the Senate in 2000 and for the presidency in 2008 and now in 2016 ... had reached a total of $712.4 million as of September 30, 2015, the most recent figures compiled by Open Secrets. Four of the top five sources of these funds are major banks: Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Morgan Stanley....

Seven hundred million dollars donated to one politician who only started campaigning in 2000 is one heck of a lot of money. Prior to this cycle, she's been before the voters just three times, one of which (the 2006 Senate race) was a no-contest blowout. Again, that's just the tip of the iceberg; the rest of the article is similarly loaded.

But let's look at TPP, since it's due to be signed this week in New Zealand.

TPP Countries to Sign Trade Pact in New Zealand Feb. 4

The 12 nations party to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) will formally sign the agreement on Feb. 4 in New Zealand.

Andres Rebolledo, director general of Chile's General International Economic Relations Bureau (DIRECON), confirmed the Feb. 4 date in a meeting yesterday with the country's National Human Rights Institute to discuss how the agreement would affect human rights issues in Chile. ...

The signing will come four months after the 12 countries in the TPP concluded negotiations in the U.S. on Oct. 5. The 12 countries include Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam (193 ITD, 10/6/15).

“The signing will be a celebration, but the critical work comes after with the ratification process in national parliaments,” Gary Hufbauer, of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Bloomberg BNA in a telephone interview.

Signed but not ratified or confirmed. As we learned recently, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Tom Donohue thinks the vote will take place after the election — because it can't pass otherwise — and also thinks that if Hillary Clinton is president, she'll support it.

Which suggests a number of questions. First, is Donohue right? Does he know some insider something we don't know? We know where candidate Bernie Sanders stands for sure. Sanders has always opposed these "trade" deals. From a January 28 campaign press release (my emphasis):

Sanders is leading the opposition in Congress to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would be the biggest trade pact in history. He also was at the forefront in earlier battles against the North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normal trade relations with China — trade agreements that Secretary Clinton supported which have led to the loss of more than 30,000 good-paying jobs in Iowa. “Can you be a great country when everything we buy is made in China?” he asked the union workers.

I'm not the only one now wondering if Tom Donohue knows something. From that same press release:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue told Bloomberg News he expects Clinton to support a 12-nation trade agreement, a deal she praised before recently signaling concerns.

Clinton had praised past trade agreements and once called the Pacific trade deal “the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field.”

On October 8, however, she said that “as of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it. I don’t believe it’s going to meet the high bar I have set.” She hasn’t talked about it since then.

And we know from this anti-TPP petition that a number of Clinton-supporting congresspeople are opposed to TPP:

This petition is sponsored by DeFazio for Congress, Huffman for Congress, Sean Patrick Maloney For Congress, Nolan For Congress Volunteer Committee, Pingree For Congress, Pocan for Congress, Louise Slaughter Re-election Committee and Paul Tonko for Congress.

Only Peter DeFazio and Mark Pocan are not listed here as endorsing Ms. Clinton.

So will Ms. Clinton reassure her supporters (above) and the voting public that she still stands where her most recent statements put her? It could be awkward for these congresspeople if supporting her actually undermines their campaign against it. After all, this is not a winning argument: "I hate TPP and urge you to support Hillary Clinton, who might actually approve it after all."

This is an important question, the one about Hillary Clinton and TPP. NAFTA, GATT and the WTO have devastated the fortunes of a generation of Americans, all to line the pockets of the wealthy, many of whom, I'm sad to say, have contributed over $700 million to finance her political career, as noted above.

It's also an appropriate question, especially since it was the Chamber of Commerce that brought it up in the first place. TPP is finally due to be signed, and the clock on the fortunes of the next generation of Americans is ticking. Ms. Clinton — please clarify.

(Updated to add Mark Pocan as not endorsing Clinton.)

GP
 

Chamber of Commerce Expects Clinton To Support TPP as President

Chamber of Commerce chief Tom Donohue explaining to viewers on the Bloomberg wealth channel how the wealthy plan to pass TPP despite public opposition (source). That's the beautiful snow of a Davos resort in the background.

by Gaius Publius

This is the essence of money talking about money at a place where money's private jets have gathered to meet (the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland). From the Bloomberg News introduction:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue discusses his stance and outlook for the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. He speaks from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on "Bloomberg ‹GO›."

In the conversation above, note first that the reason he thinks the Senate can't approve TPP until after the election is that too many Republican senators would be made vulnerable by voting to approve it. Before the election those senators couldn't vote for TPP and still preserve their seats. After the election, or in a lame duck session, that restriction is lifted.

In other words, he knows and admits that even Republican voters hate TPP. But the wealthy want it anyway, and they're willing to wait a few months to get it. Even if it wins by "two votes," as he explains above, it still wins, as do they.

Second, he thinks Clinton will revert back to the family pattern — remember, "two for the price of one" was a Clinton claim — and become "practical" once she gains power and frees herself from having to make promises to voters. Listen starting at 2:45 in the clip (my transcript and underscored emphasis):

Host 1: "Why aren't you in some trouble whether it's a Democrat or a Republican? It's not just Trump. Hillary Clinton has said she's against TPP.

Host 2: "Bernie Sanders!"

Donohue: "Bernie Sanders is one deal. What Hillary Clinton is doing in this primary is trying to run one step faster than the senator from Massachusetts [does he mean Warren, or is this a misspeak?], who has been threatening her and pushing her to take these far far progressive, very very left steps.

"If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is, you get a little practical if you ever get the job."

Host 1: "We used to call it triangulation, right, back in the old Clinton days."

For me, the key word is "hunch." Because until Clinton releases the text of her speeches to all corporate clients, and not just to the banks, you'll never know if his "hunch" didn't start with someone whispering in his ear, "Don't worry, Tom. You know I don't mean it." After all, the list of Clinton ties to money goes on and on. For an excellent recent analysis of the cross-pollination of gifts and favors, read this, "The Clinton System," from the New York Review of Books.

Donohue is not no one — he and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are each a very big someone in the world of money, a world that both Clintons have a united and decades-long familiarity with. Just a very small taste of what's in the NYRB article, this paragraph (my emphasis):

In March 2011, for example, Bill Clinton was paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at its annual Washington gala. Among the sponsors were Boeing and the government of Kuwait, through its Washington embassy. Shortly before, the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, had authorized a $693 million deal to provide Kuwait with Boeing’s Globemaster military transport aircraft. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had the statutory duty to rule on whether proposed arms deals with foreign governments were in the US’s national interest.

That's both damning, especially in a world without tribal loyalties, and par for the course. A $175,000 "thank you" to one of the Clintons after the other removed the last hurdle to a nearly $700 million deal involving the same two parties — that's some "system." There are countless examples of this in the NYRB article. Coincidence? You decide.

(Notice again, by the way, that the ROI on this kind of exchange is through-the-roof good for the beneficiaries, more than 1000:1. One percent of $700 million is $7 million. At just 1000:1 RIO, the "thank you" would have been at least $700k. Clinton got just a quarter of that. Seems like a steal to me, but (a) I don't work for those kind of numbers, so I don't know that world, and (b) maybe Boeing and Kuwait had other ways to say thank-you as well.) 

Donohue Thinks He Knows Exactly What Will Happen Under a Clinton Presidency

I think Donohue above is dropping one of many "nudge-nudge" hints to the wealthy, a hint that once they get rid of Sanders (they being the insider establishment that runs this mutually beneficial game), everything will continue as before. I think Donohue knows exactly what's going to happen if or when Clinton is elected president. It's not that she wouldn't do things like approve this Boeing/Kuwait deal if her family weren't paid for it. It's that she's happy to do these deals knowing the reward is built into the game. Like Donald Trump donating to her campaign, then having the right to get her to attend his wedding. It's just part of the way the rich self-deal.

My suggestion: If you want to avoid another 2009 neoliberal hangover from money-bought policies you didn't vote for ... if you fear watching the next Democratic president sell you out and enact policies you will spent the next eight years hating ... the time to act is now, in the primary.

I strongly believe we won't get another chance like this in our lifetime. In 2024 we'll be in an entirely remade world.

Speaking of people who know something...

Ms. Warren in the quote above — she maybe knows something too.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP
 

One Advantage Of Obama's Plummeting Approval: Maybe His Deceitful And Disastrous Trade Agenda Can Be Derailed

Last week we took another look at Obama's latest benign-sounding "free" trade disaster-in-the-making, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't vote for anyone who backs these kinds of agreements, regardless of political party. At the time we mentioned how everything was being hidden from the public and totally shrouded in secrecy-- secrecy from the taxpayers and ordinary citizens, not from the predatory corporations who finance the political careers of America's ruling elites. Now wikileaks has heroically has begun releasing the documents.

The TPP has been shrouded in secrecy from the beginning because the Obama administration knows that the more people know about it, the more they will oppose the agreement. The release of the full Intellectual Property chapter today by Wiikileaks confims what had been suspected, the Obama administration has been an advocate for transnational corporate interests in the negotiations even though they run counter to the needs and desires of the public.

  This is not surprising since we already knew that 600 corporate advisers were working with the US Trade Representative to draft the TPP. This means that for nearly four years some of the top corporate lawyers have been inserting phrases, paragraphs and whole sections so the agreement suits the needs of corporate power, while undermining the interests of people and planet.

  Now from these documents we see that the US is isolated in its aggressive advocacy for transnational interests and that there are scores of areas still unresolved between the US and Pacific nations. The conclusion: the TPP cannot be saved.  It has been destroyed by secret corporate advocacy. It needs to be rejected. Trade needs to be negotiated with a new approach-- transparency, participation of civil society throughout the process, full congressional review and participation, and a framework that starts with fair trade that puts people and profits before planet.

Congress needs to reject Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority as these documents show the Obama administration has been misleading the people and the Congress while trying to bully other nations. This flawed agreement and the secrecy essential to its becoming law need to be rejected.

Public Citizen has been analyzing the secret documents and revealed that the Obama administration "is demanding terms that would limit Internet freedom and access to lifesaving medicines throughout the Asia-Pacific region and bind Americans to the same bad rules, belying the administration’s stated commitments to reduce health care costs and advance free expression online." Public Citizen asserts that, at least in terms of health, this deal is the worst yet-- worse than the crap Clinton or the Bushs saddled us with. Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen’s global access to medicines program: “The Obama administration’s shameful bullying on behalf of the giant drug companies would lead to preventable suffering and death in Asia-Pacific countries. And soon the administration is expected to propose additional TPP terms that would lock Americans into high prices for cancer drugs for years to come.” 



The leak shows the United States seeking to impose the most extreme demands of Big Pharma and Hollywood, Public Citizen said, despite the express and frequently universal opposition of U.S. trade partners. Concerns raised by TPP negotiating partners and many civic groups worldwide regarding TPP undermining access to affordable medicines, the Internet and even textbooks have resulted in a deadlock over the TPP Intellectual Property Chapter, leading to an impasse in the TPP talks, Public Citizen said.




…Last week, the AARP and major consumer groups wrote to the Obama administration to express their “deep concern” that U.S. proposals for the TPP would “limit the ability of states and the federal government to moderate escalating prescription drug, biologic drug and medical device costs in public programs,” and contradict cost-cutting plans for biotech medicines in the White House budget.



 Other U.S.-demanded measures for the TPP would empower the tobacco giants to sue governments before foreign tribunals to demand taxpayer compensation for their health regulations and have been widely criticized. “This supposed trade negotiation has devolved into a secretive rulemaking against public health, on behalf of Big Pharma and Big Tobacco,” said Maybarduk.



“It is clear from the text obtained by WikiLeaks that the U.S. government is isolated and has lost this debate,” Maybarduk said. “Our partners don’t want to trade away their people’s health. Americans don’t want these measures either. Nevertheless, the Obama administration-- on behalf of Big Pharma and big movie studios-- now is trying to accomplish through pressure what it could not through persuasion.”



“The WikiLeaks text also features Hollywood and recording industry-inspired proposals-- think about the SOPA debacle-- to limit Internet freedom and access to educational materials, to force Internet providers to act as copyright enforcers and to cut off people’s Internet access,” said Burcu Kilic, an intellectual property lawyer with Public Citizen. “These proposals are deeply unpopular worldwide and have led to a negotiation stalemate.”



“Given how much text remains disputed, the negotiation will be very difficult to conclude,” said Maybarduk. “Much more forward-looking proposals have been advanced by the other parties, but unless the U.S drops its out-there-alone demands, there may be no deal at all.”


Progressives already oppose this agreement and with Obama now mistrusted by most Americans, there's a chance they can stop this one in its tracks. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told us this morning why progressives in Congress are opposing something so vehemently that Obama is pushing: "The TPP is one of those rare deals with no redeeming qualities. It’s bad for the environment, bad for working people, bad for our neighbors and bad for our economy. It would somehow manage to limit banking oversight, flood this country with unsafe products and offshore countless American jobs all at the same time. It’s not a question for me of why progressives oppose it, it’s how anyone can invent a reason to support it."

Grijalva was one of 151 Democratic congressmembers-- from liberals like Alan Grayson, Barbara Lee, Judy Chu and Mark Pocan to conservatives like Dan Lipinski, Mike McIntyre, Kyrsten Sinema and Sean Patrick Maloney-- to sign onto a letter to Obama from Rosa DeLauro and George Miller (who does nothing without a nod from Pelosi) that tells him if he wants to get support for fast tracking this garbage bill, he better look elsewhere. The letter:

We write to express our serious concern with the ongoing negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement (FTA), a potential agreement of tremendous consequence for our country. Specifically, we remain deeply troubled by the continued lack of adequate congressional consultation in many areas of the proposed pact that deeply implicates Congress’ constitutional and domestic policy authorities.

For some time, members of Congress have urged your administration to engage in broader and deeper consultations with members of the full range of committees of Congress whose jurisdiction touches on the numerous issues being negotiated. Many have raised concerns relating to reports about the agreement’s proposed content. While your Administration’s goal was to sign a TPP FTA at the October 2013 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, we believe that to date the process has failed to provide adequate consultation with Congress. Such opportunity for input from Congress is critical as the TPP FTA will include binding obligations that touch upon a wide swath of policy matters under the authority of Congress.

Beyond traditional tariff issues, these include policies related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, competition, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, e-commerce, telecommunications and other service sector regulations. In light of the broad scope of today’s trade agreements, it is even more vital that Congress have a fulsome role in shaping these pacts’ terms. Given our concerns, we will oppose  “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority or any other mechanism delegating Congress’ constitutional authority over trade policy that continues to exclude us from having a meaningful role in the formative stages of trade agreements and throughout negotiating and approval processes.

Congress, not the Executive Branch, must determine when an agreement meets the objectives Congress sets in the exercise of its Article I-8 exclusive constitutional authority to set the terms of trade. For instance, an agreement that does not specifically meet congressional negotiating objectives must not receive preferential consideration in Congress. A new trade agreement negotiation and approval process that restores a robust role for Congress is essential to achieving U.S. trade agreements that can secure prosperity for the greatest number of Americans, while preserving the vital tenets of American democracy in the era of globalization.

Twentieth Century “Fast Track” is simply not appropriate for 21st Century agreements and must be replaced. The United States cannot afford another trade agreement that replicates the mistakes of the past. We can and must do better.

We are deeply committed to transforming U.S. trade policy into a tool for creating and retaining family-wage jobs in America, safeguarding the environment, maintaining consumer protection and improving the quality of life throughout the country.  We look forward to working with you to ensure that Congress and the Executive Branch are working together to meet that critical goal.

The list of signatories against fast tracking this crap isn't just the hippies. 18 of 21 full committee ranking members and 72 subcommittee ranking members are on board as are Democratic Leadership figures Jim Clyburn and Steve Israel (not to mention DeLauro herself, chair of the Steering and Policy Committee). Even half the corporately owned and subsidized New Dems have signed the letter!

We Are All Slaves To The Multinationals-- No Less Under Obama Than Under The Bushs And Clinton

The U.S. Export-Import Bank, a government entity charged with helping boost exports from domestic businesses, met last week to discuss giving hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to a foreign airline so that it can buy Boeing airplanes.  The airline-- Biman Bangladesh-- is known for its poor safety record and unreliable service.

While this proposed deal is disconcerting, it points to a broader problem: The Ex-Im Bank’s priorities are backwards. Instead of helping domestic small businesses that actually need assistance when it comes to exporting their goods abroad, the Ex-Im Bank is subsidizing multibillion-dollar corporations like Boeing whose bottom lines are doing just fine.

Dick Cheney’s former Big Oil employer Halliburton has received at least a billion in loans from the Ex-Im Bank over the years. Enron, which imploded after its massive fraud scandal, got more than $650 million in loans. And Lockheed Martin, the aerospace and defense behemoth, is benefiting from over $381 million in loans made in 2012 alone.

According to its most recent earnings report, Boeing’s third quarter revenue was $22 billion.  Halliburton’s quarterly revenue was $7.5 billion, and Lockheed Martin had net sales of $11.9 billion. (Enron went bankrupt.)

As Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio argued in an op-ed this past August, we “need to do a better job in ensuring that small businesses have access to the global market.”  He pointed out that, “Less than one percent of the nation’s nearly 26 million small businesses export their products and these 240,000 businesses account for only 29 percent of the United States’ export volume.”

The administration can help reverse this trend and boost small business exports by reevaluating some of the Ex-Im Bank’s loans that are directly benefiting large corporations. It should start by re-appropriating some of these funds to the little guy-- Main Street businesses that are the foundation of America’s middle class.

As Mike Lux said when he sent me that, "multibillion-dollar corporations don’t need help from the Export-Import Bank." Now let's go back to that not unrelated Bill Moyers video at the top of the page about the newest "free trade" catastrophe the cross-partisan neo-liberal ruling elites are planning to impose on us next, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This morning's NY Times made a dreadful mistake in backing this monstrosity. Like all these kinds of trade agreements that Clinton, the Bushs and Obama have been shoving down our throats, this one is designed to put the uber-wealthy and their corporation even more firmly in control of… well, everything, ultimately. The end of democracy? You betcha!

As Moyers explained in his introduction, "If you don't know about the TPP… it's because the powerful people behind it, including President Obama, don't want you to know. The negotiations are shrouded in secrecy. And once they're completed, Obama wants to rush the agreement through Congress; fast-tracking, they call it, elected representatives only given the choice of voting it up or down. Last year, over 130 Members of Congress asked the White House for more transparency for what's being negotiated. And were essentially told to go fly a kite."

Those are our representatives and that's what the plutocracy is telling us through the politicians they've bought and paid for. Moyers continued: "You can be sure of this, however: a select group of corporate partners, companies like General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant, are not likely to be in the dark. Players like these stand to be the real beneficiaries of the agreement. Because, like other so-called "free trade" agreements, TPP actually will reward those at the top, even as it creates rules that will override domestic laws on the environment, workplace safety and investment. Corporate lobbyists are already lining up in Washington to ram the agreement through once the White House hurries it out of the delivery room." Watch the whole 33 minute video.

And, of course, the kinds of candidates Blue America gets behind do not support these kinds of devastating trade agreements. Pat Murphy, running a populist and progressive campaign for the open Iowa-1 seat isn't going to be voting for these kinds of garbage treaties, regardless of which party holds the White House. "Just as NAFTA and CAFTA hurt American workers and unions," he told us this morning, "the Trans-Pacific Partnership will do the same. We need fair trade that is good for workers-- not free trade. I also have huge concerns with the lack of transparency as this agreement is being pushed forward. In Congress, I will fight for policies that strengthen the middle class and help working families." If you'd like to help Pat-- and our other FAIR TRADE candidates get to Congress, you can do that here.