The Republicans are trying to do and end-run around our democracy to obtain favorable terms for their wealthy donors. A few rich corporations will get what they want, and deny the rest of us the chance to participate in the discussion.
We must block the TPP "fast-track", and open the negotiations to full public review.
We must block the TPP "fast-track", and open the negotiations to full public review.
6
Free foreign trade benefits are articles of faith, with theoretical economists.
No denying free trade hugely benefits less developed nations. But new equilibria to which GDP's adjust will likely settle above the less developed nations' GDP's and below the more developed nations' original GDP's.
Why has free trade so affected the US? First, before we lowered trade barriers, we had our huge consumer market mostly to us. And all our lower-middle "good jobs" on assembly lines were unskilled.
When we lowered trade barriers, less developed nations soon saw that their unskilled workers could do our jobs for a fraction of our labor costs. And so it unfolded, along with opening our huge rich consumer markets to them.
Free trade should be better than war between former enemies. It doesn't always work quite that way. We never had a hot war with China, but then after our FDI there & opening our market to support their economic growth, we got bared teeth, not a thank-you card. China's war-making capacity has ballooned in East Asia, tending to shove US influence aside .
Germany does well by foreign trade. How? With abundant skilled workers whom free trade would show no less productive than ever.
In the US's case our assembly line blue-collars' high wages led us to assume their productivity could stand on its own. Free trade revealed that our unskilled workers could not compete globally.
TPP needs close scrutiny. Yet desperate for friends, we are likely to give away the store.
No denying free trade hugely benefits less developed nations. But new equilibria to which GDP's adjust will likely settle above the less developed nations' GDP's and below the more developed nations' original GDP's.
Why has free trade so affected the US? First, before we lowered trade barriers, we had our huge consumer market mostly to us. And all our lower-middle "good jobs" on assembly lines were unskilled.
When we lowered trade barriers, less developed nations soon saw that their unskilled workers could do our jobs for a fraction of our labor costs. And so it unfolded, along with opening our huge rich consumer markets to them.
Free trade should be better than war between former enemies. It doesn't always work quite that way. We never had a hot war with China, but then after our FDI there & opening our market to support their economic growth, we got bared teeth, not a thank-you card. China's war-making capacity has ballooned in East Asia, tending to shove US influence aside .
Germany does well by foreign trade. How? With abundant skilled workers whom free trade would show no less productive than ever.
In the US's case our assembly line blue-collars' high wages led us to assume their productivity could stand on its own. Free trade revealed that our unskilled workers could not compete globally.
TPP needs close scrutiny. Yet desperate for friends, we are likely to give away the store.
4
Combining the classification of secrecy with the possibility of the U.S. Congress granting Trade Promotion Authority (Fast Track) any "trade" deal derails the democratic process. The Congressional Progressive Caucus has issued a statement on elements that will make trade more beneficial to the enviroment, workers and the democratic process.
1
The ongoing Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks -as any sensitive trade negotiation- is kept private and secret from public eyes. However, its fundamental purpose and content are not.
The voluminous NAFTA signed with Mexico in the 90s and its hemispheric version, the FTAA provides a rich source of information about areas and depth of integration under discussion taking place at the trans-pacific partnership talks.
One fundamental point to keep in mind. America's trade/integration agreements are meant to enhance American corporations presence and profits in the global economy. They are not designed to create jobs and better wages in America. It is basically a corporation driven regional accord set up to circumvent the stalemate of multilateral trade negotiations taking place at World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva.
The voluminous NAFTA signed with Mexico in the 90s and its hemispheric version, the FTAA provides a rich source of information about areas and depth of integration under discussion taking place at the trans-pacific partnership talks.
One fundamental point to keep in mind. America's trade/integration agreements are meant to enhance American corporations presence and profits in the global economy. They are not designed to create jobs and better wages in America. It is basically a corporation driven regional accord set up to circumvent the stalemate of multilateral trade negotiations taking place at World Trade Organization (WTO) in Geneva.
8
I understand why deals are negotiated in private, but if they affect the public they must be disclosed to the public prior to implementation. Government agencies I've worked for have two public "readings" of the proposed contract, open to investigation and comment, prior to passage. That may improve or shelve the deal.
I did ask President Obama to bring TPP into the light, and give voters a voice. @thefairelection
I did ask President Obama to bring TPP into the light, and give voters a voice. @thefairelection
4
The way that President Obama handled the TPP Agreement - keeping it secret from not only the American people but members of Congress who have to vote on it ( ask Senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren - to name just a few) is one reason I no longer trust this president.
This president said - when he was running for office thr first time - that his White House would be the most transparent in history. It has been just the opposite. Now he is making changes in his staff after all these years to make his White House more transparent because he is worried about his legacy. How cynical can you get?
This president said - when he was running for office thr first time - that his White House would be the most transparent in history. It has been just the opposite. Now he is making changes in his staff after all these years to make his White House more transparent because he is worried about his legacy. How cynical can you get?
5
The sunlight must shine on all trade negotiations because without transparency there is no trust, the foundation of any agreement. Examining the effects of most "free trade" agreements they are not free at all for the people who actually produce the goods. They benefit only those at the top. This is not to say that free trade is a bad concept, just the underhanded way it is currently practised.
5
The quickest way to derail TPP is to get the right wing against it by telling them it incorporates Sharia law.
5
Who has a seat at the table among the American TPP negotiators? Obviously it's representatives of the financial and business groups that have an interest in getting TPP passed - certainly not our elected representatives of either party. Recent "trade" deals have not been about freedom of trade but about freedom for capital to work its will with minimum interference. In the US, this translated into lost jobs, destabilized families and communities and whole industries wiped out.
As the well-worn but true saying has it, if you're not at the table you're on the menu.
As the well-worn but true saying has it, if you're not at the table you're on the menu.
9
And we are also told that the democratic majority in this nation has no right to determine immigration quotas an that the immigration laws be enforced for much the same reason! That these policies that effect 10's of millions of Americans in their daily lives are "international" in nature and so the constitution allows our government officials to act as if they were generals on a battlefield sending millions to the slaughter for their egoist grand delusions as God like creators of the present and future Global Order.
2
How awful that the citizens of the country might be interested in negotiations that directly affect them! Seriously? They are worried they may "get pressured by concerned domestic constituencies"? If you are worried the citizens of this country might object to your deal, then it's a bad deal. You shouldn't make the deal if Americans are against it. This is utterly ridiculous.
10
We have paid a horrible price for NAFTA, please let not repeat the mistake.
16
Former U. S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk let the cat out of the bag when he said that if the American people knew what was in the TPP it would never pass. It's an utter travesty that lobbyists for the "stakeholders" (as if every working American doesn't have a big stake in this) actually put this thing together but our elected representatives cannot see it except under ridiculous circumstances.
7
Woodrow Wilson must be turning in his grave at this. Whatever happened to "open covenants (i.e. treaties or agreements) openly arrived at" in his fourteen points? Is the American public so dangerous that our government must keep a trade agreement that supposedly is for our benefit secret? What does the government fear?
7
Don't keep the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks...period. Just another opportunity to export American jobs, while importing more el-cheapo stuff. I do not see that this can bring US citizens Any Benefit.
7
Military members get prosecuted for attempting to hide embarrassing information with security classifications, but it's okay when "the most transparent administration" does the same thing. I'm disgusted to be a democrat.
5
Anonymous, we need you now more than ever. Please shine the light of openness and transparency on this odious attempt to relegate democracy and free enterprise to "tribunals" controlled by the multinational oligarchs.
"Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you." -- Paul Simon
"Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you." -- Paul Simon
3
Funny that the NYTimes editorial board is not happy about the secret TP Partnership talks when they slam anyone and everyone that wanted transparency RE the ACA. When we were told we'd have to get it passed before we could read it (Congress included, although they or at least of 'few of them' wrote it), the NYTimes was dancing in the streets.
This agreement will 'affect millions?!' Well the ACA affected 300,000,000 + people that receive care and who knows how many others that benefit or lose under it's special interest carve outs. Shame on you NYTimes for blindly supported a bad piece of legislation. And now you want to question the lack of transparency out of Obama's DC?!
This agreement will 'affect millions?!' Well the ACA affected 300,000,000 + people that receive care and who knows how many others that benefit or lose under it's special interest carve outs. Shame on you NYTimes for blindly supported a bad piece of legislation. And now you want to question the lack of transparency out of Obama's DC?!
2
Although I understand the criticisms of the lack of transparency during the negotiating process of TPP it is important to remember the tactics of our biggest economic competitor: China. China's GDP has been as high as 14% and has averaged 9% since 1989. Currently they are bemoaning the fact that their economy is slowing to only 7.4% last year. Meanwhile the U.S. is celebrating a modest growth of 2.4% GDP.
Clearly the U.S. is treading water under the wake of China's economic power house. Any concerned individual needs only to research where most of the goods are made that are sold in US malls and retail outlets to understand we are the consumers while China is the producer of most goods. If the details of TPP were allowed to be completely transparent, China would be given a heads up against their competitors. No large company would allow such openness during negotiations with other corporations as this would be considered non-competitive bargaining. Clearly the U.S. is fighting for economic territory on the world's stage, and the American people need to entrust our political leaders to do the right thing for the public. This means excluding lobbyists and special interests from meddling into the negotiating process lest China rush in to take away a future share of the economic pie.
Clearly the U.S. is treading water under the wake of China's economic power house. Any concerned individual needs only to research where most of the goods are made that are sold in US malls and retail outlets to understand we are the consumers while China is the producer of most goods. If the details of TPP were allowed to be completely transparent, China would be given a heads up against their competitors. No large company would allow such openness during negotiations with other corporations as this would be considered non-competitive bargaining. Clearly the U.S. is fighting for economic territory on the world's stage, and the American people need to entrust our political leaders to do the right thing for the public. This means excluding lobbyists and special interests from meddling into the negotiating process lest China rush in to take away a future share of the economic pie.
"This means excluding lobbyists and special interests from meddling into the negotiating process" Who do you think is negotiating this deal?
7
The simple truth is that these trade agreements have had a disastrous impact on our economy and specifically our middle class. The only entities that have benefited are the global corporations who have moved their manufacturing operations from the U.S. to various points offshore where cheap labor is abundant and regulations are loosely enforced if at all.
Also, I have to believe that one of the principal hidden agendas of these treaties is to destroy the American labor union movement, a key player in the creation of our once vaunted middle class.
And the fact that the TPP is hidden from the public eye just makes it all the more offensive to American sensibilities. Like the editorial states, the TPP is grossly undemocratic and should be rejected soundly. It's just another effort to serve the few at the expense of the many.
The American middle class should not be shouldering the bulk of the burden of elevating various third world economies out of poverty. There needs to be more of an even-handed balance in the way our middle class is treated. After all, it was the middle class that largely financed, fought, and won the Cold War with its own blood, sweat, and tears. To be deserted by those who benefited by their sacrifice is repulsive to all that we hold near and dear.
Let us not fall prey to the greed of the few over the needs and aspirations of the many. To do so feels more like treason than anything else. Say an emphatic "No!" to the TPP!
Also, I have to believe that one of the principal hidden agendas of these treaties is to destroy the American labor union movement, a key player in the creation of our once vaunted middle class.
And the fact that the TPP is hidden from the public eye just makes it all the more offensive to American sensibilities. Like the editorial states, the TPP is grossly undemocratic and should be rejected soundly. It's just another effort to serve the few at the expense of the many.
The American middle class should not be shouldering the bulk of the burden of elevating various third world economies out of poverty. There needs to be more of an even-handed balance in the way our middle class is treated. After all, it was the middle class that largely financed, fought, and won the Cold War with its own blood, sweat, and tears. To be deserted by those who benefited by their sacrifice is repulsive to all that we hold near and dear.
Let us not fall prey to the greed of the few over the needs and aspirations of the many. To do so feels more like treason than anything else. Say an emphatic "No!" to the TPP!
22
I have been a supporter of the President since day one, but, in this case, he and the Congress have destroyed much of my faith in my government. I simply do not understand the need for, or the use of, such secrecy in these negotiations. We are supposed to be a Democracy, but this secrecy puts a lie to that. The TPP and everything our government does, except for matters of national security, should be discussed in the open and voted on in the open. A shameful episode for America!
11
It is difficult to negotiate when there are many parties and all of them shop their versions of "agreements" and alternatives to the press and pressure groups.
However, secrecy is not really secret. It is secret from some but not all. It is entirely not secret to interest groups who use their privileged information for their private benefit at the expense of the public interest and the government's obligation to govern well in the interests of all.
There is a middle ground. The Washington Conference on naval disarmament showed the way in 1921-2. The terms proposed were set out in full in the opening speech by the US Sec of State. The detailed dickering among many parties was then done in secret. The final agreement was then open to the public, and was fully discussed before it was confirmed. The agreement itself was kept simple so it could be understood and debated in a meaningful way. The definitional details were done on the side.
The problem here is that we don't know what they are up to, and those who do know and will benefit themselves get an automatic approval before it can be discussed in real detail, the more so because of the dense complexity all built in to the body of the thing.
Those doing this could make it more open. They don't want to. They'd rather do it this way because they are working for their own benefit, not ours.
However, secrecy is not really secret. It is secret from some but not all. It is entirely not secret to interest groups who use their privileged information for their private benefit at the expense of the public interest and the government's obligation to govern well in the interests of all.
There is a middle ground. The Washington Conference on naval disarmament showed the way in 1921-2. The terms proposed were set out in full in the opening speech by the US Sec of State. The detailed dickering among many parties was then done in secret. The final agreement was then open to the public, and was fully discussed before it was confirmed. The agreement itself was kept simple so it could be understood and debated in a meaningful way. The definitional details were done on the side.
The problem here is that we don't know what they are up to, and those who do know and will benefit themselves get an automatic approval before it can be discussed in real detail, the more so because of the dense complexity all built in to the body of the thing.
Those doing this could make it more open. They don't want to. They'd rather do it this way because they are working for their own benefit, not ours.
9
Giving power to corporations to sue local and national authorities for lost profits to get rid of regulatory protections (not to mention the money) is a truly lousy idea. I can only hope that the groundswell of resistance derails this awful idea.
11
I understand the idea of "fast-track", and it can be a useful mechanism. But the secrecy is absolutely detestable and unacceptable and has no place in a democracy. Invoking national security to shield proposed trade details from public scrutiny is misguided at best and downright sinister at worst.
There may be some valid reasons for this secrecy, but its cost is simply far too high. We *must* forgo any advantages secrecy may yield in favor of transparent governance and an informed public.
Mr. Obama, I have your back on many issues, but you should be ashamed of this one.
There may be some valid reasons for this secrecy, but its cost is simply far too high. We *must* forgo any advantages secrecy may yield in favor of transparent governance and an informed public.
Mr. Obama, I have your back on many issues, but you should be ashamed of this one.
32
After 40 years of US trade deficits, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and “Free Trade” agreements in general, are misnomers. These agreements are Foreign Aid, not Free Trade, with transnational corporations reaping the benefits from these transactions and the American work force paying the costs by losing their jobs and suffering stagnant wages. It’s not a coincidence that stagnant wages and trade deficits started out together about 40 years ago. Financial Services and Intellectual Property sectors are the largest beneficiaries consisting of $163B positive trade balance against a - $722B in the goods sector.
7
What makes anyone think that our legislative branch, without fast track and in the open, will do any better getting a better deal for American citizens than our executive negotiating in secret?
We should have an amendment that would make it illegal for any part of our government to negotiate away any of our constitutional rights. We now allow backdoor chipping away of the principals of self-government when our elected officials sign a treaty or a trade agreement. No one should be able to use a signed treaty or trade agreement as a defense in an American court.
We should have an amendment that would make it illegal for any part of our government to negotiate away any of our constitutional rights. We now allow backdoor chipping away of the principals of self-government when our elected officials sign a treaty or a trade agreement. No one should be able to use a signed treaty or trade agreement as a defense in an American court.
6
A petition should be started by someone who knows how to do it. We must stop this secrecy. It makes the rich even richer and ignores the needs of the other 99%.
1
What is the US? We call ourselves a 'democracy' (yes, yes, I know we are a republic which is different than pure democracy) and think of ourselves as a democracy. But we are not one now. So what are we? How do we think of ourselves, we voters who supposedly control America? We are all being watched and listened to, whether we have anything to hide or not, whether we are 'terrorists' or not. Dark money has swamped our 'democratic' system of electing those who rule over us. Obama was supposed to be the 'most' transparent and he is the worst, actually. Is he doing this on his own or is he being told what to do and what to say? Sometimes I do wonder. He seems to want the best for we 'regular' citizens ('everyday citizens' in Hillary's words) but yet his actions belie that meme.
Who are we now? We're not America, that's for sure.
Who are we now? We're not America, that's for sure.
2
If the TPP is such a good deal for business, what might business be willing to give up in return for progressive support to get this great deal?
Today's Room for Debate column provides several good candidates.
Today's Room for Debate column provides several good candidates.
1
How about we set the same standard for the nuclear weapons negotiations with Iran? It seems to me that the Iranian negotiations are more critical than TPP and secrecy of negotiations is less justifiable.
1
The advancement of TPP appears to be a race to the bottom.
Instead of developing a means to raise people out of poverty, ensuring healthy and safe workplaces and improving societies across the Pacific, the White House is using its influence to essentially promote the opposite and seriously disadvantage Americans who have enjoyed hard-won and reasonable working conditions.
The White House COULD work to help other societies, but instead appears to be pandering to corporate interests. I can only assume there are deferred rewards for such actions and look forward to seeing the donor list for the yet to be announced Obama foundation.
The TPP seems to be a huge step backwards.
We do not deserve this.
Instead of developing a means to raise people out of poverty, ensuring healthy and safe workplaces and improving societies across the Pacific, the White House is using its influence to essentially promote the opposite and seriously disadvantage Americans who have enjoyed hard-won and reasonable working conditions.
The White House COULD work to help other societies, but instead appears to be pandering to corporate interests. I can only assume there are deferred rewards for such actions and look forward to seeing the donor list for the yet to be announced Obama foundation.
The TPP seems to be a huge step backwards.
We do not deserve this.
6
On par with the heinous Citizens United anathema; Trans Pacific Trade
Agreement is closeted for the same nefarious reasons...benefits to those
who fund the careers of the US diplomats/and even POTUS..
Really another black day for Thomas Jefferson..
So Professors ...Speak OUT !!! Larry Lessig and Elizabeth Warren..etcetera.
Speak OUT !!!
Agreement is closeted for the same nefarious reasons...benefits to those
who fund the careers of the US diplomats/and even POTUS..
Really another black day for Thomas Jefferson..
So Professors ...Speak OUT !!! Larry Lessig and Elizabeth Warren..etcetera.
Speak OUT !!!
4
Of course, TPP should be kept secret. Not all of us little people are stupid little people, and if we can see the plans of the big boys to destroy what parts of the world that are not yet destroyed we might get angry. The big boys do not want another Seattle.
It's so much better to keep the little people focused on the really important things: "How bout them Cowboys?"
It's so much better to keep the little people focused on the really important things: "How bout them Cowboys?"
15
When progressives oppose an international agreement (which is clearly not a treaty), they demand transparency, disclosure and public reaction and wail about its effects. When they support a clear treaty with respect to which the President is seeking to ignore Congress, it's Oh, no! Congress shouldn't have that power on this one. It's too important! they're too partisan! The President needs secrecy and unilateral power! Hypocrisy thy name is Progressive.
1
There is a report from the Center for Economic Policy Research which calculates that the median income of the US will drop as a result of the TPP.
It will also allow companies to prevent the enforcement of laws (e.g., environmental and health laws) that affect their bottom line. A classic case is Philip Morris lawsuit against Australia's plain packaging law.
It will also allow companies to prevent the enforcement of laws (e.g., environmental and health laws) that affect their bottom line. A classic case is Philip Morris lawsuit against Australia's plain packaging law.
11
Agreeing to allow foreign governments or corporations to dictate what regulations or bylaws are acceptable to them is like playing Russian Roulette with live rounds in every chamber. We are living with this idiocy perpetrated by our version of clueless, Stevie Harper, the Foreign Investment Protection Act with the Chinese. It's name says it all, protecting foreign investment not the countries citizens.
What is President Obama hiding by making the TPP "secret"?
Why is President Obama hiding by making the TPP "secret"?
Will Congress insist on having the same voice in TPP as they want with the Iran negotiations?
What do the 2016 presidential candidates have to say about TPP?
Why is the media refusing to cover the TPP Story?
Why is President Obama hiding by making the TPP "secret"?
Will Congress insist on having the same voice in TPP as they want with the Iran negotiations?
What do the 2016 presidential candidates have to say about TPP?
Why is the media refusing to cover the TPP Story?
6
If the information from many grassroots groups is correct, Corporations will not only control the USA, they will also have authority over foreign governments - example
The 'other' TPP , the Trans-Atlantic Partnership, also under negotiations:
Environmental laws are much more protective of people's health in Europe. GMO food is either banned or has to be labelled. US corporations refuse to label their products - but under the TAP, could sue a government for loss of profit if they are not allowed to sell their junk food.
Two awful deals - whatever positive cloaks are wrapped on the outside.
The 'other' TPP , the Trans-Atlantic Partnership, also under negotiations:
Environmental laws are much more protective of people's health in Europe. GMO food is either banned or has to be labelled. US corporations refuse to label their products - but under the TAP, could sue a government for loss of profit if they are not allowed to sell their junk food.
Two awful deals - whatever positive cloaks are wrapped on the outside.
8
Secret discussions about current trade agreements are one thing. But is anyone concerned about the amount of control China et al have over the availability of stuff we need & use on a daily basis; a door opened so long ago by "Tricky Dick" Nixon?
2
Free trade deals and globalization have benefited the upper class in this country and the emerging middle classes in countries like India and China. And it has all been at the expense of the American middle class.
I doubt that TPP will be any different. But we can't determine the potential damage until we know the details. Transparency is much needed here.
I would very much like to hear what Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Cruz have to say on TPP and free trade in general, as well as the impact on the American middle class.
I doubt that TPP will be any different. But we can't determine the potential damage until we know the details. Transparency is much needed here.
I would very much like to hear what Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Rubio, and Mr. Cruz have to say on TPP and free trade in general, as well as the impact on the American middle class.
28
How can presidential candidates comment on the TPP when no one except Obama and whoever is advising him knows what is going on?
1
As that new type of "person" created by our laws becomes more and more empowered through activist courts, that older type, the one that breathes, is being reduced to the medieval status of residew.
Unless you are richer that most people can imagine, you have ceased to matter.
Through out collective ignorance and apathy we have reduced our one possibility to affect change, elections, to a canard.
Unless you are richer that most people can imagine, you have ceased to matter.
Through out collective ignorance and apathy we have reduced our one possibility to affect change, elections, to a canard.
7
The first of Wilson's 14 points was Open Covenants openly arrived at. 100 years later- how thing change.
3
Why would middle class Americans, who have watched their jobs shipped overseas and the median wage drop, get behind a secret trade pact? These deals are great for corporate America, but average Americans get the shaft. When Americans find out that their representatives, republican or democrat, voted to fast track this thing, they will not be happy.
6
Call your senator, representative and the white house now!
"This land is my land;
This land is your land;
From California to the New York island;
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters....
This land was made for you and me."
Except, of course, when the folks in Washington decide it's not.
And Obama is particularly disgusting, because he used to talk about "openness" and "change." Some change! Bush 3.
This land is your land;
From California to the New York island;
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters....
This land was made for you and me."
Except, of course, when the folks in Washington decide it's not.
And Obama is particularly disgusting, because he used to talk about "openness" and "change." Some change! Bush 3.
2
USTR claims that it needs secrecy in order to negotiate the best deal possible, yet it also says that there is no need to release any information because interested parties can simply look at prior FTAs to get a sense of what will be in the TPP. So, which is it? Will TPP hew closely to the existing framework, in which case there is no reason for secrecy, or will it be different, thereby requiring secrecy? You can't have it both ways.
One issue not addressed by Professor Kaminski nor any of the commenters thus far is that geopolitics is a major driver of our TPP efforts. Ultimately this administration (and frankly, any other, it is not a matter of domestic politics) cannot afford to fail to come to some kind of agreement with the Pacific Rim.
The geopolitics becomes clear when you observe that the U.S. devotes so much effort to the TPP, and so little effort to TTIP. In terms of trade benefits, it would make far more sense to prioritize TTIP, an agreement with the largest economy in the world, over TPP. We already have FTAs with most of the TPP countries.
One issue not addressed by Professor Kaminski nor any of the commenters thus far is that geopolitics is a major driver of our TPP efforts. Ultimately this administration (and frankly, any other, it is not a matter of domestic politics) cannot afford to fail to come to some kind of agreement with the Pacific Rim.
The geopolitics becomes clear when you observe that the U.S. devotes so much effort to the TPP, and so little effort to TTIP. In terms of trade benefits, it would make far more sense to prioritize TTIP, an agreement with the largest economy in the world, over TPP. We already have FTAs with most of the TPP countries.
"As it considers fast track here, Congress must address the secrecy, and
the views of the privileged advisers, that shaped the agreement.
Otherwise, “fast” will be little more than a euphemism for “avoid the
public, and benefit the fortunate few.”
It is very encouraging to read this conclusion. Keep going NYT!
the views of the privileged advisers, that shaped the agreement.
Otherwise, “fast” will be little more than a euphemism for “avoid the
public, and benefit the fortunate few.”
It is very encouraging to read this conclusion. Keep going NYT!
1
Unfortunately, President Obama seems to have trouble with the 1st. amendment. He has silenced more journalists than any president before him. Transparency, which he proudly touted during his campaign, has been one of the main casualties of his administration.
20
The multinational corporations involved in the TPP very much want to keep their deal secret, because with it they plan to extract additional fortunes from ordinary citizens who will bear the loss directly.
Needless to say, they want to keep those multitudes in the dark, and they also want to get their partnership finalized quickly, lest the citizens begin to notice and rise against it.
oz.
Needless to say, they want to keep those multitudes in the dark, and they also want to get their partnership finalized quickly, lest the citizens begin to notice and rise against it.
oz.
1
Public Citizen has published a handy-dandy state-by-state map. Click on your state to see one or more reasons that your particular state cannot afford the TPP: http://citizen.org/page.aspx?pid=6500
STOP this deal, period. Among many of the bad things, the worst, we give up our sovereignty. NO, NO, NO...........................................
1
Uh let me get this straight:
Americans stayed home again, in various state elections, giving the GOP and other conservative elements who want to destroy ACA and social security, control of Congress; and now you want these same lazy, shiftless, unconcerned citizens to suddenly "wake up" and write their representatives to stand against the TPP.
To say that I have no faith in the American People is an understatement...good luck!
Americans stayed home again, in various state elections, giving the GOP and other conservative elements who want to destroy ACA and social security, control of Congress; and now you want these same lazy, shiftless, unconcerned citizens to suddenly "wake up" and write their representatives to stand against the TPP.
To say that I have no faith in the American People is an understatement...good luck!
The paranoia that drives Obama’s fanatical secrecy and intrusion into our privacy makes even paranoid Richard Nixon appear grounded by comparison.
1
Secrecy is one of the most effective tools of the incompetent, and the cowards.
1
The agreement could affect *billions* of people.
The US no longer believes in democracy.
The US no longer believes in democracy.
1
US trade negotiators should wear uniforms which tell people who they are. At least they should be able to look at themselves in a mirror and be reminded who it is they are working for.
what can citizens do to stop this TPP? It's not just the criticism of the agreement but the alternative actions that stop it or change it.
These free trade deals give private corporate interests an enormous amount of power in two ways:
1. While the contents of these agreements are classified for the american public and our elected representatives many large corporations are given a seat at the negotiating table. There concerns are addressed and often times they are the ones drafting the text for these agreements. You have the movie and music industry writing sections on intellectual property law and the food and chemical industry writing sections on health.
2. These agreements allow for CORPORATIONS to sue COUNTRIES if they think a countries laws have negatively effected their profits under the law. That means if our congress passed a food safety bill that required rigorous inspections a large food company could sue the united states saying it is a violation of free and open trade, get billions of dollars from us AND legally make us change the laws for them.
These deals elevated corporations to be equal to entire countries under international law and allow them to override the will of the people. They are negotiated without our knowledge or the knowledge of the people we elect to congress. Is this what a democracy looks like?
Call your representatives and tell them to oppose any fast track vote. Do it today. Your job, your freedom of speech and your health are at stake. DO you want a foreign company suing your country to take those things away from you? Unfortunately that is not an exaggeration.
1. While the contents of these agreements are classified for the american public and our elected representatives many large corporations are given a seat at the negotiating table. There concerns are addressed and often times they are the ones drafting the text for these agreements. You have the movie and music industry writing sections on intellectual property law and the food and chemical industry writing sections on health.
2. These agreements allow for CORPORATIONS to sue COUNTRIES if they think a countries laws have negatively effected their profits under the law. That means if our congress passed a food safety bill that required rigorous inspections a large food company could sue the united states saying it is a violation of free and open trade, get billions of dollars from us AND legally make us change the laws for them.
These deals elevated corporations to be equal to entire countries under international law and allow them to override the will of the people. They are negotiated without our knowledge or the knowledge of the people we elect to congress. Is this what a democracy looks like?
Call your representatives and tell them to oppose any fast track vote. Do it today. Your job, your freedom of speech and your health are at stake. DO you want a foreign company suing your country to take those things away from you? Unfortunately that is not an exaggeration.
6
Hillary Clinton supports the TTP as she did the 1994 WTO original legislation her Husband signed, which accounted for most of the job loses in the last twenty years.
Her record for maintaining secrecy is as good as Obama's. So we can expect more of the same.
Her record for maintaining secrecy is as good as Obama's. So we can expect more of the same.
2
Obviously, this administration has not been transparent on many things. They seem to believe that the ends justifies the means. There will be a day when the NYT has a POTUS they greatly disagree with. Then there will be great screeching about process.
1
I have the material that has been leaked. I am opposed to the TPP for a number of reasons:
1> Lack of transparency in the process of development
2> Lack of congressional input into the process (up or down vote isn't input)
3> Corporations providing input into the treaty, with no public review
4> Reduction of US sovereignty
I absolutely oppose the TPP and will urge congress to either damand (and get) the ability to amend the TPP or to vote it down. The American people deserve better than a trade treaty negotiated in secret with corporations at the table, but with no input from the people.
1> Lack of transparency in the process of development
2> Lack of congressional input into the process (up or down vote isn't input)
3> Corporations providing input into the treaty, with no public review
4> Reduction of US sovereignty
I absolutely oppose the TPP and will urge congress to either damand (and get) the ability to amend the TPP or to vote it down. The American people deserve better than a trade treaty negotiated in secret with corporations at the table, but with no input from the people.
1
Would a Senator Obama support this agreement? Would a Senator Kerry or Senator Clinton? Perhaps not, or not without demanding changes to TPP or the right to review and/or amend it. Yet, put any of them in the Executive Branch of government and their views seem to change. Fast-track has become a euphemism for "avoid the public, and benefit the fortunate few," and it has been this way for some time. It's not sufficient to simply say that trade is very, very complex and therefore (excessive) secrecy is critical. We have the right to demand more.
1
I voted for him twice, Mr. Obama is no different than Mr. Bush, maybe even worst when it comes to an agenda that serves the few at the cost of the many. The people on the far left and far right, cool off, unite, divided you're fighting a losing battle. There's no need to be paranoid or invest in conspiracy theories. It's all in the open. The two parties are the same, serving corporate masters at your demise. They talk "middle class" "restore America" and use all sorts of tactics to make you feel comforted or to scare you while they make deals like this one to bring another foreign corporate master into the country that you must obey. Wake up. We're all in this together.
2
Anything I have read about this treaty suggests it is a nightmare for millions of American workers. All politicians, especially presidential candidates, must be called to account: they must be asked to address its provisions and its ramifications.
2
First, I have to admit that I voted for Obama twice. I thought he was easily the best candidate. Following that, he has been a major disappointment in many areas. He campaigned on open government and open trade agreements (NAFTA references).
He has turned away from these proclamations in both areas and not just by a little. Is this a government of the people, by the people, and FOR the people, or is it a government of special interests and hidden deals?
Trust us just doesn't cut it anymore in government.
He has turned away from these proclamations in both areas and not just by a little. Is this a government of the people, by the people, and FOR the people, or is it a government of special interests and hidden deals?
Trust us just doesn't cut it anymore in government.
29
If congress concedes its authority by granting TPP legislation fast track status, perhaps we don't really need congress any more. Openness and transparency, thoughtful and unhurried consideration and vigorous debate in the public eye apparently only apply to trivial or inconsequential issues.
Remembering her penchant for secrecy while navigating the ill-fated attempt at Universal Health Care under her leadership in the 1990s through the secrecy of her disappearing emails, it's truly frightening to consider how this ever-growing secrecy in the executive office would work under President Hillary Clinton.
Remembering her penchant for secrecy while navigating the ill-fated attempt at Universal Health Care under her leadership in the 1990s through the secrecy of her disappearing emails, it's truly frightening to consider how this ever-growing secrecy in the executive office would work under President Hillary Clinton.
9
"Free-trade agreements are not just about imports, tariffs, or overseas jobs." Unfortunately, your list of other trade issues excludes what I consider to be the utmost important: taxation of the profits generated by the international trade. The majority of trade today between countries is between affiliated subsidiaries owned by multinational corporations. Inter-company transactions allow for mis-pricing/invoicing and the shifting of profits to subsidiaries purposely located in tax havens or, in China's case, the shifting of profits back to China if the multinational is owned by the Chinese government. As the Luxembourg Leaks have shown, profit shifting is the name of the game in tax avoidance by multinational corporations. Trade agreements without agreements on taxation of trade profits are missing the point of trade: money/profits. One without the other continues the tax dodging that beggars thy neighbor.
1
This is an excellent article, touching in important issues in the information age of global trade. I generally support the President and also opposed to the orchestrated, race-driven smear campaign against him, but I agree with Ms. Kaminski. These agreements need to stand on merit. If special interests raise self-serving phony claims, the the USTR, the President, and especially the kept members of this Congress need to show some huevos and and move forward. It would have been nice if Ms. Kaminski had covered two other areas: foreign corruption and Citizens United. Both affect trade deals as much as secrecy.
Essentially, The TPP is another form of "taxation without representation". It's an indirect taxation on American workers job security foisted upon us by a corporatist model whose main concern is finding the lowest labor cost and an avenue free from collective bargaining. This is, of course, what capitalism does. This is what is meant by "free trade".
Ostensibly, these bargains are struck with a tentative sense of fairness. Unfortunately, fairness vanishes simply because there is little, if any, enforcement. This sort of thing passes muster with multi-nationals who play all market simultaneously for advantage and can hedge any perceived loss. Domestic labor is sequestered nationally upholding cultural and communal interests with fewer and fewer assets. When a government finds it proper to make profit on student loans, it's moral ground has been shattered. So let's not hold our breath for relief from legislation written by the most advantaged.
Ostensibly, these bargains are struck with a tentative sense of fairness. Unfortunately, fairness vanishes simply because there is little, if any, enforcement. This sort of thing passes muster with multi-nationals who play all market simultaneously for advantage and can hedge any perceived loss. Domestic labor is sequestered nationally upholding cultural and communal interests with fewer and fewer assets. When a government finds it proper to make profit on student loans, it's moral ground has been shattered. So let's not hold our breath for relief from legislation written by the most advantaged.
9
If the TPP passes as is then soon:
-when you open up a can of chicken noodle soup you won't know what country those chicken bits came from.
-global corporations can sue municipalities, entire states and the USA itself in rigged global tribunals. If the US loses its case? We, the taxpayers, foot the bill.
-expect medications to cost much more and expect far fewer generics
-expect the Internet to change, affecting your usage
-environmental laws will not stop global corporations from exploiting your locality
-even more jobs will vanish because the US worker cannot compete with Asian wages.
Since a review of the TPP has to be arranged separately each time for each chapter and since no Congressional member can take notes, pictures or have staff present when reviewing don't expect Congress to have actually read or understood this agreement before its Fast Track vote.
We already have secret laws interpreted with secret rulings by secret courts in our shredded democracy. Is global corporate hegemony over the US sovereignty next?
-when you open up a can of chicken noodle soup you won't know what country those chicken bits came from.
-global corporations can sue municipalities, entire states and the USA itself in rigged global tribunals. If the US loses its case? We, the taxpayers, foot the bill.
-expect medications to cost much more and expect far fewer generics
-expect the Internet to change, affecting your usage
-environmental laws will not stop global corporations from exploiting your locality
-even more jobs will vanish because the US worker cannot compete with Asian wages.
Since a review of the TPP has to be arranged separately each time for each chapter and since no Congressional member can take notes, pictures or have staff present when reviewing don't expect Congress to have actually read or understood this agreement before its Fast Track vote.
We already have secret laws interpreted with secret rulings by secret courts in our shredded democracy. Is global corporate hegemony over the US sovereignty next?
15
The purse, constitutionally in the hands of our elected Congress, is clearly and obviously on the table in trade deals like TPP. How can we hold our representatives to account if the details of the deal- which is all about tariffs, competition and the environment in which we compete- is not open to the examination of the voting public? Why would it not be an open process? Sadly and perhaps cynically, it is because the deal does not put money in the public purse, it will only fatten up the already loaded purses of the 1%, at the expense of the middle-class.
2
The same could have been said about health care, but I don't recall the uproar about secrecy. Instead, we had to "vote for the bill to see what's in it." The result was less than optimal. All legislation should be transparent. We should not reduce legislating to Let's Make a Deal and and be surprised by what is behind Door Three. A bill that affected over 16% of GDP was passed without anyone truly knowing what they were supporting. Let's not make the same mistake again.
5
I'm not opposed to the TPP or in favor of it because I don't know what's in it. Representative democracies are not supposed to work that way. The executive branch represents the public just as the legislative branch does. This level of secrecy is most troubling and gives the administration's detractors some very powerful ammunition to use against it. Some of them go so far as to call the President a dictator and this sort of thing plays right into their rhetoric.
The nuclear deal with Iran is all out there and the Congress will review it, as well it should. Even if no agreement was reached, the public has a right to know why and what the problems were.
Trade agreements affect the lives of everyone as we are in a global economy. How can the electorate chose its representatives if it doesn't know what its representatives have done? How can the public know who or what is influencing its representatives without full disclosure? How can the press uncover any wrongdoing? I don't like this secret stuff one bit.
The nuclear deal with Iran is all out there and the Congress will review it, as well it should. Even if no agreement was reached, the public has a right to know why and what the problems were.
Trade agreements affect the lives of everyone as we are in a global economy. How can the electorate chose its representatives if it doesn't know what its representatives have done? How can the public know who or what is influencing its representatives without full disclosure? How can the press uncover any wrongdoing? I don't like this secret stuff one bit.
6
"National security secrecy may be appropriate to protect us from our enemies; it should not be used to protect our politicians from us." Unfortunately, for most of my 68 years as an american Citizen, the only real use that I have seen for secrecy in the American Republic is to protect politicians from the people for a long enough time to carry out the will of the Corporations, who have currently taken to writing our laws for THEIR legislators to approve, with minimal input from the pre Citizens United electorate.
I guess that this is what happens when the monied constituency is the only element in the electorate which matters to representatives who must pay dearly to participate in the dog and pony show which American Politics has become.
Our times have become defined by the principle to privatize profit while socializing risk, and our banks which have mostly quit lending, can only thrive in high volatility markets which are the bane of mom and pop investors. Deregulation is assumed to be at the heart of both party platforms, because to regulate is to limit the ability of monopolies to become even bigger monopolies, and the ethics of corporate behemoths is completely at odds with the requirements of civic society.
Civic society requires mutualism and shared experience, while the mores of the Corporation require only the imperative to take what can be taken, because it is there to be taken.
When government exists only to rig the game, could it dare to be transparent?
I guess that this is what happens when the monied constituency is the only element in the electorate which matters to representatives who must pay dearly to participate in the dog and pony show which American Politics has become.
Our times have become defined by the principle to privatize profit while socializing risk, and our banks which have mostly quit lending, can only thrive in high volatility markets which are the bane of mom and pop investors. Deregulation is assumed to be at the heart of both party platforms, because to regulate is to limit the ability of monopolies to become even bigger monopolies, and the ethics of corporate behemoths is completely at odds with the requirements of civic society.
Civic society requires mutualism and shared experience, while the mores of the Corporation require only the imperative to take what can be taken, because it is there to be taken.
When government exists only to rig the game, could it dare to be transparent?
7
If the TPP Agreement were not secret, it would be endlessly analyzed, discussed, and shredded in the media. For that reason, it has been hidden from us by the Obama Administration so that it could be kept a non-event. We are left with editorials like this one which, while helpful in illustrating the problem, are unable to provide the details we need to become informed. It is up to us to insist that Congress not fast-track this process until we get more information.
3
I can't help but wonder if the reason for the secrecy while negotiating isn't because the moment a hint of a plan is revealed, Republicans U-boaters in Congress will surface and attempt to torpedo the deal as they have done with everything and anything the Obama administration has proposed in order to deny our president success. The senate leader from Kentucky has stated that to be his primary target from the moment Obama was chosen to lead this nation.
Baloney
This has nothing to do with being a Republican or Democrat... They are working together on this and it is out of greed.
This has nothing to do with being a Republican or Democrat... They are working together on this and it is out of greed.
1
The surest indication that there are real problems with the TPP is that both the President and Republicans are working together to advance it. Everyone worried about corporate ownership of the government knows TPP is a bad deal for us - and a great deal for them.
This is one place where progressives and the radical right can join in opposing Obama. Silence from the Tea Party on this will be a clear sign that they are really an astro turf operation ginned up by the 1%.
This is one place where progressives and the radical right can join in opposing Obama. Silence from the Tea Party on this will be a clear sign that they are really an astro turf operation ginned up by the 1%.
25
Trade negotiations should not be handled as business negotiations, but rather as general principals for fair trade. Moreover, secrecy is not about cutting the lobbyists out of the loop, as the trade deal is largely being written by industry lobbyists, who pay to play. The vast majority of our government's secrets have nothing to do with protecting our national security. Rather, they are about protecting the politicians from public outrage over their actions.
9
The Obama White House has been the most secretive administration in history. This attempt to hide the facts of the trade agreement talks from the American people is an offensive affront to democracy. It's disgusting and incredibly corrupt. It makes me both angry and ashamed. What is necessary now is to ask all of the newly-declared candidates for the White House to take positions regarding both this agreement and the classification of documents related to it. WikiLeaks has once again done the U.S. citizenry a great service.
15
Starting under Bush and made standard practice under Obama, the Government has come to believe that a benign dictatorship of ideas trumps transparency and representative democracy. The Affordable Care Act, which was not read by members of Congress before the vote, restructured 17% of our economy without the fundamental and necessary transparency and debate. This same practice has been used throughout government. The result of this approach to governance is a level of dysfunction, distrust and partisanship that trumps even a good law or trade agreement by destroying the proper and trusted function of government
8
The reality is that previous U.S. trade agreements have also been negotiated out of the public eye, and evading appropriate scrutiny and comment. The results have been disastrous for American workers: and have invariably "given away our store" to greedy corporations, who sought to avoid stricter environmental regulations, and outsource jobs to nations whose wages amount to pennies a day, and whose working conditions include shocking treatment of children, impoverished workers locked in warehouses, and worse. We need trade representatives whose goals are to further the well-being of American workers, first and foremost - and who do not work in lockstep with corporate lobbyists intent upon destroying American jobs. The TPP negotiations are not "national security issues" and must not be so classified. Enough of these terrible trade deals - we need strong sunlight and bleach here!
51
There are compelling reasons why all international negotiations should be shielded from exposure to the media, and that is so for trade agreements as well as the nuclear talks with Iran. It is only since the media explosion that the public had any interest at all in the process by which agreements were reached, and few were aware of the outcome.
Negotiations are a delicate process of give and take in which presentation and responses are only strategic or tactical. Transparency would torpedo this process at the outset. As the author points out interest groups have always made their demands heard.
All this has nothing to do with democracy, which is simply a method of making decisions. But it has a lot to do with separation of powers and checks and balances, which when effectively applied protect the public interest.
Negotiations are a delicate process of give and take in which presentation and responses are only strategic or tactical. Transparency would torpedo this process at the outset. As the author points out interest groups have always made their demands heard.
All this has nothing to do with democracy, which is simply a method of making decisions. But it has a lot to do with separation of powers and checks and balances, which when effectively applied protect the public interest.
2
Who would want secret diplomacy followed by fast track? Who is TPP for? It is how the multinational corporations will not only order a new Asia based economy to compete with China but to deal with those pesky problems of national laws and constitutions making them subject to international multinational corporate tribunals which could change our laws are make us pay fines and tale 10 years to withdraw from.
Where are the interests of organized labor or anyone who represents the interests of the working people in the effected nations? Who controls a guaranteed living wage, safety and human work hours and conditions? The TPP will be 10X worse than NAFTA.
We should stay with bilateral trade agreements. Barak Obama has been and effective president but he is no liberal and he has never supported organized labor. He is what was once called a Bourbon Democrat. I admire him but since he came out for the TPP I no longer trust him and I believe he may be thinking beyond his presidency.
These TPP negotiations (if they are to continue which they should not) need bright sunshine and answers to some hard questions the first of which is: Why are big corporate interests the only players and why is the administration representing their interests only?
Where are the interests of organized labor or anyone who represents the interests of the working people in the effected nations? Who controls a guaranteed living wage, safety and human work hours and conditions? The TPP will be 10X worse than NAFTA.
We should stay with bilateral trade agreements. Barak Obama has been and effective president but he is no liberal and he has never supported organized labor. He is what was once called a Bourbon Democrat. I admire him but since he came out for the TPP I no longer trust him and I believe he may be thinking beyond his presidency.
These TPP negotiations (if they are to continue which they should not) need bright sunshine and answers to some hard questions the first of which is: Why are big corporate interests the only players and why is the administration representing their interests only?
6
Ms. Kaminski has stated excellently the case against the Obama Administration's approach to the TPP negotiations. The leaked portions of the pact are shocking in what they revealed about what that secrecy is concealing. The provisions deliver a body blow to U.S. sovereignty by establishing panels of international lawyers, the employees of multinational corporations, to decide disputes between the corporations and governments. Corporations will be able to sue the U.S. Government, and U.S. laws, precedents, rules, and regulations will be irrelevant to the hearings. A ruling could be issued, for example that overrides U.S. environmental rules and requires the USG--meaning, the American taxpayer--to pay compensation to the company that is ignoring our environmental laws!
No wonder Obama hopes to ramrod this atrocity through Congress on a fast track that avoids public scrutiny.
No wonder Obama hopes to ramrod this atrocity through Congress on a fast track that avoids public scrutiny.
10
"National security secrecy may be appropriate to protect us from our enemies; it should not be used to protect our politicians from us."
Ed Schultze of MSNBC and frequent guest Bernie Sanders have been beating the drum against TPP for some time now. Every time I hear the topic discussed, it always seems to boil down to one thing omitted by the author of this article: the effect on American workers.
It's fine and dandy to point out the dangers of negotiating prices of generic drug websites and consumer surveillance in secrecy. But what about the broader implications of foreign trade deals, including further erosion of American jobs by transferring them overseas? What about the cushy deals select American corporations get, the ability of lobbyists to dig into the fine print of major legislation that stands to benefit said corporations at the expense of employees?
It would seem to me following NAFTA, the administration would approach TPP entirely differently. While I admire and agree with President Obama on most things, this privacy stance regarding secret negotiations on TPP truly stinks--there is no other word. It smacks of corporate cronyism and a total disregard for those forced to live with the results of major legislation that won't be unveiled until it's a done deal.
I hope the media keeps up the pressure and I pray the President comes to his senses and realizes that TPP will also be part of his "legacy" for better or for worse.
Ed Schultze of MSNBC and frequent guest Bernie Sanders have been beating the drum against TPP for some time now. Every time I hear the topic discussed, it always seems to boil down to one thing omitted by the author of this article: the effect on American workers.
It's fine and dandy to point out the dangers of negotiating prices of generic drug websites and consumer surveillance in secrecy. But what about the broader implications of foreign trade deals, including further erosion of American jobs by transferring them overseas? What about the cushy deals select American corporations get, the ability of lobbyists to dig into the fine print of major legislation that stands to benefit said corporations at the expense of employees?
It would seem to me following NAFTA, the administration would approach TPP entirely differently. While I admire and agree with President Obama on most things, this privacy stance regarding secret negotiations on TPP truly stinks--there is no other word. It smacks of corporate cronyism and a total disregard for those forced to live with the results of major legislation that won't be unveiled until it's a done deal.
I hope the media keeps up the pressure and I pray the President comes to his senses and realizes that TPP will also be part of his "legacy" for better or for worse.
60
Well said. I voted for President Obama twice and I more than a little dismayed at his decision to push any "free" trade agreement much less one as odious as the TPP. If I had wanted Republican policies like so called "free trade", I would have voted for Mitt Romney.
It is probably too late for "the President to come to his senses". It is 6 1/2 years into this administration and secrecy becomes ever tighter and has ever since Papa Bush, ex-CIA, became President (although the son exponentially multiplied the sins of the father and Obama became an expander on that.)
That the public should be advised of a major matter like this is what the almost forgotten idea of Democracy is about. Equally, that negotiators should be able to work in discretion is part of what "negotiations" are about.
What we lack in many areas is balance.
That the public should be advised of a major matter like this is what the almost forgotten idea of Democracy is about. Equally, that negotiators should be able to work in discretion is part of what "negotiations" are about.
What we lack in many areas is balance.
1
If it is detrimental to the average working man or woman, you can bet the Republicans will vote for it!
1
I am flatly against omnibus trade agreements like TIPP. They form a straightjacket that stifles our democracy. For a few dollars of promised profit - that may well prove to be non-existent - we give up our democratic rights to vague international bodies that are dominated by industrial interest groups.
Free trade has its benefits. But there are disadvantages too. A world with complete free trade may sound attractive but is actually a nightmare as it implies loss of democratic control.
Free trade has its benefits. But there are disadvantages too. A world with complete free trade may sound attractive but is actually a nightmare as it implies loss of democratic control.
42
Thanks for the cutting through all the static about the TPP and making the consequences of "fast track" very clear.
1
At what point will the Democrat party recognize that NAFTA, the TPP and unlimited immigration (massive numbers of H-1Bs and just crossing the party) have wrecked an awful toll on the middle class. Detroit should have taught everyone that you cannot have a public sector middle class without a private sector middle class. We do have a great work force in this country, but we cannot compete with cheap labor overseas. Who speaks for the private sector middle class? Increasing the minimum wage is not enough, we need good jobs in this country. NO to TPP.
2
The White House has described TPP as "rules for the world economy." Besides overriding US law, the rules will be beyond the reach of Congress to change in the future.
The areas it will affect include the environment, energy, the minimum wage, and food.
It will also affect immigration, with corporations pushing to remove restrictions on nationality or residency requirements for work.
The TPP will destroy the US and democracy as we know it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/238574-trade-agreeme...
The areas it will affect include the environment, energy, the minimum wage, and food.
It will also affect immigration, with corporations pushing to remove restrictions on nationality or residency requirements for work.
The TPP will destroy the US and democracy as we know it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/238574-trade-agreeme...
42
The only thing scarier than the TTP is giving the President "fast track" negotiation power which places yet more power in the Presidency. Every president in recent memory has fought for it and luckily no president has received such power. Such powers would prevent the careful analysis of the agreement by the Congress and the people. This is simply unacceptable in a democracy and must not be granted to any president.
We must defeat the TTP and we must never give fast track negotiation power to any president of any party.
We must defeat the TTP and we must never give fast track negotiation power to any president of any party.
47
The only aspect of the TPP more disgusting than its secrecy and the democracy-destroying contents is the propaganda campaign to sell it to the public. The White House strategy is to put the magical "progressive" label on it. It has even set up an astroturf group called "270 Solutions" to spread the message that supporting this corporate coup of a deal would be a way for Obama's fans to show their loyalty and appreciation.
The shameless usage of the cult of personality is another clue that we no longer live in a functioning democracy.
In a conference call a couple of weeks ago with members of the Obama campaign arm, Organizing for Action, White House communications staffer David Simas had the gall to tell the president's supporters that the TPP is really nothing but a renegotiation of NAFTA. He instructed the troops to go out there and spread the message that if you were against that job-destroying travesty, then you're going to absolutely love the TPP! Also, he advised, spread the fear and the patriotism. Our plutocrats are more palatable than Chinese plutocrats. If not "us", then who? The propaganda is all about Obama's "legacy" and America's superior standing in the world. It actually borders on the xenophobic.
This mental manipulation and the ginning up of xenophobia by the ruling class at the expense of the working class is also a hallmark of a society degrading into fascism and feudalism.
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/2015/03/selling-tpp_17.html
The shameless usage of the cult of personality is another clue that we no longer live in a functioning democracy.
In a conference call a couple of weeks ago with members of the Obama campaign arm, Organizing for Action, White House communications staffer David Simas had the gall to tell the president's supporters that the TPP is really nothing but a renegotiation of NAFTA. He instructed the troops to go out there and spread the message that if you were against that job-destroying travesty, then you're going to absolutely love the TPP! Also, he advised, spread the fear and the patriotism. Our plutocrats are more palatable than Chinese plutocrats. If not "us", then who? The propaganda is all about Obama's "legacy" and America's superior standing in the world. It actually borders on the xenophobic.
This mental manipulation and the ginning up of xenophobia by the ruling class at the expense of the working class is also a hallmark of a society degrading into fascism and feudalism.
http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/2015/03/selling-tpp_17.html
89
If there are elements of this treaty that deal with national security then they should be put in a separate agreement, they have no place in a document governing trade between nations. Making any part of a trade deal "classified" invites justified skepticism and begs for scrutiny. It smacks of the Bloomberg-esque notion of "I know what's good for you better than you do". It fuels suspicions of our ceding sovereignty over many issues, as many groups are claiming. It's essentially the heavy hand slapping us in the face. For all we know it could allow the world's billionaires to build duty free factories to make Soylent Green, or it chops up certain troublesome archipelagos into factory states to make I-phones and such. Maybe it enshrines Doctor Evil's secret island. What other surprises may we expect from the man with the golden tongue?
6
Free trade has done a great deal to improve the lives of millions in developing nations, and I support free trade.
The TPP is *not* free trade.
What has leaked out about it indicates that it is a highly skewed attempt to grant favors to wealthy corporations at the expense of the American middle class. This deal must not be secret. And people need to hound their elected representatives to oppose it.
The TPP is *not* free trade.
What has leaked out about it indicates that it is a highly skewed attempt to grant favors to wealthy corporations at the expense of the American middle class. This deal must not be secret. And people need to hound their elected representatives to oppose it.
166
Professor Kaminski fails to acknowledge that global international trade is now, in a financial sense, global international war. The goal, in this age of uncertain returns, is survival at the national level and, apparently, at any cost. The fear of losing out to major political competitors drives the obsessive need to cement favorable economic trade deals.
This, now, is the real World War III. TPP, and all else that follows, is merely another tactic in the ongoing strategy, by all the big players, to remain financially dominant, globally.
The lessons of 20th century history are being ignored or cast aside, it seems. Short term political viewpoints appear to prevail. All, except the elites, will suffer in the long term.
This, now, is the real World War III. TPP, and all else that follows, is merely another tactic in the ongoing strategy, by all the big players, to remain financially dominant, globally.
The lessons of 20th century history are being ignored or cast aside, it seems. Short term political viewpoints appear to prevail. All, except the elites, will suffer in the long term.
51
True, the elites will not suffer immediately, perhaps not even for awhile, but a day of reckoning will come for them and it will not be a pretty picture. There is nothing that should strike fear in to the hearts of the elites more than millions or billions of people who have nothing left to lose.
1
That's the whole point of bing in an elite group - to pass the suffering along to others, while finding ways to justify sacrificing them.
Given that trade deals have a significant impact on jobs, it seems appropriate that those most likely to be affected should know what is being negotiated. Some "fast track" information is long over due.
92
The thing about "fast track" no approval by congress or even questions, it's just done the way negotiated. This is bizarre, this is categorically wrong and categorically wrong for the American people who will suffer against our and international corporations. This is categorical corporate takeover of the world's economy. Why do we need our own government anymore, they'll rule the world.
HRC supports TPP, another reason she should be held to account by progressives in Dem primaries. A Clinton administration gave us NAFTA and look at the misery that's caused Americans.
116
Actually her position is support of this agreement IF it has strong protections for labor, the environment, etc. she voted against CAFTA.
You are soo right about this. Democrats deserve an opportunity to vote for an actual democrat--- not a moderate Republican like Hillary.
2
If anything needs sunshine disinfectant, it is this reportedly putrid TPP.
88
There is no need for such secrecy. Given the history of past US trade agreements all you need to do is imagine what would be most benefit to our trading partners and the least benefit to American workers and you'll probably get it just about right.
75
Except it is not a give away to "most benefit our trading partners". It is what will most benefit our corporate overlords and their owners. It is very important to know who your enemies are and how to rank them. Our economic terrorist do more damage to us all on a daily basis than the ones overseas are capable of in their finest hour.
There is a name for governments that spy relentlessly on their citizens but refuse them access to discussions of the most important issues effecting their lives. There is a name for governments in which the executive claims the right to order extra-judicial killings of its citizens. There is a name for governments under which the police act like an occupying army and can kill with impunity. There is a name for governments that have elections in which only candidates pre-approved by a wealthy elite have any chance of winning.
We live in a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship of the 1%. It is more pleasant (at least for some of us) than some other dictatorships. It is masked by a dizzying array of consumer choices and an electoral circus that always ends with the election of a friend of Wall Street. But it is a dictatorship nonetheless and we need to start acting accordingly by taking to the streets against these outrages.
We live in a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship of the 1%. It is more pleasant (at least for some of us) than some other dictatorships. It is masked by a dizzying array of consumer choices and an electoral circus that always ends with the election of a friend of Wall Street. But it is a dictatorship nonetheless and we need to start acting accordingly by taking to the streets against these outrages.
183
"We live in a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship of the 1%."
I don't see us as there yet but think our protections from it are eroding. If you fully stick to the intent of constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, it would be hard to become an oppressive government.
The 1st gives the right to speak out. Mass speech cost money and there are attempts to limit political speech. The first also allows people to petition the government for redress of grievances, something you can not do until its too late when an agreement is hidden. The seconds allows people to protect themselves. The Fourth is supposed to provide privacy except when there is a judge issued warrant based on probably cause, and an oath of affirmation, and naming what is to be searched, and seized. Others are supposed to guarantee a jury trial for all criminal prosecutions but I understand ALL is interpreted to mean only when the sentence is 6 months or longer. And the Tenth limits the Federal government to only those power enumerated to it. Over the years, I believe the courts, congress, and the president reinterpreted the constitution not consistent with what period documents such as the Federalist Papers.
If we would stick rigorously to the Bill or Rights erring on the side of too much liberty and too little government power, some of the things you spoke of would not happen. To the degree that we want a Nanny state to provide physical and financial security, we loose liberties.
I don't see us as there yet but think our protections from it are eroding. If you fully stick to the intent of constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, it would be hard to become an oppressive government.
The 1st gives the right to speak out. Mass speech cost money and there are attempts to limit political speech. The first also allows people to petition the government for redress of grievances, something you can not do until its too late when an agreement is hidden. The seconds allows people to protect themselves. The Fourth is supposed to provide privacy except when there is a judge issued warrant based on probably cause, and an oath of affirmation, and naming what is to be searched, and seized. Others are supposed to guarantee a jury trial for all criminal prosecutions but I understand ALL is interpreted to mean only when the sentence is 6 months or longer. And the Tenth limits the Federal government to only those power enumerated to it. Over the years, I believe the courts, congress, and the president reinterpreted the constitution not consistent with what period documents such as the Federalist Papers.
If we would stick rigorously to the Bill or Rights erring on the side of too much liberty and too little government power, some of the things you spoke of would not happen. To the degree that we want a Nanny state to provide physical and financial security, we loose liberties.
When Putin does it, we cry foul. When we do it, we call it in the best interest of the country.
It is a plutocracy + kleptocracy. But, overall, yes.
Democratic nations do not have trade agreements that are secret from their citizens - yet another reason Obama is a Fail.
55
Funny. The lawless Obama administration loves to keep all its major dealings secret. Between Obamacare (pass it , then you can read what's in it), the treaty with Iran and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement the most "transparent" administration in history shows how devious their approach is when dealing with the American public. America deserves better leadership then that currently being displayed by this inept administration.
22
Exactly who do you have in mind as a candidate for "better leadership" (not that I don't have problems with the present administration)? There isn't a single person in the GOP I would trust to walk my dog.
3
This is an outstanding op-ed and highlights many of the reasons why I personally am opposed to the TPP under its current framework of negotiation. The secrecy surrounding it makes informed debate and study impossible and indeed makes forming any kind of informed opinion about it impossible. The stakes here are huge with the possibility of preempting numerous state laws and the possibility of conflict with existing Federal law. As the author correctly notes, this is an agreement that potentially will affect millions of Americans.
It seems to me that opening up the process would also likely result in a better agreement. Exposing it to scrutiny will allow lawyers and scholars to find whatever weaknesses there are in it and might identify potential problems and unintended consequences. While I have no doubt that those negotiating this are the best people we have, even the best and brightest make mistakes.
As the old saying goes, sunshine is the best disinfectant and I would add that governmental or political secrecy only makes sense when you have something to hide that people won't like. Given the secrecy surrounding this particular agreement, I suspect that there is a great deal to hide in terms of who wins and loses.
This should be an issue that unites people on both sides of the free trade debate. The issue with the TPP is one of whether or not such far-reaching agreements will be cloaked in secrecy or debated openly as any proposed Federal statute.
It seems to me that opening up the process would also likely result in a better agreement. Exposing it to scrutiny will allow lawyers and scholars to find whatever weaknesses there are in it and might identify potential problems and unintended consequences. While I have no doubt that those negotiating this are the best people we have, even the best and brightest make mistakes.
As the old saying goes, sunshine is the best disinfectant and I would add that governmental or political secrecy only makes sense when you have something to hide that people won't like. Given the secrecy surrounding this particular agreement, I suspect that there is a great deal to hide in terms of who wins and loses.
This should be an issue that unites people on both sides of the free trade debate. The issue with the TPP is one of whether or not such far-reaching agreements will be cloaked in secrecy or debated openly as any proposed Federal statute.
154
This reminds me of a half remembered phrase that offered the clear eyed question "Which offers more security the Cathedral or the Bazaar" . Of course the debate at that time considered , the motivations , and the behaviors of an Open Source Community , and the laboratories of the besieged Microsoft Dividend and Profit machine .
Now we see the envelopment of those institutions , or the "cathedral" of industry through the unmistakeable simplicity found in the name "Open" . The persistence of those who contributed their time for an ideal , which after the laundry was done , was no trouble at all . Compared to the directors of secretive laboratories devoted to the sacred Plutus the conclusion may , after all , have been obvious .
Perhaps it is only the outrage of the unrepresented who will once again rise up against the tyranny of a co-opted government so that the ideals , and the will of the people , by the people , and once upon a time , for the people , may be recognized .
Now we see the envelopment of those institutions , or the "cathedral" of industry through the unmistakeable simplicity found in the name "Open" . The persistence of those who contributed their time for an ideal , which after the laundry was done , was no trouble at all . Compared to the directors of secretive laboratories devoted to the sacred Plutus the conclusion may , after all , have been obvious .
Perhaps it is only the outrage of the unrepresented who will once again rise up against the tyranny of a co-opted government so that the ideals , and the will of the people , by the people , and once upon a time , for the people , may be recognized .
I will say, with sincerity, I am amazed.
I still believe this is the America for which my sister and I collected cans during the Second World War and dimes for the March of Dimes after. To think our nation changed so much is just a bit to big a piece to chew.
Maybe we haven't changed at all and I'm just naive enough to think our elected officials,our fellow Americans would do the right thing; thinking they really are just a little more dedicated than me and my neighbors; believing that guys like Adelson, the Koch brothers and Walton family just have more money, but still think the way we all do. That our government would never abandon us.
Probably because I grew up with Franklin Roosevelt as my President, believed the nuns who taught me and never felt any fear around the priests in grammar and high school.
I also trusted that our sitting President would never engage in politics as usual; how could he growing up black in America?
Boy am I wrong and boy am I dumb.
I guess we're really no better than the rest of them
If Mina reads this doubtless she 'll laugh.
I still believe this is the America for which my sister and I collected cans during the Second World War and dimes for the March of Dimes after. To think our nation changed so much is just a bit to big a piece to chew.
Maybe we haven't changed at all and I'm just naive enough to think our elected officials,our fellow Americans would do the right thing; thinking they really are just a little more dedicated than me and my neighbors; believing that guys like Adelson, the Koch brothers and Walton family just have more money, but still think the way we all do. That our government would never abandon us.
Probably because I grew up with Franklin Roosevelt as my President, believed the nuns who taught me and never felt any fear around the priests in grammar and high school.
I also trusted that our sitting President would never engage in politics as usual; how could he growing up black in America?
Boy am I wrong and boy am I dumb.
I guess we're really no better than the rest of them
If Mina reads this doubtless she 'll laugh.
66
Hiding information from the public in plain sight.
Ms. Kaminski is being kind when she calls this Administration's secretive actions, "disappointing and disingenuous". It is behavior that would normally set alarms bells ringing -- and the Editorial Board of The Times loudly screeching -- were it not of this particular president.
Ms. Kaminski is being kind when she calls this Administration's secretive actions, "disappointing and disingenuous". It is behavior that would normally set alarms bells ringing -- and the Editorial Board of The Times loudly screeching -- were it not of this particular president.
58
Democratic nations do not have trade agreements that are secret from their citizens - yet another reason TPP is a FAIL.
165
Perhaps the U.S. is not a true democracy in practice.
It is cruelly sad that the same administration that is allegedly terribly upset by the miseries of the middle class, is about to ensure future miseries by allowing low-wage, no-benefit, and no health and safety provisions, in other words, low labour cost, producers in foreign countries to "degrade and destroy" what is left of US tradable goods industries and the middle class jobs and occupations that go with them.
The issue is not the current administration alone, but rather the strategy of international corporations, under the guise of the benefits of trade, to use trade agreements to destroy the power or organized labour throughout the world. And keep in mind, by organized labour one refers to the millions of workers who have lost their jobs and, if fortunate, can find new ones (often their old ones) only at severely reduced wages and benefits.
It should not be surprising that the stagnation in labour incomes has coincided with the trade agreements negotiated in the 198os and continued by a variety of administrations, officials as well as politicians, with similar puppet masters.