General Discussion

RiverLover

(7,830 posts) Sat Dec 27, 2014, 07:46 AM Dec 2014

Cromnibus: The Formula for Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal

Cromnibus: The Formula for Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal

One of the few areas where Republicans and President Obama may find common ground next year is in Fast-Tracking the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement.

And the Cromnibus budget bill shows us the formula that will be used to get it passed, says Dave Johnson, at Campaign for America's Future.

All the poison pills, from the Citibank-written provision to allowing corporations to cut pensions and a big boost to big money in politics, wouldn't have passed if they had been in separate, fully debated bills.

And that's how Fast-Track will get through. It's currently under secret negotiations designed to craft an agreement that favors corporations - even above the laws of sovereign countries. For example, tobacco companies would be able to sue governments - in corporate court - if they attempt to implement anti-smoking initiatives.

Multinational corporations would be able to "protect their future profit potential" by suing cities, counties, states or countries to wipe out existing laws - those specifically designed to protect communities' best interests, but which get in the way of ultimate profits.

Called "NAFTA on Steroids," Obama wants the bill fast-tracked through Congress even before the details are known to its members and the public! That means Congress agrees to an up or down vote - no amendments and no debates.

...Congress had to vote on it right away, or the government would shut down. There was no time for Congress to even read the 1,600-page agreement, let alone fix anything. There certainly was very little time to rally opposition to items in the agreement.

Lessons learned about how to rig a legislative process:

-Control who's at the table. Republican and Senate leaders negotiated the deal, but significantly, House Minority Leader Pelosi was not included.
-Leave little time for analysis. Announced at the last minute, Congress was ready to vote by the time people figured out what was in the 1,600-page bill.
-Make it about the deadline, not substance. The debate was about whether the government would shut down, not whether to vote against the Citibank and other poison provisions.
But special interests served by the deal had time to prepare their push-through strategy in advance.
-Make it all or nothing. The bad provisions couldn't be removed with killing the deal and there was no time to start over.

Big corporations are gearing up right NOW to launch a massive PR campaign when the Trans-Pacific Partnership is ready. They will spend millions to ramp up the pressure on the scale of the "run up"....

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26063

14 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Cromnibus: The Formula for Trans-Pacific Partnership Deal (Original Post) RiverLover Dec 2014 OP

Corporations put most of these people in office. Now it's payback time. Buns_of_Fire Dec 2014 #1

But it's not a quid pro quo according to Chief Justice John Roberts! Dustlawyer Dec 2014 #7

I'm glad Chief Justice John Roberts is man of integrity. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #14

Why aren't we gearing up? aspirant Dec 2014 #2

American taxpayers will be footing the bill when we have to cover legal costs RiverLover Dec 2014 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author aspirant Dec 2014 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author RiverLover Dec 2014 #5

This is the only legal way for foreign corps to skip regular courts, without proving the courts RiverLover Dec 2014 #6

The masses (99% if you will) now mean absolutely nothing to the ruling class. Doctor_J Dec 2014 #8

A little surprising that Krugman has not weighed in on this Doctor_J Dec 2014 #9

Dec 2013, Krugman was "meh, why the big deal?" then in March this year, it changed a bit~ RiverLover Dec 2014 #10

Interesting. He seems to be claiming that the president likes TPP because he doesn't understand it Doctor_J Dec 2014 #11

It does seem like that. Its almost as if he can't really stress how bad it actually is because RiverLover Dec 2014 #12

k&r Duppers Dec 2014 #13

Buns_of_Fire

(17,154 posts)

1. Corporations put most of these people in office. Now it's payback time.

Reply to RiverLover (Original post)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 08:01 AM

Dec 2014

...The time for piper-paying is coming soon,
Remember, then, who called the tune.

Dustlawyer

(10,494 posts)

7. But it's not a quid pro quo according to Chief Justice John Roberts!

Reply to Buns_of_Fire (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 10:32 AM

Dec 2014

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)

14. I'm glad Chief Justice John Roberts is man of integrity.

Reply to Dustlawyer (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 28, 2014, 05:15 AM

Dec 2014

aspirant

(3,533 posts)

2. Why aren't we gearing up?

Reply to RiverLover (Original post)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 08:25 AM

Dec 2014

Hello RiverLover

Why aren't the legal eagles going over the "Commerce Clause" with a microscope? This just flushes all 3 branches of our govt and makes them helpless against this tribunals verdict.

What about our IRS enactment legislation. Does it allow for American taxes to be paid to foreign corps for lost profits or does it state that it is to be used for the benefit of the American people?

Not a legal eagle but the thoughts are rolling in.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)

3. American taxpayers will be footing the bill when we have to cover legal costs

Reply to aspirant (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 08:38 AM

Dec 2014

when sued by a foreign corporations.

Rules allowing foreign companies to sue host governments for unfair treatment have become contentious after recent high-profile cases, such as tobacco company Phillip Morris's challenge to Australia's plain packaging laws for cigarettes.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, a staunch advocate for tougher scrutiny of Wall Street, said such rules would expose "critical" U.S. financial regulations to challenge and dissuade policymakers from writing rules that impact foreign banks.

Warren and fellow senators Tammy Baldwin and Edward Markey wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman on Dec. 17 urging him not to include investment protection rules in the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

"The consequence would be to strip our regulators of the tools they need to prevent the next crisis," said the letter, released on Thursday. It also warned against rules limiting the use of capital controls or allowing open access for risky financial products.

A USTR spokesman said the TPP would in no way limit the ability of governments to put in place strong consumer protections or to regulate financial markets and would include "specific provisions protecting regulation."

Foreign investment protection is also a hot topic in a planned U.S.-Europe trade deal, prompting the European Union to call a halt to talks on that part of the pact while it consulted more widely.

Five Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade, wrote to U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday urging him to exclude such rules from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) too.

There was no need for investor-state dispute settlement in an agreement between developed countries with established court systems, and excluding them would be "more likely to generate broad public support," they wrote.

http://whtc.com/news/articles/2014/dec/18/democrat-lawmakers-warn-against-investment-rules-in-trade-pacts/

I disagree with that last part though. There's much more to dislike about this corporate personhood takeover of countries. But it would improve it by huge leaps to remove the investor-state deal.

The Trade Agreement Pinatas
Monday, 22 December 2014 09:33 By Dean Baker, Truthout | Op-Ed
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/28137-the-trade-agreement-pinatas

Response to RiverLover (Reply #3)

aspirant This message was self-deleted by its author.

Response to aspirant (Reply #4)

RiverLover This message was self-deleted by its author.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)

6. This is the only legal way for foreign corps to skip regular courts, without proving the courts

Reply to aspirant (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 10:06 AM

Dec 2014

incompetent first.

What's worse than anything imo is that while it allows foreigns corps to sue local governments or people, it PROHIBITS local govts or individuals from suing the foreign corps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement

Also, no individual or state can initiate a claim against a foreign investor under an investment treaty. This has led to criticisms that investor-state arbitration is not balanced and that it favours the "haves" over the "have nots" by giving foreign investors, especially major companies, access to a special tribunal outside any court.

This ^^^ is what needs be told to the public through msm, but since corps control the media, I'll be pleasantly surprised if they do.

No I'll be shocked.

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)

8. The masses (99% if you will) now mean absolutely nothing to the ruling class.

Reply to RiverLover (Original post)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 11:48 AM

Dec 2014

IMO if things are to happen, they will start at the propaganda centers - Fox, CNBC, and all of the Hate Radio outlets scattered about the country. The purveyors of hate and propaganda should be ground zero for the pushback when we're ready.

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)

9. A little surprising that Krugman has not weighed in on this

Reply to RiverLover (Original post)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 11:52 AM

Dec 2014

He used to be a voice for liberal and populist economic policy, but has abandoned that worthwhile pursuit to cheerlead for the president's Neocon agenda, including Heritage Care and Race To The Bottom. I think he's avoiding this because he doesn't want to say anything bad about Obama.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)

10. Dec 2013, Krugman was "meh, why the big deal?" then in March this year, it changed a bit~

Reply to Doctor_J (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 12:06 PM

Dec 2014

Late last year, we were dismayed by a Paul Krugman opinion piece in the NY Times in which he judged the TPP based on how it might impact free trade, saying he didn't understand why people were so upset about it.

...He's now done so and put forth a revised opinion on the TPP, in which he more or less admits that it's not a very good agreement. He doesn't think it's horrible, just like he didn't think it was wonderful before. He basically shifted from lukewarm support to lukewarm disapproval of it. However, at least he now recognizes that it's not about trade, but about helping out a few big companies:

Krugman:

"What the T.P.P. would do, however, is increase the ability of certain corporations to assert control over intellectual property. Again, think drug patents and movie rights.

Is this a good thing from a global point of view? Doubtful. The kind of property rights we’re talking about here can alternatively be described as legal monopolies. True, temporary monopolies are, in fact, how we reward new ideas; but arguing that we need even more monopolization is very dubious — and has nothing at all to do with classical arguments for free trade.

Now, the corporations benefiting from enhanced control over intellectual property would often be American. But this doesn’t mean that the T.P.P. is in our national interest. What’s good for Big Pharma is by no means always good for America."

He then wonders why the Obama administration is so gung ho on the deal, and thinks they've been sold a bill of goods, believing the bill must be good because it has been labeled as a free trade agreement, with no one bothering to really think through the details:

"So what I wonder is why the president is pushing the T.P.P. at all. The economic case is weak, at best, and his own party doesn’t like it. Why waste time and political capital on this project?

My guess is that we’re looking at a combination of Beltway conventional wisdom — Very Serious People always support entitlement cuts and trade deals — and officials caught in a 1990s time warp, still living in the days when New Democrats tried to prove that they weren’t old-style liberals by going all in for globalization. Whatever the motivations, however, the push for T.P.P. seems almost weirdly out of touch with both economic and political reality."

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140228/08030526388/krugman-gets-informed-changes-his-tune-tpp.shtml

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)

11. Interesting. He seems to be claiming that the president likes TPP because he doesn't understand it

Reply to RiverLover (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 12:15 PM

Dec 2014

I am not sure which is worse - 1) signing it without understanding it, or 2) liking it despite the fact that "The economic case is weak, at best, and his own party doesn’t like it."

IMO the correct view is the second one, and that Obama doesn't consider Brown, Warren, Sanders, and Grayson part of "his party". He's more a member of the Clinton/Bush party.

At any rate, thanks for bringing me up to speed on Krugman's viewpoint.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)

12. It does seem like that. Its almost as if he can't really stress how bad it actually is because

Reply to Doctor_J (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 12:29 PM

Dec 2014

Obama's so great, how could it be bad? He must not know what's in it.,,,When Obama's been pushing the thing, starting with Hillary's State Dept, from the get go.

Duppers

(28,117 posts)

13. k&r

Reply to RiverLover (Original post)

Sat Dec 27, 2014, 05:00 PM

Dec 2014

Reply to this discussion