I wanted to bring the "DLC secret trade deal" issue in here for discussion

orig posted by KoKo01
Here's the scoop. Those of us who are against "secret deals" and expansion of NAFTA type "free trade" which offshore our jobs, drive down our wages and allow uninspected and possibly tainted food to come into our country need to respond to this immediately. That this was done by our Democratic Leadership "behind closed doors" is disappointing. Do we need our DEMS to be acting like Repugs...making deals in SECRET with LOBBYISTS? CALL YOUR HOUSE MEMBERS and SIGN THE PETITION FROM "Public Citizen" to let Congress know that American Workers have had ENOUGH OF THIS!

Friday, May 11, 2007
K Street vs. Middle America: Battle Lines Being Drawn In Fight Over Dems' Secret Trade Deal With Bush Sirota Blog

Another long day as the reverberations continue to intensify after yesterday's press conference announcing a secret "free" trade deal between a handful of senior Democrats and the Bush administration. In the interest of brevity, I have compiled the major news of the day, including new revelations about who is supporting the deal and who is opposing it, though remember - it is difficult to make any hard and fast conclusions because Democratic leaders and the White House continue to keep the details of the deal completely secret. That said, a look at who is supporting the deal and who is opposing it provides some key insights into what this deal is really all about. Already, the New York Times has reported that at least half of all House Democrats may immediately oppose the deal because it seems to fly in the face of the Election 2006 mandate against lobbyist-written trade policy. And now, a day after the announcement, the battle lines are being drawn.

DEAL MAKES SURE TO PREVENT UNIONS FROM HAVING LESS RIGHTS THAN CORPORATIONS: Reuters reports that the deal includes "a provision that would only allow national governments" - not unions - "to file a labor complaint under the pact," meaning Democrats complicit in the deal are effectively proposing that America rely on the Bush administration to make sure workers and the environment are protected. This provision in the deal creates a clear double standard that prioritizes corporate rights over worker rights. Specifically, the provision stands in contrast to provisions already in America's current trade pacts that allow domestic and foreign corporations to file complaints against sovereign governments (including U.S. local, state and federal governments) when those governments pass environmental/consumer protection laws. These complaints have resulted in U.S. taxpayers alone being forced to pay roughly $1.8 billion in "damages" in international courts because of its own laws.
DEAL PREVENTS DEMANDS FOR U.S. TO RESPECT INTERNATIONAL LABOR STANDARDS AT HOME: Bloomberg News reports that the deal appears to ensure that unions and other countries cannot demand enforcement of International Labor Organization standards in the United States. Specifically, "federal trade officials said they are confident that the wording protects against any possible litigation." This report is consistent with a statement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which yesterday said key players in the deal have given K Street "assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions."

much more on what this is about here........

http://www.workingassetsblog.com /

GD is pushing the line that we gotta vote for the Dems. Why when this is all that they do? They also say that if we dont like it we need to call our reps. I say why, when corporations send millions in bribes. Does my phone call get the same attention as does a million dollars, of course not. Unless we get millions of marchers in the streets to battle the millions of dollars from K street, we've lost the republic.

I'll post again what I've posted before and hope it reaches more people.

I am frequently amazed by people who will, one moment say that corporations cannot be trusted, "rich" people cannot be trusted, or government and/or politicians cannot be trusted, then turn right around and give the Democratic Party a pass as though Democratic politicians, many of whom are "rich" people and who have corporate ties and are, of course, politicians are somehow immune to the influences of corporations or wealth. We don't trust career politicians unless they're our career politicians. Why is that? Don't those who say and/or think that understand the lack of logic in that argument?

Another piece of information missing from that logic is knowledge of the history of the Democratic Party. As much as I'd love to believe that Democrats are and always have been the party of the people and have only the best interests of the populace in mind, the history of the party itself doesn't support that. Sure they've done some good things for "We, the People." As much as some don't want to hear it, the republican party has also brought "We, the People" some good things. Each party has also in its turn, screwed the masses bloody. It's not a strict binary equation; i.e., Democrats good, republicans bad.

An editorial cartoon (which I can't find a freaking link for!!) from the late 19th/early 20th century showed a mock up of the class pyramid with many of the politicians of the day "living large" at the top of the pyramid while "We, the People" labored and starved at the base of the pyramid. The caption was (paraphrasing) "With whom do the politicians have more in common? Whose interests will they protect?" I think we're all learning exactly whose interests today's politicians, from both parties, will protect and promote. And it ain't those of us who are at or near the bottom of the pyramid.

For those who don't know what the class pyramid is:

The Republicans aren't going to listen, and left-wing third parties are the victims of a prisoner's dilemma and centrist intransigence.

but, "our best hope"? Because once we open the political playing field to those who don't have millions and they, in theory, get into office, they'll stay "pure" and remain untainted by the influence peddling to which they'll be subjected after taking office? If anything, I'm tempted to argue that those who were not "born to wealth" could be the most susceptible to being seduced by wealth, power and privilege. What's the saying..."power is the ultimate aphrodisiac"? In a capitalistic society such as ours, money=privilege=power. I'm not sure how many people we can find who are immune, and who will remain immune, to that kind of temptation.

Let's consider starting with public monies for elections. In concert with that, we'd have to disallow private monies from ever entering the process. We're a "free market" society in which we believe that people can do with their money as they see fit; and that applies to the "corporate persons" among us. Do we outlaw how people are allowed to spend their money? Does that apply to "corporate persons"? Think 527s. Think churches and their influence. It is illegal for churches to participate in electoral politics (within some "mushy" areas), yet they do so and are rarely held accountable for their participation and influence.

And once someone is in office, we need to address influence peddling and the revolving door between government oversight positions and corporate offices of power. How did some of our elected officials go from having modest means to having portfolios valued in the millions? It sure wasn't from the use of other people's money they raised in election cycles; at least not solely.

So, while I agree that public financing is a good, albeit small, start, I don't agree it's in any way "our best hope" of anything other than a first step on a very long and convoluted road.

There is a reason why people will raise millions of dollars in order to be elected to a position that pays a few tens of thousands or a couple of hundreds of thousands of dollars - and it ain't the paycheck.

Those are the ones who will be immune from the graft and influence peddling. Who will that be? I don't knnow because I don't know any others who view money as just a bribe besides myself. But I'm sure there are more than a few people out there with that train of thought.

Public financing is a good start. I agree. Taking back public airwaves is a close second thing to do.

are simply the Democratic Wing of the Corporate Party.

As Cerridwen points out, it isn't about party affiliation at all, it is all about class. The one issue from which all the others spring, and the one issue that few are willing to honestly examine.

We've been so inured into the notion that all the good things we enjoy only come about because some rich people bring it about, that we resist acknowledging, or even contemplating the fact that we don't need them while they are utterly dependent upon us.

This is just another outrage that will undoubtedly be perpetrated on us, if not in this form then in another. Theirs will be done.

I'm really to the point where I believe it is time to create and grow a network or association of like-minded people to support each other and prepare for what is coming. If we remain isolated it will be all too easy for them to win, and I really don't think many realize just how horrible it will be when it comes.

join up with the Libertarians with whom they have more ideology in common with than the Democrats. In sheltering under our tent they are undermining what we stand for, which is being pro-labor for one thing, something the DLCers certainly aren't.

theory of triangulation, which he uses to explain why the Democrats are voting against their own party's wishes???

http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/05/20/dems-driving-triangulation-over-the-dead-bodies-of-the-progressive-movement/


Some people don't like Sirota, but I find his stuff very interesting. I'm sure he's right on on most of his stuff and maybe not so right on with other stuff.

:hi:

My letter to Jim McDermott, WA-07

http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/contact.shtml

It was rather surprising to see your recent post to Huffingtonpost.com, "Real Progress on Trade". where you claim that the Rangel deal represents a "giant step forward into the 21st century."

I don't understand why you would believe that the Bush Administration would give any concessions, however uncertain and limited, and I don't understand why you think that Bush would compromise on anything, ever.

If this deal is so great, why is it SECRET? If it's so great, why are the richest men in America (such as the American Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable) singing its praises while labor unions, environmental groups, development groups, health experts and agriculture groups are opposed?

The secret deal does not address many other problems with our current free trade regimen, including off-shoring and job loss, investor lawsuits that threaten environmental and public health laws, the displacement of small farmers or the other distortions that multinationals cause to local economies.

And there is a real danger that this deal will serve as the pretext for Fast Track renewal. Our utterly corrupt executive branch has enough power as it is, and far too little oversight. I call a government that wants to know everything about its citizens while conducting its own business in complete secrecy a tyranny.

A progressive Democrat should not be spreading the standard nonsense corporate meme that those who oppose trade rules favoring corporations at the expense of people and the environment must therefore be opposed to both trade and rules.