I Love How We Tend To Deny A "Rift" In The Democratic Party... On A Board That Should Say So...

[WillyT]

Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 10:36 PM - Edit history (2)

Bernie Sanders' Brutal Letter On Obama's Trade Pact Foreshadows 2016 Democratic Clash
Zach Carter - HufPo
Posted: 01/05/2015 7:50 pm EST Updated: 1 hour ago

In his letter, Sanders requests a copy of the draft text that he and his staff can analyze. If Froman, the top USTR official, turns down his request, Sanders said he'd respond by introducing a bill that would require any trade talks be made public at the request of a member of Congress.

But it's the tone of the letter that sends the strongest message, particularly to a Democratic administration. Sanders calls TPP secrecy "incomprehensible" and "simply unacceptable." He quotes the Constitution, suggesting that USTR is overstepping its authority. The letter is essentially a threat to antagonize Froman with the legislative process if he doesn't comply with Sanders' request. It also is a clear declaration that if Sanders runs for president, trade will be a major part of his campaign platform.

Trade hasn't occupied the national spotlight since the Clinton years -- a phenomenon that elevates its potency in a Democratic primary likely to include Hillary Clinton, who was involved in TPP talks while secretary of state under Obama. And President Bill Clinton's economic legacy is at the heart of the only major intra-party rift currently dividing Democrats: What to do about Wall Street. The Clinton presidency signaled the Democratic Party's full embrace of the financial elite, reversing the tough-on-banks platform implemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt under the New Deal. To Clinton's liberal critics, he had converted to GOP orthodoxy on economic matters.

Clinton's bank deregulation hasn't been popular in the years following the 2008 financial meltdown. But many congressional Democrats have been willing to follow the Clinton model of making nice with Wall Street to get the campaign cash needed to advance other liberal goals. The tension spilled into public view last month during a bitter feud over subsidies for risky Wall Street derivatives trades that clearly surprised the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate.

Casting the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization treaties, and Obama's TPP, as similar gifts to corporate insiders would be politically potent in a Democratic primary. Warren has said repeatedly that she isn't running for president, but her own attacks on TPP have taken precisely this approach. In December, Warren sent a letter of her own to Froman, asking him to prevent foreign corporations from using TPP to challenge domestic laws and regulations before an international tribunal. Granting companies this political power, she said, posed significant risks for financial regulation.

Hillary Clinton, of course, hasn't announced a presidential bid (yet), and she has stayed generally quiet about trade policy. She praised NAFTA in her 2003 memoir and as a senator from New York, but criticized it on the campaign trail in 2008.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/bernie-sanders-michael-froman-tpp_n_6419874.html

Full Letter Here (.pdf file): http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/sandersustrletter.pdf

[msanthrope]

1. That is not a "brutal" letter. That is a fundraising one. I can see why Senator Sanders hired Matt

Stoller, and that's a good move for him.

But Sanders knows Matt Stoller, and the rest of his staff aren't going to get the security clearance to view the texts. That's a pipe dream.

Here's the thing---Bernie can read the TPP negotiation text. What he isn't allowed to do is make copies, or give copies to his staff. He has to sit down and read it.....not hand it off.

Interestingly, Senator Warren has apparently taken this time to do this.

[WillyT]

2. So When Do The Rest Of Us Get To Read It ??? - After It's A Fait Accompli ???

I understand that while you're negotiating a deal you might not want to give away you're hand...

So let's take Fast Track off the table... ink the agreement... publish it... put it up for public comment... and see if the Congress and the people like what they see.

Otherwise... Fast Track looks like a ploy to make sure no politician's fingerprints are associated with the decision... or the end result.

[pampango]

19. When it's finished. That's when we got to read the China and Cuba agreements and thats when the Iran

agreement will be available for us to read.

So let's take Fast Track off the table...

Without fast track the republican majorities in both houses will be able to delete anything they want and add any new provisions they want.

I suppose that is why the republican base hates fast track and the Democratic base supports it. Of course, the actions of politicians in congress are not much influenced by what either base wants.

[Jim Lane]

28. You're not distinguishing between two different issues.

Fast track means no amendments are allowed, and I'm OK with that part -- not primarily because of the Republicans, although that's a consideration, but because it's a multilateral agreement. You can't let each country go rewriting the deal unilaterally. There has to be one common text that gets accepted or rejected.

BUT fast track in the US also includes the "fast" part -- unrealistically short deadlines for each phase of Congressional action. Big business is in on the negotiations, so the proponents of the pact (in the corporate world and in the Obama administration) will be able to hit the ground running. Labor unions, environmentalists, and other public-interest types will be starting from scratch. They'll need more time once a hugely complex proposal is unveiled.

I haven't seen any posts on DU that give a good explanation of why a deal that's been in negotiation since 2010 will have to be approved within 90 days after being made public.

[WillyT]

3. Anything ???

[NewDeal_Dem]

8. course not.

[msanthrope]

13. Hello there! As I explained to Willy, some of us have children to raise, and from time to time,

wine to drink.

I don't dance on your timeline.

Welcome to DU!

[msanthrope]

12. Dude--some of us have children to put to bed, and wine to drink. I wasn't avoiding you, merely

living my life.

As for when the rest of us get to see it, well, there's two timelines. One, your elected representatives get to see it for you--that is how democracy works, and why it's really, really important to show up at election time. Bernie Sanders already has access to the negotiation drafts.

Two, you get to see the whole shebang once it is presented for passage. One of the advantages of fast track on this is that straight up or down votes must be taken---no side can amend or filibuster, thus, that cuts down on backroom deals, circulated drafts, etc.

[Oilwellian]

7. So corporate CEOs can see it

but it's a pipe dream if a US Senator who, Constitutionally, is is expected to vote on the treaty's ratification, and wants to read it first.

[msanthrope]

14. Um, Bernie Sanders can read it. Read the letter--Bernie can read it, but he wants his staff to

have the security clearance to do so, to.

The thing is, access is restricted....Bernie can go read it, but he can't make copies of it, and he can't have his staff in. That's pretty standard in Congress on many matters.

[WillyT]

17. And Why Is That ???

As we learned from John Conyers (Fahrenheit 9/11 )... Most politicians don't bother to read the very bills they are voting on...

They have their people do it, and then advise.

Why is this trade bill so special ???

Could it be... that if we all saw what was proposed in the draft... that we might object ???

And why would that be a bad thing?

[msanthrope]

18. It's pretty obvious, isn't it? This trade deal is a counterweight to China. You'd

expect high security to prevent hacking, espionage, corporate espionage, etc. Plus, since we are dealing with other countries, we would have to promise a high level of security, and expect the same from them. Finally, that's how negotiations work---take a look at union negotiations. Does every union member sit at the table?

Elizabeth Warren managed to read the TPP.

[WillyT]

20. This Is The United States Senate... And As Unimpressed As I Am With Most Of Them...

They are responsible for upholding and honoring the U.S. Constitution...

Something that apparently is at odds with the TPP...

Unless, of couse, this is part of that "New World Order" we've been warned of...

[msanthrope]

21. Indeed..and Bernie's campaign manager doesn't have the right or the security clearance to

view a multinational negotiation with other countries in the negotiation phase. Bernie Sanders.....elected by and responsible to the people, does. That is not only upholding the Constitution, it's just common sense. That is how democracy works....we ELECT people to do things for us that we cannot do for ourselves individually.

Do we need Ted Cruz's staffers mucking about with international trade deals? You really think that's a good idea?

[WillyT]

23. If The Trade Deal Subverts Democracy, And Trumps The U.S. Constitution... I Want EVERYONE To See It.

[msanthrope]

24. Well, if it did, don't you think Bernie Sanders would have said that in his letter? I mean, Willy,

I actually trust Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, and some other Senators and the President to do their fricken' jobs. We are going to see the TPP, just not on the FDL timetable.

Personally, I'm not so much interested on seeing it as I am interested on the ramifications on our relationship with China......the Chinese HATE this deal.

[Scootaloo]

27. And I trust 600 corporate representatives to do THEIR jobs

Which is to bust their asses at this table to try to break any regulations, dissolve any labor protections, restrict labor movement while liberating capital, disempowering government oversight of business, undermining environmental protections, etc.

There has never been a free trade agreement that benefits the poor and needy of the partner nations, msanthrope. The powerful partner gets a brief surge of capital, which quickly filters into the ruling class' bank accounts, and then nothing. These are agreements designed to extract wealth and transfer it to the top 1%

And since Barack, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha have their economic futures 100% guaranteed anyway, no, I'm afraid i don't 'trust" the president. He's not the Japanese farmer whose livelihood is going to be ruined by lack of protections against heavily-subsidized US and Australian products. he is not the american worker who will be losing their jobs to Chilean maquiladoras and Vietnamese sweatshops. he is not going to have to deal with the flattening of Malaysia's forests, though i'm sure he'll happily buy some of that exotic hardwood furniture for his new house once he's out of office. he is not the Bruneian protester whose head is smashed by corporate "security" who are literally above the law because of this trade agreement.

[blackspade]

33. So why do CEOs have clearance?

And who has access to copies?
CEOs? Their lawyers? Staff?
That is the issue. If Congressional members and their staff have no clearance to poor over huge documents and disect them, then how do they make informed votes?
The secrecy surrounding these agreements has no place in a supposedly open society.
Yes, our Reps vote for us, but that doesn't mean that we as voters give up our right to comment on the substance of bills before they become laws.

[msanthrope]

34. Who says CEOs have clearance? All Congressional members have clearance, but

their staffs do not.

It's possible some draft pieces were circulated to experts/CEO's for their input, but that's pretty standard---after all, if you want drug companies to participate and support a treaty, it's best to have them agree on language. Same think with intellectual property---you'd want certain lawyers to give their opinions.

Bernie Sanders can do what Elizabeth Warren apparently did--sit and read.

[blackspade]

36. And why are 'experts'/CEOs allowed to see pieces and not...

'experts' in the employ of Congress?
Shouldn't our representatives have access to expert opinion before they agree on language?
For that matter why shouldn't 'experts' outside the beltway have an opinion?

Why the secrecy?

[msanthrope]

38. Experts in the employ of Congress are allowed to see the agreement.

Why would you think the Committee wouldn't call an expert if they needed one?

Outside experts and CEOs have been asked to opine on impact and language--as you would with other legislation or treaties.

[blackspade]

42. You are all over the place on this.

I'll be clearer for you.

Why can experts on Sander's or Warren's staff not see the draft text?
You have stated that they don't have clearance...why not, especially when at least 500 CEOs and 'experts' have access?
If they are our representatives, why can they not have their own experts look at the language and advise?

[msanthrope]

43. No--I'm not all over the place on this. You seem to not understand that Sanders isn't on

Senate Finance.

This is why he has clearance to view, but not to share with his staff...just like other non-committee members.

This is how Congress works. Sanders and Warren are on HELP....do you think they would take kindly to Ted Cruz demanding that one of his staffers needs to view their stuff, and take notes?

You claim 500 CEOs have access, but can you source that?

[blackspade]

44. That is a better explaination, thank you.

But just saying that "This is how Congress works" and throwing Ted Cruz up as a strawman does not really answer my questions.
If you don't know the answers, that's fine, I'll move on.

To answer you question concisely re: 500 CEOs and 'experts':

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trade-deals-a-closely-held-secret-shared-by-more-than-500-advisers/2014/02/28/7daa65ec-9d99-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html

[msanthrope]

45. I assumed you knew Sanders wasn't on the committee overseeing this. Committees often

restrict access and knowledge to their members. In this case, it looks like Sanders can read the TPP drafts, but his staff isn't allowed to. And Senate Finance is perfectly capable of hiring an expert if they need one.

The point I made about HELP is that that is one of Sander's committees. How well would he take a non-committee member (ted Cruz) demanding to send an expert over? Not well, I imagine.

Oh--you are talking about the FAC. Sure. I'm good with the top tier--

The access isn’t exclusive to industry. The heads of the United Steelworkers, Teamsters, United Auto Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers unions sit with top corporate executives on the same presidentially appointed trade panel — the top “tier” of a an advisory system that includes around two-dozen committees.

[blackspade]

46. Further on there is this....

Still, the process has left a sour taste for many, including important Democratic lawmakers such as Rep. Sander M. Levin (Mich), who has said that there should be a broad public debate about trade and more oversight of the details of the TPP talks.

Panel members “get face time [with top officials] . . . You can see them in intimate meetings, and that has value for anyone,” said Durwood Zaelke, head of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development and a member of the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee.

“But there is a limit,” he said. “You do not sit and make policy for the U.S. trade representative, and you do not counterbalance the strong industry presence.

As an aside, as a writer, I hate these one sentence 'paragraphs.' It is a terrible writing style.

[Recursion]

29. No, "corporate CEOs" cannot see it. You should actually read the articles about the TPP

Corporate CEOs (actually, corporate lobbyists) have been asked how specific pieces of language (often, multiple different alternatives) would affect their industries.

[blackspade]

37. Not true. many CEOs have access.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trade-deals-a-closely-held-secret-shared-by-more-than-500-advisers/2014/02/28/7daa65ec-9d99-11e3-a050-dc3322a94fa7_story.html

[Recursion]

47. Yeah, you should read that article some time

those executives are among more than 500 people who are allowed to read and comment on the negotiating proposals that the United States presents

Which is what I said

[blackspade]

48. Then there was some miscommunication or ambiguity on your part.

No, "corporate CEOs" cannot see it

This was your statement. I responded with a citation showing that that was not true.

To be fair you did say this in the same post:

Corporate CEOs (actually, corporate lobbyists) have been asked how specific pieces of language (often, multiple different alternatives) would affect their industries.

Which directly contradicts your first statement.
And I did read the article.
It starts like this:

But a chosen few have been allowed to peek behind the curtain and share some of the most sensitive documents.

Who are they?

Richard Douglas, a vice president at General Electric, a company that has shifted extensive production overseas.

David Chavern, a vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a chief advocate of the free-trade agreements.

Again, to be fair, there are others as well:

The access isn’t exclusive to industry. The heads of the United Steelworkers, Teamsters, United Auto Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers unions sit with top corporate executives on the same presidentially appointed trade panel — the top “tier” of a an advisory system that includes around two-dozen committees.

But that does not contradict Oilwellian's initial statement:

So corporate CEOs can see it?

[WillyT]

4. Kick !!!

[elias49]

5. We didn't get to read the Patriot Act either.

At least not to my recollection.
That's how the most important things are done in Washington. No need to trouble the sheep..

[WillyT]

6. Great Point...

[L0oniX]

16. I believe congress was only given 24 hours to read it before voting on it.

[SomethingFishy]

39. Most Elected officials claimed that they didn't bother to read it because...

it was going to "Sunset" in 2 years. Now how many of them actually read it when it they voted to get rid of the sunset and reauthorize the PA?

I know of... exactly two, and this is what they had to say about it:

While unable to reveal specifically what they have learned, the two Senators have repeatedly said that the public would be shocked if it knew what information was being collected with the help of FISA and the Patriot Act.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/166865/patriot-act-you-dont-know-about#


I can't wait for them to vote on the TPP!

[liberal_at_heart]

9. K&R

For years we have voted Democratic even though we get treated like a unloved stepchild anytime we dare bring up issues that the Democratic Party ignores. Well that time is over. It is time to stand up for those losing food stamps. It is time to stand up for those whose unions are being destroyed. It is time to stand up for those whose pensions are being stolen. It is time to stand up for us and our brothers and sisters in this country. No more party loyalty. If a Democratic politician wants our votes, let them earn it. No more guaranteed votes.

[SomethingFishy]

41. Don't you love how you supposedly have no right to complain

unless you vote. Then you go out and phone bank, donate money, and vote, and then are told you can't complain because it hurts the party.

[hopemountain]

10. i wrote to my legislators

and asked them to support bernie in his efforts to stop the tpp based purely on the manner in which the american people have no knowledge and it seems - no say - on any part of the tpp when it will surely affect the world economies and that it is unjust to grant coroporations so much power.

how is it that we know some of what the tpp includes - or are those things made up to get us riled up?

how are we to know?

on this and solely this: stop the tpp.

[Scuba]

11. If only the Democratic Party had leaders like this.

[xchrom]

15. du rec.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe..

Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

[KoKo]

25. Recommend....

[Orsino]

26. If only there were a significant rift.

So far, damned few are demanding a course change.

[HereSince1628]

30. It's not a rift, it's a gap in purchasing power among 'supporters'

Consequently, it's not the fault of democratic politicians...but rather the fault of the lazy base which is obviously a bunch of skinflints who want something for NOTHING!

[great white snark]

31. No rift but it's undeniable that there's a vested interest to constantly promote one.

Some DUers have made a career of turning any disagreements into the death of the Democratic party but as your smilie indicates we are very much alive and kicking.

[WillyT]

32. I'll See Ya Later If Hillary Announces... Rift City Here...

[uponit7771]

35. +1, high majority of dems still like Hillary and Obama... like in the mid 80s or something...

... there are going to be edge cases in a lot of things

[NCTraveler]

40. There is and will always be a rift within parties of a two party system.

Always. I have never really seen denial of such. Although with hundreds of millions of people in a country someone believes just about anything.

Edit: I should have read the comments before posting. Seems there are more than I thought who don't see a rift. Some just define the rift in a different way. Some seem blind to the point they can't see their nose.