FT is NOT about "trusting President Obama". FT is NOT just about the TPP.

[Faryn Balyncd]

Recently we have been hearing questions along the line of "Why can't we trust President Obama" to negotiate a good deal with regard to the TPP? After all, we trust him to negotiate nuclear treaties"

Let's look at that question.



The Hatch Fast Track, Trade Promotion Authority, bill is neither about "Trusting President Obama", nor is it just about the TPP:


The Fast Track bill would allow WHOEVER is president for next 6 years to eliminate amendments on EVERY proposed "trade" agreement they choose to propose, and to do so through a process which markedly reduces the leverage Congress has by:

1. Eliminating Congress's ability to amend,

2. Eliminating Congress's ability to threaten filibuster if a satisfactory consensus cannot be reached,

3. While (1) and (2) weaken the ability of a Congressional minority to bargain, the ability of a future majority is also weakened by the requirement that a future proposed "trade" agreement cannot be removed from the Fast Track process without a SUPERMAJORITY.

4. And, by eliminating the possibility of amendment it facilitates the passage of bad or questionable chapters, by subjecting our representatives to the duress of not being able to vote down a bad or questionable provision except by defeating the entire agreement. (which is, after all, the entire point, to make it more politically difficult for Congress to impact the process.)



Weakening the power of Congress is particularly inappropriate given the evolving ability of "trade" agreements to be a vehicle for bypassing all manner of regulations by every level of government (including, but not limited to environmental, labor, intellectual property, health and safety, labeling and other federal, state, and local governmental entities) by means of the establishment of extra-judicial Investor-State-Dispute-Resolution tribunals which are essentially sovereign as their decisions cannot be appealed to any court, even the Supreme Court.




This is NOT just about the TPP (or the TTIP, or any other proposal currently under negotiation).

This is NOT just about trusting President Obama.

It is NOT even about "trade".



What it is about is dis-empowering Congress.

It is about establishing a method to bypass democratic regulation of corporate power.



Weakening the power of elected representatives to impact agreements that can overturn established federal, state, and local law in environmental, labor, intellectual property, health and safety, and overturn judicial appeal, all in one fell swoop, is not good policy in a democracy even with the best executive.

For Congress to surrender such power to, not only our current executive, but to whoever may happen to be president in the future, would not bode well for the future of democratic governance.

[notadmblnd]

1. I think that if it means giving up power, then congress will not pass it.

And that's what everyone wants, am I right?

[HereSince1628]

5. the oligarchs are salivating

I know because I can hear their saliva dripping on the floor.

[billhicks76]

32. Jeb Loves Obama

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7113264

[pocoloco]

44. I bet he likes Hillary also!

Jeb will be able to slide right in real smooth!

[billhicks76]

69. Yes. Sad But True

He loves them both for allowing NSA to spy on us all and because they protected his family.

[NanceGreggs]

76. OMG!!!

I am assuming you actually meant to be funny ...

[billhicks76]

111. No. I Know Reality

Jeb is praising Obama for NSA surveillance and war on terror. Jeb had privately visited Obama a few times in the White House too. I personally think (know) that the Bush family and our Democratic Leadership are very close and friendly. All the division is theater for the gullible and intended to manipulate the base. I recall when people like you laughed and scoffed when we said the Clintons and Bushes were friends in the 90s. What about the vast RW conspiracy we were told. Well it's correct...it does exist but not without the cooperation of some key Democratic players...ones who can cover up Republican crimes in order to "look forward". Of course they dropped the facade after 2001 and the Bush family has continually expressed their love for the Clintons and repeatedly called them honorary family members. This isn't just normal diplomatic niceties as some fools in our party suggest when they desperately try to defend these nauseating facts due to attachment to their leaders and an inability or laziness to redefine their belief systems. It's what makes me realize many within our own ranks are just a big a problem as crazy republicans. Spying on every Americans emails and cell phones is unacceptable and a integral part of a fascist or totalitarian state. It's not used for terrorism but mostly used to oppress people with the failed and unpopular drug war and it's rebranding. Other major uses are tight control and leverage to essentially blackmail politicians, journalists, judges, CEOs, generals, attorneys or any other important people that don't get in line with the military industrial complex corporate agenda. Keep laughing

[totodeinhere]

108. Of course he loves Obama. The Obama Administration decided not to indict his brother

for war crimes.

And that's one reason why I don't support Clinton for the nomination. I doubt if her administration would indict any Bush Administration officials either.

[billhicks76]

112. Bill Covered Up For Bush Sr

So all the snarky dimwits out there who supported that but hate Republican rule need only blame themselves as this ostrich head in the sand perspective is what enabled GW Bush to seize the White House back in 2000 and if you didn't think it was all mapped out and planned way ahead of time then your ignorance surely is your most effective trait.

[bvar22]

16. If it gives them more free time, less worries,

and someone else to blame...... What Congressman WON'T like it.

Since WW2, Congress has given up the A LOT of power. Especially oversight and the Power to Declare War. They really don't want to be bothered while raking in the cash.

[Volaris]

29. yep. The unitary executive isn't about our president or theirs,

It's about the abdication, by Congress, of its own Constitutional Authority, for the sake of Political Expiedency. And that's cowardly, no matter which side does it.

[deutsey]

90. "Unitary executive" is a fancy, ambiguous way for saying "king", imo

I think Sideshow Bob nailed it:

[notadmblnd]

39. I have to admit, you have a point.

[merrily]

84. Some members of Congress did sue over Libya but the court dismissed the lawsuit

because they offered no proof they were speaking for Congress. Therefore, they were suing only as ordinary citizens and therefore they had no standing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/kucinich-other-house-members-file-lawsuit-against-obama-on-libya-military-mission/2011/06/15/AGrzd6VH_blog.html

When it came to Syria, though, Boehner, Speaker of the House, wrote demanding answers and 140 members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, signed a letter to Obama. If the House had voted to sue Obama, that suit would have been a lot more interesting.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319127-55-house-members-say-obama-needs-approval-from-congress-in-syria-strikes

http://www.businessinsider.com/syria-boehner-obama-letter-conflict-chemical-weapons-2013-8


And some Democrats still think a couple of weeks of phone calls, calls that probably got made mostly because Rigell and others got a lot of publicity for the issue, were what changed Obama's mind about Syria. So adorable.

[merrily]

54. Very rich and powerful people are behind it. Congress will see their POV.

It usually does.

[Marr]

98. That's what the IWR was, and the same types jumped on it.

These are politicians. They want to advance their political careers, be insiders, and enrich themselves.

[cali]

2. Yep. I suppose it's fruitless to point out to those trusting souls that

in any case, FTAs are going to be similar under any President. It's kind of formulaic at this point.

[delrem]

41. "It's kind of formulaic at this point."

A bit like that pink "meat" that comes out of the processors, that they swear has only a few good kinds of chemical enhancements, so it doesn't stink too much, or crawl away on its own. But oh how those companies must wish that their processes could be made a national security secret, like Free Trade and the reasons for going to war.

It's kinda unfair to the abattoirs, isn't it?

[4now]

3. I will trust Obama

instead of a few people with an axe to grind spouting nonsense.

[Elwood P Dowd]

6. Then trust him right off the cliff just like workers did with Clinton and all his trade disasters.

Some people never learn.

[4now]

10. And some people will continue to spout nonsense

[Elwood P Dowd]

14. Millions of lost jobs, declining wages, & 8 trillion dollars in trade deficits the past 30 years

is what you call "nonsence"? The least you could do with your "nonsense" is spell it correctly.

[sulphurdunn]

20. And all of that

has taken place in the worlds largest economy and its wealthiest nation, not due to foreign economic competition, but to legislation designed to return the country to the Gilded Age. President Obama is aiding and abetting that return.

[BreakfastClub]

123. That is hyperbolic nonsense. And I spelled it correctly too.

[Skittles]

82. .....

[winter is coming]

7. "Trusting Obama" means also trusting the next President, who may not be a Dem. n/t

[cali]

13. You mean like the vast majority of congressional dems?

All the labor unions? the sierra club, nrdc, 350.org, and other major environmental groups? the dem parties of several states? the NY State AG? Nobel prize winning economists Krugman and Stiglitz? I could go on and on.

If you think that's just a few people with axes to grind, spouting nonsense, you're laboring under a delusion. It's not a few, and it's patently absurd (not to mention paranoid) to believe that they all have axes to grind against the President.

[4now]

15. "the vast majority of congressional dems?"

Is there a list of this "vast majority"
and I did not say that they had an axe to grind against the President.
You seem to see only what you want to see. Maybe that is how nonsense is spread?

[cali]

17. yes. the estimate is that only around 20 or so in the house support it

Boehner says he needs 50 dems to pass it

You are the one seeing what they want to see

[4now]

18. No list of this "vast majorty"?

I am wanting to see what you are claiming to be true but offer no proof.

[cali]

19. look, I'll give you links tomorrow

I'm curled up on the couch on my tiny tablet, so I'm done for the night, or you could just check it out yourself. It's hardly a secret

[4now]

22. No big deal. I just thought you might have a link

or something.

[QuestionAlways]

51. Please tell me what we get from this deal, that helps us

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers' proposals to sanction countries that deliberately weaken their currencies could derail a Pacific trade pact that is a key part of the Obama administration's pivot to Asia, the Treasury warned on Tuesday.

The Senate could vote on a Trade Promotion Authority bill to speed deals through Congress as early as next week, when Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe addresses a joint meeting of Congress.

Japan is a key partner in the 12-nation Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and supporters of a deal say that countries negotiating with Washington want to be sure that concessions they make will not unravel during ratification in Congress.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said consultations with other TPP countries showed they would never sign up to rules that risk constraining central banks, whose easy money policies to stimulate growth can help to weaken currencies.

"Seeking enforceable currency provisions would likely derail the conclusion of the TPP given the deep reservations held by our trading partners," Lew wrote in a letter to senior lawmakers.

[totodeinhere]

116. Our best chance to defeat this is a coalition of Tea Party Republicans and

progressive Democrats in the House. I don't like to have to form a coalition with the Tea Party types but if that's what it takes to defeat this then so be it.

[IDemo]

38. --

[QuestionAlways]

46. What he hell do we gain from the TPP, currencies can still be manipulated

which has been used in the pass to hurt us.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers' proposals to sanction countries that deliberately weaken their currencies could derail a Pacific trade pact that is a key part of the Obama administration's pivot to Asia, the Treasury warned on Tuesday.

The Senate could vote on a Trade Promotion Authority bill to speed deals through Congress as early as next week, when Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe addresses a joint meeting of Congress.

Japan is a key partner in the 12-nation Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and supporters of a deal say that countries negotiating with Washington want to be sure that concessions they make will not unravel during ratification in Congress.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said consultations with other TPP countries showed they would never sign up to rules that risk constraining central banks, whose easy money policies to stimulate growth can help to weaken currencies.

"Seeking enforceable currency provisions would likely derail the conclusion of the TPP given the deep reservations held by our trading partners," Lew wrote in a letter to senior lawmakers.

[merrily]

55. What axe to grind do you assume ordinary people have?

[arcane1]

62. How astute n/t

[sabrina 1]

67. Great, and once Congress hands over its power to negotiate Trade Agreements to Obama,

I hope you won't mind if that power passes along to the next Republican.

Did you know that Congress turned down Bush's attempt to do the exact same thing? Including Republicans who surely trusted THEIR guy as much as you trust Obama? But thankfully enough Republicans saw the incredible danger of stripping Congress of its power to put a check on another Branch of Government if it should try to do something that is harmful to this country.

In 2007 Bush tried this and was defeated. Now the Global Corps are trying to get a Democrat to do it.

Democrats on this and other Liberal forums were outraged that Congress should be asked to give up its powers.

Do you like our system of government btw, or do you prefer the one Global Corps have been working on, where neither the people NOR their Representatives have any power over what they do in THIS country?

'Just trust us'! Sorry, as Thomas Jefferson warned, the people should trust no politician 'not even us' meaning the founding fathers.

[KoKo]

115. ....!

[JDPriestly]

80. Do you have any reason for supporting Fast Track and the TPP besodes

the fact that Obama wants you to support them?

Thinking for yourself, is there any advantage in your opinion to our entering into the TPP and/or the TPIP?

If you think we should join those trade treaties, why? What advantage would it give us?

[DJ13]

4. Excellent points that I would hope is a concern even to Obama's most diehard fans

But I doubt they care since they believe Hillary will be the next President.

[SamKnause]

8. President Obama

was just on Chris Mathews, Hardball.

pushing the TPP.

He was accompanied by members of the

Chamber of Commerce.

He mentioned the trade deal he signed

with South Korea, but he neglected to

mention how many jobs have been lost

since he signed it in October, 2011.

Things are not turning out as predicted. Far from

supporting jobs, growing trade deficits have eliminated

75,000 jobs between 2011 and 2014.

The U.S. trade deficit with Korea increased 11.8 billion between

2011 and 2014.

Source: The Economic Policy Institute

Published March 30th, 2015.

http://www.epi.org/blog/u-s-korea-trade-deal-resulted-in-growing-trade-deficits-and-more-than-75000-lost-u-s-jobs/

Excellent article with graph.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that when we sign 'free trade' deals

American workers get the shaft and capital gets ever richer.

After all, we apparently all should know that it's better to be unemployed or underemployed and trying to survive buying ultra cheap and shoddy stuff made overseas, than to make decent wages and pay a bit more for quality American made products.

[jwirr]

42. I watched it. One thing that stood out for me was this "dig into it and find out for yourself." How

are we supposed to do that - he has not made it public.

He is insisting that none of the worries we have any reality. In fact he laughed about some of them. Right now Howard Dean said that the problem is that we do not know what is in the bill.

[SamKnause]

49. I watched as well.

Did you hear him mention the South Korean Trade Deal ???

I did.

Did you hear him mention how it did exactly the opposite

of what it was predicted to do ???

No, he didn't say a word about

the 75,000 lost jobs and the increase in the trade deficit.

His is lying about the TPP.

It really is that simple.

I am so sick of the lies and deceit.

[Hoyt]

81. That 75,000 is questionable math. It assumes a Korean car bought is a portion of an American job l

lost.

If the Korean car was not bought, a Japanese or German car might well have been.

A trade deficit does not necessary represent American jobs lost.

Besides, don't jobs for poor people in foreign countries matter to any of the greedy Americans? To most of the world, our poorest middle class workers, and some " lower" class, are still in the 1%.

[dreamnightwind]

101. It's the corporations who are greedy, not Americans

They want to pay their workforce third-world wages to make goods they sell into first-world price structures. That's gaming the system, and America workers can only compete on those terms if we also become a third-world nation.

If you really want to help those foreign workers, work towards having strong labor standards in any trade agreements, and even more importantly, work to develop unions in the third world. Our government does the exact opposite, we use military and paramilitary forces in those countries to prevent labor from unionizing.

[Hoyt]

102. What if it is an engineering construction company that takes US employees and goes overseas to build

a bridge, build hospitals, and the like? Those people earn good money and come back here and spend it on housing, cars, etc., that create more jobs here.

You act like everyone in this country is an unskilled, uneducated fool, with jobs that can be performed by another fool almost anywhere.

I have news for you, there are lots of skilled, educated people (if just by training, rather than formal education) whose job isn't transferable overseas who depend on trade for a good paying job.

We can figure out ways to help someone who will never earn over minimum wage and actually loses their job to Mexico or somewhere (Mexicans are darn glad to get that job).

What's amazing to me is all the people who complain about their jobs, low pay, etc., until they think they might lose it.

There are a lot of in-inefficiencies moving jobs overseas that impede corporations from doing so. Requiring other countries to improve their wages, environmental standards, etc. -- even if just a little bit -- provides additional disincentives.

[dreamnightwind]

103. Thanks for revealing where you are coming from

"There are a lot of in-inefficiencies moving jobs overseas that impede corporations from doing so. Requiring other countries to improve their wages, environmental standards, etc. -- even if just a little bit -- provides additional disincentives. "

It's amazing to me that you think that makes your point, shows you care about corporate efficiencies rather than workers.

And there is nothing efficient about offshoring, it's almost always done to do as I said earlier, sell goods in first world markets at first world prices while paying third world wages. We should be disincentivizing that, not supporting it.

[Hoyt]

104. Shows your thought process. I'm for creating additional disincentives, and the TPP does that.

[dreamnightwind]

106. I see, you think that's what this treaty is about

Good luck with that one. I don't think the TPP is being written by or for labor or environmentalists.

[Hoyt]

107. It is one aspect. The agreement covers a lot of ground. Are you really that obtuse?

[SamKnause]

52. He is very apt at laughing

at people.

The number one question on social media

time after time is the legalization of cannabis.

He loves to demean and laugh at people who

support legalization.

I guess he is A-OK with our destructive war against cannabis.

I guess he is A-OK with our prisons being filled with cannabis users.

I guess he is A-OK with families being ripped apart over a plant.

I guess he is A-OK with people having criminal records that deter

them from getting jobs or any government assistance for school,

housing, etc.

Damn I am so sick of it all.

[merrily]

65. Not to mention that the average TV viewer is not accustomed to reading treaties and desn't

have the time or energy anyway. Even if copies were being passed out on street corners.

No doubt the MSNBC types pointed out all those fallacies.




But, it sure does sound like an "open book" kind of thing to say, doesn't it?

[jwirr]

94. Chris Matthews was the moderator. Enough said. He did not ask much. Just made fun of the

progressives for questioning the plan.

[merrily]

121. Was Obama still making Matthews' leg tingle? Also, Matthews wife is running as a Dem.

Matthews should not even still have that job.

[merrily]

64. Remember when he did that with the public option?

[Enthusiast]

86. There is that bully pulpit!

Funny how it was never around when we needed it.

[SamKnause]

87. Exactly.

[Marr]

100. +1, it comes out for the important stuff.

That's how you know what this administration actually wants to accomplish, and what's just bullshit.

[nationalize the fed]

9. k/r Thomas Jefferson

didn't think any politician should be "trusted"

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights

He also said-

He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions.

[sabrina 1]

11. Thank you, I was just going to do this, so thanks for saving me the

trouble.

I am stunned to see this important issue reduced to 'trusting' those in power.

Just said more or less the same thing in that thread.

I don't think people realize that Fast Tracking means, CONGRESS RELINGUISHES ITS POWER to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

Nor do people seem to remember that DEMOCRATS REFUSED to give BUSH that power when HE tried to fast track a Trade Bill.

How easily we are willing to give up our rights, it scares me to death.

[stillwaiting]

47. In effect, passing fast track this time could be giving Bush that power.

It's just another Bush. Not that that's much different of course.

I am deeply troubled that so many here seem to want to simply trust Obama on this. They have to realize they will also be trusting his successor as well, and that just doesn't make sense.

The TPP is about so much more than trade issues.

[sabrina 1]

50. They may trust Obama, we all may do that, but he is not going to be President for life.

To even think of giving away one of the most important checks on the Executive Branch, is imo, unthinkable.

And that was the position of the Democrats in 2007 when Bush was trying to do the same.

[merrily]

58. I've been seeing that a lot lately.

Trusting Hillary and Obama.


More and more like a religion.

[SamKnause]

89. You are very welcome.

I really do not understand the sheep mentality.

Bush could not get fast track.

The Democratic party was staunchly against it.

Watch the Democratic president get fast track.

The Republican party is all for fast track.

The Chamber of Commerce is all for fast track.

The global corporations are all for fast track.

Wall Street is all for fast track.

Why can't people put 2 and 2 together ???

You are correct, it is very scary.

[tritsofme]

12. Obama cannot be a credible negotiator without TPA.

No one would sit across the table from him.

If Congress is able to edit a completed agreement at will, Obama's word at the negotiating table would be meaningless.

With TPA, Congress guarantees an up or down vote on the agreement that Obama submits. Congress is free to reject the deal, and it is back to the drawing board.

Congress agreeing to give an up or down vote to trade agreements negotiated by the president is not a threat to democracy, it is democracy.

This is the sort of paranoid ranting I expect to see on the other side.

[stillwaiting]

48. You fail to consider that the TPP only deals with trade issues in 5 of the 29 chapters.

There is MUCH, MUCH more to the TPP than just trade. It's a huge initiative, and it will have consequences on many different areas of our lives.

[QuestionAlways]

53. What does this agreement do for us?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers' proposals to sanction countries that deliberately weaken their currencies could derail a Pacific trade pact that is a key part of the Obama administration's pivot to Asia, the Treasury warned on Tuesday.

The Senate could vote on a Trade Promotion Authority bill to speed deals through Congress as early as next week, when Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe addresses a joint meeting of Congress.

Japan is a key partner in the 12-nation Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and supporters of a deal say that countries negotiating with Washington want to be sure that concessions they make will not unravel during ratification in Congress.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said consultations with other TPP countries showed they would never sign up to rules that risk constraining central banks, whose easy money policies to stimulate growth can help to weaken currencies.

"Seeking enforceable currency provisions would likely derail the conclusion of the TPP given the deep reservations held by our trading partners," Lew wrote in a letter to senior lawmakers.

[merrily]

59. Why worry about the Constitution?

[tritsofme]

71. There is no constitutional conflict with TPA.

[merrily]

73. Riiiiight.

[tritsofme]

75. Congress agrees to give the president an up or down vote.

What's the conflict?

[merrily]

77. The Constitution does not set it up that way.

TPP would also ovverride state and individual rights under the 9th and 10th amendments, but who cares about the bill of rights anymore, anyway?


The solicitousness on this board for the interests of the likes of Koch Industries, ALEC, the US Chamber of Congress, the Sultan of Brunei, et al, touching as it is, does not override the Constitution.

[tritsofme]

79. You don't explain why TPA causes conflict.

The Constitution doesn't define how Congress
must approach trade deals.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the authority the set its own rules, TPA is Congress agreeing statutorily to the rules under which it will consider trade agreements. There is absolutely no constitutional conflict.

I am not arguing the merits on TPP at this point, it is an agreement that is not yet complete. I am arguing that Obama should have the ability to submit the deal he negotiates for an up or down vote.

[sabrina 1]

97. Then you are okay with Congress playing no role in legislation that affects the people of this

country. Okay with Foreign Corporations writing our laws and then placing their finished product, which I'm sure is filled with goodies for ordinary working class people, before Congress, telling them 'you can't read this but just sign it and trust us'?

No Constitutional Conflict with removing Congress' role as part of our system of checks and balances?

Okay if you say so. Corps agree with you so I guess you have some support for that view.

[tritsofme]

109. You don't appear to understand what TPA is or how it works.

Not exactly surprising, mind you.

As I've stated numerous times in this thread, under TPA, Obama has the authority to negotiate an agreement and submit it to Congress. Congress then agrees to give the deal an up or down vote in a timely manner.

There is no constitutional issue, just hysterical arguments like in your post and the OP.

[sabrina 1]

110. I'll take the word of credible organizations and most of our best Democrats, who refused to give

Bush that same authority. YOU don't seem to understand that once they renege on their duty to negotiate trade deals, when it comes back to them, they CANNOT ADD AMENDMENTS for one thing. So, let's say there is a segment that undermines our Environmental Laws, or Net Neutrality (which there is btw, thank you Wikileaks) and the President, who has already told us how great this legislation is, signs it, returns it to Congress, WHAT CAN THEY DO to protect our Environment Laws from Foreign Corporations, or our Net Neutrality? NOTHING, because it will be done deal, because they 'trusted' the Executive Branch.

Thanks for your opinion, you're entitled to it.

Where did you stand on Bush's request to do exactly what Obama is asking for btw?

Did you make this argument on his behalf also? We shouldn't have been worried because 'Bush would then have to submit it to Congress. Congress would then agree to give it an up or down vote'.

Sure, nothing to worry about there. It failed, thankfully, so a whole lot of people disagreed with you then, and disagree with now.

[tritsofme]

113. Pretty simple, if it is bad deal with bad provisions, Congress should reject it.

Not being able to add amendments is a feature, not a bug of TPA. The deal that Obama submits gets an up or down vote. Take it or leave it.

Obama cannot be a credible negotiator without TPA. If Congress can overturn the fine points of a multi-party back and forth negotiation line by line, then Obama's word is meaningless, and his partners could not trust him or his commitments.

It is not practical to have 535 people at the negotiating table. But TPA gives Congress a voice by setting objectives for the USTR, and detailed status reports.

Again as I said, there are no constitutional issues with TPA, and you have brought up none. This is a policy disagreement.

I think regardless of the president, the deals that he negotiates deserve a timely up or down vote, and that's why I support TPA.

[Hoyt]

74. +1..

[Jim Lane]

85. You ignore the "fast" part of fast track.

The no-amendments rule you address is indeed one part of TPA, but, to me, it's not the most objectionable part. That would be the artificial time limits on Congressional action.

What is the necessity for railroading the thing through? Consideration of the ACA, for example, took longer than would be allowed for a trade deal if this bill passes.

What would be wrong with a no-amendments-and-no-filibusters rule that otherwise allowed the legislative process to take its normal course?

[tritsofme]

117. That artificial timeline is itself artificial.

The TPA provisions are not enforceable upon Congress. It is essentially a gentleman's agreement codified as statute, on how Congress will consider trade agreements. These sorts of deadlines are included in TPA to encourage a timely vote on the agreement.

The president cannot force the House or Senate to take a vote if they choose not to, even if TPA is in force.

I think it is reasonable to ask Congress to give an up or down vote in a timely manner.

[Jim Lane]

118. I believe you're incorrect about the effect of TPA.

It goes beyond a mere "gentleman's agreement" unless the Hatch-Wyden-Ryan version is markedly different from its predecessors. For example, here's one statutory provision under former fast track. Note, for example, 19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2), about procedure once the House sends the bill to the Senate:

An implementing revenue bill or resolution received from the House shall be referred to the appropriate committee or committees of the Senate. If such committee or committees have not reported such bill or resolution at the close of the 15th day after its receipt by the Senate (or, if later, before the close of the 45th day after the corresponding implementing revenue bill or resolution was introduced in the Senate), such committee or committees shall be automatically discharged from further consideration of such bill or resolution and it shall be placed on the calendar. A vote on final passage of such bill or resolution shall be taken in the Senate on or before the close of the 15th day after such bill or resolution is reported by the committee or committees of the Senate to which it was referred, or after such committee or committees have been discharged from further consideration of such bill or resolution.

Thus, committee consideration is automatically ended after 15 days, regardless of how anyone on the committee feels about that. The vote in the full Senate "shall be taken on or before the close of the 15th day" thereafter. The language is mandatory. As long as there was at least one Senator who wanted the rule enforced -- as there surely would be -- I don't see how it could be evaded.

You write, "I think it is reasonable to ask Congress to give an up or down vote in a timely manner." That begs the question of whether the TPA's schedule constitutes "a timely manner" or "unreasonably and unnecessarily rushed". I see no reason why, on this subject as opposed to all others, there must be any artificial time frame imposed in advance, let alone one so short. We know that the TPA will long and complex, requiring much more analysis than the typical bill.

[tritsofme]

119. Who would enforce the timeline? The Sargent in Arms?

I understand that the language in the provisions is written as to be mandatory, but as a matter of Constitutional law it is not enforceable.

Congress misses or ignores statutory deadlines all the time, for instance they make an annual exercise of failing to pass a budget resolution by the statutory deadline if at all. We've all been through their government shutdowns and threats of worse.

Another possibility I suppose is that if a new majority hostile to TPA came to power but lacked the votes to scrap it completely, might more formally invoke a "nuclear option" of sorts, as each house of Congress has the absolute authority to set the rules of its own proceedings.

Now obviously Congress grants TPA in good faith and is unlikely to renege in that fashion, it would be much easier for such a majority to vote no.

I don't have a strong opinion on the deadlines in Hatch-Wyden, but if more congressional Democrats engage on TPA instead of reflexively oppose, a longer review period definitely sounds like a reasonable concession for the administration to make.

[Jim Lane]

120. There's an official Parliamentarian who makes rulings.

The automatic discharge from committee wouldn't even require a ruling because it's automatic.

On the 15th day, if even one Senator wants a vote and demands it, I think the Parliamentarian (if being remotely honest) would rule that it was required, and the Senate would then have to vote in favor of an appeal from the Parliamentarian's ruling. Because that appeal would be ridiculous, even the deadline on the full Senate vote would have more impact than a mere gentleman's agreement.

You're correct that Congress usually misses the budget deadline. The difference is that there's no ready enforcement mechanism. The current situation is typical, in that each chamber passed a budget resolution, but they were different, so they had to be reconciled. By the deadline (April 15), they hadn't been reconciled. For that situation, your question is apt -- what can anyone do? There's no bill to vote on.

For a trade deal under TPA, the situation is different. There's no issue of reconciliation because the deal can't be amended. It's comparatively easy to comply with the deadline: You take the unamended bill as submitted by the President and put it up for a vote, yes or no.

Hatch-Wyden-Ryan did involve some concession by the administration. Was it "a reasonable concession"? This reflects the practice, honed by Congressional Republicans, of taking the extreme position, and then agreeing to some modification to look reasonable. The fundamental question is whether there should be ANY fixed deadline on Congressional consideration of the bill. With the budget, the deadline is at least part of an overall budgeting scheme, with specific appropriations acts following the overall budget resolution. The appropriations acts need to be done in time for the fiscal year. With a trade deal, there's no particular deadline, hence no reason for the unusual practice of curtailing the process. That the compromise means that the unjustified curtailment is slightly less restrictive than what Obama wanted doesn't make it a reasonable deal.

[tritsofme]

125. From a general process standpoint, I agree with you. However the ruling from the parlementarian is

not binding, and is not enforceable should a determined majority set out to thwart that ruling.

I may have been a bit light by reducing TPA to a gentleman's agreement, but as the provisions cannot literally be enforced upon Congress, it relies solely on Congress acting in good faith and carrying out its side of the agreement.

The general principle here is that the current Congress cannot bind future Congresses, even or especially by statute. In fact statutory rules can be unilaterally abrogated by either house of Congress at any time, as under the Constitution that body is the sole determiner of the rules of its proceedings.

A future Congress cannot be stripped by statute of its Constitutional authority to set its own rules.

[cstanleytech]

21. Would SCOTUS even allow it? After all they did strike the Line Item Veto Act back in 1998

so wouldnt they step in over this as well because it takes some of the power that the constitution grants congress away?

[tritsofme]

23. There are no constitutional issues with TPA, this is just a paranoid rant.

Prior to its last expiration in 2007, TPA was the law of the land for some 24 of the previous 32 years.

[cstanleytech]

25. So it was the law of the land that the president didnt have to get approval from congress

until after 2007 for trade agreements and other things involved in trade with foreign nations? Wow, here I thought they had to approve such things.

[tritsofme]

28. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about right now.

TPA does not allow the president to bypass Congress.

TPA allows the president to negotiate a deal and send it to Congress, then Congress agrees to give the agreement an up or down vote in a timely manner. As I said, it is not a new concept, and there are no constitutional issues..

[cstanleytech]

31. I apologize if I misread it then as I thought it was an attempt to take some of the power

away from congress from being involved in having a say with regards to setting up trade agreements.

[QuestionAlways]

56. Limited Debate, No Amendments, only a yes or no vote with no input

what could go wrong with that

[tritsofme]

72. If it is a bad deal, they can say no.

[daleanime]

30. And how good have those 32 years been....

to the working and middle class?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. Pretty damn godawful. nt

[merrily]

60. A Republican Congress and a Republican SCOTUS are going to fight the rich and powerful?

Relying on that doesn't seem like a good plan.

[ibewlu606]

24. k

Wow, just wow! I can't get over how some people still think Bushama is a real Democrat. And I used to think Teabaggers were dumbasses.

[tritsofme]

26. Come back soon...it's so nice when you leave!

Your time with us will be short.

[woo me with science]

27. To the Greatest Page. Re: "Trust" and politicians:

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 10:15 PM - Edit history (7)

Thank you for this important OP.

Mouthpieces of corporate candidates are always exhorting us to "trust," and the frequent follow-up to that is an insinuation that you are somehow being mean or unfair if you *don't* trust...a bizarre and disturbing attitude to take toward politicians who enact policy that affects millions of human lives.

It's the same general attitude we see in the constant stream of OP's by corporate posters suggesting that people "hate" Hillary or are being mean "if [they] can't say anything nice about her."

We are witnessing a disturbing dismantling of our democratic processes in this nation. Parallel with that removal of the processes that give citizens power and reason to participate in elections, we are witnessing steady, systematic efforts by corporate politicians to detach political loyalty from policies and principles and to turn elections into a team sport or personality contest, instead.

It is impossible to carry out the corporate agenda of increasing the power and profit of the One Percent at the expense of the 99 percent, if citizens retain an awareness of the purpose of political discourse and criticism in a democracy....if they retain the expectation that elections are about policy direction, and that politicians need to be pressured to represent their interests and earn their votes.

Thus, we get a deliberate shift in rhetoric by corporatists *away* from civic discourse/discussion of policy and *toward* the social and personal, accompanied by bullying to conform to the new rules. When we try to engage in the civic responsibility of criticizing our politicians' records and policies, we are treated as though we are criticizing someone at a *social* event. We are told that if we can't say something nice, we shouldn't say anything at all, or that we are "haters." Absurd, outrageous expectations like not being "mean" to the candidate by disagreeing with her publicly, or "trusting" her because that's the nice thing to do.

We are being propagandized and taught how citizens are expected to behave in a fake democracy, in which elections are for show and political discourse is merely social. Yes, we are witnessing the systematic dismantling of democratic processes that are fundamental to representative government. No, we should not "trust" politicians, and the hectoring to do so is a symptom of the perversion of our political landscape that corporatists *need* in order to complete the transformation of America from a representative system into oligarchy.

Thank you for this OP.

[QuestionAlways]

61. I hate the TPA, and the TPP, but I love Hillary, they are not one and the same

[KoKo]

91. Well stated...Thank You!

[WillyT]

34. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Overseas]

35. K&R. I agree. I don't want any of the Fast Trade. Corporations already have too much power.

We need more regulations and respect for other countries' decisions regarding what they will allow in their countries.

We don't need to speed things up by all this Free Trade. It has not been Free so far. It has been very expensive for the majority of us.

We need to slow down international trade and focus on rebuilding manufacturing here at home.

[GeorgeGist]

37. Free trade, my ass.

90% of Obama's economic recovery has gone to the rich. TPP will be no different.

[blkmusclmachine]

40. Obama's history shows he cannot be trusted to do the right thing without being severely pushed by us

[raindaddy]

43. MSNBC just delivered an infomercial for the TPP

Would've been interesting instead of a panel of the president and his TPP supporters and Mathews cheerleading,if they actually had some of the Democrats who've read the agreement to confront Obama with specifics...

One basic question, amongst all of the corporate lobbyists who created a wish list for global corporations, who represented the interests of the poor and middle class?

[myrna minx]

57. Lawrence O'Donnell had a pro-TPP propaganda segment.

There was no information, but an appeal to emotion by Richard Wolf - "Labor never wants any trade deals!" (Anti-labor code talk) And Howard Dean doesn't regret NAFTA because it he thinks it "empowered Mexican women" and everyone is nodding along with Frum. OMG.

[raindaddy]

68. Obama's taking care of us, everything he's done has been for the middle class.

The Republicans, 3rd Way Dems and Obama understand why some Democrats might be a bit suspicious. After all, corporations profits are through the roof while the middle class is eroding away.. And while the President can't guarantee the TPP will translate into more jobs and higher wages, he's got our best interest at heart.

So why didn't we see this same kind of concentrated effort when it came to ending the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-rich? Or against cutting Social Security. Or negotiating with the drug companies to get lower prices for seniors?

[myrna minx]

70. Normally I refute "third" way BS with links and footnotes, but after the Chris Matthews interview

all I have is my Democratic Farmer Labor background or DFL Minneapolis answer to the national third way "Dem" party:

[merrily]

63. MSNBC is establishment. That's what MSNBC told Cenk when the Obama WH complained

about getting criticized by Cenk.

[KoKo]

114. ....!

[Oilwellian]

45. K&R n/t

[840high]

66. Lesson learned - I do not trust

or love politicians.

[Duppers]

78. K & R

[merrily]

83. Politics is not supposed to be about faith in a charismatic leader. That would be religion.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

88. Wish I could have rec'd a hundred times!

Thanks.

[KoKo]

92. .....! Recommend for exposure and for most of the infomative, intelligent comments.

[TBF]

93. Democracy? What an amazing concept -

we ought to try that sometime.

[raouldukelives]

95. K&R

Standing on the cusp of so many environmental tipping points the last thing corporations want is resistance from free, fair & open democracy.

[MisterP]

96. reminds me of how in CA a lot of county measures fail because they only got 66.2% of the vote

[Marr]

99. Bet you $5 there are 'with FT authority' and 'without FT authority' versions of this deal. /nt

[treestar]

105. It sounds like a completely separate question

And there is no way to disempower Congress. It can propose whatever legislation it wants. It can reject the treaty over one part it does not like.

[DCBob]

122. When congress is full of a bunch of RW loons then..

yes, its a good idea to bypass them where ever possible.

[davidpdx]

124. Very good point

If something really fucked up were to happen like a Republican getting elected in 2016, then he or she would end up being the one to negotiate the terms. I know people are going to say "oh that won't happen", but it is possible. Do we want to risk losing all control over the way it is negotiated. Hell no!