Obama’s deal with the devil: The dangerous treaty that has him teaming with the GOP

[marmar]

Obama’s deal with the devil: The dangerous treaty that has him teaming with the GOP
"Americans should be as proud of this agreement as Madrid should be of the Spanish flu," said one Democrat

DAVID DAYEN


(Salon) Trade deals have upended the typical dynamic in Washington, with Congressional Republicans and the White House aligning against members of the President’s own party. The White House wants so-called “fast track” authority to negotiate agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and get an expedited up-or-down vote with no amendments or filibusters. Democrats disapproving of prior trade deals like NAFTA don’t want to give up those Congressional powers.

To be honest, I hesitate to call these trade deals; TPP’s title doesn’t include the word. Critics believe they have far more to do with maximizing corporate profits – whether through ensuring higher prices for prescription drugs or aggressively enforcing intellectual property restrictions or allowing companies to sue governments over their sovereign laws — than facilitating the exchange of goods. But at least one dissenting Congressman thinks TPP also fails on its own terms, as a trade agreement.

The Obama Administration has tried to sell skeptical Democrats on TPP, not with economic arguments but national security ones. The theory is that a successful trade deal that lowers tariffs — taxes on imported goods, basically — and imposes higher standards on the 12 countries negotiating TPP will help America combat China’s rising influence, since that country is not part of the agreement. “If we do not help to shape the rules so that our businesses and our workers can compete in those markets,” President Obama said at a news conference on Friday, “then China will set up rules that advantage Chinese workers and Chinese businesses.”

But Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) claimed in a conference call last week that TPP would actually give China special privileges. “This is a great deal for China because of the ‘rules of origin’ provision,” Sherman said. “Goods can be 65 percent made in China, then they can ship them to Vietnam, slap a ‘Made in Vietnam’ label on it and get them into this country duty-free. But because China’s not party to the agreement, we can’t get our goods in [to China].” In other words, China would get the benefits of selling its goods without tariffs, while not having to open their markets to U.S. goods or abide by any other TPP rules.

That’s a very serious charge, one that would undermine the purpose of outflanking China, instead handing them trade preferences through the back door. And AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka made the same allegation yesterday. ................(more)

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/21/obamas_deal_with_the_devil_the_dangerous_treaty_that_has_him_teaming_with_the_gop/

[rhett o rick]

1. Serious question. Why would the President do this? nm

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. If the TPP is really as bad as we all seem to think, then I can only think of one explanation...

... Obama is one of the bad guys. He is an actor. A salesperson. His job is to come out and trick the population into accepting policies that benefit the wealthy elite at the expense of the 99%.

I'm not trying to be mean just that's the only explanation I can think of.

[pampango]

6. "Obama is one of the bad guys. He is an actor. A salesperson. His job is to come out and trick

the population ..."

That is certainly one real possibility. And one the majority of the republican base, which opposes the TPP and does not trust Obama, endorses. Closely tied to that theory would be the belief that his goal as president is to enrich himself and his family which is his motivation to be a 'bad guy', 'actor', 'salesperson', 'trickster', etc.

Up to now I had viewed Obama as sometimes wrong (IMHO), but not as inherently evil and corrupt. But I don't know him personally. He could be all those things.

Other than the 'bad guy' theory, the only other reasonable explanation is that he really believes that the 'free trade agreements' with Canada, Mexico, Australia, Chile, Singapore and Peru needed to be 'renegotiated' and the WTO rules applied to the other countries improved upon.

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. I don't think he can actually believe the TPP is going to be good for the people

There's so much evidence of the results of NAFTA, PNTR and WTO.

And I certainly don't think anyone is inherently "evil". More just like he is doing a job and getting paid. His job is to sell the people on shitty policies to keep us from revolting.

[pampango]

8. Sounds like a vote for "bad guy" just doing a job knowingly selling shitty policies to get paid.

That is, at least borderline, corrupt - "I'm just doing this job to get rich, not to do you regular people any favors." I suspect many here agree with you.

There's so much evidence of the results of NAFTA, PNTR and WTO.

Obama may well agree with you. If he liked NAFTA as is, there is not much reason to include Canada and Mexico in the TPP. Likewise with the other 4 countries (Australia, Chile, Peru and Singapore) in the TPP which we already have 'free trade agreements' with.

He may think that NAFTA (and the other existing agreements) and WTO rules (that now apply to the other TPP countries) will remain unchanged.

[Jim Lane]

10. I disagree. He could believe that.

The TPP will evidently have dozens of lengthy chapters, covering a host of major subjects (going well beyond tariff reduction). It would be pretty hard to do a deal of that complexity that didn't have at least some good and at least some bad. It's a question of weighing the two sides. Here, he sees the benefits as outweighing the costs.

I also don't think he's deliberately selling bad policies because he's getting paid to do so. If he has an ulterior motive, it's more likely to be that he, like all Presidents, wants to have an impact and leave a legacy. "Obama considered a proposal for a bad trade deal and rejected it" doesn't have much oomph. Heck, even Bush the Lesser probably rejected some bad ideas that Cheney or Rumsfeld came up with. "Obama signed a landmark trade deal that reshaped the commerce of 40% of the world's economy for a generation" is much more dramatic. That may well have a subconscious influence on his weighing of the pros and cons.

[n2doc]

4. Bill Clinton has made over 100 million in speaking fees since leaving office

Much of it from outside the US.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/28/are-the-clintons-in-the-top-1-of-the-top-1/

Why wouldn't Obama, who isn't particularly wealthy, want to follow that same route? Gotta keep those multinational corps happy.

[GoneFishin]

2. Yes. Why would the President do this to us?

[KoKo]

9. Recommend the whole read!