Obama and the TPP: Poll #1

[MannyGoldstein]

Has President Obama ever publicly fought for anything as hard as he's fighting for the TPP?

25 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	He's fighting, in public, harder than he has for anything else
	22 (88%)
	Nah, he's fought just as hard for other things
	2 (8%)
	Manny, I find it very telling that you wrote _____ in conjunction with ______. Better Believe It!
	0 (0%)
	Other(please specify below)
	1 (4%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hrmjustin]

1. He fought for health care harder.

[Rex]

2. That is the one.

[ibegurpard]

3. slight revision

He fought for mandatory private insurance coverage as hard or harder.
an option for anyone to enroll in Medicare or something similar was tossed aside.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. My recollection is that most of that was behind the scenes deals

with Pharma, hospitals, docs, etc.

[hrmjustin]

5. He fought very hard for it in public.

[cui bono]

19. Not really. He didn't even bring up single-payer and he tossed the public option aside.

Shut out the left and had secret back room meetings with insurance companies. He went for a conservative health care plan from the Heritage Foundation rather than fight for the public option, let alone single payer. He barely called out Republican lies about the ACA and offered them way too much from the beginning. Just as he always does in his 'negotiations' with the GOP. He has shown more disdain for liberals than he ever has for the GOP.

The only other thing he fought for harder than TPP was his bid for the presidency.

[joshcryer]

23. He didn't campaign on single payer.

But Baucus later admitted by not having single payer at the table it made the compromises too great. If single payer was on the table then they could've compromised to Obama's original position (public option).

[cui bono]

25. Agree.

You are supposed to ask for more than what you want in negotiations. Unfortunately, Obama always gave up stuff before he started.

I like Bill Maher's approach in one of his New Rules segments where he said if Republicans are going to go extreme then the left has to as well, so we should demand drive through abortions at McDonalds. lol. I found the clip once... don't know if I can find it again, looking for my post that had it now... will edit if I find it.

[joshcryer]

29. The talks were protested several times.

And Baucus had the doctors / nurses who brought up single payer arrested. If he was a smart man (and he admits he made a mistake) he could've channeled it perfectly.

"I think these doctors and nurses should not have had to come here clandestinely with their position, and I think we should be open to hearing their position."

Pow. Now big pharma and the health industry is shaking in their boots.

It'll be telling the memos Obama sent to the committee, whether he just ignored it, acknowledged it, or didn't want to rock the boat or what. My guess is the most latter thing there (don't rock the boat), and that's why Baucus was vexed over the public option. He publicly wanted it but knew it wasn't happening.

Lost opportunity.

[PDittie]

34. Precisely.

And thanks for not letting that slip down the memory hole. I remember hearing him say "Keep workin' on it," in regards to the fight they were having in the House and Senate. That he WAS NOT fighting for it hard enough is exactly where he lost me.

[magical thyme]

55. I admit this fight may *seem* harder than his health insurance fight

because he was fighting against the GOP for health insurance.

This time the GOP is on his side and against the rest of us.

[SMC22307]

6. He wheeled and dealed for mandated corporate health insurance.

Behind closed doors and on the golf course... the Washington way. He let his surrogates get beaten up at townhalls... Dean and Jim Moran come to mind. Hope and change, ba-by.

[pa28]

11. Like how he tirelessly lobbied Joe Liberman on the one vote needed for a public option?

Lieberman: Obama Never Pressed Me On Public Option

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/lieberman-obama-never-pre_n_399355.html

[hrmjustin]

12. You believe lieberman? i don't!

[pa28]

14. How about the New York Times then?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=2

Obama cut a deal to kill the public option.

[hrmjustin]

15. Don't trust them either but you made your point.

[Jim Lane]

21. So is there some evidence to the contrary?

Did Obama or any of his aides ever claim to have mounted a full-court press to get Lieberman to go along? Did they have meetings with him? Did they mobilize the OFA list for Connecticut to try to generate constituent pressure?

If Obama says "I was calling him every day" and Lieberman says "He never called me," then you may ask if people believe Lieberman. If there's no statement disputing Lieberman's account, however, then, yes, I'm inclined to believe him.

[Scuba]

36. Not just Lieberman, but any Senator who wasn't already on board???

[Jim Lane]

50. Good point. Did he tell Blanche Lincoln he had his eye on the primary?

"So, Blanche, word is that Bill Halter, who's already won a statewide election for Lieutenant Governor, will challenge you in the primary. I'll be happy to endorse you over him ... if you show me now that you can be a progressive, too."

[BrotherIvan]

16. ^^^^^^^That right there^^^^^^^^^^

I can't believe the Lieberman trope still gets trotted around here. It needs to be put out to pasture like the Nader crap. Cheesus people.

[pa28]

18. Yes, thank you. I keep hearing we don't have a public option because Lieberman.

Facts say otherwise.

[joshcryer]

22. I disagree.

He let Max Baucus do all the deal making and Baucus failed to get the one thing that would've pushed the ACA into completely new territory. Baucus as a choice, notably, was bad, because of his connections with big pharma / health industry. In the end they didn't have the votes, and it's arguable whether or not Obama could've managed to get those votes to happen by being as vocal as he is on TPP.

[Scootaloo]

27. Not against his own party, though

Seriously that's what's raising my eyebrow about this. Democrats in congress are bracing their heels and he's trying to shove past them. It's... disconcerting.

[cali]

37. not even close. Here:

I've been looking to see if he invested as much and worked as hard on healthcare reform as I've heard folks claim. indeed people have claimed he worked harder on healthcare reform than the tpp. I can find no indication that those claims are true. It appears that the tpa (which will last for years after he leaves the WH) and the tpp are more important agenda items than ANYTHING else has been during his presidency. Why do I think that is? My best guess is that he's become so invested in the tpp, he can't see the forest for the trees- and part of that has to do with his caring about his legacy. Unlike a lot of folks, I don't think he's doing this for some future pay day. That pay day is coming regardless, as it does for all ex-presidents. I think what he's doing takes an enormous amount of hubris and believing that only he and the people in the amen chorus know what's best, but hubris is hardly an unusual personality trait in a President.

As far as I can see, the President didn't put anywhere near the effort into healthcare reform that he's put into this. I can find no evidence that he set up a war room prior to the vote- though he did set up one after it to deal with Healthcare.gov. That "war room" was in Maryland.

http://www.benefitspro.com/2013/11/01/healthcaregov-war-room-exposed-problems
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/75077/how-they-did-it

The WH war room for the blessed TPP that us ignorant people are just too stupid to fall in line and praise our President for, is in the Eisenhower Building- right next door to the WH- and yeah, location indicates quite a bit.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/05/11/business/economy-business/dinner-data-part-obamas-courting-democrats-trade-authority-tpp/#.VVB67fBChOx

The President is cajoling and promising and threatening- in other words using both his bully pulpit and the power inherent in being President to get members of his own party (particularly in the House) on board. He is making far more effort in this area than he did with republicans.

The President is using his megaphone to excoriate opponents and, well, not being truthful. In one breath, it's that his opponents are politicians with hidden agendas, in another it's that they're ignorant. He says that lawmakers have access to the tpp drafts but then says they don't know the first thing about it.

He's been nasty, petty and demonstrated his contempt for liberals and progressives in a way he NEVER has regarding republicans. Not in the healthcare reform fight or anything else throughout the six years of his Presidency.

I've seen far too many folks saying I trust the President 100%. He knows what's best. To me, that's simply abandoning your obligation to do your due diligence. It's the politics of adoration, of personality, rather than the politics of policy. And it can be dangerous. history is replete with examples.

He'll win this battle. He'll get his legacy on this. winners write history, and NAFTA hasn't really damaged Bill Clinton.

We will pay for it. We will pay for it with ballooning trade deficits, an unknown number of job losses, big corporate gains, further weakening of unions, less access to generic drugs, unknown damage to food safety, unknown damage to the environment, particularly to the ocean, and increased corporate power and reach. Apologies to those supporting this agreement but yeah, the strong probability is that all these will happen. You may want to deny that the past is an accurate indicator of the future in matters like this, but that's just untrue, and we know some specifics such as extending patents for drugs through the odious practice of greening which makes it impossible for generics of those drugs to be produced.

[GoneFishin]

56. You are correct. If he had fought this hard for any progressive idea I would have been proud of him.

The best we ever got was a consolation talk along the lines of "geez people, if there was any way I could pull it off I would, but it is just not in the cards". Meanwhile, the corporate giveaways were doled out generously.

[Hoyt]

7. He's never had so many Democrats misrepresenting the facts.

Folks like Warren and Sanders need to do some research on the TPP, or quit playing politics for their own gain.

[cui bono]

20. For their own gain? You are delusional if you believe that about them.

They are the two biggest fighters for the American people right now. Period.

[Art_from_Ark]

46. Absolutely-- Warren and Sanders (and Brown) in the Senate

and Grayson in the House, are the biggest fighters for the average citizen.

[JDPriestly]

30. Actually, Warren and Sanders are abssolutely right on the TPP.

May I ask what your personal experience with trade agreements is? You don't have to answer if you are a lawyer or in some other capacity associated with corporations that want the TPP.

What in your personal experience makes you like it so much?

I can tell you that based on the criteria I presented to you, I don't have to answer why I do not want the TPP.

[Hoyt]

32. I simply believe it will he good for our future, not to mention other parts of the world.

I believe it will create more jobs here in the long-run, and help the world in ways not directly related to trade.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised at how many people don't care about the long-term, or world outside our borders.

[BillZBubb]

53. How has NAFTA worked "long term"?

It has been a disaster on so many levels, yet you want to buy the same truckload of baloney on TPP.

[Art_from_Ark]

47. You claim that Democrats like Warren and Sanders are "misrepresenting the facts"

and yet you yourself claim to know little about this and are relying on faith that TPP will be beneficial to the average citizen.

[Puzzledtraveller]

8. Other things? Usually he sent someone else out to fight for those.

He's been out front on this, in person, that's what really sets the TPP push apart from those "other things".

[pa28]

9. I'd say he's discovered the bully pulpit in his fight for TPP fast track.

Quite a shift from his promise to only sign a healthcare bill that contained a public option.

All he needed was Joe Lieberman's vote and he didn't even bother to pick up the phone and ask.

[Recursion]

10. I don't see him particularly "fighting" for TPP like he did for ACA

He's aware he has the votes he just gets irritated at alarmists in his own party.

You may confuse "speaking with emotion on TV" with "fighting", which is a common confusion on DU.

[joshcryer]

24. That's a fair portrayal.

But I do think that the emotional pleas go a long way with non-political junkies and the people at large.

The real fights are in private memos we won't get to read until he's out of office and he builds his Presidential Library in Chicago. Odds are people will be amazed to see how much of a fighter Obama really has been in the political landscape (as opposed to the public one, which a bipartisan President doesn't tend to do).

As far as publicly stating the position, I think Obama's actions on TPP are unprecedented in his Presidential career. He believes in the process, and he may be mistaken, history will decide.

[cali]

38. you think it's fair to call people who oppose the tpp "alarmists"?

and Recursion didn't say some are alarmists. He used a broad brush. And one thing is indisputable: The history of our ftas doesn't bode well for the tpp. and history counts a lot on matters like these.

[joshcryer]

41. It's fair to say he's not fighting.

As far as alarmist? I'm not sure I'd go that far. But I do see a lot of red herrings and demagoguery. As is the nature of politicians.

[JDPriestly]

31. "alarmists"? Do you have any experience with, say, the NAFTA trade courts?

[Recursion]

33. The ones AFL-CIO keep winning against foreign governments in?

Yeah. They're too slow, but labor has had a good record suing in them.

[joshcryer]

35. This dispute resolution thing is such a red herring.

It's really disappointing that so many people are focused on it. The US wins every single case. Hasn't lost a single one.

[cali]

39. not really. do some research. You do know that the ISDS process doesn't just apply to

the U.S., right? And you understand that the tpp opens the doors to many more corporations to employ that process here in the U.S., right? And you know that it's been used to drag things out interminably, right?

No, sorry. You aren't well informed on this.

[joshcryer]

40. Name one single ISDS case the US has lost.

One.

I've set the bar so low you can disprove my statement with one source, cali.

"Not really" doesn't pass muster.

You seem to think you have a case, I am awaiting a link to a single one.

[cali]

44. One more time. I didn't claim any such thing- though there have been some

troubling precedents set here in the U.S.:

Loewen Group (Funeral home conglomerate)

When a Mississippi state court jury ruled against the Loewen Group, a Canadian funeral home conglomerate, in a private contract dispute, Loewen launched an ISDS claim against the U.S. government under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In the underlying U.S. court ruling challenged by Loewen, a Mississippi jury determined that Loewen had engaged in anti-competitive and predatory business practices that “clearly violated every contract it ever had” with a local Mississippi funeral home. After Loewen rejected an offer to settle the case, the company was hit with a jury damages award requiring it to pay the local funeral home $500 million. Loewen sought to appeal. Under both U.S. federal and Mississippi state court procedures, a bond must be posted as part of the appeal process to ensure that a losing party does not seek to move its assets to avoid paying on the initial ruling. This procedural rule, as well as the uncertainties related to jury damage awards, pertains to domestic and foreign firms alike. After a failed bid to lower the bond, Loewen reached a settlement for approximately $85 million.76 But then Loewen launched a NAFTA case for $725 million, claiming that the requirement to post bond and the jury trial system violated the company’s investor rights under NAFTA. The tribunal explicitly ruled that court decisions, rules and procedures were government “measures” subject to challenge and review under the ISDS regime. The ruling made clear that foreign corporations that lose tort cases in the United States can ask ISDS tribunals to second-guess the domestic decisions and to shift the cost of their court damages to U.S. taxpayers. [p. 11]


Do you believe that what happens in other countries due to the ISDS process is irrelevant to this discussion?

. S.D. Myers (Trash company)

When Canada imposed a temporary ban on the export of a hazardous waste called polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), considered by the U.S. EPA to be toxic to humans and the environment, U.S. waste treatment company S.D. Myers launched a case under NAFTA that resulted in an ISDS tribunal ordering Canada to pay the company almost $6 million. [p. 15]

. Insurance Bureau of Canada (Insurance cartel)

When an all-party committee of the provincial government of New Brunswick, Canada recommended that the province develop its own public auto insurance program, the private insurance industry used the threat of a NAFTA investor-state case to successfully lobby against the program. In response to public outcry over skyrocketing auto insurance premiums, the New Brunswick committee recommended a public plan that would achieve average premium reductions of approximately 20 percent. The Insurance Bureau of Canada, representing Canada’s largest insurers, immediately warned that the proposal could trigger NAFTA investor-state cases from foreign insurance providers in Canada as a NAFTA-prohibited “expropriation” of their market share. The proposal was soon scuttled, due in part, according to observers, to “aggressive threats of treaty litigation.”

Renco (Smelter)

When the Peruvian government denied a request from the U.S.-based Renco Group for a third extension of its deadline to comply with its contractual commitment to remediate environmental and health problems caused by its toxic metal smelting operation, Renco launched an $800 million ISDS case against the government under the U.S.-Peru FTA. After having already granted two extensions to the company, the government ordered the plant closed, pending compliance. Even though the smelter is now shut down because of bankruptcy, the mere filing of the ISDS case assisted Renco in its efforts to evade cases brought in U.S. courts against the firm on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured by the smelter’s emissions.

[T]he ISDS tribunal in the previously mentioned Occidental v. Ecuador case, brought under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT, ordered Ecuador’s government to pay $2.3 billion to the U.S. oil corporation – one of the largest-ever investor-state awards. The penalty imposed by the tribunal on Ecuador’s taxpayers was equivalent to the amount Ecuador spends on healthcare each year for over seven million Ecuadorians – almost half the population. The tribunal decided on the massive penalty after acknowledging that Occidental had broken the law, that the response of the Ecuadorian government (forfeiture of the firm’s investment) was lawful, and that Occidental indeed should have expected that response. But the tribunal then concocted a new obligation for the government (one not specified by the BIT itself) to respond proportionally to Occidental’s legal breach and, upon deeming themselves the arbiters of proportionality, determined that Ecuador had violated the novel investor-state obligation.

To calculate damages, the tribunal majority estimated the amount of future profits that Occidental would have received from full exploitation of the oil reserves it had forfeited due to its legal breach, including profits from not-yet-discovered reserves. The tribunal majority then substantially increased the penalty imposed on Ecuador by ordering the government to pay compound interest. It has become increasingly common for investor-state tribunals to order governments to pay compound rather than simple interest, often requiring that the interest be retroactively compounded from the moment of the challenged action or policy to the date of the tribunal’s decision, and prospectively until the date of payment.136 In the Occidental v. Ecuador case, these interest requirements alone cost the Ecuadorian government more than $500 million.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/10/public-citizen-top-ten-pernicious-investor-state-dispute-settlement-lawsuits.html

Do you think all of these cases are irrelevant? I want to point out a couple of things: Brazil will not sign a trade agreement with the ISDS in place. Never have. They also haven't suffered for that position and have plenty of foreign trade. Why is the ISDS important to have in place in countries with sound judicial systems?

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/28/8124057/investor-state-dispute-settlement-elizabeth-warren


Justice Denied: Dispute Settlement in
Latin America's Trade and
Investment Agreements
Michael Mortimore



https://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/DP27Mortimore_StanleyOct09.pdf

[joshcryer]

45. I don't see a problem.

[cali]

48. and... we are done. One liners.

I find that makes it impossible to hold a discussion.

one liners which are essentially all you employ, make it too one sided. I post rationale, history, evidence and you post...... nothing.

It lacks intellectual rigor to conduct oneself in a debate without employing anything beyond one liners.

It's playing a game. I'm out.

[joshcryer]

49. Sure, make it personal.

You literally, literally, proved my point with the links you provided. Is there anything in those links that hurts the US? Literally anything?

edit: I am serious here cali, you posted only things that support the US government and US corporate state. It's crazy how you think I'm using a one liner here. It's beyond comprehension. You failed to show one ISDS failure that hurt the US.

[magical thyme]

58. 1. there is a first time for everything

2. just because *we* haven't lost yet does not make it right

Furthermore, this particular version of ISDS expands its reach and expands the power of the tribunals.

[magical thyme]

57. IDSD has no appeals method for labor or governments to countersue

it is a one-way street, and the tribunals are corporate attorneys who rotate between representing corporations and working on tribunals.

[Recursion]

59. "ISDS" isn't a thing. It's a category of intl law. The question was about NAFTA

And US labor has successfully sued other countries several times.

[magical thyme]

60. the tread topic is TPP. The NAFTA question, which you didn't answer, was re: your hands on

experience in practicing international trade law.

Yes, ISDS is a catetory of international law.

Under TPP, ISDS is expanded over previous versions, and the power of the tribunals is increased.

And there is no appeals process.

Corporate lawyers judging corporate suits against federal and local governments, awarding unlimited compensation with the right to seize assets as payment, with no appeals process.

Not a good thing, imho.

[cali]

61. and the ISDS process has been used successfully

to influence laws. See Philip Morris.

mt's claims re the ISDS are correct.


Judges in ISDS cases are practicing lawyers that can represent clients in other cases, raising structural conflict of interest concerns.
There are no appeals on matters of law.
They are not required to follow the interpretations of domestic courts or follow the US constitution.
They often operate in secret, even with secret judgments.

http://infojustice.org/archives/34355

And before you dismiss the source, Sean Flynn is a respected professor and attny specializing in the intersection between intellectual property rights, world trade and human rights. He told a very revealing story recently about a meeting he had with USTR negotiators regarding the ISDS within the tpp as applied to IP.

[JDPriestly]

62. But you personally have no experience with them, do you?

Have you ever even been involved in a case in an arbitration court? I bet not.

[Recursion]

63. No though my wife has

I can ask her if you want to know anything. It's not a big part of her job and this was years ago, though.

[JDPriestly]

64. I have too. That's why I do not like the free trade agreements that set up special courts.

It is OK to have an international court in which nations or nationalities or humans can bring cases. But it is not OK to have a court in which a corporation can sue a nation. It is just an insane idea that is incompatible with the idea of nation-states and the reality of how corporations come into being.

Corporations are artificial entities created by individuals within nation-states. They have only the rights granted them by the nation-state in which they are registered. And they may be registered and operating in many nation-states. It is insane to think that they should have the right to appear in an international court to air grievance against the nation- states that allow them to exist and to do business within their physical borders.

A corporation operates within a country only with approval and license of that country. By definition and I should hope always by law, a corporation has to comply with the laws of any and all countries in which it operates. It should have the ability to challenge the laws of any country only if that country allows it to bring its grievance within the country that the corporation claims caused its injury. It just makes no sense whatsoever that corporations can have a court in which they can sue nations about the corporations' losses or laws that the country passes. If a corporation does not want to comply with a country's laws, it should not operate or sell its goods in that country.

The idea that a corporation can challenge a law passed by a country in some sort of international court that is not bound to enforce the law of the country in which the dispute arose is just way beyond absurd.

[Recursion]

65. So, how would you like treaties to be enforced then?

Right now AFL-CO can sue Mexico under NAFTA if they prevent workers from organizing. They do this several times a year. Canada too. How do NAFTA's labor standards get enforced if Mexico can't be sued for passing laws that violate them?

[JDPriestly]

66. Countries could sue each other.

As for the AFL-CIO's case, they could sue in Mexican courts.

Better yet, we don't import goods if our OWN COURTS determine that those goods are produced with underpaid workers in conditions that we would not allow. We should simply deny the right of other countries to import into the US products that are made in conditions that our courts determine would not satisfy our labor laws.

The best way to enforce labor laws is to refuse import licenses to companies or countries that do not have high labor standards.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Calling Sen. Warren untruthful isn't fighting?

Then what would count as public fighting, if anything?

[woo me with science]

13. Well, he did twist arms for Cronybus/DEregulating Wall Street,

and he personally twisted the arms of attorneys general to get criminal bankers off the hook for the 2008 looting and collapse.

But most of that was done quietly, behind the scenes. I think the administration realized there would be no way to spin those things to middle class Americans looted and even made homeless as a result of that sort of corruption.

He did use the bully pulpit to spread lies tying Social Security to the deficit and to lecture us to eat our austerity peas.

But I do think this is the hardest and *most* publicly we have seen him fight to fellate Wall Street at the expense of ordinary Americans.

[BrotherIvan]

17. I think he fights hard in campaigns

The TPP is second place.

[joshcryer]

26. I find it very telling that you wrote "public" with "fighting."

It's a cute way to frame the argument, and I can't say I disagree.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

28. I've only seen fighting about how hard he's fighting for it.

[polichick]

42. His true colors are on full display.

[KansDem]

51. Is GitMo still open for business?

Seven years after he vowed to shut it down?

[orpupilofnature57]

52. Calling Elizabeth Warren out is a ploy, as many of his moves are . n/t

[BillZBubb]

54. And I hope she doubles down on her criticism of this bad deal.