Democrats approved platform draft with Sanders' imprint

[TomCADem]

Source: MSN/Associated Press

ST. LOUIS — Democrats approved a draft of the party platform early Saturday that includes steps to break up large Wall Street banks, advocates for a $15 an hour wage and urges the abolition of the death penalty, reflecting the influence of Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign.

Supporters of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton defeated measures pushed by Sanders' allies that would have promoted a Medicare-for-all single-payer health care system, a carbon tax to address climate change and impose a moratorium on hydraulic fracking.

Sanders said Friday he would vote for Clinton but has so far declined to offer a full-throated endorsement of her campaign or encourage his millions of voters to back her candidacy. The Vermont senator has said he wants the platform at the summer convention to reflect his goals — and those representing him at a St. Louis hotel said they had made progress.

"We lost some but we won some," said James Zogby, a Sanders supporter on the panel. "We got some great stuff in the platform that has never been in there before." Added Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., a Sanders ally: "We've made some substantial moves forward."

Read more: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-approved-platform-draft-with-sanders-imprint/ar-AAhBMJa

[swhisper1]

1. some is better than none, now if they follow through wall street will have a fit

[iandhr]

2. To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby I worry calling for "abolition of the death penalty" is courageous.

It might be the right thing but most of the public still support it.

[lapfog_1]

3. I'm confused

yesterday I clicked on a platform committee thread which had a video of them rejecting $15/hour minimum wage.

So, which is it?

[still_one]

5. From what I understand it was the redundant wording that rejected, NOT the 15 dollar min wage

In this post it said it was the redundant wording that was rejected, not the 15 dollar minimum wage:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512217625

Here is one from the Hill which says the platform contains the 15 min wage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141500250#post3

[lapfog_1]

6. so what is the exact language that was adopted by the platform committee

since they clearly rejected the "plain language" offered by Congressman Ellison.

[RazBerryBeret]

4. Fracking

I was really hoping for that ban.

[Duval]

8. Me, too, as well as NO TPP.

[TomCADem]

10. Is It TPP's Reduction In Tariffs? Rules against Currency Manipulation?

Increased protection of IP that you oppose? Is there anything in TPP that you would support?

[OrwellwasRight]

14. The TPP has no rules against currency manipulation.

It does create a private justice system for foreign investors called ISDS. It also limits the kind of financial regulations, food safety regulations, and service sector regulations we can impose. It allows cars with 55% (or more) content from outside the "high standards" TPP countries to receive TPP tariff benefits. It doesn't require Mexico to reform its labor laws before joining the TPP nor does it require Malaysia to end human trafficking and even gives Vietnam a free pass to violate freedom of association for the first five years. It weakens "Buy American." It imposes strict new monopoly rights for brand name pharmaceuticals, even in poor, developing countries. Let's start with fixing those things. Until then, the TPP remains a corporate rights wish list that will only further speed the race to the bottom.

[TomCADem]

18. So, you would favor rules against currency manipulation, but your issue with TPP...

...is that is has no rules against currency manipulation. Cool.

What about lowers tariffs and trade barriers for exports of U.S. agricultural products? Is that desirable?

Also, why not tie in environmental requirements such that to take advantage of certain advantageous tariffs, countries have to agree to meet certain environmental protections? After all, with climate change, what carrots or sticks do countries have to encourage adherence other than trade?

[OrwellwasRight]

20. The "Export barriers" that the TPP lowers

is code for "US agribusinesses don't like the fact that country X restricts hormone additives regularly used in the US or turns away grain shipments polluted by GMO grains." So, countries have already changed their bans on ractopamine and are expected to increase their tolerances for GMOs. No, I am not for that. I think if US beef and pork producers want to sell their wares overseas, they should meet the standards of those countries, not use so-called "trade" agreements to deregulate other people's economies. If Monsanto wants to sell soybeans overseas, it should sell the kind of soybeans people want to buy.

And the so-called "environmental requirements" are so weak as to a) not even rise to the Bush-era standards known as "May 10" and b) actually undermine commitments made in environmental treaties.

I strongly recommend that you read this excellent piece by Professor Chris Wold if you are actually interested in the environmental provisions of the TPP: https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/20857-assessing-the-tpp-environmental-chapter

In terms of climate change, the TPP actually doesn't mention the term at all. And by making no standards on climate change, it is likely to actually PROMOTE more offshoring of US jobs and exacerbate the production of GHGs. If the US unilaterally does something to limit carbon emissions, the TPP countries won't have to match us or indeed take any climate action at all. Companies that do not want to pay for the new technology that would be required to reduce carbon emissions, or pay a carbon tax, or get involved in a carbon trading scheme (or whatever other type of policy the US might impose) can just close of shop and move the jobs and the carbon emissions to Vietnam, thus hurting US workers and the global climate. Thus the TPP undermines the Paris Agreement.

The TPP contains no "carrots" for action. Every country gets full membership benefits on Day One of the deal. No country has to "earn" benefits (such as the phased in tariff cuts) by demonstrating change. They get the phased in benefits by virtue of membership. Case in point, Malaysia. The so-called "side agreement" does not require it to actually effectively prosecute human traffickers or to demonstrate that is has effectively eradicated forced labor.

And Vietnam is even worse. Its side agreement specifically allows it to violate freedom of association for the first five years. And even if it does not come into compliance at the end of that phase-in period, it continues to enjoy full benefits unless the US acts (in a time limited manner) to delay any benefits not already fully phased in. The US has NEVER once moved to delay tariff benefits for any trade partner on the basis of labor violations. So the chance that the US would actually take action is virtually nil. Vietnam is not only already eating its carrots, but the celery, onions, apples, and asparagus too.

The TPP is a big giant giveaway to global corporations. Progressive rules could have been included, but weren't. No amount of lipstick will make this pig beautiful.

[TomCADem]

21. So, with those changes, you would support a trade deal

Sometimes folks seem to be against any trade deal, but I see that with the changes you suggest, you would support one.

[OrwellwasRight]

23. Yes, I would be happy to support one

that fixed critical mistakes and inserted progressive rules instead.

In fact, the AFL-CIO suggested just such rules to form the basis an agreement for the TPP, back in 2010. However, the USTR ignored those ideas and instead created a corporate-friendly agreement.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/AFL-CIO-comments-on-proposed-TPP.pdf

[90-percent]

7. My own opinion of TPP

Is what Elizabeth warren said about it perhaps over a year ago, quoting someone who actually worked on it; "We have to keep it a secret, because if the people knew what as in it, they would be against it."

To me it seems to simply codify the principle that corporate profits are sanctified above all other human pursuits. Thou shall not interfere with future corporate profits.

If it's so fucking great for everybody why aren't they ll shouting from the rooftops? I'm passionate about it, and it will be major cognitive dissonance if the Dem is for TPP and the Repub is against it!

We are all corporate serfs now!

-90% Jimmy

[TomCADem]

9. Why Do Unions Also Oppose Conducting Labor Negotiations In Public?

Should the left also support right wing efforts to make labor negotiations take place in the public? Personally, I think it is difficult to negotiate in the press. Any deal would need to be approved by Congress and, of course, certain deal points do get publicly vetted, but as is the case with labor negotiations, there is a downside to trying to negotiate each detail in the public.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/county-615051-supervisors-board.html

Worker union reps objected vociferously to the proposed “Civic Openness in Negotiations” law, calling it “criminal,” “an ambush,” “another knife in the back,” “a thinly veiled attempt to further politicize an overpoliticized process,” and threatening to sue if the board proceeds.

After emerging from closed session, supervisors argued over specifics for more than an hour, ordered up a legal analysis and asked for refinements to be considered on June 17.

We’ve talked about how cloak-and-dagger contract negotiations between municipal governments and their workers have been: Lots of closed-session, hush-hush, top-secret-type stuff, followed by the sudden appearance of a contract which comes to swift city council or board vote and then is a done deal – before, critics charge, the public (and even some of the people voting on it) really understand what it promises or what it will cost.

In 2012, amid similar angst, Costa Mesa went where no government had gone before, approving an ordinance forcing employee contract negotiations out of the darkness and into the light. Costa Mesa trumpeted COIN as “an unprecedented piece of municipal legislation that would bring maximum transparency to city labor negotiations, which have been traditionally done outside of public view and with little chance for the public to review the contracts prior to their approval.” It was the brainchild of Councilman Steven Mensinger, and versions have been adopted in Beverly Hills and Pacific Palisades, debated in Fullerton and rejected in Fountain Valley.

[OrwellwasRight]

12. The ACA and every bill that has ever passed Congress has been

"negotiated in public." The entire public got to see the bills as introduced, as marked up by committees, and after floor consideration. WE could read them and agitate for changes. We could work with MOCs to introduce committee and floor amendments. There was no "black box" that we had no idea what was in it. We could read the alleged "death panel" provisions and correct our misinformed neighbors. This is what democracy is.

For the TPP, you only get to see the finished product. You don't get to see what's introduced, and you can't advocate for amendments to change this or that clause. It is undemocratic in every sense.

When private labor negotiations encompass every worker in the country, the those negotiations would become public more than private and should be done publicly as well. Until then, labor contract negotiations should be no more public than your negotiations to purchase a house or a car.

[reACTIONary]

11. FYI, here is the full text..

.... of the "secretive trade agreement".

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

[OrwellwasRight]

13. Yes and it was only published after it as completed. Unlike every other bill that becomes law.

It was negotiated in secret from 2010 to 2015. Not a page was publicized until we the people could no longer influence it. Good luck amending it now.

[reACTIONary]

15. It isn't a bill....

.... its a treaty. Much like the Iran nuclear agreement, also cofidentaly negotiated . That's how treaties and international agreements are negotiated. For good reason.

[OrwellwasRight]

16. No, it is not a treaty.

If it were a treaty, it would only go the Senate and it would need a 2/3 vote to pass. It is an Executive-Legislative Agreement that has no legal authority until its implementing bill (also unamendable) is passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president. Once that happens, it has the power of law. And that's why it should be created like all other laws in a democracy, in an inclusive, open, and transparent manner.

For the record, the Paris Climate Talks were also open -- stakeholders and activists had access to draft texts, were able to suggest amendments, and were able to suggest trade-offs to government negotiators. Likewise, the World Intellectual Property Association functions with open, accessible negotiations.

Even at the WTO, some draft texts are made available to the public so that stakeholders can work with government to write amendments.

So thanks for playing, but you are incorrect.

[reACTIONary]

19. Thanks for the correction.....

..... as with the Iran agreement , as well as the others you mentioned, it falls under forighn relations, which are the principal responsibility of the exacutive, not the legislature. The processes for such agreements are, and have to be, significantly different from the processes used for domestic legislation.

Do you expect the forighn trade ministers to show up on the floor of the house to "debate the bill"?

The process that was used was rational, reaonable, and legal. Since we now have the full text of the agreement publically available for all to read and assess, you might want to move on and consider the substance of the agreement rather than pissing and moaning about the process.

[OrwellwasRight]

22. Wow so many issues to address.

a) not everything that is legal is OK. Cops shooting children in Cleveland, tax avoidance, chopping up and selling mortgages as speculative investments. These are things that have been determined to be "legal" under the US justice system. And they all suck. They do not set a standard that what is legal is OK. What is legal is often OK, but certainly in many cases it is not a high bar. Thus all the time progressives spend trying to change the laws!

b) The TPP is not about "foreign policy." It is about "domestic policy." Case in point: we will never ever be able to lower the market exclusivity period for biologic drugs to 7 years, as President Obama proposed in numerous budgets, because the TPP sets the minimum as 8 years. If we lowered it to 7 it would be a trade violation, and we would be forced to repeal it just like we recently had to do for country of origin labeling for meat (which was determined by the WTO to be a trade violation). It also allows foreign corporations to sue the US in private tribunals over domestic policies that they consider "unfair" and a threat to their 'reasonably expected profits." Other democratic countries that have withdrawn or amended laws in response to cuh suits include Canada, Germany, and Mexico. Certainly there is a chilling effect on domestic policy as a result of TPP. These are domestic policy issues that "trade negotiators" gave away.

c) Um, you may not have understood my post at all. So let me try to be clear: the Paris climate talks and the WIPO talks and even some WTO talks ARE negotiated publicly and transparently, so no they do not support the proposition that the TPP had to be negotiated secretly, nor do they support the proposition that all agreements that touch on "foreign policy" have to be negotiated secretly.

d) Um, what makes you think I have not considered the substance? Try reading this is you want to learn about the substance: http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/174701/4156463/LAC+Report--Final+12-2-15+As+Adopted.pdf. I have considered it, and it is awful.

e) Telling me that I am "pissing and moaning" is not only inaccurate, it is insulting and not very "civil." Please point out what phrases I used that constitute "pissing" and which constitute "moaning."

Regards,
Orwell

[reACTIONary]

24. Thanks again...

* not everything that is legal is OK.

True, but if it is legal you have to do more to establish that it "isn't ok" than to call it "secret ". It was not only a legal process, and conducted under legislative authority (fast track), but rational and reasonable also.

* The TPP is not about "foreign policy.

Trade agreements with other nations, like climate accords with orher nations, and nuclear agreements with other nations, are not domestic legislation. The responsibility for negotiating these agreements falls to the executive under its authority over foreign relations. The processes for engagement in those negotiations are at the discretion of the executive and may vary with circumstances.

* the TPP did not have to be negotiated secretly

Of course not. Neither did the Iranian nuclear agreement. Whether secrecy is warranted, necessary or desirable is a matter of judgement left to the executive to make. Apparently, in Obama's opinion that was the best way to get the best deal. You seem to disagree. Oh well.

* Pissing and moaning

I appolgize for this characterization of your comments. This is a subjective assessment and is not based specifically on your post, but on the whole TPP debate as it has evolved over the last seven years. Now that the agreement is fully negotiated, signed, and publicly available for assessment, I think it's time to stop criticizing the process and to consider the substance.

* I have considered the substance?

No doubt you have. And if it were secret, you would not be able to do so. So you need no longer characterize it as secret.

[OrwellwasRight]

25. So please do consider the substance

http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/174701/4156463/LAC+Report--Final+12-2-15+As+Adopted.pdf

http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/175097/4162449/version/1/file/ITC+handout.pdf

http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/174700/4156460/AFL-CIO+Final+Written+Submission+for+USITC+TPP+Investigation+Feb16.pdf

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP/Ten-Critical-Problems-with-the-Trans-Pacific-Partnership

[reACTIONary]

26. I have....

.... while I can't disagree that there are minuses along with the plusses, on the whole I think it's a good deal and will advance our interests. And to be a bit grandiose, the overall interests of humankind. The overall effect (to the extent that it can be predicted) will be to advance our position in the world-economy as the high productivity, technological leaders, and as the leaders in high value services such as finance. I view it as progressive.

I think the world needs the economic and social leadership of the United States, and I think solidifying and advancing our leadership in science, technology, and industry is the best way to provide that leadership.

I'll look at the links you provided and maybe you will change my mind.

[ananda]

17. But if the TPP is there ...

... we are SO screwed!

That's the big problem!

[4dsc]

27. I cannot support any candidate who backs TPP

So the party better be very careful no how it treads with this subject.