
Senate Hands a Victory to Obama on Trade Pact - carbocation
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/us/politics/senate-vote-on-trade-bill.html
======
sremani
TPP, Trans-Atlantic and TiSA are the trifecta and the BRICS are excluded out
of these for a good reason. Even though there are firm Geo-Strategic grounds
for these agreements, they are most likely not in the side of the Worker and
likely cement the power of Elite in US and partner countries.

~~~
tptacek
That's generally a true statement about anything that could foreseeably be
good for the US economy. What's good for the economy is good for investors,
and, apart from (vast numbers of) state employees with defined benefit pension
plans managed by huge investment firms, investors aren't workers.

------
shmerl
Why can't such agreements be made mandatory public? All these backroom
discussions of far reaching proposals like Internet censorship are simply
disgusting.

~~~
dak1
To be fair, any FTA (including the TPP) will be made public for a minimum of 4
months before Congress can vote on it (although with TPA they won't be allowed
to offer amendments to it).

In reality, almost all legislation is written behind closed doors today (a
public Git-for-Law would be a wonderful project), and is then sponsored by a
member of Congress and goes (usually) to Committee.

Non-trade agreements with foreign powers are also negotiated "behind closed
doors", because the negotiations themselves tend to be quite sensitive, and
the negotiating positions of each country are also considered highly
sensitive.

The real issue is probably that the Trade Advisory Committees are not required
by law to be balanced between corporate interests and public advocacy groups
(there are multiple representatives from such groups, although it's not
currently well balanced).

~~~
shkkmo
Do you have a source for that? My quick look at wikipedia:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_\(trade\))

The procedure section shows Congress to have the ability to pass it to
committees for at most 45 days and then they have at most 15 days after that
to vote on it.

That seems to imply that it would be public for a maximum of 2 months, but I
don't know much about this area.

~~~
dak1
It's not spelled out in any sentence where you'll see "must be public for 4
months" in a single line, and I can see how that wording is confusing,
however, the basic timeline is:

# Executive Actions - Negotiation 1\. 90 day notification to begin
negotiations 2\. Negotiations begin 3\. Negotiations conclude 4\. 180 day
notification prior to signing agreement 5\. 90 day notification of intention
to sign agreement 6\. 60 days prior to signing, release of agreement text
(first 2 months) 7\. 30 days after notification of intention to sign,
submission of Advisory Committee Reports 8\. Agreement signed (not law yet)

# Reporting and Mock Markup 9\. 60 days after agreement is signed, list of
required changes in law due 10\. 105 days after agreement is signed, USITC
report due 11\. Mock markups (no time schedule) 12\. 30 days prior to
implementing legislation, final text submitted (3rd month)

# Congressional Consideration and Implementation 13\. Implementing bill
introduced in House and Senate (no timeline) 14\. Within 45 days, House Ways
and Means must report bill 15\. Within 15 days, House must vote on bill 16\.
Within 15 days, Senate Finance Committee must report bill 17\. Within 15 days,
Senate must vote on bill 18\. Bill signed into public law (no timeline) 19\.
President implements bill by proclamation (no deadline)

So the Bill can spend a MAXIMUM of 90 days in the House and Senate; however,
prior to even getting there, the text of the bill must have been public for a
MINIMUM of 90 days (which is like 4-5 months in Congress time).

So even at hyper speed, the text would be public for 3 months, and in reality
at least 4 months. More likely, the text will be public for 6-8 months before
it is passed.

Source: Congressional Research Service
([https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf](https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf))

------
mason55
Can anyone summarize why this is so bad for everyone except the super rich? I
understand how manufacturing will be hurt and it sounds like agriculture comes
out to be mostly a wash. But it sounds like the US services industries will be
helped by the agreement.

~~~
tptacek
There are two specific issues that come up regularly, and two background
issues with the whole concept of free trade agreements.

Specific issue #1: the TPP, like a bunch of other trade agreements, includes
semi-binding arbitration. Enact a system of regulated free trade and you
generate disputes. But there's no meaningful international legal system (a
"world trade court" that can resolve those disputes. Trade dispute resolution
is therefore extrajudicial. (TPP's arbitration is "semi-binding" in that TPP
arbitrators have authority only to impose fines; they can't change our laws).

Specific issue #2: a key goal of TPP is to harmonize worldwide IP laws with
those of the US. But much of the world has lax IP laws compared to the US,
specifically for drugs. Dean Baker at CEPR --- a credible and fiercely liberal
economist --- believes drug regulation will increase prices in the US (by how
much, I haven't really seen estimates). Pretty much everyone believes that if
TPP is actually enforced for pharma, it will increase drug prices in the rest
of the world, and also squeeze out companies that have carved niches for
themselves by arbitraging the different patent regimes to manufacture drugs
that are still on-patent in the US.

Background issue #1: modern free trade agreements always involve IP
regulations, and IP is a valence issue on Internet forums: most vocal Internet
commenters ambiently oppose all IP regulation. TPP doesn't significantly alter
IP law in the US, but it does further ratify that law, taking us steps away
from reforming them. If you think IP reform was in the cards, you don't like
TPP.

Background issue #2: the US economy is, by design, owned by large companies;
those companies are in turn mostly owned by large investment firms. A
plurality of the stakeholders in those firms are "wealthy elites" (not scare
quoting). Free trade agreements that the US supports are designed to juice the
economy, and thus improve outcomes for big companies. "Wealthy elites" have
far more direct exposure to investment upside than "workers". So there's a
natural concern about conflict-of-interest: TPP will benefit the wealthy more
than it will the working class.

There are reasonable rebuttals to all these points, but you asked for the
liberal brief against TPP, and I think that's a solid summary of it.

~~~
mason55
Thank you. So it doesn't sound like there is much that specifically hurts
middle class to lower upper class Americans, it's just that it contributes to
continued power & wealth accumulation in the upper upper class, the prevention
of which could be seen as a reasonable goal in its own right.

~~~
tptacek
If you asked a manufacturing worker in Youngstown, OH what they thought of the
TPP, their answer would immediately be "it's just a way to help rich people
export our jobs to Asia".

On the other hand, it might be reasonable to assume that the barriers to that
were already so low that jobs that can be exported to Asia already have been.

------
g0v
All this just makes me sick and angry. I wonder if congress will ever
represent the people.

------
nateabele
> _Mr. Obama’s top legislative priority in his final years in office._

Is it too late to make a 'hope & change' joke without sounding cliché?

------
acconrad
So this is pretty much guaranteeing that the TPP agreement will pass now? Good
grief...

------
darby2000
You know you can't get rid of the Pres. But you can get rid of these senators.
Please find out who voted for this, and do not vote for them again.

------
ironsides
Surprise, surprise.

------
shit_parade2
The simple solution is to ignore illegitimate laws.

The legal process no longer concerns itself with the average citizen, why then
does the average citizen show concern over the law?

~~~
tptacek
How does one "ignore" illegitimate trade agreements? By not trading with Asia?

~~~
shit_parade2
Smuggling, ignoring IP laws, refusing to comply with fines or other rulings.
You seem like a smart guy, try using your brain.

~~~
tptacek
It's hard to employ smuggling as a protest against a free trade deal, since
the point of a free trade deal is to reduce the set of goods that need to be
smuggled. And the fines in the TPP are settled between governments, not
between aggrieved governments and individual foreign citizens.

~~~
shit_parade2
How would you know what the TPP entails?

From leaks it suggests it involves companies suing governments for cash
settlement.

Also, you are rather naive if you think 'free trade' means free trade, it will
be nothing of the sort, it will raise barriers and make many goods and
services more expensive.

~~~
tptacek
This is neither responsive to my comment (which points out that TPP fines are
settled between governments, and not to people who can "ignore" fines;
somehow, this has become an argument against my comment?) nor falsifiable.

~~~
shit_parade2
Perhaps English is not your native language?

How do you know TPP fines are settled between governments? TPP is still
ongoing, and is secret. How can I be more clear?

As for your opinion about free trade, it hardly deserves a response, please
consult a dictionary because you are not using the word correctly.

------
cnp
And now a new era of Man begins

------
higherpurpose
When the Republicans agree with Obama on something, you know the bill is
terrible for regular citizens.

~~~
astaroth360
Everyone except the very rich are about to get slapped in the face by a whole
slew of bad policy decisions :\

~~~
bdcravens
Obama himself has said he has no more campaigns to run:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-
both...](http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-i-know-cause-i-won-both-of-
them-2015-1)

So at this point, he's beholden not to the common voters, but to the wealthy
who also helped him get into office (and who, unlike the common voters, he can
still benefit from in the years to come)

This isn't specific to Obama, but is the game of a career in politics.

