For conservatives and anti-globalists wondering about the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) free-trade agreement and its chances for ratification by Congress this year, a great weight may about to be lifted from their shoulders.
The TPP is a transnational trade agreement that would grant enormous unchecked power to large corporations by allowing them to sue governments in private courts if laws enacted by the governments interfered with the profits of these companies.
The courts these cases would be decided in would not be public courts, but private tribunals presided over by trade lawyers, rather than by public officials. One doesn’t need to think too hard to figure out how much interest a trade lawyer would have in the common good.
In essence, the TPP is neither “free,” nor is it about “trade” in the traditional sense; like a previous accord, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it enables a “race to the bottom” by enabling large companies to seek out manufacturing sources where labor costs are the lowest and work and safety regulations are the most lax, resulting in epic job losses to the United States.
“There is no way to fix the TPP,” President-elect Donald Trump stated in a June economic speech. “We need bilateral trade deals. We do not need to enter into another massive international agreement that ties us up and binds us down.”
Long the dream of multinational conglomerates, the TPP and other similar free-trade agreements such as TTIP and TISA would lower standards in everything from food to medicines while also lowering American wages and resulting in higher unemployment.
Is it any wonder that President Obama and failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supported the TPP and have worked hard in the past several years to get it passed?
So eager was Obama to satisfy his corporate masters that he pushed through so-called “fast-track” passage for the TPP a year ago, which would allow the Senate to ratify the treaty with a simple yes or no vote; virtually no debate could be held on it and no committees could hold up its passage with amendments or filibustering.
As opposed to normal treaties, which must be ratified by a two-thirds majority for passage in the Senate, fast-track passage means that only a simple majority of 51 votes (as well as a simple majority in the house of Representatives) would be needed to ratify the TPP, which Obama would then sign into law.
Not only did Obama get a fast-track deal passed for the TPP a year ago, he also plotted to get the TPP itself passed in Congress partially by using Senators and Congressmen who were just voted out of office in the “lame-duck” period before their terms (and his) end.
Obama defended his support for the TPP in numerous speeches, one of which was held at the headquarters of shoemaker giant Nike, which employs countless numbers of foreign workers to manufacture its products.
Recently, trade representatives pushing the TPP announced that they believed they finally had the Congressional votes to pass the TPP and get it signed by Obama, despite statements to the contrary by Republican lawmakers like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Many anti-TPPers feared this was the end of the line for their hopes of defeating the highly unpopular pact.
Fortunately, however, with Trump’s election, it now appears there may be light at the end of the tunnel as Speaker of the House Paul Ryan acknowledged that in light of the support for Trump, “the votes aren’t there” in the House of Representatives to pass the agreement.
Senator McConnell stated, “I think the president-elect made it pretty clear he was not in favor of the current agreement,” leaving open the possibility of negotiation of trade agreements more to the new president’s liking in the future.
Certainly, Trump has made no secret of his desire to renegotiate trade agreements so they favor American workers and jobs and result in fewer companies moving their factories and operations offshore. Rather than benefitting a few billionaires (many of whom might not even be American), Trump wants to regain much of the ground lost in the manufacturing sphere in recent decades since NAFTA and other such agreements unfavorable to the U.S. were signed into law by former presidents such as Bill Clinton.
A new focus on “America first,” rather than globalization, will hopefully make that happen.
Trump’s focus now needs to be how to get Congressional leaders and business tycoons on board with his plans. Perhaps in a year or two, we may see much friendlier trade agreements being presented that don’t try to call themselves “free” when in reality they will cost plenty.
Regards,
Ethan Warrick
Editor
Wealth Authority
