More gloves coming off in the ongoing TPP debate as the head of the AFL-CIO Richard Trumka came out yesterday with some clear and understandable language about where Labor stands and what they are expecting from Democratic politicians in this fight.
Here are his words, courtesy of the Washington Post
"If the president wins this fight, Democrats will be in the minority for a decade or so" on Capitol Hill, Trumka said during a hour-long conversation at The Washington Post's offices. If Obama is seeking to build on his legacy with the TPP, Trumka added, "it will be the wrong legacy."
In sometimes colorful and pugilistic language, Trumka also took direct aim at one of the administration's key arguments on the trade bill. Democrats have called for tough provisions aimed at limiting other nations from manipulating their currency to artificially boost exports to the United States.
White House officials, Trumka said, have said such a provision is a non-starter in part because it could expose the United States to punitive actions if the U.S. Treasury enacts quantitative easing to stimulate the economy.
Trumka also said that Labor will be considering the way Dems vote on fast track a "major vote" on their scorecard and also made remarks that Hillary Clinton needs to take a definitive stance on the issue and advises her "you can't run, you can't hide".
All righty then. Thank you Richard Trumka for talking so clearly and directly and fighting as you should for American Labor.
Let's discuss his remarks and more below the orange squibble-doodle.
Note - The very first thing I will say in laying ground-rules for discussion in this diary in as much as I can, is that I will completely ignore the specious and disingenuous comments of those who opine that since we can't see the agreement, we can't discuss it. A major part of the controversy is that we can't see it. We have to rely on the comments and actions of those that have, as well as rely on the information, commentary and journalism available to us in the media.
I am not an expert on the currency manipulation aspects of the bill, but what I do know is that one of the bills that the Dems introduced in the Senate had to due with this aspect. Since they do have access to the bill and the USTR doing the negotiations, I think we assume on good authority that it is not addressed in the agreement currently. The President and the USTR (US Trade Representative) have said this is a non-starter and will derail the agreement.
Currency manipulation was cited as a reason that HRC said (through spokesperson Nick Merrill) that she might not support the agreement: stopping short of rejection, Clinton sets conditions for a trade deal. Date on that article is April 17th.
“She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency, and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas,” Mr. Merrill wrote. “As she warned in her book, ‘Hard Choices,’ we shouldn’t be giving special rights to corporations at the expense of workers and consumers.”
Well, it seems like the Senate agreed with Trumka and Clinton, because yesterday they passed a bill dealing with currency manipulation in trade agreements.
Senate passes bill targeting currency manipulators
The measure would force the Commerce Department to investigate allegations of manipulation and determine offsetting import duties.
What I find interesting in that article is that the entire thing is talking about China, China's currency, China's past, present and possible future actions regarding its currency, and yet China is not even part of the TPP. This makes me think that China will join the pact in the future? Plus, can't any country with a fiat currency manipulate it? Someone more informed can take this on. But bottom line is that the Senate, by a wide margin rejected the President's arguments that no currency manipulation bill was required by a vote of 78-20 So I guess I would chalk that one up to Trumka.
I would like to segue here for a moment to President Obama's credibility to date on the TPP.
The reason the White House cited according to Trumka, for NOT addressing currency manipulation was that "it could expose the United States to punitive actions if the U.S. Treasury enacts quantitative easing to stimulate the economy."
That seems to me to be a direct contradiction to the President's stand in his argument with Elizabeth Warren that there was no way that the TPP could interfere with our own internal financial regulation. They were debating at the time whether the TPP could undermine Dodd-Frank, and the President by and large ridiculed Warren for even making the suggestion. But yet, right here in the discussion about currency manipulation, the White House is raising fears that the TPP could prevent us from implementing quantitative easing or face "punitive actions." So which way is, President Obama and "White House officials?" Do we open ourselves up to punitive actions or not? Why would it apply to quantitative easing and not Dodd Frank?
In another blow to the President's argument on how much trade agreements interfere with our internal financial agreements and which substantiates Warren and not Obama, the Canadians have just made the assertion that the Volker Rule part of Dodd Frank violates NAFTA! .
Canada's Finance Minister Says Volker Rule Violates NAFTA
The (US) Treasury spokeswoman said Nafta “does not weaken our ability to implement financial reforms now or in the future, and neither would any trade agreement we’re negotiating.” She said the law is intended to protect U.S. taxpayers and the stability of capital markets
NAFTA uses the same Investor State Dispute System that is enshrined under the TPP. Will we have to go to this international arbitration system in order to determine whether we have the right to implement the Volker rule in our own country? Will we be forced to compensate Canadians at taxpayer expense if their suit is upheld? According to the linked article, the NAFTA nations have an agreement not to extend their regulatory reach beyond their own borders but there is already a clear case where this did not happen and it involved Canada and the US.
Secret Trade Deal Serves Up Toxic Food, Advocates Charge
Barker pointed to case brought under the North American Free Trade Agreement by a U.S. company that made a gasoline additive that was banned in Canada. The firm argued that the law was "tantamount to expropriation," and Canada agreed to repeal its law and pay the Ethyl Corp. $13 million.
"The attorney for Ethyl said, ‘It wouldn’t matter if a substance was liquid plutonium destined for a child’s breakfast cereal. If the government bans a product and a U.S.-based company loses profits, the company can claim damages under NAFTA,’" Barker said.
Oh, about that toxic food stuff - read the article.
In conclusion I have a very simple question:
IF the TPP was going to be the source of increased exports and markets for our own products manufactured here in the USA, why in God's name would the AFL-CIO a LABOR organization be against it? Is it because they know very well that the TPP will just accelerate our rush to the bottom?
IMO, the TPP has very little to do with expanding American markets and exports and a lot more to do with expanding the AMERICAN market to evermore cheap imports that American labor and manufacturers cannot compete with.
I also ask very seriously, that if a foreign corporation opened some kind of facility in the US in some state or community and that state passed a $15 minimum wage law, what would stop that corporation for making a claim of "expropriated" profits and suing for damages due to the increased cost of labor? I believe, based on what I have read so far that that scenario is entirely plausible.
The single greatest, irremediable flaw IMO with ALL these recent trade agreements is the Investor State Dispute system which clearly DOES ALLOW foreign corporations to interefere with and meddle and overturn regulations and legislation of host countries which have been enacted by host companies even when the issues being arbitrated are concerning the public health and safety and environmental protections.
We cannot allow our elected representatives enable foreign corporations to extract protection money from US taxpayers in the form of expropriated lost profits so that they won't poison and impoverish us. We also cannot allow them to dictate the terms of our internal financial regulation and oversight.
ANY nation that cedes it's own sovereignty and right to regulate itself to multi-national corporations in these regards is clinically insane and suicidal. In my opinion.