\n
How Congressional Republicans Lie to Approve Obama\u2019s Trade Deals<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Eric Zuesse<\/span><\/p>\n Obama\u2019s trade-deals \u2013 especially TPP with Asia, and TTIP with Europe \u2013 are so vicious against the American people, the Obama Administration has labeled the documents \u201cClassified,\u201d and is threatening prosecution against any member of Congress who quotes from the texts; it would be \u201cleaking classified information.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n However, empirical economic studies already indicate what would likely be the result from both the TPP<\/span><\/a> and the TTIP<\/span><\/a>: one independent economic analysis has been done for each of these two international-trade deals, and both of them come up with the same conclusion: the publics everywhere will lose wealth because of them, but aristocrats, especially in the United States, will gain wealth because of them. (It\u2019s like what happened with NAFTA, but only far more so.) In other words: the same billionaires who fund congressional and presidential campaigns are the people who will be taking from the general public vastly more money via TPP and TTIP than the paltry billions they\u2019ve invested to fool voters into voting into office the Senators and Representatives who are now rubber-stamping into law Obama\u2019s \u2018trade\u2019 deals. (And, of course, the same aristocrats also funded both Obama\u2019s and Romney\u2019s campaigns, just as they did those of both Clintons and of the Bushes. At the national level, they essentially own, not the government, but instead the people who are governing. The people they own, are the ones that are supposed to \u201crepresent\u201d us; and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that this is \u2018democracy\u2019 in accord with \u2018the Constitution\u2019 \u2013 because the people who appointed those Republican \u2018Justices\u2019 were also owned by the aristocracy.)<\/span><\/p>\n Getting \u2018our representatives\u2019 to vote for Obama\u2019s trade-deals is, especially for Democrats (who won office with help from labor unions) like herding sheep to slaughter: some Senators and Representatives feel bad about where they\u2019re going, but the system is set up so that they just \u201cgo along to get along\u201d anyway; it\u2019s the way to success in any corrupt society. As Huffington Post\u00a0reported even as early as June of 2013,<\/span><\/a>\u00a0“The Obama administration has barred any\u00a0Congressional staffers from reviewing the full\u00a0negotiation text and prohibited members of\u00a0Congress from discussing the specific terms of the\u00a0text with trade experts and reporters.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n Note this phrase \u201ctrade experts.\u201d The closeted Republican, President Obama, doesn\u2019t want experts to explain things to members of Congress, these deals are so bad for their voters back home whom they\u2019re being paid by the government to represent. And, since only members of Congress are being allowed to see the documents (under guard in a congressional basement), and even congressional staffers are generally excluded, members of Congress have no one to advise them on the complex details except the lobbyists who represent the people who fund congressional campaigns. Some of these lobbyists might even have managed to see the documents, because hundreds of international corporations helped the Obama team to draft these documents. <\/span><\/p>\n Consequently, whereas international corporations have helped to write the documents, the public has been excluded from the process. The Obama Administration says that a few labor leaders and environmentalists were also included on the \u201cadvisory panels\u201d that helped to draft the documents. But all of the details are secret; and even a mere attempt by a member of Congress to confirm something could cause the congressperson to be prosecuted. Obama severely prosecutes leakers of information that his Administration has chosen to label \u2018Confidential.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n When a member of Congress goes down to the basement room to see these documents, members of the Obama Administration are there to answer the congressperson\u2019s questions. If one of these Obama people might happen to lie when answering, the lie cannot be prosecuted, because the Obama Administration prohibits recording devices, so that no record exists of what is being said there. Consequently, no member of Congress has any reason to trust what he or she is being told in that room.<\/span><\/p>\n The progressive congressman, Alan Grayson, a Democrat, told HuffPo: “Having seen what I’ve seen, I would characterize\u00a0this as a gross abrogation of American\u00a0sovereignty. And I would\u00a0further characterize it as a punch in the face to the\u00a0middle class of America. I think that’s fair to say\u00a0from what I’ve seen so far. But I’m not allowed to\u00a0tell you why!\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Here is what has leaked out, from wikileaks and a few other reliable sources, that can explain why<\/i> he said it\u2019s a \u201cgross abrogation of American sovereignty\u201d:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Under the terms of these trade-deals, national sovereignty over the laws and regulations regarding workers\u2019 rights, consumer protections, environmental protection, and protections of investors against frauds, will be ceded to international corporate panels, each of which will generally consist of three corporate attorneys, whose collective decisions will be final and non-appealable (unlike decisions by courts in democratic countries). Consequently, whereas now in the U.S. and most other nations, governmental laws and regulations come from democratically elected representatives, the new system will override that, and replace it with panel-members who represent instead the controlling stockholders in international corporations \u2013 basically a few hundred individuals throughout the world. (And those people can always phone or email one-another if there are any problems to be settled between themselves.)<\/span><\/p>\n Some Republicans have spoken out against Obama\u2019s trade-deals, but no Republican Senator has voted against these deals. All Republicans are actually in favor of ceding democratic national sovereignty to fascist-corporate unappealable panels. (If you believe that the wealthiest should rule, then that\u2019s the natural position to hold.) The crucial vote in the U.S. Senate was on 14 May 2015, when the issue was whether to grant these deals \u201cFast Track Trade Promotion Authority,\u201d which is what Presidents since Nixon\u2019s time have used in order to get Congress to cede to the Executive, the U.S. President, virtually 100% of Congress\u2019s Constitutionally mandated role in treaty drafting and approval \u2013 making it effectively an entirely Presidential matter. This \u201cFast Track\u201d was invented by the Republican President Nixon in 1974, in order to bring about an Executive dictatorship in the passage-into-law of international-trade treaties that would otherwise stand no real chance of becoming law, because too many members of Congress would lose their seats if they voted directly<\/i> for such horrendous treaties. So, instead, there is now instead, for these super-terrible international-trade deals, \u201cFast Track,\u201d as constituting the crucial vote. This trick enables a member of Congress to say that he or she had voted for \u201cFast Track\u201d instead of for the trade-deal itself. (He then has actually voted to eliminate the Constitution\u2019s requirement that any treaty needs two-thirds of the U.S. Senators to vote for it in order for the treaty to become law; that two-thirds is reduced by \u201cFast Track\u201d to a standard 50%. Though in the U.S. Constitution international treaties were handled as requiring especially high caution in order for them to be able to become law, Nixon created this way around the Constitutional requirement, this \u201cFast Track\u201d trick that should be thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.) The presumption here, in shunting these important things off into a procedural trick, is that voters are stupid enough to be easily fooled, and this is it: \u201cFast Track.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Whereas Democrats in Congress tend to be opposed to \u201cFast Track,\u201d Republicans in Congress have always supported it with near-unanimity. However, some Republicans face such strong resistance from their voters back home, that they lie and say they oppose \u201cFast Track.\u201d When that congressperson subsequently votes in the Senate or House to pass \u201cFast Track,\u201d only few of their voters back home even notice. And this increases even more the congressperson\u2019s contempt for his or her voters, that they\u2019re just fools or \u201csuckers.\u201d And this, in turn, reinforces that congressperson\u2019s belief that only his or her rich benefactors should even be of concern at all.<\/span><\/p>\n Here are\u00a0some headlines that feature Republicans speaking out against Obama\u2019s trade deals:<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cSen. Jeff Sessions Blasts Obamatrade”<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cEagle Forum: No Fast Track for Obamatrade\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cTheTeaParty.net: No Fast Track for Obamatrade\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAmerican Family Association: No Fast Track for\u00a0Obamatrade\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cObamatrade: A gift for Sharia regimes\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cConservatives hate Obamatrade even more than\u00a0Democrats do\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Then, there\u2019s this:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cChris Christie comes out\u00a0against fast track, joins 6\u00a0other GOP presidential\u00a0aspirants\u201d<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n That last one is dated 18 May 2015, and it says:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n “With\u00a0Chris Christie now coming out against fast track, joining\u00a0presidential aspirants Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul,\u00a0Donald Trump,\u00a0Lindsey Graham\u00a0and Mike Huckabee, it is clear\u00a0that Republican voters are dead set\u00a0opposed to granting trade\u00a0authority to President Obama. Meanwhile,\u00a0Senate Republicans\u00a0are risking seats in 2016 in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana,\u00a0New\u00a0Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to get the legislation\u00a0passed, jeopardizing any majority in the Senate a new Republican president might enjoy, and making it harder to win\u00a0the states he or she\u00a0will need in order to even get to the White\u00a0House.\u201d<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n But this was already four days after the key vote in the Senate, in which 52 Republicans voted \u201cYea,\u201d 2 Republicans failed to vote at all, and no Republican voted \u201cNay\u201d on \u201cFast Track<\/span><\/a> \u2013 in other words, they actually voted to pass into law all of Obama\u2019s international-trade deals. This included Rand Paul, and Lindsay Graham,<\/span><\/a> who are the only two U.S. Senators on that lying list of alleged opponents of \u201cFast Track.” Voting along with them for \u201cFast Track\u201d were 13 Democrats. But of the 33 \u201cNay\u201d votes (the votes against \u201cFast Track\u201d), 31 were Democrats, and 2 were Independents. None were Republicans.<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n So: Republicans were 52 to 0 in favor, with 2 abstentions; and Democrats were 13 to 31 against. Obama had virtually 100% of the Republicans with him, and he had 70% of the Democrats against him.\u00a0This is normal for cheating the public. Whereas all Republicans are usually bad, only around 30% of Democrats are. It\u2019s easier being a Republican in Congress \u2013 you just do what the people who invested in you invested in you to do. For Democrats, it\u2019s not that easy.<\/span><\/p>\n Another sign of the phoniness of Republicans who mouth opposition to Obama\u2019s trade deals, is that some of the very same Senators and Congresspersons who have written prominently against these deals, have also helped to pass them into law.<\/span><\/p>\n For example, here is Alabama Republican U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, writing on May 4th, a mere ten days before\u00a0he voted \u201cYea\u201d in the Senate, to \u201cFast Track\u201d Obama\u2019s trade-deals<\/span><\/a>\u00a0into law:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2013\u2013<\/span><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.sessions.senate.gov\/public\/index.cfm\/news-releases?ID=955DBDEC-E383-4401-AC3C-4E5EE06E99D1<\/span><\/p>\n CRITICAL ALERT:\u00a0TOP FIVE\u00a0CONCERNS WITH\u00a0TRADE\u00a0PROMOTION\u00a0AUTHORITY<\/b><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Top Five Concerns With Trade Promotion\u00a0Authority<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n CRITICAL ALERT: May 04, 2015<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Congress has the responsibility to ensure that\u00a0any international trade agreement entered into\u00a0by the United States must serve the national\u00a0interest, not merely the interests of those\u00a0crafting the proposal in secret. It must improve\u00a0the quality of life, the earnings, and the per-capita wealth of everyday working Americans.\u00a0The sustained long-term loss of middle class\u00a0jobs and incomes should compel all lawmakers\u00a0to apply added scrutiny to a \u201cfast-track\u201d\u00a0procedure wherein Congress would yield its\u00a0legislative powers and allow the White House\u00a0to implement one of largest global financial\u00a0agreements in our history\u2013comprising at least\u00a012 nations and nearly 40 percent of the world\u2019s\u00a0GDP [he\u2019s referring there to only the TPP, but \u2018Fast Track\u2019 would also apply to TTIP, with an additional 29 countries and almost all the rest of the world\u2019s GDP]. The request for fast-track also comes at a\u00a0time when the Administration has established a\u00a0recurring pattern of sidestepping the law, the\u00a0Congress, and the Constitution in order to\u00a0repeal sovereign protections for U.S. workers\u00a0in deference to favored financial and political\u00a0allies.<\/span><\/p>\n With that in mind, here are the top five\u00a0concerns about the Trade Promotion Authority\u00a0(TPA) [otherwise called \u201cFast Track\u201d] that must be fully understood and\u00a0addressed before passage:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. \u00a0Consolidation Of Power In The Executive\u00a0Branch.\u00a0TPA eliminates Congress\u2019 ability to\u00a0amend or debate trade implementing\u00a0legislation and guarantees an up-or-down vote\u00a0on a far-reaching international agreement\u00a0before that agreement has received any public\u00a0review. Not only will Congress have given up\u00a0the 67-vote threshold for a treaty and the 60-vote threshold for important legislation, but will\u00a0have even given up the opportunity for\u00a0amendment and the committee review process\u00a0that both ensure member participation.\u00a0Crucially, this applies not only to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) but\u00a0all\u00a0international\u00a0trade agreements during the life of the TPA.\u00a0There is no real check on the expiration of fast-track authority: if Congress does not\u00a0affirmatively refuse to reauthorize TPA at the\u00a0end of the defined authorization (2018), the\u00a0authority is automatically renewed for an\u00a0additional three years so long as the President\u00a0requests the extension. And if a trade deal (not\u00a0just TPP but any trade deal) is submitted to\u00a0Congress that members believe does not fulfill,\u00a0or that directly violates, the TPA\u00a0recommendations\u2013or any laws of the United\u00a0States\u2013it is exceptionally difficult for\u00a0lawmakers to seek legislative redress or\u00a0remove it from the fast track, as the exit ramp is\u00a0under the exclusive control of the revenue and\u00a0Rules committees.<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, while the President is required to\u00a0submit a report to Congress on the terms of a\u00a0trade agreement at least 60 days before\u00a0submitting implementing legislation, the\u00a0President can classify or otherwise redact\u00a0information from this report, limiting its value to\u00a0Congress.<\/span><\/p>\n Is TPA designed to protect congressional\u00a0responsibilities, or to limit Congress\u2019 ability to\u00a0do its duty?<\/span><\/p>\n 2. \u00a0Increased Trade Deficits.\u00a0Barclays\u00a0estimates that during the first quarter of this\u00a0year, the overall U.S. trade deficit will reduce\u00a0economic growth by .2 percent. History\u00a0suggests that trade deals set into motion under\u00a0the 6-year life of TPA could exacerbate our\u00a0trade imbalance, acting as an impediment to\u00a0both GDP and wage growth. Labor economist\u00a0Clyde Prestowitz attributes 60 percent of the\u00a0U.S.\u2019 5.7 million manufacturing jobs lost over\u00a0the last decade to import-driven trade\u00a0imbalances. And in a recent column for\u00a0Reuters, a former chief executive officer at\u00a0AT&T notes that<\/span><\/p>\n \u201csince the [NAFTA and South Korea free\u00a0trade] pacts were implemented, U.S. trade\u00a0deficits, which drag down economic\u00a0growth, have soared more than 430\u00a0percent with our free-trade partners. In the\u00a0same period, they\u2019ve declined 11 percent\u00a0with countries that are not free-trade\u00a0partners\u2026 Obama\u2019s 2011 trade deal with\u00a0South Korea, which serves as the template\u00a0for the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, has\u00a0resulted in a 50 percent jump in the U.S.\u00a0trade deficit with South Korea in its first two\u00a0years. This equates to 50,000 U.S. jobs\u00a0lost.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Job loss by U.S. workers means reduced\u00a0consumer demand, less tax revenue flowing\u00a0into the Treasury, and greater reliance on\u00a0government assistance programs. It is\u00a0important that Congress fully understand the\u00a0impact of this very large trade agreement and\u00a0to use caution to ensure the interests of the\u00a0people are protected.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the lack of protections in TPA\u00a0against foreign subsidies could\u00a0accelerate\u00a0our\u00a0shrinking domestic manufacturing base. We\u00a0have been getting out-negotiated by our\u00a0mercantilist trading partners for years, failing to\u00a0aggressively advance legitimate U.S. interests,\u00a0but the proponents of TPA have apparently not\u00a0sought to rectify this problem.<\/span><\/p>\n TPA proponents must answer this simple\u00a0question: will your plan shrink the trade deficit\u00a0or will it grow it even wider?<\/span><\/p>\n 3. \u00a0Ceding Sovereign Authority To\u00a0International Powers.\u00a0A USTR outline of the\u00a0Trans-Pacific Partnership (which TPA would\u00a0expedite) notes in the \u201cKey Features\u201d summary\u00a0that the TPP is a \u201cliving agreement.\u201d This\u00a0means the President could update the\u00a0agreement \u201cas appropriate to address trade\u00a0issues that emerge in the future as well as new\u00a0issues that arise with the expansion of the\u00a0agreement to include new countries.\u201d The\u00a0\u201cliving agreement\u201d provision means that\u00a0participating nations could both add countries\u00a0to the TPP without Congress\u2019 approval (like\u00a0China), and could also change any of the terms\u00a0of the agreement, including in controversial\u00a0areas such as the entry of foreign workers and\u00a0foreign employees. Again: these changes\u00a0would not be subject to congressional\u00a0approval.<\/span><\/p>\n This has far-reaching implications: the\u00a0Congressional Research Service reports that if\u00a0the United States signs on to an international\u00a0trade agreement, the implementing legislation\u00a0of that trade agreement (as a law passed later\u00a0in time) would supersede conflicting federal,\u00a0state, and local laws. When this occurs, U.S.\u00a0workers may be subject to a sudden change in\u00a0tariffs, regulations, or dispute resolution\u00a0proceedings in international tribunals outside\u00a0the U.S.<\/span><\/p>\n Promoters of TPA should explain why the\u00a0American people ought to trust the\u00a0Administration and its foreign partners to revise\u00a0or rewrite international agreements, or add new\u00a0members to those agreements, without\u00a0congressional approval. Does this not\u00a0represent an abdication of congressional\u00a0authority?<\/span><\/p>\n 4. \u00a0Currency Manipulation.\u00a0The biggest open\u00a0secret in the international market is that other\u00a0countries are devaluing their currencies to\u00a0artificially lower the price of their exports while\u00a0artificially raising the price of our exports to\u00a0them. The result has been a massive bleeding\u00a0of domestic manufacturing wealth. In fact,\u00a0currency manipulation can easily dwarf tariffs in\u00a0its economic impact. A 2014 biannual report\u00a0from the Treasury Department concluded that\u00a0the yuan, or renminbi, remained significantly\u00a0undervalued, yet the Treasury Department\u00a0failed to designate China as a \u201ccurrency\u00a0manipulator.\u201d History suggests this\u00a0Administration, like those before it, will not\u00a0stand up to improper currency practices.\u00a0Currency protections are currently absent from\u00a0TPA, indicating again that those involved in\u00a0pushing these trade deals do not wish to see\u00a0these currency abuses corrected. Therefore,\u00a0even if currency protections are somehow\u00a0added into TPA, it is still entirely possible that\u00a0the Administration could ignore those\u00a0guidelines and send Congress unamendable\u00a0trade deals that expose U.S. workers to a\u00a0surge of underpriced foreign imports. President\u00a0Obama\u2019s longstanding resistance to meaningful\u00a0currency legislation is proof he intends to take\u00a0no action.<\/span><\/p>\n The President has repeatedly failed to stand up\u00a0to currency manipulators. Why should we\u00a0believe this time will be any different?<\/span><\/p>\n 5. \u00a0Immigration Increases.\u00a0There are\u00a0numerous ways TPA could facilitate\u00a0immigration increases above current law\u2013and\u00a0precious few ways anyone in Congress could\u00a0stop its happening. For instance: language\u00a0could be included or added into the TPP, as\u00a0well as any future trade deal submitted for fast-track consideration in the next 6 years, with the\u00a0clear intent to facilitate or enable the movement\u00a0of foreign workers and employees into the\u00a0United States (including intracompany\u00a0transfers), and there would be no capacity for\u00a0lawmakers to strike the offending provision.\u00a0The Administration could also simply act on its\u00a0own to negotiate foreign worker increases with\u00a0foreign trading partners without ever\u00a0advertising those plans to Congress. In 2011,\u00a0the United States entered into an agreement\u00a0with South Korea\u2013never brought before\u00a0Congress\u2013to increase the duration of L-1\u00a0visas (a visa that affords no protections for U.S.\u00a0workers).<\/span><\/p>\n Every year, tens of thousands of foreign guest\u00a0workers come to the U.S. as part of past trade\u00a0deals. However, because there is little\u00a0transparency, estimating an exact figure is\u00a0difficult. The plain language of TPA provides\u00a0avenues for the Administration and its trading\u00a0partners to facilitate the expanded movement\u00a0of foreign workers into the U.S.\u2013including\u00a0visitor visas that are used as worker visas. The\u00a0TPA reads:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe principal negotiating objective of the\u00a0United States regarding trade in services is\u00a0to expand competitive market opportunities\u00a0for United States services and to obtain\u00a0fairer and more open conditions of trade,\u00a0including through utilization of global value\u00a0chains, by reducing or eliminating barriers\u00a0to international trade in services\u2026\u00a0Recognizing that expansion of trade in\u00a0services generates benefits for all sectors\u00a0of the economy and facilitates trade.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n This language, and other language in TPA,\u00a0offers an obvious way for the Administration to\u00a0expand the number and duration of foreign\u00a0worker entries under the concept that the\u00a0movement of foreign workers into U.S. jobs\u00a0constitutes \u201ctrade in services.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Stating that \u201cTPP contains no change to\u00a0immigration law\u201d is a semantic rather than a\u00a0factual argument. Language already present in\u00a0both TPA and TPP provide the basis for\u00a0admitting more foreign workers, and for longer\u00a0periods of time, and language could later be\u00a0added to TPP or any future trade deal to further\u00a0increase such admissions.<\/span><\/p>\n The President has already subjected American\u00a0workers to profound wage loss through\u00a0executive-ordered foreign worker increases on\u00a0top of existing record immigration levels. Yet,\u00a0despite these extraordinary actions, the\u00a0Administration will casually assert that is has\u00a0merely modernized, clarified, improved,\u00a0streamlined, and updated immigration rules.\u00a0Thus, at any point during the 6-year life of TPA,\u00a0the Administration could send Congress a\u00a0trade deal\u2013or issue an executive action\u00a0subsequent to a trade deal as part of its\u00a0implementation\u2013that increased foreign worker\u00a0entry into the U.S., all while claiming it has\u00a0never changed immigration law.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The President has circumvented Congress on\u00a0immigration with serial regularity. But the TPA\u00a0would yield new power to the executive to alter\u00a0admissions while subtracting congressional\u00a0checks against those actions. This runs\u00a0contrary to our Founders\u2019 belief, as stated in\u00a0the Constitution, that immigration should be in\u00a0the hands of Congress. The Supreme Court\u00a0has consistently held that the Constitution\u00a0grants Congress plenary authority over\u00a0immigration policy. For instance, the Court\u00a0ruled in\u00a0Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531\u00a0(1954), that \u201cthe formulation of policies\u00a0[pertaining to the entry of immigrants and their\u00a0right to remain here] is entrusted exclusively to\u00a0Congress\u2026 [This principle] has become about\u00a0as firmly imbedded in the legislative and\u00a0judicial issues of our body politic as any aspect\u00a0of our government.\u201d Granting the President\u00a0TPA could enable controversial changes or\u00a0increases to a wide variety of visas\u2013such as\u00a0the H-1B, B-1, E-1, and L-1\u2013including visas\u00a0that confer foreign nationals with a pathway to\u00a0a green card and thus citizenship.<\/span><\/p>\n Future trade deals could also have the possible\u00a0effect of preventing Congress from reforming\u00a0abuses in our guest worker programs, as\u00a0countries could complain that limitations on\u00a0foreign worker travel constituted a trade barrier\u00a0requiring adjudication by an international body.<\/span><\/p>\n The TPP also includes an entire chapter on\u00a0\u201cTemporary Entry\u201d that applies to all parties and\u00a0that affects U.S. immigration law. Additionally,\u00a0the Temporary Entry chapter creates a\u00a0separate negotiating group, explicitly\u00a0contemplating that the parties to the TPP will\u00a0revisit temporary entry at some point in the\u00a0future for the specific purpose of making\u00a0changes to this chapter\u2013after Congress would\u00a0have already approved the TPP. This possibility\u00a0grows more acute given that TPP is a \u201cliving\u00a0agreement\u201d that can be altered without\u00a0Congress.<\/span><\/p>\n Proponents of TPA should be required to\u00a0answer this question: if you are confident that\u00a0TPA would not enable any immigration actions\u00a0between now and its 2021 expiration, why not\u00a0include ironclad enforcement language to\u00a0reverse any such presidential action?<\/span><\/p>\n CONCLUSION<\/span><\/p>\n Our government must defend the legitimate\u00a0interests of American workers and American\u00a0manufacturing on the world stage. The time\u00a0when this nation can suffer the loss of a single\u00a0job as a result of a poor trade agreement is\u00a0over.<\/span><\/p>\n The American people want us to slow down a\u00a0bit. The rapid pace of immigration and\u00a0globalization has placed enormous pressures\u00a0on working Americans. Lower-cost labor and\u00a0lower-cost goods from countries with less per-person wealth have rushed into our\u00a0marketplace, lowering American wages and\u00a0employment. The public has grown\u00a0increasingly skeptical of these elaborate\u00a0proposals, stitched together in secret, and\u00a0rushed to passage on the solemn promises of\u00a0their promoters. Too often, these schemes\u00a0collapse under their own weight. Our job is to\u00a0raise our own standard of living here in\u00a0America, not to lower our standard of living to\u00a0achieve greater parity with the rest of the world.\u00a0If we want an international trade deal that\u00a0advances the interests of our own people, then\u00a0perhaps we don\u2019t need a \u201cfast-track\u201d but a\u00a0regular track: where the President sends us\u00a0any proposal he deems worthy and we review\u00a0it on its own merits.<\/span><\/p>\n \u2013\u2013<\/span><\/p>\n And then, he voted, on May 14th, to approve Fast-Track Trade Promotion Authority<\/span><\/a> \u2013 he voted for everything that he criticized here. He\u2019s not afraid of what the overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly conservative, voters back home think, the people who elected him; because, they respect the super-rich, like he does, and the super-rich are the people he serves; so, what\u2019s there really for them to compain about? He comes from a plantation culture, and he does what they do.<\/span><\/a> He\u2019s Republican through and through. John Wilkes Booth\u2019s bullet created the Republican Party that we have today, and he\u2019s typical of it, just a normal Republican. Much like Obama himself is. They merely adjust their rhetoric in order to fool their voters. Professor Obama should write the textbook on it.<\/span><\/p>\n So: What was Jeff Sessions’s lie? It was the entire article, because the entire article was implicitly a promise that he would vote against “Fast Track.”<\/span><\/p>\n ———-<\/span><\/p>\n Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They\u2019re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010<\/i><\/span><\/a>,<\/i> and of \u00a0<\/i>CHRIST\u2019S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity<\/i><\/span><\/a>, and\u00a0of \u00a0Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics<\/i><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" How Congressional Republicans Lie to Approve Obama\u2019s Trade Deals Eric Zuesse Obama\u2019s trade-deals \u2013 especially TPP with Asia, and TTIP with Europe \u2013 are so vicious against the American people, the Obama Administration has labeled the documents \u201cClassified,\u201d and is threatening prosecution against any member of Congress who quotes from the texts; it would be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":152378,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[461,1622],"tags":[115,30,96,974,29,529,535,540,694,975,49,40],"class_list":{"0":"post-152374","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-editorials","8":"category-featured","9":"tag-barack-obama","10":"tag-big-brother","11":"tag-cover-up","12":"tag-democracy","13":"tag-democrats","14":"tag-fascism","15":"tag-global-news","16":"tag-republicans","17":"tag-ttip","18":"tag-ttp","19":"tag-usa-news","20":"tag-white-house"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152374","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=152374"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152374\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/152378"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}