Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?



    Obama’s Republican Collaborators



    by Patrick J. Buchanan

    April 21, 2015


    photo credit: Shutterstock


    The GOP swept to victory in November by declaring that this imperial presidency must be brought to heel, and President Obama’s illicit seizures of Congressional power must end.

    That was then. Now is now.

    This week, Congress takes up legislation to cede His Majesty full authority to negotiate the largest trade deal in history, the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, and to surrender Congress’ right to amend any TPP that Obama might bring home.

    Why the capitulation? Why would Republicans line up to kiss the royal ring? Is Middle America clamoring for “fast track”? Are blue-collar workers marching in the streets to have Congress grant “Trade Promotion Authority Now!” to Barack Obama?

    No. Pressure for fast track is coming from two sources.

    First, the editorial pages of papers like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post that truckle to the transnational corporations that provide the advertising revenue stream keeping them alive.“The economic independence that enabled us to stay out of two world wars—until we chose to go in and help win them swiftly—is history.”

    Second, Obama is relying on Congressional Republicans who, for all their bravado about defying his usurpations, know on which side their bread is buttered. It’s the Wall Street-K Street side.

    Fast track is the GOP payoff to its bundlers and big donors.

    And so, we must hear again all the tired talking points about free trade, soaring exports, jobs created, etc.
    But what is reality of the last quarter century of “free trade”?
    The economic independence that enabled us to stay out of two world wars—until we chose to go in and help win them swiftly—is history. We are a dependent nation now. We rely on imports for the necessities of our national life and the vital components of our weapons systems. Hamilton must be turning over in his grave.

    Where once wages rose inexorably in America and the middle class seemed ever to expand, we read today about income inequality, the growing gap between rich and poor, and wage stagnation. Did $11 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I have anything to do with this? Or do we think that the 55,000 factories and 5-6 million manufacturing jobs that went missing in the first decade of this new century had no connection to those huge trade deficits?

    Is there a link perhaps between all those factories closing in the USA and all those factories opening in China, or between a U.S. average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent since the turn of the century, and a Chinese average annual growth rate of around 10 percent?

    We read of China’s hoard of $4 trillion in cash reserves, of Beijing creating a replica of the World Bank, of European and Asian nations rushing to sign up to get a piece of the action in building China’s new “Silk Road” to Europe.

    Monday’s New York Times tells of Premier Xi Jinping coming to Islamabad bearing gifts. Pakistani officials say Xi will be signing agreements for $46 billion for the construction of railroads, highways and power plants over the next 15 years.

    Where did Xi get all that money to displace America in Asia?

    Last week came news that Japan has narrowly passed China as a holder of U.S. federal debt. Between them, they hold $2.5 trillion. Did the tidal wave of imports from Japan and China, and the historic trade deficits we have run with both nations for decades, have anything to do with our Athens-like indebtedness to our Asian creditors?

    When we look back to NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, MFN and PNTR for China, the Korean-U.S. free trade deal, CAFTA with Central America—almost all have led to soaring trade deficits and jobs lost to the nations with whom we signed the agreements.
    As for the bureaucrats and politicians who promised us big new markets for exports, rising trade surpluses, better jobs—were they simply ignorant, or were they knowingly lying to us?

    No one can be that wrong for that long. The law of averages is against it.

    Writing yesterday, Peter Morici, chief economist in the early Clinton years at the U.S. International Trade Commission, says the Korean deal alone, and the import surge that followed, cost America 100,000 jobs.
    “Asian nations target specific industries—such as autos and information technology—and compel U.S. firms to establish factories and research facilities in their economies,” as China, Germany and Japan manipulate their currencies to keep exports to us high and imports from us low.

    Morici estimates that our annual $500 billion trade deficit costs America 4 million jobs and is a contributing cause of the fall of U.S. family income by $4,600 since 2000. Unless changes are made in TPP, he writes, “Congress should deny President Obama authority to negotiate yet another jobs killing trade pact in the Pacific.”

    What the nation needs is not only a rejection of fast track, but also a trade policy that puts country before corporate profit, workers before Wall Street, and America first.

    Such a policy once made the Republican Party America’s Party.


  • #2
    Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

    From the other side, same general assessment:

    SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE (TPP)AGREEMENT MUST BE DEFEATED --

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largestmulti-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations ofAmerican democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world.

    The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while WallStreet, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty,the American people and members of Congress do not. They have been locked out of the process.Further, all Americans, regardless of political ideology, should be opposed to the “fast track” process whichwould deny Congress the right to amend the treaty and represent their constituents’ interests.

    The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and thePermanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR). These treaties have forced American workers tocompete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in theUnited States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories. These corporately backed tradeagreements have significantly contributed to the race to the bottom, the collapse of the American middle classand increased wealth and income inequality. The TPP is more of the same, but even worse.

    During my 23 years in Congress, I helped lead the fight against NAFTA and PNTR with China. During thecoming session of Congress, I will be working with organized labor, environmentalists, religious organizations,Democrats, and Republicans against the secretive TPP trade deal.Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a “free trade” agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom toboost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights;dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challengeour laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system.

    If TPP was such a good deal for America,the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead ofkeeping the content of the TPP a secret.

    10 Ways that TPP would hurt Working Families:

    1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.According to the Economic Policy Institute, if the TPP is agreed to, the U.S. will lose more than130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.· Service Sector Jobs will be lost. At a time when corporations have already outsourced over 3million service sector jobs in the U.S., TPP includes rules that will make it even easier forcorporate America to outsource call centers; computer programming; engineering; accounting;and medical diagnostic jobs.· Manufacturing jobs will be lost. As a result of NAFTA, the U.S. lost nearly 700,000 jobs. Asa result of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, the U.S. lost over 2.7 million jobs. Asa result of the Korea Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. has lost 70,000 jobs. The TPP would makematters worse by providing special benefits to firms that offshore jobs and by reducing the risksassociated with operating in low-wage countries.

    2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our lawsbefore international tribunals.The TPP creates a special dispute resolution process that allows corporations to challenge anydomestic laws that could adversely impact their “expected future profits.”These challenges would be heard before UN and World Bank tribunals which could require taxpayercompensation to corporations.This process undermines our sovereignty and subverts democratically passed laws including thosedealing with labor, health, and the environment.

    3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and other free trade agreements have helped drive down thewages and benefits of American workers and have eroded collective bargaining rights.The TPP will make the race to the bottom worse because it forces American workers to compete withdesperate workers in Vietnam where the minimum wage is just 56 cents an hour.

    4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.The TPP will allow corporations to challenge any law that would adversely impact their futureprofits. Pending claims worth over $14 billion have been filed based on similar language in othertrade agreements. Most of these claims deal with challenges to environmental laws in a number ofcountries. The TPP will make matters even worse by giving corporations the right to sue any of thenations that sign onto the TPP. These lawsuits would be heard in international tribunals bypassingdomestic courts.

    5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.The TPP would make it easier for countries like Vietnam to export contaminated fish and seafood intothe U.S. The FDA has already prevented hundreds of seafood imports from TPP countries because ofsalmonella, e-coli, methyl-mercury and drug residues. But the FDA only inspects 1-2 percent of foodimports and will be overwhelmed by the vast expansion of these imports if the TPP is agreed to.

    6. Buy America laws could come to an end.The U.S. has several laws on the books that require the federal government to buy goods and servicesthat are made in America or mostly made in this country. Under TPP, foreign corporations must begiven equal access to compete for these government contracts with companies that make products inAmerica. Under TPP, the U.S. could not even prevent companies that have horrible human rightsrecords from receiving government contracts paid by U.S. taxpayers.

    7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits ofdrug companies will go up.Big pharmaceutical companies are working hard to ensure that the TPP extends the monopolies theyhave for prescription drugs by extending their patents (which currently can last 20 years ormore). This would expand the profits of big drug companies, keep drug prices artificially high, andleave millions of people around the world without access to life saving drugs. Doctors withoutBorders stated that “the TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever for access to medicines in developing countries.”

    8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.Under TPP, governments would be barred from imposing “capital controls” that have beensuccessfully used to avoid financial crises. These controls range from establishing a financialspeculation tax to limiting the massive flows of speculative capital flowing into and out of countriesresponsible for the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. In other words, the TPP would expand therights and power of the same Wall Street firms that nearly destroyed the world economy just fiveyears ago and would create the conditions for more financial instability in the future.Last year, I co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Harkin to create a Wall Street speculation tax of just 0.03percent on trades of derivatives, credit default swaps, and large amounts of stock. If TPP wereenacted, such a financial speculation tax may be in violation of this trade agreement.

    9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate humanrights.The State Department, the U.S. Department of Labor, Human Rights Watch, and AmnestyInternational have all documented Vietnam’s widespread violations of basic international standardsfor human rights. Yet, the TPP would reward Vietnam’s bad behavior by giving it duty free access tothe U.S. market.

    10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.Once TPP is agreed to, it has no sunset date and could only be altered by a consensus of all of the countries thatagreed to it. Other countries, like China, could be allowed to join in the future. For example, Canada andMexico joined TPP negotiations in 2012 and Japan joined last year.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

      Thanks Raz.


      Buchanan makes all good points here.
      One point he misses is how TPP will undermine US sovereignty.


      It allows corporations to petition an international trade tribunal to collect damages from taxpayers to cover any loss of expected profits that might be caused by a new local laws. It makes taxpayers guarantee projections of sales and profits when a product gets outlawed or taxed.


      If we outlaw a product or service taxpayers write the corp a check for the profits the corp had expected.
      Think how much money Grünenthal pharmaceuticals could have made from thalidomide under these rules.


      It could become a good business plan.
      Just think up a dangerous or offensive product that is not yet regulated; make it and sell it until laws are passed; and when local laws shut you down, petition for all the expected profits without the trouble or expense of actually making or selling the product.
      The imagination runs wild....

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

        I'm glad that information about this appalling agreement is starting to trickle out.

        Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

          Originally posted by shiny! View Post
          I'm glad that information about this appalling agreement is starting to trickle out.
          New England, everywhere I look,
          old letters crumble from the Book,
          China trade rubble, one more line
          unraveling from the dark design
          spun by God and Cotton Mather—
          our bel età dell' oro, another
          bright thing thinner than a cobweb,
          caught in Calvinism's ebb.

          _______________________

          We awake to sit in traffic,
          Amidst the crumbling redbrick mills.
          Last changes on the horizon,
          Sterile glass and steel financial towers.
          Decades after raw decay,
          Didn't have to be this way,
          But we who see those factory floors,
          Turn to condos and art stores,
          Never did forget what's lost.
          Or the hefty local cost.
          Nor shall our representatives.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?



            a good summation . . . .

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

              Will people listen?

              I'm afraid Democrat voters will still not believe "their" party would throw them under the bus, and Republican voters will continue blaming the unions for the loss of manufacturing jobs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

                Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
                From the other side, same general assessment:

                SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE (TPP)AGREEMENT MUST BE DEFEATED --

                The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largestmulti-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations ofAmerican democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world...
                Bernie seems like he's been on the right side of every contention. He's right on TPP, right on the corrupt HillBill syndicate, and was right on the war:



                Obviously, the man cannot be trusted and there is no place for him. Contrast the experience of Hillary



                Or Judith Miller.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

                  Originally posted by subtly View Post
                  Will people listen?

                  I'm afraid Democrat voters will still not believe "their" party would throw them under the bus, and Republican voters will continue blaming the unions for the loss of manufacturing jobs.
                  I think the message to hammer home is this (and I don't think it can be said enough):

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                  If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

                    i actually don't think that line of reasoning works. if there were, let's assume, a variety of trade-offs to be made to come to an agreement, than as each item came up the special interests tied to that item would be aroused, while the more diffuse beneficiaries as well as the beneficiaries of other clauses being traded off, would not, and negotiations would be repeatedly torpedoed. of course, in real life the real beneficiaries will be the big multinationals and the 0.01%, i just don't think the "do it in secret" argument is a logical one.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

                      Originally posted by jk View Post
                      i actually don't think that line of reasoning works. if there were, let's assume, a variety of trade-offs to be made to come to an agreement, than as each item came up the special interests tied to that item would be aroused, while the more diffuse beneficiaries as well as the beneficiaries of other clauses being traded off, would not, and negotiations would be repeatedly torpedoed. of course, in real life the real beneficiaries will be the big multinationals and the 0.01%, i just don't think the "do it in secret" argument is a logical one.
                      I guess it's the reverse of the tyranny of the majority problem. Tyranny of the interests. But weirdly, I think that's exactly what we get now. There's nobody on the USTR boards that's there explicitly to represent the middle class, consumers, or any other class of people who might see diffuse benefits theoretically.

                      I think it's logical from a real-life perspective. Cui bono? If there were diffuse benefits, you'd think John Q. Public would see them. Meanwhile, the special interests have a front row seat at the table. The contents of this agreement are not a secret to Microsoft

                      It's especially funny to me that the majority of New England senators are opposing fast tracking this thing right now, because they want it out in public. Meanwhile even the free trade libertarian zealots at Cato are against the ISDS component of the agreement.

                      In fact, in the rarest of confluences, Krugman and Cato agree partially on something. And Krugman's usually a pro-free-trade kind of guy.

                      Anyways, the people writ large aren't allowed to see or influence this deal. Our representatives aren't allowed to even talk to their constituents about it.

                      But here's a list of 600 corporate officers who do get to see it and influence it.

                      If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                      Last edited by dcarrigg; May 02, 2015, 04:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

                        Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
                        If the deal they're working out were good for the majority of us, they wouldn't have to do it in secret.
                        No deal since the New Deal has been good for the majority of Americans and we all missed that one. Since then, anything that looks good is corporate welfare with a cute progressive bow on it.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

                          "It was an inside job
                          by the well connected,
                          your little protest,
                          summarily rejected.

                          It was an inside job,
                          favors collected,
                          your trusted servants,
                          have left you unprotected.

                          It was an inside job,
                          just like it always is,
                          just chalk it up to business as usual"

                          D. Henley. Inside Job

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

                            Originally posted by henley
                            ....your trusted servants,
                            have left you unprotected.

                            ....
                            aided and abetted by 'our' LAMERSTREAM MEDIA
                            (who have FLATLY REFUSED to 'tell us like it is' )

                            here's the REAL themesong for whats really happnin:



                            and maybe it's time for a 'new nat'l anthem' ? (this guy has a point, listen carefully to the words of this one)

                            Last edited by lektrode; May 03, 2015, 09:52 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Another "Giant Sucking Sound" ?

                              Or do the Newspapers tell people what they want to hear?

                              Ever try to tell people that real estate was risky in 2004-2005?

                              During that period if you toold the folks real estate prices would rise for ever and flipping homes was the new job to replace loss manufacturing you made a fortune.

                              I think EJ said it best - don't try to wake the dreamer.....

                              Even now I see rents rising at the very time that vacant homes is rising and every one thinks being a landlord is easy.

                              Why do so few in my area not see the empty homes and why aren't more scratching their heads why are home prices up with vacant inventory every where?

                              I honestly think it is what is going on is so unimaginable to the average person that they would rather read about fairy tales.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X