Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-SHAFTA dept.

Zero Hedge reports

[May 12], in an embarrassing setback for the president, Senate Democrats in a 52-45 vote--short of the required 60 supporters--blocked a bill that would give President Barack Obama fast-track authority to expedite trade agreements through Congress, a major defeat for Obama and his allies who "say the measure is necessary to complete a 12-nation Pacific trade deal that is a centerpiece of the administration's economic agenda."

The passage failed after a leading pro-trade Democrat said he would oppose the bill: Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he would vote no and his loss was a major blow to hopes of attracting a sufficient number Democrats to get 60 "yes" votes in the chamber.

According to Reuters, the Senate vote was one of a series of obstacles to be overcome that hinged on the support of a handful of Democrats. The White House has launched a campaign blitz directed at them in support of granting the president authority to speed trade deals through Congress.

Fast-track legislation gives lawmakers the right to set negotiating objectives but restricts them to a yes-or-no vote on trade deals such as the TPP, a potential legacy-defining achievement for Obama.

[...]Why is Obama scrambling to ram the TPP bill through Congress as fast as possible?

[...]This enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

[Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)] would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws--and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers--without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here's how it would work:

Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators [read: corporate-friendly tribunal]. If the company won, the ruling couldn't be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions--and even billions--of dollars in damages.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:14PM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:14PM (#182553)

    say the measure is necessary to complete a 12-nation Pacific trade deal that is a centerpiece of the administration's economic agenda.

    Hmm, a suspicious-sounding 12-nation Pacific trade deal. I haven't heard anything about this, does it have a name of some sort?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:32PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:32PM (#182602) Homepage Journal

    Filter error: Comment too short

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:05PM (#182627)

    The backronym derived by the listeners of wise radio guy Thom Hartmann:
    "Southern Hemisphere Asian Free Trade Agreement".

    -- gewg_