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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:22PM (#182598)

    Americans are all for trade as long as they have the advantage doing it when it comes to actual competition they always rig the game in their favour.

    Bigoted much? All but a tiny fraction of Americans don't even know these things exist. How can they have a technical opinion on them?

    All of this is about giant corporations doing what giant corporations do. They and the people leading them are functionally without nationality. Everyday people like you or me have no power, no say, and no way to intentionally benefit from trade agreements.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:14PM (#182660)

    No one has specifically mentioned that point yet.
    Kudos to you.

    Ross Perot got 19 percent of the popular vote when he ran for president in 1992.
    How did he do that?
    He concentrated on trade policy.
    "That giant sucking sound" was how he described jobs leaving the USA (NAFTA).
    He was wrong on pretty much all other topics IMO, but he couldn't have been more correct on trade.

    ...and isn't it interesting how national borders don't exist for capital but those do for labor.

    -- gewg_