SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:31PM
The most important political issue this century is to make sure the Earth remains habitable.
Which will be trivial to attain in the absence of government funded superweapons.
To make sure the multinational corporations are under the control of the people via governments, and not the governments under the control of the multinationals.
There's a reason I think governments are far more dangerous than multinational corporations. Governments are larger, are far more powerful, and simply aren't under the control of "the people" (while most multinationals are vulnerable to boycotts, sabotage, and other public protests). Governments are also responsible for far more death and suffering throughout history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:03PM
lol, funniest joke of the week!