Tag: TPP

Categories
Quick Analysis

New trade deal increases concern over weak export/import balance, & employment numbers

The deal that has been reached on the Transpacific Partnership bill (TPP) bill could not have come at a worse time for supporters of the international agreement.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is an agreement to establish a free-trade zone among 12 nations around the Pacific. Unfortunately, all of its provisions have not been made available for public review. It has been criticized for being a “living” deal, which could “evolve,” without input from the American people.

The White House  maintains that ““TPP will also raise labor standards across our trading partners and help raise wages here at home. That’s because enforceable requirements on minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health are at the center of the agreement. And that’s because trade jobs are good jobs, paying up to 18 percent more on average than non-trade jobs.”

Many have raised concerns that the measure will, similar to criticism of prior international trade deals, harm both employment opportunities for U.S. citizens and result in further damage to the weak balance of trade for American businesses.  Roughly similar but smaller international agreements in the past have failed to produce any benefits for U.S. workers or enterprises.

These fears have been exacerbated by statistics released this month by the federal government. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis :

“…the goods and services deficit was $48.3 billion in August, up $6.5 billion. from $41.8 billion in July, revised. August exports were $185.1 billion, $3.7 billion less than July exports. August imports were $233.4 billion, $2.8 billion more than July imports. The August increase in the goods and services deficit reflected an increase in the goods deficit of $6.6 billion to $67.9 billion and an increase in the services surplus of $0.1 billion to $19.6 billion.

Year-to-date, the goods and services deficit increased $17.6 billion, or 5.2 percent, from the same period in 2014. Exports decreased $58.9 billion or 3.8 percent. Imports decreased $41.3billion or 2.2 percent.

Goods and Services Three-Month Moving Averages

 The average goods and services deficit increased $1.9 billion to $45.1 billion for the three months ending in August.

  • Average exports of goods and services decreased $0.9 billion to $187.2 billion in August.
  • Average imports of goods and services increased $1.0 billion to $232.3 billion in August.

This enzyme increases the supply of blood to the sex cheap viagra professional organs. No Need to Visit the Pharmacy There are some medical problems or other health associated conditions. viagra india online This is on the grounds that all the branded companies are using a lot of ads and so it is cost saving and cheap. pastilla levitra 10mg Ganoderma ludicum comes in a variety of ways and it is helpful in restricting intestinal cialis sale slovak-republic.org glucose absorption.
Year-over-year, the average goods and services deficit increased $3.4 billion from the three months ending in August 2014.

  • Average exports of goods and services decreased $9.4 billion from August 2014.
  • Average imports of goods and services decreased $6.0 billion from August 2014.

Exports

Exports of goods decreased $4.1 billion to $124.5 billion in August. Exports of goods on a Census basis decreased $4.0 billion.

  • Industrial supplies and materials decreased $2.2 billion.
  • Fuel oil decreased $0.6 billion.
  • Plastic materials decreased $0.2 billion.
  • Crude oil decreased $0.2 billion.

   Net balance of payments adjustments decreased $0.1 billion.”

At the same time, and not unrelated, the release of the latest unemployment report (see the recent New York Analysis of Policy & Government article)  reveals the following unemployment rates:

“Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (4.7 percent),adult women, teenagers (16.3 percent), whites (4.4 percent), blacks (9.2 percent), Asians (3.6 percent), and Hispanics (6.4 percent) showed little or no change in September. The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks increased by 268,000 to 2.4 million in September, partially offsetting a decline in August. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 2.1 million in September and accounted for 26.6 percent of the unemployed. The civilian labor force participation rate declined to 62.4 percent in September; the rate had been 62.6 percent for the prior 3 months. The employment-population ratio edged down to 59.2 percent in September, after showing little movement for the first 8 months of the year.” In addition, hourly wages declined.  In a worrisome note, the August numbers were revised downward, something that generally happens only during a recession.”

Both conservatives and liberals disagree with the President’s optimistic contention. The Washington Post reports that Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has  “slammed the deal, saying that “Wall Street and other big corporations have won again. Republican front-runner Donald Trump tweeted [stated] on Monday: ‘The incompetence of our current administration is beyond comprehension. TPP is a terrible deal.’ And Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton has hedged on the TPP pact, despite having supported it while serving as Obama’s secretary of state.”

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) states that “The White House still refuses to answer even the most basic questions about [the TPP]. These are the questions the White House will not answer:

  • Will it increase or reduce the trade deficit, and by how much?
  • Will it increase or reduce employment and wages, and by how much?
  • Will you make the “living agreement” section public and explain fully its implications?
  • Will China be added to the TPP?
  • Will you pledge not to issue any executive actions, or enter into any future agreements, impacting the flow of foreign workers into the United States?”

Categories
Quick Analysis

From Left to Right, Opposition to the Transpacific Partnership

Lost in the various arguments for and against the Trans Pacific Partnership  is the unpleasant reality that there is little to reason to believe that it will right the persistent inequities that have detrimentally affected American businesses and workers .

In a fascinating development, two senators, who are not only from different political parties but who are as far apart ideologically as possible have come to the same conclusion in their opposition to the President’s push to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty.

Writing in the Guardian, Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont),  a self-avowed socialist, noted: “The TPP is simply the continuation of a failed approach to trade …Before even Congress votes on any final trade agreement, the President has asked for ‘fast track authority’ … to complete TPP negotiations with 11 other countries. Fast track would relinquish Congress’s constitutional authority to the President to “regulate commerce with foreign nations”, limit our debate and prevent members of Congress from improving trade agreements to benefit the American people. … Our goal in Congress must be to make sure that American-made products, not American jobs, are our number-one export. We’ll never be able to do that if we enact the TPP and continue negotiating other treaties based on the same failed policies…”

Senator Jeff Session, a conservative, (R-Al) recently detailed his five major objections to the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty:

  1. “Consolidation Of Power In The Executive Branch. TPA eliminates Congress’ ability to amend or debate trade implementing legislation and guarantees an up-or-down vote on a far-reaching international agreement before that agreement has received any public review. Not only will Congress have given up the 67-vote threshold for a treaty and the 60-vote threshold for important legislation, but will have even given up the opportunity for amendment and the committee review process that both ensure member participation. Crucially, this applies not only to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) but all international trade agreements during the life of the TPA.

“There is no real check on the expiration of fast-track authority: if Congress does not affirmatively refuse to reauthorize TPA at the end of the defined authorization (2018), the authority is automatically renewed for an additional three years so long as the President requests the extension. And if a trade deal (not just TPP but any trade deal) is submitted to Congress that members believe does not fulfill, or that directly violates, the TPA recommendations—or any laws of the United States—it is exceptionally difficult for lawmakers to seek legislative redress or remove it from the fast track, as the exit ramp is under the exclusive control of the revenue and Rules committees. Moreover, while the President is required to submit a report to Congress on the terms of a trade agreement at least 60 days before submitting implementing legislation, the President can classify or otherwise redact information from this report, limiting its value to Congress. Is TPA designed to protect congressional responsibilities, or to limit Congress’ ability to do its duty?

  1. “Increased Trade Deficits. Barclays estimates that during the first quarter of this year, the overall U.S. trade deficit will reduce economic growth by .2 percent. History suggests that trade deals set into motion under the 6-year life of TPA could exacerbate our trade imbalance, acting as an impediment to both GDP and wage growth. Labor economist Clyde Prestowitz attributes 60 percent of the U.S.’ 5.7 million manufacturing jobs lost over the last decade to import-driven trade imbalances. And in a recent column for Reuters, a former chief executive officer at AT&T notes that “since the [NAFTA and South Korea free trade] pacts were implemented, U.S. trade deficits, which drag down economic growth, have soared more than 430 percent with our free-trade partners.

“In the same period, they’ve declined 11 percent with countries that are not free-trade partners… Obama’s 2011 trade deal with South Korea, which serves as the template for the new Trans-Pacific Partnership, has resulted in a 50 percent jump in the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea in its first two years. This equates to 50,000 U.S. jobs lost.” Job loss by U.S. workers means reduced consumer demand, less tax revenue flowing into the Treasury, and greater reliance on government assistance programs. It is important that Congress fully understand the impact of this very large trade agreement and to use caution to ensure the interests of the people are protected. Furthermore, the lack of protections in TPA against foreign subsidies could accelerate our shrinking domestic manufacturing base. We have been getting out-negotiated by our mercantilist trading partners for years, failing to aggressively advance legitimate U.S. interests, but the proponents of TPA have apparently not sought to rectify this problem. TPA proponents must answer this simple question: will your plan shrink the trade deficit or will it grow it even wider?

3. “Ceding Sovereign Authority To International Powers. A USTR outline of the TransPacific Partnership (which TPA would expedite) notes in the “Key Features” summary that the TPP is a “living agreement.” This means the President could update the agreement “as appropriate to address trade issues that emerge in the future as well as new issues that arise with the expansion of the agreement to include new countries.” The “living agreement” provision means that participating nations could both add countries to the TPP without Congress’ approval (like China), and could also change any of the terms of the agreement, including in controversial areas such as the entry of foreign workers and foreign employees. Again: these changes would not be subject to congressional approval.
Anxiety can also lead to the too quick ejaculation in some points in their life. levitra 10 mg The branded slovak-republic.org buying viagra in usaoint medical representative for the live promotion of the medicine to the physicians. One has to gulp the http://www.slovak-republic.org/religion/churches/ order levitra 100mg pills with the help of this drug. All of these work synergistically in achieving improved sexual organ health as well as generic sildenafil tablets bodily health.
“This has far-reaching implications: the Congressional Research Service reports that if the United States signs on to an international trade agreement, the implementing legislation of that trade agreement (as a law passed later in time) would supersede conflicting federal, state, and local laws. When this occurs, U.S. workers may be subject to a sudden change in tariffs, regulations, or dispute resolution proceedings in international tribunals outside the U.S. Promoters of TPA should explain why the American people ought to trust the Administration and its foreign partners to revise or rewrite international agreements, or add new members to those agreements, without congressional approval. Does this not represent an abdication of congressional authority?

  1. “Currency Manipulation. The biggest open secret in the international market is that other countries are devaluing their currencies to artificially lower the price of their exports while artificially raising the price of our exports to them. The result has been a massive bleeding of domestic manufacturing wealth. In fact, currency manipulation can easily dwarf tariffs in its economic impact. A 2014 biannual report from the Treasury Department concluded that the yuan, or renminbi, remained significantly undervalued, yet the Treasury Department failed to designate China as a “currency manipulator.” History suggests this Administration, like those before it, will not stand up to improper currency practices.

 “Currency protections are currently absent from TPA, indicating again that those involved in pushing these trade deals do not wish to see these currency abuses corrected. Therefore, even if currency protections are somehow added into TPA, it is still entirely possible that the Administration could ignore those guidelines and send Congress unamendable trade deals that expose U.S. workers to a surge of underpriced foreign imports. President Obama’s longstanding resistance to meaningful currency legislation is proof he intends to take no action. The President has repeatedly failed to stand up to currency manipulators. Why should we believe this time will be any different?

  1. “Immigration Increases. There are numerous ways TPA could facilitate immigration increases above current law—and precious few ways anyone in Congress could stop its happening. For instance: language could be included or added into the TPP, as well as any future trade deal submitted for fast-track consideration in the next 6 years, with the clear intent to facilitate or enable the movement of foreign workers and employees into the United States (including intracompany transfers), and there would be no capacity for lawmakers to strike the offending provision. The Administration could also simply act on its own to negotiate foreign worker increases with foreign trading partners without ever advertising those plans to Congress. In 2011, the United States entered into an agreement with South Korea—never brought before Congress—to increase the duration of L-1 visas (a visa that affords no protections for U.S. workers).

“Every year, tens of thousands of foreign guest workers come to the U.S. as part of past trade   deals. However, because there is little transparency, estimating an exact figure is difficult. The plain language of TPA provides avenues for the Administration and its trading partners to facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the U.S.— including visitor visas that are used as worker visas…Stating that “TPP contains no change to immigration law” is a semantic rather than a factual argument. Language already present in both TPA and TPP provide the basis for admitting more foreign workers, and for longer periods of time, and language could later be added to TPP or any future trade deal to further increase such admissions.

“The President has already subjected American workers to profound wage loss through executive-ordered foreign worker increases on top of existing record immigration levels. Yet, despite these extraordinary actions, the Administration will casually assert that is has merely modernized, clarified, improved, streamlined, and updated immigration rules. Thus, at any point during the 6-year life of TPA, the Administration could send Congress a trade deal—or issue an executive action subsequent to a trade deal as part of its implementation—that increased foreign worker entry into the U.S., all while claiming it has never changed immigration law.

“The…TPA would yield new power to the executive to alter admissions while subtracting congressional checks against those actions…The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution grants Congress plenary authority over immigration policy. … Granting the President TPA could enable controversial changes or increases to a wide variety of visas—such as the H-1B, B-1, E-1, and L-1—including visas that confer foreign nationals with a pathway to a green card and thus citizenship. Future trade deals could also have the possible effect of preventing Congress from reforming abuses in our guest worker programs, as countries could complain that limitations on foreign worker travel constituted a trade barrier requiring adjudication by an international body.

“The TPP also includes an entire chapter on “Temporary Entry” that applies to all parties and that affects U.S. immigration law. Additionally, the Temporary Entry chapter creates a separate negotiating group, explicitly contemplating that the parties to the TPP will revisit temporary entry at some point in the future for the specific purpose of making changes to this chapter—after Congress would have already approved the TPP. This possibility grows more acute given that TPP is a ‘living agreement’ that can be altered without Congress. Proponents of TPA should be required to answer this question: if you are confident that TPA would not enable any immigration actions between now and its 2021 expiration, why not include ironclad enforcement language to reverse any such presidential action?”

Categories
NY Analysis

International Trade and Modern Slavery

Should the United States do business with nations that tacitly condone human trafficking? According to some critics, the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement will increase the challenge of modern slavery.

According to the End Slavery Now organization, Between 21 and 30 million people are enslaved throughout the world. That averages out to about 1 out of every 280 people on the planet.

The U.S. State Department  notes:

“The United States government considers trafficking in persons to include all of the criminal conduct involved in forced labor and sex trafficking, essentially the conduct involved in reducing or holding someone in compelled service. Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act as amended (TVPA) and consistent with the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (Palermo Protocol), individuals may be trafficking victims regardless of whether they once consented, participated in a crime as a direct result of being trafficked, were transported into the exploitative situation, or were simply born into a state of servitude. Despite a term that seems to connote movement, at the heart of the phenomenon of trafficking in persons are the many forms of enslavement, not the activities involved in international transportation.

Forced Labor

Also known as involuntary servitude, forced labor may result when unscrupulous employers exploit workers made more vulnerable by high rates of unemployment, poverty, crime, discrimination, corruption, political conflict, or even cultural acceptance of the practice. Immigrants are particularly vulnerable, but individuals also may be forced into labor in their own countries. Female victims of forced or bonded labor, especially women and girls in domestic servitude, are often sexually exploited as well.

Sex Trafficking

When an adult is coerced, forced, or deceived into prostitution – or maintained in prostitution through coercion – that person is a victim of trafficking. All of those involved in recruiting, transporting, harboring, receiving, or obtaining the person for that purpose have committed a trafficking crime. Sex trafficking can also occur within debt bondage, as women and girls are forced to continue in prostitution through the use of unlawful “debt” purportedly incurred through their transportation, recruitment, or even their crude “sale,” which exploiters insist they must pay off before they can be free.

It is critical to understand that a person’s initial consent to participate in prostitution is not legally determinative; if an individual is thereafter held in service through psychological manipulation or physical force, that person is a trafficking victim and should receive the benefits outlined in the United Nations’ Palermo Protocol and applicable laws.

Bonded Labor

One form of coercion is the use of a bond, or debt. Often referred to as “bonded labor” or “debt bondage,” the practice has long been prohibited under U.S. law by its Spanish name, peonage, and the Palermo Protocol calls for its criminalization as a form of trafficking in persons. Workers around the world fall victim to debt bondage when traffickers or recruiters unlawfully exploit an initial debt the worker assumed as part of the terms of employment. Workers may also inherit intergenerational debt in more traditional systems of bonded labor.

Debt Bondage Among Migrant Laborers

Abuses of contracts and hazardous conditions of employment for migrant laborers do not necessarily constitute human trafficking. However, the burden of illegal costs and debts on these laborers in the source country, often with the support of labor agencies and employers in the destination country, can contribute to a situation of debt bondage. This is often exacerbated when the worker’s status in the country is tied to the employer in the context of employment-based temporary work programs and there is no effective redress for abuse.

Involuntary Domestic Servitude

tadalafil soft Mercury toxicity can lead to health hazards; it is a poisonous element which should be avoided after a substantial or heavy meal. To keep yourself healthy and happy you, need to perform sex with you partner. online cialis generic davidfraymusic.com The dosage http://davidfraymusic.com/2018/01/ buy cialis is usually a 25mg tablet, which is then increased over time or as your practitioner deems fit. It’s already been recognized to trigger patients’ genitals to reduce. viagra delivery canada A unique form of forced labor is the involuntary servitude of domestic workers, whose workplace is informal, connected to their off-duty living quarters, and not often shared with other workers. Such an environment, which often socially isolates domestic workers, is conducive to nonconsensual exploitation since authorities cannot inspect private property as easily as formal workplaces. Investigators and service providers report many cases of untreated illnesses and, tragically, widespread sexual abuse, which in some cases may be symptoms of a situation of involuntary servitude. Ongoing international efforts seek to ensure that not only that administrative remedies are enforced but also that criminal penalties are enacted against those who hold others in involuntary domestic servitude.

Forced Child Labor

Most international organizations and national laws recognize that children may legally engage in certain forms of work. There is a growing consensus, however, that the worst forms of child labor should be eradicated. The sale and trafficking of children and their entrapment in bonded and forced labor are among these worst forms of child labor. A child can be a victim of human trafficking regardless of the location of that exploitation. Indicators of forced labor of a child include situations in which the child appears to be in the custody of a non-family member who has the child perform work that financially benefits someone outside the child’s family and does not offer the child the option of leaving. Anti-trafficking responses should supplement, not replace, traditional actions against child labor, such as remediation and education. However, when children are enslaved, their abusers should not escape criminal punishment by virtue of longstanding patters of limited responses to child labor practices rather than more effective law enforcement action.

Child Soldiers

Child soldiering can be a manifestation of human trafficking where it involves the unlawful recruitment or use of children—through force, fraud, or coercion—as combatants, or for labor or sexual exploitation by armed forces. Perpetrators may be government forces, paramilitary organizations, or rebel groups. Many children are forcibly abducted to be used as combatants. Others are made unlawfully to work as porters, cooks, guards, servants, messengers, or spies. Young girls can be forced to marry or have sex with male combatants. Both male and female child soldiers are often sexually abused and are at high risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.”

The web site Human Trafficking Search.net adds another, and terrifying, form of slavery: forcing people to surrender their organs.

The issue of modern slavery has gained more public attention due to the debate following President Obama’s push to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty.

Sister Jeanne Christensen, writing in The Hill, states: “I am deeply troubled by the recent turn of events in the Senate as the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill is debated. Initially, I was encouraged to see the Senate Finance Committee pass the No Fast Track for Human Traffickers amendment when it approved the current TPA legislation, the Congressional Bipartisan Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015.The No Fast Track for Human Traffickers amendment, sponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), received overwhelming bipartisan support and stipulates that the United States cannot enter into formal trade agreements with countries that the State Department identifies as Tier 3 in its annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report…I raise this question because I am disturbed that corporate lobbyists and the Obama administration are now working to push the Senate to water down or completely strip the Menendez amendment. …Are cheap products from unscrupulous governments worth more to us than ending modern-day slavery?”

According to Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ): “ We’re outraged that 36 million women, children and men around the world are subjected to involuntary labor or sexual exploitation. We’re outraged when we hear that over five million of them are children – that forced labor generates about 150-plus-billion-dollars in profits annually, the second largest income source for international criminals next to the drug trade. For the victims of these crimes, the term ‘modern slavery’ more starkly describes what is happening around the world…he Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) requires that the State Department annually publish a Trafficking in Persons – or TIP – Report that ranks each country based on the extent of government action to combat trafficking. Tier 3 is the worst of these rankings. It indicates that a government does not comply with the TVPA’s minimum standards and is not making significant efforts to do so. Tier 3 countries are those that have not even taken the most basic steps to address their human trafficking problem, and have not provided protection for trafficking victims.

“And, in the most recent TIP report published, the State Department ranked 23 countries as Tier 3. Countries like North Korea, Iran, and Cuba have flaunted international legal norms and threatened to upend global security. And I am most disappointed to say that Malaysia, a middle-income country by most standards — a party to the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations — has the resources and wherewithal to address human trafficking within its borders, but has for years now failed to take sufficient action to warrant an upgrade on the TIP report.”

In 2000, the United States enacted the Human Trafficking Protection Act, described by Rescue. Org: 

“The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 created the first comprehensive federal law to address human trafficking, with a significant focus on the international dimension of the problem. The law provided a three-pronged approach: prevention through public awareness programs overseas and a State Department-led monitoring and sanctions program; protection through a new T-Visa and services for foreign national victims; and prosecution through new federal crimes. The TVPA was reauthorized through the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2003, the TVPRA of 2005, and the TVPRA of 2008, which included greater protections for U.S. citizen victims, enhanced and enacted new human trafficking crimes, enhanced victim service provisions, and strengthened the role of the Trafficking in Persons Office within the State Department.”

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) has introduced legislation that would use fines paid by sex traffickers to assist victims. Democrats are holding up that bill, insisting that some of the proceeds be used to pay for abortions.

 Also introduced this year in the U.S. Senate is S. 553. proposed by Senator Bob Corker (R-Tn) The “End Modern Slavery Initiative Act,” which would establish the End Modern Slavery Foundation “to work with government, civil society, and private institutions in partner countries and key jurisdictions of other countries supported by the Foundation with a high prevalence of modern slavery to identify and fund successful strategies to combat modern slavery. The U.S. government shall seek other foreign governments providing Foundation support to provide additional support for projects in partner countries.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Left, Right unite to oppose TPP

An unusual alliance of progressives and conservatives, consumer advocates, unions and small businesses successfully sounded an alarm about the Trans Pacific Partnership legislation [TPP] so vigorously advocated by the White House. Members of the President’s own party were instrumental in at least temporarily stopping passage of the measure.

A particular sore point has been the secretiveness surrounding the proposed law, with the precise language of the legislation kept from the public and even staff members of the elected officials who are asked to vote on it.

The White House maintains that:

“TPP will be the greenest trade agreement in history — protecting oceans and combating wildlife trafficking, illegal fishing, and illegal logging across a vast swath of the globe. The countries in the agreement produce $2 out of every $5 of global economic output. And big economies have big impacts on the environment, so this standard really matters.

“TPP will also raise labor standards across our trading partners and help raise wages here at home. That’s because enforceable requirements on minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health are at the center of the agreement. And that’s because trade jobs are good jobs, paying up to 18 percent more on average than non-trade jobs.

“TPP will be good for our national security, too — increasing America’s presence in the fastest-growing region of the world and bolstering the economic vitality at home that underpins our military strength. Failure to get TPP over the finish line could relegate us to a future where we sit on the sidelines, letting China write rules with lower standards that diminish our relevance in Asia.”

Senator Jeff Sessions  (R-Alabama) states that “The White House still refuses to answer even the most basic questions about [the TPP].

“These are the questions the White House will not answer:

  • Will it increase or reduce the trade deficit, and by how much?
  • Will it increase or reduce employment and wages, and by how much?
  • Will you make the “living agreement” section public and explain fully its implications?
  • Will China be added to the TPP?
  • Will you pledge not to issue any executive actions, or enter into any future agreements, impacting the flow of foreign workers into the United States?

Urinary disorders are usual in community with negligence towards diabetes and leads to many problems such as insomnia, depression and in severe cases they lead to loss of libido usa cheap viagra and impotence. Leaky bladder in tadalafil online in uk MS patients occurs with approximately 80 to 90 percent of people afflicted with MS. They rarely discuss it on line levitra you could look here with anyone. Here is a quote from the official product information for order viagra uk many medications containing finasteride mentioning the possible risk of breast cancer.
“Proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership want us to fast-track it before we know what’s in it. They want us to trust that enforcement will occur, even though it has not in the past. They want us to trust that the President won’t utilize this broad new avenue to expand foreign worker programs, even though his record demonstrates that he will. They want us to trust that this time is different.

“One of the most important areas TPP proponents ignore is the issue of non-tariff barriers. The barriers to U.S. exports in this century are increasingly not conventional tariffs, but non-tariff barriers like currency manipulation, backdoor taxes, and a variety of state-sanctioned obstacles to market entry. Under the TPP, the U.S. will lower its tariffs but competitor industries will retain their substantial non-tariff barriers. This is what Nucor Steel’s Chairman Emeritus, Daniel DiMicco, means when he talks about “unilateral American trade disarmament” and the “enablement of foreign mercantilism.” In other words, poorly-negotiated trade deals, instead of opening new markets for our industries, tilt the playing field even further in their competitors’ direction. The result is not freer global trade, but more mercantilist market domination.

“Millions of Americans, and their communities, have lost good-paying jobs because of our government’s chronic failure to confront currency manipulation and a variety of other illicit trading practices. Perhaps that is why Americans, by a 70-30 margin, say the last two decades of trade deals have benefitted other countries rather than our own. What message should that send Washington?…

“The recent trade deal with our strong ally South Korea, we were told, would boost our exports to them by more than $10 billion, but in reality increased them by less than $1 billion—while South Korea’s imports to us soared more than $12 billion, widening our trade gap with them considerably.

“While fast-track provides negotiating objectives, they are not enforceable in any meaningful way: if the Trans-Pacific Partnership or any future trade deal ignores those objectives, it is unlikely Congress will do anything about it. Practically speaking, the negotiating objectives operate as mere suggestions. And, as the Congressional Research Service explains, the fast-tracked deal “would supersede existing U.S. law” and result in the U.S. being “bound by international law,” arbitrated by a global tribunal.

The rare agreement between groups supporting nearly polar opposite perspectives highlights the numerous concerns and unanswered questions about Mr. Obama’s trade goals.  Extensive inquiries have been raised by many about the reality behind the President’s descriptions.

Salon points out:

“Saying, as the White House has, that the deal would support ‘an additional 650,000 jobs’ is not true. This figure came from a hypothetical calculation of a report by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which the Institute itself said was an incorrect way to use their data. ‘We don’t believe that trade agreements change the labor force in the long run,’ said Peter Petri, author of the report, in a fact check of the claim…

“Recent trade deals have in fact increased the trade deficit…

“On the controversial topic of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), where corporations can sue sovereign governments for monetary damages for violating trade agreements that hurt the company’s “expected future profits,” the White House has engaged in a shell game. They say, “No trade agreement is going to force us to change our laws.” But the point of a corporation suing the United States or any trade partner is to put enough financial pressure on a government to force them to alter the law themselves. So ISDS doesn’t “cause” a change in law only in the narrowest sense. Even third-party countries have curtailed regulations in reaction to ISDS rulings, as New Zealand did with their cigarette packaging law, awaiting the outcome of a dispute between the tobacco industry and Australia (a suit that continues despite an initial victory for Australia)…

“The White House assumes that the only thing America cares about with ISDS is the upsetting of our own laws. So they’ve stressed that the U.S. has never lost an ISDS case. This is irrelevant. What ISDS does is offer bailout insurance policy to multinational corporations. If they run into discrimination or regulatory squeezing by a foreign government, they can use an extra-judicial process to recoup their investment. Workers screwed over by trade agreements have no ability to sue governments; only corporations get this privilege…

“Weak ‘rule of origin’ guidelines could allow China to import goods into TPP member countries without any tariffs, while freed from following any TPP regulations…”

Public Citizen believes the measure would encourage an exodus of American jobs, undermine food safety by requiring the import of products that don’t meet U.S. safety standards and impose limits on food labeling, undermine efforts to contain medicine costs, undermine Wall Street regulation, curtail internet freedom, and provide more power to international corporations.

Phyllis Schlafly, writing in WND  worries that “TPP will betray us….The text of TPP emphasizes that it is a “living agreement.” Translated out of bureaucratese code language, that means the text of TPP can be changed in major and minor ways by executive action after Congress OKs the document. …TPP will facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the United States. TPP opens the door to more waves of illegal immigrants and allows Obama to make future changes without any congressional oversight or expiration date. Kevin L. Kearns of the U.S. Business and Industry Council calls this “another power grab” that will let Obama and his employees rule by executive action. By not calling TPP a treaty (even though it involves 12 countries on three continents), the globalists induce the Senate to abandon the 67-vote threshold for treaty ratification …

“Fast track turns over some of our authority as a sovereign nation to international authorities, which is a major longtime goal of the internationalists, the so-called kingmakers, and big business lobbyists. The code language that hides this in TPP is the statement that calls it a “living agreement.” This means Obama and his executive-branch pals can take all kinds of actions Article I of the U.S. Constitution reserves to the legislative branch, such as ratifying or changing a treaty and controlling immigration…”