Skip to main content

Preventing public scrutiny is essential because the . . .



. . . “details would outrage Americans and spook Congress from rubber-stamping it.” Who said that? A.) An al Qaeda leader? B.) Saddam Hussein? C.) North Korean leader Kim Jong-un? D.) None of the above?
The answer is D; the speaker was Ron Kirk, President Obama’s trade representative speaking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Administration’s latest gift to multi-national corporations. The T-PP is an attempt to disguise a corporate giveaway as a trade agreement.
The T-PP would require all countries who sign it – including the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Viet Nam, and eventually China, Indonesia and Russia - to pass no laws or enact policies of any kind that infringe upon trade with or production within any of the other countries in the Partnership.
So far the Obama Administration has refused to allow any members of Congress to view the 29 chapters of the agreement, of which only five have anything to do with trade.
So what does all this mean? Here are just a few examples of the effect it would have for the U.S.
A state would not be allowed to pass say, clean water legislation, if one of the Partners wants to sell a pesticide that poisons the groundwater.
Food labeling laws could be challenged as being in restraint of trade.
Patents on pharmaceuticals could be extended indefinitely by the Partners, thus practically eliminating generic medicines.
Bankers get a special break: governments must either repeal banking regulation laws, or compensate banks for “losses” they suffered because of such laws from taxpayer money.
Internet service providers would be allowed to censor and take down any content they don’t like. As I said, there are 29 sections, each of which deals with a different activity.
Well, if you are harmed by any of this, you could go to court and seek redress, right? Actually, no you couldn’t. If you happen to be a corporation, you would be allowed to sue T-PP partners under an “Investor-State Dispute Resolution” system. Cases would be decided behind closed doors by three-person tribunals of private attorneys, and you don’t get to choose them. Even if you know they are biased, you can do nothing about it. So much for the fairness of the courts.
If approved, this agreement would take away Congress’ right “to regulate commerce with foreign nations,” as the Constitution puts it.
Fortunately for us common citizens, this deal will have to be approved by Congress, and it doesn’t have much support at the present time. However, things can change as fast as money changes hands, and contacting your Congressperson, and letting him or her know how you feel would be a pretty good idea.
No wonder Ron Kirk considers it essential to keep the negotiations secret.
 ******
 My books, “There Are Only Seven Jokes” and “The Spirit Runs Through It” are available in paperback or Kindle at Amazon.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

There Are Only Seven Jokes - Introduction

      The statement “There are only seven jokes – all the rest are variations,” has been around for a long time, but no one ever seems to know what the original seven are. I think I have found the solution to the mystery.       The answer is to be found in an article published in the New York Times on May 2, 1909. Entitled “New Jokes? There Are No New Jokes, There Is Only One Joke,” it goes on to say that all jokes are a distortion, and lists seven categories of distortion. Supposedly every joke will fit into one of the categories. I believe that repetition changed the seven categories into the seven jokes.       Each of my next seven blogs will be devoted to exploring one of the categories. In addition, I shall attempt to give an example or two of jokes which I think fit the category.       You must realize that this article appeared over one hundred years ago, so most of the jokes a...
Post a Comment
Read more

By Today’s Standards Many of my Teachers Would be in Jail

I started school in a two-room building: grades 1 to 4 in one room; grades 5 to 8 in the other. One teacher in each room taught all four grades. I don’t remember first grade very well – the teacher left at the end of the year. I am pretty sure it was not my fault. Now keep in mind that reading the Bible every morning was the standard for all grades at that time. But my teacher in grades two to four went a little above and beyond the normal practice. As a member of a “plain” sect, she considered it her duty to lead the little heathens to Christianity. She offered a free Bible to all students who managed to memorize 20 verses. I memorized my verses – “Jesus saves” was my favorite because it was the shortest – and got my Bible with my twenty underlined in red. That would be illegal today (not the underlining), and rightly so. Teachers may not teach religion, although contrary to what many folks seem to think, students may bring their Bibles to school, read them, and pray their...
Post a Comment
Read more

Capitalism And Socialism

      Capitalism: An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.*       The basic idea underlying a capitalistic system is that of individual ownership and control of the assets of commerce. Using one’s innate abilities, energy, ideas, etc. to better oneself is the driving force, and success or failure is measured by the bottom line. The “rugged individual” and the “small entrepreneur” are the natural heroes. Individual freedom is paramount.       Unfortunately, unbridled incentive can lead to unbridled greed, which if followed far enough, can bring down the system. Let me give you an example:       When you buy a life insurance policy, you are buying a contract under which t...
Post a Comment
Read more