As regards yesterday’s post about Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) a.k.a. “fast track” and the 600 plus page secret multifaceted Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) proposal, we are taking the opportunity in this post to further demonstrate our objectivity by offering this link to an article appearing today in The Federalist. It is by Scott Lincicome, identified therein as an international trade attorney, and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. The article is titled:
Top Nine Myths About Trade Promotion Authority And The Trans-Pacific Partnership
We think it encompasses the key points that proponents of both initiatives use to defend and promote their position. Maybe you will be convinced of the alleged safeguards and benefits Lincicome maintains the proposals contain. We are not convinced of the efficacy of any of them as regards the sovereignty of the country and other implications and, as we have said especially, no benefit of expanded trade is dependent on the conditions or circumstances of TPA and TPP that cannot be achieved by starting over when more trustworthy implementors are present.
Reading Lincicome, he is not immune from the bane of theorists in general, the belief that checks and balances can be made operative by putting them on paper and all will abide. Political reality will intrude in spite of best laid plans. When it dawns on current proponents that too much has been surrendered, the safeguards they thought were installed may not be efficacious. Indeed it is likely that they will not be as much becomes vested as part of “making it work” over time, creating powerful special interests dependent on the provisions and without abiding national loyalty. They become the built-in roadblocks to correction.
It might be argued that TPA “fast track” is good sound legislation “a inter-branch of government agreement” (a political euphemism) that makes Obama do the bidding of Congress in trade negotiations, and if unsatisfactory, then Congress can reject the result, such as TPP. First of all, even accepting the premiss, given these players, we would simply say – phhhtt. Second, the bum’s rush is to pass both TPA (a re-authorization) that might be argued is acceptable if we are talking limited categorical trade agreements and TPP.
But we do not accept the narrative that TPP is merely a trade negotiation with some Pacific rim countries and not an extensively provisioned treaty inculcating international tribunals and implicating internal affairs affecting far more than limited trade agreements. It is a treaty given its size and scope and therefore triggers the Constitution’s requirement of two-thirds of the Senate to approve. From what we are told so far, if TPP is trade negotiation then TPA is dangerous by removing Constitutional requirements of a super-majority in the Senate in order to approve it.
Lincicome answers some complaints, unconvincingly given the secrecy of TPP. Those complaints will be aggravated by the vested international consortiums empowered as a result of TPP. But Lincicome has little to say about the key practical complaint for conservatives — the demonstrated unwillingness of Republican leadership to stop Obama’s agenda and overreaches. For this pathetic lot there is always an excuse, and always the promise of next time. Nor does he say much about the political conflict of interest that works to sustain such treaties. We do not know about the secret specifics of TPP but the conflicts for a congressman might be surmised. For example, something about it might be seen as benefiting his or her district and supporting it makes them a hero but in order to be achieved some aspect of sovereignty not immediately appreciated or known to the voters of the district must be shaved.
Accordingly we fear not only the intentions of Obama but the influence on Republican leadership of the likes of the Chamber of Commerce representing multinational corporations that care not a twit about anything but narrow focused gain, without primary loyalty to the United States. Neither Obama or Republican leadership can be trusted or depended on, respectively, to protect us.
We know the difference between protectionism and the disaster of Smoot-Hawley and that of the corporatism built into the combined TPA and TPP that will virtually control every aspect of the ongoing agreement — worked out primarily by lobbyists in secret. The likes of TPA and TPP are unnecessary to an engaged and disciplined Congress and a vibrant but sovereign America trading with any country or group of countries.
Lincicome’s supposition is that TPA and TPP rules disciplining Congress can or would be altered to allow for objectionable provisions to be removed because they are mere internal rules that can be easily changed. One wonders if Lincicome seriously considered the power of “mere” politics, and the separation of most of the political class from anything but special interests? Has he considered the hapless track record if not sincerity of current Republican leadership? Hasn’t he seen this movie before with actors like Mr. “regular order” McConnell for example? The hegemony of congressional leadership over rules and legislative dynamics,which are the greatest component if their power, given their subservience to the likes of the Chamber of Commerce, is not something to be relied on for the good of the country. Why a libertarian would be in favor of relying on such players is beyond our ability to grasp.
Looking at the players and the TPP monstrosity, — 600 to 800 pages. Does any practical person not think that scenario isn’t Disney World for self-serving interests? More later today on who is opposing TPA in combination with TPP and more links to reasons to oppose TPA at this time and the TPP.
R Mall
Mr. Mall, I fear you are boring your readers, talking about trade agreements and the minutiae involved in a piece of legislation hundreds of pages long, apparently with provisions too dangerous for us ordinary “folks” to be exposed to.
If anybody has paid attention to this, and I gather from the lack of any comment from anyone, Veritas readers have not, they would have contacted their “representatives” (pardon the snicker) urging them to reject this. A trade bill is good. But this fiasco is just another means by which Obama can subvert the Constitution’s separation of powers provision. In this case, the GOP senators and representatives apparently see enough personal gain in it to sell their votes like every other special interest Obama buys off.