Discussion: Sen.Warren Ticked Off A List Of What Hillary Clinton Should Talk About

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #235164

2

“I have real concerns about something called the investor-state dispute settlement that basically would permit multinational companies to sue other countries when they try to put regulations in place to protect their own workers, to protect their own citizens.”

Would this be a good time to bring up the fact that Clinton changed her position on a Columbian labor dispute after receiving a donation from a Columbian oil company?

1 Like
3

Love her. This is why we need her in the Senate, not as the target of some halfwitted over-excited progressive POTUS recruitment drive. She needs to be there bringing these issues to light and bringing the pressure to the Senate and, from there, on whoever is POTUS.

10 Likes
4

no way clinton will address the investor-state dispute unless specifically asked about it. and even then it would be a mealy-mouthed response. she’s a complete tool of wall street and the 1%; but her speeches on women’s equality earns her those progressive bona fides.

1 Like
5

I sure hope the trade deals are submitted in draft form to the Congress soon, because there seems to be a lot of hand-wringing and hair-on-fire rhetoric over the investor-state dispute issue that will hopefully be cleared up.

Here is what I found on the US Trade Representative’s government website https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-chapter-chapter-negotiating-3:

"With trade following investment, we are working to ensure that U.S. investors abroad are provided the same kind of opportunities in other markets that we provide in the United States to foreign investors doing business within our borders.  That is why we are seeking to include in TPP many of the investment obligations that have historically proven to support jobs and economic growth, as well as new provisions to take on emerging investment issues.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

Liberalized access for investment in TPP markets, non-discrimination and the reduction or elimination of other barriers to the establishment and operation of investments in TPP countries, including prohibitions against unlawful expropriation and specified performance requirements;
 
Provisions that will address measures that require TPP investors to favor another country’s domestic technology in order to benefit SOEs, national champions, or other competitors in that country; and 
 
Procedures for arbitration that will provide basic rule of law protections for U.S. investors operating in foreign markets similar to those the U.S. already provides to foreign investors operating in the U.S.  These procedures would provide strong protections to ensure that all TPP governments can appropriately regulate in the public interest, including on health, safety, and environmental protection.  This includes an array of safeguards designed to raise the standards around investor-state dispute settlement, such as by discouraging and dismissing frivolous suits, allowing governments to direct the outcome of arbitral tribunals in certain areas, making proceedings more open and transparent, and providing for the participation of civil society organizations and other non-parties.

For more information on investment, visit www.ustr.gov/issue-areas/services-investment/investment."

Granted, this is rather broad, but from what I have read I don’t share the concern of some liberals that the TPP, or its European counterpart proposed trade deal, would involve such a sell-out to corporate interests at the expense of national sovereignty or workers’ rights.

1 Like
6

Tpp is a horrible agreement if believe exporting our broken copyright system, giving corporations an end run around courts, or just particularly like safe food and water, and clean air is a bad thing. I’m glad she is out speaking about her concerns. I have the same concerns. If you are a prime member there is en extensive thread you should check it out.

1 Like
7

This does not diminish Hillary at all that I can see. It is everyone’s job/duty/mission to push our candidates and representatives towards our current interests. Senator Warren is perfect for this and she keeps us all aware and informed so that we can do the same.
The issues of minimum wage and equal pay aren’t just Warren’s though. President Obama passed the Lilly Ledbetter act as his very first act as President and has pushed and achieved some minimum wage wins. Walmart and McDonalds didn’t change because they just felt like being nice. Its up to $15 an hour in some places and over ten in the Federal Gov’t. These are substantial improvements.

Hillary has yet to announce her candidacy and once she does and officially starts campaigning, then it will be time to get into where she intends to govern and see if she is or isn’t in line with progressive, liberal policies. We already know that she is on many things.That I can see, the big knock on her is that she’s supposedly in bed with Wall Street (which President isn’t). I don’t believe that she will just hand them the reins to our nation and sit back and get even more wealthy than she already is. That is important to note, she and Bill are much wealthier now than when Bill was President.
The opportunity of being the first woman President is huge and not something that Hillary will just waste so that she can make Wall Street happy. There is much more to her IMO. Just like President Obama who could be said has let Wall Street slide but has not been solely focused on Wall Street by any means.

I want Hillary to continue the push on all of these issues of course and don’t really see why she is assumed to not be going to.
How about some praise for the woman issues that she will champion. I think that she will make huge changes that will get beyond the gender inequality to great degrees. She, like Obama, will have historic accomplishments including leading the Democratic Party during her time and on to bigger and better things.

Senator Warren will be a big part of this and a huge asset. They will work together without doubt.

3 Likes
8

Maybe HRC and Elizabeth Warren should make their number one priority getting money out of politics and a constitutional amendment ending the notion that ‘money=speech’. Will it fix everything? No. But when you fix that one issue, you will see an immediate positive impact on all other issues as lawmakers will no longer have the election money pressure from special interests and big business. Minimum wage and equal pay are small potatoes when the game is rigged for the top 1%.

Also, it would allow politicians to actually get work done instead of spending 30+ hours fundraising each week.

1 Like
9

Maybe their first priority should be to get as many people as possible to vote next year.

1 Like
10

Well, that’s definitely Sirota’s emphasis, but as he mentions parenthetically halfway down the story, Obama did the same. And since she was working for him, it’s hard to say who was the driving force behind the change in policy (and shame on them both – it’s been one of the few things I’ve actually been angry at Obama about). That said, it’s definitely an ugly connection for her, and she’ll have to deal with it.

In strictly political terms, I’d be more worried about it if the GOP weren’t completely in the tank for every awful trade agreement out there. But substantively, it’s probably the main economic issue on which there really is precious little difference between the parties; I’d love Dems to realize we’re long past the point where these broad agreements make a material difference for the better for virtually anyone.

2 Likes
11

The Democratic tax cut on offer should be to double the standard deduction. It would liberate most taxpayers from the burden of itemizing without taking anyone’s cherished deductions away or writing any complicated new code. It’s easy to sell, easy to score, easy to explain and easy to understand.

1 Like
12

I’m trying to be an agnostic on the trade deals under development until actual drafts are presented.

And, I’m hoping Obama can do a “Town Hall” on national TV with labor, business, and a broad array of other interests and explain his plan and vision.

I’m afraid I’m going to have to doff my tin-foil hat and express my fear that Big Business, which has been co-opting China with massive investment into China-based joint ventures the past 20 years, really does not want any deal that “globalizes” workers’ or citizens’ rights and is happy with the status quo of exploiting developing countries for their cheap labor and natural resources and nonexistent labor rights and environmental laws.

My fear is with China hoping to craft a rival common market-style trade deal with Asia, and with the surprising inroads it has made in developing an international infrastructure development bank – which many of our allies have indicated they will join – to rival the IMF and the World Bank. These efforts if successful will undercut US interests in the region.

Put simply, if we do not attempt to forge greater trade and economic ties with Europe and Asia, then China will step in and do so, and they most likely would not support the kinds of environmental or labor protections that we (sometimes) do.

I am also willing to withhold judgment and wait for Obama’s plans to be aired, as I feel he has been the most pro-worker US President in decades.

2 Likes
13

There are some good points in this article.

Why the Obama administration is fighting for a trade deal its liberal allies hate

2 Likes
14

That’s why we love her!

15

Thanks for the link Doremus. I think this was a pretty good article that describes the challenges and opportunities contained in a trade deal.

I had already read Krugman’s column that Klein refers to, and I don’t agree with Krugman’s comment that there’s not much international trade left for a trade deal to negotiate, particularly when Asia represents the biggest growth sector.

I am also leery of Robert Reich’s position on this. He has recently argued against granting President Obama fast-track authority to unilaterally negotiate a deal and then present it as-is to Congress for an up-or-down vote. But that’s what he argued for as President Clinton’s Labor Secretary, and he also argued for the same fast-track authority for President George W Bush. Plus, he was in office when NAFTA was enacted.

And I am not at all confident that this Congress can be trusted to forge an international trade deal, or recommend meaningful amendments, that supports the interests of US workers.

Also, Obama has said he would like to reform some of NAFTA, and the Asia as well as the Europe trade deals he is working on include Mexico and Canada – the other members along with the US in NAFTA. So maybe this is a chance to right some of the wrongs in NAFTA.

I am also reminded of many past criticisms from liberals that Obama “caved” or allowed his negotiating opponents to get the better of him, when in fact he has often gotten the best of a bad situation, such as in the Dec. 2010 lame duck session. Many faulted him for agreeing with a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts while ignoring his securing of one-year extensions of unemployment insurance and payroll tax cuts, START II, the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, emergency relief for 9-11 first responders, etc., in exchange.

And then there is also the framework nuclear agreement with Iran, which has even garnered praise from some Republican national security analysts, who admitted the deal was better, tougher on Iran, and more specific than they expected. If this deal goes through and works as intended, some of the credit should accrue to Obama and his team’s tough negotiating skills.

While I also have questions, I am not willing to join the hair-on-fire brigade that is so ready to pounce on proposed trade deals that haven’t even been written up yet, just as I was not willing to denounce the Iran nuclear deal before it was aired.

2 Likes
16

I agree that NAFTA was flawed in that it did not adequately address concerns about labor rights or environmental protection, and that, in general, forging such trade deals with a low-wage country with a weak or nonexistent labor movement and weak labor and environmental protections would tend to undercut American worker interests by providing an incentive for US-based firms to offshore their operations.

However, the Europe and Asia deals present new opportunities and challenges, and we should not judge them based on the history of NAFTA and its perhaps unintended consequences.

And maybe the reason that Republican lawmakers have voiced support for these deals is because their backers expect opportunities – and not because they represent some “trickle down” undermining of labor interests. So that shouldn’t be a “kiss of death” that dissuades us from pursuing or reviewing these deals; many liberals denounced Obamacare on the grounds that it provided millions of new customers to healthcare providers, Big Pharma and Big Insurance, while ignoring the patient protections, safeguards and other consumerist regulations it imposed on these industries, and the real, significant benefits it provided to millions of Americans.

17

On Obamacare, I think you know I wasn’t one of those people, Randy. And if I’d kept writing, I’d have noted as you do that there are certainly legitimate diplomatic reasons for these treaties that have virtually nothing to do with commerce. And I’m sort of with you in holding my breath to see what exactly is in the TPP (which absolutely needs to be made public before any vote, and I think will be because Congressfolk are increasingly demanding it). But when even Krugman, who (contrary to the lefty rep) has long been thoroughly “mainstream” on trade in general and started out as a specialist in that area, doesn’t like what he’s heard, and when Jared Bernstein has concerns about the possible currency provisions and more, it’s apparent that the economic minuses could well outweigh the diplomatic pluses.

China’s definitely a concern, as you note, and in general the “pivot to Asia” figures prominently here. But things like this administration’s betrayal of labor in Colombia, where we ultimately all but turned our backs on the systematic murder of workers fighting for their rights, have really weighed heavily on me; even aside from the ethical outrage, such “compromises” in the name of diplomacy are the kind of thing that ultimately ends up doing more harm than good as populations turn against us. I agree that Obama is genuinely the most pro-labor president we’ve had in my lifetime; but he’s still operating in the world created by anti-labor forces. I await the release of the TPP with interest, and concern; I fervently hope to be relieved about its details.

EDIT: Yes, thanks for the link, @Doremus_Jessup; Ezra articulates some of my own ambivalence.

1 Like
18

The bizzaro world aspect is that they think this makes Warren look bad.

1 Like
19

Or they just plan to keep concern-trolling Hillary, and progressives, with this stuff.

1 Like
20

Thanks for the reponse, arrrrj, like you I will keep an open mind and await a draft. The Colombia siutation is alarming and hopefully does not portend a willingness to ignore such humanitarian crises in an effort to secure a deal.

And I only mentioned the Obamacare argument as an example of a one-sided argument that only recognizes the costs or drawbacks and not the benefits – not as a response to your original argument.

And as far as I know the Congress would have 90 days upon receipt of a draft trade deal to discuss and vote on it, so there should be an opportunity for an honest, robust discussion on this item.

1 Like