Only days after the revelation that corporations bribed senators to vote to give the president trade promotion authority (TPA, or fast track) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), we learn that President Obama is getting in on the graft. The Associated Press reported on June 9:
President Barack Obama has an offer for Democrats who fear political attacks if they back his trade agenda: Give me your vote now, and I’ll have your back come re-election next year.
Days from a critical House vote, it’s still far from certain Obama can muster enough votes. Although Republican leaders in Congress strongly support the budding trade deals, Obama has little leverage with individual GOP lawmakers. So the president has been dangling a carrot in front of Democrats in the form of a promise to campaign for them in 2016 if they face primary challenges or attacks by unions that have vehemently opposed his trade agenda.
While it isn’t surprising that the president would offer to stump for congressmen running for reelection, the collusion is worth noting given the constitutional destruction that would result from these promises.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
The ultimate aim of the TPP is the creation of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). Members of the proposed “free trade” bloc include Japan, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. The regional trading partnership is intended to establish “a comprehensive free trade agreement across the region.”
An article in the Georgetown Journal of International Law says that the TPP negotiations “are designed to culminate in a ‘gold standard’ free trade agreement (FTA).” The article continues:
The TPP negotiations are among the more recent of a large number of FTAs and Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) that have been or are being negotiated between the member economies of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. Since the APEC Leaders’ Bogor Declaration in November 1994, the member economies have been committed on some level to the objective of achieving an environment for “free and open” trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region.
In the argot of globalism, “free and open trade” translates as “economic and political integration.” Later in the Georgetown piece, former U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk is quoted as calling for the TPP to be “more than a broad concept.”
Additional evidence of the “ambitious” goal of the TPP discussions is found in a press release issued by representatives of the member nations attending an APEC meeting in Honolulu in 2011:
We are delighted to have achieved this milestone in our common vision to establish a comprehensive, next-generation regional agreement that liberalizes trade and investment and addresses new and traditional trade issues and 21st-century challenges. We are confident that this agreement will be a model for ambition for other free trade agreements in the future.
In fact, the authors of the Georgetown review state that the ultimate goal of the TPP isn’t just the creation of an FTAAP. They insist that the TPP is a “trade agreement designed to achieve broad liberalization and a high degree of economic integration among the parties.” There’s that word “integration” again.
While meeting with his potential political integration counterparts from the European Union at the G7 summit, the president eschewed pessimism, saying, “I’m not going to hypothesize about not getting it done. I intend to get it done.”
Flush with funds from multi-national corporations that would benefit from enactment of the TPP, congressmen can now count on help on the campaign trail, too. It’s a coup for congressmen and a coup d’etat of the Republic established by the Constitution and the consent of the governed.
It’s not that candidates necessarily want to tie their political hopes to an unpopular president, but they are likely willing to let him serve as a human shield for the fire they’ll likely come under for supporting a secret “trade bill” that they haven’t read, that violates the Constitution, and that forever transforms the fundamental foundation of federalism upon which the country was built.
The Associated Press made a similar observation:
Last year, most Democrats in competitive districts wanted the president to stay away, concerned that his sagging popularity made him more of a political liability than an asset among independent and Republican-leaning voters. In San Diego, where unions are lobbying Democratic Rep. Scott Peters to vote against trade, Gretchen Newsom of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers said the unions’ powerful get-out-the-vote operation will be much more valuable next year than a “celebrity endorsement” from Obama.
But Obama administration officials said Democratic lawmakers have told the White House they want the president out front, making the case in their districts and on national television to help provide political cover. Dan Pfeiffer, until recently Obama’s long-serving senior adviser, said Obama’s enduring popularity with die-hard Democrats would make him a huge asset in next year’s primaries.
Popularity with die-hard Democrats is a euphemism for “ability to make a bunch of money” for the candidate. Again, from the AP: “He offers fundraising and organizational muscle like no one else other than the Democratic nominee, who will be otherwise occupied, Pfeiffer said.”
Beyond the betrayal — whether paid for in campaign cash from corporations or donors leaned on by the president — there is the issue of congressmen voting for an agreement they have not read. There is precedent for such scenarios, though.
In 2010, referring to the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
The Pelosi Principle seems to be in full effect for the TPP, too.
For the few legislators who have reported reading parts of the pact, the Obama administration has enforced a gag order, even requiring them to sign “non-disclosure agreements” regarding the contents of the document.
Perhaps the president is pushing so hard for fast-track power so that there isn’t time for the perfidy to be more widely reported.
Convinced that they have the votes lined up, Republican leadership in the House of Representatives is pushing to bring TPA to a floor vote by Friday.
Photo of President Barack Obama: AP Images
