http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html

The verdict is in: most U.S. workers would see wage losses as a result of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping U.S. "free trade" deal under negotiation with 11 Pacific Rim countries. That's the conclusion of a report released by the non-partisan Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR): http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/net-effect-of-the-tpp-on-us-wages

TPP's corporate proponents have tried to sell the NAFTA-style deal to the U.S. public and policymakers by claiming that it will result in gains for the U.S. economy. They often cite a study from the Peterson Institute for International Economics that used sweeping assumptions to project a tiny benefit from the TPP. We brought that study down to size back in January, showing that, even if one accepts the pro-TPP authors' litany of optimistic assumptions, the much-touted "benefit" from the TPP would amount to an extra quarter per person per day.

As this week's CEPR report points out, the pro-TPP study projected a meager 0.13 percent increase to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by 2025 if the controversial TPP would be signed, passed, and implemented. By comparison, economists have estimated that Apple's iPhone 5 contributed a 0.25 - 0.5 percent increase to U.S. GDP...Well, you might say, a nearly invisible blip in GDP is better than no blip in GDP. (You might say this if you ignore the host of dubious assumptions used to project said blip, and ignore the TPP's expected threats to medicines affordability, environmental protections, food safety, Internet freedom, and financial stability.) ...as a result of the TPP, the median U.S. income would fall. It would not just fall in comparison to the incomes of the wealthy (which would rise). It would fall in absolute terms, forcing middle-class U.S. workers to take home less in 2025 than they earn today.

Such wage losses would afflict most U.S. workers. Rosnick shows that if we assume that trade has contributed just 15% of the recent rise in inequality (a still conservative estimate), then the TPP would mean wage losses for all but the richest 10% of U.S. workers. So if you're making less than $87,000 per year (the current 90th percentile wage), the TPP would mean a pay cut. And if you're making more than $87,000 per year, you may still be a tad concerned about how the deal could jeopardize the safety of your food, threaten clean water protections, roll back Wall Street reforms, etc.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/leaked-tpp-investment-chapter-reveals-serious-threat-user-safeguards

A newly leaked chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement from Wikileaks has confirmed some of our worst fears about the agreement. The latest provisions would enable multinational corporations to undermine public interest rules through an international tribunal process called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Under this process, foreign companies can challenge any new law or government action at the federal, state, or local level, in a country that is a signatory to the agreement. Companies can file such lawsuits based upon their claim that the law or action harms their present or future profits. If they win, there are no monetary limits to the potential award.

This type of tribunal process is not entirely new—similar provisions in other international agreements have been used to undermine laws regarding the environment, health, and other regulatory areas. However, this new leaked text has revealed how these investor-state provisions could also be used to undermine user protections built into digital regulations, including copyright rules.

The TPP Investment chapter encompasses intellectual property in its definition of foreign investment, including all "other tangible or intangible, movable or immovable property." In this way, it is similar to ISDS provisions in other trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Under NAFTA, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lily, took advantage of this broad definition to target a Canadian court ruling that found one of its patents invalid. They are demanding Canada give them $500 million in damages, claiming that Canada has "expropriated" their property through this decision. This is one of the few, if only, known cases where an investor-state case has been filed over a patent issue. Since policymakers now always seem to group together patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other kinds of intangible "property" together, it is not a far leap for Big Content companies to feel emboldened by this patent case to begin undermining user rights in copyright law as well.

But there's something particularly sinister about the TPP's version of ISDS. Article II.7(5) is the provision on how ISDS applies to intellectual property issues, it reads:



In the footnote to this text, it says the use of "limitation" in this provision also include exceptions to copyrights. At first it seems like the purpose of this language is to prevent investor-state courts from making determinations on how countries enact intellectual property rules. But the last part of this provision is the hitch. It specifies that the ISDS provisions do not apply to copyright and patent rules as long as those rules are "consistent with" the TPP's Intellectual Property chapter and the TRIPS agreement...

WHICH IS STILL A JEALOUSLY GUARDED SECRET, KEPT FROM EVERYONE EXCEPT FAVORED CONGRESSPEOPLE AND CORPORATIONS

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/trade-promotion-authority-tpa-bill-timeline-could-push-senate-to-act-116640.html

Senate aides have circulated a tentative date of mid-April for advancing “fast-track” trade legislation in the recognition that Sens. Orrin Hatch and Ron Wyden have to move quickly to finalize a deal on the bill or risk losing their chance to get it passed by the end of the spring session, several lobbyists and congressional sources have told POLITICO.

Under the proposed schedule, the senators would introduce the trade promotion authority bill on April 13, the day lawmakers return from their two-week recess, followed by a Senate Finance Committee hearing April 15 and a markup on April 21, the sources said.

Negotiations between Hatch (R-Utah), who chairs the committee, its ranking member Wyden (D-Ore.) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) are taking place at the staff level over the spring congressional break and “continue to make progress,” Hatch spokesman Julia Lawless said, confirming only that the senator hopes to move legislation “this spring.” Wyden has sought to include provisions to give Congress more power and oversight over the fast-tracking of trade deals. Quick movement on the bill, which the White House is seeking to expedite congressional consideration of a sprawling Asia-Pacific trade deal, could send Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the signal to carve out floor time in the upcoming six-week legislative period — a session that will be jammed with major issues ranging from the budget reconciliation process to political fallout over the nuclear energy deal with Iran, and from cybersecurity legislation — a priority of the Kentucky Republican — to the highway funding bill.

Meanwhile, the fate of Trans-Pacific Partnership with Japan and 10 other Asia-Pacific countries hangs in the balance. The legislation is considered vital for easing congressional passage of the deal, which would be the biggest in world history, because it would shield it from amendments and put it to a simple up-or-down vote. Before countries put their final offers on the table, they’ve said they want assurance through the legislation that lawmakers won’t be able to tear the agreement apart during congressional debate — and their trade ministers have been growing more vocal about the need for the bill as a TPP gathering meant to wrap up the deal approaches in late-May.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/trade-promotion-authority-tpa-bill-timeline-could-push-senate-to-act-116640.html#ixzz3WMBSkkoB

Amazing, the politicians who call themselves Democrats, these days.

Look around du and view the deluded BOG who say this is just great, since the president's a good father.

we petition the obama administration to: make public the entire Trans Pacific Partnership trade pact before allowing our US representative to agree to its terms.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-public-entire-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-pact-allowing-our-us-representative-agree-its-terms

SIGN ON TODAY!

He is being a fucking weasle and supports this nonsense.

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/01/sen_ron_wyden_says_new_trans-p.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2015/03/in_free-trade_fight_ron_wyden.html

I'm rethinking whether he gets my vote next election...

Dubious of it's effectiveness since my local rep is Jeff Flake, (R). Leave it to Arizona to vote in a flake.
And the White House petition will likely fall on deaf ears. It's the same Wall Street moguls that funded Presidient Obama's campaigns with promises he would push this turd through. He's just following marching orders from his bosses.
And part of why... dare I say this on DU... I'm a progressive third party voter when good ones are on the ballot.