TPP: Truths, Lies, and Suspicions
by Crista Huff
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has been an outspoken critic of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, a concern of his which became a campaign issue in February when he endorsed Donald Trump for president. In a June 12, 2015 interview, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that Sen. Sessions is wrong, that his statements about the TPP are “not accurate”. Sen. Cruz says that the TPP does not relinquish U.S. sovereignty, is not a “living document”, and that former trade deals have not caused U.S. job loss.
Sen. Cruz went on to say, regarding the new Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission and the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) tribunal: “it is simply false to say [the TPP] would create some transnational body that could change U.S. laws.” He portrayed the ISDS tribunal as a watchdog that confronts countries that violate trade agreements when they increase tariffs. In reality, the noteworthy cases that have gone before the ISDS tribunal have not pertained to tariffs. They have been cases of corporations bullying countries, in an attempt to circumvent their health & environmental laws, justice systems, energy policies, and more. (See #TPP — The Living Blog, section #5, to read more about ISDS.)
Do you see the difference between those two words: change vs. circumvent? It’s common for educated debaters to restate a person’s objections, with slight alterations, so that they can disprove the restatements, rather than address the original statements. Biblical scholars are familiar with the wording in Genesis 3:1a “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.” The serpent restated & changed God’s spoken words, to Eve, in order to portray God as being wrong.
In his rebuttal, Sen. Cruz altered and restated Sen. Sessions’ concerns, in order to disprove Sen. Sessions’ statements. Sen. Cruz twice emphasized that these global bodies cannot change U.S. laws.
Opponents of the TPP do not claim that the new TPP Commission and the ISDS tribunal change U.S. laws. The objection to the TPP stems from the fact that the TPP Commission and the ISDS tribunal are authorized to make decisions that disregard and supercede U.S. laws; decisions which the U.S. agrees to, in advance, when it ratifies the TPP. The U.S. laws themselves remain intact, and they apply within the U.S. But when dealing with the global trade community, all decisions made by the TPP Commission and the ISDS tribunal outrank U.S. laws and are not subject to appeal.
But wait, there’s more. In a May 2015 press release, Sen. Sessions wrote, “Labor economist Clyde Prestowitz attributes 60% of the U.S.’ 5.7 million manufacturing jobs lost over the last decade to import-driven trade imbalances.”
Yet in the aforementioned June 2015 interview, Sen. Cruz emphatically denied that the U.S. has lost millions of manufacturing jobs due to the effects of past trade agreements. His rebuttal? “We’ve got job losses because of Obamacare … because of crippling regulations…”
That’s curious, because Obamacare job losses didn’t begin until President Obama’s second term. If those job losses were due to Obamacare and government regulations, then America would have seen a more equitable distribution of job loss across all industry groups. Instead, we saw much longer-term, devastating job loss concentrated within the manufacturing sector.
And what about Sen. Cruz’ claim that the TPP is not a “living agreement”? On page 48 of the Congressional Research Service’s report, The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Negotiations and Issues for Congress, dated March 20, 2015, under the subheading A “Living Agreement”, it reads, “The TPP has been envisaged as a ‘living agreement,’ one that is both open to new members willing to sign up to its commitments and open to addressing new issues as they evolve.” Then on page 54, it reiterates, “…this ‘living agreement’ has been and may continue to be expanded in terms of its membership and its trade and investment disciplines.”
It is my belief that Sen. Cruz, like Hillary Clinton, fully supports the TPP, and has changed his public stance on the trade deal in order to cater to voters during his POTUS bid. Ponder these facts:
1. Sen. Cruz co-authored a pro-Fast Track op-ed with Rep. Paul Ryan, in April 2015.
2. In May 2015, “Cruz voted against an amendment to the Trade Deal that would require congress to be consulted if China (or other nations) were to join after the fact.” — The Conservative Treehouse, 11-30-15
- Senate Amendment 1251 “To require the approval of Congress before additional countries may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement”…
3. Sen. Cruz had the power to kill the Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) bill, by influencing colleagues — including any of the 36 Congresspeople from Texas — in the months leading up to the Fast Track vote. Instead, he waited until the last possible moment to announce his opposition to Fast Track. The bill only passed the House by one vote. His last minute “change of heart” on Fast Track seemed like a politically expedient decision, made in light of the Tea Party’s growing outrage over TPA & TPP.
5. Sen. Cruz and his supporters have portrayed his original pro-Fast Track position as naivete; and that he was fooled by his colleagues. I say baloney! Sen. Cruz is one of the smartest, most knowledgeable elected officials in D.C. There’s absolutely no way that Sen. Cruz did not understand that Fast Track (a) freely gives a significantly-increased amount of power to President Obama and the pro-TPP contingent, and (b) that the TPP gives away U.S. sovereignty.
6. Sen. Cruz did not take a public, anti-TPP stance until the Nov. 10th Presidential debate, once it became clear that almost every serious contender in the debate had also spoken out against the TPP. Why did it take him so long to speak out against the TPP?
7. Club for Growth, a pro-trade organization, was Cruz’ biggest campaign contributor in the years 2011-2014, donating $705,657 — more than twice the amount of the next biggest contributor. Why would Club for Growth bet so heavily on a candidate who purports to oppose the TPP? (Source: OpenSecrets.org)
The facts do not support Sen. Cruz’ accusations that Sen. Sessions is “not accurate” about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, that the TPP does not relinquish sovereign decisions to global authorities, and that the TPP is not a living document.
We are left, as voters, scratching our heads. We’re presented with Sen. Cruz’ statements, which are both contrary to Sen. Sessions’ statements, and contrary to Sen. Cruz’ own actions. I’m not buying the Cruz campaign’s “anti-TPP” stance. There are far too many holes in this story.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is becoming the lynchpin of the 2016 presidential election. Voters will have a different kind of choice this year. They will be choosing between blatant socialism vs. free market capitalism in a democratic republic, and they will be choosing sovereignty vs. global authority. They will make those decisions based on combinations of candidates’ truths, lies, and suspicions.
November is fast approaching. Choose wisely.
* * * * *
Crista Huff is a stock market expert and a conservative political activist. She is the Chief Analyst at Smart Investing in Turbulent Times; owner/operator of Goodfellow LLC, an outperforming stock market website; and she has worked with End Global Governance and economic groups to defeat Fast Track trade promotion authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Send questions and comments to research@goodfellowllc.com.
* * * * *
Investment Disclaimer
Release of Liability: Through use of this website viewing or using you agree to hold www.GoodfellowLLC.com and its employees harmless and to completely release www.GoodfellowLLC.com and its employees from any and all liability due to any and all loss (monetary or otherwise), damage (monetary or otherwise), or injury (monetary or otherwise) that you may incur.
Goodfellow LLC and its employees are not paid by third parties to promote nor disparage any investment. Recommendations are based on hypothetical situations of what we would do, not advice on what you should do.
Neither Goodfellow LLC nor its employees are licensed investment advisors, tax advisors, nor attorneys. Consult with a licensed investment advisor and a tax advisor to determine the suitability of any investment.
The information provided herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness. When information is provided herein from third parties — such as financial news outlets, financial websites, investment firms, or any other source of financial information – the reliability or completeness of such financial information cannot be guaranteed.
The information contained on this website is provided for informational purposes only and contains no investment advice or recommendations to buy or sell any specific securities. This is not an offer or solicitation for any particular trading strategy, or confirmation of any transaction. Statements made on the website are based on the authors’ opinions and based on information available at the time this page was published. The creators are not liable for any errors, omissions or misstatements. Any performance data quoted represents past performance and past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Investments always have a degree of risk, including the potential risk of the loss of the investor’s entire principal. There is no guarantee against any loss.
Leave a Reply