It's easy enough to have very carefully choreographed appearances, say in front of a controlled crowd at Nike, where you can attack opponents without having to actually engage in a debate. But, the president is a coward: if you want to tear down people and claim they are wrong on such a critical issue, come out and debate people directly.
In his tightly controlled, from-the-throne appearance, the president last week made a whole series of claims--all of which he made without being contested. No questions asked. Nobody to contradict him. He used interviews with transcribers of press releases (formerly known as "journalists"), who are clueless when it comes to trade and buy the same nonsense, to attack people who oppose this putrid deal.
But, face people who disagree and who are competent to challenge him directly? Nope. The emperor does not need to do this.
Crazy, unsubstantiated claims were the rule of the day:
First of all, they say that this trade agreement will cost American jobs. And they’re really basing this on some past experience, looking at what happened in the ‘90s, over the last 20 years, as there was a lot of outsourcing going on. And you know what, past trade agreements, it’s true, didn’t always reflect our values or didn’t always do enough to protect American workers. But that’s why we’re designing a different kind of trade deal
And the truth is that companies that only care about low wages, they’ve already moved. They don’t need new trade deals to move. They’ve already outsourced. They’ve already located in search of low wages.
Really? Based on what information did the president make the--absurd--claim that every company searching for lower wages has already moved?
Another claim:
What this trade agreement would do is open the doors to the higher-skill, higher-wage jobs of the future -- jobs that we excel at. It would make sure our manufacturers who are operating at the higher end of the value chain are able to access these growing markets. And the fact is, over the past few years, our manufacturers have been steadily creating jobs for the first time since the 1990s -- under my administration. After more than a decade away from the top spot, business leaders around the world have declared the United States is the world’s number one place to invest for a third year in a row.
Uh, where did that lie come from? According to the truly left wing magazine, Forbes, the
U.S. ranks 18th...behind #1 Denmark. But, perhaps, the president has other figures.
OK, come out from behind the curtain and debate that fact.
And his faith in Nike:
Just this morning, as Mark may have mentioned, Nike announced that, with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it will make new investments in advanced manufacturing -- not overseas, but right here in the United States. And far more Nike products would be made in the U.S.A. (Applause.) And that means thousands of new jobs in manufacturing and engineering and design at Nike facilities across the country, and potentially tens of thousands of new jobs along Nike’s supply chain here at home. That’s what trade can do.
That's because that promise is baked into the agreement? Or the president simply chooses to believe Nike--the same company that hides money in offshore accounts in Bermuda? In case no one noticed, corporations always promise shit and very often--surprise!!!--don't live up those promises. On trade:
Before NAFTA was passed, General Electric promised more than 10,000 new jobs would be created. Instead, GE eliminated 11,675 jobs directly due to increased competition from imports and offshoring under NAFTA. Chrysler promised 4,000 new jobs and it eliminated nearly 18,000 jobs. More recently in March, Caterpillar announced it will move two production lines from Joliet, Illinois to Mexico, costing the community 230 jobs.
Or take something like taxes.
Corporations who promised to repatriate money hidden offshore in return for a tax break and create jobs, instead, used it for stock buybacks (to boost share value) and CEO pay.
And as for Nike, it was a pretty clever statement by Nike's Mark Parker:
Over the next decade, that could mean 10,000 new jobs in manufacturing andengineering from Nike and our partners and up to 40,000 jobs across our supply
chain.
"Could mean"? Really? And a decade from now, after Mr. Parker has pocketed tens of millions of dollars more in pay and benefits, what exactly happens if that "aspiration" isn't fulfilled?
And about NAFTA-style agreements, the president says:
Point number two -- when you ask folks specifically, what do you oppose about this trade deal, they just say “NAFTA.” NAFTA was passed 20 years ago. That was a different agreement. And in fact, this agreement fixes some of what was wrong with NAFTA by making labor and environmental provisions actually enforceable.
Really? It is true that the president is peddling a line that a lot of people believe--that any of these trade agreements can have enforceable labor and environment provisions. As I pointed out when Obama first ran for office, it is virtually impossible--
you can't even enforce regulations HERE IN THE U.S.
Enforcement has always been a farce created to buy a few votes to jam NAFTA through a Democratic Congress. It was a farce accepted by the labor movement, which, weak as it was (and continues to be) felt that it was the best deal it could get in the face of a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and his Labor secretary, Robert Reich who was a full-throated champion of so-called "free trade."
We need to recognize it as a farce and stop playing rhetorical political gamesmanship.
The problem is not enforcement of NAFTA, or CAFTA or TPP. It is the very conception and framework of the deals.
The most basic problem, hold on to your hats, is that so-called "free trade" agreements have little to do with trade; that is, the reducing of tariffs and eliminating of quotas. You got it—it’s just a marketing phrase, a very effective one, that obscures what most of the so-called "free trade" agreements do.
These deals have created a set of rules whose basic premise is: protect capital and investment. That means, among other wonderful benefits, expand monopoly patent rights on drugs and other goods; expand intellectual property rights (that means the rights not of individual authors but corporations); privatize and deregulate services (because it worked so well in the U.S., huh?); and weaken, cut or "harmonize" food safety laws.
And Elizabeth Warren does have responses today:
THE PLUM LINE: What’s your response to the latest from President Obama?
SENATOR WARREN: The president said in his Nike speech that he’s confident that when people read the agreement for themselves, that they’ll see it’s a great deal. But the president won’t actually let people read the agreement for themselves. It’s classified.
PLUM LINE: But don’t you get 60 days to review it after the deal is finalized, with the authority to revoke fast track?
WARREN: The president has committed only to letting the public see this deal after Congress votes to authorize fast track. At that point it will be impossible for us to amend the agreement or to block any part of it without tanking the whole TPP. The TPP is basically done. If the president is so confident it’s a good deal, he should declassify the text and let people see it before asking Congress to tie its hands on fixing it.
PLUM LINE: Doesn’t the current framework allow for the revocation of fast track authority?
WARREN: The whole point about fast track is to grease the skids so that 51 votes will get it through…it takes a majority to get rid of [fast track].
But, if the president is so confident in his positions and concerned that this great gift to the people of the country is so crucial, he should stop attacking--with the very kinds of baseless, personal attacks he rightly criticizes Republicans for engaging in--the vast majority of Democrats in Congress who oppose the deal, and come out from behind his protected bubble and debate this openly.
But, he won't.
Because he loses on the facts.