Rand Paul op-ed: No sane reason for making trade treaty classified

[jct74]

EXCLUSIVE – RAND PAUL ON OBAMATRADE: ‘NO SANE REASON FOR MAKING THE TRADE TREATY CLASSIFIED’

by SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY)
24 Jun 2015

I welcome Senator Cruz to the battle against giving more power to President Obama. My consistent opposition to the Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, stems from my belief that Congress has already given too much power to the Presidency.

In fact, the single worst thing President Obama has done to our Republic is to further the collapse of the separation of powers. As our Founding Father James Madison wrote, the Constitution was intended to pit ambition against ambition. The ambition of the Congress to retain its power was to be pitted against the ambition of the President to accumulate power. But for more than a hundred years now, Congress has ceded power again and again to the President.

With TPA, Congress gives up the power to amend or filibuster trade legislation. While I think trade is a net positive, I don’t believe Congress should cede more power to this or any other President.

I oppose TPA because I oppose secrecy. There is no sane reason for making the trade treaty classified. I went to the secure room to read the trade treaty, but the 100-plus page document needs to be released to the public, to the media, and to scholars. In fact, several elected officials have yet to even read the TPA in its entirety. This is a major problem.

...

read more:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ty-classified/

[AuH20]

Why doesn't he attack the deal as opposed to dancing around it?

[Ronin Truth]

The sane reason is to prevent the Amerikan people from discovering how badly they are getting screwed, by their government again, until it's too late to change.

[tsai3904]

In fact, several elected officials have yet to even read the TPA in its entirety.

We would have benefited greatly if Congress actually read the Obamacare legislation before passing it, and I believe the same can be said for TPA.

The Obama administration’s consistent pattern of executive overreach and duplicity on Obamacare, immigration, and war powers makes it absolutely necessary that the American public should be allowed access to read the TPA.

I think Rand means to say TPP instead of TPA in all these instances. TPA is a 43 page bill that is publicly available.

[Ronin Truth]

Why doesn't he attack the deal as opposed to dancing around it?

Political expediency?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Why doesn't he attack the deal as opposed to dancing around it?

He's pandering. It's hard to get jazzed about a guy who tiptoes around everything. Trump's come in and made waves simply because he throws $#@! out there. Rand's being seen as just another milquetoast afterthought.

[timosman]

He's pandering. It's hard to get jazzed about a guy who tiptoes around everything. Trump's come in and made waves simply because he throws $#@! out there. Rand's being seen as just another milquetoast afterthought.

Look how smart we are !

[Dianne]

The sane reason is "We are going to get screwed". Everything this Government does, they do knowingly and willingly; to line their pockets and screw you and your family. Plain and simple.

[r3volution 3.0]

Why doesn't he attack the deal

Because it's a good deal.

Because it's a movement toward free trade.

Because it reduces the role of government in the economy (fewer taxes, fewer regulations, etc).

Because it will, consequent to the above, raise the living standards of Americans.

as opposed to dancing around it?

He isn't going to come out against free trade in violation of his principles (and economic rationality).

Yet, since there is a large protectionist faction within the GOP (and, to my perpetual consternation, the liberty movement itself), it is politically expedient to find reason to oppose the deal. And so he has found a procedural reason for opposing it.

...which I (as a proponent of TPP) am fine with by the way.

There are much bigger fish to fry (like cutting a couple hundred billion in federal spending and abolishing some departments), which will go unfried unless Rand wins the nomination, which he may well not if he comes out for TPP. Just look at what happened to Cruz recently. The Know-Nothings, his base, practically burned him in effigy when he voted for cloture on TPA.

[rich34]

Because it's a good deal.

Because it's a movement toward free trade.

Because it reduces the role of government in the economy (fewer taxes, fewer regulations, etc).

Because it will, consequent to the above, raise the living standards of Americans.



He isn't going to come out against free trade in violation of his principles (and economic rationality).

Yet, since there is a large protectionist faction within the GOP (and, to my perpetual consternation, the liberty movement itself), it is politically expedient to find reason to oppose the deal. And so he has found a procedural reason for opposing it.

...which I (as a proponent of TPP) am fine with by the way.

There are much bigger fish to fry (like cutting a couple hundred billion in federal spending and abolishing some departments), which will go unfried unless Rand wins the nomination, which he may well not if he comes out for TPP. Just look at what happened to Cruz recently. The Know-Nothings, his base, practically burned him in effigy when he voted for cloture on TPA.

I don't think managed trade is free trade, just like nafta.

[CaptUSA]

Because it's a good deal.

Because it's a movement toward free trade.

Because it reduces the role of government in the economy (fewer taxes, fewer regulations, etc).

Because it will, consequent to the above, raise the living standards of Americans.



He isn't going to come out against free trade in violation of his principles (and economic rationality).

Yet, since there is a large protectionist faction within the GOP (and, to my perpetual consternation, the liberty movement itself), it is politically expedient to find reason to oppose the deal. And so he has found a procedural reason for opposing it.

...which I (as a proponent of TPP) am fine with by the way.

There are much bigger fish to fry (like cutting a couple hundred billion in federal spending and abolishing some departments), which will go unfried unless Rand wins the nomination, which he may well not if he comes out for TPP. Just look at what happened to Cruz recently. The Know-Nothings, his base, practically burned him in effigy when he voted for cloture on TPA.

I'd like to agree with you that it is a good deal, but since we haven't seen the final version yet...

Sort of hard to make that evaluation. I could be a supporter of TPP. I appreciate the idea of it in principle. I'm even open to TPA as long as it allows for sunlight before voting on TPP. I, too, find the protectionism in the GOP and especially in these forums to be distasteful. But I haven't been given any ammo to support our side of the argument since it's all being done in secrecy.

I think Rand's take on this is exactly like mine (except that he has actually read the proposal). What may be the right thing to do in principle cannot even be discussed until we see the final proposal and have a chance to debate the merits prior to passage. That doesn't seem to be one of the options the administration is willing to give the American public. So, for that reason, I have to oppose it.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't think managed trade is free trade, just like nafta.

I said: "it's a movement toward free trade."

I'd like to agree with you that it is a good deal, but since we haven't seen the final version yet...

My support of it is provisional. What we do know suggests to me it's a good deal. Rand's position on it (criticizing it on process but not substance) only confirms that.

If/when it's made public, and I turn out to have been wrong, then I'll join the critics.

Sort of hard to make that evaluation. I could be a supporter of TPP. I appreciate the idea of it in principle. I'm even open to TPA as long as it allows for sunlight before voting on TPP.

It does. The final deal would be released openly to Congress and the public well before the final vote. IIRC it's a 60 day mandatory review, or something in that ballpark.

I, too, find the protectionism in the GOP and especially in these forums to be distasteful. But I haven't been given any ammo to support our side of the argument since it's all being done in secrecy.

The best ammo is what the protectionists themselves are saying. Look at Sessions' article attacking TPP. He's saying it's bad because it is free(er) trade.

I think Rand's take on this is exactly like mine (except that he has actually read the proposal). What may be the right thing to do in principle cannot even be discussed until we see the final proposal and have a chance to debate the merits prior to passage. That doesn't seem to be one of the options the administration is willing to give the American public. So, for that reason, I have to oppose it.

See above, mandatory review period. You and all of Congress will have a chance to read it before the final vote.

[Chieppa1]

What about the provision that if a country passes a law that harms a corporation's business, that corporation can take that country to court at the international level?

[presence]

meanwhile....

Banned!!! - Every Day Something New!



[IMG][/IMG]

[AuH20]

Even Ron is firmly against the TPP:

http://gamepolitics.com/2015/06/02/r...g#.VY27UPlVhBc

"Well, I’m not for it and the main reason is it’s an illegal transfer of power, so even if there happens to be something good in it, you don’t sacrifice the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear that the Congress has the authority to regulate commerce. You can't just say to the president, you can do whatever you want, and a matter of fact, they have agreed in this policy, that what they put into this, they can keep information secret. And it’ll be as classified, and even that should be enough to stop it. But I don’t like it because it’s thousands of pages, very complex, has to do with protectionism, even though it’s all done in the name of free trade. I’m a free trader, I believe in low tariffs, I believe that people can spend the money they want, but this has nothing to do with free trade. This has to do with managed trade, and it helps certain companies over others, and it’s a good way to get permission to put on tariffs and controls when you’re annoyed with what other companies are doing."

[r3volution 3.0]

What about the provision that if a country passes a law that harms a corporation's business, that corporation can take that country to court at the international level?

Question: what would be these laws that would hurt a corporation's business?

Taxes? Regulations?

Question #2: why would any libertarian be opposed to such laws being struck down?

[specsaregood]

Question: what would be these laws that would hurt a corporation's business?

Taxes? Regulations?

Question #2: why would any libertarian be opposed to such laws being struck down?

And this is why many of us are happy we aren't libertarians.

[r3volution 3.0]

And this is why many of us are happy we aren't libertarians.

Which state interventions in the economy do you favor? And why?

[specsaregood]

Which state interventions in the economy do you favor? And why?

I'd have to think about it; but I'd rather the people of my state reserve the right to do so and not cede such authority to an unelected international court.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'd have to think about it; but I'd rather the people of my state reserve the right to do so and not cede such authority to an unelected international court.

So then you don't have any concrete economic objections to TPP, your opposition is all about the (alleged) loss of sovereignty?

If so, I'll say this. If TPP wrought an actual loss of sovereignty for the US government, I'd probably oppose it too. But it doesn't.

Future US governments are not going to be restrained by a piece of paper signed by a former US government.

If and when these international authorities have their own tax powers and armies to enforce their decrees, wake me up.

But what about the States' sovereignty, relative the US government (which is what you specifically mentioned)?

Will the TPP undermine that? Well, regardless, my response would be: what sovereignty?

The states are already the playthings of the federal government.

If TPP results in State laws being struck down, nothing's changed.

...I remind you it is the US government controlling TPP, not some impotent international authority with power only on paper.