Hillary Clinton’s reversal to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership shows that Senator Bernie Sanders is winning (winning what, I’ll let the commentariat debate!). RNC chief Reince Priebus says Clinton’s “painful waffling on TPP… is precisely why an overwhelming majority of Americans don’t trust her.”
So how about the TPP waffles Senator John Thune is serving? Thune voted for TPP last May, saying it is “essential to securing free and fair trade agreements and providing access to new markets for American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers.” But with the President riding a year of wins (e.g., ACA, Iran), Thune is now backing away from TPP:
“It looks like on a whole range of issues that we sort of gave up the farm, no pun intended. I hope that that’s wrong. You know, we’re fighting hard on some dairy issues – some access issues there with Canada and Australia, so we want to make sure that our producers are treated fairly,” Thune says. “And just what I’ve seen, kind of the early anecdotal reaction to this thing has suggested that on a whole range of the major issues that we made some very significant concessions” [Kealey Bultena, “Thune Initially Concerned About Trade Deal,” SDPB Radio, 2015.10.07].
Thune isn’t fully flip-flopping yet: he’s careful to tell Bultena that his vote in May set high standards for TPP and he wants the deal delivered this week to live up to those standards, because TPP can grow American exports. But why changes to TPP should give Thune leeway to change his mind but Clinton not escapes me.
If anything, we should cut Clinton and Thune slack for coming to their Sanders senses. I’ve heard an argument that TPP could do to American farmers what NAFTA did to Mexican farmers: flood our markets with cheap commodities from overseas, take away our ability to protect domestic ag products with regulations (see COOL and the WTO), and drive our family farms out of business. The Korea Free Trade Agreement promised increased American ag exports, but post-deal, total ag exports from Minnesota to Korea declined 41%.
Or think of it this way: TPP could do for South Dakota agriculture what NAFTA did to manufacturing: move it to cheaper labor markets overseas. Under the TPP, South Dakota could be the new Detroit, turning our farm fields to brownfields and finishing the hollowing out of rural South Dakota.
TPP, like past free trade agreements, puts financiers over farmers. Thune may serve South Dakota best by finishing his Clintonesque flip-flop and joining Bernie Sanders and the National Farmers Union in opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
No matter what you may think of the TPP, was there ever any doubt as to Thune’s response once President Obama’s views were known?
That is correct Loren, one thing that we can count on republicans is that if Obama is for it, they must kill it, even if their decision kills them. I think Tehran John will have a come to Jesus moment on this and change his position with a real pretzel twist of an explanation. Always entertaining to watch and listen to the flow of his bullshit.
I stand corrected with this new report. Tehran John will not have any kind of moment anytime soon as his pockets just got fuller. Republicans have long viewed South Dakota as a good place to call a trash dump. It matters not if it is Lone Tree, cow poop or pig poop or oil contamination or if we all glow from the implications of in uranium fracking. It all boils down to the fact that with our new cesspool idea, we will not even be able to take the crooks to court. Tehran John will continue to be what he does best, a toady for China. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/10/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-meat-and-gmo-industries-shuanghui-china
Sanders wanted to change the discussion if he wins or loses. He is winning by getting bipartisan support to stop the bad trade deal. His being able to get bipartisan support is crucial to anyone running for pres.
Well, Loren, Thune, Rounds, and Noem all advocated for TPP passage last spring. They didn’t run from Obama then. Now that success is on the horizon, they get antsy. Hmmm….
Jerry, that article looks really important. It suggests that we could see TPP member nations buying land here, opening more CAFOs, and then demanding that we scale back our environmental regulations.
Hmm… could TPP be the key to reopening Northern Beef Packers? Will New Angus reopen just in time for White Oak Global to sell the plant to foreign investors?