On Wed, 13 May 2015 07:07:57 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

a) It's not all bad

b) It's not all good

c) It is way more complicated than most people in rcm can understand, though most have opinions. The same holds true for most politicians.

d) Anything this complicated should NEVER have the words "fast track" appearing in the same sentence.

e) what was defeated this week is the "fast track," and that's a good thing. As F. George said, this is not nearly over. Again, I'm not sure that it should or should not be. I only hope that it gets some very serious discussion before a decision is made. I'm not sure that our current lawmakers are capable of such discussion.

jpb

I agree with all of the above. But the idea behind fast-track is that
allowing legislators to amend agreements absolutely destroys any
chance they'll ever be passed by the other parties to an agreement.
Once those things are worked out in negotiations, that's as far as
everyone will go Trying to amend them after that will kill them with
a thousand cuts. Straight up-or-down votes are the only possible way
to get legislative approval and approval by the various parties to the
negotiation.

Researching our trade with China about 12 years ago, I got a good
taste of how complicated these things are; how many misconceptions the
public holds about them; and how many compromises have to be made in
order to get an agreement that produces a net benefit to all parties.

I admire Elizabeth Warren for many of her positions, but what she's
doing now will, almost without question, hurt both our economy and
overall employment in the US. Our economy is too advanced and
developed for us to have much chance at domestic replacement, should
we hamper trade. And her proposals will hamper trade. We now face up
to 40% tariffs with some Asian countries, which would be reduced to
zero with TPP. Without an agreement, we're trading with shackles on
our legs and no way to take them off.

--
Ed Huntress