Bloomberg Points Out That White House's Near Total Lack Of Transparency May Doom TPP
from the indeed-it-will dept
While the NY Times apparently has no problem endorsing the TPP agreement despite not having read it (because it's still totally secret), it appears that other news organizations are feeling differently. Bloomberg's editorial folks have written a pretty strong editorial slamming the Obama administration for the unnecessary and counterproductive secrecy around the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. And this isn't from people who are against the overall agreement. To the contrary, they argue that a good free trade agreement between pacific rim countries would be very helpful for economic and job growth. But the near total lack of transparency by the US may doom the entire project.The Bloomberg editorial notes that, contrary to USTR Michael Froman's laughable claims of transparency, last week's leak of the IP chapter showed how little transparency there had been, since the US was asking for lots of very controversial things, without any willingness to discuss this with the public. As they note, just because items are controversial, it doesn't mean that the federal government should hide them from both Congress and the public -- in fact, quite the opposite.
The administration may cite the controversies such provisions would provoke as a reason for keeping them secret. Yet just because a deal creates tension among competing interests isn’t a license to keep them uninformed. And the U.S. has invited more than 500 corporate advisers to help it negotiate a deal.Basically, the argument here is similar to what I said last week: there wouldn't be this kind of controversy if the USTR had sucked it up and actually been transparent. That means discussing publicly what they're negotiating in our name, releasing draft texts of what they're proposing, and then being open for discussion about it all. The USTR points to that last one -- the fact that they'll "talk to anyone" as evidence of transparency. But without the first two things, that last one isn't transparency at all.
Corporations and trade groups, however, don’t represent the broader interests of consumers, workers, environmentalists and … oh, yes, taxpayers. Theoretically at least, representing them is Congress’s rightful role. Keeping it in the dark feeds the perception that the TPP is a special-interest free-for-all.
While Bloomberg has its own credibility problems these days, I'm somewhat surprised that it has come out so strongly against the way the administration and the USTR in particular, has handled the TPP negotiations. Many large media organizations, and especially a corporate appeasing one like Bloomberg, were mostly expected to do what the NYT did -- repeat the topline claims about what the TPP is supposed to accomplish, and assume that the details don't matter.
The details do matter quite a lot, and the USTR still doesn't think we should be able to see them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, michael froman, secrecy, tpp, transparency, ustr, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lack of transparency is not the problem
Now, let's say, Uncle Sam want to shovel down a truckload of crap down your throat.
You of course don't want to eat shit, so refuse, rebel, protest.
Now, Uncle Sam is getting good money to do his job, so he tells you first to close your eye, because it'll be a Surprise!
First problem: you don't trust Uncle Sam to do this in the first place.
Second problem: you still smell crap that leaks from the truck.
This agreement would fail, transparency or not, because of it's content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of transparency is not the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lack of transparency is not the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...May Doom TPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
Marvellous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, baloney. Just the usual lies to say it's NOT a sure thing.
Mike falls for this every time.
But even if stopped now, it'll be back! -- Just like CISPA! Mike was/is wrong that's dead too. -- So long as The Rich and their corporations aren't pushed back with Populism, they'll just keep going for more power: it's what they do, it's their game: both protects and extends their power.
Here's a key point "libertarians" don't get: lower tax rates, especially on unearned income, actually help only The Rich to concentrate money and control the economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Bloomberg News Kills All Credibility..."
"Yet another major news organization has decided that it no longer needs credibility..."
Pretty damning words.
Now let's look at what Techdirt has to say today:
"Bloomberg Points Out..."
"Bloomberg's editorial folks have written..."
Wait. So, they magically became credible over the last two days? Does not compute. Unless we factor in the thing that tends to ruin almost every argument made on this site: if it agrees with me it is good, otherwise it is bad. Context, logic and facts be damned.
Luckily for Techdirt, its credibility already hit rock-bottom a long time ago, otherwise this could be embarrassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, its you who lacks credibility here, AC. Mike doesn't do the extremist thing and is more interested in getting at the truth than taking sides. He speaks as he finds. Why can't you do the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny, because from where I and many others are sitting, Techdirt is pretty damn accurate in what they report and actually get stuff done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Bloomberg News Kills All Credibility..."
"Yet another major news organization has decided that it no longer needs credibility..."
Pretty damning words.
Now let's look at what Techdirt has to say today:
"Bloomberg Points Out..."
"Bloomberg's editorial folks have written..."
Wait. So, they magically became credible over the last two days? Does not compute. Unless we factor in the thing that tends to ruin almost every argument made on this site: if it agrees with me it is good, otherwise it is bad. Context, logic and facts be damned.
Luckily for Techdirt, its credibility already hit rock-bottom a long time ago, otherwise this could be embarrassing.
Well put. And Techdirt has a proud tradition of shit like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't that the point all along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not just wait?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not just wait?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no trade deal should be discussed or negotiated in secret and all parties MUST be represented, not just those from government and business. we, the people, are the biggest slice of any market. we MUST be included in where our money etc is going to!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goodies for special interest groups
I'm a free trader - a real free trade agreement would indeed be great.
But I don't understand how the New York Times (or anyone) can expect a deal negotiated in secret - BUT with lots of input from "interested parties" - to be anything but a candy bowl for special interests.
I sympathize with the desire of trade negotiators to avoid confronting economically ignorant protectionist know-nothings (who don't understand what is in their own best interests).
But the only solution is economic education, not secrecy - because human nature ensures that secrecy will lead directly to conspiracy against the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]