Pushing Blumenthal on Peace Deal

                               

 By Reginald Johnson

   

    HARTFORD ---- Grassroots activists around the country are working feverishly to line up as many Democrats as possible to support President Obama’s proposed nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, and say no to Republican efforts to scuttle the deal.

   People from groups like Moveon.org, Democracy for America and others rallied on Wednesday outside congressional offices in 250 cities, hoping to put pressure on Democrats still undecided on the agreement.

   One of the undecided is U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and more than 80 activists showed up at his office near the old State House to demand that the first-term senator get off the fence and back the deal. Blumenthal is the only member of the seven-member congressional delegation in Connecticut (all Democrats) who’s still holding out.

   Chanting slogans like “Give Peace a Chance” and “Peace Yes and War No!” the ralliers formed a circle at the entrance to the building where the senator’s office is located, holding petitions with the names of some 10.000 people in Connecticut who want Blumenthal to back the deal.

 

   Speakers blasted Republicans and others, such as former Senator Joseph Lieberman, who claim the agreement isn’t tough enough on Iran, and are lobbying Congress to reject it.

  “I’m confident Senator Blumenthal will do the right thing and join with us and five other countries and President Obama and say no to Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman and more war. They were wrong on Iraq, they are wrong on Iran. Peace now!” shouted Tom Swan, of the Connecticut Citizens Action Group.

  Henry Lowendorf, of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, said the agreement is a “good agreement, a peace agreement.”

  He said the deal calls for Iran to “continue to not build nuclear weapons, in return for an end to sanctions.”

   “People who want the United States Congress to reject this agreement have been calling for war with Iran for decades. That is their solution, their alternative,” he said.

 

    One of those who stood in the circle with a petition was Bruce Corbett of Avon, who came to the demonstration with his wife, Ruth Ellen. Corbett, a retired history teacher, said the events surrounding the Iran deal reminded him of when former President Woodrow Wilson following World War I was trying to get the country to support the Treaty of Versailles and formation of a League of Nations, to help prevent future war. That effort failed amid Republican opposition.

  A League of Nations was formed, but was ineffectual without the United States. Partly as a result of that “we had the rise of Hitler and World War II,” said Corbett.

   To the surprise of some, towards the end of the rally, Senator Blumenthal showed up on the way to his office. He went up and down the line shaking hands and smiling. As he headed towards his office, the group gathered around him, and Lowendorf handed over the petitions. In brief remarks, the senator said he was still weighing his decision, getting input from both sides, listening to constituents and hearing from experts.

  He called the issue “immensely complicated.”

  “I’m going to be listening to the people of Connecticut as I make my decision,” said Blumenthal. “But for me, more importantly, I’m going to decide what is the right thing to do for the United States of America. That’s my job,” he said.

  “What about what’s right for the world?” one person shouted.

  As Blumenthal headed for the door, the crowd chanted “Just Say Yes!” “Just Say Yes!”

  Blumenthal is expected to make his decision sometime in the next ten days, his office said.

   A congressional vote on the Iran agreement is expected sometime in September. 

  

  

 

Time Running Out

By Reginald Johnson

                Christiana Figueres, climate chief for the United Nations, said recently that time is running out for reaching an international agreement on dealing with global warming.

         Referring to the climate conference in Paris at the end of the year, she told the Associated Press, “We are at five minutes to 12 and Paris is the 12 o’clock strike of the clock.”

      Failure to reach a global, binding agreement on curbing carbon emissions --- the key driver of rising temperatures and climate change --- would mean “we are going to be playing with fire,” said the UN official.

     Figueres couldn’t be more correct in her assessment.  NASA testing shows that the average global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now 400 parts per million. That’s a full 50 points higher than the 350 ppm that is considered by scientists to be the maximum sustainable level of atmospheric carbon. Beyond that level, the viability of human life in the long term could be threatened by sharply rising temperatures and catastrophic climate impacts.

  Already temperatures have been rising. Last year, 2014, was the hottest year ever recorded.

  And dramatic climate impacts are taking place. We are getting more and more violent, killer storms, like Super Storm Sandy in 2012; more powerful tornadoes, wreaking incredible devastation; brutal droughts in the American west and in other parts of the world; and terrible forest fires, also in the western U.S., which are destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of woodland.

  Experts believe that the extreme weather is linked to changes in the atmosphere caused by greenhouse gases.

   It’s imperative that we move quickly to massively cut back on carbon emissions, as well as the emissions of other global warming gases, like methane.

   But have world leaders been moving to take decisive action to blunt climate change?

  So far, the answer to that question is, no.

  The United States obviously has a leading role to play in any international effort to fight climate change. For most of his presidency, President Barack Obama has not made climate change a major priority, despite his claims to the contrary. He has never once made a nationwide speech in prime time about the danger of climate change and the absolute necessity that we all work together to fight it. Former Vice President Al Gore called the fight against climate change a “planetary emergency.” He’s right. Obama could have said the same thing. He could have laid out all the awful scenarios that will befall us if we do nothing to control climate change, and really scared people. They need to be scared. This is an existential threat --- far more than anything posed by al-Qaeda, the Islamic State or other extremists.

  At the same time Obama could have urged people, particularly young people, to get involved in a national effort to educate everyone about the dangers of global warming and the imperative of moving away from carbon-producing fossil fuels. That national address could have been followed by a series of speeches around the country.

  A major campaign like that could have put the climate skeptics back on their heels and prompted a strong public demand that Congress pass laws that both control carbon, lessen the use of fossil fuels and put major funding into renewables.

 But no such public campaign was undertaken. Obama has not used his bully pulpit to get the nation moving on climate change.

 In general, Obama has given out conflicting messages about how serious he is about tackling the central problem of limiting carbon emissions. While his administration worked to get some things done, like improving auto fuel efficiency standards, the president gave the go-ahead for more Gulf oil drilling, even after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Recently, he gave the green light for Arctic oil drilling by Royal Dutch Shell, despite widespread protests.

  Everyone knows we have to move away from fossil fuels to control climate change. Why is Obama approving more oil drilling?

  Last week, six years into his presidency, Obama announced a new “Clean Power Plan” which plots an outline for tackling climate change. He laid out some steps for curbing carbon emissions from power plants --- which contribute the most CO2 to the atmosphere --- and moving to renewables like wind and solar power.

 That’s fine, as far as it goes. But it’s late. We’re now past 400 ppm of carbon in the air. Why didn’t he announce this plan five years ago?

  The administration behind the scenes has done some good work getting preliminary agreements from other major industrial nations like Brazil and China (two nations which previously had been reluctant to work out a deal on climate change) on the need to reduce carbon emissions and move to renewables. The recent talks set the stage for reaching some meaningful agreements at the Paris summit later this year.

   One possible idea that could be discussed in the Paris talks is setting up a system to impose a world-wide carbon tax. That would mean that the production, distribution and use of all carbon fuels --- coal, oil or natural gas --- would be hit with a special tax. As the price of carbon fuels rose, it would make the market move more rapidly to the development of non-carbon sources --- wind, solar and geo-thermal.

  Whatever specifics emerge for any carbon reduction plan, it’s clear that a strong, binding international agreement on slowing climate change is desperately needed --- now.

  It’s five minutes to midnight.

  

 

  

    

          

Ganim over Finch? Really?

   Opinion           

   

    By Reginald Johnson

      

   BRIDGEPORT --- It’s a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this city that a lot of people are so dismayed with incumbent Mayor Bill Finch that they are supporting ex-mayor and ex-con Joe Ganim to become the city’s next chief elected official.

     A Monday article in the Connecticut Post said that the contest for the endorsement from the Democratic Town Committee for the Democratic mayoral nomination was now a “dead heat” between Finch and Ganim. The DTC holds its endorsement session Tuesday night.

   This is incredible. The idea that Joe Ganim could secure the Democratic nomination and then be the odds-on pick to be elected as mayor of Connecticut’s largest city (due to the overwhelming Democratic Party edge in enrollment in Bridgeport) is mind-boggling.

  Let’s be blunt. Joe Ganim cheated this city, badly.  In the 1990s, he ran a sickening “pay to play” scheme in City Hall, was convicted for his crimes, and spent seven years in prison as a result.

  Contrary to a widely-held view that, despite the corruption, Ganim got the city moving again with the construction of the Bluefish stadium and the arena, Ganim actually held the city back. Because of his conniving, favoring certain developers and turning off others, a lot of development that could have taken place, did not.

  Remember that the 1990s, unlike now, was a much better time economically. There was more money available from the state, and more money to leverage with banks for different projects. A lot of that potential was squandered.

   Ganim also ran an administration that ran roughshod over people in the neighborhoods. Public housing was torn down in the South End --- worsening the city’s affordable housing stock --- to make way for the stadium and arena. The plans for those projects were rushed through and the public had little input.

  Going businesses were rudely forced out of their downtown locations, in the name of some future development, development that never came.

   Zoning principles were violated in the North End, when an application by favored developer Al Lenoci to construct a Stop and Shop in the middle of a residential neighborhood, was rammed through the planning and zoning commission. (That store is now closed, and sits as an empty hulk off Madison Avenue).

  I could go on, but you get the point. There’s a lot on the negative side of the ledger when it comes to Joe Ganim as mayor.

  If  Joe Ganim has “found religion” since his incarceration, I’m not aware of it. I am not even sure if he apologized for his crimes, if he ever showed contrition. If he did, I missed it.

 This is not to back-handedly paint Bill Finch as some kind of saint. He’s not. He also has a sensitivity issue, not listening to people and turning on those who oppose him with a vengeance.  

  

 His drive for mayoral control of the school board was a sorry chapter and I think turned a lot of people off. That plan, plus the support for more charter schools, is bad educational policy. But it should be noted that the idea of overhauling public schools and moving to more charters is something that is being pushed nationally by the leaders of the Democratic Party. Finch didn’t cook up this idea on his own.

    Finch has done some good things environmentally, such as supporting fuel cell development in the city. But there’s the bad, too. Community gardens --- which are thriving in cities like New Haven --- are languishing here, due to lack of funding and lack of direction.(By way of disclosure, I am a member of one of the gardens).

  Finch this year brought in a firm from Westport to oversee the gardens, but not much is happening. It was a slap in the face to Bridgeporters that an out-of-town group had to be brought in to tell us how to manage gardens. The head of the Westport firm reportedly gave a donation to Finch’s campaign.

   It’s clear that Finch has some real issues as mayor, and I don’t blame people for being upset for different reasons.

  But to be so upset to the point of backing someone who cheated the citizens of this city, engaged in illegal acts and hurt Bridgeport badly, I don’t get it.

  Joe Ganim? Come on.

 This may be one of those years, and they don’t come along very often in Bridgeport,  when a Republican should get a look for mayor. While I have little use for GOP policies nationwide, sometimes a local Republican can do a good job here. Leonard Paoletta, who ran the city very well in the 1980s, comes to mind.

  Enrique Torres anyone?

    

  

Germany's Double Standard on Debt

                               

 By Reginald Johnson

              

              It was good to see Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras yesterday rebuke the representative of Germany in the European Parliament over the issue of Greece's debt.

          Germany, France and other members of the Euro Zone have been acting indignant over Greece’s inability to pay back loans made by Euro Zone members, as well as banks and the International Monetary Fund.

   German officials in particular have been insisting that the debts must be repaid, despite the harsh austerity Greeks have been enduring in recent years. They say that the Greek demands for debt reduction and more favorable repayment terms are out of line. In a referendum last weekend called by Tsipras, Greek voters decisively rejected plans for more austerity in return for more loans from the EU.

  German EU member Manfred Veber accused Tsipras of having misled Greek voters, destroyed trust in Europe, and insulted other leaders.

    In a speech seen on Euro News, Tsipras responded,  “I want to remind you, Mr. Veber, that the strongest moment of solidarity in Europe was in 1953 when your country came out indebted and looted after two world wars and Europe and all European countries showed the greatest solidarity in a 1953 London agreement and they decided to write off 60 percent of the German debt and agreed to a growth plan. That was the greatest moment of solidarity in recent European history.”

   Tsipras, other Greek officials, as well as some notable economists such as Thomas Piketty and Richard Wolff, have recently been pointing out the German hypocrisy on the issue of Greece’s debt. In fact, Greek officials said earlier this year, that Germany had still not paid Greece for the agreed-upon debt from World War II. Under the Nazi regime, Germany invaded and occupied Greece during the early 1940s.

   Piketty, who rose to prominence last year with a book on inequality, told the German magazine Die Zeit: “When I hear the Germans say they maintain a very moral stance about debt, and strongly believe debts must be repaid, then I think, what a huge joke! Germany is the country that has never repaid its debts. It has no standing to lecture other nations.”

  Greece now owes in the neighborhood of 350 billion euros, on loans made by governments, private banks and the International Monetary Fund. In return for bailout money, Greece agreed to an austerity program involving wage and pension cuts and service reductions. The nation’s economy has gotten worse and Greece is virtually bankrupt.

  Following the referendum on Sunday, Greek and EU officials have been meeting to try to arrive at some sort of agreement where Greece will get more bailout funds and possibly a long-term debt reduction, or “haircut.”

  Even IMF leaders said in a recent report that the terms of debt for Greece had been too harsh, there had been negative results, and that a debt reduction is now needed.

   But German Chancellor Angela Merkel isn’t budging, saying on Thursday that debt relief was out of the question.

  If an agreement can’t be reached, Greece would be forced out of the Euro Zone and credit would be cut off. The nation would then have to print its own money.

  Greek banks reportedly only have enough money to last until Monday.

 James S. Henry, an economist, lawyer and senior fellow with Columbia University’s Center for Sustainable International Investment told the CounterPoint radio show on WPKN that it was time for officials of the EU and the European Central Bank to stop being so hard-headed about Greece, and work out a more favorable deal for that nation.

 

  “Any settlement has to contain debt relief from an objective standpoint. The current debt level is not serviceable,” he said. http://btlonline.org/2015/seg/150717af-btl-henry.html

 

  

The Greek Tragedy Goes On

By Reginald Johnson

             It’s a crime what’s happening to Greece.

             A country is slowly being destroyed while the rest of the world --- principally the richest countries like the United States --- do nothing. In fact, it’s those prosperous nations --- dominated by corporate elites and their political puppets--- that are the problem.

        Greece has been under a brutal austerity regime for the past five years. It’s bled the country dry. The austerity has been ordered by the International Monetary Fund and European Union leaders in return for financial aid packages to keep the Greek government afloat, as the nation still tries to recover from the disastrous economic downturn of 2008-09.

       That crash was not caused by Greece; it was in fact caused by the reckless investment practices of banks in the U.S. and the countries of western Europe, such as England, France and Germany.

  For years, the Greeks have had to endure all the ill effects of austerity: wage cuts, pension reductions, cuts in services, and an economy made worse by the lack of government spending. Unemployment is widespread, and so is despair. Suicides are on the rise.

   A new left-wing government in Greece this year has tried to work out more favorable terms for Greece’s financial aid. But after months of negotiations, European officials are not budging, and still demanding austerity by the Greek people in return for aid. They’re also not offering any real proposals for debt relief.

   Finally, it appears, many Greeks and certainly the Syriza government now leading the country, are saying “Enough.” They’re tired of suffering and tired of the harsh demands by creditors.

    Syriza leaders have set up a referendum on Sunday, in which the Greek people will be asked to vote “yes” or :”no” on whether to accept the EU’s latest austerity-aid package.

    If the people vote no, it could mean the end of any bailouts for Greece, and it could also mean the nation will be forced out of the Eurozone. A yes vote means more aid, but more austerity for years to come.

   Some top economists like Joseph Stiglitz, a nobel laureate, are saying the Greeks should vote no. If they leave the Eurozone, he suggests, it will be difficult, but the country may be able to start over, free of the dictates from the European Union.  The nation might be able to rebound, sort of like Argentina did some years ago after it defaulted on debt obligations.

   As Stiglitz wrote in The Guardian recently, “Greeks might gain the opportunity to shape a future that, though perhaps not as prosperous as the past, is far more hopeful than the unconscionable torture of the present.”

   But polls are showing a real split among the Greeks on which way to vote. While everyone wants an end to austerity, many people in Greece are worried they will lose everything if the nation rebuffs the IMF/creditor demands, and then is pushed out of the Eurozone. Pensioners, for instance, worry that if the nation leaves the Eurozone and outside aid stops, Greek banks might collapse entirely, and they will be wiped out.

   Others though, want to tell European leaders that Greece is not a slave, and they’ve had enough of taking orders. Greek Prime Minister Alex Tsipras told a huge rally in Athens Friday that Greece will not accept “ultimatums” anymore.

   No matter what happens in the election, Greece is going to keep suffering, at least in the short-term.

   My wife and I know a Greek couple, George and Eva Hatzikostas who operate a restaurant on Bridgeport’s north Main Street, called “Eva’s Deli --- All Things Greek.”

   Both Eva and George are very sad over the turn of events in Greece. They still have family there.

   I asked Eva about which way the referendum would go. She said she didn’t know for sure. But she believed many people would vote “yes,” because they’re terrified about the future if Greece no longer has a lifeline to the Eurozone.

   “Either way, Greece is bleeding,” said Eva, as tears came to her eyes. “It makes me cry to say that.”

 

 

No Time for Political Posturing

Commentary

                                       

By Reginald Johnson

       

    BRIDGEPORT ---- It was about 12 hours after the horrific act of violence on Thursday morning, in which nine people were shot, one fatally, at the Trumbull Gardens low-income housing project.

   I had heard about the shooting after I got up on Thursday, and was watching Channel 12 for updates. I saw Mayor Bill Finch at the scene expressing his sympathy for the victims and their families and talking about what steps he was taking to curb crime.  Police Chief Joseph Gaudett was also on hand to give a statement, and housing officials gave comments as well.

   This is all entirely understandable that the chief elected official of the city, his police chief and other key officials would show up on the scene after such a terrible incident had occurred.

   This is one of the worst cases of violence in Bridgeport in a while, and the mayor in particular had to reassure people about what was happening to stop further violence. I thought Finch was good, although he went on a bit too long about the value of one of the the violence prevention programs he set up, the “Street-Safe” program whereby older men, some reformed convicts, work with young men in the neighborhood, counsel them, and steer them away from crime. I thought, if this program is so good, it sure as heck didn’t work in this case.

The Trumbull Gardens housing project in Bridgeport. One person was killed and eight people wounded in a mass shooting last week outside one of the buildings.

   But what really threw me off was what I saw when I decided to ride up to Trumbull Gardens a couple of hours later and take a look around.

  Driving down Trumbull Avenue through the center the complex, I saw a crowd with TV cameras all around. There was a guy in the middle, white shirt and tie, waving his hands and talking as if he was holding a press conference. Then I felt sick to my stomach. It was Joe Ganim, former mayor Bridgeport.

   This is the same Joe Ganim who about 15 years ago was engaging in a variety of corrupt schemes, making deals with friendly developers at the expense of people in the neighborhoods, tearing down acres of affordable housing and running a very secretive administration throughout.

   Fortunately, the feds were onto Ganim’s antics, he was nailed for his crimes, and went to prison. Served a good long term, I think about eight years.

  Now, a la Buddy Cianci down in Providence, Ganim wants to make a comeback. He’s running for mayor again. A disbarred lawyer, he tried to get his law license back after leaving prison, and was most appropriately turned down. (The idea of a lawyer turned felon being given his license back after serving time is truly absurd).

 But now lots of years have gone by, and I suppose Ganim is counting on the people of Bridgeport forgetting his bad deeds, and remembering some of the successes --- including the construction of the baseball stadium and the arena -- and also on a certain amount of anti-Finch sentiment out there.

  Ganim certainly has a right to run. He has paid for his crimes, and by all accounts, serving time in prison is a miserable experience. I’m not questioning his right to run or to have a decent livelihood. But I am questioning whether he has changed.

  I didn’t like what I saw yesterday. It seemed like classic Ganim, while the cameras are rolling, you make a splash. The mayor of the city had just been there, the crime was still only 12 hours old, and all the press was there.

   It wasn’t as if Ganim said, ‘after this has settled down, maybe in a couple of days, I’ll come out and talk to people about possible ideas for combating crime.’ I would have respected that. The problem is, there would have been no cameras.

  Ganim told the Connecticut Post he knew some of the victims, and wanted to set up a vigil that day. Really. Two hours after the mayor was there.

  There were vigils at St. Vincent’s Hospital and Bridgeport Hospital, and I don’t have a problem with Ganim attending them.

  But for candidate Ganim to set up a vigil at Trumbull Gardens not long after his rival the mayor had been there --- only 12 hours after a terrible tragedy --- struck me as not sincere, politically expedient and inappropriate.

  I’m particularly skeptical about Ganim’s intentions, since he did so precious little for low-income neighborhoods like Trumbull Gardens when he was mayor. I know it’s said some black leaders liked him, but I knew some community activists who didn’t like him and felt he didn’t listen to them. As said, he razed hundreds of low-income units to build projects that quite frankly, the public had little say in.

  But now he’s got religion.

 I’ll conclude by saying I am not a great fan of Bill Finch as mayor, although he’s a decent guy in person. I am open about who to like for mayor, and could support an independent or even a Republican.

   But unless Joe Ganim starts making people walk on water, I know that’s one person I won’t cast a ballot for.

 

Himes Faulted for Stance on Fast Track

By Reginald Johnson

            As a vote in Congress on “Fast Track” legislation draws near,  Rep. Jim Himes’ decision to back the controversial trade bill is being criticized by union officials and progressive activists.

           After months of sitting on the fence about which way he would vote,  Himes, a Democrat representing much of Fairfield County, came out last week and said he will vote yes on a bill granting Trade Promotion Authority to President Obama. The bill, nicknamed Fast Track because it speeds up the process for approving trade treaties, empowers the president to force Congress to vote on a trade treaty within 60-90 days, limit debate and prohibit any amendments.

    If Fast Track passes --- and a vote could come as soon as Friday --- it will set the stage for approval of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement between the U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim countries. The agreement is supported strongly by big corporations, most Republicans, and Obama.

   After meeting with supporters of TPP and critics, including labor and environmental groups, the Fourth District congressman said he came down on the side of supporting Fast Track in good part because of Connecticut’s export-driven economy.

   “TPP offers the potential for rich export opportunities, and many high-paying export-oriented jobs,” Himes said.

   “Make no mistake, Connecticut is an export economy, and growing global trade and markets will help strengthen our middle class,” he said. “In 2013, there were $16.4 billion in Connecticut exports. $11.9 billion, or 67.5% of that, came from the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk metro area. To say that trade is important to our district is an understatement.”

  Himes, who said he had read the whole TPP agreement, said that so far, it appears Obama is making sure that the trade agreement is addressing environmental, labor and consumer concerns.

   But opponents of the trade bills took the congressman to task on a number of counts.

  Lori Pelletier, executive secretary treasurer of the Connecticut State AFL-CIO said Himes has come down on the side of corporations and not workers.

  “Rep. Himes decision …to support Wall Street profits over Main Street jobs will live long in the memory of 4^th District working men and women,” she said.

   “If Rep. Himes is sincere about creating jobs and revitalizing manufacturing, he needs to use his leverage as a member of Congress to reshape the Trans-Pacific Partnership to help rather than hurt workers in his district. Unfortunately, by supporting Fast Track, Himes is surrendering his ability to offer any amendments to improve this trade agreement or any other future agreements up for six years,” Pelletier said.

   One of the leaders of a grassroots group fighting against Fast Track and TPP said she was skeptical about Himes’ claim that he had read and understood the full text of the TPP.

  Margaret Flowers, from the group Popular Resistance, said that “the text is filled with legalese that could not possibly be fully understood by going into a room and reading it without the ability to analyze its impacts. If Himes is so supportive after reading it, I would urge him to write out the specific areas that he agrees with and the areas of concern that he has. I doubt that he could.”

  Flowers emphasized what other critics have charged, that the whole process for negotiating the TPP has been secretive and behind closed doors, with members of Congress only being given limited access to reading the text. The public has been given no access, despite the huge impact the treaty will have on the U.S. economy and all levels of government here. But corporate lawyers --- hundreds of them --- have been involved in negotiations on the wording of the treaty.

   “If Himes thinks TPP is so great, why does he support a secret and undemocratic process of passing it? Why doesn’t he allow the public to have full review of what is in the text and a debate about how it will impact our economy and our communities,” she asked.

Opponents of Fast Track rally recently in Bridgeport.

   Himes said in a letter to constituents explaining his decision on Fast Track that he did not think the closed-door negotiations were a problem and pointed out that when the TPP agreement is finalized, the text will be accessible to the public.

   “Most sensitive negotiations --- collective bargaining by unions or the purchase of a home for example --- happen behind closed doors.  In the case of TPP, after negotiators reach agreement, the deal will be made fully public online for 60 days before the President can sign it, followed by several months of review and consideration before Congress votes on it,” he said.

  In general, critics claim that the TPP is a corporate giveaway, giving corporations both in the U.S. and overseas the legal ability to thwart national and state laws set up to protect consumers, workers and the environment.

  That raises the issue of sovereignty, and whether the TPP and other trade treaties that are planned, don’t undermine the role of nations in making their own laws, and in the process, transfer power to multi-national corporations.

  Instead of sovereign nations making their own laws, people will be under a form of “corporate governance.”

   A majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives are opposed to Fast Track. Most Republicans favor the bill as well as the TPP, but some GOP members are opposed, due to concerns over the threat to sovereignty.

  Most analysts see the House vote on Fast Track as too close to call. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. --- who publicly has not taken stand on which way she will vote --- is reportedly behind the scenes trying to line up “yes” votes for President Obama and Fast Track.