Postscript To Fear And Politics

In the previous blog post Analysis found the Balanced Budget Amendment championed by Ohio’s governor to be rather disingenuous. Analysis showed that, given the constituted institution of American Government, with the power of sovereignty including the minting of money so that the government could meet its obligations, the Balanced Budget Amendment would abdicate that sovereignty in favor of the priority and precedence of accumulated wealth. A recent New York Times article on the Trans Pacific Partnership confirms the interest in rule by amassed capital over that of individual government (Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S. by Jonathan Weismanmarch, March 25, 2015). Little is know about the TPP as exemplified by the leaked portion obtained by the NY Times “The chapter in the draft of the trade deal, dated Jan. 20, 2015, and obtained by The New York Times in collaboration with the group WikiLeaks, is certain to kindle opposition from both the political left and the right. The sensitivity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the cover mandates that the chapter not be declassified until four years after the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into force or trade negotiations end, should the agreement fail.” “Under the terms of the Pacific trade chapter, foreign investors could demand cash compensation if member nations “expropriate or nationalize a covered investment either directly or indirectly.” Opponents fear “indirect expropriation” will be interpreted broadly, especially by deep-pocketed multinational companies opposing regulatory or legal changes that diminish the value of their investments. Included in the definition of “indirect expropriation” is government action that “interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations,” according to the leaked document.” President Obama and those promoting TPP want the treaty “fast tracked” through the US legislature. That is, essentially, voted up or down with no discussion (how could they since the treaty terms themselves, defined within and by the treaty, cannot be revealed until 4 years after passage?). “Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a member nation would be forbidden from favoring “goods produced in its territory.” Critics say the text’s definition of an investment is so broad that it could open enormous avenues of legal challenge. An investment includes “every asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristic of an investment,” including “regulatory permits; intellectual property rights; financial instruments such as stocks and derivatives”; construction, management, production, concession, revenue-sharing and other similar contracts; and “licenses, authorizations, permits and similar rights conferred pursuant to domestic law.”” In accord with Kasich’s desires for the US government to be beholden to amassed capital, the TPP would allow for corporate interests to sue the US when the corporation’s investment expectations may be threatened by any US government action or policy (federal, state, or local). According to the terms of the TPP, should the suit prevail, payout would be in the national currency of the foreign litigant, not in that which the US Constitution specifies the US Government use to meet its obligations (international corporations have nationality?). As Analysis has shown, the Balanced Budget Amendment is an equally disguised attempt to replace the sovereignty of the rule of government by the American citizenry with that of amassed wealth.


Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: