You are so uninformed about what TPA actually is. You are conflating it with TPP, either because you are just repeating talking points, or because you are ignorant.
Just to clarify, TPA has been around since the 70's. It creates a framework that lays out what Congress will accept and will not accept in any trade negotiations in advance. This is to make sure that negotiators are not making deals that Congress knows in advance they will not approve.
Let's look at this from a practical aspect. If you are a businessman negotiating a contract, how would you feel if every time you thought you had an agreement, the opposing party had to take it back to the corporate office, where they reviewed for months on end, only to have the other party come back and tell you that on items you spent months negotiating, the other party never had the authority to negotiate in the first place? And now you have to start all over.
Even with TPA, Congress has the ability to decide that the Administration did not follow the guidelines established and can either reject the entire agreement, or they can amend the agreement based on the failure to abide by the TPA requirements.
So this idea that support for TPA=support for TPP is simplistic and naive, and just a liberal talking point.
You are so uninformed about what TPA actually is. You are conflating it with TPP, either because you are just repeating talking points, or because you are ignorant.
Just to clarify, TPA has been around since the 70’s. It creates a framework that lays out what Congress will accept and will not accept in any trade negotiations in advance. This is to make sure that negotiators are not making deals that Congress knows in advance they will not approve.
Let’s look at this from a practical aspect. If you are a businessman negotiating a contract, how would you feel if every time you thought you had an agreement, the opposing party had to take it back to the corporate office, where they reviewed for months on end, only to have the other party come back and tell you that on items you spent months negotiating, the other party never had the authority to negotiate in the first place? And now you have to start all over.
We’re talking about Obama’s TPA. And I’m not conflating it with Obama TPP. There is no 5,000 page lobbyist written Obama TPP without TPA. TPA enables TPP. They are forever connected. That why it was so damaging for Ted Cruz to not just vote to advance TPA but to campaign for it. He is defacto supporting TPP.
As I’m sure you’re aware this debate was immediately after the Iran Deal. You present exactly the same “Congressional approval” arguments that were made for the Iran deal. How did that work out?
After we have been assaulted by every department in the Obama admin, there is simply no reason for any conservative to enable Barack Obama’s agenda and “legacy” (Time magazine).
I see you don’t mention this lowered the threshold for passage to 50 votes. Why is that? Half truths and lies by omission like those you present here are exactly why I stopped supporting Cruz for POTUS after TPA. If we can’t trust him on big issues like trade and immigration he is not deserving of our vote.