THE PLUM LINE: There’s a tremendous amount of suspicion about trade deals. Prior trade deals didn’t raise wages or bargaining rights. What specifically will be in TPP that is somehow different from these other deals, from the point of view of the standard of living of American workers?
THOMAS PEREZ: I share the skepticism that my friends have about NAFTA. It was woefully weak in protecting workers and on the enforcement side. The question is: Can we meaningfully build a trade regime that has as its North Star protecting American workers and American jobs through meaningful enforcement? I think we can. It’s imperative that we not default to the status quo, which would mean we don’t fix NAFTA.
We have to bake labor provisions into the core of an agreement. TPP would do that. Under NAFTA, countries had to simply promise to uphold the laws of their own nations. Now the provisions baked into TPP are: You must enact or make sure you have already in place meaningful labor protections, such as the freedom of association, health and safety, acceptable conditions of work.
Perez is arguing that TPP can actually be a vehicle for globalizing labor rights (and presumably environmental standards). I'm sure it sounded good when some one wrote out the idea but is that really a saleable line? (I have no opinion on whether it is true. Need to study more.) I'm skeptical.
Sargent asks a vital question that really emphasizes the importance of winning the Presidency independent of "bold new ideas!":
PLUM LINE But how would the mechanism work? Is it at the discretion of a future president to pursue enforcement? Is the argument that labor shouldn’t be concerned about non-enforcement under a future labor-unfriendly president, because there will be committed prosecutors in place?
PEREZ: I can’t speak for what a future president will do. But I can say the structure is indistinguishable from the structure we have at the Justice Department to do enforcement in a wide array of civil and criminal contexts, where you have a dedicated cadre of career professionals. That critique — that a future president may do less — could apply to every aspect of enforcement. Trade is no different. We want to get the best laws on the books. Do we throw up our arms and say, “We’re just going to stick with the status quo?”
Perez is arguing for TPP, but really his argument expands the whole "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!" argument for voting for your Party. And it's right.
But that's a general election argument, not a primaries argument. For the primaries, if Webb or O'Malley REALLY want to make a splash, this is the time and TPP is the issue.
