Re: "Trade pact depends on fast-track authority for Obama" (editorial, 1-14).
The editorial fell far short of convincing me that we should agree to the fast-track approach to this Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact, or any others. My greatest concern is the very strict cloud of secrecy that has hovered over the TPP since it was first mentioned in the news.
Your editorial points out that trade negotiations are usually held in private and the TPP parties have signed a confidentiality agreement. The fact that such negotiations usually involve secrecy does not, in any way, justify such secrecy.
Why did our president, or our negotiating team, agree to such confidentiality? What has been offered as a logical justification for such confidentiality in the first place?
Never miss a local story.
If I understand the concept of "up-or-down" votes under fast-track agreements, the U.S. Senate would have one brief opportunity to either ratify the TPP or deny ratification, without any possibility of debate or amendment preceding the ratification vote. Are we committed to "Decide in haste or regret long in leisure"?