The Chevron Decision, the Regulatory State and "Consent of the Governed"

Not just a line from our founding document; a fact.

by Gaius Publius

Bottom line first — Having justices like Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court is part of the attempt by Trump, Bannon, the Koch Bros and all Ryanist Republicans to dismantle the regulatory state. Dismantle — not undercut or chip away at. Tear down, starting at its base. Imagine what that will do. Such an attempt, if it succeeds, could rend the last shred of fabric holding the nation together as a nation.

The attempt to rip that fabric in two is closer to success, on many fronts, than most imagine. This is about one of those fronts, the constitutional authority of the Executive Branch to issue regulations.

The U.S. Regulatory State

The modern U.S. regulatory state is that part of the government, housed in Executive Branch agencies like the FCC, the FAA, the FDA, and the EPA, that regulate in the public interest how businesses must conduct themselves.

The public by and large approves of regulations. Who wants to be killed by spoiled meat, or die in a plane crash because the FAA was privatized, made more "efficient," and turned into a revenue stream for investors?

On the other hand, businesses by and large hate regulations. It's the regulatory state that prevents even more people from dying in cars like the Ford Pinto or the Chevy Cobalt because the company did a cost-benefit analysis and found that killing passengers was economically preferable to making safer cars. It's the regulatory state, in other words, that stands in the way of increasing corporate profit at the public expense.

The regulatory state can be undermined in two ways. It can be captured and dismantled from within, under-funded and staffed with people who ignore or pervert its legal mandates. Or it can simply be made illegal, by overturning the Supreme Court decision that makes it legal in the first place. We've seen many instances of the first way, starting with Ronald Reagan's perversion of the regulatory regime. We're about to witness the second.

"Chevron Deference" and Executive Branch Regulations

The modern regulatory state rests on the Reagan era Supreme Court ruling in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. The Chevron decision established the principle that, quoting the New York Times, "the E.P.A. (and any agency) could determine the meaning of an ambiguous term in the law. The rule came to be known as Chevron deference: When Congress uses ambiguous language in a statute, courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of what the words mean [emphasis added]."

In essence, the Chevron deference principle allows agencies to interpret regulatory laws in any reasonable way they wish and gives legal deference to those interpretations. Note that this can work both for and against progressive principles. The original Chevron case was a challenge to Reagan's EPA, led at the time by Ann Gorsuch Burford, Neil Gorsuch's mother. The agency wanted to loosen restrictions on pollution from power plants. In siding with the EPA the Court established the deference principle and handed a victory to polluters. The ruling was a unanimous 6-0 decision (with three justices not taking part). Antonin Scalia favored the Chevron ruling.

Chevron is also "one of the most frequently cited cases in the legal canon." From the standpoint of judicial precedence, frequent citation confers authority.

The 1935 Schechter Poultry Decision and the "Nondelegation Doctrine"

The right of the Executive Branch to engage in regulation at all has rarely been challenged; note that Chevron turned on the right to interpret congressional language, not the right of regulation itself. Congress, of course, has the right to regulate business activity, but starting in the Roosevelt era, Congress delegated that authority to the Executive Branch through legislation.

Two Supreme Court challenges to the right of Congress to delegate regulation occurred early in the Roosevelt era, one of them being Schechter Poultry Corp. v. the United States. Both succeeded, but unlike Chevron, neither decision has ever been cited, and for the next 80 years, from that time until now, both have been ignored. Just as citation confers authority, lack of citation diminishes it. Almost from the time they were issued, these decisions, including Schechter Poultry, have been recognized as a "legal dead end."

The discrepancy between these two Supreme Court decisions — Chevron and Schechter Poultry — is obvious. Schechter Poultry, a never-cited decision, denies Congress the right to delegate regulatory authority. The Chevron decision, widely cited, assumes the opposite. For 80 years the federal government has acted as though Schechter Poultry was wrongly decided, and in 1984, Chevron, by implication, affirmed that assumption.

Emily Bazelon and Eric Posner detail the interesting history around these intertwined decisions (my emphasis):

The 80 years of law that are at stake began with the New Deal. President Franklin D. Roosevelt believed that the Great Depression was caused in part by ruinous competition among companies. In 1933, Congress passed the National Industrial Recovery Act [NIRA], which allowed the president to approve “fair competition” standards for different trades and industries. The next year, Roosevelt approved a code for the poultry industry, which, among other things, set a minimum wage and maximum hours for workers, and hygiene requirements for slaughterhouses. Such basic workplace protections and constraints on the free market are now taken for granted.

But in 1935, after a New York City slaughterhouse operator was convicted of violating the poultry code, the Supreme Court called into question the whole approach of the New Deal, by holding that the N.I.R.A. was an “unconstitutional delegation by Congress of a legislative power.” Only Congress can create rules like the poultry code, the justices said. Because Congress did not define “fair competition,” leaving the rule-making to the president, the N.I.R.A. violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.

The court’s ruling in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. the United States, along with another case decided the same year, are the only instances in which the Supreme Court has ever struck down a federal statute based on this rationale, known as the “nondelegation doctrine.” [But] Schechter Poultry’s stand against executive-branch rule-making proved to be a legal dead end, and for good reason. As the court has recognized over and over, before and since 1935, Congress is a cumbersome body that moves slowly in the best of times, while the economy is an incredibly dynamic system. For the sake of business as well as labor, the updating of regulations can’t wait for Congress to give highly specific and detailed directions.

[...]

The system worked well enough for decades, but questions arose when Ronald Reagan came to power promising to deregulate. His E.P.A. [under Neil Gorsuch's mother] sought to weaken a rule, issued by the Carter administration, which called for regulating “stationary sources” of air pollution — a broad wording that is open to interpretation. When President Reagan’s E.P.A. narrowed the definition of what counted as a “stationary source” to allow plants to emit more pollutants, an environmental group challenged the agency. The Supreme Court held in 1984 in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that the E.P.A. (and any agency) could determine the meaning of an ambiguous term in the law. The rule came to be known as Chevron deference: When Congress uses ambiguous language in a statute, courts must defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of what the words mean.

All of this means one thing. Any Court decision that overturns Chevron and leaves Schechter Poultry in place affirms Congress as the only body with the authority to issue regulations affecting business activity.

The effect would be sweeping and immediate. Overturning Chevron means entirely deconstructing the modern regulatory state. It means returning the country, from a regulatory standpoint, to before the New Deal and deny legitimacy to the entirety of Executive Branch regulatory mechanisms.

Needless to say, business leaders in both parties want that deconstruction very very much, and they're working hard to get it.

Neil Gorsuch and the Chevron Decision

Of his many faults, from a judicial standpoints (others are mentioned here), Neil Gorsuch's interest in overturning Chevron is perhaps the most dangerous. The Times again:

Last year, in a concurring opinion in an immigration case called Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he attacked Chevron deference, writing that the rule “certainly seems to have added prodigious new powers to an already titanic administrative state.” Remarkably, Judge Gorsuch argued that Chevron — one of the most frequently cited cases in the legal canon — is illegitimate in part because it is out of step with (you guessed it) Schechter Poultry. Never mind that the Supreme Court hasn’t since relied on its 1935 attempt to scuttle the New Deal. Nonetheless, Judge Gorsuch wrote that in light of Schechter Poultry, “you might ask how is it that Chevron — a rule that invests agencies with pretty unfettered power to regulate a lot more than chicken — can evade the chopping block.”

Gorsuch is not alone in wanting to overturn Chevron. Unlike the late Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas is openly opposed to Chevron. Three other conservative justices have also indicated their willingness to revisit Chevron. In a recent decision involving regulation by the FCC, one which specifically referenced the Chevron decision, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Alito and Kennedy, wrote this (my emphasis):

My disagreement with the Court is fundamental. It is also easily expressed: A court should not defer to an agency until the court decides, on its own, that the agency is entitled to deference. Courts defer to an agency's interpretation of law when and because Congress has conferred on the agency interpretive authority over the question at issue. An agency cannot exercise interpretive authority until it has it; the question whether an agency enjoys that authority must be decided by a court, without deference to the agency.

In other words, in the view of these three justices, Schechter Poultry's "nondelegation doctrine" must be revisited by the Court. Should they get their wish, there could be five justices in favor of overturning Chevron and re-establishing Congress as the only regulatory agency in the federal government.

The Court's Bipartisan Deference to Big Business

As many have pointed out, the so-called "liberal" justices are also quite business-friendly. Noam Scheiber at the New York Times, in a piece written before the last election, said this (again my emphasis):

[S]ome argue that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has become perhaps the most business-friendly court in recent history. A 2013 study by Lee Epstein of Washington University in St. Louis, William M. Landes of the University of Chicago Law School and Judge Richard A. Posner of the federal appeals court in Chicago ranked justices according to their rulings in cases involving business. The findings, which Ms. Epstein and Mr. Landes updated through the 2014-15 term for this article, show that six of the 10 most business-friendly justices since 1946 sat on the Supreme Court at the time of Justice Scalia’s death.

President Obama has given little indication that he is likely to reverse this trend. Both of his previous nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, have been relative moderates on matters involving business, despite some progressive opinions in specific cases.

The so-called "liberal" justices have concurred in a number of important, but low profile cases. Scheiber again:

Perhaps most indicative of the shift in the legal landscape is the assent of many justices appointed by Democrats.

In some areas, like antitrust, the shift rightward has often been uncontroversial, with many of the liberal justices frequently signing on. The 1997 ruling on resale price ceilings was unanimous, while a 2007 ruling on antitrust immunity was 7-1, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer writing the majority opinion.

“It’s not just the conservatives,” said Richard Brunell, vice president and general counsel of the American Antitrust Institute. “It was Breyer who was leading that charge.”

[...]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted with the conservative majority in two rulings in the late 1990s that, according to Mr. Miller, the N.Y.U. professor, “clearly signaled the containment of the class action by the court.”

In 2011, Justice Sotomayor joined the conservative majority in striking down a law that denied companies access to pharmacy records about prescriptions, on the grounds that it violated the companies’ First Amendment rights. The following year, Justices Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor voted with the conservatives in an arbitration decision.

Many people remember a higher profile case, Kelo v. City of New London, which affirmed the "use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development" — the right of a city, in other words, to condemn private property so another private entity could profit from it. Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.

This whole Court is business-friendly. That doesn't mean the "liberal" justices would vote to uphold Shechter Poultry, but they'd certainly listen.

What's at Stake if Chevron Is Overturned? The "Consent of the Governed"

Which brings us to the heart of this piece, its main point. What will happen if Chevron is overturned? The answer to that question is anyone's guess — the future is often as hard to predict as the past — but we'd certainly land in completely uncharted territory. My own best guess that we'd see the same kind of chaos that would erupt if the ACA were repealed completely — but worse, chaos on steroids — since the consequences of dismantling all Executive Branch regulation would be far more reaching, far more devastating to the lives of all Americans.

Consider these two factors:

• The ultimate powerlessness of the Supreme Court (discussed here)
• The fact that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life

When the rebellion that's brewing hot in America reaches the offices of elected officials, they fear for their careers, and many of them change their votes. We saw that with the voting for the later set of Trump cabinet nominees after town hall protests erupted against Democrats like Sheldon Whitehouse because of his shameful pro-torture vote — the one to approve Mike Pompeo as head of the CIA — and we saw that with suddenly announced Democratic intention to filibuster Neil Gorsuch after rumors of a possible "deal" to let him be confirmed were reported.

The justices of the Supreme Court have no such vulnerability; they're appointed for life. They can be dissuaded from a shameful decision, if they wish to be, by massive public protest, but there's nothing that compels that dissuasion.

Further, unlike a law, which can be un-enacted as soon as it's enacted — immediately undone — I can't imagine any court, much less the Robert Court, undoing a "principled" and closely argued decision in response to public pressure, no matter how bad the decision proves to be. After all, Citizens United is still in place, and will be until the Roberts Court is gone.

If ideologically or politically biased judicial actors are willing to throw the nation into chaos to serve the anti-regulatory agenda of the bipartisan money that, frankly, runs the country, what can stop them if they won't stop themselves?

Which, ironically, brings us to the powerlessness of the Supreme Court. Yes, a pro-money government could comply with a decision that overturns Chevron and begin the process of dismantlement. But if it does, the already angry rebellion in this country will grow even angrier — rebellion on steroids — and we may well approach the point where the pressure on elected officials to ignore the Court completely will bring the nation to a standstill — or to a kind of modern, urban civil war.

At that point we won't be in a constitutional crisis, but one much worse — a crisis in which the government, while constitutionally governed, risks losing the "consent of the governed." The "not my government" feelings that brought us Sanders and Trump in 2016 can only grow stronger. That feeling has an endpoint, and that endpoint is governmental crisis of the worst, most existential kind — a challenge to a government's right to rule at all.

No one wants things to go that far, not even brutal Jeff Sessions, whose determination to wage aggressive war on marijuana and to unshackle the country's worst police forces could spark such a crisis all on its own.

But we're much closer to that point than anyone will admit, just as we're closer to the end of our ability to avoid the climate crisis than anyone in power will say publicly. This anti-regulatory wet dream, pushed hard by the Republican Party and abetted by too many Democrats, could easily push us beyond it.

Are our leaders, the elites who run the place "in our name," willing to risk those consequences? If Chevron is overturned, we will find out.

GP
 

Why So Many Celebrities? They Are the Masks that Humanize Corporations

The Coca-Cola organization without the smiling celebrity mask (source)

by Gaius Publius

On this side of the Atlantic, George Monbiot is an underappreciated writer. The piece I'm about to quote makes just two main points, but they are stunning. The subject under consideration: Why is the modern world awash in celebrities, from actors who've "done something" to people like the Kardashians, who appear to have done nothing at all but "be famous."

We've even just elected our second celebrity president, a man known more as a "brand" than as person, the first being Reagan. Why did we do that?

Why are there so many of celebrities, and what do they really do? Is it something about the media, or the 20th century nationalization of publicity, that creates these people — for example, via the earlier movie fan magazines and now television and the Internet? Or is media not the cause? Is the presence of all these celebrities in our media a result of something else, of something more hidden from us?

Monbiot thinks he has the answer to the question "why so many celebrities?" and I think he's right. His two main points:

▪ Corporations are lifeless predatory monsters. They need human faces to make them look like our friends. This is like putting a face-like mask on a robot before it asks you out to dinner ... to eat you. Celebrities act as their masks and supply those human faces.

▪ At the same time that celebrities humanize the corporations that use them, they themselves become less human, productized, marketed (by themselves and others) as things — masks or "brands" — good mainly for their utility to the corporate world that employs them.

As Monbiot puts it in his piece: "Celebrity is not harmless fun – it’s the lieutenant of exploitation." The essay is called "Imaginary Friends". Here are two excepts, each making one of the two points above.

Celebrities As Human Masks for Inhuman Products and Entities

About the first point, Monbiot writes (my emphasis):

The rise of celebrity culture did not happen by itself. It has long been cultivated by advertisers, marketers and the media. And it has a function. The more distant and impersonal corporations become, the more they rely on other people’s faces to connect them to their customers.

Corporation means body; capital means head. But corporate capital has neither head nor body. It is hard for people to attach themselves to a homogenised franchise, owned by a hedge fund whose corporate identity consists of a filing cabinet in Panama City. So the machine needs a mask. It must wear the face of someone we see as often as we see our next-door neighbours. It is pointless to ask what Kim Kardashian does to earn her living; her role is to exist in our minds. By playing our virtual neighbour, she induces a click of recognition on behalf of whatever grey monolith sits behind her this week.

An obsession with celebrity does not lie quietly beside the other things we value; it takes their place. A study published in the journal Cyberpsychology reveals that an extraordinary shift appears to have taken place between 1997 and 2007. In 1997, the dominant values (as judged by an adult audience) expressed by the shows most popular among 9-11 year olds were community feeling, followed by benevolence. Fame came 15th out of the 16 values tested. By 2007, when shows like Hannah Montana prevailed, fame came first, followed by achievement, image, popularity and financial success. Community feeling had fallen to 11th; benevolence to 12th.

Which leads to two sub-points:

A paper in the International Journal of Cultural Studies found that, among the people it surveyed, those who follow celebrity gossip most closely are three times less likely than people interested in other forms of news to be involved in local organisations, and half as likely to volunteer. Virtual neighbours replace real ones.

The blander and more homogenised the product, the more distinctive the mask it needs to wear. This is why Iggy Pop is used to promote motor insurance and Benicio del Toro is used to sell Heineken. The role of such people is to suggest that there something more exciting behind the logo than office blocks and spreadsheets. They transfer their edginess to the company they represent: as soon they take the cheque that buys their identity, they become as processed and meaningless as the item they are promoting.

An American example — the nameless person cast as "the most interesting man in the world" is needed to put a face to a product few can recall by name, especially now they've retired the old, nameless "most interesting man" and hired a nameless younger replacement.

You can even apply the idea to something much less bland and far more objectionable, like the Republican Party. You need a celebrity as outlandish as Trump to market that product, to take your eyes off what's really underneath. None of the other members of their vaunted "deep bench" could have done a tenth of what Trump accomplished as an obscuring mask for the vile set of policies known as "Republicanism."

Trump was a good mask because the party's "customers" saw Trump and not the party or its goals. With any of the others as the party's virtual face, most people would see right through them to the Republicanism beneath. As masks they'd be worthless, transparent, obscuring nothing.

Celebrities Become Products

Once they become masks for others, celebrities become products themselves. While they're busy humanizing corporations, corporations are busy productizing celebrities. Monbiot:

The celebrities you see most often are the most lucrative products, extruded through a willing media by a marketing industry whose power no one seeks to check. This is why actors and models now receive such disproportionate attention, capturing much of the space once occupied by people with their own ideas. Their expertise lies in channelling other people’s visions. ...

You don’t have to read or watch many interviews to see that the principal qualities now sought in a celebrity are vapidity, vacuity and physical beauty. They can be used as a blank screen onto which anything can be projected. Those who have least to say are granted the greatest number of platforms on which to say it....

[But as] soon as celebrities forget their allotted role, the hounds of hell are let loose upon them. Lily Allen was the media’s darling when she was advertising John Lewis’s. Gary Lineker couldn’t put a foot wrong when he stuck to selling junk food to children. But when they expressed sympathy for refugees, they were torn to shreds. When you take the corporate shilling, you are supposed to stop thinking for yourself.

When celebrities take corporate money, in other words, masking and humanizing the product or operation, they become products as well, marketable only to the extent that they don't intrude an identity of their own onto the scripted (painted-on) identity the "mask" is intended to project.

Corporations As "Imaginary Friends" 

As to Monbiot's title, "Imaginary Friends" — for Monbiot the friends are the celebrities, and they are indeed imaginary. Kim Kardashian could be as imaginary as the Marlboro Man, a person who never existed, and none of us would know it. Celebrities are real to us in our minds alone, and we do imagine they are our friends.

But considering their function — to put a human face on the inhuman machinery of exploitation — it's easy to see that our actual "imaginary friends" are really the corporations themselves, whom we are taught to imagine as human, likable, even friendly, but who in fact would kill us the minute the cost-benefit analysis went their way but not ours. Is McDonald's your friend? Is WalMart?

How about Coke, the company that makes the happy fizzy drink? The Coca-Cola company is a nonhuman, profit-seeking corporation that is guilty of murder to protect its profits. Only its paid, smiling-mask faces want to "teach the world to sing."

The mask hides the psychopath beneath. And that's why we have celebrities, to keep us from noticing all that we're surrounded by.

GP
 

TPP Has Picked Up a Powerful Enemy — Black Lives Matter

The thirteen Democratic Senators who helped Obama break the filibuster on Fast Track. Some, for example, Ron Wyden and Patty Murray, run as progressives back home. One, still senator and current VP candidate Tim Kaine, says he's now opposed to TPP, which the Fast Track vote was meant to enable.

by Gaius Publius

President Obama and all of his corporatist buddies, including some, but not all, in the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), are hell-bent on passing the TPP in the lame duck session of Congress just after the election but prior to Obama's leaving office. It's reasonable to speculate why, and we did so here:

TPP, the Democratic Party, and Obama's Presidential Library

As to the timing, the choice is obvious. First, there's the unusual composition of a lame duck Congress. As Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, wrote recently in The Hill (my emphasis):

So [TPP] is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the last three elections was about 80.

Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org, we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists. (An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).

So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.

The lame duck session, in other words, is the only time when Obama and the corporatists in both parties can appeal to House members and senators who are still in office, yet completely untethered from any responsibility to anything but their personal ambition and future paychecks — completely untethered, since they will likely never face voters again in another election.

There's a second reason as well. If Obama pulls this off, getting the TPP passed, it's Obama's trade deal, not the next president's (though that president, should she or he be opposed, could immediately execute the Withdrawal clause and renegotiate).

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 each promising to use the threat of unilateral withdrawal to force renegotiation of NAFTA.

Remember, it only took 28 Democrats (or "Democrats") in the House to pass Fast Track when it came up for a final vote, and only 13 Democratic senators.

Democratic Pro-Fast Track Votes in the House

Here's the House list, in order by state. I've highlighted a few of the names:

Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
James Himes (CT-04)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Beto O'Rourke (TX-16)
Gerald Connolly (VA-11)
Donald Beyer (VA-08)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ron Kind (WI-03)

These 28 Democratic Yes votes were needed because 50 Republicans voted No. The bolded names — Earl Blumenauer, Suzanne Bonamici, Suzan DelBene — claim to be progressives when they campaign back home. The bold-italicized representatives — Terri Sewell, Gregory Meeks, and Eddie Bernice Johnson — are CBC members.

Democratic Pro-Fast Track Votes in the Senate

On the Senate side, 13 Democrats voted to make sure TPP would get a Fast Track vote by voting to close debate (voting for cloture):

Michael Bennet, Colorado
Maria Cantwell, Washington
Tom Carper, Delaware
Chris Coons, Delaware
Dianne Feinstein, California
Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota
Tim Kaine, Virginia
Claire McCaskill, Missouri
Patty Murray, Washington
Bill Nelson, Florida
Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire
Mark Warner, Virginia
Ron Wyden, Oregon

In both houses of Congress, these were the barest of margins — 218 Yes votes in the House and 60 Yes votes in the Senate, in each case exactly the minimum required for passage. Another indication of how toxic this "trade" bill is. No Democrat dared touch it who didn't want to or have to.

Black Lives Matter and the TPP

And now the TPP has become even more toxic, since the Black Lives Matter (BLM) social-justice movement has endorsed the anti-TPP position. Politico Pro has this (sub. required; my emphasis):

Obama's latest TPP foe: Black Lives Matter
By Andrew Hanna
Monday, Oct. 31, 2016

The Obama administration will face an unexpected adversary as it gears up for what could be a blockbuster lame-duck fight over the Trans-Pacific Partnership: the Black Lives Matter movement.

The group — best known best for its protests of police shootings of African-Americans — has joined the fray over the Asian Pacific trade deal as part of its growing focus on economic issues, contending the pact would lead to greater racial injustice. It ties past trade deals to the closures of factories that have hurt black workers disproportionately and increased black poverty.

Its involvement could influence the votes of a handful of wavering Democrats, should Congress tackle TPP during the lame duck.

"There are groups that are going to pay a lot of close attention to what they say, especially the Congressional Black Caucus," said Bill Reinsch, a fellow at the Stimson Center and close trade-vote watcher.

Only a small band of 28 House Democrats voted to give the president fast track authority to complete TPP, including three members of the Congressional Black Caucus: Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) and Terri Sewell (D-Ala.). A fourth black caucus member, Republican Mia Love of Utah, also voted for fast-track authority.

With anti-trade fervor whipped into a fever pitch by the presidential election campaign, their votes are considered key to passage of the pact — and all are under increasing pressure to abandon the president should the pact come to a ratification vote.

The pretend reason, of course, for TPP support is support for a major legacy "want" by the first black president. The pro-Clinton members of the Democratic Platform Committee, for example, resisted to the end any explicit language about TPP on the grounds that the Party must support its president.

Democrats Prioritize Party Unity Over Including Stand Against TPP In Platform

Members of the Democratic National Convention Platform Committee shot down an attempt to include specific opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal in the platform, despite the fact that both Democratic presidential candidates have taken positions against the TPP.

The attempt failed because members appointed by Hillary Clinton and DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed it was improper to oppose the TPP when President Barack Obama fervently believes in the agreement. However, by putting party unity before taking a firm stand against the trade agreement, the door was left open for Clinton to go back to supporting the TPP, which was the case when she was secretary of state.

“It is hard for me to understand why Secretary Clinton’s delegates won’t stand behind Secretary Clinton’s positions in the party’s platform,” Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said....

Even platform committee chair, Representative E.J. Cummings [normally progressive on trade issues], chose to vote against the resolution. He, too, bragged about not voting for trade agreements.

“I don’t want to do anything as he ends his term to undercut the president of the United States. I’m just not going to do it. And that’s where I stand,” Cummings proclaimed.

That's the pretend reason — supporting the first black president — for most of them anyway. The real reason is different and not unexpected — money and everything money can buy. The Democratic Party as it's currently configured exists to enable the fire hose flow of corporate and big-wealth dollars into its coffers. Opposing that flow gets you the "Sanders treatment," but I'm not spilling any new beans in saying that.

This move by Black Lives Matter takes away the pretend reason and thus puts some careers at risk. BLM has high visibility at the moment. It will be worth watching the result, the actual TPP vote, as this plays out later.

What to Watch For in the Lame Duck

Once the Democrats figure out how many Republicans will defect from their leadership in each house of Congress (there were 50 House Republican defections last time plus six not voting, and five Senate defections plus two not voting), they'll know how many Democrats will have to "take one for the team" — vote Yes on TPP so others with reputations to protect (like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi) don't have to.

The numbers needed to pass TPP in the Senate have changed this time. Only 51 votes are needed there now (that's part of what "fast track" means). Finding 50 No votes in the Senate is not an impossible task, but it's a very high bar — depending on the way Republicans vote, as few as four "Democrats" like Ron Wyden could guarantee passage.

So the greatest vulnerability for TPP is in the House. Can Democrats again muster something like 28 pro-corporate votes? Which Democrats will chose to take the fall a second time? Corporatists like Ron Kind will eagerly comply. But will Oregon's Earl Blumenauer (bow-tie bicycle guy)? Will CBC members Sewell and Johnson, with BLM lobbying hard against them? Or will other House Democrats be needed (and willing) to take the fall so Pelosi can move TPP across the line?

Again, Fast Track passed the House with zero votes to spare. What if the Republican opposition — including the opposition to Speaker Ryan in the wake of the Trump debacle — swells to more than 50? This could be a very close vote.

TPP, Obama's Legacy and "A Glide Path to His Life as an Ex-President"

The Politico article quoted above helpfully notes this about Obama's legacy:

If successfully pushed through Congress, ratification of the trade accord would be the last major piece of legislation of the Obama presidency. The prospect that black lawmakers and activists could help to hand him a defeat is complicated by Obama's position as the first black president.

"This is part of President Obama's legacy," said [CBC member Gregory] Meeks.

Will Barack Obama get his legacy wish, along with his legacy library and foundation? The New York Times a few weeks ago told us this about Obama's future plans and needs:

Publicly, Mr. Obama betrays little urgency about his future. Privately, he is preparing for his postpresidency with the same fierce discipline and fund-raising ambition that characterized the 2008 campaign that got him to the White House.

The long-running dinner this past February is part of a methodical effort taking place inside and outside the White House as the president, first lady and a cadre of top aides map out a postpresidential infrastructure and endowment they estimate could cost as much as $1 billion. The president’s aides did not ask any of the guests for library contributions after the dinner, but a number of those at the table could be donors in the future....

So far, Mr. Obama has raised just over $5.4 million from 12 donors, with gifts ranging from $100,000 to $1 million. Michael J. Sacks, a Chicago businessman, gave $666,666. Fred Eychaner, the founder of Chicago-based Newsweb Corp., which owns community newspapers and radio stations, donated $1 million. Mark T. Gallogly, a private equity executive, and James H. Simons, a technology entrepreneur, each contributed $340,000 to a foundation set up to oversee development of the library.

The real push for donations, foundation officials said, will come after Mr. Obama leaves the White House.

Shailagh Murray, a senior adviser, oversees an effort inside the White House to keep attention on Mr. Obama’s future and to ensure that his final 17 months in office, barring crises, serve as a glide path to his life as an ex-president.

"A glide path to his life as an ex-president." I guess you could call him, after his 2008 trademark, "ever hopeful and looking for change." Interesting times indeed.

GP
 

Obama Hints Sanders Should Leave the Race. Why?

Members of the club enjoying a round of golf. Do they fear a Trump presidency more than you do? Or less than you do? 

by Gaius Publius

Now that the halftime entertainment is over and we're starting the second half of the Democratic presidential primary — the Sanders half, mind you — President Obama tells Democratic donors that it's "nearing" the time for Sanders to get out.

Quotes in a minute, but first, you could read this in two ways. One, Obama is sincere in thinking that Sanders can't win and is harming Clinton's chances (though, as you'll see, he fully understands that Clinton is already harming her own; search the article for the word "authentic").

Or, Obama actually thinks Sanders can win, and wants to clear him out of the mainstream neo-liberal way. You know, the way that led Obama to nominate Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. (I'll have more on Garland in future.)

Here's the piece courtesy of the New York Times, itself a naked advocate for Clinton on its sandbagging "news" pages. Note that the writers, Maggie Haberman and Michael Shear, are important bylines at the paper (my emphasis):

Obama Privately Tells Donors That Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton

By MAGGIE HABERMAN and MICHAEL D. SHEAR

In unusually candid remarks, President Obama privately told a group of Democratic donors last Friday that Senator Bernie Sanders is nearing the point where his campaign against Hillary Clinton will come to an end, and that the party must soon come together to back her.

Mr. Obama acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton is perceived to have weaknesses as a candidate, and that some Democrats did not view her as authentic.

But he played down the importance of authenticity, noting that President George W. Bush — whose record he ran aggressively against in 2008 — was once praised for his authenticity.

Mr. Obama made the remarks after reporters had left a fund-raising event in Austin, Tex., for the Democratic National Committee. The comments were described by three people in the room for the event, all of whom were granted anonymity to describe a candid moment with the president. The comments were later confirmed by a White House official.

Is this a hint that Obama thinks Sanders should get out? Obama parsed his words carefully, but people in the audience took it that way:

Mr. Obama chose his words carefully, and did not explicitly call on Mr. Sanders to depart the race, according to those in the room. Still, those in attendance said in interviews that they took his comments as a signal to Mr. Sanders that perpetuating his campaign, which is now an uphill climb, could only help the Republicans recapture the White House.

Obama, of course, didn't acknowledge that Clinton could easily lose to Trump. Nor did he acknowledge to the well-moneyed crowd that they could all lose if Sanders shuts down the DC casino at which no one with money comes up empty. About that well-moneyed crowd:

The Austin event was hosted by Kirk Rudy, a real estate executive, and raised money for the Democratic National Committee. Attendees paid as much as $33,400 a ticket.

But he did acknowledge Clinton's weaknesses — repeatedly, it seems:

Mr. Obama acknowledged that Mrs. Clinton is perceived to have weaknesses as a candidate, and that some Democrats did not view her as authentic.

But he played down the importance of authenticity...

And:

Mr. Obama acknowledged what have emerged as the central complaints about Mrs. Clinton among Democratic activists: that she is not generating enough excitement in her campaign, and lacks the “authenticity” of Mr. Sanders. ...

And:

Mr. Obama indicated that he knew some people were not “excited” by Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, a White House official confirmed. ...

Hmm. I do think, in an entirely dispassionate way, that Obama sounds worried. Otherwise, why all the reassuring?

What Does Obama Fear More, a Trump White House or a Sanders White House?

Which brings me to my central question. Does the Democratic Party want to win with its strongest anti-Trump candidate, or risk a loss with a weaker one? Because if they're determined to choose the latter — the Party along with all of the mainstream broadcast media I follow (looking at you, MSNBComcast) — they must have calculated that the cost to them of Sanders' "political revolution" is greater than the cost to them of a Trump White House.

Or more simply — Obama thinks Sanders should exit the race. Why? What does he fear more, a Trump presidency or a Sanders presidency?

Think about that. If you, like me, fear a Trump presidency more than any other outcome — and everyone I talk with does — what would possess "your" party to take that risk, of putting Trump in the White House? Their own self-interest, and the interest of everyone else in "the club," is the best answer I can come up with. But maybe there's a better one.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP
 

Bernie Sanders and the Clinton Wall Street Speeches

by Gaius Publius

The recent Clinton Wall Street speeches article by Zaid Jilani has been covered in these pages (see excerpts below), but I want to make one additional point. I think the voters need to see what she said because (a) she's historically been too close to Wall Street for many voters' comfort, and (b) what she said to them is likely a strong indication of what she will do as president, especially given the speeches' closed-door nature.

Who knows? Maybe all she said was, "Cut it out or I'll make you cut it out." I would actually love to know that this was the case, and so would many Democratic voters. 

Again, this is not trolling, this request, but in the public interest; very much in the public interest, in fact. It's also in her interest if these speeches are entirely innocent, entirely anodyne.

There has been some call for their release, but that call has to come, in my opinion, from somewhere very high in the media at least, and preferably from the Sanders campaign itself. Meaning, from Bernie Sanders or Jeff Weaver, speaking on air and on the record.

What Sanders Should Ask For

If the Sanders campaign does request the release of these speeches, they should request all of them. For example, as Jilani notes below, she gave three speeches to Goldman Sachs and two to Deutsche Bank. Her message to each institution, to the extent there is one, is in the sum of the speeches, not in just one (for example, a ribbon-cutting ceremony with some remarks appended).

He should also ask for their immediate release, not a release delayed until after Super Tuesday, for example. After all, the Clinton campaign insisted (and rightly in my view) for a release of the Sanders health care plan prior to the Iowa primary. The same is true here.

About Those Speeches

Here's the gist of Zaid Jilani's article at The Intercept on Clinton's Wall Street speeches (my emphasis to note multiple speeches to two institutions):

Hillary Clinton Made More in 12 Speeches to Big Banks Than Most of Us Earn in a Lifetime

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders this week assailed rival Hillary Clinton for taking large speaking fees from the financial industry since leaving the State Department.

According to public disclosures, by giving just 12 speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations, Clinton made $2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015 [see graphic above] ...

Clinton’s most lucrative year was 2013, right after stepping down as secretary of state. That year, she made $2.3 million for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and individual speeches to Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Fidelity Investments, Apollo Management Holdings, UBS, Bank of America, and Golden Tree Asset Managers.

The following year, she picked up $485,000 for a speech to Deutsche Bank and an address to Ameriprise. Last year, she made $150,000 from a lecture before the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. ...

There's more at the link.

The Sanders campaign should not do this as an aid to themselves. After all, it's not certain who the release of these speeches will aid. They should do it as an aid to the public, so we can put this question to rest before voting.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP
 

The Rorschach Candidacy of Hillary Clinton

Thom Hartmann on Donald Trump's other strong appeal to Republican voters (hint: Think Ross Perot). People who like Trump for this reason are potential Sanders voters. Mainstream Democratic trade policy, another party problem, is discussed below.

by Gaius Publius

Schedule note: This will be the last piece for a few weeks from me. Writing will resume the third week of August. Happy summer, all!

[Updated to clarify and correct some language.]

It's been clear for a while that from the left, the biggest criticism of Hillary Clinton is her close relationship with holders of big money. One could argue that she may or may not have agreed with Bill Clinton's strategy of incorporating the interests of "big money" into the Democratic Party. But it's nevertheless clear that her current relationships, and those of the people around her, show a strong and current interest in maintaining the interests of wealth. More on that below.

This suspicion (on the part of some) and certainty (on the part of others) that Clinton will "take care of" her well-heeled friends while also (and sincerely) trying to mitigate the damage done to ordinary Americans — these form much of the reason the Sanders campaign is surging among Democratic voters. (Our own brief looks at Clinton's relationship with "money" are here and here and here, among other places. Or just click here and scan the list of titles.)

Now come a series of news stories that add to that larger story.

Hillary Clinton Will Not Reinstate Glass-Steagall

From Robert Reich, former Clinton labor secretary, on Clinton's unwillingness to reign in Wall Street banks (my emphasis everywhere):

Hillary Clinton’s Glass-Steagall

Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. “You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,” Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one.

Why does reinstating Glass-Steagall matter? Reich again:

Under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, banks couldn’t both gamble in the market and also take in deposits and make loans. They’d have to choose between the two.

“The idea is pretty simple behind this one,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said a few days ago, explaining her bill to resurrect Glass-Steagall. “If banks want to engage in high-risk trading — they can go for it, but they can’t get access to ensured deposits and put the taxpayers on the hook for that reason.”

For more than six decades after 1933, Glass-Steagall worked exactly as it was intended to. During that long interval few banks failed and no financial panic endangered the banking system.

But the big Wall Street banks weren’t content. They wanted bigger profits. They thought they could make far more money by gambling with commercial deposits. So they set out to whittle down Glass-Steagall.

Finally, in 1999, President Bill Clinton struck a deal with Republican Senator Phil Gramm to do exactly what Wall Street wanted, and repeal Glass-Steagall altogether.

What happened next? An almost exact replay of the Roaring Twenties. Once again, banks originated fraudulent loans and sold them to their customers in the form of securities. Once again, there was a huge conflict of interest that finally resulted in a banking crisis.

This time the banks were bailed out, but millions of Americans lost their savings, their jobs, even their homes.

Two ideas — first that big banks are too big to be allowed to fail, so they must be bailed out, and second, that banks can gamble with government-insured customer deposits — add to this state of affairs:

• All banks will be allowed to continue to gamble on the riskiest of investments.
• All gambling ("investment") profit goes to the banks.
• Large gambling ("investment") losses go to taxpayers for reimbursement via FDIC deposit insurance or Fed and congressionally managed bailouts, like TARP.

If you're a Wall Street bank, it's impossible to lose money in this scheme (a scam or racket, actually). And if you "own" everyone who matters in government, the scheme will never end.

Clearly the not-so-secret formula for ending the hostage relationship between the public's money and Wall Street banking is to (a) reinstate Glass-Steagall and (b) break up "too big to fail" (TBTF) banks so they can ... well, fail ... when their business plan brings them to grief (because, capitalism, right?).

Hillary Clinton, according to Reich and others, will not reinstate Glass-Steagall, the first part of our solution, even though, according to Reich, "Hillary Clinton, of all people, should remember." There's a lot more in Reich's piece; it's a good informative read.

"Bernie Sanders backs big bank breakups, in contrast with Hillary Clinton"

Now let's look at the second piece of our "too big to fail" solution — break up the big banks so the public is never forced by their size to bail them out again. We have a pretty clear indication from the Clinton campaign that she would not pursue that policy either, and a clear indication from Sanders that he would.

Politico:

Bernie Sanders backs big bank breakups, in contrast with Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders is backing a bill to break up big banks after advisers to presidential rival Hillary Clinton made clear earlier this week she will not support reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act.

Noting that he’s long supported reimposing a firewall between investment and commercial banks, the Vermont senator said he’s officially rejoining an effort led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) to break up the big banks, saying, “If we are truly serious about ending too big to fail [TBTF], we have got to break up the largest financial institutions in this country.”

“Allowing commercial banks to merge with investment banks and insurance companies in 1999 was a huge mistake. It precipitated the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. It caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college,” said Sanders, who said that change in the financial world “substantially increased wealth and income inequality.”

Earlier this week, a Clinton campaign adviser told Reuters that “you’re not going to see Glass-Steagall.” Clinton was also interrupted by a heckler on Monday who challenged her to revive the depression-era policy, though she did not answer the question.

By moving quickly to reassert his support for a proposal from liberal superstar Warren, Sanders is highlighting the differences between his platform and Clinton’s more centrist [in DC and NY] positions on financial regulations, a major issue among progressives. Sanders actually cosponsored a version of the bill in 2013, well before he began challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination, and in a press release reminded reporters of a speech he gave in 1999 as a House member.

I realize that the statement "you’re not going to see Glass-Steagall" is the same one that Reich uses, and is about Glass-Steagall only. Is Politico being unfair to Clinton in saying she would not back a Sanders-Warren–style breakup policy? I don't think so, since of the two "not-so-secret solutions" I listed above, reinstating Glass-Steagall is by far the milder from a Wall Street standpoint.

And now the third news story in this story.

Hedge Fund Titans Choosing Hillary Clinton Over Top Republicans

It's hugely rewarding to Hillary Clinton professionally to maintain money-friendly policies like these, independent of whether you think she's personally aligned with the interests of "big money" and "the one percent," or whether you think she's disgusted by their behavior but feels somehow forced to go along. Either way, it looks like she's taking their money and planning to advance their interests.

It looks like they think so too. About that "taking their money" part, here's Bloomberg:

Hedge Fund Titans Choosing Hillary Clinton Over Top Republicans

Hillary Clinton received donations from some of the biggest names in the hedge fund industry, including Paul Tudor Jones, even as the presidential candidate wants to boost their tax rate.

Jones, the billionaire founder of Tudor Investment Corp., Jamie Dinan, who started York Capital, and Neil Chriss, who runs Hutchin Hill Capital, each contributed the maximum $2,700 to Clinton’s bid for the White House, according to Federal Election Commission filings for the second quarter.

Clinton, who’s made closing the wealth gap the centerpiece of her campaign, lured more donations from boldface industry names than Republican candidates 16 months before the election. Hedge fund managers, their employees and family members donated at least $54,000 to Clinton, a Democrat, according to the FEC. Republicans Jeb Bush got at least $27,000, Marco Rubio took in at least $10,800 while Carly Fiorina received at least $4,200.

“Something is wrong when CEOs earn more than 300 times than what the typical American worker earns and when hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than truck drivers or nurses,” Clinton said in May.

The candidate’s populist rhetoric didn’t dissuade many managers from supporting her. They include Frank Brosens, co-founder of Taconic Capital Advisors, Mitchell Julis, co-founder Canyon Partners, David Shaw, the billionaire founder of D.E. Shaw & Co., BlueMountain Capital Management Managing Partner James Staley, Jake Gottlieb, who runs Visum Asset Management, and Richard Perry, who heads Perry Capital.

Bush, Rubio and Fiorina drew a smaller cohort of top hedge fund managers.

Note that this story merges two elements. The first, that even though Clinton speaks against income inequality (not the same as speaking against wealth inequality, by the way) ...

“Something is wrong when CEOs earn more than 300 times than what the typical American worker earns and when hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than truck drivers or nurses,” Clinton said in May.

... the big money people are financing her anyway ...

The candidate’s populist rhetoric didn’t dissuade many managers from supporting her.

You can draw a number of conclusions about why this is happening. In that sense, the "Clinton and money" story is a kind of Rorschach test — you can see in this picture what you're looking for.

The Rorschach Candidacy

Put these stories together and ask yourself what this means to you. You could end up in a couple of places.

If you're Clinton-resigned — If you're a Clinton fan who was really "ready for Warren," resigned rather than eager, you may see someone who cares about people but has to deal with "big money" to get elected. She doesn't like what many are calling "rule by the rich," but like many of her supporters, she's also resigned. The way of the world is regrettable, but the exclamation point at the end of "Jeb!" is a dagger to be avoided at all costs. No Republicans; vote Clinton anyway — even in the primary so she comes out strong.

If you're Clinton-quite-hopeful — If you're an eager Clinton fan, you're much more positive. In a Clinton presidency, you may expect strong advocacy for "Black Lives Matter," maybe even with DoJ prosecutions of murdering police and corrupt departments. You may expect to see executive-mandated immigration reform with even more teeth. And you certainly would anticipate that all of the issues faced by women, from abortion rights to pay rights, will certainly find an eager and effective friend. All of this offsets for you whatever damage her "friends of money" bargaining may entail.

And if you're very hopeful, you're convinced that her presidency could be far to the left of the other Clinton presidency, even on money matters. After all, there's no proof yet that this hopeful analysis is wrong. If this is your picture, your primary choice is easy — it's Clinton all the way.

If you're Clinton-appalled — But if you see "capture by wealth" as the root of almost every evil in this country except our deep-seated racism, and especially if you see that the climate crisis will reach multiple additional tipping points and are certain a carbon-captured Clinton would be a disaster ... well, what's a Democratic primary voter to do?

I'll put that differently. The Clinton-appalled (on the left) see a candidate who's threading the progressive needle while trying not to anger her moneyed friends, or at least not undo their expectations that this "rein in the rich" stuff is just campaign talk. Her critics on the left see one who does care about people, but also one who sees her role as confirming the current order, with better mitigation for the suffering worst among us.

They also see someone who will take us into a fossil fuel–heavy future — again with mitigation for the suffering worst, but with no loss of profit for the wealth-heavy carbon industry. For example, this is former Secretary Clinton speaking in 2013 at Hamilton College in upstate New York's Oneida County:

Late into the lecture portion of Clinton’s Oneida County appearance, she referenced a report that the U.S. in on track to surpass Russia in domestic oil-and-gas production.

That’s good news, Clinton said.

“What that means for viable manufacturing and industrialization in this country is enormous,” she said to the crowd of 5,800 in Hamilton’s athletic field house.

For the Clinton-appalled and carbon-aware, it means "we're cooked," literally, and sooner than anyone expects — because this crisis is always moving faster than anyone expects, or publicly claims to expect. (You should know that in private, a great many climate scientists are, frankly, freaking out, and not metaphorically. They know that what no one is saying is nevertheless true.)

In other words, the full awareness of the damage we've handed ourselves — the wide-eyed Wile E. Coyote "nothing beneath me" moment — will likely come on a President Clinton's watch, and she and Obama will get the blame for not being more aggressive, for being too wealth-serving.

Wile E. Coyote considers his climate future.

And that's just the "Clinton, money and carbon" piece of the story. The "Clinton, money and banking" piece says the next financial meltdown will also come on Clinton's watch, that the next bailout may be a "bail-in" (a bailout using depositor funds) as is being done in Europe, and in either case, the economy is screwed — but only for people who aren't good friends of "friends of money."

So what will hit first under a money-friendly (but better-than-Republican) presidency — climate or the next banking bailout? How about an aggressively pursued endless war that truly "comes home," the way European and Middle East wars have always come home? How about environmental disaster after environmental disaster caused by exploding oil trains, frack-poisoned ground water, burst pipelines, and oil spill after oil spill?

Or how about even more exported American jobs under a bipartisan (but decidedly Democratic) "trade" regime? Want to go worse? How about imported foreign contract labor being fast-tracked into the country when the deadliest of the coming trade deals, TISA, is signed by the next wealth-serving Democrat? The just-passed Fast Track law — the discussion of which Clinton's campaign wanted to "go away" — hands, to this president and the next, six years' worth of job-destroying, global investor–enabling power.

If you're this appalled, what's a primary voter to do? Avoid damaging Clinton so no Republican can win? Cheer all the wonderful things that a progressive Clinton might do? Or vote for Sanders and if he loses, walk away?

I'm hearing all three cases being made, and the voices are getting louder. Who's right? Of course, only time will tell.

Leaving It to the Voters to Decide

You can look at the Clinton candidacy and see what you want by adjusting what's foreground and what's background in your mental image. Is Clinton a woman who deserves much better than being trashed by the constant misogyny of the troglodyte Right? You can see that person.

Is Clinton a bright Sixties rebel who now wants a chance to do the best she can to fix a wealth-dominated world? You can see that person.

Is Clinton a person who's long bought into "rule by the rich" — rule by the class she hangs with, the class that knows better than us how to run things that matter — but thinks their regime can use some tweakage so the "most vulnerable" are protected? You can see that person too.

I guess this is why we are leaving it to voters to decide, and not to the few of us who pay early attention. Because if the voters choose wrong, they will pay the price, but at least they will have done it to themselves.

Unless there's friends-of-money mischief afoot, of course. Like this perhaps?

DNC Chair Says Candidates Must Meet 'Threshold' For Debates, Though Criteria And Dates Still Unclear

Democratic presidential candidates will have to meet a certain “threshold” to participate in the party’s six scheduled primary debates, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Thursday, though she did not specify which criteria, such as state or national polling, will be used to determine who qualifies.

“It’ll be a threshold that’ll be expansive and allows for the maximum inclusion of our major party candidates," Wasserman Schultz told MSNBC’s Ari Melber. She said the DNC hasn’t “quite finished formulating the details” for the debates, including specific dates, locations and media sponsors.

The lack of clarity has been frustrating to both campaigns and major TV networks, the latter of which produce the debates and need to book venues and handle logistical details well in advance.

In May, the DNC announced plans to hold six primary debates, four of which would be held in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. The DNC said debates would begin in "the fall of 2015," though didn't specify when. 

Kind of a Rorshach news announcement, right? Starting with how you see Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

GP

Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins of Ring Of Fire in a discussion of the Bloomberg article linked above. (Apologies for the lurid preview image; not my first choice.)

 

Democratic Elites Don’t Want to Hear It, But "Hillary Clinton’s In Trouble"

The famous "Yes We Can" theme, just before its conversion to "No I Won't." Why is this painful to watch? Six years of broken promises and a party-wide TPP cave by its leaders have rebranded Democrats for a generation.

by Gaius Publius

TPP and Fast Track may be closing down the show and heading home. We may (or may not) know its fate very soon. Rather than make a prediction, though — I have one, in case you're wondering, and my Twitter followers have heard it — let's go broader this time.

Ever since Bill Clinton, Al From and the DLC remade the Democratic Party into the "other party of money," there's been a train wreck just waiting to happen. It's taken a long time for voters, the people who keep Democrats in elected office, to start to figure out the betrayal that always awaits them. I think the 2008 burst of "Yes We Can" enthusiasm — genuine, heartfelt, a true Children's Crusade of newfound innocence — was that last golden opportunity for the Party to rescue itself from the grip of leaders who only pretend to have its voters' interests at heart. Yes, they care about some issues, but even then, only when forced, and only when the polls are running in their favor.

That "Children's Crusade of newfound innocence" I mentioned was not the innocence of children who believe that impossible unicorns exist. It's the adult suspension of belief that all Democrats would ultimately sell them out; it's one last hope (to coin a phrase) that at least one Democratic leader would actually act in their interests, just this once.

But Nancy Pelosi's 2006 "impeachment is off the table" was a harbinger. Then came Candidate Obama's 2008 betrayal of his FISA promise; his appointment of Robert Rubin–Wall Street regulars to his cabinet; his calculated and deliberate sellout of the ACA public option, using his friends in the Senate to screw his enemies in the House, meaning progressives; his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's contempt for those same progressives — and we're not even out of year one.

And now, TPP, the largest "trade" deal in a generation, the "largest in the history of commerce" as one writer put it — and the leaders of the Democratic Party, even Nancy Pelosi, are dialing for donor dollars while dancing to fool the base.

So you see what I mean by "going broader." This moment connects not just to the Fast Track votes, the TPP votes (if they come), the TISA votes (which, if they come, will change labor and wages in this country forever). It connects to the Democratic Party "brand," to the 2016 races (all up and down the ticket) and ... Hillary Clinton.

There's no better person to help us along than Bill Curry, writing at Salon. Trade and TPP is not his starting point, but it can be ours. Curry writes (my emphasis throughout):

Politicians have always ducked tough issues, but today’s Democrats are the worst. When the TPP came before the House, enough Democrats played it cute to leave the outcome in doubt till the very end. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi didn’t tip her hand until just before the vote. Many who voted no never said exactly why. Some want to curb currency manipulation. Some oppose the fast track process, others the secret tribunals or the intellectual property rules that actually restrain competition. If the caucus as a whole has a bottom line, no one knows what it is.

The TPP is a mystery because our leaders wish it so. We don’t know what’s in it because our president won’t let us read it, and not out of respect for precedent or protocol. George W. Bush showed us drafts of his trade agreements. We’re negotiating one right now with Europe, and Europeans get to read those drafts. If a comma gets cut from the TPP, hundreds of corporate lobbyists know in an instant. The only people who don’t know are the American people — and that’s only because our president thinks our knowing would ruin everything.

The process by which Congress considers the TPP is confusing in itself. The pact is still being negotiated by the 12 nations who’d be parties to it. The fight now is over legislation meant to grease the skids for it when it finally arrives. At issue are trade promotion authority or TPA — the ‘fast track’ by which Congress vows not to amend or filibuster a trade agreement it hasn’t even read – and trade adjustment assistance or TAA, which gives benefits (money, health insurance, job training) to workers who can prove to the federal government that they lost their jobs due to trade. Signed into law by John Kennedy, expanded by Bill Clinton and extended by George W. Bush, the half-century old program is set to expire in September. The bills now before Congress would keep it alive another six years.

But the Senate passed a united bill that yoked Fast Track and Trade Assistance (TPA + TAA) as a single bill; the House split the bills and passed only half, resulting in temporary defeat for the pro-corporatists.

The press called the June 12 votes a huge win for labor and a “humiliating defeat” (the Washington Post) for Obama. Reading such stories one might think fast track or even the TPP itself had suffered a crushing blow. Some on the left even called it historic. ...

[But] I wouldn’t pop any corks quite yet. For the first time ever Congress hit the pause button on globalization, but that’s all it did. House Dems didn’t suddenly lurch left; they just did what they always do. In 1993 they voted no on NAFTA. In 2002 they voted against the Iraq War. In 2010 they passed an Obamacare bill with a public option. But they can’t ignore their president or their donors forever. In 2008 they resisted Bush’s bailout but finally gave in to Obama and Wall Street. Republicans held firm, thus setting in motion the Tea Party and the sad, sorry debacle of 2010.

On Thursday the Republicans did what any fool could have predicted: they passed a new rule and sent the TPA to the Senate sans worker assistance. We don’t know what will happen next, but we do know fast track has already passed both houses of Congress once. In the end, Obama, Boehner, McConnell and their global capital partners will likely get their way, but June 12 may yet prove historic.

Democrats just "did what they always do" — they attempted the right thing, then surrendered to party leadership. Which brings us to the party split, a chasm really, and open rebellion, this time by the voters.

The Peasants Are Rebelling and the Leaders Aren't Listening

Curry on how all this plays with the base:

Krugman’s right: there’s a rumbling out there, but most Democrats are a long way from hearing it, let alone joining in. If House Dems stand firm, they too may plant the seeds of a grass-roots movement. Much of their party will resist. Every political party is really many parties. The Democrats’ presidential, Senate, governors’ and donors’ parties all line up with global capital. Even in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is a staunch ‘free trader’ and Pelosi herself spent the week before the vote quietly imploring her caucus to swallow the poison pill.

No one knows where scores of Democrats really stand. Both parties are caught in a crossfire between their donors and their base. Republican voters are suspicious of the TPP and hate fast track, mostly because they hate Obama. Democratic voters hate fast track but accept the TPP, mostly because they love Obama. Republicans in Congress are civil because they can’t bash Democrats for doing what their base wishes they would do. Democrats in Congress are quiet because they don’t want their donors to think they mean what they say — and don’t know when someone may offer them something to take one for the team by switching sides.

As a party, the Democrats are obviously lost, and their leaders are swimming in donor-funded obfuscation:

This week I told two liberal friends that Pelosi is trying to find “a path to yes on fast track.” (Her words) Both said Pelosi and Clinton had broken with Obama, are moving left and now oppose the deal. In terms of strategy and message it was true — all except the part about Clinton and Pelosi opposing the deal.

There's much about Clinton and Pelosi pretending to care about workers, when all they want is for the deal to be done without their fingerprints on it. That obviously applies to Pelosi. Curry says that's equally true of Clinton.

Clinton Is Trying to Run Obama-2008

In a fine catch, Curry says this:

Clinton’s trade talk is of a piece with her entire 2016 campaign. It’s also of a piece with Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Clinton insiders make no secret of her desire to emulate him. Obama’s 2008 campaign had three hallmarks. One was its fundraising. Obama was the first Democratic presidential campaign to outraise a Republican on Wall Street and the first of either party to crack the code of Internet fundraising. The second was its massive, web-driven, volunteer effort, probably the biggest of any presidential campaign in history.

The third was its message, at once fiercely populist and reassuringly centrist — and vague. Much of it came from chief strategist David Axelrod who opined that for too long Democrats had been mired down in issues. His campaigns were famous for selling personalities rather than platforms, for finding ways to reconcile our conflicts in the biographies of his candidates. It worked for Obama. “Yes we can,” audiences called out. “Do what?” few bothered to ask, or thought they had to.

For Curry, that won't work twice. He makes a fine case, but the reasoning is obvious as well. Can she make a Larry Summers, say, her Secretary of Treasury and claim the Piketty mantle of "Yes I Care" about wealth and inequality? Obviously not.

Hillary Clinton "Is in Trouble"

Which brings us to 2016 and the Democratic candidate for president:

Democratic elites don’t want to hear it but Hillary Clinton’s in trouble. It isn’t in all the data yet though you can find it if you look.  In a straw poll taken in early June at a Wisconsin Democratic convention she edged out Bernie Sanders by just 8 points, 49% to 41%. In a poll of N.H. primary voters this week she beat Sanders by 41% to 31%. An Ohio poll had her in a dead heat with the likes of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. If Sanders can poll 40% in a Wisconsin straw poll in June he can do it [in] an Iowa caucus in January. Imagine a Hillary Clinton who just lost Iowa and New Hampshire to Bernie Sanders. It’s still hard to picture but it gets easier every day.

Which brings me back to my point — this is the most important election in a generation, 1968-important in its possibilities. One battle at a time, starting with the Democratic primary. Yes We Can put a real progressive in the White House, if one will run. Sanders is running. And if he gets the big chair, he won't be Mr. "No I Won't" but Mr. "You Bet I Will."

GP

Nancy Pelosi Is Whipping "Almost Daily" for TPP

Pelosi was a perp on Obama's failed Chained CPI proposal as well — another Obama–Paul Ryan pro-wealth project. Not a great choice for a "San Francisco liberal" to be making.

by Gaius Publius

It looks like this early statement, about which I got some pushback, is proving true. Just as Chuck Schumer was the behind-the-scenes enabler on Fast Track and TPP in the Senate — he voted No but privately organized the Fast Track set of bills so they would pass — Pelosi is the behind-the-scenes enabler of TPP in the House. According to one report (see below), she might even vote No, so long as it passes with votes other than hers.

Publicly, Pelosi has said both (a) she's neutral and (b) she's seeking a "path to yes." Sounds like a contradiction, and it sounded so at the time. About her supposed neutrality, here's the New York Times (my emphasis throughout):

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, who has yet to declare her position, has told House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio that he will have to produce 200 Republican votes to win the 217 he needs. In other words, she is not promising a single new convert.

That's the spin, and it's being repeated elsewhere as well. It's also not true. According to two sources, in private Pelosi is working "almost on a daily basis" to get Fast Track to pass, and with it, TPP. Evidence comes from Greg Sargent at Plumline and from Politico. Let's start with Sargent and the problems around Fast Track's associated Trade Assistance bill.

If the Trade Assistance Bill Fails, Fast Track and TPP Will Fail

Everyone knows, though only opponents will say, that it's mostly Big Money who wants TPP to succeed, because Big Money will make a killing from the deal. Everyone knows, though only opponents will say, that TPP will do what NAFTA did — move jobs abroad and continue to impoverish American workers.

Which means, to get Democratic votes for Fast Track and TPP, they need to enact a so-called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill along with it, to lessen, if only slightly, the damage to American workers. Republicans hate lessening damage to American workers, however — remember all those unemployment compensation fights — so there are a lot of Republicans who don't want TAA to pass.

And the TAA bill passed by the Senate is "paid for" by cuts to Medicare. (Yes, you read that right — Medicare cuts.) So right now, TAA is in trouble from both the left and the right. Bottom line, no TAA, no TPP. Enter Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi Is Working to Keep the TAA–plus–Fast Track Deal Alive

Many Democrats hate the Medicare cuts (or can't afford to seem not to). Many Republicans hate the TAA itself. So the deal is in trouble — remember, no TAA, no TPP. What does Nancy Pelosi do? When it looks like the deal could fail, she goes to bat for the deal.

Greg Sargent:

Pelosi is taking the possibility of a failed TAA vote in the House seriously. A Pelosi aide tells me that she is negotiating with GOP leaders to find a new pay-for to replace the Medicare cuts, since keeping them could end up killing it.

If Pelosi is opposed to Fast Track, she could let it die by letting TAA die. That's what Alan Grayson would do. After all, if there's no fast track for a job-killing "trade" bill, there's no need for worker assistance to mitigate the damage. Pelosi is working to enable the Fast Track and TPP deal, to keep it alive. She obviously wants it to pass.

Nancy Pelosi — The White House "Secret Weapon" on TPP

Now from Politico, this gut-churner on Obama, Pelosi and TPP. It opens with the bottom line:

White House’s secret weapon on trade: Nancy Pelosi

Administration officials have been so impressed by Nancy Pelosi’s approach to negotiations over giving President Barack Obama “fast-track” trade authority that they’ve started to consider a crazy possibility: She could even vote for it herself.

But only if she has to.

"But only if she has to"? If she's in favor of TPP why should she hide her hand in passing it? Feel free to make your best guess at the answer. Mine is, for the sake of appearances. For more on Pelosi controlling appearances, see the last quote in this piece.

The next few paragraphs are very Pelosi-friendly, but hard to credit once you get to these passages:

Obama aides say they don’t know how Pelosi will vote in the end, but they gush about how hands-on she’s been, how accommodating she’s been in letting them make their case, how critical she’s been in saying nothing about her position to give her fellow Democrats cover to get to yes.

“I applaud the leader for creating enough space to really evaluate this legislation,” said Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), who announced his support for TPA last month and has become the anti-TPA effort’s top target to scare others into voting no. “She’s done a good job creating that space.”

That's "New Democrat" Ami Bera, who's being hit hard in his district for his declared Yes on TPP. Ami Bera wants to publicly "applaud" Pelosi for her work with Democrats, to "create that space" so Democrats can "get to yes."

The White House agrees:

The White House hopes Pelosi’s going to put her thumb on the backs of however many necks she needs, forcing yes votes among the more reluctant but safe members, letting the more endangered members off the hook, finding votes and trading votes until she gets to the 24, or 25, or 26 that she needs. ...

"Her position is that she wants to get to yes and she is talking about this almost on a daily basis," said a senior House Democrat.

Ignore the schizophrenia in the article about how she doesn't know how she's going to vote despite everything else it says about her effort. All she cares about, based on her reported behavior, is controlling her own appearance, her brand, as being "pro-worker" — and helping other pro-TPP members control their own appearances, as the above quote makes abundantly clear.

And ignore articles to the contrary; they just report what Pelosi is saying about herself. Sargent and this Politico piece report what Pelosi is doing — working hard to make TPP happen. She's the lead enabler in the House of the "next NAFTA" trade agreement, someone working almost daily to keep the deal alive in the House.

If she doesn't want to tag herself that way — and apparently she doesn't — it falls to us to tag her. Nancy Pelosi, lead House perp on the biggest anti-worker bill of this generation. Considering the damage TPP will do, I'd gladly pay to put that on her tombstone.

GP