The Democrats-- Even The Good Ones-- Voted Wrong On The Import-Export Bank

I don't often get press releases from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but today their chief lobbyist, Bruce Josten, sent me one about how happy they are about the Export-Import Bank reauthorization.

Today’s vote in the House to reauthorize Ex-Im proves once more that a clear majority of the Congress is in favor of maintaining and reforming this important program. Ex-Im’s support levels the global market for American exporters and helps them remain competitive with their foreign counterparts. We applaud the leadership of Representatives Stephen Fincher, Frank Lucas, Maxine Waters, Steny Hoyer, Denny Heck, Gwen Moore and many other champions for bringing this bipartisan reform bill to a vote.

It passed the House 313-118. 127 Republicans voted for it and 117 Republicans voted against it. The Democrats were much more unified for this awful corporate welfare bill. 186 Democrats voted YES and just one-- Alan Grayson-- voted NO.

I knew that Alan, like Bernie Sanders in the Senate, was opposed to this bill which is a giveaway to big corporations. His office issued a brief statement when he voted, the day before, for the discharge petition allowing a vote: "Rep. Grayson voted for the discharge position because he believes that the House should vote on bills that Members want to vote on, and not allow right-wing Republicans (or a GOP Speaker) to dictate the agenda. Nevertheless, he does not support corporate welfare for foreign corporations, which is what the Ex-Im Bank has degenerated into. Rep. Grayson remains deeply concerned that through the Ex-Im Bank, the federal government is providing a low-interest taxpayer subsidy exclusively to foreign competitors, and thus destroying jobs in the United States.  He maintains that if the Government is going to provide such loans anyone, they should be to U.S. concerns, not foreign ones." What I didn't know was that Grayson's main reasons for voting against it was because it's a taxpayer boondoggle that goes primarily to foreign-owned corporations, not even American-owned ones!

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia released a document by Veronique de Rugy and Diane Katz, The Export-Import Bank’s Top Foreign Buyers that makes it hard to believe the whole Democratic conference could vote for this thing.

Ex-Im Bank advocates emphasize its importance to small businesses and economic growth. A new analysis of government data reveals that Ex-Im Bank’s top 10 overseas buyers are large corporations that primarily purchase exports from multinational conglomerates. Ex-Im Bank’s small business narrative is challenged by the fact that the buyers receiving the most subsidies are-- like the exporters-- major corporations. If lawmakers truly want to nurture small businesses and economic growth, they should end the Ex-Im Bank favoritism that undermines domestic companies and focus instead on reducing the tax and regulatory barriers that choke investment, innovation, and job creation.

...The numerous problems with Ex-Im Bank have been analyzed in a significant body of research. For instance, previous research has documented that Ex-Im Bank financing principally benefits very large exporters. This new analysis reveals that the primary beneficiaries on the buyer side of the transactions are also very large firms. Among the top 10 buyers, 5 are state-controlled and rake in millions of dollars from their own governments in addition to Ex-Im Bank subsidies. These multiple-subsidy streams offset operating costs, and provide a significant competitive advantage over unsubsidized US firms engaged in similar ventures.

Five of the top 10 buyers are involved in the exploration, development, and production of oil or natural gas. These foreign concerns are collecting subsidies from American taxpayers at the same time that the Obama administration is restricting domestic oil and gas operations. Consequently, the federal government doubly disadvantages US energy firms-- through Washington’s excessive regulation and Ex-Im Bank subsidies granted to US firms’ foreign competitors.

The other five top buyers are airlines that collectively have received more than $15 billion in Ex-Im Bank subsidies in the past seven years solely to purchase products from Boeing-- the single largest US beneficiary of Ex-Im Bank financing. The bank’s subsidization of foreign airlines has tripled since 2008, significantly increasing competitive pressure on domestic carriers. In reality, Ex-Im Bank subsidies are a form of corporate welfare that is neither necessary nor appropriate. If lawmakers truly want to nurture small businesses and economic growth, they should end the Ex-Im Bank favoritism that undermines domestic companies and focus instead on reducing the tax and regulatory barriers that choke investment, innovation, and job creation.

It's easy to understand why corporate whores like Farmer Fincher (R-TN), Frank Lucas (R-OK), Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Denny Heck (D-WA) were pushing this vote so hard, but I can't understand why all the progressives-- except Grayson-- did as well. Every progressive I spoke with said the expiration of the Export-Import Bank had cost jobs in their districts. I understand that but something tells me there are better ways to subsidize jobs in America than by making millions of dollars in payments to Emirates Airline, Mexico's giant oil company (Pemex) and oil and gas companies in India, Australia, Colombia and Papua-New Guinea. Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson opposed this thing, two of the smartest and most dedicated progressives in Congress. It was interesting that of the 4 candidates in the Florida Senate race, the two corrupt transactional candidates-- Murphy (D) and Jolly (R)-- both voted for the bill and the two candidates that decide how to vote based on principles-- Grayson (D) and DeSantis (R)-- both voted against it. Suggestion: help Alan's Senate campaign here.

Do Politicians Lie? Let's Ask Mark Pocan (D-WI) And Ted Cruz (R-TX)

When Mark Pocan (D-WI): said "Politicians too often say one thing but actually do another," he was explaining how magic tricks are like what politicians do in Washington. Few people know that Mark is actually a magician himself and used to do magic shows to put himself through college. Yesterday, though, in the other chamber, Texas' right-wing extremist Ted Cruz went crazy on the floor, accusing his own caucus leader, Mitch McConnell, of lying.

A politician lying? Politicians lie as a matter of course... lie for a living. And Mitch McConnell is a closet case whose entire life is based on a giant lie. But that isn't what Cruz was crying about. What ticked him off enough to break Senate rules and impugn the integrity of a fellow senator was not that McConnell's a habitual liar but that McConnell lied to him personally. Manu Raju:

In a scathing floor speech, the Texas firebrand accused the Senate majority leader of breaking his word to him and the rest of the GOP conference over McConnell’s plans for the controversial Export-Import Bank, the country’s chief export credit agency. In Cruz’s telling, McConnell privately promised him and other Republicans that “there was no deal” with a handful of senators who were seeking to revive the bank in exchange for their votes to advance a major trade bill in May.

McConnell, he said, became “visibly angry” when Cruz challenged him on the matter during a meeting in May.

“Like St. Peter,” Cruz said, “he repeated it three times. He said, ‘The only thing I told the proponents of the Export-Import Bank is like any other senator in this body, they could offer any amendment they liked on an any amendable vehicle, but I gave them nothing.’”

That day in late May, Cruz said his staff informed him that McConnell was “lying” to him, but he said he believed the Senate GOP leader that “he wasn’t lying to us.”

But after McConnell took procedural steps Friday to move to a proposal to revive the Ex-Im bank, Cruz said on the Senate floor: “I cannot believe he would tell a flat-out lie.”

“What we saw today was an absolute demonstration that not only what he told every Republican senator, but what he told the press over and over again was a simple lie,” said Cruz, a fierce opponent of the bank. “The majority and minority leader, arm-in-arm again, should not team up against the American taxpayers.”

The attack is unusual even for Cruz, who has made his battle with Senate Republicans a centerpiece of his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. Senators tend to avoid directly calling out specific senators on the Senate floor-- particularly from their own party and especially their own party leader. Senate rules say, “no senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another senator or to other senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator.”

Asked to comment, McConnell smiled and walked away. Sen. John Cornyn, a fellow Texas Republican and McConnell’s chief deputy, said he was reviewing Cruz’s remarks and would not comment further. Sen. Mike Lee, a close Cruz ally who is wooing the GOP establishment to ward off any primary threat in Utah next year, also declined to comment.

The bank has become a flashpoint in the battle between the GOP’s business and tea party wings. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce argues that the bank’s support is essential in promoting American exports and supporting more than a million U.S. jobs. But conservative groups like Heritage Action and the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity argue that the bank is nothing more than corporate welfare that picks winners and losers and should be disbanded.

The GOP versus GOP fight led to the expiration of the 80-year-old bank’s charter in July, preventing it from backing any new loans. But a bipartisan majority in the Senate is pushing hard to revive it, putting McConnell in the crosshairs.

McConnell, who opposes the bank, vowed to three senators who strongly support the bank-- Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray-- that he would allow a vote on the bank’s charter during high-stakes negotiations over the trade bill in May. After those assurances, those three senators voted to advance the fast-track bill, which eventually became law and will pave the way for the sweeping Trans-Pacific Partnership.

With Congress now headed to an August recess, the bank’s proponents are looking to find any legislative vehicle that will revive it. The last remaining vehicle is a highway bill that must pass before the August recess. So McConnell on Friday filed a cloture motion to break a filibuster and bring up the Export-Import Bank measure on Sunday. He also filed cloture on a full-scale repeal of Obamacare, which could give him some political cover on the right after the backlash from his moves to allow the bank’s charter to be revived.

But since the Obamacare vote will fail to surmount a Democratic filibuster, Cruz lashed McConnell for “empty showmanship.”

During his speech, Cruz also strongly rebuked the GOP Senate majority’s record this Congress, rebutting McConnell’s argument that the new Republican majority has fulfilled its promises to voters.



“We’ve had a Republican majority in both houses of Congresses now for about six months. What has that majority done? First thing we did, in December, we passed a $1 trillion crominbus plan filled with pork and corporate welfare. Then this Republican majority voted to fund Obamacare, voted to fund President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty. And then the leadership rammed through the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as attorney general.”

Cruz added: “Madam President, which of those decisions would be one iota different if Harry Reid were still majority leader? Not a one. Not a one.”

He added that McConnell is “behaving” like Reid by limiting debate and amendments on the Senate floor, even arguing that the GOP leader did not put up a strong enough fight to push for Republican votes during debate over an Iran congressional review bill this past spring. Cruz recounted a private conversation in McConnell’s office over their dispute.

As he walked off the Senate floor, Cruz didn’t stop insulting McConnell.

He told reporters that he would try to force a procedural vote on an amendment to force Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist and release the four American hostages held in Tehran. Forcing a procedural vote-- to overturn the ruling of the chair-- is another highly unusual move, particularly for a rank-and-file senator challenging his own leadership.

“I assume leadership is going to whip against that amendment,” Cruz said.

In the 15-minute press availability, Cruz was asked to produce evidence that McConnell is a liar. He sent aides to his Senate desk, and he circulated photos from the Senate floor of Graham and Cantwell huddling with McConnell and his deputies on the Senate floor during the tense vote on Trade Promotion Authority. Cruz said at a subsequent party lunch, he challenged McConnell “explicitly” to find out what deal they cut.

“If the majority leader is willing to lie to 54 Republicans to their face, when is willing to do so again?” Cruz said.

The latest GOP primary polling shows Cruz trailing badly. He is the first choice of just 4% of likely Republican voters-- tied with Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul. He certainly needed something to get him some national press, and perhaps his full-bore hissy fit against poor Miss McConnell will do it for him.

A gentle reminder to Greece, the Ex-Im Bank, et al.: If your deadline was June 30, you're now past your deadline

But alas, it's not enough for the merchants of austerity.

by Ken

June 30, marking as it does the end of the first half of the calendar year, is a popular demarcation point for all sorts of things -- the end of many organizations' fiscal year and the end point for all sorts of other agreements. And since we've grown accustomed lately to kicking off the DWT day with news of the mess in Greece, let's start by remembering that yesterday was the deadline for its big, big, big IMF loan payment, and since there was no relevant agreement, and no whisper of another bailout, we can say that Greece is now officially in default.

However, does that tell us what's happening, or what's going to happen? Well, no, though it seems fair to say that there aren't a lot of organizations or countries with official standing that seem inclined to stick up for Greece. Meanwhile, everyone can stake out whatever position they like in answer to these questions, since we're in territory now where we've never been before. In Greece attention is focused on the referendum still scheduled for Sunday, where Greeks get to vote yes or no on, well, something -- presumably accepting or rejecting terms for remaining in the Eurozone, though nobody quite knows what, short of making that scheduled payment, could actually keep Greece in the Eurozone.

Or, for that matter, what exactly would be the straw that breaks the back of whatever needs to get broken to once and for all bring about Greek exit from the Eurozone, which some economists continue to say would, despite the massive short-term hardships likely to result, offer at least some hope of allowing Greece to escape the chokehold of the predator-creditor class.

Never mind that Illinois and Puerto Rico are eerily close to being in the same situation. Here's some of what the NYT is reporting this morning about Greece, where the banks remain closed [UPDATE: no! this is what everyone has been reporting, but it turns out that the government ordered 1000 bank branches around the country to reopen today, to massive lines -- "to help desperate pensioners without ATM cards cash up to 120 euros ($134) from their retirement checks," according to the AP], though that shouldn't stop rich Greeks from sucking out any funds they haven't already sucked out of the country. (Okay, we're actually going to take a look at the situations in Illinois and Puerto Rico later today.)

Tsipras Signals Greece May Accept Bailout Terms

By Suzanne Daley and Niki Kitsantonis
July 1, 2015


nytimes.com caption: "Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras of Greece gave an interview on Monday night in Athens."

ATHENS — The Greek government has indicated to its creditors that it is willing to accept many of the terms of a bailout package that it had earlier rejected, if they are part of a broader deal to address the country’s funding needs for the next two years, officials said on Wednesday.

The development raised the prospect of progress in resolving a financial crisis that has sent shudders through global markets and deeply strained European unity.

In a letter sent on Tuesday to the creditors — the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other eurozone countries — Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said Greece was “prepared to accept” a deal set out publicly over the weekend by the creditors, with small modifications to some of the central points of contention on issues like pension cuts and tax increases. Mr. Tsipras linked Greece’s acceptance of the terms to a new package of bailout aid that would need to be negotiated.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission, declined to answer questions about Greece at a news briefing on Wednesday.

But finance ministers from the countries using the euro were scheduled to confer later on Wednesday to continue discussions on Greece. They had turned aside a last-minute plea for help Tuesday night from Greece. However, they had suggested that there were grounds for optimism about progress in getting negotiations back on track before a referendum scheduled for Sunday in Greece on whether to accept the terms being sought by the creditors. . . .

MEANWHILE, WHAT ABOUT THE EX-IM BANK?

June 30 is, of course, a popular deadline, so today is the day after for a whole bunch of things, including the Export-Import Bank, which you'll recall is a major Right-Wing Hate. As of today, its charter is officially kaput, and in right-wing circles that counts as a win of sorts. Here's how Carl Hulse explains it in this morning's NYT "First Draft":

Republicans Notch a Win, if Temporary, Over Export-Import Bank


nytimes.com caption: "Representative Jeb Hensarling has prevented the House banking committee from producing legislation on the Ex-Im Bank."

Conservatives declared victory on Tuesday after preventing the charter of the Export-Import Bank from being renewed before a June 30 deadline. But it was a peculiar sort of Washington win.

None of the bank’s 420 employees were expected to be furloughed for now. The reason? It needs to keep track of the $112 billion in outstanding loans and guarantees intended to lift exports.

What it won’t be doing is accepting loan applications or moving ahead on any of those that had not been approved before the deadline.

Backers of the bank expect to win the charter’s renewal in the fall. Still, those who portrayed the bank as a case study in “crony capitalism” can savor success — however short-lived — because they successfully blocked an extension of the charter for the first time in 80 years.

Federal agencies are hard to shut down, and they often narrowly escape such brinkmanship. Aware of the coming push for renewal, conservatives called on the bank to begin liquidating its assets and for Republican leaders to do what they can to preserve the win.

#

Do Democrats Trust Obama Not to Sign TPA Without TAA?

Why Washington State senators need the Export-Import Bank to be reauthorized

by Gaius Publius

House Democrats, 28 of them, handed Obama and House Republicans a win by passing Fast Track, called Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA, as a stand-alone bill. The bill yoked to it by the Senate — an "assistance for workers" bill called TAA — was cut loose. Fast Track now goes back to the Senate for consideration by itself.

You'll see much analysis of the various ways this could play out. But the bottom line in the Senate is, do Democrats, who passed TPA when TAA was part of the package, pass TPA as a stand-alone?

If they do, TPA, Fast Track, goes to Obama for signature — in other words, he gets his win.

What's to prevent that outcome? There are several hostages that have to be rescued first.

Hostage One: the Export-Import Bank

One problem is that several senators, notably the Senators from Boeing, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, made renewal of the Export-Import Bank a condition of their Yes on TPA vote. Will that happen? McConnell promised a vote on the "Ex-Im Bank" but now it looks like he's waffling. If he allows such a vote, will it pass? And if that gets to the House, will it pass there, where the Ex-Im Bank is hated by many Republicans? Stay tuned.

Hostage Two: The Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill

Then there's the assistance bill itself, TAA. It does almost nothing for workers screwed by "free trade," but it does a little bit. Republicans have called it a "sop to Democrats." Others have called it a "fig leaf" because it allows Democrats to go to their districts and say, "Sure I voted for the Next NAFTA, but I got you this assistance bill, so I'm really on your side after all. Love me?"

Some Democrats really want the assistance bill; some really want to act like they want it; and some just need it to confuse the voters at election time.

The questions: Will these senators settle for a promise from Republicans that TAA will get votes in the House and Senate? If they get these votes and they don't pass, is that enough of a fig leaf, or has it gone so transparent by now as to be invisible?

And three, do they trust Obama not to sign TPA the minute he gets it; do they trust him to wait for a TAA bill to reach his desk as well?

Trusting Obama

I heard Nancy Pelosi say in her talk before the TPA vote that she trusts Obama. And Obama spokesman Josh Earnest has said Obama will wait for both bills before signing Fast Track. From a press release by Public Citizen's Lori Wallach after the vote:

Meanwhile, House GOP lawmakers remain strongly opposed to TAA and Ex-Im reauthorization. As House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi stated today, there is no clear path for enactment of TAA. Yet yesterday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that President Obama requires both Fast Track and TAA to come to his desk.

But what if they don't both come to his desk? Or what if TAA doesn't come quickly enough?

Salon's Jim Newell on just those questions:

Here’s how the fast-track fight ends: Why it all comes down to Obama

... The basic idea of the [latest] strategy, as reported elsewhere, will be to separate legislation renewing TAA and TPA: no more logrolling or vote-splitting measures. Each would be faced to fend in the wild itself. First the House would pass TPA, sending it to the Senate. Then the Senate would take up a TAA bill, which it will have attached to another bill, the AGOA — “African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA, which boosts trade from some sub-Saharan African countries” — that is popular among Democrats. Once the Senate has passed TAA, that should be enough for the “pro-trade” faction of Senate Democrats to join Republicans in passing TPA, which will thus be sent to the president’s desk. Since TPA will have already passed, House Democrats will have no tactical reason to oppose TAA anymore, and so they’ll pass the Senate-passed AGOA-TAA bill. The idea is to bend House Democrats to the White House’s will by making passage of TPA “a fait accompli,” as one House Republican aide tells the Huffington Post.

Would this plan deny House Democrats all of their leverage? That all depends on one man: President Obama.

Obama has insisted that both TAA and TPA reach his desk before anything gets signed. White House spokesman Josh Earnest reiterated that in his Wednesday press briefing[.]

Which means for Senate Democrats, it's all back to taking Obama at his word:

The president, then, needs to be willing to break his word in order to bring House Democrats to heel. If TPA is on his desk and he won’t sign it without TAA, then House Democrats have a relatively obvious strategy: don’t pass TAA after it’s sent from the Senate as part of whatever legislative vehicle. Then President Obama won’t sign TPA.

If President Obama is willing to sign TPA before TAA reaches his desk, though, then House Democrats will have officially lost on TPA and might as well go along with TAA. But there’s another risk that this entails for the White House: Obama signs TPA and then … John Boehner never calls up TAA, because Republicans don’t like it and they’ve already gotten what they wanted.

And Obama?

You’ve got to ask yourself: What does President Obama really want here? He wants TAA and TPA, but… he wants TPA more, because that will help him to complete his big, beloved, legacy-gilding trade deal. Do you think he’s just going to let House Democrats stick up their noses at him indefinitely while he’s already got fast-track on his desk, gathering dust? Don’t count on it.

Yep. Don't count on it. As badly as Obama has shown he wants this, don't expect him not to eat it the minute it's served up to him.

GP

Democratic Senators Who Need to Be Lobbyists in 2017

Each of these Democrats need to be turned into lobbyists at the earliest opportunity. For three of them, that's January 2017 (click to enlarge and share).

The Senate held its final cloture vote on Fast Track, and after a lot of wheeling and dealing over amendments — whose will get a vote and whose won't — the Democrats above voted to help grease the next NAFTA treaty's passage into law.

Pro-TPP writer Alex Rogers, in the National Journal (Ex-Im means "Export-Import"; my emphasis throughout):

Ex-Im Bank Deal Gets Trade Bill Moving

Last-minute floor trading on reauthorizing the bank secured the votes to proceed on fast-track measure.

The Senate advanced a major trade bill Thursday, after a last-minute deal on a vote to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank prompted Sen. Maria Cantwell and others to break away from a powwow on the chamber floor to say, "Aye." ...

The vote, 62 to 38, came over the objections of [anti-TPP] senators, who claimed that the Senate GOP leadership—President Obama's strange bedfellows on free trade—had throttled debate, allowing only two votes so far despite around 200 amendments filed.

"The last time we did fast-track legislation on the Senate floor it was three weeks of debate," said Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown. "This is about three days."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had set up the procedural vote Thursday despite other time-sensitive deadlines determining the National Security Agency's bulk-collection authority and highway funding. But he seemed aware of the possibility of failing on Wednesday afternoon. "Well we're going to grind on and finish TPA," he said, "if those who say they're for it end up voting for it."

Those members included Washington state Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray as well as Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who formed a tight circle with McConnell on the floor to hash out an agreement for a future vote on authorizing the Export Import bank, whose charter expires at the end of next month.

What's the Export-Import bank? A slush fund for companies like Boeing and the CEOs who draw their pay from them:

The bank, which helps finances U.S. businesses' exports, is synonymous with "crony capitalism" by conservatives and many House Republicans who wish to kill it. But the bank is also popular with many Senate Republicans, including Graham, who—like the Washington state senators—represents a state with a significant stake in the success of Boeing.

Fast Track is as good as done in the Senate. On to the House.

The Democrats' Trade — Your Rich People for Mine

So here's the trade Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray and the other pro-TPP Democrats made. They will vote to give money to rich people who will benefit from TPP. In exchange other senators will vote to give money to rich people who run companies like Boeing. There were a bunch of trades like this in the Yes-on-TPP camp. Who said there's gridlock in DC?

What did we get? If Fast Track passes the House, we get TPP, the next NAFTA, and the one after that, TPIP, the same bad deal on the Atlantic side. These senators, of course, will do quite well in any case.

A Tale of the Rich and the Rest

The TPP story isn't about the U.S. and the world. It's about the rich and the rest, also known as "capital and labor," as this excellent piece by Harold Meyerson explains:

A trade deal at what cost?

So what gives with the American people? Don’t they realize, as my colleague Charles Krauthammer argued last week, “that free trade is advantageous to both sides”?

The sides to which Krauthammer referred, of course, are nations. But perhaps those who’ve experienced such free-trade consequences as factory closings and lower-paying jobs are thinking about two entirely different sides — capital and labor. ...

When advocates make the case for Congress expanding free trade with Pacific Rim nations by passing the “fast-track bill” currently before it, they cite the U.S. industries that the deal will benefit. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial, for instance, acknowledges that, while U.S. exports to South Korea have hardly increased since we signed a trade accord with that nation in 2011, our service-sector growth there has been substantial. Our international law firms can now practice there, the Journal proclaims, and “American investors can now own telecom operations in that country.”

A great deal for international lawyers and investors — two groups of embattled U.S. proletarians who clearly needed our government’s help.

For other American workers, not so great. The treaty was promoted as benefiting the U.S. auto industry, but since its enactment Korean auto imports to the United States have boomed while sales of U.S.-made cars to South Korea remain all but nonexistent.

Is it any wonder, then, that virtually the entire base of the Democratic Party opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the fast-track bill that would ease its enactment? From coast to coast, Democrats are doing their damnedest to raise the very wages that globalized capital has depressed.

But what about restraining the power of China? Meyerson delivers the knockout blow:

Of all the developments that led to the increase in China’s power and the diminution of ours, the one that definitively did both was Congress’s enactment of permanent normal trade relations with China in 2000. That led to a flood of U.S. companies shuttering their domestic plants and shifting production to China. When Beijing insisted that the price of doing business there was the transfer of proprietary high-technology techniques to China, many of those companies complied.

So a trade deal benefiting U.S. investors at the expense of U.S. workers created the rise in Chinese power, and now, we’re told, a trade deal benefiting U.S. investors at the expense of U.S. workers will help us keep Chinese power in check.

"A trade deal benefiting U.S. investors at the expense of U.S. workers" — an apt description in both cases. A tale of the rich and the rest (meaning us).

If Democrats Want to Lobby for Rich People, They Should Register

And you can help by moving them out of their current job and putting them on the labor market. These TPP Democrats are up for reelection in 2016:

▪ Patty Murray — 202-224-2621 — Now deep in Senate "leadership" and apparently hungry for more of that Schumer-Murray magic.

 

▪ Michael Bennet — 202-224-5852 — Mr. Bipartisan. As chair of the DSCC, he oversaw the 2014 election losses, then afterward said he worried that Republicans would be mad at him.

 

▪ Ron Wyden — 202-224-5244 — The worst. As Ranking Member of the Finance Committee, he was lead perp in the Senate, patient zero for the fatal infection. He deserves an expensive lobbyist office filled with very uncomfortable chairs — soon.

Their phone numbers are above. Do you vote in Washington, Colorado or Oregon ? Are you a donor to senatorial campaigns? Feel free to pick up the phone and speak your mind. They've certainly spoken theirs, or the minds of their "investors," to borrow Meyerson's phrase.

But What About the Senate?

But what about "the Senate," you ask? First, is this a Senate worth fighting for? Second, with votes like these, do you think candidates like these are more likely or less likely to continue the party debranding that led to the 2014 results?

U.S. trade deficit since 1960. That "steep NAFTA slide" starts in 1994, one of Bill Clinton's signature accomplishments.

Frankly, if you really want a better Senate (I do), abandon all twelve names on the graphic above — let their "investors" take care of them — and elect Blue America candidates like Alan Grayson, Donna Edwards, Russ Feingold and P.G. Sittenfeld. You can help by contributing here.

GP

Corrupt Corporate Dems And Corrupt Corporate Republicans Team Up To Save The Export-Import Bank

Every now and then, the teabaggers team up with progressives and the two populist wings of their respective parties work together to challenge the grotesquely corrupt Establishment wings of the two Beltway parties. We've been hoping that might happen in the case of the scam known as the Export-Import Bank.

Grayson had been working to rally progressives and had been making some headway but in the end, Democrats hoping to not get beaten up by the Chamber of Commerce, sold out-- except for Grayson and Lloyd Doggett (R-TX). A former economist, Grayson tried helping clarify a complicated subject for some of his slower colleagues: "The Export-Import Bank is corporate welfare at its worst… We are extending the full faith and credit of the U.S. government to foreign companies, when we should be extending it to the American middle class instead. When these foreign borrowers go broke one day, as they surely will, our taxpayers will end up on the hook for their debt. And all for the sake of U.S. exports that would have happened anyway."

Corporate shills on both sides of the aisle-- Democrats like Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Jim Himes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, all the sleazy, corrupt New Dems and Blue Dogs plus the Chamber of Commerce Republicans are hoping progressives and libertarians can't cobble together a coalition with teabbaggers to derail this. Over the summer, The Hill covered the transpartisan corporate push led in the Senate by Big Coal puppet Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Chamber of Commerce whore Mark Kirk (R-IL). Their 5-year reauthorization increases the bank's credit exposure limit from the current $140 billion to $160 billion and-- thanks to Manchin-- reverses restrictions that Ex-Im officials passed in December preventing the bank from financing overseas power plants that won't adopt greener technology.

Progressives are opposed because the proposal exacerbates Global Warming and because it is pure crony capitalism, granting all kinds of rotten loans on projects American taxpayers are not in favor of funding, particularly ones that ship U.S. jobs overseas. Big very profitable companies-- with executives who pay out massive bribes to politicians in the form of campaign contributions-- like Boeing and big energy companies, get the bulk of the benefits. It really is primarily a Big Business subsidy fund with corrupt politicians getting a cut in the form of kickbacks. The bank invests in coal mining projects all over the world, including environmentally sensitive sites like the Great Barrier Reef and they routinely invest in companies with terrible employment and civil rights practices, including in government-sponsored companies where the governments benefitting are terrible human rights violators. I asked Alan Grayson why he was opposed to the Manchin/Kirk proposal and he said "The Export-Import Bank subsidizes foreigners who buy American products. Why don’t we take exactly the same money, and use it to subsidize Americans who buy American products?" Ironically, this morning the Club For Growth demanded Republicans vote no on the C.R.-- to keep funding the government-- because the Export-Import Bank is in the resolution.

This morning, Paul Kane and Robert Costa were reporting in the Washington Post that Team Boehner was steamrolling over the teabaggers and dashing any hopes for ending this particular corporate welfare program. Establishment Republicans beat up on populist Republicans by disingenuously threatening them with the optics of a government shutdown before the midterms-- and the teabaggers are surrendering.

Chief among those had been the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, the agency that helps U.S.-based corporations sell goods overseas. Many conservatives, led by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.), accuse the bank of being a form of corporate welfare that skews the marketplace.

Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters that he had been discussing the issue with Hensarling, who had agreed that extending the agency into next year would be a smarter move than engaging in a shutdown fight just ahead of the November elections over a relatively obscure agency that promotes jobs.

“He thinks that a temporary extension of the Export-Import Bank is in order,” Boehner told reporters, a rare instance of the speaker announcing the intentions of one of his committee chairmen.

Hensarling repeatedly denied requests for comment Tuesday. Senior GOP aides in the House and Senate suggested that building in time for the fight next spring and summer would be a smarter play, especially if the Senate flips to Republican control in the midterm elections.

…Moderate Republicans, such as Rep. Jim Gerlach (Pa.), who represents the Philadelphia suburbs, said business interests in their districts have asked them to usher through an extension.

“It’s helpful to companies in southeastern Pennsylvania,” Gerlach said Tuesday evening in an interview near the House floor. “I would like to see it extended for as long as possible.”

Wasted Taxes/Happy Lobbyists-- Subsidizing Billion Dollar Corporations Through The Export-Import Banks

Once there was a time… when we knew what it meant to be a Democrat. I remember it. It was the party of the working and middle classes, not another party of Big Business and Wall Street. I can't pinpoint the exact change but one inflection point was when George H.W. Bush was unable to pass NAFTA and Bill Clinton went to Wall Street and said he could do it for them-- the political birth of Rahm Emanuel… and the beginning of a downward spiral for Democrats.

Friday, David Sirota pointed out that there was a time when the Export-Import Bank was supported by Republicans and opposed by most Democrats. We came to similar conclusions here at DWT last month by where we mostly castigated corrupt Republicans, he has an equally bad set of villains. He suggests that following the money-- i.e., the corruption in the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- will explain the shift. He begins with Bernie Sanders' failed 2002 amendment to reform the Export-Import Bank, supported by 111 Democrats but only 22 libertarian-leaning Republicans. Sanders correctly explained how what was once a good idea had morphed into "one of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare."

The first lesson may be the most jarring because American politics is typically portrayed as a principled battle between two ideologically divided parties. But as the Export-Import Bank debate proves, money often trumps those purported principles to the point that parties will suddenly trade ideologies based on their perception of short-term interests.

In this case, the Republicans see an opportunity to humiliate Obama, and so they are momentarily ignoring their business benefactors who benefit from taxpayer subsidies. Meanwhile, Democrats are dropping their populist platitudes in favor of a chance to attract fundraising support from  GOP-leaning business interests. As New York’s Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer told National Journal about his efforts to use the Export-Import debate to court cash from the Chamber of Commerce: “I’ve said this to [chamber President] Tom Donohue and others: In many ways mainstream Democrats are closer to you than many Republicans.”

But, then, as dizzying as all these opportunistic partisan shifts may be, what hasn’t yet changed is the power dynamic. If in fact the Export-Import Bank debate ends up with the same results as years past (read: no reform), then it will be a reminder that the corporate lobby still calls the shots in a principle-free legislative arena.

It will be a reminder, in other words, that Big Business is still able to shape party politics to make sure its permanent interests remain Washington’s permanent interests-- regardless of what is the best policy for the country as a whole.

Corporate shills on both sides of the aisle-- Democrats like Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Jim Himes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, all the sleazy, corrupt New Dems and Blue Dogs plus the Chamber of Commerce Republicans are hoping progressives and libertarians can't cobble together a coalition with teabbaggers to derail this. This week, The Hill covered the bipartisan corporate push led in the Senate by Big Coal puppet Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Chamber of Commerce whore Mark Kirk (R-IL). Their 5-year reauthorization increases the bank's credit exposure limit from the current $140 billion to $160 billion and-- thanks to Manchin-- reverses restrictions that Ex-Im officials passed in December preventing the bank from financing overseas power plants that won't adopt greener technology.

Progressives are opposed because the proposal exacerbates Global Warming and because it is pure crony capitalism, granting all kinds of rotten loans on projects American taxpayers are not in favor of funding, particularly ones that ship U.S. jobs overseas. Big very profitable companies-- with executives who pay out massive bribes to politicians in the form of campaign contributions-- like Boeing and big energy companies, get the bulk of the benefits. It really is primarily a Big Business subsidy fund with corrupt politicians getting a cut in the form of kickbacks. The bank invests in coal mining projects all over the world, including environmentally sensitive sites like the Great Barrier Reef and they routinely invest in companies with terrible employment and civil rights practices, including in government-sponsored companies where the governments benefitting are terrible human rights violators. I asked Alan Grayson why he was opposed to the Manchin/Kirk proposal and he said "The Export-Import Bank subsidizes foreigners who buy American products. Why don’t we take exactly the same money, and use it to subsidize Americans who buy American products?"

The Import-Export Bank Controversy-- Has The GOP Figured Out How To Use Populism Against Corporate Democrats?

The other Jeb

Jeb Hensarling-- who has no Democratic opponent in his R+17 suburban Dallas district-- is the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and has accepted $1,121,622 in legalistic bribes (i.e., "campaign contributions") from the financial sector so far this cycle, the 4th most of any Member of Congress. That's more than Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan ($838,621), more than the new Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy ($804,686) and more than Wall Street's favorite pet Democrat-- and their designee to run the DCCC post-Israel-- Jim Himes ($681,950). Since he was first elected to Congress in 2002, the financial sector has given Hensarling a cool $5,568,931.

Hensarling has his eye on a bigger leadership role than a mere committee chair and he nearly ran against McCarthy for the Majority Leader position but, with the short time span between the end of Cantor and the leadership vote, he was able to read the handwriting on the wall. He's looking to November when he gets a shot at the Speakership. "I think he's going to run in November," a House Republican and longtime Hensarling ally said this week. "And if he runs, he runs for the top spot."

For "movement" conservatives-- those aligned with the tea party and grassroots advocacy groups-- the search for a candidate to vault into the top tier of House Republican leadership always narrows to two lawmakers: Hensarling and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio. Both are considered ideologically pure. Both are former chairmen of the Republican Study Committee. And both are respected throughout the House GOP.

But Hensarling has two distinct advantages: He is Southern, adding geographical diversity to a leadership team that lacked it until Scalise's win Thursday; and he is considered more electable than Jordan in a conference-wide vote.

Of course, there's another critical difference: Hensarling is ambitious and has already served as the No. 4 in Republican leadership, while Jordan is content as a rank-and-file member and has been emphatic that a leadership job "isn't me."

But running for Speaker as Wall Street's candidate? Perhaps he has to tone that down just a little tiny bit. So how does a Texas corporate whore like Jeb Hensarling play the populist card? The same way political rival Kevin McCarthy is doing: targeting the Export-Import Bank, the government's official credit agency. The mission of the Bank, created in 1934, is to create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing sales of U.S. exports to international buyers and it is forbidden, by law, to compete with private sector lenders, but rather provides financing for transactions that would otherwise not take place because commercial lenders are either unable or unwilling to accept the political or commercial risks inherent in the deal. So where does the right-wing animus come in?

According to Wikipedia, the bank gets criticized for favoring special interests over the U.S. taxpayers who pay for it.

These interests include that of heavily subsidized corporations such as Boeing or Enron as well as those of well-connected foreign governments and nationals (such as a 1996 $120 million low-interest loan to the China National Nuclear Power Corporation) 65% of loan guarantees over 2007 and 2008 went to companies purchasing Boeing aircraft. In 2012, the Bank's loan guarantees became even more skewed, with 82 percent of them going to Boeing customers.

Doug Bandow a Forbes contributor writes, "The agency piously claims not to provide subsidies since it charges fees and interest, but it exists only to offer business a better credit deal than is available in the marketplace. The Bank uses its ability to borrow at government rates to provide loans, loan guarantees, working capital guarantees, and loan insurance."

Although environmental groups oppose the Bank for financing a "fossil fuel binge," rightists like Hensarling and McCarthy (both major Oil Patch activists) oppose the Bank for loans to Green Energy projects like right-wing bête noire Solyndra. As Gregg Sargent explained in the Washington Post this morning, although Chamber of Commerce types want to see the Export-Import Bank reauthorized, "because Tea Party conservatives have made it a litmus test of whether the GOP is on the side of Big Government 'crony capitalism'" and they're threatening to shut down the government again over it. (No, really.)

So Boehner, a Chamber of Commerce shill who has always supported the Bank, says he's leaving the whole thing up to Hensarling now.

“I’m looking forward to the chairman outlining how we’re going to deal with this rather controversial subject, especially in light of some of the employees who were let go, who are accused of kickbacks and other schemes to pad their own pockets,” Boehner said.

Boehner’s comments are significant because when the bank was last reauthorized in 2012, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia struck a deal directly with Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md. Cantor is now on his way out of power after he lost his re-election bid in a primary earlier this month, and his successor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California, signaled over the weekend that he favors allowing the bank’s authorization to expire.

When asked on Fox News Sunday whether he would let the bank’s charter expire, McCarthy answered, “Yes, because it’s something that the private sector can be able to do.”

“One of the biggest problems with government is they go and take hard-earned money so others do things the private sector can do. That’s what the Ex-Im Bank does,” he added.

Members in favor of reauthorizing the program had speculated that in Cantor’s absence, Boehner or McCarthy would be the only ones who could force a bill through against Hensarling’s objections. But Boehner said Tuesday that despite his past votes to continue the Ex-Im Bank, he is staying neutral.

…The day after McCarthy threw cold water on the reauthorization, 41 House Republicans signed on to a letter to McCarthy and Boehner calling for passage of an extension before funding expires at the end of September.

Co-signers ran the gamut, from those who are considered more moderate-- Charlie Dent, R-Pa.; Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla.; and Peter T. King, R-N.Y., for example-- to those who tend vote with the conservative contingent of the House GOP Conference-- Tom Rice, R-S.C., and Joe Wilson, R-S.C.

Others who lent their signatures to the memo include staunch Boehner allies, among them Tom Latham of Iowa, Pat Tiberi of Ohio and Tom Cole of Oklahoma and three retiring committee chairmen, Reps. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California, Mike Rogers of Michigan and Doc Hastings of Washington.

The modest but diverse swath of support for the bank’s reauthorization could create some uneasiness in the months ahead should leadership choose to take away its financial support.

On Monday, members were already expressing surprise and concern that McCarthy, their newly-elected No. 2, would so quickly reject the premise of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, whereas Cantor was at least offering vague assessments of the situation and saying he would continue to defer to Hensarling.

“Obviously he’s reversed his position, which came as a surprise,” Charles Boustany Jr., R-La., told CQ Roll Call. “It does concern me, and I know it concerns a lot of our small business owners around the country who are looking to grow export opportunities.”

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., also said McCarthy’s opposition caught her by surprise, adding that the bank is important to her constituents and district business interests.

“Boeing is in Missouri,” she said of the aircraft manufacturer, “and [the bank] doesn’t cost taxpayers anything, and it helps American companies be competitive and it actually helps a lot of businesses in my district as well.”

Hoyer, the worst of all the House Dems' corporate whores, and his New Dems are pushing reauthorization the hardest. "Congress," he droned, "must take bipartisan action before the Export-Import Bank’s authorization expires so that we can give certainty to businesses and provide important resources to keep American exporters competitive. To do otherwise would greatly hurt our businesses and our economy." Progressives have mixed feelings about the Bank and some may not be stampeded into a pick-a-side partisanship on something that basically subsidizes giant corporations.

UPDATE: Will Any Democrats Stand Up To The Corporatists?

Grayson: "The Export-Import Bank is corporate welfare at its worst… We are extending the full faith and credit of the U.S. government to foreign companies, when we should be extending it to the American middle class instead. When these foreign borrowers go broke one day, as they surely will, our taxpayers will end up on the hook for their debt. And all for the sake of U.S. exports that would have happened anyway."