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
 

Slave Trafficking, TPP & the 2016 Presidential Contest

This could be someone you know and love (source). How aggressively should your presidential candidate work to prevent it?

by Gaius Publius

As many readers know, I'm a fan of what the game of Go calls a "strong move" — very aggressive play when the position is favorable. The position against TPP, the argument against, is beyond favorable, and the position against Malaysia, one of the world's worst participants in the traffic in slaves, is unassailable. In addition, for the 2016 race, progressives have three candidates who have announced their opposition.

In this presidential season, I think progressives have been handed a wonderful opportunity to make a "strong move" against both TPP and slave trafficking — but only if they're willing to take it.

In this piece, I want to look at the slave trade and Malaysia, then at TPP, both pre-vote and post-vote, and last at what a truly committed Democratic candidate might say in one of the coming debates. (To jump to that speech, scroll to the bottom or click here.)

"Human Trafficking" Means the Slave Trade in All Its Forms

The term "human trafficking" is accurate, but almost a white-wash in that it washes off the ears with little penetration of its meaning. Human trafficking is best called "slave trading." What are slaves? Humans used as animals, as things for any purpose, including, but not only:

• Sexual slaves
• Workforce slaves
• Beings kept or deceived so their organs can be harvested

That list is just a subset. Any Jack Reacher–villain method by which a human, including a child, can be kept powerless for the purpose of abuse is encompassed by the term slave trading. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on the ban against exploitation of humans:

Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal, manipulation or implantation of organs;

The "trader" makes his or her money capturing or selling slaves, the way Nestlé, say, makes money "capturing" water from the people of the Pacific Northwest, then selling it back to the people who own it in the first place. Water is a product to profit from. Slaves are a product to profit from. How can we improve the bottom line by improving the "throughput," these profiteers ask?

Imagine your child treated this way, as a profit center and "throughput." Now imagine your anger against it. Now hold that thought as you consider Malaysia and TPP. Malaysia is a nation in which slave trading is a major industry.

In 2014, the State Department Gave Malaysia an "F" for its Extensive Human Trafficking

Back in 2014, before Fast Track and TPP were part of the national discussion, the nation of Malaysia received an "F" from the U.S. State Department (technically, they assigned Malaysia "Tier 3" status) for its extremely lax enforcement of laws against trading in slaves.

The Guardian (my emphasis):

US penalises Malaysia for shameful human trafficking record

Continued failure to curb traffickers prompts US to downgrade Malaysia in its annual Trafficking in Persons report

The US has downgraded Malaysia to the lowest ranking in its annual human trafficking report, relegating the southeast Asian nation to the same category as Zimbabwe, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. The move could result in economic sanctions and loss of development aid.

Malaysia's relegation to tier 3 in the US state department's Trafficking in Persons (TiP) report – published on Friday – indicates that the country has categorically failed to comply with the most basic international requirements to prevent trafficking and protect victims within its borders.

Human rights activists in Malaysia and abroad welcomed the downgrade as proof of the government's lax law enforcement, and lack of political will, in the face of continued NGO and media reports on trafficking and slavery.

"Malaysia is not serious about curbing human trafficking at all," said Aegile Fernandez, director of Tenaganita, a local charity that works directly with trafficking victims.

"The order of the day is profits and corruption. Malaysia protects businesses, employers and agents [not victims] – it is easier to arrest, detain, charge and deport the migrant workers so that you protect employers and businesses."

According to this year's TiP report – which ranks 188 nations according to their willingness and efforts to combat trafficking, and is considered the benchmark index for global anti-trafficking commitments – trafficking victims are thought to comprise the vast majority of Malaysia's estimated 2 million illegal migrant labourers, who are sent to work in the agriculture, construction, sex, textile or domestic labour industries.

Just read the bolded parts again. The government of Malaysia, our TPP partner, is a major participant in the market for slaves. According to our own State Department.

But that was then, before the push to "fast track" trade deals that the most corrupt members of both political parties wanted to give to their richest benefactors. Here's what's happened since.

"Senior Political Staff" in the State Department Recertified Malaysia as Fit for TPP

The State Department issued the above report in 2014. In 2015 Obama and the wealth-serving members of both political parties wanted to pass Fast Track, a law that would make it much more difficult for Congress to reject any "trade" deal, or any deal labeled a trade deal for the next three to six years. One obstacle to passing Fast Track was congressional opposition to the slave trade in Malaysia, one of our TPP "partners."

The pro-TPP forces in and out of government desperately wanted to keep Malaysia in the deal, for a variety of reasons. So "senior political staff" in the State Department conveniently amended the department's 2014 decision.

Reuters (my emphasis):

Special Report: State Department watered down human trafficking report

In the weeks leading up to a critical annual U.S. report on human trafficking that publicly shames the world’s worst offenders, human rights experts at the State Department concluded that trafficking conditions hadn’t improved in Malaysia and Cuba. And in China, they found, things had grown worse.

The State Department’s senior political staff saw it differently — and they prevailed.

A Reuters examination, based on interviews with more than a dozen sources in Washington and foreign capitals, shows that the government office set up to independently grade global efforts to fight human trafficking was repeatedly overruled by senior American diplomats and pressured into inflating assessments of 14 strategically important countries in this year’s Trafficking in Persons report.

In all, analysts in the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons - or J/TIP, as it’s known within the U.S. government — disagreed with U.S. diplomatic bureaus on ratings for 17 countries, the sources said.

The analysts, who are specialists in assessing efforts to combat modern slavery - such as the illegal trade in humans for forced labor or prostitution - won only three of those disputes, the worst ratio in the 15-year history of the unit, according to the sources.

As a result, not only Malaysia, Cuba and China, but countries such as India, Uzbekistan and Mexico, wound up with better grades than the State Department’s human-rights experts wanted to give them, the sources said. (Graphic looking at some of the key decisions here: reut.rs/1gF2Wz5)

Note that the experts in the State Dept. didn't re-evaluate the data. The political forces at State overruled those experts, for reasons you can easily guess. In the case of Malaysia, Reuters says this:

The Malaysian upgrade, which was highly criticized by human rights groups, could smooth the way for an ambitious proposed U.S.-led free-trade deal [TPP] with the Southeast Asian nation and 11 other countries.

Reuters certainly knows how to put two and two together. Will our Democratic political candidates do the same?

Which Presidential Candidate Will Stand Strongest Against TPP & Human Trafficking in Malaysia?

Which brings us to TPP and this political season. One of the big issues for progressives is to elect the most progressive president we can find. Another is to defeat TPP in Congress. A third — have you thought of this? — is to neuter TPP even if it passes Congress and Obama signs it.

After all, TPP is just an "executive agreement." It's not a "treaty" as the Constitution understand the term. It's not ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, but simply signed by the president, often with a concurring vote of Congress. (A Status of Forces Agreement, for example, is "[t]ypically established by executive agreement.") Even our actual treaties, such as the Geneva Convention's prohibition against torture, are often simply ignored. Do we stop fighting a bad deal simply because it was signed? Or do we keep fighting? And what do we expect in that regard from our best candidates?

These three problems — how to elect the most progressive president, how to stop TPP from being passed by Congress, how to prevent TPP from taking effect if it is approved by Congress — come conveniently together in this presidential season, and in particular, in the upcoming. presidential debates.

This is another of my imagined progressive-candidate speeches, laid out as talking points in the candidate's voice. Imagine the horror that millions of human slaves in Malaysia go through every day. Imagine your child as one of them. Then imagine your reaction to a presidential candidate who says this, out loud, in front of millions of TV viewers:

The moderator has asked each of us our views on TPP. Here's what I say to the American people:

• I know that most Americans, including 87% of Republicans, opposed giving Fast Track authority to the president. I know that almost every labor leader in the country is opposed to TPP, knowing that it would do to jobs what NAFTA did to jobs ... and do a whole lot worse besides, such as putting life-saving cancer drug prices out of reach of most people who need them.
   
• Therefore, if TPP passes and I'm elected president, I will:
  
      1. Explore every avenue for "unsigning" — or at the very least, renegotiating — this agreement. Remember, by design this is not a "treaty," but an "executive agreement". Executive agreements, such as agreements to maintain troops in foreign countries, have been changed unilaterally in the past.
  
      2. Make sure that every side agreement that offers protections to labor and the environment is aggressively enforced against all signing countries. I repeat ... aggressively enforced. Every single one of them. If a signing country is forced out of TPP because they violate these side agreements, so be it.
  
      These assurances regarding labor and the environment may have been meant cosmetically in the past, but not under my administration. I repeat, if a nation is forced out of TPP because of labor or environmental violations, they will be gone and I will be glad to see them go. The less force TPP has, the better, in my view and in the view of the American people.
  
      3. Finally — and I take this most seriously — there is strong evidence that the country of Malaysia is a major and deliberate participant in the horrifying practice of human trafficking. I mean horrifying in its most literal sense. Our own State Department, in 2014, certified Malaysia as a participant in the global market for slaves — sexual slaves, workforce slaves, humans who are imprisoned so their organs can be harvested. Men, women, and children.
  
      One source says, about this report, and I'm quoting here: "trafficking victims are thought to comprise the vast majority of Malaysia's estimated 2 million illegal migrant labourers, who are sent to work in the agriculture, construction, sex, textile or domestic labour industries." This is beyond immoral. It is monstrous. And it must be stopped.
  
      The U.S. State Department said as much in a report on human trafficking in June of 2014. Yet in late July of 2015, the State Department reversed itself and removed Malaysia from the list of "Tier 3" human traffickers, the worst offenders.
  
      This allowed Malaysia to remain in the negotiations for TPP. If I am your president, on day one I will order the State Department to immediately review that decision, with an eye to immediately reversing that decision and driving Malaysia from the TPP until it genuinely ... not cosmetically, but genuinely ... changes its laws and cracks down on this most monstrous of practices ... the trafficking in slaves, humans treated like animals, as things to be used.
   
• Further, I challenge every candidate on this stage, most of whom oppose the TPP, to take these same aggressive stands. If we are strongly opposed to TPP and what it will do to jobs and the American economy — and especially if we are opposed to the slave trade in Malaysia — we must opposed it, not just before it passes, but after it passes, if indeed it does pass.

Consider again our three goals:

• Elect the most progressive president we can find.
• Defeat TPP in Congress.
• Prevent it from taking effect if Congress does pass it.

Now imagine someone you love as a victim of human trafficking in Malaysia.

If you are on board with all three goals — and share the revulsion any human would feel toward a business model that treats humans as things — how would you feel about the presidential candidate who gave the speech above?

But there's more to this "strong move." How would our current trading "partners" feel about TPP if they heard this speech given, ahead of the congressional vote?

GP

Did Obama Just Doom Joe Biden's Candidacy?

by Gaius Publius

Recently, in writing about the newly-opened TPP issue — yes, it's about to be finalized, initialed and voted on — I said that three of the four major candidates had known positions. Trump and Sanders are strongly opposed (or so Trump says), and Biden is reportedly in favor. Clinton, the last candidate to declare her position, is going to be forced to make her views known soon, since she has tied her delay to the fact that the final text is unavailable. That's about to change.

In this piece, I want to look at Biden more closely. The evidence I had seen for Biden's TPP support — other than his history as a strongly pro-business "centrist" — is this, from Oliver Knox:

For those wondering (@armandodkos), Biden aide tells me: "The Vice President supports the TPP agreement and will help pass it on the hill."

— Olivier Knox (@OKnox) October 5, 2015

Now, thanks to Dave Johnson at OurFuture.org, we have more. Johnson writes:

Can Biden Run For President With TPP Around His Neck?

Vice President Joe Biden is considering a run for president. But Biden is currently working behind the scenes to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which most (if not all) core Democratic-aligned groups will likely oppose. Can Biden run for president as a Democrat after pushing TPP on us?

While TPP is being negotiated in secret, some parts of it have leaked. This limited information indicates that TPP is another “NAFTA-style” corporate-dominated agreement, designed to elevate corporations above government, limit the ability of citizens to make laws and regulations that protect them from corporate harms and scams, and to force wages down so a few executives and “investors” can pocket the wage differential.

Autos And Parts, For Example

One (only one) example of the “NAFTA-style” damage that TPP might do is a provision that actually weakens the limited protections NAFTA granted to auto and parts manufacturers.

Under NAFTA, auto companies and parts suppliers in countries in the agreement were given a level of tariff-free status through “content requirements.” But, according to leaks, in TPP the U.S. is actually pushing for lowered content requirements for cars and auto parts. (I explained the details in “TPP Terms Are Even Worse For U.S. Than NAFTA?“) This means China can get that business through Japan, which will force layoffs of workers and closures of factories. This is just one example of how TPP is actually even worse for American (and Canadian and Mexican) workers than NAFTA was.

Johnson lists many more examples, then returns to Biden:

Biden Active In Pushing TPP

Biden does not just happen to be in an administration that is pushing TPP; he is working hard to push TPP himself.

For example, Biden met with Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in New York Tuesday to encourage him to help wrap up TPP this week. Japan Times has the story, in “Abe, Biden agree to work together to conclude TPP talks possibly this week“:

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden agreed Tuesday that the two countries will cooperate to conclude talks on a Pacific free trade initiative this week, both governments said.

Biden and Abe agreed that their negotiating teams for the Trans-Pacific Partnership would work closely together “with the goal of resolving the limited number of outstanding issues at the upcoming ministers meeting in Atlanta,” according to the White House.

… A Japanese official who attended the meeting quoted Biden as saying that the 12 countries engaged in TPP talks should strike a deal on this opportunity.

[...]

Can Biden Run As A Democrat After Pushing TPP?

There are some things that a candidate in the Democratic primaries just can’t do. A Democrat can’t be for cutting Social Security or Medicare when “the base” wants candidates who are in favor of expanding it. A Democrat can’t be in favor of cutting taxes for the billionaires and corporations.

A Democrat can’t be in favor of doing things that hurt the environment and increase the threat of climate change, such as building the Keystone Pipeline.

Those are some of the third rails for the kind of Democrats who are active, informed and vote in primaries. But in the next year – assuming TPP is even half as bad for 99 percent of us that leaks have indicated it is – TPP will be the third rail of all third rails. The one thing certain to kill the chances of being nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate is not being out there on the front lines fighting tooth and nail to stop TPP. Because of this, Joe Biden is not a Democrat who can run for president in 2016 and win the nomination.

I think Joe Biden is caught. His boss has tossed a trade "agreement" (remember, it's not a treaty) into the political process at the worst possible time — for everyone but Obama himself. Biden has whipped for Fast Track, actively. Will he whip for or against TPP when it comes up for a vote?

The Timing Is Against the Pro-TPP Candidates

Keep the timing in mind. As soon as Obama initials a final draft and signals his "intent to sign," the legislative clock starts ticking. Obama has 30 days to make the draft public, and Congress has at least 90 days for debate, but not much more, before it can or must vote. Fast Track means that after 90 days, the bill must move expeditiously through the House and Senate. Public Citizen figures that roughly 4½ months after the draft is initialed, we could see a vote.

If a final draft is initialed on November 1, it will be public on December 1. There's a Democratic debate scheduled for December 19 — the Saturday before Christmas — which means everyone on stage will be forced to comment on it in each other's presence. Ninety days from November 1 is February 1 (roughly). The Iowa caucus is February 1, and the New Hampshire primary is February 9.

Obama could delay a congressional vote by delaying the date he declares his "intent to sign." That might help a waffling Democratic candidate, if there is one, until the field is clear — after Super Tuesday, say, when Clinton hopes to deliver a knockout blow to Sanders — but it won't help Joe Biden. Unlike any of the other candidates, he's part of the administration. He'll therefore certainly be asked his opinion on TPP well ahead of a vote. What are his choices? He can say:

• "I like it" and sink himself with Democrats.
• "I don't like it" and sink himself with Obama.
• "I'm not sure" ... and sink himself with Democrats and Obama.

Anything but a full-voiced Yes from Biden could threaten passage of the bill, and this administration, including Obama very very personally, wants TPP to pass badly. I think we can therefore say, based on what we know now, that Biden's presidential bid, if it ever existed, is over. Thanks to his boss, the timing, and thanks to TPP.

I haven't looked at Clinton and TPP very closely, since in the near term she's delaying judgment. Looking back through the decades until roughly a year or so ago, though, I think many of us are well aware of Clinton's fairly obvious support. Still, she could do with TPP what she did with Keystone and gay marriage — find that being wrong on these issues, in this year, is a bridge too far for a 2016 Democrat.

But like Biden, Clinton has the same three choices, and this deserves some thought. Don't consider what her choice might mean relative to Obama. Consider what her choice might mean relative to TPP passing Congress. What if she waffles, and Sanders is still in the race? Does TPP pass while her candidacy fails? What if she's opposed, and the bill has yet to be voted on? Does TPP fail while she stays viable?

I know what I'd like her to do, but that's all I do know. Interesting problem.

GP

The Coming TPP Vote & the Presidential Primary

Hillary Clinton in September 2015 on TPP. That text will soon be released, and Clinton will have a Keystone-like opportunity to improve her standing. Will she take it? (source)

by Gaius Publius

Earlier this year, the pro-corporate neoliberals in the Democratic Party — Obama, Biden, the TPP senators and House members — and their behind-the-scenes enablers — Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi — won the long and drawn out Fast Track vote. For the next three to six years, any bill labeled a "trade deal" will be "fast-tracked" through Congress. No amendments, no delay of the calendar, no filibuster. Just an up-or-down vote, with the hands of Congress hands well tied.

According to The Guardian (and others), the twelve nations involved in TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) negotiations have finally reached agreement. The deal is ready for Obama's intent-to-sign announcement and Congressional approval.

The Guardian reports, in a filled-with-corporate-spin article:

TPP deal: US and 11 other countries reach landmark Pacific trade pact

Trans-Pacific Partnership – the biggest trade deal in a generation – would affect 40% of world economy, but still requires ratification from US Congress and other world lawmakers

Trade ministers from 12 countries announced the largest trade-liberalizing [spin; it's actually trade-managing] pact in a generation on Monday. In a press conference in Atlanta, trade ministers from the US, Australia and Japan called the the Trans-Pacific Partnership an “ambitious” and “challenging” negotiation that will cut red tape [spin] globally and “set the rules for the 21st century for trade” [not spin; it will lock in monopolies for a generation].

The deal – in the works since 2008 – is a major victory for the US president, Barack Obama [not spin]. “This partnership levels the playing field for our farmers, ranchers and manufacturers [spin] by eliminating more than 18,000 taxes that various countries put on our products,” the president said in a statement. “It includes the strongest commitments [lies, if by "commitments" he means things that can be forced to happen] on labor and the environment of any trade agreement in history, and those commitments are enforceable, unlike in past agreements [distancing-from-NAFTA spin].”

While it still faces major hurdles, not least in Congress, the deal could reshape industries and influence everything from the price of cheese to the cost of cancer treatments [not spin; these will all go up]. It is expected to set common standards for 40% of the world’s economy, become a new flashpoint for the 2016 presidential campaign, and could become a legacy-defining agreement for the Obama administration [not spin, but the legacy won't be favorable].

The deal is seen as a challenge to China’s growing dominance in the Pacific region [spin; China will be a shadow participant via corporate subsidiaries in TPP countries like Vietnam]. China had been invited to join the trade group but balked at restrictions that the deal would have placed on its financial sector and other areas. ...

I glossed the text so I wouldn't have to write a kitchen-sink essay about it. Instead, I want to touch briefly on three aspects of this deal, three ways to look at what happens down the road. Keep in mind, this still has to pass Congress.

The Bipartisan Public Is Against It

The first thing to remember is — the public does not support it. Lori Wallach at Public Citizen (pdf):

Polling: As this memo shows, recent polling reveals broad U.S. public opposition to more-of-the-same trade deals among Independents, Republicans and Democrats. While Americans support trade, they do not support an expansion of status quo trade policies, complicating the push for the TPP. Furthermore, recent Pew polls in many of the TPP nations show that, outside Vietnam, the deal does not have strong support.

There's much more in this vein. Just look at the popularity of Donald Trump's statements against TPP among right-wing Republicans. No one but the wealthy and their defenders say nice things about NAFTA. By and large, people get that this is more of that, is worse than that. And when the text is actually released, people will finally get how much worse than NAFTA it is.

Three of Four Major Candidates Have Declared a TPP Position

Second, let's look at what this does to the presidential battle. Donald Trump has tweeted his disdain:

The incompetence of our current administration is beyond comprehension. TPP is a terrible deal.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 5, 2015

Bernie Sanders has been solidly against TPP for a long time.

If we are serious about rebuilding the middle class and creating the millions of good paying jobs we desperately need, we must fundamentally rewrite our trade policies. NO to fast track, and NO to the TPP.

The whole piece from which the above was taken is an excellent bottom-line take-down of TPP.

Joe Biden, not a candidate, quite, is on board defending TPP:

For those wondering (@armandodkos), Biden aide tells me: "The Vice President supports the TPP agreement and will help pass it on the hill."

— Olivier Knox (@OKnox) October 5, 2015

Biden, I think, could kill any hope he has of being taken seriously as a Democratic candidate if he carries through and whips for TPP.

Hillary Clinton's position is unclear (example here). She has said she needs to read the text to evaluate it. At HillaryClinton.com, the only hit for the word "trade" comes on the National Security issues page:

Holding China accountable. As secretary of state, Hillary reasserted America’s role as a Pacific power and called out China’s aggressive actions in the region. As president, she’ll work with friends and allies to promote strong rules of the road and institutions in Asia, and encourage China to be a responsible stakeholder—including on cyberspace, human rights, trade, territorial disputes, and climate change—and hold it accountable if it does not.

The text will soon be released. I'd be surprised if an announcement wasn't forthcoming. It's certainly time for the last major candidatorial shoe to drop. According to this timeline (pdf), "The Fast Track statute requires public posting of a text 30 days after the 90-day notice of intent to sign."

One note about Clinton — If she comes out strong against TPP, and whips against it during the congressional debate, it will likely result in a big win for opponents of TPP and it will boost her credibility as an alternative to Sanders. If you're a Clinton supporter, I'd start lobbying for that today.

The parallel risk for Clinton is also present, and to an almost equal degree. If she seems in favor, it could confirm her opponents' worst fears about her pro-corporate leanings.

The Congressional Battle & After the Congressional Battle

Third, this doesn't end with passage, should that occur. Or at least, it doesn't have to. TPP is an "executive agreement" and not a treaty. About that (my emphasis; links at the source):

An executive agreement[1][2] is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature as treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding. An executive agreement is one of three mechanisms by which the United States enters into binding international agreements. They are considered treaties by some authors as the term is used under international law in that they bind both the United States and a foreign sovereign state. However, they are not considered treaties as the term is used under United States Constitutional law, because the United States Constitution's treaty procedure requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and these agreements are made solely by the President of the United States.

There's a lot in play here. Can an "executive agreement" be abrogated by a later president? Does Congress need to vote on that abrogation? Have any of our previous treaties or "executive agreements" been ignored by past administrations?

I don't have answers to these questions, but I think we do need them. After all, if I were president and I hated TPP as much as I do, I'd unsign it on day one if I could. In fact, if I were a candidate running hard against TPP, one with a real chance to win, I'd consider announcing my opposition to enforcing TPP ahead of time if I discovered that were one of my options.

Just a thought. I get that there are a lot of questions to answer first. I also get that there's plenty of time to answer them.

Is a "What I Will Never Put You Through if I'm President" Speech Starting to Look Attractive?

And a fourth idea, or at least a dream. I wrote about this earlier (scroll to the end of this piece), but this brings it home again. A Sander-like candidate not only tallies accomplishments by doing; she or he also accomplishes by not-doing. This is a case, again, where a different, better president would not even have brought this up. And what a gift that would have been, not having been handed this battle one more time.

Remember the energy and time burned in trying (and failing) to stop Obama and the corporate leadership of the Democratic Party from passing Fast Track? It was exhausting. And here we are again. With that in mind, I would dearly love to listen to a presidential candidate say these words:

If you elect me president, here's what I will never do ...

▪ I will never negotiate a so-called "trade" deal that sends American jobs across our borders. No one will have to spend one minute asking me to stop a deal that hurts American workers. I will support only trade deals that increase American jobs, that create new workers in this country, that increase our balance of payments, and nothing less. ...

A dream perhaps, but a nice one.

GP

Alan Grayson: Why Democratic Voters Stay Home

Jane Wyatt, formerly of Father Knows Best, as Spock's mother Amanda Grayson in the original Star Trek series. Does this mean Spock and Alan Grayson are future relatives? 

by Gaius Publius

Just a short piece on the stay-at-home phenomenon among Democratic voters. Many of us have written about it, including myself, as a rejection of the wealth-serving direction of the mainstream of the party. As someone said to me lately, "If Democrats want my vote, they should give me someone I can vote for."

I was therefore interested to see Alan Grayson's thoughts on the subject. Where does he fall on the implied Bernie Sanders question, about government serving only the wealthy? Read on.

(If you'd like to help make Alan Grayson the next senator from Florida, click here. You can adjust the split in any way you like.)

From the Huffington Post:

Why Is Everyone Angry? I'll Tell You Why

This is a short essay on voter anger -- its origin, its attributes, its meaning and its cure. Hint: Most Americans are worse off than they were a long time ago.

I started noticing voter anger around 2009. Initially, its locus was the Tea Party. They're the ones who would form a circle around a political event, holding hands, and start chanting expletives. I attributed this to the Tea Party's deep dissatisfaction with living in the 21st century. To them, basically, everything went south when Jane Wyatt stopped playing Robert Young's Stepford wife on Father Knows Best, and started playing Spock's mother, Amanda ... Grayson, on Star Trek. (Does that mean that Spock and I are future relatives? I don't know.) For them, things have never been the same since.

Generally speaking, the problem for Team Blue is not anger; it's apathy. However, by roughly the year 2012, Team Blue had caught up in the Anger Games, and the score was tied. 

An excellent start if you think living in "Piketty times" has anything to do with the problem. (Also, please notice the writing. Stylistically, this is very good work. This is not a congressman who can write. Grayson is a writer who's in Congress.)

Then he makes an excellent point about just support for Congress and support for its incumbents (not the same thing). He ties this back to Fast Track:

Politically, we then entered very interesting territory. For many years up to that time, polling had showed that even when Congress had a negative approval rating, most voters wanted to reelect their individual members of Congress. (It's as though Congress had become Garrison Keilor's Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average.) No more. Now polls showed a majority in favor of voting out one's own member of Congress, a matter quite unnerving to one's own member of Congress. Moreover, polls showed that most voters wished that voting booths offered a magic Shakespearean "let's kill all the incumbents" button that would let them throw out all the bums by extending a single digit. (The middle one, I surmise.) And speaking of digits, Congress's approval rating sank into single digits.

Why? Well, the superficial explanation is that voters feel that elected officials simply aren't listening. We had a good example of that a few weeks ago, on the Fast Track bill. A GOP member of Congress confided in me that his calls and emails were running 100-to-1 against Fast Track. In some Democratic offices, the numbers probably were even more one-sided. (Many of the people reading these very words had something to do with that.) Nevertheless, in the Party of the People, 13 Democratic Senators initially voted against proceeding with Fast Track, and then voted for proceeding with Fast Track. So that gutless anti-egalitarian bill slipped past a Senate filibuster with no votes to spare. Then, in the House, 28 Democratic Congressmen broke ranks, passing Fast Track by only four extra votes. (Meaning that if four votes had switched, Fast Track would have been halted in its ... tracks.) From the voters' perspective, that's a very good example of "you're not listening to me!"

The bottom line comes next, in the middle (my emphasis):

But here is the deeper explanation for all of that anger: For most Americans, life simply is getting harder. ... The net worth of the average American household dropped by more than one-third in ten years. The decline from the 2007 peak was almost 50 percent, in just six years. (Most of that loss was in the value of one's home -- home is where the heartache is.)

Pretty straightforward. Also, pretty bipartisan. Almost all voters feel this way. And no wonder — look at what causes this reaction. The numbers are these: "median net worth had dropped by 36 percent, from $87,992 to $56,335."

That's not only painful to look at, it's painful to contemplate. Note that this is net worth (wealth), not income, another reflection of Piketty's analysis, which focuses on wealth inequality, not just income inequality. What this says is that not only are people's present lives more and more a struggle, but that the struggle is likely to continue into retirement. The result, as I see it, is a generation, presently in their fifties, who will retire almost immediately into poverty, and they and their families, their children, get that. More on those numbers later, but they are stark, as stark as the ones in Grayson's essay. There's more data like this in his piece; please do read.

Grayson closes with a plea to his party to get their heads straight on this issue.

[T]o sum it up, people's lives are circling the drain, and nobody's even talking about it, much less doing something about it. That's why everyone is so angry. And I'm hoping against hope that my party, the Democratic Party, wakes up and does something about it.

Speaking for myself, I'll try my best to do something about it. But you knew that already.

Courage,

Rep. Alan Grayson

He focuses on the voters and the party, hoping the second will finally serve the first to a greater degree. He could also have examined causes, because I know that he knows them. For example, money isn't just disappearing in a fog of deflation. It's being taken from the many by the few:

And those who are taking it have far too much influence on the mainstream end of the Democratic party. (Why mainstream "end"? Because despite what they're called, most Democratic leaders, with just a few exceptions, are at the extreme end of where most voters are with respect to income inequality. Catfood and "free trade" Democrats want to increase it, unlike almost all voters.)

How much influence do people like Jamie Dimon have on the party? An Attorney General unenslaved to Wall Street, reporting to an actual populist president, would have put him in jail for the crimes Warren lists in the video above. Dimon gets bonuses for the same behavior instead, and for cutting sweet deals with Obama, Holder and their SEC.

GP

P.S. Seems a good time for a song to lighten the mood. Enjoy.

IT'S OFFICIAL: GRAYSON IS RUNNING FOR THE SENATE


See Howie's post earlier today.

#

TPP-- How Did Venal Corporate Special Interests Turn Their Defeat Into Victory?

Are we that dumbed down as a society that we're going to do it AGAIN?

The catastrophic trade package that Obama and Boehner are so determined to deliver to their Big Business and Wall Street contributors doesn't appear ready to die-- not by a longshot. While progressives were celebrating how they had beaten them back last week, the Dark Forces regrouped and came back, with a vengeance. Thursday the House voted 286-138 to pass the TAA (H.R. 1295), a piece of the package that had to be resolved with the Senate's version. At least the Republicans backed away from their mean-spirited and ugly demand that the money for retraining displaced workers by stolen from Medicare. That allowed many Democrats to rally around Boehner and pretend that everything was wonderful with at least this part of the TPP package.

It looks like the Hastert Rule is as dead and buried as the former Speaker's good name. Although 111 Republicans voted YES, most Republicans voted NO. Steve Knight (CA-25), for example, was perfectly happy to vote for the bill when it included $700 million in cuts to Medicare, but he turned his nose up to the bill without the Medicare cuts-- he and 131 other Republicans. Meanwhile 175 Democrats followed Pelosi into a state of delusion and voted YES. Only 6 Democrats voted NO, including staunch progressives Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Matt Cartwright (D-PA) and Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).

I wondered why they decided to buck the party and oppose a fait accompli. I called half a dozen progressive Members to try to get an idea why progressives were on both sides of the issue. Matt Cartwright could not have been blunter and more forthcoming. "It was my way of saying," he told me after the vote, "I want no part of any of this trade package. And the TAA part is completely inadequate."

Another progressive-- a YES vote on this, which surprised me-- asked to stay off the record if I wanted the inside scoop. I agreed to the terms. "Labor didn't fight this bill and the bill was a priority for the black caucus because TAA was merged into the Africa trade preferences bill. Also Leader Pelosi said she was voting for it."

Sounds like weak tea to me. "And Pelosi was voting for it?" Well, did anyone ever believe this wasn't her plan all along? She's no dummy, and she's defined her job from the day Obama was elected as the House strategist to move his program through Congress-- even the truly awful pieces, like the TPP.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) waved the white flag on Wednesday, telling her caucus she would support passage of a key measure tethered to President Barack Obama's broader trade agenda. Her support all but guarantees that the measure will succeed, thereby handing Obama a major victory on trade.

Pelosi and House Democrats were the last obstacle against Republican and pro-trade Democrats' efforts to grant Obama so-called "fast-track" authority to clear major trade deals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, through Congress with ease.

House Democrats succeeded in blocking fast-track nearly two weeks ago when they defeated Trade Adjustment Assistance, which was tied to the fast-track legislation. TAA provides aid to workers who have lost their jobs as a result of trade deals.

In response to the defeat of TAA, Obama and Republican leaders crafted a new plan to pass fast-track, also known as Trade Promotion Authority, as a standalone bill without TAA. The clean fast-track bill, already passed by the House, is expected to sail through the Senate later Wednesday and then on to Obama's desk.

Next, the Senate will immediately move to pass TAA for workers, which is now attached to an African trade preferences bill, after which it will be sent back to the House. And with Pelosi's support, TAA should have the votes for passage.

"I’m disappointed that the TAA bill isn’t nearly as robust as it should be in light of a trade agreement that encompasses 40 percent of the global economy," Pelosi wrote in a Dear Colleague letter to House Democrats. "While we may not all vote in the same manner on TAA, I will support its passage because it can open the door to a full debate on TPP."

The Fast Track Battle Is Not the TPP War

"This is your captain speaking..."

by Gaius Publius

It would be easy to be deflated after the recent loss of the Fast Track battle. Our 2008 Democratic hero and Corporatist in Chief has managed to shove a Fast Track bill down congressional throats — which were, I must say, mainly eager recipients.

But the battle is not the war, as explained above, and it's always true that if you fail to fight to the end, you will always lose. On the other hand, this is what sometimes happens when you do play hard to the end:

Auburn returned a missed field goal 100 yards on the last play of the game to upset number one Alabama 34-28 in the 2013 Iron Bowl.

There's no way they win if the Auburn players are checked out during that field goal attempt.

Meteor Blades, keeper of the progressive flame at Daily Kos these days, has this to say (my emphasis throughout):

Some progressives threw up their hands Tuesday after the Senate voted for closing debate on fast-track trade legislation. It's all over, they said: The nearly completed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is certain to pass now.

Not so fast.

Although the Senate will undoubtedly approve fast-track legislation today—the trade promotion authority bill only needs 51 votes—the despair and talk of surrender on the TPP shouldn't be on anyone's agenda. Certainly, it's true that blocking that agreement will be exceedingly tough. But it is by no means impossible.

As evidence, he quotes George Zornick in The Nation, who lists a number of reasons to be optimistic that TPP could fail, especially in the House. Here's the schedule and the possibilities:

Sometime in the late summer or early fall, the Obama administration will finally release the full TPP text, after the president signs it. After 90 days, Congress can vote on it.

Without question, fast track makes the TPP much more likely to pass. No amendments can gum up the process or chase off support, and we already can easily see there are 50 votes in the Senate based on the fast-track votes. But the House remains no sure thing for the TPP. Fast track twice passed by only two votes.

When the TPP actually comes out, there will be some really ugly details that are likely to enrage liberals and solidify opposition among Democrats. For months the White House has been dodging some criticisms of the TPP by stressing that the text isn’t final, but that will no longer be an option.

The unknown details of the TPP, incidentally, are what Hillary Clinton cites for not yet having an official position on the trade deal. If the Democrat base gets truly riled up when the details do come out, she may end up opposing the deal. This would give cover for every congressional Democrat to do the same.

Members of the House will also be in the thick of their reelection campaign this fall, and increased progressive activism and actual primary challengers will no doubt make a TPP vote even harder. ...

Again, there's more at the link.

At the risk of overdoing the sports metaphors, the only way to win is to play. And the only way to play is — block to the whistle; tackle to the ground; play to the end of the game. This game is not over.

GP


AMAZING BUT TRUE: The Supreme Court looks into the
Constitution and finds some rights for people who aren't rich

I'll be poking around today's decision at 3pm PT/6pm ET. -- Ken

Tales From California's Central Valley-- A Bipartisan Means Of Holding TPP Backers Accountable

Ever been to Turlock, Jeff Denham's hometown

Tuesday the Blue America accountability truck rolled into Modesto, the big city in Jeff Denham's Central Valley district (CA-10). Denham is one of the most vulnerable congressional Republicans, not just in California, but anywhere in the country-- and Modesto is the biggest city in the district. Obama won Modesto both times he ran. In fact, Obama won CA-10 both times, holding McCain to 48% in 2008 and Romney to 47% four years later. CA-16 is much bluer and Obama beat McCain 58-40% and then beat Romney 59-39%. Republican-voting Jim Costa is hated by local Democrats and independents and he came within inches of losing his seat in 2014, beating his GOP opponent by just a few votes after a bitterly contested recount. Having come from visits along to 99 Highway to Merced, Atwater and Livingston, the truck spent a few hours in Turlock, Denham's hometown, before heading up to Modesto. Today, he's heading down to Fresno, the center of Costa's domain.

Greg, our driver, stunned by the unprecedented attention the billboards on either side of the truck were making on people, decided to stop by the Modesto Bee and invite the reporters to take some pictures of the truck. We immediately got a response from one of the paper's top reporters, Nan Austin: "The Blue America Pac has a sign truck traveling our area criticizing Costa and Denham for voting yes on the trade bill. But the big message says they 'just voted to cut your mom's Medicare by $700 million to finance a trade agenda that sends your job to China.' The only Medicare provision I see was cut from the final bill-- what am I missing? Any comments would be welcome."

Luckily, Gaius was able to answer her questions about Costa's and Denham's votes on the complicated package of bills that made up the TPP and shed did a more than reasonable job writing it up. Take a look; it's worth the read. It's important to remember that on June 12, both conservative congressmen voted FOR giving Obama Fast Track authority to negotiate the TPP treaty without any interference from Congress. You can see their votes here. The provision that cuts Medicare by $700 million had been sent over to the House from the Senate, where it had already passed, as part of a "final deal" that could not be changed. It appeared when Denham and Costa voted that it was a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. You want the TPP... then the Medicare cuts were something you had to swallow. Although stealing $700 million from Medicare was something the Republicans were excited by, it was so unpopular among Democrats that only a small handful of the worst Blue Dogs (like Costa) and New Dems voted with the GOP and the Medicare provision was eventually cut from the final bill-- although Denham had no idea it would be cut. Costa didn't care one way or the other and he even voted Yes to the cuts explicitly in a separate vote, although Denham knew what awaited him if he stuck with the GOP on that one... and he didn't. It didn't matter. But bottom line is, any vote for Fast Track in the House before the House leaders (basically, just Boehner and McCarthy) split the vote was a vote to move the Senate package-- with the Medicare cuts-- over the finish line. The vote referenced above-- which both Costa and Denham backed and voted for-- was Boehner's attempt to see if they could pass the whole Senate package. Since the bills hadn't been split in reality (only temporarily by a leadership-backed Rule), any Yes was a yes to get the Senate combo package that included the $700 million in Medicare cuts to Obama's desk intact. It wasn't until 6 days later, on June 18, that there was a real split of the bills and therefor possible to back the TPP without voting for Medicare cuts. It didn't matter to Costa one way or the other, but Denham knows his district well enough to have been looking for cover. But both were already on the record-- in the Congressional Record-- for having voted for the package.

Remember, the only real bill before the House until June 18 was the combined Senate bill with Medicare cuts in it. Costa and Denham supported it and worked for its passage. Any attempt to move that, in whole or in parts, to Obama's desk was an attempt to pass those dreadful cuts. It wasn't until the 18th, a week later, that the two bills, TAA and TPA, were formally split apart. Prior to that, a vote for any part of the Senate package bill was a vote to advance the whole package (with those inconvenient Medicare cuts the GOP forced into the legislation but don't want to take "credit" for).

By the way, the truck was paid for by contributions to the Blue America PAC. Feel free to contribute whatever you'd like-- and we'll keep the truck on the road longer-- or make one for backstabbing New Dems Ami Bera (CA) or Kathleen Rice (NY).

Senate Defeats Fast Track Filibuster; Final Passage Almost Certain

"Yes We Can pass a corporate-written 'trade' agreement. My congressional brothers and sisters, with your help ... yes we can."

by Gaius Publius

By a narrow vote (but not as narrow as it looked), the Senate passed a standalone Fast Track bill 60–37. As explained by the floor leaders, three senators had trouble getting to the floor, but their votes were known and announced, so there were no undecideds.

Five Republicans voted to uphold the filibuster for reasons that can be examined later:

• Susan Collins (R-ME)
• Ted Cruz (R-TX)
• Rand Paul (R-KY)
• Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
• Richard Shelby (R-AL)

On the Democratic side, because three senators didn't show up to vote, the pro-TPP forces needed 13 Democrats to join with Republicans to defeat the filibuster. And surprise — 13 Democrats showed up:

• Michael Bennet (D-CO)
• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
• Tom Carper (D-DE)
• Chris Coons (D-DE)
• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
• Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
• Tim Kaine (D-VA)
• Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
• Patty Murray (D-WA)
• Bill Nelson (D-FL)
• Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
• Mark Warner (D-VA)
• Ron Wyden (D-OR)

There's actually a 14th pro-TPP Democrat who was too afraid to vote until the 60th vote was cast:

•  Ben Cardin (MD)

 Huff Post explains:

Senate Gives Obama Huge Win On Trade

... Still, the razor-thin margin of the final vote count masks the fact that McConnell had slightly broader support at his disposal. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) stood by the table in the well of the Senate for most of the vote, waiting for the measure to get across the threshold of 60. As soon as it did, with a vote by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Cardin voted no, suggesting he had been willing to vote yes if needed.

Ben Cardin voted Yes on Fast Track on May 22, once the filibuster was broken, a vote that helped send the Fast Track–and–Trade Assistance bill to the House. So Cardin's preferences are clear. He's a quiet Yes — he just doesn't want people to know that if he can help it. If you care, Cardin's up for reelection in 2018.

After the vote, McConnell announced that of the three absent senators, Corker, a Republican, was a Yes. Sherrod Brown then announced that the other two absent senators, Lee (R-UT) and Menendez (D-NJ), were both No votes.

With Cardin, Lee and Menendez factored in, the actual count would have been a still-tight 61–39. Two more Republican defections would have swung it the other way, but I strongly suspect there was an additional very quiet (but obvious if you think about it) Democratic Yes vote in the wings, if it was needed.

So the list of Democratic perps is the 13 above plus Ben Cardin. Perhaps they'll hold a reunion on some K Street–financed yacht once they're all turned out of office. They'll probably have the cash for it. They won't have Obama-money — he'll have surpassed Bill Clinton in parting gifts by that point — but K Street is not known for its poor people either.

GP

Help Us Hold Congressional TPP Supporters Accountable Inside Their Own Districts

Welcome to Modesto

The first Blue America truck of 2015 is on the road. Our driver is using the Golden State Highway (Route 99) as the backbone of a trip up and down two Central Valley districts-- CA-10, represented by Republican Jeff Denham, and CA-16, represented by Blue Dog Jim Costa. He drives up and down the 99 from the Fresno-Yosemite Airport in Costa's district to Manteca in Denham's district, stopping in every big and medium-sized town in between: Fresno itself, of course, plus Madera, Chowchilla, Merced, Delhi, Turlock, Ceres, Bystrom, Modesto, Salida and Manteca.

The truck, pictured above and below, as it arrived on Sunday night, has the same message for voters in both districts-- on one side "Congressman Jim Costa just voted to cut your mom's Medicare by $700 million to finance a trade agenda that sends your job to China," on the other side "Congressman Jeff Denham just voted to cut your mom's Medicare by $700 million to finance a trade agenda that sends your job to China." Pretty incendiary, but it's exactly what the two conservatives did in the TPP votes.

We'd like to keep the truck visiting every nook and cranny in the two districts all summer. And we'd like to send more trucks to more districts all over the country. We need help from like-minded progressives if we're going to pull that off. Our Independent Expenditure Committee ActBlue page uses all the contributions that come in for activities like the truck. Anything you feel like donating would be greatly appreciated-- and well-used.

Denham and Costa both deserve to lose their seats for betraying the working families of the hard-pressed Central Valley. I think running these two out of the House would send a powerful message to other Members who talk out of both sides of their mouths. It's great seeing labor unions spending money on advertising against reactionary New Dems Ami Bera (Sacramento suburbs) and Kathleen Rice (Nassau County, NY), and we want to expand the accountability to make our elected representatives think twice about stabbing their own constituents in the back every time Wall Street and Big Business wiggle a couple of dollars under their noses. If we don't do it, who will? Please contribute here or, if you'd rather, send a check or money order to Blue America, P.O. Box 27201, Los Angeles, CA 90027.

UPDATE: Blue America Truck Brings Some Excitement To Modesto

Greg, the Blue America driver, had a very full day today, visiting Merced, Atwater, Livingston, Turlock, Modesto and Salida. "I drove right up to Congressman Denham's office and took my first pic of the day," he wrote this morning. "When I got to Modesto, I stopped in front of the newspaper building and took a photo there. I went upstairs to the reporters section and told them to look outside their window. When they did, they grabbed their cameras and came out to photograph the truck.... I've never gotten so much attention to the ad before. Everyone is pissed about this TPP issue."

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