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

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

by Gaius Publius

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

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

The U.S. Regulatory State

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

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

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

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

"Chevron Deference" and Executive Branch Regulations

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

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

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

The 1935 Schechter Poultry Decision and the "Nondelegation Doctrine"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

Neil Gorsuch and the Chevron Decision

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

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

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

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

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

The Court's Bipartisan Deference to Big Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider these two factors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GP
 

This Valentine's Day, Why Not Send Your Favorite Republican "The Gift Of Lard"?

by Noah

American citizens have always been a generous people. Back when Nixon was president, American citizens began sending their president a record number of gifts -- so many, in fact, that a whole department had to be created just to deal with the ever-growing quantity of gifts sent to the White House.

Back in the day, a staffer of a New York senator informed me that all members of Congress got presents from the public. but no one could begin to touch what Nixon got. Nor would you want to touch those gifts. We're not talking about the bribes that euphemistically go by the name "campaign contributions," and we're not talking about the nastier, more recent life-threatening envelopes of mysterious white powder -- i.e., anthrax. No, back in those times Americans sent Nixon tokens of their appreciation which often included a dead fish in a well-sealed padded envelope (a personal favorite of mine), a roadkill possum in a box, excrement of an indeterminate nature -- you get the drift.

There wasn't a lot of ingenuity in the selection of gifts, but wow, when some White House staff member unsealed that package in the basement, especially on a sweltering humid 96-degree Washington day, I have no doubt that Nixon could smell it all the way up in the Oval Office. Did the staff member deserve that? Debatable. But they did work for Nixon of their own free will, so . . . . Did Nixon deserve it? Absolutely!

So it was with great interest that I recently heard that the sending of thoughtful gifts to politicians has been on the rise. Sadly, during the Obama years the White House received a steady diet of watermelons and stuffed-monkey toys from republicans. Racist postcards were also especially big. What else would one expect of republicans?

By the way, the watermelons were wasted food, since there was no way to be sure that they had not been injected with something bad (or, maybe, good!) Maybe the uneaten watermelons just went to target ranges or maybe they went to Gallagher as he perfected his comedy/performance-art act.



So, you may be asking, what inspired me to write about this subject right now? Well, Valentines Day is coming and it turns out that a Republican state senator in North Carolina, Sen. Joyce Krawiec, has given me an inspiration as to what will make a suitable Valentines Day gift to that special Republican in your life. Like most Republicans, not just Putin's favorite president and his mob of White House misogenysts, Senator Krawiec (or Krazi-ec, as I think of her) had a huge problem with all of those damn uppity women marching in the streets all over the world to protest the twisted presidency of Donald Jackass Trump last Saturday.

Kraziec is your typical far-right loon, a mindless acolyte of recently deposed fascist Gov. Pat McCrory. She does the usual classic anti-Obamacare, anti-regulations whining and supports any and all LGBTQ discriminations available -- that kind of thing. She's apparently made a career of playing a kind of sociopathic country Squeaky Fromme to McCrory's psychopathic Charlie Manson.

Kraziec also possesses Trumpinsky's sociopathic weaponized tweeting skills. The Monday morning after the march, Krawiec just couldn't stop herself. She had a very bad case of the Mondays indeed. Sounding like Granny from The Beverly Hillbillies and sporting a spiffy 1980s hairdo, she tweeted out her message to the world:

Damn, lady! You've violated the first rule of insult tweets: Never use organic matter as an insult. It will come back to haunt you! And so it has! By Thursday morning at least 10 boxes of nice ripe, reeking lard had been delivered to Senator Kraziec's office in Raleigh, NC. I hope she has a mighty bigly skillet!

According to various social-media statements from people who took part in the marches, the senator, who I hereby declare shall now and forever be known as "Senator Lard," or "The Lard Queen," or "The Princess of Lard," or -- my choice -- "The Lard Princess" -- should be expecting a lot more "political contributions," including overnight packages. One Winston-Salem resident, Chloe Mylet, who attended the Women's March in Washington, DC, sent The Lard Princess a lovely four-pound tub o' lard like the one picture at the top of this post! Nothing says love like lard!

But wait, there's more! The glorious Ms. Mylet has set up a "Go Fund Me" page in order to help her fellow rightly aggrieved citizens also send The Lard Princess a gift of lard. You can just click on the link if you'd like to help out, or you might want to consider doing the same for that republican politician who works so hard to make your life more difficult.

To date, several Amazon users have commented on different lard products they've purchased for The Lard Princess. One customer, going by the name of ZimZimZimmer, wrote: "I just sent four pounds to Krawiec's Senate Office in Raleigh and couldn't be more delighted with my purchase! Highly recommend!!!!"


I HOPE THIS STARTS A MAJOR TREND.
OH LORD, PLEASE HEAR MY PRAYER!

God, I hope this starts a major trend. Lord, please hear my prayer! One can hope that The Lard Princess will end up sending the lard to a food shelter, but that would be a very un-republican thing to do. Although I can see The Lard Princess herself doing this and including a little note that reads, "Let them eat lard."

Some birds like lard too, and it is winter and food can be in short supply for our wildlife, so maybe The Lard Princess can fill her back-yard swimming pool with lard and see who or what shows up. I bet bears like lard! Shouldn't every republican have a backyard full of marauding bears?

Lard is the perfect gift for any Republican. Come on, just do it! Just say yes! Let's make it the Pet Rock of 2017 for Republicans! You know you always want to give someone a gift that matches their essence. Mitch McConnell? Lard! Mike Pence? Lard! Karl Rove? Lard! Steve Bannon? Lard! Rush Limbaugh? Oh yeah, definitely lard! Chris Christie? Come on, do I have to say it?

[Click to enlarge, if you dare.]

Anyway, giving the gift of lard is definitely an idea whose time has come. I mean, just look at Trump! Tell me that lard isn't one of the first words that pops in your mind. Go ahead! Look at that fat orange slit-eyed pigface. It screams lard! Why not include the new president on your gift list for this Valentine's Day? And lard is much easier and safer to send than what he'd really want. Liquids, golden or otherwise, just don't travel well.

#

Republican Of The Year Nominee #2: R-R-Reince Priebus

America Off The Rails, Part 4



by Noah

Back in 2011, the Republican Party, horrified that Barack Obama had integrated the White House two years previously, was looking for a man, the right man, who could properly audition the leading points of light in the party, with the idea of finding the perfect leader that could retake the White House and lead the party in its decades-long dream of fascism for America.

As it turned out, the man they chose to direct the auditions made a mistake in auditioning and choosing Mittens Romney for 2012, but this year, in 2016, he struck nazi gold with Herr Trumpf.

How hard it can be to find just the right fellow for a job!

But where the hell did Reince Priebus come from? Here, from the secret tapes of a 2011 phone conversation between a top Hollywood agent and a shadowy, still-unidentified republican official, is how it went down:

HOLLYWOOD CENTRAL CASTING INC. GUY: Hello, Central Casting here. Who's this?
DISGUISED VOICE: RNC.
HCC GUY: RNC who?
DISGUISED VOICE: The Republican National Committee.
HCC GUY: Seriously? You freaks are calling Hollywood? Well, what can we do for ya, republican dude?
DISGUISED VOICE: We need a guy.
HCC GUY: Yeah, you and lots of people. But I thought you wackos don't go in for that sort of thing.
DISGUISED VOICE: No, we sure don't, at least not openly. Our voters don't go for that. They're more farm-oriented and [unintelligible].
HCC GUY: Well, what's the role for this guy you're looking for?
DISGUISED VOICE: We need a party chairman. A guy who can find us a candidate who perfectly represents who and what we are.

Too smart for the GOP faithful?

HCC GUY: I thought you had one. That African-American gent, Steele, Michael Steele.
DISGUISED VOICE: Steele? Hell no. That was a mistake. He only got the job because a bunch of the guys thought they'd pretend to not be racist and go off and be the one guy to vote for the negro. Next thing you know, the votes are counted and we're stuck. We tried to make the best of it, but there was no way the party at large was going to accept that! The vote was paper ballot, so we couldn't even hack it. Besides, Steele was too damn smart. He had to go.
HCC GUY: Hey, just sayin' you guys could use some smarts. You shoulda kept him.
DISGUISED VOICE: Heck no. Smart doesn't work with our voters. We need someone that can sound like them, someone they're comfortable with, you know. Steele just didn't fit the profile, if you get what I'm saying.
HCC GUY: OK. So what's the profile you want?
DISGUISED VOICE: We need a guy who could be spineless but not overly so. Shameless is good -- no, er, great. Yeah, he needs to be incapable of shame. That's a party attribute! Shameless, oh, and kind of like the guy who looks good in a snappy black leather uniform, holding a riding crop. Northern Euro type. Can you see it? Soulless, too. Someone who can look vaguely threatening, but not too much. A uniform-makes-the-man kind of guy, not the other way around. Take his power and uniform away and he's a quivering mass of fetid ectoplasm. We need the type that, after all is said and done, can be controlled. Gotta be capable of great evil, though. Someone who enjoys hurting people. That's our thing. That's who we are.

HCC GUY: Well, we've got Werner Klemperer. He played Colonel Klink back in the ‘60s on Hogan's Heroes. Someone like him?
DISGUISED VOICE: No, that's too disrespectful of what we're all about. I'm thinking more like the black-hat, black-leather-coat guy in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Someone who really knows branding, and really knows how to burn the bar down, if you catch my drift. Fear and hatred of women is good, too.

And that, folks, is how Reince Priebus became chairman of the Republican National Committee. (OK, maybe not, but when in falling Rome, do as the Romans.) The agent had them at the name alone; the way he rolled the ‘R'. R-R-Reince! R-R-Reince! R-R-Reince! A name you can goose-step to just like it's Riverdance -- a Rhineland Riverdance!

"It is exciting that Republicans will have such a large bench of candidates to choose from, and the sanctioned debate process ensures voters will have a chance to hear from them."

So said R-R-Reince as the 2016 primary debate season began. Now, with the help of Vladimir Putin and a massive program of voter suppression, R-R-Reince has his man. R-R-Reince Priebus is now basking in the glow of a dream of republican fascism coming to dominance under his fascist orange messiah.

LET'S TAKE A FURTHER LOOK

R-R-Reince is a fellow with the Right connections.

R-R-Reince hails from New Jersey originally, but it was Wisconsin, aka the Argentina of America, where he made a name for himself, as chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin (RPW). With its large population of people of German and Scandanavian heritage, you might say that Wisconsin was a natural fit for Reince.

Reince's full given name is Rheinhold Richard Priebus, not that there's anything wrong with that per se. Say it fast four or five times and I guarantee it'll come out as Reich Priebus. We might say that either way the name made him a natural fit for his life's work. While acting as der chairman of the RPW, Priebus became known as a kingmaker for his support of such tyrants as Gov. Scott "Not Every Citizen Gets to Vote" Walker and U.S. House Speaker Paul "Crazy Eyes" Ryan. He also gets credit for melding the Wisconsin Tea Party with the state Republican Party. Because of those successes, he fittingly moved on to be chairman of the entire Republican Party and is now about to be Herr Trump's White House chief of staff.

R-R-Reince has more than lived up to the qualification of being soulless. He was personally involved in sabotaging efforts by anti-Trumpf convention delegates to prevent Herr Trumpf's nomination. Additionally, after publicly disagreeing with Herr Trumpf on his attacks against a Gold Star family whose son was a true patriot by the name of Captain Humayun Khan and Trumpf's plans to ban all Muslims, he was willing to laugh it all aside and clear all paths to victory. When you look at Priebus, you see a man that has no principle that isn't for sale in the name of his party. Yes, he is the perfect chairman for the RNC.

All of this, of course, assumes that his stated principles are really his principles at all. But at this point how would anyone know? In the end, he defends Herr Trumpf by saying:

"You know, I think everyone's a role model in different ways. When you look at someone who has built businesses, lost businesses, came back, lived the American dream, a person who sets goals, he's a winner."

Yes. I guess if you're a soulless cretin like R-R-Reince, a man who grabs women by their genitals can be quite a role model. Same for a man who likes to barge in on the dressing rooms of young models because he "can get away with it." And same for a man who tells his casino security to remove a man of color from the floor of his casino for no reason other than that the mere presence of that man of color is "offensive." This, folks, is how we ended up with Reince's boy Trumpf due to take office on January 20. To Reince, it's all about him winning, and to hell with anything that smacks of moral principle, to hell with America, and to hell with civilization.

R-R-REINCE'S CHRISTMAS SURPRISE

So, R-R-Reince orchestrated a chaotic primary season that gave us Trumpf and all of the human misery that will come. Then, just a few days ago, he and his communications director, Sean Spicer, who will soon be Herr Trumpf's press secretary, did this: They sent out the following absolutely insane, out-of-control tweet, which makes the republican view of Herr Trumpf plain for all to see:

"Merry Christmas to all! Over two millennia ago, a new hope was born into the world, a Savior who would offer the promise of salvation to all mankind. Just as the three wise men did on that night, this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King. We hope Americans celebrating Christmas today will enjoy a day of festivities and a renewed closeness with family and friends."

Obviously, the key sentiment to republicans here is the line --

"this Christmas heralds a time to celebrate the good news of a new King."

Note the use of the word "this." The reality is that every Christmas Christians celebrate the arrival of Christ the King. But to republicans, this year is extra-special. There's a new King in town, an orange-haired fascist messiah, and R-R-Reince wanted to point out that additional reason to celebrate: the arrival of a new King.

For unto us a King is, er, elected?

Dear repugs, we do not elect kings in this country. Sure, those Americans who opposed the Revolutionary War wanted a king, a really crazy one at that, but not those Americans who fought that war against people much like you. Patriotic Americans called the king-lovers Tories. And that is what you are, Tories. Maybe it's time you left. You could go to England, I suppose, but from what we're seeing and hearing lately, you would probably like Russia more. At least you think you would. So go, just go! Go now!  We don't need or want your stinking fascism. We weren't created on those principles.

Way to go, R-R-Reince. You've made a great case for Republican of the Year. Are you sure your real name isn't Reich Priebus III?

2016 IN REVIEW: AMERICA OFF THE RAILS

Here it is, Noah's completed Year in Review for 2016:

Part 1, "Profiles in Cowardice: The Electoral College" (12/23/2016)
Part 2, "Republican Of The Year Nominee #1: Newt Gingrich" (12/27/2016)
Part 3, "The Trumpf Inauguration Committee Finds The Perfect Inauguration Entertainment At Last!" (12/29/2016)
Part 4, "Republican Of The Year Nominee #2: R-R-Reince Priebus" (1/2/2017)
Part 5, "Comrade Trump: The World’s Worst Cabinet Maker, Believe Me -- Meet The New Russian Oligarchs! (1)" (1/4/2017)
Part 6, "Comrade Trump: The World’s Worst Cabinet Maker, Believe Me -- Meet The New Russian Oligarchs! (2)" (1/5/2017)
Part 7, "Republican Of The Year Nominee #3: Governors' Edition" (1/9/2017)
Part 8, "Trump -- The Art And Acts Of The Emboldened: The Rise In Hate Crimes Under The Influence Of Comrade T" (1/10/2017)
Part 9, "Republican Of The Year Nominee #4: It's A Sad Thing When Cousins Marry Edition" (1/11/2017)
Part 10, "Republican Person Of The Year Nominee #5 -- And Winner!" (1/12/2017)
Part 11, "Comrade Trump: Inauguration Entertainment Update!" (1/15/2017)
Part 12, "A DWT Exclusive: We Have The First Draft Of Comrade Trump's Inauguration Speech!" (1/16/2017)

#

Are the Parties Losing the People?

Bernie Sanders speaks to the Democratic Party's natural constituency at the Moda Center in Portland, Oregon. Will the Party serve these people, or ask them to serve the Party?

by Gaius Publius

Note: This is not about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It's about change and the status quo.

I want to take a preliminary look at a larger topic than just this election, a topic I'll return to at length after the election. This first look will lean on Matt Taibbi's recent take on the apparently crashing Trump campaign. In a longer piece, I'll add more of my own analysis.

"People represented by literally no one"

Taibbi hits the nail on the head, I think, or rather, both nails, one for each of our major political parties. His overarching metaphor is this — a ruling class that's inbred, played out, self-satisfied, out-of-touch and therefore ripe for a fall. Think for example, as Taibbi reminds us, of the Romanovs, floating in an effete world of fortune-telling and mysticism as Russian soldiers starved and died on the World War I eastern front. Out of touch aristocrats, ripe for a fall.

Here's Taibbi, from the middle of the piece, making that metaphorical point (my emphases):

Trump's early rampage through the Republican field made literary sense. It was classic farce. He was the lewd, unwelcome guest who horrified priggish, decent society, a theme that has mesmerized audiences for centuries, from Vanity Fair to The Government Inspector to (closer to home) Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. When you let a hands-y, drunken slob loose at an aristocrats' ball, the satirical power of the story comes from the aristocrats deserving what comes next. And nothing has ever deserved a comeuppance quite like the American presidential electoral process, which had become as exclusive and cut off from the people as a tsarist shooting party.

The first symptom of a degraded aristocracy is a lack of capable candidates for the throne. After years of indulgence, ruling families become frail, inbred and isolated, with no one but mystics, impotents and children to put forward as kings. Think of Nikolai Romanov reading fortunes as his troops starved at the front. Weak princes lead to popular uprisings....

Which lets him pivot perfectly to this:

... Which brings us to this year's Republican field. ...

There wasn't one capable or inspiring person in the infamous "Clown Car" lineup. All 16 of the non-Trump entrants were dunces, religious zealots, wimps or tyrants, all equally out of touch with voters. Scott Walker was a lipless sadist who in centuries past would have worn a leather jerkin and thrown dogs off the castle walls for recreation. Marco Rubio was the young rake with debts. Jeb Bush was the last offering in a fast-diminishing hereditary line. Ted Cruz was the Zodiac Killer. And so on.

The party spent 50 years preaching rich people bromides like "trickle-down economics" and "picking yourself up by your bootstraps" as solutions to the growing alienation and financial privation of the ordinary voter. In place of jobs, exported overseas by the millions by their financial backers, Republicans glibly offered the flag, Jesus and Willie Horton.

In recent years it all went stale. They started to run out of lines to sell the public. Things got so desperate that during the Tea Party phase, some GOP candidates began dabbling in the truth. They told voters that all Washington politicians, including their own leaders, had abandoned them and become whores for special interests. It was a slapstick routine: Throw us bums out!

Republican voters ate it up and spent the whole of last primary season howling for blood as Trump shredded one party-approved hack after another. By the time the other 16 candidates finished their mass-suicide-squad routine, a tail-chasing, sewer-mouthed septuagenarian New Yorker was accepting the nomination of the Family Values Party.

Taibbi's opening paragraph make this Republican-themed point as well:

The Fury and Failure of Donald Trump

Win, lose or drop out, the Republican nominee has laid waste to the American political system. On the trail for the last gasp of the ugliest campaign in our nation's history

Saturday, early October, at a fairground 40 minutes southwest of Milwaukee. The very name of this place, Elkhorn, conjures images of past massacres on now-silent fields across our blood-soaked history. Nobody will die here; this is not Wounded Knee, but it is the end of an era. The modern Republican Party will perish on this stretch of grass.

And near the end of the Republican part of the piece, he concludes:

Duped for a generation by a party that kowtowed to the wealthy while offering scraps to voters, then egged on to a doomed rebellion by a third-rate con man who wilted under pressure and was finally incinerated in a fireball of his own stupidity, people like this found themselves, in the end, represented by literally no one.

The Republican Party, in other words, has lost its voters. They find themselves, in Taibbi's words, "represented by literally no one."

Taibbi on the Democrats

And now on the Democratic side:

Although a lot of Clinton backers believe she's being unfairly weighed down by negative reports about the Clinton Foundation and her e-mails, her most serious obstacles this year were less her faults than her virtues. The best argument for a Clinton presidency is that she's virtually guaranteed to be a capable steward of the status quo, at a time of relative stability and safety. There are criticisms to make of Hillary Clinton, but the grid isn't going to collapse while she's in office, something no one can say with even mild confidence about Donald Trump.

But nearly two-thirds of the population was unhappy with the direction of the country entering the general-election season, and nothing has been more associated with the political inside than the Clinton name.

For Taibbi, Clinton is not a bad choice for president, but she offers what many people simply don't want, the status quo. Remember those crowds at all those Sanders rallies? Those people are the Democratic Party's natural constituency in this time of change. Who will serve them?

The Status Quo in an Era of Change

Two points on the Democratic Party's choices, with fuller explanations later:

1. This "time of change" is now almost a decade old. Barack Obama rode into office on a wave of hope and change, following the economic collapse of 2007-2008. People wanting real structural change is not a one-cycle phenomenon. It's not going away.

2. If the Democratic Party does not in future serve the people in its natural constituency — I don't mean "appear to serve" them, but actually serve them — if the Party doesn't bend to them, and requires instead that its constituency bend to the Party — then both parties will have lost the people.

To put it more plainly: If Hillary Clinton enters office, as it looks like she will do, determined to ignore the masses who don't want more of the status quo, the Democrats' natural constituency will also find itself, in Taibbi's words, "represented by literally no one."

And that's where things stand in the country. Are both parties losing the people? It's the third quarter of the political game of the century, and the opponents are not the parties, but the bipartisan system and those they represent. You don't want to live in a system that frustrates and battles those they represent.

I'll leave it there for now. As I wrote at the top, this is not about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It's about change and the status quo. (It's also about the "consent of the governed," if you think about it. But be careful. The ramifications of that line of thought will keep you up at night.)

GP
 

Martin Shkreli Was Arrested But A Far Graver Crime Was Committed In Flint, Michigan-- Will There Be Accountability?

Why isn't Rick Snyder running for the GOP nomination?

The most hated man in America, Martin Shkreli, the pharmaceutical drug gouger, was just arrested in New York this morning on securities fraud charges, though not on price gouging. Related: Tuesday night's GOP debate was filled with hatred and bombast from a mostly desperate group of ugly Republican politicians striking out irrationally at President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the supposed subject of foreign policy and national security, which was nothing more than a backdrop for their permission to screech unaccountable lies at the moon about the president. Just horrible, deceitful, hackish people. Anna Marie Cox published a wonderful scorecard that compared Mike Huckabee to "grandpa farts," Ted Cruz "a mirror that reflects no light," listening to Carly Fiorina to biting down on aluminum foil and the Republican Party frontrunner and probable nominee for 2016 to "dogshit ground into your living room carpet."

There was nothing discussed related to keeping our country and our families safe-- just a contest of who could tell more gruesome, frightening stories to blame on the Democrats. Nothing about conservative governance principles that are putting the country and the people in such mortal danger on a daily basis. Philadelphia-based reporter and author Will Bunch had this mess in the back of his mind when he tackled the news that the Republican-imposed government of Flint, Michigan had been systematically poisoning it's own citizens-- albeit mostly children-- to save a few pennies on the city's water bill.

Residents began to complain of skin lesions, hair loss, chemical-induced hypertension, vision loss and depression. Finally, a health study confirmed what many parents feared: The number of children in Flint with unsafe levels of lead in their bloodstream has doubled in less than two years.

The new mayor of Flint has declared a state of emergency-- but for thousands of kids in the economically challenged Michigan city, that may be too little, too late. Health experts say that lead poisoning can cause neurological and behavioral problems for children that are irreversible.

Who will keep us safe? More to the point, how did America become a nation that will move heaven and earth to keep hundreds of thousands of kids under lock and key should one email happen to mention ISIS, yet at the same time will feed children rank and obviously polluted tap water and for years ignore a mound of evidence that these kids are being poisoned. Since almost all of the Republicans are running on a platform of slashing both environmental regulations and the size of the EPA (which, stating the obvious, was already MIA in Flint under Democratic President Obama), we probably won't get the answer to that question tonight on CNN.

...It is a serious way to run a country to drop everything-- the lack of working class jobs, the never-ending struggle to get health care to every citizen, the massive debt that's typically required to get a college education, policing policies that leave some neighborhoods feeling like an occupied territory-- to make terrorism our one and only focus?

Too often, we use terrorism, and the fear of being attacked, to not only voluntarily give up some of our freedoms but to also squelch debate on ideas that might reduce some of the massive inequality in America and mean a better life for million of people, using the dozens who might be killed by terrorism as an excuse.

I would ask, who will keep us safe from a system in which-- even with all the hard-fought incremental advances under Obamacare-- some 29 million Americans are still not able to obtain basic health insurance, in which thousands -- become needlessly sick or face medical bankruptcy or even die every year in the world's wealthiest democracy?

Who will keep us safe from a political system in which almost every election and every political candidate is for sale to the highest bidder-- most famously, a billionaire like the host of tonight's "Who Will Keep Us Safe?" debate on CNN, Mr. Adelson-- and in which more and more states are passing laws to make it harder for minorities, seniors and college students to vote? And who will keep us safe from the ravages of climate change-- a topic that had most of the world's attention in Paris but which has seemed to escape the notice of the GOP presidential candidates?

Perhaps most importantly, who will keep us safe from those politics that have created a staggeringly unequal society in which nearly all of the income gains of recent years have flowed toward the top 1 percent and  in which jobless middle-aged, middle-class workers have been stripped of almost all hope.

In 1941, with America less than a year away from joining World War II, Franklin Roosevelt used the State of the Union address to deliver his famous Four Freedoms speech. In it, he did, of course, speak of freedom from fear-- understandably in a time of rising fascism. But he also noted that a successful America requires "freedom from want-- which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-- everywhere in the world." If that is ever eliminated from our national debate, we cannot truly be free.

Curt Guyette is one of the best investigative journalists in Detroit and his piece in yesterday's Guardian is worth reading. "It might seem counterintuitive that Flint, Michigan’s declaration that there are dangerously high levels of lead in the city’s drinking water -- and in the blood of the city’s children-- is a positive thing," he began. The contamination of the city’s drinking water is, after all, is a gut-wrenching tragedy. But the declaration about the undrinkable water, made by newly elected mayor Karen Weaver on Monday, is positive in this regard: it is evidence that a semblance of democracy has returned to Flint. Such an announcement would have been unimaginable even six months ago, when Flint was still under the control of an “emergency manager” appointed by Governor Rick Snyder. The state’s usurpation of local power essentially obliterated the kinds of checks and balances that are key to a functioning democracy."

A series of emergency managers, accountable only to the governor who appointed them, held near-dictatorial power over an impoverished city of 100,000 residents-- a majority of whom are African American.

Operating under the most extreme receivership law found anywhere in the United States, these emergency managers had the power to break collective bargaining agreements, abolish city ordinances, fire employees, sell off city assets, and slash the healthcare benefits of retirees. About the only thing Snyder’s appointees couldn’t do was miss a bond payment.

In addition to everything else, these emergency managers held complete power over the duly elected city council and mayor. The emergency manager told these officials what they could and couldn’t do and determined how much, if anything, they would be paid. Any decisions the elected officials made could be overruled.

It was under this autocracy that Flint-- in April 2014-- ended a 50-year relationship with the Detroit department of water and sewerage to begin drawing the city’s drinking water from the corrosive, polluted Flint river. The initial savings to the city were pegged at $5m.

As soon as the changeover occurred though, it became apparent that the decision was a disastrous one. Residents began complaining of water that looked, smelled and tasted bad.

Because of high bacteria levels, a series of boil-water notices were issued. Then came news of dangerously high levels of total trihalomethanes, a carcinogenic byproduct of the chlorine being used in increased amounts to combat the bacteria problems.

As early as February of this year, according to emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the ACLU of Michigan, the US Environmental Protection Agency began raising concerns that the highly corrosive river water, along with everything else, was beginning to eat away at the pipes carrying water to Flint’s 40,000 homes. And of particular concern to residents and the federal government alike was the effect of the corrosive water on an untold number of lead service lines and leaded home plumbing.

Despite mounting evidence that levels of lead in the city’s drinking water were increasing, the state-- and the city officials under their control-- adamantly maintained that the water was safe.

If not for a determined coalition of residents who refused to swallow those false claims in addition to the toxic water provided to them by the order of Snyder’s appointee, the full extent of the problem might never have come to light.

It came to light because the residents went around Snyder's anti-democratic government, appointed to oppress them, and worked directly with water experts at Virginia Tech. The state department of environmental quality, a dumping ground for GOP ideologues, discounted their findings. As Guyette wrote, "What is the likelihood that one gubernatorial appointee is going to announce that a decision made by another gubernatorial appointee is resulting in the widespread, systematic lead poisoning of children? And when the city council voted to return to the Detroit water system, the emergency manager/dictator vetoed it. The emergency manager, Darnell Earley is gone now, but is not in prison, nor has Governor Synder been dragged out of his office and hung from a lamppost. Nor is the Republican Party of Michigan disbanded.

I've always been intrigued by a story my mother's younger brother told me when I was a child. He fought in Italy towards the end of World War II and he told me about how the Italian people in a small village between Milan and the Swiss border, Giulino di Mezzegra, caught the country's right-wing dictator who had brought so much pain and suffering to the nation. On April 27-- three days before Hitler's suicide, Mussolini and his mistress, Claretta Petacci, were captured near beautiful Lake Como, shot the following day and strung up in a mundane square near Milan, where my uncle and his detachment found their mangled bodies, which had been abused by the crowds. Does Rick Snyder deserve better? Do any fascists?

A Nation of Sociopaths?

What would America see if it looked in a mirror? (source)

by Gaius Publius

While many of us have been enjoying the Trump Show, live on a news clip near you, a small stream of writers has considered what this all means — not only what it means for our electoral and political future, but what it means for us as a nation, that we're as captured as we are by the Donald Trump candidacy. Even his opponents are fascinated.

Is it the showmanship? The racism? The economic populism? All of that? Something else?

Or is it something in us — in many of us, at least — that draws so many like flies to his brand of honey?

What is the Trump phenomenon about, and who is it about?

I can't say I've decided on the answer, but I can say the following needs considering. After all, I'm the one who wrote that elections are a test of the electorate, not the candidates, or to put that more playfully, in an election you "vote for the public of your choice." Now Adele Stan, writing at The American Prospect, takes up the same question.

Stan starts by considering what Trump means for the near future, the electoral future:

A Nation of Sociopaths? What the Trump Phenomenon Says About America

To ask if the rogue Republican’s surge is good for Democrats is the wrong question.

The Republican Party has a Donald Trump problem—and that has some Democrats thanking Lady Luck for apparently blowing on their dice. The casino mogul, after all, has thrown the GOP into a disarray even greater than that wrought by the Koch brothers and the Tea Party, dashing the hopes of Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, to launch a nominee who could reach out to racial and ethnic minorities, or one who at least would not say terrible things about women.

With his continued antagonism of Spanish-speakers, his incendiary denouncement of the Black Lives Matter movement, and his base comments about actor Rosie O’Donnell and Fox News host Megyn Kelly, as Trump continues to surge in polls of Republican primary voters, he threatens to lay Priebus’s plans to waste.

This is no way to win a general election, the thinking goes. And so in some corners of Democratland, there is happy dancing in the streets.

Trump offers other benefits, as well, to liberals and progressives in the form of the monkey wrench he could throw into the works of Charles and David Koch, who have been positioning their organizational network as the party within the party, replete with resources for candidates who would run on their platform of smashing unions and coddling private capital.

I too find this aspect fascinating, especially the way the (apparently) pro–"Tax the Rich" Trump is threatening the Kochs' hostile takeover of the Republican Party, which was, until recently, almost a done deal. Stan looks at other Trump-centered considerations, such as, "Beyond the question, though, of whether Trump is good for Democrats lies the question of whether his candidacy is good for America."

All good and important thoughts. But then she pivots to the key question — Is the Trump phenomenon a statement about Trump or about us? And if the latter, what is that statement?

What is wrong with America that this racist, misogynist, money-cheating clown should be the frontrunner for the presidential nomination of one of its two major parties? ...

Donald Trump is a rich man despite having driven several businesses into the ground, resurrecting himself through the bankruptcy process—meaning that he essentially cheated his creditors out of what they were owed. According to CNN, “no major U.S. company has filed for Chapter 11 more than Trump's casino empire in the last 30 years.” ...

[Yet it's] not just the wing-nuts who are watching. America just can’t get enough of this guy!

It’s time to put down the mesmerizing kaleidoscope of the Trump media spectacle, and examine the Trump phenomenon through a more penetrating lens. Revealed is America as a deeply troubled, even sociopathic, nation.

But, damn, it’s one heck of a show.

She asks really tough questions, and offers tougher answers. But even if we decide not to agree, quite, it's as important a set of questions as any we will ask. It's tough for a nation to look in the mirror, knowing that if it does, the Trump may be what looks back.

Here's part of how I put that back in 2003, when George W. Bush, fully revealed as his brutal awful self, was running for a second term:

Vote for the Public of Your Choice

I’ve written in an earlier article that the 2004 election will be a referendum, not on the candidates, but on the voters, on the American people. After watching the seemingly inexplicable poll results of the last few weeks, I believe this even more strongly.

The current round of Republicans has made the obvious blatant. The ground cover, the plausible-sounding explanation, has eroded laughably; we’ve blown right past plausible headed toward childish and desperate.

Even a fool must understand the choices by now. Do we torture the non-white races or don’t we? Do we imprison dissent or don’t we? Do we bomb Moslems or don’t we? Do we rake to our Reaganesque selves the goods of the earth, or don’t we?

Do we fight with the whole rest of the world?

As a people, a nation, who are we?

The current crew has made these questions more explicit than any in a lifetime. It’s an excellent time to take a vote. If Bush is indeed elected in 2004, the people will truly have spoken.

What goes around ... apparently never leaves. Until we force it out. I think Stan's point is larger than mine, however, and frankly, more concerning if true. After all, she's asking why Democrats can't keep their eyes off him either.

And on a lighter note, here's yet another perfectly decent person for whom the Trump is a guilty pleasure.

"Damn, it's one heck of a show" indeed.

GP

The Cartoonish Rafael "Ted" Cruz Imitates Some Cartoon Characters. How Appropriate!

by Noah

I'm sure that Rafael's handlers thought that the above clip of their boy attempting to imitate Simpsons characters might serve to somehow humanize him to voters. Either that or they secretly hate him.

However, after viewing this clip, my only other thought is the cold truth that repugs don't do the humor thing very well, especially when impersonations are involved. If you doubt that, try to remember the spectacle of Karl Rove doing his pathetic, might as well be black face, rap dance at the press correspondents dinner several years ago.



If that doesn't convince you, there's always Rafael reading Dr. Seuss.



When it comes to republicans, one can laugh at them, I suppose, but laughing with them? Not possible.

In looking at that clip, the only impersonation I can see Rafael Cruz pulling off would be boy-molesting scoutmaster.

Maybe the entertainment angle for Rafael is for Hollywood to write a mocking sitcom around him, but that would be all part of the "Grand Hollywood Liberal Conspiracy," not unlike this post.

I imagine the sitcom would center around Rafael playing a milquetoast-y 50-year-old who lives in a sixth-floor walk-up tenement with his mother and always will. He comes home every morning from his lonely job as a nightwatchman to his overprotective mother and feels that she picks on him way too much. Republicans are naturals when it comes to playing the victim card.

Mom constantly whines that her little boy should get a real job, a day job, a better-paying job, but there's no way our boy is giving up that nightwatchman job. You see, he may look like a scared little mouse of a man, but he's really quite smart and clever when it comes to his surveillance gear and he's born to operate at night. He's a born voyeur. Rafael loves to watch … all sorts of things. And comedy, dark comedy, ensues.

Rafael complains that the big, mean government won't let him get a day job. He grows to imagine a world in which he can film the things he sees and use such things to his advantage to meet Mom's ever-growing demands for more and more money, which she uses on her ever-growing collections of things like snow globes, celebrity bobble-head dolls, and, all too fittingly, Annie memorabilia.

Mom has a disturbing obsessive habit of constantly shaking the snow globes and flicking the heads of the little dolls. It gets to the point where it takes all day for her to get to all of it.

The series ends thusly: One morning Rafael comes home from his voyeur job and snaps. He decides there must be a better way to live his life. Politics!

Rafael decides he needs bigger money to achieve his new goal, and to do that he must, by day, become a bank robber. Alas, he was only cut out to watch things. Active work doesn't suit him much, and he is caught, tried, and put in jail, where his mother, every day, brings him a snow globe and a bobble-head from her collection. She does this for 21 years, until she passes away.

Last we see Rafael, he is alone in his cell, suffocatingly surrounded by thousands of snow globes and bobble-heads. Several fellow inmates lovingly refer to him as Bobble-Head.

Too bad Rafael never knew that all he had to do was tell the banks he was going into politics. They would have gladly sent people to his home to hand him attaché cases full of cash every day. All he would have had to do in return was be their own personal bobble-head.

#

TPP in the House — So Far, Not Enough Votes

TPP — the "free trade" deal that isn't about freedom and isn't about trade. What is it about? Higher prices, Internet watchdogs, fewer jobs. Watch to learn more.

by Gaius Publius

As you may know, the Fast Track legislation needed to force TPP, the next NAFTA-style trade deal, through the Congress has passed in the Senate. (Fast Track is officially called "Trade Promotion Authority" or TPA. There are way too many acronyms in this part of the world, as you'll soon see.)

If Fast Track becomes law, TPP will be almost impossible to stop, since Fast Track gives the current president and the next one the right to "fast track" through Congress anything she or he calls a "trade deal" — no legislative delays, no filibuster, no amendments, little time for debate. Just an up or down vote with the clock ticking.

If Fast Track fails, you'll never hear of TPP again, or read its language. TPP is a secret now — which should tell you how toxic it is — and if it never gets introduced, it will stay a secret. (Even if it does get introduced, it will stay a secret from anyone who isn't in Congress and from any staffer without a sufficient security clearance. Yes, you read that correctly.)

The fate of the Fast Track bill is now in the hands of members of the U.S. House.

Where TPP and Fast Track Stand in the House

I'll keep this summary brief, but as specific as I can. I've consulted a number of sources, many in print and many privately. Here's what we know:

▪ The House vote is being delayed until later in June.

From the AP (my emphasis):

After several near death experiences in the Senate, the trade agenda that President Barack Obama is pushing as a second term capstone faces its biggest hurdle yet in the more polarized House.

Anti-trade forces [sic] have struggled to ignite public outrage over Obama's bid to enact new free-trade agreements, but Democratic opposition in Congress remains widespread.

The outcome may turn on Republicans' willingness to hand the president a major win in his final years in office. Underscoring the difficulties, House leaders are looking at the second or third week of June to schedule a vote, even though House members return from recess on Monday.

Did you note the phrase "anti-trade forces" in the second paragraph? That tells you the AP is in the tank for TPP. No one on the anti-TPP side is "anti-trade" — this is Obama administration spin and nothing else. And yes, there is widespread public outrage, despite some misleading polls out lately. The misinterpretation of those polls is Obama spin also. 

▪ There aren't enough votes in the House to pass Fast Track.

The delay in the vote tells you all you need to know. They don't have enough Yes votes in the House. So let's look at the numbers.

There are 433 members in the House of Representatives at the moment — 245 Republicans and 188 Democrats and two vacancies — so it takes 217 members to pass a bill. I've heard that the number of Democratic Yes votes is as low as 17 (NY Times); "about 20" (AP again); or "more than 20 votes, possibly 25 or 27" (via some trade publications). We know for sure that 17 Democrats announced they will vote Yes. The number of on-the-fence Democrats is either as low as seven (NY Times); no higher than a "dozen" (AP); or "dozens" (The Hill). I think the lower number is more accurate.

Press reports put Republican No votes at "40 to 50" (AP, same link), but I've heard that the number could be as high as 70. Democrats friendly to the White House are working hard to move their members, but Pelosi is reportedly not helping (see below). Republicans are also working on their members, and there's a separate "whip" operation just for this bill, so the numbers could obviously change.

One group to watch on the Republican side is Heritage Action, which is strongly opposed to the trade assistance bill, TAA, described below, as an "egregiously ineffective welfare program." Heritage Action could "peel off 10-15 Republican votes" if it whips strongly (a proprietary trade publication).

Despite these unknowns, we can still do the math. They have at least 17 Democratic Yes votes, but they don't have enough Republicans to pass TPA. This means the number of Republican No votes is greater than 45, at least at the moment, and again, could be as high as 70.

Bottom line — However many Democratic votes they need, they don't have them. When Obama and Boehner have the numbers to pass TPA, they'll vote before you could blink. They're not voting. If there really are at least seven Democrats on the fence or secretly in favor, that makes 24 Democratic votes — which they don't have. That logic puts the Republican No votes at 52 or more.

Either way, the margins are very tight. (By the way, the known Democratic perps are these guys. Remember them.)

▪ Pelosi told Boehner she won't help him find the votes.

This is from the same NY Times article linked above (my emphasis):

Only 17 Democrats out of 188 have come out in favor of so-called fast-track authority — and many of them are being hounded by labor and environmental groups to change their minds. Opponents of the trade deal say just seven Democrats remain truly undecided.

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

Three things to note about this. First, Pelosi is relying on the list of announced supporters for her estimate of 17 Democratic Yes votes. As noted, other estimates are higher.

Second, Nancy Pelosi is saying she won't whip for the bill — she won't do anything to convince those seven or more undecided Democrats. Pelosi may still want "a path to yes," as she was quoted earlier as saying (and shame on her for that), but a path to yes at this point means surrender to the President — no currency manipulation provision that has teeth (otherwise Japan won't sign), for example, and no anti-slavery language that has teeth (or Malaysia won't sign).

Third, look at the Republican numbers. If there really are close to 70 No votes on the Republican side, Fast Track is in trouble. With 50 Republican No's, Obama and Boehner need 22 Yes Democrats. With 70 Republican No's, they need 42 Yes Democrats. It may be that the number of Yes Democrats is fixed by now, so it's up to the Republicans. However many Yes Republicans they need, they don't have them yet.

If you live in a purple district with a Republican representative, call now and often, and say "Fast Track will determine my 2016 vote." House phone numbers here.

Every member of the House will be up for election in 2016. The results this November could change the electoral fortunes of a great many members of both parties, turning a quite a few into lobbyists. (Could DC absorb that many lobbyists in one cycle? We may find out.)

▪ The deal could come apart in other ways as well.

David Dayen and I talked on a recent Virtually Speaking Sundays show about all of the poison pills in the cluster of bills around the Fast Track (TPA) bill.

One is strong currency manipulation language, another is the way Medicare is currently used to pay for "trade assistance" benefits for workers who need retraining and other help. Trade assistance is handled in a separate bill, called TAA, which is currently tied to the Fast Track, or TPA, bill. (See what I mean about acronyms?) The trade assistance bill is itself a poison pill for many Republicans, who hate anything to do with worker compensation or assistance.

And then there's the "slavery" issue that Obama and Boehner need to ignore in order to get the Malaysians to sign TPP. (For a look at why, see here.) As Dayen pointed out on Virtually Speaking, if weak anti-slavery language passes this Congress, it would be the first time a slavery compromise was passed since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Another feather in the legacy cap of the first black president? The irony writes itself.

According to some publications, four bills will move in tandem through the House — Fast Track, TAA and two side bills — to address these concerns. The bill's supporters are looking for a way to let House members vote for something that looks like their conscience, while not letting those other votes have any real effect on Fast Track itself. How all that will work is anyone's guess at the moment.

The proponents' bottom line is simple — make sure the only bill Obama cares about, Fast Track, comes out of the House with the same language that it entered with, thus avoiding a conference with the Senate and a second House vote. Everything else is window dressing and conscience balm for House members as they vote to enable or disable the next NAFTA.

▪ The clock is ticking.

Though the goal is simple, the maneuvering is complicated, and the clock is ticking. This can't drag out forever. Can a trade bill pass in an election year? Will our trade "partners" lose faith in Obama and walk away?

The Hill:

The end of July might be the deadline for Obama’s top legislative priority. When lawmakers return to Washington after the August recess, the presidential election will have heated up, and it could be impossible politically to navigate the trade debate.

This is as interesting as Congress has been in a while, unless you look at the "NAFTA on steroids" scale of suffering that TPP will cause. Then it's not interesting at all; just an exercise in consciencelessness. Stay tuned.

GP