Remember Those Anti-Democracy Lame Duck Sessions Republicans Pulled? In Wisconsin, The Beat Goes On

Someone gave Wisconsin's new governor, Tony Evers, some great advice. Instead of suing the GOP legislature for the anti-democracy bills they rushed through in the lame duck session, he's decided on a strategy to letting them sue him. Wednesday he said he'll be ignoring their bad-faith bullshit."I’m anticipating most of the provisions will be challenged and I’m guessing I will be a defendant rather than a plaintiff."

Patrick Marley reports for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that Evers' "stance changes the dynamic in the fight over the lame-duck legislation by prodding Republicans into initiating litigation instead of doing so himself."

In the interview, Evers also provided glimpses of the budget he will introduce in the coming months, saying he would look to expand health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act; allow illegal immigrants to qualify for driver’s cards; give immigrants who came to the state illegally as children the chance to pay in-state tuition; and allow property taxes to rise by more than they have in the past.

  In addition, Evers is considering letting local government increase sales taxes.

Evers, who will be sworn in Monday, said he remains bothered by lame-duck legislation lawmakers and departing Gov. Scott Walker approved in the weeks after Evers narrowly defeated Walker.

He suggested he wouldn’t go along with parts of those wide-ranging measures but wouldn’t specify which ones. The new laws limit his authority over state rules, require him to get permission from lawmakers to adjust public benefits programs and diminish his say over the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp.

Evers likened the situation to attempts by Walker and GOP lawmakers to chip into his authority over state rules as the state schools superintendent. Allies of Evers sued and won before the state Supreme Court the first time Republicans tried to diminish his powers. A second lawsuit over the issue-- this one brought by Evers’ opponents-- is now before the state’s high court.

“Having gone through this in my previous job as state superintendent, I think it’s more likely that I will be sued because I’m now the chief executive of the state,” Evers said of a potential legal fight over the lame-duck legislation “Same thing happened when I was state superintendent-- I was sued. So that’s where I anticipate most of the action to be.”

...“I thought the lame duck session was an effort to kind of disenfranchise the people that voted in the last election," he said. "So, is that wrong? Yes, absolutely it’s wrong. So I will continue to have that stand, but at the end of the day I also know I have to work with the legislators to get things accomplished.”

“I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can be annoyed and against what they did, but by gosh, we have to solve some major problems. Education, transportation and health care was what I ran and won on. That’s what we’re going to be focused on.”

Litigation over the lame-duck legislation has already started. Two groups in December asked a federal judge to strike down limits on early voting included in the legislation. But so far no one has challenged other aspects of the new laws.

...Republicans who control the Legislature have said they plan to reject Evers’ budget and work off the existing one as they develop a two-year spending plan they hope to send Evers for final approval this summer.

Evers can rewrite whatever they send him using his broad veto powers, and Evers on Wednesday told The Associated Press he would not rule out vetoing a GOP budget in its entirety.

Some of Evers' budget plans are fiercely opposed by Republicans. He wants to provide schools an additional $1.4 billion over two years and greatly scale back a tax break for manufacturers and farmers so he can cut income taxes for the middle class by 10 percent.

Evers said he can’t stop Republicans from setting his budget aside but would hold events around the state to promote his plan as a way to try to get lawmakers to adopt key parts of it.

“Once our budget is baked, we will be taking it directly out to the people of Wisconsin and getting their input on it,” he said.

Evers told the Wisconsin State Journal his budget would raise the minimum wage of $7.25 an hour-- another idea likely to face GOP opposition. Evers didn't say how much of an increase he would seek.

Evers campaigned on expanding the state’s BadgerCare Plus health-care program to tens of thousands of more people using federal money available through the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The plan would free up about $280 million the state could use for other purposes, according to initial estimates.

In the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel interview, Evers said he would include the plan in his budget and use some of the additional money to increase the rates paid to doctors and hospitals who provide care for people through BadgerCare and other Medicaid programs.

Republican lawmakers have resisted the effort to take the federal money, with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos of Rochester saying in October there was “no way” the state would do so on his watch. But they also want to give providers better rates for caring for Medicaid patients.

By providing a rate increase, Evers hopes to entice lawmakers to go along with his plans.

Evers is pursuing other budget plans that will have little chance in a GOP-dominated Legislature. One provision would allow illegal immigrants to secure driving credentials if they passed a driving test and paid a fee. Backers say it would make Wisconsin’s roads safer and make it easier for immigrants to get to work. Opponents say it would reward illegal immigrants and encourage them to come to Wisconsin.

Evers also wants to charge in-state tuition to those living in Wisconsin known as Dreamers-- immigrants who came to the United States illegally when they were young. Walker and lawmakers ended a similar program in 2011 for immigrants who graduated from a Wisconsin high school.

...In addition, Evers said the state may need to spend more than the $80 million it has committed to establishing new juvenile lockups to replace the troubled Lincoln Hills School for Boys by 2021.

Evers told Wisconsin Public Radio on Wednesday that he was sticking by a campaign promise to visit Lincoln Hills next week. Walker never visited any correctional facilities during his eight years in office.

Evers said he hopes to find more money for roads in his budget but hasn’t made final decisions. He said during the campaign he was open to increasing the gas tax or imposing tolls.

Some GOP senators have resisted raising the gas tax and raised concerns about Evers’ decision to appoint Craig Thompson to run the Department of Transportation. Thompson is the executive director of the Transportation Development Association, a trade group that has called for increased road funding in recent years-- a stance some Republicans saw as an attack on Walker.

Evers said he believes senators will ultimately confirm Thompson, whom he said he hired because of his ability to bring people together on the issue.

“To reject a talented person because a handful of members may disapprove of his stance in the past, that seems-- that seems small in my opinion,” he said.

UPDATE

If I implied that Tony Evers is on the path of becoming an actual hero of the Revolution, let me dispel that as fast as in humanly possible. The dull, tepid, centrist governor quickly reverted to form. Yesterday he told reporters he has "no intention of breaking the law."

The incoming Democratic governor said he believed he would be sued not by detractors trying to force him to follow the laws passed in a lame-duck session, but by supporters who want to get him out from under the laws. Provisions of those laws will limit his ability to write state rules and oversee economic development.

"I personally have reviewed (the new laws) and reviewed them with attorneys and other legal staff," Evers said. "We haven’t decided what to do personally. It’s just that in my experience that when this happens, it likely will happen from the outside."

Fucking loser!

Hopefully Randy Bryce will jump into the special election for the Kenosha state Assembly seat being given up by Peter Barca as he shuffles off to Evers' office. Needed: Men and women with a bit of courageousness and heart.

Lame Ducks Are Outdated And Should Be Abolsihed

American lame duck periods-- between early November's election and early Jannary's inauguration, are usually extremely dysfunctional-- but they were even worse before 1933 when they lasted until March. In 1933m the 29th Amendment to the Constitution moved the beginning of the new Congress to January 3 (and the inauguration of the president to January 20), shortening, but not eliminating the lame duck period. Now we need to amend the 20th amendment. Remember, a lame duck-- whether an executive or a legislature-- is free to make decisions that exercise power with little fear of consequence.

Yesterday Wisconsin's lame duck governor, Scott Walker, signed the lame duck legislature's lame duck anti-democracy bills that are examples of what lame ducks can do to fuck with the newly elected officials. What Republican legislatures and governors are doing in Wisconsin, North Carolina and Michigan make the case for stripping defeated politicians of their powers immediately after defeat.

Outgoing Gov. Scott Walker signed lame-duck legislation Friday that will scale back the authority of his Democratic successor-- approving the entire legislation after saying he was inclined to veto parts of it.

The move came a day after Walker announced a $28 million incentive package for Kimberly-Clark Corp. using powers the legislation strips from incoming Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. If Walker had signed the legislation earlier, he wouldn't have been able to cut the deal with Kimberly-Clark without permission from lawmakers.

The legislation also puts limits on the incoming attorney general and curb early voting-- provisions that will likely ignite legal fights.

...In a statement, Evers said Walker "chose to ignore and override the will of the people of Wisconsin."

"This will no doubt be his legacy," his statement said. "The people demanded a change on November 6th, and they asked us to solve problems, not pick petty, political fights. The people of Wisconsin expect more from our government than what has happened in our state over the past few weeks."

...[T]he measures mean Evers and incoming Democratic Attorney General-elect Josh Kaul would have fewer powers than all of their predecessors, Republican and Democrat alike.

The laws Walker signed-- passed by Republicans last week in an overnight session just four and a half days after the package was made public-- trim early voting; give Republican lawmakers control of the state's job-creation agency; and hem in Evers and Kaul.

The legislation also gives GOP lawmakers control of a litigation authorized by Walker to try to overturn the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Evers and Kaul campaigned on getting the state out of that lawsuit.

...Republican lawmakers will gain the ability to more permanently block state rules written by the Evers administration. Such rules are more detailed than state statutes and carry the force of law.

Under the new law, Evers will need to get permission from lawmakers to make substantial changes to health care and public benefits programs. Republicans sought those measures to prevent Evers from shelving work requirements and drug screening requirements.

The system is particularly venal because Republican gerrymandering has given 64% of the seats in the Assembly over to Republicans, who only won 45% of the votes. 53% of Wisconsin voters cast ballots for Democrats, who wound up with just 36% of the seats.

Last week, Ian Millhiser, writing for ThinkProgress, summed up the reasons why lame duck sessions should be abolished-- on every level of government :Defeated lawmakers with nothing left to lose shouldn't be able to set the capitol on fire on their way out the door.. Other countries have already gotten rid of dysfunctional lame duck sessions which were established to take into account how long it would take a newly elected official to find out he had been elected in pre-telegraph days and then ride his horse all the way to the state capital to take a seat.

There are good reasons why a nation may need several days or even a few weeks between an election and the ascension of its new government. Counting all the ballots takes time. And, in parliamentary systems, it may take a while for the leader of the dominant party to pull together a large enough coalition to form a government.

But the United States has an unusually long lame duck period -- about two months at the federal level, and a similar amount of time in most states. And it still has this lengthy interregnum for no good reason. In the horse and buggy days, when it might have taken weeks for a new member of Congress to travel to the capitol, there was a logic to keeping outgoing lawmakers in place if an emergency should arise. Even state lawmakers might have needed time to get their affairs in order-- and to figure out who would manage their finances at home while they were largely out of contact at the state capitol.

...On May 7, 2017, Emmanuel Macron won France’s presidential election. He took office seven days later. Canada’s Liberal Party won a parliamentary majority on October 19, 2015. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took office on November 4 of that year. The last time power switched partisan hands in Great Britain, former Prime Minister David Cameron took office just five days after the general election.

Republicans are using lame duck powers to purposefully subvert democracy. That's got to end.

Trump Administration... Reading The Tea Leaves

On Thursday the NY Times ran a piece by Eric Lipton about what a bonanza a Trump administration is going to be for K Street lobbyists and other insiders he railed against during his fraudulent campaign. Yesterday, they revamped , expanded and updated it and ran it again. On Thursday, Lipton wrote that "Corporate America is both excited and anxious about the prospect of Mr. Trump’s presidency, seeing great opportunity to shape the agenda after an extended period of frustration over gridlock in Congress. With Republicans poised to control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, [top corporate lobbyist Trent] Lott said he had not seen such a chance to help clients since he left the Senate in 2007-- whether by making changes to the federal tax code for Amazon or increasing military spending on new ships for Huntington Ingalls Industries. 'Trump has pledged to change things in Washington — about draining the swamp,' said Mr. Lott, who now works at Squire Patton Boggs, a law and lobbying firm. 'He is going to need some people to help guide him through the swamp-- how do you get in and how you get out? We are prepared to help do that.'" Apparently Lott is helping redefine the meaning of the word "swamp."

Across Washington, lobbyists and trade association executives were busy reviewing their priorities, which include repealing financial regulations instituted during the Obama administration, pushing for cuts in corporate taxes, overhauling President Obama’s signature health care plan and spending billions on roads, bridges and other infrastructure.

“On these significant issues, now that you have one party controlling the executive branch and the legislature, it is more likely they will be addressed,” said Marc S. Lampkin, managing partner of the lobbying firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, whose roster of more than 135 clients includes the drug maker AbbVie and the insurance company Zurich Financial Services.

Mr. Lampkin, a former Republican aide on Capitol Hill, had fielded so many phone calls on Wednesday from his clients that his voice had turned raspy with fatigue. “There is a lot of pent-up demand to break the gridlock in Washington,” he said.

Prominent Washington lobbyists also said that Mr. Trump would arrive in the capital with a much smaller contingent of veteran policy advisers than Hillary Clinton would have brought-- and they see that relative inexperience as an opening. So they are prepared to draft legislation and regulations to quietly pass to allies on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

It is an opportunity that comes after a period of decline in lobbying revenues for many major firms. Total lobbying spending in Washington, after climbing consistently for nearly two decades began to dip in 2011, as congressional action slowed with divided government.

“Trump’s management style and policy approach to the campaign implies he is going to set big broad ‘beautiful’ direction and the elected lawmakers will take significant cuts at trying to flesh it out and reflect his will,” said Bruce P. Mehlman, the founder of Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas, which has more than 70 clients ranging from Adobe, the software company, to Walmart.

Yesterday Lipton bored down. "Trump," he wrote, "who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests, is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists... Trump was swept to power in large part by white working-class voters who responded to his vow to restore the voices of forgotten people, ones drowned out by big business and Wall Street. But in his transition to power, some of the most prominent voices will be those of advisers who come from the same industries for which they are being asked to help set the regulatory groundwork." Lipton spelled it out and listed the names and affiliations. Read it if you want to puke. It's too depressing to republish.

And yet, one of the top priorities of this whole vile, repulsive network of special interests has been the TPP-- which is being widely reported as DOA. There are reports that now even Obama has given up on the idea of trying to pass the accursed corporate trade agenda in the lame duck session where most Democrats are against it and many Republicans are loathe to make a move this early against Trump. Good riddance, TPP. We'll see if Paul Ryan, the New Dems and the lobbyists can bring it back.

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
 

TPP Is a Monopoly Protection Scheme, the Exact Opposite of a "Free Trade" Deal

A little confusing, but follow the gray lines. The above figure illustrates how the duration of the copyright that the Walt Disney company claims in Steamboat Willie — marked by the solid gray line — has twice approached expiration — by the dashed gray line. In both instances, federal lawmakers amended the Copyright Act to extend the duration, both of copyrighted works generally and works, such as Steamboat Willie, that predated the amendments (source; click to enlarge). In 2023, expect copyright protection in general to be extended again. This law is colloquially called "The Mouse Protection Act."

by Gaius Publius

Normally when we think of "free trade," us lay people, we think of removing barriers to the exchange of goods and services. Removing barriers is the "free" part of "free trade." Of course, there really is no such thing as a "no barriers" market, since even the simplest of markets always has rules, and those who write the rules are "picking winners and losers" by definition.

Consider, for example, a flea market held in the parking lot of a local fairground on a Saturday. To participate, you have to register for a space with the organizers (the parking lot isn't infinitely long or wide), set up an approved tent or table, and usually, if your goods are sold by weight or volume, have your weights and measuring devices certified by the organizers as honest.

All of the restrictions above place limits on the "market" — put it under control of the organizers — but consider for a minute just the last one, certified weights and measures. How is that not "picking winners and losers"? Winners — Vendors with honest scales. Losers — Vendors who cheat their customers.

Or consider a flea market without that requirement. Winners — Vendors who cheat their customers. Losers — Vendors with honest scales.

A lot has been written, in fact, about the non-existence, by definition, of anything resembling a "free market," including much by the writer Masaccio (main site here).

Monopolies and "Free Trade"

But that point aside, let's consider TPP from another standpoint. Monopolies are the enemies of so-called "free trade" since, by definition, they destroy competition and invert the usual assumptions about pricing power. In a well-supplied market, a market with much available product, pricing power is with the buyers, the customers, since it is they who, in the aggregate, set the limits of "what the market will bear."

But in a market in which the supply of something essential for life — water, food, life-saving medical supplies and care, even apartment housing in an old-style "company town" — is not "well-supplied," but is instead controlled and constrained by a single supplier or a small cartel of non-competing suppliers, that's just the opposite of a "free market." It's in fact the least free a market can get.

Thus it is with TPP. Very little actual trade will be freed up if TPP is passed, since barriers to "trade" among the many of the potential signing nations are nearly non-existent.

On the other hand, one of the most important outcomes of  theTPP will be the destruction of a competitive market, the one for life-saving drugs and other "intellecual property." For these products, the TPP raises barriers as surely as tariffs would do.

Economist Dean Baker calls the TPP a "protectionist" agreement. Baker (my emphasis):

The TPP And Free Trade: Time To Retake The English Language

The proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are planning to do a full court press in the lame duck session of Congress following the election. We will be bombarded with speeches and columns from President Obama and other illustrious figures telling us how it is important to approve the TPP for a variety of reasons.

We can be certain that one of the reasons will be the inherent virtues of free trade. They will not be telling the truth.

The TPP is not about free trade. It does little to reduce tariffs and quotas for the simple reason that these barriers are already very low. In fact, the United States already has trade deals with six of the other eleven countries in the TPP. This is why the non-partisan United States International Trade Commission (ITC) estimated that when the full gains from the TPP are realized in 2032, they will come to just 0.23 percent of GDP. This is a bit more than a normal month’s growth.

Again, the full gains from the TPP will come to just 0.23% of GDP — one month's growth. So what is going on with the TPP? Why do people like Barack Obama (and Pfizer, etc.) want it to pass so badly? Among the reasons is this one:

[T]he TPP goes far in the opposite direction, increasing protectionism in the form of stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. These forms of protection for prescription drugs, software, and other products, often raise the price by a factor of a hundred or more above the free market price. This makes them equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent.

These forms of protection do serve a purpose in promoting innovation and creative work, but we have other more efficient mechanisms to accomplish this goal. Furthermore, the fact that they serve a purpose doesn’t mean they are not protectionist. 

Tilting the playing field toward Money, a scheme that protects the holders of intellectual property ... forever, if they can get away with it. For example, consider this:

Copyright Length And The Life Of Mickey Mouse

Last week, we reported on Rep. Zoe Lofgren's statement that copyright law has become equal to the life of Mickey Mouse. Tom Bell has a couple of recent posts exploring issues related to Mickey Mouse and copyright, that seem worth exploring, given Rep. Lofgren's recognition of this fact. While he notes (as we have) that there's ample evidence to suggest that the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons really are in the public domain, he first explores how the length of copyright has followed the age of Mickey Mouse:

Bottom line: Until the current, neo-liberal capital-protecting political regime falls or is taken over, Mickey Mouse will never be in the public domain.

What About a "Free Market" for Doctors Too?

Baker finds something else significant about our so-called "free trade" agreements — they're very selective about which markets are "freed." Consider, for example, the market for relatively powerless manufacturing labor and the market for much more powerful (and wealthy) doctors.

Baker:

The other point to be made about free trade and protectionism is that our push for free trade has always been very selective. NAFTA and other trade deals were explicitly designed to make it as easy as possible for U.S. corporations to manufacture goods in the developing world and ship them back to the United States. ...

But [while] manufacturing workers in the developing world are willing to work for much lower pay than manufacturing workers in the United States, so are doctors in the developing world.

Unlike manufacturing workers, doctors are powerful enough to get protection. It is not generally possible for a doctor trained in another country to practice medicine in the United States unless they pass a U.S. residency program — for which there is a strict quota on foreign trained students. As a result of this restriction, doctors in the United States earn on average twice as much as doctors in Canada, Germany, and other wealthy countries. This protectionism costs the United States roughly $100 billion a year (around $700 per family) in higher health care costs.

If our trade negotiators actually were interested in “free trade,” they would have constructed a system whereby foreign trained doctors could be certified as meeting U.S. standards. They would then have the same freedom to practice as any doctor born and trained in the United States.

Again, a straight-up wealth protection scheme. Baker goes on to note that the "market for doctors" really is a trade issue, not an immigration one, since many German, Canadian, French and Indian doctors could most like get into the U.S. and get jobs — as waiters, for example — they just couldn't work as doctors.

Baker's conclusion is exactly right, that calling a deal like the TPP a "free trade agreement" is just propaganda: "When reporters call the TPP a 'free trade' deal, they are acting as advocates, not reporters. The TPP is a protectionist pact for those at the top who are worried that free trade will undermine their income — like it did for those at the middle and bottom."

There's No "Free Market" for Political Parties Either

I think if Democrats think that the Trumpist revolt against "free trade" deals is just an expression of anti-immigrant racism — and that they can pass TPP in the lame duck session without consequences — there may be a surprise in store for them. After all, there's no "free market" for U.S. political parties either — we have a carefully protected two-party monopoly — and there are only two ways to disrupt and revolt against it that I can think of. Neither is pretty, neither is orderly, and neither will be good for Democrats.

Forewarned? Let's hope so. The lame duck session is just weeks away.

GP
 

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

by Gaius Publius

[W]e were told by a high up staffer who works for Joe Biden that Obama did it [endorsed Patrick Murphy] to get contributions to his uber-expensive presidential library, ostensibly from Murphy's rich, crooked father, from the super-wealthy Saudi family that sponsors Murphy (the notorious Al-Rashids) and from Schumer's Wall Street patrons. (source)

There's always a question about who politicians are primarily working for. Are they working mainly for the country and its people, for their political party and its access to power, or for their own personal fortunes? In the case of Obama and his headlong rush to pass the billioinaire-written TPP, I think we have a perfect petri dish for isolating the answer, at least in this one case.

Again, the questions are:

• Does Obama want to pass TPP so badly because Americans need it?
• Does he want to pass TPP because his party needs it?
• Or because he needs it personally?

Obviously, the answer could be Yes to all three. In the case of the TPP, however, we're going to find two No answers, leaving just one candidate. I'm going to keep this as brief as I can. It's really not a hard question to answer.

Does the Country Need TPP?

No. It's been documented here and a great many other places that the country not only doesn't need TPP to pass, it desperately needs it not to pass. It really will be a NAFTA-style job killer, as well as a killer of national sovereignty (see also here). If you doubt me, check the links, or read anything from Public Citizen's Eyes on Trade pages.

Does the Democratic Party Need TPP?

Again, no. In fact, the Democratic Party also needs TPP not to pass. As Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, wrote recently in The Hill (my emphasis):

Obama's TPP campaign could drag down Democrats

How much is President Obama willing to harm the Democratic Party in order to win approval for the deeply unpopular Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) "trade" agreement? We may soon find out.

On Tuesday, Politico broke the story that the White House will be "making an all-out push to win passage of the deal in the lame duck session of Congress, organizing 30 events over the congressional recess." The effort will be designed to put pressure not only on Democratic members of Congress, but also on swing Republican votes, by lobbying important business interests in their districts.

Trump is far behind Clinton in the polls, and it seems unlikely that Obama would have launched a public campaign of this magnitude for the TPP in the heat of an election season if the race were looking like a serious contest. But there is more at stake: millions of potential Republican voters will stay home in November if Trump is losing by a wide margin. Many others will stay home simply because they don't like him.

And yet...

[M]any of these disaffected voters could be rallied to the polls if they think that Clinton, and her party, are going to bring them another failed "trade" agreement. (On the other side, some potential Democratic voters could abstain or switch sides for the same reasons). All this could make the difference between the Democrats taking the Senate, and in a big enough landslide, even the House of Representatives.

After looking at how close the Fast Track vote was, Weisbrot makes a striking point — to pass TPP, Obama will need the help of politicians in both parties who lost their jobs in the 2016 election, not those who won — politicians who can, in effect, trash their political futures and that of their party for lucrative personal next-jobs as lobbyists:

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.

But note, it's not just the electorate that will be "rendered completely irrelevant" — the fortunes of both political parties will be damaged as well. Including Obama's Democratic Party. Were Donald Trump to develop a surprisingly competent campaign, the push for TPP could lose the White House for Democrats, and with it, the Senate.

Obama is asking the Democratic Party to take a huge risk. Even if they win the White House in 2016, 2018 could shape up as brutal for them. Pushing for, and passing, TPP will spark another Sanders-like backlash, in both parties.

So Why Does Obama Need TPP?

For the final question, Weisbrot hints at the answer:

Why is Obama willing to risk so much to get the TPP passed this year? Many press reports insist that it is because he wants it for his legacy. It is strange to think that he would want such an unpopular agreement for his legacy. There are less flattering reasons that seem much more plausible.

I'll do a little more than hint. The Obama Library (and any future foundation he may launch with other people's money) is his ticket to the next phase of his life. Not his party's life; just his own and his family's. As Howie Klein wrote in the quote at the top of this piece:

[W]e were told by a high up staffer who works for Joe Biden that Obama did it [endorsed Patrick Murphy] to get contributions to his uber-expensive presidential library, ostensibly from Murphy's rich, crooked father, from the super-wealthy Saudi family that sponsors Murphy (the notorious Al-Rashids) and from Schumer's Wall Street patrons

TPP offers a much larger payday than endorsing Patrick Murphy, a mere senator. TPP is wanted by nearly every American industry with money, from Wall Street to Big Pharma to Silicon Valley to Hollywood and every stop in between. As Weisbrot said above about the Congress people Obama is targeting:

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.

As Weisbrot hints (and I'm willing to say), that statement is also true about Obama. The Big Money people who want Congress to pass TPP also want Obama to make it pass, even if he sacrifices his own party's future to do it, and they're clearly willing to pay to "make it so." (After all, what's the point of having too much money if you can't buy things with it.) Obama's obviously on board; his recent actions scream how eager he is. To see if I'm right, watch his presidential library list of donors, if he releases it.

Money doesn't talk, it swears. Though maybe its song is sweeter when Democrats listen.

GP
 

TPP: It’s The Fast-Lame-Duck Passage & Evasion Of Accountability To Voters – Stupid!

Prequel: During the debate at the Democratic Platform Committee this morning, Ben Jealous warned that weak TPP language-- ironically offered by Lee Saunders of AFSCME-- will empower Trump. "We have from good authority," he said, "that the draft GOP platform opposes the TPP." He was joined by Nina Turner and Cornel West as the main spokespeople for a strong anti-TPP plank. The Hillary and Wasserman Schultz-nominated delegates saw to it that Ben Jealous' anti-TPP amendment failed, 106-74, while Bernie delegates yelled "Shame!" and the Clinton delegates congratulated each other. A Bernie delegate from Wisconsin, Robert Kraig, noted that "We’ve had no speech in favor of TPP, but we can’t bring ourselves to say that we oppose TPP?" Jim Hightower followed that up with an amendment saying that Democrats won't vote for TPP in a lame-duck session. It was voted down 104 to 71 and there were shouts of "sell out" in the room.

-by emorej a hong kong

The biggest disrespect to voters ever: lame-duck passage of the TPP, using votes from retiring and defeated legislators, who will never again face the voters, even while their colleagues look forward to at least two years in which to distance themselves from “ancient history.”

The political cowardice (and risk), of using lame-duck voter-evasion to secure the simple majority approval enabled by a prior “fast-track” vote, which was itself misleadingly promoted and corruptly arm-twisted, requires the new name “fast-duck,” although the full depth of its harm may be slow to emerge.

President Hillary would be delighted if TPP has been removed from her front-burner by lame-duck passage, but she would pay a heavy price if this anti-democratic, provocative and inflammatory action proves to be a final nail in the coffin of the USA’s social contract and basic governability.

Even if Obama was correct (which I fundamentally reject), that the nation as a whole would benefit from passing this insider-negotiated version of the TPP, without first doing all the persuading and horse-trading needed to obtain the consent of workers and unemployed (or at least to obtain the consent of a bare majority or of even half the voters), even then: the impending lame-duck passage would undermine the country’s ability to effectively adapt to the new burdens imposed by the TPP-- not only on our economy, but also on the weakened powers of our courts and other branches of our government and civil society.

If the Democratic Party platform broadcasts its acceptance of Obama's desire to finalize TPP passage in the waning days of his Presidency, then all of their “legacies” will be dominated by this passage's transcendent stupidity-- as both politics and policy.

House Radicals Have Come Up With A Way To Derail The TPP

"It’s remarkable to me that anyone, Republican or Democrat, when given the breathtaking power to choose the rules by which we all live, would be so impoverished in spirit that he or she would be unable to come up with anything useful to do-- whether before, during or after an election."

Matt Fuller did a very smart column for HuffPo Tuesday about how anti-Establishment Republicans want to abolish the lame duck session-- between the November congressional elections and the seating on the new Congress in January. There's a minimum of accountability because there will be members in a lame duck who, for one reason or another, will never have to face the voters again. They are easily bribed, more so than when they have to weigh the bribe against a primary challenge, for example. The Establishment often gets their way during these sessions.

House freedom caucus members, he reported, "say they are trying to stop Congress from doing anything after the November election because Congress does some of its most slapdash lawmaking once an election is over. House conservatives don’t want to take any chances that the Senate confirms a Supreme Court nominee or that Congress rams through a big budget agreement that further raises spending or the expansive Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal." Both those ideas places me on the side of the House Freedom Caucus... and congressional progressives ought to consider those points as well.

Bernie would certainly nominate a far better Supreme Court Justice than Merrick Garland, a conservative, and even Hillary would probably come up with someone better. As for the TPP, it would be a dead luck if Bernie wins and, again, even Hillary might be persuaded to re-open negotiations to make it less toxic on several levels that she's been forced into embracing during the primary battle with Bernie.

Paul Gosar claims getting rid of the lame duck was his idea; everyone is entitled to one good idea in his life. This would be Gosar's. Except for one problem. Gossip and some of the other extremist maniacs in the caucus aren't just talking about the TPP and Garland; they want to shut down the government by refusing to move a compromise budget.

While they don’t seem to have a clear plan yet on how exactly they would prevent GOP leadership-- particularly in the Senate-- from not holding a lame-duck session, the Freedom Caucus and its nearly 40 members have the power to block procedural votes. And Gosar told HuffPost that he’s already spoken to a number of outside conservative groups who have told him, “Count us in.”

“Here’s the story,” Gosar said. “We’re not going to do the appropriations process. We’re going to make the valiant effort, if we can even get this budget out.”

And once it’s clear that Congress can’t actually do appropriations bills because of a disagreement over how much the government should spend, Gosar continued, GOP leadership in both chambers will “throw their hands up” and Congress will pass a bill to keep government agencies running at their current levels.

  Government funding runs out on Sept. 30, so Congress will at least need a short-term spending bill-- a continuing resolution, or CR, in congressional parlance-- if lawmakers can’t get spending legislation out of both chambers and signed by the president.

At this point, a CR is looking likely. But what remains unclear is for how long. Gosar and other conservatives want it to go until at least March.

“Give the new Congress and the new president a chance to get a budget done,” he said.

But even if the CR goes until March 2017, conservatives worry about leaders finding other ways to use must-pass pieces of legislation. One Freedom Caucus member recently told HuffPost there was a lot of concern that a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization could be used for something else, which is why the HFC has been pushing to kick the FAA bill into next year-- a timeline that lawmakers privately say is picking up steam.

“The word out of our committee is it probably doesn’t have long legs, and so it’s just going to be a reauthorization, like a temporary reauthorization,” one Transportation Committee member told HuffPost last week, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private committee deliberations. “I think it’s going to be next year until there’s a real FAA reauthorization.”

But the two real concerns for conservatives are the Supreme Court and TPP.

While the House doesn’t get a vote on a Supreme Court nominee, members recognize that, for better or for worse, shutting down the lame-duck session in both chambers would prevent the Senate from confirming Merrick Garland.

HFC member Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who told HuffPost that he leans toward the no-lame-duck position, said his only concern with killing the postelection session is that, if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, she would probably nominate someone more liberal than Garland.

“So you got to be careful what you ask for here,” Perry said.

But for HFC board member Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), legislators don’t get to “pick and choose.” 

“The principle’s the principle, right?” Mulvaney told HuffPost last week. “Which is that the new president gets to nominate the nominee. And if that’s the principle, well, then you got to stick with the principle.”

Mulvaney said people know what a lame-duck session is really about. “It’s a bunch of people who have already either quit, retired or been fired by their constituents decide they still want to vote on major stuff,” he said.

“It’s the least accountable time for Congress,” Mulvaney continued. “It’s an accident of history. We should probably think about getting rid of it entirely.”

...With the heated campaign still going on, GOP leaders seem to be holding off on the trade legislation until at least the election. At this point, the trade deal seems to have a real vote problem. But some conservatives think TPP is only a matter of time.

“TPP is like Ex-Im Bank: You can get excited about it not happening, but it’s going to happen,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who was against the Export-Import Bank and is unlikely to support TPP.

“I mean, I don’t think it’s not going to happen,” Massie said of TPP. “I just don’t see it.”

Tim Canova, a Florida law professor and an expert on the devastating problems of unregulated so-called "free trade" and the job-killing treaties like NAFTA and TPP, is one of the most progressive candidates running for Congress anywhere in the country. He just happens to live in a district where Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a New Dem and TPP proponent-- she voted with the Republicans and corporate Democrats to fast track it. Tim is the last person you would ever expect to make common cause with the Freedom Caucus, but, like other progressives, this morning he said, "I must admit that I agree with the Freedom Caucus that we would be better off not holding a lame duck session of Congress after the November election. Some past lame duck sessions have resulted in terrible legislation, including the deregulation of financial derivatives and extension of the Bush tax cuts. Foregoing a lame duck session may be the only way to ensure that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) corporate giveaway is not passed by members of Congress some of whom will no longer feel any accountability to the voters. For instance, after we defeat Debbie Wasserman Schultz in our August primary, she will not have to face the voters ever again and therefore would be all that much more likely to vote in the interests of the many giant corporations that are supporting her campaign and pushing the TPP."

Please consider helping Tim win his primary so he can stop the neo-liberal policies of the corrupt corporatists like Paul Ryan and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the two sides of one very destructive coin.