TAA crushed by House, but the game is not over yet

[Torie]

Can Fast Track pass the Senate without the TAA tethered to it?  Are there enough Democratic senators who are willing to vote for TPA without the TAA?

I'd say not likely.

The TAA was supposed to be the compromise that made TPP possible. Democrats wanted TAA to make TPP more palatable, while the GOP only wanted TPP but not TAA. Now that TAA is gone, Democratic Senators aren't going to vote TPP through, and the GOP won't pass TAA by themselves if Democrats aren't going to vote for the TPP.

Does that make sense?

If the Dem Senators still really want the old deal to go through, they can just vote for TPP, with the Pubs agreeing to deliver enough votes for TAA in the House (like last time if the Dems had not dissed it for strategic reasons), if and when the Dems in the House get around to realizing that TPP with TAA, is better for them than TPP without TAA.

[jaichind]

Fast-Track Trade Bill Passes House 218-208 which returns the measure to the Senate, which also voted for it last month.  The fast-track provision was added to a popular public-safety retirement bill which the Senate passed by voice vote earlier this month.

[Ebsy]

"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." ~TPP

[Gass3268]

Opponents need to get 3 Democratic Senators to flip their votes on TPA, which might be possible with no TAA.

[Torie]

Opponents need to get 3 Democratic Senators to flip their votes on TPA, which might be possible with no TAA.

Oh, I think there will be a handshake where enough House Pubs promise to pass TAA after TPA is passed by the Senate. The deal is obvious. With TPA law, are the House Dems still going to kill TAA? I don't think so. They voted against TAA to try to kill TPA. So another procedure to get from A to B needed to fashioned, which yes, will require some cross party trust.

[Oakvale]

Ugh, I'm already involved in arguing about this on Dank Atlas but seeing yet another appallingly ignorant post from Clarko prompted me to make the terrible mistake of responding.

I like this President just like you do, but I cannot understand his forcefulness in pushing this bill. I don't reflexively oppose free trade like some do, but there is too much wrong with this deal for me to support it. I truly cannot understand why the President is pushing this bill in the face of so much Democratic opposition. The text of this agreement will allow corporations to eviscerate so many of our regulations designed to protect the American people.

Because Obama doesn't actually give a sh_t about American workers unless it's election time?

He riles up anger towards corporations, the rich, and talks good game on inequality, and is now paying for it with the defeat of his corporate-handout bill. His "solutions" include a small tax increase on the rich and raising the minimum wage, while doing nothing to help people who are actually middle class; rather, he pushes bills like the TPP and TTIP that will only serve to further corporate interests and widen the inequality gap. The bills lower very few tariffs in other countries for our goods (ours are already pretty much non-existant), while locking in patents, copyrights, monopolies, and protections for sacred cow industries (i.e. literally the opposite of "free trade"), and filled with goodies for large companies like the international arbitration courts so they can sue governments into oblivion when they don't get their way.

Before 2012, I lapped up all that "Hope & Change" crap that he talked. From 2012 until earlier this year, I was disappointed but rationalized it as political reality. Now, it's clear that Obama doesn't actually give a damn about anything other than his legacy. I'm glad this blew up in his face. Hopefully Congress continues in its good ol' bipartisan fashion to humiliate him like this more, so he can understand what a joke of a President he's been since 2011.

Maybe Hillary and the 2016 field will get the message: You wanna be a liberal? Cool. Wanna be a conservative? Fine. Wanna lower barriers to our exports around the world? Great! Just stop pretending like you care if you really don't.

I've read this on top of your disastrous posts in the last thread on this grisly topic (you'll remember, it was the one where you said trade was bad because people will buy microwaves that break or... something) and I feel I need to be "condescending" or whatever and say what we're all thinking.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Because Obama doesn't actually give a sh_t about American workers unless it's election time?

Please explain to me what impact TTIP will have on the "American worker". Please. No hysterics or anguished rhetoric, concisely (if possible) and clearly explain to me what you think is going to happen if this agreement passes. I'll note that you are simultaneously arguing that the bill does very little and that it will be the death knell for The American Worker (tm).

He riles up anger towards corporations, the rich, and talks good game on inequality, and is now paying for it with the defeat of his corporate-handout bill.

I understand that your political views have apparently been formed from reading Atlas posts and the occasional Youtube comment, but the premise of this sentence is transparently ridiculous. Obama did not "rile up anger" towards "corporations" or "the rich" because he is not an irresponsible demagogue or populist fraud like the America First crypto-Buchanans that now surround us. It is possible that you think Obama saying "maybe the super rich should pay a slightly higher tax rate" is "riling up anger" in which case you'll fit in just fine in Donald Trump's Republican Party. The latter part of the sentence casually refers to TTIP as a "corporate handout bill" (sic), which is a nice piece of rhetoric but doesn't actually tell me, er, anything about your opposition.

His "solutions" include a small tax increase on the rich and raising the minimum wage, while doing nothing to help people who are actually middle class;

Huh? I've read this part two or three times and still can't parse it. If an increase in the minimum wage won't help anyone then what on earth is your definition of middle class? You must have a very odd definition for the "inequality" you proclaim yourself so concerned about or, more likely, have read one too many thinkpieces about THE SQUEEZED MIDDLE.

[H]e pushes bills like the TPP and TTIP that will only serve to further corporate interests and widen the inequality gap.

Could you define what a "corporate interest" is for me as distinct from the general public and why you believe they disproportionately benefit from this agreement?  

The bills lower very few tariffs in other countries for our goods (ours are already pretty much non-existant),

This is true in an a trivial and banal sense, but, as is an emerging theme in this essay, misses the point in its entirety. No-one's denying that that isn't 1883 and that massive general punitive tariffs are ubiquitous, but to argue that this bill does little to unlock the potential gains from trade is outright wrong. Take a look at the Japanese pork tariff.

I'll take a moment to quote Brad DeLong, who has fairly impeccable "progressive" credentials unless you're on the swivel-eyed side of the issue, in which case you can feel free to dismiss him as a corporate lapdog and possible secret Jew.

http://www.bradford-delong.com/2015/03/the-debate-over-the-trans-pacific-partnership.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

DeLong also correctly identifies that most of the "liberal"/left opposition to the agreement is primarily political - even Krugman's scepticism is largely about whether it's wise for Obama to use his "political capital" and anger Big Labour rather than the actual merits of the agreement.

while locking in patents, copyrights, monopolies, and protections for sacred cow industries (i.e. literally the opposite of "free trade"), and filled with goodies for large companies like...

As I've said on several occasions before the most persuasive argument to me against TTIP (although it is very much a baby/bathwater situation) is that of patents, particularly as they relate to medicines, but the counterpoint - that US firms have been screwed out of intellectual property proceeds for an awfully long time in the region is compelling (even if I'm not entirely convinced) and in any event as I keep reminding people that doesn't explain the kneejerk opposition of much of the American left, particularly considering the rest of their arguments seem to stem from borderline isolationism as opposed to this kind of heart-warming altruism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These already exist. Corporations can already "sue governments" when they "don't get their way" and this is an entirely normal part of modern international trade law. Jesus Christ this is the one talking point I'm most sick of. Fearmongering about shadowy corporations suing the government into "oblivion" is cringeworthy and beneath you. We don't live in a bad cyberpunk novel.

It's particularly annoying to me in this debate that people, both public figures and on this forum, have made rational, considered and persuasive arguments against aspects of the TTIP (Nix, Ebowed and DFB spring to mind immediately) but they're drowned out by the barrage of unfocused fury and illiterate ranting from posts like this, the "progressive" blogosphere and labour unions.

Before 2012, I lapped up all that "Hope & Change" crap that he talked. From 2012 until earlier this year, I was disappointed but rationalized it as political reality. Now, it's clear that Obama doesn't actually give a damn about anything other than his legacy. I'm glad this blew up in his face. Hopefully Congress continues in its good ol' bipartisan fashion to humiliate him like this more, so he can understand what a joke of a President he's been since 2011.

I'll concede that it would have been greatly amusing in an abstract sense to see that dead-eyed tycoon Romney (your man in 2012!) elected but I'm thankfully not under any illusions that that would have been good for the people of your country.

As someone who pretends to be deeply moved by the plight of The American Worker (tm) and concerned about inequality it's fascinating to me that you think a President Romney would have somehow reversed this trend and heralded a new golden age of American progress. But then cognitive dissonance has been something of a hallmark of much of the opposition to TTIP.

Just stop pretending like you care if you really don't.

I couldn't have concluded this response better myself!

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Worth pointing out that most suits on behalf of Corporations against Western Governments usually end in a judgement favourable to the latter. So much for ISDS 'tyranny'...

[RINO Tom]

Anyone have the vote breakdown by party?  I can't really find it/tally it up on my phone while at work.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A quick, rough calculation of a person earning $7.25 per hour, 80 hours per paycheck given to them every other Friday, and roughly 26 paychecks or so in the year works out to $15,080 in income per year, not deducting taxes. If we have two income earners at this level, it would be $30,160 per year, not deducting taxes. For a family of four (two adult earners and two children), the poverty line is about $23,000 per year. One rule of thumb that is widely used in election exit polling for “middle class” is about $50,000 per year in household income for a family of four. Being generous, I could see this lowered to $40,000 per year for a family of four.

$40,000 isn't even middle class for one person in the bay area. You're supposed to spend no more than 30% of income on housing. Well, that $1000 a month won't even get you a studio apartment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A quick, rough calculation of a person earning $7.25 per hour, 80 hours per paycheck given to them every other Friday, and roughly 26 paychecks or so in the year works out to $15,080 in income per year, not deducting taxes. If we have two income earners at this level, it would be $30,160 per year, not deducting taxes. For a family of four (two adult earners and two children), the poverty line is about $23,000 per year. One rule of thumb that is widely used in election exit polling for “middle class” is about $50,000 per year in household income for a family of four. Being generous, I could see this lowered to $40,000 per year for a family of four.

$40,000 isn't even middle class for one person in the bay area. You're supposed to spend no more than 30% of income on housing. Well, that $1000 a month won't even get you a studio apartment.

You can get along on $40,000 a year pretty darn well here in the Midwest, which is why I say "I could see this lowered" and the keywords in the phrase before was "rule of thumb".

NYC and SF are not the only places on Earth, jeez.

I'm not even talking about SF, I don't think you can get a $1000 studio anywhere in the bay area. Maybe $1200 gets you one some out of the way place.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

[Ebsy]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

You will never be pleased, will you?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

You will never be pleased, will you?

What? I will be very pleased if this crap gets defeated.

[Ebsy]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

You will never be pleased, will you?

What? I will be very pleased if this crap gets defeated.

No, I mean, Hillary Clinton doesn't take a stand on TPA, and progressives accuse her of lack of leadership, and she says she would vote against it, and she's still lacking leadership? Other than stating her position, there's hardly much she can do considering she isn't, you know, in Congress.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

You will never be pleased, will you?

What? I will be very pleased if this crap gets defeated.

No, I mean, Hillary Clinton doesn't take a stand on TPA, and progressives accuse her of lack of leadership, and she says she would vote against it, and she's still lacking leadership? Other than stating her position, there's hardly much she can do considering she isn't, you know, in Congress.

Well, as expected it was a very close vote in the House, 218-208, and she waited until after that to say she'd probably vote against it if she was a Senator. I mean you can't call that the strongest leadership. Of course if somehow it fails cloture in the Senate, she can get some credit for that, but it only had 33 votes against cloture last time.

[Ebsy]

Instead of trying to tie up TPA on the cloture vote, I would rather some of the progressives in the Senate throw an old fashioned filibuster to try to talk the bill to death. If they really think that this potential will be that harmful to American worker, they should stand up on the Senate floor and tell their fellow Senators why they should vote no.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The last vote was 65-33 on cloture. At the very least, there will be a slight moral victory if it never quite gets a 2/3rds majority as the damn constitution requires for a treaty.

Instead of trying to tie up TPA on the cloture vote, I would rather some of the progressives in the Senate throw an old fashioned filibuster to try to talk the bill to death. If they really think that this potential will be that harmful to American worker, they should stand up on the Senate floor and tell their fellow Senators why they should vote no.

Normally a cloture vote would be called in that case. There could still be talking after the cloture vote. But it wouldn't really accomplish much if the cloture vote was successful, unless the actual vote was expected to be close too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What's interesting is how opposition to TPP really is quite bipartisan. There's a lot of Trump supporters here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3301612/posts

[Torie]

Anyone have the vote breakdown by party?  I can't really find it/tally it up on my phone while at work.

Here you go.

[Lief 🗽]

What's interesting is how opposition to TPP really is quite bipartisan. There's a lot of Trump supporters here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3301612/posts

Yes unfortunately there are gullible populists on both sides of the aisle.

[Simfan34]

I'm more interested in the African trade bill.

[IceSpear]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

You will never be pleased, will you?

"True Progressives" whenever Hillary Clinton says or does anything:

[The Other Castro]

Anyone think that this will be passed this month? Seems like this is stretching out a bit.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

You will never be pleased, will you?

"True Progressives" whenever Hillary Clinton says or does anything:

This was't exactly the boldest leadership to say she'd "probably" vote against fast track if she was still in the Senate, while still not taking a position on TPP. But regardless, I will give her some credit if fast track is defeated. But otherwise, no credit for her.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cloture passed 60-37, with the 13 DINOs (probably the same as last time) voting for it. 4 Republicans voted against cloture this time. Many of those 13 are Hillary supporters. This is no thanks to Hillary's spinelessness.