Month: June 2015

I know, let’s raise taxes and say we didn’t

by digby

This is how preposterous the Norquist pledge has become in today’s red state dystopia. Louisiana faced a massive shortfall due to the fact they are governed by a miscreant and a bunch of throwbacks who can’t admit that they are raising taxes because Grover will hurt them:

Without an agreement, the pain of what had been a potential $1.6 billion shortfall would have fallen almost entirely on higher education and health care. The state’s public colleges and universities, already having borne some of the deepest state funding cuts in the country, had contemplated mass layoffs, closing departments and financial exigency.

The most direct way to prevent these scenarios was to raise revenue. And, indeed, legislators spent the session haggling over cigarette taxes and tax exemptions.

Mr. Jindal was open to some of those ideas, but insisted he would veto anything that would violate his pledge against raising net tax revenue. So in consultation with Americans for Tax Reform, the Washington-based antitax advocacy group led by Grover Norquist, the Jindal administration presented a complicated arrangement that came to be known as the SAVE plan.

The plan obligated $350 million of the revenue raised during the session to higher education, thus preventing cuts. That was augmented by an “assessment” of around $1,600, called SAVE — “Student Assessment for a Valuable Education” — on the state’s public college students.

Nobody would actually pay this assessment because a student would also be granted a tax credit against that assessment. The student’s tax credit, in turn, would be transferred to the state Board of Regents, the body that runs higher education. The board would then use the credit to draw money from the Department of Revenue.

Under the plan, no one’s current tax burden would go up or down a cent.

But the Jindal administration said the arrangement would constitute an offset to the new tax revenue that was raised this term, and would thus keep his administration on the right side of its tax pledge.

Lawmakers have called the provision everything from “money laundering” to “stupid,” and that was just the Republicans. A Democratic state senator proposed an amendment to change the name of the credit from SAVE to DUMB, for “Don’t Understand Meaning of Bill.” (He later withdrew the amendment.)

“There is no way you can explain that it’s an offset,” said Robert Travis Scott, the president of the nonpartisan Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana. He concluded, “This is a vehicle that allows Governor Jindal to raise taxes, period.”

The fact that Norquist helped them figure out a way around his own pledge tells you that this nonsense has become nothing more than an elaborate ritual. It’s just plain DUMB.

.

QOTD: Brendan Nyhan

by digby

This is regarding the Village handwringing over Clinton campaign heresy in admitting that they are going to follow a base turnout strategy instead of trying to make Ron Fournier love them:

No presidential candidate — including Mrs. Clinton’s husband, whose strategy was compared to hers — competes in every state. The reason is the Electoral College, a winner-take-all system that rewards candidates who focus almost exclusively on closely contested states.

The difference is in which states she will target. The electoral map has changed since 1992, when the legacy of the old one-party South helped her husband win a number of Southern states that are now out of reach for Democrats. As a result, the targeting strategy that worked for her husband would not succeed today despite wishful thinking that she could, for instance, win Kentucky.

Most troubling to some observers, though, was the way that Mrs. Clinton’s strategy dispensed with the pretense that she would create unity and consensus by running to the center. The uncomfortable reality is that presidents don’t magically unite us, especially in our highly polarized era. With the public closely divided between the two parties, successful politicians have to mobilize their base to win.

Consider recent history. The last three presidents — Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — were all elected after promising to transcend partisanship. All failed in that aim after learning some hard lessons about how Washington actually works. Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama then ran re-election campaigns focused on turning out their core supporters — the same model Mrs. Clinton plans to adopt.

Presidential candidates should still try to speak to all Americans. But we shouldn’t pretend that pleasing words from Mrs. Clinton are going to bring back the politics of 1952 or even 1992 — that era is gone and it’s not coming back.

No it’s not.

I know she’s anything but honest and trustworthy since I’ve heard every Villager and young Villager in training tell me so in the past couple of weeks, but in this case, her campaign is apparently being more honest that these Villagers want her to be. Thanks to Nyhan for schooling them on the issue.

.

It’s going to be shitshow

by digby

I know the day is all about TPP but I wanted to put this out there as a warning about what’s possibly to come once that’s done:

The 2016 GOP White House contender told Politico he would fight a Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)-endorsed proposal to extend the subsidies through 2017, when Republicans hope a Republican president would be in office to push a comprehensive alternative to Obamacare.

Many Republicans in the House have exhibited a similar skepticism to extending the subsidies. However, the Senate GOP has begun to rally around legislation by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), which would extend the subsidies on the condition that other provisions of the law — including the individual mandate — are repealed. Thirty-one senators have signed on to the proposal, which is believed to be a nonstarter for Democrats. Policy experts also say it is an unworkable solution.

It’s going to be ugly … for 6-7 million human beings who need health care. Now. There is nothing abstract about what will happen.

Still hoping the Supreme Court is not so stuck in their ivory tower that they fail to understand the immediate ramifications of a decision that destroys this program. I know some people don’t like the ACA and they really don’t like Obama right now. But regular folks living in some state with a Republican governor should have to pay the price for that. Nobody should have to die for that.

.

Obama trade agenda fails in the House

by Gaius Publius

UPDATE: It’s starting to be reported that House Republicans are going to take another run at passing TAA. Boehner made a motion to reconsider, and that motion could be voted on next week. More as it develops.

In a long awaited end to an epic struggle, pitting the “friends of money” in both parties against their populist wings, “friends of money” lost a big one today. This isn’t final. But it’s a big win for today.

Politico (my emphasis):

In a staggering blow to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda, the House easily defeated a measure to help workers displaced by free trade known as Trade Adjustment Assistance. The aid package was critical to securing Democratic support for fast-track trade authority for the president, which he’s seeking to complete the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. The vote was 126-302.

While TAA (the “assistance” part of the legislation) failed, TPA (the actual Fast Track bill) passed. However, because the Senate sent both bills to the House as one package, both House portions had to pass for the Senate bill to pass.

Where we go from here is unclear. This can die, or it can go back to the Senate or into conference to revive the TAA portion without the Medicare poison pill. Or they may go to Disneyland with their lobbyist gifts and call it quits — though don’t count on that. This is the one big want for wealth, and I expect continued pushing.

But for now — victory. One thing is certain — the number of No votes for the current TAA bill must be considered if this combo bill is reconstructed.

Public Citizen’s Lori Wallach on the news today (again, my emphasis):

Defeat of Fast Track Package Highlights Americans’ Concerns About More of the Same Trade Policy – Senate-Passed Bill NOT Adopted

The Fast Track package sent over from the Senate was rejected today by the House because two years of effort by a vast corporate coalition, the White House and GOP leaders – and weeks of procedural gimmicks and deals swapped for yes votes –could not assuage Americans’ concerns that more of the same trade policy would kill more jobs and push down our wages.

Passing trade bills opposed by a majority of Americans does not get easier with delay because the more time people have to understand what’s at stake, the angrier they get and the more they demand that their congressional representatives represent their will.

Welcome to the weekend as the millions of Americans across the political spectrum actively campaigning against Fast Track will intensify their efforts to permanently retire the Nixon-era scheme and replace it with a more inclusive, transparent process that instead of more job-offshoring can deliver trade deals that create American jobs and raise our wages.

Today the allegedly unstoppable momentum of the White House, GOP leadership and corporate coalition pushing Fast Track to grease the path for adoption of the almost-completed, controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal just hit the immovable object called transpartisan grassroots democracy.

The crazy gimmicks employed to try to overcome what polls show is broad opposition to Fast Track actually backfired. Yesterday, the House GOP leadership put most GOP representatives on record in favor of cutting Medicare by $700 million with a vote on a procedural gimmick. Today, it was Democrats’ ire about a gutted version of a program to assist workers who will be hurt by the trade agreements Fast Track would enable that was the proximate cause of the meltdown. That program was included only to try to provide cover for the two dozen Democrats who would even consider supporting Fast Track at all.

Today’s outcome is a testament to the strength and diversity of the remarkable coalition of thousands of organizations that overcame a money-soaked lobbying campaign by multinational corporations and intense arm-twisting by the GOP House leadership and the Obama administration. The movement now demanding a new American trade policy is larger and more diverse than in any preceding trade policy fight. It includes everyone from small business leaders and labor unions to Internet freedom advocates and faith groups to family farmers and environmentalists to consumer advocates and LGBT groups to retirees and civil rights groups to law professors and economists.

Wallach has been a tireless hero in this effort. We’re lucky to have her.

Congratulations and thanks as well to all of you who lobbied hard to make this victory happen.

GP

Update from digby:

This from Huffington Post explains where we are procedurally [link here]:

With TAA defeated, Obama and Boehner have a variety of routes they can try to drive through. Their first attempt will be to call a new vote on Tuesday on TAA. “POTUS has the weekend to work the vote,” said one GOP leadership aide. At one point during the TAA roll call, Republicans had as many as 93 yes votes. Once it became clear it was going down, seven switched and voted no, but Republicans know they’re there if they need them in a pinch next time. That means that to get to 217 Democrats would need 124 votes. They only won 40 votes on Thursday. “They have a mountain to climb,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), leaving the Capitol.

Many Democrats, though, are worried that if they continue to vote against trade assistance, the program will disappear. Much of the caucus meeting Thursday was devoted to gaming out such a scenario. If Democrats do hang tough and vote no Tuesday, Obama and Boehner could try to pass fast track without TAA. They won such a vote 219-211 Thursday, but there was a sense of symbolism to it, as TPA could not become law without TAA attached to it, because of the way the House rule was structured. Nobody knows if the Democrats who voted for the symbolic TPA would vote for it under new conditions, without TAA, knowing that it could go back to the Senate and become law.

However, the original fast track passed the Senate with only 62 votes, two more than the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. Strip away trade assistance, and you are likely to lose some Democratic votes. In that scenario, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could bring TPA to the Senate floor with a promise to do TAA later. The thinking would be that if Congress shows it can pass TPA without TAA, backers of TAA will fall in line, because Republicans are all too happy to pass the trade bill with no assistance to dislocated workers at all.

.

The Kochs make a major move

by digby

We know the Kochs Tea Party monster’s influence in the GOP has broken its leash. But it’s getting bolder as well. This is from my Salon piece this morning:

The RNC is now openly arguing … that the Kochs’ political operation is trying to control the Republican Party’s master voter file, and to gain influence over — some even say control of — the GOP.

“I think it’s very dangerous and wrong to allow a group of very strong, well-financed individuals who have no accountability to anyone to have control over who gets access to the data when, why and how,” said Katie Walsh, the RNC’s chief of staff.

There’s more. This Party is in trouble. Unfortunately, that means we are too.

.

Pelosi’s office offers rude response to anti–Fast Track callers

by Gaius Publius

Nancy Pelosi is a Yes on Fast Track. Need more evidence? We now hear multiple
reports that members of CREDO Action, a San Francisco-based progressive
organization, are calling Pelosi’s office in large numbers — and being
treated abruptly and rudely.

Some detail. First from CREDO‘s Twitter feed:

The number of calls must be much higher by now. The action on the progressive side is fast and furious — enough so that the opposition is starting to sound fearful of a loss:

Obama trade agenda in trouble

The package is facing potentially fatal opposition among House Democrats on the eve of a vote.

President Barack Obama’s push for a large-scale trade deal with the Pacific Rim is in serious jeopardy, as House Democratic opposition to his top legislative agenda is growing on Capitol Hill.

Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) plan to bring a package of trade bills to the House floor Friday is proving to be a big gamble, as both senior Republicans and Democrats are privately wondering whether they will be able to first clear a procedural hurdle, then pass Trade Adjustment Assistance, a program to help workers who lose their jobs due to free trade.

The internal struggle for Democrats was evident Thursday in the Capitol complex, when White House officials and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka both addressed lawmakers in a closed meeting….

There are more stories like these now coming out, at Plum Line for example.

Back to Pelosi, here are some of those call reports (emphasis in original):

“As soon as I started talking, the staff member dumped me into voicemail. Rudely.”

“A real person answered the phone but switched me to voice mail before I could finish saying my name. I left the message but fear it will be deleted before being heard. Good luck.”

“The staff person rudely shifted me over to voice mail. Is that how Pelosi does everything and everyone who is not wealthy?”

“guy at WDC was short and snotty. both offices directed me to a voice mail with no comment.”

“Talked to a real person. When I stated the reason for my call, I was transferred to an answering machine.”

“A staff member answered the phone and cut me off in the middle of a word to switch me to voicemail. I left a message, and the rest is in the lap of the gods.”

“Bullshit. I got a live human on the line and as soon as I asked if Pelosi was whipping votes to pass Fast Track I got put into voice mail. I
left a message that she should stop betraying the Working People of our
country and oppose Fast Track and the TPP altogether.”

A few takeaways. One, this is how you know Pelosi is a Yes. There should be no doubt.

Two, this lack of control smacks of frustration — which means the deal may be in trouble after all. Congratulations. Maybe she needs more callers, just to help drive the point home? If you feel inspired, you’ll find her at (202) 225-4965 or (415) 556-4862. Operators are standing by, for the first few seconds at least.

Three, CREDO callers aren’t the only ones being treated this way. There are a number of progressive groups mobilizing members to call and write to Congress, including and especially to members like Leader Pelosi. Are they also being treated this badly? Anecdotally, yes — I’ve heard a number of similar stories.

And finally, if you want to help, call now — this minute — and say you’re watching this vote. Ask where the congressperson stands, then say if either TAA or TPA passes with their help, you’ll find a way to express your unhappiness in 2016. Say lobbying as a career has a lot to offer.

Start with your own congressperson, Republican or Democrat, then consider one or two others:

And thanks!

(A version of this piece appeared at DownWithTyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

Update from digby:

Pelosi ended up voting no on both the TAA and TPA.  But stay tuned. TPA passed narrowly and Boehner says he’s going to bring back TAA next week.  Presumably they’ll try to make some Democrats offers they can’t refuse in the meantime. It isn’t over yet.

.

Of politicians and poison pills
by Tom Sullivan

First things first. If you haven’t called Washington to weigh in on (or inveigh against) Fast Track — it comes up for a vote in the House today — find your representative’s number here. Operators are standing by.

As Reuters calls it:

President Barack Obama’s quest for “fast-track” negotiating authority on a Pacific Rim trade deal passed its initial tests in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday ahead of a final vote on Friday on contentious trade measures.

By a vote of 397-32, the House approved a measure authorizing funds to help workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade deals, without cutting Medicare health benefits for the elderly to pay for it, as the Senate had proposed.

Turns out Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim wasn’t enough of a poison pill. The Senate had slipped Medicare cuts into the Fast Track trade authorization package. A late-night deal between Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stripped the provision on Tuesday, Pelosi helping smooth the way for passage. She’s just helpful that way.

Reuters continues:

The House also voted 217-212 in favor of procedural rules that set up Friday’s votes on the core issue before it: the fast-track bill. Already approved by the Senate, fast-track is needed, Obama says, to help him promptly conclude a 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

Eight Democrats were also helpful. They jumped in at the last minute to shore up the vote for passage. Howie has got a little list. Gaius has more gory details
below.

Nancy Pelosi Got a TPP Talking-To from Her Caucus

by Gaius Publius

The Fast Track vote in the House looks set for Friday, June 12, or soon thereafter, and there’s scrambling on both sides. I want to look at just a few aspects of this fascinating attempt at corporate wet-dream enabling — (1) the Fast Track vote count itself; (2) newly-announced strong opposition from the right-wing Heritage Action operation; (3) the sudden unraveling of a deal Pelosi had with Boehner to pass the Senate’s TPA plus TAA combo bill — where Pelosi’s playing both sides finally got her a talking-to from her caucus.

We close with a “where we stand” summary and two bottom lines. Scroll down to read just that part. It’s been quite a ride.

What Are the Vote Numbers in the House?

On the vote tally, the most consistent numbers I’m hearing are in the range of those listed below. From Politico Pro (subscription required), this is James Clyburn talking about the whip count:

Clyburn: TAA offset still needs work

… [Assistant Democratic Leader James] Clyburn said during his remarks that he didn’t think Republicans had 198 votes to complement the current 20 Democrats who support fast track. …

I refer you back to this “whip count” post for my earlier speculation about the numbers. To review, if all members vote, it takes 218 to pass a bill in the current House (since they are now just one member short). There are 246 Republicans and 188 Democrats as of June 2. Most of the numbers coming out (some aspirational, some not) say that 50 to 70 Republicans could vote No on the combined TPA-TAA bill that came out of the Senate, and that something like two dozen Democratic Yes votes would be needed.

Clyburn’s statement is close to many reports. There may be more than 20 Democrats who are pro-Fast Track, but not many more. I count just 22 announced Democratic Yes votes — including the 18 named by Alan Grayson, plus Jim (“Air Force One”) Himes, Kathleen Rice, who just switched sides, Don Beyer, and Sam Farr, noted above. There is also speculation about undecided Democrats, but the number is no more than six and probably a lot less.

If you’d like to make a call or three, consider talking to these fine people:

• Ed Perlmutter (CO-07) — 202-225-2645 (fence-sitter)
• Terri Sewell (AL-07) — 202-225-2665 (leans Yes)
• Sam Farr (CA-20) — 202-225-2861 (just announced Yes)
• Nancy Pelosi (CA-12) — 202-225-4965 (lead perp)

Do it now though, literally now. The first two might be swayed. The third might be re-incentivized. And Leader Pelosi needs more of the talking-to mentioned above and described below. You might bring up the phrase “your legacy” as you speak with her.

Note that Clyburn is in House leadership (meaning he’s likely pro-Obama and pro–Fast Track if he can get away with it); also that Clyburn is in the Congressional Black Caucus, whose members have been heavily lobbied by Obama to stand with him. I would also count Pelosi (see here) and Hoyer as quiet Yes votes, but only if they have to be. It seems they’d rather see Fast Track pass while they vote No — Fast Track and TPP are that toxic in the Democratic House caucus.

All this means that the number of Republican No votes on Fast Track must be quite high. Subtract 50 from 246 (the number of total Republicans) and you get 196. If2 (or so) Democrats can’t pass the bill, there have to be more than 50 Republicans opposed. If they force a vote on Fast Track on Friday (or soon thereafter), it’s going to be very close.

Whenever that occurs, watch the TPA (“Fast Track”) vote — H.R. 1314 — which will happen if TAA passes. Do more than 22 Democrats vote Yes, or fewer? If so, who? Do more than 50 Republicans vote No? If so, who?

Heritage Action Will “Score” the TPA Vote

Heritage Action, the action arm of the Heritage Foundation, has now come out strongly against the TPA bill, and will score a member’s vote in evaluating the member for future support. Breitbart.com reports:

Heritage Action Will Score Fast-Track Vote

Without promises from House and Senate leadership that the Export-Import Bank will not be reauthorized, Heritage Action is urging Republicans to vote against a top Obama trade agenda item.

The conservative group is warning that it will be scoring the upcoming vote on whether to provide President Obama fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals.

“Absent ironclad public commitments from Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that the Export-Import Bank will not be reauthorized, Heritage Action will key vote against H.R. 1314,” the group warns.

Heritage Action argues that while it supports trade, the recent effort has become another vehicle for welfare spending.

“The bill combines President Obama’s request for fast track authority or Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) with a stimulus-level extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program and, as mentioned above, has become inextricably linked to the passage of the Export-Import Bank,” Heritage Action explains.

“Free trade benefits the economy and all Americans. Congress should not shy away from promoting free trade at every opportunity. However, The Heritage Foundation’s Ambassador Terry Miller says this particular ‘TPA has gotten bogged down in the politics of protectionism and welfare spending,’” it adds.

The group stresses that it is a “free trade organization” but that the addition of TAA makes support for TPA even tougher for conservatives. In the end they are calling for conservatives to oppose the bill, H.R. 1314, and warn it will be included as a “key vote” in their legislative scorecard.

“Heritage Action has always been a free trade organization, but free-market conservatives are understandably split on this president’s request for fast track authority,” the group explains.

Heritage and much of the right hates the Export-Import Bank, which selectively benefits exporters and mainly benefits Boeing, by the way. (Alan Grayson concurs in opposition to the bank.) They also hate the worker assistance provisions in TAA.

Will Heritage peal away enough Republican votes to defeat TPA? We’ll find out soon.

Why Is the Vote So Close? The Medicare Poison Pill

This explains the meat of the problem — for the bill and also for Leader Pelosi, who is reportedly working “almost daily” to oppose the wishes of the vast majority of her caucus. That opposition has now spilled over into intra-caucus conflict.

There are more corporate Democrats in the House than any of us would like there to be, and all are potential pro–Fast Track (pro-TPA) votes. But the bill reported out of the Senate is two bills rolled into one — Fast Track itself, called “Trade Promotion Authority” or TPA, and a bill that pretends to offset the damage to workers from the coming job-creating “trade” bills, called “Trade Adjustment Assistance,” or TAA.

Democrats need both bills to pass in order to make it look like the party as a whole cares about workers. All you need to know:

• The Senate reported both bills out as a single piece of legislation.
   
• If the House votes Yes to the exact language of the combined Senate bill (TPA plus TAA), it goes straight to the White House. No more votes.
   
• The House will vote on each part of the combined Senate bill separately, however. (A move to get different members to vote Yes on different parts.)
   
• Therefore, both bills must pass separately for the combined Senate bill to pass.
   
• If the House changes any of the language of either bill, it goes into conference instead of to the White House, which means more delay and more voting.
   
• If either the TPA or TAA bill fails, the whole Senate bill fails.
   
• There’s a poison pill in the language of the Senate TAA bill.

Somehow, the Senate put language in the TAA bill that said, in effect, “Yes, we’ll allocate money for (some small number of) workers who need ‘assistance,’ but that money will come out of Medicare.”

Oops. Here’s why:

• Even corporate-loving Democrats have to appear to be pro-worker. So they need to pass TAA to make their voters swallow their Fast Track vote.
   
• Even corporate-loving Democrats need to appear to be pro-Medicare. So they can’t vote for TAA as it’s currently written.
   
• You can’t cast a vote against Medicare and not expect to get killed in the next election. The ads write themselves.

So Pelosi and Boehner came up with a plan on Tuesday to “get to yes,” as reported by several sources. Four trade bills are going to be voted in this session, TPA, TAA, a “customs” bill and an African assistance bill. Only TPA and TAA matter, since Fast Track authority is all Obama and the CEOs care about. Obama can veto everything else and still get Fast Track authority for himself and the president who follows him.

The Pelosi-Boehner Tuesday plan was initially this: A sufficient number of Democrats would vote Yes for TAA — the one with the anti-Medicare language — then vote Yes for one of the other bills (initially the “customs” bill), which would have language canceling the anti-Medicare language.

Tuesday night, Boehner thought he had a deal with Pelosi. Tuesday night Pelosi thought she’d put together a way for her caucus to pass “TPA plus TAA” with Senate language intact (which tells you she’s a firm but quiet Yes, right?).

Tuesday night, however, progressives figured out that the Democrats were being had. How? Consider — You’re a Republican candidate fighting a Democratic incumbent in 2016. That Democrat voted against Medicare by voting Yes on TAA. If you say this in campaign ads, what’s the Democrat’s response?

These ads are easy; they write themselves. Here’s one now, against Democrat Jim Costa. If a Republican puts up that ad, what’s conservative Democrat Costa going to say in response?

“Yes, technically I did vote for TAA with the anti-Medicare provision, but then I took it back with my other vote for this other bill which cancelled the anti-Medicare provision. It’s technical, but it’s all good. You get that, right?

“Besides, it’s not my fault that the President signed the bad Medicare bill and vetoed the good Medicare bill. Not my fault at all. Still love me?”

With that story to tell, conservative Mr. Costa will close his electoral history book and open as a brand new lobbyist in January 2017. He and everyone else who took that vote.

Nancy Pelosi’s Tuesday Night Deal Was a Trap

On Tuesday night, based on the following Politico report, Nancy Pelosi had agreed to deliver Democratic votes to say (1) Yes to TPA; (2) Yes to the anti-Medicare but otherwise worker-friendly TAA; (3) Yes to the “customs” bill that was originally planned as the vehicle to cancel out the anti-Medicare language.

On Wednesday morning she got wise, got religion … or got a talking-to from her suddenly freaked-out caucus. Here’s part of the report on which this is based:

After vote set, Dems threaten to derail Obama’s trade bill

Nancy Pelosi and her allies are objecting to a procedural side issue involving Medicare money.

… On Tuesday night, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) thought he had an agreement with Pelosi to drop that approach and use money from more stringent tax enforcement instead.

But Democrats raised an objection that night and the issue boiled over at the party’s weekly conference Wednesday. [Earlier language: “But on Wednesday, Democrats raised a new objection.”]

They said under the voting procedure Republicans are planning, a vote would still be taken on the plan using Medicare funds, but it would then be overriden by a subsequent vote. That strategy would avoid directly amending the TAA bill, thus reducing the differences between the package of House trade bills and the one the Senate already passed. Trade supporters are intent on avoiding sending the trade bills back to the Senate for further action, lest even more problems arise.

Now here’s Mr. Clyburn to explain the problem simply (same source):

But Democrats say they want no part of a vote to cap Medicare spending, even if it would be fixed by a subsequent vote.

“Why should I be recorded as voting to take $700 million out of Medicare in order to get something to put it back?” South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the No. 3 House Democrat, told POLITICO on Wednesday.

But it gets worse for Pelosi. There’s now a report from inside the Wednesday caucus meeting.

Pelosi’s Progressive Talking-To

Pelosi’s pro-TPP deal with Boehner unraveled ugly in the Wednesday caucus meeting. Via this report from Vox:

Pelosi “misread” Democratic Caucus on fast-track bill, friend charges

The fight over President Obama’s trade agenda has gotten so ugly that one of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s closest friends in Congress accused her of subverting the will of House Democrats at a closed-door meeting of top party leaders on Wednesday, according to five sources.

“With all due respect,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro said to Pelosi, you’ve “misread” the caucus. It might not sound like much, but that’s a stiff charge. It suggests that Pelosi, the best vote counter of her era, is either slipping or intentionally undermining her colleagues. That was a bridge too far for Pelosi. Her aides began clearing the room of staff to limit the number of witnesses while she told the lawmakers who remained in the meeting that she’s been trying to get the best possible deal for American workers.

Ultimately, DeLauro has become the point of labor’s spear in trying to defeat a bill that would give Obama fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals. And Pelosi, who is claiming neutrality, has become a shield giving space for the White House and Speaker John Boehner to shepherd the trade bill through the House floor.

Read the rest; it’s fascinating. This not only happened — it was reported as happening. Pelosi’s careful cover story — she’s widely described as “neutral” or “silent” — is blown, and her caucus is now talking about the trap.

Where We Stand

That was Wednesday and we’re ages beyond that. The Pelosi-Boehner trickery has moved on. The “pay-for” to offset the anti-Medicare provision in TAA was put into the “Africa aid” bill (retitled “Africa Aid and Repeal Medicare Offset”), and the Africa bill passed in the House.

In addition, the anti-Medicare provision has been separated out of the TAA bill — “rendered moot” per Kevin McCarthy’s latest leadership memo, because the Africa aid bill has passed — but it will be put back in by the Rule after the voting is done. (Yes, really.)

McCarthy (click carefully; that’s the Weekly Standard):

After passage of the trade preferences bill tomorrow, the House will consider the Rule to bring up the TPA/TAA bill and the customs bill.  Instead of dividing the bill into two questions (TPA & TAA), the Rule will divide it into three questions (TPA/TAA/sequester). Since the House will have already spoken on the sequester provision, the Rule will consider as adopted the question of the sequester [anti-Medicare language] with no further vote since it has been rendered moot by the preferences [African aid] bill. This will leave the House to vote only on the remaining issues under the Rule: TPA, TAA and customs.

“Sequester” means “cuts to Medicare,” and as I said, language reversing that was put in the “Africa” bill and passed. The trick is that the Rule now means there will be no direct vote on the offending TAA language.

But a vote on the Rule is still a vote on the Medicare provision — it’s a vote to hide the anti-Medicare language in TAA, then reinsert it if TAA and TPA both pass.

McCarthy again:

On Friday, the House will begin with debate on a motion to concur on the TPA/TAA bill. The House will then debate the motion to concur on the customs bill with a House amendment. As I mentioned at Conference, the House will then request to go to conference with the Senate on the customs bill.

After debate on both motions on Friday, the vote order will be as follows:

• Question 1 – TAA. If this vote fails, no further action will be taken on the remaining trade motions. If this vote passes, the House will proceed to:
   
• Question 2 – TPA. If this vote fails, no further action will be taken on the remaining trade motion. If this vote passes, the House will proceed to:
   
• Motion to concur on the customs bill with a House amendment.

Do you see the other tricks? If TAA fails, no one has to take a vote on TPA (which pleases those frightened by Heritage Action, among others). Also, a vote on the “Rule” plus a vote on TAA is still a vote for the anti-Medicare provision, since the anti-Medicare language has to be restored (by the Rule) into TAA if that bill is to be identical to the Senate version.

Will this pro-TPP trickery (thank you, Leader Pelosi) be enough to assuage enough frightened Democrats so they can comfortably vote their contributors’ wishes instead of their constituents’ incomes? If the floor speeches preceding the vote on the Rule are any indication — including from Rules Committee Ranking Member Louise Slaughter — many Democrats recognize that the Rule vote and/or a vote on TAA could be deadly in the next election. That’s apparently why only eight Dems voted Yes on the Rule, and only near the end, when the Republicans couldn’t pass it alone.

In addition, there’s a long list of other things wrong with the “customs” bill (formally, an amendment to H.R. 644, if I read things right). House leaders have larded it up with lots of bad provisions, like forbidding the U.S. Trade Representative to address climate change in a trade agreement (discussed here). There are many more like that.

The customs bill is so changed that it will have to go into a conference committee, but it’s a giveaway bill anyway. It can take any form, and Obama can still veto it if and as he chooses. If TPA and TAA pass intact, he can sail into his “Bill Clinton future.” His next golden era is assured.

Bottom Lines

First bottom line — Despite McCarthy’s maneuvering, nothing has changed. The package still has a poison pill. But will enough Democrats think it’s now OK to vote for it? Those “she voted against Medicare” ads still write themselves. It’s going to be interesting. Stay tuned, but let your voice be heard first.

Second bottom line — Nancy Pelosi owns this bill, and that needs to said publicly. Without her ceaseless effort, Fast Track is doomed. Do remember that; Fast Track is her last strong act before she enters her own golden era. Her office phone number is above.

(This is an updated version of a piece that appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.

TPP: The giant puking sound in your house

by Spocko

I’m sure you have all called or contacted your congress person about TPP. But if this passes and the hidden top secret crap that is included happens, it’s going to mean tens of thousands of Americans getting sick from imported seafood and beef. 100’s will die because of agreements to “harmonize” food safety rules.

But by then it will be too late.

We owe a great deal to the people who leaked some TPP text, but they never released the text about food safety changes. How insane is it that even our elected officials have to rely on Wikileaks to know what was in this twisted scheme? That’s messed up.

After I created the video above I made another one focusing on food safety, but didn’t use it because I couldn’t confirm what was in the text regarding food safety. And that is exactly what the the trade negotiators wanted.

Secrecy keeps the Mainstream Media from hammering on deal specifics. They say,”We can only quote from official sources.” meanwhile everything moves forward under cover of corporate darkness.

Early on I contacted someone at Politico covering the TPP to discuss the food safety part of this “trade” scheme. The ag deals sections are huge, including massive sales of antibiotics for animals, something big Pharma loves.  I had some relevant info to give her, but I couldn’t provide any experts to validate the data.  The experts who had seen the data wouldn’t confirm because they could get in trouble.  Dead end.  From the media’s point of view why go to the US Trade Rep for comment when you know they won’t say anything about  “rumors” or “speculation” in the text they won’t let anyone see?

If people knew China could start transshipping food to America via Malaysia and Vietnam with NO USDA or FDA inspections, people would be pissed. These countries have terrible track records for food safety, especially seafood.The slim protections that the USDA and FDA provide on imported food needs to be increased, not removed.

But pissed people aren’t enough in the face of corporate profits. It will take the right number of sick or dead white kids to get people to notice. I don’t want that to happen here. If it does, well I guess the “free market will have spoken” in the form of children with food poisoning screaming in pain and parents shouting at investors who couldn’t stand to have their profits reduced to comply with some silly 19th century food inspection regulations and laws.

NAFTA was a giant sucking sound to the south. TPP might be the giant puking sound in your house.

Oh, another social conservative child molester …

by digby

It appears their numbers are vast, especially if you include all the Catholic priests:

John Perry, a prolific author who co-wrote two books with former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and co-wrote one with Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, was accused of child molestation in two separate lawsuits, BuzzFeed News has found. 

A 2012 police investigation of Perry’s alleged offenses found that “the allegations of sexual battery were sustained” but that the statute of limitations had expired.

Perry co-wrote Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That’s Bringing Common Sense Back to America about Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign. He also did research and writing for Huckabee’s 2007 book Character Is the Issue, a memoir of his early time as governor. Perry also co-wrote So Help Me God, Moore’s autobiographical account of fighting to keep a monument to the Ten Commandments at Alabama’s Supreme Court.

Those books are just a few of the titles produced with Perry’s help: He wrote For Faith & Family: Changing America by Strengthening the Family with Richard Land, the president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, a book with former Southern Baptist Convention president James T. Draper, as well as a book with Frank Page, the president and CEO of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee. Perry even co-authored The Vow, the book made into a feature film starring Rachel McAdams and Channing Tatum. Perry also lists writing two books for prominent pastor John F. MacArthur on his website.

In a sworn affidavit submitted during divorce proceedings, Perry’s ex-wife attests that she “filed for divorce as a result of Mr. Perry’s inappropriate marital conduct, to which he admitted to in his Response to Interrogatories numbers 1 and 2.” Throughout the court documents, “inappropriate marital conduct” appears to be a euphemism for the alleged molestation.

As someone pointed out to me at dinner last night, Democrats have sex scandals too. But they are vanilla compared to these guys. Extra-marital affairs sure. But they are usually consensual adult stuff, not this coercive, abusive behavior. But then what would you expect with these repressive cultures? It’s creepy.

.