Skip to content

Month: June 2015

QOTD: Jim Bob Duggar

QOTD: Jim Bob Duggar

by digby

Via Huffington Post

One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame. Many of these young women and young men look around and see their friends engaged in the same irresponsible conduct. Their parents and neighbors have become ineffective at attaching some sense of ridicule to this behavior. There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown on out of wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful…

Oh wait, sorry. That was Jeb Bush in his book “Profiles in Character.” The chapter is called “The restoration of shame.”

Also too, this:

For many, it is more shameful to work than to take public assistance — that is how backward shame has become!

In the context of present-day society we need to make kids feel shame before their friends rather than their family. The Miami Herald columnist Robert Steinback has a good idea. He suggests dressing these juveniles in frilly pink jumpsuits and making them sweep the streets of their own neighborhoods! Would these kids be so cavalier then?

He’ll be running as a compassionate conservative, no doubt.

.

Robert Reich on the Estate Tax — “Raise it” by @Gaius_Publius

Robert Reich on the Estate Tax — “Raise it”

by Gaius Publius

Nice short video in Robert Reich’s series “The Big Picture: 10 Ideas to Save the Economy.” This one explains the estate tax and argues for its increase.

The film is about two minutes long, and very clear, as are all Reich’s films in this series. Enjoy:

Some data from the film:

Today the estate tax reaches only the richest two-tenths of one
percent, and applies only to dollars in excess of $10.86 million for
married couples or $5.43 million for individuals.

That means if a
couple leaves to their heirs $10,860,001, they now pay the estate tax
on $1
. The current estate tax rate is 40%, so that would be 40 cents.

Yet according to these members of Congress, that’s still too much.

Who is behind eliminating the estate tax? The “Eighteen Families” identified here (listed on pdf pages 12 and 13). Among them are these fine people, listed with what they own:

  • The Blethen family — Seattle Times
  • Cox family — Cox Communication
  • DeVos family — Amway
  • Dorrance family — Campbell’s Soup
  • Gallo family — E&J Gallo Winery
  • Koch family — Koch Industries; the Republican Party
  • Mars family — Mars candy company
  • Nordstrom family — Nordstrom department stores
  • Walton family — Walmart
  • Wegman family — Wegman Food Markets

There are a few others, investors and the like. But these are most of the main ones. Notice how their corporations are the source of their wealth. Put differently, Walmart exists to enrich the Waltons. It only incidentally sells goods from a store to do that.

The House voted in April to eliminate the estate tax. The repeal is not likely to pass in the Senate (so I hear), but anything’s possible with so much money floating around, buying the ears of our bipartisan leaders. After all, I’m starting to hear about enormous sums associated with Fast Track “lobbying,” sums that could easily kick that ball over the goal post.

Are Democratic senators, especially the thirteen who helped pass Fast Track, ready to be “influenced” again? I guess we’ll find out.

GP

.

Republicans pound sand by @BloggersRUs

Republicans pound sand
by Tom Sullivan

It is unlikely that Eugene Robinson wrote the online headline for his column today: “Republicans might as well pound sand.” But that is the gist of it. Their progress in weakening Hillary Clinton so far is “pretty close to zero.”

The  Democrats have the most admired woman in the country 17 out of the last 18 years. The Republicans have contenders bent on taking away health care from
over 6 million
neighbors and throwing the weak to the wolves. Can’t imagine why they’re having trouble getting traction.

And while Republican presidential hopefuls are still emerging — the party seems to think it is still a couple bozos short of a clown car — Robinson believes Hillary Clinton is hitting all the right notes:

Her fiery speech last week in defense of voting rights was her campaign’s best moment so far. Clinton slammed several of the leading Republican candidates — by name — for their roles in GOP-led efforts to restrict the franchise through voter-ID laws and other means. And she called for automatic voter registration of all citizens upon reaching age 18.

Talk about hitting the right buttons. The big question about Clinton’s candidacy is whether she can inspire the coalition that twice elected President Obama — young people, minorities, women. Voting rights is an issue that reliably sends African Americans to the polls in large numbers. I’ll be surprised if Clinton doesn’t soon have major messages for Latinos on immigration policy and women on issues of reproductive rights.

How cynical, Republicans complain. Translation: How effective.

Meanwhile, says Robinson, the swelling Republican field is fighting over who gets to sit at the “adult table” when it comes time for televised debates. Squeezing them all onto one stage being as impractical as fitting them into that rhetorical car.

The Washington Spectator’s John Stoehr argues at Al Jazeera that it is not just stage space Republican candidates are fighting over. Those trying to out-conservative each other to satisfy activist primary voters will find that “the percentage of Republicans who identify as conservative has dropped 15 points since 2012,” according to Gallup. “There’s only so much GOP candidates should expect from a quickly contracting base.” Stoehr writes:

Meanwhile, the Democrats are enjoying the strong, diverse and growing support of the Obama electorate comprised of nonwhites and white liberals (educated, professionals living in urban centers). Those under 40 will see in Hillary Clinton a major candidate running on a platform of economic populism for the first time in their lives.

As for that, well, watch this space. But the voting rights speech got me where I live. As Michael Douglas once
said
, I ain’t cheap, but I can be had.

Update: Speaking of throwing the weak to the wolves, “If you don’t want to pay for other people’s health insurance, you can’t live in a first world nation.

“We tortured some folks”

“We tortured some folks”

by digby

and not just suspected terrorists:

A federal judge in Baton Rouge has called for the unconditional release of Albert Woodfox, the only remaining imprisoned member of the Angola 3.

Woodfox, 68, was placed solitary confinement at Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola and other state facilities for more than 40 years for reasons related to the 1972 murder of prison guard Brent Miller.

U.S. District Judge James Brady issued an order Monday (June 8) afternoon ordering the unconditional release of Woodfox from state custody and barring a third trial in the murder charges.

Woodfox has always maintained his innocence, claiming he was implicated in the murder of the 23-year-old guard to silence his activism as an organizing member of the prison’s Black Panther Party chapter.

Tory Pegram, the manager of the International Coalition to Free the Angola 3, said it’s unclear if Woodfox will actually be released from custody Monday. His lawyers were en route to Louisiana on a civil case, in which Woodfox is the plaintiff, on Monday when the order was issued.

Aaron Sadler, the communications director for the Louisiana Department of Justice, said Brady’s order “arbitrarily sets aside jury decisions” based on “faulty procedural issues.”

“With today’s order, the Court would see fit to set free a twice-convicted murderer who is awaiting trial again for the brutal slaying of Corrections Officer Brent Miller,” Sadler said in an emailed statement.

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell’s office is seeking an emergency stay from the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, he said, “to make sure this murderer stays in prison and remains fully accountable for his actions.”

In the 27-page order, Brady said it is more customary to issue “conditional” release based on the outcome of a retrial. He gave five reasons that qualify as “exceptional circumstances,” however, for barring a third trial.

“Mr. Woodfox’s age and poor health, his limited ability to present a defense at a third trial in light of the unavailability of witnesses, this Court’s lack of confidence in the State to provide a fair third trial, the prejudice done onto Mr. Woodfox by spending over forty-years in solitary confinement, and finally the very fact that Mr. Woodfox has already been tried twice and would otherwise face his third trial for a crime that occurred over forty years ago.”

Solitary confinement is torture. And if torturing someone for 40 years isn’t cruel and unusual punishment I don’t know what it could possibly be.

I love Louisiana but its criminal justice system is something out of the third world. I’m just surprised we haven’t been rendering terrorists there for “interrogation.”

.

That’s that #Obamacarefix

That’s that #Obamacarefix

by digby

The Supreme Court may still find for the plaintiffs in the Obamacare lawsuit and make the absurd argument that it’s no big deal because the congress can simply fix one sentence, but if you didn’t know it already, this makes it very clear what an idiotic rationale that would be:

At the G7 conference in Germany on Monday, the president said if the justices strip subsidies from millions of Americans, “Congress could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision” making clear that Healthcare.gov subsidies are available in all 50 states. Republicans quickly fired off a rebuttal.

“Let’s be clear: if the Supreme Court rules against the Administration, Congress will not pass a so called ‘one-sentence’ fake fix,” Wyoming Senator John Barrasso, who is leading Republican efforts to craft a contingency plan, said in a statement.

There you have it.

It wouldn’t be a fake fix at all, of course. Whatever sabotage the Republicans come up with would be the “fake fix.” If the Supremes reject the administration’s argument they are basically giving the GOP a cudgel with which to destroy sick people’s lives. And they know it.

.

The derpiest thing you will read all week #mediamyopia

The derpiest thing you will read all week

by digby

Krugman talks about economic derp in his column today and it’s quite entertaining. For those who don’t know, he defines derp this way:

Derp” is a term borrowed from the cartoon “South Park” that has achieved wide currency among people I talk to, because it’s useful shorthand for an all-too-obvious feature of the modern intellectual landscape: people who keep saying the same thing no matter how much evidence accumulates that it’s completely wrong.

It’s a good column, well worth reading all the way through.

I thought I’d also share some first class journalistic derp from “First Read”:

On Sunday, the New York Times observed that Hillary Clinton plans to follow Barack Obama’s general-election playbook — competing in the same battleground states Obama contested (and mostly won) in 2008 and 2012. But that means not playing in some of the southern states that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 (like Arkansas, Louisiana, and Kentucky). David Plouffe, Obama’s former top political strategist, summed it up this way: “If you run a campaign trying to appeal to 60 to 70 percent of the electorate, you’re not going to run a very compelling campaign for the voters you need.” In today’s highly polarized political world, this is how you win elections — by motivating your base and by recognizing there are few swing voters left. But it also makes governing harder, especially when the parties are trading electoral victories every two years (with Democrats benefitting from presidential turnouts, and with Republicans benefitting from midterm turnouts). When you have data-driven candidates appealing to win 51% of voters, it means that a president’s job-approval rating is never going to get much higher than that, and it means that bipartisan policy goals (like the TPP free-trade agreement) are the exception rather than the rule.

Of course, there’s a chicken-or-the-egg question here: What came first — this red-blue campaign strategy we’ve seen since 2000, or America’s political/geographical/cultural polarization? There’s a strong argument to be made that it’s the latter. Campaigns see an America more polarized than ever, and winning is all about coming out ahead in this polarized world. But it makes governing harder than it already was. Bottom line: Campaigns don’t engage in persuasion anymore. They simply look for unmotivated like-minded potential voters and find an issue to motivate them. And if someone wins office by not having to persuade a voter who actually swings between the two parties, there isn’t any motivation for said elected official to compromise. This cycle of polarization will continue until someone wins a massive election based on a different premise.

Can you see the fallacy there? I knew that you could. Take a look at this chart of presidential election winners sorted by percentage of the popular vote:

There are 57 presidential elections in total in that chart. (I am showing the top 24 winners of the popular vote totals.) You will notice that both George W. Bush’s second term in 2004 and both of Barack Obama’s elections in 2008 and 2012 are in that top 24. That would indicate that the period between 2000 and today is not marked by particularly narrow margins historically speaking. They aren’t in the top ten like Johnson or Roosevelt. But they’re comfortably in the middle of the presidential popular vote total derby. (Or should I say ‘derpy.”)

The point is that their implication that neither Bush or Obama had a mandate because they appealed to their own base is just nonsense. They both had mandates in those elections because they got a majority of the American electorate to vote for them. It wasn’t a huge majority in either case, but it was a majority that fits right in the middle of presidential popular vote totals.  If you want to look at some hubristic claims of mandates, you need to go back to Bush’s boasting in 2000, when he didn’t win the popular vote at all. In fact, that’s the one time I can think of a president making a completely empty claim to one based up on the narrowest of victories — one given to him by his brother’s political machine and a partisan Supreme Court majority. Other than that, all presidents have a right to claim their mandate based upon winning the election, period.  (And by  the way, Ronald Reagan got less than Bush 2004 or Obama in 08 and 12 in 1980. Yet, I’ve never heard anyone claim that he didn’t have a mandate.)

As for whether the country is “polarized” because it’s polarized, well, it’s nice of them to acknowledge that this might not be because politicians are crudely ignoring the Great Independent Voter who represents What Real America Wants for once. Baby steps. But the fact that they even lamented that “campaigns don’t engage in persuasion anymore” tells us that haven’t given up their precious derp just yet.

Yes, there is little room for compromise when one party refuses to acknowledge that presidents of the other party are legitimate. And it’s hard to find consensus when one party is answering to bunch of throwback extremists who’ve been brainwashed by billionaire run media companies to believe that democracy means that they have the right to flout any norms, rules or laws and use any means necessary to get their way. That little “problem” wasn’t caused by the Democrats who spent decades kissing the rings of conservative voters and have only come around to the fact that these miscreants would prefer to  blow up the country rather than give an inch.  It took them too long to figure that out, but at least they seem to have awakened from their slumber. The media is still dreaming.

.

QOTD: Ted Cruz’s day of pigs

QOTD: Ted Cruz’s day of pigs

by digby

Challenging Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee for the title of GOP insult king:

“Let me start by saying if I’m elected, January 2017, I suppose the first thing I should do is send flowers and a note of condolences to all of the reporters and editors who’ve check themselves into therapy.

He also said he was Cuban and then declared that on December 24th, 2017 he would hold a pig roast on the south lawn. The crowd roared.

You can see the video here. He’s got that rude and nasty tone just right.

.

Lessons learned #Clinton

Lessons learned

by digby

I wrote about why Hillary Clinton may be taking more liberal and populist positions in her campaign so far and how the media and the rest of us are reacting to it for Salon this morning. It’s quite interesting, although surely just a brief moment in what is likely to be a very tumultuous campaign:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign rollout so far has taken many people by surprise. All the silly folderol about emails and her unwillingness to talk to the press aside, what seems to have many reeling is the list of rather shockingly liberal agenda items she’s announced and the decidedly populist approach she’s taken to solving them. Apparently most observers thought she would run as if it were 1992 and the long-disbanded Democratic Leadership Council was in its heyday. But you have to admit that even by comparison to her run in 2008, she it taking a much more aggressively progressive stance on a number of issues from immigration to criminal justice reform to voting rights that just a short while ago would have been seen to be dangerous ground for a Democratic candidate for president.

For decades Democrats tried to finesse thorny racial issues (which is what many of those issues named above subconsciously relate to) while still being seen as the party friendly to racial minorities. It hasn’t bought them a white Southern vote in a national election in decades. It was always a fool’s errand but it took the victory of an African American president to finally show the party how to win without them.

And Clinton, not being a fool, can see that quite clearly as well. But she doesn’t seem to arrogantly believe that the coalition that elected President Obama twice should be taken for granted — and good for her. It shouldn’t be and if the Democratic party expects to win presidential elections it has an obligation to put the needs of those voters above the prejudices of voters who will never vote for them anyway. It’s hard to believe they ever thought that was a winning strategy in the first place.

I don’t write those headlines and I would argue that contrary to what this one says, my piece doesn’t make a case that progressives should “believe.” I simply point out that her history shows that many people once saw her as a liberal feminist, now she’s perceived as a centrist and her record shows that — it’s complicated. But what the piece is really about is her strategy, which would have once been considered somewhat dangerous for a serious presidential candidate. It says something about the political terrain and the lessons learned over the past few years that she is choosing a pretty liberal domestic agenda.

I would also add, as I have written many times, her foreign policy is much more opaque to me and I am anxious to see what she says about that. We have plenty of time for this campaign to unfold and I’m making no judgements at this point beyond the fact that I do give her an extra couple of points because I would really like see a woman president before I die — for which I offer no apologies.

But rest assured I’m not exhorting anyone to “believe”. I don’t “believe” in any politician and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to do that either.

.

Poppy’s plans

Poppy’s plans

by digby

From left, Neil, “Poppy,” Jeb, George W., and Marvin in 1970. During the Kennedy era, Poppy was heard to say on occasion,”Just wait till I turn these Bush boys out.” From the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum/Saba.

There are even more of them to “turn out” in the future:

Fast Track will also fast-track TISA, a privatizing “Trade in Services” deal, by @Gaius_Publius

Fast Track will also fast-track TISA, a privatizing “Trade in Services” deal

by Gaius Publius

Fast Track is not just a path to TPP … it’s evil all on its own. There’s now another leaked “trade” deal, called TISA, and Fast Track will “fast-track” that one too. Want your municipal water service privatized? How about your government postal service? Read on.

Most of the coverage of the Fast Track bill (formally called “Trade Promotion Authority” or TPA) moving through Congress is about how it will “grease the skids” for passage of TPP, the “next NAFTA” trade deal with 11 other Pacific rim countries. But as we pointed out here, TPA will grease the skids for anything the President sends to Congress as a “trade” bill — anything.

One of the “trade” deals being negotiated now, which only the wonks have heard about, is called TISA, or Trade In Services Agreement. Fast Track legislation, if approved, will grease the TISA skids as well.

Why do you care? Because (a) TISA is also being negotiated in secret, like TPP; (b) TISA chapters have been recently leaked by Wikileaks; and (c) what’s revealed in those chapters should have Congress shutting the door on Fast Track faster and tighter than you’d shut the door on an invading army of rats headed for your apartment.

Congress won’t shut that door on its own — the rats in this metaphor have bought most of its members — but it should. So it falls to us to force them. Stop Fast Track and you stop all these “trade” deals. (Joseph Stiglitz will explain below why I keep putting “trade” in quotes.)

What’s TISA? It’s worse than TPP. As you read the following, keep the word “services” in mind. TISA protects the right of big money players to make a profit from “services,” any and all of them.

The Wikileaks Treasure Trove of TISA Documents

First, from the Wikileaks press release (my emphasis):

WikiLeaks releases today 17 secret documents from the ongoing TISA (Trade In Services Agreement) negotiations which cover the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan & Israel — which together comprise two-thirds of global GDP. “Services” now account for nearly 80 per cent of the US and EU economies and even in developing countries like Pakistan account for 53 per cent of the economy. While the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has become well known in recent months in the United States, the TISA is the larger component of the strategic TPP-TISA-TTIP ‘T-treaty trinity’. All parts of the trinity notably exclude the ‘BRICS’ countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

The release coincides with TISA meetings at the ministerial level at the OECD in Paris today (3–5 June). The ‘T-treaty trinity’ of TPP-TISA-TTIP is also under consideration for collective ‘Fast-Track’ authority in Congress this month.

Note the breadth of the nations involved (highlighted above), the scale of economic activity covered — in the case of the U.S and E.U., 80% of economic activity — and the fact that TISA, like TPP, will be fast-tracked if Fast Track passes.

Click here to download or read the documents themselves. You’ll notice, if you do, that the drafts are marked up with the positions of the negotiators, some of whom propose or agree with provisions, some of whom oppose them. Nowhere in these documents, however, are concerns of citizens addressed. These are agreements negotiated on behalf of corporations by governments to divide up the ways that money will be made.

I want to repeat that:

These are agreements negotiated on behalf of corporations by governments to divide up the ways that money will be made.

As noted, Fast Track will make the final agreements almost impossible to reject by the U.S. Congress. For this reason alone, Fast Track is evil all on its own. Let’s look at some of the provisions of TISA.

TISA Will Make It Almost Impossible for Governments to Regulate Services

The problem with TISA? One is that it will make regulation of service activity — including financial services — almost impossible. Michael McAuliff at Huffington Post:

Wikileaks Drops Another Damning Trove Of Secret Trade Deal Documents

The latest trove of secret trade documents released by Wikileaks is offering opponents of the massive deals currently being crafted by the Obama administration more fodder to show that such agreements can impact United States laws and regulations.

The latest leak purports to include 17 documents from negotiations on the Trade In Services Agreement, a blandly named trade deal that would cover the United States, the European Union and more than 20 other countries. More than 80 percent of the United States economy is in service sectors.

According to the Wikileaks release, TISA, as the deal is known, would take a major step towards deregulating financial industries, and could affect everything from local maritime and air traffic rules to domestic regulations on almost anything if an internationally traded service is involved.

Leaked TISA documents include chapters on:

  • Air transport services
  • Competitive delivery services
  • Domestic regulations
  • Electronic commerce
  • International maritime transport services
  • Movement of natural persons
  • Professional services
  • Telecommunications services
  • Financial services
  • Transparency

and I’m not sure that’s the complete set. It’s just what we have in this release.

“Trade” Agreements, Regulations and Profit

The goal of all of these “treaties” is to protect the only thing being negotiated — the right of an investor or corporation to maximize profit from any country it wishes to operate in. I’ve always stated the concept this way:

In its simplest terms, “free trade” means one thing only — the ability of people with capital to move that capital freely, anywhere in the world, seeking the highest profit. It’s been said of Bush II, for example, that “when Bush talks of ‘freedom’, he doesn’t mean human freedom, he means freedom to move money.”

At its heart, free trade doesn’t mean the ability to trade freely per se; that’s just a byproduct. It means the ability to invest freely without governmental constraint. Free trade is why factories in China have American investors and partners — because you can’t bring down manufacturing wages in Michigan and Alabama if you can’t set up slave factories somewhere else and get your government to make that capital move cost-free, or even tax-incentivized, out of your supposed home country and into a place ripe for predation.

(By the way, “treaty” is hardly the word for these agreements, since nations are never negotiating them on behalf of their citizens. Nations are negotiating them on behalf of the corporations and investors who pull their strings. That’s why citizens can’t see them until they’re signed, while corporate lobbyists have seats at the negotiating table.)

Here’s Joseph Stiglitz on how and why these agreements are an attack on regulation:

On the Wrong Side of Globalization

… In general, trade deals today are markedly different from those made in the decades following World War II, when negotiations focused on lowering tariffs. As tariffs came down on all sides, trade expanded, and each country could develop the sectors in which it had strengths and as a result, standards of living would rise. Some jobs would be lost, but new jobs would be created.

Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the world are already low. The focus has shifted to “nontariff barriers,” and the most important of these — for the corporate interests pushing agreements — are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.

What’s more, those regulations were often put in place by governments responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements’ new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a race to the bottom.

A race to the bottom of what? The least regulation — governmental interference in profit-seeking — that they can get away with. These deals really are just about the money. Stiglitz continues:

When agreements like the TPP govern international trade — when every country has agreed to similarly minimal regulations — multinational corporations can return to the practices that were common before the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts became law (in 1970 and 1972, respectively) and before the latest financial crisis hit. Corporations everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be good for corporate profits. Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big losers — namely, the rest of us.

These high stakes are why it is especially risky to let trade negotiations proceed in secret. All over the world, trade ministries are captured by corporate and financial interests. And when negotiations are secret, there is no way that the democratic process can exert the checks and balances required to put limits on the negative effects of these agreements.

Why are these agreements always negotiated in secret these days? Because they’re so toxic. TISA is yet another, perhaps the worst one. And forced deregulation may not be its worst aspect. Here’s another reason to regard TISA with suspicion — forced privatization of government-supplied services.

TISA Could Force Privatization of Government Services, Like Water

Privatizing government services is a major goal of the “neo-liberal project” — something always negotiated, for example, by the enlightened elites at the IMF and World Bank before they bail out a country with too much debt, like Greece. Here’s the Hellenic Shipping News, quoting a WSJ article:

Greece will proceed with the privatization of the country’s main port of Piraeus, Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis plans to tell his eurozone counterparts at a meeting in Brussels on Wednesday, backtracking on previous statements from the new leftist government that had pledged to freeze the deal, senior Greek government officials said.

The U-turn comes as Greece’s new leftist, Syriza-led coalition government scrambles to reach a financing deal with international creditors that will keep the country from running out of cash in coming weeks and potentially defaulting on its debts. Since being voted into power just over two weeks ago, the new government has set a collision course with its European creditors by promising to roll back many of the austerity measures and reforms—such as privatizations—that Greece has undertaken in the past five years to secure billions of euros in aid.

I said “neo-liberal project” for a reason. This is not the crazy right wing; these privatization projects are undertaken by people like Rahm Emanuel, backed by people like ex-Wall Street banker William Daley — both of whom are Clinton-Obama–associated Democrats. Parking control is a government service. Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel sold that to “investors,” many of them foreign. Rahm Emanuel is a “liberal,” or more accurately, a classic neo-liberal.

The New Democrat wing of the Democratic Party is also its “New Liberal” (aka neo-liberal) wing. Its members serve Money, have from DLC days onward, just like Republicans do, and privatizing services is a great way to make even more money for people who love only money. It’s why the government Postal Service, for example, is being taken apart by both parties.

In Canada they’re worried that TISA will force water privatization:

Public Services International has sounded the alarm about [TISA] negotiations in its new report, TISA Versus Public Services: The trade in services agreement and the corporate agenda.

Mitch Jones at Food and Water Watch explains, “Negotiations for TISA began in 2012 when a group of 20 World Trade Organization (WTO) members formed the ‘Really Good Friends of Services’ (no, I’m not making that up). These Really Good Friends decided to negotiate a new deal outside of the normal WTO framework.”

He highlights, “Under TISA, privatization of local water systems would be made easier, and fights against privatization would be made harder.”

The report says, “Remunicipalization is significant because it demonstrates that past decisions are not irreversible. …”

“Decisions are not reversible” is its own topic. David Dayen discussed that a bit in this piece; look for references to “standstill” clauses.

The Road to “Corporate Domination”

Dayen is rarely given to exaggerated prose, yet under a headline referring to TISA as “The Scariest Trade Deal Nobody’s Talking About,” even he is forced to write:

You begin to sound like the guy hanging out in front of the local food co-op passing around leaflets about One World Government when you talk about TiSA, but it really would clear the way for further corporate domination over sovereign countries and their citizens.

And “corporate domination” can only mean domination by the very very wealthy, who use corporate power to feed off the rest of us — my own contribution to exaggerated prose.

Neo-liberal economist Jeffrey Sachs, quoted by ex-federal regulator Bill Black here, agrees, calling these same people and their moral environment “bluntly … pathological”:

I meet a lot of these people on Wall Street on a regular basis right now. I’m going to put it very bluntly. I regard the moral environment as pathological. And I’m talking about the human interactions that I have. I’ve not seen anything like this, not felt it so palpably. These people are out to make billions of dollars and nothing should stop them from that. They have no responsibility to pay taxes. They have no responsibility to their clients. They have no responsibility to people, counterparties in transactions. They are tough, greedy, aggressive, and feel absolutely out of control, you know, in a quite literal sense. And they have gamed the system to a remarkable extent, and they have a docile president, a docile White House, and a docile regulatory system that absolutely can’t find its voice. It’s terrified of these companies.

That’s his contribution to exaggerated prose.

Sachs knows his way around the neo-liberal street, having worked it himself. For example, according to Wikipedia, as an adviser to the Polish government “Sachs and IMF economist David Lipton advised the rapid conversion of all property and assets from public to private ownership.” It’s not like he’s not a fan of the project; it’s that he’s now appalled by the people who benefit from it.

International agreements like TISA are important tools in an expanded power grab by the hyper-wealthy people who buy and benefit from our elections, and government negotiators are their agents. The only disagreements at the negotiating table involve which country’s predator (Nestlé, say) gets to eat which other country’s prey (water rights in Oregon, for example). “Trade” agreements empower the predators under color of law.

Fast Track Is Evil All On Its Own

Your bottom line — if Fast Track passes, anything that any President can present to Congress as a “trade deal,” for the next three to six years, will almost certainly pass. Fast Track forces the legislative calendar (no delays), forbids filibusters and amendments, and allows just up-or-down votes.

TPP, TTIP (a trans-Atlantic agreement also called TAFTA) and TISA all fall under the “Fast Track” umbrella. But I guarantee, if Fast Track passes, there will be more deals like these. Fast Track is a golden opportunity, and those who love gold, or serve those who do — that’s you, Nancy Pelosi — will put it to very good use.

(A version of this piece appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)

GP

.