Obama's Defense Of TPP: Wrong Move At Wrong Time

Sometimes - despite batting on a "losing wicket" - one has to give props. In this case they go to Obama for his defense of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal three days ago. Thus, while being the absolute wrong political move at the time he stood side by side the PM (Lee Hsien Loong) from Singapore :


and, as if Mr. Long was peering into his mind, delivered perhaps the most robust and spirited arguments on behalf of this now moribund deal.

Make no mistake that other than in Obama's mind this deal is dead on arrival. With both candidates putatively against it (and they dare not do otherwise with so much of their political support hinging on it) there is neither Repub or Demo in favor or voting for it. Politically, it's as toxic as ingesting a cyanide capsule.  That Obama still believes there's a path to passage is incomprehensible, especially now that Hillary VP pick Tim Kaine has ditched it and no Reep lawmaker wants to touch it with the proverbial ten foot pole.

Yet Obama insists he "is still President" and plans to do that and more.  Well, maybe there is another parallel universe where that happens but not this one.

The sustained resistance to the TPP has led many pundits from all the major elite news sources (WSJ, NY Times, Financial Times etc.) to question what's wrong with Trump and Sanders' supporters but their own news sources have vindicated their negative take. For example the Times three days ago, ran a piece explaining how the benefits of  past trade deals (including NAFTA)  have only redounded to roughly the top 35 percent. That means 65 percent either broke even or lost.

Jobs, in fact, have not been created - at least the decent paying ones beyond barista, Uber driver and burger flipper- and money has continued to flow out to support overseas services and manufacture.  Even the so-called "rosy" econ stats have turned out to be dodgy as reported in a recent Denver Post Business analysis ('Economic Data Miss Big Picture', June 12, p. 3K). The Post noted, for example, that the number of full time jobs has risen only 1.3 percent since 2007. By contrast, part time positions are up 12 %.

Meanwhile, incomes for the "average U.S. household" ticked up 0.7 percent from 2008 to 2014 after taking inflation into account, though the Post observes (ibid.):

"But even that scant increase reflected mainly the rise in incomes for the richest tenth of households which pulled up the average"

Most recently, the latest jobs report noted 255,000 added, included in fields as diverse as finance (18,000), professional and business services (70,000) and health care (43,000). And yet despite the growth in jobs the actual economic growth only clocked in at 1.2 percent in the 2nd quarter. The main reason? Most job wage increases with benefits and wages still only trickled down to a relatively small fraction of the working population.

In other words, unraveling the stats, most workers in the aggregate barely broke even or lost ground - certainly if only the richest tenth could make just a fractional percent increase difference. (Bear in mind the richest tenth features average incomes of $1- 1.5 million each). The take accompanying the new jobs report was that there exists a "disconnect between business investment and hiring at home". In other words, corporations are more inclined to invest overseas than in new and better jobs domestically.

So it's no surprise a lot of Americans (many of whom are Sanders or Trump supporters) haven't been feeling the joy or "greatness" heralded at the DNC. And given they haven't felt that oomph via incomes, it's no surprise they be foursquare against the TPP which stands to make their lives and those of their offspring even worse.  How so?

If passed, the TPP would expand trade over the 12- nation Asia-Pacific region - particularly removing tariffs and investment barriers. For nations like Singapore and Vietnam it's terrific, for citizens of the U.S. not so much.  For one thing, the Neoliberal order would now seat the 'dictator'  of the  marketplace  everywhere. Specifically, with the backing of big corporations such as  Halliburton, global fracking would be literally unstoppable. For example, all local bans on fracking as well as New York's ban could conceivably be challenged since the TPP would allow foreign governments to sue if fracked oil or gas quotas were not met. 

Meanwhile, Monsanto (prime producer of GMO seeds and foods) would have carte blanche over the global food supply even as Obama last Friday signed the DARK act, denying Americans the right to know what the fuck is in their food.

See, e.g.   http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/68383/how-one-gmo-nearly-took-down-the-planet


Quote:

On Friday, President Obama signed bill S.764 into law, dealing a major blow to the movement to require GMO labeling. The new law, called the "Deny Americans the Right to Know" (DARK) Act by food safety groups, has at least three key parts in it that undermine Vermont's popular GMO labeling bill and make it nearly impossible for you and me to know what's in our food.

The law claims to set a federal labeling standard by requiring food producers to include either a QR bar code that can be scanned with a phone, or a 1-800 number that consumers can call to find out whether a product contains genetically modified ingredients.  But according to the Institute for Responsible Technology, this bill doesn't require most processed foods to have a label, the bill defines genetic engineering so narrowly that most GMOs on the market don't qualify..

So basically, Obama "set the table" in expectation of the TPP's  passage. Your only hope to avoid unknowingly eating GMOs then will be to totally go organic and hope there isn't some hidden provision in the TPP (assuming if by some stretch it passes) that allows member nations to sue the U.S. for offering a food class they can't afford to produce.

Nor is this mere aimless conjecture. We know from what's been revealed thus far. Hence,  according to Public Citizen, we know that the "TPP could ship millions of good-paying US jobs overseas.  We also know that the TPP could increase the costs of health care and medicine, while hurting health and safety standards . Overall, as with NAFTA before it,  the TPP will weaken domestic environmental regulations while boosting corporate power's leverage in global markets. Also, it will pressure lower wages in the U.S. since workers here will have to directly compete against workers in Vietnam who may only earn 68 cents an hour. Thus, like NAFTA, the pressure will be on to expedite a rush to the bottom - with corporations using labor in the cheapest trade partners opposed to more costly home-grown.

Also the Environmental chapter sets a terribly low bar with the measures falling way below U.S. standards for trade deals. Interested people can find out more at:

https://act.350.org/sign/congress-tpp/?gclid=CMiwvN6hssUCFZeDaQodlRgAHQ

Given the forces and major party candidates arrayed against the TPP, Obama's best move now would be to drop his crusade for passage. In the end it can only hurt the Dems and Hillary, especially if the unraveling Trump decides to use it against the D-ticket. The Republicans in the Senate also are in no disposition to help pass it, given so many of the GOP base are enraged against global trade deals.

The best bet for Obama is to drop pushing aggressively for TPP passage as part of his legacy and let Hillary carry the potential torch forward. In the latter case to perhaps "flip" later as  The Washington Post  reported  Virginia guv Terry McAuliffe blurted a week ago: i.e. "she will support the Trans-Pacific Partnership once she's in the White House". . Of course, in that case Hill might end up the first Dem one term president since Jimmy Carter.

See also:
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/68501/clinton-should-tell-obama-to-withdraw-tpp-to-save-her-presidency

Did Bernie Sanders Lay A Political Trap For Hillary?

Podcaster Jimmy Dore points out Hillary's subdued "hate" expression during Bernie's endorsement. Did he set a political trap? Quite probably, given he sensed she wouldn't keep to her promises.


Even as Barack Obama delivered his signature,  silver-tongued oratory and homage to Hillary last night -  a robust defense of "American values" and Hillary's qualifications to protect them-  darker ruminations have surfaced. These actually originated with Sen. Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Clinton in NH some time ago, but have only now come to the fore in the wake of Hillary's actual nomination.

And in that wake, questions of whether she will actually follow through on her promises - such as remaining steadfastly against TPP. Well, that came under suspicion the night before when VA Neolib Governor Terry McAuliffe


 blurted out that Hillary would "flip on"  the TPP as soon as she got into the WH. This raised the hackles of Bernie supporters but of course was quashed almost as soon as it got out - unlike the DNC emails: McAuliffe and advisers sputtering that  TPP "would only go forward if the changes that she wants are implemented and that everyone is in agreement." HRC would examine the deal and only approve those sections in line with citizens' interests.  As The Washington Post observed:

"There's a reason Hillary Clinton's campaign so forcefully and unequivocally pushed back at Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's (D) assertion Tuesday that she will support the Trans-Pacific Partnership once she's in the White House.

What McAuliffe said doesn't just directly contradict Clinton's stated position about the trade deal Obama is trying to pass before he leaves office. It undercuts several narratives Clinton is using the convention to reframe, while reinforcing some of the most damaging narratives to her campaign"

Indeed. Hence, the distrust in Hillary's adherence to any previous positions, and hence also the picking up of visual clues in her body language and face during the Sanders' endorsement.

In fact,  a number of Left media were "Zaprudering" the NH event with special attention to Hillary's body language and facial expressions while Bernie was delivering his (seemingly) ringing endorsement.  Several times the image was paused (e.g. by liberal podcast host Jimmy Dore)  to reveal her with a none- too pleased look on her face. See e.g.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhwzkPKA_xk

Dore then played a short video of Ralph Nader  who referenced Bernie's intent to expose Clinton's political betrayal on Jorge Ramos' show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BocCnTfQxVM


"He didn't slobber over her He basically went through all the promises she made on immigration reform, on minimum wage, on criminal justice reform, on the environment and climate  change.  I thought it was a really brilliant statement. .I have it here and urge everyone to read it because I think he's set her up for political betrayal".

What does that mean? It means, as Dore then explained,  that Sanders was setting her up since all those things HE said she was for, she's not really for, so she will betray his words. When she does that he can then enlarge his organization. Sandernistas will see they had put their trust in yet another Neolib who betrayed them. She only said what she did, when she did,   to get their votes.

This makes a lot of rational sense at a deep politics level: deliberately trotting out all the promises and commitments made  to put her on the spot and remind her of them, as well as his millions of followers. It is that technique of setting her up, that will ultimately expose her either as keeping to her word, or once again weaseling out. What is most telling is her body language and especially facial expressions. Pause the video as I did (at the same time Dore does) and look carefully. You don't need a B.Sc. in Psychology to be able to read her facial and body language literally screaming "Objection!" even as she  continues the rhythmic head bob telegraphing false assent.

As my psychologist friend Rick put it, the head bobbing is a physical compensation mechanism to neutralize HRC's  visceral objections via a controlled physiological response. In other words, to affirm a fake agreement with Sanders words despite the fact her face literally screams she actually hates them. But the head bobbing and nodding is a means to resist a totally negative physical reaction  (like issuing a middle finger salute as she did with the Kaine pick)..

The bottom line is that even before the Kaine VP pick (definitely not designed to inspire left turnout no matter what the scare tactics) and then the McAuliffe TPP gaffe, Sanders knew in advance that Hillary wouldn't stick to her promises. Hence, he listed a whole set of actions she'd said she do during the campaign. But Bernie basically set her up to do a purposeful fail:  commit totally unforced political hari kari - and very likely end up a one termer.

This also cuts at Bill Maher's snide remark last night (convention edition of HBO's  Real Time) that the Left is "purist".  Absolutely not! The Left, contrary to being purist, merely insists that if it makes sacrifices for a candidate he or she adhere to commitments made, at least those within their power. At the very least that means not verbally backtracking on them, and also pre-emptively embracing extreme right or center right positions never defended during the campaign. It means that the Left demands integrity in a candidate not "purist adherence" to ideological positions.  That Maher didn't know the difference is perhaps no surprise as in one Real Time from November, 2013 he didn't seem to know the difference between legitimate conspiracy analysis and god belief. He babbled:

 "We need conspiracies for the same reason we need God because we cannot accept that things are just random." 

Which is pure codswallop, because one doesn't "need" conspiracies.  They are rather detected and emerge out of the multifaceted scrutiny of  a universe of available evidence -  even that which may be released in files decades later. This is specifically so in the JFK assassination case. (In fact, as Dr. Pat Bannister noted, strong religious/ god believers are actually more likely to reject political conspiracies because they go against their most fervent beliefs in human nature and limits.)

But a person who wouldn't know the difference, or honor the distinction, would also mistake voters' demands for integrity in politicians as being "purist". In each case, an extreme comparison is invoked so it was also not surprising to see Maher and guests last night  making a false equivalence between "left and right crazies".

Sad, but this is why - along with the infusion of obscene amounts of money - our political and electoral system never improves and we are always saddled with "lesser of two evils" choices. Even our pundits and best comedians can't seem to enhance their insights to a deep politics' level to expose the ongoing con. 

"You have two choices, sir or madam: strychnine or cyanide! Which is it! Make your pick! You can't not pick!"

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/68299/the-kochs-want-hillary-clinton-to-become-president

And:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donors.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Excerpt:

For many Clinton donors, particularly those from the financial sector, the convention is a time to shed what one called the “hypersensitivity” that had previously surrounded their appearance at Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raisers or at her political events, during a period when Mr. Sanders repeatedly attacked Mrs. Clinton’s connections to Wall Street and her six-figure speaking fees from financial institutions.

“I think we’re past that,” said Alan Patricof, a longtime donor to Mrs. Clinton, when asked about the need to lie low during the primaries.

In Philadelphia, donors were handed preferred suites at the Ritz-Carlton and “Friends and Family” packages created for longtime Clinton hands — some of them also longtime benefactors. Some were granted time backstage or in the Clinton family box with former President Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton. Blackstone, the private equity giant, scheduled a reception at the Barnes Foundation on Thursday with its president, Hamilton E. James, one of the leading Wall Street contenders for an economic policy post in a future Clinton administration.

 

No, Bernie Has ZERO Aspirations To Be Veep!

In the blogosphere one must not be surprised at the frequency with which facts, statements and issues get muddled because often the bloggers are not careful enough in their choice of sources, or in the sourcing of second-hand comments. Such is always the case when one gets information say from a mostly propaganda stable like FOX News and fails to process it through a critical thinking filter. And even CNN can be dicey when the source is a twit like Wolf Blitzer.

Thus, the spreading meme - mostly in Right circles - that Bernie Sanders is hankering for the VP position on a "Killary" ticket is pure balderdash.

Perhaps the most illuminating (direct from the "horse's mouth") interview of the past week was the one Bernie gave to Rachel Maddow last Thursday. Maddow grilled him for over 40 minutes and this included: his plans at the Dem convention (i.e. whether he has any office aspirations other than President, if he would instigate a "floor fight" and over what) as well as DNC decisions , and the future for the millions of Sanders backers. (Including a Sanders Super Pac).

In response to the first, Bernie made it abundantly clear it was the top spot or nothing. He wasn't going to play "second fiddle" to anyone, although (with a gleam in his eye) he said he would consider Clinton for the Veep post in his cabinet.

While it's the right of the most brazen, unhinged Trumpie to mock Bernie ("commie loon") , it is also true that - if Trump is to have any chance of getting elected this fall- he will need many of Bernie's 7-8 million supporters. Hence, it appears rather foolish to be dissing and dismissing (as well as disrespecting) their standard bearer - especially as they check out blogs too.

Bernie didn't mince words and - after dispensing with any and all VP nonsense (Hillary wouldn't have him in any case, but rather someone like Elizabeth Warren). He also emphasized any floor fight or contested convention would be over two things:

1) Failure to allot his campaign a proportional fraction of floor delegates-reps,  which only number 3 now compared to Clinton's 16. Thus, he sent a letter to DNC head Wasserman-Schultz warning of a floor fight if - for example - he didn't get many more in tandem with the states won and population voting for him. He noted that if he ended up with 25 pledged delegates when the final primary count is made he ought to get close to half the assigned floor reps for the convention.

2) Bernie expects Hillary to accept one or more of his proposals in her platform. If not, yes there will be a floor fight and it will get ugly. Also, as I noted before, this will almost certainly cost her millions of Sanders' supporters.

Sanders, make no mistake, will be coming into the July convention with plenty of leverage in the form of over 1,600 delegates and likely at least 22 primary wins. He fully expects his demands to be taken seriously, and you may be sure he will not offer any full throated endorsement of Clinton or implore his followers to vote  HRC- if that commitment is not forthcoming.

The Economist (April 23, p. 20) has already noted Hillary is mostly just feigning allegiance on key progressive  issues:

"Mrs. Clinton has largely avoided lurching to the left after Mr. Sanders."

The author then describes how she  can wrangle out of each agreement or promise made. For example, if the Senate ratifies the TPP this year she can say, "Sorry, folks, it was out of my hands!"

As for the Trumpies dumping on Bernie, again, this is all mostly over-heated, 50s- style anti-commie hysteria and hyperbolic bile coming out. Even The Economist (May 7, p. 21) observed in its article on Donald Trump ('Fear Trumps Hope'):

"He would be a disastrous president. If Mr. Trump's diagnosis of what ails America is bad, his prescriptions for fixing it are catastrophic"

For example, his tax -debt plans are magnitudes more fantastical than Sanders' most extravagant socialist ideas. The Economist again:

"He has pledged to pay down $19 trillion national debt in eight years while at the same time cutting taxes by $10 trillion. Given that he has also pledged to protect Social Security, the Committee for a  Responsible Federal Budget has estimated he would have to cut other areas (e.g. VA, Medicare, military-defense) by 93 percent to meet his objective."

And yet he plans to build up the military! Even the Economist agrees that if Bernie is in fantasy land, the Donald is Donald Duck stuck in "Never Never land".  And yet Trump's supporters dump on Bernie at will believing he's the one who's lost his marbles. Well, not by a long shot..

See also:

Excerpt:

Clinton is anything but unpredictable. Rather than trying to court those disillusioned Sanders supporters and left-wing malcontents, Hillary seems to believe that she has a better shot with the “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” country club Republicans (who like their foreign policy hawks).


http://www.salon.com/2016/05/09/the_militant_complacency_of_the_democratic_establishment_why_bernie_his_supporters_must_continue_to_pressure_hillary_clinton/

Is Hillary's Move To The Left All A Big Act?

Hillary's outburst several days ago may have been incited by the stress of having to keep concealed her actual Neoliberal agenda - plus fend off Bernie's criticisms.

On the eve of the Wisconsin primary it was disheartening to learn that Hillary's "moves to the left" may all be cosmetic and not anything she can be held to during or after the general election. This may also be one reason she's so eager to ditch Benie Sanders as a campaign foe, since it will allow her to pivot to the right more quickly.

The recent outburst of Hillary during an interlude on a college campus in New York, was sobering as well as instructional. Let us also point out the Greenpeace activist who asked if she'd adhere to an environmental pledge was not a Bernie supporter. She was acting as a rep of Greenpeace only, but since the corpora-media often conflates progressive organizations with Bernie's campaign, it is easy to see why many made this error.

But what occurred to me on seeing the confrontation many times on TV, is that the stress may be getting to Hillary and wearing down her hitherto strong 'armor' in conveying the 'strong candidate' appearance. I have suspected for some time, in fact, that Hill doesn't hold her new positions sincerely, i.e. on TPP, or the Keystone pipeline, but only adopted them to try to weaken Bernie's left flank.  If that is the case, psychological stress would naturally factor in given holding a position conflicting with one's actual beliefs leads to the condition of bad faith, first described by Jean -Paul Sarte in his Being and Nothingness.

The holding of a bad faith position out of expediency over time, as HRC has done, eats away at one's confidence, ethical posture as well as judicious temper. It is somewhat like gobbling a bucket of fried chicken with a 2"gallstone and hundreds of smaller ones, ready to wreak havoc. In short it can't be sustained over long. Add in additional pressure, as in being criticized hard for taking from Wall Street and not signing an environmental pledge the other Dem candidates did, and there is the making of a partially psychotic breakdown.

Now, some may contend Hillary really is 'all in' to her recently embraced leftward positions, but according to syndicated Bloomberg columnist Pam Dwyer, this is not the case, and we are all being played.  In her recent article ('Has Sanders Moved Clinton To The Left?',  Denver Post, April 3, p, 5D) Dwyer argues forcefully than "an analysis of her speeches, debates and white papers shows she's been a careful tactician"

Thus, "on issue after issue she's left an escape hatch and deliberately omitted saying things that might cause voter whiplash later".  This is when she moves back to the right, or as today's yapping media fools portray it, "to the center" (not realizing or appreciating that today's "center" is the new right).

Hence, it makes sense Hillary would flip out when pressed on the legitimacy of her positons, including on climate change and rejecting fracking (which I admit, has only gone into a abeyance because of the plummeting cost of oil.)

Dwyer's take is that once Clinton clinches the nomination she will flip back to the "center". This means reneging on all or most of the claims, promises made while under pressure from Sanders. Of course, this is all the more reason Sanders needs to stay in and play whatever hand he's dealt. The longer he stays in, including bargaining for leverage using his supporters and delegates at the Convention in Philly, the better the chance of keeping Hillary honest - while shortening the time for voters to forget her promises.

As Dwyer puts it:

"Call it political expediency or call it smart politics, but surprisingly little of Clinton's primary strategy will require her to do an embarrassing about face for the general election.'

So no wonder she lost it when confronted by the Greenpeace activist. She knew she was being called out on a promise that she couldn't keep and no intention to even put on her radar to create more pressure.

Wisconsin tomorrow will show the extent to which voters there will continue to fall for the political charade, or make a stand - enabling Bernie to continue to the Convention with significant leverage to at least keep Hillary honest.

See also:
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/04/hillary_is_sick_of_the_left_why_bernies_persistence_is_a_powerful_reminder_of_clintons_troubling_centrism/

The Dem Debate: Bernie Sanders Wins 'Hands Down'

Bernie Sanders was confrontational when he had to be and showed he had the better grasp of issues and solutions than Hillary

One thing that quickly distinguished the CNN Democratic debate from its Reepo predecessors is that it was emphatically not a clown cavalcade. There was no bombastic carnival barking a la "The Donna" Trump, or wicked mud slinging or insulting female questioners with nasty, personal references to intimate body processes. Nor did we behold knuckle dragger aversion to real and serious issues like climate change. One instantly could see, indeed, the average I.Q. of those on stage was at least 30, maybe 40 points higher than the Reepos demonstrated.

Of course, the Reepo clown followers wouldn't see that, why would they? Give their I.Q.s are at or near the level of their clownish heroes.  

Interestingly, the moron Neolib media punditocracy in general yucked it up and most thought Hillary "dominated" as she did in 2008 against Barack Obama (and we saw how that turned out!). But I had to wonder if those morons, as on 'Morning Joe',  saw the same debate that I did.

Taking the whole debate in context, I was happy to concur with MSNBC's Chris Matthews (in his post-debate show) that Bernie Sanders won, if it can be likened to a contest (which I believe it can) or perhaps better a boxing match in which points are awarded for each hit. In this case Sanders scored more hits in the time than his main competition - Hillary - while the other three (O'Malley, Chafee, Webb) ended up largely as bystanders. Lincoln Chafee, in fact, basically disqualified himself with the lamest response when he tried to defend one vote (to abolish Glass-Steagall) using "he only just arrived in the Senate". Sorry, doesn't wash, doesn't work.

Sen. Sanders, meanwhile, at once showed he was of presidential caliber especially by not falling into Anderson Cooper's "go to war" trap in the Middle East. Bernie wisely stipulated any American response in the Middle East would not be based on a "Pax Americana" - following JFK's ideals- and would have to be done cooperatively (with emphasis on the Arab states involved to defend their own region, e.g. against ISIS). Further, he would not have any "no fly zones" in Syria (as Hillary has advocated but which risks accidental altercation with the Russians) nor send in ground troops. "War must be a last resort!" He insisted. And he's right, given too many neocons, especially still ensconced at State, have too quickly adopted the mode of conflict (like in the Ukraine).

Sanders also scored points against "Hill" on capitalism though - granted - seeing it required viewers to  not only know their recent history but recognize pretentious BS when presented. Thus, when Hillary responded to Bernie's stout representation of Democratic Socialism, e.g. in reference to models in Denmark, Norway and Sweden by saying:

"It's our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn't run amuck and cause the kind of excesses we're seeing in our economic system".

At that juncture one had to be able to pause and ask: "And what, pray tell, might that 'job' be?" She didn't say - she merely launched vacuous words into the media ether and hoped enough dummies would swallow cheap rhetoric and nod heads. Bernie meanwhile was clear that such a control of capitalist  excesses would require nothing short of a political revolution. By which he meant - not military revolution (as dumbo Jim Webb seemed to think) but rather along the lines of consciousness raising as first proposed by Charles Reich in his classic, The Greening of America,  nearly 44 years ago.

Hillary then played upon Americans' general ignorance of economic history by actually saying:

"But we would be making a grave mistake by turning our backs on a system that built the greatest middle class in the history of the world."

Seriously?  In fact, the American Middle class was built after WW II by a series of programs, including the G.I. bill which empowered affordable home ownership (enabling my dad to help buy his first place) as well as paid for college education.  THAT built the Middle Class along wikth the earlier New Deal of FDR - by which oldsters could finally attain a measure of financial independence and didn't have to move in with the "kids".   But Hillary, as she often does, played 'Muricans for dunces  - betting on their weak historical memories.

Sanders was also spot on with his consistent emphasis and application of the inequality argument, and especially the need to break up the three biggest banks which, let us recall, received their bailout money 7 years ago by claiming they were "too big to fail". When Hillary suggested a congressional route to solve the problem, including reference to Dodd-Frank (which Maul Street is already plotting to blow up) Sanders retorted with one of the quotes of the night:

"Congress does not regulate Wall Street, Wall Street regulates congress."

Hillary lost primarily on several counts, not the least of which were accentuated by her almost shouting and strident monotone - which more resembled a droning harpy than a hard core, no nonsense candidate. Her attempts to knock Bernie's record on guns were also misplaced,  especially for any Sanders' supporters aware of the basis for his gun record in Vermont - and that if he had not voted against certain gun restrictions (as in the Brady Bill)  in that rural state - he'd never have become Mayor of Burlington, VT, far less a congressman then U.S. Senator and now Presidential candidate.

By those cheap shots alone, Hillary likely lost 60 percent of  potential Sanders' supporters, i.e. moving to her side if he fails to win the nomination. (Btw, Sanders' take that rural and urban citizens need to come together to effect significant gun law changes was spot on, all Martin O'Malley's inept blathering to the contrary. And O'Malley seemingly forgot how the eastern shore of MD was actually up in arms against his anti-gun actions as MD governor.)

Other Hillary misfires, not necessarily in the order they transpired:

- Trying to defend her changed TPP vote by resorting to the trope that she "had time to rethink it"

- Trying to defend her (then) vote for the Patriot Act - expecting somehow the Bushies wouldn't skew it toward loss of civil liberties as they did with Sec. 215.

- Clinton falsely claimed that Snowden could  have returned and sought whistleblower protection when she ought to know damn well (as former Secretary of State) that such protection is only for government employees, not a contractor as Snowden was. 

- Asserting she'd teach Putin a lesson, without really saying how she'd manage that trick.

Sanders, by contrast, delivered sober answers such as that (if he returned to the U.S. for trial)  Edward Snowden deserved to have taken into consideration the fact that he did expose illegal wiretapping by the NSA. (A subsequent Obama commission as well as a federal judge actually reached this conclusion). Also, he exposed the clear violation of the 1978 FISA law by the Bush bunch, which required actual signed warrants for EACH violation. Then negated under Sec. 215.

But the biggest laugher was when Hillary claimed she was a "progressive" when she is and always has been a Neoliberal centrist. It's easy, of course, to be a progressive when it suits your fancy or convenience - and is done for political expediency.  Say anything to rip off some of Bernie's left base.

However, the real badge of courage is wearing that label via your actual convictions and actions - even when the Reepos are snarling non-stop and hurling all manner of epithets at you and the clueless corporate media treats you like a pariah (as it mostly does Sanders).

The clear sign that Sanders was the winner "grown up" and Hillary the "child" that needed his protection?  When Cooper fired a question at him about Hillary's email troubles and Sanders immediately referred to the 27 million in poverty, the immense inequity of wealth distribution and then thundering in Hillary's direction: "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damned emails!"

He received a standing ovation for that, and to me, that won him the night. Hillary immediately came over to his lectern and shook his hand as if to say "Dear God! Thanks Bernie, for saving my bacon!"

The idiot 'Monday morning' quarterbacks in the media, of course, considered it a "gift" from Sanders, but it shows how stupid they are. Peeling away the superficial appearance and going to the subtext it revealed a gentleman with tons more magnanimity than his opponent and also a ferocious sense for what our political discussions should really center on: the issues that matter most to ordinary Americans - as opposed to the asshole elites, and the rich donor class  of the Repuke party.


That instant of Sanders' focal outburst, beyond any others, also encapsulated Sanders' graciousness toward his primary  competitor while projecting him as superior to that competitor.  The whole audience knew it, even the moderator, although they may not have said it. But that was the winning moment.

The last element that showed me that Sanders conquered the night was giving the only correct response to the question on the most serious security threat facing us: climate change. (see e.g. http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/climate/climate-change-security-risk-pentagon-0563675/ .  The others mentioned ISIS, Middle East war etc. - and while serious, none come close to climate change in posing the risk to extinction (other than nuclear war with the Russians, of course).

Also catapulting Bernie's stock was the post - debate news that Google searches on "Bernie Sanders" trumped all the others by a two to one ratio. People who may not have heard of him before, have now seen him on a national media stage. In that glaring venue they have also seen he can not only hold his own with the Dem front runner, but display such noblesse oblige toward her that one can only picture him in that Oval Office - with perhaps her as his Veep.

It would be the generous thing to do. We will see. But to many of us, Bernie felt the "Bern" and won tonight.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/this_was_bernie_sanders_night_the_candidate_of_anger_and_honesty_won_the_democratic_debate/

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/64301/the-first-democratic-presidential-debate-had-adults-on-the-stage

Examining The Roots of Economic Inequality

Economic Inequality occupies such a prominent place in today's political-economic discussions that even the high-powered elites (at least some of them, like the Bank of International Settlements) have actually warned of its metastasis. This suggests the problem is at once global but still far more pernicious in some nations, such as the USA.

The general measure is the Gini coefficient and for the U.S. it has dramatically increased the past 25 years and is now nearly 0.40. This is nearly on a par with the Philippines and Mexico. Not only that but inequality is increasing.

There are two ways to look at what's happening: 1) simplistic or 2) systemic. In the simplistic narrative inequality is simple because it's just reduced to income inequality. People-workers are naturally unequal in means, salary, perks etc. because they occupy different stations in life, have different training, aptitudes, education, background etc. so some will "get to the top" and have it all or most of it with humongous incomes, while others will flounder as flunkies in bottom feeder jobs like burger flippers or maybe street cleaners.

Following from this, the elites will always be able to buy more and bigger, whether cars, homes, TVs, home theaters or even vacations. By this narrative, it's the fault of the "flunkies" for accepting what are supposed to be starter jobs and keeping them instead of moving on to bigger and better things, preferably by getting more training, education etc. (No mention here at all of the fact that 95% of all wealth is inherited, as first exposed by Michael Parenti in his book 'The Dirty Truth')

As a corollary to this, the poor  - those in poverty and needing welfare or food stamps - are also to blame for not pulling themselves up and making more of their lives by getting higher paid jobs as opposed to say "settling" for a $7.50 an hour fast food McJob.

Of course, this is all a balderdash right wing fairy tale that may console the Right winger's conscience but barely touches on reality.

Thus, to really get at what's going on one needs to use a systemic approach and analysis. In doing so we learn a number of brutal truths:

1) The Job profile in the U.S. now is like a steep pyramid with only a few "great" jobs at the top, mainly techies (Google, Microsoft etc.) but the bulk are mediocre or poorly paid. Also, with few benefits. Look at the typical WalMart worker. The latter doesn't go for food stamps or Medicaid because he is endemically "poor" but rather is too poorly paid. Since his company won't provide him the health benefits he needs, of course he must go on Medicaid.

2) The pyramid took this form since the 1990s, and especially after NAFTA, when millions of manufacturing and production jobs were sent out of the country and plants - as well as steel mills and auto factories (paying truly living wages of $35/hr or more) were shut down.

3) While many econ gurus made predictions that computer -software and other better paying jobs would come to the fore this didn't materialize. Instead companies (e.g. Dell)  "outsourced" their tech help software expertise to India. (Indian schools now train their s/w students not only in the various online help techniques but also how to imitate American accents).

4) Thus, the fact of the matter is the elite jobs never came back and hence upward mobility - once a cornerstone of the U.S. work force- went into abeyance and is perhaps now extinguished permanently according to some authors (See Juliette Schorr, 'The End Of Work') .  The WSJ in one article back in August actually predicted that by 2020 fully 44 percent of the workforce would be in retail- and receiving a truly 'royal' average wage of about $9.50 an hour. When the Wall Street Journal recognizes such a huge proportion of retail jobs you know upward movement is a thing of the past.

All of which shows that claiming income disparity is at the root of economic inequality is true in one big sense, but misplaced if  massive U.S. job outsourcing via globalization is not factored into the equation - and acknowledging this interjects a systemic defect.

5) American workers have gang-busted with productivity gains since the early 1970s, but have virtually nothing to show for it. Wage increases have only marginally increased (last month to barely 2.2 percent)  and meanwhile benefits have been pared back. Worse, productivity is now almost uniformly measured not the way it once was - by how much a worker did per hour - but instead how many workers can be CUT so that those remaining can still do the work of the earlier total.

The other systemic side of economic inequality has to do with how many advantages the wealthiest have which average workers do not. For example, they have enough disposable extra income that they can afford to be in the stock market and sustain heavy losses - say in a correction or downturn - without having to eat cat food. The ordinary worker with his or her 401k of only $100,000 can't afford that luxury.

Also, the wealthy can make use of  computer flash trading to cash in shares before the ordinary Joe can reach for his smart phone. The rich also know how to use fractional trading to benefit as well as get tax write-offs the ordinary bloke can only dream of and can use trusts to protect his estate that the ordinary Joes and Janes can't.

From a systemic viewpoint then we see the plight of the U.S. worker can be laid at several forces which are causing available jobs of any quality to plummet: 1) globalization, including the oncoming TPP trade deal, and 2) automation - which is enabling companies to jettison even more workers and thereby save on salaries and benefits. These factors,  in tandem with the wealthy stacking  market transactions in their favor, means it will always be a rigged game. Worse, the wealthy will make extra money off the backs of the workers via the stock and mutual fund losses of the latter.

The solution to the problem then must be systemic but not as the 'simplistic' folks portray it. First, the market and stock market in particular must be held to account for the little guy. No more flash trades or fractional share buying, selling. No more carry trade. Plus each transaction carries a tax hit, no more unlimited exchanges.

At the same time,  the  rich alone can't be taxed to sustain an economically equitable society. Everyone of middle means must be taxed more highly but also understand they will get it back in higher benefits (like the Europeans do), including: lower health care costs, lower drug costs, and lower thresholds for Medicaid and even food stamps. Also, low cost or free child care to enable parents to work or even have the chance to get better jobs (if such become available0.

In Europe, citizens accept much higher taxation but this is balanced by much more government support they can depend on, whether for pensions, healthcare or childcare. In the U.S. model, Americans are taught to be rabid individualists and "go it alone" without any support,  but if they stumble (say by getting a fatal cancer or being in a bad accident), too bad. However, if they hit life's lottery - yeah, they will live like kings, or at least Trump.

Trouble is 99 percent will not make life's lottery, so will end up scrabbling for a life line at some point. (Which is also why you see so many hard working Americans throwing their money at lottery tickets the only chance they have- in their mind.)

Donald Trump in all his economic bloviations, has gotten one thing correct - and it is driving the anti-tax fanatics of the GOP nuts: higher taxes have to be paid, especially by the super rich. But if economic inequality is ever to be conquered and real productivity returned - higher taxes must be borne by everyone of decent means - which is also why the Bush middle class tax cuts were one of the worst things ever for this country. Especially as they were implemented when Bushie boy was starting $ 4 trillion wars. Sadly, the Dems contributed to that malaise by voting for them in the first place then extending them past their sunset date (which even the Bushies knew was needed to prevent a deficit blowout.)

Now all those war debt coppers got to be paid back, and the rich alone - rich as they are - can't do it. The burden falls on us all. But it's surely a cautionary point against starting any future conflicts we can't pay for and which will only increase inequality!

The truth for my bible -believing friends is that the "parable of talents" would end up a poor joke in today's rigged financial world. I don't believe Yeshua, if he was alive now, would even be daft enough to propose it. He'd know in advance, given he's God, whoever received a talent to invest would lose it - in about the time taken to be fleeced in a flash trade.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/08/dear_middle_class_welcome_to_poverty_partner/

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/09/robert_reich_americas_economy_is_immoral_partner/

English County Puts Kibosh on Fracking - What Are WE in the U.S. Doing About It?

Anti-Fracking protestors in Preston, England, after the local government rejected fracking applications from Caudrilla Resources

What a great and noble thing it is to have control of whether despoliation of one's environment can occur via the use of local control of fracking! We almost had it here in Colo. back in 2014 except that Jared Polis (who tendered two different referenda on it) punked out at the last minute - no doubt coerced by the oil and gas and lobby. As well as kowtowing to empty promises by Gov. John Hickenlooper, aka "Hick", who once drank a large glass full of fracked water to try and show it was harmless. (Rumors later circulated that he had diarrhea for three days after, but we can't verify this.)

We know New York at least got the message and banned fracking last year, but most state government haven't given they're so in control by outside interest e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.tw/2015/05/fracking-state-governments-determined.html

Now, we also know an English county government on Monday rejected application from Caudrilla Resources for the first onshore hydraulic fracturing in Western Europe since 2011, according to a Wall Street Journal report ('Fracking Suffers Setback In England', p. B3, June 30).  Thus, as the piece observed, "the industry suffered another blow to develop a shale gas industry outside of the U.S."

Well, let it suffer! We don't want or need no stinkin' fracked air, soil and water!

And as for the bollocks pumped out by the industry's PR tanks, i.e. that it "provides energy independence" do not believe that codswallop for one second! All it is doing, as Jim Hightower also observed in his latest column, is being shipped outside the U.S., e.g.

"In shale fields across the country, you'll see fracking rigs festooned with Old Glory, and they even paint some of their rigs red, white and blue. This ostentatious, patriotic pose is part and parcel of the industry's cynical public-relations campaign to convince you and me that its assault on our health, water, air and economic future should be mindlessly saluted, rather than questioned.

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE! is their deafening cry — this shale gas boom, they exclaim, most certainly will free America from dependence on foreign producers.

"Oh say can you see [through the frackers' big lie?]"

He goes on to pointedly note:

"Far from independence, we're going to get the pollution and other problems, but foreigners will get the energy, for the gas extracted from our fractured land is destined for the export market.

How do we know that? First, because the industry and its government enablers admit it in their internal communications. But, secondly, guess who's paying for the fracking of America?"

Bloomberg News,  indeed, reports that China has pumped over $5 billion into the U.S. drilling "boom" — not only so it can export the energy back to their people, but especially so the Chinese can "redeploy the best U.S. practices and technologies" back to China. Japan has done the same and India has plowed in $3.5 billion to grab our fracked oil and gas.

 Other Asian nations will reap the benefits of this cheap, degraded energy for their own development - once the TPP is finally passed (if it is). Then every signee nation from Vietnam to the Philippines will be able to demand untold fracked shale oil from us and we shall have to comply.  So we are being asked - nay expected- to allow our own nations in the West to be fucked over as far as water, air quality and depredation of the environment - to provide cheap energy to others!

And the insidious effects on resources - especially water - are such that we MUST reject the efforts to blind us to what this dastardly methodology is doing.

The latest news, according to a comprehensive new analysis from the U.S. Geological Survey: fracking is using up much MORE water than originally assumed -  as much as 9.6 million gallons per well.  To give you some point of comparison, an Olympic-sized swimming pool, for comparison, hold just about 660,000 gallons. Thus one single frack well can consume more than 14. 5 Olympc -sized swimming pools.

On average, the study calculated that gas wells are using 5.1 million gallons of water each. Not only is that a lot, it’s more than 28 times the amount of water they were using just 15 years ago.  The greatest atrocity? Many of those operations, as Climate Central notes, are located in regions that recently saw severe droughts — Texas, the Rocky Mountains, the Great Plains – and which can expect to confront even more water shortages as global warming progresses:

It's estimated that fracking now consumes up to 30 percent more ground water than previously believed. At this rate, and with new water data showing an ever diminishing resource base, there won't be any left for future generations.  Kids today who grow up in water-ravaged drought states - or even in many other places- will have to rely on toilet to tap water, or else.... go without.

In the case of the UK vote, while supporters inflated the "economic benefits"  - most sane people weren't biting, noting the host of toxic chemicals used during fracking, most of which got into the ground water. In their rational reckoning, there was no issue of dubious "cost benefit" calculations, there simply was too much cost and very little benefit to them - the cost including devastating health issues and devaluation of property. Because NO one wants to buy a home in a frack area. So the elites can tout this shit all they want, but they can afford to live in their little rich enclaves which won't tolerate it!

Meanwhile, in the UK Scotland has also banned fracking and Wales is considering a similar measure. It is also banned in France and on hold in Germany where my friend Reinhardt has vowed he will fight "tooth and nail" to keep it out since he's seen what it's done here in the U.S.  He agreed that letting it get started would be almost as bad as "allowing the Nazis to regain control of the country."

Indeed, and this is largely why the frack craze - while it's unleashed an oil and gas boom in the U.S. - has proven politically toxic in the more advanced European nations whose citizens take care not to elect frack -crazy political whores. Instead,  blocking it at every turn because of its calamitous health and environmental damage.

We need to start mounting unabated pressure on our political cretins....errrr....creatures...now, to halt this crap. Our future and our kids future depends upon it!

Claire McCaskill: "Bernie Sanders Is Too Extreme" - She's Another Neolib Traitor Dem

Claire McCaskil's brain dead,  dopey face after being called out by Mark Halperin when she asserted Bernie Sanders is "too extreme for Americans."  Maybe for pro-corporate Democrats like Claire McCaskill who prefer to see a stronger Corporatocracy!

I had Sen. Claire McCaskill pegged correctly as a Neoliberal, corporate Democrat when I wrote in an April 30, 2011 post:

"Another traitor Dem is none other than Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri (much like one of her predecessors, Sen. Carnahan in 2001 - who voted for the original deficit creating Bush tax cuts) who now wants to join up with Republican Bob Corker of Tennessee in a pie-eyed, cock-eyed, half-baked scheme to "save $7.6 trillion over 10 years." How? By capping federal spending at 20.6 percent of gross domestic product within a decade. That’s down from 24.3 percent now. And that's despite an expected increase in population of more than 15%. What the hell is she drinking?"

Of course, such capping would have meant mainly the poor - on programs like Medicaid and food stamps-  would suffer,  along with seniors on Medicare and Social Security. Meanwhile - as history has shown, MCCaskill has had no problem protecting the original Bush tax cuts, and protecting defense spending.

I write this because this morning it would have been no surprise for many when on 'Morning Joe', she slimed Bernie Sanders and the giant, energized crowds he was getting - insisting his platform was "too extreme" and he wasn't being subjected by the media to the same standard as Hillary. Including being tagged as a "socialist".

Maybe Claire has lost the ability to read, or perhaps she's got one blind eye, but I've seen at least ten articles or columns in the past month on Sanders' socialism - mainly written by right wing media imps like George Will. But this "unequal" treatment narrative fits in with McCaskill's shtick of protecting and exalting a pro-corporate, Wall Street -backed candidate.

She did concede that Bernie Sanders "has a message that is touching people's frustrations" and that she "totally gets that" - but "so does Hillary Clinton".   Of course, but in all the examples Claire gave it was only after her being pushed to the left once Bernie entered the race and began climbing in the polls (in one NH poll coming within pts. of Hillary). So she's being too clever by half and disingenuous.

The fact Claire wouldn't admit on air is that Hillary is being backed by Wall Street money and tons of it shows her dishonesty. But then as a pro-corporate Dem there'd be no reason for her to broach this on national TV.

Mark Halperin then challenged McCaskill to name three ways that Bernie Sanders' political message and platform was too extreme. After babbling for a bit, and then trying to dodge it ("why don't you name them?") she finally barfed up the following:

- "He would like to see  Medicare for all in this country and let everyone have a government insurance policy. "

Oh yeah, terrible! Horrible! Fuckin' awful! Imagine, each citizen being covered by a program already embraced by seniors which has the lowest administration fees compared to private insurance. And.  having it as opposed to a program (Obamacare) which allows the insurance companies to all take their cuts, jack up premiums whenever they want and forces people to pay into it even if they can't afford it.

And she's also dead wrong when she claimed "I don't think Americans want government to have every insurance policy" - because they DO - in poll after poll - when the alternative is only private medical insurance or some hybrid like Obamacare.  But again, what do you expect from a corporate Dem?

She went on:

- "He would like to see expansion of entitlement (Social Security)"

Again, god forbid seniors get expanded Social Security though I already showed there are ample justifications for it, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-social-security-expansion-bill.html

She added in connection with this, "he is not worried about debt at all" which is false. Because on multiple occasions Bernie has made it clear the social benefits he wants expanded can be paid for by decreasing the out of control military spending which already exceeds the total of the next 22 nations combined. 

- "Somebody who I think is frankly against trade"

Again, wrong! Bernie is not against trade, but rather against unbalanced trade agreements (with almost all  benefits to Wall Street & corporations) and  concealed trade pacts like the Trans Pacific Partnership  (TPP) which also enable corporate- multinational hegemony over national democratic decisions. I touched on many of the negative aspects here:


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/so-how-bad-is-trans-pacific-partnership.html

Readers who want to see more can check these links:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/62790/killing-a-nation-with-euphemisms-tpp-eats-medicare-edition


http://www.salon.com/2015/05/12/the_10_biggest_lies_youve_been_told_about_the_trans_pacific_partnership

Make no mistake McCaskill has merely disclosed her true colors, as anti-Middle class, and pro-Wall Street. What do we know about the TPP? We know, according to Public Citizen,  that the TPP could ship millions of good-paying US jobs overseas.

We also  know that the TPP could increase the costs of health care and medicine, while hurting health and safety standards. (An excellent reason for Claire to be against  Bernie's "Medicare for All".)

We also  know that the TPP could make corporations even stronger and undo what few reforms are left on Wall Street.

All this is even more germane now that traitor, poseur Dems like McCaskill have voted for the fast track on TPP which now only the most valiant and ferocious opposition can upend. (Here are the D-senators who voted for Fast Track: http://1.usa.gov/1GtAdTH )

At one time the Dems stood for core principles and they constituted more than a temporary ensemble or "coalition" brought together every four years by dodgy rhetoric to win one election. Now, having sold out to the money changers, bankers and business assholes - not to mention the pseudo-free market, they are barely discernible from the Repugs. Two sides of one corporate party coin  - except that the Ds use lube before they fuck you over.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/62810/the-difference-between-bernie-sanders-and-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph


And:


http://www.salon.com/2015/06/24/bernie_sanders_cornel_west_the_radical_alliance_that_could_change_everything/

What Do The TPP Backers Do When They Lose? Punt and Delay!

"Hehehehehe....now we shall have six more weeks to twist the arms of the weaker ones to get this deal passed! Then our corporations can rule!"

The "unholy alliance" (of a putative Dem Prez and his usual R-enemies) behind pushing fast track TPP lost big yesterday and they knew it.  Despite pushing, cajoling and bribing  D- House members over the weekend, when Tuesday arrived the pro-TPPs knew it was a lost cause. Did they let the acknowledged result go through and finally allow this demonic 'baby' to be put out of its misery? No way!  Boehner, McConnell and Obama finagled the legislative loopholes to come up with a 6-week delay  - during which time interval they are sure they can sway enough votes (of fence sitters) to their pro-abomination side.

Can you say cheat? One Dem Rep (Doggett, TX) put it bluntly, quoted in The Financial Times:  "Looks like the fast trackers have become back trackers".

Indeed, and make no mistake we've seen this before, some 12 years ago in the drive to push through another abomination:  the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act.  This beast provided one of the largest corporate welfare handouts ever, while ostensibly giving seniors a "drug benefit" - IF they didn't fall into the "donut hole" - wherein they'd end up paying the full cost for all their drugs. 

The top pusher of this grubby bill, Billy Tauzin (R-La), after numerous delays,  eventually succeeded in getting it through by holding congress critters "hostage" until 3 a.m.  after a late  'no' vote and then making the specious promise that the total cost would come in under $500b.  The weaklings,  including Dem weasels, finally caved and the corporate enclave and its lobbyist rats broke open the champagne. (Goldman-Sachs in one WSJ piece at the time predicted a $13.6b windfall for Big PhrMA over ten years - even as millions fell into the donut hole).

What exactly is this whole TPP kerfuffle about? It is basically about whether we still have any kind of democracy or whether we have moved to a full Neoliberal corporatocracy.  Bill Moyers, in a recent article on the  blog smirking chimp, put it thusly:

"The issue before us is not “free trade,” which, like any policy, has its pluses and minuses. The issue is that a multilateral trade agreement should not be negotiated in secret, but in the open by our State and Commerce departments, with input from all organizations concerned, including those representing workers and environmentalists.

Then there should come a draft document for all to see, to be laid before the people’s representatives in Congress assembled. If and when a majority of them ratifies the agreement, it can go to the president for signature. This is how democracy should work....

This whole affair is outrageous. After 226 years of constitutional government, is this where we’ve finally arrived?"

Moyers, in his piece, also called out the Republican Constitutional purists (or constructionists), for not robustly fighting against this perfidy.  If they were indeed so firm on the defense and provisions of the Constitution, why were they not fighting tooth and nail against this piece of crap bill that removes citizens' will and delivers it to corporate powers? Good question! One can only surmise that they have been bribed or threatened just as the holdout Dems will be over the next 6 weeks.

What it means for the rest of us is this fight isn't over, not by a long shot. No one can rest on his or her laurels including the moderate successes so far. We must be prepared to fight to the bitter end, until this TPP turd is finally laid to rest, and its unholy alliance quieted - once and for all.

In the meantime, energized readers can use clicktocallcongress.org to contact their reps and insist they hold strain.  Tell them to vote the right way- against TPP!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/62690/sea-change-citizens-beat-wall-street-and-multinationals-in-congress

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-moyers/62678/fast-track-derails-democracy

Naming the 28 Democrat Punks Who Voted for the TPP Fast Track on Friday

 "Aaaargh! That bastard Copernicus is exposing our allies in the House!"

Okay, it's 'show time',  people. The next big vote on TPP is likely today and we have to know the names of the 28 Demo punks who already voted with the Repukes on it.  These traitors voted to pass fast-track trade promotion authority, which preapproves the still-secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and future so-called “trade” agreements. These poltroons voted to send jobs and factories out of the country, to allow non-U.S. corporations (and foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations) to sue our government if we try to pass laws that might interfere with their profits. (And those are just some of the things we know are in TPP from leaks.)

Okay, look, there is always the small chance of redemption, so we will hope that arrives today when the rubber likely hits the road with a new TPP vote .  Here are the names of  the Dem miscreants. Pay attention to see whether any are your reps.:

Brad Ashford (Neb.-2nd District)

 Ami Bera (Calif.-7th District)

 Don Beyer (Va.-8th District)

 Earl Blumenauer (Ore.-3rd District)

 Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.-1st District)

 Gerry Connolly (Va.-11th District)

 Jim Cooper (Tenn.-5th District)

 Jim Costa (Calif.-16th District)

 Henry Cuellar (Texas-28th District)

 Susan Davis (Calif.-53rd District)

 John Delaney (Md.-6th District)

 Suzan DelBene (Wash.-1st District)

 Sam Farr (Calif.-20th District)

 Jim Himes (Conn.-4th District)

 Ruben Hinojosa (Texas-15th District)

 Eddie B. Johnson (Texas-30th District)

 Derek Kilmer (Wash.-6th District)

 Ron Kind (Wis.-3rd District)

 Rick Larsen (Wash.-2nd District)

 Gregory Meeks (N.Y.-5th District)

 Beto O’Rourke (Texas-16th District)

 Scott Peters (Calif.-52nd District)

 Jared Polis (Colo.-2nd District)

 Mike Quigley (Ill.-5th District)

 Kathleen Rice (N.Y.-4th District)

 Kurt Schrader (Ore.-5th District)

 Terri Sewell (Ala.-7th District)

 Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.-23rd District)

If ANY one of these people represent you in Congress, use clicktocallcongress.org to contact them. Tell them to vote the right way- against TPP - or their stay in the House won't be very long because they will be primaried next time around!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-moyers/62678/fast-track-derails-democracy

Excerpt:

"The unholy trio of Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (who has vowed to keep any of Obama’s nominees from being confirmed), Speaker of the House John Boehner (who has thwarted just about every Democratic legislative proposal of the past several years), and President Obama (a Democrat, in case you are having trouble remembering) are as one in a desperate effort to rescue their Frankenstein-like creation.

Their only hope is to bribe, browbeat or brainwash enough House members to change their minds. It could happen....

The issue before us is not “free trade,” which, like any policy, has its pluses and minuses. The issue is that a multilateral trade agreement should not be negotiated in secret, but in the open by our State and Commerce departments, with input from all organizations concerned, including those representing workers and environmentalists.

Then there should come a draft document for all to see, to be laid before the people’s representatives in Congress assembled. If and when a majority of them ratifies the agreement, it can go to the president for signature. This is how democracy should work....

This whole affair is outrageous. After 226 years of constitutional government, is this where we’ve finally arrived?

So what can we do against so monstrous a lie? First, call this deal out for what it is — an abomination. Then let the tsunami of popular outrage roll. Tell Congress and the White House what you think. But hurry! Time’s running out, and Obama, McConnell, Boehner and the lobbyists are working overtime to get the locomotive back on the fast-track."

Liberals Need To Hold The Line On TPP Vote - Don't Let Obama & Reepos Prevail

Hmmmmm.... If we can just catch the liberals sleeping next Tuesday maybe we can push this bill through!

The news today that the liberal -progressive faction of the House held strain - under Nancy Pelosi's guidance- and torpedoed a key element of the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) fast track trade bill, has to warm the cockles of every true citizen's heart. And despite Obama's high pressure personal pitches in trying to wrangle congressional votes, he fell short  - he and his Repuke allies, at least for now. But, as they say, it's not over til it's over and by some "legislative acrobatics" (to use Rachel Maddow's parlance) Johnno Boehner managed to keep this sick dog on the respirator enough to live another day - next week  - for a re-vote.

It goes without saying all the real dems and allies must hold the line on this and not give an inch. Obama will likely turn on the fake charm and smile again to gain leverage on this TPP abomination but this we can't allow. People need to get hold of their congress critters over the weekend and remind them - as 'Democracy Now' has -  that if they cast a vote for this perfidy they will be left to "rot" next year and be "primaried by a real Democrat" as opposed to being elected as a DINO, Neoliberal traitor.

To remind readers, what happened today is that the worker assistance provision ("Trade Adjustment Assistance") was voted down- which meant the fast track legislation couldn't go forward. This worker assistance provision emerged out of the Senate bill when it was realized that if American workers' jobs were lost (as they likely will be by the millions) they will need specialized re-training to get back in the game.

Normally such a provision would be a no-brainer to vote on but in this case two strikes stood against it: 1) it had to be paid for and the Republicans originally designated cuts to Medicare providers to pay for it - but Dems let them know this was not on, so the 'pay for' part was left for later, and 2) passage of the provision would represent an "enabler" to a bill that is awful on its face with many elements that are hostile to not only workers but the environment, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/so-how-bad-is-trans-pacific-partnership.html

Thus, killing the whole TPP trumped passing any given provision, since if that happened the damned thing would be fast-tracked for Obama to sign and expedite. The last thing any true, red-blooded American  - especially worker - wants.

So, despite Obama's rancid insults to the House Dems - including advising them to "vote straight" - they ignored him, as did House Minority Leader Pelosi.  Well, they ignored him at least on the worker assistance provision vote. The other main TPP vote passed by 219-211. (But I suspect at least twenty rat's ass Dems hid behind that vote knowing in advance the worker assistance part was doomed, to appease their dear Prez.)

But as I said, this isn't over...not yet. Boehner and the House Republican majority plan to resurrect it again next week, and we need to keep the pressure on congress critters not to relent. If this turkey passes, as one blogger observed on smirkingchimp, it will mean a "blood bath" next year for the Democrats. This we do not want no matter what Obama believes about his "legacy".

Find another legacy cornerstone, Mr. Prez!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-moyers/62622/slam-the-door-on-fast-track

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/62623/supporting-nafta-was-the-kiss-of-death-for-democrats-why-dems-should-think-twice-about-voting-for-tpp

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/62621/congress-to-vote-on-fast-track-friday-wall-street-or-main-street