A Hillary Prescription For Losing In November: Pick Tim Kaine As Veep

Hillary and Hillary II: Let's hope they have good laughs now since they likely won't in November.

As Michael Moore's turn to comment came up on Bill Maher's Convention edition of Real Time last night, he provided what he himself called "the buzzkill". That is, predicting Donald Trump will win the general election - much to the boos and consternation of the lefties in the audience and on the panel (Joy Reid and Dan Savage).

Moore zeroed in on the "Brexit" in the US of A, comprising three  industrial states: Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania with their 64 electoral votes. Those 64  electoral votes were the difference between Mitt Romney becoming the 45th President in 2012 and just another loser to Obama. But this time around, as Moore explained, they could easily be grabbed by Trump - especially given all three feature Republican governors who can gin the voting rules in their favor, including via use of electronic voting machines which were a major factor in Bush winning Ohio in 2004.

Of course, the Real Time LA crowd, stoked on the triumphalism of most of the liberal press, couldn't handle it. They were in denial and averse to such awful forecasting.

Moore might be right or wrong. I personally don't believe it's a given Hillary Clinton  will lose, but that is only provided she plays her cards right and doesn't shoot herself in the foot. Right now, however, the buzz is that she will do that - by following her advisors lead and picking a Neoliberal Veep, namely Tim Kaine.

As David Swanson pointed out on smirkingchimp.com:

"Kaine was an anti-environmentalist pro-coal governor of Virginia, a supporter of the "right to work" (for less) law restricting union organizing in Virginia, and he is a supporter of corporate trade agreements including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and including fast-tracking the TPP. An extremely loyal Democrat, he nonetheless criticized Democrats in 2011 for proposing higher taxes on millionaires.

Kaine is the anti-Bernie Sanders on policy and on process. He takes his direction from those in power, not from the public. In a poll of over 250 Sanders delegates to the Democratic National Convention (by the Bernie Delegate Network), only 2.7% of them said they thought Kaine would be an acceptable vice presidential nominee."

Kaine's support of the TPP will be one of the biggest knocks against him. Trump will hammer him and Clinton relentlessly - based on his acceptance speech tonight -  citing the horrific job losses in industrial states in the wake of trade deals starting with  NAFTA (pushed by Bill Clinton) and ending with TPP (embraced in the past by Hillary). 

Meanwhile, with another Neolib on the ticket Bernie or Bust people will not be energized enough to change their minds and certainly not to subscribe to the lesser of two evils again. They will also take a Kaine pick as not only a slap in the face, but also showing Clinton doesn't really support Bernie  Sanders

 positions or the integration of some of them into the Dem platform.

As Janice expressed immense fear tonight after Trump's speech, I observed that Hillary still has the power to avert electoral disaster. That means picking a firm liberal as Veep (Elizabeth Warren would be best) and not mucking up the debates.

We don't know yet how she will fare in the debates but her Veep pick can either be the first  powerful round fired to take down Trump in November or the first nail in her electoral coffin.  The choice is ultimately hers, and being too cautious will not get it done.

Postscript  7/23:

As predicted Clinton made just about the worst pick imaginable, cynically betting Kaine will help her "sew up" the middle when she really needed to consolidate her left flank. Now I predict that at least 20 percent of Bernie Sanders' voters will not be energized enough to show up. I believe this will translate to Clinton losses in what Michael Moore called the "Brexit" states, and lead to a narrow Trump win.  The reason is that now, without those energized left voters, it will make the election a squeaker and close enough to steal via any number of ruses we're beheld before. (Including electronic voting machine manipulations.)

It is sad, and at one point in the middle of all the misplaced cheerleading on MSNBC's 'All In'  last night, Progressive magazine editor Ruth Conniff was explaining the magnitude of Clinton's disaster. She noted it being a "slap in the face" to Sanders' voters.  She added:

"It's just a sign that Hillary does not feel like she has to do anything for the progressive wing of the party,"

 Soon after she was  terminated by a call in from Neoliberal VA governor Terry McCauliffe.

Hillary had her chance to make a huge statement and help to bring it home for the Dems and become the first female President. Alas, unless she can unleash Jack Kennedy-esque lightning in the debates, she will end up like Hubert Horatio Humphrey did in 1968.  The truth hurts, but don't expect the cheerleading media and most Dems to buy it.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/68239/does-hillary-get-it

And:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/22/clinton-inflames-progressive-base-choice-tim-kaine-vice-president

Quote: By choosing a corporatist like Kaine, Hillary has 'pulled a Lieberman. God forbid if it puts Trump in the White House.

Jeff Cohen of RootAction.org

So How Bad Is The Trans-Pacific Partnership?

It has come to attention that although I've raked Obama 'over the coals' for his support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/obama-needs-to-tone-down-his-rhetoric.html

Few may actually understand why it is so bad and must be avoided at all costs. In this post I want to elaborate on multiple aspects of the TPP and why Obama needs to come to his senses and join the rank and file of REAL Democrats - as opposed to demo-Rats, Republicans (Mitch McConnell actually cheered Obama for standing with the repukes), Wall Street and the multinational corporations.

Let's examine the TPP via a number of questions in a kind of FAQ - or at least SAQ (sometimes asked questions) understanding from the outset that nearly all the information gleaned thus far has come from Wikileaks:

1. What nations are involved and how extensive is it?

Let's take the extensive part first. This is the largest trade deal ever negotiated by the U.S. - dwarfing even NAFTA. In fact, it's been referred to "NAFTA on steroids". There are 12 nations involved including: Canada, Australia, Japan, Vietnam, Mexico, New Zealand, Chile and Peru - all of whose GDP collectively encompasses nearly 40 percent of global gross domestic product.

2. What would the TPP do, in a general sense?

If passed, the TPP would expand trade over the Asia-Pacific region - particularly removing tariffs and investment barriers. In particular, the deal would enormously increase exports of liquefied natural gas. (See my next blog post on the problems with storing natural gas even in the U.S. on account of methane leaks)


3. Who supports the TPP?

Obama and 99 percent of the Republicans and 100 percent of all Neoliberals who want the world ruled by markets in a New World Order where the 'dictator'  of the  marketplace exists everywhere. Specifically, it has the backing of big corporations such as:Halliburton (prime beneficiary of contracts farmed out during the Iraq War), Monsanto (prime producer of GMO seeds and foods, including those that generate their own pesticides), Apple, Facebook and Coca Cola, as well as agro-industry groups.

4. Who opposes the TPP and why?

Ninety-nine percent of REAL Democrats (as opposed to "wine and brie" Neolib dems), 100 percent of liberals and socialists, labor unions, environmental groups, as well as small and local food producers since it will weaken domestic environmental regulations while boosting corporate power. 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.

5. What are the main opponents' complaints?

-  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

And also send a message to congress critters.

In addition, the deals rely mostly on voluntary protections.

- We would face unlimited fracking, literally fracking on steroids with jet afterburners - and most of the U.S. turned into a moonscape without available water in 20 years. This would occur becausxe all oil from shale and natural gas would be automatically approved as "free trade goods".

- 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.  According to Jake Schmidt of the NDRC, "the threat of massive payouts to corporations would have stifling impacts on existing and future bans."

6. Loose labeling of fish, meats - other foods

Already, in a kind of stupendous joke, the FDA allows the labeling of 64 different fish species as Grouper - the 4th most prized fish served at restaurants in the U.S. This means, in effect, what you may be getting may not be real Grouper at all but a poor substitute for which you're still paying top money. Seems that just as the FDA sees no difference between normally grown crops and GMO crops, it sees no difference between real Grouper and 64 imitations!

But that's not all. The TPP would also undermine the U.S. country of origin labeling (COOL) which ensures packaged beef, pork and lamb is labeled with where it's really from. BUT - what if the beef seeps in (improperly labeled) from a nation where Mad cow disease is still prevalent, or the pork enters from a place where trichinosis is rife? (Bear in mind live animals could be allowed to be imported - bearing foreign parasites, bacteria or other infections.)

If country of origin labeling is compromised you wouldn't know the difference when you dig into that rib-eye or pork chop!


How close are we to this trade holocaust? Close! A fast track vote (which Obama is pushing for along with the Repukes) is already on the line.  Fast tracking means congress only needs to vote yes or no on the TPP once all nations finalize the pact. After this vote no further amendments are allowed. Already the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee have approved fast track legislation this week. The full chambers will be expected to vote in the next few weeks.

 Parasitic worms of the type that could well be introduced with imported foreign livestock if the TPP is passed.

Would you really want these beasties hanging around in your beef or pork?

If not - then barrage your congress critters and tell them in no uncertain terms you want this crap deal nixed....in the bud!


See also:

Excerpt:

Trade agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership protect corporate investors but lead to even more off-shoring of American jobs.They make it safer for firms to relocate abroad – the Cato Institute describes such investor protections as “lowering the risk premium” on offshoring – thereby reducing corporate incentives to keep jobs in America

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/62145/why-nike-is-the-problem-not-the-solution

And:

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

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/62137/obama-to-visit-nike-to-promote-the-tpp-wait-nike-really

Sen. Bernie Sanders Enters the Presidential Race: At Last The Antidote to Neoliberalism

The news yesterday of Bernie Sanders entering the presidential race has to warm the cockles of any true liberal's heart.  With total wackos on one side (the Repukes) and only one (centrist) candidate on the other side (one who, btw, signed on to the Iraq War and is more center-right than centrist) the Dem faithful and liberals in general had little hope for any choice or even powerful voices to speak against the rising Neoliberal tide.

Two weeks ago, in an appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show, Sen. Sanders made it clear he'd run for president if we wanted him to. Well, we do! We need a voice of reason in the 'ring'  against the Neoliberal insanity, especially as Sen. Elizabeth Warren has made it clear she isn't interested in running.  Besides she has her hands full in the current TPP battle with the Neoliberal Obama.

Make no mistake that Sen. Bernie Sanders - who will be running as another Democratic candidate (making it clear 3rd party candidates have no chance given the duopoly) has no more chance of winning a presidential contest than well......extraterrestrials landing and kicking the Neolib mutts in D.C. out and setting up a new ET government.  Nevertheless, when Democratic voters finally get it through their heads that Elizabeth Warren really isn't in the game, a lot of votes ought to free up and fall Sanders' way.

Still, we know the neo-conservatives and Neoliberals hate the thought of real competition, so Sen. Sanders will be tarred from the get go with the hated word "socialist."

Barely two and a half months ago, in fact, WaPo hack George Will unloaded on him in a vitriolic, uninformed piece that basically conflated socialism with communism in a clear effort to scare off any potential voters. However, intelligent and informed voters know the difference so won't be put off by malarkey sure to come from the crazy Right.  I mean we're talking about dopes that really believe Hitler was a socialist because he used the term "National Socialists" for his party. They aren't even remotely aware of how he dispatched his S.A. thugs to beat up socialists, communists and trade unionists.

Will, like too many other nincompoops who have no clue what they write, also claimed any Sanders campaign would be yet another experiment in "collectivism".  (He reels off a number of historical examples of failed Socialist efforts to get into the political system).

In fact, Sanders' warp and woof is to control the spread of oligarchic -driven income inequality. In debates, for example, he will be able to keep any Democratic candidates honest, especially where they stand on the Neoliberal imperative. He will be able to ask Hillary up front if she is for the Trans-Pacific Partnership or against it. Also, if she is in favor of expanding Social Security or cutting it. Will she be a clone of Obama or be a true middle class champion?  These are questions all Dem voters need to have addressed, as well as Independents like myself,  who want to be able to do more than hold our noses and pull levers for the lesser of two evils!

In one of Sen. Sanders' most memorable articles, 'NO, to U.S. Oligarchy '(The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, p. 1), he nailed the toxic effluent of Neliberalism ruining this country.

"The American people are hurting. As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, life savings and their ability to get a higher education. Today, 22% of our children live in poverty, and millions more have become dependent on food stamps.

And while the Great Wall Street Recession has devastated the middle class, the truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000 to 2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.

But not everybody is hurting. While the middle class disappears and poverty increases, the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper crust of extremely wealthy families is hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle class that has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place, the very wealthy are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country."

I am glad Bernie is in this race, even though he has virtually no chance to win. Never mind, we need a powerful oppositional voice to the prevalent Neoliberal narrative that has turned almost everyone in our political system into mindless zombies unable to think for themselves. Hence, unable to help any real citizens.  We need a REAL alternative and Sanders is it!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/62009/hillary-veers-left-to-head-off-sanders

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/30/lefties_meet_your_candidate_why_bernie_sanders_is_the_only_authentic_alternative_to_hillary_clinton/

Obama's Over the Top Rhetoric on TPP Risks Splitting the Democratic Party

As I've said many times before, I am not an Obama-bot or mindless, blind follower of Obama. When he is right  (as on the Keystone pipeline veto and improving relations with Cuba) I will deliver kudos and plaudits, but when he is wrong - as he is on the TPP- I will not hesitate to go after him and criticize him.  This is what a true democracy and freedom of speech is about. (Apart from which I am not a Democrat but an Independent - so pride myself on being "non-partisan" in the sense of presidential adulation.)

Now it is time to go after him again. Obama has allowed his sense of self-righteousness, entitlement and power to get ahead of him regarding the current debate (with Sen. Elizabeth Warren) on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. In the most recent barrage, on Friday, Obama  accused Warren and congressional Democrats of being "dishonest" and spreading "misinformation" about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. But by far the worst insult is when Obama actually compared TPP critics to "Sarah Palin touting death panels", to do with Obamacare.  Are you fucking kidding me? Those are fighting words, and Senators Warren and Sherrod Brown didn't take them kindly.

Especially as, according to 'Common Dreams':

"It was an unusually aggressive attack for the president -- accusing members of his own party not of having misplaced priorities, but of actively working to deceive the public. Obama is rarely so severe even with his Republican opponents. "

So again, one wonders if these are Obama's own ill-advised words, or if it's some duncie numbskull advisor telling him to say them to expedite this shady TPP baloney without "upstarts" from the left giving him problems. This recalled putdowns by his former press secretary Robert Gibbs and later, angry remarks made a number of years ago by another toad, Rahm Emmanuel - who referred to liberals at one White House meeting as "f*cking retards".  That despicable outburst and putdown has burned forever in progressive brains and explains why many aren't prepared to take any shit now, including from Obama or any of his minions.


In any case it was dumb, precipitous and only stirred more rancor. Obama ought to damned well know better, especially with a critical mid-term election coming up next year and the Dems with a chance to win back 5 seats to re-take the Senate.

Obama actually  said that the Democratic criticism that "gets on [his] nerves the most" is the notion that his TPP pact is "secret," and went on to insist that the terms of TPP will help American workers.

All of which is patented hogshit. For once Obama needs to come clean and tell the truth. The TPP IS secret since it is classified on account of "ongoing negotiations" (by corporo-lobbyists) and the only way we know anything is thanks to leaks. Neither Obama or any of his people in his administration have given us duck squat.  From the existing leaks  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. And we know that the TPP could make corporations even stronger and undo what few reforms are left on Wall Street."

So he's talking trash about  the TPP not being secret, and indeed, after refusing to allow release of the JFK assassination files from the National Archives in 2013 and continuing to prosecute whistle blowers (under the 1917 Espionage Act), we already know the Obama administration is the most secretive in history, see e.g.

http://time.com/27443/study-obama-administration-more-secretive-than-ever/

SO who is fooling WHOM?  As for Obama's lame claim that it "will help American workers" we have only his words to go by. Sure, he may want to burnish his legacy but we still need to see the actual documents because no matter how much a "good guy" a prez may believe he is - so he wouldn't jeopardize his legacy - he ought to have the sense to realize that real citizens still need independent  confirmation of  that, not merely taking him at his word. (And btw, this is also a wakeup call for Hillary to come clean and announce where she stands on the TPP)

Anyway, on Saturday, Sen. Warren and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) responded with a letter "essentially telling Obama to put up or shut up" - according to Common Dreams. . If the deal is so great, Warren and Brown wrote, the administration should make the full negotiation texts public before Congress votes on a "fast track" bill that would strip the legislative branch of its authority to amend it.  Warren and Brown's request is totally reasonable and such disclosure is a touchstone of democracy. (Which is also why we expect GMO foods to be labeled!)  On the other hand, if we are no long a democracy but a corporatocracy, with the deal being written by lobbyists - then it is no wonder it would be kept under wraps, or that GMO purveyors would decry labeling. Where the wonder arises is in a President who claims to be acting in our interest and promised "full transparency" at the outset of his first term in office- but now conveniently hurls it into a ditch. What the hell happened to that full transparency?

As the two protesting Senators wrote (letter obtained by The Huffington Post):

"Members of Congress should be able to discuss the agreement with our constituents and to participate in a robust public debate, instead of being muzzled by classification rules"

This references the fact that Democrats  and some Republican critics have been particularly frustrated by Obama's decision to treat the TPP documents as classified information, which prevents them from responding to Obama's claims about the pact in detail.

Why "classified"? The only reason would be to prevent open disclosure, to keep aspects hidden that would be known in advance to arouse lots of public ire.

The Senators went on:

"Your Administration has deemed the draft text of the agreement classified and kept it hidden from public view, thereby making it a secret deal. It is currently illegal for the press, experts, advocates, or the general public to review the text of this agreement. And while you noted that Members of Congress may 'walk over ... and read the text of the agreement' -- as we have done -- you neglected to mention that we are prohibited by law from discussing the specifics of that text in public."

Again, confirming an enraged public would  result if the details were actually known.

Warren and Brown were particularly miffed at being accused of lying, as they ought to be. This is shameful rhetoric more consistent with an asshole like Rahm Emmanuel than a President who supposedly has made the people's welfare  a priority.  At first, I had to read Obama's remarks several times, then wondered what kind of "choom" this guy had been smoking. He's never used such invective on the GOP including  their Tea Party faction which often depicted him as the Antichrist, e.g.

As well as portraying him as a "witch doctor" while dissing Obamacare. Why didn't Obama get as apoplectic about this misrepresentation as he is now with Liz Warren? Why can't he be honest when he tries to compare us with Sarah Palin  and her "death panels" garbage? Anyway, the letter goes on:

"We respectfully suggest that characterizing the assessments of labor unions, journalists, Members of Congress, and others who disagree with your approach to transparency on trade issues as 'dishonest' is both untrue and unlikely to serve the best interests of the American people,"

Common Dreams went on to note:

"Some of Obama's claims about TPP on Friday took some creative license with the truth. He said that he wanted a trade deal that would allow American automakers to sell more cars overseas, without mentioning that Ford and autoworker unions do not support the pact. He also said that he had not included any language barring currency manipulation -- a key tactic by which Japan and China undercut American production -- because it might hamper the Federal Reserve's monetary policy operations"

Most brutal, according to Common Dreams:

The Warren-Brown letter also includes a subtly vicious Democrat-on-Democrat dig, suggesting that Obama's trade transparency record is worse than that of former President George W. Bush. They note that Bush published the full negotiation texts of a major free trade deal with Latin America several months before Congress had to vote on giving the deal fast track benefits. The Obama administration has resisted calls to follow suit with TPP.he

Here we see the potential for a Democratic Civil war. A total circular firing squad. A plausible demolition of any coalition that might enable a Dem Senate takeover next year.

Joan Walsh on salon.com has written (http://www.salon.com/2015/04/27/democrats%e2%80%99_free_trade_war_is_getting_ugly_and_obama_is_bending_the_truth/)

 "In fact, here are three big ways the president is lamentably shading the truth when it comes to TPP.

1. Secrecy: It’s true that members of Congress can personally “walk over” and “read the text” of the agreement. Alone, without staff, and without taking notes. And they’re prohibited by law from discussing the details with the media or their constituents.  The administration has deemed the negotiations “classified.”

When Rep. Brad Sherman, a TPP critic, told Salon’s David Dayen that’s the only way members of Congress can review the text, it reminded me of the way they can review sensitive intelligence and national security issues they’re overseeing.

2. Marginalizing opposition as Warren and “the unions.” Warren is joined by Democrats ranging from frequent ally Brown to pro-business voices like Sen. Chuck Schumer to moderate Sen. Bob Casey. While the president hoped to win support from the Congressional Black Caucus, skeptics remain. And yes, labor has been a loud voice against the deal – along with the rest of the Democratic base, and then some.

The coalition opposing TPP includes the National Resources Defense Council, Doctors without Borders, the Electronic Frontier Foundation; critics of certain aspects of the likely deal include New York Times food writer Mark Bittman and the AARP. They are concerned about the way TPP could affect not only manufacturing jobs, but drug prices, intellectual property, environmental regulation and food safety. Obama is facing a remarkably broad-based pushback to his plans, and his effort to isolate Warren and unions is disingenuous.

3. Denying the vast, pro-corporate power of the “Investor State Dispute Settlement” panel. The wrangling between Warren and the White House over TPP isn’t new. Ever since her March 4 op-ed denouncing the “Investor State Dispute Settlement” provisions of the trade deal, frankly, administration officials have been trying to make Warren look a little batty.

The ISDS process – a private arbitration system that replaces public courtrooms as the venue for conflict  resolution — is common in trade deals. It began as an effort to protect Western corporations from capricious (and/or populist) governments in developing countries. Warren argued that the ISDS provisions in the TPP “would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws.”  The Obama administration countered by saying that “ISDS does not and cannot require countries to change any law or regulation,” and that the U.S. has never lost an ISDS case anyway.

That’s true, too – if misleading. An adverse ISDS decision doesn’t “require” nations to change laws or regulations; they can pay a steep fine instead. It’s also true the U.S. hasn’t ever lost such a case, but this is the largest trade agreement in history, covering a third of the world’s commerce. That could change.

Just as important, it lets U.S. corporations, and other big multinationals, bully other countries. Famous examples involve tobacco — American tobacco firms have challenged restrictions on packaging in Australia and Canada – mining and fracking "
----

Obama needs to decide WHOSE side he is on, and whether he stands with the Neoliberal punks, poltroons and parasites or the PEOPLE.  Also whether he really supports truth and transparency or continued obfuscation and attacking democratic principles and fellow Dems. He also needs to recognize who his real enemies are, those who depict him as a tribal Witch doctor and "son of Satan" or those who support him in general  - but demand he live up to principles and the Constitution as JFK would have done.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dean-baker/61981/the-battle-over-the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-fast-track-gets-hot

Excerpt:

"The rules in the TPP can be used to challenge any consumer, labor, or environmental regulation approved at the state, local or federal level. The enforcement powers will rest with an extra-judicial dispute settlement mechanism that will impose penalties that are not subject to appeal.

On this issue President Obama's assurance that the TPP will not challenge financial regulation or other types of regulation are worthless. He has no idea what sort of people will be appointed to these tribunals in future years."

and:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/61941/obama-says-critics-of-trade-deal-sound-like-palin-touting-death-panels

Excerpt:

"The President’s alignment with Republicans, Wall Street, and corporate lobbying organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, and against progressives, labor, and almost all Democrats to push TPP is frustrating Democrats across the board"

Enraging us is more like it!

TPP Still A Bad Deal, NO Matter What Obama Says!

"Hmmmmm......if we can just sneak this by the People all will be well!"


Barack Obama’s claim that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would be beneficial to the average American worker must still be taken with a grain of salt. Just over a year and a half ago I noted that - via Britain's Guardian - WikiLeaks had released the draft text  of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.    

This is a Neoliberal-generated multinational "free trade" treaty that - like NAFTA and GATT before it - promises much but delivers precious little to the average citizen.   The full agreement covers a number of distinct areas but the chapter released by WikiLeaks 17 1/2 months ago focuses on intellectual property rights - an area that influences as many other areas as civil liberties and pharmaceuticals. Most noteworthy, at the time Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group, remarked that:

"Lots of people in civil society have stressed that being more transparent, and talking about the text on the table, is crucial to give treaties like this any legitimacy. We shouldn't have to rely on leaks to start a debate about what's in then."
 

Indeed!   And the most damning indictment that the whole enchilada is bogus and only favors the elites and power brokers is the fact that the 30,000-word intellectual property chapter disclosed a vicious intent to  increase the term of patents, including medical patents, beyond 20 years, and lower global standards for patentability.

The day after the leaks, smikringchimp.com blogger Thomas Hartmann observed:

" This week, Americans got a peek behind the curtain of the Trans Pacific Partnership, and what we found is frightening. On Thursday, Wikileaks published a complete draft of the “intellectual property rights” chapter of the TPP, and it poses a serious risk to free speech and information access. The document contains proposals that would change copyright and patent laws, so-called fair use practices, and the liabilities for alleged violations.

The provisions would stifle innovation, creativity, and information sharing, all under the guise of protecting intellectual property. And, many of the proposed changes are being suggested by US negotiators. Opposition to these restrictive policies is coming from other nations, like Canada, Chile, Malaysia, and New Zealand."

 

Right, so now many citizens will be rendered poorer because of increased costs to their meds, negating or disallowing the emergence of lower cost generics. Copyright restrictions are also bound to stifle creativity, making it much more difficult to reference previous work to either build upon or critique. Then there is the double standard on hacking, disallowing it for the usual n'er do wells but allowing exceptions: protection can be broken in the course of "lawfully authorized activities carried out by government employees, agents, or contractors for the purpose of law enforcement, intelligence, essential security, or similar governmental purposes".

Given what segments had been disclosed it was clear the rest of the TPP agreement would be even worse. Indeed on Wednesday night's Rachel Maddow show Maddow played a clip from the president’s appearance on “Hardball with Chris Matthews” on Monday, in which he actually said that progressives who oppose the TPP "prefer the status quo,” .

Actually no, Mr. Prez, we prefer a world and level playing field without Neoliberal hijinks and economic manipulations! THAT is the status quo right now, which TPP doesn't do one scintilla to break!

He also went on saying that while he believes Senator Warren to be an ally on many other issues, in this case “she’s just wrong.” Well, duh, of course she'd be seen as "wrong" if she stands up for the crumbling middle class against advancing Neoliberalism!

Maddow noted that although Obama believes the TPP to be "the most progressive trade compact in American history", progressives in his own party — in particular, Senator Warren — strongly oppose it. And she's absolutely right because we believe the playing field can't be tilted any more than it is toward Neoliberalism and markets dominating over the pro- human agenda. We cannot afford to have in place anything where government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative

 

Warren  correctly informed Maddow that one of the problems with the TPP is that the public has no access to it. Senators and representatives can read it, but they’re not allowed to discuss the details of it in public — which effectively means that Obama is asking the American people to take his word that the deal would have a favorable effect on the quality of middle-class American lives. But one could ask Mr. Prez if an informed citizenry is the basis for democracy, why are we being kept in the dark? Perhaps because we no longer have a democracy  but a corporatocracy! (And I won't even get into how much data, and how many files are being blocked from citizen scrutiny with the Obama administration now deemed the most secretive in U.S. history)

But that is the other prop the Neoliberals depend upon: citizen inertia, ignorance,  stupidity or belief in impotence, i.e. that they only have "opinions" - which carry no weight.  Also, they don't want citizens pursuing truth - information outside the media they promote, which is more invested in propaganda. This, my friends, is the Neoliberal paradigm at work. Whether it's preventing more disclosure on the exact details of the TPP,  or releasing all salient CIA files to do with the JFK assassination. (Which the National Archives refused to do in 2013, the 50th anniversary year - thereby enabling disinfo specialists and quacks like John McAdams to shamelessly continue their crusades to mock the conspiracy template.).
 

Meanwhile, the administration said Wednesday that the agreement will be made available online, and that there will be a period of "public comment  on it. Maddow noted this before asking Warren if that move would assuage some of her concerns.  But Sen. Warren wasn't biting:
 

“They’re asking us to vote now to grease the skids,” Warren replied, “so there won’t be any chance to amend or block it, won’t be any chance to slow it down.” She claimed that the administration is saying, “Give all that up, and you’ll get a chance to see the deal on the other side.”


 Sen. Warren didn't think that was acceptable and neither do I. It is instead a form of extortion. Indeed, the only thing that the American public has been able to learn about the deal is who was negotiating it — corporate lobbyists.  Well, we saw how that worked out when these same parasites wrote and negotiated the 2003 "Medicare Modernization Act" which ended up costing nearly 3 times more than originally promised and delivered a lump sum of corporate welfare equal to $13.6b to Big Phrma thanks to those who pushed it through like Billy Tauzin (La) who then became a lobbyist. Anytime corporate lobbyists are involved you know: a) the bill or agreement is toxic, and b) it is thoroughly in Neoliberal interests, not the people's.

To Maddow's question, Sen. Warren responded:

“My view is when the process is rigged, the outcome’s likely to be rigged too.”

Maddow then asked:
 

"You’re saying that the corporate interests don’t just have access to see what’s in [the TPP], they helped shape what’s in it?”


To which Sen. Warren replied:

“They’ve been in there for months and months and months during the negotiations,”

In other words, watching like the predators they are to make sure every damned 't' is crossed and every 'i' is dotted - in the favor of Neoliberal hegemony

Watch the entire interview via “The Rachel Maddow Show

And here is the letter of Sens. Warren and Sherrod Brown to Obama after his most recent attacks:

Your Administration has deemed the draft text of the agreement classified and kept it hidden from public view, thereby making it a secret deal… It is currently illegal for the press, experts, advocates, or the general public to review the text of this agreement. And while you noted that Members of Congress may “walk over ... and read the text of the agreement” -- as we have done -- you neglected to mention that we are prohibited by law from discussing the specifics of that text in public.

Before Congress votes to facilitate adoption of the TPP, the American people should be allowed to see for themselves whether it’s a good deal for them.

If we really are a democracy then we need to heed Hartmann's words:

"Unions, civil rights advocates, environmental activists, and many other groups are demanding that the details of the TPP are made public. Before this massive trade deal is signed, Americans have the right to know what it contains, and the right to demand that our elected leaders say “No” to the TPP. -"

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/61928/hey-mr-president-transparency-applies-to-the-tpp-too

Excerpt:

What do we know about the TPP? Well, according to Public Citizen, we know that the TPP could ship millions of good-paying US jobs overseas.

We know that the TPP could increase the costs of health care and medicine, while hurting health and safety standards. And we know that the TPP could make corporations even stronger and undo what few reforms are left on Wall Street.

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/61952/what-s-obama-up-to-with-his-tpp-and-ttip

Bernie Sanders Needs To Run - To At Least Give Voice to Populist Issues

Bernie seen on Rachel Maddow last night.

Make no mistake that Sen. Bernie Sanders - committed Democratic Socialist like yours truly - has no more chance of winning a presidential contest than well......extraterrestrials landing and kicking the mutts in D.C. out and setting up a new ET government.  Sen. Sanders is tarred from the get go with the hated word "socialist" which too many bumpkins in this country don't even understand and hence, fear like an Ebola epidemic. It's a tragedy when brains get fried by a hyper-capitalist media that prefers lies and re-cycled bunkum  to substance.

Given this, it might boggle a few minds that anyone would even ask Sanders to run, but I am, if for no other reason to keep Hillary and her entourage having to defend her left flank.  Most of us, while we would vote for Hillary as the "lesser of two evils"  (the  thought of President Ted Cruz- or another Bush - ought to send anyone to the brink of despair) are not enthused by the Clinton history which was way too inundated with DLC,  Repub Lite thinking and hideous "triangulation".  And let's not forget NAFTA being enacted, welfare “reformed,” and Glass-Steagall repealed, leading directly to a prime cause for the 2008 financial crisis when banks got crazy playing with our money as "investments" when we never intended that. We instead wanted a safe place to park what we had.

Bill Clinton did do one major thing right, and that was acting to release millions of files after the passage of the JFK Records Act. The new files released in its wake, if one had the patience to dig through them, made lots of Warren Commission defenders look outright stupid - if not outright liars - including that tool Gerald Posner. His book, 'Case Closed' (1993) emerged as the laughing stock of the Clinton years given how much was proven false by the tidal wave of additional files. (Including of Gerald Ford altering the wording to the original autopsy report to conform to the magic bullet bollocks - changing the bullet wound to the base of the neck as opposed to the upper back, level with the third thoracic vertebra.)

But back to Hillary: We on the populist left don't buy her "middle class"  champion shtick because what populism she does express appears half--hearted at best, and let's face it, anyone who can amass a $1b war chest can't be a genuine populist, especially if Wall Street money is infused into the mix.

So the Dem left has tried to shame Elizabeth Warren into running, but Sen. Warren has made it clear she has no interest in doing so.  (The last time was last Friday with an interview on Bill Maher's Real Time).  So given Warren isn't in it, we need someone like Bernie Sanders.

Make no mistake, Bernie Sanders is chomping at the bit to have a national stage to sell his form of democratic socialism, and wrestle the party, and the country, to the left. Sanders returned to “The Rachel Maddow Show” Wednesday night to reiterate what he’s been saying for some time: He’ll run for president if you want him to. One gets the feeling that a meaningful fraction of the effort put into drafting Elizabeth Warren would be enough to rouse Sanders to become a full-time thorn in the side of Clinton.
 

A recent salon.com piece argued:

"Sanders is probably not the best spokesperson for democratic socialism: Someone young (Sanders is 73), someone not so Yankee, someone whose clothes aren’t “rumpled”–there’s probably someone, somewhere who’d be a better pitch man for a political ideology that just seven years ago was used as an effective epithet against the newly elected Obama. "

But I disagree! Sanders' age, wisdom and experience make him the perfect defender of socialism - much better than any youngster would be. Even salon.com had to admit:

"what Sanders lacks in polish, and acquaintance with a comb for that matter, he more than makes up for in conviction. He’s experienced in articulating populism, and he’s more than happy to be a true antagonist to Hillary on a debate stage. He’s like the Ron Paul of the left, unafraid–even eager–to ruffle feathers in the furtherance of his political beliefs."

Also, as salon noted, unlike Warren — who is a reformer, not a revolutionary – "Sanders would deliver a full-throated call for an end to the “ruling class” on the campaign trail, which Clinton would, in turn, be forced to defend. While Warren might have forced Clinton to make uncomfortable declarations on Wall Street reform, she'd not have made Hillary question the entire system of which she’s a vital part and advocate." After all, her fingerprints are all over the much-maligned Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal–what Sanders calls “NAFTA on steroids”–which as Secretary of State she helped shepherd to agreement among governments and corporations and said “sets the gold standard in trade agreements.”

Don't buy it for a second. And this is why we have our reservations because no matter how much Hillary tries to be the "middle class champion" her Neoliberal DNA is too much a part of her. We need Bernie to keep her honest, at least for a time!

 
See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/61834/hillary-clinton-runs-first-thinks-last

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bob-burnett/61829/ready-for-hillary

Yes – People Need to Work Less and Live More!

Read that header again. It has often been said that those who retire early are more likely to die within months of such a choice. Of course, this is nonsense spun by proto-Calvinist  Neoliberal morons. The fact is that so long as one is committed to an enduring activity, or hobby or objective, he or she will remain active and far from croaking due to aimless laziness. It is the ones who are unfocused and just sit in front of their TVs 12 hours a day that have much to worry about.

 

But we aren’t talking retirement here, but rather enhancing the life quality of American workers, so that family life can be more rationally balanced with work. In an earlier blog post, indeed, I had pointed out that the problem of work-life balance could equitably be solved along with the current entrenched under-employment and unemployment. (And the BLS has forecast millions FEWER jobs over the next 20 years owing to automation, out-sourcing overseas, especially if the TPP goes through etc.) I call the current tendency and condition Neoliberal-incited job "anorexia" and it requires a “supply side labor” solution. What it means basically is reducing everyone’s work hours to enable more people to be hired – while raising the minimum wage to $20 an hour at the same time.

Let us say there are 25 million unemployed or under-employed and 40 million full time employed. By use of the supply side labor solution we can increase the jobs to at least 80 million by halving all work hours across the board (from the executive level – say 66-70 hrs. week to 33- 35) to the ordinary worker (say 40-44 hours a week to 20  -22).  Then pay everyone a starting base scale of $20 an hour, with increased pay for those workers who display increased talents.  Thus, for example, a high profile computer engineer or programmer would earn more than a file clerk or secretary – the increase coming by way of adding the non-committed hours to their work week.

 

For example, if 80 million jobs can be created by initially halving work hours, and 25 million were initially unemployed or under-employed, then the practical spare job capacity would be: 80 million -  (40 million + 25 million) = 15 million. These  spare ‘jobs’ units can then be parceled out according to providing more of them to the workers who display higher skill levels, say like computer programmers or engineers.  In this way greater talent or skill would be rewarded in a pared down work wage per hour system.

 

As startling as this sounds, it’s on the minds of more people – influential people—than just me. Consider then the book, Time on Our Side: Why We Need A Shorter Working Week, by The New Economics Foundation.   The change to a shorter work week will no doubt be fought tooth and nail, especially by those who already feel secure and hence have the least reason to change, but change they must. As per a review in the March/April issue of SIERRA:

 

“In the last century public opinion has shifted from deeming a 40-hour work week scandalously short to hailing it a triumph of modern labor. Now, with a faltering global economy and human population projections creeping toward 10 billion by 2050, some researchers are calling for a change that might be considered blasphemous: a 20 to 30 hour full time work week.”

 

This is in reference to the NEF book. But the numbers don’t lie and whether anyone thinks the prescription is “blasphemous” or "insane" – the fact remains it is realistic. An 80 million increase in human population per year is far beyond the job replacement level by at least three times, maybe closer to four.  Meanwhile, problems of low aggregate demand continue to plague the global economy and even in the most productive companies fewer and fewer jobs are being created – especially with benefits. This is just a numerical fact of life, as companies opt to go with more automation and fewer flesh and blood workers.

Given these conditions the only solution is to manufacture more jobs by the process of division. You may rail at it, scream 'Loopy!' but it will come….hopefully sooner than later.  As U.S. World watch senior fellow Erik Assadourian puts it:

 

“If we had a livable wage and could each work a 20-hour week, we’d have time to choose more sustainable options that are also better for ourselves.”

 

Anna Coote, one of the co-authors of the NEF book concurs, and notes that we should work less and “use that time to find a more joyful life.”  She asks:

 

“Why do we work? What do we do with the money we earn? Can we begin to think differently about how much we need?”

 

She has a point, since Juliette Schorr earlier showed how much we just waste on junk to fill up our homes to the point we need to rent out storage huts. Whereas with fewer work hours and less money to blow, we’d be forced to spend less on throwaway crap and do the environment a huge favor.

 

Of course the whole problem of affordable housing remains and that must be solved before we can consider chopping work hours.  Communal style living situations are possible, but also there will have to be much more clever thinking about sustainable housing.

 

Erick Assaodourian notes we also will need:

 

-        A more progressive income tax

-        A much higher minimum wage (a no brainer)

-        Healthcare not dependent on a 40-hour work week

 

The last is coming onstream with Obamacare and we need to implement the first two. We also need, as another no-brainer, to cease trying to be cop of the planet and starting wars of choice which eat up our resources along with criminal defense budgets.

 

It also goes without saying this new world of work will benefit young people, who now find themselves mainly looking from without as older workers stay at it to try to make up for money and time lost after the 2008 financial meltdown.

 

Stay tuned!

 

Plutocrats Plus - Why Neoliberalism Is Bad For Us All

Author Thomas Frank in a recent essay ('Plutocracy Without End: Why the 1 Percent Always Defeats the Middle Class') wrote:

"The One Percent have already broken every record for wealth-hogging set by their ancestors, going back to the dawn of record-keeping in 1913. But what if it all just keeps going? How much fatter can the fat cats get before they hit some kind of natural limit? Before the invisible thumb of history presses down on the other side of the scale and restores balance?"

How much fatter can the fat cats get? Much fatter indeed! We've already seen the Gini coefficient, one of the best measures of inequality, rise to its highest level in decades - accelerating most since the Reagan era and the massive cut in the top income tax rates. People bitch and moan about paying taxes, but don't understand that they are what keeps our society afloat. No taxes, then no roads, no schools, no benefits......and no armies! The problem with the myopic Right is that they want all the taxes to go for armies and weapons and none for the domestic foundation. But this is a fool's thinking because without domestic security at its basic level, in terms of providing roads, bridges, water mains, sewer lines and means for people to not only subsist but thrive, you are looking at a banana republic.

The problem with the Neoliberal, pro -free market idiom is that it denies the most basic security for the majority of citizens. In this way it feeds economic inequality while it rewards the speculator and banker class. It also helps to corrupt the political class via unregulated campaign contributions.

Jay Bookman aptly noted('The New World Disorder Evident Here, Abroad', in The Baltimore Sun, December 15, 1997):

"The global economy has been constructed on the premise that government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative. In times of crisis, however, that premise cannot be sustained politically. In times of trouble it is human nature to seek security and protection and to be drawn toward those who promise to provide it. That is how men such as Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin came to power, with disastrous consequences."

This description of the New World Neoliberal Order is exactly why the seeds of its own destruction are built into it, have been built into it.  Even as I read (in the New York Times) yesterday of the collapse of multi-employer Pension benefits funds, and how many union workers can no longer receive pensions, it occurred to me that if congress doesn't act, this is a situation that can rapidly destabilize.  There's only a small critical threshold between mass suffering and mass unrest- as we've seen all over, from the Arab Spring, to the Ukraine.

 But in the case of the Ukraine, the unrest was fomented by U.S. Neoliberals and their neocon sidekicks,  driving NATO expansion to the east. The cover story sold is that the people wanted "freedom" and being aligned with the EU and the West. The truth is that if they go that route they will become economic slaves to the Neoliberal  Economic Order. Indeed, once the IMF and EU funds go through one of the first offsets will be cutting public pensions and abolition of all rigid price controls, as well as painful cuts to public subsidies. Those Ukrainians pining for "freedom" would have been better served to have pondered FDR's famous words:

"Necessitous men cannot be free men."

And looked before they leaped into the Neoliberal Abyss (which they might have asked EU Sovereign debt victim Greece about).

Meanwhile, Thomas Frank goes on to observe (ibid.):

"That we are very close to such a limit—that the contradictions inherent in the system will automatically be its undoing—is an idea much in the air of late. Not many still subscribe to Marx’s dialectical vision of history, in which inevitable worker immiseration would be followed, also inevitably, by a revolutionary explosion, but there are other inevitabilities that seem equally persuasive today. We hear much, for example, about how inequality contributed to the housing bubble and the financial crisis, how it has brought us an imbalanced economy that cannot survive."


Marx's dialectic theory of history is one thing, but a more germane or relevant destabilizer is that without adequate income, with only debt to purchase the capitalist goods manufactured - the whole edifice of the consumer economy (and our GDP) collapses.  The reason is simple, and one evident to anyone with basic math skills: it is consumption that supports 70 percent of our GDP. Take away that consumption, and kaput! The economy dives into depression, irrespective of what the Fed, Obama, congress or anyone does.

Thus, once the Neoliberal Order of Globalized capital was established, the seeds for its future destruction were sown. Recall that it was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin ( 'Imperialism, the Highest Form of Capitalism', 1916) who first sounded the warning that mobile finance capital was designed to continually leverage labor to the lowest common denominator. Lenin clearly showed in his treatise how the Political and Economic Elite, simply by the expedient of export capital, could indirectly exploit raw materials from poor nations, or use the latter as captive labor markets. Meanwhile, that same exported capital would ensure working conditions degraded at home. Under such a scheme, financiers would continually divert capital to foreign locales where it would generate the highest return and refrain from aiding industry in their own countries.

That working conditions have degraded at home is self evident to the most cursory reader who follows economic conditions. We still have more than 24 million people under-employed or unemployed and we have a Middle Class losing more ground every day, even as the Elites talk wildly of cutting their Social Security and Medicare benefits - the last barriers between them and penury ...

Then there are the millions trapped in minimum wage jobs with no chance of advancement. Nor is there any motivation in our congress to help them by increasing their wage to a living wage, despite the fact that such a move could actually extend the life of their market Neoliberalism - since it would permit workers to purchase the goods that prop up the GDP without going into debt.

Finally, there are the tens of thousands of recently graduated college students mired in debts accrued that they now must pay off, but with no decent job prospects by which to do so. Do the Neoliberals care at all about the plight of these students or their families? Not at all! Their message is basically, "Sink or swim!" 


Will the Neoliberals quit while they're (relatively ) ahead? Not on your life! They want to add the Ukraine to their potpourri of misery, saddle them with endless debt and poverty like they did the Russians post-1990,. They also want to double down on the global Neoliberal order itself - this time using TPP or Trans-Pacific Partnership, another way to screw with us like the earlier GATT and NAFTA.

Are people paying attention? Maybe, maybe not. It is painful to watch as many of our citizens simply hunker down with their TVs, DVDs, notebooks, Twitter, Facebook or other entertainment and refuse to understand that the active citizen must come to the fore if the Neoliberals are not to send our nation into a plutocracy.

Meanwhile, WikiLeaks has released the draft text of a chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, currently being negotiated in secret by 12 Pacific Rim nations.   It would be well for every citizen who thinks of him (or her-)self as more that than consumer to read it, and do so carefully.

Your future, and especially that of your offspring, may well depend on it. You need to know of the massive collision coming - heading right toward you - before it happens.  If an informed citizenry is the basis for democracy, why are we being kept in the dark? Perhaps because we no longer have a democracy  but a corporatocracy!

But that is the other prop the Neoliberals depend upon: citizen inertia, stupidity or belief in impotence, i.e. that they only have "opinions" - which carry no weight.  Also, they don't want citizens pursuing truth - information outside the media they promote, which is more invested in propaganda.

If we each do our part, as opposed to retreating, we may yet wake the Neoliberal New World Order up to the fact that poverty stricken indigents (replacing well paid, economically secure citizens) is the last thing it needs.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-boardman/55716/msnbc-can-be-trusted-by-the-established-order-thats-a-problem