2015 American Politics Thread: The 114th Congress Is in the House!

"trade adjustment assistant" sounds like the most heinous euphemism

how much workers training did NAFTA offer?

I think part of the reason they wanted fast track is because the actual legislation is so odious it will never pass once it gets openly debated in congress

the Assistance for Workers bill was specifically tied to TPP in order to try and get it to pass.

I would expect it to be renewed separately before it expires in December.

like, there's no reason it can't be considered separately, attaching it to TPP was just some procedural bullshit to try and lure votes for TPP

the Assistance for Workers bill was specifically tied to TPP in order to try and get it to pass.

OTM. flopson, this was the sweet coating to a poison b(p)ill. If it's so important, it'll pass separately, and Pelosi knows it.

the Assistance for Workers bill was specifically tied to TPP in order to try and get it to pass.

I would expect it to be renewed separately before it expires in December.

― Οὖτις, Friday, June 12, 2015 4:33 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ok, that seems like a sleazy move. but i wouldn't expect it to be renewed, republicans hate it

"trade adjustment assistant" sounds like the most heinous euphemism

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, June 12, 2015 4:30 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

according to this website

$975,320,800 in federal funds allocated to states for benefits and services delivered to assist trade-impacted US workers
227,882 US workers accessed TAA-funded benefits and services

975320800/227882 = 4279.94$ per worker... that seems non-negligible

i don't get how TPP is going to kill labor. WTO members (which there are 120 of) export manufacturing goods to US at an average tariff of 2%. for 11 of the countries in the TPP that's already zero, so it's reducing a tariff by 2% for like, 4 countries? how many jobs is that really going to cost?

oh sorry i misquoted that, TPP will only reduce manufacturing tariffs to zero for 11 countries, they are already zero for 5. still though, from 2% to 0%

The 4279.94$ per worker would mostly consist of the cost of delivery of those "benefits and services", which I am supposing were largely intangible, in the form of career counseling and maybe some community college courses. I'd be interested in a breakdown of what those "benefits and services" consisted of in real terms. Also "trade-impacted" is a wretched euphemism worthy of the Pentagon.

the battle may not be over yet:

The sting of defeat may be temporary. The White House adamantly insisted on Friday that it made important progress by passing part of the trade package and still has a chance to turn around the vote on the other part. If that proves true, Mr. Obama may yet secure the negotiating authority he needs to seal a legacy-building 12-nation Pacific trade agreement and the day’s setback may ultimately be overshadowed.

Ugh to the the phrasing and substance of this NY Times article

the NYT really wants us to know it's not over

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/upshot/trade-deals-setback-left-wall-street-unmoved-why.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Wall Street’s apparent indifference to this latest development tells us something, although it’s not quite clear what. One possibility is that perhaps this trade deal just isn’t such a big deal for the bottom lines of these firms — it adds only millions to the bottom lines of companies that are worth billions.

2 NYT articles

or Wall Street knows it's going to pass anyway.

On endemic corruption and our New Nixon

"As for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton may not be the worst person to fly the reform flag, but then again, she might be. Her first problem is her past. If the Clintons didn’t invent pay-to-play politics, with such minions as Rahm Emanuel and Terry McAuliffe in tow, they came close to perfecting it. Her second problem is her present: her special way of handling her email; the alleged conflicts of interest over at the Clinton Foundation; the pricey speeches she gave and Bill still insists on giving. Her third problem is how she handles questions about it all: her defensive tone; her far-too-clever syntactical evasions; her insistence on being praised even as she stumbles; and, yes, her seeming sense of entitlement.

In a June 2 Gallup poll, 57 percent of respondents said Hillary is not “honest or trustworthy.” In a Public Policy Polling survey of Ohio voters this week, she led Ted Cruz by a point and was tied with Marco Rubio. The first poll explains the others. This week, Bill Clinton said he’ll stop giving $500,000 speeches if she becomes president. Yesterday, Hillary went to New York City to deliver a populist-themed speech. Neither Clinton has a clue about the depth of public anger over watching big-money interests treat government as their personal toy. If Clinton loses the nomination or the general election, this will be the reason why.

Bernie Sanders does a far better job on the issue, but even he doesn’t quite nail it. Like Clinton, he says his Supreme Court appointees must commit to overturn Citizens United. He said it first, but every Democrat says it now and it feels like a dodge. Overturning Citizens United, whether by judicial review or constitutional amendment, is a highly conjectural remedy. A president could serve two terms and not get to replace a single Republican Supreme Court justice, and hell will freeze over before a 38th state ratifies a constitutional amendment.

Democrats speak of Citizens United as if overturning it would restore a golden age of ethics; as if its mere existence excuses all the bad bargains they strike with the rich and powerful; as if it proved that where corruption is concerned, they are only victims, never culprits. Government was corrupt before Citizens United was filed and will have to be cleaned up before it’s overturned. Voters want to hear some practical ideas about how to do it up–but so far Democrats don’t have any.

The sight of any Democrat raising billions while offering vague assurances of future reform won’t satisfy anyone and comes at a high opportunity cost. Jeb Bush has possibly been breaking at least two major campaign finance laws all year. Democrats can’t call him to account because they do the same thing. How much money must they raise to recoup the expense of ceding the high moral ground?

One reason Democrats can’t talk about corruption is that it’s as much in their nature to defend government as it is in the Republicans’ nature to attack it. The idea that government may be rotten at its core is alien to them. Two of Clinton’s declared Democratic opponents, Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee, attack her ethics, but the only reform either proposes is to pick him over her. Neither seems able to frame the issue properly. Democrats just aren’t very good at it."

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/14/heres_how_bernie_sanders_could_win_the_one_issue_where_hillarys_vulnerable_and_where_the_tea_party_might_be_right/

Hillary Clinton may not be the worst person to fly the reform flag, but then again, she might be[

the always artful salon

Not saying that's the worse way to begin a story, but then again, it might be.

it is what it is - until it isn't

The game is the game.

http://i.imgur.com/nFFxh1Y.jpg

Not saying that's the worse way to begin a story

It's not the beginning.

i see it's just a game except FOR THE SECRET STUFF HILMART ACTUALLY BELIEVES, do you see

Open my eyes. Let the salon.com story run through my veins.

ha, just got a new email from opm re: the "cyber intrusion".

OPM has recently discovered that additional systems were compromised. These systems included those that contain information related to the background investigations of current, former, and prospective federal government employees, as well as other individuals for whom a federal background investigation was conducted.

lol

jesus

this is all tombot's fault

nah, he had a vacation day when this happened

just seize this as an opp'ty to get the dirt on yr coworkers, KM.

gov't should just give you all new identities

you can be John Smallberries

my new name is mick jagger

FBI should be taking from this that any backdoor the good guys have can and will be used by the bad guys, but they won't.

they need even better backdoors to catch these bad guys do u see

this fuckin guy

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) was escorted out of Tuesday’s Benghazi deposition by panel chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) about a minute after he snuck into the private hearing, The Hill reported.

The former House Oversight Chairman reportedly attempted to observe Sidney Blumenthal’s deposition before the House Select Committee. Blumenthal was an adviser to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Issa and Gowdy spoke outside the hearing before Issa sulked off, according to The Hill.

“Sorry about that,” Gowdy reportedly said as he reentered the closed-door session.

According to The Hill, Issa had gone to the briefing room where Blumenthal was to be interviewed but the room was empty as a lunch recess had been called.

When Trey fucking Gowdy is the mature one you know you're dealing with some beyond-obsessive psychos.

Time for Hoos to get back to work and stop that work-around Boehner has come up with to push TPP. I guess I can contact my pro-TPP Dem rep and beg him again to change his mind, when this comes up for a vote again

that fucking guy

so it looks like their plan is to:

1. tuck TAA into something noncontroversial/essential (the highway bill, probably!), pass *that* in the house (if GOP goes for it?)
2. pass TPA (if Dems/Tea Party go for it?) solo in the house
3. shoot TAA-less TPA over to the senate and pass it (if Dems go for it without TAA in it?)

there are a lot of question marks in there and it wouldn't be an easy win for them but there *is* a path, so we've got to get back to it.

negotiators in other countries are saying now that if it's not passed by August recess then they're ready to basically suspend negotiations until the second year of the next presidency--so this really is the finish line.

tbf there's absolutely no reason to have any faith that Boehner can get anything past his caucus

is this the kind of thing where the bulk of the GOP really hates it or feels compelled to hate it by their constituency (aside from the crazies)

by the crazies i mean the bachmann/king/gohmert end

I'd guess constituency. If some Dems cave in to White House, that might also give Boehner the numbers he needs

Boehner won't do it if it requires majority Dem + minority GOP tho

what worries me shakey is that the vote last week suggests that the numbers *are* there to pass standalone fast track/TPA--McConnell is now saying he has assurances from some of last week's No vote dems that if he & Boehner "promise" to tuck TAA into something else to ensure it passes, then they'll vote for fast track. fuckin horse trading sycophants.

is this the kind of thing where the bulk of the GOP really hates it or feels compelled to hate it by their constituency (aside from the crazies)

― goole, Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:58 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the breitbart crew have been pushing really hard on the "obamatrade" angle ("house GOP kowtows to their corporate masters & empowers obama with fast track") trying to swing more crazies the right way, but the bulk of the house is part of the corporate GOP & is thus "pro-trade."

we're trying to hit the people who voted wrong pretty hard too.

huh yeah that's bad news

To change subjects for a sec: Benghazi Committee chair Drago Malefoy has officially turned himself into Ken Starr, hoovering any evidence that will impugn a Clinton during an election year.

I am shocked

lol malefoy

goddammit
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/business/house-sends-trade-bill-back-to-senate-in-bid-to-outflank-foes.html?_r=0

Senate Democrats will also have to gamble that House Democrats will not again vote against the measure when it comes across the Rotunda.

ugh there's no way this happens, if they vote yes on TAA in the africa bill in the senate the house dems are never gonna shoot their feet and vote against it at that point, that'd be entirely pointless

we have to kill it in the senate, which is a much scarier and less plausible prospect.