TAA crushed by House, but the game is not over yet

[Torie]

There are a couple of more moves of pawns left on the chessboard. One is reconsideration, with a vote next Tuesday in the House (unlikely there will be a mass changing of Dem votes).  The other is for the Senate to agree to pass TPA without TAA, since the TPA part of the package passed the House.

The weird thing is that the labor unions, after realizing that the votes were there for TPA, decided to try to defeat the more progressive part (the TAA), which most Pubs oppose as a form of worker welfare. So the Dems needed to provide the lion's share of the votes for that.

So one wonders if the Senate will agree to pass just TPA, with enough Pubs agreeing in exchange that if the TPA without TAA then passes both houses, enough Pubs will still vote for the TAA, leaving the Dems with the choice of TPA without TAA, or TPA with TAA. With that being their choice, then labor's gambit will bite the dust, and TAA will then pass. We shall see if there are 60 votes in the Senate to go there.

[Torie]

The dems obviously should toa the taa and one wonder the taa in the tpa thriugh which the rook can slander the tpa in the taa while the pubs override through that which the ppn over the tna which has to leave two or three pawns left presiding on the precipice of pubs tpa senate in the taa.

Hey, t_host1, would you mind translating this for me? Thanks!

[Torie]

There are a couple of more moves of pawns left on the chessboard. One is reconsideration, with a vote next Tuesday in the House (unlikely there will be a mass changing of Dem votes).  The other is for the Senate to agree to pass TPA without TAA, since the TPA part of the package passed the House.

The weird thing is that the labor unions, after realizing that the votes were there for TPA, decided to try to defeat the more progressive part (the TAA), which most Pubs oppose as a form of worker welfare. So the Dems needed to provide the lion's share of the votes for that.

So one wonders if the Senate will agree to pass just TPA, with enough Pubs agreeing in exchange that if the TPA without TAA then passes both houses, enough Pubs will still vote for the TAA, leaving the Dems with the choice of TPA without TAA, or TPA with TAA. With that being their choice, then labor's gambit will bite the dust, and TAA will then pass. We shall see if there are 60 votes in the Senate to go there.

Democrats voted against TAA because it helps kill TPA, and also had some Medicare cuts. There's nothing progressive about cutting Medicare to pay for window dressing for workers screwed over by the anti-worker bill you just passed.

I believe the medicare cuts were removed as a concession by the Pubs. Obviously it was not enough. The TPA isn't really about tariff cuts on tangible goods anyway, as David Brooks pointed out on NPR radio just now. Those tariffs are already at rock bottom levels. Rather, it is about protecting US intellectual property, and restrictions on the provision of US services, both areas in which the US has a huge advantage, and is discriminated against, particularly in Asia, which this deal is all about. The Dems are just channeling their anger at prior trade deals that they think screwed US manufacturing workers, rather than focusing on the merits of this one. Thus, they cut off their nose to spite their face. I suspect the Dems will get back in line on this one in due course, either by the Senate Dems doing what I stated above, leaving the House Dems twisting slowly, slowly in the wind, or as pressure builds on them. It will be interesting to see what Hillary says tomorrow. Probably something about more US worker offsets in the TAA, blah, blah. I don't think the Pubs will give any more on that one than they already have, but I suspect Hillary will avoid crossing that bridge tomorrow. We shall see.

[Torie]

Can Fast Track pass the Senate without the TAA tethered to it?  Are there enough Democratic senators who are willing to vote for TPA without the TAA?

I'd say not likely.

The TAA was supposed to be the compromise that made TPP possible. Democrats wanted TAA to make TPP more palatable, while the GOP only wanted TPP but not TAA. Now that TAA is gone, Democratic Senators aren't going to vote TPP through, and the GOP won't pass TAA by themselves if Democrats aren't going to vote for the TPP.

Does that make sense?

If the Dem Senators still really want the old deal to go through, they can just vote for TPP, with the Pubs agreeing to deliver enough votes for TAA in the House (like last time if the Dems had not dissed it for strategic reasons), if and when the Dems in the House get around to realizing that TPP with TAA, is better for them than TPP without TAA.

[Torie]

Opponents need to get 3 Democratic Senators to flip their votes on TPA, which might be possible with no TAA.

Oh, I think there will be a handshake where enough House Pubs promise to pass TAA after TPA is passed by the Senate. The deal is obvious. With TPA law, are the House Dems still going to kill TAA? I don't think so. They voted against TAA to try to kill TPA. So another procedure to get from A to B needed to fashioned, which yes, will require some cross party trust.

[Torie]

Anyone have the vote breakdown by party?  I can't really find it/tally it up on my phone while at work.

Here you go.

[Torie]

It's all coming down exactly as I predicted. God, I'm good.