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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

SOPA/PIPA was also about protecting intellectual property. We don't need a bill worse than SOPA/PIPA. Also, Hillary isn't exactly a profile in courage, so I doubt she says much of anything.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A quick, rough calculation of a person earning $7.25 per hour, 80 hours per paycheck given to them every other Friday, and roughly 26 paychecks or so in the year works out to $15,080 in income per year, not deducting taxes. If we have two income earners at this level, it would be $30,160 per year, not deducting taxes. For a family of four (two adult earners and two children), the poverty line is about $23,000 per year. One rule of thumb that is widely used in election exit polling for “middle class” is about $50,000 per year in household income for a family of four. Being generous, I could see this lowered to $40,000 per year for a family of four.

$40,000 isn't even middle class for one person in the bay area. You're supposed to spend no more than 30% of income on housing. Well, that $1000 a month won't even get you a studio apartment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A quick, rough calculation of a person earning $7.25 per hour, 80 hours per paycheck given to them every other Friday, and roughly 26 paychecks or so in the year works out to $15,080 in income per year, not deducting taxes. If we have two income earners at this level, it would be $30,160 per year, not deducting taxes. For a family of four (two adult earners and two children), the poverty line is about $23,000 per year. One rule of thumb that is widely used in election exit polling for “middle class” is about $50,000 per year in household income for a family of four. Being generous, I could see this lowered to $40,000 per year for a family of four.

$40,000 isn't even middle class for one person in the bay area. You're supposed to spend no more than 30% of income on housing. Well, that $1000 a month won't even get you a studio apartment.

You can get along on $40,000 a year pretty darn well here in the Midwest, which is why I say "I could see this lowered" and the keywords in the phrase before was "rule of thumb".

NYC and SF are not the only places on Earth, jeez.

I'm not even talking about SF, I don't think you can get a $1000 studio anywhere in the bay area. Maybe $1200 gets you one some out of the way place.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

You will never be pleased, will you?

What? I will be very pleased if this crap gets defeated.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

You will never be pleased, will you?

What? I will be very pleased if this crap gets defeated.

No, I mean, Hillary Clinton doesn't take a stand on TPA, and progressives accuse her of lack of leadership, and she says she would vote against it, and she's still lacking leadership? Other than stating her position, there's hardly much she can do considering she isn't, you know, in Congress.

Well, as expected it was a very close vote in the House, 218-208, and she waited until after that to say she'd probably vote against it if she was a Senator. I mean you can't call that the strongest leadership. Of course if somehow it fails cloture in the Senate, she can get some credit for that, but it only had 33 votes against cloture last time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The last vote was 65-33 on cloture. At the very least, there will be a slight moral victory if it never quite gets a 2/3rds majority as the damn constitution requires for a treaty.

Instead of trying to tie up TPA on the cloture vote, I would rather some of the progressives in the Senate throw an old fashioned filibuster to try to talk the bill to death. If they really think that this potential will be that harmful to American worker, they should stand up on the Senate floor and tell their fellow Senators why they should vote no.

Normally a cloture vote would be called in that case. There could still be talking after the cloture vote. But it wouldn't really accomplish much if the cloture vote was successful, unless the actual vote was expected to be close too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What's interesting is how opposition to TPP really is quite bipartisan. There's a lot of Trump supporters here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3301612/posts

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Now with even Hillary against fast track (well in her typical lack of leadership way), it's really Obama against almost the entire Democratic party. However, he only needs 6 fellow DINOs to vote for cloture in the Senate. Of course if Paul or some other Republicans vote against cloture, that will help defeat it.

You will never be pleased, will you?

"True Progressives" whenever Hillary Clinton says or does anything:

This was't exactly the boldest leadership to say she'd "probably" vote against fast track if she was still in the Senate, while still not taking a position on TPP. But regardless, I will give her some credit if fast track is defeated. But otherwise, no credit for her.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cloture passed 60-37, with the 13 DINOs (probably the same as last time) voting for it. 4 Republicans voted against cloture this time. Many of those 13 are Hillary supporters. This is no thanks to Hillary's spinelessness.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cloture passed 60-37, with the 13 DINOs (probably the same as last time) voting for it. 4 Republicans voted against cloture this time. Many of those 13 are Hillary supporters. This is no thanks to Hillary's spinelessness.

What was she supposed to do?

Take a clear position for starters.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

When's the last time that Alabama's Senators were on the liberal side of an issue while Washington's Senators were on the conservative side?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cloture passed 60-37, with the 13 DINOs (probably the same as last time) voting for it. 4 Republicans voted against cloture this time. Many of those 13 are Hillary supporters. This is no thanks to Hillary's spinelessness.

What was she supposed to do?

Take a clear position for starters.

I understand the sentiment.  But, this is lose-lose situation.  She couldn't come out against it, because it would be an insult to Obama.  Coming out for a complicated trade pact that will have already passed when she gets into office doesn't help her. 

When's the last time that Alabama's Senators were on the liberal side of an issue while Washington's Senators were on the conservative side?

Why is this a liberal/conservative issue?  There are plenty of liberals who support the TPP.

It's pretty obviously a liberal/conservative issue. 83% of Senators and something similar in the House voted with their party on this issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So basically the unions screwed themselves over. They were going to get TPP, with TAA as a concession.  They're now getting TPP, but no TAA.

Also, if you're calling over a quarter of the Democratic caucus DINOs, then you're probably being too strict with your standards of ideological purity.

TAA was just window dressing that no one cares about. I'd vote nay on TAA just because the whole idea of stealing from Medicare to pay peanuts to people who lose their jobs forever is just insulting.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Cloture passed 60-37, with the 13 DINOs (probably the same as last time) voting for it. 4 Republicans voted against cloture this time. Many of those 13 are Hillary supporters. This is no thanks to Hillary's spinelessness.

What was she supposed to do?

Take a clear position for starters.

I understand the sentiment.  But, this is lose-lose situation.  She couldn't come out against it, because it would be an insult to Obama.  Coming out for a complicated trade pact that will have already passed when she gets into office doesn't help her. 

When's the last time that Alabama's Senators were on the liberal side of an issue while Washington's Senators were on the conservative side?

Why is this a liberal/conservative issue?  There are plenty of liberals who support the TPP.

"Why is civil rights a liberal/conservative issue?  There were plenty of Northern conservatives who supported the CRA (and many Southern liberals who didn't."

"Why is foreign policy a liberal/conservative issue?  There were plenty of liberals who voted for the Iraq War."

This forum LOVES to put issues into left/right terms at its own convenience.

Nope, the only southern liberal Senator, Ralph Yarborough, supported civil rights. Nice try.