Rising Tide of Public Outrage on the Verge of Stopping a Shady Corporate Deal in Washington

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/activism/growing-tide-people-pressure-making-shadowy-corporate-scheme-politically-toxic-washington



he White House is calling January “Trade Promotion Authority Month,” and has made it their task to pass Fast Track. President Obama needs Fast Track to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). When Congress returned this month, a bill was quickly introduced after delays of more than a year.

The lies begin with title of the bill: the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014. Bipartisan? In the House there was only one sponsor, Republican David Camp (MI). The Republicans demanded the Democrats add a sponsor before it was introduced, but due to public pressure, they could not find one.

The only Democrat on the bill in the Senate is Max Baucus (MT), who gave us the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and who is leaving the senate to become ambassador to China. So, the bill is only bipartisan until he heads off to his new job.

Baucus likes to informally call the bill the Job Creating Bipartisan Trade Priorities Act, but that just adds another lie since trade agreements consistently lose jobs, expand the wealth divide and increase trade deficits.

[JDPriestly]

1. K&R.

"trade agreements consistently lose jobs, expand the wealth divide and increase trade deficits."

Well said.

[LuvNewcastle]

10. Very true. I haven't seen a good one yet. In fact, I'd like to see some bi-partisan

repeal of some of our past ones, at least as much of them as we can. When I hear "trade agreement" anymore, I think, "damn, we're getting screwed all over again."

[pampango]

11. No they don't. Wages have trended up since the mid-1990's after declining from 1973 to 1995.

You can't blame that 1973-1995 wage decline on NAFTA or any other trade agreement or even on the WTO which began in 1995.



Our manufacturing jobs have declined but not any faster than in developing countries that have nothing to do with our trade agreements.



And the wealth divide has little to do with trade since the countries that trade the most have the most equitable distributions of income. (If trade caused inequality, Germany and Sweden would look like Somalia.) Our inequality has much more to do with regressive taxes, anti-union laws and the dismantling of the safety net none of which happen in countries with fair income sharing.

[LuvNewcastle]

15. What good does it do to have wages "trending up" when there aren't any jobs?

Where are we now? They had to start two wars and build a housing bubble in the early 2000's to keep unemployment down, and we know what happened as a result of that. This trade agreement being discussed right now is just another giveaway to corporations. The giveaway won't help the rest of us much, if at all, because we should all know by now that those fuckers don't share.

[JDPriestly]

35. Compare the wage increase of the lower 85% of our population to the income increase of the

upper 15%.

Sure, incomes have increased since 1995. But whose incomes are you talking about? How much has the minimum wage increased?

Come to Southern California and count the homeless, the working people who have to have food stamps to feed their families, the poor, those working two jobs and the college graduates who can't get jobs that permit them to pay back their student loans. And then take another look at the seniors and folks in their 50s who can't get jobs (not even a glance at their resumes by a decent employer with a an opening that would pay a livable wage).

It may be anecdotal but people feel it in their lives.

And then talk to seniors who saved when they worked and who now receive maybe 1% or even less interest on their savings accounts.

And finally, talk to the people who paid on their mortgages for years and then got cajoled into refinancing to fix up their house and ended up in foreclosure and bankruptcy court. They are still hurting. The wages have not risen enough to keep working people afloat. They have decrease enough to ensure huge profits for hedge fund investors who manipulate and cheat their way to wealth on Wall Street.

[pampango]

39. According to Krugman, it is the wages of "nonsupervisory workers" that have increased since 1995.

OK, I know what the answer will be: conservative policies will lead to economic growth, and that will raise all boats, the way it did in the days of Saint Ronald. Except, you know, it didn’t. Here’s the real wage of nonsupervisory workers:



Even if you give Reagan credit for the 1982-9 business cycle expansion, which you shouldn’t, there’s no way to claim that his policies led to higher wages for ordinary workers.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/youre-all-losers/?_r=0

Neither Krugman nor I are claiming that the rich have not benefited obscenely in the last 35 years. Krugmans' point in his article was proving that conservative republican policies have been bad for workers' wages. I doubt you would disagree with that given the rapid decline in workers' wages from 1980 to 1994.

The rest of your post I agree with. Our economy has been decimated and skewed in favor of the 1%. The question is how do we reverse that - by attacking trade (which equitable societies embrace) or by adopting policies that progressive countries have successfully used to create a strong middle class and a fair society - progressive taxes, legal support for unions, corporate regulation and a strong safety net.

[JDPriestly]

42. I also support "the policies that progressive countries have successfuly used to create a

strong middle class and fair society, etc."

I would add that I think that our government should increase the rights of working people. Germany places representatives of the workers on the boards of directors of large companies. I support that. Employment law needs to be revisited to give more leverage to the employees in negotiating with their employer on wages, working conditions, etc. California courts havepretty much ended mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts unless both sides agree to arbitration on all issues. (At least that was the case 10 years ago.)

We also need to amend our corporate bankruptcy, pension and employment laws to end the buy-out-to-sell-out-and-steal-the-assets-of-companies-that-employ-our-working-people. Leveraged buy-outs need to be looked at and the law on them needs to force those who do them to consider the needs and rights of the employees.

It is almost too late to do anything about the demolition of our manufacturing base.

Ironically, we make maybe the best planes in the world and have the best equipped military. But I question whether we would have the reserve manufacturing capacity to convert consumer industries to war-time tasks were we to need to rebuild our military capacity as we did during WWII. I sometimes wonder whether our military equipment industry imports steel or other parts from foreign countries. If so, we could be spending billions on military equipment that we could not repair or maintain or even construct in certain circumstances.

Further, I don't think that our service economy can produce the economic security and prosperity that is needed to insure that all Americans have the opportunity to live at a decent standard of living.

The increases in wages that you claim to have occurred do not explain the increased indebtedness of American families over the same period or the terrible foreclosure crisis that resulted from Americans believing that their wages would increase enough to permit them to pay their mortgages and then having to face the reality that wages did not rise to that extent.

Even if you are correct and wages have increased since 1994, as you agreed, we are still faced with an extreme disparity in wealth. So, though the wages may have increased, they have not mended the tear in our society that results from that inequity.

I would like to know what you think about this video of Thom Hartmann:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017170306

[pampango]

47. Getting rid of high tariffs was a great progressive victory in the early 20th century.

Everyday Americans hated the tax system of the Gilded Age. The federal government gathered taxes in two ways. First, it placed high tariff rates on imports. These import taxes protected American industries from competition. This allowed companies to charge high prices on products that the working class needed to survive while also protecting the monopolies that controlled their everyday lives. Second, the government had high excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, two products used heavily by the American working class.

http://www.alternet.org/labor/hidden-progressive-history-income-tax?akid=9361.277129.2KDGDd&rd=1&src=newsletter706781&t=14

Republicans brought them back in the 1920's at the behest of corporations that wanted protection from foreign competition. By the end of that decade the US had historically high inequality in income distribution. The lesson - high tariffs did nothing for income equality.

It is almost too late to do anything about the demolition of our manufacturing base.

We are currently the #2 manufacturing country in the world just behind China which has 4 times our population. Our manufacturing output increases every year and is at a record high. With 5% of the world's population we were never going to be the #1 manufacturer forever.

I don't think that our service economy can produce the economic security and prosperity that is needed to insure that all Americans have the opportunity to live at a decent standard of living.

Our economy produces a per capita income of over $50,000 a year. Our manufacturing output continues to rise though employment in it declines. If we were to distribute the proceeds of our economy fairly, there is plenty of money for all Americans to live at a decent standard of living. Many other countries do just that with less national income to work with and smaller manufacturing sectors.

The increases in wages that you claim to have occurred do not explain the increased indebtedness of American families over the same period or the terrible foreclosure crisis that resulted from Americans believing that their wages would increase enough to permit them to pay their mortgages and then having to face the reality that wages did not rise to that extent.

It is not my 'claim'. It is a graph provided by Paul Krugman. And, of course, any rise in wages only benefits people who are working. As I am sure you know, unemployment is way too high and the percentage of Americans who are working is declining so too many do not benefit from an increase in wages.

Hartmann focused on tariffs. I addressed that in my first comment. He first said we need higher tariffs, then he concluded with an opinion that they probably would not help. All doom-and-gloom, full of warnings about 'them' foreigners, without much in the way of ideas for change - IOW kind of a 'republican' "us (good Americans) vs. them (bad foreigners)", fear and emotion. There was no explanation of why today's progressive countries have low tariffs, lots of trade and thriving middle classes. They don't seem to fear foreigners as much as Hartmann does.

At any rate FDR left a legacy of multilateral control of trade that makes it very difficult for countries to unilaterally raise tariffs. He had seen that happen in the 1920's and did not want it to happen again. Germany, Sweden and all other progressive countries adhere to FDR's ideas about trade. They trade a lot with low tariffs and share the subsequent wealth with all in their societies very equitably. FDR would have approved.

[JDPriestly]

54. At least when I lived there, the progressive countries, Germany and Austria had high

VAT or value added taxes that funded much of their social net as I understood it then. The VAT insures that taxes are raised on manufactured goods (with as I recall the exception for children's clothing and maybe a couple of other kinds of products).

VAT taxes in our country would be a means to deal with the fact that companies like Apple manufacture their products overseas, sell many of them in the US but do not pay the taxes that they should on their profits. That is one of the ways that the liberal countries raise taxes.

We gain too much of our tax revenue from high property and income taxes. Some property and income taxes are needed. But companies can avoid American taxes as Apple does by producing products overseas and selling them here.

So the low tariffs are only part of the story in many of the progressive countries. In fact, the VAT, although it is placed on all products, at least imposes some of the burden for paying the taxes that support the infrastructure of the country and maybe fund some social products on those companies that manufacture in other countries. It sort of serves as a tariff and discourages companies from importing so much, but it is imposed on all products, those made in the country in which it is imposed and those made elsewhere. People say it is a bad idea because it is regressive, but at least it pays the bills and can be used to fund social welfare projects thus lightening the burden on low-income people.

[pampango]

57. While somewhat regressive (like our FICA), the VAT does a good job of funding their safety net, so

it has a lot of political support. It is not, however, a tariff. The VAT applies the same to imports and to domestically-produced goods which is not what a tariff does.

If the US adopted a VAT of say 20%, the cost of a (for example) imported car would rise by 20% but so would the cost of an American-made car. If the proceeds were used to fund the safety net, it might be a good liberal policy but it will not do anything to favor American-made cars. A tariff would raise the price of imported cars, not American-made ones. Quite different from what a tariff does.

I don't agree that "we gain too much of our tax revenue from high property and income taxes."

The problem with our income taxes is that they are too regressive, not that they are too high. Liberal countries have much higher and more progressive income taxes than the US has.

In fact, the VAT, although it is placed on all products, at least imposes some of the burden for paying the taxes that support the infrastructure of the country and maybe fund some social products on those companies that manufacture in other countries. It sort of serves as a tariff and discourages companies from importing so much, but it is imposed on all products, those made in the country in which it is imposed and those made elsewhere.

I am not sure I am following you, but a VAT would certainly discourage imports by raising their price by, let's say, 20%. But a VAT would also discourage the purchase of domestically-produced goods because they too would cost 20% more. That would certainly discourage overall consumption (hopefully to the benefit of social safety net). If all cars cost 20% more people would probably buy fewer cars. But it would not affect the balance of imports vs. domestic goods.

I see your point that a VAT (even though it is regressive in nature) might serve to strength our society by funding national health care and other aspects of a strong safety net like it does in Europe. (Of course, republicans hate the concept of the VAT and, if it were unavoidable, would undoubtedly try to steer its benefits towards reducing other taxes on the rich rather than spending the proceeds on the safety net.) And by strengthening our society it would be good for the middle class in the long run.

So I understand the value of the VAT though it has its flaws, but it is not a tariff since it applies to all goods not just imports.

[JDPriestly]

64. Yes. I understand that the VAT is not a tariff, but it does impose some of the tax obligation

on foreign goods. And one of the major reasons corporations produce goods in a foreign countries, say China, is to minimize the tax burden on the corporation and thus, on those buying the foreign-produced goods. It isn't a tariff, but it at least could be used to place some of our tax burden on imports (all products unfortunately) rather than on all work done in the US.

Tariffs would be better, but the VAT tax gets the tax collected. Generally, I think the VAT makes sense not only in terms of the costs of collection but in terms of the effort required to collect the taxes.

Here in California we voted to raise our sales tax after Jerry Brown became our governor and realized he had to pay the debts that previous Republican governors had incurred. I believe that collecting taxes on mail-order goods such as computer-ordered goods was something of a problem, but still a VAT is easier to collect than other forms of tax collection.

The VAT penalizes purchasers slightly, but may encourage savings and conservative consumption. Buyers are more likely to consider not just the immediate cost but the cost of replacing an item and therefore the durability and quality of the products when buying. That helps the environment. Americans buy cheap junk because the initial price is attractive even when the actual cost of the item over the years will be higher due to the shoddy quality.

The Germans and Austrians were, when I lived there, more conservative about consumption than are Americans. Germans are more likely to spend money on travel in my experience, but spending choices may be due to historical and cultural factors to say nothing of the weather. (Germans and other north Europeans are guaranteed long vacations and love to spend time in the sunny South.)

We penalize employers for hiring people. Not only do we require employees to pay for Social Security when they pay employees, but we require the employer to pay for the social net at that point. Of course, it doesn't really make so much difference in terms of the amount collected whether the employer pays for the social net when he pays the employee or when the retailer receives the money from his customers. But paying the taxes at the point of sale impresses on the buyer the fact that he or she is paying taxes. And it takes the decision to pay taxes or avoid them from the manufacturer or employer.

If I buy a car for $20,000 in the US that was made in another country with which we have a trade agreement barring tarrifs, the manufacturer pays the tax rates in the country or state in which the factory is located. To lower overall costs, the manufacturer considers when locating a factory how much can be saved in taxes by moving his plant from say, California where he has to pay taxes to Say South Carolina or China where not only pay, but taxes will be lower. The tax rate consideration should be removed from that decision.

I think that employers would be more inclined to locate production facilities in the countries or states in which they have their most lucrative markets (to save transportation costs) and in which the best trained and educated workers are located. That would result in better products, lessen the impact on the environment and mean a fairer allocation of the tax burden for the people who buy and produce the products. What was gained by moving car factories out of Detroit and into the South? That move imposed costs both on both Detroit and the location in the South. That is manufacturing sprawl at its worst, and the destruction of Detroit is a big price to pay in both monetary and human terms. It may seem at first to be good for economic development. But that is not true because the factory that moves its location to avoid taxes will probably move again when the financial advantages of the new location inevitably disappear as workers want more pay and the costs to the government of the new location become apparent and taxes (or the costs of leasing a government-owned property and other costs) necessarily rise in the new location.

I would prefer a combination of VAT and income taxes. It has been a long time, but if I remember correctly, in Europe, food and children's clothing and I think medications (not sure) were exempt from sales taxes. It isn't that the VAT imposes a lower tax burden on domestically produced products than foreign products but that it imposes at least some of the burden on imported products. That reduces some of the tax incentive to produce goods in low-tax states or countries, often states or countries that do not support good education institutions, health care for residents, or environmental standards.

Of course, for people like me who rely on Social Security or other such sources for my income, the VAT is a tough burden. But that burden could be eased through the social net that a VAT would support. For example, as it now is, a portion of my Social Security check is tax-exempt because of my low income.

One argument for encouraging foreign trade with low tax rates is that it encourages development in third world countries. I have a number of problems with that argument, but a major one is that encouraging imports has greatly benefited those with capital to invest in the third world but has penalized most of us who have very little or no capital of that kind. The largest part of the gains from producing products overseas as gone to the wealthiest in our society. The less wealthy are left with lower paychecks, fewer customers for small retail businesses, less incentive to fund education and other social projects in the US. It has been all around a big factor in increasing the disparity in incomes in the US. We in the US are beginning to look more like the very third world countries we claim to be developing.

I just think that a VAT, a pretty high VAT combined with tax relief for middle class people and lower taxes on the work of people paid low wages would be a good policy.

[pampango]

67. Damn! That is a nice, thoughtful and complete post. I agree with your detailed analysis of a VAT.

I suspect it will be difficult to pass in the US but that does not take away from your excellent post. We disagree on some things but agree on much that needs to be done.

[JDPriestly]

70. Thank you. I reserve the right to change my mind. I am not an economist. I have just seen

and read a lot and I enjoy trying to figure out puzzles. I don't have the mathematical training that economists have. I enjoyed this discussion with you.

[tazkcmo]

76. Stop it you two!

All this civility is making me ill!

[pampango]

79. I can't speak for JDPriestly but I promise not to let it happen very often.

It can be a real buzz-kill on DU.

[Progressive dog]

44. You are right, our largest (by far)

trade deficit is with China. China is not part of NAFTA or the other trade pacts we have negotiated.
In spite of our imports of oil from both Canada and Mexico, we have no deficit with Canada and our deficit with Mexico is tiny compared with our deficit with China. Trade is not a major cause of income inequality.

[moondust]

53. NAFTA opened the flood gates to offshoring.

There didn't need to be a free trade agreement with China because NAFTA reassured the corporate world that the U.S. government, even under a Democratic President, was going to do nothing to try to stop the massive hemorrhaging of jobs to cheap labor markets.

I'm not a trade lawyer but I suspect that if it is perfectly legal for Company A to move thousands of jobs from the U.S. to Mexico or Canada, then Company B will find a way to claim equal protection for moving thousands of jobs to China or India or Vietnam.

Offshoring jobs to cheap labor markets tends to pressure wages everywhere offshoring is allowed downward toward the lowest market rates available; the whole planet becomes one big labor market with lots of desperately poor people willing to work for next to nothing. If Company B can get its product made in Vietnam for a wage rate of 58 cents a day plus some shipping charges, why would it hire workers in Mexico at 2.50 a day plus some roughly equal shipping charges?

Who reaps the rewards of moving all those jobs to China and paying slave wages? Corporate management and Wall Street/investors: the 1%. For 30-40 years now they have been wiping out better-paying jobs in the U.S. and stuffing most of the payroll savings into their own pockets.

[Progressive dog]

58. So by your reasoning any additional treaties don't matter,

the damage is already done.
In the 1980's the trade deficit was blamed on Japan. Japan, like the US, now runs a trade deficit with the world. NAFTA was in 1994. By your reasoning, the US started running a trade deficit in anticipation of a trade agreement that wasn't even planned.
The US has to import oil and other natural resources. We will run a deficit unless we are a net exporter of other goods.
The trade deficit has little to do with the huge income inequality in the US.

[moondust]

59. What's in the "additional treaties"?

I'm not sure overall trade surplus/deficit numbers based on national boundaries have much meaning in a globalized marketplace of multinational corporations where, say, a company incorporated in Europe makes its product in China and ships it to Mexico for transport by truck to the U.S. for sale. Who gets the credit for what?

Thus I'm not sure trade surpluses/deficits and the offshoring of jobs as a result of trade agreements greasing the skids can even be linked.

[Progressive dog]

61. National boundaries are what trade agreements are all about

Nafta was signed by specific countries (national boundaries) as will be TPP. If we import stuff fromMexico, we import stuff fromMexico. If it originally came from North No-whereistan, it still had to come through Mexico to be treated as coming from Mexico.

[moondust]

68. So...

the five hundred jobs the European company moved to China for the cheap labor are not reflected in the company's home trade surplus/deficit figures since the company made the products in China and shipped them to Mexico for sale in the U.S.; they didn't import or export anything to/from their home country yet those better-paying jobs were still lost.

I'm just not sure how relevant overall national trade surplus/deficit figures are when measuring the impact of offshoring jobs since those numbers also don't necessarily take into account domestic sales.

[Progressive dog]

69. If they come from Mexico, they count as coming from Mexico

The point is this, the lost jobs have absolutely nothing to do with NAFTA. If your problem is with trading with China, it has nothing to do with NAFTA. Shipping through Mexico would count in our balance of trade with Mexico and it would be a violation of NAFTA.

[moondust]

71. NAFTA implicitly sanctioned the offshoring of jobs.

In the 1980s, before NAFTA, some jobs were moved offshore but it wasn't clear if the government approved of the practice or would at some point take action such as erecting tariffs that could ultimately cost companies more to offshore than to keep the jobs in the U.S. NAFTA cleared that all up and opened the flood gates.

Also, I don't think national trade surplus/deficit statistics begin to measure the impact of offshored engineering jobs, IT jobs, call center jobs, clerical jobs, or other service jobs since those jobs do not involve shipping containers or manifests as do material goods.

NAFTA was not just a “trade” agreement.

edited to change "officially" to "implicitly" and add link

[Progressive dog]

72. It was a trade agreement, it did not sanction anything, it allowed trade with fewer restrictions

The off shored engineering jobs would be included in our trade numbers, we actually have a large surplus in the service part of trade. Service would include engineering.

[fasttense]

2. If they name it the cute fuzzy kittens act

you can bet it is about ugly hairless dogs.

The T-Pee-Pee (there is a reason there is pee-pee in the treaty's name) will ensure America becomes a full fledged 3rd world nation. Is Obama paying back his donors with this trade deal?

[Dman292]

4. Great line

I am going to hang that up in my office

[sendero]

3. People should ask themselves..

... "why is this piece of odious legislation so important to the president?" "Does he actually believe that these agreements do anything at all to help average Americans when all evidence is to the contrary"? "Who is Obama ACTUALLY working for?"

Guess what, it isn't you.

[Divernan]

8. Post political office corporate board appointments?

Those are all the rage nowadays, ya know! All we can know for sure is that $promises$ have been made, whether in exchange for campaign donations or future remunerations.

[sendero]

9. It has to be..

.. something like that because it sure isn't to help Americans.

[Art_from_Ark]

13. The Japanese have a word for that

"Amakudari", literally "descent from heaven", is used to refer to politicians who get in on the lucrative corporate payroll after leaving office.

[Egalitarian Thug]

19. Yes, they should. n/t

[GoneFishin]

26. Also, if he sincerely believes it is good, then why so much secrecy and freezing out of

non-corporate voices?

He knows it is a big FU to the middle class and knows it will essentially need to be slipped through in the middle of the night with no debate.

[KG]

5. why are they outraged?they don't even know what's in it. it hasn't happened yet. we'll fix it later.

it's all about soy beans. because obama.

have I left out anything?

[xchrom]

6. i think that's the check list

i'm sure some one sensible will let us know.

[GoneFishin]

27. It's part of a long term strategy that is too complex for you to understand. You'll see.

Your criticism plays right into the hands of the Republicans.

The terrorists will win.

[LondonReign2]

65. But but but

the pros have told us this shouldn't be such as important issue, and besides it isn't even law yet!

[cantbeserious]

7. Kick And Recommend

eom

[Octafish]

12. Odd how pro-corporate crapola needs 'Fast Track' to skip public review and pass into law.

That's not only undemocratic, that's underhanded.

[jsr]

14. The Job Creating Bipartisan Trade Priorities Act?

[Doctor_J]

50. To paraphrase something upthread, we're lucky they didn't call it the Save the Children Act

just as bogus and even more heart-wrenching

[ReRe]

16. K&R

Well... I hope and pray that there is a "rising tide of public outrage" that can stop it. Let's stir the pot a little and stoke up the fire underneath this cauldron of secret stew. If this can't be debated on the floor of the House and of the Senate before it is voted on, if The People are not privy to what's in the trade agreement, then there shouldn't be a vote at all.

[BrotherIvan]

17. This is being pushed by THE WHITE HOUSE

This is their priority. They are putting the power of the office of the President behind this. I wonder if they'll fight as hard for it as, say, a Public Option? Or the Bush tax cuts? Or...or...

Because the populist speeches while all of this is going on, sound just a little bit hollow.

[stillwaiting]

18. The speeches are more than hollow in light of this. They are infuriating. nt

[woo me with science]

20. +10000 It's Orwellian, is what it is.

[truedelphi]

25. Obama definitely is pushing it.

And he never pushed for public option, because, you know, separation of powers. He couldn't comment, he said, on what he wanted, until the legislature dealt their hand.

Meanwhile the Chief Power behind the Throne, Rahm Emanuel was in the WH basement drafting the language of the ACA bill, with his buddy Liz Fowler.

[Marr]

55. C'mon! Don't you know he's not a dictator?! He can't do ANYTHING!

Funny how the White House can make things move when they *want* something.

[Liberal_Dog]

62. +1

Bingo.

[pa28]

21. Could not find a single Democrat to co-sponsor fast track.

So Obama is teaming up with Republicans to get this deal done just like the Korea free trade bill. Lovely.

[L0oniX]

23. Is Obama a Dem?

[whathehell]

51. I think many have been asking that question for quite awhile now..

but then again, he must be -- He's got a "D" after his name, doesn't he?

[L0oniX]

22. Baucus is a traitor to the Dem party.

Corporate sell out asshole ...3rd way ...corporate centrist ....but then I am repeating myself.

[bvar22]

24. I hope so, but we've had Rising Tides before.

The 1% and their mouth pieces in Washington can ignore the rising tides.
They have the NSA/Homeland Security to take care of any peasant rabble rousers,
and luxurious Yachts to float carelessly above our Rising Tides.
If we're lucky, they'll throw their garbage overboard and find amusement in how hard we fight each other for the crumbs.

OTOH, it is foolish to just sit home and bitch,
so get out and Join the TIDE!
THAT is still FREE.

[cali]

28. Contemptible. And I'm a hater because I recognize that the President is pandering

to corporate interests?

[redqueen]

29. "Baucus likes to informally call the bill the Job Creating Bipartisan Trade Priorities Act"

It's doubleplusgood!

[xchrom]

30. Despite Obama’s claims, the Korea-US free trade agreement has cost American jobs

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business/global-economy/130802/us-south-korea-free-trade-agreement-obama-jobs

***SNIP


A report published last month by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a left-leaning Washington think tank, puts the first-year US job-loss figure at up to 40,000.

“I expected it to turn out this way,” explains Robert E. Scott, the report’s author and director of trade and manufacturing policy research at EPI. “We were watching the monthly trade data, and were aware of this for some time.”

Scott argues that the government erred in its prediction of an export windfall as the driver of job creation. In the process, White House officials ignored the flip side: a spike in imports from South Korea, a burden that may have ignited American lay-offs.

Before the KORUS FTA, the US ran a substantial trade deficit with South Korea. In 2011, imports of goods to the US exceeded exports to Korea by $13 billion.

[xchrom]

31. {NAFTA} It Lowered Wages, as It Was Supposed to Do

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/nafta-lowered-wages-as-it-was-supposed-to-do

Given the trends in U.S. trade with Mexico over the last two decades, it is strange that there is much of a debate over Nafta's impact on wages. At the time Nafta was passed in 1993 the United States had a modest trade surplus with Mexico. In 2013 we are on a path to have a trade deficit of more than $50 billion. The $50 billion in lost output corresponds to roughly 0.3 percent of gross domestic product, assuming the same impact on employment, this would translate into more than 400,000 jobs. If each lost job would have led to half a job being created as a result of workers spending their wages, this would bring the total impact to 600,000 jobs.

Of course some of the shift from surplus to deficit might have occurred even without Nafta, but it would be difficult to argue that Nafta was not a major contributing factor. After all, one of the main purposes of the agreement was to make U.S. firms feel confident that they could locate operations in Mexico without having to fear that their factories could be nationalized or that Mexico would impose restrictions on repatriating profits. This encouraged firms to take advantage of lower cost labor in Mexico, and many did.

This can produce economic gains; they just don’t go to ordinary workers. The lower cost of labor translates to some extent into lower prices and to some extent into higher corporate profits. The latter might be good news for shareholders and top management, but is not beneficial to most workers.

Lower prices are helpful to workers as consumers, but are not likely to offset the impact on wages. To see this point, imagine that Nafta was about reducing the wages of doctors by eliminating the barriers that made it difficult for Mexican school children to train to U.S. standards and practice medicine in the United States.

[pampango]

33. Not according to Krugman. Manufacturing wages have been rising since 1995.

[xchrom]

34. yes. i knew you would show up. nt

[Elwood P Dowd]

49. Never fails!

When a job killing trade deal is discussed, the DU head cheerleader for the mega-rich & their free trade propaganda always shows up here.

[pampango]

63. If you disagree with the content of my posts you are welcome to rebut it. Messenger blasts

are beneath you. I try (not always successfully perhaps) to avoid labeling other posters and calling them names but try to respond to what I see as the content of their posts.

If the topic of a post is the effect of trade on jobs and wages I feel it is useful to post what I find from studies on the topic. When I do that with republicans it usually drives them to frustration and they most often resort to name-calling and a lot of fear and emotion peddling. I am glad that generally does not happen around here.

I assume that you are posting your genuine beliefs and want what is best for America's 99%. If you cannot do the same for posters with whom you disagree on specific topics, that is not my problem. If I am a 'cheerleader' for the bad guys it should be very easy to find and post evidence to prove the facts (I hope) and conclusions in my posts are wrong.

[treestar]

75. But you have no response to Krugman's graph nt

[Romulox]

74. The chart is clearly labeled "Real wage of production and nonsupervisory workers".

The chart doesn't depict manufacturing wages.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/youre-all-losers/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1&

You have previously been corrected in this matter, which means you are purposefully misrepresenting at this point.

[pampango]

78. It is a chart of manufacturing (production) and "ordinary workers" according to Krugman.

Here is a chart of manufacturing workers specifically which also shows a peak in manufacturing was in about 1980 and a decline until the mid-1990's. BTW, if you have research that shows something different I would love to see it.



http://midwest.chicagofedblogs.org/1mw.html

You have previously been corrected in this matter, which means you are purposefully misrepresenting at this point.

I don't remember that. If true, I apologize. I will use the above chart instead in the future when posting about the trend in manufacturing wages and leave the Krugman chart for discussions of wages of 'ordinary workers' in general.

[xchrom]

32. {NAFTA} It Successfully Undermined Regulations

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/nafta-successfully-undermined-regulations

Nafta has been effective at helping major corporations at the expense of ordinary American citizens. Most critics have focused on Nafta-related job losses. But they miss the true significance of this and subsequent mislabeled “trade” agreements.


Most of Nafta’s text was devoted to investments, specifically the granting investors rights relative to what Nafta defined as investments. The premise of these provisions in Nafta and similar treaties was that some of the signatory nations had legal systems that might authorize the expropriation of assets, like factories, so foreign investors need recourse to safe venues to obtain compensation. Provisions of this type have been included in subsequent American free trade agreements and are expected to be increased considerably in the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership.

These investor provisions restrict the rights of governments to regulate these investors and their investments. For instance, investors can sue by arguing that if a government changes policies, regulations, or modifies the terms of a contract, such that the investor has suffered a loss of potential profits. A review of cases filed shows they’ve attacked operations at every level of government.

The mechanism for enforcing these sweeping investor rights is “investor-state” arbitration panels, which operate outside of and have been given precedence over domestic court systems. The result has been to give foreign investors greater rights than those of home country citizens and businesses.

[xchrom]

36. you have to stick NAFTA into this: A Decade of Flat Wages

http://www.epi.org/publication/a-decade-of-flat-wages-the-key-barrier-to-shared-prosperity-and-a-rising-middle-class/


EPI’s The State of Working America, 12th Edition (Mishel et al. 2012) provides a comprehensive assessment of recent decades’ wage and benefits trends and an extensive analysis of the causes of wage stagnation and wage inequality. In this paper we document the economy’s continuing failure to provide real wage gains for most workers. We track wage trends (and, where possible, compensation trends, which include not just wages but also fringe benefits such as health care and pensions) using both employer-based and household-based survey data. We focus primarily on trends since 2007, the year the Great Recession began. We generally examine year-over-year trends using calendar years, though to assess the most recent trends we also include year-over-year trends using just the first half of each year. We also discuss these trends in the context of patterns since 2000, as the 2000–2007 business cycle—and especially the recovery years of that business cycle, 2002–2007—were characterized by dismal wage growth. In some cases we provide data going back to 1979, as most workers have experienced weak wage growth for more than three decades.

This paper’s key findings include:

According to every major data source, the vast majority of U.S. workers—including white-collar and blue-collar workers and those with and without a college degree—have endured more than a decade of wage stagnation. Wage growth has significantly underperformed productivity growth regardless of occupation, gender, race/ethnicity, or education level.

During the Great Recession and its aftermath (i.e., between 2007 and 2012), wages fell for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage distribution, despite productivity growth of 7.7 percent.

Weak wage growth predates the Great Recession. Between 2000 and 2007, the median worker saw wage growth of just 2.6 percent, despite productivity growth of 16.0 percent, while the 20th percentile worker saw wage growth of just 1.0 percent and the 80th percentile worker saw wage growth of just 4.6 percent.

The weak wage growth over 2000–2007, combined with the wage losses for most workers from 2007 to 2012, mean that between 2000 and 2012, wages were flat or declined for the entire bottom 60 percent of the wage distribution (despite productivity growing by nearly 25 percent over this period).

Wage growth in the very early part of the 2000–2012 period, between 2000 and 2002, was still being bolstered by momentum from the strong wage growth of the late 1990s. Between 2002 and 2012, wages were stagnant or declined for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage distribution. In other words, the vast majority of wage earners have already experienced a lost decade, one where real wages were either flat or in decline.

This lost decade for wages comes on the heels of decades of inadequate wage growth. For virtually the entire period since 1979 (with the one exception being the strong wage growth of the late 1990s), wage growth for most workers has been weak. The median worker saw an increase of just 5.0 percent between 1979 and 2012, despite productivity growth of 74.5 percent—while the 20th percentile worker saw wage erosion of 0.4 percent and the 80th percentile worker saw wage growth of just 17.5 percent.


***and the korea free trade deal -- you may not like it -- but you can only split hairs but so much

[JEB]

37. TPP is the rusty wire brush

they will use to fuck us working people. Pretty sure you won't like it.

[colsohlibgal]

38. I Sure Hope So

Just when I think I can't despise Max Baucus anymore I find I can. He's as much a democrat as I'm Queen Victoria, he's a major league corporate sellout.

[frwrfpos]

40. kicking this thread

and reccing

[Jefferson23]

41. ....expand the wealth divide. Just what we need because corporations don't rule over us enough

already. Why don't they re-name it, Investor Rights R Us.

At least that way, it would be an honest piece of legislation.


K&R

[antigop]

43. and who played a leading part in drafting the TPP? Hillary Clinton.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

[polichick]

66. Looks like our choices in 2008 were two peas in a pod.

[davidthegnome]

45. We'll see.

I think it is going to depend a great deal on who backs it - and on who's money (and how much money) backs it. There aren't many politicians that can't be bought, if it should be necessary.

[840high]

46. kick

[on point]

48. It is essential this goes down in flames to push back against the 1%

[sabrina 1]

52. Good, it's great to see the people waking up. Wikileaks deserves a huge thank you

for releasing their Secret deals. We so need Whistle Blowers when we have this kind of garbage going on. And it is OUTRAGEOUS that they think they can tell Congress 'you don't need to see it, we'll pass it on to you to vote on when we're ready'.

[BelgianMadCow]

56. 30.000 in Berlin against TTIP

the tide is rising.

[Liberal_Dog]

60. K & R

[MNBrewer]

73. TPP really shows that the claim that Obama is some kind of progressive is a lie.

[Leopolds Ghost]

77. Next one on the table is the Trans-atlantic Free Trade agreement with Europe

Which requires countries to eliminate subsidies for small domestic farmers and requires ISPs to monitor the Internet for copyright infringing material on behalf of rights holders, last I heard. (It might have changed since then.) The guy who is Obama's lead negotiator on that lives in a posh Democratic community. It also shuts Third-World countries out of favorable trade terms by doing an end-run around the WTO, since Third World participation is not needed but they would have to play ball with member nations.