Come On In, The Water's Fine!

Jon Stewart is right. Jon Stewart is wrong.

In the video (from Dailymotion) below, Mike Huckabee maintains "It is a biblical issue and as a biblical issue, unless, you know, I get a new version of the Scriptures, it's really not my place to say "O.K., I'm just gonna evolve.'"

Daily Kos' Egberto Willies argues

Jon Stewart made minced meat out of that argument. He used the following Bible passages to show the hypocrisy of the evangelicals. If they want to be literally biblical, there is much for them to ponder.

Leviticus 19:19: Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

Leviticus 19:27: Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Leviticus 19:20: When a person has sexual relations with a woman servant who is engaged to another man, but she has not been completely redeemed nor has her freedom been granted to her, there is to be an inquiry, but they won't be put to death, since she has not been freed.

Leviticus 21:13: The woman he marries must be a virgin.

Mike Huckabee said it; Jon Stewart or someone had to challenge it, and challenging it with Scripture- that is, on the minister's own terms- is the place to begin.

Except that the comedian and the former governor are not on the same page.  Reverend Huckabee would agree that Scripture, including both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is "god breathed," as the apostle Paul declared it.  But they are operating on different premises.

It is not as if the law, such as described in the four passages from Leviticus (and elsewhere in the O.T.), is useless. It was there, and to be obeyed, until a Savior would arrive, as Huckabee no doubt emphasized as a pastor. (Moses: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.")  Paul tells the Galatians "it was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made..."

So "the law," John (or someone else) wrote, "was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." All people,  as reformed Christians such as Huckabee will tell you, "sin and fall short of the glory of God."  Keeping the law is impossible. It is why, since the advent, saints and non-saints alike cannot achieve favor with God by obeying the law, committing good works, or doing anything. Everyone is imperfect, hence unable to achieve salvation without a savior.

One commentor explains

Paul says that we have died to the law — even the Jews have died to the law through identification with Jesus Christ. Therefore, the law no longer has authority over us, since we belong to Christ, not to the law. Christ is the one we obey, so that we can bear spiritual fruit. The law is contrasted with Christ, and it is the old covenant law that Paul is talking about — the Torah, the Law portion of the Scriptures. We can be under the law, or under Christ. Being under both is not an option.

The new covenant replaced the old covenant, as understood by the (undetermined) writer of Hebrews when he states "Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises."   This is illustrated by Jeremiah's prophecy, built around and upon the Mosaic Covenant God is said to have made with the people of Israel at Mount Sinai, in which he assured the people of Israel

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant,though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]” declares the Lord.

“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord.“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God,and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,”declares the Lord.“For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

Mike Huckabee's scriptural interpretation can be disputed.  His perspective on gay marriage, moreover, is not required given his interpretation. Even his emphasis on the Bible is not one held by all churchgoers, nor even all believers. Surely, however, Reverend Huckabee understands (better than do I) the distinction between the two covenants, in which the Old Testament conceals what the New Testament reveals, and its importance to hermeneutics.

Jon Stewart has ventured into the world of theological disputes, where two few enter. We'll all be the better in the unlikely event that Huckabee, who must play down (as he has) his identity as a Christian minister if he wants to run for president, responds to criticism of his criticism of same-sex marriage. If he does, it will be revealing, and Stewart will have performed a public service.

Share |

First, They Will Have To Care About Less Well-Off Americans

You must be joking, Reihan,

Reihan Salaam may be the closest thing to a "moderate Republican,"  were that not the closest thing in modern American politics to an oxymoron (thereby replacing "compassionate conservative").  In 2008 he authored with New York Times' house Repub Ross Douthat a book entitled "Grand New Party" which, Salaam observes, "never became a publishing phenomenon on the order of Fifty Shades of Grey."

Salaam finds both hopeful and disappointing the speech of John Ellis Bush on Wednesday to the Detroit Economic Club.  Dana Bash and Jeremy Diamond of CNN helpfully branded the junk Bush peddled as "reform conservatism" which, it turns out, makes him one of the genre of conservatives conveniently branded by a Wall Street journalist the previous day as "reformocon."  Only slightly less naively, Salaam in Slate writes "My reformocon homework assignment for would-be GOP presidential candidates is simple. Don’t just tell us what you’re against. Tell us what you’re for, and be specific."  Fat chance, that.

While arguing "Bush spoke movingly about the challenges facing the tens of millions of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck," Salaam acknowledges the ex-governor "never really reckoned with the fact that America's economic woes began long before Barack Obama became president." He thus went bravely where few if any conservatives or Repubs have gone.  However, Salaam added.

What I really wanted was for Bush to demonstrate that he understood why so many Americans had lost their faith in the Republican Party, and why he deserved their trust. He failed to do that. Instead of offering an agenda worthy of a future president, he offered compassion for those who’ve missed out on the fruits of America’s sluggish economic growth and a series of minor tweaks that are better suited to a governor or a mayor than to the next president. To be the candidate of reform, he’ll have to do better.

He won't, and none of his competitors for the nomination will.  The LA Times reports

Democratic lawmakers Tuesday pushed legislation to stop U.S. companies from reincorporating overseas to reduce their tax bills, saying a wave of so-called inversions last year has nearly doubled the revenue the federal government will lose from those moves over the next decade.

The bill would make it tougher for U.S. firms to buy a smaller foreign competitor in a lower-tax nation and shift the merged company's headquarters there for tax purposes.

Democrats have been trying this for some time:

The maneuver gained popularity last year with several high-profile deals, such as Burger King Worldwide Inc.'s purchase of Canadian coffee-and-doughnut chain Tim Hortons.

 “When corporations invert, they renounce their American citizenship and don’t pay their fair share of taxes, leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab. That isn’t right,” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) said as he joined three other lawmakers in pushing for a bill they first introduced last year.

“Today, we are putting these corporate tax deserters on notice: We are not going to stand by while they game the tax code and avoid their responsibility to our country," he said.

The legislation would change tax rules to make inversions more difficult, such as requiring a company to have at least 50% foreign ownership instead of the current 20% in order to be considered foreign for U.S. tax purposes.

A similar bill was introduced last year, based on a proposal in President Obama's budget. At the time, Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the bill would generate $19.5 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years that would be lost through the maneuvers.

We al know why that effort failed. Though "the size and pace of corporate inversions picked up last summer," the reporters note, "Republicans argue companies are inverting because the 35% corporate tax rate in the U.S. is the highest among the world's most advanced economies. Key GOP lawmakers said inversions should be dealt with as part of a broader overhaul of the U.S. corporate tax code."

Republicans long have complained about the high statutory corporate tax rate, though they must know the effective corporate tax rate is lower in the U.S. than in most of the developed world. Corporate tax reform, to them, is lowering corporate taxes. Period.

Twelve months ago, The New York Times explained

Before taxes, corporate profits accounted for 12.5 percent of the total economy, tying the previous record that was set in 1942, when World War II pushed up profits for many companies. But in 1942, most of those profits were taxed away. The effective corporate tax rate was nearly 55 percent, in sharp contrast to last year’s figure of under 20 percent.

The trend of higher profits and lower effective taxes has been gaining strength for years, but really picked up after the Great Recession temporarily depressed profits in 2009. The effective rate has been below 20 percent in three of the last five years. Before 2009, the rate had not been that low since 1931.

The statutory top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, and corporations have been vigorously lobbying to reduce that, saying it puts them at a competitive disadvantage against companies based in other countries, where rates are lower. But there are myriad tax credits, deductions and preferences available, particularly to multinational companies, and the result is that effective tax rates have fallen for many companies.

Republicans will not put the brakes on corporate inversions. They will not vote to raise the minimum wage.  And they will never, ever acknowledge the impact of union bashing, which began with Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), on eroding the middle class, nor even on increasing income inequality. The correlation is unmistakable, the causal effect almost as obvious, the former illustrated below with a 2013 graph, whose information is from varied sources and which comes from The Huffington Post:

John Ellis Bush, whom Reihan Salaam realized "never really reckoned with the fact that America's economic woes began long before Barack Obama became president," is the media leader in the GOP presidential race. The dog-whistle leader is Scott Walker, the puppet "hired by Koch Industries to manage their midwest facility formerly known as the state of Wisconsin,"  who made his bones among Repubs and the mainstream media by vanquishing unions in his state.  This is not the party of Dwight D. Eisenhower (who was probably to the left of today's Clinton-Obama Democratic Party). It also is not the party o conservatives such as Reihan Salaam and Ross Douthat, moored (however tenuously) to economic reality.





Share |

Still Squeezing That Orange

Chris Christie lies profusely. He will lie about something relatively inconsequential, such as bragging about being the first governor to endorse Mitt Romney for president in 2008, which must have surprised Nebraska governor Heineman or Idaho governor Otter (not either otter below).

He will lie to cover up failed policy, as he did when claiming nurse Kaci Hickox had symptoms of Ebola, or about his communications with his then-Education Secretary Bret Schundler about a Race to the Top application.

Christie will lie to back up a lie, as he did when falsely claiming New Jersey (with the 31st highest tax burden in the country) is the most-heavily taxed state, then falsely claim a study determined residents were leaving the state in droves because of their tax burden.

The New Jersey governor was not above lying about when his friendship began with Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, who has a major financial interest in a company which received- with a boost from the governor- a major contract with the state.

He will lie in a political campaign to avoid opposition from a major group of voters, as he did when he told police and teachers he would protect their pensions, then  after being elected "shifted more costs to public workers, raised their retirement age to 65, and froze yearly cost-of-living adjustments."

These are only the outright lies, not his flagrant distortions, and exclude a few things, including Bridgegate, about which more will be learned when the indictments start coming.

However, Chris Christie has been completely honest about one thing- his future in New Jersey. Speaking before the NJ NAACP convention in October, the state's chief executive (video below)

offered no further clues as to whether he'd declare his candidacy for president next year, but one thing he was Waterford crystal-clear on: He really, really does not want to be a U.S. senator:

"Believe me: When I say I am never running for public office in New Jersey again? I mean I am never running for public office in New Jersey again. The only job left for me to run for is United States Senate, and let me just say this: I would rather die than be in the United States Senate. Okay? I would be bored to death. Can you imagine me bangin' around that chamber with 99 other people? Asking for a motion on the amendment in the subcommittee? Forget it. It would be over, everybody. You'd watch me just walk out and walk right into the Potomac River and drown. That'd be it."









Chris Christie loves the perks of being governor, including privileges he could not enjoy if he were a member of the US House of Representatives or US Senate. The New York Times reports

As Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey waited to depart on a trade mission to Israel in 2012, his entourage was delayed by a late arrival: Mr. Christie’s father, who had accidentally headed to the wrong airport.

A commercial flight might have left without him, but in this case, there was no rush. The private plane, on which Mr. Christie had his own bedroom, had been lent by Sheldon G. Adelson, the billionaire casino owner and supporter of Israel. At the time, he was opposing legislation then before the governor to legalize online gambling in New Jersey.

Mr. Christie loaded the plane with his wife, three of his four children, his mother-in-law, his father and stepmother, four staff members, his former law partner and a state trooper.

King Abdullah of Jordan picked up the tab for a Christie family weekend at the end of the trip. The governor and two staff members who accompanied him came back to New Jersey bubbling that they had celebrated with Bono, the lead singer of U2, at three parties, two at the king’s residence, the other a Champagne reception in the desert. But a small knot of aides fretted: The rooms in luxurious Kempinski hotels had cost about $30,000; what would happen if that became public?

It didn't become public at the time and now will be largely ignored, both because Christie has been a media darling and because he is a powerful state official (whose administration has "fought to shield the cost of his travel") rather than a member of the national legislature, which has standards. Times' reporters Kate Zernike and Michael Barbaro explain

Letting the king pay for his three-day weekend in Jordan back in 2012 would not have been allowed if Mr. Christie were, say, president or a United States senator; it is illegal for federal employees to accept gifts of more than nominal value from agents of foreign governments. An executive order Mr. Christie signed in 2010 allows New Jersey governors to have travel and related expenses paid by foreign governments; it does not specifically address gifts such as the parties the king held for him, but the governor’s staff said it was covered under a provision that allowed gifts from personal friends.

The article notes that while several nations have shown greater interest in trading with New Jersey, the future presidential candidate now is in England, offering less potential, because that is where American expatriates with deep pockets are residing. It seems Christie takes seriously Willie Sutton, who (however falsely) is reported to have said he robbed banks because "that is where the money is," and is eyeing funding for his campaign for the White House.

Christie enjoys the luxuries which come from being a governor, for

While previous New Jersey governors have flown commercial for trade missions, Mr. Christie flew privately for three. (His spokeswoman said he flew commercial to London.) He has taken family on all. He stays in five-star properties: the King David in Jerusalem, the Intercontinental in Mexico City. The hotel in London, the Corinthia, has a Baccarat chandelier and masses of flowers refreshed every morning.

This is who Chris Christie is.  Zernike and Barbaro found

A Justice Department report after he left office found that he was the prosecutor who most often exceeded the charges allowed for hotel stays in different cities, without properly searching for a cheaper alternative, or justifying any exemption from the rules. He stayed at a Four Seasons in Washington and a new boutique hotel in Boston, for example, at more than double the cost allowed for those cities.

Chris Christie lies like a rug. But a rug after a while has to be taken up and replaced and Christie sometimes departs from form and tells the truth, such as boasting (!) "I try to squeeze all the juice out of the orange I can." There is still juice left to squeeze from New Jersey residents. Once his unsuccessful quest for national office ends and he leaves the Statehouse because of term limits, there is no telling what shape that once-vibrant orange between New York and Philadelphia will look like.



Share |

Not A Movie Review

After my decennial venture to a movie theater, I have come to one major conclusion: There is less to "American Sniper," based on the memoir by Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer Chris Kyle, than meets the eye.

Of course, it's not consistent with the book, as pointed out here, here, here, and here. Particularly telling, however, is the matter of villain Mustafa, of whom Slate's Courtney Duckworth writes

In the movie, a character named Mustafa (Sammy Sheik) becomes Kyle’s foil and nemesis: a Syrian Olympian “hitting head shots from 500 yards out” who appears from nowhere to down American troops. Unlike Kyle, Mustafa is given no backstory, family, or surname and remains more or less anonymous—we see his face but only in combat. In a climactic moment toward the end of the film, Chris Kyle finally shoots the sniper, who in an earlier scene had killed his friend Ryan Job (or “Biggles”). This is also Kyle’s legendary longest shot: 2,100 yards or a little over a mile.

In truth, these three milestones—defeating his sniper adversary, avenging Biggles, and achieving his longest successful shot—did not align in one moment....

Mustafa, Duckworth notes, is given no backstory, family, or surname and remains more or less anonymous.  That was no accident. There are no more than a few lines uttered, and no character development, of the enemy- Muslim, Arab, terrorist, civilian; they're all cut from the same cloth in this movie.  There is no mention of Shiite or Sunni, no distinction made among anyone who isn't an American, presumably because the audience might then begin to question the whole bloody- and failed- enterprise. It's us vs. them.

Nor is the movie without consequence. After interviewing sniper Garett Repppenhagen, Dennis Trainor in Salon argues it is

Dangerous because kids will sign up for the military because of this movie. Dangerous because our leaders have plans for those kids. Some will kill. Some will be killed. Or worse. There is no narrative existing outside the strict confines of “American Sniper’s” iron sights that allows for the war on terror to be over. It’s like a broken record looping over and over: attack, blowback and attack. Repeat.

Regrettably, the movie benefits because of its inaccuracies.   On the 1/24 broadcast of Real Time, Bill Maher, responding to American Sniper defender Bret Stephens, maintains  (at 4:34 of the video belos) "We;re not condemning it. And  I was making a point that the real Chris Kyle is different than the movie Chirs Kyle. You're right- there's more ambiguity in the movie than in the book."  The usually insightful Maher- whom a moment earlier had recognized Americans too often "cannot see any ambiguity"- therein walked back a bit of his criticism of the film precisely because the latter was not accurate.










Trainor maintains the inaccurate portrayal of Chris Kyle

.... is unfortunate, and not just for those of us who are insulted by a movie that so ignores important historical context as to cross the line from art to propaganda. It robs movie lovers of a better movie. Allowing such complexities into the narrative, or even framing the context of Kyle’s time in Iraq truthfully, would have made it a stronger story.

Trainor seems to have recognized something few others have. With all the controversy, the Academy Award nominations, and the politically correct adulation for director and Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood and of Bradley Cooper, not many people have noticed American Sniper is a fairly good movie. A fairly good war movie, and little else. It is not a great movie. That, in the long run, should not be the legacy of a propaganda piece. But it does put the lie to conservatives whining that the movie has been insufficiently applauded because Hollywood is just so darned liberal.



Share |

Talking Points Memo reports

Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) became the latest Republican on Tuesday to speak out against vaccine mandates, saying: "We should not have an oppressive state telling us what to do."
"I want that to be my choice as a parent," Duffy, a father of seven, said said during an appearance on MSNBC's "The Rundown With José Díaz-Balart." "I know my kids best. I know what morals and values are right for my children. I think we should not have an oppressive state telling us what to do"....

The Wisconsin congressman explicitly defended vaccine critics, saying: "I think a lot of parents who are smart, well-read — they're the ones who are choosing not to vaccinate. And oftentimes, those who may not be as well-read — they are vaccinating. So to say you just have a bunch of crackpots who are choosing not to do this to their children, I just don't think that's actually true."

Duffy, a former attorney, said that he prefers to "pick and choose" which vaccines his children receive.

"I vaccinate my kids on most things, but then there are some things where I'm like, 'This may not work for me and my values and my family,'" he said.

Charles Pierce responds "'Values' are an important part of the human immunological system, apparently. Party of ideas, people!"

Indeed, it's not only some two-bit congressman (upon joining the party leadership, he would become three-bit) from the Koch midwest subsidiary formerly known as the State of Wisconsin.   There is Rand Paul, whom Pierce refers to as the ophthalmologist who "obviously is so willing to prostitute in exchange for three points in the next Iowa Poll."  Skipping over the ownership clause in that Emancipation Proclamation thing, Paul argued "The state doesn't own your children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom and public health."

While in England on a junket intended primarily to enable him to claim foreign policy experience, the New Jersey governor contended

.... parents need "some measure of choice" on vaccinating their children, stirring alarm that such views would hurt the fight against a measles outbreak, his office moved quickly to clarify his position.

The dustup overshadowed the second day of what Christie has planned mainly as a trade mission.

Monday morning, the Republican governor, a potential candidate for president in 2016, responded to a question about the spread of measles by saying that while he and his wife had their children vaccinated, parental concerns warrant "balance."

"It's much more important, I think, what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official," Christie told reporters. Christie had just toured one of the biotechnology company MedImmune's laboratories. The company makes a flu vaccine.

(Later, a Christie spokesperson somewhat walked back the comments, but not sufficiently that he can't revert in Iowa to his Monday position without admitting to a change of mind.)

Contrasting the Prince of Pander's position on vaccination with the latter's heavy-handed and politically expedient detention- uh, er, quarantining- of Traci Hickox over Ebola paranoia, Will Bunch remarks

Huh? It guess this proves one thing: That going to Cambridge doesn't make you any smarter. I also guess Christie realizes that he's losing the Koch Brothers primary to his fellow governor Scott Walker, so he's hoping to win the Jenny McCarthy primary instead. What this really shows is that Mr. Tell-It-Like_it-Is-Sit-Down-And-Shut-Up really is the kind of guy who likes to stick his finger in the air and guess where the political winds are blowing. But yet again, he's guessed wrong, which is the real reason he'll never be president.

“Mary Pat and I have had our children vaccinated, and we think that it’s an important part of being sure we protect their health and the public health," stated the governor, echoing Paul, who called vaccines "a good thing" and "one of the biggest medical breakthroughs we've had" which "are good for public health."  They are darned important for your children's health, Paul and Christie agree, but we'd just as soon your children not get them. Compassionate conservatism, folks!

That's not the only reason Chris Christie should not be President of the USA or even governor of a state.  Consider also his assertion "That's the best expression I can give you of my opinion. It's much more important I think what you think as a parent than what you think as a public official,"

Chris Christie is paid $175,000 per year presiding over a state of 8.9 million people with a budget of $33 billion. And collectively his children are more important than the 2+ million children living in the state (obscene video of the governor taking his job seriously, below).   That is a public official with a bad set of priorities to go with his nearly unparalleled dishonesty.











Share |

Not Such An Impressive Elder Statesman

Huffington Post reported  on Sunday

Code Pink brought signs and handcuffs into the hearing to protest the presence of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, demanding that he be arrested for his role in alleged war crimes during the Nixon and Ford administrations. The protesters objected to the U.S.'s use of the poisonous chemical Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, the bombing of Cambodia and other issues.

Fox News later would note "US Capitol Police spokeswoman  Kim Schneider said later the force did not 'meet the standards expected of the USCP'" during the disruption (video below).





That came on the heels of the rudeness of Code Pink and the reaction of committee chairperson John McCain (R-AZ).  The protesters came, made their point, and were ushered out of the hearing room within minutes. Unacceptable, to management of the US Capitol Police; democracy, to some of us. Would it that law enforcement in Ferguson, MO, Cleveland, OH, Staten Island, NY, or Bridgeton, NJ had adopted such a measured response.

After- and only after- the protesters were contained and under control- the guy who endured torture at the Hanoi Hilton (decades ago) was bold enough to assert (video below)

You know what I'd like to, uh, say to may colleagues, uh and to our distinguished witness this morning - I have been a member of this committee for many years and I've never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and disrespectful as the last demonstration that just took place about- you know, you're going to have to shut up or I'm going to have you arrested... Get out of here, you low-life scum.

Sunday on CNN, McCain defended his response (video below) on CNN:

I'm used to people popping up at these these hearings and yelling, and they're escorted out -- that's at least some version of free speech, These people rushed up, they were right next to him, waving handcuffs. He's a 91-year old man with a broken shoulder who was willing to come down and testify before Congress to give us the benefit of his many years of wisdom.








Far less impressed by Kissinger's comments was Digby, who commented 

And no they didn't threaten him. They held up signs behind him and chanted. I'm sure it was unpleasant to be publicly called a war criminal.  Not as unpleasant as being bombed, tortured and "disappeared" but unpleasant nonetheless: If that's the only punishment he receives for his deeds over the past 50 years, he's one very lucky man indeed.

On his Saturday program on CNN, Michael Smerconish had remarked that as he was watching the event, he was thinking the same thing as McCain- but that the Senator should not have uttered it. Though fair, that  does not get to the heart of the matter. Code Pink observes that Kissinger- who believed "the illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer"-  is a war criminal whose influence led to the death of countless human beings. Still lost is that the venture in Vietnam- for which the  former National Security Adviser and Secretary of State is most remembered- was a failure.  The war was lost.

Senator McCain is impressed his committee called to testify a man who could "give us the benefit of his many years of wisdom." Kissinger, however, was a  failure as a foreign policy adviser.   Moreover, a legislator exorcised that a 91-year-old man was harassed might consider that the latter might have lost a little off his fastball on his way to 91- even assuming there was considerable wisdom initially. If the age was no impediment to Kissinger wisdom, perhaps McCain needn't have been aghast that handcuffs were waved in the witness' face.

Henry Kissinger himself is certainly no low-life scum. He is quite wealthy, distinguished, and pleased to be treated as royalty by fawning politicians.





Share |

Globalization On Steroids

Politico reports the Obama Administration is pushing hard for trade promotion authority, which would

would expedite the passage of trade deals by letting Obama submit the final agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote, without amendments. That authority is viewed as key to wrapping up two giant agreements — the Trans-Pacific Partnership with 11 Asia-Pacific countries, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the 28 nations of the European Union — because other nations would have the assurance that Congress won’t undo any concessions included in the deals....

“We share same values and are looking out for the same people,” Obama said in response to a question from Washington Rep. Derek Kilmer, who said he was still undecided despite his state’s dependence on trade.   

If Kilmer's votes on Keystone XL are any indication, there is little indication who the people are the congressman is looking out for. But we can figure out who the President is looking out for and what his values are.   The TPP has been negotiated in secret, but Robert Reich (his video, below) explains

What’s been leaked about it so far reveals, for example, that the pharmaceutical industry gets stronger patent protections, delaying cheaper generic versions of drugs. That will be a good deal for Big Pharma but not necessarily for the inhabitants of developing nations who won’t get certain life-saving drugs at a cost they can afford.

Similarly, Dean Baker finds "stronger patent protection is also likely to further disadvantage US workers as increased royalty payments for patents will crowd out exports of goods, reducing manufacturing employment in the United States."

The Trans-Pacific Partnership harms not only healthcare consumers but also American taxpayers, with Reich continuing

The TPP also gives global corporations an international tribunal of private attorneys, outside any nation’s legal system, who can order compensation for any “unjust expropriation” of foreign assets.  

Even better for global companies, the tribunal can order compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation’s regulations. Philip Morris is using a similar provision against Uruguay (the provision appears in a bilateral trade treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland), claiming that Uruguay’s strong anti-smoking regulations unfairly diminish the company’s profits. 

Baker notes "most of the deal is devoted to creating a uniform and largely business friendly regulatory structure. It creates special courts for businesses to sue governments outside of the normal judicial process."

Growth will slow and purchasing power decline with the higher prices for prescription drugs and other protected products., Baker adds.

It is disappointing and unsettling that the Obama Administration has negotiated with little transparency a deal jeopardizing employment, consumers, taxpayers, and national sovereignty. Joseph Stiglitz points out that the agreement (its parties displayed in map below) is "a race to the bottom" which is "only one aspect of a larger problem: our gross mismanagement of globalization." Of course, most Republicans, disposed to oppose everything Obama, are on board.

Share |