Does the TPP Have a Glimmer of Life?

For the purposes of this post, I’m not going to litigate the pros and cons of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I just want to note that the president is heading to Asia and that he will be making a final push (particularly in Laos) for the trade agreement. And, despite all appearances, there are people who think that Congress could still conceivably have a vote and potentially pass the treaty in a lame duck session of Congress after the election.

“T.P.P. is, in many ways, seen as a litmus test for whether or not the U.S. has staying power in this region,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, said to reporters on Monday. “What the countries of the Asia-Pacific region want to know, particularly the Asian countries, is whether or not we can be counted on.”

Mrs. Clinton’s unyielding opposition has been particularly troubling to Asian leaders, analysts said, given that she spoke out regularly in favor of the agreement when she was secretary of state. “I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president,” she said last month at a campaign rally in Michigan.

Many Asian leaders believe that Mrs. Clinton would happily carry out the T.P.P. if it were approved before her inauguration, as do some members of the Obama administration. Others believe she will reverse her position if a few elements of the pact are tweaked. But as she has dug in her heels, such a reversal is harder to contemplate.

“They are starting to realize that if it doesn’t get through in the lame duck, it will be very hard for her to pivot back to the position she had as secretary of state,” said Michael J. Green, an expert on Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Now, I’ve never thought that the TPP has a chance in hell of passing, but I’m trying to imagine the hue and cry if it actually did.

Clinton long ago disavowed the support she gave the treaty as a loyal soldier in the Obama administration, and both Trump and Sanders have been vehement opponents. Regardless of who wins the election in November, they’ll be officially opposed to the TPP.

Under those circumstances, a lot of voters would be justified in seeing a mandate against the treaty and that it would be wrong and unfair to saddle the incoming president with implementing a policy that they ran against.

Maybe it will somehow pass anyway, but it’s hard to see how it can get the votes when it’s seen as so toxic that the presidential candidates can’t support it.

And, whatever Clinton thinks about the merits in the privacy of her own office, she would not want to begin her presidency with the left feeling betrayed and saying “I told you so.”

It’s also hard for me to envision the Republicans coming up with enough votes to overcome near-universal opposition from the Democrats. If the popularity of Trumpism with their base isn’t enough to warn them off, their aversion to working to advance Obama’s agenda and legacy will probably be enough to dissuade them.

Trump’s Ongoing Success Despite Almost Total Media Disapproval. Why?

I originally wrote the following (slightly edited here) as a reply to Booman’s post A Contrary View on Trump’s Big Day. Overall I found it a thoroughly well-reasoned post, but I disagreed with one important part of it. Here it is.

=================================

I am now beginning to wonder…is Trump’s ongoing success “despite” almost total mass media disapproval, or is he being successful because of that solid wall of media opposition?

HMMMmmmmmmmm…

Read on.
Booman wrote:

…what Trump did in both Mexico and Arizona will be filtered through the media before most people become aware of it at all. And, overall, the media hated it. Therefore, what Trump did in both Mexico and Arizona will be filtered through the media before most people become aware of it at all. And, overall, the media hated it. Therefore, despite demonstrating that he’s capable of standing on a stage with a foreign head of state without being an imbecile, and despite crafting his immigration speech in a very effective way, few people will experience those accomplishments. Instead, they’ll hear how he wimped out in Mexico and lied about whether he discussed who will pay for the wall. They’ll hear that he’s reverted to a hardline (and unpopular) immigration stance. They’ll see his speech compared to a Klan rally or Hitler speech. They’ll read about Latino Trump-supporters jumping ship. And the folks who get positive reviews will be the folks who only consume right-wing media, and those folks are mostly in Trump’s corner anyway.

But Booman…that sort of thing is exactly what has been happening in modern elections since…oh, I don’t know, since JFK/Nixon when you get right down to it. That is the fix, or at least the primary fixing mechanism, and with the possible exception of the Jimmy Carter/Gerald Ford campaign it has worked very well.

Until now.

It has not worked on Trump and I do not believe that it will work. Why? Because the information revolution has had one primary result…many, many voters no longer trust the media, on plentiful evidence. In fact, many voters actively distrust it. Ditto government in general, starting with the Feds and going right on down to as local as you want to go.

The media will report that he did things. It’s the job that they do and they cannot afford to stop doing it. But…their opinions about it? Whether expressed straight on (as straight as the media ever get, anyway) or subliminally…headlines, tones of voice, facial expressions, body language, images, etc…whatever they say is not only effectively ignored, but for many people it is seen as something to be disbelieved. Actively disbelieved, as in taking action in whatever directions the media say that they should not act. This is the real secret of Trump’s success, and it will quite likely be the reason for Clinton’s defeat if it happens.

A large group of Americans now believe that:

1-The mass media are owned lock, stock and barrel by Big Corp.

2-On huge amounts of evidence it is becoming more and more clear that said Big Corp not only does not have the interests of the American people in mind, it is in truth a totally unelected, internationalist group that does not put the welfare of the U.S. or any other nation before that of its own members.

Enter Trump; enter HRC. Trump understands this set of public opinion movements bone deep, and his astounding success so far is due to his success in expressing that idea publicly. HRC is stuck…she cannot unload her corporate baggage no matter what she says or does. She is stuck with it. Thus the popular vote outcome of this election…again, barring unforeseeable events including electronic vote fraud… will hinge on a three-part question.

What percentage of the voting public is:

A-Smart enough to see through the media fix.

B-What percentage of that percentage is angry enough and/or dumb enough to vote for Trump?

and

C-What percentage of that percentage is so fed up with the system that they will not vote at all?

Combine those questions with the electoral vote savvy of the Clinton campaign and you have a horserace right to the finish line.

Bet on it.

AG

P.S. Plus or course the following ever-present and rarely publicly discussed wild card. From a good-sized outlier to the mainstream media, U.S. News and World Report:

A Candidate’s Death Could Delay or Eliminate the Presidential Election

The presidential election could be delayed or scrapped altogether if conspiracy theories become predictive and a candidate dies or drops out before Nov. 8. The perhaps equally startling alternative, if there’s enough time: Small groups of people hand-picking a replacement pursuant to obscure party rules.

The scenarios have been seriously considered by few outside of the legal community and likely are too morbid for polite discussion in politically mixed company. But prominent law professors have pondered the effects and possible ways to address a late-date vacancy.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution which requires a popular election for the electors serving in the Electoral College,” says John Nagle, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, meaning the body that officially elects presidents could convene without the general public voting.

“It’s up to each state legislature to decide how they want to choose the state’s electors,” Nagle says. “It may be a situation in which the fact that we have an Electoral College, rather than direct voting for presidential candidates, may prove to be helpful.”

—snip—

            OOOOOOOOoooo…!!!

I repeat:

“It may be a situation in which the fact that we have an Electoral College, rather than direct voting for presidential candidates, may prove to be helpful.”

The question remains…helpful to whom?

There are trillions…more, unfathomable power and riches…at stake.

If the Controllers really begin to believe that they have totally lost control of this (s)election?

All bets are off.

Bet on that as well.

Watch.

Economists-Southern WV in Depression like 1930’s

2 economists, testifying before a traveling US Senate subcommittee, showed that 6 southern counties in WV are in a Depression like that of a near century ago.  While looking to the future for alternative economies, energy extraction is the quickest way out.  But as it stands now, in a spiral of lack of jobs, out migration, drug use, and aging populations programs are needed now.

And the supposed friend of the working man said she wanted to put the men out of work.

I know is was pooh-poohed at the Great Orange Satan site, but by writing off large swaths of Midwest and Appalachian Mid Atlantic states in her comments, she essentially did away with any cushion that would have been useful if the race tightened, as it has.

Ridge

———-excerpt——

Deskins said six counties in West Virginia are currently undergoing a “great depression” of their own due to enormous job losses.

“Boone County, for example, had 55 percent of it’s jobs in coal before recent events,” he said. “Now Boone has lost around 70 percent of it’s coal jobs. Very, very difficult time for the community.”
Now, fewer than 20 percent of the jobs in Boone County are coal jobs.

“That’s startling in and of itself,” Capito said. “And we see that.”

Deskins also included McDowell, Wyoming, Mingo, Clay, and Logan as part of the “great depression” counties.
“Those job losses, those output losses, have been heavily concentrated in southern West Virginia and especially in six counties,” Deskins said. “We have six counties that have lost between 25 percent and 33 percent of their jobs just over the last few years.”
The coal numbers, their impact on Central Appalachia, and their contrast with the other coal-producing areas of the nation are stark, according to Deskins. While coal production has dropped nationally by 10 percent since 2010, in West Virginia that production has fallen by 51 percent in that same span of time.

Deskins does expect natural gas prices to stabilize and rebound-and that’s where he, Dr. Anderson, and Senators Manchin and Capito see a potential way forward.

http://wvmetronews.com/2016/08/29/wvu-economist-tells-senators-capito-and-manchin-that-six-counties-
are-now-in-great-depression-at-senate-field-hearing/

The story that shows how the Clintons can actually lose

So this morning here comes yet another Foundation story, this from Politico.

And as I read, I realised that the Clintons can actually lose.

So the story details the games they were playing with staff between the foundation and the staff Clinton gets for being an ex-President.

It is your usual Clinton non-scandal scandal in a way.  A story of lawyers who studied the rules and came up with a complicated scheme – that was legal.  And of course given the complexity they didn’t follow the rules 100% of the time, and so the GSA raised questions about a server that cost 7700 dollars.

And this is why they can lose.  In paragraph SIX of the story it is noted that ” their foundation grew into a $2 billion organization credited with major victories in the fights against childhood obesity and AIDS”

It takes until paragraph 6 to mention what the Foundation actually did.  And it is this way because the Clintons are always playing the chicken shit games.  The e-mail server.  The Travel office.  None of this shit matters.  There was no reason to do any of it.  

This is who they are.  They get caught in little details they can’t explain, and which have nothing to do with what they want to accomplish.

And so we wind up talking about a 7700 server and not the Foundation work on Aids.

It is absolutely self-inflicted. You hand your enemy a knife you don’t get to act surprised that they use it.

And this shit IS hurting.  The race HAS closed.  And if these stories keep coming and she remains at private fundraisers in the fucking Hamptons she will run the risk of losing.

She said she was a fighter.  She needs to get out of these fucking private fundraisers and get into the public.

Because if she doesn’t blow Trump away it will be a failure.  The Democratic Party had been handed a golden opportunity to hammer the GOP into submission.

And Hillary right now is blowing it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/bill-clinton-used-tax-dollars-to-subsidize-foundation-private-
email-support-teneo-227613#ixzz4J1LADoV8

Bad News – UPDATE

(This won’t be much of a diary and am only using this forum feature because I think it’s important and it’s not been given any attention here.  I’ve been relying on Glenn Greenwald’s tweets (the one’s in English since I don’t read Portuguese) to keep me informed of this travesty.)

The GuardianBrazil’s Dilma Rousseff impeached by senate in crushing defeat

Brazil’s first female president Dilma Rousseff has been thrown out of office by the country’s corruption-tainted senate after a gruelling impeachment trial that ends 13 years of Workers’ party rule.

Following a crushing 61 to 20 defeat in the upper house, she will be replaced for the remaining two years and four months of her term by Michel Temer, a centre-right patrician who was among the leaders of the campaign against his former running mate.

Surprise Surprise

Temer received support from the United States, which implicitly rejected claims that Rousseff had been removed in a coup. US State Department spokesman, John Kirby said, “We are confident we will continue our strong bilateral relationship. This was a decision made by the Brazilian people and obviously we respect that … Brazilian democratic institutions have acted within its constitutional framework.

He has promised to introduce austerity measures that will restore Brazil’s credit ratings, which under Rousseff fell to junk levels. This is popular with investors, but not with the public. His approval ratings are only a fraction above those of his predecessor and he was roundly booed during the Olympic opening ceremony.

Glenn (sampling which doesn’t do his live tweeting over the weeks justice):

The man who will be installed as Brazil’s Pres today: at least 62% want him out of office.

“Brazilians overwhelmingly want me impeached. A court banned me from running. But I’m about to become President!!”

“My rightist party can’t win. I personally lost to both Dilma *and Lula. But now I’m installed as Foreign Minister!”

Brazil’s new President: 1) could never be elected president; 2) is banned 8 yrs from running; 3) is the target of multiple investigations.

But, but:

Indian journalist @ShobhanSaxena: Brazil’s installed govt is moving away from BRICS & back to subservience to US

UPDATE: From Glenn again

Senators who voted YES to impeach Dilma admit that she committed no crime.

Impeachment coups just took a huge step forward in the ease and legitimacy of how they can be accomplished.

A Contrary View on Trump’s Big Day

I seem to have a contrary and somewhat alarmist reaction to Donald Trump’s Big Day, yesterday. Taken by itself, independent of the press coverage and the substance, and the political fallout in the Latino community, I think it was clearly Trump’s best day as a candidate going all the way back to his now infamous announcement speech.

While Josh Marshall saw echoes of Hitler in Trump’s ability to shape-shift between calm statesman in Mexico City and heliotrope demagogue in Arizona, I saw that Trump was finally able to demonstrate how he might be able to negotiate the world stage.

While right-leaning political analyst Stuart Rothenberg went ape on Twitter while watching the Arizona immigration speech, and essentially threw up his hands in frustration, I saw Trump at his most effective at making the case for a merciless and cruel policy.

After the speech, I found myself much more in agreement with Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity that Trump had performed at a high level than I was with folks who said that Trump had irretrievably screwed the pooch.

But here’s what I really think.

I don’t think there was much of an audience for any of yesterday’s events, as folks are more focused on the beginning of school and preparations for a holiday weekend. Therefore, what Trump did in both Mexico and Arizona will be filtered through the media before most people become aware of it at all. And, overall, the media hated it. Therefore, despite demonstrating that he’s capable of standing on a stage with a foreign head of state without being an imbecile, and despite crafting his immigration speech in a very effective way, few people will experience those accomplishments. Instead, they’ll hear how he wimped out in Mexico and lied about whether he discussed who will pay for the wall. They’ll hear that he’s reverted to a hardline (and unpopular) immigration stance. They’ll see his speech compared to a Klan rally or Hitler speech. They’ll read about Latino Trump-supporters jumping ship. And the folks who get positive reviews will be the folks who only consume right-wing media, and those folks are mostly in Trump’s corner anyway.

I think he’ll succeed in shoring up his support from the right, which is important for him and will help in the polls at least to the extent that it compensates for possible losses elsewhere. As Nate Silver points out, the polls have been tightening and the trends are in Trump’s favor. If they tighten as much as Silver’s model expect them to, we could have an actual contest on our hands.

But, Trump’s rise in the polls seems to have coincided with his retooling his campaign staff, and part of that has been a “softening” of his edges. The Mexican portion of his day helped in that regard, while the Arizona portion clearly did not.

The question is which piece will have more preponderance in the mind of the public?

My suspicion is that once we factor in the media coverage and the fallout, Trump will come out worse because the progress he was making was tied to him seeming more reasonable and moderate.

However, I still think he made a compelling case for his hardline on immigration yesterday, especially in his use of the families who have had loved ones murdered or killed by undocumented immigrants. Like it or not, a lot of America was nodding in agreement to most of his Arizona speech, including a lot of people who see him as temperamentally unfit for the office of the presidency.

Though I don’t predict it, I will not be shocked to see the next round of polls showing a much tighter race.

US Finance Can Thank EC for Apple Tax U-turn

Apple boss expects to repatriate billions to the US next year | The Guardian |

Apple boss Tim Cook expects the iPhone maker to repatriate huge offshore profits to America next year, paying billions of dollars in deferred taxes to the US Treasury.

In an interview with RTE radio, he gave a summary of the company’s 2014 tax affairs, saying: “We paid $400m [in tax] to Ireland, we paid $400m to the US. And we provisioned several billion for the US for payment as soon as we repatriated.

The revelation that Apple plans to repatriate some of its offshore profits and pay its huge US tax bills next year comes as a surprise given Cook’s previous refusal to countenance such a move.

Like many large US multinationals, Apple has for decades been pooling its non-US profits outside of America. Under loopholes in the tax laws, corporations can defer US taxes continually so long as income is not repatriated to America.

In July, Apple told investors its cash pile held offshore had reached $214.8bn (£162.2bn). This is the largest of any US company.

Cook’s surprise U-turn on repatriating foreign profits comes days after Apple was accused by competition regulators at the European commission of receiving state aid from Ireland.  

Fact-Checking Apple’s Claims on E.U. Tax Ruling | NY Times |

SAN FRANCISCO — Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, issued a defiant letter to his European customers on Tuesday after the region’s antitrust enforcer ordered Ireland to collect 13 billion euros, or about $14.5 billion, in back taxes from the company.

By turns outraged and scolding, Mr. Cook pushed back on the findings by Europe’s competition commission, which said that Apple had made inappropriate low-tax deals with the Irish government that let the technology company pay almost nothing on its European business in some years.

Instead, Mr. Cook framed Apple’s operations in Ireland as an investment in the people there, declared that Apple has a history as a good corporate tax citizen, and added that the European Commission’s decision will hurt investment and business growth in Europe.

We examined some of the points Mr. Cook made in the letter, consulting with five tax experts to fact-check the chief executive’s statements. While Mr. Cook was technically truthful, he omitted some context and shifted the spotlight from the thrust of the European Commission’s case: whether Apple took advantage of loopholes in Irish tax laws.

 « click for more info
Tim Cook's rather intemperate statement (Credit: James S. Henry on twitter)

A Message to the Apple Community in Europe – Aug. 30, 2016

My previous diary …

A Breaking Corporate Alliance: Brexit, TTIP and $15bn Tax Fee to Apple