Noah Smith, an economist I’m accustomed to considering not crazy, says the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal is no big deal. Although he writes enough about liberals and conservatives to make me think he’s some sort of moderate, but he’s generally readable and typically sensible. He’s in favor of the TPP. His defense of TPP is interesting:
[The TPP] is mostly about trade with Japan and South Korea, which has asked to join the pact. These are rich countries, with tons of capital and very high labor costs. In fact, Japan’s labor costs are so high that Japanese auto manufacturers now build a lot of factories in the U.S. American workers are not going to lose out to the Japanese and South Koreans.
Yes, TPP might include a few poor countries, such as Indonesia, which has expressed interest in joining the accord. But compared with China, those countries are small potatoes. Very few manufacturing jobs will be lost to low-productivity Indonesia that haven’t already been lost to medium-productivity China….
There is one type of activity that is very hard for U.S. companies to send offshore: innovation. But when Asian countries can just ignore U.S. patents, innovation becomes less profitable. Stronger international IP protection will help U.S. companies export more, which makes them hire more American workers, which increases the amount that those workers spend on the local economy. Yes, there are many problems with the U.S.’s intellectual property laws. But international harmonization of IP wouldn’t exacerbate these problems.
According to Smith, TPP isn’t a big deal because the damage of globalization has already been done. Economically, it’s easy enough to brush aside this job loss. But how many jobs are “very few’ to an economist? There are approximately 12 million manufacturing jobs left in the United States. What’s a few? 100,000? 1,000,00? 15? What of his claim that intellectual property protection will help U.S. companies export more? Perhaps this is true. My hero Paul Krugman, who is a “lukewarm opponent” of the TPP, sees it less as a trade deal than a deal about intellectual property and dispute settlement (the ISDS that Elizabeth Warren keeps talking about). some provisions would lead to the even stronger, government-granted monopolies called patents. As Krugman writes,
we should never forget that in a direct sense, protecting intellectual property means creating a monopoly – letting the holders of a patent or copyright charge a price for something (the use of knowledge) that has a zero social marginal cost. In that direct sense this introduces a distortion that makes the world a bit poorer.
There is, of course, an offset in the form of an increased incentive to create knowledge, which is why we have patents and copyright in the first place. But do we really think that inadequate incentive to create new drugs or new movies is a major problem right now?
Even if the TPP weren’t a threat to American workers, the beneficiaries aren’t average Americans, but rather corporations. In the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower might have been able to say without irony, what’s good for General Motors is good for America. Few of us would say that today. As Dean Baker notes, the regulatory structures being developed in the agreement would “largely benefit U.S. corporations, since they would get more money for the patents and copyrights.” Does that help the rest of us? Not much.
The corporations that stand to benefit have few, if any, organic ties to the U.S. economy—most have outsourced a large share of production jobs to other countries. The primary beneficiaries will be people from the United States who happen to own stock in these companies. And the greatest benefits will flow to those who own the most stocks, primarily those in the top 1, 5, and 10 percent of the income distribution. So, the TPP and similar agreements will only serve to worsen U.S. income inequality.
Not that bad is not good enough. The Trans-Pacific Partnership has nothing to offer average Americans. We must continue to oppose it.
“government-granted monopolies called patents”? I find it ironic that this criticism is offered in the same post that celebrates American innovation.
In a richly interconnected neural net of information and information sources, patent protection is one of a very small and shrinking number of mechanisms left for rewarding actual invention with a temporary economic advantage. In the absence of intellectual property protection, it is well-nigh impossible for a small entrepreneur or startup to bring a new invention to market and survive long enough to become profitable from the invention. It’s all well and good to discuss possible abuses that happen at the edges of patent law, but in my view this broadbrush criticism of patent law itself is misguided at best.
I usually agree with Mr. Krugman — in this example, I do not. As an entrepreneur and “innovator” for more than forty years, yes I really DO think that “inadequate incentive” to create new products is a major problem right now. I don’t know about movies, and the questions about drugs are a deep and difficult subject. But in software and software products, or hardware products that rely on new software, some form of patent protection is indispensable. Transforming a new idea into a concrete software product requires time and risk. Introducing that product to the market takes more time and much more money. Patent protection is a vital part of recovering the investment required by that process.
Especially in the software world, it is enormously difficult for a programmer with an exciting new idea to actually make a money from that idea, and removing the prospect of patent protection raises the barrier even higher. Patent protection is available for, and greatly benefits, individual entrepreneurs as well as large corporations.
Finally, this entire discussion misses and/or distorts the fundamental reason why patents exist in the first place — a reason that Mr. Krugman’s analysis gets exactly backwards. The fundamental purpose of patents is to SPREAD, not restrict, knowledge. Patent protection allows — requires, in fact — an inventor to disclose and publicize the specifics of an invention, while assuring economic benefit from that invention. The purpose and effect of this is to increase, rather than decrease, disclosure of protected information. When patent protection expires (and after the inventor has garnered the economic benefits of patent protection), the invention becomes useable to society.
I’m fine with discussing whether or not the period of patent protection is too long or too short. I’m fine with discussing whether or not certain “inventions” should or should not be subject to patent protection. I think a discussion about patent “trolls” and the role of patent licensing and licensing fees in today’s economy might be quite constructive.
I reject the apparent contention that patent protection itself is wrong, obsolete, or counter to the interests of the 99%.
I agree that the TPP has nothing to offer average Americans, and I agree that we must continue to oppose it. I suggest that ISDS could and should be structured to preserve the primacy of government over corporate interests.
Intellectual property protections benefit all of us, and should be protected rather than jettisoned.
Actually I was watching Joseph Stiglitz on a a TV program, and I (like tom) thought “I believe exactly opposite from what he’s saying.”
Aren’t economists the people that are wrong most of the time? They sure aren’t right most of the time. I would be hesitant to use their analysis on TPP or any other policy. Maybe a group of economists could score TPP and we could derive a number. I tried to get some answers to the historical question (which in theory should be easier than predicting the future) “has NAFTA been bad for the US?” and there’s disagreement on that as well. Are things suckier? Yes. Is is it directly because of NAFTA? Divided.
Net/net I don’t think citing economists works in an argument.
Some are wrong. What’s important is why they are right and wrong.
I admire Krugman because you know why he thinks the way he thinks. His reasoning is clear to anyone who reads him. You don’t have to agree with him, and some people legitimately disagree with him, but you know where he stands and how he got there. I thought Noah Smith was a little sloppy in his piece.
I have to disagree with you in citing economists. If you’re talking about trade, who else would you cite? Where would you get evidence? Krugman has a Nobel Prize in international trade theory.
In essence, you’re saying that it’s better to argue without evidence.
If Krugman was to say TPP to result in …. is not more than a guess in my opinion.
According to economists all these years of low interest rates, deficit spending and the added easing (through QE) should have resulted in a booming economy now, probably including inflation. If they can’t get that right, not sure any parts of the global economy they can forecast.
There are facts around TPP and some logical conclusions could be drawn. Typically in trade deals there are winners and losers, and the winners say “the losers will actually benefit in the long run.” The losers say “hey we don’t want to lose now, and don’t believe you.” I think trade is often politics not economics.
I’m not sure which economists to believe. Shiller maybe. He’s often right, though he timing is usually off.
going to come from?
BTW, I don’t mean we should be arguing from authority. Krugman may say it, but that doesn’t make it right. In fact, he would say that himself. For example, he failed to predict 2008, though he recognized the fact that we had a housing bubble. I included Krugman and Smith to provide perspectives and information. I don’t mean that he should be believed because he’s an authority.
Krugman hasn’t been saying that QE was going to create a boom. He’s been saying that QE was better than nothing, that fiscal policy was what was needed. The problem, according to Krugman, is the fact that we’ve hit the zero lower bound: we can’t lower interest rates much farther than zero. He’s been making fun of the inflationistas for the last 6 years. He’s been right for the right reasons.
The economists you may be speaking of may be doing mediamacro economics. If you’re reading business sources–WSJ, for example–you’re probably getting some of the wrong economists. The economics blogosphere does a lot of criticism of economic reporting and op-eds. Those playing for Team Republican haven’t fared well.
Krugman’s stance accurately. He’s not arguing that there should be no intellectual property protections. As an economist, he’s pointing out that there is a cost associated with patents: ” we should never forget that in a direct sense, protecting intellectual property means creating a monopoly – letting the holders of a patent or copyright charge a price for something (the use of knowledge) that has a zero social marginal cost.” For economists, there are always costs and benefits. In the case of TPP, he’s talking specifically about Hollywood and big pharma. Patents are one of the reasons our drug prices are so high. The TPP would help increase prices in other countries.
Krugman has been writing about
Apple is a great example of monopoly rent. A charging cord for my Mac Air is $80.00. Why? Not because the charger would be superior to one on the market, but because of Apple’s dominance. It makes Apple money, but it adds no jobs or innovation.
Apple store iPhone charger $24.
Essentially same product from Hong Kong $5.
Sometimes they stop working because the iPhone updates disable them (you get an error message).
Apple updates also deleted the non-iTunes music on my wife’s phone. iTunes then would not transfer them when she went to replace them (you get an error message for this as well).
In my book they are not a great company and just as bad as MSFT back in the day.
has a magnetic charging cord. The best I found online was a $65.
I’m not a Mac fan, just came with my job.
If it’s the same as my older Macbook Pro, you can find the MagSafe cable for about $15 from China. (Something about those cables tastes like candy to the house rabbit. After buying one $Apple$ $replacement$ and several splice jobs, I bought the knockoff.)
I disagree with Mr. Krugman’s assertion that there is “zero social marginal cost” associated with patents, at least in the absence of a technical understanding of precisely what he may mean by “social marginal cost”.
My contention is that removing patent protection from software, or making such protection even more strongly dominated by big business, does indeed have a social marginal cost — it makes it far more difficult for fledgling entrepreneurs to bring new inventions to market, makes it more difficult for them to obtain financing, and therefore threatens to choke the “long tail” of tiny startups that historically provides the majority of our innovations.
While the two areas cited (movies and drugs) are important, they are by no means the entire patent arena and are unlikely to even be representative of the larger arena.
I have no problem with citing Mr. Krugman (or any other economist), I simply disagree with him on this topic.
what Krugman is saying. He’s not against patents. He hasn’t really written much about them. Dean Baker may be more illustrative:
Here’s what I found on TPP and patents.
You don’t need an actual method of accomplishing something now; you just need to have the “idea.” Which is how there are patents on things like “making purchases from within software” or plugging a headset into a phone.
Patents don’t encourage innovation; they stifle it.
The existing patent process, while certainly imperfect, is not “completely” broken in my view.
Today’s software patent process requires a great deal more than just an “idea”. In fact, it is explicitly not possible to patent just an idea. What today’s process does allow is for an individual developer who has a novel algorithm, data structure, heuristic, or entire “application” (whatever that is) and lacks the financial resources needed to make that novel entity economically viable to nevertheless benefit from his or her invention.
Larger companies understand that there very few completely new ideas in today’s world. It is exceedingly rare for developers working within a large corporation to have time to actually break new ground in a fast-changing technology area.
More often, a “novel” idea emerges from the rich information landscape that already exists, in much the same way that variants occur in the biological world. The first few inventors are able to stake out patents (at least using provisional applications) in an emerging technology, and companies with larger pocket books and slower development teams commonly license those patents as part of developing a new technology area.
The result is to encourage innovation in the same way that fertilizing and irrigating a piece of land encourages fauna.
We all probably learned early in life that Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, but he wouldn’t recognize the smart phone as something he came up with.
Also worth noting is that the patent on the telephone — arguably the most valuable patent in history — was a very tough sell indeed to “The Telegraph Company” (ancestor of Western Union). While the colorful narrative of Western Union describing it as “worthless” may be fiction, it nevertheless is clear enough that existing players frequently underestimate the value of or threat presented by novel inventions and their patents.
In my view, the current “patent farming” approach is a workable if imperfect mechanism for reflecting this reality.
Bell would not recognize the smart phone as something he came up with because his invention had nothing to do with it – different technologies entirely.
Apple has a patent on a glass screen with rounded corners. Amazon has a patent on clicking on a button to buy things on the internet. A few years ago, some people got a patent on putting ads on the internet, Not on some specific mechanism, or specialized software that would accomplish putting ads on the internet, but on the idea of putting ads on the internet.
Patents would be great if there were given for actual innovation. They aren’t, and so no longer really serve their original theoretical function.
to useful John Oliver bit from last month.
It seems to me that you make quite a jump in this argument. I can cite some incredibly bone-headed business decisions by US companies that I’ve seen my career (such as Apple’s absurd and failed attempts to sue the world over the Macintosh look-and-feel in the late eighties). That doesn’t mean that US companies “have failed”.
You describe four patents (with no cites), and then jump to your general conclusion. According to the USPTO, 326,033 patents were granted in 2014. That same source says there were a million applications in the pipeline at the end of 2014. About twice that many were applied for that year. In my view, more than four hand-picked examples need to be offered in order to support your categorical dismissal of the entire patent system.
An entire drug discovery industry exists whose primary function is to identify novel molecules and targets for eventual exploitation by pharma. Patent protection is fundamental to their business model. That industry is a key player in the Massachusetts economy. It seems like an overreach to so broadly dismiss the patent system without at least describing an alternative. I think you’ll be hard pressed to show that companies like Vertex Pharmaceuticals are not innovating, or are being “stifled” by today’s patent system.
At least in the segments of high technology that I have first-hand experience in (software development, drug discovery, bioinformatics), patents are in fact greatly enhancing innovation. While we can all cherry-pick outliers — even egregious outliers — the system as a whole seems to me to be providing rather generous amounts of “actual innovation”. The US still is, at least for now, a world leader in technology innovation.
The Massachusetts “innovation economy” is humming along rather nicely today. The current patent system, as imperfect as it is, is a key component of that innovation economy. As an engineer, I think we need a great deal more evidence that it is broken before we contemplate “fixing” it in such a drastic way is to scrap the current patent system.
When I was still in (networking, communications) tech, at both small and large companies, we were encouraged to do the patent application process for just about anything we could think of. As it was explained, having a thick patent portfolio was important for deals between companies and, in the case of being sued for patent infringement, one could then counter with “license yours to us and we’ll let you use this bunch that we have.” No money would have to change hands – well except all of that money that went to the patent lawyers (an increase in the cost of doing business).
Patents are important, but there is substantial abuse in practice.
Reduce expansionism.
Eliminate trolling
Increase funding to improve and speed up the process.
Creative thinking and the infrastructure to make money from that is the one area (in my opinion) where we undeniably are world leaders. We need to maintain that position. 100% in agreement that we need to figure out how to get the benefits of that down to the country as a whole.
I’m not sure what “expansionism” means in the context of your comment. The phrase “patent trolling” needs to be very carefully understood lest we put the baby out with the bathwater.
The comment by jasiu sounds similar to my own experience, yet perhaps leaves out some important aspects. A “thick patent portfolio” surely is important for deals between companies, but not because of infringement claims. While patents are sometimes exchanged, patent licensing is far more common.
For the fledgeling startup, patent protection is among the most accessible and affordable ways of both creating an exit strategy and of generating revenue during early launch stages. A new company that has just launched an exciting and innovative software product has period of extreme vulnerability, during which even the rosiest sales figures still don’t generate enough revenue to fight off competitors who see the new product and say “I can do that too”. In today’s web-based world, nearly all new web-based technology must be made available in a free version — that generates no revenue at all, yet still encourages competition. In early stages of fund-raising, even a provisional patent application provides at least a little bit of protection during the time when the entrepreneurs need to talk about their product with everyone who will listen — demanding a signed NDA just isn’t practical and doesn’t help that much.
A “thick patent portfolio” helps during acquisitions because it provides a way for the acquiring company to immediately obtain a revenue foothold and strategic presence in an emerging technology area. In my view, it is not “patent trolling” for a forward-looking startup to stake out patents in a new arena that starts to get hot. As new companies enter the arena and make claims of their own, they generally negotiate and pay license fees to the players already in that arena. The most forward-looking innovators who get there first thus have a way of being economically rewarded for their inventiveness. In that context, a startup that holds a “thick portfolio” of patents in a hot area that an established company decides is “strategic” is often acquired, therefore, in order for the established company to obtain the patent portfolio of the startup. For a particular kind of inventor, this provides an early (2-3 year) exit for “interesting” money long before a more traditional exit is viable.
For a truly “big” idea, product revenue nearly always lags patent licensing revenue — often by years. The Google map patents, for example, were taken YEARS before anybody acted on them. Only companies the size of Google, Microsoft, or Yahoo could actually generate meaningful revenue from products based on those patents and even then it took years.
Yes, “patent reform” is important and necessary. The devil is in the details of what that “reform” means in practice.
Expansionism would be the extending of patents to areas that are too broad (would of course need discussion).
Trolling would be making certain that the rules do not favor those companies/law firms that do nothing but buy patents and then sue companies for infringement.
Indeed, expansionism as you’ve clarified it needs to be avoided. I also agree with your definition of patent trolling.
A gray area that may exist there is that I think there may be a role for companies who aggregate a patent portfolio (through paying license fees to existing patent holders) and who then make the resulting portfolio available (through license fees) to other companies — passing through a negotiated portion of the new revenue to the earlier patent holders, and keeping a portion of the new revenue for themselves.
In any case, I agree with the direction you suggest for patent reform.
Examining the impact NAFTA had on Galesburg , an event Sen. Obama often cited in his 2004 campaign for the Senate, his 2008 primary with Clinton, and his book as one that convinced him trade wasn’t fair to the American worker. This article really shows how Obama either lied then or simply doesn’t care now.
It also highlights the benefits of trade, consumer goods are significantly lower priced than they were decades ago, but the tradeoffs in middle class jobs lost might be worth it in aggregate for the whole country but leave places like Galesburg and Flint and Akron behind. While the media reacts to Detroit’s fiscal crisis by blaming the remaining residents and officials for their ‘bad character’ that ’caused’ this debt, just as the same media blamed Baltimore rioters for daring to stand up for themselves, both cities have had significant white flight, high crime and high unemployment, and illegitimacy rates since middle class jobs were eviscerated causing urban instability.
American politics prevents an honest discussion about trade offs, but it’s time we have it. Would we be willing to pay more in order to get paid more? Would we be willing to trade the empty consumer culture we live in for a revival of middle class values and jobs within our inner cities? What’s the ideal balance between taxes and services? It’s time we had this conversation, and I am glad TPP has triggered it.
or just maybe has legitimately altered his views based on new evidence or trying to make sure what happened to Galesburg doesn’t repeat itself in this case. Why presume the worst possible spin?
Also we wouldn’t necessarily have to pay more to get paid more, at least not by much. I’ve seen a few examples of McDonalds in other countries paying a significantly higher hourly wage than here, yet charge about the same for their food within just a few cents either direction.
did on marriage equality?
It really is OK for politicians to change their minds.
He supported it as early as 1996, even Axelrod admitted as much. A congregant of the Hyde Park church my fiancee works at remembers then Sen. Obama congratulating her and her partner for ‘finally getting hitched’ in the late 90s. So his opposition was posturing for running statewide.
It is hard to see how this deal conforms to any of the fair trade promises he made or how it will help the people of Galesburg, if anything, it will export even more jobs overseas and exacerbate income inequality. As has been proven by economists from Stiglitz to Krugman to even conservative ones like Bruce Bartlett.
But you can see now that regular services are not his thing (not a problem, but don’t say it when you’re not).
It would have been great if he’d said, “How was I supposed to know what Jeremiah Wright has saying? I’m never there!”
So it’s clear six years into this he’s just like all other politicians. Yet another knife in the heart of people who were looking for something different.
He was a regular attendee at Trinity, according to most congregants I know who go there, but I would also agree it’s likely he joined a church to avoid arousing suspicions that he wasn’t religious. Rush accused him of being athiest and Jewish during his nasty 2000 race against Obama, and I believe he joined Trinity shortly before or after that race. He is probably nominally Christian, but he definitely laid it on thick in 2008 and didn’t bother by 2012 when it lost it’s electoral cache.
Like the founders, I could care less what religious beliefs a presidential aspirant has, so long as they are sufficiently experienced and care about preserving the Constitution and improving the common good.
I really don’t think there was a political motive for that one. When he left because Rev. Wright couldn’t leave well enough alone one could say that was politically motivated, but honestly I’m not sure I blame him.
…about a deal that hasn’t gone into effect yet. I’ve heard that he was personally more OK with marriage than he let on, but I would call it tailoring rather than lying. Kind of like being “personally prolife, but politically prochoice”. The country has moved a lot on that issue since 2008 and I think he handled it the best he could. Lying is an extreme accusation in my mind and I tend to have a very visceral reaction to it.
He was for it in 96′, against it by 2002, for it again in 2012. The main definition of lying is as follows:
.
A noble lie, sure, it’s still unclear if he would’ve gotten elected supporting it in 2008. That said, it’s also clear when he did come out for it, he moved African American voters along to his position, the payback he feared never happened.
The Galesburg quotes are an ignoble lie, he promised he would fight trade deals and is now getting favors from Nike to back policies our senior Senator has shown will demonstrably fail America’s workers.
All discussion about the effect of trade has been about how beneficial it is in the form of lower prices; however, we rarely discuss how the trade has distorted our economy.
By shifting the easier jobs to other countries, we have excluded a large portion of our workforce from economic participation. We have shunted these people into impoverished urban centers (because that’s where the cheap housing that formerly housed workers exists).
What good are cheap consumer goods when people can’t afford the basic necessities in life – housing, education, health care, retirement, and infrastructure?
People don’t tend to link the benefits they got from trade to the downside because the downside isn’t directly affecting them, especially when they live in communities that keeps out poor people.
I just received the following email from Elizabeth Warren (included in its entirety because I can’t link to an email):
Indeed, this why it matters. This is why President Obama’s support for this measure is so, well, problematic.
Here’s the money quote (emphasis mine):
We should not be handing even more power to the GOP extremists who dominate the Senate and House today.
Sen. Warren is pointing out an important truth, even if we follow Christopher and think trade deals are good, this trade deal is good, and President Obama can be entrusted with this authority-why would we want the next GOP President to have that authority? If it’s so good, why prevent a reading of the bill on the floor and full examination of it’s contents? It just doesn’t make sense. Chicago thought the parking deal was a good one too, until the councilors read what they voted for years later after the company hit is up for money it was owed in the fine print.
…since for obvious reasons I haven’t seen it either, though it would be accurate to say I’m philosophically inclined toward free trade (yet am not convinced is mutually exclusive with fair trade). I do trust the President enough to give him the benefit of the doubt when he says that certain protections are stronger. Of course the final version of anything should be read by all legislators before they vote on it. Nobody has suggested otherwise. What fast track does is not allow amendments so that we can decide whether or not to ratify what we actually negotiated rather than something sort of like what we negotiated. As for entrusting a future GOP President, that’s not really the point. If legislators decide they don’t like what he negotiated on the merits they would be free to vote it down.
Senator Warren wrote:
You wrote:
It appears to me that the difference is how we characterize the effect of fast track.
In my view, the remaining four years after Mr. Obama leaves office — years in which we may face a Republican President, Republican Senate, and Republican House — are precisely the point. The fact that you trust Barack Obama is relevant ONLY to the first two of the six years this would be in effect. It seems to me that you are, in fact, missing the point.
I do not think Democrats should be voting away power that we may need after Mr. Obama leaves office. If anything, I think the experience of GOP contempt for anything “Democrat” — coupled with their eagerness to abuse prerogatives such as the filibuster — should be an object lesson in what we Democrats need to do in order to preserve the gains we made during several our several decades in power (and the simultaneous gains made for the 99%).
We should zealously protect every advantage left to us — we will need them to protect our vision of America if today’s tea-party dominated GOP attains control of all three branches of government.
I do think Senators should have ample time to read and debate what is presented for ratification in order to make an educated vote on the entire package on the merits. If a GOP President presents the Senate with a treaty with a request to ratify, Senators are free to say no.
Suppose there is a GOP President, Senate and House. Suppose a trade deal is on the table that, from a Democratic perspective, is a terrible deal. In the absence of amendments, how will the Democrats in the Senate slow or stop that terrible deal? A vote to ratify requires a simple majority.
Even if the vote to ratify can be filibustered, your proposal makes that pretty much the only vote possible. Amendments are one of the tools a minority uses to express it’s opinion about aspects that need to be altered in the treaty — in addition to removing procedural obstacles, your proposal removes that option. Most of the public does not listen to weekend political talk shows. Your proposal effectively muzzles the Democratic voice in my scenario.
I do not want to give away the tools we need to keep today’s GOP in check — never mind tomorrow’s.
…but even if this is an agreement that doesn’t (and as I recall other trade deals have passed like laws rather than treaties for reasons I don’t completely understand) my view on the filibuster does not change based on who is in the majority. This does not stop real debate, and if someone wants to talk forever about it that falls within the prerogatives of debate. Once, a vote is taken the chips should be allowed to fall where they may. If Dems are in the minority, well, elections matter and I guess we lose that round.
I had forgotten the 2/3 rule for treaty ratification, I stand corrected.
I remind you (and us) that “filibuster” no longer means talking forever. It is now more like a mere threat to talk forever.
The larger point I’m making is that the actual practice of the Senate for at least the Obama administration has been that ANY bill requires 60 votes to become law, regardless of constitutional provisions. This is how the GOP gridlocked the Senate while they were a minority. This proposal would substantially weaken the ability of the Democrats to do likewise.
The GOP has demonstrated that for today’s GOP, the dogma-of-the-day trumps reality, courtesy, tradition, national interest and constitutional intent. In my view, that is simply a fact — a fact that I am unwilling to ignore in pursuit of some idealistic Tinker Bell political vision.
…and my emphatic point is I don’t want us to turn around and do likewise. Even so my understanding is that fast track prevents amendments, but otherwise has no bearing on the rules of order and debate.
My cynical answer is in two parts:
1. The current GOP is crazy and has set the precedent for frequent use of the filibuster. I see no reason to believe they have or will moderate, and I think we should fight fire with fire at every opportunity while we are the minority.
2. Each amendment requires at least one additional vote, and therefore provides at least one additional opportunity to stop or slow a bad deal. I think that’s why the GOP is so eager to pass this, and I think that’s why we should reject it.
…is they are for it so we must be against it, or vice versa. That is the ugly side of partisanship. A battle on the merits with competing philosophies coming into play is fine, but this goes back to our previous exchange about letting personalities cloud our judgement. I still disagree on how the filibuster should be used as you are doing a good job confirming the prediction that we would just prove hypocrites about it when the shoe is on the other foot, but I also still think it’s irrelevant to fast tracking.
The President could offer SOME clarity around this debate with one simple act that does not undermine any of his previous statements. He could release the already agreed upon portions of the treaty.
It is a rare situation where more information does not help clarify a conflict.
And that is according to one of his key trade advisors in this week’s Politico
his opposition is “luke-warm.” One of the things that has turned him off is the intellectual bankruptcy of those pushing the deal. Today, we have Chicagoan William Daley doing the misleading:
A real hacks hack. Basically a lifelong rainmaker making Wall Street money off his family connections who has no reason to lecture anyone else on inequality or the balance of trade. I doubt he has ever held a real job he would have gotten if his name was Bill Smith.
He was gonna run against Quinn from the right in the last election, before backing out when he realized his likability rating was somewhere above the sewers, and not much higher. He then went full press for Rauner and has a big role in that union busters administration. A real DINO if I ever saw one.
…is President Obama and Senator Warren discussing this side by side with a journalist or expert present to make sure they are really responding to each other’s points rather than talking past each other, like Al Gore and Ross Perot did with NAFTA on Larry King.
He even pretends that those who offer criticisms of TPP are “not being specific,” when his rules prohibit them from revealing their criticisms in public. From the Politico article jconway linked to:
So, he’s not going to sit down with Sen. Warren or anybody else and discuss the proposals in public. Remember how he was going to give us the most transparent administration ever? Cherish that memory.
In any era prior to the Reagan administration, Barack Obama would have been a Republican. I believe he is sincere, modulo the distortions apparently required by his office. I also believe he, like many current Massachusetts legislators, affiliated with the Democratic party because the GOP would never support his “liberalism”.
We often forget that Ronald Reagan, as a presidential candidate, ran as an extreme right-winger. I remember candidate Ronald Reagan as even more extreme than candidate Barry Goldwater — and that’s saying something. The election, re-election, and subsequent beatification of Saint Reagan illustrates just how bat-shit crazy the GOP has become. This is, after all, a party whose primary candidates will be ruled out if they publicly state that they agree that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.
In my view, the real Barack Obama is a moderate Republican. I respect that, just as I respected Everett Dirksen. Nevertheless, had I known that about candidate Barack Obama, I would not have supported him for President.
I profoundly disagree with the cultural values reflected in the priorities of his moderate Republican administration.
“There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why… I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”
-Bobby Kennedy
I fail to see how we get change if we tell activists they can’t ask this question or shut up and only let the insiders with decades of experience do the talking. If you sincerely believe that’s how it’s gotta be done, then you really don’t understand the mission of BMG.
That said, I liked your analysis and appreciate your experience, I sincerely mean that, it contributed to a reality based discussion of what is and isn’t possible. I have no idea why you’ve consistently been grinding your axe against me since you’ve started posting here but I apologize if I rubbed you the wrong way. I think you misunderstood and misperceived my purpose here. Perhaps my perception that you have a cliquey “I know so much better than you all” attitude is a similar misperception. So maybe we can recognize our strengths and limitations and work together and move past this?
Tom’s comment above was not a reply to yours nor does it seem like he disagrees much with you on the merits of this topic.
It embedded awkwardly
And totally wrong thread, apologies all around
I also understand there is a room that Senators only, but not staff, can enter and read, but not take notes on, the TPP as currently drafted. Did the Senate itself impose that? The executive branch certainly can’t and shouldn’t. I’d like to see a Senator, maybe EW, test those “limits”. They have not only ordinary 1st amendment protections, but also speech and debate protections. If they start spilling on the Senate floor there’s not a darn thing anyone, especially the President, can do about it. To enforce such things I think went out of style the moment Charles I entered the House of Commons to demand the arrest of five of its members.
…absent legislation by Congress, or a federal court decision (if necessary sustained by SCOUTUS) to the contrary.
Here is a link that might be useful.
The Charles I reference is amusing but irrelevant, the President’s power to classify (with the aforementioned limits) has been around since 1940.
And as an aside to ST, Obama isn’t a “moderate”, he’s a Taft conservative, which in fairness, he’s never hidden at any time in his political career.
Whether “Taft conservative” (Taft was a Republican) or “Moderate Republican”, each is nevertheless Republican.
I’d like my next Democratic president to be from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.
I would strenuously argue that a co-equal branch of government cannot and should not be at the mercy of the President’s whim. There is a fundamental constitutional principle at stake which the Charles reference illustrates quite nicely. The prerogatives of Congress, including significantly the speech and debate clause, are in the Constitution. The authority to classify is ordinary statute, which is probably fine when it doesn’t involve Congress, but when it does the Constitution is supreme law.
Since you seem to have his ear…
It’s Congress’s job to defend it’s prerogatives.
You did.
…that despite the personalized greeting I’m sure went to everyone on his list including several BMGers. Surely you know politicians do that all the time. I never claimed the President listens to me.
Here’s a clue, though — some elected officials DO listen to their constituents as well as posture to them. Mike Dukakis, Barney Frank, and Elizabeth Warren are three prominent examples.
The more one-way that channel becomes, the less likely I am to extend the trust and credibility that in my view you too-readily vest in Mr. Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/opinion/paul-krugman-trade-and-trust.html?ref=opinion