General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat happens next in the pursuit to pass TPA, is clear as... mud
First of all the WH is flat out desperate and so are republicans who are strongly backing it. Here's we do know: The House leadership has two days, beginning Monday night to bring it to a vote. That means that the WH and Republican leadership have 3 days, counting today, to get 91 Representatives to switch to yes on Trade Assistance. Yesterday, in his Saturday morning radio speech, President Obama declared victory in the face of defeat while also pleading for a yes vote on a rescheduled vote on Trade Assistance for displaced workers.
But we don't know whether the House will schedule that vote or whether they'll go into conference with the Senate and try to get the Senate to drop the TAA piece of the legislation. Would President Obama sign TPA legislation without TAA if the republicans can muscle it through? You bet your ass he would. He may say TAA is essential but he cares far, far more about passing TPA and the trade agreements in its wake than about TAA.
I have no idea what the odds are of getting the votes in the House for TAA; the Republican leadership has publicly expressed doubt that they can. I have no idea what the odds are that enough Senate Dems can be bullied into dropping TAA and supporting the House version without it. I do know that the WH will do whatever it takes to pass TPA and they'll have a lot of help from Capitol Hill Republicans.
We should have a good idea of the outcome by Wednesday.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)It means we have to be relentless. Call and email, then get your friends and family to call and email. Then, in the afternoon, call and email anyone that didn't say how they were voting or said they were voting for it.
Then do it all over again
Of there are protests in your area, go and bring as many people as you can.
Thanks, Cali, for keeping us updated!
cali
(114,904 posts)vote yet. And I'm assuming that Boehner won't schedule it until he knows the votes are there. If he is convinced the votes aren't there, he almost certainly won't schedule it.
I agree. Keep calling. Keep the pressure on.
From the Intercept
There's another link, GOP Roll Call, that says Tuesday in the description under the Google search, but when I go to the link, I can't find it. I still don't know how to do that, find the stuff that shows up in the search when it isn't on the page that pops up and is buried in the site somewhere. I am a computer idiot.
#Bernie2016
cali
(114,904 posts)(he builds computers as a hobby, when he's not off kayaking or skiing or rock climbing) just rolls his eyes at me when I ask for help, and tells me a six year old is more computer literate than I am.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Sounds like a great kid though! How cool to do all that.
I suspect that even if this is correct and the vote is scheduled for Tuesday, they won't do it if the Republicans can't get the votes. So we should concentrate on the Senate too.
Never thought I would be saying that the Democratic President is using the Republicans to fight for something. SMDH.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and voting against the assistance bill would not play well in most Dem districts so all that has to happen is for Pelosi to give the signal and presto, summer vacation at last.
marym625
(17,997 posts)And most people don't want that.
cali
(114,904 posts)The Republican leadership doesn't. And TAA is as failed a program as you can find. It's effectively a sham. In any case, it may pass with or without TAA, but either way, the dems will pay big time in 2016. If you think unions or progressive organizations or Environmental Orgs are going to let this go, you're deluded.
Program Effectiveness
TAA for workers
The TAA for workers have demonstrated overall low effectiveness so far which is reflected in the controversy to reauthorize the program before the 112th Congress and the fact that the TAA will be discontinued in 2015.
First, the program is not very effective providing support during the transition because a significant portion of workers does not receive TRA. In FY2011 there were over 196,000 TAA participants and only around 46,000 received TRA.[27] One reason is that the training enrollment deadline of 8/16 weeks seriously limits the ability of workers to enroll in training programs and receive the benefit. Moreover, even for those workers receiving TRA and UI, only a portion of the lost income is replaced.[28] The program provides health insurance coverage but in the past it has not been very effective since participation in TAA was associated with decreased coverage in the period following job loss like a joint report by Mathematica Policy Research and Social Policy Research (SPR) prepared for the DOL evaluating the TAA program under the Trade Act of 2002 shows.[29]
The effectiveness of the program in terms of fostering reemployment is very low too. Data on post-TAA outcomes for program exiters based on DOL estimations shows that the entered employment rate was 66% in 2011.[22] The Mathematica Policy Research and SPR report finds that the TAA is not effective in terms of increasing employability. There is positive effect on the reemployment rate for participants but it is not statistically different from that for non-participants.[29]
The effectiveness of the program in terms of mitigating earning losses in the new job is very low too as several studies report. Reynolds and Palatucci (2008) estimate that participating in the TAA program causes a wage loss approximately 10 percentage points greater than if the displaced worker had chosen not to participate in the program.[20] The report by Mathematica Policy Research and SPR states that TAA was estimated to have no effect on earnings and compared to a sample of UI claimants, TAA participants worked about the same number of weeks but had lower earnings.[29]
Moreover, a 2007 GAO report shows that in FY 2006 only 5% or less of TAA participants received wage insurance. The program is ineffective closing the earning gap because in order to be eligible for wage insurance workers must find a job within 26 weeks after being laid off, which proved to be a very short period.[30] Additionally, the program only replaces half of the losses.
Finally, the implementation of this program overlaps extensively with others such as Workforce Investment Act generating extra costs and duplicating administrative efforts.[13] The process to allocate training funds is also problematic. States receive funds at the beginning of the fiscal year but it does not properly reflect the state´s demand for training services. In addition, states do not receive funds for case management and lack flexibility to use the funds for training. Thus, states face challenges in providing services to workers properly.[30]
<snip>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)A time filled with wonderful dreams of shipping even more jobs offshore than did Clinton's NAFTA, a time when we didn't have to deal with that difficult woman from Massachusetts.
Now, so much disappointment. If only people would get up off their butts and read the top-secret agreement for themselves, we'd win this thing.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Most everyone in congress knows we need TPP, they just need to find a way to get it passed without committing political suicide.
cali
(114,904 posts)in the head. It takes a lot of nerve to post that most dems "know we need the TPP". And if it does pass, boy will the dems pay in 2016. And if Hillary is the nominee, she'll really pay. Anyone who thinks progressives, labor, Environmental Orgs, and Public Interest groups will just let this slide, is delusional.
I think you seriously underestimate the opposition to this from traditional dem allies that dems badly need.
I'll do everything I can to fuck the elected dems who fuck us with these corporate giveaway "trade" agreements. I'll donate to primary challengers until it hurts.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)(And all the other "trade" initials.). Yeah, so I would have to stop posting at DU, but this lesser of two evils thing just gets us evil. Not enabling any more.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)In defeat, President Obama declares victory
Democrats reject the presidents appeals, but White House describes it as just a snafu.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/obama-trade-vote-meeting-with-democrats-118937.html
Is it all just theatre? The powers that be have a predetermined outcome for US on this? They don't want the American public to have a say in their "free trade" deals & their puppets in DC are just trying to give them what they want while at the same time juggling trying to look good for the next election...?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)The Senate bill is 1 bill including TAA and TPA
The House has 3 separate bills = TAA, then TPA and last a currency bill.
If the House sends over just the TPA bill, the Senate would consider just that bill and would be able to filibuster and require 60 votes. Slicing off the TAA from the Senate's original bill would be impossible because that bill wouldn't be legal w/o both components.
Didn't we have Wyden professing the wonders of the TAA he and Hatch gave birth to? Wasn't this the argument or cover that convinced a handful of Dems to become turncoats.
If it returns to the Senate, I hope the unions start the push back there too.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So it is a bit inaccurate to call them 'turncoats' because their support for this was very predictable due to their voting records. Of the TPA Senate Democrats, 6 voted for both NAFTA and CAFTA either in the House or the Senate. The coat they turned got flipped long years ago on trade.
What I do to oppose TPP comes though AFL-CIO. The Unions are aware of the voting records of the various officials.
Those votes 'shocked' DUers who were not aware of how those people actually vote. DU has focused absurdly on Hillary Clinton, who is not only not in the Congress to cast a vote but who, when she was, voted against CAFTA and some other trade agreements. Candidate Lincoln Chafee was a CAFTA yes vote as a Republican. Candidate Clinton voted No as a Democrat.
Only 8 Senate Democrats voted for CAFTA. None of them surprised on TPA. That means they could have been strongly pressured for months about this, but to do that DU would have to pay attention to details.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)kentuck
(111,111 posts)How many Democrats will switch votes and how many Republicans will bow to the pressure from their leaders?
In my opinion, it would be a good thing for the people's representatives to defeat this bill. It would send a message that we are not dead yet.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The poison pill that killed TAA in the House was the Medicare cuts to pay for it. Passing it in the House via Democratic votes may require stripping that.
But that poison pill was required to get Republican votes to pass it in the Senate. Strip it out, and you can't get through the Senate.