Fast track flunkies go all out to try to force vote in Senate

Earlier this week, the Senate's top Democrat Harry Reid put his foot down on the fast track trade bill, saying he would not allow supporters to quickly jam the measure through the chamber. Well, not surprisingly, corporations and their lawmaker cronies didn't like that. So they are pushing back hard.

Protesters took a stand against fast track on Capitol Hill in April.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is forcing the issue by calling for a procedural vote known as cloture as soon as next week. If he can get 60 votes, the Senate can end debate on the matter and take a final vote on fast track. But whether he can get those 60 votes is the big question.

It could take a bipartisan effort to stop cloture. A handful of Democrats have decided to side with big business already on fast track, which means any vote will be very close. For U.S. workers and those who support fair trade, there is no margin for error.

Just in case anyone needed a reminder on why stopping fast track is essential, he is a primer: it would allow quick votes to be taken on bad trade deals like the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with no chance to amend the deals. That is particularly insidious when details of trade agreements are shielded from public view.

Yet supporters are doing everything they can to push for fast track and the TPP. Today, President Obama is in Oregon to visit Nike Headquarters, and the company is doing all it can to shill for the trade deals. The company says it could create 10,000 new U.S.-based jobs at Nike if the Pacific Rim trade pact is approved. This is the shoe manufacturer, mind you, that is the poster boy for sweatshops worldwide.

Well the Teamsters aren't buy it, and the American public shouldn't either. As Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa said today:

The promise of job creation as a result of these unbalanced trade agreements is a just a broken record replaying the same corporate lies. We’ve heard it all before – and the middle class is tired of bearing the brunt of these unfair trade agreements.

Before NAFTA was passed, General Electric promised more than 10,000 new jobs would be created. Instead, GE eliminated 11,675 jobs directly due to increased competition from imports and offshoring under NAFTA. Chrysler promised 4,000 new jobs and it eliminated nearly 18,000 jobs. And just last month, Caterpillar announced it will move two production lines from Joliet, Illinois to Mexico, costing the community 230 jobs.

With a track record like this, you can understand why working men and women are skeptical of trade agreements. Global corporations like Nike take advantage of the rules outlined in trade deals like NAFTA and TPP. The system is rigged to benefit companies that move operations to countries where they can take advantage of low wages and weak labor protections. Nike alone employs 990,000 workers in low-wage countries.

We must not repeat the mistakes of the past by passing TPP and watching more manufacturing jobs leave our country while the middle class suffers.

It's time to take a stand against these big business bullies. If workers want to protect American jobs and their wages there is only one answer -- say no to fast track. Make sure to let the Senate know they should be doing the same.

Reid is slowing down fast track in Senate

Local 657 members in San Antonio voiced their opposition to fast track last week.

Corporate elites everywhere received some bad news last night when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced he would not allow the chamber to move forward with consideration of fast track trade legislation until other more time-sensitive measures are dealt with by lawmakers.

Reid, a strong opponent of fast track, said he would not concede to the whims of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who wants to speed fast track trade authority through the Senate before dealing with transportation and foreign intelligence measures that are brushing up against deadlines. He told the Huffington Post:

McConnell said he wanted to move to trade in the next two or three weeks, and I'm going to -- maybe he can, but I don't think he's going to have an easy time doing it, because I will not let him do that. We're not going to lay over, as I said, until we have some way to move forward on FISA and the surface transportation bill. He has some decisions to make and he's going to have to work around me and the caucus.

It's the latest bad news for big business, which has led the push for fast track because it knows its the only way it can get secret trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) approved. Late last week, House leaders conceded they didn't have the votes to get fast track passed. Add it together, and its almost enough to make a billionaire go bonkers.

More and more lawmakers are starting to see the glaring problems the Teamsters and other fair trade advocates have had with fast track. Lost jobs, lower wages and unsafe food and products are just a few of them.

But increasingly there are signs that U.S. trade is not living up to the promises of its proponents.
In fact, just this morning the Commerce Department released March trade figures showing the trade deficit soared by 43 percent over the previous month, reaching $51.4 billion. That's no way to create new American jobs.

Fast track is the wrong track for America!

How did your senators vote on stopping billionaires from buying elections?

We know Mitch McConnell voted today in favor of billionaires continuing to buy elections. He said no one in Kentucky (his state) cares about it.

Really, Mitch? In May, a poll by CBS News showed something quite different. Here's what the poll found:

• 75 percent of respondents, including 63 percent of Republicans, said that the wealthy have more of a chance of influencing the electoral process.
• 71 percent of respondents, including 65 percent of Republicans, said that campaign contributions by individuals should be limited.
• 76 percent of respondents, including 65 percent of Republicans, said that spending on ads by unaffiliated groups should be limited.

The amendment failed because it needed 60 votes, and only 54 senators voted for it. Did your senators vote with the people or with the billionaires? Find out here.

Mitch McConnell does as he is told (by the Koch brothers)

Earlier this year a top Koch brothers strategist told a group of like-minded (i.e., crazy) rich people that the minimum wage leads to fascism.

This appears to be a talking point of crazy billionaires and their enablers. In March Slate reported,

Following in the footsteps of venture capitalist Tom Perkins, who in January warned that the nation might be on the verge of a “progressive Kristallnacht,” Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone is quoted in Politico today suggesting that populists worried about income inequality are … basically Nazis. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was at the event where the Koch brothers strategist spoke. (Of course he was at the event. It was filled with people who give him lots of money.) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid demanded McConnell repudiate those comments. He didn't.

This morning, Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate floor to slam an effort to stop millionaires and billionaires from buying elections.

McConnell said no one in Kentucky cares about it, and that no one in our home state has asked him about it. (Really Mitch? No one cares that crazy billionaires control the political process?)

The Senate later in the day voted on a constitutional amendment that would overturn the disastrous Citizen United and McCutcheon rulings. Mitch McConnell voted against the amendment. Because it needed 60 votes to proceed, the amendment failed.

People for the American Way in Kentucky are going to rally in front of McConnell's West Louisville headquarters to tell “King Mitch” that they care about overturning Citizens United, and his brand of crony politics for millionaires and billionaires has to end.

To find out more, click here. Meanwhile, watch the video of Mitch McConnell's deer-in-the-headlights response to the question of whether he'd repudiate the Koch strategist's comments.