Patrick rounding third as pinch runner today — Jim will be back in the saddle tomorrow. At Last, a Way in Which Obama's Trade Package Is Actually a Bit Like Obamacare? The deal President Obama and congressional Republicans wanted on trade was believed essentially dead last week, after the House failed to pass the package of trade-promotion authority (TPA) and trade-adjustment assistance (TAA) that the Senate had. But now, the Senate has voted to advance just TPA (to "fast track" trade deals), as the House has, and President Obama can probably sign TAA and TPA relatively soon. The Obamacare parallel I see is that the health-care bill, seemingly dead when the House and Senate couldn't agree on a new bill after Scott Brown's election, was resurrected through some legislative legerdemain. But the deal here isn't dodgy like the Obamacare bargain was. Trade-promotion authority (TPA) and trade-adjustment assistance (TAA) were supposed to be passed together, but relatively few politicians will vote for both -- one is a longstanding method of enabling the president to negotiate trade deals that's popular with big business, the other is a (highly ineffective) program, popular with big labor, to compensate workers who lose their jobs to trade. They were originally linked together in the same legislation, making it tougher to get all the votes necessary. Now, enough members have agreed to trust congressional leadership and President Obama that the bills will get passed separately, allowing them to get majorities. But not everyone agrees that the deal was above-board. Here's Senator Ted Cruz in Breitbart yesterday: TPA in this Congress has become enmeshed in corrupt Washington backroom deal-making, along with serious concerns that it would open up the potential for sweeping changes in our laws that trade agreements typically do not include. . . . TPA's progress through the House and Senate appears to have been made possible by secret deals between Republican Leadership and the Democrats. When TPA first came up for a vote in the Senate, it was blocked by a group of senators, led by Senator Maria Cantwell (D., Wa.) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), both of whom were conditioning their support on the unrelated objective of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank . . . a classic example of corporate welfare. It is cronyism at its worst, with U.S. taxpayers guaranteeing billions of dollars in loans for sketchy buyers in foreign nations. Ex-Im is scheduled to wind down on June 30. But powerful lobbyists in Washington want to keep the money flowing. After witnessing several senators huddle on the floor the day of the TPA vote, I suspected that to get their votes on TPA, Republican Leadership had promised supporters of Ex-Im a vote to reauthorize the bank before it winds down. . . . There's more to Cruz's piece, read the rest. And there's already been a bit of debate about this on the Corner; I suspect there'll be more. Did You Know These Guys Weren't Already Running for President? Bobby Jindal announces his candidacy today: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a one-time rising star in the Republican Party now struggling to become one again, will announce Wednesday afternoon whether he intends to run for president in 2016. Jindal's appearance -- to be held in the New Orleans suburb of Kenner at 5 p.m. Eastern time -- does not seem much of a mystery. . . . He has already traveled multiple times to early-primary states -- spending 45 percent of his days outside of Louisiana last year. . . . But at this point, his chances of winning the GOP nomination seem extraordinarily low. There are already 12 other major Republican candidates in the race, with several more expected to enter soon. And Jindal is running behind nearly all of them: Several recent polls have shown him at just 1 percent support among GOP voters, either last or tied for last. Jindal's non-campaign campaign has put out some detailed policy proposals (jobs, health care, education), emphasized social and religious issues, and talked tough on national security. This sounds pretty good, but it hasn't worked terribly well -- perhaps because the seriously punchy rhetoric of a lower-tier candidate hasn't suited the mild-mannered Rhodes Scholar. Speaking of roads and mild-mannered politicians, Chris Christie will launch pretty soon, too: Chris Christie is in the final stages of preparing his 2016 presidential bid, with a formal announcement possible as soon as next week, according to several sources familiar with the discussions. The New Jersey governor's planning has intensified in recent days. On Monday, his campaign-in-waiting announced that he'd hired two additional staffers in New Hampshire, a state seen as critical to his White House hopes. Earlier this month, Maria Comella, a longtime Christie aide, departed the governor's official office to take a senior position at his political action committee. A Christie spokeswoman, Samantha Smith, declined to comment. The governor's aides have previously said that he isn't likely to launch his presidential campaign until the New Jersey legislature finalizes the state budget -- expected to be around the end of June. Christie's also put some policy proposals on the table (the Wall Street Journal likes his tax plan), but hasn't been as visible on the campaign trail as Jindal, partly because he has a very messy budget battle at home. Both guys also share really low approval ratings at home (each in the 30s) and stalled legislative agendas (Jindal's religious-liberty, anti–Common Core, and tax-reform pushes have failed; Christie is having to relitigate his undersized pension reform). In other words, both of them almost look like they could have been better poised to run in 2012, when the GOP field looked a lot less competitive. Of course, they do still have the traits and accomplishments that made them stars back then, so we'll see. ADDENDA: In light of Tom Brady's appearance in New York this week to appeal his four-game suspension, check out the recent study from AEI (yes, that AEI) that ripped apart the Wells report. | 
Comments
Post a Comment