Naked Capitalism has the article Good News on TPP, as Senate Passes Fast Track Bill with Human Trafficking Poison Pill.

What is so fascinating about this article is the number of twists and turns that it takes. Good guys become bad guys and bad guys become good guys at the blink of an eye. The poison pill goes in, the antidote to the poison is agreed to, and then it fails to get administered.

The links to peripheral issues are enough to keep you busy for a week.

Politicus USA has the article Elizabeth Warren Bill Requiring Trade Deals Be Made Public Blocked By Republicans.

Warren’s bill would have required that the details of trade agreements be made public before they are given fast track status. The difference is disclosure. If a president has to disclose the details before he/she gets fast track authority, the public would have a chance to weigh in on the deal.

This is an important part of the debate, that I had not thought of until reading this. It is not enough that our representatives in Congress get to see what they are voting on before they vote on it. The public needs to have the chance to organize to try to influence the representatives about their vote for the bill.

We need to be suspicious over every move to make it more difficult for the public to voice its informed opinions on proposed legislation. The harder they fight to keep us from seeing what is about to be thrust upon us until it is too late, the more we know that there must be something in it that they know we would not approve.

It’s not only the fact that they approved something we don’t like, it is the additional fact that they knew we wouldn’t like it, but they went ahead with it anyway.

Bernie Sanders made a Facebook post of the article Sen. Bernie Sanders on taxes, trade agreements and Islamic State.

Published on May 18, 2015

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is the second candidate to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. Judy Woodruff talks to the senator about rebuilding the middle class, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the U.S. role in the Middle East.

If he can continue to give these interviews where he explains his positions so clearly, I think he has a good chance of success. The dynamic of the video is interesting to analyze in itself. Perhaps this is the only way it can be done. There is not much wrong with the questions Judy Woodruff asked him. The great part of it is that she lets him answer the question with minimal interruption. It is a bit cloying that she can ask these questions with a straight face, giving the impression that she does not already know the answer. I can’t think of another way to conduct such an interview without the interviewers opinions and knowledge walking all over Bernie Sanders’ information, which supposedly is why we would listen to an interview like this.

Maybe we have come to expect Judy Woodruff to carry out a reasonable interview. The amazing part from the Sanders’ fans’ perspective is that he can even get interviews on Faux Noise where he is controlling the conversation and getting his message through.

I’d have a hard time naming another progressive candidate that could go on a far right noise outlet like Faux, get to explain what he or she is all about, and leave the interview with no shouting and threats to turn off his microphone.
Perhaps Elizabeth Warren has managed to do it.

Defense News has the article US Military’s New Swarm of Mini-Drones.

With no motor and only about 10 parts, the Cicada resembles a paper airplane with a circuit board.

That may not sound like much of a drone, but you have to read the article to find out what it can really do. If you thought your idea of a conventional drone was a threat to your privacy, read what these things can do. Low price is no small part of the threat.

Perhaps you have to use your imagination to get it. If you don’t have enough imagination, you can rest assured that criminal and the military element have more than enough imagination to make up for what you and I may lack.

Naked Capitalism has the article Senate Democrats Work with Republicans Throw Medicare Under the Bus as Part of TPP Fast Track Sausage-Making by Lambert Strether.

So, Congress is preparing to loot Medicare not just for this one program, TAA, but as standard operating procedure. I think that qualifies as “throwing Medicare under the bus.”

Strether took to the idea idea with the same skepticism that I showed in my previous post, U.S. Senate: Reject Medicare cuts and reject Fast Track. He also came to the same conclusion that I did. His article includes far more detail than mine, though.

I made two observations about this. The first is the following:

The reason why the politicians like the “pay for” paradigm is that it is a way to try to get people to stop complaining. I have always said that when you ask Congress to close tax-loopholes, their response has always been, “Ok, if you want us to close tax-loopholes, we’ll gladly cut the ones that you use.” They hope that the lesson people will finally learn is that you’d better not ask Congress to close tax-loopholes.

If the politicians have to make cuts in government programs, they first make cuts in the most popular programs that help the most people. They want you to feel the pain, so you will stop pestering them.

Then I followed it up the this observation.

The reason why the politicians like the “pay for” paradigm is that it is a way to try to get people to stop complaining. I have always said that when you ask Congress to close tax-loopholes, their response has always been, “Ok, if you want us to close tax-loopholes, we’ll gladly cut the ones that you use.” They hope that the lesson people will finally learn is that you’d better not ask Congress to close tax-loopholes.

If the politicians have to make cuts in government programs, they first make cuts in the most popular programs that help the most people. They want you to feel the pain, so you will stop pestering them.

Democracy For America has the petition U.S. Senate: Reject Medicare cuts and reject Fast Track.

There’s a big — brand new — attack on Medicare that’s just been added in the Senate to the Fast Track bill for the TPP. The bill would cut a whopping $700 million from Medicare, hurting seniors who need access to health care.

I have received several emails about this. The best I can do to find out what these emails are talking about is the article in The Hill, Healthcare groups object to Medicare cuts in trade bill.

Leading healthcare provider groups are objecting to Medicare cuts being used to help pay for a new House Republican trade bill.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill helps workers displaced by trade and provides a tax credit to help pay for health insurance. It was rolled out in addition to a proposal to give President Obama “fast-track” authority on trade.

The healthcare providers object to the TAA bill including a 0.25 percent cut in Medicare payments in fiscal year 2024, which amounts to a $700 million cut, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Here is the breathless prose in the email that I received from Democracy for America.

Robert Reich’s blog has the post Nike, Obama, and the Fiasco of the Trans Pacific Partnership. He concludes with the following:

No doubt Nike is supporting the TPP. It would allow Nike to import its Vietnamese and Malaysian-made goods more cheaply. But don’t expect those savings to translate into lower prices for American consumers. As it is, Nike spends less than $10 for every pair of $100-plus shoes it sells in the U.S.

Needless to say, the TPP wouldn’t require Nike to pay its Vietnamese workers more. Nikes’ workers are not paid enough to buy the shoes they make much less buy U.S. exported goods.

Nike may be the perfect example of life under TPP, but that is not a future many Americans would choose.

Along the way, he has facts and figures that refute the BS that you are hearing from President Obama.

Another thing he said is something that I should remember to emphasize in general, not just about Nike.

I’m not faulting Nike. Nike is only playing by the rules.

I’m faulting the rules.

Although, if Nike is using bribery to get the rules to be the way they want them, then I guess we would be justified in faulting Nike. So let me just apply this amnesty to innocent bystanders, like myself. I know how to play by the capitalist’s rule. I play by them to survive, but I didn’t vote to have the rules this way, and I would be happy to see them changed. If any other company or person has the same justification for playing by the rules they don’t like, then I don’t think their behavior is hypocritical.

Naked Capitalism has the article Exit Strategy, Part One: ZIRP.

The Fed has announced plans to raise rates in the imminent future, but the market does not believe it.  Why not?  Conventional wisdom appears to be that the Fed will chicken out, just as it did during the so-called Taper Tantrum.  The Fed has signaled its appreciation that “liftoff” will involve increased volatility, and has stated its resolve this time simply to let that volatility happen, but markets don’t believe it.

I want to suggest a slightly different source of disconnect, concerning expectations about what exactly will happen in the monetary plumbing when the Fed raises rates.

Some of it is reasonably easy to understand if you have a little knowledge of the Fed and finance. Other parts may require more knowledge to understand.

Here is my explanation of why this article is important to read, even if you don’t understand all of it in detail.

I hark back to what our <sarcasm>beloved</sarcasm> ex Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, once said.

1. There are things we know.
2. There are things we know that we don’t know.
3. And there are things that we don’t know that we don’t know

It is worthwhile to read an article that can move things from category 3 above into category 2. That is the best chance you have of ever getting them into category 1.

Politico has the article Dems: Hillary Clinton must campaign more.

Four in 10 Democratic insiders in the early states warn that Hillary Clinton is not spending enough time on the campaign trail, making her vulnerable to possible challenges from the left and dampening the enthusiasm of progressives who are already committed to her.

In all the verbiage in the article, I think Politico still leaves out a very significant issue. When you compare Hillary Clinton’s visibility on a day to day basis, she is nowhere to be seen compared to Bernie Sanders, and even Elizabeth Warren. I get plenty of material from the Sanders campaign every day to post on the Sturbridge For Bernie Sanders Facebook page. Even Elizabeth Warren, who is not running for President, issues more statements, video clips, and television interviews than Hillary Clinton.

Politico goes on to say:

One-third of GOP insiders said she’s smart to limit her appearances.

“She has no credible opponents,” said a New Hampshire Republican. “She could hibernate for the next 10 months and be totally absent from the campaign trail. And still be fine.”

I am sure that the GOP is happy to give this advice to Hillary Clinton. We in Massachusetts know how well that worked out for Martha Coakley in her run against Scott Brown for the Senate seat. She did try a little harder in her subsequent run for Governor, but she never was able to live down the image she established in her failed run for Senator.

At this stage of the campaign it is fine to be nearly invisible to the average voter who isn’t paying much attention this far ahead of the election. On the other hand, at this stage of the campaign, you need to fire up the political enthusiasts so that they will be volunteering in your campaign when the rest of the voters start paying attention.

MSNBC has at least two video segments that highlight the problem.

The first is Chris Hayes surveys crash site from helicopter.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes retraces the route of Amtrak Northeast Regional 188 from the station to the crash site.

The second video clip is Former PA governor sounds off on ‘these SOBs…’

Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell sounds off on today’s House Appropriations Committee vote to cut Amtrak funding.

So infrastructure is no joke or simply a pet project of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.