Most of President Clinton's support comes from Republicans, some 120 of whom (two-thirds of their total) are expected to vote for the accord. To win, he needs to get an additional 100 out of 258 House Democrats and, since the Gore- Perot debate three days ago, he says he has picked up another 27 votes.

Given the energy Mr Clinton is putting into winning the vote, it would be a serious repudiation by the Democratic Party if he fails. The administration is also asking Congress to rally round the flag by supporting Mr Clinton before he goes to the Seattle trade summit to meet leaders from China, Japan and 13 other Pacific nations.

David Bonior, the No 3 Democrat in the House who has been co- ordinating opposition to the agreement, said he believed the opponents of Nafta still had 222 votes. Emphasising the fears of American workers, he held up a Mexican government advertisement aimed at US businesmen, which said that Mexican workers in Yucatan will work for less than dollars 1 an hour, less than a quarter of the American minimum wage.

President Clinton has countered fears of job losses and US wages being depressed by competition from Mexico by saying that this process is already under way and has little to do with the agreement....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/clinton-woos-republicans-to-secure-nafta-vote-president-offers-to-support-reelection-of-all-who-help-get-trade-accord-through-us-congress-as-narrow-victory-predicted-1504425.html

The Emerging Populist Agenda
Originally published Tues May 12, 2015 by The Washington Post
Katrina vanden Heuvel



The most surprising development in our political debate isn’t the gaggle of Republican presidential contenders or the ceaseless attacks on Hillary Clinton. What is stunning is the emergence of a populist reform agenda that is driving the debate inside and outside the Democratic Party.

A range of groups and leaders are putting forward a reform agenda of increasing coherence. Today, the Roosevelt Institute will present a report by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, while New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is to release a “Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality.” These follow the Populism 2015 Platform, released in April by an alliance of grass-roots groups and the Campaign for America’s Future. Also in April, the Center for Community Change (CCC) joined with several grass-roots allies to launch Putting Families First: Good Jobs for All.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), now contending for the Democratic presidential nomination, released his Economic Agenda for America last December. And while Hillary Clinton has chosen a slow rollout of her agenda, the Center for American Progress published the report of the Commission on Inclusive Prosperity headed by former treasury secretary Larry Summers, widely seen as a marker of where Hillary might move.

Not surprisingly, these offerings differ in analysis, emphasis and specific reforms. But more striking is their scope of consensus.

All agree that our extreme inequality is not the inevitable result of globalization or technology. It is the result of policy and power. The rules have been rigged. No one reform offers an answer; broad reforms are needed.

All link growth and inequality. As Stiglitz argues, extreme inequality cripples growth, and full employment is vital to reducing inequality.

The central elements of the emerging populist agenda include:

Please read the central elements & the rest of the article here~
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/05/12/emerging-populist-agenda

TOPIC: Our Past, Our Future & Vision for America
June 14, 2006
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Take Back America
Complete Text

Thank you. Thank you Roger Hickey and Bob Borosage for bringing us all together today and thank you for your leadership in the cause of a more progressive America.

My friends, we meet here today at a time where we find ourselves at a crossroads in America's history.

It's a time where you can go to any town hall or street corner or coffee shop and hear people express the same anxiety about the future; hear them convey the same uncertainty about the direction we're headed as a country. Whether it's the war or Katrina or their health care or their jobs, you hear people say that we've finally arrived at a moment where something must change.

...Snip...No longer can we assume that a high-school education is enough to compete for a job that could easily go to a college-educated student in Bangalore or Beijing. No more can we count on employers to provide health care and pensions and job training when their bottom-lines know no borders. Never again can we expect the oceans that surround America to keep us safe from attacks on our own soil.

The world has changed. And as a result, we've seen families work harder for less and our jobs go overseas. We've seen the cost of health care and child care and gasoline skyrocket. We've seen our children leave for Iraq and terrorists threaten to finish the job they started on 9/11.

But while the world has changed around us, too often our government has stood still. Our faith has been shaken, but the people running Washington aren't willing to make us believe again.

It's the timidity - the smallness - of our politics that's holding us back right now. The idea that some problems are just too big to handle, and if you just ignore them, sooner or later, they'll go away.

That if you give a speech where you rattle off statistics about the stock market being up and orders for durable goods being on the rise, no one will notice the single mom whose two jobs won't pay the bills or the student who can't afford his college dreams.

That if you say the words "plan for victory" and point to the number of schools painted and roads paved and cell phones used in Iraq, no one will notice the nearly 2,500 flag-draped coffins that have arrived at Dover Air Force base.

Well it's time we finally said we notice, and we care, and we're not gonna settle anymore.

You know, you probably never thought you'd hear this at a Take Back America conference, but Newt Gingrich made a great point a few weeks ago. He was talking about what an awful job his own party has done governing this country, and he said that with all the mistakes and misjudgments the Republicans have made over the last six years, the slogan for the Democrats should come down to just two words:

Had enough?

I don't know about you, but I think old Newt is onto something here. Because I think we've all had enough. Enough of the broken promises. Enough of the failed leadership. Enough of the can't-do, won't-do, won't-even-try style of governance.

Four years after 9/11, I've had enough of being told that we can find the money to give Paris Hilton more tax cuts, but we can't find enough to protect our ports or our railroads or our chemical plants or our borders.

I've had enough of the closed-door deals that give billions to the HMOs when we're told that we can't do a thing for the 45 million uninsured or the millions more who can't pay their medical bills.

I've had enough of being told that we can't afford body armor for our troops and health care for our veterans and benefits for the wounded heroes who've risked their lives for this country. I've had enough of that.

I've had enough of giving billions away to the oil companies when we're told that we can't invest in the renewable energy that will create jobs and lower gas prices and finally free us from our dependence on the oil wells of Saudi Arabia.

I've had enough of our kids going to schools where the rats outnumber the computers. I've had enough of Katrina survivors living out of their cars and begging FEMA for trailers. And I've had enough of being told that all we can do about this is sit and wait and hope that the good fortune of a few trickles on down to everyone else in this country.

You know, we all remember that George Bush said in 2000 campaign that he was against nation-building. We just didn't know he was talking about this one.

Now, let me say this - I don't think that George Bush is a bad man. I think he loves his country. I don't think this administration is full of stupid people - I think there are a lot of smart folks in there. The problem isn't that their philosophy isn't working the way it's supposed to - it's that it is. It's that it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.

The reason they don't believe government has a role in solving national problems is because they think government is the problem. That we're better off if we dismantle it - if we divvy it up into individual tax breaks, hand 'em out, and encourage everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement security, your own child care, their own schools, your own private security force, your own roads, their own levees...

It's called the Ownership Society in Washington. But in our past there has been another term for it - Social Darwinism - every man or women for him or herself.

It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford - life isn't fair. It allows us to say to the child who didn't have the foresight to choose the right parents or be born in the right suburb - pick yourself up by your bootstraps. It lets us say to the guy who worked twenty or thirty years in the factory and then watched his plant move out to Mexico or China - we're sorry, but you're on your own.

It's a bracing idea. It's a tempting idea. And it's the easiest thing in the world.

But there's just one problem. It doesn't work. It ignores our history. Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity.

Americans know this. We know that government can't solve all our problems - and we don't want it to.

But we also know that there are some things we can't do on our own. We know that there are some things we do better together.

We know that we've been called in churches and mosques, synagogues and Sunday schools to love our neighbors as ourselves; to be our brother's keeper; to be our sister's keeper. That we have individual responsibility, but we also have collective responsibility to each other.

That's what America is.

And so I am eager to have this argument not just with the President, but the entire Republican Party over what this country is about.

Because I think that this is our moment to lead.

The time for our party's identity crisis is over. Don't let anyone tell you we don't know what we stand for and don't doubt it yourselves. We know who we are. And in the end, we know that it isn't enough to just say that you've had enough.

So let it be said that we are the party of opportunity. That in a global economy that's more connected and more competitive - we are the party that will guarantee every American an affordable, world-class, top-notch, life-long education - from early childhood to high school, from college to on-the-job training.

Let it be said that we are the party of affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. The party that won't make Americans choose between a health care plan that bankrupts the government and one that bankrupts families. The party that won't just throw a few tax breaks at families who can't afford their insurance, but modernizes our health care system and gives every family a chance to buy insurance at a price they can afford.

Let it be said that we are the party of an energy independent America. The party that's not bought and paid for by the oil companies. The party that will harness homegrown, alternative fuels and spur the production of fuel-efficient, hybrid cars to break our dependence on the world's most dangerous regimes.

Let it be said that we will conduct a smart foreign policy that battles the forces of terrorism and fundamentalism wherever they may exist by matching the might of our military with the power of our diplomacy and the strength of our alliances. And when we do go to war, let us always be honest with the American people about why we are there and how we will win.

And let it be said that we are the party of open, honest government that doesn't peddle the agenda of whichever lobbyist or special interest can write the biggest check. The party who believes that in this democracy, influence and access should begin and end with the power of the ballot.

If we do all this, if we can be trusted to lead, this will not be a Democratic Agenda, it will be an American agenda. Because in the end, we may be proud Democrats, but we are prouder Americans. We're tired of being divided, tired of running into ideological walls and partisan roadblocks, tired of appeals to our worst instincts and greatest fears.

Americans everywhere are desperate for leadership. They are longing for direction. And they want to believe again. A while ago, I was reading through Jonathan Kozol's new book, Shame of a Nation, which tells of his travels to underprivileged schools across America.

...Snip...

http://obamaspeeches.com/077-Take-Back-America-Obama-Speech.htm

Bill Clinton's True Legacy: Outsourcer-in-Chief
Sept 2012

...Progressives who justifiably condemn the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that resulted in deregulating banks have Clinton to blame. According to the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee, "The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton's term, is called 'a key turning point' in the march towards the financial crisis."

But the only thing worse than being a taxpayer forced to bail out reckless banks is losing your job because it's been outsourced or offshored. As Richard McCormack pointed out in the American Prospect, in the beginning of this century American companies stopped making the products Americans continued to buy, from clothing to computers.

Manufacturers never emerged from the 2001 recession, which coincided with China's entry into the World Trade Organization. Between 2001 and 2009 the U.S. lost 42,400 factories and manufacturing employment dropped to 11.7 million, a loss of 32 percent of all manufacturing jobs.

The last time fewer than 12 million people worked in the manufacturing sector was in 1941.

Clinton had the gall to accuse those who opposed China's entry into the WTO of "aligning themselves with the Chinese army and hard-liners in Beijing who do not want accession for China." Clinton claimed that the agreement that he championed "creates a win-win result for both countries," arguing that exports to China "now support hundreds of thousands of American jobs" and "these figures can grow substantially." (Clinton's press person at the Clinton Global Initiative did not respond to my requests for feedback.)

The facts contradict these assertions.

Imports of computers and electronic parts accounted for almost half of the $178 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2007 and the loss of 2.3 million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-white/bill-clintons-true-legacy_b_1852887.html

China's Entry Into The WTO 10 Years Later Is Not What President Clinton Promised
June 15, 2010

It has been 10 years since the U.S. Congress and President Bill Clinton paved the way for China to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO). Most all of the predictions from those pushing the deal at the time have proven to be wrong, according to an analysis done by Robert Lighthizer, former deputy United States Trade Representative during the Reagan administration and head of the international trade department of the Washington firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & From LLP.

Bill Clinton, the country's most ardent booster of opening trade with China, looks especially imprudent 10 years later. During a press conference on March 29, 2000, Clinton said that granting China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR), which allowed China to gain entry into the WTO, would be a great deal for America. "We do nothing," Clinton said. "They have to lower tariffs. They open up telecommunications for investment. They allow us to sell cars made in America in China at much lower tariffs. They allow us to put our own distributorships there. They allow us to put our own parts there. We don't have to transfer technology or do joint manufacturing in China any more. This a hundred-to-nothing deal for America when it comes to the economic consequences." ...

http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/10/0615/WTO.html

"Golden Country"

Golden country your face is so red
With all of your money your poor can be fed
You strut around and you flirt with disaster
Never really carin' just what comes after

Well your blacks are dyin' but your back is still turned
And your freaks are cryin' but your back is still turned
You better stop your hidin or your country will burn

The time has come for you my friend
To all this ugliness we must put an end
Before we leave we must make a stand

Mortgage people you crawl to your homes
Your security lies in your bed of white foam
You act concerned but then why turn away
When a lady was raped on your doorstep today

Well your blacks are cryin' but your back is still turned
And your freaks are dyin' but your back is still turned
You better stop your hidin or your country will burn
The time has come for you my friend
To all this ugliness we must put an end

Before we leave we must make a stand, oh yeah......

Golden country your face is so red
With all of your money your poor can be fed
You strut around and you flirt with disaster
Never really carin' just what comes after

Well your blacks are dyin' but your back is still turned
And your freaks are cryin' but your back is still turned
You better stop your hidin or your country will burn

The time has come for you my friend
To all this ugliness we must put an end
Before we leave we must make a stand

House Passes NAFTA, 234-200 : Clinton Hails Vote as Decision 'Not to Retreat' : Congress: Sometimes bitter debate over the trade pact reflects hard-fought battle among divided Democrats. Rapid approval is expected in the Senate.

November 18, 1993|JAMES GERSTENZANG and MICHAEL ROSS | TIMES STAFF WRITERS

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-18/news/mn-58150_1_trade-pact

America is about to make a horrible mistake all over again
SALON
5/8/2015

Throughout all of the media escapades, a lot of promises were made. On the signing of NAFTA, President Clinton said that the deal would create an economic order in the world that would “promote more growth, more equality, better preservation of the environment and a greater possibility of world peace.” Specific promises were also made — Clinton said that the deal would “create 200,000 jobs [in the U.S.] by 1995,” specifically “by fostering an export boom to Mexico.”

NAFTA was not a typical trade deal. There was much more to it than just cutting tariffs and quotas. This deal was more about expanding corporate privileges and safeguarding foreign investments, which in a sense makes it less about free trade, and more about hooking up big business with the ultimate corporate welfare package. NAFTA included the infamous Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision, extended patent rights for medicine, and limited regulation for certain industries.

The promises were great, but like so many political promises, they were just plain wrong. While an export boom to Mexico was predicted, the opposite happened....

...Of course, with a trade deficit came the loss of American jobs. It is estimated that NAFTA resulted in a net loss of more than 1 million U.S. jobs, while more than 5 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since its signing. Certain corporations, which had lobbied for NAFTA, also made promises that it would help them create new domestic jobs, but ended up outsourcing jobs. Johnson & Johnson, for example, promised that it would hire hundreds of U.S. workers, but instead moved jobs offshore to Mexico. Three years after NAFTA went into effect, 60 out of 67 companies that had made these sort of promises had not fulfilled them. It has also been shown that NAFTA has contributed to our growing inequality, which is unsurprising, with all of the cheap labor offshoring brought to corporations.

So, promises of job growth and equality were completely false. But what about President Clinton’s promise of “better preservation of the environment”? Well, a look at use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provision, which is set to be included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, does not give one much hope....

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/08/america_is_about_to_make_a_horrible_mistake_all_over_again/

Obama Is Selling the TPP Trade Deal Just Like Al Gore Sold NAFTA
4/29/15

One of President Barack Obama’s favorite points to make in the intra-party dispute over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement with twelve Pacific Rim nations is that his opponents rehash the same old, tired anti-globalization arguments. As Obama told the Wall Street Journal on Monday, “There has been a confluence of anti-global engagement from both elements of the right and elements of the left that I think [is] a big mistake.”

But Obama’s arguments are old and tired, too. They come from a playbook for how the last Democratic administration sold a free trade deal opposed by unions and the party base. Watch this 1993 CNN debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Vice President Al Gore and Ross Perot:



Gore:

"This Time Is Different".
Gore made a distinction between previous trade deals with Japan and China, and NAFTA, with its side agreements on labor and the environment. Critics of NAFTA “confuse the bad trade deals in the past with this one,” Gore said. “We've got a commitment for the first time in history to use trade sanctions to compel the enforcement of their environmental standards.”

This mirrors Obama’s claim about inferior prior deals—including NAFTA. “Not every trade deal has lived up to the hype,” Obama acknowledged to Vox’s Matt Yglesias. He’s even suggested that TPP, which includes Mexico and Canada as signatories, can fix NAFTA. Democrats sell these agreements by renouncing the past, in an attempt to insulate themselves from criticism about trade.

But just as NAFTA’s side agreements did not compel enforcement on Mexico’s labor and environmental laws, deals signed and administered by Obama aren’t policed strongly either, as the Government Accountability Office concluded last November. The AFL-CIO filed a legal brief this week over the lack of sanctions, under the Central American Free Trade Agreement, for the murder of 17 labor activists in Guatemala. In Colombia, where the administration negotiated an “ambitious and comprehensive” plan to protect worker’s rights, 105 trade unionists have been murdered over the last four years. Rather pathetically, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office boasted that the murder rate was lower than in previous years. And TPP rules reportedly represent a downgrade from the Colombia standards....

"Everyone Agrees With Me"...(snip)

"We’re the Good Guys"...(snip)

"They’re the Luddites"...(snip)

"Be Very Afraid"...(snip)

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121670/obamas-tpp-arguments-mimic-gores-nafta-defense