Lame Duck Sessions, the TPP, and Michael Bennet

Even though the 2016 Democratic Party platform will have a weak statement against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, I am not convinced that some of our members of Congress, particularly Senator Michael Bennet will heed their advice.  In spite of the fact that virtually every labor and environmental group opposes the deal, President Obama wholeheartedly supports it.  In fact, he’s its biggest promoter and wants its passage in order to solidify his legacy.  So do all of the Republicans who currently control both houses of Congress.  And that’s what makes me think that they will attempt to pass the TPP during a lame duck session after the election.  That way, those who are leaving Congress cannot be held accountable and those who remain will be the furthest away, in time, from their next election.  There will be plenty of time for people to forget.  In Bennet’s case, six years.

Bennet has been a supporter of TPP from the start.  And recently, he was reminded of that fact when he became the only member of the Congressional delegation from Colorado that did not receive the endorsement of the AFL-CIO.

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet issued surprise rebuke from AFL-CIO

He was also one of only thirteen Democrats in the Senate who voted with Republicans to fast track the bill by voting for the TPA.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/tpa-trade-bill-democrat-vote-tally-119331

Based on what I have seen from Sen. Bennet’s actions in the past, I have to think that he would gladly vote for passage of the TPP during a lame duck session.  I hope he has the good sense to change his position and vote NO if it does come to a vote.  But I doubt that he will unless the folks who sent him to Washington in the first place let him know where they stand.  I stand opposed to the TPP and, since the TPA rules do not allow it to be amended in any way, it should not come to a vote at any time, particularly during a lame duck session.  And if it does, Sen. Bennet needs to vote NO.

If anybody reading this post has a chance to ask Sen. Bennet whether he will vote for or against the TPP during a lame duck session, please let it be known what he says.  I would love to hear that this is a non-issue.  But in the meantime, if you have the same sneaking suspicion that I do, that Sen. Bennet will vote to pass the TPP during a lame ducks session, please take a minute to add your name to Sen. Bernie Sanders petition by following this link.

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/tpp-dnc?source=em160629-v2-full

11 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. mamajama55 says:

    Thanks, Madmike. I may have already signed the Sanders petition. I'll call Bennet. His staffers will be very polite and noncommittal, as always. From Bennet's website:

    Washington D.C. Office

    261 Russell Senate Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    Phone: 202-224-5852
    Fax: 202-228-5097

    NOTE: Mail service to our Washington, office is significantly delayed due to heightened security measures. Please send any time-sensitive correspondence via our contact form or phone.

    Denver Office

    1127 Sherman St., Suite 150
    Denver, CO 80203
    Phone: 303-455-7600
    Toll Free: 866-455-9866
    Fax: 303-455-3358

    San Luis Valley Office

    609 Main Street, Suite 110
    Alamosa, CO 81101
    Phone: 719-587-0096

  2. Voyageur says:

    The TPP is good for Colorado and good for America.  Neo-Luddite isolationism is no more valid today than it ws in the era of smoot-hawley.  Outgoing Republicans and moderate Democrats should join to pass TPP before the New Congress convenes in January.

    • BlueCat says:

      Read it. Stand by my assessment that it needs adjustments to be good for the American middle class. The pluses seem pretty lukewarm compared with the minuses cited in the article. 

  3. Voyageur says:

    The article, by intention, is neutral.  I think on balance the agreement is good for the country, though . The political problem, as always, is that the gains are diffused among three hundred million Americans while the losses are concentrated in a few well-organized special interests.   I hope to pass it in the lame duck session before, it is to be hoped, a Democratic Congress takes office.  Alas, Democrats tend to be more protectionist than Republicans.

    • BlueCat says:

      And I appreciate the neutral tone and have a different on balance view, as a result of reading this balanced article, than you do. 

      Alas, Republicans tend to be more dismissive of the price paid by the little people than most Dems are. If you haven't noticed yet, that's what's behind Bernie's rise.

      It's not "free stuff". It's more and more people who think it's about damn time we weren't written off as just an unfortunate but necessary price to be paid so the top 1% can enjoy unprecedented prosperity at our expense and the top .01% can hold all the power. 

      Well the casualties aren't going to just sit back and take it anymore. Attention will be paid or some truly unbalanced fascistic "populist" like Trump will actually win. Soon.  A banana republic economy cannot long coexist with the American way of life and government as set forth in our constitution.

      • Duke Cox says:

         

        Well the casualties aren't going to just sit back and take it anymore. Attention will be paid or some truly unbalanced fascistic "populist" like Trump will actually win. Soon.  A banana republic economy cannot long coexist with the American way of life and government as set forth in our constitution.

        Nailed it, BC…haven't heard it said better. I know some readers may tire of me referencing Naomi Kleins' "The Shock Doctrine", but she called this years ago. She said, in a nutshell, that the "Free Market Experiment" which you just described, in part, could not succeed in a true democracy. I think she was dead right… about to find out, we are.

  4. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    I've said it before, and will say again: those who oppose TPP actually are supporting Chinese economic hegemony in the western Pacific. VGER mentioned Smoot-Hawley. I wonder how many of the anti-TPPers actually know what that is (it was a protectionist law passed in 1930 to "preserve American jobs" that made the Great Depression worse and actually cost millions of jobs). Those who are not mindful of history are doomed to repeat it.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.