Progressives Are Not Alone — 87% of Republicans Oppose Fast Track
by Gaius Publius
(Updated; see below.)
In covering the TPP battle between President Obama and the CEO class on the one side, and most of the rest of the country on the other, I've noted that the Tea Party right is as opposed to Fast Track as the "professional" left. (My own TPP coverage is collected here.)
Now comes more evidence of that. Let's start with The Hill (h/t Dave Johnson; my emphasis throughout):
Trade vote stirs angst on the right
Trade legislation is sowing discord among Senate Republicans that
could make it tougher than expected to pass fast-track trade authority
and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
While much of the
attention in the trade fight has focused on the divide between President
Obama and liberal Democrats, Republican leaders are facing dissent
within their own caucus because of currency manipulation and immigration
concerns.
“The polling is bad, and some people are getting
nervous,” said a GOP senator who requested anonymity to talk about his
conversations with colleagues.
Senate Republicans are looking for
political cover to vote for trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation,
which would empower Obama to negotiate the TPP — a trade pact with 11
nations — that could not be amended or filibustered in Congress.
Potential
Republican “no” votes on the bill include Sens. Jeff Sessions (Ala.),
Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Richard Burr (N.C.) and Shelley Moore Capito
(W.Va.).
There are 54 Republican senators, one of whom (Richard Burr, listed above) is likely to vote No on the floor since he voted No in the Finance Committee. If all four Republicans listed above vote No and support the filibuster — where the threshold is 60 votes — the Democrats will need to find ten votes at least to pass Fast Track in the Senate. We already know there are 7 Democratic votes for Fast Track, based on their Yes votes in committee:
- Ron Wyden — Ranking Member and lead perp
- Michael Bennet — Former head of DSCC
- Maria Cantwell
- Ben Cardin
- Tom Carper
- Bill Nelson
- Mark Warner
The margins are close. The Hill:
Ten to 15 Senate Democrats are expected to vote for the fast-track
bill, which means Republican leaders can only afford to lose fewer than
10 caucus members.
“I think it’s going to be tight,” said Sen.
John Boozman (R-Ark.), who is leaning in favor of voting yes because the
farm community supports the legislation.
Republican senators say
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his leadership team
have begun to count votes, a sign that they’re not taking passage of the
measures for granted.
“It could be a problem depending on how few
Democrats vote for it. The president has to step up and work it,” said
another GOP senator, who requested anonymity to discuss his party’s whip
count.
Again, if the Republicans are down to 50 Yes votes, they'll need 10 Democrats in order to break the filibuster. If no more than 15 Democrats vote with the CEOs and the multinational corporations, Republicans can only lose another five votes:
Democratic aides say the final number of Democratic yeses is unlikely to exceed 15.
“It’s possible that more than half of the yes votes already voted for it in committee,” said a senior Democratic aide.
It's going to be tight, and pressure is building on both parties from their so-called "base":
While the trade deals are popular with the business community, they
are controversial among the conservative base in states — such as Ohio,
Illinois, Wisconsin, North Carolina and South Carolina — where
Republican incumbents are running for reelection next year.
“Why
would any Republican give President Obama more authority?” said Ed
Martin, president of Eagle Forum, a conservative advocacy group.
Let's look at the Republican opposition more closely.
87% of Republicans Oppose Fast Track
Dave Johnson, from the piece linked above:
Republicans in Congress can read polls and letters from their
constituents as well as Democrats, and they, as most Democrats already
have done, are starting to realize that it might not be wise to
rubber-stamp the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the rigged fast
track trade promotion authority process that will be used to pre-approve
it. The tea party and the right generally are starting to ramp up their
own opposition.
In support, he offers this. First, 87% of Republicans oppose Fast Track:
I noted in the recent post “A Look At The Fast Track Bill Shows It’s The Wrong Thing To Do”
that polls show that many conservatives are opposed to fast track and
the TPP, and that in Congress, “many ‘Constitution-based’ Tea Party
Republicans are opposed to it.” Those polls show
that “Republicans overwhelmingly oppose giving fast-track authority to
the president (8 percent in favor, 87 percent opposed), as do
independents (20 percent-66 percent).”
He notes that Pat Buchanan is strongly opposed, as are Tea Party "patriots." In fact, conservative advocacy groups are already starting to run ads. Huffington Post (h/t Johnson again):
Americans for Limited Government, a conservative group founded by wealthy activist Howard Rich, will begin radio ads in New Hampshire
on Thursday, calling on Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and
Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to oppose the fast-track legislation moving
through Congress. All three senators are running for the 2016 Republican
presidential nomination.
“Congress is getting ready to give Obama
more power, just when we’re getting ready to choose his replacement,”
the ad says. “If Congress gives Obama fast-track power, he’ll use it to
write more regulations for our economy -- for the entire world. Rules
that the next president won’t be able to change.”
Note that "next president" objection in the last line above. If that "next president" is Hillary Clinton, she'll have Fast Track power as well for any trade deal she wants to gin up. See what I mean by a bipartisan rejection of Fast Track? Only the money-bought want it, and I think I mean that literally.
Also, note those names listed above — Republican Sens. Cruz, Paul and Rubio. If all three decide to vote No, the Republican Yes votes fall to 47, and 13 Democratic Yes votes will be needed. Are there 13 Democratic Yes votes for Fast Track? You can help with that.
It's Going to Be Close
It's going to be both close and interesting. I personally think Ron Wyden should lose his job over his role in this, regardless of what happens. But that's for later (though you can always click here, give him a little call, and offer a little piece of your mind, especially if you vote in Oregon).
For now though, lobby your senators hard — both Democrats and Republicans. Senate phone numbers here. Call them both; you will never know until afterward who was about to fold and say No to Fast Track. This can still be won.
UPDATE: The rumors are flying. As of this printing, I'm hearing this: First, that Schumer may indeed vote No on Fast Track, just as he did in the Finance Committee (last page; pdf). If true, that would surprise me — he's been talking about adding provisions against currency manipulation, but he's almost always pro-business and pro–Wall Street. I hear, though, that he's been making group appearances in New York in which he says he's opposed to the bill. I can't verify this, but I can pass it along. (There had earlier been some press indication of that, for example here.)
Second, the Democratic whip operation is rumored (again) to think Fast Track will pass in the Senate. That means either that fewer Republicans will defect (holding the number of No votes to not much more than four), or that the number of Democratic defections (Yes votes) will be closer to 15 than 10. Or both.
Stay tuned. There is still time for changes. Whatever happens in the Senate though, it's in the House where things will get really interesting, for all the reasons noted above. The Republicans are tentatively scheduling a vote on Fast Track for late this month (May) — an indication that they may not have the votes to be more definite. (See here and look for "trade" all the way at the bottom.)
If you want to start lobbying your representative as well, go for it. House phone numbers here. Democracy in action.
(A version of this piece first appeared at Down With Tyranny. GP article archive here.)
GP
.