By Doug Porter
The political struggle over allowing the president fast track authority in negotiating a Pacific Rim trade deal is coming to a head.
A coalition of labor, environment, faith and community groups converged on the offices of Congressman Scott Peters yesterday, vowing not to leave until he committed to a position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The occupation/sit-in ended Thursday evening after the group received word via the labor council’s Richard Barrera that the Congressman had agreed to face-to-face meeting to further discuss his position on the issue.
125 Days and Counting
Photo via Nate Fairman / Facebook
The local coalition opposing the measure includes the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, the Communications Workers of America, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the California Nurses Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, 350.org and Citizens Trade and the Interfaith Center for Worker Justice.
The coalition has been communicating with Congressman Peters since January, expressing concerns the TPP will lead to the loss of American jobs and the degradation of environmental standards.
On April 23 the group staged a protest at Peters’ office. His refusal to announce a position one way or the other is frustrating for protest participants, given that many of them worked to re-elect the congressman during a highly contested 2014 campaign.
Thursday’s sit-in featured phone banking to constituents from his office, urging them to contact Peters on TPP and fast track authority.
More Protests Coming
The stop TPP campaign will be participating in the annual March Against Monsanto rally on Saturday, May 23 by the big fountain in Balboa Park.
Environmental activists, including Sierra Club San Diego, SD County Democrats for Environmental Action and Women Occupy SD are staging an anti-TPP event aimed at Rep. Peters at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at 4:30pm on Wednesday May 27th.
Next Thursday, May 28, starting at noon there will be an anti-TPP rally & sit-in at Congresswoman Susan Davis’ office (2700 Adams Ave). Once again, activists are promising to not leave the building until they hear an answer on how she will vote.
Meanwhile, in Washington DC
It is increasingly clear that this issue will be settled in the House of Representatives. The measure cleared an important hurdle in the Senate following an intensive lobbying effort by the Obama administration.
From the Washington Post:
On a vote of 62 to 38, the measure for fast-track authority received just enough Democratic support to keep it moving, following a last-ditch lobbying effort by Obama and his top advisers. The fate of the legislation, known as the Trade Promotion Authority, hung in the balance for more than 30 minutes during the vote.
In unusually dramatic fashion, more than a dozen senators from both parties negotiated the last details of the legislation and side issues, trading paper amid long conversations that moved throughout the Senate. At one point during the vote, according to a senator and senior aides, Obama made one more phone call to make a final pitch to Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a linchpin in securing the last votes needed for the victory, who was huddling with other Democrats in the cloakroom just off the Senate floor.
Krugman Opposes TPP
Saying “[t]he selling of the 12-nation Pacific Rim pact has the feel of a snow job,” the New York Times’ Paul Krugman came out against the TPP in his Friday column.
The Nobel prize winning economist has generally been one of the administration’s biggest supporters.
As I see it, the big problem here is one of trust.
International economic agreements are, inevitably, complex, and you don’t want to find out at the last minute — just before an up-or-down, all-or-nothing vote — that a lot of bad stuff has been incorporated into the text. So you want reassurance that the people negotiating the deal are listening to valid concerns, that they are serving the national interest rather than the interests of well-connected corporations.
Instead of addressing real concerns, however, the Obama administration has been dismissive, trying to portray skeptics as uninformed hacks who don’t understand the virtues of trade. But they’re not: the skeptics have on balance been more right than wrong about issues like dispute settlement, and the only really hackish economics I’ve seen in this debate is coming from supporters of the trade pact.
It’s really disappointing and disheartening to see this kind of thing from a White House that has, as I said, been quite forthright on other issues. And the fact that the administration evidently doesn’t feel that it can make an honest case for the Trans-Pacific Partnership suggests that this isn’t a deal we should support.
Oh, Happy Days. Maybe
UT San Diego is now (once again) the San Diego Union-Tribune. The buyout deal with the Los Angeles Times was completed on Thursday.
Via Twitter
A new COO for the paper has been named; other than Papa Doug leaving the building, nothing else has changed for the time being.When it comes to the editorial department, history is still being re-written at the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Today’s paper features an editorial blathering about how great it was that a compromise on the One Paseo deal was reached. The Barrio Logan Community Plan and the minimum wage referendum are mentioned as examples of where “people of goodwill on both sides have sought reasonable compromises, but none were achieved.”
Really? How can they have forgotten the compromise on Barrio Logan negotiated by Councilman Alvarez and rejected after the fact? Or do they really not remember Todd Gloria all but begging the Chamber to come to the table on the minimum wage?
One thing is for sure: never has there been a media acquisition greeted with such enthusiasm by journalists facing possible layoffs. (as the company seeks to implement joint operating efficiencies.)
As Dave Roberts’ World Turns…
The soap opera at the county building continued yesterday.
Supervisor Dave Roberts’ recently acquired damage control specialist, also known as Gary Gartner, told the assembled media at the county building on Thursday that allegations of misconduct were “false, defamatory, and will be refuted.”
Pages of documents were distributed, along with a statement from an employee alleged to be having an inappropriate relationship with the supervisor saying “Let me be perfectly clear about this, I am a heterosexual male.”
And then.. this…via NBC7 News:
A second unhappy, former county employee has filed a claim against San Diego County, alleging Supervisor Dave Roberts misappropriated county funds and county officials failed to protect her as a whistleblower.
Glynnis Vaughan, whose resignation led to a series of stories by NBC7 Investigates, said she is owed $475,000 for her treatment while working for Roberts. Her attorney Lynne Lasry filed the claim late Thursday evening.
Here’s the closing on the Union-Tribune story:
So far Roberts hasn’t publicly addressed the allegations.
“Very soon he will be speaking to the media, because he would like to,” Gartner said.
Vaughn claim references the supervisors’ grant program, along with a claim of gender discrimination.
FAST FACT: Did you know that if a Supervisor resigns, the governor appoints a replacement to fill the remainder of the term? That would be very be interesting. (I got some bad info. Sorry about that.)
NEW FAST FACT: In 1982 the voters of San Diego County approved a change to the charter allowing the sitting board of supervisors to appoint a successor or call for a special election.
Grand Jury Report on SDUSD Doesn’t Name Names (But I Do)
An inquiry by the San Diego County Grand Jury into allegations of misconduct by a school board trustee concludes that yes, there was misconduct, but since there were no actual rules about the acts involved, not much can be done.
And this report was sanitized: all names were excluded.
Here’s the meat and potatoes from that report:
The 2014/2015 San Diego County Grand Jury found the San Diego Unified School District Board of Trustees Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest Policy and Board Governance Manual are not sufficient to prevent Trustees from exerting undue influence in matters involving a particular school within their district.
I wrote about the incidents triggering this investigation last July.
(I was not a disinterested observer; my daughter graduated from the high school in question in 2014). Here’s a snip from the story:
Mitzi Lizarraga ran San Diego Unified’s School for the Creative and Performing Arts (SCPA) for seven years. Test scores improved, the school was named one of the best in the country repeatedly over the past 4 years and students were sought after by prestigious colleges and universities.
On Tuesday, June 10th, two days before graduation this year, she was gone. Students and staff were told Ms. Lizarraga was attending to an urgent and personal matter. “Interim” Principal Dr. Jenna Pesavento would be tasked with handing out diplomas to departing seniors…
…In the weeks following her disappearance from the school, parents have come to believe that Trustee [Marnie] Foster’s interventions with Principal Lizarraga on behalf of her son were the primary reason for her sudden departure.
Ms Lizarraga is now principal at the Los Angeles County High School for the Arts (LACHSA).
Back to the Grand Jury report:
Witnesses reported that in the matter of the Common Application School Report (CASR) certain conduct was of concern because the CASR for a particular student (the child of a trustee) may have been modified without justification. The CASR is relied upon by colleges and universities to evaluate whether a student should be admitted for study. It is confidential and is not to be distributed to unauthorized persons. It was reported that the CASR was improperly released to the parent/trustee and was subsequently superseded by a second CASR, created by a different staff member. The Grand Jury was not able to find a single other instance that resulted in a new CASR based upon a complaint by a parent or trustee. But the Grand Jury was able to determine that two different CASRs were created for the student in question.
There’s more to this story, including other allegations of misconduct and inappropriate interventions. But I guess it’s just like beating a dead horse at this point.
So the school lost a great principal. Business as usual in San Diego.
Mugging a City, for Fun and Profit
Reacting to the reporting on the proposed football stadium (and its potential $1 billion cost to taxpayers) here’s a snip from Bloomberg View:
Keep in mind that the city of San Diego has basically offered to fork over a billion dollars to the Chargers and that’s still not enough. The league isn’t even subtle about it: After the CSAG revealed its plan, reports came down that NFL officials felt it requires “too much team money.”
This is basically billionaire-owner speak for, “This is a stick-up.” And time and again, cities fail to learn from their mistakes and approach their teams with their hands up, begging them to take the money and not run.
On This Day: 1909 – While white locomotive firemen on the Georgia Railroad strike, blacks hired as replacements were whipped and stoned—not by the union men, but by white citizens outraged that blacks are being hired over whites. The Engineers union threatened to stop work because their members are being affected by the violence. 1955 – A scheduled dance to be headlined by Fats Domino was canceled by police in Bridgeport, Connecticut because “rock and roll dances might be featured.” 2002 – In Birmingham, AL, a jury convicted former Ku Klux Klansman Bobby Frank Cherry of murder in the 1963 church bombing that killed four girls.
Did you enjoy this article? Subscribe to “The Starting Line” and get an email every time a new article in this series is posted!
I read the Daily Fishwrap(s) so you don’t have to… Catch “the Starting Line” Monday thru Friday right here at San Diego Free Press (dot) org. Send your hate mail and ideas to DougPorter@SanDiegoFreePress.Org Check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
San Diego vs. Monsanto – Protest March on Sat., City and Port Sue for Polluting Bay, and Chipotle Bans GMOs see http://obrag.org/?p=95163#.VV-FsVKulX8
1) On Peters: it’s simple- follow the money. Who is giving to him (besides his family)? Who is he meeting with (clearly not the people visiting his office the last few months)? Who is hosting “meet and greets” and dinners and receptions for him, back in the safety of distant DC?
Ask for those scheduled events that have already taken place- ask for his calendar, no security risk there. If they won’t produce them: read betwen the lines. (They dont want you to know who he is spending his time with.)
Then compare his FEC reports to his votes. Look who has contributed to Peters’ campaign, how he has voted on similar issues, and connect the dots for his TPP vote. (note: prepare to be disappointed… but at least not suprised)
2) On Roberts: a San Diego Supervisor resigning? Factoid- this has been the ONLY way Supes have changed in San Diego in more than 20 years.
Last time was in 1994: Sup. Brian Bilbray was elected to Congress, Supes appointed Greg Cox as his successor, and he’s been there ever since- along with all his other colleagues, until Slater-Price chose not to run in 2012.
So if Roberts can’t hold out til 2016, Dems are in very big trouble: an appointee would likely be Republican, made by Republicans, and most likely to be elected in the next election running as an incumbent…
3) Finally: when will the San Diego Dem Party stop focussing on electing tried (and failed) models of safe moderatism, who nearly always disappoint, and instead recruit, develop and support some new and inspiring candidates who are not white, wealthy and male? Hello? Anyone?…
Deja vu…. all over again! I remember a little over 20 years ago, in a phone call to Susan Davis’s office, being told that Ms Davis hadn’t yet made up her mind on the Fast Tracking of NAFTA. I was told that.. within minutes of her casting her vote IN FAVOR (and having it pass by ONE VOTE!) These candidate do not hesitate to beg for money and support and then ignore it all when it comes time to vote! Ignore us all… except for their corporate puppeteers. Progressive’s worked their tails off for Peters and now “we” consider it a WIN if he’ll spend a few minutes talking to us. SHAME ON HIM! He and many like him are why I’m no longer a Democrat (after more than 40 years).
Peters’ and Davis’ refusal to “commit” is their obvious obfuscation of how they intend to vote on fast-track: hint-it begins with y. I’ve sent numerous emails to Davis regarding fast-track and other issues. I’ve received numerous courteous template replies, others composed by ambitious young interns and staff. But I have never received a response to any of my correspondence about fast-track or TPP. However, I once participated in an earlier TPP sit-in at her local office during a Congressional recess. She came out smiling from her back office to talk to us. When I asked her a question it was clear she was trying to persuade us that TPP was a good deal. Ah, modern Chinese diplomacy at its finest. When I mentioned the word primary to fellow participants afterward, they looked at me as though I were on a temporary release from a local mental health facility.
Fast-track and TPP begs larger questions; Is TPP/Fast-track the final straw in the brewing conflict between moderates and progressives in the Democratic party? If so, are progressives willing to risk losing Democratic seats to current McCarthy style GOP candidates due to possible primary challenges or “opting out”? Are we willing risk vital programs like Social Security and Medicare to the social Darwinist policies of the GOP as an expense of our internal party conflicts?
I believe a large part of the problem is that moderates have the solid wall of corporate financial support. That support determines how they vote. Protests, email and phone call campaigns can only be effective lobbying tools against the corporate lobby machine if they are done in very large numbers and en masse. To date, progressives have NOT achieved this on any number of significant issues. I think that’s due to a feeling of lack of efficacy against the corporate machine but also frustrated indolence. There was a grand total of 12 people at the sit-in I went to at Davis’ office. A nationwide anti-TPA petition I signed with a goal of merely 10K signatures had just over 5k by the time the Senate voted. Progressives can never hope to “achieve progress” on single issues nor regain their traditional capital influence and power in the Democratic party unless they get off their proverbial asses, in large numbers; sign petitions, share them, make calls, go to meetings, protests, sit-ins, follow Senate and House hearings, proceedings and votes, network with unions and other progressive organizations, knock on doors, MOBILIZE and BROADCAST. I also suggest deserting the party only cedes power to the centralized power of our current cleverly cloaked two-party system of corporate supported Democratic moderates and GOP Duggar style zealots backed by a cabal of twisted billionaires.
You make a good point about progressive willing to take a risk. A risk of losing everything we hold dear. Up until 2008 I would have said “no” and continued to choose the lesser “evil”.. You are absolutely right about the financial unpinning’s in our corrupt system! Candidates, even reasonably good candidates say that they can’t win unless they can raise money. For every dollar that’s raised from working Joe and Jill, a thousand, a hundred thousand, is raised from a person riding Joe and Jill’s back.
Many decades ago voters were left with a choice of Barry Goldwater or LBJ. I’ll never forget people that I knew in the streets against the Viet Nam War with JBJ buttons on. If you don’t vote for Candidate “A”, B” will get elected and he/she IS SO MUCH WORSE! Many of us vote more out of fear than we do out of knowledge.
2008 cured me of that! Barack Obama, a black “liberal” only won the White House because he followed GW Bush, the heretofore worse President in our history. Obama campaigned as a progressive, a liberal, only because the country was in the shadow of the “conservative” GW Bush.
What does this mean????? It means that sometimes the worse “evil” winning assures that the greater good wins next time. Money changes the equation in many regards. Money helped knit a great sheepskin for Barack Obama but if we do it enough, maybe we’ll get it right?
If voters world only spend a fraction of the time studying candidates and from where they get their money, as they do watching TV… Who knows?
I’m a natural optimist. I think that one reason campaigns are spending more and more money is because voters are believing less and less of what they say. We may be on the verge of imploding.
In any case, I am NO LONGER voting for the lesser evil. I’m voting for the best candidate and if evil wins, hopefully we survive long enough to triumph. Our two party system and the money that owns it works against this and us.
How will members of the House of (Bought & Paid For) Reps vote on TPP? Likely, very much like their friends in the Senate.
From a friend’s analysis:
“Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:
“Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes.The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters. The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.”
More at: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp