Court: Corporations May Be People, But 'Judges Are Not Politicians'

i

David Barrows, of Washington, D.C., waves a flag with corporate logos and fake money during a rally against money in politics outside the Supreme Court in 2013. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

David Barrows, of Washington, D.C., waves a flag with corporate logos and fake money during a rally against money in politics outside the Supreme Court in 2013.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

If there's one thing that today's Supreme Court doesn't like, it's governmental overreach in regulating political money.

But if there's something the court likes even less, it's the increasing prominence of money in electing America's judges. That's how five justices came to uphold a rule in Florida that prevents judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign cash.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's four liberals in rejecting an appeal by Lanell Williams-Yulee, a lawyer who, in 2009, ran for a county court seat in Hillsborough County. Yulee mailed voters a personal letter asking for money; she also posted it online.

The ruling affects the 39 states that elect judges – and it surprised many observers.

Law

Should Judicial Candidates Be Allowed To Solicit Campaign Money?

The Roberts court hasn't been reluctant to strike down money limits in elections for other offices. But the opinion in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar finds that "Judges are not politicians."

The opinion allows states to limit the free speech of judicial candidates, due to a "compelling interest in judicial integrity." It finds a "regrettable but unavoidable appearance that judges who personally ask for money may diminish their integrity." And it reiterates previous findings that while the executive and legislative branches have their own spheres of influence, the judicial branch has only its reputation.

That reputation has been tarnished in recent years by the big money moving into judicial elections. Last year, nearly $300,000 flowed through a Washington-based group, in a bid to unseat the incumbent in a Missouri county court. (It failed.)

Recent trends show the limits of the Yulee decision. Six- and seven-figure sums go into independent expenditures. In the Missouri race, for example, the challenger received $100,000, but an outside group got nearly twice as much for attack ads and mailers.

Critics of big money in politics celebrated the decision. "Pragmatic" is how Matthew Menendez, of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, described it. "The majority looks at elections as they really happen, and what people really think about them," he said, comparing it to "the very theoretical approach taken in Citizens United and McCutcheon."

Citizens United is the 2010 case in which the court allowed corporations and unions to finance messages explicitly supporting or attacking candidates. The court majority said these "independent expenditures" wouldn't be corrupting because they would not be coordinated with candidates, while "the appearance of influence or access... will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy." Since then, Super PACs and their billionaire donors have amassed significant political power.

McCutcheon, decided a year ago, eliminated an aggregate limit on how much a single donor could give to candidates in one election. It dismissed the real-world political impact, for example, of giving a congressional leader a large sum, to be distributed to lawmakers of the leader's choosing.

The Yulee opinion stops short of cutting off all contact between judicial candidates and donors. A candidate can still write thank-you notes.

Read More

It's Sotomayor V. Roberts In Supreme Court Death Penalty Drama

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor grilled lawyers arguing the constitutionality of new lethal-injection cocktails. Win McNamee/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption Win McNamee/Getty Images

Lethal injection was the grim subject before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday. Specifically at issue: whether the drug combinations currently used to execute convicted murderers in some states are unconstitutionally cruel.

The issue comes to the court after three botched executions over the last year.

In 2008, the high court upheld the use of a three-drug cocktail used by most states to administer the death penalty. The first drug, sodium thiopental, is an anesthetic used to put the prisoner in a deep coma-like state. The second and third drugs paralyze and then kill the prisoner.

The problem for death penalty states is that the key drug used to anesthetize the inmate is no longer available in most places. Drug manufacturers and pharmacists have refused on ethical grounds to provide it for executions. The result is that states have tried other drugs. The most prominent is a drug called midazolam, which has been used in 15 executions.

i

Chief Justice John Roberts (R) and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor exit the front entrance of the Supreme Court building following Sotomayor's investiture ceremony in 2009. Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts (R) and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor exit the front entrance of the Supreme Court building following Sotomayor's investiture ceremony in 2009.

Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

Inside the courtroom there were two dramas: One was the dispute over the death penalty, and how far states must go to impose it humanely. And second was a clash between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and lawyers for the state of Oklahoma, a clash so pronounced that Chief Justice John Roberts, without much subtlety, chastised Sotomayor for talking too much, at the expense of the lawyers' time.

Lawyer Konrad opened arguments, telling the justices that midazolam is not a barbiturate. It's not a drug that renders people insensate and keeps them in a deeply unconscious state, she said. Moreover, she asserted that it has a ceiling effect, meaning that no matter how much of it you give, the drug's effect levels off.

"Let's be honest about what's going on here," Justice Samuel Alito interjected. "This court has held that the death penalty is constitutional."

In view of that, Alito asked, "Is it appropriate for the judiciary to countenance what amounts to a guerrilla war against the death penalty, which consists of efforts to make it impossible for the states to obtain drugs that could be used to carry out capital punishment with little, if any, pain?"

Justice Antonin Scalia echoed that sentiment, saying that the best anesthetics to use in executions have been rendered unavailable by the "abolitionist movement putting pressure on" the drug manufacturers.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote could be critical in the case, asked just one question: Is it relevant that the preferred drugs are not available because of opposition to the death penalty?

Lawyer Konrad said it should have no relevance.

Justice Sotomayor interrupted, noting that there are other, painless ways of executing individuals. "It doesn't have to be a drug protocol," she said.

"I know that you'll get up and argue that those other ways are not constitutional either," Sotomayor added. "But the little bit of research I've done has shown that the reason people don't use the other methods [is] because it offends them to look at them."

Chief Justice Roberts, however, said his understanding is that states have moved to lethal injection as a "more humane" method of execution than "hanging, firing squad, electric chair," and the gas chamber.

"You're not suggesting that those other methods are preferable ... are you?" Roberts asked.

Konrad replied that death by gas chamber would appear to be painless but has been discarded because of its associations with the Holocaust.

After Konrad sat down, Oklahoma Solicitor General Patrick Wyrick rose to argue that midazolam, administered at high doses, protects the prisoner from feeling pain.

Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg all disputed the evidence of that presented in the courts below. They pointed to testimony from the state's own expert witness, noting that it was not only "wrong," but that the state had conceded as much.

Breyer said there was "zero" actual data cited by the witness for his conclusions. Kagan called the reasoning of the district court judge "gobbledygook." But it was Justice Sotomayor who openly dismissed Oklahoma's evidence as untrustworthy.

Addressing the state's lawyer, she said, "I am substantially disturbed that in your brief you made factual statements that were not supported by the cited ... sources and, in fact, directly contradicted [by those sources]."

Sotomayor then proceeded to lecture him, chapter and verse, with examples — so much so that when Wyrick's time had expired, Chief Justice Roberts said to the lawyer, "to an extent that's unusual even in this court, you have been listening rather than talking. And so I'm happy to give you an extra five minutes, if you'd like."

And he liked.

Read More

Japan's Abe Pushes The Pacific Trade Deal Onto Center Stage

i

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe speaks during a joint press conference at the White House with President Obama on Tuesday. Abe is urging U.S. lawmakers to approve a trans-Pacific trade deal. Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe speaks during a joint press conference at the White House with President Obama on Tuesday. Abe is urging U.S. lawmakers to approve a trans-Pacific trade deal.

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

President Obama's plan for creating a Pacific Rim trade zone has been hovering in the wings, waiting for the right moment to demand attention.

On Wednesday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pushed it out on to center stage during a dramatic joint meeting of the U.S. House and Senate. He urged Congress to approve the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP.

"We must take the lead to build a market that is fair, dynamic, sustainable," he said. "The TPP covers an area that accounts for 40 percent of the world economy and one-third of global trade. We must turn the area into a region for lasting peace and prosperity."

Whether Abe's words swayed many lawmakers is not yet clear. But his personal lobbying did turn up the political heat. Abe wants Congress to approve the proposed trading partnership among 12 nations, including the United States and Japan.

This year began with Obama talking up the benefits of such a trade deal. But to get TPP written, he first wants Congress to renew his expired power to negotiate trade deals on behalf of the country. Once negotiated, such pacts can then be presented to Congress on a for simple approval, with no amendments.

It's All Politics

Obama Confident In Asia Trade Pact, But Track Record For Deals Is Spotty

It's All Politics

Union Head Presses Candidates, Clinton On Trade

Business

Obama, Unions On Opposite Sides Of The (Fast) Track For Trade Deals

Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican who chairs the Senate Finance Committee, said Obama is right to push for this negotiating power, more formally known as Trade Promotion Authority. Speaking at a Politico-sponsored event Wednesday, Hatch said that without it, other countries would be leery about negotiating.

He said New Zealand officials told him they need assurance that a completed deal could not be changed at the last minute by congressional amendments. Offering a "fast-track" to passage would be "very critical" to getting all trading partners on board, Hatch said.

Last week, Hatch's committee approved bipartisan trade-promotion legislation on a 20-6 vote. The House Ways and Means Committee also voted last week, 25-13 in favor.

So now here's the White House's to-do list:

1) Get the full House and Senate to approve the trade-promotion bill in coming weeks.

2) Wrap up negotiations with Japan and the other TPP countries.

3) Persuade Congress to approve the trade partnership in coming months.

But how likely is Congress to follow those steps?

Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Mich., was at the same event as Hatch, and he said most Democratic lawmakers are still not on the same page with Obama. "We're not there," Levin said. "Trade has been one of the reasons for middle-income stagnation."

Unions have been working extremely hard to block both "fast-track" renewal and TPP, saying they are not in the best interests of workers, whose wages have stalled as global competition has risen.

This week, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka warned presidential candidates that unions will not support anyone who favors the White House trade agenda. "The labor movement opposes fast track," he said. "And we expect those who seek to lead our nation forward to oppose fast track, as well. There's no middle ground, and the time for deliberations is drawing to a close."

Read More

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Remarks Show Outdated Definition Of Parents

Audio for this story from All Things Considered will be available at approximately 7:00 p.m. ET.

NPR's Robert Siegel interviews Joanna L. Grossman, professor of family law at Hofstra University, who says the arguments on gay marriage shed light on outdated ideas about family formation.

Read More

Baltimore City Council President: 'I Don't Condone' Rioting, Looting

Audio for this story from All Things Considered will be available at approximately 7:00 p.m. ET.

NPR's Melissa Block speaks to Bernard C. "Jack" Young, Baltimore City Council president, about his response to the violence this week and what the city can do to address underlying issues.

Read More

In speech to Congress, Japan’s Abe outlines more assertive role for nation

By David Nakamura April 29 at 11:26 AM

President Barack Obama talks with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during a state arrival ceremony for the prime minister, Tuesday, April 28, 2015, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe hailed a new chapter in Japan's alliance with the United States on Wednesday as he sketched out his vision for a more robust role for his nation in the security and prosperity of Asia.

In a historic address to a joint meeting on Congress, Abe was set to tell U.S. lawmakers that Japan is "resolved to take yet more responsibility for the peace and stability in the world," according to prepared remarks distributed to reporters.

The address was afforded the pomp and circumstance befitting the United States' closest ally in Asia. Members of President Obama's cabinet and U.S. Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy sat in the front row, and Abe entered to a standing ovation from lawmakers.

[Opinion: Abe’s quest to revive Japan]

Abe's wife, Akie, was in the gallery, and the prime minister warmly recalled his student days when he spent time living in California.

Abe's appearance in Washington this week is being closely watched back in Asia for signs of how the prime minister, who has pushed Japan toward a more active role on the world stage, envisions his country's resurgence in the face of China's rising influence. The two powers have sought to build stronger economic ties, but they also have clashed in a series of maritime disputes, along with other countries in the region.

In his remarks to Congress, Abe planned to emphasize Japan's long alliance with the United States, and he intended to highlight new partnerships, including a multilateral trade deal that includes the United States. Obama has made the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) one of his top legislative priorities despite intense opposition from many Democrats.

[Obama shifts his pitch for the Trans-Pacific Partnership]

The United States and Japan have not agreed on a handful of critical areas in the trade talks, including on agriculture and automobiles. But Abe hoped to use his address to help prod his own parliament to support reforms that would pave the way for an agreement next month.

"The TPP goes far beyond just economic benefit," Abe planned to say. "It is also about our security. Long-term, it's strategic value is awesome. We should never forget that."

Abe's visit to Washington came 70 years after the end of World War II, and he has been trying to emphasize that Japan intends to pursue a peaceful role in world affairs, even as it becomes more assertive. In visits to the World War II Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial and the Holocaust Museum, Abe sought to pay respects to history and the atrocities of war but also to symbolize that nation's can overcome the destruction.

Protesters demonstrate outside the U.S. Capitol ahead of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's speech to a joint meeting of Congress, calling on him to apologize for the country's World War II use of "comfort women" that forced women and girls into sexual slavery in Korea and China. (Photo courtesy of Annabel Park)

Yet on the issue of Japan's wartime use of "comfort women" forced into sexual slavery in Korea and China, Abe planned to speak only obliquely to the issue in his speech to Congress. South Korean diplomats in Washington had lobbied the White House and members of Congress to demand that Abe issue a direct apology for Japan's role.

[Japan’s wartime past still a volatile issue as prime minister visits Obama]

In his prepared remarks, Abe planned to say: "Armed conflicts have always made women suffer the most. In our age, we must realize the kind of world where finally women are free from human rights abuses."

David Nakamura covers the White House. He has previously covered sports, education and city government and reported from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Japan.

Continue reading

Read More

Hillary Clinton calls for overhaul of crime policies put in place under Bill Clinton

Tough-on-crime policies that emphasized arrests and convictions for relatively minor offenses have failed the country, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday, leading to overcrowded prisons and too many black men "missing" from their families and communities.

"We need to restore balance to our criminal justice system," Clinton told an audience at Columbia University in New York.

Calling for an "end to the era of mass incarceration," Clinton endorsed body cameras for police nationwide to record interactions between officers and potential suspects. Making her most specific policy proposals since launching her campaign earlier this month, Clinton said it's time for a nationwide overhaul of what she called misguided and failed policing and prison strategies.

In effect, she was saying that policies put in place when her husband Bill Clinton was president have not worked. Clinton did not mention her husband or identify exactly which laws and sentencing policies she thought had gone wrong. But many of those policies grew out of the crackdown on drug crimes and other nonviolent offenses that took place before and during Bill Clinton's presidency 20 years ago.

There is an emerging bipartisan consensus that the current system isn't working, Clinton said. Much of her speech dealt with the deaths of black men after interactions with police, and the protests that turned violent in Baltimore this week.

She listed some of those men, including Freddie Gray, whose death in police custody set off the Baltimore rioting.

"Not only as a mother and grandmother, but as a citizen, as a human being, my heart breaks for these young men and their families," Clinton said. "We have to come to some hard truths about race and justice in America."

She reeled off statistics about what she called the disproportionate arrest and incarceration rates for black men and what she called the broader economic and educational inequality of poor and minority communities.

"We need smart strategies to fight crime that help restore trust between law enforcement and our communities, especially communities of color," she added.

Anne Gearan is a national politics correspondent for The Washington Post.

Read More

The Fix: The new GDP number is unexpectedly low. It’s far too early to read much into it (politically).

By Philip Bump April 29 at 10:54 AM

Estimates of gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the first quarter came in at a lower-than-expected 0.2 percent, according to the Commerce Department. Given American politics, it's a safe bet that this will be used to hammer the Obama administration.

That's premature -- and the low figure probably won't end up doing much to hurt President Obama's approval rating at all, in fact.

There are pretty straightforward reasons for this.

The estimate will be revised

It's almost never the case that the initial figure released by the Commerce Department matches the figure after revisions. Since 2008, the initial estimate has always been revised, upward by 0.2 percent on average since 2012.

The biggest recent change was in the first quarter of last year, when an initial 0.1 percent estimate ended up being revised all the way down to -2.1 percent.

First-quarter estimates have been out of line with the rest of the year recently

The New York Times' Upshot blog pointed out that even after revisions, first-quarter estimates have drifted away from quarterly growth for the rest of the year since 2010 -- with first quarter growth being slower.

"Part of the problem may be that data for the first quarter are typically more variable than other quarters," writes Justin Wolfers, "and it is harder to accurately adjust highly variable numbers. Moreover, estimates of the economic growth rate in the first quarter have generally been revised downward over recent years."

GDP is only loosely linked to presidential approval.

Quarterly GDP growth or decline reflects real economic activity, of course. But it doesn't sync tightly with economic confidence, as measured by Gallup -- or with presidential approval, which itself has become decoupled with economic confidence recently.

Confidence has gone up fairly steadily, even at times that the GDP has declined. Obama's approval has dropped since the 2012 election, ticking upward again recently. His approval, as we have noted in the past, is often linked to how independents feel about him; Democrats love him and Republicans hate him and neither is budging much.

We made a graph earlier this year that showed how those who disapprove of Obama are less likely to say the economy is doing well.

[Why the Obama economy could benefit Hillary Clinton]

Politics is separate from reality in another way, too. You'll certainly see hand-wringing from the president's opponents about the slow growth and his policies and so on. It's too soon to make that argument. And it probably won't damage Obama's standing anyway.

Philip Bump writes about politics for The Fix. He is based in New York City.

Continue reading

Read More

Federal Eye: ‘Breakthrough’ bill on punishing retaliators against VA whistleblowers could backfire

David Tharp, a Department of Veterans Affairs psychologist, says he was so distraught by retaliation he suffered as an agency whistleblower that he went to war for relief.

After his complaints about research deception and other corruption at a VA facility in Waco, Tex., “the pressure of hostilities was so intense, my wife and I decided my only options were to quit the VA or deploy to a war zone,” said Tharp, who also is a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve. “At least in Kandahar, Afghanistan, I knew who my enemy was. At the VA, I come back, and it’s been a minefield ever since — and continues.”

Tharp’s story is another in a long list from VA whistleblowers who suffered management reprisals after exposing agency problems.

“Incredibly, even as the department has reached legal settlements with whistleblowers who endured retaliation, those who retaliated against them have gone unpunished,” said a statement from the office of Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

He wants to change that with legislation that could set a precedent for the rest of government. If his legislation becomes law, it could be a breakthrough in providing protections for whistleblowers.

But it also could backfire.

Joe Davidson writes the Federal Diary, a column about the federal workplace that celebrated its 80th birthday in November 2012.

Read More

What Do Millennials Want?

i

Young women celebrate election results come in 2012. AFP/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption AFP/AFP/Getty Images

Young women celebrate election results come in 2012.

AFP/AFP/Getty Images

We know all the stereotypes about millennials and politics: they aren't engaged, don't vote, and are distrustful of Washington. But we also see another side to the generation — they care about issues like criminal justice, the economy and same-sex marriage.

A new poll of millennials from Harvard's Institute of Politics (which surveyed young Americans 18-29 years old) finds some truth to those notions, and some surprises. Here are five things we learned:

1) They don't feel politically engaged

Asked if they consider themselves to be "politically engaged or politically active" a whopping 79 percent of young Americans answered no.

2) But, they vote

Nearly 70 percent of respondents said they are registered to vote. And 60 percent said they voted in the 2012 election. That count is self-reported though, and the actual number of people 18-29 who voted is actually lower — around 50 percent, according to 2012 exit polls.

Still, that turnout is higher than their Generation X predecessors, which was around 40 percent.

3) Half don't have confidence in the judicial system

When asked how confident they are in the judicial system's "ability to fairly judge people without bias for race and ethnicity," 49 percent answered that they have "not much" or "no" confidence. Respondents were also split on their support of protests following police killings of black men in Ferguson, Mo. and New York. (the survey was conducted before recent protests in Baltimore). Eighty percent support requiring police to wear body cameras.

4) They like Ben Carson

The doctor from Detroit is not talked about as a front runner, but among likely or declared Republican presidential candidates, Carson tops the list in this poll — though not by much. Ten percent of respondents favored Carson for the GOP ticket. A close second is Sen. Rand Paul at 8 percent followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 7 percent. (The margin of error makes all four virtually equal).

Among likely Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton was by far the favorite.

And, though a majority favor a Democrat winning the White House in 2016, 27 percent of respondents consider themselves neither liberal nor conservative.

5) They trust the military and Supreme Court more than Congress or the president

Millenials are distrustful of institutions like Congress and the federal government — only 17 percent and 25 percent, respectively, say they trust those entities. But the numbers are higher for the military (53 percent) and Supreme Court (42 percent). Overall, they are less trusting of major federal and international institutions than they were five years ago.

Editor's Note: The interviewing period for this survey of N=3,034 18-29-year-olds was March 18 to April 1, 2015. The margin of error for the poll is
+/- 2.4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.

Read More

Fact Checker: DeLauro’s claim that the Trans Pacific free trade deal would spur a ‘flood’ of frozen shrimp

By Glenn Kessler April 29 at 10:00 AM

(Photograph by Jeffrey MacMillan)

“This [Consumer Reports] study underlines how harmful it would be to proceed with the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal without addressing food safety. TPP would cause real threats to our health by making it even easier for unsafe seafood to reach our markets. With more imports flooding in from Vietnam and Malyasia, it would become harder for the FDA’s inspectors to do their jobs.”

– Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), statement issued on Consumer Reports Frozen Shrimp study, April 24, 2015

A report by Consumer Reports magazine on bacteria and antibiotics found in frozen shrimp — 94 percent of which is imported in the United States — prompted Rep. DeLauro to issue a statement warning of “more imports flooding in from Vietnam and Malaysia” because of the pending 12-nation Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal will make it harder for Food and Drug Administrators to do their jobs.

DeLauro is a fierce opponent of giving President Obama enhanced trade negotiating authority to complete the deal. As the statement noted, DeLauro is the former chairman (and still a member) of the Appropriations Committee panel overseeing the FDA, where presumably she has been in a position to enhance funding for seafood inspections.  Her statement said that the FDA currently does not have the resources to inspect more than one percent of frozen shrimp imports.

Consumer Reports said that 83 percent of the shrimp from Bangladesh had bacteria, followed by India (74 percent), Indonesia (69 percent), Ecuador (61 percent), Vietnam (58 percent), Thailand (42 percent), Argentina (33 percent) and the United States (20 percent). Malaysia was not listed in the report.

Food safety issues aside — certainly media reporting on Vietnamese shrimp farms sometimes leaves a queasy feeling — would the TPP spur a flood of frozen shrimp imports from Vietnam and Malaysia?

The Facts

The TPP is a free trade deal, meaning it will eliminate many tariffs. But here’s the funny thing: no frozen shrimp is subject to duties if a country, such as Vietnam and Malaysia, has most favored nation trading status.

In fact, barely any shrimp products from those countries are covered by tariffs — just two lines of HTS (Harmonized Tariff Schedule) codes with duties that in 2014 amounted to about ¼ of one percent of the shrimp imports from Vietnam and zero from Malaysia. (In fact, these two codes refer to non-frozen packaged meals in which shrimp is just one component.)

Here’s the breakdown for the past three years, drawn from International Trade Commission data.

Vietnam and Malaysia Shrimp Tariff and Import Data by GlennKesslerWP

Now, some Vietnamese importers are subject to anti-dumping duties because the Commerce Department, at the urging of domestic producers, brought a case against them. (The rate was recently cut.) But such trade remedies would still be available under the TPP.

Sara Lonardo, communications director for DeLauro, noted that the TPP “will reduce tariffs on 76 lines of seafood, including two lines of shrimp that are currently set at five percent.” (This is the packaged meals in which shrimp is a component and barely imported from the countries in question.)

“Free trade deals with favorable provisions for partner nations will stimulate investment and increase seafood imports,” she added. “Many of the provisions in the TPP designed to make the agreement appealing for partner nations, such as the chapters on investment, dispute settlement, and sanitary/phytosanitary provisions, would encourage more investment in TPP countries as an export platform to the United States – at the expense of our current leading seafood trading partners.”

She argued that “nowhere do we talk about removing tariffs. We talk about the impact on regulations. Which is because the TPP is not just about tariffs, it is about the impact on our regulations and laws.” She added that “our understanding of the sanitary/phytosanitary provisions is that the TPP would limit our ability to stop unsafe food from entering U.S. commerce.” (Administration officials dispute that, saying TPP would seek to improve the systems in other countries and make it harder for them to evade responsibility.)

The FDA recently rejected 107 shipments of frozen shrimp, mainly from Malaysia and Vietnam, because antibiotics residues were found, prompting the Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers to warn farmers to improve their practices. The number of shipments rejected by the FDA has increased 224 percent in the first two months of the year, to the highest rate in 10 years.

The Pinocchio Test

DeLauro’s statement certainly gives the impression that frozen shrimp exports would be “flooding” into the United States from Vietnam and Malaysia because of the lower tariffs inherent in the agreement. Yet her staff can only point to two minor shrimp lines that would be affected, which were not even featured in the Consumer Reports article. Frozen shrimp already enter the United States duty free — and TPP would not change that.

Certainly food safety is an important issue, as documented by Consumer Reports. Yet, in theory, if TPP improves Vietnam’s sanitary and phytosanitary systems, then Ecuador, Indonesia, Bangladesh and India might lose market share — and they fare even worse in the bacteria tests.

In any case, it is misleading for DeLauro to suggest that the free-trade deal would result in more frozen shrimp imports  “flooding in from Vietnam and Malaysia” when trade in frozen shrimp already is duty-free.

Three Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook

Glenn Kessler has reported on domestic and foreign policy for more than three decades. He would like your help in keeping an eye on public figures. Send him statements to fact check by emailing him, tweeting at him, or sending him a message on Facebook.

Continue reading

Read More

The Fix: We already knew legacy media had a problem. But these two charts are really depressing.

Pew's annual report on the state of the media is out this morning.  There's tons of cool data and charts in it but these two stood out to me -- as they tell the story and struggle of legacy journalism organizations (like the Washington Post, the New York Times etc.) in a stark and compelling way.

The first chart shows the ongoing slide in print newspaper circulation.

What those trendlines suggest is that the decline in print circulation numbers that began a decade ago looks like the rule and the boom during 2012 and 2013 looks like the exception -- as opposed to the other way around.

The second chart is even scarier for media organizations built on the pillar of print.  This shows where ad revenue for newspaper organizations has come from since 2003.

You'll notice two things. First, that ad revenue from print is eroding badly. Second, that ad revenue from digital isn't growing anywhere close to fast enough to make up for the print slide.

The problem is apparent: Print circulation is on what I would guess -- and most industry analysts would agree -- an irreversible slide downwards. But, the rise in consumption of digital journalism has not been matched by a similar rise in digital ad revenue.

So: Less people getting the print product. And not-even-close to enough more money being made from the digital product.

What's the solution? More native advertising?  Wealthy owners who view the media business as a public trust? Some other terrific option no one has thought of yet?

(PS: If you have that terrific option no one has thought of yet, please email me ASAP at chris.cillizza@washpost.com.)

Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House.

Read More

Florida's Legislature Quits Early, At Impasse Over Medicaid Expansion

i

Florida state Senate president Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, was applauded by his fellow senators Tuesday, after expressing his disappointment with the Florida House for ending its session three days early, instead of working through the budget clash. Steve Cannon/AP hide caption

itoggle caption Steve Cannon/AP

Florida state Senate president Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando, was applauded by his fellow senators Tuesday, after expressing his disappointment with the Florida House for ending its session three days early, instead of working through the budget clash.

Steve Cannon/AP

The Republican-controlled Florida legislature — at odds over the question of whether to expand Medicaid — abruptly ended its session three days early on Tuesday, leaving hundreds of bills that are unrelated to health care unfinished.

Andy Gardiner, president of Florida's state Senate, says he's disappointed with the House's decision to stop negotiating and leave town.

"The House didn't win, the Senate didn't win and the taxpayers lost," Gardiner says. "There are a lot of issues that aren't going to make it, and it's unfortunate."

Shots - Health News

Florida Leads Insurance Sign-Ups, Despite Political Opposition To Overhaul

But Steve Crisafulli, speaker of the Florida House, says it was the right thing to do.

"We've made every effort we can to negotiate with the Senate on a budget," he says, "and at this time they're standing strong on Medicaid expansion."

Shortly after the adjournment, Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican, filed a lawsuit against the federal government over health care funding — a move that was promptly derided by the leadership of the state Senate.

"I don't think it changes anything," says the chairman of Florida's Senate appropriations committee, Tom Lee. "Once he announced he was going to file a lawsuit against the federal government, I think everyone sort of shut down and lawyered up, and all that sort of thing."

Here's a brief overview of the fight: The Republican-led state House is firmly against Medicaid expansion, while the Republican-led state Senate supports it. Scott once supported expansion but is now against it. And the federal government raised the stakes of the battle by refusing to negotiate on the renewal of a $2 billion fund called the Low Income Pool, which reimburses hospitals for unpaid bills.

"The pool money was about helping low-income people have access [to health care]," U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell told northern Florida's WFSU in January. "I think we believe an important way to extend that coverage to low-income individuals is what passed in the Affordable Care Act ... this issue of Medicaid expansion."

The governor's lawsuit over the low income pool accuses the federal government of trying to coerce the state — requiring Florida to expand Medicaid or lose $2 billion. That sort of pressure was expressly forbidden by the U.S. Supreme Court, Scott says, when it upheld the federal health law in 2012.

i

Once a proponent of Medicaid's expansion under the Affordable Care Act, Florida Gov. Rick Scott is now trying to pressure Florida's Senate to abandon its support of expansion. Joe Raedle/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Once a proponent of Medicaid's expansion under the Affordable Care Act, Florida Gov. Rick Scott is now trying to pressure Florida's Senate to abandon its support of expansion.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

House appropriations chief Richard Corcoran recently delivered a 20-minute anti-Medicaid speech to fellow lawmakers that underscored his side's determination to block the expansion. "Here's my message to the Senate," he said. "They want us to come to the dance? We're not dancing. We're not dancing this session. We're not dancing next session. We're not dancing next summer — we're not dancing. And if you want to blow up the process because you think you have some right that doesn't exist? Have at it."

Now, the central task that state law requires of the legislature — to pass a budget— remains incomplete. Scott tried this week to pressure the legislature to the bargaining table to craft a budget. He threatened to veto Senate priorities, but the Senate remained unmoved.

Scott has said he will call the legislature back for a special session to complete the budget.

This story is part of NPR's partnership with WFSU and Kaiser Health News.

Read More

Obama Confident In Asia Trade Pact, But Track Record For Deals Is Spotty

i

President Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approach the podiums for a joint press conference Tuesday at the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. President Obama is hoping to finalize a new trade agreement with Japan and other Asian nations soon. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

itoggle caption Alex Wong/Getty Images

President Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approach the podiums for a joint press conference Tuesday at the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. President Obama is hoping to finalize a new trade agreement with Japan and other Asian nations soon.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden Tuesday after meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, President Obama said he was confident he would get a green light from Congress to move forward with a big Asia Pacific trade deal.

"The politics around trade can be hard in both our countries," Obama said. "But I know that Prime Minister Abe, like me, is deeply committed to getting this done. And I'm confident we will."

But Obama is facing stiff opposition from many of his fellow Democrats, who complain that past trade deals haven't lived up to expectations. His response so far: Trust me.

"When people say this trade deal is bad for working families, they don't know what they're talking about," Obama said last week at a meeting with campaign supporters. "My entire presidency has been about working families."

Obama also has accused opponents of fighting the last war.

"I've got some good friends who are opposed to this trade agreement," he said. "But when I ask them specifically what is it that you oppose, they start talkin' about NAFTA. And I'm thinkin' — 'well, I ... I had just come out of law school when NAFTA was passed!' "

Obama insists he's learned the lessons from that agreement, signed more than two decades ago. He argues that the proposed Asia Pacific deal would pry open new markets that long have been closed to American products — especially Japan.

"You look at all the cars that are passing by [in the U.S.], you'll see Hondas, you'll see Toyotas, you'll see Nissans," Obama said. "Those are all fine cars — nothing wrong with that. But when you travel to Tokyo, you don't see Fords, you don't see Chevys, you don't see Chryslers."

Obama made much the same argument three-and-a-half years ago, when he was pushing another trade deal with South Korea.

"If Americans can buy Kias and Hyundais, I want to see folks in South Korea driving Fords and Chevys and Chryslers," Obama told a joint session of Congress in the fall of 2011.

At the time, Obama boasted that the South Korea trade deal would boost exports to that country by $10 billion a year. Since the agreement took effect in 2012, though, exports have inched up less than $1 billion. Meanwhile, U.S. imports of Korean goods have surged more than $12 billion.

While rising exports help support American jobs, rising imports can put Americans out of work.

"Looking only at exports is like counting only the runs by the home team," said Robert Scott, a trade economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "Might make you feel good, but it doesn't tell you the outcome of the game — it doesn't tell you whether your team won or not."

The U.S.trade deficit with Korea has widened more than 80 percent since the trade deal took effect. Scott worries the Asia Pacific deal will bring more of the same.

"My answer is, show me the money," Scott said. "Show me the wages that you're going to generate for working Americans. Explain how this policy is going to reverse the 30-year trend of stagnant real wages for most working Americans."

That administration notes that two other trade deals struck by the president — with Colombia and Panama — have produced a bigger boost in exports. And there may be good strategic reasons to pursue the Asia Pacific deal as well.

"The president's talking points are a little off when he says 'if we don't write the rules, China will write the rules,' " said Jeffrey Schott of the pro-trade Peterson Institute for International Economics. "Actually, if we don't write the rules, the rules won't be written."

Schott warns that could lead to more protectionist moves by other countries, erecting even higher barriers to goods and services "Made in the U.S.A."

Read More