Another Year, Another Climate Task Force

Yesterday, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) announced the creation of a Climate Action Task Force in the Senate for "going on the offensive" on the issue and building momentum for action. The Climate Action Task Force, which consists of 12 Democrats so far per Boxer, will launch officially next Tuesday. The Task Force's activities will include public events, floor speeches, and increased engagement with outside partners like religious organizations and businesses.

Boxer said that the Task Force will focus more on general advocacy than on specific legislation but that it could help build momentum on bills on fuel economy, alternative fuels, and fuel efficiency. Boxer said that she does not know whether the Task Force will take a stance on the Keystone XL pipeline--even though she herself strongly opposes it. Frankly, the Task Force seems pretty hollow if it won't commit to opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.

The creation of "task forces" in the Senate on this issue is not new. On January 24th of last year, Rep. Henry Waxman and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse announced the creation of a Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change.

Last year also featured stillborn efforts by Senate Democrats at drumming up support for climate action.

Eleven months ago, Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders introduced comprehensive climate legislation in the form of a pair of bills--the Climate Protection Act and the Sustainable Energy Act. Their legislation would impose a fee on carbon pollution emissions. Some of the revenue would be returned to consumers as rebates to offset any price increases they might incur ("fee and dividend"), and some of the revenue would go to significant investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. In their press conference on February 14, 2013, they were joined by Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org; Mike Brune, executive director of Sierra Club; Tara McGuiness, executive director of the Center for American Progress Action Fund; Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen’s energy director; and Meg Power of the National Community Action Foundation.

Since their referral to committee, the companion bills have lain dormant.

A month later, Reps. Henry Waxman and Earl Blumenauer and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz released draft carbon pricing legislation for feedback from stakeholder groups and the public. No formal legislation has yet to be introduced.

If the new Task Force can get the media to talk about climate change more, then great. However, calling legislation a long shot would be generous.

Let's look at the roadblocks in the Senate.

Any legislation would have to pass the EPW Committee first.

The eight Republicans on EPW are uniformly hostile to climate action:

David Vitter (R-LA)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
John Boozman (R-AK)
Deb Fischer (R-NE)

Let’s look at the 10 members of the Democratic caucus:

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)

The Senate took a few relevant votes during the budget vote-a-rama last March.

Jim Inhofe introduced an amendment to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. It failed 47 to 52.

Thankfully, no committee members voted for it.

Sheldon Whitehouse offered an amendment in support of carbon pricing, which failed 41 to 58.

There was one vote from the committee: Max Baucus.

Roy Blunt (R-MO) offered an amendment to require a point of order against any carbon pricing legislation. It failed 53 to 46.

There was one vote from the committee: Max Baucus.

John Hoeven (R-ND) offered an amendment in support of the Keystone XL pipeline. It passed 62 to 37.

Two members of the committee voted for it: Max Baucus and Tom Carper.

Boxer offered an amendment herself to protect US interests in making a decision about the Keystone XL pipeline. It failed 33 to 66.

Three members of the committee voted against it: Baucus, Carper, and Udall.

In four out of five climate-related votes, Max Baucus cast the environmentally unfriendly vote. Let us assume, then, that he will likely oppose any climate legislation in EPW. The vote then becomes a 9-9 tie, and the legislation dies.

However, Max Baucus may not be in the Senate for much longer if the confirmation process for his appointment to US ambassador to China goes quickly. Let’s make the assumption (a very unlikely one) that the interim senator that Governor Steve Bullock appoints is willing to vote for said climate legislation, and the legislation passes Committee.

It would then go to the full Senate.

Let’s look at the votes again. The Inhofe amendment to prohibit EPA regulation of greenhouse gases won the support of Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Mark Pryor (D-AR). Susan Collins (R-ME) was the bill’s sole Republican opponent.

In other words, a climate bill—even a weak one—would likely begin with a ceiling of 53 votes.
But there are a number of other votes that would be far from guaranteed. Max Baucus (D-MT), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Claire McCaskill (R-MO), and Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) joined the aforementioned three climate unfriendly coal-and/or-oil state Democrats in supporting the requirement for a point of order against carbon pricing legislation. Susan Collins joined her fellow Republicans here as well.

That puts a possible ceiling of 47 votes.

And I haven’t even looked at the Energy Committee yet, another place where legislation could originate. That Committee has 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin are two of those Democrats. All climate-related legislation is DOA.

By all means, Democrats should bring more attention to climate. Talking about it more can help make the public view it as more of a priority. But legislation isn't going anywhere.

OpenSecrets: For the First Time, A Majority of Congressmembers are Millionaires

For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, an analysis of financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics showed earlier today.

Of 534 current members of Congress, at least 268 had an average net worth of $1 million or more in 2012, according to disclosures filed last year by all members of Congress and candidates. The median net worth for the 530 current lawmakers who were in Congress as of the May filing deadline was $1,008,767 -- an increase from last year when it was $966,000. In addition, at least one of the members elected since then, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), is a millionaire, according to forms she filed as a candidate. (There is currently one vacancy in Congress.) ...
Breaking the numbers down further, congressional Democrats had a median net worth of $1.04 million, while congressional Republicans had a median net worth of almost exactly $1 million. In both cases, the figures are up from last year, when the numbers were $990,000 and $907,000, respectively.

The median net worth for all House members was $896,000 -- that's up from $856,000 in 2011 -- with House Democrats (median net worth: $929,000) holding an edge over House Republicans (median net worth: $884,000). The median net worth for both House Republicans and Democrats was higher than in 2011.

Similarly, the median net worth for all senators increased to $2.7 million from $2.5 million, but in that body it was the Republicans who were better-off. Senate Democrats reported a median net worth of $1.7 million (a decline from 2011's $2.4 million), compared to Senate Republicans, at $2.9 million (an increase from $2.5 million).

In both 2010 and 2011, the median net worth in the country was approximately $68,828 according to the Census. The Federal Reserve had a higher estimate for 2010, around $77,300. I would infer that these numbers have not changed drastically since then (although they might have ticked up slightly). Even if I'm extra-generous in estimating post-2011 change, the median member of Congress would still have a net worth between 10 and 15 times greater than the average American.

Earlier today, I read that Congress is likely to settle on a Farm Bill that cuts $8.7 billion from food stamps, which translates to a $90 reduction in monthly benefits for SNAP recipients. And I read that the Senate is nearing a deal to extend long-term unemployment benefits by extending the sequestration cuts for a year, cutting the time frame of UI benefits, and reducing disability insurance benefits.

Such stories are clearly related. When most members of Congress are millionaires, the daily experience of the poor and the struggling will simply not seem as real to them. The poor are another country in their eyes. And, frankly, one could say the same about their relationship with much of the middle-class as well.

A 2011 study from professors at Northwestern University found that those in the 1% are more likely than other groups to see the federal budget deficit as the country's most pressing problem and to prefer free markets and philanthropy rather than government action to address social problems. When I first read that report, one chart in particular struck me, the one on opinions regarding the government's role in job creation.


Senators and Representatives likely socialize with members of their own social class, an echo chamber of elite opinion.

A hundred years ago, Victor Berger, the first Socialist elected to Congress, and Anne Martin, the first woman to run for Senate, criticized Congress as a "soviet of lawyers (and bankers)." Plus ça change...

House GOP talking points say SKILLS Act would have helped the unemployed. Here's why they're wrong.

On Tuesday, Washington Post's Robert Costa published the House GOP's talking points on the long-term unemployment insurance extension.


In their discussion of their "job creation" bills, House GOP leaders highlight the SKILLS Act in particular.

I'll commend the GOP for their continued skill at creating bill names around acronyms. The bill's full name was Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act. It was introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC-05) back in February.

The House passed the SKILLS Act on a vote of 215 to 202.

Only two Democrats voted for it: John Barrow (GA-12) and Jim Matheson (UT-04). No surprises there.

14 Republicans opposed it:

Justin Amash (MI-03)
Jim Bridenstine (OK-01)
Paul Broun (GA-10)
Paul Cook (CA-08)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Michael Grimm (NY-11)
Walter Jones (NC-03)
Pete King (NY-02)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)
Tom Massie (KY-04)
David McKinley (WV-01)
Gary Miller (CA-31)
Jon Runyan (NJ-03)
Michael Turner (OH-10)

So, what did the SKILLS Act do?

Here's the AFL-CIO's summary of some of the bill in its letter to representatives urging opposition:

(1) Consolidate categorical programs and combine funding streams into a single Workforce Investment Fund that would give states wide discretion to pick and choose eligible groups of participants, make programs more vulnerable to cuts, and pit one group of workers against another in competition for limited resources. It would inevitably lead to fewer services for dislocated workers and the degradation of services to Native Americans, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, ex-offenders, refugees, older Americans, disadvantaged youth in Job Corps centers, and other vulnerable groups.

(2) Eliminate Wagner-Peyser Employment Services and ignore the fact that the Wagner-Peyser system is charged with other duties that are only tangentially related to WIA, such as the certification of the use of foreign labor by employers, and the strong financial and structural relationship between the Employment Service and the State unemployment insurance systems. Financed primarily by the Federal UI trust fund, the Employment Service enforces the UI work test, a key feature of determining ongoing eligibility for UI benefits and, in times of high unemployment, states often reassign Employment Service workers to help with the legally complex function of processing UI claims.

(3) Eliminate the mandate for labor representation on state and local boards, simply ignoring the need for a workforce development system that features balanced representation among all stakeholders who are currently involved in programs that strengthen our nation’s workforce

WIA = Workforce Investment Act

Wagner-Peyser Employment Services = labor exchanges that connect individuals seeking employment and employers looking to hire

Basically, the SKILLS Act would "help" the unemployed by pitting disadvantaged groups against each other and weakening the power of labor. That sounds par for the course for the House GOP and a bad deal for the unemployed and American workers in general.

Cockroaches, Cher, and an Obama Official Pushing a Grand Bargain

In case you don't get the joke in the title, it's a reference to the line "When the world is destroyed by a nuclear holocaust there will be two survivors: cockroaches and Cher."

Yesterday, Gene Sperling, the director of Obama's National Economic Council, was pushing for a "grand bargain" again:

Gene Sperling, the director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, said Sunday that Obama is offering congressional Republicans “a grand bargain on jobs. He has said he would be willing to do corporate tax reform that lowers rates to 28 percent, simplifies taxes for small businesses, but do it together with a major infrastructure investment.”

This isn't the same as the "cutting Medicare and Social Security and getting chump change from the rich" grand bargain, but it's also a plan clearly designed to curry favor from the 1%. 

 

Corporate profits have been hitting record highs recently.

At the same time, the share of corporate taxes as a percentage of total tax revenue has been at or near historic lows:

According to a USA Today analysis from October, 57 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 have paid effective tax rates of zero.  Moreover, a report from 2011 found that 30 major US companies had found ways to pay effective tax rates of less than zero.
Clearly, it's time to cut corporate tax rates!

Bernie Sanders Wants to Know Whether the NSA Has Been Spying on Congress

Earlier today, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), one of the most vocal critics of the NSA in the Senate, sent a letter to NSA director General Keith Alexander asking him whether the NSA has been spying on members of Congress.

I've included the text of the letter below.

Dear General Alexander:

I am deeply concerned about recent revelations that the National Security Agency (NSA) and other intelligence agencies are collecting enormous amounts of information about phone calls that Americans make, emails that we send, and websites that we visit. In my view, these actions are clearly unconstitutional. As U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon wrote recently, the NSA programs are “almost Orwellian.”

Equally disturbing was to learn that the NSA has been involved in listening in on the phone calls made by government leaders of countries such as Brazil, Germany, France, Mexico, and other U.S. allies. This particular revelation has caused serious foreign policy setbacks for the United States, weakened our ability to work cooperatively with our allies, and caused an increase in anti-American sentiment throughout the world.
Indeed, we must be vigilant and aggressive in protecting the American people from the very real danger of terrorist attacks. I believe, however, that we can do that effectively without undermining the constitutional rights that make us a free country.

I am writing today to ask you one very simple question. Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials? “Spying” would include gathering metadata on calls made from official or personal phones, content from websites visited or emails sent, or collecting any other data from a third party not made available to the general public in the regular course of business.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this very important matter. I look forward to working with you on this issue in the near future.

NAFTA at 20: An Unhappy Birthday and a Look at the Roll Call Votes on "Free" Trade Deals

On December 8, 1993, when Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) into law, he spoke in glowing terms about its future effects:

I believe we have made a decision now that will permit us to create an economic order in the world that will promote more growth, more equality, better preservation of the environment, and a greater possibility of world peace.

NAFTA took effect just over three weeks later: January 1, 2014. Today is its 20th birthday. Clinton's promises, which were likely just lies to begin with, have not materialized.

Last weekend, Public Citizen released a report on the twenty-year legacy of NAFTA. Public Citizen found that many of the results of NAFTA were the exact opposite of what its boosters had promised. Such results include a $181 billion trade deficit with Mexico and Canada, 1 million net U.S. jobs lost, larger agricultural trade deficits with Mexico and Canada, and more than $360 million paid to corporations through “investor-state” suits attacking domestic policies such as toxics bans, land-use rules, water and forestry policies, and others geared toward environmental protection and the public interests. The report also highlighted how US. companies like Chrysler and Caterpillar, who promised to create specific numbers of jobs upon NAFTA's approvals, quickly fired U.S. workers and relocated to Mexico. NAFTA trade and investment trends, particularly the displacement of manufacturing jobs, have contributed to downward wage pressure and growing inequality.

NAFTA has also had a detrimental effect on Mexican workers as well. The increased export of U.S. subsidized corn destroyed the livelihoods of 1 million Mexican campesino farmers and the roughly 1.4 million workers whose livelihoods depended on such agriculture. The displacement of such workers has created downward wage pressure, and 60% of the rural population in Mexico still falls below the poverty line, despite the promises made by NAFTA's boosters.

Let's take a look back at the vote on NAFTA back in 1993.

NAFTA passed the Senate 61 to 38. Democrats were almost evenly split: 27 YEA, 26 NAY (and 1 not in attendance for the vote). Republicans voted for it by a larger margin: 34 YEA to 12 NAY.

7 of the NAY votes are still in the Senate: 6 D, 1 R.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

9 of the YEA votes are still in the Senate: 6 R, 3 D.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Tom Harkin (R-IA)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)

8 former Representatives who voted NAY are now in the Senate: 5 D, 2 R, 1 I.
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

7 former Representatives who voted YEA are now in the Senate: 5 D, 2 R.
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

NAFTA passed the House 234 to 200. House Democrats voted against it 156 to 102. Republicans supported it 132 to 43. The sole Independent—Bernie Sanders—voted against it.

In other words, a Democratic president signed a bill against the wishes of 60% of the House Democratic caucus.

Republican margins in favor of NAFTA were about 3:1 both houses.
30 NAFTA supporters are still in the House: 17 R, 13 D.

The 17 Republicans:
Spencer Bachus (AL-06)
Buck McKeon (CA-25)
Ken Calvert (CA-42)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)
Bill Young (FL-13)
Dave Camp (MI-04)
Fred Upton (MI-06)
Pete King (NY-02)
Howard Coble (NC-06)
John Duncan (TN-02)
Sam Johnson (TX-03)
Joe Barton (TX-06)
Lamar Smith (TX-21)
Bob Goodlatte (VA_06)
Frank Wolf (VA-10)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-05)
Tom Petri (WI-06)

The 13 Democrats:
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Anna Eshoo (CA-18)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Xavier Becerra (CA-34)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
David Price (NC-04)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Jim McDermott (WA-07)

40 NAFTA opponents are still in the House: 8 Republicans and 32 Democrats.

The 8 Republicans:
Don Young (AK)
Ed Royce (CA-39)
Duncan Hunter (CA-50)
John Mica (FL-07)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-18)
Jack Kingston (GA-01)
Hal Rogers (KY-05)
Chris Smith (NJ-04)

The 32 Democrats:
George Miller (CA-11)
Henry Waxman (CA-33)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Corrinne Brown (FL-05)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Pete Visclosky (IN-01)
Richard Neal (MA-01)
Sander Levin (MI-09)
John Dingell (MI-12)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Rob Andrews (NJ-01)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
José Serrano (NY-15)
Eliot Angel (NY-16)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Louis Slaughter (NY-25)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)

Like Bill Clinton, Obama has been fully willing to pass "free" trade deals despite majority opposition from his own party in Congress, particularly the House.

The United States Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 262 to 167. House Democrats, however, opposed it 158 to 31.

It passed the Senate 66 to 33. However, the members of the Senate Democratic caucus opposed it 31 to 22.

The United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 300 to 129. However, House Democrats opposed it 123 to 66.

It passed the Senate 77 to 22. Democratic caucus support was the inverse of what it was for the Colombia deal: 31 to 22 in favor.

The United States-Korea Trade Agreement Implementation Act passed the House 278 to 151. However, House Democrats opposed it 130 to 59.

It passed the Senate 83 to 15. The Democratic caucus supported it 38 to 14.

What we see clearly here is that, although the Senate Democrats can be awful (Surprise!), the so-called "free trade" deals designed that offshore jobs and increase corporate privilege consistently face majority opposition within the House Democratic caucus.

I cross-checked the three roll call votes to find out which Democrats voted against each bill. I though this would be a useful exercise, considering that the TPP and TTIP loom in the future.

84 sitting House Democrats voted against all three bills:

Rob Andrews (NJ-01)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Karen Bass (CA-37)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Bob Brady (PA-01)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
Mike Capuano (MA-07)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Judy Chu (CA-27)
David Cicilline (RI-01)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Lacy Clay (MO-01)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Steve Cohen (TN-09)
John Conyers (MI-13)
Joe Courtney (CT-02)
Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Pete DeFazio (OR-04)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Donna Edwards (MD-04)
Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Al Green (TX-09)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Raul Grijalva (AZ-03)
Luis Gutiérrez (IL-04)
Janice Hahn (CA-44)
Alcee Hastings (FL-20)
Brian Higgins (NY-26)
Rush Holt (NJ-12)
Mike Honda (CA-17)
Steve Israel (NY-03)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
William Keating (MA-09)
Dan Kildee (MI-5)
Jim Langevin (RI-02)
Barbara Lee (CA-13)
John Lewis (GA-05)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
David Loebsack (IA-02)
Zoe Lofgren (CA-19)
Ben Luján (NM-03)
Stephen Lynch (MA-08)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Jim McGovern (MA-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
George Miller (CA-11)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jerry Nadler (NY-10)
Grace Napolitano (CA-32)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Ed Pastor (AZ-07)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-40)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Tim Ryan (OH-13)
Linda Sánchez (CA-38)
John Sarbanes (MD-03)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)

Jose Serrano (NY-15)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Jackie Speier (CA-14)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
John Tierney (MA-06)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-07)
Peter Visclosky (IN-01)
Maxine Waters (CA-43)
John Yarmuth (KY-03)

Louise Slaughter (NY-25) and Frederica Wilson (FL-24) were not in attendance for any of the votes. Louise Slaughter voted against NAFTA, and I would assume she would have opposed these as well. I can't say either way for Wilson.

12 Democrats in the Senate consistently voted against the so-called “free trade” deals.

Richard Blumenthal (CT)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Bob Casey (PA)
Kay Hagan (NC)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Joe Manchin (WV)
Jeff Merkley (OR)
Jack Reed (RI)
Harry Reid (NV)
Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Jon Tester (MT)
Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)

Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was not in attendance for the vote Korean “free trade” bill, but he voted against the other two (and NAFTA) and is vocal in his criticism of such trade policy.

Six current Senate Democrats voted against all three bills when they were in the House:

Tammy Baldwin (WI)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Martin Heinrich (NM)
Mazie Hirono (HI)
Ed Markey (MA)
Chris Murphy (CT)

Making 1,000x Your Average Worker Should Be Cause for Shame, Not Pride

A few weeks ago, the folks at the site NerdWallet decided to analyze just how stark the inequality at major fast food and retail chains is. They calculated the ratio of CEO hourly compensation to the average hourly worker wage as well the number of months of overtime that average worker would have to work in order to earn money equivalent to that hourly CEO pay. Their results are below:

The CEOs at McDonald's, Starbucks, and Dollar General make over 1,000 times as much per hour as the average non-executive employee in their company. Their employees would have to work over three months just to make as much as those CEOs make in one hour.

According to data from the Social Security Administration, the median wage in 2012 was $27,519.10. If we assume 40 hours a week and 52 weeks per year, then that comes out to $13.23 per hour. The CEO at McDonald's makes 699 times that per hour.

The CEO with the lowest hourly compensation in NerdWallet's sample was that of Best Buy, at $6,517 per hour. That CEO makes 666 times the average non-executive Best Buy employee and 493 times the median worker in the country.

According to a 2010 report from the Institute for Policy Studies, CEOs back in the 70s rarely made more than 30 times what their workers made. IPS calculated that the CEOS major corporations recently averaged 263 times the compensation of average workers. Unsurprisingly, the rapid growth of executive compensation began in the 1980s---and it's continued since.

Read the rest here.