Posted by Alfonso Esparza at 10:03 am EDT, 09/18/2013

Chief negotiators of 12 countries involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade negotiations will meet in Washington from Wednesday and seek to streamline the talks to conclude a deal by year-end.

During meetings through Saturday, the negotiators of the United States, Japan and other Pacific Rim countries are expected to assess the progress of the talks stretching over 21 fields and sort what issues can be dealt with at a working level from those that need to be settled at a higher political level.

The member countries will hold a TPP summit and ministerial meetings next month in Bali, Indonesia, where they aim to reach a basic agreement for the creation of one of the world’s largest free trade zones covering about a third of world trade ...

http://forexblog.oanda.com/20130918/tpp-negotiators-start-meeting-to-reach-an-agreement-by-year-end/

What is the TPP?

TPP: Corporate Power Tool of the 1%

Have you heard? The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) “free trade” agreement is a stealthy policy being pressed by corporate America, a dream of the 1 percent, that in one blow could:

offshore millions of American jobs,
free the banksters from oversight,
ban Buy America policies needed to create green jobs and rebuild our economy,
decrease access to medicine,
flood the U.S. with unsafe food and products,
and empower corporations to attack our environmental and health safeguards.

http://www.citizen.org/TPP

has not been released. Many parties are trying to get it.

"The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement ("TPP") is a free trade agreement currently being negotiated by nine countries: The United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Although the TPP covers a wide range of issues, this site focuses on the TPP's intellectual property (IP) chapter.

The TPP suffers from a serious lack of transparency, threatens to impose more stringent copyright without public input, and pressures foreign governments to adopt unbalanced laws." -- http://tppinfo.org/

"What is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multi-national trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. The main problems are two-fold:

(1) IP chapter: Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate.

(2) Lack of transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy." -- https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

one important thing worth noting about the TPP: the PRC won't be allowed to join it!

one important thing worth noting about the TPP: the PRC won't be allowed to join it!

Ooooo, I can see an Obama "pivot" coming...

Whitepaper from the EPI documenting displacement of US jobs after passage of NAFTA -

Conclusion

The growing U.S. trade deficit with Mexico has displaced a large number of jobs in the United States and is a significant
contributor to the current crisis in U.S. manufacturing, which lost 5.6 million jobs between 2000 and February 2011
(BLS 2011). U.S. trade with Mexico in 2010 cost 682,900 U.S. jobs, and three-fifths of the jobs displaced (415,000)
were in the manufacturing sector.

NAFTA proponents claimed that falling tariffs would generate rapidly growing exports and a sustained and
growing trade surplus with Mexico. In fact, the United States has experienced steadily growing trade deficits with
Mexico. Despite this experience, proponents of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement have claimed that growing exports
will support 70,000 U.S. jobs. The job displacement that arose from U.S. trade deficits with Mexico after NAFTA took
effect provides powerful evidence that the KORUS FTA is likely to lead to growing U.S. trade deficits and job displacement.

http://epi.3cdn.net/fdade52b876e04793b_7fm6ivz2y.pdf

October 24, 2013 | By Corynne McSherry and Maira Sutton

Another Reason to Hate TPP: It Gives Big Content New Tools to Undermine Sane Digital Rights Policies

In previous posts we've covered many of the ways the copyright provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive trade deal between 12 Pacific countries, could undermine users' rights. But those are just the tip of the iceberg. What may really sink the Titanic is a rather obscure but very dangerous section covering foreign investment.

Like the rest of the TPP, we only know what has been leaked. Based on that, it seems the negotiators are poised to give private corporations new tools to undermine national sovereignty and democratic processes. Specifically, TPP would give multinational companies the power to sue countries over laws that that might diminish the value of their company or cut into their expected future profits.

The provision that gives them this power is called “investor-state dispute settlement” (or ISDS for short). The policy was originally intended to ensure that investments in developing countries were not illegally expropriated by “rogue” governments, thereby encouraging foreign investment. But what began as a remedy to a specific problem has since been co-opted to serve very different purposes. Under investor-state, if a regulation gets in the way of a foreign investor’s ability to profit from its investment, the investor can sue a country for monetary damages based on both alleged lost profits and “expected future profits.” There are no monetary limits to the potential award...

More here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/another-reason-hate-tpp-it-gives-big-content-new-tools-undermine-sane-digital

October 24, 2013 | By Corynne McSherry and Maira Sutton

Another Reason to Hate TPP: It Gives Big Content New Tools to Undermine Sane Digital Rights Policies

In previous posts we've covered many of the ways the copyright provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive trade deal between 12 Pacific countries, could undermine users' rights. But those are just the tip of the iceberg. What may really sink the Titanic is a rather obscure but very dangerous section covering foreign investment.

Like the rest of the TPP, we only know what has been leaked. Based on that, it seems the negotiators are poised to give private corporations new tools to undermine national sovereignty and democratic processes. Specifically, TPP would give multinational companies the power to sue countries over laws that that might diminish the value of their company or cut into their expected future profits.

The provision that gives them this power is called “investor-state dispute settlement” (or ISDS for short). The policy was originally intended to ensure that investments in developing countries were not illegally expropriated by “rogue” governments, thereby encouraging foreign investment. But what began as a remedy to a specific problem has since been co-opted to serve very different purposes. Under investor-state, if a regulation gets in the way of a foreign investor’s ability to profit from its investment, the investor can sue a country for monetary damages based on both alleged lost profits and “expected future profits.” There are no monetary limits to the potential award...

More here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/another-reason-hate-tpp-it-gives-big-content-new-tools-undermine-sane-digital

I wonder how long this is gonna work? Shitting on workers and the environment is well and good, fucking with national based industries of major players is another story. The difference being that nations have armies. TPP is an attempt to put off the inevitible, the conflict of national capitals which ends up as war. It is the modern version of the great powers divving up the world at the end of the Nineteenth century. It will work just as well. This idea makes the same fatal assumption that Keynesianism makes, that capitalists will act in the common interest of their class even if they are adversely effected. See how long that lasts.

In the meantime austerity is a done deal, but the details, as is TPP and the XL pipeline. A world of hurt is coming and the only thing that can oppose it is mass action, which is nowhere on the horizon. They say that nearness of death has a way of focusing attention, let's hope we don't have to wait that long.

Wikileaks getting us some info:

The TPP has been shrouded in secrecy from the beginning because the Obama administration knows that the more people know about it, the more they will oppose the agreement. The release of the full Intellectual Property chapter today by Wiikileaks confims what had been suspected, the Obama administration has been an advocate for transnational corporate interests in the negotiations even though they run counter to the needs and desires of the public.

This is not surprising since we already knew that 600 corporate advisers were working with the US Trade Representative to draft the TPP. This means that for nearly four years some of the top corporate lawyers have been inserting phrases, paragraphs and whole sections so the agreement suits the needs of corporate power, while undermining the interests of people and planet.

Now from these documents we see that the US is isolated in its aggressive advocacy for transnational interests and that there are scores of areas still unresolved between the US and Pacific nations. The conclusion: the TPP cannot be saved. It has been destroyed by secret corporate advocacy. It needs to be rejected. Trade needs to be negotiated with a new approach — transparency, participation of civil society throughout the process, full congressional review and participation, and a framework that starts with fair trade that puts people and planet before profits ...

Much more here: http://www.popularresistance.org/wikileaks-leaks-key-tpp-documents-us-isolated-in-corporate-advocacy/

Here's the section on intellectual properties:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/183845550/WikiLeaks-Secret-TPP-IP-Chapter

It is every bit as bad as advertised, Nations may address their own interests as long as those are in agreement with TTP. Quite a coup.

The Obama Legacy, Part 1 of Many: Why Secret Trade Negotiations? Because TPP & TAFTA are NAFTA on Crack & Evil Steroids

Back in 1995, a Democrat in the White House told us the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA would create hundreds of thousands of new US jobs.

What it actually did, along with billions in corporate welfare to Big Agribusiness, was send cheap genetically modified corn to Mexico, the land where humans first domesticated corn a thousand or two years ago. The cheap US frankenfood corn contaminated the genome of original Mexican corn varieties, and sent Mexican corn prices so low that local farmers couldn't pay their bills. Millions were driven off the land into the cities, looking for work to keep their families alive.

NAFTA also gave US subsidies to US businesses wanting to relocate to the new belt of factories along the Mexican border that sprang up to take advantage of a new and desperately cheap workforce there, and thoughtfully provided employers protection from even Mexican health & safety regulations. When those business picked up and ran to the Philippines, Bangladesh or China a few years later, unemployed Mexicans crossed into the US by the millions, again seeking to keep their families alive. The long racist tradition of a two-tier US labor market made it almost natural for employers to add a new bottom tier for immigrant labor.

That's what NAFTA gave us: lower wages and higher unemployment on both sides of the US-Mexican border. Goods and capital now cross those borders freely, people and prosperity, not so much. Now it's 2 decades later. Another Democrat in the White House wants another pair of trade treaties, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA). But this time, we have two decades of experience on what these trade deals are, and how to stop them. And they can be stopped.

Though Barack Obama says they will be job-creating beasts, the terms and progress of the negotiations are classified, which means there is no LEGAL way for citizens to learn what is being negotiated. The only way the public has gained any knowledge of what's in the agreement, and how the talks are progressing has been for WikiLeaks to obtain and publish a chapter of the proposed TPP agreement.

If your name isn't Monsanto, Disney, or Goldman Sachs, it ain't good news, according to Dr. Margaret Flowers of Flush the TPP. About 600 multinational corporate lobbyists are writing the treaty, backed up by their champions, the representatives of the US government and a handful of other wealthy nations. Their job is to force the thing down the throats of relatively small and less powerful nations, who are often more directly responsive to popular pressure than the US government, and whose populations are better informed on the issues than here, where corporate media keep us well-entertained, but ill-informed, or even dis-informed.

For the record, here are just a few of the wonderful things TAFTA and TPP will do:

They will extend the length of existing copyrights and patents (they call this intellectual property) almost indefinitely, so that high prices can be extracted for existing drugs and their derivatives forever, and no works of art or science may pass into the public domain.

They will enable corporations to patent and claim “intellectual property rights” to just about anything, including surgical techniques, the genomes of living organisms and diseases, and the chemical compounds existing in natural substances, all the better to extract revenue from those of us who need to eat, wear clothes, or get sick.

They will enshrine the doctrine of “takings” into international law, sanctifying corporate profits so that governments anywhere on earth which enact wage and hour, environmental, or “buy local” laws can be successfully sued in secret courts to compensate corporations for lost current and future profits.

They will promote and sometimes require the privatization of public health, public land, public transit, and public utilities like water worldwide, to better enable the extraction of rent from people who do things like drink water, grow or eat food, travel or live indoors.

They will promote the rights of transnational investors and capital over those of local communities and the environment at every turn, and transform government into an even purer instrument of the one percent than it is now.

"The secret trade negotiations of the Obama administration are the admission of its weakness..."

There's more, lots more than we can cover in this short article. We urge you to follow the links in this article to get a grasp of what so-called “free trade” agreements are, and what can be done to stop them, and to take some action yourself. Again, it's vital to understand that TPP and TAFTA can be stopped. Local governments, as Dr. Flowers points out, are passing resolutions to defy anti “buy-local” and other common free-trade provisions. Even some corporate Democrats are jumping, or threatening to jump the ship on this one.

The secret trade negotiations of the Obama administration are the admission of its weakness. As Obama trade representative Ron Kirk conceded, if the American public knew what its representatives were pushing in these trade talks, they'd be in overwhelming opposition. The first and last thing to remember is that although the US political system is designed and constantly refined to make it more and more democracy proof and people proof, it only works if we let it. Let's not.

It's time to stop caring what our betters don't allow, and oppose these “trade agreements” anyhow. It's time to take some action. Now.

http://blackagendareport.com/content/obama-legacy-part-1-many-why-secret-trade-negotiations-because-tpp-tafta-are-nafta-crack-evi

bolding added

NAFTA: 20 years of regret for Mexico | Mark Weisbrot


Mexico's economic growth stalled since the 'free trade' deal was signed with the US, and its poverty rate is about the same
It was 20 years ago that the North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Canada, and Mexico was implemented. In Washington, the date coincided with an outbreak of the bacteria cryptosporidium in the city's water supply, with residents having to boil their water before drinking it. The joke in town was, "See what happens, NAFTA takes effect and you can't drink the water here."

Our neglected infrastructure aside, it is easy to see that NAFTA was a bad deal for most Americans. The promised trade surpluses with Mexico turned out to be deficits, some hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost, and there was downward pressure on US wages – which was, after all, the purpose of the agreement. This was not like the European Union's (pre-Eurozone) economic integration, which allocated hundreds of billions of dollars of development aid to the poorer countries of Europe so as to pull their living standards up toward the average. The idea was to push US wages downward, toward Mexico's, and to create new rights for corporations within the trade area: these lucky multinational enterprises could now sue governments directly before a corporate-friendly international tribunal, unaccountable to any national judicial system, for regulations (eg environmental) that infringed upon their profit-making potential.

But what about Mexico? Didn't Mexico at least benefit from the agreement? Well if we look at the past 20 years, it's not a pretty picture. The most basic measure of economic progress, especially for a developing country like Mexico, is the growth of income (or GDP) per person. Out of 20 Latin American countries (South and Central America plus Mexico), Mexico ranks 18, with growth of less than 1% annually since 1994. It is, of course, possible to argue that Mexico would have done even worse without NAFTA, but then the question would be, why?

From 1960-80 Mexico's GDP per capita nearly doubled. This amounted to huge increases in living standards for the vast majority of Mexicans. If the country had continued to grow at this rate, it would have European living standards today. This is what happened in South Korea, for example. But Mexico, like the rest of the region, began a long period of neoliberal policy changes that, beginning with its handling of the early 1980s debt crisis, got rid of industrial and development policies, gave a bigger role to de-regulated international trade and investment, and prioritized tighter fiscal and monetary policies (sometimes even in recessions). These policies put an end to the prior period of growth and development. The region as a whole grew just 6% per capita from 1980-2000; and Mexico grew by 16% – a far cry from the 99% of the previous 20 years.

For Mexico, NAFTA helped to consolidate the neo-liberal, anti-development economic policies that had already been implemented in the prior decade, enshrining them in an international treaty. It also tied Mexico even further to the US economy, which was especially unlucky in the two decades that followed: the Fed's interest rate increases in 1994, the US stock market bust (2000-2002) and recession (2001), and especially, the housing bubble collapse and Great Recession of 2008-9 had a bigger impact on Mexico than almost anywhere else in the region.

Since 2000, the Latin American region as a whole has increased its growth rate to about 1.9% annually per capita – not like the pre-1980 era, but a serious improvement over the prior two decades when it was just 0.3%. As a result of this growth rebound, and also the anti-poverty policies implemented by the left governments that were elected in most of South America over the past 15 years, the poverty rate in the region has fallen considerably. It declined from 43.9% in 2002 to 27.9% in 2013, after two decades of no progress whatsoever.

But Mexico hasn't joined in this long-awaited rebound: its growth has remained below 1%, less than half the regional average, since 2000. And not surprisingly, Mexico's national poverty rate was 52.3% in 2012, basically the same as it was in 1994 (52.4%). Without economic growth, it is difficult to reduce poverty in a developing country. The statistics would probably look even worse if not for the migration that took place during this period. Millions of Mexicans were displaced from farming, for example, after being forced into competition with subsidized and high-productivity agribusiness in the United States, thanks to NAFTA's rules.

It's tough to imagine Mexico doing worse without NAFTA. Perhaps this is part of the reason why Washington's proposed "Free Trade Area of the Americas" was roundly rejected by the region in 2005 and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership is running into trouble. Interestingly, when economists who have promoted NAFTA from the beginning are called upon to defend the agreement, the best that they can offer is that it increased trade. But trade is not, to most humans, an end in itself. And neither are the blatantly mis-named "free trade agreements".

http://www.thebellforum.com/showthread.php?t=109191

U.S. Politicians Want to Fast-Track the Super-Secret, Super-Controversial TPP
Jan. 10 2014 5:51 PM
By Ariel Bogle (Slate)

It seems wrong to hate something that you’ve never read. Yet the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a globally significant free trade agreement being worked out in secret, is rewriting the rules in more ways than one.

The TPP is already being negotiated behind closed doors, but the situation could get worse. Late on Thursday afternoon, House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014. The bill would grant the White House fast-track authority, sometimes known as the "trade promotion authority,” to ratify trade deals.

If the bill passes, it would allow agreements like TPP to be ratified by a straight up-and-down vote, with no amendments allowed from the floor, and lawmakers would have to forgo procedural stalling tactics like the filibuster. That’s a great deal of oversight power for Congress to abdicate over a deal that not many people have even read.

Apart from a few corporations, most stakeholders and public interest groups have been unable to read the TPP drafts in full. Even those in government have complained that their staff cannot access the negotiating text. As Wisconsin Republican Mark Pocan said in reponse to the new bill: “Blindly approving or disapproving agreements that have largely been negotiated in secret would represent a derelict of duty for Congress. If there is nothing to hide in these agreements, we should be allowed to debate and amend these deals in the open.”

The introduction of fast-track authority is of particular concern for technology companies, digital rights groups, and even public health advocates, who are all concerned about the treaty’s copyright and patent provisions. Leaked versions of the TPP indicate that it moves negotiating countries toward stricter and extended intellectual property laws—for instance, greater criminalization of copyright breaches and regulations that might force Internet service providers to censor content.

When introducing the bill, the three U.S. lawmakers said in a statement: “The TPA [trade promotion authority] legislation we are introducing today will make sure that these trade deals get done, and get done right.” They argued that the fast-track authority would support a robust trade agenda that would benefit American workers and exports ...

More: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/10/tpp_negotiations_bill_would_allow_the_white_house_to_fast_track_the_controversial.html

Beyond disappearing airplanes, Russian "aggressions" and the like ... the congress critters are back to business as usual:

Time for modern trade policy in TPP
March 19, 2014, 10:00 am
By former Gov. Matt Blunt (R-Mo.)

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) can serve as a foundation of stability - fostering security and economic growth throughout the Pacific Rim region. That is why it is critical that the 12 countries negotiating TPP focus on crafting a modern and relevant trade agreement.

As global automakers that benefit from open trade and investment, American automakers Chrysler, Ford and GM, have supported every free trade agreement (FTA) that the United States has negotiated. America’s automakers want to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact for the same reason – its potential to encourage commerce and improve the standard of living for millions of people. However, like any trade agreement, TPP has to be a "win-win" for all the nations involved. That means for TPP to work, all the negotiating nations need to agree to a pact that includes rules that prevent any one country from undermining the intent of the agreement or allow any member of the agreement to unfairly disadvantage other FTA partners.

The TPP member states have set themselves the admirable goal of achieving “an ambitious, comprehensive and high-standard agreement”. The TPP, once completed, will be the most important free trade agreement since NAFTA and will set the bar for 21st century free trade agreements. A critical component of this modern trade pact will be the inclusion of strong and enforceable provisions prohibiting currency manipulation to ensure that TPP member nations can no longer rely on outdated and one-sided non-tariff barriers and trade policies that aid domestic industries at the expense of their trading partners ...

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/201071-time-for-modern-trade-policy-in-tpp#ixzz2wRn4FM6d

How Big Pharma (and others) began lobbying on the Trans-Pacific Partnership before you ever heard of it
by Lee Drutman
March 13, 2014, 9:10 a.m.



In 2009, four years before the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a widely-debated trade deal, few would have noticed a new issue popping up in a handful of lobbying reports. That year, 28 organizations filed 59 lobbying reports mentioning the then far-off trade agreement. Almost half of those organizations were pharmaceutical companies or associations.

It was an early clue as to which industry would take the most active role in trying to shape the trade agreement while it was still secret from the public. From 2009 until mid-2013 (the time during which the language of the agreement was still reasonably fluid), drug companies and associations mentioned the trade agreement in 251 separate lobbying reports – two and a half times more than the next most active industry (at least measured by lobbying reports).

It is an investment that appears to have paid off. The TPP is quite friendly to drug manufacturers, strengthening patent exclusivity and providing protections against bulk government purchasing (should it hurt profits). At the behest of the pharmaceutical industry, the U.S. is also pushing to limit the ability of national regulatory agencies to support generic drug development. All of this suggests that the active lobbying has paid off ...

More here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2014/03/13/tpp-lobby/

SOPA: Dead in Congress, Alive in Trans-Pacific Partnership
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
Monday, 17 March 2014 10:27

Lobbyists who once unsuccessfully pushed for federal control over the Internet are now finding new hope in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

President Obama recently named Robert Holleyman deputy U.S. trade representative. Although he has worked until recently as a “chief executive of BSA/the Software Alliance, a trade organization for software companies that counts Apple, IBM, Microsoft and other top computer firms among its members,” a couple of years ago, Holleyman worked as a professional promoter of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a bill introduced in 2011 by Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

The official purpose of SOPA was to “expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to combat online copyright infringement and online trafficking in counterfeit goods.” In reality, though, the measure would have surrendered control of the Internet to federal agencies.

Much to Holleyman’s chagrin, the reaction to SOPA was so widespread that it led to the “largest online protest in history.” The bill was practically stillborn in Congress, but the multinational industries promoting it were not to be denied ...

More here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/17861-sopa-dead-in-congress-alive-in-trans-pacific-partnership

Beyond disappearing airplanes, Russian "aggressions" and the like ... the congress critters are back to business as usual:

Time for modern trade policy in TPP
March 19, 2014, 10:00 am
By former Gov. Matt Blunt (R-Mo.)

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) can serve as a foundation of stability - fostering security and economic growth throughout the Pacific Rim region. That is why it is critical that the 12 countries negotiating TPP focus on crafting a modern and relevant trade agreement.

As global automakers that benefit from open trade and investment, American automakers Chrysler, Ford and GM, have supported every free trade agreement (FTA) that the United States has negotiated. America’s automakers want to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact for the same reason – its potential to encourage commerce and improve the standard of living for millions of people. However, like any trade agreement, TPP has to be a "win-win" for all the nations involved. That means for TPP to work, all the negotiating nations need to agree to a pact that includes rules that prevent any one country from undermining the intent of the agreement or allow any member of the agreement to unfairly disadvantage other FTA partners.

The TPP member states have set themselves the admirable goal of achieving “an ambitious, comprehensive and high-standard agreement”. The TPP, once completed, will be the most important free trade agreement since NAFTA and will set the bar for 21st century free trade agreements. A critical component of this modern trade pact will be the inclusion of strong and enforceable provisions prohibiting currency manipulation to ensure that TPP member nations can no longer rely on outdated and one-sided non-tariff barriers and trade policies that aid domestic industries at the expense of their trading partners ...

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/201071-time-for-modern-trade-policy-in-tpp#ixzz2wRn4FM6d

All of this stuff just seems to be hanging, TPP, pipeline, austerity, but they got a couple years, an off season election to get past, all these things will come to pass, verily. The overly ambitious foreign policy gambit is crashing and only an egregious Russian misstep might salvage it. If the spanking in Ukraine stands look for them to double down elsewhere, mebbe Syria. Obama will find his Grenada somewhere.

Obama will find his Grenada somewhere.

Bingo ... they always do.