Archive for the ‘Free Trade’ Category
VIDEO – PAUL RYAN – TRADE, RESULTS FROM THE WAR ON POVERTY, HEALTHCARE, ENTITLEMENTS, REFLECTIONS FROM THE 2012 ELECTION, DEFENSE BUDGETTuesday, July 7th, 2015
July 2, 2015
TPP = Mass Immigration
By DICK MORRIS
Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed free-trade agreement, Congress could lose the power to control immigration policy. We could find ourselves back in the era before there were restrictions on immigration and anyone from anywhere could come to our shores. And Republicans, from leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner on down, are unwittingly helping President Obama achieve this goal.
The TPP, generally supported by pro-free-trade Republicans but opposed by labor-union Democrats, reportedly contains a barely noticed provision that allows for the free migration of labor among the signatory nations. Patterned after similar provisions in the treaties establishing the European Union, it would override national immigration restrictions in the name of facilitating the free flow of labor.
The draft treaty, now under discussion among 12 Pacific Rim nations, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Vietnam and Japan, makes provision for needed labor to move across national boundaries without restraint. While much of the commentary on the deal has been focused on high-skill, white-collar migration, it could easily be interpreted as allowing farm workers and others to flow back and forth without legal regulation.
In seeking approval of the TPP, the Obama administration has proposed giving it fast-track authority to conclude trade deals — a power that would restrict Congress’s ability to amend the deal, allowing only an up-or-down vote. Led by Republicans, the Senate is moving toward passage of the fast-track authority as a precursor to ratification of the TPP treaty, immigration provisions and all. (more…)
Published on The Weekly Standard (www.weeklystandard.com)
Don’t Give Him What He Wants
Beware Obama’s trade deals.
Irwin M. Stelzer
Irwin M. Stelzer is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard, director of -economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute, and a columnist for the Sunday Times (London).January 27, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 19
Republicans are being urged to support President Obama’s request for TPA so that he can complete negotiations on TPP and TTIP while pursuing other deals at the WTO. For those who do not often feast on this alphabet soup: Obama wants what we used to call fast-track authority to make a trade deal.
In today’s lingo, the president seeks Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) so that he can put any deal he negotiates before Congress on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, no amendments allowed. The two deals he wants to consummate are a 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Canada, Mexico, Chile, Brunei, and several other parties, and a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the 28-nation European Union. The administration also hopes to work out a freer trade agreement with the 159-member World Trade Organization (WTO), but the chances of doing that are somewhere between remote and nil, which is one reason the administration is pressing for regional trade deals.
The president has a problem. The same group of Democrats that shot down Larry Summers, his first choice to replace Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve, are threatening to deny him TPA authority: His overseas negotiating partners are reluctant to offer any quid pro quo in return for some U.S. concession if Congress can later vote to pocket the other parties’ concessions while canceling the president’s. Gary Hufbauer, senior trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, reckons that at least half of congressional Democrats will vote against giving the president the authority he seeks, some because history teaches he won’t bother consulting with them, some because they fear he will make concessions that damage their constituents. Hufbauer concludes that Obama needs “three-quarters of the Republicans” to get a trade deal passed.
Republicans’ business backers are engaged in an all-out effort to round up those votes. Former U.S. trade representative and head of the World Bank Robert Zoellick, a victor in trade wars past, has returned to the fray to urge Republicans to “lead in opening markets . . . and make 2014 the year the U.S. reclaimed global leadership on trade.” With all due respect to the estimable Mr. Zoellick, and to House speaker John Boehner, a reflexive free-trader, congressional Republicans should just say no (more…)
Conservatism on Top Down Under
Meet Tony Abbott, the likely next prime minister of Australia
Absent a stunning reversal of fortune, Tony Abbott is a good bet to be the next prime minister of Australia. He’s the head of the Liberal party, which is expected to capture Parliament from the Labor party in the national election on September 7. In today’s politics, Liberals are misnamed. They’re actually the conservative party in Australia. So if all goes well, Abbott will become one of the world’s leading conservatives.
Abbott, 55, is an aggressive partisan once described as “one of the great head-kickers of Australian politics.” Karl Rove isn’t his only American admirer. Abbott is a social conservative who opposes abortion, is leery of gay marriage, doesn’t hide his Catholic beliefs, and even defends the monarchy.
In Australia—where the political, intellectual, and journalistic classes tend to be very secular—Abbott has been called a religious zealot, a throwback, and “anti-woman.” When he dismissed same-sex marriage as “a fashion of the moment,” he was dubbed a “20th-century man.” That’s not a compliment. Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, a Laborite, summed up the attacks on Abbott with a quip: “In your guts, you know he’s nuts.” It wasn’t meant entirely as a joke.
Abbott insists he has no plans as prime minister to restrict abortions. Still, his view is that abortion “should be safe, legal, and rare—and I underline rare.” Australia’s 100,000 abortions a year, he said in a 2004 speech, are “this generation’s legacy of unutterable shame.”
Abbott’s campaign doesn’t focus on social issues. He doesn’t even mention them unless asked. But social issues stalk him. Abbott recently interviewed American singer Katy Perry on the radio. He asked when she would be touring Australia. “Oh, come on,” she responded. “That’s not a political question. Let’s talk about gay marriage.” She said voters should speak out against Abbott’s position on gay marriage.
Abbott is a victim of liberal intolerance. He has suffered for his social views and religion. Covering the campaign, I heard it said that Abbott “wears his religion on his sleeve.” But he does little more than acknowledge his Catholicism when that subject arises. It’s often noted in press stories that Abbott studied to be a priest. He did, in his 20s, before dropping out of seminary.
A notion propagated by his critics holds that if the Liberal party—allied with the small National party in what’s known as the Coalition—should win the upcoming election, it will be despite Abbott. If the party were led by someone without Abbott’s baggage, the theory goes, it would rout Labor by a larger margin and give Liberals a lopsided majority in Parliament.
This is pure speculation. We’ll never know if it’s true. What we do know is Abbott, a Rhodes scholar and ex-newspaperman, brushed aside one Labor prime minister, Julia Gillard, and has put his party in a position to defeat another, Kevin Rudd. This is no small achievement.
Nor has Abbott been unnerved by upheaval in Labor’s ranks and the dramatic return of Rudd from exile. The who’s up and who’s down of Australian politics can be hard to follow. But in June, Rudd ousted Gillard, who had replaced him as Labor leader in 2010, to become prime minister for the second time. Gillard abruptly retired. Out of the blue, Abbott had a new and presumably more competitive opponent. (more…)
If you are looking for a good, easy to read book on why the U.S. recovery has been so painfully slow, Frank Roche’s new book, ‘The Five Structural Barriers to American Strength and Prosperity’ will lay out the 5 main reasons that are holding our country back.
The policies that our government have been following since the 1960’s and 70’s just might have something to do with it. Frank Roche discusses our immigration policy, fiscal policy, U.S. international trade policy, regulatory policy and the U.S. education policy. Nancy
THE FIVE STRUCTURAL BARRIERS TO AMERICAN STRENGTH AND PROSPERITY
BY FRANK ROCHE, Market Economist, Adjunct Professor of Economics and capital markets expert
Economic Freedom on the Wane
“Land of the free.” It’s right there in our national anthem. As well it should be — the personal liberties we enjoy are the envy of many around the world.
Freedom is no accident. It requires constant vigilance. It takes economic liberty, an area where the United States has begun to slip quite a bit lately. How would you say the United States compares to other nations? There’s no need to guess. We can pinpoint it exactly by using an annual guide known as the Index of Economic Freedom.
Top three, you think? Top five? Nope. Last year at this time came the news that the United States had dropped to 10th place. Now, the 2013 index is out, and we can see that the United States hasn’t budged from that spot.
In fact, we’re lucky we didn’t fall out of the top 10 altogether. Our index score declined a bit over the last year. We held onto the No. 10 slot mostly because Ireland declined enough to wind up in 11th place.
As recently as 2008, the United States ranked seventh worldwide, had a score of 81 (on a 0 to 100 scale, with 100 being the freest), and was listed as a “free” economy. Today, the United States has a score of 76 (its lowest since 2000) and is “mostly free,” the index’s second-highest category. (more…)
- September 25, 2012
Will Obama Free the Blind Sheik?
The theologian of terrorism inspired the 1993 and 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. The White House should state clearly that he will serve out his life term in the U.S.
Mr. Mukasey served as U.S. attorney general from 2007-09, and as a U.S. district judge from 1988 to 2006.
Are senior Obama administration officials considering transferring to Egypt a poisonously influential Islamist cleric serving a life term in federal prison for trying to unleash a war of urban terrorism in the United States? That’s the impression several officials have given over the past three months, apparently out of fear that if the cleric dies in U.S. custody, American outposts in the Middle East could be overrun by vengeful mobs.
Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheik, is one of the world’s leading theologians of terrorism. Abdel Rahman, who has diabetes and is in his mid-70s, is confined at the U.S. Bureau of Prisons medical facility in Butner, N.C. He served as spiritual adviser to El Sayid Nosair (in connection with the 1990 assassination in Manhattan of Meir Kahane, a right-wing Israeli politician) and to the band of terrorists who carried out the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that killed six and wounded numerous others (an operation undertaken in part to free Nosair from jail).
Abdel Rahman was convicted in 1995 of participating in a seditious conspiracy that included the Kahane murder, the 1993 WTC bombing, and a plot to blow up other landmarks in New York and to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak when he visited the United Nations. I presided over the trial as a U.S. district judge; upon his conviction, I sentenced Abdel Rahman to life in prison.
KUHNER: Bubba’s America
Clinton’s endorsement befits Obama
The Washington Times
Thursday, September 6, 2012
- Former President Bill Clinton has emerged as a hero to many Americans, especially liberals. He has become a Democratic icon, a deeply beloved figure. This is why he was tapped to give the nomination speech for President Obama at the Democratic National Convention. The delegates in Charlotte, N.C., loved it. The reason is simple: His presence — and words — reminded everyone of better days. The 1990s were fat years, an age of supposed peace and prosperity. Mr. Clinton gave Mr. Obama his stamp of approval. Bubba assured America that a second Obama term would deliver economic recovery and a revived middle class — akin to a return to the 1990s.
As usual, he was peddling snake oil. His speech was vintage Clinton: dishonest, self-indulgent, cynical, wonky, pretentious and disconnected from reality. The fact is the 1990s was a disastrous decade, which America is still paying for. It was not just a holiday from history — dominated by an orgy of consumer spending and the coarsening of our culture — but something more pernicious: the squandering of our power and wealth. Mr. Clinton did not preside over America’s boom. Rather, he played a pivotal role in triggering our national decline.
Under his watch, the forces of radical Islam gathered steam — and went largely unopposed. The Taliban tightened their grip over Afghanistan. Pakistan attained the Muslim world’s first nuclear bomb. Iran embarked upon its nuclear program. Somalia became a jihadist haven. Mr. Clinton’s military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo enabled Islamists to infiltrate the Balkans. Al Qaeda declared war on the United States. The 1993 World Trade Center attacks, the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, and the 2000 suicide assault on the USS Cole — Islamic terrorists were able to strike American targets with near impunity. Sudan’s government even offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to Washington. Mr. Clinton’s response: no thanks. Instead of confronting the rise of Islamofascism, he ignored it. The Sept. 11 terrorist atrocities were a direct result of Mr. Clinton’s negligent, reckless policies.
Moreover, he actively aided and abetted China’s march to global dominance. His administration transferred vital missile and nuclear technology to Beijing in exchange for illegal campaign contributions. China’s vassal state, North Korea, was allowed through the Agreed Framework agreement to buy the time needed to eventually become a nuclear rogue nation. His administration solidified trade ties with Beijing, encouraging China’s communists to embark upon economic liberalization combined with one-party rule. America’s market was flooded with cheap and shabby Chinese goods. Economic nationalism was sacrificed at the altar of globalization. (more…)