News – Politics – Opinion – Podcasts
Through natural liberty people have the ability to attend well to their own interests. That is true when government weighs down the people with the sort of burdens governments are so fond of imposing.
First point: U.S. trade deficit falls 7.6% in October to 16-month low on decline in Chinese imports. (12/5/19) Second point: US – China Trade War: Chinese Exports To US Fall 23% Amid Tensions Between Washington, Beijing. (12/10/19) Third point: Chinese official says Beijing wants US trade deal ASAP. (12/10/19) Fourth Point: Firms Withdraw From China … Read more
So the Dow Jones dropped over 600 points on Friday after Fascist China announced it would increase tariffs on $75 billion of United States goods, and President Trump said he would respond in kind. The press, including Fox, have been calling the trade issues between Fascist China and the United State’s “Trump’s trade-war.” But Fascist … Read more
From the Washington Examiner: The influential Koch network is open to backing Democrats in the 2020 election cycle. A memo from Emily Seidel, the CEO of Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers’ political organization, said the group would “support the primary election of lawmakers, regardless of political party, who stick their necks out to lead diverse … Read more
By Bill O’Brien (former Speaker of the NH House) In 2018 the U.S. bought $559.5 billion in goods and services from China. In turn, China bought $120.3 billion in goods and services from the U.S. In order to sustain even this unbalanced trade, the U.S. had to endure Chinese requirements that U.S. companies transfer our … Read more
“…Both the U.S. and Mexico have removed trade barriers, eliminated tariffs and subsidies…”
My, my – it looks like the use of tariffs as an economic tool (when wielded correctly) is actually having a positive result. As a Free Trader, if nationally based and anti-free trade tariffs and subsidies are eliminated, this can only be a good thing! Conservative Treehouse has a good synopsis of the intent and result of this decision announced earlier this week on the re-negotiation of the Mexican part of the NAFTA treaty – and note the note about Canada’s unwillingness (emphasis mine):
Under the original 1993 terms and Chapter 22 of the Implementation Act, Lighthizer notifies congress that trade parties have modified the terms; this is the Section 2202 notification of modification. Ninety days after the date of the notification the U.S. and Mexico can sign the new terms of agreement; congressional approval is not required. [Canada can still join the U.S-Mexico agreement but they need to act fast.]
If Canada refuses to join the agreement Lighthizer will follow-up the 2202 modification notification with a Section 2205 notice dissolving the U.S. from the 1993 agreement with Canada; the dissolution is official six months from the date of notification. During the 6 month period, before official dissolution, the U.S. and Canada can enter into new negotiations for a separate bilateral trade agreement.
Mike teased Trump’s realignment at the G7 Summit here which the media has (naturally) decided to sell it as a G6 versus the Trump Ogre. The world aligning against their oafish nemesis. That tells us a lot about the media and their abhorrence of the Make America Great Again Culture that put Trump in Office.
They can’t imagine it going any other way, but it has and it will and Don Surber, in an article titled “G7 is Donald Trump and the Six Dwarfs,” adds a bit of math to help clarify the relationship.
“Contrary to the claims that “unfair” foreign competition hurts the jobs at home, the unemployment rate actually fares better in times of higher trade deficits. Bryan Riley and former Ambassador Terry Miller provide further clarification: When the trade deficit increases, the unemployment rate decreases, and vice versa. For example, in 2009, the U.S. trade deficit … Read more
The Red Sox have announced a 262.5 million dollar trade with the LA Dodgers that will unload, Crawford, Gonzales, Beckett and Punto. the Red Sox will send Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Josh Beckett, Nick Punto and the combined $262.5 million remaining on their contracts to Los Angeles for top pitching prospects Allen Webster and Rubby … Read more
Congress passed three trade deals yesterday which reminded of the words of a previous Democrat Congresswoman from CD-1 in New Hampshire. (note: original press link dead)
This disconnect between the Panama FTA and the current needs to restore our economy will make any vote on this FTA difficult to justify.
She goes on to suggest it would not be good for the US or create jobs. Everything else the left voted on in 2009 would supposedly "create jobs" and didn’t, but something that actually would? Can’t support that.
HR 3079 and it passed the House 300-126, meaning some Democrats had to vote for it. Most likely those in more contested districts.
But back in the day when the Democrats controlled all of the Federal government, and Republicans we were told were destined for the dustbin of history, Carol–who get’s most of her funding from Unions and Union funded Democrat Leadership PAC’s,–believed what she was told by Nancy Pelosi, in direct opposition to the obvious. Letting us trade freely in Panama would hurt the US job market. And the entire Democrat party line on Free Trade, top to bottom, was the union line. It will cost American jobs. Don’t send jobs overseas.
But as I pointed out here, the Panama agreement simply made it easier for us to sell goods in Panama by lifting tariffs and opening their market to us. A longstanding disadvantage that Democritus believe turns less on whether it is true and more–in the case of Obama– on if the campaign optics are good.
(Note:This arrived in my mail box unattributed, but I have discovered that it is from The Onion. I have edited any questionable language by replacing letters with asterisks. This image is not associated with the article at The Onion.) 
Senator Shaheen has signed onto a letter to Senate Majority leader Reid and Minority leader McConnell, suggesting that the corn based ethanol mandates, and all the tariffs and protections associated with it, not be extended. Your initial reaction might be surprise, but this is not in and of itself surprising. Shaheen is on the record being against them since at least 2008 when she ran for the US Senate but not because she is against ethanol. Her problem is the kind of ethanol, and so we can assume her co-signers have similar issues.
On the surface they are claiming to be against the law (the mandate) that props up ethanol on three fronts and also gives 31 billion dollars to the oil companies to offset the cost of forcing them to add ethanol to fossil based motor fuels. I’m against corporate welfare so I can’t object to repeal even with ulterior motives, but this starts off as a calculated, backhanded poke in the eye, not just to the stupidity of the subsidy regime that liberals normally love, but to big oil. And we should expect oil to get screwed. We should simply accept that even with repeal of the ethanol mandate, we could still see the government use other means of legislative or bureaucratic force to keep ethanol in the fuel supply and pass those costs off to the oil companies. If they can screw oil and get what they really want along the way, that’s a dream come true to Progressives. But what do these signers really want?
As usual, nothing in Washington is quite what it seems.
Being beholden to unions causes you to say and do stupid things. Take Carol Shea-Porter for example. She was against a trade deal with Panama because she claimed it would cost American jobs, when it would actually open up trade from us to them–they already had unfettered access; result?–it would have created American jobs. Provisions … Read more
A few months back I discovered that Paul Hodes had received a one time $10,000.00 donation from American Crystal Sugar (A major US Sugar conglomerate), at about the same time as the 288 billion dollar 2007/2008 Farm bill was being pushed through congress, and vetoes overrode. US Sugar is a protected industry with a good amount of political influence. American Crystal Sugar wanted to get into the ethanol industry but could not justify the up front costs. Hodes and the farm billed solved that problem with your money.
Here’s the original piece I wrote on the relationship.
THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2010
Paul Hodes has a dirty little secret. His ‘commitment’ to green energy has strings attached that lead directly to the sugar industry and a significant campaign cash “Thank You.”
Back in 2007 and 2008 Congress waged an epic battle over the Farm Bill. They didn’t call it the farm bill they called it the Food Nutrition and Bio-Energy Act. What it was (or became) was a 288 billion dollar sop to the agriculture industry with a focus on approving billions into ethanol subsidies for the farm belt before the 2008 elections.
To muddy up the real purpose the democrat majority in congress tossed in money for food stamps and school lunches so that any effort to kill it could be spun as evil Republicans starving the poor and denying underprivileged students a hot nutritious lunch. When some republicans balked, the left jumped. And when George Bush, who was still friendly to the idea of ethanol mandates, vetoed both the bill (HR 2419) and the supplement that added in some items left out of the original (HR 6124) the democrat majority House overturned both vetoes. (Both henceforth to be referred to simply as the “farm bill”)
So Paul Hodes not only voted for the hand outs, he voted for them four times: twice to pass the original bills and twice to overturn the vetoes. Does that show commitment? I think it does.
Congressional Candidate Bob Bestani is what you might call a well-connected ruling class insider. He has spent years as part of the evil international banking community and he is proud of his work for the Asian Development Bank (ADB). According to his Campaign site Bio
Until May of 2008, Bob served as the Director General of Private Sector Finance at the Asian Development Bank, a multilateral bank dedicated to alleviating poverty in Asia. In the six years in which he served in that capacity, ADB’s private sector financings and earnings grew by over 40 times their 2001 levels, while portfolio quality and earnings steadily improved. Working closely with most of the countries of Asia, the Private Sector Department grew from the smallest of ADB’s departments to the largest and most successful operating unit of the ADB. In March of 2008 the Bank’s Board adopted private sector financings as the leading priority of the ADB for the years ahead.
So what’s the big deal? Bob worked at a major international bank that is dedicated to alleviating poverty? Well it seems to me that if you are going to use alleviating poverty to advance your political credibility people deserve to know the potential downside of how that actually plays out in the real world.
Carol Shea Porter (CSP) continues to demonstrate her inability to grasp even the most basic concepts of governance. Back in May of 2009 she issued a press release promoting her signing on to a letter suggesting that the Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, (TPA) also called the Panama Free trade agreement (FTA), would in essence cost American Jobs. To Quote the congresswoman…
“”I don’t want to have to vote for unemployment benefits. I want to vote for jobs.””
And to quote from the body of the letter she signed on to…
“”This disconnect between the Panama FTA and the current needs to restore our economy will make any vote on this FTA difficult to justify. Indeed, it appears to be the opposite of the “change” theme Americans voted for in the last two elections.””
Unfortunately for Carol, the real disconnect is between what Big Labor Lobbying groups (her number one campaign donors) have told her change means, and the reality of the Panama TPA’s impact on trade and jobs in the US. But if Carol wants to dip her big toe in the waters of the international trade pool with blinders on, let me be the first to show you how she’s all wet.
Senator Shaheen, As one of the coordinators of the recent tea party gathering in Manchester, I heard many comments about the price of gas and whether proposals in the president’s budget plan would cause fuel costs to increase. I believe there is a good deal of concern among residents and small business owners in this … Read more
Given the potential for mischief in South America posed by the anti-American strongman Hugo Chavez, we need to nurture our relationships with countries in the region that tend to lean in our direction. Included in that list is Colombia, which, unfortunately, the Democrats led by Speaker Pelosi, have decided is unworthy of enhanced free trade with America. In this week’s radio address, President Bush explains the importance of the recently proposed trade deal with that nation and why the Democrats are wrong to oppose it. I agree with him on this one…
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Next week, I will be hosting the North American Leaders’ Summit in New Orleans. This event will give me an opportunity to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon to discuss some of the most significant issues facing our hemisphere and the world.
One of the issues that I’ll be discussing with these leaders is the importance of expanding trade in our hemisphere. Recently I sent Congress an agreement that would expand America’s access to markets in Colombia. Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House has chosen to block the Colombia free trade agreement instead of giving it an up or down vote that Congress committed to. Her action is unprecedented and extremely unfortunate. I hope that the Speaker will change her mind. If she does not, the agreement will be dead. And this will be bad for American workers and bad for America’s national security.
And here is why: