| President Trump did three big things Monday: He formally ended U.S. involvement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, he instituted the Mexico City policy for family-planning funds, and enacted a hiring freeze for the federal government. You Down On TPP? Yeah, You Know Me. A reminder of what TPP would have actually done: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a sweeping trade pact negotiated by the Obama administration with 11 U.S. trading partners on both sides of the Pacific. It includes six countries that have already signed free-trade agreements with the United States — Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Australia, and Singapore — and five that would be new FTA partners — New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Japan. TPP would eliminate 18,000 tariffs now imposed on U.S. exports to other TPP countries. Nearly 90 percent of those duties would go to zero upon enactment, and nearly all would be eliminated within 16 years. U.S. duties would also be phased out almost completely, with the steepest reduction on imported apparel and footwear, delivering benefits directly to low-income U.S. households. If your business requires importing raw materials from any of those countries, TPP looked like a good deal. If your company was interested in having more competitive prices while selling in New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Vietnam, or Japan, it looked like a good deal. If you wanted to buy stuff made in those countries – check the labels on the clothes you're wearing – for a lower price, TPP looks like a good deal. It's worth remembering that this probably would have happened even if Hillary Clinton had won the election. Last August on the campaign trail, Clinton pledged, "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages — including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I'll oppose it after the election, and I'll oppose it as president." She could have flipped on that promise, but then the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic party would be revolting – er, would be in a state of revolt. If low tariffs are such a good idea, why does the public fear them so? Which came first, the politicians fueling to protectionist attitudes, or the protectionist attitudes striking fear into the hearts of the politicians? Why was Obama so unable to persuade his own party on his own trade deal? Speaking of Sanders… Sanders praised Trump's decision, saying TPP is "dead and gone". "Now is the time to develop a new trade policy that helps working families, not just multinational corporations," Sanders said in a statement. "If President Trump is serious about a new policy to help American workers then I would be delighted to work with him." "For the past 30 years, we have had a series of trade deals … which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs and caused a 'race to the bottom' which has lowered wages for American workers," he said. A lot of political figures who don't usually applaud a Republican president were cheering Monday. AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka declared, "today's announcement that the US is withdrawing from TPP and seeking a reopening of NAFTA is an important first step toward a trade policy that works for working people." Teamsters general president James P. Hoffa: "Today, President Trump made good on his campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. With this decision, the president has taken the first step toward fixing 30 years of bad trade policies that have cost working Americans millions of good-paying jobs. "The Teamsters Union has been on the frontline of the fight to stop destructive trade deals like the TPP, China PNTR, CAFTA and NAFTA for decades. Millions of working men and women saw their jobs leave the country as free trade policies undermined our manufacturing industry. We hope that President Trump's meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Jan. 31 opens a real dialogue about fixing the flawed NAFTA. Usually, a Republican would be really wary about any decision that brought cheers from Bernie Sanders, Trumka, and the big unions. The Mexico City Policy Has Little to Do With Mexico City Itself Monday brought a small but significant victory for the pro-life movement, a genuine reason for cheer at this Friday's March for Life. When pro-abortion former President Barack Obama took office, Obama overturned a policy that prevented funding of groups that promote or perform abortions overseas. The Mexico City Policy covered over $400 million in federal funds, part of which flowed to the abortion businesses International Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International for their foreign efforts. As LifeNews.com reported, the pro-life policy had been in place during the entirety of the Bush administration and Obama rescinded it on his first week in office. Named for a 1984 population conference where President Reagan initially announced it, the Mexico City Policy made it so family planning funds could only go to groups that would agree to not do abortions or lobby foreign nations to overturn their pro-life laws. Today, Trump restored the Mexico City Policy by executive order. The Executive Memorandum to reinstate the Mexico City Policy stops taxpayer funding of groups that perform and promote abortions overseas but does not stop non-abortion international assistance. The order ensures U.S. foreign aid will continue to go to health care and humanitarian relief in the millions of dollars. It just will not subsidize abortion overseas. Freeze, Job Applicants! The federal hiring freeze is one of those ideas that sounds terrific in theory but gets a little more complicated in practice. The Office of Personnel Management says the federal government had 2,663,000 employees in 2014; the government hires about 220,000 workers a year. That's actually down from 2,776,000 in 2010 (which included some U.S. Census hiring). The number of uniformed service personnel – which is not covered by the Trump administration hiring freeze – has declined from 1.6 million in 2010 to 1.45 million. The executive order states, "the head of any executive department or agency may exempt from the hiring freeze any positions that it deems necessary to meet national security or public safety responsibilities." That's just common sense, but you can surely imagine how Adam Humphrey and the Agency of Invasive Species would interpret that wording. One other significant problem is, who retires or leaves the federal workforce, and do you have the right personnel around to replace the people who leave with the hiring freeze in place? What happens when a Veterans Affairs hospital needs to hire a new doctor? What happens when a great researcher at the National Institutes of Health decides to retire, or a viral pathologist at the Centers for Disease Control goes on maternity leave? How much of what goes on at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is covered by the exception for national security? The technicians who keep the machines running at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing or the U.S. Mint? ADDENDA: Who did those moronic thugs trashing downtown Washington on Inauguration Day hurt the most? Immigrants. A limo driver was injured while the stretch limousine he drove was torched and destroyed by protesters near the intersection of 12th and K Streets NW in Washington, DC. Muhammad Ashraf, the owner of the company, Nationwide Chauffeured Services, is now speaking out against the protesters for what they did. Ashraf's employee, Luis Villarroel, 58, was dropping a client off at their destination when things turned ugly. Protesters smashed doors and windows in the vicinity, but then turned their attention to Villarroel and the limo. People began pounding on the car and started throwing stones and bricks in his direction. The driver ended up going to the hospital for cuts on his hands and arms from glass being shattered by thrown projectiles. Ashraf explained that with the loss of the vehicle, his company is now in the hole for $70,000 (if insurance doesn't cover riots) plus commission and the medical bills for his driver. It's ironic to think that protesters are angry with President Trump for his proposed plan to harm and demonize immigrants and Muslims, yet they personally have a hand in destroying the livelihood of a Muslim immigrant. They said if Trump were elected, gangs of thugs in the streets would attack immigrants… and they were right! | 
Comments
Post a Comment