Showing posts with label Trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trade. Show all posts

Friday, October 09, 2015

Kasich Hates Your Republican Values -- He Wants to "Redfine" Them For You

...but don't take my word for it, he said it:
Republican presidential contender John Kasich has split from other conservatives in his party on issues like immigration and same-sex marriage, but he's not denouncing the GOP's values just yet.
"I think I have right to define what the party is, Charlie," Kasich told "CBS This Morning" host Charlie Rose early Thursday. "Look, if I win, I have a right to define what the party is, and along the way I'm defining what it is."
How gracious of the governor not to denounce our values...just yet.

  • He's for illegal immigration with absolutely no consequences. (I've seen no statement or policy from him or attributed to him that would lead me to believe otherwise.)
  • He's for allowing ISIS to operate in Syria (His policy is a no-fly zone that Russia is currently "violating" by CRUSHING ISIS in Syria.)
  • He's pro-Common Core
  • He's pro Obamacare (even though he claims he wants repeal, his actions tell a different story/  See: Medicaid expansion) 
  • He's opposed to cheap oil (See: Fracking taxes)
  • He's a tyrant.  When he doesn't get his way, he goes around the legislature and takes "executive" action (Sound familiar?)
 There are reasons why people like Joy Behar and Rachel Maddow like him.  He's NOT one of us.  He is one of THEM.

My favorite bit is about the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

Kasich said that he believes "it's good for the U.S. not only in terms of economics but in terms of foreign policy. Trade can make a difference in strengthening us around the world."

He added that while he hasn't read the full details of the trade bill, he does support it.
He doesn't need to read the bill to know that he likes it.  Obama likes it and that's good enough for him.

Lastly, there's this:

When questioned about his differing stance on same-sex marriage, Kasich said, "Look, I believe in traditional marriage, but the court has ruled."
The Court ruled on slavery, segregation and women's suffrage too.....  Kasich doesn't really believe in traditional marriage or he'd recognize that the decision doesn't hold up to the values of his party and would insist that the party continue to fight.

Instead, he wants to "redefine" Republican values just as he has "redefined" conservatism in Ohio.  How'd THAT work out for us?

Friday, September 28, 2012

Obama's China Policy

In a recent interview with The Plain Dealer, President Obama proved his inability to deal with our competitors in China. In addressing Chinese trade violations he said the United States must not “go out of our way to embarrass” the country, which he believes would “trigger an all-out trade war that would damage both economies.” Is he saying he doesn’t want to embarrass the Chinese by enforcing legal and fair trade practices? Because that’s sure what it sounds like.

The United States does not and should not support trade practices that are questionable or illegal. By saying he will not strictly refuse to accept Chinese trade policies questioned by governments the world over, President Obama is capitulating to that nation’s demands and is weakening America’s international power. But that’s only the beginning of his disappointments on matters of international trade.

On seven occasions, President Obama has refused to label China a currency manipulator. For three years, Obama stalled approval of three American free trade agreements. On Obama’s watch, the United States has sat on the sideline while our competitors have been aggressively moving forward, putting American jobs at risk.

President Obama’s trade policies are killing the American economy, and Mitt Romney is the solution. He will not tolerate unfair trade practices, Chinese or otherwise, and his economic plan will cut the deficit, achieve energy independence, champion small business, and create 12 million new jobs. That’s the sort of policy every American can get behind.

Friday, October 28, 2011

GUEST COLUMN: "Trade Pacts Could Benefit Ohio Farms, Factories, and Freight Haulers" by Rep. Schmidt

Rep. Jean Schmidt
By Rep. Jean Schmidt

I traveled to Panama last week to discuss implementation of a free-trade agreement.

During the visit, I met with Panama’s president, Ricardo Martinelli, and participated in panel discussions on economic development with members of the country’s National Assembly. The topics included issues that could benefit Southern Ohio.

I’m excited about what the expansion and improvement of the Panama Canal could mean for Hamilton, Clermont, Brown, Adams, and Scioto counties – all of which border the Ohio River and are part of the 2nd Congressional District. I also represent nearby Pike County and Warren County, and they might benefit as well.

Commercial traffic on the Ohio River averages more that 150 million tons a year, and much of the cargo that passes by my district eventually is transferred to sea-going vessels destined for ports throughout the world.

That cargo includes coal, crude oil, petroleum products, sand, gravel, iron, steel, chemicals, and grain.

A lot of that cargo ends up traveling through the Panama Canal.

Although there is some uncertainty as to what the ultimate impact of the Panama Canal’s expansion and improvements will be, the results likely will be positive for both Panama and the United States.

For Panama, the completion of the project in 2014 will mean more jobs, economic growth, enhanced national pride, less unemployment, and less poverty.

For us, the project should translate into faster shipping times, especially between the East Coast of the United States and Asia.

Faster shipping means cheaper shipping. And cheaper shipping means many U.S. products will now become financially competitive in Asian markets.

The Cincinnati Enquirer recently detailed the excitement and enthusiasm of some political and business leaders in Southern Ohio. They are trying to prepare for new economic opportunities that might result from increased commercial river traffic as a result of the expansion and improvements to the Panama Canal.

“Freight volume in the region is expected to grow by 56 percent over the next three decades, including a 5.5 percent rise in barge freight,” the newspaper reported.

Three separate free-trade agreements that I worked hard for in the House – involving Panama, Colombia and South Korea – were approved the week before I traveled to Central America.

These free-trade agreements could be a boon for farmers, manufacturers, and freight haulers throughout the 2nd Congressional District. That’s because the agreements eliminate tariffs that made U.S. products unnecessarily expensive in those countries.

The Ohio Soybean Association estimates that the free-trade agreements will result in a $3 billion increase in soybean exports to the three trading partners. Slightly over half of that, $1.8 billion, will come from increased soybean purchases by South Korea, the association said.

Because agricultural exports move in bulk, water-borne freight is likely to grow as goods are carried by barge down the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to the Gulf of Mexico. This bump in river traffic also is expected to result in construction of terminals and other necessary infrastructure to handle the purchases from our trading partners.

These are the kinds of things that actually stimulate an economy – buyer and seller, supply and demand. Such economic activity causes businesses to grow and unclench their grip on cash, which they have been saving to keep their companies viable in case the economy takes another dive.

The free-trade agreements provide us with hope for the future, and recent history shows it’s more than wishful thinking.

Statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce show that American exports to a dozen countries increased by an average of 25.6 percent in the first three years after free-trade agreements took effect between 1985 and 2008. Taken together, the increased business between the United States and these trading partners is expected to provide a $12 billion shot in the arm for the American economy.

Making a deal with South Korea was a big prize. The Koreans went out of their way to make life difficult for American car makers who had sought to sell vehicles in that market. South Korea would almost whimsically change fuel-efficiency standards on American cars exported there, setting mileage and safety requirements that U.S. carmakers couldn’t meet. Either the rules kept changing or the new standards would price American cars out of the market, according to a report by Bloomberg News.

Some of this seemed like a college prank – such as limiting the square footage for U.S. dealerships in Korea, which resulted in cramped showrooms. Or tinkering with the size of the country’s license plates so they wouldn’t fit on the bumpers of U.S.-built cars, Bloomberg reported.

I hope all of that is behind us now – that we can put away the whoopee cushions and water balloons. It’s time to get our rails, roads, and rivers ready to carry more of the commerce of our factories and farms.

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Boehner Welcomes Progress On Job-Creating Trade Agreement

Release:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) issued the following statement in response to progress made today to move forward with job-creating trade agreements:
         
  “With today’s news, the administration has indicated it is ready to meet our request to advance the three pending trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Now it’s time we move to expand market access for American-made goods in all three of these nations. Putting Americans back to work is the top priority of the House, and enacting these critical agreements will help create jobs and provide a needed boost to our economy. I look forward to working with the administration to pass these trade agreements in tandem with one another, as well as engaging in a broader discussion about America’s trade and workforce policies.”

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Friday, January 30, 2009

Portman Update

What exactly is the nature of Rob Portman's concerns with NAFTA and Bush administration trade policy? Details and specifics are needed in order to evaluate the implications and assess any damage or benefit.

We'll try to dig in to it and report back on what we learn.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Obama Flip-Flop Update

In today's WMD Blast, I thought we might have #31...but NAFTA had already been included in the original list. I have updated the entry to include the video that Red State dug up that further illustrates the point.

I also updated Flip-Flop #28: Withdrawal of Iraq to include further evidence provided by the Politico.

Check out the entire collection of Obama Flip-Flops by clicking here.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Oil and the Trade Deficit

I had the opportunity to listen in on a conference call with Republican Leader, my Congressman and a Great American -- John Boehner -- and one of the participants asked a very good question regarding oil and the trade deficit. A quick search turned up some very telling information from 2006 that I can only imagine has gotten worse since then.

Here is Economist's View:
Has the increase in oil prices affected the U.S. trade deficit?

Figure 1 plots monthly data from January 2002 to July 2006 for both the overall trade balance and the petroleum-related trade balance; the latter includes imports and exports of crude oil, fuel oil, liquefied petroleum gases, and other petroleum products.



It shows that the overall monthly trade deficit went from $30 billion to $68 billion, and the petroleum-related trade deficit went from $6 billion to $26 billion. These numbers imply that higher oil prices and the resulting higher cost of petroleum imports have accounted for over 50% of the deterioration in the overall U.S. trade deficit during this period. Indeed, looking at only the last two years, from August 2004 to July 2006, the data are more striking. The overall trade deficit grew from $54 billion to $68 billion and the petroleum-related trade deficit rose from $14 billion to $26 billion, indicating that the deterioration in the petroleum-related trade deficit accounts for 80% of the worsening in the overall trade deficit.
Seriously, read the whole thing...

Now I will eagerly step aside for someone more knowledgeable in such things than I, but I think the trade deficit issue is another argument for increasing the domestic supply of oil. And, I think Democrats might actually be moved by this one because there has got to be a way to make this about labor unions...

Friday, March 07, 2008

NAFTA Poll Results

the results of the latest WMD Flashbang Poll are in...

The Question: Is NAFTA Responsible for Ohio's Economic Woes?

The Results:
Yes! All our jobs have been shipped to Mexico and Canada! 7 (14%)

No! Blame the Politicians! 36 (76%)

What's a Job? 4 (8%)
Now, what we need are seven answers to the followup question, which a reader so cleverly asked during the poll...

If America is losing jobs to Mexico, WHY ARE THERE SO MANY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM MEXICO HERE?

Do your best, liberals, to answer that question, but I fully expect to hear from seven of you with an answer...

Thursday, July 19, 2007

Labor Rules

One of the topics that I really haven't explored as much as I have wanted to is how the unions in this country influence the Democrats. On the surface, it appears to be about "protecting" the American worker, but often it is really about helping out lefty dictators like Hugo Chavez.

Bob Novack picks up this theme...
Ignoring pleas from outraged South American governments, Democratic leadership of the House this week was adamant about Congress going into its August recess without taking action on free trade agreements with Peru and Panama as promised. Instead, two senior Democratic House members appear determined to travel to those two rare Latin American friends of the United States , to hector them into passing domestic legislation as a prerequisite for approving already negotiated bilateral trade pacts.

Why did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi renege on her previous commitment? She dances to the tune of AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who preaches outright protectionism. Hostility toward not only the Peru and Panama pacts but also a vital agreement with Colombia can be traced to influence on U.S. unions by South America's leftist labor leaders, originating in Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.
...
Sweeney makes life difficult for Rangel, who seeks a record of achievement in the chairmanship for which he waited so many years. But when labor commands, Sandy Levin obeys. When I met him in the 1970s, Levin was a high-minded liberal as a party and legislative leader and candidate for governor of Michigan. In Congress, he is an errand boy for organized labor who on June 18 withdrew previous support for trade agreements.
Those who argue that free trade with other nations costs American jobs fail to understand that free trade also imports jobs for American workers. It is a delicate balance that requires significant focus. Throw in the lefty shenanigans from Chavez and his ilk and free trade becomes much less about fair trade and more about protecting dictators and thugs.