One of Barack Obama’s
last attempts to destroy America’s greatness economically is the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP). Like NAFTA before it,
the left, and Hillary, will argue that this is the evolution in global
economics.
Hillary Clinton once
endorsed the TPP as the ‘gold standard’ for global trade. While she argued in the debate that she didn’t
call it the ‘gold standard’, but only ‘hoped’ it would be, fact checks show she
did actually call it the ‘gold standard’.
And as Trump has said,
once he pointed out the huge problems with the TPP, she changed her tune.
“I will stop any trade
deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific
Partnership”, she said at a campaign stop in Ohio back in August. “I oppose it
now. I’ll oppose it after the
election. And I’ll oppose it as
President.”
So
did Clinton flip on TPP? Context is key.
The
deal would be the largest multilateral trade agreement ever negotiated,
involving the U.S., emerging economies such as Vietnam
and traditional trading partners including Japan, Canada and Mexico.
It’s a major priority for the Obama administration, which sees the deal as key
to cementing the president’s so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. Obama
hopes to persuade lawmakers to ratify it before year’s end, but Clinton’s
opposition now exemplifies the political difficulty.
As a member of the Obama
Cabinet in his first term, Clinton carried out the
president’s priorities. Speaking on a trip to Australia in 2012 as
negotiators from the partner nations were still deep in negotiations, she
outlined the goals for it.
“This
TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair
trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing
field,” she said then1.
Since TPP is still in
negotiation stage, we’ll leave judgment of it for later. However, it is worthy to note that Trump has
clearly suggested that Clinton would backtrack on her rejection of it once in
office. Of this, I have no doubt. She will suggest that whatever concerned her
during the campaign has been resolved and she’ll be right back on the trail of
being a globalist.
And there in lay the
fundamental difference between what Hillary wants to do in trade deals vs. what
Donald Trump wants to do. All Hillary’s
trade deals will be rooted in her belief and goal for a global economy run by a
global government for global purposes.
As, with Barack Obama, Clinton’s interests lay first with the global
community and somewhere down the line with the United States.
This is not to suggest
she hates the United States. Nor does
Barack Obama, for that matter. What they
hate is how the United States, as it is now, stands in the way of the global
progress, they and their global financiers desire. They want the US to prosper, but under a
global umbrella.
Let me explain with a
little more local example. Before the 17th
Amendment was ratified, Senators were appointed by State Legislatures. Now, of course, they are elected in general
elections by the people. You may wonder
why that’s such a bad thing. After all,
isn’t it always better for the people to do the voting?
Yes and no. In the case of the United States, our
Constitution was designed to spread out and separate powers. The people’s representatives were elected
every 2 years into the House of Representatives. The States were represented by the
appointment of two Senators. And the
Nation was represented by the President through the electoral college process.
All were either directly
or indirectly voted on by the people. We’re
all well aware that the president isn’t always elected by the popular
vote. And, in fact, the so-called will
of the people could be set aside, by the Constitution, through the electoral
college.2
With the State
Legislatures appointing Senators, they were assured that the interests of the
State will represented in Congress. If
it weren’t the Legislature could simply recall the Senator. Now, no matter what the Senator does, so long
as he can convince the majority of state voters (usually the one with the most
money) then they can keep their jobs.
This is exactly what is
happening with trade agreements like TPP and other agreements. The global community is slowly forming their
own version of the United States. And
the United States is slowly, with the aid of globalists like Obama and Clinton,
just becoming another state in that global union.
Donald Trump looks at
trade not from a globalist’ perspective, but from a nationalist’s
perspective. He understands that we are
involved in a global economy. We have
been for much longer than any of us have been alive. But when Donald Trump goes out to negotiate a
trade deal he’s going out first as an American.
Making sure that deal benefits us, our economy, our workers, our
businesses and our people is most important to him.
Does he care about the
global economy? Absolutely. He knows that a strong global economy aids
Americans. But to him, that is secondary
to making sure that we come first.
When he threatens
tariffs, he does so, not because he wants to raise prices for products
Americans buy, but because sometimes tariffs are necessary to show our trade
partners that we are not happy with an unfair trade deal and we’re not playing
games.3
The argument some have
against tariffs is legitimate. If not
used wisely, it could cause a ripple of negative financial effects. But when it comes right down to it, are you
more at peace having a businessman in charge of our trade negotiations or would
you rather have a globalist politician in charge?
3. Tariffs would be necessary in
some cases “because they have to understand that we’re not playing games
anymore,” – Tampa, FL rally August 24, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment