USMCA Passed Senate Committee

While You're Distracted by Iran, Senate Committee Passed USMCA - Now Set for Full Floor Vote to Give Away American Sovereignty

Monday, January 13, 2020 15:36 

 

While Iran is taking center stage in the news, the US Senate Finance Committee voted to advance the trade treaty, not legislation as it’s being touted in the media, known as the US Mexico Canada Agreement by an overwhelming majority to allow for a full vote from the Senate soon.
Fox News reports:
The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement moved closer to a final vote in the Senate, with the Senate Finance Committee advancing the legislation Tuesday in a 25-3 vote.
The timing of a vote in the full Senate is uncertain, however. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said a vote will come after an impeachment trial, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not yet sent the two articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Republicans Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, with Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, voted against the updated North American trade deal.
“This modernized trilateral trade agreement will open new markets for American exporters, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, grow the national economy and protect U.S. workers,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement.
USMCA is expected to create around 176,000 new jobs and inject $34 billion into the U.S. auto industry, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo last month, citing International Trade Commission data. He added that as many as 589,000 new jobs could be created within five years.
“This new NAFTA delivers long-overdue upgrades to labor standards, the environment and digital trade, while providing certainty to farmers and manufacturers who have been hammered in recent years,” Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.
It requires 75 percent of automobile components be manufactured in the United States, Canada and Mexico in order to avoid tariffs, and that 40 to 45 percent of automobile parts be made by workers who earn at least $16 an hour by 2023.

But at what cost?
American sovereignty and very specific things outlined in our Constitution.  This is something no one in the media is talking about.
If you have not taken a look at what is in the USMCA, constitutional scholar Publius Huldah has outlined exactly how this will begin to set up global government in the Northern Hemisphere.

Video

Video

The USMCA Treaty (“Treaty”) was negotiated by U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer.  He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which works to move the United States into the North American Union (NAU). ¹
The Treaty advances the economic and regulatory integration of the three Parties.  It is the precursor to the political integration the globalists seek with the NAU. ²

1. Summary of objections to the Treaty

Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the “organic law” of our Land. ³ Treaties, like Acts of Congress, hold a lesser status:  they are part of “the supreme Law of the Land” only when they are authorized by “organic law” – our Constitution (Art. VI, cl.2). ⁴ 
While the United States is clearly authorized by Art. I, §8, cl.3 & Art. II, §2, cl.2, US Constit., to enter into Treaties with foreign Nations addressing Commerce; ⁵ the United States may not lawfully transfer to global or multi-national bodies, powers which “WE THE PEOPLE” delegated to our federal government when We ratified our Constitution.  But that is what the Treaty purports to do.
Even worse, the Treaty also purports to delegate to global or multi-national bodies powers which We never delegated to our federal government – but reserved to the States or the people.
The Treaty establishes a bureaucratic multi-national government which is to control all aspects of commerce and to which the United States, Mexico and Canada will be subject. 
The Treaty incorporates by reference many other documents.  Its frequent use of new terminology requires one to constantly refer to the various definition sections spread throughout the 34 Chapters.  It engages in the pernicious practice of making a statement, and then qualifying it by phrases such as, “unless otherwise provided in this Agreement” and “unless the Parties decide otherwise”. ⁶

2. Powers We delegated to our federal government

When the People of the United States ratified our Constitution, We “created” the federal government.  Article I created the Legislative Branch and itemized its powers. Article II created the Executive Branch and itemized its powers.  Article III created the Judicial Branch and itemized its powers.  Each Branch of the federal government is thus a “creature” of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms. None of the delegated powers may lawfully be re-delegated to global or multi-national bodies.
The Treaty violates the following provisions of our Constitution: 

• At Art. I, §1, We vested in Congress, all legislative Powers granted by our Constitution.
• At Art. I, §8, We granted to Congress the powers

o   Clause 1: To lay and collect Imposts (import tariffs)
o   Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
o   Clause 5: To coin Money and regulate the Value thereof
o   Clause 8: To issue Patents and Copyrights

• At Art. I, §9, cl. 1: Commencing January 1, 1808, We granted to Congress the power to control Migration (immigration) to the United States. 
• At Art. II, §2, cl. 2, We granted to the President the power to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. 
• At Art. III, §2, cl. 1, We declared that the judicial Power of the United States shall extend

o   to all Cases arising under Treaties made under the Authority of the United States
o   to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party 

• At Art. IV, §4, We imposed upon the United States the duties to:

o   guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government; and
o   protect each of the States against Invasion. 

• At Art. VI, cl. 2, We declared that our Constitution, and Acts of Congress and Treaties authorized by the Constitution, is the “supreme Law of the Land”. 
• In the 10^th Amendment, We declared that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people.

Art. I, §8, cl. 1 – to “lay and collect Imposts”
Our Constitution delegates to Congress the power to set the amounts of the tariffs on foreign imports.
The Treaty divests Congress of the power to unilaterally determine our tariffs.  USMCA Art. 2.4 ⁷ says:
“1. Unless  otherwise  provided  in  this  Agreement,  no  Party  shall  increase  any  existing customs duty, or adopt any new customs duty, on an originating good.

2. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, each Party shall apply a customs duty on an originating good in accordance with its Schedule to Annex 2-B (Tariff Commitments)”.

Art. I, §8, cl. 5 – to coin Money and regulate the Value thereof
Our Constitution delegates to Congress the power to control our money.⁸
But with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Congress and Woodrow Wilson unlawfully transferred power over our money to an international cabal of privately owned banks – the “Federal Reserve”. 
Shortly after WWII, the United States joined the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). ⁹  James Perloff’s article, Council On Foreign Relations – Influencing American Government, speaks of how the World Bank and IMF act as   
“…a loan-guarantee scheme for multinational banks. When a loan to a foreign country goes awry, the World Bank and IMF step in with taxpayer money, ensuring that the private banks continue to receive interest payments. Furthermore, the World Bank and IMF dictate conditions to the countries receiving bailouts, thus giving the bankers a measure of political control over indebted nations.”
The Treaty surrenders the United States’ power over money and our economy to the IMF.  USMCA Art. 33.1 defines “Article IV Staff Report” as the report prepared by the IMF respecting a country’s adherence to Art. IV, Section 3 (b) of the IMF Articles of Agreement.  Section 3 provides that the IMF shall oversee the compliance of each member with its obligations under Section 1 of Article IV.  Section 1 requires each member to “direct its economic and financial policies toward the objective of fostering orderly economic growth with reasonable price stability”, and to foster “orderly underlying economic and financial conditions and a monetary system that does not tend to produce erratic disruptions” [i.e., our economy is to be planned by the IMF].
Article IV, §3 (b) of the IMF Articles of Agreement states that the IMF “shall exercise firm surveillance over the exchange rate policies of members”, and “shall adopt specific principles for the guidance of all members with respect to those policies”.  USMCA Art. 33.4 confirms that the three Countries are “bound under the IMF Articles of Agreement to avoid manipulating exchange rates or the international monetary system”; but private manipulators (George Soros) don’t seem to be bound by that restriction.
USMCA Art. 33.6 establishes a Macroeconomic Committee which “shall monitor the implementation of this Chapter and its further elaboration.”  Paragraph 5 of Art. 33.6 empowers the Committee to amend and issue “interpretations” of Chapter 33; and declares that such interpretations “shall be deemed to be an interpretation issued pursuant to a decision by consensus of the Commission.” USMCA Art. 1.4 defines “Commission” as “the Free Trade Commission” established under USMCA Art. 30.1.
  Art. I, §8, cl. 8 – to issue Patents and Copyrights
The purpose of delegating the power to issue Patents and Copyrights to Congress is to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”.
The Treaty subordinates these property rights to the collective.  USMCA Art. 20.2 states:
“The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.”
Article 20.3 prohibits the Parties from making any laws or regulations inconsistent with Chapter 20; and
requires that any measures to protect property rights be “consistent with the provisions of this Chapter”. The Parties are “to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders”.  Article 20.5 requires each Party to ensure “that measures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade” or “contravene this Chapter”.
Article 20.7 requires the Parties to ratify or accede to a long list of international “agreements” including the World International Property Organization’s  (WIPO) Patent Law Treaty. The WIPO is an agency of the United Nations.
The 64 pages of Chapter 20 have nothing to do with protection of property rights in Inventors. Instead, Chapter 20 subordinates ownership of those rights to the collective; and establishes the framework for global government of patents and copyrights. ¹⁰
Art. I, §9, cl.1 grants to Congress power over Migration;
Art. IV, §4 requires the United States to protect each of the States against Invasion;
and Art. I, §8, cl. 15 authorizes the use of the Militia to repel invasions 
Our Framers understood that control over who enters our Country is an essential element of sovereignty.  
But the Treaty subordinates the United States’ sovereign power over immigration to global and multi-national bodies.  USMCA Art. 16.2 declares: 
“3. Nothing in this Agreement prevents a Party from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons of another Party into, or their temporary stay in, its territory, including those measures necessary to protect the integrity of, and to ensure the orderly movement of natural persons across, its borders, provided that those measures are not applied in a manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to any Party under this Chapter.” [italics added] 
Article 16.8 declares:
“Except for this Chapter, Chapter 1 (Initial Provisions and General Definitions), Chapter 30 (Administrative and Institutional Provisions), Chapter 31 (Dispute Settlement), Chapter 34 (Final Provisions), Article 29.2 (Publication), and Article 29.3 (Administrative Proceedings), this Agreement does not impose an obligation on a Party regarding its immigration measures.” [italics added] ¹¹ 
USMCA Art. 23.1 cites the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) “Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work” (1998), as guiding the treatment of labor issues under the Treaty. The ILO is an agency of the United Nations (UN); and part of the ILO’s “social justice” agenda is to formulate “fair migration schemes in regional integration processes”. 
So this is how the UN is to dictate immigration policy for the “regional integration” of Canada, the United States and Mexico. 
Art. II, §2, cl. 2, grants to the President the power to make Treaties,
provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur 
Chapter 30 of the Treaty establishes the Free Trade Commission.  It is the governing body of the bureaucracy which is created by the Treaty.  Among other powers, the Commission supervises the work of all committees and other subsidiary bodies established under the Treaty; has the power to merge or dissolve committees and other subsidiary bodies; and has the power to “consider” proposals to amend or modify the Treaty.  While Art. 30.2, 2. (c) lists 6 areas where modifications of the Treaty are subject to completion of “applicable legal procedures by each Party”, it does not require that other types of modifications of the Treaty be subject to such approval of the Parties. 
And while USMCA Art. 34.3, 1. provides, “The Parties may agree, in writing, to amend this Agreement”, it doesn’t say that is the exclusive means of amendment.  Accordingly, we must consider Art. 34.3 as providing an additional means of amendment. 
USMCA Article 30.2, 2. (f) grants to the Commission power to “issue interpretations” of the Treaty; and the footnote thereto says that its interpretations “are binding for tribunals and panels established under Chapter 14 (Investment) and Chapter 31 (Dispute Settlement).”  
And since, as noted above, the “interpretations” of Ch. 33 issued by the Macroeconomic Committee are considered as “interpretations” issued by the Free Trade Commission, the “interpretations” of the Macroeconomic Committee will also be binding on the tribunals deciding disputes between the Parties. 
We thus permit the “creature” of the Treaty to modify the document under which it holds its existence!¹²
Art. III, §2, cl. 1, grants to U.S. Courts the Power to decide all Cases arising under Treaties &
all Controversies to which the United States is a Party. 
In violation of our Constitution, the Treaty restricts the Parties to the dispute settlement procedures laid out in the Treaty.   
Chapter 31 of the Treaty addresses resolution of disputes involving violations of the Treaty or “interpretations” of the Treaty issued (or “deemed to be issued”) by the Free Trade Commission.  Disputes are heard by a panel of five drawn from a roster of up to 30 individuals appointed by the Parties. The panel is to make findings of fact and determinations and issue a report.  If the disputing Parties don’t agree on the report, the complaining Party may suspend various benefits held by the responding Party under the Treaty.
Article 31.3 limits the Parties’ choice of a forum for dispute resolution to that set forth in the Treaty or in another international trade agreement to which the disputing Parties are signatories. 
Article 31.20 permits a Party to intervene in proceedings already pending in a domestic judicial or administrative forum which involve the interpretation or application of the Treaty.  The purpose of such intervention is to inform the domestic tribunal of the “interpretations” of the Treaty issued (or “deemed to be issued”) by the Free Trade Commission. Thus, the “interpretations” of the Treaty issued by the “creature” of the Treaty are to be foisted on our domestic courts and administrative law judges!    
Note that Art. 31.21 expressly forbids a Party from making a law which grants a right of action against another Party on the ground that a measure of the other Party is inconsistent with the Treaty.    

3. Powers reserved by the States or the People which the Treaty transfers to global organizations

Our Constitution is one of enumerated powers only.  Most of the powers delegated to the federal government over the Country at large are listed within Art. I, §8.  See this Chart. 
Labor 
We did not delegate to our federal government power over labor issues.  However, beginning in the early 1900s, we permitted our federal government to exercise, by usurpation, powers over labor issues.¹³ As a result, we got the federal Department of Labor, a host of Acts of Congress addressing labor issues, and a plethora of Rules issued by the Department and published in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department, its Rules, and the Acts of Congress are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated. The Rules are also unconstitutional as in violation of Art. I, §1, US Constit. 
Chapter 23 of the Treaty transfers those usurped powers to the United Nation’s International Labor Organization (ILO).  
Article 23.1 defines “labor laws” as the statutes and regulations of a Party that are directly related to “internationally recognized labor rights” such as the “right” to collective bargaining; and which require Parties to make laws to provide wage-related benefits payments for workers such as profit sharing, bonuses, retirement, and healthcare.      
Here are some of the dictates set forth in the Treaty with which US laws and agency rules must comply: 

• At Art. 23.2, the Parties affirm their obligations stated in the ILO’s Declaration on Rights at Work and Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008). 
• Article 23.3 dictates that “Each Party shall adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder,” various rights, as stated in the ILO’s Declaration on Rights at Work; and “Each Party shall adopt and maintain statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, governing acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.” 
• Article 23.5 requires each Party to “effectively enforce its labor laws”. 
• Article 23.9 requires each Party to implement policies to protect workers against employment discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and caregiving responsibilities; and to provide job-protected leave for birth or adoption of a child and care of family members; and to protect against wage discrimination.¹⁴        

Additional Reserved Powers transferred to global or multi-national bodies 
The USMCA Treaty is long and complex: see the Table of Contents.  Here are brief comments on some of the other powers reserved by the States or the People which are unlawfully transferred by the Treaty: 

• Chapter 19 addresses digital trade.  Article 19.5 requires each Party to maintain a legal framework governing electronic transactions consistent with the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996.  That model law is a product of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. 
• Chapter 21 addresses competition policy.  Article 21.1 requires each Party to maintain and enforce “national competition laws” which proscribe “anticompetitive business conduct”.  The Parties are to apply those laws to “all commercial activities in its territory.”  Article 21.4 requires each Party to adopt or maintain national consumer protection laws or regulations that proscribe fraudulent and deceptive commercial activities. 

RELATED:  Judge’s Doublespeak: It’s Unconstitutional, but Lawful, for President to Order Wiretap without Warrant

• Chapter 24 addresses environmental laws. Article 24.3 requires each Party to ensure that its laws provide for high levels of environmental protection.  Article 24.4 requires each Party to enforce its environmental laws.  Article 24.9 requires each Party to control the production and use of substances which deplete or change the ozone layer [and on & on for 30 pages]. 

4. The Death of the Republican Form of Government

In a “republic”, the sovereign power is exercised by representatives elected by the People. 
Article IV, §4, US Constit., requires the United States to guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.   
But the USMCA Treaty, time after time, delegates the exercise of sovereign power to various panels, Committees, Commissions, UN organizations, and others – not one of which is elected by the People. 

5. Don’t fall for the carrot dangled in your face!

The Treaty reportedly contains some tariff benefits to various industries in the United States such as the auto and dairy industries.  Their profits (at least for a while) should increase as a result of the Treaty.  And for that, We are to surrender our sovereignty to the globalists?! 

6. The 1815 Free Trade Treaty between the United States and Great Britain

On Dec. 6, 1815, President James Madison sent this treaty to the Senate for ratification.  It is two pages long.  Unlike the USMCA Treaty, it doesn’t set up a government over the United States and Great Britain—thus proving that trade treaties need not surrender our sovereignty.  And Madison’s treaty doesn’t require a lawyer skilled in sniffing out dirty tricks to understand what it does.

THIS Humic Fulvic Has Cured Cancer and Much More! Stops Diseases DEAD! (See VIDEO)

7. Conclusion

In Federalist No. 22 (last para), Alexander Hamilton said that one of the problems with the Articles of Confederation (AOC), our first Constitution, was that it was never ratified by the PEOPLE. Because the only foundation for the AOC was the consent of state legislatures, questions had arisen concerning its validity.
This is why Art. VII of our second Constitution (the one we have now) provides for its ratification by Conventions held in each of the States.   In support of the ratification method set forth in Art. VII, Hamilton wrote:
“…The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.” [caps are Hamilton’s].
This is why our Constitution begins with, “WE THE PEOPLE”.  WE consented to it.
But the USMCA Treaty sets up global government over the economic issues covered by the Treaty. It is NOT to be submitted to THE PEOPLE for their consent.  The globalists who infest our Legislative and Executive Branches (the latter of which, as the Perloff article points out, has been dominated by the Council on Foreign Relations for over 70 years) want the Treaty ratified by a simple majority vote in Congress. ¹⁵ 
The USMCA Treaty is illegitimate; and the global government it imposes is tyrannical.
America, you are being duped by people who do not have an America First agenda, but are advancing a loss of American sovereignty.
All you’re hearing is economy and jobs, but what you aren’t hearing about is what it’s going to cost you, your children and your country.
Pay attention and call your senators and demand an end to this betrayal of the American people and the US Constitution.
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media


 

Trump-Pelosi Trade Maneuvers

Trump-Pelosi Trade Maneuvers: The New NAFTA 2.0, China Tariffs, and Brazil-Argentina Steel

Revised USMCA Trade Deal

By Dr. Jack Rasmus

Global Research, December 11, 2019

 

Today the Trump administration, with Democrats & AFLCIO leaders in tow, announced new final revisions and deal with Mexico on the new NAFTA 2.0 free trade agreement called the USMCA.

According to the corporate media, revisions to the USMCA demanded by Democrats since the initial agreement was reached with Mexico a year ago, have been agreed to by Trump, Pelosi, and the president of Mexico, Lopez-Obrador. The revisions reportedly mean more protections for US labor in particular. However, all we have at the moment is what’s reported in the corporate and mainstream media about the revisions. We’ll have to wait to read the final print of the actual agreement. But even the media reports are not much more than vague generalities about the terms and conditions of the revisions. The much heralded improvements to US labor interests in particular don’t appear that different from Trump’s originally negotiated deal a year ago.

The official media story line is that the new revisions provide protections for American workers now that did not exist previously during the 20+ years of NAFTA 1.0. During that period, easily 4-5 million US jobs were diverted to Mexico.

At issue during negotiations on revisions to NAFTA–now called the USMCA–was whether US inspectors would be allowed access to Mexico factories and businesses to ensure that the new labor terms of the revised USMCA trade deal were being enforced. Lopez Obrador and Mexican business have been adamantly opposed to allowing US inspectors access to Mexican factories, which suggests they had something to hide. (Mexico and AMLO both are in agreement on this issue). THey demanded that, instead of inspectors, there would be a joint US-Mexican panel to arbitrate labor disputes. But the issue is independent inspection, not a panel to rule on disputes that may never rise due to absence of inspection. What good is a panel of any kind ruling on a dispute that doesn’t get raised because there’s no independent inspection in the first place? Also important is whether the inspectors inspect unannounced, or whether they have to give a pre-notice before they inspect (that phony arrangement is how the US OSHA law has functioned with little effect for decades). Moreover, if there’s panel, how is it determined and what is its composition? If it’s equal US-Mexico representation, it might never come to a final decision.

In other words, if the final terms and conditions in print for the USMCA provide only for panels, in lieu of unannounced inspectors, then the so-called great labor protections touted by Democrats as part of a final deal are really just another fig leaf of labor protection.

While the mainstream media and Democrats talk up the labor revisions in today’s final deal, the real substance of the recent revisions–sought by Trump and US corporations and bankers–has had more to do with protecting the interests of US big pharma companies and US oil and bankers.

Big pharma has always wanted NAFTA-USMCA to include what it wanted in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal it didn’t get in 2017: i.e. protections on pricing of its drugs in Mexico at levels closer to its price gouging levels in the US. The fine print in the USMCA will tell whether it got this, or at least got a big change from Mexico’s current rules that keep the price of drugs lower in Mexico than in the US.

Another reported big concession by Mexico in the recent revisions apparently addresses the protection of US oil and energy, telecom and banker interests. Since assuming the Mexico presidency, Lopez-Obrador (AMLO) has been moving toward re-nationalizing Mexico’s PEMEX oil company that had come increasingly under financial control in recent decades by US investors and banks. AMLO wants to restore it to its former Mexican government ownership, or at least to control by Mexican banks and capital. Legislation has been drawn up by the AMLO adminstration to enable re-nationalization. US bankers and oil interests in response have wanted changes in the NAFTA-USMCA (NAFTA 2.0) to protect them from re-nationalization. They apparently have gotten it. Reportedly language in the USMCA now exempts oil, gas, power, transport, cement, banks and telecom from any potential future Mexican re-nationalization.

Trump Escalates Trade War with China. Orders Corporate America to Stop Doing Business with China. Beijing Will Retaliate

Free trade treaties are always more about money capital flows (from the US into the host country) than about goods flows across borders, even though the goods flows is what’s mostly reported in the media and press. NAFTA has been no different. Free trade–whether the original NAFTA 1.0 or the current 2.0 revisions called the USMCA–is about financing the relocation of US business and manufacturing from the US to the host country.Then about allowing US companies thereafter doing business in the host country to ship their lower cost goods back into the US market without having to pay tariffs. US corporations make greater profits, not only from cheaper production costs and absence of tariffs, but from continuing to charge higher prices in the US when they ship them back, tariff free, as well. But this is all greater profits from production and goods flows.

Free trade provides even greater profits for US investors and bankers who ‘grease the wheels’, so to speak, of the money capital flows in the first place. The money flows are what make profits from production of goods flows all possible int he first place. Banks charge the interest on the loans, and big fees on mergers and acquisitions by US business in the host country, now allowed by the free trade treaty. Banks also buy up the banks in the host country and make more money from lending to host country businesses. Offshore production and lending also allow US multinational corporations to engage in what’s called ‘intra-company’ price manipulation which permit them to reduce taxes on lower reported profits in the US. The offshored, foreign subsidiary operations ‘book’ all the profits–kept offshore and reduced in the US by means of intra-company price manipulation. Profits are still further boosted as now, under Trump, US multinational corporations get to avoid virtually all taxes on their offshore operations, as a result of Trump’s 2018 multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for multinationals.

Yet Trump, the Democrats, and the US corporate media would have us think the USMCA revisions are all about protecting US workers’ interests by introducing dispute panels. The five million US workers who have lost their jobs under NAFTA gained nothing, and paid everything in lost jobs, under NAFTA 1.0. And that’s not changing one iota under NAFTA 2.0, e.g. USMCA by introducing panels–or even if actual independent inspections were allowed. Under Trump no jobs have come back to the US due to any of his trade wars; and none will after USMCA revisions are signed off either.

Free trade is about enriching bankers and investors who ‘grease the wheels’ of US corporate foreign direct investment into the host country, now permitted by the free trade deal. Free trade is about raising profits and stock prices of US multinational corporations once they set up operations or buy up companies in the host country. Free trade is about politicians in both wings of the Corporate Party of America (aka Democrats and Republicans) fooling workers that they are somehow protecting their interests.

So why the closing of the USMCA deal and revisions now? After a year of stalemate in Congress? Likely because Democrat leaders are desperate to show their impeachment proceedings against Trump are not preventing them from passing legislation otherwise. But does anyone think that Trump, his Trumpublicans in Congress, i.e. Mitch McConnell and other Republican political sycophants, would likewise sign a deal if they were in the Democrats place? No, they’d play hardball and continue to refuse to agree to anything right up to the 2020 election.

Trump has recently softened his USMCA position as well in an attempt to close a USMCA deal with Congress and Mexico. Why now? Because Trump’s trade war with China has stumbled and stalled. It appears, per the Wall St. Journal today, that Trump will postpone his scheduled December 15 additional tariffs on China as a concession to get China to buy more of US farm goods. Trump needs to show something from his 18 months of trade wars. The US trade deficit has barely shifted at all during the period, still running near $50b a month. He desperately needs the USMCA deal–any deal–given that the China-US ‘mini’ trade deal is going nowhere and may not even get signed next year. (And it won’t if Trump does not agree in 2020 to further cut US tariffs if he wants more China farm purchases).

Trump’s recent re-imposition of tariffs on Brazil-Argentina steel should also be viewed as part of the mix of trade events in recent weeks. as the China mini-deal stalled, he had to look tough somewhere. Re-imposing steel tariffs was also a not so veiled threat to Brazil-Argentina (which hardly import any steel to the US at all) that they should think twice about increasing sales of wheat and soybeans to China. Trump’s tariffs on their steel is a shot across their trade bow. Both Trump’s concessions on USMCA and his re-imposing of steel tariffs on Brazil-Argentina are indications of his failing trade policy and his weakening bargaining position on such policy as the US 2020 election grows nearer.

Both he and the Democrats want to ‘look good’ for 2020 election purposes: Trump wants to show (and later exaggerate) what he achieved in the revisions to USMCA. Pelosi-Shumer want to argue (and will also exaggerate) the phony labor protections they achieved in the revised USMCA.

But US workers will get, as they have been getting, nothing out of the USMCA or any Trump trade deal so far, more lost jobs and higher prices on imported goods– to be exact $42 billion more in higher prices, according to the NY Fed, and $1000 per month in reduced household income due to the higher import prices, according to estimates by Chase Bank research.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Jack Rasmus.

Jack Rasmus is author of the just released book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020, which is now available for purchase at 20% discount from his blog, jackrasmus.com, and website, http://kyklosproductions.com. (Chapter 8 addresses the origins and evolution of US trade negotiations under Trump in further detail).

Featured image: President-elect Donald J. Trump and U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi smile for a photo during the 58th Presidential Inauguration in Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2017. More than 5,000 military members from across all branches of the armed forces of the United States, including reserve and National Guard components, provided ceremonial support and Defense Support of Civil Authorities during the inaugural period. (DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos)

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Dr. Jack Rasmus, Global Research, 2019

 

 

Blogger's note:  subterrnews.blogspot.com does not send cookies, or collect any information on those using the blog.  However, the blogspot is on google, and google may collect information, and send cookies.  Many of the links that  we connect to do not send out cookies or collect information, but some do.  You are keying in to this blog, and you have agreed to this.

The views expressed in the articles do not necessarily represent the opinions of this blog.  They are the views, and opinions of the author(s) of the article.

 

Mexico Leaks USMCA

Mexico Leaks USMCA True Purpose “Unity of the Americas””It will now be easier to establish panels of regional jurisdictions”

December 12, 2019 by IWB

 

Video 

 

“It will now be easier to establish panels of regional jurisdictions”
It will turn us into the EU! Not getting signed until the 19 of December. Call your congress!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union

Blogger's note:  subterrnews.blogspot.com does not send cookies, or collect any information on those using the blog.  However, the blogspot is on google, and google may collect information, and send cookies.  Many of the links that  we connect to do not send out cookies or collect information, but some do.  You are keying in to this blog, and you have agreed to this.

The views expressed in the articles do not necessarily represent the opinions of this blog.  They are the views, and opinions of the author(s) of the article.