GOP Shouldn’t Surrender On “Obamatrade”

DON’T “FAST TRACK” FAUX FREE TRADE BILL … By FITSNEWS || If you’re struggling to make ends meet (and judging by the data, many of you are) chances are you’re not familiar with the debate over granting “fast-track” trade authority to the administration of Barack Obama for the Trans-Pacific Partnership…


By FITSNEWS || If you’re struggling to make ends meet (and judging by the data, many of you are) chances are you’re not familiar with the debate over granting “fast-track” trade authority to the administration of Barack Obama for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Yeah, who are we kidding … of course you’re not familiar with the debate.  And in fairness, neither are we.

Fortunately for all of us, Forbes’ contributor Daniel DiMicco is paying attention to this monstrous “Obamatrade” proposal – and he’s got some solid arguments as to why approving it would create all sorts of havoc on American jobs, incomes and supply chains.

“The kumbaya trade agreement cheerleader crowd has convinced itself that (forty) years of trade deficits don’t matter, even as the shrinkage of GDP growth has rendered the U.S. a dwindling superpower teetering on the brink of second class economy status,” DiMicco wrote this week.

Wait … isn’t that isolationist talk?

No … in fact, even the hard-core free traders over at the Cato Institute have ripped this deal for doling out “special privileges to foreign corporations” and “subsidizing discretionary outsourcing” – which is another way of saying paying companies to ship away jobs that could be done in America at a comparable cost.

It also “weakens the rule of law,” according to the Cato report.

DiMicco takes the Cato arguments a step further – breaking down in detail how “Obamatrade” isn’t free trade, but rather “mercantilism enabling” trade.

“They want a deal that says ‘free trade’ on the front cover even as the actual text incentivizes and enables scores of creative mercantilist tactics,” DiMicco wrote, referring to the “Wall Street Democrats” and “Wall Street Republicans” in the U.S. Congress who are supporting the agreement.

Translation?  Free trade is being bastardized by the Obama administration to perpetuate the government’s ongoing wealth redistribution scheme.

DiMicco also provides some historical context for the debate.

“Modern fast-track legislation began with the Trade Act of 1974,” he wrote.  “We have had 40 years of trade deficits shrinking our economy ever since.  It has been a net detriment rather than a net benefit.  It is time to focus upon true free trade with rules, reciprocity and results, while fighting the increasing scourge of global mercantilism.  We must seek balanced trade flows over time rather than be condemned to serve as the global importer of last resort.”

He adds “it is also time to preserve our constitutional system of checks and balances and refrain from giving more power to global institutions that displace our legislative and judicial branches.”

In other words, we shouldn’t approve a deal that surrenders our sovereignty and forces a competitive disadvantage on American businesses when legal disputes arise in the global marketplace (as they are wont to do).

We support free trade at FITS … but an agreement which not only encourages but actively subsidizes companies shipping jobs overseas is anything but “free trade.”

If companies decide to take their business overseas, that’s fine … more power to them.  But we shouldn’t pay them to do it.  And “Republicans” certainly shouldn’t back Obama’s power play on the issue.

Anyway, to read all of DiMicco’s thoughts on this issue, check out his excellent post HERE.


Related posts

US & World

Amanda Cunningham: The Reach For Freedom

Amanda Cunningham

Letter: About That Semiconductor Guest Column …


Joe Biden Dials It Back In Ukraine

Will Folks


Rocky December 17, 2014 at 3:48 pm

Yeah, the GOP should be the party against free trade. That makes sense.

Smirks December 17, 2014 at 4:22 pm

There are strong liberal arguments to make against TPP, too. (Of course, Obama isn’t an actual liberal, but don’t tell the Republicans that.)

What was that? Oh, I mean, uhh… All hail our corporate masters!

Jan December 17, 2014 at 5:46 pm

If Obama is for it, they are agin it, even if they were for it before he was for it and even if they have to change their core principals to oppose it.

SCBlues December 18, 2014 at 4:47 am

“If Obama is for it, they are agin it, even if they were for it before he was for it and even if they have to change their core principals to oppose it.”
That’s exactly what they were schooled to do in that meeting held after President Obama was first elected but had yet to take office.
The hand-out given to all in attendance was titled ‘Let’s Fuck this Nigger”

Bible Thumper June 24, 2015 at 10:27 am

You completely ignore the facts on TPA. Republicans in the House and Senate overwhelmingly supported the President and the Democrats overwhelmingly opposed Obama. Not only that Republicans have supported Obama on the renewal of the major provisions of the Patriot act.

Dubya December 17, 2014 at 5:47 pm

Outsourcing is good for the country!!!

Dan January 11, 2015 at 12:11 pm

you are right and at the same time dead wrong! Go Figure!

Obamalican December 17, 2014 at 6:32 pm

Since today’s Republicans are only defined by how they respond to Obama, can we now call them Obamalicans?

SCBlues December 18, 2014 at 4:45 am

“Since today’s Republicans are only defined by how they respond to Obama, can we now call them Obamalicans?”
That works. So does “stupid fucking assholes”.

Bible Thumper December 18, 2014 at 12:30 am

I seldom have had a fits article result in as much difficult research as this one. One thing is clear. The links to two articles supporting your views that are in almost complete disagreement.

The Daniel J. Ikenson article published by the CATO Inst. supports “fast tracking” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. He doesn’t want the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which enables foreign investors to sue host governments in third-party arbitration tribunals, but doesn’t say that he would oppose the treaties if included. He listed eight reasons for opposing ISDS, but one his main reasons was to increase the treaties chances of passage. It is a great article, but only discusses this provision and briefly dismisses the other arguments against.

The article by Daniel DiMicco in Forbes is opposed to both treaties and to “fast tracking” in general. It is relevant to know that DiMicco is chairman emeritus of Nucor Steel and a member of the board of the Coalition for a Prosperous America. To him multi-national corporations are evil conglomerates that offshore jobs. I don’t suppose he is talking about companies like BASF, Siemens, Michelin, Bosch or BMW. One of the few areas where South Carolina is a leader is in jobs linked to foreign investment. The Coalition for a Prosperous America is interestingly enough linked to receive contributions on the liberal website. DiMicco throws out all liberal red meat terms; globalist, multi-nationals, Wall Street and unilateral American trade disarmament. He reminds me of Fritz Hollings:”We got to much consumption going on”. He even dredge up old terms and claims the treaties promotes “foreign Mercantilism”. That will raise the ire of all who remember the Revolutionary War. He is part of the old Keynesian school of zero sum trade. There has got to be a loser. Libertarians and Republicans are for greater freedom. That means buying and selling legal goods anywhere you wish without barriers that favor either foreign or domestic producers. DiMicco is for the government cronyism to protect industry, specifically Nucor, from competition.

cwellis December 18, 2014 at 9:57 pm

“Libertarians and Republicans are for greater freedom. That means buying
and selling legal goods anywhere you wish without barriers that favor
either foreign or domestic producers. DiMicco is for government cronyism
to protect industry, specifically Nucor, from competition.”
Generalization, oversimplification and name-calling do not good arguments make. By your definition George Washington was a protectionist – he supported domestic producers over foreign producers, making a point of wearing a suit of American made cloth to his own inauguration (though he had the “freedom” to wear a garment of British-made textile.) And by your definition the Constitution must be a protectionist cronyist anti-Libertarian, anti-Republican document, since it explicitly gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations even as it prohibits barriers to trade among the several states. (And Congress used that power to pass a tariff bill as its first act.)

Bible Thumper December 18, 2014 at 11:00 pm

George Washington was free to wear any suit he chose. That is freedom not protectionism. Of course, any country has a right to control it’s borders including trade.

“The Constitution … gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations even as it prohibits barriers to trade among the several states. (And Congress used that power to pass a tariff bill as its first act.)”

The Constitution also says the “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…”

I believe that these powers should be use to negotiate treaties that require reciprocity in international trade regulations. I only support lowering trade barriers if barriers to the US exports are lowered.

SC Commerce Dept:
South Carolina ranked first among U.S. states in tire exports, holding nearly 30 percent of the share of U.S.-made exported tires. Additionally, the Palmetto State ranked second in the export of automobiles to world markets.

In 2013, South Carolina’s exports to 202 countries topped $26.3 billion, up 3.9% from 2012, ranking the state 17th in the U.S. for export growth. 

For the first time(2013), China surpassed Canada and Germany as the state’s(SC) top export partner. 

cwellis December 19, 2014 at 8:29 am

“I believe that these powers should be use to negotiate treaties that
require reciprocity in international trade regulations. I only support
lowering trade barriers if barrier to the US exports are lowered.”
Totally agree.
That means the TransPacific Partnership should be submitted to Congress (and most importantly, the Senate) as a Treaty requiring 2/3 majority for approval, not disguised as legislation requiring only a simple majority, and should be submitted under regular order, not “fast track,” banning filibuster, cloture, full debate, and amendments.
An agreement “lowering trade barriers if barrier to the US exports are lowered” would not require the thousands of pages that we find in the TPP. Only a small fraction of the TPP deals with tariffs and quotas. As you know, there’s the misbegotten ISDS, international tribunals, patent and copyright and all manner of things that make TPP managed trade and protectionism for the corporatist cronies at the negotiating table, not free trade.

Bible Thumper December 19, 2014 at 12:36 pm

You can’t allow amendments to a treaty that would have to be renegotiated with a dozen countries each wanting amendments also. That would never work.

cwellis December 19, 2014 at 1:31 pm

You cited the Treaty clause and said it should be used “to negotiate treaties that require reciprocity in international trade regulations.”
That means TPP should be submitted to the advice and Consent of the Senate under regular order, requiring two thirds majority in the Senate for approval.
That’s not what Obama and McConnell have in mind. Do you agree with Obama and McConnell or your own previous statement saying it should be submitted under the treaty clause?

Bible Thumper December 19, 2014 at 3:09 pm

Dooh! Furst, I git learn’n on trade economics now de legislative process? I spoke out of turn.
No trade treaty has ever been passed under the treaty clause and can’t be if it changes any legislation. Changes in legislation requires approval of both the House and Senate.

Before 1934, there were no free trade agreements. If Congress wanted to establish a higher or lower tariff for particular imports, it would act unilaterally without negotiations with other countries. The President could veto but had no authority to negotiate Congressional legislation with other countries.

Reciprocal Tariff Act of 1934
“The RTAA’s novel approach freed Roosevelt and Congress to break this trend of tariff increases. First, it tied tariff reductions by the United States to reciprocal tariff reductions with international partners. It also allowed Congress to approve the tariffs with a simple majority, as opposed to the requisite two-thirds majority necessary for other treaties. Lastly, the president had the authority to negotiate the terms. These three innovations in trade policy created the political will and feasibility to enact a more liberal American trade policy.”
These were bilateral agreements. As each country reciprocated the tariffs were lowered for that country alone.
Now trade agreements require more than changes in U.S. tariffs, and quotas and they must be agreed by many countries simultaneously. Also, these agreements don’t only regulate the trade between the US and these countries but also their trade among themselves.

It is not possible using the normal legislative process with amendments, required multiple committee approvals, resolution of House and Senate versions and possible denial of cloture. All this would have to occur simultaneously with negotiations with multiple foreign powers.
Every multilateral trade agreement ever passed by the USA was by the “Fast Track” process. “Fast Track” itself has to be approved by Congress and has always been approved for a limited time and purpose.

obamatrade December 19, 2014 at 3:55 pm

Yup, dat dere representative gov’ment sure is too messy and complicated for dis modrn wurld we live in. Might as well scrap it n just give Emperor Obama da powers he needs to set the wurld right fur us peons. Bend over, Fast track, he we cum!

Dan January 10, 2015 at 10:01 am

Sorry but you have this whole thing “assbackwards”!

Another Trade agreement to nowhere! EVERY past deal has been a failure as we are terriblr negotiators and even worse enforcers of the penalties for cheating and circumvention by the other signers. They use non-tariff barriers to replace their tariffs and we always fail to hold them accountable or make adjustments to negate their cheating. There is nothng “Protectionist” about holding them accountable to their agreements to trade with us, NOTHING!

These agreements turn into one-way NET benefits for everyone but us. Don’t believe me? Then look at the facts…..our accumulative trade deficit in goods and now technology/services is now in the TRILLIONS of $ (close to $8 Trillion) over the past 15-20 years. Fact not ‘Kool-Aid’ rehtoric by people, Companies, Organizations, who are ignorant by a lack of knowledge or ignorant by convenience.

America-(Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, …….) Wake Up to the realities of global trade. It does not work for us on a net trade basis and on a NET basis is a job killer and low paying job creator for American workers and Domestic Manufacturers. Probabaly the single biggest reason for the death of our Middle Class and the widening of the wealth gap in America.

Bible Thumper January 10, 2015 at 10:31 am

Protectionism always has the same effect. Short term gain then gradual lose of competitiveness. BMW and Boeing parts are made all over the world. That is the advantage of free trade. Other countries may cheat, but in the long run they lose. Japan is an example of that failure. We made the same complaints about Japan and long before the tsunami their economy was in decline. Our middle class is suffering, but it will be worse like the rust belt of the seventies in the Midwest if we raise trade barriers. Trade barriers are like welfare. It discourages efficiency and innovation. It becomes politically difficult to have necessary layoffs because now you must curry favor from the government for protectionist policies. Gradually you fall behind.

Dan January 10, 2015 at 12:17 pm

Thumper, we are not talking about erecting trade barriers, just the opposite! When we negotiate trade agreements, they always have and should have avenues to enforce them. Applying those safeguards is not protectionism, it’s part of the agreement. The problem is that most times while we negotiate away the tariffs the others party to the agreement put in place and enforce non tariff barriers that accomplish the same things as the tariffs! Barriers like VAT’s or value added taxes and many more that serve to prevent our being competitive in their markets. Mexico did it after NAFTA, Europe does it, and on and on.
Please educate yourself better on the realities of global managed trade.
God Bless,

Bible Thumper January 10, 2015 at 12:51 pm

Those countries that try to defeat the agreements with a VAT or other ploys end up the loser in the end just like Mexico.

9" December 18, 2014 at 3:20 pm

That reminds me of a song…..

David E.H. Smith December 18, 2014 at 10:24 pm


HOW to DISCOURAGE CORPORATE USA, et al, “Need” to FLEECE NON-Shareholders & GLOBALLY EXPAND & DiLUTE $17+ Trillion DEBT.

TPP/CETA/C-CIT Treaties; SUING The Global Corporate Economy; the harmless NON Shareholders. ‘Coveted’ HK Investor; BUY GOLD?

Higher Taxes (But, No ‘NEW’ Taxes), More Cuts to Services to Pay Secret TPPartnership Tribunal Penalties; NON Shareholders Have to Pay SHAREHOLDERS, corporate America, Japan, et al.
How Much are You Selling your Right to Sue the Global Corporate Economy for?

But, WILL CHINA, The Muslim World, INDIA, et al, SUPPORT PUTIN (BRICS, et al); The WHITE KNIGHT?

It will be good for, not only the NON shareholders of the enterprises that will be generated by the on-going global “cooperation” of corporate treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, including the China – Canada Investment Treaty, The Trans Pacific Partnership, the EU – Canada CETA,
for the potential shareholders, as well,
who are quite interested to know if President Xi Jinping (China) will support Russia as a co-member of B.R.I.C.S. when President Putin uses his potential role as “The White Knight”.

And, while President Putin’s potential support as “The WHITE KNIGHT” in the development of the CETAgreement, et al, litigation below can dramatically off-set the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the present & future sanctions leveled by American led, et al, corporations & financial institutions via their governments’ signing their global corporate economic treaties/”arrangements”,
and the potential for making trillions of dollars for the Russian economy over the next 30 – 40 years & beyond,

are the citizens (SHAREHOLDERS & NON shareholders) of Germany & JAPAN just being prudent in wanting to wait for the outcome of:

1) The Submission to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA & the highest court in Germany, et al, to make their findings regarding “The Submission”:

“The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, Australia, Canada, et al
the harmless Canadian NON shareholders, both; Native & non Native, et al”?


2) “The MERKEL (Chanc. Germ.) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued”?

Have the federal representatives of the nations that are the potential signatories of CETA, TPP, et al, willingly provided the NON shareholders of China, Canada, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, with the aforementioned information? Are the federal representatives, et al, depriving the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, of the due diligence information that enables the family of the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, to make informed decisions regarding their financial planning?

And, would a reasonable person conclude by a preponderance of the evidence, &/or, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these documents, et al, demonstrate that the SHAREHOLDERS of AMERICA, CANADA , the EU & Trans Pacific nations, et al, really do not care which NON shareholders pay them the punitive penalties, etc., by way of their secret (“Death-Star Chamber”) TRIBUNALS, as long as its not the SHAREHOLDERS who pay & not their corporations regardless of which country the corporations:

1) operating from,
2) maintain their headquarters,
3) use to do their cyber banking, accounting, “taxation”, etc.
4) et al?

And, re; the CHINA – Canada Investment Treaty, is it understandable why the “coveted” Hong Kong investor & his associates are “concerned” with the aforementioned findings of The SUPREME COURT of CANADA, et al, & the effects of the findings, et al, on the EU, AMERICA, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, treaties with CHINA, et al?

In regard to arms sales; how about the sale of arms (non nuclear) in general in regard to the “trade” treaties that are continuing to be secretly negotiated and how will the Tribunals, both; B.R.I.C.S. & non BRICS, adjudicate, decide & penalize the NON SHAREHOLDERS for the sale of legitimate, semi- legitimate & “illegal” sales of arms within the signatories nations & the those of others, &/or, unaligned? Of particular, interest is China, which does have an treaty with Canada, which puts China “at odds” with other arms manufacturing & nuclear powers that it (China) does not have any “arrangements” with.

Are these types of questions that your politicians & the corporate lobbyists calls “forget-me-nots” (“Buyer Beware”) that will be (maybe) worked out after the fast tracked signatures are obtained?

And, what do you think is the significance of the line in The Submission to The Supreme Court of Canada ‘…And, lest one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous international treaties/’arrangements’ began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have ‘foisted’ upon Native Canadians…’? What are the various ways that this line will cost the SHAREHOLDERS, et al?

On the other hand, it may be worth repeating yet again,

‘What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st’.

And, how will YOUR submission to YOUR highest court IMPROVE upon The Submission that is presently before The Supreme Court of Canada?

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
– ‘Qui tam…’
Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families’ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…
For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by way of the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord


Leave a Comment