The Daily Signal - #386: The Trade Deal's Overlooked Liberal Policies

Episode Date: January 30, 2019

There's a lot to like about the new United States-Canada-Mexico trade deal (also known as the USMCA), says Tori Whiting of The Heritage Foundation. But there's also some elements that should give conservatives pause, such as minimum wage requirements and liberal social policies on sexual orientation and gender identity. Whiting joins us to explain what's good and what's bad in the deal--and what lawmakers can or can't do to change it. Plus: We discuss how the new Broadway edition of "Oklahoma" will be "gun neutral."We also cover these stories:•The U.S. ignores China and Russia at its peril, warns a new report released by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats that states, “China and Russia are more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s."•Senate Democrats have delayed a final committee vote on William Barr to be the next attorney general, pushing his likely confirmation to next week. •A Democrat-run House committee is floating the idea of removing “so help me God” from the oath witnesses take before speaking to the committee. The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, January 30th. I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. President Trump promised to get rid of NAFTA. Now the U.S., Canada, and Mexico have reached agreement on a replacement trade deal. But it's not all great stuff. Today we'll talk to Tori Whiting, a trade expert at the Heritage Foundation, and she'll unpack what's good and what's not.

Plus, Oklahoma, the famous theater production, is about to hit Broadway, but it's doing so in a rather anti-gun fashion. We'll talk about it. But first, we'll cover a few of the top headlines. The United States ignores China and Russia at its peril, warns a new report released by Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coates. The report states, China and Russia are more aligned than at any point since the mid-1950s, and the relationship is likely to strengthen in the coming year, as some of their interests and threat perceptions converge, particularly regarding perceived U.S. unilateralism and interventionism and Western promoting.

of democratic values in human rights, end quote. Plus, look for foreign powers to continue to try to influence elections. The report states, our adversaries and strategic competitors probably already are looking to the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests. More broadly, U.S. adversaries and strategic competitors almost certainly will use online influence operations to try to weaken democratic institutions, undermine U.S. alliances, and partnerships and shape policy outcomes in the United States and elsewhere. Well, Senate Democrats have delayed a final committee vote on William Barr to be the next

Attorney General, pushing his likely confirmation to next week. Senator Diane Feinstein of California expressed concern over a memo that Barr had written, which criticized the Mueller probe. She also said she was concerned he may not even release the results of that probe. But during his confirmation proceedings, Barr assured all senators that he's committed to A Democrat-run House Committee is floating the idea of removing, so help me God, from the oath that witnesses take before speaking to the committee. Fox News reports that the House Committee on Natural Resources would, if the draft goes into place, ask those speaking, do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of law? But the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth.

House Republican Conference Chair, Liz Cheney tells Fox News, it is incredible, but not surprising, that Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of their first acts in the majority. They really have become the party of Karl Marx. And speaking of Carl Marx, if you like your insurance, you definitely won't get to keep it under the Medicare for All plan. Except now, Democrats are starting to actually admit that.

Senator Kamala Harris of California strongly backs the plan, which was introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders, and she defended it at a CNN town hall with Jake Tapper. Correct me if I'm wrong. To reiterate, you support the Medicare for All bill, I think initially co-sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders. You're also a correspondent on it. I believe it will totally eliminate private insurance.

So for people out there who like their insurance, they don't get to keep it? Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care. And you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance. insurance company having them give you approval going through the paperwork all of the delay that may require who of us has not had that situation where you got to wait for approval and the doctor says well i don't know if your insurance company is going to cover this let's eliminate all of

that let's move on yeah the stupid insurance companies making us wait uh government let's do that yeah because they won't make us wait at all i also have to say fox news uh headline this kamala care with care spelled with a k and it was like the kardashians had health care and i kind of love it Oh, that's interesting. Okay. Well, in more serious news, Trump advisor Roger Stone pled not guilty in court Tuesday. He was arrested Friday and charged in the course of the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. Per the Hill, Stone, quote, was arraigned on seven charges, obstruction of a congressional inquiry,

witness tampering, and five counts of making false statements to Congress, end quote. A key issue is what kind of contact Stone had with WikiLeaks per matters of interest to the Trump campaign, and what he has or hasn't said about that contact. Well, the latest tell-all from a former Trump insider is now published and is making waves. Team of Vipers is the name of the book and the author is Cliff Sims who served as special assistant to the president. He describes an out-of-control White House that was rife with infighting and backstabbing. In one scene, he recalls the president exploding over the phone at then-speaker Paul Ryan after he had publicly rebuked something that Trump said.

He also recalls leaking. and personal takes from John Kelly about how he hated being chief of staff. That and much more. But the president has dismissed the book as fiction. On Tuesday, he tweeted, quote, A low-level staffer that I hardly knew named Cliff Sims, wrote yet another boring book based on made-up stories and fiction. He pretended to be an insider when, in fact, he was nothing more than a gopher.

He signed a non-disclosure agreement. He is a mess, end quote. While the Trump campaign now says it's preparing to sue Cliff Sims for violating a non-disclosure. Disclosure Agreement. Good news for Asia Bibi, the Pakistani Christian who is originally sentenced to death for allegedly blaspheming, essentially saying something derogatory about the Prophet Muhammad, which she denies, is now able to leave Pakistan. In 2018, Bibi won an appeal and on Tuesday, the country's Supreme Court made it official. She won't be tried again. It's anticipated she would leave Pakistan as it's unclear that she would remain safe there. Well, up next we'll

unpack the new North American trade deal with Tori Whiting. Do you own an Alexa? You can now get the Daily Signal podcast every day as part of your daily flash briefing. It's easy to do. Just open up your Alexa app, go to settings, and select Flash Briefing. From there, you can search for the Daily Signal podcast and add it to your flash briefing so you can stay up to date with the top news of the day that the liberal media isn't covering. Well, last fall, President Trump signed a new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico to replace the old NAFTA deal, a North American free trade agreement, which he had always promised to get rid of. And now that this week, the Heritage Foundation is out with its comprehensive breakdown and

analysis of the deal. And to discuss it, we have Tori Whiting, who is our trade expert. Tori, thanks for being back on. Thanks so much for having me. It's always a pleasure. So this is kind of an intimidating thing to look at this giant trade deal. So we know there's a lot in it. But we want to pick out some of the main takeaways and ask you. So, you know, what, what did some of the best elements of this deal that you really, you know, think is an improvement upon NAFTA? Well, I mean, the biggest thing and the biggest thing the Heritage Foundation called for, you know, at the beginning last year when President Trump said he was thinking about starting, renegotiating NAFTA, was modernization. You know, NAFTA is over 20 years old.

It came about, you know, really before the Internet was a thing, before we all had iPhones in our pockets and smart watches on our arms. And so we needed to make sure that this agreement and this relationship with Canada and Mexico was prepared for the 21st century. So the USMCA adds some great chapters on things like digital trade, making sure that we can trade digital items freely like software and any other type of thing that you buy in the internet. And also intellectual property protection. We want to make sure that those digitally traded items, these things that are being created in the 21st century, the people who create them are being protected and they can't be stolen by people. So those are major, major things. The other big thing that is a little bit wonky, but it's important for you, is that they really streamline some of the customs processes. And so they made a lot of things digital.

So that makes it easier for you when you either have to pay tariffs, when you come into the United States and you're bringing things from abroad. It'll just make it easier. And it makes it easier for businesses, too. Actually, could you expound on that a little bit? I love how you admitted it's wonky, but you should care. Do people, will they get lower prices as a result of these customs being easier to process? Or what's the real world impact of a positive change like that? Yeah.

So it's not necessarily lower prices because NAFTA already had pretty low tariffs. And the USMCA maintains that, which is a really good thing. But what's important about this with customs processes is it decreases the amount of time that it will take to get your goods through customs. So, for example, we have what we call de minimis, which is the level to which that you can bring goods. into the United States without them being subject to a tariff. In the United States, that's $800, which is great. So when you come anywhere from anywhere in the world, and that's actually written in the statute, in U.S. statute, that if you bring less than $800 and you don't have to pay tariffs on it. And so if you're above that $800 threshold, and this is really important for

businesses, of course, then the paperwork that has to be processed outside that $800 will happen more quickly and more efficiently and more effectively because it can happen electronically. So any other pluses or is it pretty much negatives after that? Well, I mean, the one big plus that I didn't mention is that we are on a path to maintain the trilateral relationship in North America. That was absolutely vital for a time. It looked like we might only get a bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. And that would be really detrimental because businesses in the United States are used to this

North American regional supply chain, and it was so important. So it's great that we were able to maintain that. Other than that, you know, another great thing is, and again, a little bit wonky here, so you'll have to go with me. But it's really important. The digital trade chapter actually bans data localization, which is essentially regulations that are put in place that say that your data has to be stored in a certain place in order for a company to work in that area. So that means that, you know, if you are dealing with a Canadian company, your data would have to be stored in Canada if they had those rules. This agreement bans that.

So your data doesn't have to be stored in Canada. It can be stored wherever. And that really actually helps with security of your data, too, because they're able to kind of place data in different areas to make it less permeable. Okay. Well, let's talk a little bit about some of the negatives in this deal. And I should note, by the way, that Tori co-authored a paper that you can find on Heritage That is very exhaustive.

So if trade policy is your thing, please check it out. It came out this week. It's super long, but actually the beginning of it is only about nine pages or so. And it kind of breaks down some of these tidbits. And then you can get into what we call the appendix, which is like another 60 pages, if you really want to get down into the dirt. All right. So if you want nine pages worth of stuff, check Tori's work on Heritage.

org. But some of the negatives that you mentioned in your paper included social policy, including stuff related to sexual orientation and gender discrimination, essentially. Can you please talk about why a trade deal deals with this and what the possible implications are? Yeah, that's a really great point. You know, obviously this SOGI, sexual orientation and gender identity is something that the Heritage Foundation and our friend Ryan Anderson has been really active on advocating

against for many years. And this was included in the trade agreement under the section in the labor chapter having to do with discrimination in the workplace. And we find this to be a problem for two reasons. The first reason is that we shouldn't be having excessive labor regulations in a trade agreement. It's really not the appropriate place to make labor policy. The appropriate place to make labor policy is in Congress, not through these big international organizations. The second part is that there's a lot of concern that these new, these new sort of rules in the USMCA regarding SOGI could put burdens on the U.S. in those areas. So the Office of the United States Trade Representative says that it's only, it only applies

to federal workers, which already qualify under this rule. But it's a legal gray area. And really, we should just focus on leaving labor stuff out completely. And what are some other labor policies as well that are a bit controversial? Yeah, that's absolutely correct. So in the chapter on rules of origin, so these are the rules that dictate how much of a good has to be made in North America to be not charged at tariff. There's actually a rule that auto production has to happen at, I believe it's 40% at $16 per hour. So 40% of the production process has to happen at $16 per hour or more in order to qualify for tariff-free treatment. And what that does is just kind of apply a minimum wage standard to auto production, which we know. here at the Heritage Foundation that minimum wages are not good for business. And is this typical to NAFTA include any labor provisions like this? Is it normal to try to sneak into minimum wage provision this way? Well, the previous NAFTA did not have a formal

labor chapter. We had a side agreement on labor that was pretty broad and unenforceable. It was more kind of like a bunch of liberal wish lists than it was something that we could actually enforce. And that was better than having it in the agreement like we do now. Other more modern trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which now has moved on without the United States, that had really strong labor rules. And, you know, I think that we need to get back to a point where our trade agreements are just focusing on trade. And they're not focusing on all these other kind of, you know, putting your weight on the scale sort of issues. Interesting. Well, I also know there were some environmental regulations in the trade deal.

Is this going to be kind of a backdoor environmentalism thing? Where did this even come from? Was it the Canadians? Well, some of this poison pill stuff did come from the Canadian side. But it also partially came from the Trump administration attempting to achieve a bipartisan agreement. We'll see if that happens. And honestly, a lot of it comes from Congress. Congress too because Congress gives these sort of negotiating objectives to the administration

that is included in what we call trade promotion authorities. It's the authority that allows the president to negotiate trade agreements. They have these negotiating objectives, labor environment, all these other things is actually included in there. So USTR has to negotiate those things and sometimes they go a little bit too far and this is kind of one of those examples. Again, like with the social policy issues, the environmental stuff has no place in a trade agreement whatsoever. It's completely separate and should be handled in Congress and not through

international organizations. So what's next for this trade deal? You know, President Trump, I believe, has signed it. Does Congress get a sign off on it? Is it accurate that you can't change it? What's going on here? Well, this is the big question that everyone's dealing with right now. And there's a lot of uncertainty about the future with the process with USMCA. At this point, yes, the president did sign this agreement on November 30th down in Argentina. So that part has happened. There are a couple of reports that are due to Congress by the administration to move forward with the process, and those things haven't happened yet. So once those reports are sent to Congress, it starts another ticking time clock of about 60 days before the agreement can be voted on. So there's a lot of just kind of wait and see.

Now, technically, Congress cannot make amendments to the USMCA. They have to take it at face value. but what they can do is in the implementing legislation. So this is basically the bill that makes the USMCA law. They can kind of make tweaks here and there to help clarify, to help kind of put some bumpers on things. And we're really trying to figure out to the extent possible how much we can do through that. And that's a big legal question. And really, it'll be up to the discretion of what Congress is willing to do.

Do we have any hint as to whether Congress, at least as it is today, will be receptive? of the deal that they've come up with? Well, it's a mixed bag for sure. I actually just read that Kevin Brady, the minority ranking member on House Ways and Means, actually said today that members won't really be willing to move forward in the USMCA until the steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico are dropped. So that was actually a big kind of change in rhetoric from him.

So it'll be interesting to see where people fall on this. I think that there is a lot of uncertainty, and there is a lot of mixed bag. And the last thing we want to see is for this agreement to get any worse. So while conservatives may try to use implementing legislation to put some constraints on what the USMCA is doing in regards to these sort of non-trade-related topics, Democrats could try to expand them to help garner more of their votes, make them more enforceable. So that's kind of the TIF we're dealing with right now. Okay. Well, thank you so much for joining us today to explain it, Tori.

Thank you so much. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head? Then subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a podcast breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. Oklahoma will be on Broadway again soon, but it's going to be the first Broadway show to go gun neutral. Quote, just because a particular story calls for the presence of a particular weapon, that doesn't mean that we have to remain complacent in America's gun violence epidemic, said producer Eva Price, according to Playbill. Helping to destroy firearms that shouldn't be in circulation is both a privilege and a responsibility.

In a press release last year, gun neutral, the organization Oklahoma will be supporting, said, quote, for each prop gun that appears in a production, finances and producers will add a gun neutral budget line item to cover the cost of destroying real-world guns and to invest in community-based art programs, targeting youth in the most gun violence-ridden communities. An average of $15 per prop gun will be charged. So Daniel, what do you think? This is a little absurd.

I just couldn't stop. So they're using guns. They're using guns in the play, right? I would think that if you are against guns in general, that using guns in the play would do a lot more to promote guns than any money that you might send to an anti-gun nonprofit, right? I just don't see the net win. Like they feel like they're negating or at least undoing the damage.

I mean, I have yet to hear if anyone inspired to do a crime by a Rogers and Hammerstein musical. I am sadly not familiar with this particular one. It's one of the very few that I haven't seen, although I did just read the Wikipedia synopsis. But, yeah, I mean, I largely, well, to me, it's just weird because it's, It's a little bit like the cigarette thing, although that made a little bit more sense to me when Hollywood did this whole thing where they really tried to ban cigarette smoking and movies, et cetera, that it was inspiring the youth. But entertainment is littered with examples that you shouldn't follow. And in fact, a very popular musical in more modern times is Chicago, which is, of course, all about murder. And I, just this fixation on guns is really weird to me in the sense of like, why it's not, I know this is such a conservative cliche, but it's not guns that kill people.

It's people that kill people. And I don't think someone seeing a gun on a stage is what leads to evil in their heart. And I just don't get it. And at the same time, Hollywood is so much promotion. Like, again, I don't think this would apply to Oklahoma, but you could talk about the gratuitous violence. and a lot of things. You could talk about the gratuitous sexuality and let's say HBO shows.

There are so many ways in which Hollywood does impact the imagination. Oh, yeah. I think 50 shades of gray should give money for every, you know, inappropriate scene to, you know, the Me Too movement, actually.

I think that's a great idea. Sure. I don't know if they're releasing another one for Valentine's Day, probably. But yeah. I don't keep up with them, so. I don't either. I am just annoyed because it means

that at least for the past, to Valentine's Day. Instead of there being a decent romantic comedy release, it's just the stupid 50 shades of gray. So it has a lot of personal harm on my

movie watching life. Well, it took an interesting turn and we'll leave it there for today. Thanks for listening to this episode of the Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce

Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us feedback. And be sure to listen

every weekday by adding the Daily Signal Podcast is part of your Alexa Flash briefing. We'll see you again tomorrow. You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.