Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Celebrities Protest at Trump Tower After Outrageous Press Conference

Last night, Michael Moore invited the audience that attended his Broadway play “The Terms of My Surrender,” featuring Mark Ruffalo, to join them at a protest outside the Trump Tower in New York. He then bussed 200 people in double-decker buses over to the tower and encouraged the rest of the audience to walk over. The protest was also a vigil in honor of counter-protester Heather Heyer. Ruffalo opened with a speech urging people to say her name. Actors Olivia Wilde and Tom Sturridge joined the protest right after they finished their Broadway show, “1984,” and led some chants.

.@MMFlint and @MarkRuffalo are leading a Trump Tower protest with #1984Play‘s Olivia Wilde and Tom Sturridge in tow https://t.co/PFfJ08I54a pic.twitter.com/rqf62i5qwS

— Ashley Lee (@cashleelee) August 16, 2017

The outrage aimed at President Donald Trump increased yesterday, after he defended his initial remarks regarding Charlottesville, when he said that “many sides” were responsible for the violence. Yesterday, he repeated that claim, and said the “alt-left” groups that attended the rally were “very, very violent” and that the blame is on “both sides.” People were shocked by the callous comments, and former KKK leader David Duke thanked the president on Twitter.

No words. https://t.co/pCSYUE5iZN

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) August 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Mexico agreed to a new trade deal this week regarding the sugar trade, but some viewed it as a precursor to negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

American sugar refineries previously complained about Mexico introducing cheap sugar into the U.S. economy, while simultaneously refusing to export raw sugar to their American counterparts, according to The New York Times. This has resulted in the movement of sugar-based jobs from America to Mexico over the years.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had previously threatened an 80 percent tariff if the two sides did not reach a deal by early this month, according to Politico.

The talks between the two neighboring countries began in March, about two months after President Donald Trump took office on a platform of protecting American workers and companies. Ross led the negotiations with Ildefonso Guajardo, Mexico’s economy minister, The New York Times reported. At a news conference in Washington D.C., Ross said:

We have gotten the Mexican side to agree to nearly every request made by the U.S. sugar industry to address flaws in the current system and ensure fair treatment of American sugar growers and refiners.

Some politicians, businessmen, and analysts have viewed these negotiations as a possible preview to upcoming discussions on the existing NAFTA deal. Those negotiations are expected to begin in August, according to Reuters.

Just the fact that the Trump Administration dove into negotiations with a country they have often insulted was an encouraging sign, according to CNN Money.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said the deal “sets an important tone of good faith leading up to the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.”

Under the terms of this new agreement, Mexico would greatly reduce the amount of refined sugar it exports to America while increasing its raw sugar exports. But many are unhappy with Trump’s first major economic agreement.

One American sugar producer, Ohio-based Spangler Candy, has voiced its displeasure at the deal. Spangler Candy, which has moved plants into Mexico for access to cheaper sugar, believes that the administration has failed on one of its main campaign promises.

“To be honest, I’m just very disappointed that the Trump administration didn’t do more to level the playing field, which is something they promised over and over again to do for the American worker,” Spangler Chief Executive Officer Kirk Vasha said in a phone interview with Reuters.

U.S. Coalition for Sugar Reform, a trade group representing U.S. sugar buyers, disavowed the deal because of the burden raising tariffs will put on consumers. The coalition estimates that the cost to consumers in higher prices will be around $1 billion, according to Reuters. The Sweetener Users Association also projected the costs at around $1 billion.

Hershey and Mondelez International, which owns the Kraft brand, both referred Reuters to those price estimates as their response to the deal. Ross has said he hopes that their concerns can be calmed in the drafting process of the deal.

So while the deal may not be ideal in the view of some companies or consumers, the deliberations bode well for future compromise between the two nations. After feuding between Mexican leaders and Trump, or his surrogates, throughout his campaign, the negotiations offered a glimpse of the upcoming collaboration regarding NAFTA.

Trump has repeatedly promised to bring jobs back to America, which he attempted to accomplish in this sugar deal. Soon enough he’ll have the chance to work on NAFTA, another major point of his throughout the campaign.

I will renegotiate NAFTA. If I can’t make a great deal, we’re going to tear it up. We’re going to get this economy running again. #Debate

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016

Even those from the Mexican side feel the sugar deal bodes well. Carlos Vejar, a former senior Mexican trade official who served as general counsel for the trade for Mexico’s Economy Ministry, believes that sugar is “obviously an issue that is so controversial it is a good example that agreements can be reached.”

Trump’s main campaign promise was to fix America’s place in the global economy and to bring jobs back. Many are disappointed in his first attempt, so perhaps he can do better when it comes to renegotiating NAFTA.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Sugar Deal with Mexico Previews NAFTA Discussions appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s vow to renegotiate NAFTA is one step closer to materializing: the Senate confirmed Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s U.S. Trade Representative nominee, on Thursday afternoon. The 82-14 vote ended months of uncertainty surrounding the Trump Administration’s trade plans, because it had been functioning without a chief trade envoy. Trump has repeatedly promised to retool the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. The president has called the 1994 deal a “disaster.”

Lighthizer, 69, has decades of trade experience, both in the public and private sectors. He served as a senior trade official in the Reagan Administration. Since then, Lighthizer has worked as a trade lawyer, representing clients in the U.S. and abroad. His work for foreign firms–between 1985 and 1990, he represented five foreign clients, including Brazil’s government–threatened to derail his nomination.

UPDATE: U.S. Senate confirms Trump’s pick for trade czar, Robert Lighthizer, setting stage for NAFTA renegotiation https://t.co/nlr5Ql8DWS pic.twitter.com/XcnxhXKb2M

— CTV News (@CTVNews) May 11, 2017

A 1995 amendment to the 1974 Trade Act stipulates a nominee who “directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity” cannot serve as the U.S. Trade Representative, unless granted a waiver from Congress. But in spite of the potential legal landfalls, the Senate decided that it was high time to install the chief U.S. trade representative, and confirmed Lighthizer by a landslide.

“Mr. Lighthizer’s years of experience in public service, including as staff director for the Senate Finance Committee, as deputy USTR during the Reagan administration, and in private practice make him extremely well qualified to serve as our nation’s trade representative,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told his colleagues on Thursday from the Senate floor.

Now that he has been confirmed, Lighthizer will move to carry out the Trump Administration’s trade agenda, including exploring ways to renegotiate NAFTA. Lighthizer has also expressed concerns that China is indeed a currency manipulator, a worry Trump promulgated throughout the campaign, but has since walked back on. During his confirmation hearing in March, Lighthizer said he previously believed China “was a substantial currency manipulator,” but whether it still is “is another question.”

Still, though a vast majority of Democrats and Republicans ultimately supported his confirmation, two Republican Senators were in the “nay” camp, Senators John McCain (AZ) and Ben Sasse (NE). In a recent letter to Lighthizer, the two explained their hesitation, saying “your confirmation process has failed to reassure us that you understand the North American Free Trade Agreement’s positive economic benefits to our respective States and the nation as a whole.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Overwhelmingly Approves U.S. Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer appeared first on Law Street.

Despite spending his campaign extolling the devilish scourge of globalism, international blocs, pacts, agreements, clubs, and any other united, transnational body, President Donald Trump’s actions in office thus far have done little to renege on any U.S. commitments with the wider world. Sure, Trump has hung up the phone on Australia’s prime minister; he has issued threats to North Korea, Iran, China, and a number of other bad actors or fragile allies. Trump promised a number of things during the campaign when it comes to existing international agreements–rip, tear, shred, renegotiate, etc. But he has yet to act on any of those impulses.

Here is a look at two international accords and one trade deal Trump has, at one point or another, promised to withdraw from or drastically alter. Instead, Trump has largely maintained the status quo as we approach the end of his fist 100 days in office.

Paris Climate Agreement

Trump once pegged climate change as a hoax invented by the Chinese. At a campaign stop last May, he pledged to “cancel” the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which the U.S. signed with nearly 200 other countries to combat climate change. Trump has since softened his questioning of climate change’s legitimacy and has largely ceased threatening to pull out of the agreement. And although EPA Chief Scott Pruitt favors withdrawing from the pact–Trump signed an executive order in March directing Pruitt to begin that process–he is reportedly questioning whether or not the political blowback of such a move would be worth it.

According to a recent New York Times report, Trump–a morally bankrupt man of few fixed beliefs in the eyes of critics, an open-mind in the eyes of his supporters–is split between two influencing camps within his administration. There is the Steve Bannon, anti-globalist school, and then there are those like Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner who support the climate pact. Trump is expected to make a final decision on the U.S. role in the Paris agreement by the end of May.

Iran Deal

During his campaign, Trump called the nuclear deal with Iran “the worst deal ever negotiated.” Engineered by the Obama Administration in 2015, the deal exchanged sanctions relief for a freeze on Iran’s nuclear program. Critics said the deal merely delayed the inevitable; once Iran’s economy was back on track, and once the 10-year deal expired, it would build up its nuclear arsenal. Supporters asked: “would you rather Iran start firing off nuclear bombs now?”

Trump, a fervent and vocal critic of the deal–which, along with the United States, was negotiated by China, Russia, France, Germany, and the U.K.–reprimanded Iran for a missile test in January. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently ordered a review to consider imposing additional sanctions on Iran–a move that could breach the nuclear agreement–just as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the deal “still stands,” confirming Iran was complying with it.

NAFTA

The Iran deal may be the “worst deal ever negotiated,” but in Trump’s eyes, NAFTA, or the North American Free Trade Agreement, is the “worst trade deal in history.” The 1994 trade deal between the United States, Canada, and Mexico has been the perfect straw man for the legion of Trump voters who had been disaffected and disproportionately affected by global trade (and of course by automation, but you can’t exactly renegotiate a deal with machines).

Last week, Trump hinted that “some very big changes” were coming to the trade agreement. But on Monday, during a speech in Mexico, Chamber of Commerce executive Thomas Donohue soothed concerns that the administration would drastically alter the deal, or scrap it altogether. “I want to assure you that despite what you may see in the news, or hear in the news, there is a constructive process underway behind the scenes,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Despite Rhetoric, Trump Hasn’t Abandoned Any International Agreements in His First 100 Days appeared first on Law Street.

In the first meeting between two drastically different leaders, President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reaffirmed the U.S.-Canada partnership in regards to trade, the environment, and security. While the two men are nearly three decades apart in age, and worlds apart in temperament and outlook, the countries they lead have a rich history of cooperation, especially in trade and security.

A statement released by the White House following the meeting said the U.S.-Canada friendship will continue “to build a prosperous future for the people of both countries.” “Millions of American and Canadian middle-class jobs, including in the manufacturing sector, depend on our partnership,” the statement said. “We affirm the importance of building on this existing strong foundation for trade and investment and further deepening our relationship, with the common goal of strengthening the middle class.”

Both Trump and Trudeau have a stake in bolstering the U.S.-Canada economic partnership. Trump’s harsh trade rhetoric during the campaign–he regularly admonished free-trade deals, and questioned the wisdom of NAFTA–and his promise to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. could eventually set up conflicting visions and priorities for the two countries. But if Monday’s meeting is any indication, the U.S.-Canada partnership remains firmly intact.

A prominent feature of Monday’s meeting was the importance of women in business. Before their closed-door meeting, Trump and Trudeau met with businesswomen from America and Canada, including leaders from General Electric, Accenture, and General Motors. Ivanka Trump was also present at the meeting, which she helped organize and recruit participants for. After Trump and Trudeau met, the White House announced a “United States Canada Council for the Advancement of Women Business Leaders-Female Entrepreneurs” task force.

In a press conference after his meeting with Trudeau, Trump said the two discussed how “the full power of women can do better than anybody else.” Cooperation between the U.S. and Canada will continue beyond the economy. The White House statement said their environmental interests are “inextricably linked.” The U.S. and Canada will continue to collaborate on trans-national infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which Trudeau supports and Trump recently revived after years of U.S. opposition to the project.

Trump and Trudeau also pledged to fight the opioid epidemic, which is ravaging both countries. Accidental deaths in the U.S. are now primarily caused by drug overdoses, surpassing car accidents. Cyber security and cooperation on the battlefield are also areas of collaboration for the U.S. and Canada. “The partnership between the United States and Canada will continue to be unique and a model for the world,” the White House statement said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau Reaffirm U.S.-Canada Cooperation appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump has officially pulled the U.S. from the TPP and announced plans to renegotiate NAFTA, angering farmers. ICYMI, check out these top stories from Law Street below!

Trump Officially Pulls the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

President Donald Trump made good on one of his campaign promises on last week, signing an executive order to pull the U.S. from negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. The deal, a 12-nation free trade agreement molded by President Obama but never introduced to Congress, was a lightning rod for anti-trade rhetoric throughout the campaign.

What is the REINS Act?

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. The bill, which passed with a vote largely along party lines by 237-187, would require certain executive regulations to be approved by a joint session in Congress. Republicans see the bill as a necessary check on the executive branch, while Democrats dismiss it as a way to gut much-needed regulations.

Will Trump’s Opposition to NAFTA Lose Him the Support of Farmers?

President Donald Trump began his first week in office by announcing plans to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. The announcement itself is unsurprising. Trump railed against NAFTA throughout his campaign claiming it and other free trade agreements threatened American firms and workers. However, in fulfilling his campaign promise Trump runs the risk of alienating a support base that was particularly reliable during the election: farmers.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump began his first week in office by announcing plans to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. The announcement itself is unsurprising. Trump railed against NAFTA throughout his campaign claiming it and other free trade agreements threatened American firms and workers. However, in fulfilling his campaign promise Trump runs the risk of alienating a support base that was particularly reliable during the election: farmers.

Farmers overwhelmingly favored Trump to Clinton in the run-up to the election. An October poll by AgriPulse revealed 55.4 percent of farmers supported Donald Trump while only 17.8 percent favored Clinton; the rest were either split between third party candidates, undecided, or chose not to answer. Respondents from battleground states reflected national numbers. Farmer and farm towns were undoubtedly key in ensuring Trump’s victory in the Electoral College. Post-election maps show Trump won in part because he was able to win rural counties in states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan that had supported Barack Obama in 2012, while also maintaining support in rural counties that voted for Mitt Romney. Now that Trump is in office, farmers will be waiting to see what his vow to renegotiate NAFTA will mean for them.

Over the past several decades, domestic agricultural policies have encouraged farmers to scale up or risk bankruptcy. The emphasis on production has plagued the U.S. market with surplus produce. To compensate for this, the U.S. heavily subsidizes farmers. Nonetheless, prices are so low that profits are only really attainable for large-scale corporate farms. Smaller operations have been squeezed out.

Though NAFTA has undeniably contributed to the corporatization of the agricultural industry, it has allowed farmers to avoid depressed prices in U.S. markets and seek fortune by exporting surplus goods north and south of the border tariff free. Famously, NAFTA created the conditions in which American farmers are able to dump their surplus, heavily subsidized produce in Mexico. U.S. producers sell corn and other staples at prices well below the cost of production, which cannot be matched by Mexican producers. This dynamic decimated many sectors of the Mexican agricultural industry and forced a Mexican reliance on cheap U.S. imports. However, the state of the Mexican industry is likely of little concern to the president who promised to put “America first.” Therefore, before negotiating with his North American counterparts, Trump may want to consider the fact that NAFTA has created a release valve for surplus U.S. goods on which American farmers rely.

Both Canada and Mexico are leading buyers of U.S. agricultural exports. Unable to rely on profiting from the U.S. market, smaller farmers would most certainly be hurt most were Canada and Mexico to place tariffs on U.S. goods. Notwithstanding the uncertain fate of NAFTA, the future of the agricultural industry has long been in question. As with many other industries, agriculture is increasingly mechanized. This means there will likely be fewer future job opportunities on both small and large farms in the future. Corporations are able to purchase, implement, and often create new technologies. However, small-scale farmers with limited capital who are already struggling to compete with corporate prices face an uncertain future.

The promise to bring blue-collar employment back to the United States grounds Trump’s trade stance. While renegotiating or terminating NAFTA could arguably help him achieve this goal, it is by no means the only facet of his emerging trade policy. Tariffs are likely to be imposed on U.S. exports assuming Trump follows through with his campaign promise of establishing more protectionist agreements with Canada and Mexico. If small-scale farmers are no longer able to sell their goods in Canadian and Mexican markets tariff-free, already slender profit margins might shrink further. Without making major changes to the U.S. agricultural market, Trump’s renegotiation of NAFTA could have adverse effects on a major line of agricultural income and alienate one of his most important bases of support. To do make these changes and protect small-scale farmers, Trump would have to address corporate dominance of the industry. However, though claiming to be for the worker, his business dealings and cabinet appointees suggest he sees little issue with corporatization.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Trump’s Opposition to NAFTA Lose Him the Support of Farmers? appeared first on Law Street.

Today President-elect Donald Trump met with President Obama in the Oval Office to discuss plans for the hand-off between presidencies and the peaceful transfer of power. While the meeting seems to have been cordial, it had to have been a little awkward given that Obama and Trump are bitter political rivals and Trump plans to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama” on his first day in office–that’s if Trump’s plan for his first 100 days in office is to be believed.

In October, Trump laid out a detailed list of his plans, and the first day alone looks daunting. Aside from beginning to lay the groundwork to appeal Obamacare, he also plans to put an immediate hiring freeze on all federal employees, begin renegotiating NAFTA, withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, move forward with the Keystone Pipeline, and suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting can’t safely occur (aka begin banning Muslims)–and that’s not even half of his first day plans.

Trump also announced ten pieces of legislation he hopes to introduce to Congress that would: fund the construction of a wall along the Southern border (with the “understanding” that Mexico would reimburse the U.S.), promote school choice, and invest heavily in infrastructure.

As Vox notes, some of these actions, like the federal hiring freeze and immigration ban, he could easily do from the Oval Office, while other actions  would require cooperation from  relevant government agencies and Congress. But with a Republican controlled Congress on his side, he could easily tick off a few of these items on his list.

Below is a copy of Trump’s full 100 day plan titled “Donald Trump’s Contract With the American Voter” that was released in October.

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
2. End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
7. End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
8. Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
9. Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here is What Donald Trump Says He Plans to Do in His First 100 Days appeared first on Law Street.

November 8 looms over America, and as the days tick away and the leaves turn brown, the nation’s focus is squarely on two people: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates had their time in the spotlight during Monday’s first of four debates (one will be between the two VP picks) leading up to November. At times on Monday, the two butted heads on issues from tax returns to Obama’s birthplace to the Iraq War. Here are the top five most contentious exchanges from Monday night:

Tax Returns and Deleted Emails

About 30 minutes in, Holt asked Trump about his tax returns. For a few bumbling, nearly nonsensical minutes, Trump pointed to an IRS audit as to why he has withheld his returns. He also said: “When Secretary Clinton releases her 33,000 deleted emails, I’ll release my tax returns.”

Clinton and Holt both prodded Trump–Holt said the IRS audit does not prevent Trump from releasing his tax returns–who continued to “bait and switch,” in the words of Clinton. The audience cheered at his admonishing of her private email server. For the next few minutes, Trump’s tax returns and Clinton’s deleted emails left the two red-faced and hoarse.

NAFTA: “The Worst Trade Deal Ever Negotiated”

At the beginning of the evening’s discussion, trade, a rising, contentious issue, cropped up. Trump thrashed NAFTA, the Atlantic trade pact supported by former President Bill Clinton, as “the worst trade deal ever negotiated.”

This is not a new stance, but the first direct discussion between Trump, who has spent the past months bashing trade deals as they currently stand, and Clinton, whose husband supported NAFTA and who herself has previously expressed support for trade deals such as TPP, on the trade issue. Things got heated fast: Trump trashed NAFTA as a job killer. Clinton defended it. Trump said she once called the TPP the “gold standard” of trade deals, which she did. Clinton said she said that before the deal took its final form.

Obama’s Birthplace

It’s an issue that hogged the headlines and the airwaves for the past few weeks: the “birther” claim. Trump finally admitted, to the nation, that Obama was in fact born in America. His admission followed years of rumor-mongering that Obama was born elsewhere. Many viewed it as a racist tactic meant to boost his political profile.

An hour or so into Monday’s debate, Holt brought up the issue. Trump deflected, birthing the birther issue to Clinton, whose campaign, he said, dispatched a reporter to Kenya to dig up details on Obama’s true birthplace in 2008. Clinton didn’t quite respond to that claim, instead drudging up the 1973 lawsuit against Trump and his racist rental policies. Trump of course defended them and said the lawsuit ended without an admission of guilt.

Iraq Vote

During an interview with Howard Stern in 2002, Trump, in response to a question about whether he supported the impending Iraq invasion, said: “Yeah, I guess so.” That, his critics say, amounts to explicit support of the invasion, even though his political career was 13 years from beginning at that time. Either way, his stance on the Iraq vote, and Clinton’s vote in support of it when she was Senator of New York, has been a contentious issue all year.

On Monday, Holt asked Trump about his Stern interview.

“That is mainstream media nonsense put out by her because the best person in her campaign is the mainstream media,” Trump said. He mentioned arguments he had at the time with Sean Hannity, who he said supported the Iraq War, while Trump did not. “The record shows otherwise,” Holt replied. Clinton stood by, smiling and nodding.

“Trumped Up, Trickle Down”

After Trump described pieces of his economic vision, which include tax cuts from 35 to 15 percent for “big businesses and middle businesses and small businesses,” Clinton called his plans “trumped up, trickle down.” It’s an extreme revival of Ronald Reagan’s trickle down economic policy, Clinton said, using an oft-used pun with his surname to color that point.

When Clinton mentioned her “broad based,” approach to economic growth, Trump responded: “All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn’t work. Our country is suffering.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Road to November: Top 5 Testiest Moments at the First Presidential Debate appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday afternoon, a billionaire prescribed angry American workers a path to the middle class in a city the recession pummeled harder than pretty much any other. Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, gave his most detailed speech on his economic plan yet, in front of protestors, supporters, and press at the Detroit Economic Club.

As protestors punctuated his hour long speech, in which he was introduced by his running mate Governor Mike Pence (R-IN), Trump aimed to shift the focus from his recent blunders to his beliefs on how America should move forward. Here is what you need to know about where Trump plans to steer the economy, with some fact-checking for good measure:

Taxes

For one, Trump railed against the estate tax: “American workers have paid taxes their whole lives, and they should not be taxed again at death,” said the man who inherited undisclosed millions from his father. He promised to abolish the estate tax, which he said “is just plain wrong.”

Trump’s tax plan seemed to try to placate disillusioned low-income earners without completely ignoring those who are in the highest tax bracket. Private income, under Trump’s plan, would be taxed in three brackets: 12 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent. “The rich will pay their fair share, but no one will pay so much that it destroys jobs or undermines our ability as a nation to compete,” he said, promising that many Americans–presumably those who earn below a certain threshold–would not pay any income taxes.

Inaccuracies

It’s no secret at this point that Trump throws falsehoods around often and enthusiastically. That’s not to say Clinton doesn’t do her share of fibbing, but per PolitiFact, an independent fact-checking website, the two are hardly in the same stratosphere: 53 (or 22 percent) of Clinton’s statements this campaign season have been completely true, while only nine of Trump’s (four percent) statements could be considered foolproof. His speech on Monday, though prepared, treated facts lightly at some points.

A touchstone of Trump’s success so far has been his stance on trade deals, namely that they are “terrible” and he’d “rip them up” if elected president. NAFTA, drafted by President George H.W. Bush and supported by Bill Clinton, is one of Trump’s go-to targets.

“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, before NAFTA went into effect there were 285,000 auto workers in Michigan. Today, that number is only 160,000 auto workers,” Trump said on Monday.

Auto manufacturing jobs have indeed been on a decline in America, especially in the “Motor City,” Detroit. But Trump implies NAFTA is the sole culprit of those job losses. The Congressional Research Service conducted a study in 2015 on NAFTA, and found that while certainly some auto industry jobs were lost to cheaper labor in Mexico, it’s also certain that many of the job losses can be explained by increased productivity due to technological advancements.

For more fact-checking on Trump’s speech, click here.

Clinton

Here is how Trump framed the two options Americans will face in November: “She is the candidate of the past,” he said of Clinton. “Ours is the campaign of the future.” While they both are technically candidates of the present, Trump looked to portray Clinton and her platform as tired, worn out, and his own as bold, ready to “jump-start America.”

Again, some of his criticisms aimed at Clinton were related to trade. He mentioned her support for NAFTA and said she would likely support the Trans-Pacific Partnership–her official stance is against the TPP, but she did support it in the past–a 12-nation trade deal that is stalled in Congress at the moment.

Trump dismissed Clinton’s economic vision, which she will flesh out on Thursday, also in Detroit. Clinton, during a rally in St. Petersburg, Florida, shot back, saying his plan equated to a re-packaged version of Ronald Reagan’s trickle-down economics: “Now, you know that old saying, ‘Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?'” she said. “Trickle down economics does not help our economy grow. It does not help the vast majority of Americans.”

With Clinton set to unveil her economic vision for America on Thursday, hopefully the focus will shift from lofty rhetoric to detailed ideas so voters can focus their energy on the things that matter.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Three Things You Need to Know About Trump’s Economic Policy Speech appeared first on Law Street.

There is not a lot that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders agree on in their current presidential campaigns, but one thing the two do seem to share is a general disdain for free trade. The notion of free trade has joined the lexicon of despised things in the United States right next to bank bailouts and tax breaks for the rich. The clearest evidence of this is all the candidates’ desperate efforts to move as far away as quickly as possible from free trade agreements like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

But is this much ado about nothing? Is free trade really gutting the economy and costing millions of jobs as suggested? More to the point, what does free trade mean? Read on to learn more about what free trade is and to find out if it is really as bad for Americans as some argue.

What is Free Trade?

Free trade does not mean that goods are given to other countries for free. It’s the idea that, for the sake of economic efficiency, tariffs, quotas, and trade barriers should be lowered or removed altogether, which economists argue will make goods cheaper for consumers. The process is aimed at improving efficiency by focusing on what is known as a country’s comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is the idea that a country should produce and export goods that it can make better, faster, and cheaper than other countries. By removing barriers to trade, two countries are left to compete with each other on their natural footing and whichever country can produce a good most efficiently has a comparative advantage for that good.

Comparative advantage is essential to free trade and is generally why economists like the concept of trade in general. Without barriers to trade, countries begin to specialize in products that they have a comparative advantage to produce, which ensures that all goods are made as efficiently as possible and lowering prices for everyone. The video below clarifies further what free trade is:

Globalization and Free Trade

Globalization and free trade are often seen as synonymous, but the two are not quite the same thing. According to the World Bank, “‘Globalization’ refers to the growing interdependence of countries resulting from the increasing integration of trade, finance, people, and ideas in one global marketplace.” Put simply, it’s the increasing inter-connectedness of every country and person on the planet.

Free trade, on the other hand, is a major driver in making globalization happen. By eliminating things such as tariffs and quotas, countries are encouraging exchange and, as a result, more people are coming into contact with each other and new connections are being made, further integrating the global system. Free trade, then, is just one part of the larger globalization puzzle.

History of Free Trade

Globally

While the constant battle over free trade seems to be an American issue, this is certainly not the case. While earlier theorists may have touched on its concepts, it was Adam Smith who first articulated the concept of free trade in his book “The Wealth of Nations” back in 1776. David Ricardo later introduced the concept of comparative advantage in 1812. The idea of free trade was rapidly adopted by economists after that as the preferred method of economic interaction. It was also embraced by the British Empire who, as the world’s dominant power for over a century, used its power to spread free trade internationally. Today, there are several free trade blocs across the world most notably the European Union as well as Canada, Mexico, and the United States, all of which are part of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Domestically

Free trade, while not an America invention, does have a long history in the United States. However, for much of that history, the inclination was to resist it. In fact, from the inception of the United States, economic leaders such as Alexander Hamilton advocated for protective tariffs to help the nascent nation’s industry grow, instead of promoting free trade. This movement continued with the number of goods and the size of tariffs fluctuating over time.

Beginning in the early 20th century, a series of events played a major role in altering this narrative. In 1913 the United States government adopted the federal income tax, which became the country’s new largest source of income, supplanting the money made from trade tariffs. With the new guaranteed revenue stream, the government could change tariff rates without fear of forgoing necessary income.

The second major event was the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930. This tariff was unique because it united industries like agriculture and manufacturing around one policy. It was also unique in the sheer amount of opposition that it faced. The debate following the tariff was whether it directly caused the Great Depression or just intensified it. While common wisdom now points to the latter, the tariff reduced trade and produced reactive tariffs from other nations during the worst period of economic contraction in U.S. history.

The tariff quickly became unpopular and was a major issue during the 1932 presidential campaign when Franklin Roosevelt ran on a platform opposing it. Once elected, Roosevelt made good on his promise, virtually eliminating the effects of the tariff by 1934 through a number of laws such as the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. Roosevelt and his advisors had their eyes on a post-war future in which free trade would be the dominant philosophy at last.

Following WWII, the United States finally adopted its free trade stance. The United States was under pressure to support free trade because many other nations were desperate following the war and wanted greater access to U.S. markets. This move was codified by the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1948. This organization later transformed into its current iteration, the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. While the United States did not embrace free trade for much of its history, it was already benefitting from the concept. This is because the United States was such a large market itself that trade between states was a lot like free trade enjoyed by countries in places like Europe.

Trade Agreements

NAFTA

NAFTA or the North American Free Trade Agreement is an agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States that took effect in 1994. Unlike other free trade agreements, this did more than eliminate tariffs and quotas, it effectively synced the policies of the three nations. It was also notable because of the economic differences between the three countries. NAFTA faced a lot of criticism because it sought to create uniform trade laws among the three countries involved. As a result, countries ended up changing their laws to meet the agreement’s requirements even if the same policies had been rejected at a local level in the past.

Namely, while treaties are supposed to require a two-thirds majority to pass in the Senate, according to the Treaty Clause, NAFTA received only a simple majority–more than 50 votes–and was still able to be signed into law. The question at hand was whether NAFTA was a treaty or an international agreement, which would not require a two-thirds majority in the Senate. As a result, NAFTA it was challenged in court but the case was eventually dismissed. The constitutionality of NAFTA was also challenged for its binational trading panels, which review the enforcement of U.S. trade laws and could even override such enforcement.

TPP

The TPP or Trans-Pacific Partnership is another free trade agreement like NAFTA but on a much larger scale. In this case, the deal includes 12 countries bordering the Pacific Ocean, notably excluding China. This deal again has many of the traditional criticisms and promises. Unlike NAFTA, however, the TPP has not yet been approved by Congress and may face significant opposition given the current backlash toward free trade.

Read more on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its potential impact on intellectual property rights.

The accompanying video looks at free trade and free trade agreements following the switch in focus to free trade following WWII:

Criticisms of Free Trade

While free trade has been lauded in the past by economists, politicians, the media, and corporations, it has also drawn a lot of criticism. Most of these criticisms center specifically on its effects–namely that while free trade promises to be the rising tide that raises all boats, opponents claim that it actually does the opposite. First, by reducing tariffs and other protective measures a country is not only eliminating its own trade barriers but is doing the same thing for another country. If the two countries were operating on equal footing this would not be a problem, however, that is generally not the case.

In the case of a developed nation, like the United States, it has the economies of scale to put less efficient, smaller operations out of business. This is what happened in Mexico as large American agricultural companies started competing with small Mexican farmers, forcing them from their livelihoods and leading, in part, to their migration to the United States. Conversely, in countries where workers’ rights and environmental regulations are less developed these too can be exploited. In these countries, companies can lower the cost of production and undercut advanced nations with stronger regulations and higher standards.

In this sense then, the notion of comparative advantage is turned on its head. Instead of rewarding the best producer it can reward the cheapest or the least concise. This problem alone would be bad enough, but the critique continues. During this process of racing to the bottom, free trade has eliminated jobs in wealthier countries that pay more and created them in less advanced nations that pay less. Unfortunately, these newly employed workers are not wealthy enough to buy more goods and the now unemployed workers in the developed country are also buying less. According to critics, instead of creating a mutually beneficial society, free trade has brought about reductions in trade.

A major issue is that comparative advantage is supposed to move laborers from unproductive endeavors to more useful ones. But instead of seeing their efforts refocused in a more prosperous industry, workers in developed countries typically have to find jobs in different sectors of the economy. In countries like the United States, many factory workers have lost their jobs due to international competition. But instead of getting a different factory job they tend to move to the services industry, which typically involves lower wages.

There is some empirical support for these criticisms as well, with workers in the United States seeing a loss of manufacturing jobs since their height in the 1970s, rising trade deficits despite free trade, and low or negative wage growth. The question then is why would anyone support a concept that hurts the American worker while rewarding countries with loose regulations and low wages? The answer and the primary culprits in the criticism of free trade are the people who run multi-national corporations. According to the critics of free trade, the process naturally benefits these people as it allows companies to cut costs by paying its workers less while facing fewer regulations. The following video details some of the effects of free trade:

Despite all of its criticism and shortcomings, free trade is not all bad. The concept of competitive advantage increases the efficiency in the global economy. Aside from that, free trade offers a number of other potential benefits including reduced inflation, economic growth, greater innovation, increased competition, and greater fairness. Proponents of free trade also argue that turning to protectionism now won’t really solve the problem and may even be impossible. Finally, although manufacturing jobs have left the United States, many of those who gain jobs in other countries have been lifted out of extreme poverty.

Conclusion

Throughout U.S. history, Americans have grappled with whether protectionism or free trade is in their best interest. While free trade means more markets it also means greater competition, especially from places where things such as workers’ rights and environmental concerns are less prevalent. And it means doing away with protections that may very well have helped the nation develop and become a dominant world power.

However, trade policies, like anything else, move in waves. For the majority of the nation’s history, this wave has crested with protectionism on top. In fact, it took the greatest depression and largest war in the history to finally create a global system that favored free trade. While the Bretton Woods agreement and other deals such as NAFTA or TPP have continued, free trade policies have never been universally accepted. In an election where it seems like voters and candidates can hardly agree on anything across party lines, the current backlash against free trade may bring people together for at least a brief moment.

Resources

WBUR: Free Trade Fact-Check: NAFT Becomes Campaign Issue

Common Dreams: What’s The Problem With ‘Free Trade’

Foundation for Economic Education: Free Trade History and Perception

World Bank: Globalization and International Trade

CATO Institute: The Truth about Trade in History

The Fiscal Times: Free Trade vs. Protectionism: Why History Matters

The Economist: The Battle of Smoot-Hawley

BBC News: A century of free trade

Public Citizen: North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

BBC News: TPP: What is it and why does it matter?

Reference for Business: Free Trade Agreements and Trading Blocs

Law Street Media: What’s Going on With The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Law Street Media: Trans-Pacific Partnership: Why is the IP Rights Chapter Receiving So Much Criticism?

Los Angeles Times: Court Rejects Challenge to Constitutionality of NAFTA

PR Newswire: Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision Reinforces Doubts About Constitutionality of NAFTA Chapter 19 Panel System

Mercatus Center: The Benefits of Free Trade: Addressing Key Myths

“

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Costs (and Benefits) of Free Trade appeared first on Law Street.