US President Donald Trump’s decision to sign off on the latest $900 billion COVID relief bill has the stock market soaring. Ordinary Americans? Not so much, considering they will now get $600 checks instead of the $2,000 checks Trump was demanding when he said he would veto the bill.

Trump Flip-Flops on $2,000 Checks

After complaining about the bill’s chunks of money for foreign aid and various wasteful government programs, Trump eventually signed off on it. Unemployment insurance temporarily lapsed over the Christmas weekend as a result of Trump’s delay in signing the bill into law. It was already previously approved by the House and Senate.

Senator Bernie Sanders called the delay “unbelievably cruel” due to the fact that the bill contained provisions protecting people from eviction and other measures, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Trump’s waffling was a sign of incompetence and disregard for the American people. Now that the bill is law Pelosi claims it will help “the millions more struggling to stay afloat during this historic pandemic and economic crisis.”

Other Democrats sounded off even more loudly about the threatened veto, with Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia saying Trump played “Russian Roulette with American lives.”

In addition to helping pay for the $600 to most Americans, the bill reups jobless benefits, help for small businesses, airlines, farms and other industries as well as money to pay for vaccines and education budgets. The attached Omnibus spending bill will keep the government running until the end of this coming September and avoid a federal government shutdown.

Specifically, the bill also gives $100 a week extra to self-employed and regularly employed workers whose self-employment income isn’t factored into the size of their unemployment checks. The bill will give $300 extra per week to unemployed people, down from $600 extra per week that ended this summer. In terms of eviction protection it will give $25 billion in help to tenants who are facing eviction.

Why Did Trump Back Down on His Demands?

Legislation being pursued by Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri and Sanders to get Americans more help during the pandemic typifies the converging economic populism of the Trump right and the Bernie / AOC left. Both wings were thoroughly beat down by Congress: AOC said the 5,593-page bill was too long to read and signed off anyway, while Trump said it was a “disgrace” and still backed down and signed it.

Why?

The first answer is likely simple pragmatism: in order to keep the government running and avoid an unemployment and eviction crisis right now the President and Congress passed the buck and signed off on the pork barrel-laden bill.

Trump — who is back stumping for the two Republican candidates in the upcoming Georgia runoff elections which could determine the balance of power in the Senate — seems to have been reined back into Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s Randian establishment GOP zone of comfort. In addition, Trump may have signed off because a potential check increase can be discussed in the future now that the bill is law, even though it’s unlikely to pass.

Similarly, Trump’s previous veto of the NDAA defense bill — that he disliked for limiting troop withdrawal options, focusing on Confederate name removal from monuments and doing little to take on the monopolistic and speech policing of Big Tech — was overridden by the House by 322 to 87 votes — handing Trump two big losses on his way out the Oval Office. As in so much of his presidency, Trump’s populism is a lot of talk without much action, blocked both by his own mercurial and erratic style of governance and the malicious economic ideologies represented by key GOP powerbrokers.

Kentucky Senator McConnell — a smooth political operator if there ever was one — is married to Elaine Chao whose family-owned Foremost Maritime Inc. has strong ties to the Communist Chinese government. The McConnells are worth over $34 million combined. Foremost received a bulky loan worth more than $417,000 as a result of The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act which was passed by Congress earlier this year in March.

McConnell said that even though the $900 billion relief bill isn’t “perfect,” it will do “an enormous amount of good for struggling Kentuckians and Americans across the country who need help now.”

Perhaps McConnell would like to trade and get just $600 while he can divide up the 400K at a local food bank in Kentucky, which has over 700,000 people living in poverty including 21% of its childhood population. More than 10% of Kentucky’s population also has no healthcare coverage.

Congressional Hypocrisy Rises to New Heights

A number of other budget hawks and Democrats who signed off on this $600 check relief bill also got major cash and loans via CARES, including Republican Representative Vern Buchanan of Florida (estimated worth $73 million) who got a $2.8 million loan for four of his companies. Republican Devin Nunes of California got $2.95 million from CARES for two wineries and farms that he has a stake in, while Democrat Earl Blumenaeur of Oregon (estimated worth $4.5 million) got $432,000 for two of his companies and Democrat T.J. Cox of California (estimated worth $11.8 million) nabbed $609,000 for two of his enterprises.

Many members of Congress have businesses and are in leadership at private firms and organizations. This is permitted under US law as long as the company is not publicly traded. Handing themselves handouts from money meant for businesses going under is the height of hypocrisy, particularly in cases such as that of Republican Carol Miller of West Virginia.

Miller works as a legal assistant to her husband car dealership chain, which got over $3 million in CARES loans even though West Virginia’s Governor Jim Justice said dealerships were essential in March, calling into question why they would need an emergency infusion of loan funding.

What Happens Now?

There is the chance of negotiating higher additional checks in the future, although the timetable means that for now most people will be getting only $600. The Democrats have a majority in the House and used it Monday to approve the CASH Act bill for $2,000 checks — and was later brought forward in the Senate for unanimous consent as Chuck Schumer has said he would do. This action has the potential to throw the GOP into disarray as well as potentially humiliate and undercut Trump. The Republicans hold a majority in the Senate and thus are in the awkward position of voting down a popular proposal that Trump had previously backed if it ever goes to vote.

Members of the party like Hawley and Representative Elise Stefanik clearly feel differently than McConnell and Co., however, with Stefanik saying that $2,000 checks are a must-do in order to address the “dire need of relief” among the American people. It remains to be seen if enough Republicans split off that the increased checks can pass.

The McConnell wing of the GOP has a deep donor list and long reach. They are not interested in handing out bigger checks or expanding into anything resembling populism. Although they are fine funding wasteful defense contracts — with rare exceptions such as Rand Paul and recent GOP defector Justin Amash — the thought of ordinary Americans having more money makes the McConnell crowd balk.

As Republican Mo Brooks of Alabama said recently: “it’s money we don’t have, we have to borrow to get and we can’t afford to pay back. Someone’s got to show me how we’re going to pay for it. How far before we all go into debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy?”

Sanders said he will object to McConnell’s attempt to override Trump’s veto on the defense bill in the Senate, which would throw a wrench and delay into proceedings and put pressure on McConnell to sign off on the $2,000 checks.

The outcome of this dramatic, chaotic and tragic transition of power and political crisis remains to be seen, as 2020 goes down in the record books as the deadliest year in American history.

L'articolo Why Did Trump Back Down on COVID Stimulus Bill? proviene da InsideOver.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” (Benjamin Franklin). This is war! We will do whatever it takes to win it!

Something along these lines has been spoken by nearly every head of government around the globe referring to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Immediately, most governments and parliaments rushed to pass billion and trillion-dollar packages. Many cheered as the size of government everywhere expanded to levels comparable to those of the Second World War.

The Problem With Big Government

History has proven that sudden emergencies, proven or imagined climate threats, wars, financial crises and so on provide the perfect opportunity for politicians to prolong their influence and make citizens more dependable on them. Government programs that start as temporary become permanent and siphon taxpayer money for decades after the emergency has passed, as the programs of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson or the US central bank’s Quantitative Easing policies have proven.

Who CARES?

Last month, the United States passed the CARES Act, a relief package of $2.2 trillion. Many items may be considered necessary, and up to a point affordable by the world’s biggest economy. However, what can be defined as the biggest enlargement of government in a single day included increases in welfare and other programs that were not related to the current emergency.

As per the Wall Street Journal, there were $25 billion more for food stamps and child nutrition, $12 billion for housing, $900 million for heating assistance, $50 million for legal services for the poor, $60 million for NASA, $8 million for the National Archives, $99 million for the Energy Department on science related spending, $3 million dollars for the Forest Service, for forest research, $75 million to the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities and $25 million for the Kennedy Center. Apparently, no opportunity is wasted for the spreading out of government programs and frenetic spending.

More recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer held hostage the much needed extra $250 billion for small and middle enterprises, in order to get more funding for expenditures in programs unrelated to the coronavirus or the private sector. Through coercion, they managed to add an additional unnecessary $200 billion. This provides further proof of the mentality politician have and the lengths they would use to increase their importance in the lives of citizens.

In addition, on top of the unemployment benefits that individuals get from their states, the CARES act includes $600 dollars per week. This is more than many individuals made while working. The disincentive that this provides for these citizens to look for a job is huge, and the damage done to the private sector and the economic recovery is immense. The only way a country can recover from an economic crisis is by strengthening the private sector, by making it easier for businesses to hire and thus, reducing unemployment. This includes lower taxes, less regulations and less dependency on the government for the individuals. There can be no public sector without the private one. As Ronald Reagan said, the best welfare program is a job.

The Left is Exploiting This Crisis

Left wing parties see this as an opportunity to increase the dependency on government, because that is how politicians can remain relevant. In a truly free market economy only those who work hard and are talented and deserve it succeed. Society’s dead weight loves being dependent on government, and irrelevant or incompetent politicians love this as well. They want the economy to be centrally planned and citizens dependent on them, because this way, they can be more easily controlled.

This is nothing new, as it has always been the center of their ideology. They see government the way conservatives see God. It is their religion and they will use every pretext and every crisis to reach their goal. They promise security and ensure slavery as history has shown throughout the centuries, while feeding fear, panic and repression. However, more shockingly, even so-called conservative groups and governments are requesting a higher government intervention and more central planning. This is when the phenomenon becomes dangerous and government interference permanent, while we forget that free will and personal responsibility is the greatest and most important right we have. Yet, we give it away so easily.

The Danger of Interventionism

Not only will interventionism lead to a lower economic recovery and extended hardships for citizens everywhere, it will risk more human rights and liberty infringements. We are seeing in most countries with the pretext of protection from the virus.

As an analysis by the Mises Institute puts it, “the virus has unleashed petite tyrants to haunt their tiny jurisdictions, using the cover of crisis to arrogate powers belonging to the people”. This is true especially in countries with fragile democratic systems and institutions. Wannabe dictators use wars and health emergencies to pass laws making it easier to infringe rights and rule as kings. History has proven this time and time again. They now have little to no opposition from media or other political parties, even in highly democratic countries.

Almost everybody agrees that it should be up to the government to decide when to go out, when to work, how to live and when to return to normalcy. Yet, centralization is not the solution. It makes the problem worse. Instead of doing more tests, isolating hot spots, believing in individual’s sense of responsibility, as Taiwan and South Korea successfully did, many are following the one size fits all solution, total blockage of the economy and authoritarian suppression of liberties in the name of security. However, whoever chooses security instead of liberty will get none.

“Promoters of Totalitarianism” Always Make It Sound Necessary

In his latest book, Freedom or Equality, economist Daniel Lacalle writes: “A truly free individual is one who fully understands the consequences, risks, and opportunities of his or her actions and is permitted to choose which actions to take. A true slave is one who rejects responsibility and feels free in being able to feed off the crumbs that are left for him or her. Slavery is always promoted for own our good. Promoters of totalitarianism will use words such as social, solidarity, justice and equality”.

It is a good thing that at least the US is proving to be as always “the shining city atop the hill”, with the example of the people protesting for their freedom and rights in many states. Also, President Donald  Trump’s support for them and him delegating the authority to states, is a great example that at least one world leader stands for liberty. Differently from all his predecessors, Trump has not used the occasion to seize new powers. Congress, the Federal States and the private sectors have been as much factors and actors as the President.

Moreover, if the governments provide taxpayers’ money to companies, it will certainly not be free. It will come with strings attached. Government bureaucrats will decide a great many things on how these companies are run; who is remunerated and how much; can shares be bought back; how much they are regulated and so on. If a business is unable to pay back the loans it has received, is the government going to buy shares in it? Will nationalizations be the next step? The one strength of the US economy has been its private sector, which is more flexible, less dependent on banks, more reliant on capital markets and more importantly its government independence and entrepreneurial spirit. The US risks increasing the size of its public sector to European levels, which will dampen the prospects of a quick recovery. A weaker US economy leads to a weaker world economy.

Keeping the Government’s Monopoly in Check

The government is a monopoly and as all monopolies the propensity for abuse is great. How can we trust government with unchecked powers and control over individual liberties? It will undoubtedly lead to more corruption, more totalitarianism and less liberty. Socialism and communism have proven this time and time again. Just ask the once prosperous nation of Venezuela or Cuba. Why should we protest against special interest groups, lobbies and monopolies, when the government is the biggest monopoly there is, and yet it seeks unchecked powers deeming itself worthy of controlling us for our own good?

Governments’ role should be to intervene as little as possible and only when market cannot reverse its failures by itself, which is a rare occurrence. In the emergency we are currently in, it is actually governments’ failure and not the market’s fault. Governments have not spent taxpayers’ money efficiently, to support only the vital sectors such as national security and the healthcare system. They spend money on issues they deem important but have little relevance to their citizens. They channel money towards unproductive sectors or their own clients, harming the prosperity of their citizens.

It was their inability throughout the decades to create strong and modern healthcare systems and their incompetence in containing the pandemic that led to them shutting down the economies. Can we really expect that more government will save us from government’s failures? Moreover, government is making it worse as its regulations in the pharmaceutical industry are slowing research and development down and also by limiting testing. It is logical and easy to prove that more government regulation leads to higher medicament prices.

The Private Sector is Where Solutions Will Come From

Naturally, everybody expects the private sector to lead and get us a vaccine and a cure. It is the private sector that makes technological breakthroughs. It is the private sector and the free market that, when left to act, push the economy upwards. Market forces, consumer behavior, company competition channel money towards innovation and productivity. It is wrong to say that monetary stimulus, and huge fiscal spending lead to recovery. Pumping money does not produce anything, because money is not a good or a service. There has been no case in history when giving money has led to economic recovery. Only when the private sector has been allowed to thrive has the economy prospered.

More government spending leads to a higher debt. Often, the programs the money is spent on are unproductive and cannot generate income to repay the debt. This means taxes will go up. By increasing taxes, citizens will have less disposable income, which will lead to lower consumption. Not only are we borrowing from future generations without producing anything, but we force future generations to pay for frenetic spending. On the other hand, businesses will have less incentives to invest. All these economic factors will apply negative pressure on the GDP of a country. Next, governments take on more debt to spend on welfare programs and unemployment benefits. However, this debt cannot be repaid, because productivity will have declined, together with consumption. This leads to economic ruin, and Europe is the best example, which instead of encouraging saving and investments in times of expansion, spends with money created out of thin air unsupported by goods or services.

The US Needs to Avoid Europe’s Mistakes

In the US, the world’s biggest economy, all public programs are in difficult situations. Medicare and medicaid are soon expected to become insolvent. Government job programs failed during the Obama Presidency to create productive jobs. As National Review points out, government subsidies and regulations have driven up the cost of colleges and housing. Yet, the left wants more regulations, welfare spending and restrictions on private options. Europe is in the current situation precisely because of high government interventionism, which has led to distortions in markets and perverse spending.

In conclusion, it is easy to ask for more money from the government. It is equally easy for government to comply with such requests. There is nothing they want more than to increase their power and influence, while destroying wealth and blaming the private sector, banks and markets. Citizens should have more faith in their own individual sense of responsibility and not fall into the trap that will force them to hand over their liberties, economic and otherwise. Doing so will lead only to more misery, authoritarianism and economic devastation.

L'articolo Beware of the Return of Big Government – it is Deadlier Than COVID-19 proviene da InsideOver.

Covid-19 strikes without regard to a person’s gender, ethnicity, or status in life. The only discernible difference among infected people is the higher mortality rate that comes with their increased age. No one has been spared from possibly contracting it, even many world leaders and government officials who are trusted to contain the pandemic have become ill.

World Leaders Test Positive for COVID-19

“I was at a hospital the other night where I think there were actually a few coronavirus patients and I shook hands with everybody, you’ll be pleased to know, and I continue to shake hands,” said British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. That was on March 3. Three weeks later, he tweeted a video in which he revealed a positive diagnosis for the virus. Johnson’s hand shaking days over: instead, he has been self-isolating.

Before Johnson’s revelation, British heir Prince Charles tested positive for Covid-19, immediately calling into question the status of Queen Elizabeth II. While her son and the prime minister have confirmed their cases, the queen reportedly remains in good health.

“The queen last saw the PM on the 11th March and is following all the appropriate advice with regards to her welfare,” spokesman said. She also has not seen Charles since March 12, according to Reuters and is in lockdown at Windsor Castle while Charles and his wife are quarantined in Scotland.

UK Health Minister Nadine Dorries was also confirmed to have the virus. 

In France, the Minister of Culture, Franck Riester, and Brune Poirson, Secretary of State to the minister of ecological and inclusive transition, have both tested positive in addition to some members of the National Assembly.

Friedrich Merz in Germany, a presumptive frontrunner to lead the Christian Democratic Union Party, has the virus and reported mild to moderate symptoms. Italy, one of the hardest-hit nations, lost Giorgio Valoti, Mayor of Cene due to Covid-19. At the national level, Nicola Zingaretti, leader of the Italian Democratic Party, has also tested positive.

Torbjorn Roe Isaksen, Norway’s minister of labor and social inclusion, and Prince Albert, ruler of Monaco, both tested positive. Polish environment minister, Michael Wos, also tested positive. 

In Spain, Begoña Gómez, wife of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez confirmed her positive test, after which she and her husband isolated themselves in Madrid. Pere Aragones, the deputy head of the Catalan government, and Irene Montero, Spain’s equality minister all tested positive.

Elsewhere in the world, Ukrainian member of parliament Serhiy Shakov revealed a positive test as did Jeremy Issacharoff, Israeli ambassador to Germany. In Canada, Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, wife of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, tested positive and the couple are undergoing a two-week quarantine with Sophie in complete isolation.

Australian home affairs minister Peter Dutton was hospitalized, and senators Susan McDonald and Andrew Bragg confirmed their positive tests.

Fabio Wajngarten, press secretary for Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, tested positive as did the nation’s national security advisor, Augusto Heleno, and the head of Brazil’s Senate Davi Alcolumbre.

Iran’s government endured the most cases among politicians with at least 24 parliamentary members contracting the disease and two of them dying.

In America, the virus made its way to the inner circle of Capitol Hill after Sen. Rand Paul, R–Ky., tested postive as did Reps. Mario Dias-Balart, R–Fla., and Ben McAdams, D–Ut.

Officials At Risk of Infecting One Another

The list of infected world leaders, politicians, and diplomats will undoubtedly grow as the the world struggles to contain COVID-19. Considering the importance of having leadership in the time of crisis, it’s worth questioning how governments might change their routines to limit the spread amongst themselves while still operating on a day-to-day basis.

Consider the butterfly effect of one leader meeting with several heads of state at a conference. Dutton had just returned from a meeting with US President Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Attorney General William Barr when he learned of his diagnosis. Although the White House said Trump tested negative, how close is too close for comfort?

In an attempt to limit the spread among top officials, some governments have begun doing what a large percentage of the working world has done: telecommute. A G20 meeting was recently held virtually and Johnson has said he is actively managing the British government from his home. 

In the US, Trump is on lockdown at the White House, but members of Congress are still required to meet. Although Congress can pass bills on unanimous consent, without taking a tally of yes and no votes, if any member objects, the votes must be counted. For that to occur, members must be in physical attendance in Washington, shoulder-to-shoulder next to one another.

Time for Virtual Voting

“We probably cannot keep operating all in one location,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, R–Mo. A group of 70 House Democrats also sent a letter to the Rules Committee chairman to request a rule change. 

Meetings can be held remotely, but decision makers often aren’t doing this even as the virus spreads. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin in-person at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office last week. Both houses convened to vote on the stimulus bill, in-person. 

And even though Congress can rewrite its quorum rules to theoretically permit remote attendance and voting, it is unlikely to do so in the near future due to security concerns.

“While these concerns are completely valid, implementing remote voting would raise serious security, logistical, and constitutional challenges,” the Rules Committee said.

Lessons Governments are Learning from Covid-19

In Spain, members of parliament were allowed to vote remotely and similar calls were made in Italy. The European Parliament also navigated around security concerns with a system of its own.

“We will receive MEP vote card by email, we will vote by hand, we will sign our vote, scan it and send it by email and the parliament’s secretariat will count the votes,” said Renew group leader Dacian Ciolos ahead of a special session held March 26.  The temporary voting measure was approved for use until July 31.

Another possible alternative to in-person voting is “parallel postal voting”, an idea pitched by German Pirate Party MEP Patrick Breyer. In such a process, votes would be submitted electrically as well as mailed in the traditional sense, which would create a corresponding physical record.

The Covid-19 outbreak has revealed the critical need to have a backup system for governments to remain functional. Most governments have a line of secession in the event a head of state is incapacitated. These laws fail to account for a disease outbreak that could eliminate a wide swath of government officials. 

Once the pandemic dies down, governments would do well to create virtual operation policies to avoid future catastrophes. 

L'articolo How are Governments Functioning During Covid-19? proviene da InsideOver.

US President Donald Trump has announced a package of measures to counteract the economic effects of the new coronavirus. On Monday, he urged Congress to draft a bill that would, inter alia, include tax relief for workers and loans for small businesses. Aid should also be considered for people who are paid hourly wages for whom particular hardship arises in the event of a loss of work due to an illness.

Political Action to Protect Those Economically Impacted by Coronavirus

On Tuesday, the president held talks with members of Congress and stated that meetings with airlines, cruise operators, and the hotel industry were also being planned, as these industries were particularly affected by the current crisis caused by the virus.

On Wednesday, Speaker Pelosi announced legislation aiming to protect Americans who have been infected. The legislation would include provisions for hourly workers who would be particularly hard hit if forced to self-quarantine, as well as provisions to ensure that employers could not punish workers for sick days caused by the coronavirus. Among other things, this should a combination of paid sick leave and unemployment insurance, as well as health-related protective measures such as provisions against price reductions and widespread free tests.

The previous week, Congress had already provided $ 8.3 billion in emergency funds to alleviate the issues associated with the coronavirus. These focused primarily on the immediate health concerns associated with the growing epidemic. Key provisions in this package included efforts to expand public health research, promote the production and distribution of test kits, and accelerate the diagnostic process.

This week’s bill aims to focus on the economic implications as more schools drop classes, companies cut annual conferences, airlines cut flights, and travelers and workers choose to stay at home. A deciding vote on Pelosi’s bill is expected for the early weekend. President Trump then needs to sign the bill.

National Emergency Declaration Frees Up Major FEMA Funding

Moreover, on Wednesday afternoon, it was announced that Senate Minority Leader Schumer and other senators had sent a letter to President Trump, urging him to declare the national emergency due to the virus. Today on March 14 Trump finally agreed, which allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency to use more than $ 50 billion from the Disaster Relief Fund to assist the local government in responding to the coronavirus.

The spreading coronavirus and a crash on the international oil markets had also caused the American stock market to collapse on Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial fell to its lowest level since the beginning of last year. In the past two weeks, the Dow had already lost almost eleven percent – burdened above all by the impending consequences of the coronavirus for the global economy. America’s Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said they would use whatever means are available to protect the American economy from the effects of the coronavirus. However, the situation was not comparable to the one in the financial crisis, he said, assuring the United States had the most resilient economy in the world.

Meanwhile, the number of infections in the US has skyrocketed in the past few days. The CDC health authority had initially spoken of 423 infections and 19 deaths from the virus on Monday. CDC chief Robert Redfield said in the appearance with Trump, the number is now more than 500 cases of infection. The development puts Trump’s government under increasing pressure to act. The president had tried to calm the population in recent days and argued that the situation was sometimes exaggerated. The general risk of infection in the United States is low, and the country is well prepared.

Vice President Mike Pence, who coordinates government efforts around the virus, also said on Monday that the general population’s risk of getting infected remains low. Older people and people with previous illnesses are particularly at risk. At the same time,Pence admitted that the country had to prepare for further infections.

L'articolo President Trump Promises Major Coronavirus Economic Relief Package proviene da InsideOver.

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is always quick to embarrass US President Donald Trump following his State of Union addresses. From sarcastically clapping at him to ripping up his speech this week, her latest antic shows that her relationship with the sitting President has reached an all-time low. Pelosi’s gesture was slammed by the likes of Piers Morgan on Twitter, who called it the ‘political equivalent of throwing one’s toys out of one’s pram.’

But one could argue the House Speaker’s move signifies a deeper problem for the Democrats- now that Trump has survived impeachment, they have run out of tactics to defeat him. If Pelosi was trying to hide her disappointment at this week’s events, then she failed.

It has been an awful week for the Democrats. The race to become the party’s next presidential candidate started off badly, and the Senate overturned the House of Representatives’ bid to impeach the President, which seemed like the only tactic they could deploy to oust him in a ‘constitutional’ manner.

The vote brings to an end the third presidential impeachment trial that bitterly divided the nation. It will be a huge relief to the President’s campaign team as they focus on re-electing Trump.

Trump was always likely to survive impeachment as the Republicans control the Senate. Few GOP senators like Mitt Romney sided with the opposition to vote to impeach him, but the chamber voted 52-48 to acquit the President of abusing his powers, and 53-47 of obstructing Congress.

In a further blow to the Democrats, Trump’s approval ratings on one Gallup poll have hit 49 percent, with 94 percent of Republicans approving of the President’s performance so far, compared to 47 percent of independents and 7 percent of Democrats.

When the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton during the 1998 Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Senate then acquitted him. Clinton also experienced a poll bounce following the incident, but Richard Nixon discovered that his poll ratings plummeted when he resigned over the Watergate scandal. Trump has been fortunate that his fate proved to be similar to Clinton’s so far, particularly when there is an election coming.

But Pelosi has not surrendered yet. She made a statement suggesting the President will be ‘forever impeached’ and she intends to renew her efforts to investigate Trump’s finances and allegations of self-dealing. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) said his party has not made any decisions on what is next. Therefore, the House Speaker has no concrete plans on how to impeach the President.

Even if the Democrats produced new allegations against Trump, they must realise that as long as the GOP remains the dominant party in the Senate, they will never be able to impeach the President. This week’s events proved that, and their attempts to do so are only boosting Trump’s support in the polls. All this drama is likely to do is enrage the President’s supporters before the 2020 election.

If the opposition truly want to defeat the President, they must focus on selecting a candidate for 2020 who can beat Trump during the leadership debates and offer attractive policies. So far, Pete Buttigieg seems like the best hope the Democrats have to win, as this week’s Iowa caucus proved.

From constitutional and legal perspectives, the game is up for Pelosi. Even her gesture of ripping up the President’s State of Union address proved to be a PR disaster. It is almost impossible to impeach Trump, and following the devastation of this week’s Iowa caucus, even a presidential election might not be enough to oust him until the opposition find a candidate capable of doing so. But even that is looking unlikely for now.

L'articolo What’s Next For The Democrats Following Trump’s Acquittal? proviene da InsideOver.

The US Senate Finance Committee has voted 25 to 3 to support a draft of the new North American trade deal known as the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement or USMCA. The House of Representative already approved the draft deal in December 2018 after adding in sections that protected workers more.

USMCA: Best Deal Ever?

According to US President Donald Trump, the USMCA is going to be “the best and most important trade deal” in American history. On the campaign trail in 2015 and 2016, Trump repeatedly slammed the North American Free Trade Deal (NAFTA) as a destroyer of US jobs and the worst trade deal ever made. Trump also referred to the Trans Pacific Partnership which he withdrew from by executive order in 2017 as a “rape” of America and a “job killer.” Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also said the new deal is “much better than NAFTA.”

This can be properly understood as mainly political rhetoric. The USMCA is basically just an updated version of NAFTA with a few more protections for American interests. It is unlikely to significantly boost US job numbers or fundamentally change the way trade works in North America.

How Is The USMCA Different Than NAFTA?

There are some areas where the USMCA breaks new ground. One is on auto parts. The new deal stipulates that three-quarters of an automobile’s parts have to be made in the US, Canada or Mexico in order to be tariff-free when shipped. Workers also have to get paid over $16 USD per hour, which will mean Mexican companies paying workers low amounts will be overtaken by higher-paying US firms in some cases. The Trump Administration is betting this will have major payoffs in the auto industry and optimistically predicts over 76,000 new auto jobs in the United States by 2025.

Other updates include in the dairy industry, where US dairy, chicken and egg farmers will get access to Canada’s heavily-subsidized dairy industry with their exports. For its part, Canada’s farmers and nut and sugar industry will get better access to the massive US market.

On the tech side, the USMCA protects the ability of US tech companies to store their data on American servers and shields them from being prosecuted for many issues that could occur with their content in Mexico or Canada. It frees up and empowers American tech companies and could set a precedent for deals later on with China and other bigger players.  Additionally, the new USMCA deal helps protect the environment somewhat with $600 million for dealing with environmental issues, although environmentalists say it is just a token and the deal basically does nothing to help the environment.

Politicians Weigh In On USMCA

Some American politicians are worried it doesn’t look after American workers and companies enough, especially Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders of Vermont who said he will vote against the final bill. On the Republican side, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania is concerned for the opposite reason, saying the USMCA is “designed to restrict trade and investment” and would cut back on free trade growth, especially in the automobile sector where the USMCA puts tariffs on parts whose workers weren’t paid up to standards to stop one country from flooding the market and tariffs on origin companies whose products don’t meet certain standardized benchmarks. Others on the committee like Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Lousiana and Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island expressed concern that businesses won’t have adequate ability to dispute deals and unfair treatment under the deal: therefore they voted no.

Senator Rob Portman called the deal a “big improvement” despite admitting it isn’t perfect, while Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, for example, particularly emphasized the deal’s enforcement of better work standards and wage protection for Mexican workers. If Mexico pays workers more and has to produce better products it will help slow down outsourcing and protect American jobs.

The USMCA faces the full US Senate vote for ratification next week, but this could be rescheduled depending on the timing of US President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial. It has a 16-year sunset clause meaning the deal will have to be renegotiated at that time. While some of the improvements and changes made in the new USMCA will undoubtedly help American workers and can also give various benefits to Mexican and Canadian companies and workers, the slow progress of the deal and its largely underwhelming advantages show just how slow trade negotiation and progress is in the real world once you cut through the political rhetoric.

L'articolo New North American USMCA Trade Deal One Step Closer To Passing proviene da InsideOver.

In his six-page letter to US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, American President Trump denied all allegations against him and accused the Democrats of a deranged political witch-hunt, among many other things. As we know by now, it did not stop Pelosi from proceeding in her case against Trump. However, the letter was never meant to stop the impeachment process in the first place.

Unlike his usual approach, Trump did not announce his protest against the then-pending impeachment procedure via Twitter but protested it in the letter he sent to Pelosi on Tuesday. In the letter Trump accuses the Democrats of “perversion of justice and abuse of power.” He reiterates that he has done nothing wrong when he asked a foreign power, namely Ukraine, to investigate political rivals, i.e., Democratic Presidential candidate and former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Why Did Trump Write The Letter?

Trump’s letter wasn’t truly meant for Pelosi. It was a press release for the public. Not the general public, but the Trump public. It was done in order to rally the troops for the upcoming impeachment proceedings and inflame them with even more outrage. As such, the letter represents a summary of Trump’s “fight” against “the swamp,” “the deep state,” and all the other enemies who have been undermining his presidency according to his view. All the misleading statements, exaggerations, and downright falsehoods in the letter notwithstanding, its purpose is clear. Self-reflection? Nonexistent. Victim narrative? Omnipresent.

Trump Letter: Only Stupid People Believe The Democrats Are Sincere

By adhering to the impeachment process, Pelosi has declared an “open war on American democracy,” Trump wrote. The “campaign” of the Democrats against him was an “unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power.”

“You view democracy as your enemy!” Continues the President’s six-page letter. “You are the ones subverting democracy in America. You are the ones obstructing justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.”

No “intelligent person” would believe the Democrats, Trump also claimed. “You are making a mockery of impeachment, and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans.”

Moreover, Trump claimed that he had been denied fundamental rights during the Democrats’ preparations for impeachment, such as the possibility of having witnesses interrogated at the House hearings. After all, “more due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.”

In his letter, Trump also states that he has “no doubt” that “the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 elections.”

Pelosi Unruffled By Angry Letter

Trump’s words—unsurprisingly—did not lead Pelosi to change course. Hours after having received the letter, she sent out the invitations for the impeachment votes the following day to “honor our oath to support our constitution and protect it from all foreign and domestic enemies.” Hours later, Trump became only the third President in the history of the republic to be impeached.

Indeed, the President’s most recent—and well calculated—outburst won’t deter the Democrats or interrupt their plan going forward. As part of the upcoming trial, they now seek to summon witnesses from Trump’s closest circle. Two of the four new witnesses are said to be former Security Adviser John Bolton and incumbent White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

Moreover, in a letter to Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer proposed for the proceedings to be “fair and honest.” Mcconnell has said he will be working with the White House and there will be no difference between his approach and the President’s approach, while fellow Trump insider Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has said the impeachment is bogus and he will do whatever he can to “make it die quickly” in the Senate.

According to Schumer, the trial could begin as early as January 7th, with the process potentially lasting multiple weeks. Meanwhile, Schumer and McConnell are expected to agree on a roadmap for the planned process, just as it occurred during the impeachment proceedings against former President Clinton two decades ago.

L'articolo Trump’s Letter to Pelosi: Alternative Facts In An Alternate Reality proviene da InsideOver.

US President Donald Trump was formally impeached by the US House of Representatives on Wednesday, December 18. As only the third president to be impeached in American history Donald Trump has cast the process as a “witch hunt” and unsubstantiated political persecution. He now faces a trial in the Republican-held Senate, which is exceedingly unlikely to sustain the judgment and remove Trump from office. The previous week Democrats had approved two articles of impeachment that charged the President with abuse of power and obstruction of a congressional investigation.

How Did Impeachment Proceed?

A simple majority was needed for these articles to be confirmed. Under Wednesday’s setup this was 215 votes. 229 Democrats and 1 Independent voted in favor of the abuse of power article.

As for the second article of impeachment, the majority was also reached handily with 229 votes in favor (228 Democrats and one Independent). All 195 Republicans opposed it, in addition to three Democrats. Congressman Jared Golden of Maine voted yes on abuse of power but no on Trump obstructing the investigation, leading to the one-vote discrepancy between the two votes.

Democrats Who Are Not Onboard With Impeachment

The Democrats who voted against one or both articles of impeachment are Representatives Jared Golden from Maine, Collin C. Peterson from Minnesota, and Jeff Van Drew from New Jersey. Van Drew had already announced before the vote that he will leave the Democrats and switch to the Republicans. In fact, Van Drew sought the President’s blessing for the move during a meeting at the White House on Friday, which might guarantee his reelection next year, considering the powerful boost that a Trump endorsement has given to Republican candidates in the past.

Meanwhile, Colin Peterson, who has been in Congress for twenty-eight years, has had a history of being one of the most conservative Democrats in the House. In order to win his district in rural Minnesota, one that Trump carried by 31 points in 2016, Peterson seemingly sought not to alienate Trump voters in his district. Moreover, Jared Golden, just like his two colleagues, also represents a district that was won by the President in 2016.

Tulsi Gabbard’s Refusal To Take Part

Another delicate detail that is likely to receive some attention in the next few days is Democratic Congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s decision to vote “present” in both cases. Gabbard said that she could not support impeachment “because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.” Gabbard, who has been persona non grata in the Democratic party for quite a while now, has kept her option for an independent run in 2020 open with her decision.

Republicans Slam Impeachment As A Disgraceful Sham

The historic vote had been preceded by an eleven-hour session in which Democratic and Republican members exchanged verbal condemnation, with Republicans calling the impeachment invalid and corrupt. The Democrats justified the opening of the trial against Trump as based on their obligation to protect the US Constitution. The Republicans accused the Democrats of acting on purely partisan grounds and having sought to remove Trump from his first day in office and cast his every decision in a negative and menacing light.

The highest-ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Doug Collins, accused the Democrats of only impeaching the President because they could not beat Trump in the election.

In the debate, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Democrat Adam Schiff, summarized the allegations against Trump once again, namely that Trump abused his office by forcing Ukraine to investigate domestic rival Joe Biden. “For this, and for his continued efforts to intervene in our election abroad, impeachment proceedings must be instituted against Trump,” Schiff said. The evidence against the president was “irrefutable,” according to Schiff, who further referred to Trump’s telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and testimony from senior diplomats and Trump’s Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney.

The Democratic Party’s Position On Impeachment

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, opened the pre-vote debate with an appeal to the members’ consciences, as they all had vowed to protect the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. “If we do not act now, we will give up our duty,” she warned, adding that “he gave us no choice.” The president abused his office for his own benefit and was a continuing threat to the country’s democracy and national security, according to Pelosi.

Impeachment In Name Only

However, despite the now official impeachment, the scenario for implementing the decision in the Senate has not changed. The GOP will set the trial’s ground rules, just as Democrats have set the rules for the House stage of the impeachment inquiry. However, Democrats have already raised concerns that Senate Republicans could attempt to nullify the work done in the House. Following the impeachment vote, Democratic leaders did not say they would withhold articles of impeachment, but they also left that possibility open if no fair trial could be guaranteed. The latter could already indicate how the Democrats may attempt to end this political dilemma the only way they can still win it: blaming the Republicans to disrespect not only the process but the Constitution.

For Trump’s removal from office, at least 20 Republicans would have to vote against Trump, which remains inconceivable. Furthermore, the united front the GOP displayed yesterday has not increased the Democrats’ chances. Some commentators even believe the perception of political persecution may increase Trump’s prospect of being re-elected and strengthen him.

The Next Step Will Show The Full Democratic Strategy

All in all, the voting did not offer any real surprises. Even the defectors within the Democratic Party were somewhat anticipated. What died yesterday, however, was the idea that resistance within the GOP could emerge and join the Democrats in their fight. Nonetheless, the next days will show whether the Democrats are willing to accept the inevitable defeat in the Senate or will choose to escalate the political rhetoric and pressure on Republican lawmakers.

L'articolo President Trump Has Been Impeached By The House proviene da InsideOver.

Ever since he was elected US President, Donald Trump has made it his mission to make trade fairer for America. Whilst his enemies have branded him as a protectionist for imposing tariffs on China and even close allies like Canada, it has always been his short-term strategy to inflict retaliatory tariffs on those countries until they lower their own. George W. Bush made a similar decision in 2002, but he did not see it through to the extent that Trump has. The President’s experiment with tariffs has had mixed results.

Reforming the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was one of Trump’s signature policies during the 2016 general election. He has succeeded in replacing it with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. In March 2018, the President imposed tariffs on steel (25 per cent) and aluminium (10 per cent) for most countries, including Canada, Mexico and the EU. In May 2019, he said he would impose a 5 per cent tariff on all imported goods from Mexico beginning June 10, a tax that would ‘gradually increase’ until the flow of undocumented immigrants from across the border stopped. Despite this, the fact that Trump has been able to persuade Canada and Mexico to support a new trade deal that will reduce tariffs in the long-term is a substantial success for his administration.

Furthermore, Mexico has already ratified the agreement while Canada is yet to do so. The US sent approximately $300 billion and $265 billion in goods to Canada and Mexico, respectively, last year. This demonstrates how important these two markets are for American businesses and why it is vital all sides can approve of this trade deal immediately.

Considering House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading an impeachment inquiry against the President, it is impressive that Trump has been able to win her approval for the USMCA to a certain extent. Unfortunately, the Democrats and the Trump administration were not able to reach a compromise on the trade deal during a meeting on Thursday due to Pelosi’s concerns about labour and environmental standards under the agreement. However, the House Speaker expressed her anxiety about not approving of the USMCA before 2020, which is when Trump is up for re-election.

If the President fails to convince the Democrats to vote for the USMCA before the election, he can accuse the latter of deliberately thwarting his prized trade agreement whilst the Democrats could say Trump has failed to deliver one of his key election promises. Either way, the USMCA is likely to dominate the 2020 general election.

Trump has been able to sign a limited trade deal with Japan recently. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe signed the trade pact hoping to avoid further US tariffs on cars. Japan’s lower house approved of the trade deal last Tuesday. Although both sides have been able to conclude a trade agreement, they must resolve their differences over auto tariffs before it can be concluded as a complete success.

US National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien also expressed his confidence that America and China can end their 16-month trade war by the end of the year, but he said he was concerned protests in Hong Kong could be an obstacle to signing a trade agreement. Trump’s success with China depends upon the outcome of Hong Kong’s district elections ending peacefully, or not.

The President’s negotiations in resolving trade differences with the EU see no end in sight. Trump administration officials are considering whether to investigate the EU as the window closes for slapping Brussels with auto tariffs. Neither side has entered discussions to reach a trade agreement and Brussels has made no offer to lower its 10 per cent tariffs on US vehicles. This trade war is likely to continue into the new decade.

Trump is close to succeeding in resolving his trade wars with Japan, China, Mexico and Canada. His success here will be determined by his concluding negotiations with those countries. This will improve his chances of winning the 2020 general election. But there is still more work to do with the EU and if Brussels wants to avoid being investigated by Trump administration officials, they need to budge at some point.

L'articolo Has Trump Succeeded in Making Trade Fairer for America? proviene da InsideOver.

Being a state should not be an issue to be discussed in a democratic country. Not when it comes to Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States of America, not to be confused with the state of Washington, the first located on the east coast, the second north-west of America, on the Pacific coast and near the Canadian border.

It is not a difference so obvious even for the Americans, helped however by an acronym that for centuries indicates the federal district to which it belongs: the US Constitution provided for a federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of the US Congress, and in the early Nineteenth century the District of Columbia Organic Act officially organized the District and placed the entire territory under the exclusive control of the federal government.

Two centuries ago the district included the counties of Washington and Alexandria, a referendum first and then a further Act abolished Washington County and donated Alexandria to the state of Virginia. This ensured that the City of Washington and the District of Columbia became one same entity, sharing its legal status.

Today Washington, D.C. covers an area of ​​177 square kilometres, although the metropolitan area is also developed on seven counties in the state of Maryland, five counties in Virginia and five autonomous cities of the same state.

A bit confusing for the city that houses the main institutions of the government of the United States, from the President to the Congress and the Supreme Court, as well as ministries, federal agencies and various international organizations.

So far so good, except that the capital of the United States does not benefit from the same rights as the rest of the country: “taxation without representation”, reads the message on most of the license plates in the district and that has become popular among over 700,000 residents, more than those in the states of Vermont and Wyoming.

So why a district and not a state? Among the aims of the Founding Fathers there was the will to ensure that the American capital remained autonomous and not under pressure from politics, but today the discussion is different. The politician who represents the District of Columbia at the House of Representatives, Eleanor Holmes Norton, has no permission to vote on the final passage of any legislation and therefore is of no importance in the Senate.

Despite the Section 8 of the first Article of the Constitution reading that “[the Congress has the power] To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States […],” it is not explicitly said that Washington, D.C. cannot become a State.

Only in 2019, was the historic hearing discussed at the US House of Representatives on the district’s statehood, the first hearing in 26 years. Legislation strongly supported by Norton that would grant the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House – the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 – was passed by the United States Senate on February 26, 2009. However, the legislation stalled in the House and failed to pass before the end of the 111th Congress.

Supporting the Democratic politician, also the mayor of Washington, D.C. Muriel Bowser, born and raised in the American capital and charge since 2014.

“True liberty demands that every resident has representation,” reads the website of the city government dedicated to the statehood action. The week of events and demonstrations that preceded the hearing started with hundreds of flags with 51 stars put up down Pennsylvania Avenue NW – between the White House and the Capitol – to emphasize the opinion of the Mayor Bowser’s office.

“And yes, we are indeed more brown and more liberal than some of you, but denying statehood would be unfair no matter who was affected. It would be unfair if we were conservatives from a rural district built around agriculture, or an industrial city in the heartland. This is America, and Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, and that is why we are demanding statehood”. This is how the mayor boomed during the hearing referring to the law H.R. 51, proposed by Norton in the beginning of 2019, and which seems to have found enough cosponsors to nearly assure passage totalling to 218 voting cosponsors.

Back to November 2016, the citizens of Washington, D.C. had a chance to vote for the first time for statehood, casting ballots in favour of petitioning Congress to allow it to become the 51st American state and be represented in the US Congress. The referendum showed that 87 per cent of the district voters were overwhelmingly in favour of statehood, and only 13 per cent dissenting. But a Gallup survey published last June found that only 29 per cent of Americans as a whole support statehood, with 64 per cent opposing it.

Before the final decision of the Senate, if D.C. could not become a state, Washingtonians would continue to pay the same federal taxes as other American States do, without being represented and without the possibility of seeing an historic moment like this soon.

L'articolo Why Washington, D.C. Will Not Become the 51st US State proviene da InsideOver.