What is the ideal balance between labor, globalization and profits? Companies obviously have to make a profit, and globalism is clearly reality, but for me all these trade agreements come down to: Does this mean more jobs here, or does it mean more outsourcing? USMCA does nothing to fix that. The most important thing is that you can deny entry of products made by U. That is mostly not in the agreement now. They are putting workers out of work in other countries so their workers can work.
Tariffs are a temporary tool; they are not a long-term policy. GM said the steel tariff cost it a billion dollars after it announced the Lordstown closing. They will talk about a billion dollars in tariff costs, but they are enriching their executives, who are already very well paid.
Executives and investors benefit in a big way. And that will only get worse—or better, if you are a GM executive—once the tax cuts are fully implemented. Are you concerned about the issues dividing progressives and more establishment Democrats? I think we have several presidential candidates that talk about things partly to differentiate themselves; they want to eliminate ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] or have free college for everybody or certain kinds of health care programs.
I think Democrats are overwhelmingly for expanding the ability of middle-class and working-class kids to go to college without student loans. No, of course not. It should be reformed dramatically.
The United States does not seek to contain China On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility. His Cairo speech of June 4, , was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution.
I've come here Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests.
Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail. In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an "orderly transition.
Not only were Egypt's elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America's closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.
And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security.
Yet the public mistakes his administration's astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing "war crimes. The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence as well as antagonizing locals every time a drone strikes.
It symbolizes the administration's decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama's foreign policy.
America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U. It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has "lost his narrative" since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious "you didn't build that" speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even bizarrely the creation of the middle class.
Sadly, he couldn't mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved. Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country's fiscal crisis.
Over the past few years Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 not current or imminent recipients , turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan's mastery of this subject.
There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better. Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible.
There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his "Roadmap for America's Future" as a "business consumption tax.
I first met Paul Ryan in April I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city's biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host's home. In the case of Harris, the question is relevant because the Constitution in Article II, Section 1 spells out that the Vice President, who is eligible to be President, must be a natural-born citizen.
A Newsweek op-ed piece this week from John C. According to his understanding of the 14th Amendment, Eastman said in the op-ed that a person with temporary permission to be in the United States under a student visa would not qualify as a natural-born citizen. Since then, the debate over the op-eds has become part of the current presidential campaign.
But back in November , we looked at similar general arguments, along with guidance from the Congressional Research Service. At the time, President Donald Trump said he could settle the birthright citizenship question by issuing an executive order. That has not come to pass, but to benefit our readers, here is the explanation of the arguments we published at the time. There is a long history of court decisions and precedents about the Citizenship Clause, concluding that it means that most people physically born in the United States qualify as citizens.
0コメント