I haven’t seen too many (or any) posts about the impending USMCA “hand shake” between the White House and Dems on the Hill. Is it inevitable? Is our party really going to just hand Trump an unnecessary win in the midst of his impeachment? Why the deafening silence from our Presidential candidates? I, for one, and am going to call my representative and urge him to hold out for a better a bill under a Democratic president in 15 months’ time.
Look, I get that’s it seems awkward politically to come out against a trade deal. But, USMCA is pretty lame as far as trade deals go. It’s not materially different than NAFTA (but Trump, of course, will claim to be master negotiator and use it shore up swing state support). As Dan Pfeiffer put it:
And for what? To give “moderates” cover? Not to be flippant about it, but if “moderates” lose, it won’t be because of USMCA. It’ll be largely because the Trump economy continues to boast good news and the public remains lulled into complacency. No one’s discounting the difficulty “moderates" face in keeping their seats, and of course, I want them to hang on. But boosting Trump’s popularity in those same districts is not going to help.
C’mon! Some political hardball please? How about, dare I say, a “quid pro quo”? Give us USMCA in exchange for testimony from Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney etc.? I don’t know the answer, but giving away “something for nothing” seems, shortsighted at best. Per Paul Krugman:
Let’s not let our leaders walk us off a cliff here. Let’s start the phone chain!
Tuesday, Dec 10, 2019 · 4:25:16 AM +00:00 · Bassmastor
UPDATE: Since a number of folks were asking about what’s in USMCA and raising concerns that maybe we’re just speculating too much . . . I’m glad you asked! To be fair, we don’t have a final version yet, but we know a few things:
1) According to Vox.com, USMCA “tweaks” NAFTA, arguably in some good ways, including what purport to be stricter labor standards that will not apply to Mexican workers. But, apparently, the agreement is lacking in “enforcement” mechanism. Congressman Bill Pascrell wrote a piece in the American Prospect on November 20, 2019:
Just as important is enforcement. Even if Mexico swears on a stack of Bibles that its government will follow through on its labor promises, we will still need to follow Ronald Reagan’s famous axiom on verifying those assurances. In practical terms this means the inspection of independent workplaces and it means being able to stop goods from entering the United States that originate from facilities and plants that break the rules.
Given the horrendous labor conditions still common in Mexico in 2019, conditions have not improved, even as trade talks have heated up. This augurs very poorly for a functioning agreement.
2) The unions don’t seem to be on board, also because of enforcement concerns. From the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka:
3) The “moderates” and “Problem Solver Caucus” want this deal for the politics, not the policy. As David Dayen reported a couple weeks back:
The clamor among freshman swing-seat Democrats to put USMCA up for a vote has reached epidemic proportions. And the rationale has nothing to do with raising labor standards for Mexican workers or improving our manufacturing competitiveness, or farm exports. It’s just, bluntly, “We need to show that we can do something.” That’s a direct quote from Henry Cuellar (D-TX), one of the 11 centrist Democrats who signed a letter to USTR undermining the Democratic position to remove rigid patent protections for high-cost prescription drugs. Ben McAdams (D-UT), another signee, gave virtually the same quote to The Wall Street Journal.