Will Michigan Workers Put Bernie Back On Track Tuesday?

Bernie and Biden will face off in a one on one debate on Sunday, March 15 in Phoenix (with CNN and Univision hosting-- Jake Tapper, Dana Bash and Jorge Ramos moderating). Before then, though, we have a big day this Tuesday when Michigan, Washington state, Missouri, Mississippi and Idaho hold their primaries, also the day of North Dakota's primary and the last day of Democrats Abroad primary. Michigan is the big prize-- 125 delegates. Before Super Tuesday, Bernie was leading Biden 25-16% with Bloomberg and Elizabeth both at 13%, Mayo Pete at 11% and Klobuchar at 8%. The latest polling indicates that Biden has leap-frogged to the top slot and leads Bernie by almost 7 points.

Washington was also a Bernie state-- pre-Super Tuesday leading Biden by 11 points-- 21-10%. Now? The latest poll shows a tie. The latest poll of Missouri Democrats (post-Super Tuesday) shows Biden slightly ahead.

There are no polls available for Mississippi, Idaho or North Dakota.

Bernie is counting on union workers in Michigan-- who understand the destructive nature of the trade agreements Biden has always backed-- as a boost that will help him regain his footing. Rust Belt autoworkers know-- and Bernie is reminding them of Biden's role in all these disastrous agreements. Writing for Politico yesterday, Megan Cassella reported that Bernie cancelled a rally in Mississippi so he could spend more time in Michigan.

In campaign speeches, press conferences and television ads, Sanders has stepped up his attacks on Biden this week over his past support for trade pacts like NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China-- both of which, he argues, “have cost this country millions of good paying jobs and in fact have resulted in a race to the bottom.”

...“They were devastated-- they were devastated by trade agreements like NAFTA” in Michigan, Sanders said this week as he sought to reset his campaign after Super Tuesday. “Joe is going to have to explain to the people and the union workers in the Midwest why he supported disastrous trade agreements.”

...[T]he trade battle is a legacy fight for Sanders, who has spent decades not only opposing trade deals himself but often leading the charge against them. He has voted against every major deal Congress has passed in a generation, although he sat out a 2011 vote on a deal with South Korea.

Some of those battles put him directly at odds with Biden. In 2016, as Biden helped lead the Obama administration’s attempt to gather support for the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, Sanders helped collect more than 66,000 signatures on a petition to stop it. Congress never moved on the deal, and President Donald Trump ultimately had the final word, withdrawing the U.S. from the pact on his first week in office.

This year, Sanders was one of just 10 senators to vote against the Trump administration's deal to replace NAFTA, known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. After months of closed-door negotiations between House Democrats and the Trump administration, the pact garnered broad support from a majority of labor unions, most congressional Democrats and even fellow progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Biden backed it as well, saying it was not ideal but that he supported the improvements the labor and progressive movements fought to make.

...For Sanders, the question now is whether his fresh line of attack will work.

In 2016, Sanders’ pitch resonated in Michigan and among workers in the state’s hollowed-out manufacturing sector. But since then, Trump has worked to fashion himself as the champion of the working class and American manufacturing by ripping up what he and Sanders both call disastrous trade deals. Trump has also enacted a series of sweeping tariffs on imports that have devastated farmers and hurt some manufacturers whose equipment and materials are growing more expensive.

The effect has been “tremendously clarifying,” said Doug Irwin, a Dartmouth University economist who has written extensively on the politics and economics of trade. After decades of debate on the merits of multinational agreements, a U.S. president has shifted the country toward a more protectionist agenda and seen what the effects would be, he said.

“What we see is that just as trade creates winners and losers, protectionism creates winners and losers,” Irwin said. “And there are a lot of losers out there.”

A Biden spokesperson sounded a similar tune. "These states have spent years enduring the economic pain that Trump's trade war has forced on them-- and the last thing they have an appetite for is more of that kind of approach," spokesperson Andrew Bates told Politico.

...Biden’s record overall on trade is generally mixed. He voted against a handful of trade deals in his last few years in the Senate, including pacts with Peru, Oman and Chile. But those have garnered far less attention than his votes in favor of NAFTA-- which has long served as a punching bag for critics who blame it for the outsourcing of jobs to Mexico-- and for permanent normal trade relations with China.

Yesterday, The Senate Passed NAFTA 2.0-- Does Anyone Really Think Anything Good Can Come Out Of Trumpism?

The passage of Trump's flawed North American trade policy should help voters discern differences in the candidates who voted for it and the candidates who voted against it. The vote was 89-10. Only one presidential contender in the Senate opposed it, Bernie. Like MoscowMitch, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and, obviously, Colorado neolib Michael Bennet, voted for it. Nine Democrats and one Republican opposed Trump on this:

• Bernie (I-USA)
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
• Cory Booker (D-NJ)
• Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Kamala Harris (D-CA)
• Ed Markey (D-MA)
• Brian Schatz (D-HI)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
• Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)

Erica Werner and Rachel Siegel wrote the vote up from an establishment perspective for the Washington Post, noting it is "delivering on President Trump’s promise of a new and better North American trade deal just ahead of his impeachment trial," although why they decided to lead by deciding it is "better" is anyone's guess.

Only 41 members of the House had opposed it last month, 38 Democrats, 2 Republicans + Michigan independent Justin Amash. Among the Democrats voting no in the House were outstanding progressives like AOC (NY), Pramila Jayapal (WA), Ilhan Omar (MN), Jamie Raskin (MD), Ted Lieu (CA), Rashida Tlaib (MI), Mark Pocan (WI), Barbara Lee (CA), Andy Levin )MI), Jim McGovern (MA) and Ayanna Pressley (MA).

Werner and Siegel reported that "months of negotiations between Democrats and the White House produced pro-labor revisions and jettisoned drug exclusivity language sought by the pharmaceutical industry. The 12-million-strong AFL-CIO was closely involved in negotiating the changes and backed the agreement, along with some other major unions... Senate Republicans had little influence in the process because Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) held a make-or-break role in deciding whether to bring the deal up on the floor of the House, which by law had to act first on the agreement. The outsized role played by House Democrats and their allies in labor angered some Republicans, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), the deal’s most outspoken opponent, who complained that the Senate got 'rolled' in the process."

Bernie voiced his opposition on the floor of the Senate on Wednesday during the debate.

"This agreement is opposed by labor unions like the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers and the United Food and Commercial Workers.  It is opposed by the Sunrise Movement, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters and every major environmental group in America.

  "And it is opposed by the National Family Farm Coalition, which believes it will lock in rules that have devastated family farms and expanded corporate control over agriculture in North America.

"I am proud to stand with these labor unions, environmental groups and family farmers against Trump’s NAFTA 2.0.

"I not only voted against NAFTA in 1993, but marched against it. In 2000, I voted against Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. I opposed the United States–Korea Free Trade Agreement and DR-CAFTA. And I helped lead the effort in Congress and with the grassroots across this country against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

"There is no doubt in my mind that we need to fundamentally rewrite our disastrous trade agreements and create and protect good-paying American jobs, to improve the environment and combat climate change, and to stop the destructive race to the bottom.

"Unfortunately, this revised trade agreement with Mexico and Canada does none of those things. It must be re-written.

"While NAFTA has led to the loss of nearly one million American jobs, this agreement does virtually nothing to stop the outsourcing of jobs to Mexico. Under this agreement, large, multi-national corporations will still be able to shut down factories in America where workers are paid $28 an hour and move to Mexico where they are paid less than $2 an hour.

"When Trump was a candidate for president he promised that he would stop the outsourcing of American jobs to Mexico, China and other low-wage countries. It hasn’t happened.

"The truth is, since Trump took office, over 170,000 American jobs have been shipped overseas. In 2018, we had a record-breaking $891 billion trade deficit in goods, a $419 billion trade deficit with China and an $81 billion trade deficit with Mexico. In 2018, for the first time in history, manufacturing workers began getting paid less than workers overall. Today, manufacturing workers get $28.15 an hour while the average worker makes 15 cents more.

"Last month alone, we lost 12,000 factory jobs and despite Trump’s rhetoric we are in a manufacturing recession.

"Mr. President, there is a reason why virtually every major environmental group is opposed to Trump’s NAFTA 2.0. This agreement does nothing to stop fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron from dumping their waste and pollution into Mexico and destroying the environment. In fact, it makes it easier for fossil fuel companies to bring tar sands oil into the United States through dangerous pipelines like the Keystone XL. It does not even mention the words 'climate change'-- the most existential threat facing our planet.

"The deal preserves the disastrous Investor-State Dispute Settlement system for oil and gas companies, allowing them to continue to put corporate profits ahead of our air, water, climate and health.

"Mr. President, at this pivotal moment in American history, it is not good enough to tinker around the edges. The scientific community has been very clear-- if we do not act boldly and aggressively to transform our economy to sustainable sources of power, there will be irreparable harm done to our planet.

"In my view, we need to re-write this trade agreement to stop the outsourcing of American jobs, to combat climate change, to protect the environment, and stop the destructive race to the bottom.

"We have got to stop large, profitable corporations that are outsourcing American jobs overseas from receiving lucrative federal contracts.

"And we have got to repeal Trump’s tax giveaway to the wealthy that have provided huge tax breaks to companies that shut down manufacturing plants in the U.S. and move abroad.

"Trade is a good thing, but it has got to be fair.

"Let us defeat NAFTA 2.0 and go back to the drawing board to protect American workers, to protect the environment and to lift the living standards of all workers."

I asked some of the 2020 congressional candidates how they feel about this trade bill. Many answered the same way Brianna Wu, running in the Boston area against a reactionary New Dem, who said she understands "why people would support this, but it's clear this is not a long-term solution for American workers. And I agree with Senator Sanders that this does not go far enough on raising wages or addressing climate change. When I am serving in Congress we won't settle for half-measures that pad corporate profits. We will stand unapologetically with working class Americans."

Werner and Stein also noted that "The deal created divisions in the Democratic presidential primary field. In a debate Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) predicted that the agreement would lead to the continued outsourcing of U.S. jobs and said, 'We could do much better than a Trump-led trade deal.' But other leading candidates, including Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), support the deal. Warren called it a 'modest improvement' that will deliver needed relief to farmers and workers hurt by Trump’s trade policies.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) voted against USMCA, saying that while the deal does include labor provisions, “it does not address climate change, the greatest threat facing the planet.” In a statement, Schumer said that the Trump administration is giving incentives for manufacturers to move businesses and jobs from the U.S. to Mexico, which has weaker clean air and water regulations.

“The Trump administration also included handouts for the oil and gas industry, such as lifting tariffs on tar sands, and refused to include any mention of the climate crisis in the agreement," Schumer said.

...USMCA also includes new rules for digital trade, something that barely existed when the original NAFTA was written. Among these, however, is a provision that provides protections to big tech companies by giving legal immunity to internet platforms over content posted by users. Pelosi opposed the provision but was unsuccessful in keeping it out of the deal in the final throes of talks last month. She cited it as her one disappointment in how the deal turned out.

Economists also worry that USMCA will spur a spike in car prices, especially on smaller cars that used to be produced in Mexico but may be subject to duties at the border. U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel are also still in place.

Our progressive hero in Arizona, Eva Putzova, was very clear she won't be voting for this kind of trade agreement when she replaces Blue Dog Tom O'Halleran. "Like Bernie Sanders and AOC," she said after the Senate vote, "I oppose the USMCA, also known as NAFTA 2.0. We need trade agreements that protect workers and the environment and address climate change, not to enhance corporate profits. We have to retool the global economy and those agreements can be part the climate crisis solution. When I am in Congress that is the lens I will use when considering any future trade agreements. There won't be any trade on a dead planet."

Mark Gamba, mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon, is running for a congressional seat occupied by a another reactionary Blue Dog, the notorious Kurt Schrader. Gamba told us that "The childishly named USMCA is only nominally better than NAFTA. Both allow for environmental destruction to leak to other countries, dramatically reducing the effectiveness of our own environmental laws. At a time when we should be taxing oil companies to pay for the damage they've caused this agreement does the opposite. Thousands of good American jobs will continue to be killed so that millionaires can make even more, by paying mexican workers 1/10 of what Americans make. At a time when we should be helping small family farms that grow our food sustainably, this does the opposite and guarantees more giant aggribusiness takeover of food production. Most importantly, at a time when the greatest existential threat to all of humanity is climate chaos, an agreement that doesn't even mention it, let alone create protections from it, should have made this a NO vote for every thinking member of congress. Of course, my Blue Dog opponent was happy to vote for this terrible trade agreement. I would not have."

In the Shadow of Impeachment, Neoliberal Democrats Hand Trump a Victory

Donald Trump discussing the new NAFTA trade deal (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

If Trump gets re-elected, if Big Tech continues to evade accountability, if imperial adventures continue abroad, if migrant farmworkers cannot feed their families, you can trace it back to this Tuesday, and the actions a House Speaker took while nobody was paying attention.
—David Dayen, The American Prospect (emphasis added)

As the Impeachment Drama lumbers to a 2020 conclusion, morphing into its variant selves and sucking life from every other story the media most folks attend to are inclined to tell, unwatched things are happening in its shadow.

Nancy Pelosi has used end-of-year urgency and the impeachment distraction to pass four pieces of major legislation, three of which will become law, all on the same day.

NAFTA 2.0 is one of them. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, agreed under pressure to approve Pelosi's House version of NAFTA 2.0, rebranded "USMCA," or United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, for obvious reasons. This is a deal he should never have made, yet he made it.

Consider who Trumka is — a bridge between the neoliberal mainstream of the Democratic Party and the (presumably further left) labor movement that supports and sustains it. In other words, he's the person who blesses neoliberal policies as "progressive" (thus retaining mainstream Democratic Party approval) while modifying those policies in the margins to be less terrible (thus retaining the approval of progressives, who want to think of him as opposed to neoliberalist policies).

He's the person, in other words, who makes the labor movement look less like a puppy of the Democratic Party establishment to progressives, while keeping the labor movement (and himself) firmly in the Party establishment tent. The drama of "Will Trumka approve USMCA?" we recently witnessed exemplified this role.

To anyone with two cells in their brain, it was obvious as soon as the question was asked that he would approve USMCA. The stage was set; his arrival on it announced; the spotlight was ready and bright. Would he really walk onto this stage at this late date and say no to Party leaders? Of course not.

Would he have been able to stay in his lofty perch if he had? His job was to bless the cake after it had been baked, not to unbake it.

What pressure was Trumka under? First, obviously, from the Democratic Party and its billionaire donors, to give them what they and the Republicans — and Donald Trump — all wanted, a neoliberal-lite trade deal that could become in Nancy Pelosi's words "a template for future trade agreements ... a good template."

Second, Trumka was under pressure from his union base itself (so say some, including David Dayen in the piece linked below), many of whom are Trump supporters, to give President Trump a signature first-term victory, just in time for the start of his second-term campaign.

Do I believe this latter explanation? No, but I believe Trumka believes it. And if indeed it is true that Trumka has to serve Trump, at least in part, in order to serve his own base, it's further evidence of the careerism of his actions, in contrast to behavior from actual labor-movement principles.

Here's Dayen on this sordid tale (emphasis added):

Pelosi got AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka to sign off on the U.S.–Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), handing Trump a political victory on one of his signature issues. Predictably, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately gushed, calling USMCA “the biggest and best trade agreement in the history of the world.”

It’s, um, not that. Economically, USMCA is a nothingburger; even the most rose-colored analysis with doubtful assumptions built in shows GDP growth of only 0.06 percent per year. There’s one good provision: the elimination of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provision that allowed corporations to sue governments in secret tribunals over trade violations. There’s one bad provision: the extension of legal immunity for tech platforms over user-generated content, put into a trade deal for the first time. This will make the immunity shield, codified in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, much harder to alter in the future. Pelosi has called this deal a “template” for future agreements, though trade reformers have called it a bare minimum floor.

Pelosi tried to remove the immunity shield, but abandoned the request. She did succeed in removing a provision for Big Pharma that extended exclusivity periods for biologics. The Sierra Club has termed the deal an “environmental failure” that will not have binding standards on clean air and water or climate goals. But the threshold question on the USMCA was always going to be labor enforcement: would the labor laws imposed on Mexico hold, improving their lot while giving U.S. manufacturing workers a chance to compete? There was also the open question of why the U.S. would reward Mexico with a trade deal update when trade unionists in the country continue to be kidnapped and killed.

In his statement, Trumka lauds the labor enforcement, noting provisions that make it easier to prove violations (including violence against workers), rules of evidence for disputes, and inspections of Mexican facilities, a key win. But I’ve been told that the AFL-CIO did not see the details of the text before signing off, which is unforgivable, especially on trade where details matter. There was no vote by union leaders, just a briefing from the AFL-CIO.

At least one union, the Machinists, remains opposed, and others were noncommittal until they see text. The Economic Policy Institute, which is strongly tied to labor, called the agreement “weak tea at best,” a tiny advance on the status quo that will not reverse decades of outsourcing of U.S. jobs.

Meanwhile, back at the Trump re-election ranch:

While the economics are negligible (and potentially harmful on tech policy), on the politics activists are losing their mind at the prospect of a Trump signing ceremony, with labor by his side, on a deal that he will construe as keeping promises to Midwest voters. “Any corporate Democrat who pushed to get this agreement passed that thinks Donald Trump is going to share the credit for those improvements is dangerously gullible,” said Yvette Simpson, CEO of Democracy for America, in a statement. Only a small handful of Democratic centrists were pushing for a USMCA vote, based mostly on the idea that they had to “do something” to show that they could get things done in Congress. Now they’ve got it, and they’ll have to live with the consequences.

I guess helping re-elect the "most dangerous president ever" pales in comparison to passing bipartisan-approved neoliberal trade deals.

One of Richard Trumka's jobs, if he wants to stay employed, is to make sure neoliberal Party leaders like Nancy Pelosi are happy and well served while simultaneously keeping progressives thinking that Big Labor is still in their corner even on issues the donor class most cares about.

At that he does very well, and did so here.
 

Beating Trump... Anyone But Biden

A USA Today OpEd Saturday morning gets to the heart of the Biden problem Democrats serious about denying Trump a second term are facing: within the Democratic Party, Biden is the candidate of the oligarchy. Status Quo Joe "is a consummate, long-time Washington insider, who has demonstrated in his long career that he often dances with the ones who brought him: wealthy donors and special interests." He's polling well because many Democrats "figure the centrist Biden is a better bet to attract independent voters than the more progressive Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. But have you actually listened closely to Biden lately? Not to be ageist, but the more charitable way to put it is that he isn’t currently at the top of his game. He can stumble and fumble for words and thoughts." This isn't a subject media is comfortable discussing. But it isn't really ageist, since it describes Biden and Trump, but not Bernie, all of whom are around the same age.

When you listen to Biden on the campaign trail, you see a candidate trafficking in platitudes galore, about defeating Trump and “mak(ing) America moral again."

...[R]ight there is the problem: Biden and many Democrats fundamentally misread what happened in 2016. To them, Trump is a temporary aberration, before the usual status-quo politics can be restored.

But Trump was more a symptom, rather than the cause of extreme political dysfunction. Electing Trump was a kind of primal scream by millions of voters fed up with a broken political system with out-of-touch Washington political elites of both parties.

And Trump will, of course, go away, but Trumpism will likely stay.

...[T]he quote of the 2020 race came recently from Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: “What does it matter if we beat Donald Trump if we end up with someone who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate policies and waging more of these costly wars?”

Candidates like Joe Biden come to mind.

The problem with Biden is that he looks good in soft focus but his candidacy reveals glaring deficiencies that, in these populist times, won’t survive hard scrutiny.

The focus goes beyond his support for the 1994 crime bill which helped lead to mass incarceration, and his, in hindsight, retrograde conduct during the Clarence Thomas hearings.

More harmful to his candidacy are his actions that’ve benefited his wealthy benefactors but stick it to the Average Joe and Jane: his support for global trade deals that have decimated the American manufacturing base, his support for financial deregulation, and his support for bankruptcy reform that prevents people from being able to discharge their consumer debt.

And it hasn’t escaped sharp-eyed observers that he started his current campaign by holding a fundraiser attended by corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors.

Not to mention Biden’s support for costly Middle Eastern military interventions that benefit our military industrial complex but have harmed Middle America’s sons and daughters.

The list goes on. Just consider the conflict-of-interest questions raised by his actions in Ukraine and China that involved his son, Hunter.

But hey, if you aren’t paying close attention, Biden is your guy. He is the perfect tool of the oligarchy-- affable and decent while sometimes effecting cut-throat policies detrimental to ordinary Americans.

Is Biden starting to catch up with the times and with the way the Democratic Party has moved since the 1970s and '80s (his time, the time his political ideas became set in concrete in his mind)? Not at all. Take that much ballyhooed Climate Plan someone wrote for him. It's another middle of the road approach that won't actually solve the most important problem we're facing as a society, a problem that will laugh in the face of any halfway measures. As Dayton Martindale explained for In These Times readers, "once you look beneath the puff, it becomes clear the plan is not grounded in robust proposals, and the substance is remarkably flimsy. His good ideas (like ending subsidies) are mostly shared by the rest of the Democratic field; he puts undue faith in new technologies, hoping they can save us without having to directly confront the fossil fuel industry; and the regulations he suggests are generally either mild or toothless-- likely not enough to achieve his stated goals, themselves insufficient to stem the crisis... Biden’s plan doesn’t actually endorse the Green New Deal. While praising its spirit, he sets a goal that is notably less ambitious: net-zero emissions by 2050, a goal shared by Beto O’Rourke. (The Green New Deal calls for a '10-year mobilization' to achieve zero-emissions electricity, and to get as close to zero in other sectors as 'technologically feasible.') He also steers clear of some of the Green New Deal’s more ambitious components, such as a jobs guarantee... As Inslee put it on Tuesday, 'My plan puts up stop signs, and I’m afraid that the vice president’s plan does not.'

"...In the end, Joe Biden’s plan takes a few good ideas from other campaigns but advances few new specifics, showing little interest in taking on the fossil fuel industry... In the two areas where he most distinguishes himself from other candidates-- his emphasis on technological research and international relations-- he shows himself to be living in a fantasy world, where future innovations allow us to avoid drastic action and the United States is some sort of global climate hero. As a statement from Food and Water Watch’s executive director put it, 'Joe Biden’s climate plan is a cobbled-together assortment of weak emissions targets and unproven technological schemes that fail to adequately address the depth and urgency of the climate crisis we face. This plan cannot be considered a serious proposal to tackle climate change.'"

Even without having to depend on a recession, Trump can be beaten, but, likely, not by someone incapable of taking on the oligarchs and plutocrats-- the way Bernie and Elizabeth Warren do and the way State Quo Joe doesn't and won't. In his NY Times column yesterday, Neil Irwin noted that Trump's trade agenda is a giant achilles heal, one waiting to be taken advantage of. But don't look at Biden as the man to be able or even willing to. Trump's love of tariffs leaves him open to attacks "from the right, as being anti-business, and from the left, as being bad for workers."

In battleground states mostly in the Rust Belt-- Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin-- 39 percent of registered voters said they thought Mr. Trump’s trade policies were good for the economy, versus 47 percent who thought they were bad, according to a May Quinnipiac poll.

You can imagine a trade pitch from the 2020 Democratic nominee that goes something like this: “I’ll work with allies to keep pressure on China over its unfair practices-- but not with open-ended tariffs on thousands of goods that are a tax on American consumers and invite retaliation against American farmers. I won’t use tariffs against countries that are our close partners. And I’ll use trade policy to try to boost well-being for American workers, rather than using it as a cudgel on unrelated issues.”

It could prove a potent way to knit together a Democratic coalition that depends on both traditional labor-left voters in the industrial Midwest and college-educated suburbanites who are more comfortable with globalization.

“I think Trump is hugely vulnerable on trade, but Democrats haven’t quite figured out how to attack that vulnerability yet,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Trump’s approach has made things worse for both key Democratic and Republican constituents.”

Rather than focusing on a few discrete areas where international competitors have treated American companies unfairly and applying temporary tariffs to try to exert pressure, the Trump administration has applied open-ended tariffs on imports of nearly 7,000 different items.

The administration has also placed tariffs on “intermediate goods,” so that efforts to create jobs in one sector can mean higher costs and fewer jobs in another. The taxes on many steel and aluminum imports, for example, may be creating some jobs in those sectors while increasing costs for automakers and other American companies that use the metals.

And trading partners have been savvy about using retaliatory tariffs to punish Mr. Trump’s base, most notably on American farm products.

Combine those factors, and the trade war so far has offered more pain than it has a clear pathway to better deals for American companies and workers. Especially with China, it has often seemed that rather than seeking to achieve attainable goals, the conflict is the whole point.

...Trump took advantage of that flexibility to persuade many Republicans to embrace a protectionist approach in 2016, and was able to appeal to a key segment of Democrats as well. The premium on retaining so-called Obama-Trump vote switchers in 2020 may help explain Mr. Trump’s recent moves-- he may view it as keeping a promise of being tough on trade.

The challenge for the Democratic nominee will be to offer a persuasive vision for a trade policy that makes both workers and businesses better off than they are under the status quo, to stand up for American interests while removing the erratic approach of the Trump administration.

Bernie was on CNN yesterday explaining that "it's not good enough just to attack Trump. You need to bring forth an agenda that increases voter turnout, that is a campaign of excitement and energy. Not the old status quo. You have to talk to working people, and to young people. You have to bring millions of new people into the political process, to demand finally that we have a government and a political process in this country that works for all of us and not just the 1%. If you are timid and middle of the road, I don't think you create that kind of excitement and energy to defeat Trump and given the fact that in my view Trump is the most dangerous president in the history of this country, it is imperative that we do that."

On Wednesday, he's going to be speaking at George Washington University to go over how "democratic socialism is the only way to defeat oligarchy and authoritarianism." His campaign announced that he plans to "make the case that a strong grassroots campaign based on these progressive values is the only way to confront oligarchy and authoritarianism and defeat Donald Trump."

When It Comes To Disastrous Trade Policies, Biden, Beto, Delaney, McTurtle Are On One Side, While Bernie Has Been Fighting On The Other Side-- Our Side-- For His Whole Life

Last Friday, former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau interviewed Marianne Williamson on his podcast, Pod Save America. Among other things, Marianne told him that "there are two kinds of Democrats, aren’t there? And that’s being played out in this campaign. There are two categories here. The two categories is the incrementalist who say we can have it both ways. We can take [corporate] money. We can take tens of thousands from some security investment firms. We can take tens of thousand from Big Pharma. We can take tens or even more thousands from oil companies, but we’re going to go and be an instrument of change. Yeah, right. There’s that, and they’re saying well, we’ll make these incremental changes and then there are those of us who say this has got to stop. We need a fundamental pattern disruption of the American political and economic status quo."

A fundamental pattern disruption isn't something you could have a serious talk with candidates like Delaney, Biden or Frackenlooper about. That's not what they're aiming for. Each would like to hold onto a status quo that has worked well for them-- but get it a little better... a very little better. That's why the 3 of them oppose Medicare-For-All and the Green New Deal, for example. It's why the three of them would have opposed the American Revolution and might have suggested that the tax on tea be reduced and that the colonies have a voting member or two sitting in Parliament. And Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Beto, Kirsten Gillibrand, McKinsey Pete, Amy Klobuchar, Tim Ryan... you don't think any of them are agents of change, do you? Fundamental pattern disruptors? No.

Last week, Common Dreams published a piece by Thom Hartmann, If Democrats Want to Beat Trump, They Better Not Nominate a ‘Free Trade’ Candidate, warning that nominating a candidate like Biden-- let alone dreck like Delaney or Hickenlooper-- would lead to catastrophe. He reminded his readers that when establishment Democrat, Walter Mondale "was nominated by the Democratic Party to take on Ronald Reagan in 1984, he uttered, in his acceptance speech, a single line that did more than anything else that year to lose him the election. He said, 'Mr. Reagan will raise taxes and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.'"

The Republicans turned it into a campaign ad, and it played over and again, dragging Mondale so far down that he lost every state in the country except his home state of Minnesota.

What Mondale said was true, and Reagan did raise taxes on working people-- eleven times-- but that was still the moment when Mondale signed his own political death warrant. Americans had been bitten badly in the previous decade by inflation and the Reagan Recession, and were in no mood to give more of their hard-earned money to the government or anybody else.

In 2020, trade will be as potent an issue as taxes were in 1984.

This election cycle, it’s starting to look like Democrats are about to make the same mistake of not defending the paychecks of working people. Only this time, the Democratic quote will be, “Trump won’t succeed in bringing home your jobs, but neither will I because I support all of the trade agreements that took your jobs in the first place.”

Again, Status Quo Joe Biden, Frackenlooper, Delaney are all for the kinds of horrendous free trade deals that have been so destructive. And they're not the only ones. In 2015, the Senate passed the Trade Act of 2015, which included Trade Promotion Authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership with 48 Republicans and 14 Democrats. Among the current candidates for president, Michael Bennet voted yes and Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand voted no. It passed the House very narrowly-- 219-211-- with 191 Republicans and 28 Democrats voting for it. Delaney and Beto voted yes. Swalwell, Ryan, Tulsi and Moulton voted against it. There was another vote-- which failed-- on TAA, for which just 40 corporate Dems, lead by Hoyer, voted. The culprits included the two ardent "free" traders running for president today who were in the House then, Delaney and Bonnie Beto. biden, of course, has been for almost every bad trade bill ever written, especially favored nation status for China, NAFTA and TPP.

Hartmann concluded by writing that "Progressive Democrats have been pushing for a return to Jefferson-until-Carter protectionist policies ever since Bill Clinton split apart the party over the issue with his advocacy of NAFTA in the 1992 election. If the Democrats want to beat Trump, they need to get with the progressives’ trade program in a big, strong, and fast way. Democrats must point out that Trump is doing protectionism wrong because he’s doing his tariffs by executive order, which only last as long as his administration does; no company is going to build a factory based on that thin assurance. (And the anti-tariff Republican Party will never pass such a policy; Trump is screwed in that regard.) Congress should be negotiating our trade agreements in the open and passing them as solid, long-lasting legislation, so companies have multi-decade horizons of tariff protections; Democrats need to return the party to its past mission of putting American workers and the environment first. But if the Democrats promote 'free trade' in 2020, get ready for four more years of Donald Trump gloating at us all from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 'I’m for free trade,' if it becomes the party’s mantra, will be the 2020 version of Mondale’s 'I’m going to raise your taxes.'"

Meanwhile, there's another piece to fundamental pattern disruption that we need to keep foremost in our minds this cycle-- Congress. Electing more New Dems and more Blue Dogs, like electing more Republicans, makes things worse, not better. We've talked endlessly about how Cheri Bustos, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi are fighting like mad dogs to protect Dan Lipinski who is anti-immigrant, anti-Choice, anti-LGBTQ, anti-worker and pro-NRA. That's your Democratic Establishment. Don't trust them, don't believe them, don't support them and don't give them any money. A contribution to someone like Dan Lipinski is going to do you as much good as a contribution to McTurtle would. Which reminds me... On Sunday, Will Bunch penned an important McTurtle piece for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Mitch McConnell’s Democracy-Crushing Smirk Is Why Just Getting Rid Of Trump Isn’t Enough. Biden never talks about why getting rid of Trump isn't enough-- because it might make someone wonder what he stands for-- but both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are basing their campaigns on it.

What Bunch was writing about is completely in line with hat Blue America is all about. "It’s pointless to ask 'why' about Mitch McConnell," he wrote. "The only question that matters going into 2020 is 'how'-- How can McConnell be stopped? In the long term, his rise and his unholy reign pose hard questions about the very nature of American democracy and its foundation-- whether the constitutional checks and balances of a Senate that gives citizens in Wyoming so much more power than their fellow Americans in California makes sense in today’s world. But McConnell’s assault on democracy can also be stopped in the short run. For starters, the Senate majority leader is up for reelection in 2020, and even if you don’t live or vote in Kentucky, any American can donate or volunteer to help his election opponents. But even if that falls short, Democrats can end McConnell’s reign as leader-- and make sure he’s not thwarting the replacements for aging Supreme Court justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer-- with a net gain of three or four Senate seats."

For anyone who cares about keeping liberty alive, beating McConnell next year is every bit as important as beating Trump. That’s why it’s so frustrating that the elites of the Democratic Party don’t seem to get it. Rather than making a reclamation of the Senate the national moral crusade that it needs to be, the allure of the Trumpian reality show has sucked the top tier of potential candidates-- Beto O’Rourke and Julian Castro of Texas, Steve Bullock of Montana and Stacey Abrams of Georgia-- into the presidential race or related pursuits. Vanity and shortsightedness could leave a President Warren or Harris or Biden one vote short in 2021 of the progress that their voters demanded.

The only good news is that the 2020 general election is still 16 months away-- plenty of time for the Democrats and concerned voters to shift gears, make the Senate a priority, keep liberty alive... and wipe the smirk off Mitch McConnell’s face.

Trump's Trade War Against Our Biggest Trading Partner Could Cost The GOP A Dozen Congressional Seats

Yesterday, Carlos Tejada reported in the NY Times that Trump "threatened to hit Mexico with new tariffs, escalating his immigration fight with America’s largest trading partner. And with that, he showed, once again, that he’s ready to employ trade as an all-purpose tool for his policy goals... Trump is juggling multiple trade conflicts today, with allies and rivals alike. His demands, often first disclosed through Twitter, have caught trading partners off guard. Of course, Mexico isn’t Mr. Trump’s only target. Far from it. In fact, what he’s taking on is broader than any particular country. He is challenging the post-World War II consensus that free trade enriches the world."

In 2018, the U.S. imported $346,527,700,000 worth of goods from Mexico and exported $265,014,400,000 worth of goods to Mexico. So far this year, trade between the two countries has been even bigger. According to CNBC three states will he hit hardest: Arizona, Michigan and Texas.

If Trump goes through with the duties, their effects will ripple across the country. America imported $346.5 billion in goods from Mexico last year, 10% more than in the prior year, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. But several key 2020 electoral states would take a particularly sharp blow from the tariffs.

Border state Arizona gets about 40% of its imports from Mexico, the highest share for any state. About 38% of Michigan’s imported products come from Mexico, while about 35% of Texas’ imports are from its southern neighbor.

Other states which important a significant amount of goods from Mexico include California, Illinois, Georgia, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Tennessee. U.S. imports from Mexico include computer and electronics equipment, auto parts, chemicals, petroleum, appliances, paper food products... CNBC suggests that if Trump’s surprise tariffs on Mexican goods raise costs for companies and consumers in those three states enough, there will be political costs to pay. Trump isn't likely to lose Texas or win Michigan, but Arizona-- with its 11 electoral votes-- could flip blue. Worse for the Republican Party is the list of Republicans up for reelection next year who could be negatively impacted, including Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Martha McSally (R-AZ) and Reps Will Hurd (R-TX), Chip Roy (R-TX), Kenny Marchant (R-TX), John Carter (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX), Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Fred Upton (R-MI), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA).

Michael Bloomberg wrote a widely-read editorial for Bloomberg News yesterday, Stop Trump on Trade, suggesting that Congress rein in the idiot's "trade-policy powers before it's too late. Trump’s approach to trade policy had set new benchmarks of incoherence and irresponsibility even before his threat to impose escalating tariffs on imports from Mexico-- but this latest maneuver takes the cake. The administration plans to harm businesses north and south of the border, and to impose additional new taxes on U.S. consumers, not to remedy a real or imagined trade grievance but to force Mexico to curb migration to the U.S. This is a radical and disturbing development. The administration is invoking a law that allows it to impose emergency economic sanctions. It’s safe to say that Congress never envisaged that those powers would be used in a case like this."

A day earlier, one of his reporters, David Fickling, has asked "How far down the rabbit hole are we on U.S. trade policy right now? Just a few years ago, the idea that British cars and Canadian steel could be considered a national-security threat to America would have been laughed out of the room-- but here we are, with so-called Section 232 tariffs still threatened on European automobiles and only just removed on Canadian metal."

You can't say he didn't warn us

Bloomberg himself noted that "Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, who has supported many of Trump's previous moves on immigration, said it plainly: 'This is a misuse of presidential tariff authority and counter to congressional intent.' It’s also, by the way, a straightforward violation of U.S. commitments under existing trade treaties. In effect, even the pretense that the U.S. is adhering to a legitimate, rule-bound trade policy has been all but abandoned." This is another instance of Putin just laying back and savoring how far his modest investment in the U.S. elections has gone to further Russia's foreign policy objectives.

And the message it sends to Canada, China, the European Union and other U.S. trading partners is wholly counterproductive. Negotiations on the deal Trump proposed as a successor to Nafta have only recently concluded; his earlier tariffs on Mexican steel were lifted just days ago. This new threat has nothing to do with those matters, U.S. officials explained: It’s about immigration, not trade. What are other governments to make of such a claim? They’re bound to wonder why they should ever enter into good-faith commitments with such an erratic and unreliable administration.

The Constitution makes Congress chiefly responsible for trade policy. Various laws have delegated power to the executive branch over the years-- but conditionally, on the understanding that presidents would use it to protect national security and promote rule-based commerce, not dismantle the global trading system. This power is being systematically abused, and Congress should move to take it back.

Republicans who claim to stand for free trade-- a longstanding party principle-- have lacked the courage of their convictions. And those who complained bitterly about presidential overreach by Barack Obama have been awfully quiet about this president’s flagrant abuse of executive authority. They should stop quivering and start legislating.

The problems at the border are real-- but they’re partly this administration’s fault. More than two years after taking office, Trump has failed to adapt to a change in immigration flows from single Mexican males seeking work to Central American families and unaccompanied minors seeking refuge. He has resorted to draconian methods that have only brought more misery to the most vulnerable while failing to remedy the situation.

A better approach would be to work with Mexico to strengthen its southern border. Instead of cutting off aid to Central America, as Trump plans to do, the U.S. should provide more, and help El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras defeat the gangs that smuggle migrants north. It also needs to spend more on its overstretched asylum and immigration court systems, and on Border Patrol facilities, so that applicants can be processed as speedily, humanely and fairly as possible.

But more is at stake here than control of the border. From the start, Trump’s failure to understand that trade is a matter of mutual advantage, combined with his contempt for international rules and norms, has threatened the global economic order that the U.S. designed and built. This latest decision suggests that Trump’s willingness to gamble with the country’s prosperity, and that of one-time friends and allies, is greater than previously supposed.

The prospects for global trade and output were already uncertain. Now, Trump is risking not just a slow and steady reduction in investment thanks to heightened anxiety over trade, but a sudden collapse in confidence that could roil financial markets and bring on an outright recession. It’s increasingly urgent that Congress curb this president’s ability to conduct a potentially ruinous trade policy.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Once again, we, the citizens of the United States of America, will pay because of the incompetence and mental illness of Putin's big orange fist puppet. Every thing Trump is doing to America, from his $enate-approved appointees to his destructive policies which they devilishly implement is obviously designed to hurt as many Americans as possible. This isn't just a madman who is incapable of caring about others, this is a lunatic who is taking out his inferiority and his insecurities on humanity. The damage his tariffs are causing is only the latest manifestation of his madness. Meanwhile, his supporters in the voting public mouth inanities like "We need Trump because socialism never works," while they cheer $25 Billion of our tax dollars going to farmers as socialistic subsidies to offset the damage he has deliberately caused to their livelihoods. And that, folks, is just the tip of the iceberg of what will amount to at least a $200 Billion tax on Americans:



We're just seconds away from this headcase decreeing that all firefighters douse fires with gasoline hoses to make the fires burn bigger and faster so there will quickly be nothing left to burn, while typical republicans like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell cheer the fires on and Democrats meekly refuse to say the word treason, let alone even seriously get behind impeachment. It's time to rename Washington after the Titanic. You can almost hear the applause coming from the Capitol building as America implodes.

How Many More Seats In Congress Will The Democrats Win Because Of Trump's Trade War?

The big Politico headline early yesterday morning, Trump disputes impact of tariffs on American consumers, but warns China not to retaliate, was instantly controversial on two levels. First... well, just watch the chief Trumpanzee economic advisor, Larry Kudlow, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, admitting that his boss, Señor Trumpanzee, doesn't know shit from shinola about the impact of the trade war he's waging against China and American consumers and producers.

The second part of the Politico headline-- his absurd warning to China about not retaliating-- went down in flames as well. Washington Post: China said it will raise tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. goods effective June 1. That's what happens in a trade war-- tit for tatted everyone suffers as it inevitably escalates. The announcement of the retaliation by China sent world stock markets plummeting. The Dow was almost instantly down 600 points.

China is targeting U.S. agriculture, which has already been bearing the brunt of Trump's trade war. China knows that if Trump's support in rural areas starts to dissipate, his reelection bid is over. It's not just farmers in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa who can swing the 2020 election; peanut farmers in Georgia, wheat farmers in Kansas and Nebraska, poultry farmers in North Carolina and Arkansas are getting fed up-- and not seeing any of the financial relief Trump promised months ago.



What a terrible day for the news to break that former Illinois congressman, Bobby Schilling (R) is going to run for the open Iowa seat (IA-02) being given up by Democrat Dave Loebsack! "I'm a business man," Schilling said. "I won't make a decision to run unless I'm absolutely sure I can win it. ... I'm 98 percent there." The district, which includes Iowa City, Davenport and Burlington is 60% rural and hurting badly from the Trump trade wars. Obama had won the district twice but Hillary was the completely wrong candidate for the voters there and Trump took it 49.1% to 45.0%. Last year Loebsack was reelected 54.8-42.6% and won the 3 biggest counties in the district-- Scott, Johnson and Clinton-- with margins big enough to overcome big GOP majorities in the small, rural counties-- Wayne, Decatur, Lucas, Keokuk, Mahaska-- counties that are likely to react badly to Republicans next year with Trump on the top of the ticket. These are also exactly the kind of counties that Republican Joni Ernst will be depending on for her Senate race.

Meanwhile, it looks like the ignoramus is stumbling into a two-front war. His trade war now is against the whole world-- not Russia, of course. By the end of the week he's expected to announce a 25% tariff against European-made cars, not just exotic brands like Rolls Royce, Porsche, Lamborghini, Bentley, Ferrari, and Bugatti, but also against more commonly U.S.-sold cars by Volkswagen, Mercedes, BMW, Fiat, Volvo, Land Rover, Audi and Jaguar. Our allies--or at least our pre-Trump allies-- in the E.U are putting the finishing touches on a list of American goods to target with retaliatory tariffs, likely designed to hurt Trump politically in red states.

Trump's response to China yesterday was to threaten more tariffs. This kind of thing is inevitable when you elect-- or Putin installs-- a dim-witted, unread school yard bully as "president." ZeroHedge:

Trump must be confused about who pays custom duties (or maybe he can't break the news to the deadbeat consumer ahead of an election year), as the US imposes increased tariff rates on Chinese goods. The tax is levied at the time of import and is paid by the American importer of record, and then passed onto consumers.

A new report from Oxford Economics, revealed that the 25% tariff rate on $200 billion in goods imports from China would cost the economy $62 billion in economic output by next year, which translates to an equivalent loss of $490 per household.

The research firm estimates that a tariff on all imports from China would cost the economy about $100 billion by 2020, which translates to an equivalent loss of $800 per household.

The announced tariffs have come at a somewhat inconvenient time for the economy.

Economic growth is rapidly decelerating besides Kudlow's bullish propaganda remarks, and the US faces continued headwinds from monetary policy tightening and actual fiscal drag in 2020.

Trump has stated that trade wars are "good and easy to win" and believes tariffs are the only solution to force China to make a deal.

The effects of the trade war are being felt by industries across the country, from farmers in the Midwest to auto manufacturers in the Rust Belt.

Senator Rand Paul told host George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that he's "very concerned" that the trade war will depend and end up hurting consumers, farmers, and manufacturers.

"I know of a big company that told me that the tax cuts specifically helped them but that the tariffs are almost equal in punishing them," Paul said, referring to the Republican-led tax overhaul passed in 2017. "The farmers in Kentucky are concerned about the tariffs, and I've talked to the administration about this. . . . The longer we're involved in a tariff battle or a trade war, the better chance there is that we could actually enter into a recession because of it."

Henry M. Paulson Jr., who was treasury secretary under President George W. Bush, spoke with "Face the Nation" on Sunday and said, "we don't have many good tools" to pressure China into a deal but warned tariffs aren't an ideal choice.

"They're a tax on the American consumer," said Paulson. He added: "Will it hurt us? If this persists too long, it will. There'll be a cost to it."

If President Trump ever admitted to his base that they were the ones paying the tariffs, not the Chinese, well, his base would be in an uproar, could jeopardize his 2020 run. So in the meantime, President Trump is keeping the American people content with fake news tweets while slowly pushing out Kudlow to spill the beans.

This is part of the note my financial advisor sent me yesterday evening: "Escalations in trade tensions between the U.S. and China continued to startle the markets. A trade deal was not reached Friday, and as a result, higher tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods went into effect. As expected, China announced that it will retaliate by raising tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. goods effective June 1... The markets reacted to the continuing uncertainty, and the major indices tumbled Monday on fears that higher tariffs will limit economic and corporate growth. Not only was there disappointment of no deal, but the growing size of potential tariffs appears to have changed the direction of the discussion. The risk that this could be a harbinger of more challenging discussions with Japan and Europe over auto imports increases uncertainty... The next move is likely the official initiation of a 25% tariff on an additional $325 billion of Chinese imports by the U.S., which will likely invite an additional Chinese response and more negative headlines. As a result, the equity markets may see more volatility in the foreseeable future." So... yesterday, the Dow closed down 617 points down. The NASDAQ was down 269.9 points. Watch CNN's take on Trumpanzee's "false economics" and how his trade war is going to hurt Sen. Susan Collins' reelection chances next year:

It's Hard Staying Focused On Issues In The Midst Of Trump's 10-Ring Circus-- But Bernie Is Staying On Message

How does Trump get people to not think about his disastrous economic policies, built on an entirely wasteful deficit that has nearly doubled to a trillion dollars since he occupied the White House? His pathetic circus routine has done the trick in a general sort of way. No one seems to be paying attention, for example, to his trade agenda with new outages come out every day, often more than one a day.

Yesterday, for example, Jake Tapper broke the news that a senior White House source-- probably Kushner-in-law or someone trying to get Kushner-in-law in trouble-- leaked the news that Trump told the Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan that he would grant him a pardon if he were sent to jail for having border agents illegally block asylum seekers from entering the U.S. Another Hair on Fire Friday moment! (And, by the way, since then Trump named McAleenan, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.)

Active Shooter by Nancy Ohanian

Doing his best to leave Trump's constant, insane and attention-grabbing provocations to the media, Bernie keeps focusing on his core issues of income inequality and a rigged system. Yesterday he followed up on his trade agenda by releasing the video below, itself an update of the video above from last year. Bernie's key points about Trump's soggy trade deal with Mexico and Canada-- currently in no man's land in Congress where it has virtually no chance of being ratified-- are that:

• the deal would continue to ship U.S. jobs to Mexico because Mexico's workers make as little as two dollars an hour, which the deal doesn't address
• the deal doesn't protect the enironment
• the deal is a give-away to pharmaceuticals and other big corporate special interests

Last November Bernie told his Vermont constituents exactly why he opposes Trump's deal too replace the same NAFTA that Bernie has always opposed and feels needs to be replaced.

As someone who not only voted against NAFTA, but walked on the picket lines against it, there is no question that this unfettered trade deal needs to be fundamentally rewritten. In my view, a re-negotiated NAFTA must stop the outsourcing of U.S. jobs, end the destructive race to the bottom, protect the environment, and lower the outrageously high price of prescription drugs. Clearly, Trump’s NAFTA 2.0 does not meet these standards and I will strongly oppose it in its current form. Unless strong enforcement mechanisms are written into the text of this agreement, corporations will continue to ship U.S. jobs to Mexico where workers are paid as little as $2 an hour.

Further, this deal includes some outrageous giveaways to the fossil fuel industry and big pharmaceutical companies that will harm the environment and increase prices for life-saving prescription drugs. Before this deal is sent to Congress for a vote it must include strong enforcement mechanisms to increase jobs and wages and all of the riders that benefit big fossil fuel polluters and pharmaceutical companies must be taken out of it. Trade is a good thing-- but it has got to be fair.