Trade Archives - Page 21 of 30 - Progressive Policy Institute

PPI Statement on NAFTA Reform Announcement

Posted on October 2, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

“President Trump has called the new USMCA ‘the most important trade deal that we’ve ever made, by far.’ To the extent that the Administration is backing away from Trump’s earlier threats to blow up or emasculate NAFTA, that may be true. To the extent that the USMCA is largely an elaborate rebranding exercise, it seems that the Administration could have accomplished that—and usefully modernized NAFTA—without repeatedly threatening the very foundations of North American trade.

“At first glance, the USMCA hardly seems groundbreaking. It would modernize NAFTA by adding provisions derived from the Trans Pacific Partnership deal that the President abandoned, and would increase U.S. access to Canada’s dairy sector. But it’s far from clear whether its highly complex rules of origin for autos and other sectors would have the transformative economic effects that the Administration claims.

“It’s noteworthy that the new agreement doesn’t eliminate U.S. ‘national security’ tariffs on aluminum and steel from Canada or Mexico—or the retaliatory tariffs that those countries continue to impose on American manufacturers and farmers. And the Agreement’s reliance on the threat of ‘national security’ tariffs on Canadian and Mexican cars is a particular concern. As it reviews the new deal, Congress needs to push back against these and other abusive efforts by the Administration to restrict trade and hijack trade powers that are vested by the Constitution in Congress.”

Gerwin for The Hill, “Off-the-rails trade war shows how America loses under Trump”

Posted on September 18, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Donald Trump promised that America would start “winning big on trade.” Trump vowed to keep “special interests” from rigging U.S. trade, pledged trade decisions would “benefit American workers and families,” and promised to confront trade violations by China.

For the former Apprentice host, winning means that Trump picks the winners, tilting the scales for his favored trade interests. He’s imposed tariffs on washers and dryers, steel and aluminum and is pursuing 25-percent “national security” duties on imported cars.

Trump’s new taxes on $200 billion in imports from China, which led to the inevitable retaliatory tariffs of $60 billion on U.S. exports, are the latest in a series of impulsive choices that have turned a vital investigation of China’s technology theft into an out-of-control tariff war.

Trump’s trade edicts have helped some companies and workers. But many more Americans — and America as a whole — are losing under Trump’s trade policies.

Continue reading at The Hill.

A Scalpel, Not an Axe: Updating Antitrust and Data Laws to Spur Competition and Innovation

Posted on September 13, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Americans justifiably have long taken great pride in the unmatched ability of the U.S. economy to enable entrepreneurs to launch and grow highly innovative companies that drive growth and advance living standards. Bold entrepreneurs and the companies they founded brought us modern communications, airplanes, automobiles, computer software and hardware, and electricity and other forms of energy to power them all.

These innovations and others have constantly reshaped and remade our economy – displacing less efficient technologies and ways of doing business in a process of “creative destruction” that economist Joseph Schumpeter, many decades ago, singled out as the most important feature of capitalist economies.

The most innovative and valuable companies of our time are the leading “technology platform” companies: Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google – a group New York University Professor Scott Galloway simply labels “The Four.” Except for Apple, none of these companies existed before 1990. That they have eclipsed in the public mind – in such a relatively short amount of time – such other tech giants as Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco and Intel is a testament to the remarkable acumen of the founders and leaders of The Four, their highly skilled workforces, and to the economy and society that have enabled them to flourish.

The EU-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement: Boosting Trade, Highlighting America’s Isolation

Posted on August 9, 2018September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

On July 17, 2018, the European Union and Japan formally signed a landmark agreement on trade. This watershed agreement underscores the strong desire of the EU and Japan to benefit their citizens and economies by aggressively pursuing open, rules-based trade.

When ratified by their respective legislatures, the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) signed in Tokyo by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will create a largely free-trade zone, covering a third of global GDP. The EPA is the largest ever signed by both parties, and reflects shared values that they agree should govern their future trade and economic relations.

The Agreement also sends a clear and forceful message that the parties reject the protectionist policies pursued by the United States under Donald Trump. Negotiation of the deal started long ago (in 2013) and were delayed and extended for political and other reasons, including deadly floods in Japan. Trump’s election—and his growing attacks on open trade—provided new momentum for the negotiations and helped to push them over the finish line.

The EPA’s many benefits come not only from the wide variety of issues that it includes, but also from the creation of an almost completely tariff-free zone[1]. The deal’s extensive reforms will boost import-export trade in a massive market covering more than 600 million people.

The EPA’s starting point is the removal of trade barriers to promote market access for EU goods and services to Japan. Japan is the EU’s second biggest trading partner in the Asian region after China, and boosting EU trade further will support economic growth and jobs. Japan, which already sends 10 percent of its trade to the European zone[2], will similarly benefit from the EPA’s reforms.

Eliminating tariffs is not the only means the EPA uses to achieve its comprehensive objectives. The parties also agreed to pare down the costs of compliance with Japanese rules and standards[3], and to remove Japanese barriers that keep foreign firms from bidding for government contracts in certain sectors. Those two reforms alone will eliminate major obstacles to selling more EU goods and services in the Asian area.

The EPA promotes greater competition[4] for European products in Japan and easier access to Japan’s market, especially for EU agricultural goods, pharmaceuticals, medical devices and motor vehicles. The Agreement’s benefits also extend the service sector, particularly financial services, e-commerce and communications. As a whole, the EPA is forecast to increase EU exports to Japan by some 13,5 billion euros annually.

The accord also makes important changes in the field of data protection. It recognizes the two parties’ data protection systems as “equivalent,” and thereby creates the biggest jointly secured data flow in the world.

This strategic development is the latest in growing foreign opposition to Trump’s nationalism and protectionism, which have sparked a movement by many countries towards negotiating new market-opening agreements. As a result of these new agreements, American companies will increasingly be excluded from favorable trade treatment, illustrating how neglecting open trade and reneging on longstanding policies can be economically damaging on a global level.

Trump’s recent actions have only made things worse for the United States. Two major examples are his recent aluminum and steel taxes, which the international community has widely condemned, and the refusal of the U.S. government to cooperate in re-appointing judges to the Appellate Body in the World Trade Organization[5]––mostly because its members’ decisions did not seem to comply with the U.S. perspectives. These and other actions by the Trump Administration illustrate the perils of limiting trade, closing borders and refusing to cooperate in the multi-lateral system, embodied by the WTO.

While the overall impact of the EU-Japan Agreement may not be immediately visible, its political weight is. Both parties are, most importantly, emphasizing a strong message of shared democratic values and respect for the rule of law at an especially precarious moment in global affairs. In particular, they are underlining the substantial importance of cooperation in trade. By contrast, Trump’s zero-sum protectionism is blinding him to the economic damage his misguided policies are causing for the United States, which is careening toward isolation while the rest of the world is heading steadily towards shared prosperity.

[1] Starting from 90% at the beginning of the implementation of the Agreement, and gradually increasing up to 97%.

[2] According to the European Commission data, EU firms export roughly over €58 billion of goods and €28 billion of services to Japan exclusively every year.

[3] These obstacles make it 10-30% more expensive to export to Japan.

[4] For example, there will be zero tariffs on processed pork, and an elimination of the ones on cheese (currently 29.8%) and on wine (currently 15%).

[5] The WTO system provides a legal forum in Geneva for states in order to file complaints against other members, for alleged violations of WTO law. A three-member arbitration panel can hear each appeal and issues its decision, with the possibility of appeal to the WTO’s Appellate Body, a seven-member independent court that makes the final decision on the meaning of WTO law and its application.

An Economic Analysis of Japan’s Current Mobile Communication Policy from the Competition and Innovation Perspective

Posted on July 24, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Since 2016, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) and the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) have tried to promote more competition in the mobile market in order to encourage economic growth and promote fairness. In particular, the government agencies have restricted handset subsidies in an effort to lower rates.

The results of these policies have fallen short of expectations. Mobile service prices in Japan have dropped by 10 percent over the past two years, far less than the 25 percent decline in the United States in the same period.

One piece of good news for competition is the impending entry of Rakuten Mobile as the fourth mobile network operator. However, we show in this paper that the restriction on handset subsidies makes it significantly harder for Rakuten to attract customers from the incumbents, since the challenger will be forced to charge customers for the “privilege” of switching to a new network.

日本語の記事：PPI_JapanMobile_Japanese

Summary: PPI on Trade Policy

Posted on July 17, 2018September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Here are a selection of PPI’s recent reports, op-eds and blog posts on global trade

2018

“Confronting China’s Threat to Open Trade,” (Ed Gerwin) (June 2018)

Op-Ed in The Hill: “It’s time for Congress to step in and stop Trump’s trade abuses,” (Ed Gerwin) (June 2018)

Op-Ed in The Hill: “’Go-it-alone’ trade strategies are neither wise nor effective,” (Ed Gerwin) (March 2018)

Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal: “In America’s Absence, the TPP Goes on,” (Ed Gerwin) (March 2018)

2017

“How to Modernize and Strengthen NAFTA,” (Will Marshall and Ed Gerwin) (with University of California, Tecnológico de Monterrey, and COMEXI) (November 2017)

Op-Ed in U.S. News: “Trump the NAFTA Terminator,” (Ed Gerwin) (November 2017)

Op-Ed in The Hill: “Democrats’ trade plan tries to ‘out-Trump’ Trump – bad idea,” (Ed Gerwin) (August 2017)

Op-Ed in The Hill: “The bitter harvest of Trump’s protectionist stance,” (Ed Gerwin) (August 2017)

“Moving Beyond the Balance Sheet Economy,” in Policy Choices for a Digital Age, Friends of Europe,( June 2017). (Michael Mandel)

Op-Ed in The Hill: “Congress has provided a workable framework for renegotiating NAFTA,” (Ed Gerwin) (April 2017)

Op-Ed in CNBC: “How the US economy could suffer-bigly-under Trump’s trade agenda,” (Ed Gerwin) (March 2017)

2016

Op-Ed in U.S. News: “Trade Works: Populists like Trump and Sanders Ignore How Trade Benefits Workers,” (Ed Gerwin) (November 2016)

“Trade and Good Jobs for the 99 Percent: Debating Trade, the Elites, and Jobs,” (Ed Gerwin) (October 2016)

PPI President Will Marshall Trade Debate: “Marshall Take on Trump Senior Policy Advisors,” (Will Marshall) (October 2016)

Op-Ed in The Hill: “Facing the future on trade: Democrats must reject anti-trade obstructionism,” (Ed Gerwin and Will Marshall) (September 2016)

“A Big Deal for Small Business: Seven Stories of How the Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Boost America’s Small Exporters,” (Ed Gerwin) (September 2016)

Op-Ed in RealClearPolicy: “Trump’s Wrong on Trade Policy & Maybe Trade Politics, Too,” (Ed Gerwin and Will Marshall) (June 2016)

Op-Ed in The Daily Beast: “Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are Delusional on Trade Policy,” (Will Marshall and Ed Gerwin) (April 2016)

2015 and selected earlier reports

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Small Business: Boosting Exports and Inclusive Growth,” (Ed Gerwin) (November 2015)

Op-Ed in The Wall Street Journal: “Small Businesses With a Big Stake in the Pacific Trade Deal,” (Ed Gerwin) (November 2015)

PPI Blog Post: “How the Ex-Im Bank Serves Main Street,” (Ed Gerwin) (October 2015)

“Should the United States Adopt an Innovation Box?: The Post-BEPS Landscape,” (Michael Mandel and Michelle Di Ionno) (October 2015)

Op-Ed in The Daily Beast: “Hillary’s Fatal Trade Flip-Flop,” (Will Marshall) (October 2015)

“TPP and the Benefits of Freer Trade for Vietnam: Some Lessons from U.S. Free Trade Agreements,” (Ed Gerwin) (September 2015)

“Uncovering the Hidden Value of Digital Trade,” (Paul Hofheinz and Michael Mandel) (July 2015)

PPI Blog Post: “Lebron James and the Do-Something Democrats: Support for Democrats “In the Arena” on Trade,” (Ed Gerwin) (June 2015)

The BEPS Effect: New International Tax Rules Could Kill US Jobs,” (June 2015) (Michael Mandel)

“The Blame Game: Multinational Taxation in an Era of Knowledge,” (May 2015) (Michael Mandel, Paul Weinstein & Sarah O’Byrne)

”The Digital Opportunity: Democratizing Trade for the 99 Percent,” (Ed Gerwin) (May 2015)

Op-Ed in Republic 3.0: “The Digital Economy, Trade Agreements and the 99 Percent,” (Ed Gerwin) (May 2015)

Op-Ed in CNN: ”Why trade is in the national interest,” (Will Marshall) (April 2015)

Op-Ed in The Hill: “How the Obama Trade Agenda can Advance Progressive Goals,” (Ed Gerwin) (April 2015)

“The Obama Trade Agenda: Five Things for Progressives to Like,” (Ed Gerwin) (February 2015)

“Data, Trade, and Growth,” in Measuring Globalization: Better Trade Statistics for Better Policy – Volume 2. Factoryless Manufacturing, Global Supply Chains, and Trade in Intangibles and Data, Susan N. Houseman and Michael Mandel, eds. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research (2015).

Bridging The Data Gap: How Digital Innovation Can Drive Growth and Jobs,” (April 2014) (Paul Hofheinz and Michael Mandel)

“Manufacturing in the App Economy: How Many Jobs Should We Aim For?,” (May 2012) (Michael Mandel and Diana Carew)

“Hidden Toll: Imports and Job Loss Since 2007,” (March 2012) (Michael Mandel and Diana Carew)

“Measuring the Real Impact of Imports on Jobs,” (March 2012) (Michael Mandel and Diana Carew)

“Taxing Capital in a Supply-Chain World,” (November 2010) (Michael Mandel)

The Trump Trade Tax Strikes Out America’s Baseball Fans

Posted on July 17, 2018September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

For millions of American fans, baseball’s All-Star Game is a welcome respite from the day-to-day challenges of budgeting for their families. But, as they watch tonight’s Summer Classic, it will be hard for American consumers and taxpayers to avoid the many reminders of the “Trump Trade Tax” — the higher costs that they’ll pay because of the Trump Administration’s misguided fixation with imposing and proposing damaging import tariffs.

Building Costs. The construction cranes looming beyond the outfield at Nationals Park will remind fans that Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, and lumber have raised construction costs—not just for big buildings—but for new homes and home remodeling projects too. And, as taxpayers, they’ll be on the hook as their local and state governments grapple with higher costs for construction and infrastructure.
Refrigerators. As they go to their leaky old refrigerator for a pre-game snack, fans will be reminded that a new one will cost more because of the Trump Trade Tax. On top of higher costs from Trump’s aluminum and steel tariffs, his proposed 10 percent tariff on refrigerators from China would raise prices even more.
Beers and Cokes. Cold cans of Bud Light and Diet Coke will likely cost more because of Trump’s 10 percent duties on aluminum—a major cost item for American beverage companies.
Furniture. As they plop down on their old couch, fans will be reminded that their plans to refurnish the family room will be more expensive if Trump’s proposed duties on furniture and lamps from China go into effect.
Washers and Dryers. As they rush between innings to switch laundry from their 15-year-old washer and to their equally old dryer, fans will be reminded that replacing them will cost a lot more—Trump’s tariffs on washers, dryers, steel, and aluminum have caused washer and dryer prices to spike by some 17 percent in just three months.
Baseball Gloves and Caps. Even the game itself won’t be an escape from the Trump Trade Tax. As they watch Mike Trout adjust his batting glove, Max Scherzer pound his pitcher’s mitt, or the All-Star players tip their baseball caps to the crowd, fans be reminded that batting gloves, baseball mitts, and baseball caps are among the hundreds of consumer items covered by Trump’s proposed duties on $200 billion in imports from China. Trump’s fans might save a few dollars by wearing their “Make America Great Again” caps. But, if they need a new one, it will likely cost more because of the Trump Trade Tax too.

Enjoy the game!

PPI Proposes Countering China with Smart, Targeted Strategy-Not Tariffs & Trade Wars-to Secure American Competitiveness

Posted on June 20, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The President’s blunt goal of reducing America’s trade deficit with China won’t address the threat of China’s high-tech mercantilism

WASHINGTON —The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) today released a new report by Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade & Global Opportunity, proposing a smart, targeted long-term U.S. strategy to combat China’s state-directed technology mercantilism, instead of the unfocused protectionist approach being pursued by the Trump Administration.

“The Trump Administration is right to highlight the threat that China’s state-directed technology mercantilism poses to America’s economic future,” says Gerwin. “But the Administration’s strategy—based on duties that damage the American economy and ‘America First’ policies that alienate our allies—is flawed, and won’t change China’s bad behavior. Neither will doubling down on that ill-considered strategy through this week’s announcement of additional trade taxes on $200 billion in Chinese-origin goods.”

“Instead of tariffs and trade wars, the United States needs to pursue a tough, targeted, long-term strategy that enlists allies, enforces rules and writes new ones, focuses negotiations, and ratchets up pressure on China—all while advocating aggressively to keep global markets open. We detail such a strategy in our new report.”

According to Gerwin, the linchpin of China’s future-oriented mercantilism is an extensive array of plans, policies, rules, and practices to enable the transfer and assimilation of foreign technology and intellectual property for China’s benefit. To achieve these goals, China is employing many unfair or illegal measures, including using foreign ownership restrictions and licensing approvals to compel American companies to transfer their technology, and directing and funding a highly coordinated effort by Chinese state-owned and private firms to acquire foreign tech firms. China’s conduct poses a threat to the United States, Gerwin notes, where IP-intensive industries alone support more than 45 million jobs and represent 39 percent of U.S. GDP.

But threatening duties on Chinese products is unlikely to upend China’s innovation mercantilism, Gerwin argues. Duties are likely to increase American consumer prices and reduce vital technology investments, while a tit-for-tat tariff war with China could cost an estimated 455,000 American jobs, most in less-skilled sectors. The Administration’s “go-it-alone” approach to trade is also alienating allies in Europe, Japan, Korea, and elsewhere who should be natural allies in opposing China’s technology mercantilism. Finally, there’s significant concern that President Trump may undercut the long-term effort required to address Chinese mercantilism by, instead, focusing on short-term “wins.”

America should keep all options on the table in opposing China’s abusive innovation practices, including targeted and intensifying trade sanctions, writes Gerwin. But these tactics must be part of a smarter, focused, long-term U.S. strategy that includes:

Working more closely with—and not needlessly alienating—trade partners who also face threats from China’s unfair technology practices;
Using the WTO much more aggressively to launch a bold series of WTO challenges to China’s multiple rules violations;
Leading a global effort to establish new rules and norms to address China’s unfair innovation practices that aren’t covered by existing global trade rules, including new rules to limit digital protection-ism and unfair competition by SOEs; and
Designating a single, high-level official to lead focused negotiations to seek specific and verifiable commitments from China on ending China’s use of abusive practices that harm American competitors in innovative industry sectors

Gerwin calls on Congress to play a more active role in confronting China’s high-tech mercantilism by:

Establishing a clear set of negotiating objectives for China that underscore the primacy of eliminating China’s abusive innovation policies;
Providing additional resources to support ramped-up investigation, consultation, and enforcement related to China’s unfair trade and technology practices;
Amending current law to broaden Executive Branch authority to use national security reviews, export controls, and other tools to address security and industrial base threats posed by China’s acquisitions and technology demands; and
Establishing an escalating series of sanctions that would kick in if China fails to make verifiable progress in eliminating abusive innovation practices, potentially including reciprocal restrictions on Chinese technology licensing, the withdrawal of U.S. scientific and technical cooperation, and/or targeted sanctions on Chinese products based on stolen or unfairly obtained American know-how.

###

Confronting China’s Threat to Open Trade

Posted on June 20, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

A Smarter Strategy for Securing America’s Innovation Edge

In early April, reportedly after “zero substantive internal debate,” President Trump ordered the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to consider imposing additional tariffs on $100 billion in Chinese products. Trump’s order claimed that new tariffs were needed to retaliate against China’s threatened retaliation for tariffs that Trump had announced earlier.

Trump’s impulsive escalation was denounced by farmers, retailers, tech organizations, and others, and by bipartisan political leaders. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) put things bluntly: “This is nuts. China is guilty of many things, but the President has no actual plan to win right now.”

Populism Watch: Combatting Protectionist Policies with a Positive Plan for Economic Progress

Posted on June 18, 2018September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

At the G7 Summit last week, Donald Trump’s fixation on tariffs, as well as his withdrawal of support for a Group of Seven communique, made waves. The President’s protectionist agenda could do serious and lasting damage to the U.S. economy, American workers, and the international relationships we’ve spent decades building. In response, pragmatic progressives should champion a genuine alternative economic platform focused on growth, expanded opportunity, and strengthening U.S. strategic alliances.

A 2016 report by the Progressive Policy Institute offers an approach to boosting the U.S. economy and middle class prosperity without threatening relations with key allies. The report, Unleashing Innovation and Growth: A Progressive Alternative to Populism, edited by PPI President Will Marshall, puts forth an optimistic plan to strengthen America’s economic and fiscal security–while improving vital trade and security ties with America’s G7 partners. The report speaks specifically against the kinds of protectionist policies Trump has instigated, instead encouraging the democratization of trade, the free flow of data across global borders, and the support for innovative trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The report begins with a review of the specific economic challenges faced by the United States, including slow growth since 2000, stagnating wages and living standards, and a shrinkage of the middle class. These problems cannot be fixed by trade wars and isolationism, but rather, as the report explains, require a series of positive changes in American economic and regulatory policies.

The report proposes spreading innovation across the economy through the adoption of a new ‘Innovation Platform’ aimed at stimulating public and private investment in new ideas and enterprises. It also urges improving the regulatory climate impeding greater innovation in non-digitized industries and investment in small and new businesses. The report also proposes creating business incentives to offer more flexible work, including paid leave and overtime, for gig-economy workers. The plan also includes ways to increase renewable energy creation, modernize public works, improve K-12 education, and narrow the wealth inequality gap with universal pensions.

PPI’s blueprint underlines the issues that can arise from embracing populist policies, such as mistrust in democratic institutions and threats to economic and national security. The report is a reminder that smarter, optimistic policy alternatives to populism and nationalism can benefit all Americans, as well as our allies in the G7.

Three Threats to Liberal Democracy

Posted on June 18, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Trump petulantly attacked U.S. allies at the G-7 summit in Quebec, then dashed off to Singapore to heap praise on North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. You couldn’t ask for a more vivid illustration of the illiberal spirit that shapes his “America First” doctrine.

But Trump is hardly alone in embracing hyper-nationalism. According to PPI President Will Marshall, illiberal nationalism is the common thread running through the three most potent threats to the democratic world: the rise of national populism, especially in Europe; Russia’s reversion to despotism at home and adventurism abroad; and, the emergence of China’s autocratic capitalism as a plausible alternative to market democracy.

Marshall elaborated on the dangers of neo-nationalism in comments prepared for the Biennial Colloquy on the State of Democracy, organized in Rome this spring by the Centro Studi Americani. That commentary follows:

PPI Statement on Trump Administration’s New China Tariffs & China’s Announced Retaliation

Posted on June 15, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Ed Gerwin, Senior Fellow for Trade and Global Opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute, released the following statement in response to the Trump Administration’s announcement of new tariffs on Chinese-origin imports and China’s announced retaliation:

“China’s technology mercantilism is a serious threat to America’s economic future that requires a tough and effective American response, but the Trump Administration’s announcement today of $50 billion in duties on Chinese-origin products is not even close to that response.

“Making American businesses and working families pay billions in new trade taxes won’t change China’s bad behavior. Instead, China will respond—as it has already announced—with billions in targeted retaliatory tariffs that will make it much harder for American manufacturers and farmers to export there. It cannot be overstated—these tit-for-tat tariffs will destroy jobs and devastate communities throughout the United States.

“Responding to China’s unfair trade practices and technology theft with “America First” protectionism is a terrible mistake. The Administration’s deeply flawed and poorly focused strategy—based on duties that damage America’s economy and “go-it-alone” trade policies that alienate vital allies—will have large-scale and long-term repercussions.

“Instead of instigating trade wars, the United States should confront China’s unfair trade practices with a targeted, long-term response that enlists our international allies, enforces current trade rules and writes new ones, focuses negotiations on key issues, and ratchets up pressure on China—all while advocating aggressively to keep global markets open. PPI will outline such a strategy in a new report to be released next week.

“Open global markets are manifestly in America’s interest. Given a level playing field, America’s innovative businesses can compete and win anywhere. In trade wars, nearly everyone loses.”

###

Ritz for NY Daily News, “How Trump and Republicans are damning Social Security and Medicare”

Posted on June 14, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

When the Social Security and Medicare trustees warned last week that both programs are on tenuous financial footing, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said: “The administration’s economic agenda — tax cuts, regulatory reform and improved trade agreements — will generate the long-term growth needed to help secure these programs and lead them to a more stable path.” He couldn’t be more wrong.

As more and more baby boomers retire, Social Security and Medicare will require additional revenue just to fund the same level of benefits enjoyed by previous generations. Yet instead of raising more revenue to help fund these programs, the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans recklessly pursued a package of tax cuts that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects will reduce revenue by $2 trillion over the next decade. This law put Social Security and Medicare on a decidedly less stable path.

Continue reading at the New York Daily News.

Gerwin for The Hill, “It’s time for Congress to step in and stop Trump’s trade abuses”

Posted on June 6, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Donald Trump and his court appear to believe that the president has near absolute power over trade. After Trump ordered tariffs on imported aluminum and steel, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross noted that Trump could alter the tariffs or impose quotas or “do anything he wishes at any point.”

Trump recently launched an investigation to limit car imports on “national security” grounds and reportedly told French President Macron that he aims to push German carmakers out of the American market altogether.

But Trump and his team are mistaken. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.” The president’s powers over trade — including his authority to enter into trade agreements and impose tariffs — are delegated by Congress under various laws.

Continue reading at The Hill.

Marshall for New York Daily News, “Trump’s petulant Iran deal pullout: He has no clue what comes next”

Posted on May 9, 2018 by The Progressive Policy Institute

President Trump seems determined to keep his dumbest 2016 campaign promises. First, he pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is designed to create a strong economic counterweight to China.

Then, he pulled us out of the Paris climate accord, essentially signaling that the United States will not cooperate with the rest of the world to combat global warming. Now, he’s made good on his threat to pull the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal — like the other two deals, painstakingly negotiated by President Obama.

Trump’s actions constitute not only a repudiation of America’s international leadership role, but of international cooperation itself. Instead, United States seems to be adopting a strategically clueless policy of belligerent unilateralism.

Continue reading at the New York Daily News.