11/9/16, Libertarian Party Vice Chair's Open Letter to Democrats, independentpoliticalreport.com
"Arvin Vohra, Vice Chair of the Libertarian Party released this
open letter to Democratic voters today in response to their candidate’s
decisive defeat:"
"Democratic voters:
Do you know why the Democratic Party lost despite better organization and more money?
It’s because you literally nominated an openly pro-war Democrat. (Obama at least pretended otherwise.)
The
current version Democratic Party is strongest in politically correct
parts of cities, where people are often more influenced by the fashion
of politics than by the substance. But the real Democratic voters, the
ones who have been Democrats for decades, are not really interested in
safe spaces and nonsense
.
They are opposed to war. Many of them became
Democrats in response to the Vietnam war and to Nixon’s War on Drugs
(which is ironic, given that Democrats initially got the U.S. military
involved in Vietnam).
When you nominated an openly pro-war “Democrat”, that was frankly too
much. They could not support that type of person. And rightly so.
To those anti-war Democrats: what do you do when a spouse mistreats
you? First you try to convince them otherwise. If that doesn’t work, you
leave, and make them earn you back.
It’s time for you to ditch the pro-War “Democratic” party. Join the
actual anti-War party: the Libertarian Party. If the Democrats want your
vote and your energy, make them earn it. Make them pledge to end the
War on Drugs and end U.S. involvement in foreign civil wars. Libertarian
Candidates have already signed pledges to that effect.
And to the anti-War left that has been missing since 2008: please
stop the hypocrisy. Democrats bombing foreign countries is just as bad
as Republicans bombing foreign countries. If you cannot hold your own
candidates the the same standards you hold Republican candidates, you
are either hypocrites or fools.
If you want to stop war, bring the troops home, shut down foreign
military bases, and cut taxes accordingly, please join the Libertarian
Party. Learn more at lp.org.
In Liberty,
Arvin Vohra
Vice Chair
Libertarian National Committee"
###"
...............................
Saturday, November 12, 2016
To so-called Anti-Trump protesters: Your endless violent displays of hateful intolerance are why Trump won in the first place-Paul Joseph Watson
11/11/16, "The Truth About the Trump Protests," Paul Joseph Watson, via You Tube
From Zero Hedge: "Earlier today, Paul Joseph Watson posted the following epic video in which he systematically destroys the utter hypocrisy of the left for, among other things, failing to denounce the violent riots flaring up across the country in response to Trump's victory. The whole video is a must see but below is just a small selection of our favorite quotes:
 |
| Image from Watson video |
"After weeks of taunting Trump supporters, over Trump's suggestion that he might not immediately accept the election results, Hillary voters came together preached the message of unity and graciously accepted Donald Trump's victory.
Oh no, they actually rioted, attacked people in the street and threatened to kill Donald Trump and his supporters.""Seriously, has anyone told you people you can't change the outcome of democratic election by throwing a temper tantrum."
"All year they denounced us as being hateful and intolerant. And what's the first thing they do after the election? Engage in rampant hateful intolerance."
"Your behavior is why Trump won in the first place. Do you understand that yet?""
 |
| Image from Watson video |
.............
Friday, November 11, 2016
Trump voters can't be racist because millions of them also voted for Obama, says Michael Moore: 'You have to accept that millions of people who voted for Barack Obama, some of them once, some of them twice, changed their minds this time' about voting Democrat. 'They’re not racist'
"But Mr. Trump also won over millions of voters who had once flocked to
President Obama’s promise of hope and change, and who on Tuesday saw in
Mr. Trump their best chance."....Perhaps "affluent
whites" are racist because more of them voted for Hillary than for Obama: "Mrs. Clinton won by a greater margin than Mr. Obama among affluent
whites."...
11/11/16, "Michael Moore: They Voted For A Guy Named ‘Hussein’ Twice, Trump Voters Are Not Racist," Daily Caller, Rachel Stoltzfoos
"Michael Moore disputed the notion that all the people who voted for President-elect Donald Trump are racist Friday, reiterating the fact that millions of them voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
“They’re not racist,” Moore said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein. That’s the America you live in.”
Moore was pushing back against another panelist who said “deep racial animus” at the heart of the country was behind Trump’s win.
“What I’m trying to get at, is at the heart of this country is some deep racial animus that animates the very communities we’re trying to lift up,” Eddie Glaude Jr., chair of the African American department at Princeton University told the panel.
“Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough replied: “I have to repeat it again because it’s maddening. People who live by data should die by data, and the data according to Nate Cohn of the New York Times says this, and let those who have ears to hear, hear: The very people who helped elect Barack Obama president of the United States twice just elected in Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Donald J. Trump. It’s the data.”
Moore took it from there. “You have to accept that millions of people who voted for Barack Obama, some of them once, some of them twice, changed their minds this time. They’re not racist. They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein. That’s the America you live in.”
Rammesh Ponnuru echoed Moore and Scarborough’s sentiment in a Bloomberg piece, taking issue with the notion that Trump won because White Americans are racist.
“Against that theory, I’d note, first, that Trump won several states that voted twice for our first black president,” he wrote. “The early exit polls suggest Trump won a tenth of voters who approved of President Barack Obama’s job performance. If that’s close to true, it means he wouldn’t have won without those voters.”
He continued: “And as I’ve noted in this space before, claims that bigotry are a major motivation for Trump voters have a thin evidentiary basis: They classify conservative views that aren’t necessarily rooted in racial hostility as ‘racial resentment,’ they ignore the decline in bigotry over time, and they overgeneralize about a very large and in some ways diverse group of people.”"
..........................................
NY Times: "But Mr. Trump also won over millions of voters who had once flocked to President Obama’s promise of hope and change, and who on Tuesday saw in Mr. Trump their best chance."....
11/9/16, "Donald Trump’s Victory Was Built on Unique Coalition of White Voters," NY Times, Nicholas Confessore and Nate Cohn
"Donald J. Trump's America flowered through the old union strongholds of the Midwest, along rivers and rail lines that once moved coal from southern Ohio and the hollows of West Virginia to the smelters of Pennsylvania.
Mrs. Clinton won by a greater margin than Mr. Obama among affluent
whites, particularly those living in the Democratic Party’s prosperous
coastal strongholds: Washington and Boston, Seattle and New York....
But Mr. Trump won low-income white voters to the Republican ticket, reversing a partisan divide along class lines that is as old as the Democratic and Republican Parties — a replay of the “Brexit” vote in June, when the old bastions of England’s Labor-left voted decisively to leave the European Union. His breakthrough among white working-class voters in the North not only erased the Democratic advantage but reversed it, giving him a victory in the Electoral College while he lost the national popular vote.
"A version of this article appears in print on November 10, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: White Voters in Broad Bloc Shaped Upset"
...................
11/11/16, "Michael Moore: They Voted For A Guy Named ‘Hussein’ Twice, Trump Voters Are Not Racist," Daily Caller, Rachel Stoltzfoos
"Michael Moore disputed the notion that all the people who voted for President-elect Donald Trump are racist Friday, reiterating the fact that millions of them voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012.
“They’re not racist,” Moore said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein. That’s the America you live in.”
Moore was pushing back against another panelist who said “deep racial animus” at the heart of the country was behind Trump’s win.
“What I’m trying to get at, is at the heart of this country is some deep racial animus that animates the very communities we’re trying to lift up,” Eddie Glaude Jr., chair of the African American department at Princeton University told the panel.
“Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough replied: “I have to repeat it again because it’s maddening. People who live by data should die by data, and the data according to Nate Cohn of the New York Times says this, and let those who have ears to hear, hear: The very people who helped elect Barack Obama president of the United States twice just elected in Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Donald J. Trump. It’s the data.”
Moore took it from there. “You have to accept that millions of people who voted for Barack Obama, some of them once, some of them twice, changed their minds this time. They’re not racist. They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein. That’s the America you live in.”
Rammesh Ponnuru echoed Moore and Scarborough’s sentiment in a Bloomberg piece, taking issue with the notion that Trump won because White Americans are racist.
“Against that theory, I’d note, first, that Trump won several states that voted twice for our first black president,” he wrote. “The early exit polls suggest Trump won a tenth of voters who approved of President Barack Obama’s job performance. If that’s close to true, it means he wouldn’t have won without those voters.”
He continued: “And as I’ve noted in this space before, claims that bigotry are a major motivation for Trump voters have a thin evidentiary basis: They classify conservative views that aren’t necessarily rooted in racial hostility as ‘racial resentment,’ they ignore the decline in bigotry over time, and they overgeneralize about a very large and in some ways diverse group of people.”"
..........................................
NY Times: "But Mr. Trump also won over millions of voters who had once flocked to President Obama’s promise of hope and change, and who on Tuesday saw in Mr. Trump their best chance."....
11/9/16, "Donald Trump’s Victory Was Built on Unique Coalition of White Voters," NY Times, Nicholas Confessore and Nate Cohn
"Donald J. Trump's America flowered through the old union strongholds of the Midwest, along rivers and rail lines that once moved coal from southern Ohio and the hollows of West Virginia to the smelters of Pennsylvania.
It
flowed south along the Mississippi River, through the rural Iowa
counties that gave Barack Obama more votes than any Democrat in decades,
and to the Northeast, through a corner of Connecticut and deep into
Maine.
And
it extended through the suburbs of Cleveland and Minneapolis, of
Manchester, N.H., and the sprawl north of Tampa, Fla., where
middle-class white voters chose Mr. Trump over Hillary Clinton.
One
of the biggest upsets in American political history was built on a
coalition of white voters unlike that of any other previous Republican
candidate, according to election results and interviews with voters and
demographic experts.
Mr. Trump’s coalition comprised not just staunchly conservative
Republicans in the South and West. They were joined by millions of
voters in the onetime heartlands of 20th-century liberal populism — the
Upper and Lower Midwest — where white Americans without a college degree
voted decisively to reject the more diverse, educated and cosmopolitan
Democratic Party of the 21st century, making Republicans the country’s
dominant political party at every level of government....
But Mr. Trump also won over millions of voters who had once flocked to
President Obama’s promise of hope and change, and who on Tuesday saw in
Mr. Trump their best chance to dampen the most painful blows of
globalization and trade, to fight special interests, and to be heard and
protected. Twelve percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters approved of Mr.
Obama, according to the exit polls.
But Mr. Trump won low-income white voters to the Republican ticket, reversing a partisan divide along class lines that is as old as the Democratic and Republican Parties — a replay of the “Brexit” vote in June, when the old bastions of England’s Labor-left voted decisively to leave the European Union. His breakthrough among white working-class voters in the North not only erased the Democratic advantage but reversed it, giving him a victory in the Electoral College while he lost the national popular vote.
Most
strikingly, Mr. Trump won his biggest margins among middle-income white
voters, according to exit polls, a revolt not only of the white working
class but of the country’s vast white middle class. He did better than
past Republicans in the sprawling suburbs along Florida’s central
coasts, overwhelming Mrs. Clinton’s gains among Hispanic voters. He held
down Mrs. Clinton’s margins in the Philadelphia suburbs, defying
expectations that Mrs. Clinton would outperform Mr. Obama by a wide
margin....
Mr. Trump’s America proved the larger on Election Day.
It smashed through the Democrats’ supposed electoral “blue wall” — the
18 states carried by Democrats in every election since 1992, such as
Michigan and Pennsylvania, plus the diverse and well-educated parts of
the country that Mr. Obama attracted in his two races, like New Mexico,
Nevada, Virginia and Colorado.
Starting
Wednesday, you could walk from the Vermont border through Appalachian
coal country to the outskirts of St. Louis without crossing a county Mr.
Trump did not win decisively. You could head south through rural and
suburban Georgia all the way to South Florida, or northwest through the
Upper Midwest, or make a beeline for the West Coast, skirting only the
rising Democratic communities of Colorado and the booming multicultural
sprawl of Las Vegas before finally reaching Mrs. Clinton’s part of the
country.
“It’s
not that he was the most polished of politicians,” said Justin
Channell, 36, of Brewer, Me., who works at a health insurance company.
“I liked the message of the anti-establishment, that corruption in D.C.
is so prevalent.”...
In
Miami-Dade County, where Mr. Trump had more room to lose ground among
Hispanic voters than anywhere else in the country, Mrs. Clinton inched
up to only 64 percent from Mr. Obama’s 62 percent of the Hispanic vote.
Turnout dropped considerably in black communities across the country,
from the rural South to Cleveland, Milwaukee and Detroit.
By
Wednesday, the notion of a Democratic electoral map advantage bolstered
by rising Hispanic power seemed distant. Even if Mrs. Clinton had won
Florida, Mr. Trump would have powered to victory through the new
Republican heartland, in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and
Michigan, where Hispanic voters represent just a fraction of the
electorate.
Nor
was the growing Hispanic vote — and Mrs. Clinton’s strength among
well-educated voters — enough to pull her especially close in either
Arizona or Texas, the only two heavily Hispanic states that could have
plausibly joined Florida to put her over the top."...
"A version of this article appears in print on November 10, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: White Voters in Broad Bloc Shaped Upset"
...................
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Denmark to face significantly colder winter 2016-2017, will be more in line with 1960-1990 historical norms-The Local, Denmark
11/10/16, "Denmark to face 'significantly colder' winter," The Local, Denmark
"The calendar may not have officially turned to winter yet, but with snowfall and subzero temperatures having already arrived in Denmark, many are wondering what’s in store.
According to the Danish Meteorology Institute (DMI) the answer is simple: cold.
DMI released its quarterly prognosis this week and has warned that Denmark is in for a colder than normal winter.
Winter officially begins on December 1st in Denmark, which uses the meteorological rather than astronomical definition of seasons, and already then the cold will be felt.
“December will likely start colder than normal with the possibility of more wintry episodes,” DMI wrote.
The colder-than-normal conditions will be caused by a high-pressure system expected over Siberia and Scandinavia which will result in fewer fronts crossing over Denmark from the west, which usually bring milder weather. DMI said that the fronts that do make it to Denmark are liable to drop large amounts of snow on the country.
The prognosis offered no predictions on a white Christmas, saying it is still too early to tell if the cold start to December will last through to the days of drinking gløgg, decorating the tree and opening presents.
DMI does think, however, that the colder conditions will also be present in both January and February. Those two months are likely to be characterised by extended cold spells and a few milder conditions when warmer air is brought in from the west.
But a repeat of last winter’s fairly mild conditions is not expected.
“It is pretty certain that we will have a significantly colder winter than the last one, which ended at [an average temperature of] 3.1C,” DMI wrote.
Although it stressed the uncertainty in its prognosis, DMI said that the winter of 2016/17 would likely be more in line with the historical norms of 1960 - 1990, when average winter temperatures were around 0.5C, rather than the 2001 - 2010 period, when winter temps were at 1.9C."
"The calendar may not have officially turned to winter yet, but with snowfall and subzero temperatures having already arrived in Denmark, many are wondering what’s in store.
According to the Danish Meteorology Institute (DMI) the answer is simple: cold.
DMI released its quarterly prognosis this week and has warned that Denmark is in for a colder than normal winter.
Winter officially begins on December 1st in Denmark, which uses the meteorological rather than astronomical definition of seasons, and already then the cold will be felt.
“December will likely start colder than normal with the possibility of more wintry episodes,” DMI wrote.
The colder-than-normal conditions will be caused by a high-pressure system expected over Siberia and Scandinavia which will result in fewer fronts crossing over Denmark from the west, which usually bring milder weather. DMI said that the fronts that do make it to Denmark are liable to drop large amounts of snow on the country.
The prognosis offered no predictions on a white Christmas, saying it is still too early to tell if the cold start to December will last through to the days of drinking gløgg, decorating the tree and opening presents.
DMI does think, however, that the colder conditions will also be present in both January and February. Those two months are likely to be characterised by extended cold spells and a few milder conditions when warmer air is brought in from the west.
But a repeat of last winter’s fairly mild conditions is not expected.
“It is pretty certain that we will have a significantly colder winter than the last one, which ended at [an average temperature of] 3.1C,” DMI wrote.
Although it stressed the uncertainty in its prognosis, DMI said that the winter of 2016/17 would likely be more in line with the historical norms of 1960 - 1990, when average winter temperatures were around 0.5C, rather than the 2001 - 2010 period, when winter temps were at 1.9C."
.......................
Any country may withdraw from NAFTA six months after providing written notice of its intention to the other parties-CNN
NAFTA Secretariat: "Article 2205: Withdrawal
A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties." NAFTA Secretariat
July 6, 2016, "Yes, 'President Trump' really could kill NAFTA - but it wouldn't be pretty," CNN
Regardless of how it exactly plays out, it's not likely that withdrawing from NAFTA will do much to help American workers....Some of those jobs could in theory go back to America, but higher labor costs would weigh on profits of U.S. companies.
....................
Added: UAW President says Union agrees with Trump view of NAFTA:
Nov. 10, 2016, "UAW President Says Union Agrees With Donald Trump’s View on NAFTA," Wall St. Journal, John D. Stoll
"Union head estimates potentially a third of members voted for the president-elect."
"United Auto Workers President Dennis Williams indicated his organization can work with President-elect Donald Trump on key trade issues even though the 81-year-old union supported his opponent and has a long history of backing Democratic Party politicians.
Mr. Williams said in Detroit on Thursday he is prepared to talk with Mr. Trump about trade and sees “a great opportunity” to “find some common ground.” Specifically, Mr. Trump has been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Mr. Williams also said he hopes Mr. Trump’s goal of increasing infrastructure spending will lead to additional projects.
The UAW has long opposed Nafta and said TPP is problematic, citing concerns about job loss for U.S. manufacturing workers.
Membership in the UAW, which represents factory workers at Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and auto suppliers, has slipped since Nafta was forged in 1992 as Detroit car makers moved production to Mexico and bought components from parts makers outside the U.S. “We agree Nafta either needs to be renegotiated or ended,” Mr. Williams said.
The UAW president’s comments underscore the broad appeal Mr. Trump had during his campaign, leading him to perform well in Rust Belt states initially expected to swing to Hillary Clinton. Mr. Williams estimates potentially more than a third of UAW members voted for Mr. Trump, and union officials detected anger within the rank-and-file in the days before the election. The UAW initially expected lower support among its 400,000 members for Mr. Trump.
The organization will conduct studies to get more concrete results.
Mr. Williams said support may have been higher than 32% given the amount of people indicating they were undecided just before the election. It is unclear if support from the UAW on trade will embolden Mr. Trump’s trade stance, which includes slapping a 35% tariff on certain products shipped to the U.S. from Mexico. He singled out Ford, which is moving small-car production from Michigan to Mexico in coming years, for criticism. There were 926,000 jobs associated with motor vehicle and car parts production in October, according to preliminary figures provided the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a number that has been little changed since mid-2015.
While auto manufacturing jobs are nearing the highest point since early 2008, hourly earnings of $21.32 an hour, on average, are slightly lower than a year-ago and nearly $1 lower than when industry employment was last this high.
While lower-cost assembly plants have been opened during the past decade by foreign companies such as Volkswagen AG and China’s Fuyao Glass Industry Group the UAW has agreed to concessions and contract terms that led to deep job losses and lower pay scales.
In late 2015, Mr. Williams signed contracts with Detroit auto makers that secured wage increases and phased out controversial tiered-wage systems in U.S. car factories.
For decades, anything that Ford, GM or Chrysler sold on dealer lots was considered an American car, while those built by all other auto makers were deemed foreign. Even as Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co. and others opened plants in Southern states and sourced more parts from U.S. parts factories, they continued to be considered outsiders.
The definition of an American car also is rapidly changing as Detroit auto makers rely more on Mexican labor to assemble vehicles, and purchase an increasing share of auto parts from factories outside the U.S. In 2017 model year cars sold by Ford, GM and Chrysler, an average of 51% of parts came from U.S. or Canadian sources, down from 52.5% in the prior model year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiles data on vehicle content every model year. The latest data are preliminary and will be updated as more models are introduced for the coming model year.
Nearly two-thirds of the 64 models the Detroit auto makers have introduced for the 2017 model year will be built by UAW members.
While less than 20% are assembled in Mexico, many so-called domestic cars have half of their parts content sourced from south of the U.S. border."
------------------
Added: NAFTA was approved in the US by "fast track." It's not a ratified treaty:
1. Signed in 1992 by then lame duck Pres. George H.W. Bush
2. Approved in 1993 by House and Senate on "fast track" basis which requires only simple majorities. A ratified treaty requires 2/3 Senate majority.
3. Signed in 1993 by Bill Clinton:
Nov. 8, 2016, "U.S. Completes 22 Straight Years of Merchandise Trade Deficits With Mexico," CNS News, Terence P. Jeffrey
"NAFTA--which created a free-trade zone between Mexico, the United States and Canada--was signed by the then-lame-duck President George H.W. Bush in December 1992. The deal was not ratified as a treaty, which under the U.S. Constitution would have required a two-thirds majority in the Senate for ratification. Instead, it was approved on a so-called “fast-track” that required only majority votes in both the House and Senate.
The House and Senate approved the NAFTA in 1993 and President Bill Clinton signed it in December 1993....
As of September 2016, the U.S. had run merchandise trade deficits with Mexico for 264 straight months."...
.....................
A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties." NAFTA Secretariat
July 6, 2016, "Yes, 'President Trump' really could kill NAFTA - but it wouldn't be pretty," CNN
Regardless of how it exactly plays out, it's not likely that withdrawing from NAFTA will do much to help American workers....Some of those jobs could in theory go back to America, but higher labor costs would weigh on profits of U.S. companies.
....................
Added: UAW President says Union agrees with Trump view of NAFTA:
Nov. 10, 2016, "UAW President Says Union Agrees With Donald Trump’s View on NAFTA," Wall St. Journal, John D. Stoll
"Union head estimates potentially a third of members voted for the president-elect."
"United Auto Workers President Dennis Williams indicated his organization can work with President-elect Donald Trump on key trade issues even though the 81-year-old union supported his opponent and has a long history of backing Democratic Party politicians.
Mr. Williams said in Detroit on Thursday he is prepared to talk with Mr. Trump about trade and sees “a great opportunity” to “find some common ground.” Specifically, Mr. Trump has been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Mr. Williams also said he hopes Mr. Trump’s goal of increasing infrastructure spending will lead to additional projects.
The UAW has long opposed Nafta and said TPP is problematic, citing concerns about job loss for U.S. manufacturing workers.
Membership in the UAW, which represents factory workers at Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and auto suppliers, has slipped since Nafta was forged in 1992 as Detroit car makers moved production to Mexico and bought components from parts makers outside the U.S. “We agree Nafta either needs to be renegotiated or ended,” Mr. Williams said.
The UAW president’s comments underscore the broad appeal Mr. Trump had during his campaign, leading him to perform well in Rust Belt states initially expected to swing to Hillary Clinton. Mr. Williams estimates potentially more than a third of UAW members voted for Mr. Trump, and union officials detected anger within the rank-and-file in the days before the election. The UAW initially expected lower support among its 400,000 members for Mr. Trump.
The organization will conduct studies to get more concrete results.
Mr. Williams said support may have been higher than 32% given the amount of people indicating they were undecided just before the election. It is unclear if support from the UAW on trade will embolden Mr. Trump’s trade stance, which includes slapping a 35% tariff on certain products shipped to the U.S. from Mexico. He singled out Ford, which is moving small-car production from Michigan to Mexico in coming years, for criticism. There were 926,000 jobs associated with motor vehicle and car parts production in October, according to preliminary figures provided the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a number that has been little changed since mid-2015.
While auto manufacturing jobs are nearing the highest point since early 2008, hourly earnings of $21.32 an hour, on average, are slightly lower than a year-ago and nearly $1 lower than when industry employment was last this high.
While lower-cost assembly plants have been opened during the past decade by foreign companies such as Volkswagen AG and China’s Fuyao Glass Industry Group the UAW has agreed to concessions and contract terms that led to deep job losses and lower pay scales.
In late 2015, Mr. Williams signed contracts with Detroit auto makers that secured wage increases and phased out controversial tiered-wage systems in U.S. car factories.
For decades, anything that Ford, GM or Chrysler sold on dealer lots was considered an American car, while those built by all other auto makers were deemed foreign. Even as Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co. and others opened plants in Southern states and sourced more parts from U.S. parts factories, they continued to be considered outsiders.
The definition of an American car also is rapidly changing as Detroit auto makers rely more on Mexican labor to assemble vehicles, and purchase an increasing share of auto parts from factories outside the U.S. In 2017 model year cars sold by Ford, GM and Chrysler, an average of 51% of parts came from U.S. or Canadian sources, down from 52.5% in the prior model year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiles data on vehicle content every model year. The latest data are preliminary and will be updated as more models are introduced for the coming model year.
Nearly two-thirds of the 64 models the Detroit auto makers have introduced for the 2017 model year will be built by UAW members.
While less than 20% are assembled in Mexico, many so-called domestic cars have half of their parts content sourced from south of the U.S. border."
------------------
Added: NAFTA was approved in the US by "fast track." It's not a ratified treaty:
1. Signed in 1992 by then lame duck Pres. George H.W. Bush
2. Approved in 1993 by House and Senate on "fast track" basis which requires only simple majorities. A ratified treaty requires 2/3 Senate majority.
3. Signed in 1993 by Bill Clinton:
Nov. 8, 2016, "U.S. Completes 22 Straight Years of Merchandise Trade Deficits With Mexico," CNS News, Terence P. Jeffrey
"NAFTA--which created a free-trade zone between Mexico, the United States and Canada--was signed by the then-lame-duck President George H.W. Bush in December 1992. The deal was not ratified as a treaty, which under the U.S. Constitution would have required a two-thirds majority in the Senate for ratification. Instead, it was approved on a so-called “fast-track” that required only majority votes in both the House and Senate.
The House and Senate approved the NAFTA in 1993 and President Bill Clinton signed it in December 1993....
As of September 2016, the U.S. had run merchandise trade deficits with Mexico for 264 straight months."...
.....................
In Nov. 2008 President-elect Obama's team targeted 200 Bush admin. executive orders and regulations for reversal immediately after inauguration. 4 dozen Obama advisors worked in seclusion for months to identify policies to reverse-Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2008
11/9/2008, "Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions," Washington Post, Ceci Connolly and R. Jeffrey Smith
"Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.
A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.
In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.
"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy....
Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet."
Still, the preelection transition team, comprising mainly lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress....
While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some -- such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards -- that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.
The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.
California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.
"An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.
Robert Sussman, who was the EPA's deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.
Some related reforms embraced by Obama's transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.
The center's influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama's first 100 days in office.
The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.
"It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction" and ensure that climate change policy "gets lots of attention inside the White House," said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
The center's new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama's transition team have already embraced the idea.
Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.
Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center's senior vice president for external affairs.
"It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it," she said. "The next administration needs to look ahead. This transition team and the incoming administration gets that in a big way."
"Staff writers Juliet Eilperin, Spencer S. Hsu and Carol D. Leonnig and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report."
====================
Eight years later in Nov. 2016 a new US president-elect can plan to reverse hundreds of Obama administrative actions with the stroke of a pen. As was suggested in March 2015:
3/8/2015, "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last," Bloomberg View, Josh Rogin
"A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office....
“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote.
“The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”...
Senators from both parties are united in an insistence that, at some point, the administration will need their buy-in for any nuclear deal with Iran to succeed. There’s no sign yet that Obama believes this -- or, if he does, that he plans to engage Congress in any meaningful way."
.
"Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.
A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.
In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.
"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy....
Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet."
Still, the preelection transition team, comprising mainly lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress....
While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some -- such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards -- that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.
The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.
California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years. Seventeen other states had promised to adopt California's rules, representing in total 45 percent of the nation's automobile market. Environmentalists cheered the California initiative because it would stoke innovation that would potentially benefit the entire country.
"An early move by the Obama administration to sign the California waiver would signal the seriousness of intent to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil and build a future for the domestic auto market," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Before the election, Obama told others that he favors declaring that carbon dioxide emissions are endangering human welfare, following an EPA task force recommendation last December that Bush and his aides shunned in order to protect the utility and auto industries.
Robert Sussman, who was the EPA's deputy administrator during the Clinton administration and is now overseeing EPA transition planning for Obama, wrote a paper last spring strongly recommending such a finding. Others in the campaign have depicted it as an issue on which Obama is keen to show that politics must not interfere with scientific advice.
Some related reforms embraced by Obama's transition advisers would alter procedures for decision-making on climate issues. A book titled "Change for America," being published next week by the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal think tank, will recommend, for example, that Obama rapidly create a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.
The center's influence with Obama is substantial: It was created by former Clinton White House official John D. Podesta, a co-chairman of the transition effort, and much of its staff has been swept into planning for Obama's first 100 days in office.
The National Energy Council would be a counterpart to the White House National Economic Council that Clinton created in a 1993 executive order.
"It would make sure all the oars are rowing in the right direction" and ensure that climate change policy "gets lots of attention inside the White House," said Daniel J. Weiss, a former Sierra Club official and senior fellow with the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
The center's new book will also urge Obama to sign an executive order requiring that greenhouse gas emissions be considered whenever the federal government examines the environmental impact of its actions under the existing National Environmental Policy Act. Several key members of Obama's transition team have already embraced the idea.
Other early Obama initiatives may address the need for improved food and drug regulation and chart a new course for immigration enforcement, some Obama advisers say. But they add that only a portion of his early efforts will be aimed at undoing Bush initiatives.
Despite enormous pent-up Democratic frustration, Obama and his team realize they must strike a balance between undoing Bush actions and setting their own course, said Winnie Stachelberg, the center's senior vice president for external affairs.
"It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take a long time to get out of it," she said. "The next administration needs to look ahead. This transition team and the incoming administration gets that in a big way."
"Staff writers Juliet Eilperin, Spencer S. Hsu and Carol D. Leonnig and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report."
====================
Eight years later in Nov. 2016 a new US president-elect can plan to reverse hundreds of Obama administrative actions with the stroke of a pen. As was suggested in March 2015:
3/8/2015, "Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won't Last," Bloomberg View, Josh Rogin
"A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office....
“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote.
“The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”...
Senators from both parties are united in an insistence that, at some point, the administration will need their buy-in for any nuclear deal with Iran to succeed. There’s no sign yet that Obama believes this -- or, if he does, that he plans to engage Congress in any meaningful way."
.
United Auto Workers President says union agrees with Trump that NAFTA either needs to be renegotiated or ended-Wall St. Journal
Nov. 10, 2016, "UAW President Says Union Agrees With Donald Trump’s View on NAFTA," Wall St. Journal, John D. Stoll
"Union head estimates potentially a third of members voted for the president-elect."
"United Auto Workers President Dennis Williams indicated his organization can work with President-elect Donald Trump on key trade issues even though the 81-year-old union supported his opponent and has a long history of backing Democratic Party politicians.
Mr. Williams said in Detroit on Thursday he is prepared to talk with Mr. Trump about trade and sees “a great opportunity” to “find some common ground.” Specifically, Mr. Trump has been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Mr. Williams also said he hopes Mr. Trump’s goal of increasing infrastructure spending will lead to additional projects.
The UAW has long opposed Nafta and said TPP is problematic, citing concerns about job loss for U.S. manufacturing workers.
Membership in the UAW, which represents factory workers at Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and auto suppliers, has slipped since Nafta was forged in 1992 as Detroit car makers moved production to Mexico and bought components from parts makers outside the U.S.
“We agree Nafta either needs to be renegotiated or ended,” Mr. Williams said.
The UAW president’s comments underscore the broad appeal Mr. Trump had during his campaign, leading him to perform well in Rust Belt states initially expected to swing to Hillary Clinton. Mr. Williams estimates potentially more than a third of UAW members voted for Mr. Trump, and union officials detected anger within the rank-and-file in the days before the election.
The UAW initially expected lower support among its 400,000 members for Mr. Trump. The organization will conduct studies to get more concrete results. Mr. Williams said support may have been higher than 32% given the amount of people indicating they were undecided just before the election.
It is unclear if support from the UAW on trade will embolden Mr. Trump’s trade stance, which includes slapping a 35% tariff on certain products shipped to the U.S. from Mexico. He singled out Ford, which is moving small-car production from Michigan to Mexico in coming years, for criticism.
There were 926,000 jobs associated with motor vehicle and car parts production in October, according to preliminary figures provided the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a number that has been little changed since mid-2015. While auto manufacturing jobs are nearing the highest point since early 2008, hourly earnings of $21.32 an hour, on average, are slightly lower than a year-ago and nearly $1 lower than when industry employment was last this high.
While lower-cost assembly plants have been opened during the past decade by foreign companies such as Volkswagen AG and China’s Fuyao Glass Industry Group the UAW has agreed to concessions and contract terms that led to deep job losses and lower pay scales.
In late 2015, Mr. Williams signed contracts with Detroit auto makers that secured wage increases and phased out controversial tiered-wage systems in U.S. car factories.
For decades, anything that Ford, GM or Chrysler sold on dealer lots was considered an American car, while those built by all other auto makers were deemed foreign. Even as Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co. and others opened plants in Southern states and sourced more parts from U.S. parts factories, they continued to be considered outsiders.
The definition of an American car also is rapidly changing as Detroit auto makers rely more on Mexican labor to assemble vehicles, and purchase an increasing share of auto parts from factories outside the U.S. In 2017 model year cars sold by Ford, GM and Chrysler, an average of 51% of parts came from U.S. or Canadian sources, down from 52.5% in the prior model year.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiles data on vehicle content every model year. The latest data are preliminary and will be updated as more models are introduced for the coming model year.
Nearly two-thirds of the 64 models the Detroit auto makers have introduced for the 2017 model year will be built by UAW members.
While less than 20% are assembled in Mexico, many so-called domestic cars have half of their parts content sourced from south of the U.S. border."
.................
"Union head estimates potentially a third of members voted for the president-elect."
"United Auto Workers President Dennis Williams indicated his organization can work with President-elect Donald Trump on key trade issues even though the 81-year-old union supported his opponent and has a long history of backing Democratic Party politicians.
Mr. Williams said in Detroit on Thursday he is prepared to talk with Mr. Trump about trade and sees “a great opportunity” to “find some common ground.” Specifically, Mr. Trump has been a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Mr. Williams also said he hopes Mr. Trump’s goal of increasing infrastructure spending will lead to additional projects.
The UAW has long opposed Nafta and said TPP is problematic, citing concerns about job loss for U.S. manufacturing workers.
Membership in the UAW, which represents factory workers at Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and auto suppliers, has slipped since Nafta was forged in 1992 as Detroit car makers moved production to Mexico and bought components from parts makers outside the U.S.
“We agree Nafta either needs to be renegotiated or ended,” Mr. Williams said.
The UAW president’s comments underscore the broad appeal Mr. Trump had during his campaign, leading him to perform well in Rust Belt states initially expected to swing to Hillary Clinton. Mr. Williams estimates potentially more than a third of UAW members voted for Mr. Trump, and union officials detected anger within the rank-and-file in the days before the election.
The UAW initially expected lower support among its 400,000 members for Mr. Trump. The organization will conduct studies to get more concrete results. Mr. Williams said support may have been higher than 32% given the amount of people indicating they were undecided just before the election.
It is unclear if support from the UAW on trade will embolden Mr. Trump’s trade stance, which includes slapping a 35% tariff on certain products shipped to the U.S. from Mexico. He singled out Ford, which is moving small-car production from Michigan to Mexico in coming years, for criticism.
There were 926,000 jobs associated with motor vehicle and car parts production in October, according to preliminary figures provided the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a number that has been little changed since mid-2015. While auto manufacturing jobs are nearing the highest point since early 2008, hourly earnings of $21.32 an hour, on average, are slightly lower than a year-ago and nearly $1 lower than when industry employment was last this high.
While lower-cost assembly plants have been opened during the past decade by foreign companies such as Volkswagen AG and China’s Fuyao Glass Industry Group the UAW has agreed to concessions and contract terms that led to deep job losses and lower pay scales.
In late 2015, Mr. Williams signed contracts with Detroit auto makers that secured wage increases and phased out controversial tiered-wage systems in U.S. car factories.
For decades, anything that Ford, GM or Chrysler sold on dealer lots was considered an American car, while those built by all other auto makers were deemed foreign. Even as Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co. and others opened plants in Southern states and sourced more parts from U.S. parts factories, they continued to be considered outsiders.
The definition of an American car also is rapidly changing as Detroit auto makers rely more on Mexican labor to assemble vehicles, and purchase an increasing share of auto parts from factories outside the U.S. In 2017 model year cars sold by Ford, GM and Chrysler, an average of 51% of parts came from U.S. or Canadian sources, down from 52.5% in the prior model year.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compiles data on vehicle content every model year. The latest data are preliminary and will be updated as more models are introduced for the coming model year.
Nearly two-thirds of the 64 models the Detroit auto makers have introduced for the 2017 model year will be built by UAW members.
While less than 20% are assembled in Mexico, many so-called domestic cars have half of their parts content sourced from south of the U.S. border."
.................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- susan
- I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout and World War II Air Force pilot born in Brooklyn, finally settling in New Jersey.