White House Does the TPA Two-Step; Hypocrisy Ensues

Today comes news from National Journal [$] that the White House supports a strict reading of Trade Promotion Authority, except, you know, when it doesn't (emphasis mine):

The White House pushed back a last-minute attempt on Monday to prevent it from attaching Trade Adjustment Assistance to the pending free-trade agreement with South Korea after closed-door efforts to find an alternative for its renewal failed.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, sent congressional leaders a letter requesting an unprecedented “mock conference” to reconcile two different versions of the Korea pact that were approved in committee last week. But, Hatch’s last-ditch effort quickly fell flat as the White House continued on what could be the only sure course to renew the program’s funds.

In his letter, Hatch escalated GOP skepticism of the legality of the White House decision to include TAA in the Korea bill and questioned whether the administration has the constitutional authority to choose between the House and Senate versions of the pact.

“Reconciling the two bills is the exclusive prerogative of Congress, a prerogative which cannot rightfully be devolved to the executive branch,” Hatch said. He urged legislative leaders to call a mock conference to reconcile the bills and present the White House with a template for drafting the final legislation.

Trade agreements, however, are not handled like normal legislation and the White House quickly dismissed Hatch’s claim. Bills on pending trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are all slated to move through Congress under the protective rules of Trade Promotion Authority.

“Under Trade Promotion Authority, the results of informal ‘mock’ markups are recommendations to the president as he prepares to submit implementing legislation to Congress,” said an Obama administration official. “Both the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have now made their recommendations.”...

Trade agreements moving under Trade Promotion Authority are not subject to filibuster or amendment and only require a simple majority for passage in both chambers.

“We’ve made clear that a robust renewal of TAA has to be part of the legislative agenda, and including it on an implementing bill for a trade agreement is the only viable pathway that has emerged,” the administration official said. “So far, no other credible alternatives have been offered to get the trade agreements and TAA done in a timely fashion.”

So, to summarize the White House's arguments:

• A strict reading of TPA, like, totally precludes unique procedural proposals like Senator Hatch's "mock conference," so his idea is stupid and illegal.  Thus, we're going to ignore it.

• A liberal reading of TPA, like, totally allows unique procedural proposals like our plan to attach expanded Trade Adjustment Assistance to the US-Korea FTA implementing legislation, so our plan is perfectly appropriate and legal.  Thus, we're going to pursue that plan and ram the TAA-FTA bill down the throats of objecting congressional Republicans.

Behold, unabashed political hackery!  Sigh.

I've already laid out - in excruciating detail - why the Administration's liberal interpretation of TPA is complete and utter nonsense (and dangerous nonsense, at that), and it appears that Senator Hatch's office is raising similar legal objections.  Good for them.  I hope they continue to do so.

But if you disagree (expressly or tacitly) with our legal analysis and thus are totally fine with the Obama administration's liberal interpretation of TPA, then surely you oppose the White House's immediate rejection of Sen. Hatch's "mock conference" scheme, right?  And surely you're incensed - and a little embarrassed - by the administration's clear hypocrisy, right?

Or do you, like the White House, have absolutely no regard for the rule of law?

The silence here - by the media and the Obama administration's supporters (redundant, I know!) - is rather deafening.

Trump & China, ctd.

This doesn't really change anything in my earlier post on Mr. Trump, his anti-China rhetoric or some conservatives' embrace thereof.  But still, dude:

Donald Trump has emerged in recent years as the nation's foremost China basher, going after the Asian superpower for undervaluing its currency and for taking American manufacturing and jobs. So it's at least ironic -- and at most an example of gross hypocrisy -- that Trump's own line of men's wear, the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection, is manufactured in China.

I discovered this after walking from Salon's offices to the large Macy's in midtown Manhattan, where an entire section is devoted to the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection of suits and ties. This particular corner of the store is decorated with an oversize portrait of Trump; the line promises to provide "the pinnacle of style and sophistication" and "the necessities to be boardroom ready all of the time."

Here is the tag on one of the Trump shirts:

Yes, that says "MADE IN CHINA." (That pink dress shirt retails, by the way, for $69.50.) Other pieces were made in Mexico and in Bangladesh....

The phone number listed on Trump's website for the Signature Collection goes to the "licensing coordinator" at the Trump Organization, Amy Steinfeldt. She did not immediately return a call. But it appears that the shirts and ties are made by the Phillips-Van Heusen Corp., which owns a license on the Trump brand....

A spokesman for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sigh.

(h/t Mark Perry)

Awesome: The Daily Show on Unions, Hypocrisy and Competitiveness

Once again the folks at The Daily Show convey in one 5-minute skit what I couldn't do in 30 blogposts:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Working Stiffed
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

I'll again be the stick-in-the-mud and mention that this great skit, while certainly hilarious, also provides several fine examples of things that I've been trying to explain here for a while now:

• Most obviously, unions are self-interested organizations that, contrary to their statements about "greed" or "fairness" or "sticking up for the common worker," are readily willing to jettison their alleged principles when they don't benefit the union.  We've recently seen this union hypocrisy on the trade front, as the United Steelworkers loudly complained about Chinese "green energy" subsidies while conveniently forgetting to mention the billions than Uncle Sam has sent their way.

• Perhaps more interestingly, however, is that when push comes to shove, unions are rational employers that respond to market realities rather than vague concepts like "fairness."  This fact is made clear by the frank admissions of the UFCW's (rather unwitting) leader, Mike Gittings, about why they have hired temporary, non-union workers (and have given them part-time hours and no benefits) to protest Wal-Mart (starting at about 3:55): "Our union members are working.... We don't have union members that are able to go down there on a daily basis.... The alternative to the way that we do it would be to not do it...  We're doing the best we can with our limited resources..."  In short, the UFCW, as an employer without magically unlimited resources, is responding to market realities about its labor needs and costs, and if it adopted a "fairer" approach, simply wouldn't be able to hire ANYONE and thus would have to get out of the protesting business altogether.

• And thus brings us to our last lesson: the result of non-market demands on American employers erodes their global competitiveness and leads to their (a) going out of business in the face of foreign competition; or (b) offshoring of their labor force or hiring of illegal, off-book workers.  Don't believe me that a zany comedy show like TDS is providing this final lesson?  Well, check out correspondent Aasif Mandvi's "solution" to getting the "protesters" he needs at the right (non-government-mandated) price: picking up illegals to do the job.  In fact, Stewart rather coyly introduces the whole skit with an aside about "The American labor movement, sometimes criticized for driving jobs overseas with some outdated demands...."  Pretty clever, eh?  Yet labor unions don't recognize these obvious economic realities and instead choose to blame free trade for offshoring and job losses rather than look in the mirror.  And unfortunately, that's no laughing matter.

Considering that the union's behavior here - treating its own employees far more shabbily than the businesses it routinely demonizes - is hardly an isolated occurrence, these three lessons are broadly applicable.  So hopefully the millions of youngsters who watch The Daily Show instead of the real news absorbed the message.  

I'm not holding my breath, but a guy can dream.

Google CEO: High Taxes Are Awesome... For Everyone Else

It's no secret that Google's Eric Schmidt is a big fan of US President Barack Obama. He campaigned for the President, has vocally supported the administration's economic plans, and has even participated in their development.

Among these economic policies are significantly higher taxes for US corporations. For example, back in May, the administration proposed increasing taxes by about $190 billion on US corporations by "closing loopholes" - including those related to offshore earnings and employment - in order to ensure that US companies "pay their fair share." (Ed. note: actual share may or may not be fair.)  Now, I've written a few times on how bad such tax schemes are, so I won't rehash those arguments here.  Instead, I want to focus on whether the business practices of Mr. Schmidt's company Google actually mesh with the policies that he and the Obama Administration advocate for the rest of American businesses.

Quick answer: they don't.

As it turns out, the boys at Google aren't big fans of corporate taxes afterall, and they actually utilize some of the dastardly tax "loopholes" that the White House has demonized and sought to terminate.  Here's the UK's Daily Mail with the totally unshocking story:

Google avoided paying £450million in corporation tax on its £1.6billion earnings from advertising in Britain last year.

Accounts show the company paid HM Revenue and Customs only £141,519 on other earnings.

Google managed to avoid paying millions here because its European headquarters is in Dublin - and advertising earnings from customers in Britain are funnelled through to the Irish subsidiary.

Accountants say that if the £1.6billion advertising revenue stayed in Britain, it would be subject to corporation tax at 28-30 per cent rather than the 15 per cent levy in Ireland.

Google's bill would have been up to £450million.

But even the accounts for its Irish operation show a low tax bill. While Google is not accused of any wrongdoing, the tax it paid in 2008 was just £6.7million.

So while Google CEO Eric Schmidt vocally supports the White House's push for higher corporate taxes, his company is intentionally avoiding hundreds of millions of dollars in - you guessed it - corporate taxes.

So much for paying their "fair share," huh?

Now, I of course fully support low corporate taxes, international tax competition, and Google's right to find the most beneficial tax jurisdiction on the planet. But I find it a tad disingenuous for Mr. Schmidt to have a lifetime railpass on the Hopenchange Express, while Google benefits from the very economic policies that their boys in the White House loudly deplore.

Then again, considering the stance of other prominent Democrats like Tim Geithner and Charlie Rangel on the issue of taxes (catchphrase: "taxes are awesome because we don't pay 'em!"), I guess Mr. Schmidt's just toeing the party line on this issue.