Showing posts with label Flip flop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Flip flop. Show all posts

Thursday, April 12, 2018

Trump Proposes Rejoining Trans-Pacific Partnership

By ANA SWANSON via The New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Trump, in a sharp reversal, told a gathering of farm state lawmakers and governors on Thursday morning that the United States was looking into rejoining a multicountry trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal he pulled out of days after assuming the presidency.
Mr. Trump’s reconsideration of an agreement he once denounced as a “rape of our country” caught even his closest advisers by surprise and came as his administration faces stiff pushback from Republican lawmakers, farmers and other businesses concerned that the president’s threat of tariffs and other trade barriers will hurt them economically.
Larry Kudlow, Mr. Trump’s top economic adviser, said in an interview on Thursday with The New York Times that the request to revisit the deal was somewhat spontaneous. “This whole trade thing has exploded,” Mr. Kudlow said. “There’s no deadline. We’ll pull a team together, but we haven’t even done — I mean, it just happened a couple hours ago.”
Mr. Trump’s decision to throw out the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his pledge to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement were bedrock promises of his populist campaign, which centered heavily on unfair trade practices that he said had robbed American manufacturers and workers.
But, as he often does, the president started to change gears after hearing complaints from important constituents — in this case, Republican lawmakers who said farmers and other businesses in their states would suffer from his trade approach since they send many of their products abroad.
Continue reading the main story
At the White House meeting on Thursday, Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, questioned Mr. Trump about returning to the pact, arguing that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was the best way to put pressure on China.
Mr. Trump, who has put China’s “unfair” trade practices in his cross hairs, turned to Mr. Kudlow and Robert Lighthizer, his trade negotiator, and asked them to look into re-entering the agreement.
Rejoining the pact could be a significant change in fortune for many American industries that stood to benefit from the trade accord and for Republican lawmakers who supported it. The deal, which was negotiated by the Obama administration, was largely intended as a tool to prod China into making the type of economic changes that the United States and others have long wanted. Many economists say the best way to combat a rising China and pressure it to open its market is through multilateral trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which create favorable trading terms for participants.
“The idea was to set a framework that eventually China would have to accommodate,” said David Autor, an economist at M.I.T.
Farmers would stand to benefit from new access to markets, especially Japan, if Mr. Trump rejoins the pact. For instance, ranchers in Australia can currently send beef to Japan more cheaply than ranchers in the United StatesP.
Michael Miller, the chairman of U.S. Wheat Associates and a farmer in Washington, said rejoining the deal would allow his industry to compete on a level playing field with competitors in Australia and Canada, which both remained in the accord.
But rejoining it could be a complex task. The remaining countries, like Japan, moved ahead without the United States, and spent months renegotiating a pact before finally agreeing to a sweeping multinational deal this year. Mr. Trump, who has demanded that any such deal benefit the United States, is unlikely to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership without further concessions for what he has criticized as a terrible agreement. That could complicate talks, since Japan maintains that it has already given all the concessions it could, said William A. Reinsch, a trade expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
It is also unclear how serious Mr. Trump is about rejoining. In the past, the president has floated policies that appeared to run counter to his earlier positions, like cooperating with Democrats on legislation governing immigration and gun rights, then quickly abandoned them.
“What he tells people in a room to make them happy does not always translate into administration policy,” said Phil Levy, a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
In a statement, a deputy White House press secretary, Lindsay Walters, pushed back on the notion that Mr. Trump was reversing his promises.
The president had “kept his promise to end the TPP deal negotiated by the Obama administration because it was unfair to American workers and farmers,” she said. “The president has consistently said he would be open to a substantially better deal.”
But the White House is in somewhat of a box when it comes to prodding China to fall in line with global trade rules. The administration is trying to use tariffs to force Beijing to open its markets, but many of his supporters, including business groups and farmers, fear the fallout from an escalating trade war will be even more damaging. China has responded to Mr. Trump’s threat of tariffs on as much as $150 billion worth of its goods by placing its own tariffs on American pork, and threatening taxes on soybeans, sorghum, corn and beef.
Some advisers, including Mr. Kudlow, have indicated that those tariffs may never go into effect, and that they are mainly a prelude to negotiations with the Chinese, statements that have helped calm volatile stock markets. In a recent note to clients, the ratings agency Fitch said that the most likely outcome to the conflict remained a “negotiated solution” and that it was therefore not changing its primary economic forecast.
Mr. Kudlow, in the interview, said that farmers had “a legitimate concern” but added that it would be “at least two months before final decisions will be made.”
“I’m not here to say we won’t use tariffs — everything’s on the table in these negotiations — but I am here to say we don’t know yet,” he said.
Still, White House officials suggest that little to no progress has yet been made in bridging contentious gaps with the Chinese. Administration officials say that back-channel talks have occurred, but they would not characterize them as official negotiations. The Chinese appear impassable on some of the issues that the White House is most concerned about, including their subsidies to cutting-edge industries like robotics, aerospace and artificial intelligence.
The Trump administration says it has ordered the Agriculture Department to create a program to help farmers should the two nations find themselves in a trade war. Trade advisers say the department could draw on the financial resources of a program known as the Commodity Credit Corporation, which provides up to $30 billion to help shore up American farmers by buying their crops.
“Stay with us while we go through this difficult process,” Mr. Kudlow told farm state representatives during the meeting, according to a White House transcript. He added, “And at the end, if the worst case has come out as the president said, you will be helped. That’s a promise.”
But such a program would be time-consuming and costly and would come as the budget deficit continues to increase. Farmers say that Mr. Trump’s threats have already hurt them by causing the price of futures contracts to fall. They maintain that the easiest way to help them is to avoid a trade war with China in the first place.
Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, described the meeting with the president as “productive” and said that she had urged him to re-engage in discussions with countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. “Iowa farmers aren’t looking for another subsidy program; rather they want new and improved market access,” she said.
“The best thing the United States can do to push back against Chinese cheating now is to lead the other 11 Pacific nations that believe in free trade and the rule of law,” Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, who attended the meeting, said in a statement. “It is good news that today the president directed Larry Kudlow and Ambassador Lighthizer to negotiate U.S. entry into TPP.”

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Senator Catches NRA Head In Epic Flip Flop


By Igor Volsky and Annie-Rose Strasser/Think Progress
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) caught National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre in a significant contradiction during Wednesday’s hearing on preventing gun violence. Since the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut the nation’s most influential gun lobby has opposed the growing bipartisan push for universal background checks, arguing that such a policy would infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans. But as Leahy pointed out, the group has supported the reasonable background checks in the past.
Under current law, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed dealers are subject to background checks. As a result, more than 2 million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns. Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm acquisitions are from individuals who are not licensed gun dealers and do not undergo any background checks. Gun safety advocates have sought to close the loophole for years and in the 1999, the NRA backed this effort.
“We think it is reasonable to provide mandatory, instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show,” LaPierre said during a hearing held on May 27, 1999, in the wake of the Columbine High School shooting. “No loopholes anywhere for anyone. That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mentally ill are in the system.”
Leahy pressed LaPierre on why the organization has since changed its mind:
LEAHY: Do you still, as you did in 1999, still support mandatory background checks at gun shows? Yes or no?
LAPIERRE: We support the national check system on dealers. We were here when one of your colleagues held the hearings in terms of who would be a dealer and who would be required to have a license. If you did it for live the good and profit, yes. If you did it for a hobby, no. [...]
LEAHY: You do not support background checks in all instances at gun shows?
LAPIERRE: We do not, because the fact is, the law right now is a failure the way it is working. You have 76,000 people that have been denied under the present law. Only 44 were prosecuted. You are letting them go. They’re walking the street.
LEAHY: Back in 1999, you said no loopholes anywhere for anyone. But now you do not support a background checks for all buyers of firearms?
LAPIERRE: The system the way it is working now is a failure. This administration is not prosecuting the people they catch. 22 states are not even putting the mental records of those adjudicated incompetent into the system. If they try to buy a gun, even if you catch them, and they try to walk away, you let them. They are criminals, homicidal maniacs, can’t mentally ill — and mentally ill. We all know that, maniacs and the mentally insane do not abide by the law.
Watch it:
While NRA leadership opposes universal background checks, its members back the change. Anational survey conducted by Johns Hopkins University found that “89 percent of all respondents, and 75 percent of those identified as NRA members, support universal background checks for gun sales. Similar surveys by Pew Research Center and Gallup have also found background checks to be by far the most popular gun control proposal in the aftermath the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.”
UPDATE
Here is a copy of the ad the NRA took out in 1999 saying, “We think it’s reasonable to provide for instant checks at gun shows just like at gun stores and pawn shops.”
UPDATE
The NRA broke its commitment to support background checks for “every sale” andlobbied for a watered down provision in 1999.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Romney flip flops on killing FEMA: ‘I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs’

 By David Edwards/Raw Story

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has changed his tune about his promise to “absolutely” eliminate the federal agency charged with providing relief to the millions of Americans who have been devastated by Hurricane Sandy.
During a Republican primary debate earlier this year, the former Massachusetts governor had said that abolishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was “the right direction” and eliminating all federal disaster relief was important because “we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids.”
“It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.”

But after repeatedly ignoring reporters’ questions about that topic in the wake of this week’s super storm, Romney reversed course in a statement on Wednesday.
“I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” the candidate said. “As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”
George Haddow, who worked as a deputy chief of staff at FEMA in the 1990s, told the Boston Globe on Wednesday that Romney’s vision for the agency mirrors that of President George W. Bush, who presided over the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina.
“The problem is it doesn’t reflect the reality of major disasters,” Haddow explained.
“You need FEMA, and you need a large FEMA,” University of Houston professor of economics Thomas DeGregori agreed. “FEMA can do things that no state or local government can do, and often has experience and expertise that they don’t have.”

Friday, October 05, 2012

Romney tripping on the truth


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Campaign Surrogate Admits Romney Is Changing Positions Just To Win Votes


By Igor Volsky/Think Progress
Mitt Romney campaign surrogate Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) admitted that the GOP presidential candidates was changing his positions and moving towards the middle in order to win over voters, during an appearance on CNN’s Starting Point on Friday morning. Gingrey’s comments, reminiscent of Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom’s claim that Romney would “Etch-A-Sketch” his positions after the GOP primary, came in response to the candidate’s recent claim that his 47% remarks were “completely wrong.”
“[T]he Republican, the conservative candidate in the primary, is always going to lean right and come back to the center for the general, the opposite for the Democrat,” Gingrey explained. “That’s all you are seeing here. It is very typical. We strong conservatives understand that. There are a lot of undecideds in this country…we want those votes too. So, this is campaign strategy.” Watch it:
Romney began moving towards the center during Wednesday night’s debate, distancing himself from his $5 trillion tax cut plan, embracing portions of his Massachusetts health care law as a model for the states, faulting Wall Street reform for providing “the biggest kiss that’s been given to New York banks,” and considering eliminating tax deductions for oil companies.
He continued to change his rhetoric on Fox News’ Hannity on Thursday night. Romney described his remarks about the 47% as completely wrong, despite telling Hannity’s colleague Neil Cavuto last month that he stood by the comments.
“This is a message I’m carrying day in and day out and will carry over the coming months,” Romney said after his secretly taped comments calling half of Americans “dependent upon government” surfaced. “I’m talking about a perspective of individuals who I’m not likely to get to support me…. And those that are dependent upon government and those that think government`s job is redistribute, I — I’m not going to get them.”

Tuesday, May 08, 2012

Romney: ‘I’ll Take A Lot Of Credit’ For The Auto Industry’s Comeback


By Pat Garofalo/Think Progress

During an interview yesterday with WEWS-TV in Cleveland, Mitt Romney continued his contortionist’s actregarding the Obama administration’s rescue of the auto industry, saying that he deserves a lot of credit for the industry’s turnaround. “I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back,” he said:
My own view, by the way, was that the auto companies needed to go through bankruptcy before government help. And frankly, that’s finally what the president did. He finally took them through bankruptcy. That was the right course I argued for from the very beginning. It was the UAW and the president that delayed the idea of bankruptcy. I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back.
Watch it:
Since penning a 2008 op-ed calling for letting Detroit go bankrupt, Romney has desperately tried to spin the eventual auto rescue as his idea, ignoring that he doubled down on his original op-ed by writing in February, “The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.”
Romney’s plan for a bankruptcy devoid of government financing has been blasted by auto industry insiders and reporters as “truly reckless, detached from reality, and dishonest.” “Romney’s take just doesn’t square with the facts as I lived them,” said Yahoo! Autos reporter Justin Hyde. The Economist wrote that Romney “conveniently ignores” history with his position on the rescue.
Even Republicans who have endorsed Romney disagree with his take on the auto rescue. “There was no one that could have picked up those pieces other than the federal government,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI). But Romney keeps trying to spin the rescue as a success for himself, rather than a case in which he got the policy exactly wrong.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Top Romney Adviser Says Romney Can Change His Positions After The Primaries: ‘It’s Almost Like An Etch A Sketch’


By Alex Seitz-Wald/Think Progress

Mitt Romney can’t be held accountable for his extreme right-wing views, at least according to his campaign’s senior adviser, who said the candidate should be given a “reset button” on any positions he’s taken during the primary campaign if he wins the nominations and faces off against President Obama in the fall.
Appearing on CNN this morning, Romney Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom was asked if he’s concerned that Romney may alienate general election voters with some of the hard-right positions he’s taken during the primary to appeal to conservatives. Fehrnstrom brushed this concern off:
HOST: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?
FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all of over again.
Watch it:
Polls show Romney has lost support among independent voters as the primary campaign has forced him further to the right.
It’s unclear if Fehrnstrom expects people to just forget some of the fairly radical stances Romney has taken on everything from immigration, to contraception, to climate change, or if he expects the candidate to change his positions on those issues in the coming months — something Romney is certainly known for doing. As Fox commentator Brit Hume said of Romney last year, “You are only allowed a certain number of flips before people doubt your character.”

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Romney Sets Off Furor on Contraception Bill


By  and /New York Times
Either way, Mitt Romney created a new tempest when he told an Ohio news station that he was opposed to a Senate amendment, favored by conservatives and under debate in Congress on Wednesday, that would allow employers and insurers to limit coverage of contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections.
 “I’m not for the bill,” Mr. Romney said, but then added, “the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”
Mr. Romney seemed to be further distancing himself from the hard-edged social conservatism of his chief Republican rival, Rick Santorum, who has argued that contraception is damaging to society.
But in an apparent misunderstanding, Mr. Romney instead roused the momentary ire of many social conservatives, who already doubt his commitment to their cause.
Mr. Romney and his aides quickly corrected his remarks, saying he strongly supports the Senate amendment, and had not properly understood the question. (The slip followed a series of off-key comments about his wife’s Cadillacs and friends who own Nascar teams.)
The episode began when Mr. Romney was asked about his view of the sweeping amendment, sponsored by Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, that would permit employers and insurers to refuse to offer health coverage that violated their beliefs.   
The bill has been championed by leading social conservatives, who describe President Obama’s effort to require religiously affiliated institutions, like hospitals or universities, to offer contraceptive coverage as an assault on religious liberty.
 Mr. Obama’s supporters call it a vital step for women’s health and say that Mr. Blunt’s amendment is a dangerous intrusion between doctors and their patients. 
Despite the initial confusion over the Blunt amendment, Mr. Romney’s original response offered a clear alternative to Mr. Santorum’s often-stated views on contraception.
Mr. Santorum, a conservative Roman Catholic who says he does not personally believe in using contraception, has repeatedly said that the wide availability of birth control has had negative moral and social impacts on the country.  
In an interview in October, he promised,  “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country.”
Mr. Romney has sought to portray himself in recent days as a more measured candidate than Mr. Santorum, declaring that he would not “light my hair on fire” to court conservatives.
His interview on ONN, an Ohio television station, set off a scramble among his staff members to quell an online storm. Mr. Romney immediately called in to a conservative Boston radio show and said, “Of course, I support the Blunt amendment.”
Referring to the ONN reporter who had interviewed him, Mr. Romney said, “I thought he was talking about some state law that prevented people from getting contraception.”
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an evangelical Christian group, expressed surprise that Mr. Romney, in his television interview, had not immediately jumped on what Mr. Perkins described as the “red-hot issue” related to contraception — the threat to religious freedom posed by the Obama mandate.
“When he talked about the issue as being a matter of contraception between husband and wife — that’s not what the issue today is about,” Mr. Perkins said. “Either he’s so focused on going after Santorum, or he’s been asleep for the last month.”

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

FLASHBACK: Mitt Romney Attended A Planned Parenthood Fundraiser, Now Wants To Defund It


By Adam Peck and Alex Seitz-Wald/Think Progress

Yesterday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney joined the religious right insupporting the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood, and said the government should do the same.
Of course, Romney’s past support for the right to choose has been well documented, but Romney’s connection to Planned Parenthood has been largely overlooked.
Mitt and Ann Romney attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in Cohasset, Massachusetts in 1994, and Ann wrote a $150 check to the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, various news outlets reported. “They were both there, and I remember very well chatting with both of them, and talking about his support for the pro-choice agenda,” Nicki Nichols Gamble, the president of the League told ABC News in 2007.
That year, the Boston Globe published this photo, which purportedly shows Romney at the fundraiser:

Asked about the fundraiser four years ago, Romney didn’t outright deny attending. “I attend a lot of events when I run for office. I don’t recall the specific event,” he told the AP in South Carolina four years ago.
During his successful race for Governor of Massachusetts 2002, Romney also signed a pro-choicepledge organized by Planned Parenthood.
See Think Progress’ full rundown of Mitt Romney’s evolving attitudes towards abortion.