Tuesday, December 08, 2020

Texas goes to The Supreme Court over 2020 election with George Rodriguez

Texas goes to The Supreme Court over 2020 election with George Rodriguez 12/08 by Silvio Canto Jr | Politics

Guest: George Rodriguez, South Texas conservative......Texas files a lawsuit over the 2020 elections......and other stories.........click to listen:

Tuesday’s video: Money did not flip seats in Texas


Who said that everything is over by December 14th?

A few years ago, I got interested in President Rutherford B. Hayes.  His presidency came to my attention because the 19th president is a huge hero in Paraguay.  Why?  He supported Paraguay's territorial claims and saved the country.  He got a province, a school, and several streets named after him way south of the border.  As my friend from Paraguay said, you'll get a free lunch in Asuncion if your last name is Hayes!

President Hayes was also famous for the 1876 election and the compromise that put him in the White House. Though Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote, several electoral votes were disputed. A purely partisan vote by an Electoral Commission gave the victory to Hayes. The deal was concluded days before March 4th, the day on which we inaugurated presidents back then.

This is relevant today because too many people want to rush the Biden presidency.  In fact, there is no deadline other than January 20th at noon. We have lots of time before a final decision has to be made, as Paul Bedard wrote:      

States rushing to brush aside President Trump’s legal challenges to begin picking electors by Monday are being advised to slow down in a new advisory that says the only date the Constitution mentions is Jan. 20, Inauguration Day.

Citing language in the famous Bush vs. Gore Supreme Court decision, the advisory said that while federal law sets two days in December for moving forward with the Electoral College voting, the Constitution doesn’t.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that the law does not actually require states to appoint Electors by that date in order for those Electoral Votes to be counted by Congress when determining the winner of the presidential election,” said a new white paper from the Amistad Project of the nonpartisan Thomas More Society, which is challenging the votes in several states.

That's right.   It's January 20th that matters most.  Just ask President Hayes!

P.S.  You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/who_said_that_everything_is_over_by_december_14th.html#ixzz6g26Mnq3X
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

1993: NAFTA and still cautiously optimistic

A post from 2013:

The North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA - was signed into law December 8, 1993 by President Clinton and it 
"......eliminated virtually all tariffs and trade restrictions between the three nations. [Mexico, Canada, US] The passage of NAFTA was one of Clinton's first major victories as the first Democratic president in 12 years--though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative."
Where are we many years later?  It depends on who you ask.

Down in Mexico, they complain that NAFTA has replaced Mexican discount stores with Walmarts.  On the other hand, it has forced Mexican companies to compete at an international level and turned cities like San Luis Potosi and Queretaro into major players in auto assembly.

Up here, we complain that too much manufacturing has moved to Mexico.  On the other hand, we are selling a lot to Mexico, especially here in Texas.

Again, it depends on who you ask.

GPB News has an interesting summary.   It seems like a fair analysis to me:    
"Who turned out to be right, Perot or Clinton?

Over the years, polls have suggested most Americans don't much like NAFTA, and unions remain sharply critical. But economists generally say Clinton's prediction came closer to hitting the mark than Perot's.

"I'd say NAFTA was an overwhelming success," said Sara Johnson, an economist with IHS Global Insight, a forecasting firm. "There are strong, two-way trade flows now."

Since NAFTA took effect, trade among the three countries has more than tripled. And while millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs have melted away over the last two decades, economists attribute most of those losses to new technologies and Asian competition, not NAFTA.

In fact, if not for NAFTA, even more jobs would have disappeared from this continent, Johnson argues. "Better to have jobs in Mexico than China" because Mexicans buy more of our services and goods, she said.

Still, NAFTA has failed to deliver as many benefits as its most ardent supporters had expected, leaving the trade agreement with a relatively muted impact, according the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

"NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest," CRS concluded.

Still, it may be too soon to accurately assess the full impact of NAFTA. The deal's real legacy may emerge in coming years as more trade pacts get written and take effect. For good or ill, NAFTA has become a guide for shaping how countries conduct business with each other in the 21st century.

The CRS put it this way: "NAFTA initiated a new generation of trade agreements in the Western Hemisphere and other parts of the world, influencing negotiations in areas such as market access, rules of origin, intellectual property rights, foreign investment, dispute resolution, worker rights, and environmental protection."

NAFTA went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994. This month, NPR reporters will look at the changing fates of U.S. union workers, Mexican farmers and Canadian manufacturers in the Age of NAFTA. They will consider the impact on income inequality, and examine the role of NAFTA in shaping current trade negotiations.

The debates will continue far into the 21st century over how NAFTA changed the lives of 450 million Americans, Canadians and Mexicans as it eliminated most tariffs and duties, created trade rules and established dispute-settlement processes. Below are some of the impacts.

On the positive side:

-- NAFTA has more than tripled trade among the three countries, sending the total value above the $1 trillion threshold by 2011. Canada is the leading market for U.S. exports, while Mexico ranks No. 2. Together, the two countries account for about a third of all U.S. exports.

-- North America has become one integrated market for the production of advanced goods, such as cars, planes and electronics. So when you are buying a vehicle assembled in Canada, it contains lots of made-in-America parts.

-- The real advantage for the United States has been in services. American exports of services to Canada and Mexico tripled from $27 billion in 1993 to $82 billion in 2011, resulting in a trade surplus of roughly $30 billion.

-- Agricultural exports to Mexico surged after NAFTA became law, roughly tripling in just the first dozen years the deal was in place.

-- NAFTA has pushed Mexican businesses to become more efficient, and therefore wealthier. That helped transform our neighbor from a massively under-developed country into a more stable democracy with a growing middle class.

But NAFTA critics say:

While Americans who provide services to NAFTA partners are running a surplus, the goods trade deficit totaled $95 billion in 2010.

-- Some states have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs to Mexico, particularly Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The Economic Policy Institute, a research group supported by unions, released a report in 2011 saying U.S. workers have seen nearly 700,000 jobs go to Mexican competitors.

-- A lot of the NAFTA-driven business in Mexico took the form of factories along the border, but the jobs haven't been great ones for the workers. Intense competition with Asian and Indian workers may have depressed wage gains for Mexicans.

-- The surge in imported food has strained U.S. food inspectors, potentially increasing risks for U.S. consumers.

-- Critics say that by disrupting the previously protected small-scale agriculture sector in Mexico, NAFTA caused a surge in illegal immigration into the U.S."
My feeling is that NAFTA was good for Texas and some parts of Mexico.  It did not create the prosperity in Mexico that some projected.  At the same time, Mexico's structural problems require a lot more than 20 years to fix.. 

NAFTA did not create that "sucking sound" with all of those jobs going south.  I think that the 'sucking sound" had more of a Chinese accent!

We should check the 30th or 40th anniversary of NAFTA.  I have a funny feeling that a lot of Americans will feel a lot happier, especially if President Pena-Nieto and the Mexican Congress pass those PEMEX reforms. The big story in 10 or 20 years could be US energy companies drilling for oil south of the border or building refineries.

Yes, you can still put me down as a NAFTA supporter many years later!

P. S. You can hear CANTO TALK here & follow me on Twitter @ scantojr.

Search This Blog