The two so-called “trade deals” are a hoax. Renaming NAFTA changes nothing.
4
Who can pronounce USMCA? Not, I.
When the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement, predecessor of NAFTA, came into force in 1988, a story went around up here to the effect that the American negotiators couldn't believe how readily their Canadian counterparts gave away the store. Many Canadians supported the scheme because they thought "free trade" meant that American goods would be free of duty and hence cheaper. They were dismayed to discover that instead it meant an exodus of Canadian firms to cheap labor markets in the southern US. Canada lost much of its industrial base and has become ever more dependent on exports of raw materials, notably oil. NAFTA merely compounded the process: both Canadian and American firms moved to Mexico; US agribusiness displaced Mexican peasants and led to the exodus to the US that many Americans find so distressing. In general, Canadians, Americans and Mexicans alike have discovered that "free trade," as it is conducted under NAFTA-style agreements, are at bottom devices for allowing corporations to escape regulation and taxation, to the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. The petty adjustments mandated under the new treaty will not significantly alter this state of affairs. As to the vote in the US Senate, a majority of the senators have once again made it clear that they know who they're working for.
6
@jaffa. USMCA is mentioned multiple places in the article. Please read the “trump-hating NY Times” more carefully in the future
2
Was the term “Revised NAFTA” in the actual legislation that was approved?
If not, then why is the NYT using this term in the headline instead of the proper name?
2
Why does everyone call the ACA Obamacare?
2
@Ben
ACA and Obamacare are the same.
NAFTA and USMCA are not.
1
It is very close to the same and most everyone knows what NAFTA is. The trade agreement formerly known as...
1
I'm Canadian and totally against it, just like many other Canadians are. History shows time and time again that you get the shaft when doing business with the united states. Let's go back to what it was like before the first NAFTA so we can start dealing with some of our true allies and quit doing our southern neighbour's bidding. Also, why would you want to do business with a nation deemed a national security threat?
4
One of the unintended consequences of impeachment. The Dems are forced to prove they’re still concentrating on business.
3
The Trade Pact doesn't address the climate crisis and isn't supported by environmental groups. Democrats who voted for this will regret it when Trump campaigns on it as one of "his achievements". Trump put "just barely enough" in it to get enough Dem votes, and now, on the campaign trail, he'll punish the Democrats running for office for supporting it.
Remember how NAFTA was a BIG deal in the midwest and northeast in 2016, and Trump campaigned against it (while Hillary reluctantly came out opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership late in the game)? Trump ran to Hillary's LEFT on trade, and was rewarded for it with many votes.
THANK YOU to Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Ed Markey, and the others for voting against it. (And I say this as a union organizer, political director, and negotiator for over 40 years.)
6
@Peck Thank YOU for this accurate and lucid and much needed comment. I honor all who voted against it and including as you say Sen. Ed Markey and Sen. Bernie Sanders
2
Anything that both parties can agree on is guaranteed to be bad for working people.
9
Like the Phase I China trade pact (which I read) the analysis over the fine print of the “new NAFTA” suggests the “new NAFTA” is far less than as advertised. But, obviously, that’s less disruptive for businesses across both borders than a vacuum.
1
This should be the lead story along with the stock market closing at 29,297 and the unemployment rate being at a 50 year low. The impeachment dribble will be gone from the news by June but economy will still be strong.
7
@Jonathan Yeah, prosperity. I guess it's relative. Ask my sister who's working three jobs.
11
Since some commenters are interested in the roll-call vote, here is the list of NO votes given in the NYT article:
Cory Booker (D, NJ)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY)
Kamala Harris (D, CA)
Edward J. Markey (D, MA)
Jack Reed (D, RI)
Brian Schatz (D, HI)
Chuck Schumer (D, NY)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI)
Patrick J. Toomey (R, PA)
Bernie Sanders (I, VT)
To summarize: eight Democrats, one Republican, and one Independent-who-caucuses-with-Democrats voted NO.
The lone absentee was James Inhofe (R, OK) who, according to Fox Business, was at home dealing with some sort of family medical issue. Finding this fact took rather longer than it ought to have, IMO.
12
It is interesting that only one no vote came from a state not on an ocean. I guess that middle America has a different and perhaps better point of view.
2
Is Denver, in middle America, a Trump and GOP stronghold now?
1
@William McCain
No, middle America, not for the first time, bought the Brooklyn Bridge. Or, rather, had it bought for them by the grifters and highbinders it elects to the Senate. But note that most senators from states that face an ocean voted for this slag-pile as well, including the "progressive" senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren.
The first NAFTA was a dog
I was living in Vancouver, Canada @ the time
I can't imagine this "new" one is much better....
I'm sure it will reveal itself to be internecine.
2
Bipartisanship only happens when these weasels are serving their true corporate/banking masters.
4
WOW! White toast instead of whole wheat and the parsley on the plate has been re-positioned.
9
If only the president had come up with brilliant new name (goes with YMCA and he thought that up all by himself) earlier, this could have been done years ago. Instead he wasted his time on thinking up childish nicknames for his politcal opponents.
4
@RNS We Canadians call it CUSMA--much easier to say & it doesn't sound like a Village People's song.
6
Senators Grassley and Ernst just couldn't resist making inane comments about impeachment when asked to comment on USMCA (but the talking point is that it's the Democrats who are obsessed with impeachment). Furthermore, for Ernst to trivialize trump's crimes as a "bubble" is disrespectful to the Constitution and her constituents. N.B. in 2014, Ernst said Obama had “become a dictator” who should be “removed from office” or face “impeachment.”
9
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Yes, Iowans” back home” DO care about the impeachment trial. There are a lot more of us who are appalled at the dismissive and off-hand way that our senators are portraying this serious matter. Some who have been Republicans all their lives are turned off by Ernst’s and Grassley’s complicity n the corrupt Trump administration and are we are NOT voting Republican in 2020.
2
Hey look at that! Democrats working with Republicans.
Hey Republicans, how about doing the same in return.
How many House bills are sitting on Mitch's desk collecting dust right now?
12
There are almost as many bills waiting as there were when Republicans controlled the House and Harry Reid and the Democrats refused to bring them up in the Democrat controlled Senate.
1
@William McCain it wasn't acceptable then either. now that we agree, can these people get to work now?
1
Schumer/Gillibrand/Sanders/Booker/Harris's no vote against such a vital and common sense trade agreement based on the nebulous concern of "climate change" just proves how stupid and unworthy they all are to be elected to the office of President.
15
Only Sanders is still in the race.
3
@BearBoy Climate change is not nebulous, nor is it a "nebulous concern" (whatever that means"). Climate change is happening now, and is an existential threat to ALL LIFE on this planet, and the industries in these trade agreements MUST be held to account for their impact: both those from whom we import and those who export. We do not live in a vacuum; all the activities related to trade impact climate and we MUST demonstrate leadership in demanding change. I applaud the senators who recognize this and voted "NO".
2
A minor improvement pin the original. The 5 yo on the White House can say bested Obama, which seems to be his priority.
3
From the Canadian perspective, we are all pretty much at a loss to see how this deal differs from the first. American dairy farmers get access to an extra 0.35% of our dairy market (which won't matter as Canadians will continue to refuse buy any American milk or produce) and America still places outlandish (and illegal) tariffs on our lumber products.
So what was all that fuss really about? Other than vanity and ego?
23
@curious Vanity and ego is pretty much what passes for substance in America these days.
9
@MG
Not all Americans.
Generalizations ...
1
The Times is at pains to inform us that Warren, a candidate for the presidency, voted for the bill but fails to mention how two other candidates, Sanders and Klobuchar, voted.
NAFTA was a lousy deal for ordinary people in all three countries, and passage of the new treaty precludes the likelihood of any significant change in the near future -- and the near future may be all we have left. Sanders was right to reject it out of hand. The bipartisan vote on this bill, like the one on the military spending bill, confirms that the Democrats really are merely a watered-down version of the Republicans, just as the Times is an insipid version of The Wall Street Journal.
13
@Alexander Scala The article says that Sanders voted No. Klobuchar must have voted yes because she is not listed among the 9 No voters.
2
@Alexander Scala It does say Sanders voted against it.
1
@Mary Magee
They added Sanders and the rest of the "no" voters to the list after I read the article. The bias was too obvious.
1
On this side of the border, they tell us the only thing we gave up is that we let more cheese come in without taxes. We had already given that up when we signed a free trade deal with Europe. Also,Canada was asking for a higher percentage of North-American content in cars 25 years ago. So businesses and unions are happy with that part.
Basically, minimal change. However, imposing illegal tariffs on steel and aluminum was a very bad strategy. You lost an old friend. Things will never be the same.
9
In other words, at the insistence of the WTO, there was bipartisan support in continuing to force high fructose corn syrup on Mexican citizens and creating a diabetes epidemic. Great job security for big Pharma. Wait... no one asked about that during the democratic debates?
4
"In 1993, NAFTA passed the Senate on a 61 to 38 vote, and the deal has since been criticized by lawmakers across Capitol Hill for enabling the flow of American jobs to Mexico."
Does that mean the flow of American jobs will now be going to Canada as well?
2
@Bartolo We Canadians criticized NAFTA because too many CANADIAN jobs went to Mexico. We're hoping we get some of them back--but it doesn't seem likely.
2
The only reason it passed is because there’s nothing in it that’s worth arguing about. The fact that nobody cares doesn’t make it bipartisan.
Somewhere in the backstage area there’s another dressed up pony waiting to be showcased next week.
6
It's basically a democrat's rehash of the old treaty. The Trump version was a joke, basically if you read the fine print the same as the old NAFTA treaty.
Now let's see if the democrats version is any good and will bring back jobs.
I don't think so because big business (and Trump) don't want it. They are very happy with the status quo ie good Americans jobs going to slave labor countries.
Big biz. owns both the democrat and republican parties.
2
The headline currently appearing for this article on the Times home page refers to the passage as a "rare bipartisan feat."
The writer Gore Vidal once observed that, in practice if not in name, America really only has one political party: the Property Party, which has Republican and Democratic wings. Since there are still some Democrats who actually advocate things which the Democratic party used to advocate, I would modify the phrase to "Republican and Clintonized pro–corporate wings."
There's nothing "rare" about Republicans and a certain kind of Democrat "coming together" to agree on trade agreements to benefit large corporations. That's how we got these trade agreements in the first place.
But to benefit workers, deindustrialized American blue-collar towns, and the environment? Not so much. "Free" trade is very profitable for some elements of our society, but very damaging to others. And most of "our" elected "representatives" are most solicitous toward the former.
6
dont forget bipartisanship foreign wars, defense spending
1
You say the vote in the Senate was 89-10. Why not include a link to the roll call vote so we can know how our representatives in Congress voted?
9
To those Senators that voted against USMCA, because it did not address climate change (which is true) and the fall back is NAFTA, which has not a single word on climate change, I don't get it.
Neither Mexico or Canada has backed out of the Paris Climate Change Accord, and so they are already operating under that climate change agreement pursuing reductions in greenhouse emissions. So, then why does there need to be an additional climate change agreement stuffed into a three party trade agreement? With all respect to Senators Schumer, Harris et al isn't climate change a global issue that should be handled globally? Isn't that what the Paris Climate Change Accord is?
28
@SparkyTheWonderPup
Australia, Russia and Brazil signed the Paris Accord too.
Clearly, without consequences it’s just an empty promise.
Trade is the only carrot and stick that works.
3
Who would have thought they could agree on something.
Could this be a sign of potential bipartisanship with the impeachment trial?
Wishful thinking but what the heck.
6
@Bronx Jon It's a sign of Democrats trying to show they can walk and chew gum etc. etc. and Republicans trying to give Trump a win before the trial. This deal isn't even NAFTA 2.0 - it's NAFTA 1.5. A so-so release upgrade that should have happened a while ago, and possibly could have happened under Obama if the Republicans hadn't wanted to prevent him from accomplishing anything good, after they took Congress in 2010.
3
Calling this a great deal is absurd. So it is not a great policy accomplishment for Trump. Trump wants to transform everything Dems have accomplished; Bill Clinton created NAFTA. This renamed NAFTA is miniscule in what new benefits it will create for people. The amount of Trade between nations is not primarily affected by a signed national agreement, but by supply and demand, the general state of the economy and the GDP of the countries involved. These factors account for most what countries sell each other; the agreement discussed here sets some rules and regulations but that does not determine what a person buys or sells this week or next or the week after.
5
@Frank The bill regulates minimum wage levels for a certain percentage of auto parts manufacturing, which helps workers. That may not increase trade levels, per se, but it's a big deal if you’re in the auto industry, particularly if you are working south of the border and just got a raise.
There is also a redefinition of “manufactured” which excludes components made in China and assembled in Mexico. In other words, that used to be considered “manufactured” in Mexico. It no longer does, which means China actually loses out in this deal, while Mexican, U.S., and Canadian factories, benefit. There are other improvements over NAFTA, as well...
5
@Frank Actually it was George HW Bush who created NAFTA.
2
It seems to have taken a long time. It would have been nice to share some of the issues the other partners felt important and how they were resolved.
5
Hey, look. Trump negotiated a new NAFTA deal that gets the U.S. back on an even footing with Mexico and Canada. How about that? And what about the China trade deal that will allow farmers to export hundreds of billions in agricultural products to China while protecting American technology patents and intellectual property. But of course you will never see these campaign promises met printed above the fold in The Times.
23
American households are estimated to have spent an average of $1300 each on the extra expenses caused by Trump’s trade war with China. That doesn’t help the white working class shopping at rural Wal-Marts, I can tell you that. I haven’t seen that bit of info printed by the Times either.
4
NAFTA2. Changed nothing, other than making adversaries of old allies. Not because of the actual content (again, nothing substantive changed), but because of the infantile and insulting way in which the Trump administration conducted the "negotiations". New trade "deal" with China. Chinese tariffs virtually unchanged, and what reductions there were bought with Chinese promises to buy "more" American good and do "something" about American IP complaints. In short, not worth the paper it was written on. Rather, just a face-saving way for Trump to pretend that he hadn't just lost that trade way which he thought was going to be so easy to win. The real kicker is the declaration that China was no longer a "currency manipulator" when -- again -- nothing changed. Trump must have been truly desperate to get the Chinese to sign something -- anything -- to let them extract that particular pound of flesh.
The only way to allege that these "deals" constitute "promises kept" is the maintain that no promises were made in the first place.
7
Because putting a bandaid on problems trump created in the first place is not exactly an enormous accomplishment. Aside from that, the actual effects of his accomplishments on trade are most likely miniscule, according to experts.
5
Every piece of legislation that can help mitigate climate change should be doing so, so I applaud Schumer's no vote. The immediate crisis here and abroad is the current president but for millions of people all over the world, climate change is already number their one concern.
How bad does it have to get before meaningful steps are taken to slow climate change?
11
If Clinton had been elected, we would all now be driving electric powered vehicles paid for with federal tax dollars. They would be charged from solar panels produced by Solyndra. What a shame.
4
This and all trade deals must have bold provisions addressing the climate crisis. It's good that there are improvements over NAFTA, but we need revolutionary change rather than evolutionary change.
9
Nixon went to China.
4
Democrats need to stop rubber stamping free trade deals and military budget increases.
Chuck Schumer announced he will vote against USMCA because it doesn't address climate change. I'm pleasantly surprised.
The EU's Mercosur pending deal does address it, and it should be the new normal, provided there are real consequences too.
23
They did even WORSE than rubber-stamp military budget increases.
They rubber-stamped billions in military budget increases without clauses to prevent the loser from siphoning them to build his bigotry monument. I hope Schumer and friends have a plan to dismantle what's built of it after the fact, but highly doubt they do.
6
Thanks Bernie for not voting for NAFTA 2.0, that does not even have provisions for Climate Change. Looking at just this vote shows who is standing up for the people, not the corporate donors.
58
It's another situation where Trump made a problem and then he attempted to fix the problem in order to look good. NAFTA was not perfect but this new deal doesn't improve it enough to matter. Trump has held Congress hostage on trade and Senators in the midwest felt forced to approve it.
8
I can't imagine the republicans voting on anything proposed by Obama. Based on NYTimes reporting, trump's proposals are insignificant, then why give him talking points before the election?
6
@Frank Lopez There will always be differences in Democrat and Republican priorities, otherwise why have two parties? That said, some things come across as more ideological than others, e.g. ACA, and are bound to generate resistance, which simply means one party favors it and one does not. Is there something non-idealogical (like free and fair trade) that Obama touted and Republicans denounced / voted against?
1
In some states like Illinois and California there really is only the Democrat party. Their low taxes, low homelessness, low crime, and excellent schools with high achieving students, should be an example for the nation.
2
@William McCain
I assume you are being sarcastic, considering the homelessness in San Francisco and the crime in Chicago. Let's not forget the squealing about the SALT cap.
I can understand the party of the rich celebrating the passage of NAFTA 2.0, but why Democrats? Do Democrats want to continue being Republican-lite? This is a victory for the Democratic establishment and another failure to address climate change. Progressive Democrats should denounce this and pledge to fix it if given the power.
36
"Progressive Democrats should denounce this and pledge to fix it if given the power."
Of course; we need to undo EVERY word of EVERY law the loser and his vile GOP has passed, and rewrite any seemingly good parts of such to remove any loophole legalese. If the anti-informed quit calling such a pledge "far left" "communism", we might even be able to do it.
1
@rls
You celebrate because trade is generally good and this particular deal includes "strengthened labor, environmental, pharamceutical and enforcement provisions".
Don't get me wrong - a deal with climate change provisions would be incredibly, vastly better. Climate change may also be the biggest issue of our modern age.
But would it pass? NO.
Do we refuse to celebrate a small win, just because we didn't (and frankly can't) get the big one?
Progressive Democrats shouldn't denounce this - they should focus on getting power in the next election so they aren't stuck with empty denunciations.
9
The timing of the trade deals suggests that GOP senators are trying to drown out the noise of impeachment with another noise. It's the old flimflam trick. Don't look over there; look here!
23
Yep. With the help of the vile GOP and unsuspecting (or worse, complicit) Democrats, the loser will bleat and babble that this's a bad time to impeach someone who's "created jobs" (nope), "improved the economy" (nope), "ended wars" (obviously nope), and now passed his WHYMCA (which, of course, stands for "WHY would Mexico and Canada Agree to this dreck?!"). It's another sad day for (and distraction from) justice and democracy.
4
No, the USMCA only passed now due to Democrats stalling it for years, removing beneficial parts and adding negatives.
4
All this noise during the last two years for minor changes to the deal.
52
@Wilbray Thiffault Trump can't stand allowing any legislation from a Democratic administration to stay in place, it's that simple.
12
@Wilbray Thiffault
Exactly. The whole reason why Mexico and Canada agreed to the USMCA proposal as soon as the Trump Administration made it was that it made very minor changes to Nafta. Some are calling it Nafta 2.0, but a more apt description might be Nafta 1.1. The reason why USMCA passed the Senate with a 89 to 10 vote (about the same as renaming a post office) is that it will have about the same impact, and our legislators just love voting for things that will have little impact.
12