Latest / OneLegUpAlex Media / One Leg up on Fighting Sanctions Against Israel Under Biden Admin with Bryan Riley of NTU

Transcript

One Leg up on Fighting Sanctions Against Israel Under Biden Admin with Bryan Riley of NTU · OneLegUpAlex Media

0:01
Here's your host, Alex Garrett. Welcome back inside the Alex Garrett Podcast Network.
0:07
It's been a busy weekend as you probably saw on my Instagram Alex g
0:11
NYC one. Yes, we are announcing an engagement all weekend long and it's
0:18
been exciting. But my eye is not turned away from Israel, and I
0:22
feel like based on the moves behind the scenes from this Biden administration, they
0:27
have turned their eye off Israel in the sense of and maybe my next guest,
0:33
Brian Riley, the director of the National Taxpayer Union's Free Train Initiative,
0:38
can can weigh in here. Welcome Brian, by the way, thank you
0:43
great to be here. Maybe you can weigh on in this before we start.
0:46
Did you know the ambassador to Israel the Biden administration selected actually crafted the
0:53
Iran Deio Jack Lou. I mean, I don't understand how they could be
0:57
for Israel yet try and get the guy who one of the deals that happened
1:00
and crafted the deal, the Iran deal as ambassador doesn't make sense to me.
1:07
That doesn't There a lot of things that don't make sense w Chricht administration,
1:10
but that's certainly one of them. I'm no foreign policy expert. I
1:14
don't pretend to be, but that's that's shocking to hear, and so I
1:21
want to get that off the test because what you're dealing with is dealing with
1:23
some taxpayer issues, which is we are still sanctioning Israel even throughout this war.
1:30
What's going on there right? Well, So the long story back in
1:36
nineteen sixty two, Congress passed a law which allows the executive brands to restrict
1:42
imports that it finds impair US national security. So skip ahead to the Trump
1:48
administration, which was concerned about low steal prices, particularly caused by Chinese economic
1:56
activity driving down prices. So they put Paris and course of steel from China,
2:00
but not just from China but from most of our major trading partners,
2:06
including Israel. In many cases, those tariffs have been removed or reduced,
2:10
so they're not applied to Canada, they're not applied to Mexico. After Russia
2:15
invaded Ukraine, the Biden administration suspended the tariffs on steel from Ukraine, but
2:23
we've continued to apply apply to tariffs to Israel twenty five percent on imported steel
2:29
and ten percent on imported aluminum at the time two members of Congress asked President
2:35
Trump to exempt Israel from the tariffs. They suggested that Israel is not a
2:39
threat to US national security, but the tariffs remained in place. The Biden
2:46
administration has kept many of the Trump tariffs in place or tweaked them around the
2:52
edges. But that includes that goes for the tariffs on steel and aluminum from
2:59
from Israel. Where it's current time, it seems just almost unbelievable. Unbelievable
3:05
to me that we're imposing a form of economic sanction on one of our allies,
3:10
particularly given the current events in the Middle East. So int today we
3:15
released the statement hasking the Biden administration to remove those tariffs that imports of steel
3:23
and aluminum from Israel are not a threat to the US in any way,
3:27
shape or form. Dropping those tariffs is not going to turn around the situation
3:32
in the middle of the in the Middle East, but I think it would
3:36
be the right thing to do and assign it support. All Right, maybe
3:39
there's all in the weeds for people, but when we say import tariffs,
3:44
I mean break it down. So how much are the tariffs and does this
3:49
decimate Israel's economy while they're dealing with this war. Well. At the time,
3:54
a representative of Israel's manufacturing industry called the tariffs death blow. But to
4:00
be clear, Israel is not as huge exporter of steel and aluminum, so
4:08
it's it's I think, really more symbolic than anything. It's not as if
4:14
we're we're putting an embargo on energy exports from the US to Israel. Where
4:19
the terriffs that are affecting imports from Israel to the US apply to many other
4:27
countries as well. We've exempted them from Europe temporarily they might go back into
4:32
place. But a tariff is just a tax. So to be clear,
4:35
we're talking about taxing imports of steel and aluminum from Israel to the US.
4:42
Israel is a very small supplier of steel to to Israel. The US is
4:46
an important export market, and it's just a signal not just with respect to
4:51
steel and aluminum which faced those taxes, but to the economy as a whole
4:57
that can relat on us on the ability to access the US market in the
5:03
future. So it would really be at at a minimum of sign of goodwill.
5:09
It would help your economy. As I said, it's not going to
5:11
turn anything around overnight. But there's absolutely no reason to leave those tariffs in
5:15
place, even aside from the recent advancement. Certainly, now of all times,
5:21
we need to get rid of the tariffs. We need to do what
5:25
we can to be supportive, and this is something that won't cost the US
5:28
a dime. By the way, we're just reducing and removing attacks that specifically
5:32
affects those imports from Israel. All right. On the free trade front,
5:38
I want to ask you, between the Biden and Trump administration, it seemed
5:42
like Trump was trying to get deals done, trade deals done. He had
5:46
a lot of different things going for him in that regard, and the Biden
5:49
administration has really tossed out a lot of those free trade initiatives, hasn't he
5:55
Well, the Biden administration, I have to agree with you, unfortunately,
5:59
has really sidelined any trade talks. The Trump administration pursued the US Mexico Canada
6:10
so called UFNCA agreement. I disagree with some of their tariff actions, but
6:16
they some of the administration made the case that hey, we're just doing this
6:19
to try and leverage more trade and to get better trade deals. The Biden
6:25
administration isn't even trying in the US Trade Representative and head of the Economic Policy
6:30
for the White House that have both said we're not pursuing market access in our
6:35
trade talks, meaning we're not trying to open new markets for Americans. If
6:41
you're a farmer, if you're a rancher, if you export manufacturer. Did
6:46
there's only so much we can buy in the United States. We need access
6:48
to those foreign markets. And I guarantee you that countries around the world or
6:54
are cutting trade deals to try and expand their access to foreign markets, while
7:00
well, we're we're on the sidelines. And once we lose access to a
7:03
foreign country, when somebody else gets in, it's really tough to regain our
7:11
foothold. So it's bad in the short term, but really even more harmful
7:15
in the long term, and particularly if you're a farmer or rancher, for
7:20
example, the ability to sell your goods to foreign markets is much more important
7:27
than the Farm Bill and all the farm substantes that we give to agriculture producers.
7:31
They're they're relatively tiny compared to the ability to export goods to other markets.
7:35
And the Biden administration has made that, uh not just made it a
7:40
non priority. That has exclusively explicitly said we're not we're not interested in pursuing
7:45
traditional market access agreements that we've had in the past. And so that means
7:50
if you're an American businessman or exporter, you're you're really stuck in Quicksand I
7:58
want to because we've covered this on the radio side of things, the idea
8:01
that Sarah Huckaby Santar it's biking of farming is now kicking out Chinese you know,
8:05
companies that want to buy the farmland. I mean that's an issue.
8:09
And is that a free trade issue as well? Well, some would say
8:13
that it is. I think if you look at the total amount of foreign
8:18
purchases of US farmland, it's pretty small, and if you look at Chinese
8:22
purchases of US farmland, it's even smaller. So I would prefer to see
8:28
US focus on legitimate and real national security threats. If China or a hostile
8:33
country is buying land next to a military based quick, clearly let's look at
8:39
that. But I also believe as an American we we have strong property rights
8:46
and if you own property, if you own land, you ought to be
8:50
able to sell up to whoever you want to without the government getting in the
8:54
way unless there's a pretty darn good reason to prevent those foreign purchases. By
9:01
all means, let's screen those for security purposes and make sure that there's no
9:05
risk involved or no threat to US security. But a blanket's heltright ban,
9:11
I think is an overreaction. It sounds to me more like politicians trying to
9:16
get headlines than actually doing anything to confront some of the very real problems that
9:22
we have with respect to some of some countries that don't have our best interests
9:26
at heart. All right, I want to ask you this because I felt
9:30
like the trub administration really utilized the trade agreements as leverage to keep our enemies
9:35
intact, even in the China world too, you know, the way he
9:39
had the trade agreements with China. I don't feel like Biden's leveraging any trade
9:43
you know right now to keep our enemies at bay. You it doesn't seem
9:48
like they are viewing that as a tool. They actually say we have to
9:56
use every tool in our toolbox. I'm not sure exactly what they mean by
10:01
that, if it's a found by or what the case may be. I
10:07
do know that one of the best ways in my opinion to counter China is
10:11
to expand trade with other countries, whether it's Vietnam, whether it's Latin America,
10:16
to strengthen our ties with our allies, and expand trade with Africa countries
10:24
that really would like nothing more than the ability to have more access to our
10:28
market and to do more business with US. So pursuing those types of agreements
10:33
would not just be an economic policy, but it would create opportunities to expand
10:37
good relations with countries that either are our allies now or could be closer allies
10:43
in the future. And we're just we're just not taking advantage of that opportunity.
10:46
And it's very frustrating because that's face that a lot of these countries would
10:52
much rather do business with the United States than with China, and we're missing
10:56
an opportunity there. I definitely feel like we are as well now the NTU
11:01
and the free trade world. What are you looking at when it comes to
11:05
the speaker race. We'll get back to Israel for a second, because I've
11:07
got another question. But when it comes to the speaker race, is that
11:11
impacting the free trade opportunities as well? You know, I think it affects
11:18
really the perception people may have of the United States, Do we have a
11:22
functioning government who's in charge those kinds of questions, But I think those are
11:28
all going to get resolved sooner or later. I think it's important to have
11:31
leadership that are going to tackle the real issues that are important to our future,
11:37
things like the out of controlled depths, that spending and government depth.
11:41
And there's gonna be some hiccups along the way. I don't know what the
11:46
answer is going to be, but it will get resolved eventually. But before
11:50
we could move forward in any real significant way, we need to get a
11:58
speaker. We need to get a working, functioning House of Representatives. In
12:03
many cases, though, our trade policy is driven by the executive branch,
12:07
and that's why it's important to have an administration that's really looking out for what's
12:11
best for all Americans, and so that's probably more important in the long term.
12:20
But again, just in terms of the ability of other countries to recognize
12:26
the US as the important power that we are, we need to get some
12:31
of this stuff squared away. But you know, I'm happy to see some
12:39
members of Congress not just go along with business as usual, but to try
12:43
and take an opportunity to enact, to elect people are going to act enact
12:48
policies that are going to do us right for the United States. Boy,
12:52
it would be nice to get somebody in place this week, though, so
12:54
we could just move forward. Washington must be pretty hectic, you know.
12:58
I also I often feel like the n to you, Brian Rally, is
13:01
an extension of us the taxpayer, because you're representing us the taxpayers. So
13:05
with that being said, what initiatives is your division coming up with that maybe
13:11
the buying administration can listen to amidst all this chaos and termoil not only in
13:15
Israel, but in Ukraine as well well. We are the voice of America's
13:20
taxpayers. We've been representing taxpayer interests for over fifty years, and I joined
13:26
into you when we were alerted to our concerns that the US leadership international trade
13:35
might be following by the wayside, that we need not just the ability to
13:39
be competitive here in the United States through open markets, but to encourage other
13:46
countries to open their markets to US goods and services as well. Good Really,
13:52
we've lost focus of all the opportunity there is in other markets for American
13:58
businesses. You were those high businesses whether it's digital trade, whether it's agriculture.
14:05
In any cases, we can compete with anybody in the world if the
14:09
government will just work to bring trade barriers down. There are a couple of
14:13
specific examples of US policies. The generalized system of preferences is one that has
14:20
expired, where we lower tariffs on goods from low income countries with the idea
14:26
we're better off giving them an opportunity to trade with US than we are to
14:31
keep spending foreign aid dollars trade not aids, so to speak. That helps
14:37
those countries grow, It helps them to be able to afford more US products,
14:39
and that's something where I think Republicans and Democrats, Congress and the buying
14:43
administration should be able to get on the same page at least, I sure
14:48
hope. So, you know, it was great, and you know he
14:50
was a guest frequently from the White House, Robert Wleitthheiser. Did you guys
14:54
ever work with him while he was there in the trade you know, as
14:56
a representative, we we sure did that. You know, he had a
15:03
very different perspective than than many of us who who have worked on trade policies
15:11
historically. So he served in the in the Reagan administration. But President Reagan
15:16
very strongly believed that protectionism, in his words, protectionism is destructionism, and
15:22
he worked to avoid uh trade wars that could that could risk US prosperity.
15:31
So a master Leitthheiser, he was more willing to put tariffs on things.
15:35
That's that's exactly why President Trump appointed him to the position, because they were
15:43
more skeptical about the benefits of trade. So I think, you know,
15:48
in retrospect, there's there there are things that we could have done differently.
15:52
I don't think we should have put tariffs on all of our allies, and
15:54
we should have been more targeted in what we did with respect to China,
16:00
you know. But I don't want to bash somebody who's not there anymore.
16:03
I really think it's more important to look at what the Biden administration is doing
16:07
or failing to do, and hopefully the next administration, whoever it may be,
16:12
we'll be able to do a better job. All Right. A big
16:15
part of this, and Ryan and I have been just been talking about this
16:18
for a second. A big part of this is the fact that we let
16:21
up six billion dollars for a hostage swap, not the best trade deal of
16:26
the Biden administration is done. Do you have any thoughts on that or does
16:29
the end to you have any thoughts on that? Well, so we the
16:33
short answer is no, and that's just our focus is on tax issues and
16:41
things that directly affect taxpayers. So clearly that's a lot of money and we
16:45
would be concerned about it from that perspective. We're address we're hesitant to weigh
16:51
into foreign policy issues, as important as they may be, unless they directly
16:56
affect taxpayers. So if we're looking at a military spending with the next farm
17:03
bill or things like that that affect taxpayers, we would be more likely to
17:07
weigh in. We are very in general cautious of government spending money on anything,
17:15
though at a time of record high deficits and exploding debt and spending money
17:22
without trying to cut enough spending elsewhere to bring those deficits in line. The
17:32
amount of debt we have, given the fact that we're not involved in a
17:36
war, that were not involved in a recession or depression, it's really concerning
17:41
with respect to the future of our country. So that's really where our priorities
17:45
are focused. Well, that is eneral. Now, would you consider you
17:48
guys also sort of a lobbying arm, and that's a good lobbying and that
17:52
you're you're trying to get these politicians do the right things for taxpayers. Right.
17:57
Well, when we were founded, part of the reason was everybody has
18:00
their own representative group in Washington. I say everybody. Maybe I'm exaggerating,
18:07
but if you're a catfish farmer, there's a catfish farmer or lobbying group.
18:12
There's something for everybody, and that's where democracy. And it's great that people
18:18
have ability to access Congress and to promote their views. But at the time
18:25
we were founded, we thought there was a need for somebody to represent taxpayer
18:29
views because somebody's got to pay for all this stuff, right, And if
18:33
nobody's representing taxpayers and everybody's got their hands out for this subsidy or this grant
18:41
or this spending without considering the fact that somebody's got to pay for it,
18:45
I think that puts us in a pretty tough spot. So we clearly have
18:49
our work cut out for us. But yeah, into you absolutely is both
18:55
on the research side and on the advocacy, each side every day fighting for
19:00
the interest of taxpayers. And I'll be honest, A lot of times it's
19:04
an uphill and sometimes a lonely fight, something I think most Americans would support
19:11
and be glad they they're fighting for them. And our website, by the
19:15
way, inq dot org, has a lot more information on the things that
19:18
are important to us and the things that we do every day. All Right,
19:22
I see you wait in a you know yesterday on this carbon talk.
19:26
What's going on there? Because is the UA going back into the climate change
19:32
role? What's going on there? Well, there's discussions. Negotiations have been
19:37
going on between the United States and the European Union. The United States is
19:45
has wanted to impose restrictions on certain imports that they think are carbon intensive and
19:53
bad for the environment. The European Union is pursuing its own path, which
20:00
is different than what the Buyding administration wants to do. So the Buying administration
20:03
has been trying to get the up in too agree to what we're doing.
20:07
And the bottom line is it's all very complicated to me to get into all
20:14
the weeds of this stuff. But it's just more taxes and more restrictions on
20:19
imports, which you know, if something is unfairly subsidized, then that's something
20:27
we need to take a look at. There's really just an excuse, in
20:30
my opinion, for the government to have more power over industries and pick winners
20:36
and losers in a way that drives their prices, makes it harder for the
20:40
US to prosper and to create new jobs. The one concern that's out there
20:47
is that the buying administration or future administration might abuse this section two thirty two
20:52
tariffs. And as you remember, those are the ones that we use to
20:56
put tariffs on steel and alumin imports, steel and aluminum imports from Israel and
21:00
other countries. Uh, your future president might say, Hey, why I
21:04
want to restrict imports of whatever you name it? Because I think it's going
21:11
to it's bad for the environment, or a bunch of reasons that have nothing
21:15
to do with why that laws is in the book a cold war a law
21:19
essentially giving presidents a blank check to intervene in the economy and restrict imports without
21:25
a good reason. So one of the things that I think we would like
21:29
to see happen is for Congress to be able to vote before similar taxes are
21:33
imposed in the future. Congress needs to be able to vote to do they
21:38
agree that these policies would be in the US interest or not. Right now,
21:42
there's no there's no check from Congress. So there's a possibility for a
21:48
future administration or the current and for that matter, to abuse these laws and
21:52
run wild with this executive power. All right, I know that executive power
21:57
is something that I'm sure the end to You takes a look on how that's
22:00
being used with regards to economics. And that leads me into my next question.
22:04
Bidenomics is not a friend of free trade. That's why I've been hearing
22:08
this whole conversation. Right, No, not at all. They're not as
22:14
outspoken as the Trump administration was on some trade issues. But behind the scenes
22:19
there they've imposed a number of restrictions regulations that drive up the cost of infrastructure
22:27
infrastructure projects. They're spending billions and billions of dollars on a variety of infrastructure
22:34
clean energy projects and then laying on regulations that make those projects and clean energy
22:42
and otherwise make them cost more than they should. That means one of two
22:47
things, tax payers have to pay more for them, or we don't get
22:51
as much bank for the buck from the federal spending. They can't afford to
22:53
do as much good things like buy American requirements, which makes a lot of
22:59
Americans. And I kept myself, well, well, hey, buy American
23:03
sounds good. But if somebody else, say in Canada, can provide a
23:06
good or service more affordably, we ought to be able to take advantage of
23:11
that. And at the same time that allows us the opportunity to sell our
23:14
goods and services to other countries. When we lock down the ability to use
23:19
those affordable goods if they're if they're made in another country, those countries in
23:25
Canada's a specific example is that all right, well we're not going to buy
23:29
your products either. So it's it's really a lose lose. It drives up
23:32
the cost of projects and cuts us out from the ability to do business in
23:37
other countries as well. And so that's the kind of thing they buy Inminstration
23:41
has done, which drives up costs and leads to higher inflation, you know,
23:45
bouncing its levels that many of us haven't seen in our lifetimes. And
23:49
that's if that's by nomics, I think we need something else, all right.
23:53
I got to ask you a couple more questions, Abraham Accords. Was
23:56
that a trade deal that benefited Israel and the entire Middle or was that policy?
24:02
Those were more foreign policy accords as opposed to a particular trade agreement.
24:08
So trade agreements are negotiated under specific rules leaked down by Congress, they're voted
24:15
on by Congress. He approved on an up or down basis. We haven't
24:19
had many trade deals recently, unfortunately. But so that's different than the route
24:26
that treaties go through, or that something like the Abraham Accords would go through
24:32
as well. So that would be a little bit outside of my area of
24:37
expertise to weigh in on. I'm afraid that's okay. And then one last
24:42
question, do you monitor statements like Secretary of blink and who said no tax
24:47
payer money has been used to fund himas I mean, those kind of statements
24:51
you want to believe. But is the NTU monitoring something like that those kinds
24:55
of statements when it does involve our tax dollar is being mentioned by the Secretary
24:59
of State. We are absolutely strong advocates of transparency and and holding officials accountable
25:11
when they say things that are not accurate. We've done that with respect to
25:17
trade policy. We've done done it with respect to tax policy. Sometimes people
25:22
will make statements like that, and maybe technically, if you're a lawyer from
25:26
a legal perspective, they might be accurate. But the big picture, the
25:32
way that their economy works and the way the world economy works, money has
25:37
a way of getting where it's needed. So those are exactly the kinds of
25:44
statements that we're paying attention to every day. Whether it's with respect I say
25:49
that, haven't haven't looks specifically at that statement by mister Blincoln, but I
25:56
guarantee you we will and anything like that or or other statements from the Biden
26:03
administration that's flying the fact in the face of reality. We're going to try
26:07
and let people know about that. Free tray Brian b r Ya and I
26:12
believe is where you can find him on Twitter. Brian Riley, this has
26:15
been great and I feel like you're also monitoring real quick what's going on with
26:21
the billions spent, you know, to the Ukrainian efforts and these real I
26:23
mean all these billions that are being sent out of America that has a taxpayer
26:29
hand on it too, doesn't it. Well, again, somebody's got to
26:33
pay for it, and there's certainly a case in the state in a situation
26:40
where there's an emergency or something courtly, there's national interest for us to take
26:45
action, But we don't want to get I don't think anybody wants to get
26:51
in a rut where we just spend, spend, spend, and nobody is
26:56
questioning the through long term costs because they're spending. You're mentioning comes on top
27:06
of all the money we spent during COVID and all the various bailouts largely financed
27:12
through deficit spending, which we're gonna we're gonna have to pay or our children,
27:18
our grandchildren are going to have to pay. So yes, absolutely,
27:22
I don't care what the spending is directed towards, but we absolutely need to
27:27
make sure we're spending it wisely and that we're accounting for the interests of the
27:33
hard working Americans who've got to pay for it. Well, we'll get to
27:37
more about I want to I want to get on another show with you and
27:38
talk about your favorite president when it came to trade, because there's been a
27:41
few of you site. But that's for another podcast, and would love to
27:45
have you back here Brian at another time. Hey, I could do a
27:48
whole podcast just talk about President Reagan. But I don't want to spoil it
27:52
for you, so I would love that. Thank you so much for your
27:56
time. Thank you, and we'll definitely hold you to that next time on
27:59
the al Scaret podcast network, that was Brian Riley of the National Taxpayer Union's
28:03
Free Trade Initiative. Thanks you perfect, Brian, Thank you so much.