creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
25 May 2012
The Next Education President

Mitt Romney is right about one thing: Too many American children do receive what he this week called a … Read More.

23 May 2012
Susan Mary Riley, We Will Miss You

It's her voice that I keep hearing in my head. "Susan," she would say, in that quiet, commanding … Read More.

18 May 2012
Boring

When my kids were young, about the worst thing they could say about something was that it was capital-b BORRRING.… Read More.

Bulletin: Republicans and Democrats Do Something

Share Comment

"Republicans and Democrats do something." I kid you not. That was the headline I heard on the radio driving home. I switched channels and still heard it.

In Washington, it is news. Almost extraordinary. Is that pitiful or what?

The "something" in question was the congressional approval of trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. The agreements, which have been in limbo for years, were sent to Congress by President Barack Obama for approval only nine days ago. Majorities in both Houses agreed that the free-trade agreements could help to create jobs in the United States, not to mention expanding access for Americans to competitive products made abroad.

The swift approval signals two things.

First, the protectionism that once dominated trade debates — the very question of whether expanded free trade would create American jobs or cost them — seems to have lost out, to me at least, in favor of the right answer. The history of protectionism is almost undisputed: It costs jobs, rather than saving or creating them. This is not to say that there aren't those on both sides of the aisle who continue to disagree with the president and Congress. Still, consensus was achieved. Imagine that.

Second, these people are capable of working together and finding common ground if they choose to. Simple as that. The problem is that most of the time, they don't. Now, I'm inclined to blame the Republicans for that, but that kind of blame game is exactly what most people don't want.

A business reporter calling on a completely different story recently asked me why Obama didn't stick it to the Senate, sending over a bill that he favored and forcing the other side to engage in a filibuster that would, he hoped, be seen as an obstructionist tactic.

I had to laugh because, at least in the last budget battle, I was saying much the same thing: The president should draw a line in the sand on something like corporate tax loopholes, where a majority of the country is on his side, and then force Republicans to stand up and support tax advantages for selected corporate entities that are really being paid for by the rest of us. If they're going to declare his proposals DOA, then why not put the focus on a proposal that opponents might be taken to task for squelching?

I also had to laugh because it's clear to me that this is not such an original idea.

In politics, there aren't many new ideas under the sun. I can promise you that someone close to the president, then and now, has put similar ideas on the table, at least for consideration. I also have no doubt that those considering it, the president included, understood perfectly well the advantages we saw in it. I also have no doubt that they had very good reasons for accepting it.

People want Democrats and Republicans to work together, more than they want almost anything else in Washington. They want them to focus on jobs — that is, jobs for the voters, not the politicians. I really don't think Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell scores points with anybody but the minority of Obama-haters in this country when he says that his priority in the next year is to see Obama defeated. But I also fear that the president will not score points if it looks like he is picking fights in Congress for the sake of making the Republicans look bad.

Everybody who takes the oath of office pledges to put public welfare over partisan victory. I suppose McConnell would tell you that he believes the most important thing he can do for the public welfare is to elect a Republican president. And it's easy for him to say that, because none of the Republican senators has to win a national election next fall. Indeed, most of them don't even have to run in their home states. And even though every senator (like every alderman) sees a president when he shaves in the morning (or when she does her hair), none of them is running for president this time around, averting any claim that he or she is the leader of the do-nothing Senate.

As for Obama, he's really left with few choices. If he doesn't want to anger a good many Americans, especially swing voters, by playing tit-for-tat with McConnell, his only other option is to try to go over his head, to get out of Washington and try to win over the only audience Washington really cares about.

In the meantime, perhaps that audience will see in this trade bill approval a powerful reason to insist that if Washington could do it this week, it should be able to do it next week and the week after that — at least to the point that it's reported as news and not a special bulletin from the front.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM


Comments

6 Comments | Post Comment
Ms. Estrich glosses over why the trade agreements, which she says would create American jobs, have been "in limbo for years". My understanding is that President Obama was the one holding them in limbo for the last three years. If they would create American jobs, and the Congress approved them in nine days, why was he sitting on them when so many people have lost their jobs in the last three years? What was he waiting for?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Frank Calaba
Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:14 PM
Re: Frank Calaba

My understanding is that the trade agreements were held up long before the Obama presidency, by the interests of Big Labour. Organised Labour wanted a payoff in return for the free trade agreements, in the form of federal money for 'job re-training' programs. If you are a follower of Stossel, the stench is that such 'job re-training' programs are little more than a slush fund with no practical benefit or effect for 'job re-training'.


In the end, with the complicity of Congress (during the Bush years) and Obama and Congress (during the Obama years), organised labour got at least part of what it demanded.
Comment: #2
Posted by: bob elkind
Fri Oct 14, 2011 3:12 PM
If one closes one's eyes and then forms mental immage of a Democrat the image is one of a hand [ the Democrat's] in the wallet of another, any other. It matters not who or what the other is. Democratswill always find a way of getting and keeping their hands in someone or something else's wallet. Democrat depend on slush funds, thrive on them and their whole electoral philosphy and strategy is based upon them. It was Democrats in Congress that delayed the signing of the trade agreement during Bush's term and Democrats that delayed in the arch slush fund recipient Obama's term. The Democrat's support of collective barrgaining [ for public service unions made legal by that reprobate JFK] is simply a slush fund money laundering exercise for Democrats, as was the monies loaned to Solyndra and who knows how many others. Fannie May was no more than a slush fund provider for the Democratic Party and Franks and Dodds in particular. JJohnston (CEO Fannie May) Franklin Reines (CEO Fannie May) David Maxwell (CEO) Fannie May, Herb Moses (exec vp Fannie May and partner of Barney the banking queen Franks) Maxine Waters (Dem) were all prime movers and causers of the financial meltdown. Franks and Dodds were the recipients of huge bribes (campaign donations to influence regulation so that banking underwriting standards were abondoned. Geithner and Cumo were each feckless in their duties. The Democratic party's love of someone else's money and of slush funds and of money laundering for electoral purposes and its corporatist love of certain selected wall street entities has been the direct and primary cause of our financial woes.
Comment: #3
Posted by: joseph wright
Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:22 AM
Well, Susan, I will say this much, you are as out of touch with American's as the President by the sound of your following comment: "I really don't think Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell scores points with anybody but the minority of Obama-haters in this country when he says that his priority in the next year is to see Obama defeated." When in actuality, most American's I know don't hate Obama, just his policies. And, yes, most of the people I speak with do not want him (Obama) in office after Jan. 2013. Most of us are just hoping he doesn't do any more damage. I for one am all for the Republicans digging in their heels and opposing Democratic Spending, Taxing, and Blundering. We (USA) need lower corporate taxes, (fair) free trade, and an honest, unselfish, hard working Congress. I know that last part is a stretch. Lastly, wake up Susan and see the truth!!!
Comment: #4
Posted by: I. M. Wright
Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 PM
Well, Susan, I will say this much, you are as out of touch with American's as the President by the sound of your following comment: "I really don't think Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell scores points with anybody but the minority of Obama-haters in this country when he says that his priority in the next year is to see Obama defeated." When in actuality, most American's I know don't hate Obama, just his policies. And, yes, most of the people I speak with do not want him (Obama) in office after Jan. 2013. Most of us are just hoping he doesn't do any more damage. I for one am all for the Republicans digging in their heels and opposing Democratic Spending, Taxing, and Blundering. We (USA) need lower corporate taxes, (fair) free trade, and an honest, unselfish, hard working Congress. I know that last part is a stretch. Lastly, wake up Susan and see the truth!!!
Comment: #5
Posted by: I. M. Wright
Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:07 PM
Susan spends too much time with her liberal cohorts. She's too ignorant to realize the nation is going over the cliff because of liberal policies. It is possible to be highly educated and still ignorant. It's also known as stupidity!
Comment: #6
Posted by: Early
Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:49 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

24 Jun 2011 There He Goes Again

15 Jul 2011 The Pelican Bay Strikers

17 Sep 2010 Beyond Party