Mitch McConnell Misses a Point
Today’s Washington Post features a predictable op-ed from Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell urging Obama to send three free-trade agreements—with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea—to Congress for approval.
From the article:
For nearly three years, Republicans and a number of Democrats have been calling on the president to approve these deals to create a level playing field with America’s competitors overseas, vastly expand the market for U.S. goods, strengthen our ties with three important allies and create jobs for Americans. Yet the deals have been stuck at the White House since Inauguration Day.
Publicly, the White House claims to support all three agreements. It even said in July that Republicans are the ones standing in the way of ratification. But this is absurd because Congress can’t ratify trade agreements until the president submits them for congressional approval. He knows as well as I do that once he does, all three would garner wide bipartisan support.
Fine, but McConnell’s description is a bit misleading. As Troy Senik—whom I’ve gleefully beaten to the punch here—knows all too well, the FTA fiasco has been going on for quite a bit longer.
The deal with Colombia was signed on November 22, 2006. The agreement with Panama was inked on June 28, 2007, and the one with South Korea on June 30, 2007.
When these deals were negotiated and signed, of course, a Republican was in the White House—George W. Bush. Back then, the president was urging Congress to approve the compacts, not the other way around. This happened in practically every speech; nothing says "Hispanic Heritage Month" like an exhortation to free trade.
But fresh off their 2006 wave victory, Democrats in Congress refused to approve the deals, for the same reason Obama has: labor unions. And they proved just as intransigent, even as the economy went into free fall and any scrap of good economic news—like the full implementation of free-trade agreements—would have been welcome and helpful (especially at a time when exports were our one economic bright spot).
McConnell’s piece is understandably focused on hitting Obama, but if you complete the story, the consistent antagonists throughout are simply Democrats. If they’re in control of the White House or Congress—Heaven forbid both—you’re not gonna get free trade.
The solution, unmentioned in McConnell’s op-ed, is: Throw the bums out, at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Mitch McConnell Misses a Point
Meghan
You're being very polite not to mention Jim McGovern and the unholy alliance with Hugo Chavez, FARC, and the dislike for the heroic Uribe that flowed from State.
Dec '10
Re: Mitch McConnell Misses a Point
I agree completely with your conclusion. I have one quirky question about one of McConnell's statements: is every trading partner an inportant ally? I have always thought of allies as partners in defense matters. How does an open trading relationship fit in with the historical use of the term ally?
Dec '10
Re: Mitch McConnell Misses a Point
That is the problem with McConnell. He is well aware of the facts but dodges the opportunity to set the record straight, that includes the very senate that Obama sat in. He is not weak, so much as fastidious.
Informed citizens already knew about the status of those deals and that includes most readers of that op-ed, (not Obama's ignorant base). McConnell is primping his disdain while he's about to get walloped by a street fighter during the joint session. Obama doesn't care what the facts are, only that he has the opportunity to spew nonsense on national tv, while McConnell sits there and takes it.
Apr '11
Re: Mitch McConnell Misses a Point
Romney's new jobs document's trade section is very good on this, emphasizing the consensus of Presidents from Reagan onwards (really, the consensus of Presidents from FDR onwards who weren't Ford, Carter, or Obama, although Mitt doesn't go back that far) and the total failure of Obama to follow through on his promises here.
http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/BelieveInAmerica%E2%80%93MittRomney%E2%80%93PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth.pdf
Apr '11
Re: Mitch McConnell Misses a Point
They do tend to be. Both Colombia, and South Korea amongst the pending agreements have key defense ties with the US (Panama may be too tiny). Ratified FTAs focus heavily on those who support the military. See, for example, Canada, Australia, Israel, and Bahrain. CAFTA troops fought in Iraq. Most of the others regularly train with the US military.
Apr '11
Re: Mitch McConnell Misses a Point
They do tend to be. Both Colombia, and South Korea amongst the pending agreements have key defense ties with the US (Panama may be too tiny). Ratified FTAs focus heavily on those who support the military. See, for example, Canada, Australia, Israel, and Bahrain. CAFTA troops fought in Iraq. Most of the others regularly train with the US military.