It’s President Obama and not the Republicans who is blocking the free trade agreements

The young president, or should I say, now that he’s 50, the old president, continues to make a big deal, and likely will again tomorrow night, about how Congress is holding up free-trade agreements with Colombia, Korea, and Panama. These agreements have been in negotiation for years and began with the Bush administration, but still they languish. Obama would have you believe it’s the Republicans were blocking these agreements. But as we’ve mentioned often on the show it’s not the Republicans it’s the president himself.

 Tina Korbe at hot air posted on this and I’m glad she did. Sen. Mitch McConnell has an opinion piece in the Washington Post this morning where he makes it abundantly clear that the Republicans are now and have always been in favor of passing through these free trade agreements with these 3 countries because of the tens of thousands of jobs it has been projected these agreements will create here in the United States. Not only that but by delaying passage of these agreements is feared that other countries will get a leg up on the United States when it comes to trade.

It’s important to point this out because the president has tried repeatedly over the last few months, as he scrambles to put together a jobs plan, to make free-trade agreements part of his idea to create jobs in the United States and yet he is the one standing in the way.

Publicly, the White House claims to support all three agreements. It even said in Julythat 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.

What’s the real holdup? For three years, the administration has delayed finalizing these deals because unions have been extracting concessions in exchange for their support. Early on, they demanded further concessions and political reforms from our trading partners, all of which have been satisfied. Now, they’re demanding taxpayer funds for worker training programs that many believe are not only duplicative and costly but may not even be effective. Still, I and others have told the president we are prepared to allow this program to move ahead for a vote as a sign of good faith and to move the trade deals forward.

These delays have put America at a major economic disadvantage, costing jobs and opportunities. As the president has been holding out over the demands of labor union leaders, other countries are benefiting from free-trade deals of their own. In early July, South Korea sealed a free-trade pact with the European Union. A few weeks ago a free-trade deal took effect between Colombia and Canada. Yet four years after our three trade agreements were originally signed, the United States is losing ground.

And then the senator added this:

Americans have good reason to be frustrated with the political maneuvering behind these delays. At a time when 14 million Americans are looking for work, job creation should be a no-politics zone. Moreover, the president concedes that these agreements would create tens of thousands of jobs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that completing these agreements would protect 380,000 jobs that we can’t afford to lose. It’s indefensible for the president to wait another day.

The President knows this, and he knows how desperate the job situation is. Instead he chooses to demagogue this. Putting, in the president’s words, politics before country? By the way just so you know that neither the Senator nor I are blowing smoke on this one here is video from August 16 when the president outlined his jobs plan before the super duper announcement on his job plan tomorrow night. The money line on free trade agreements comes at the 1 min. mark. But I also think it’s an important video to watch to see if there’s any difference between what he said on August 16 and what he will say tomorrow night. My guess is that there will be little difference.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Dz9oJmGAY

Jim Vicevich

Jim is a veteran broadcaster and conservative/libertarian blogger with more than 25 years experience in TV and radio. Jim's was the long-term host of The Jim Vicevich Show on WTIC 1080 in Hartford from 2004 through 2019. Prior to radio, Jim worked as a business and financial reporter for NBC30 - the NBC owned TV station in Hartford - and as business editor at WFSB-TV in Hartford for 14 years while earning six Emmy nominations and three Telly Awards.

12 Comments

  1. Dimsdale on September 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    Blame, blame, blame.? It’s all he’s got.? He has nothing to run on.? The “historical, first black president thing” is sooo passe now, having become “Jimmy Carter II”.



  2. Plainvillian on September 6, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    If allowing citizens more money through reduced taxes is good for the economy, isn’t it logical to conclude that taxes are too high in the first place?



    • rachel on September 7, 2011 at 5:54 am

      You mean like with CT?…Where taxes were raised across the board & now there’s technically a surplus (assuming their “revenue” flow pans out the way they’re hoping it will)?



  3. sammy22 on September 6, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    I Googled Free Trade Agreements and I found this:” The United States has signed free trade agreements with Colombia, Korea, and Panama, but Congress must enact legislation to approve and implement each individual agreement in order for them to go into effect.”
    What say you?



  4. Anne-EH on September 7, 2011 at 7:58 am

    I give Sarah Palin CREDIT that she calls it as she sees it.?



  5. Anne-EH on September 7, 2011 at 7:59 am

    Opps, wrong thread!

    President Obama defending what cannot be defended.?



  6. sammy22 on September 7, 2011 at 11:43 am

    I Googled Free Trade Agreements and I found this:
    “The United States has signed free trade agreements with Columbia, Korea and Panama, but Congress must enact legislation to approve and implement each individual agreement in order for them to go into effect.”
    ?
    ?



  7. Anybody but Obama on September 7, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    I seem to remember not to long ago the Big Zero back stabbing S Korea on the trade agreement by trying to make changes on a done deal. Does it sound familiar like zero always stepping in to negotiations and terms change and people walk away. These trade agreements have been held up because the unions want a payoff.



  8. sammy22 on September 8, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Sticking to the subject of the post: in whose court is the ball? Is it Congress or the President??



    • Dimsdale on September 9, 2011 at 1:29 pm

      From the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/26/us/politics/26trade.html):
      ?

      ?The only thing preventing us from passing these bills is the refusal by some in Congress to put country ahead of party,? he said at a recent news conference.
      Senior Republicans in Congress have howled in protest, pointing out that the agreements have not left the president?s desk to journey to the Hill for a vote.
      ?We have made abundantly clear publicly and privately that the House is prepared to vote on all three trade agreements,? said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner, adding that the same goes for the bill to provide money to assist workers. ?The only thing holding us up is the fact those trade bills are still sitting on the president?s desk.?

      ?
      and:
      ?

      When the Democrats controlled Congress, they resisted the trade agreements because they feared they would harm American workers. Then came the Obama administration, which insisted, as part of any trade deal, on renewing a program to assist people adversely affected and adding $964 million to the effort. That linkage…



    • Dimsdale on September 9, 2011 at 1:30 pm

      ?”…has met resistance from Republicans.
      In July, Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, said that program was a deal breaker for his party. ?We made it clear time and time and time again that we would not stomach attaching a big government spending program onto these agreements,? Mr. Hatch said at the time.”



  9. Anybody but Obama on September 9, 2011 at 10:56 am

    zero needs to send it to congress



Obama pissed

The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.