Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Fletch Waller and William Rose some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Obama should play the Seattle card

The D.C. budget fight over sequestration is about the role of government. Seattle is a great illustration of the stake for job creation that could disappear if the government isn't helping.
Cranes at the Port of Seattle.

Cranes at the Port of Seattle. Chuck Taylor

The great national debate is on the proper role of government, spanning everything from environmental action to health care. We accept the need to tax ourselves to support an ability to defend ourselves from a military threat. Do we also support the ability to defend ourselves from economic threats?

The major concern of the American people is the economy and jobs. It surprises me that the Obama administration has not used one of the tools handed it by Congress to put a spotlight on a necessary role of government that is directly tied to employment. And the administration’s strategists ought to be thinking of how they can involve Seattle, with its global orientation, in playing up their position.

This tool is the requirement to develop annually a National Export Strategy. Exports are a part of a critical part of our economic performance, our ability to compete. The January trade deficit increased. The concern for our competiveness is reflected in political polls show that the American public is not supportive of trade as they read about jobs moving overseas or have a friend or family member impacted.

The American public recognizes that the world economy has changed. They do not seem to have confidence that we can compete in a battle for jobs and prosperity. President Bush in his last two years and President Obama have not been given the authority by Congress to negotiate new trade agreements, this is now over six years. Without this authority, the discussions on a Trans Pacific Partnership or a European Free Trade Agreement will remain verbal.

I cannot understand why the administration does not use the process of the development of the strategy and its implementation to solicit ideas around the country and build support for their programs. The Obama administration has developed a National Export Initiative. This establishes a goal to increase exports based on the strategy. The administration needs to put a spotlight a necessary role for government in this effort and rebuild confidence in our ability to compete.

First, to be successful in exporting, United States needs a competitive strategy. What is the education, research and infrastructure requirements to have our goods and services sell in international markets? Government provides the platform for a successful company. Jobs are the most important priority in other countries. They have strategies and programs to assist their companies. In many countries, the business is even a state agency or it is state controlled. We are essentially competing against government agencies. It is not uncommon to require the transfer of technology, a local partner or other requirements that are a gateway for doing business. The beltway leadership has philological discussions about the role of government while overseas, it is the government. We may think this is unfair but it is the reality.

In the mid-1990s, Congress reauthorized the Export-Import Bank. This is the agency that assists Boeing with financing plane sales. They also established a Trade Promotion Coordinating Council of relevant federal agencies such as Commerce, Treasury and State, with the Department of Commerce in the lead. This group is required to develop the National Export Strategy.

President Obama also has a President’s Export Council. W. James McNerney, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Boeing Company, is the chair.

But even in a trade dependent city like Seattle, few understand what our government is doing.

I called the Commerce Department a few years ago and talked to a senior official I knew. I suggested field hearings for the strategy and offered Seattle. (He told me there were rumors at Commerce that someone outside the beltway had read the strategy and now he knew who it was.)

If members of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Council came to Seattle for a day, it would give our companies the opportunity to present how they can be assisted in being successful. How well is trade finance working for smaller companies? Can assistance be made more efficient? Education is a multimillion dollar service export, what can be improved? What about international tourism?


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Thu, Apr 25, 4:39 p.m. Inappropriate

The author is surprised that the Obama administration is not developing an “annual National Export Strategy.” A closer look at the overall Obama Administration political strategy, however, reveals this failure as consistent with other Obama Administration job performance. It seems clear that the Obama Administration strategy is to conduct business in a way that activates the progressive base in enough legislative districts to provide a Democratic Majority in the 2014 mid-term elections. The National Export Strategy is just another detail of government for President Obama, not that interesting to him. The President was pleased to pass the Affordable Health Care Act – but writing the regulations? Too boring; too hard, too wonky. Similarly, why bother to submit a federal budget in a timely fashion? Its all political, anyway, and the technical job of running the government appears to be outside the scope of the President’s real interest. Don't hold your breath for President Obama to truly focus on job creation.

WallyW

Posted Thu, Apr 25, 6:31 p.m. Inappropriate

An export initiative might not be a great thing to bring to a city whose official NIMBYs are trying to block coal exports from our ports.

NotFan

Posted Sat, Apr 27, 7:38 a.m. Inappropriate

Use Port of Seattle as an example? You mean like if they lost their taxpayer subsidy they would dry up and blow away? I think the Obmam administration has a firm handle on propping up money losing industries with subsidies.

Cameron

Posted Sat, Apr 27, 9:56 a.m. Inappropriate

Show me ANY sector of the economy that doesn't benefit from taxpayer subsidies!

Eastern WA farmers would literally dry up and blow away if they didn't rely on taxpayer funded irrigation projects, and wouldn't be able to move their crops without taxpayer funded roads and the WA State Grain Train.

As noted in the article, Beoing gets financing from the Export-Import Bank, and a substantial chunk of their business is tax-payer funded military projects; they've gotten sweet deals from the WA Legislature for years, and only moved to South Carolina when that state gave them even sweeter tax subsidies.

Do you seriously think that major ports in conservative places like Houston or Charleston operate any differently? The Port of Seattle - like major port facilities all over the nation - is a crucial piece of infrastructure that gets necessary public funding.

Posted Sun, Apr 28, 6:40 a.m. Inappropriate

So given your opinion Super Steve, how much subsidy is enough? How much in loss is acceptable year after year? Tell us Super Steve should the Governor and Majority Party in Washington State continue down the road of removing subsidies to fund Education? Health care? Expansion of Government Services?

Cameron

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »