Ronald Reagan was known as the Teflon President. He maintained his popularity even during times when the economy cratered and his administration was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal.

President Bush doesn’t have a Teflon shield, exactly. The problems he has experienced in Iraq and with the economy have kept his approval ratings below 40 percent for most of his entire second term.

That makes his sway over the Democratic majorities in Congress all the more remarkable. We have to come up with a Teflon-like term for a president who can wield such influence over Capitol Hill with such a weak hand.

He is at it again with the economic stimulus package. A couple weeks ago, I wrote that a prominent House member, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, intended to make an extension of unemployment benefits a key part of stimulus.

But Bush was able to forge an agreement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, that focused stimulus on tax cuts and rebates while excluding unemployment benefits. It was approved with strong bipartisan support by the House on Tuesday, January 29.

Just as Bush prevailed over Democrats who wanted to expand a children’s health insurance program and those who wanted to set a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, he is doing so now on stimulus.

It’s true that a faltering economy is in large part fostering a spirit of cooperation between the White House and Capitol Hill. When they face voters this fall, House members want to point to passage of a nearly $150 billion stimulus package as proof that they tried to do something to prevent a recession.

It’s still noteworthy that the stimulus coming out of the House is precisely what the president wants. But as the issue moves to the Senate, we’ll see the real test of Bush’s mettle.

Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has introduced a stimulus proposal that includes an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance for all workers and 26 weeks for those who live in states with an unemployment rate of 6 percent or higher. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts and chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, also has proposed extending unemployment and increasing the payments.

The White House likely will push back. “The temptation will be to load up the [stimulus] bill,” Bush said in his January 28 State of the Union speech. “That would delay or derail it, and neither option is acceptable.”

So the clock is ticking toward the mid-February deadline set by both parties for congressional stimulus approval. Bush has little time to bring the historically unwieldy Senate around to his point of view. The task is made more difficult by the Democratic majority and the fact that Republicans, especially those up for re-election, probably don’t want to filibuster a stimulus bill.

Baucus was hopeful earlier this week. “I’m pleased the president has shown a willingness to work with Congress to boost America’s economy,” he said in a statement after the State of the Union address. “I hope that desire to work together will extend to the proposals the Finance Committee will consider this week.”

It’s always difficult to predict what will happen in Washington. But if Bush persuades—or somehow strong-arms—the Senate into abandoning an extension of unemployment benefits, it will be a development worthy of analysis in political science classes.

Striking television writers demonstrated they can perform their own material during a January 23 visit to Capitol Hill.

Nine writers who would normally be working on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show With Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report took a break from the picket line to raise awareness in Washington about their standoff with studios and media companies.

OK, “raise awareness” is probably not the right term. Just about everyone in the world knows that the writers aren’t churning out new episodes of television programs or new movie scripts because of a dispute over residual earnings involving the use of their work on the Internet or in other new media.

More than 100 Hill staffers and media filled a room in the Rayburn House office building to watch a mock debate. The writers split into two groups—one representing themselves and the other the studios. The skit drew laughter not only for lampooning Hollywood executives but also for poking fun at the foibles of Capitol Hill hearings.

The writers’ talent came through even in a setting with antiseptic lighting and low production values. But the most effective rhetoric of the afternoon didn’t come from the comedy scribes; it was delivered by the members of Congress who hosted the event.

The representatives framed the strike, which has continued since November 5, as an example of middle-class workers trying to get their share of the multibillion-dollar earnings of huge conglomerates. Yes, the ubiquitous middle-class mantra came up even in the context of the writers’ strike.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, pointed out that a quarter of the members of the Writers Guild of America make less than $37,000 annually and their average salary is about $62,000. About half are out of work at any given time. Meanwhile, revenue for media companies that produce television shows and other entertainment totaled $95 billion last year.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-New York, said the strike is an example of “middle-class people” trying to get “a fair shake.”

A writer can rise from being a pauper to a millionaire if a show he or she helps create hits it big. But that accounts for only about the top 5 percent to 10 percent of the profession, according to Tom Purcell, a writer for The Colbert Report.

That notion was underscored by Rep. John Hall, D-New York. He was one of the founders of the 1970s rock group Orleans, penning the hits “Dance With Me” and “Still the One.”

But the creative muse is fickle. “This is a feast-or-famine business for many of us,” Hall said.

Purcell knows the feeling. Before joining The Colbert Report, he was out of work for 16 months. “Often residuals are the only money that allows you to get through the lean times,” he said.

It may be a bit of a stretch to think of a Hollywood writer’s life as hardscrabble. But other unions understand their struggle, according to the writers.

Michael Winship, president of the Writers Guild of America East, said that the strike has drawn support from teachers, cab drivers, airline pilots and truck drivers. Members of the Service Employees International Union have staffed phone banks.

So a custodian can feel for a writer of Desperate Housewives? Yes, in that the network that airs the show—ABC—also owns Disney, ESPN and a variety of other media.

“They relate to the fact that we’re going up against these big corporations,” Winship said.

Now the writers are trying to build support on Capitol Hill. Nadler said that Congress would prefer for the two sides to work out the dispute on their own. Informal discussions began on January 23 after a hiatus.

Although Congress could address copyright law and antitrust issues related to the strike, Nadler said, that’s not the priority at the moment. The important thing is for the writers to succeed, which would increase the political strength of the union movement in general and eventually result in better pay and benefits for all members.

“The autoworkers need the support of the writers and vice versa,” Nadler said.

One of the benefits of having a blog is it allows me to write about important issues that are below the radar in Washington. At the moment, Congress is focusing on a stimulus package and promising a bipartisan attempt to keep the economy out of recession.

That effort is rightly consuming most of the issue oxygen in Washington. But another area where bipartisanship may be percolating is workplace flexibility. Labor laws develop at a glacial pace compared to a stimulus bill. Still, it may be worth paying attention to work/life balance legislation.

Usually, it is Democrats who have the highest profile on such issues. But I attended a January 22 Capitol Hill event on the subject sponsored by the National Center for Policy Analysis. The organization calls itself nonpartisan, but it does “promote private alternatives to government regulation and control,” giving it a conservative flavor.

The session was chaired by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Washington and a member of the House Education and Labor Committee. It also featured a speaker from the conservative Hudson Institute.

The NCPA is promoting flexibility policies designed to help women enter and stay in the workforce. They include allowing one member of dual-earner couples to trade in duplicate benefits for higher wages and enabling part-time workers to accept lower wages in exchange for greater health and retirement benefits. Among other proposals: flexible hours, portable benefits and changes in Social Security law as it applies to spouses.

Terry Neese, a distinguished fellow at the NCPA and the owner of a personnel services company in Oklahoma City, said labor laws written during the Depression, when few women worked outside the home, must be updated. In today’s economy, more than 60 percent of mothers with children are working and more than half of all married couples are dual earners.

Neese stressed that she’s not advocating more government programs. “Women want to be free, under the law and in the economy,” she said at the event. “Tax law, labor law and a host of other institutions are still designed from top-to-bottom for an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. … Women have been left behind by our outdated labor laws.”

A recently introduced Democratic bill proposes a way to address the problem. Modeled after practices in some European countries, the Working Family Flexibility Act would give employees the right to request flexible work options. It would not mandate that employers grant permission, but it does require them to talk to employees about flexibility and provide an explanation if it’s denied. It also would protect employees from retaliation.

The bill was written by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York. Kennedy is chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. It is co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and Christopher Dodd, as well as Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.

Labor law often creates partisan fissures. But that may not necessarily be the case when it comes to work/life balance.

“There’s recognition by both parties that the world has changed and we need to update our laws,” McMorris Rodgers said. “Republicans would welcome changes that allow the individual more flexibility. The big question is where the unions come down.”

Although there have been hearings on work/life balance bills, committee and floor votes are not on the horizon. There are many complications, including the fact that it’s an election year and legislative time is limited.

It’s likely that proponents are preparing a foundation for more substantial action on flexibility next year under a new Congress.

“We’re increasing awareness at this point,” McMorris Rodgers said. “We need to do a better job of telling the story.”

That conversation also needs to take place in the presidential campaign, Neese said. “It’s really important that we talk to the nominees for president. These issues are important to women.”

It didn’t take long this week for the dominate issue to emerge in the new congressional session—avoiding a looming recession. The collapsing housing market and rising unemployment have concentrated the minds of members of Congress.

Washington is already obsessed with putting together an economic stimulus package of more than $100 billion—and the Senate doesn’t even come back until January 22.

It seems as if there is a press conference about stimulus every hour. I attended three of them on Wednesday, January 16.

Although Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are already negotiating the size and scope of a stimulus package with each other and the White House, the process is likely to go on for a few weeks.

So far, it looks as if the workforce dimension of stimulus will be unemployment benefits. David Smith, chief economist for the House Financial Services Committee, said that increasing payments to the jobless will be part of a package that his boss, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and chairman of the committee, is assembling.

Smith told a Capitol Hill audience Wednesday that the unemployment piece of stimulus will include reforms to the insurance system that were part of a House bill passed last fall. Under that measure, states would be given $7 billion to expand unemployment insurance to more low-wage and part-time workers.

It also would allow states to provide benefits to workers who are in training programs, who have had short job tenures and who had to leave work for family reasons.

Vicky Lovell, director of employment and work/life programs at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, says that many states have already put these reforms in place and just need federal approval to implement them. That would give more workers a chance to collect unemployment. And the stimulus package likely also will include higher payments.

People who are out of work “are going to spend whatever extra unemployment benefits they get,” Lovell says.

In a January 16 press conference, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, rolled out a chart that showed that for every $1 increase in unemployment benefits there is a $1.73 boost to the economy.

Kennedy said his goal in a stimulus package is to target Americans who have lost their jobs. “Help is on the way,” he said. “We hear their cries of anguish, their cries of pain and their cries of real fear.”

Republicans are promoting a different take on stimulus. Many in the GOP doubt the efficacy of raising unemployment benefits.

“That is not something we should look to to grow the economy,” said Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, at a press conference to introduce his bill that cuts the corporate tax rate and offers several other tax changes to spur business.

Republicans argue that helping employers will create the jobs that put people back to work in positions that provide additional benefits like health care.

“It’s more important to stimulate paychecks than welfare checks,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, a co-sponsor of Cantor’s bill.

Smith has a different view. “A stimulus package is designed to give people fishes,” he told a Capitol Hill meeting sponsored by the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Campaign for America’s Future.

The argument over whether to reinvigorate the economy by strengthening the safety net or providing incentives directly to businesses will frame the debate in Washington for the next few weeks.

As I write this entry, I don’t know how Arizona Sen. John McCain will fare in the Republican presidential primary in Michigan on Tuesday, January 15. But one thing is certain: He has put on the campaign agenda the issue of retraining workers who have lost their jobs because of global economic competition.

Like many of the things McCain says and does, this is unusual for a Republican. He should be given credit for leveling with voters in a state that has been hammered by setbacks to the auto industry.

Instead of reflexively promoting the GOP palliative for any kind of economic woe—tax cuts—he’s advocating help for those who are left behind when technology and trade diminish their livelihood.

“Let’s have a little straight talk: There are some jobs that aren’t coming back to Michigan,” McCain said in the January 10 Republican debate in South Carolina. “But we’re going to take care of them. That’s our goal.”

He’s calling for community colleges to develop curricula that will give workers a chance to prepare for a new profession.

“We’re not going to end somebody’s career and life of productivity at age 35 or 40 or older,” McCain said. “We’re going to design education and training programs that meet the needs of this information technology revolution that we are in.”

For a contrast to McCain’s approach, and a more typically Washington way of looking at the problem, you can turn to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. He is running as a Washington “outsider.” But his economic ideas sound as if they’re coming from inside the Beltway.

In the South Carolina debate, he listed federal priorities for preventing a recession: stopping the housing crisis; reducing taxes on “middle-income Americans”; and lowering gas prices through energy independence.

But it was his fourth recommendation that caught my eye: “And, finally, R&D investment in science and technology. That’s an area where America can continue to lead the world.”

That’s true. And Washington needs to do all it can within reasonable budget constraints—and short of instituting industrial policy—to promote science and technology.

But the focus in Washington on preparing students for STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) careers tends to crowd out concern for unemployed incumbent workers.

Romney followed up his four-point plan with this gauzy bromide for those about to be thrown out of work: “I’m going to fight for every single job, Michigan, South Carolina, every state in this country.”

As McCain pointed out, some of those jobs are destined to go to another region of the United States—or overseas—and never return. People who previously had them must develop new skills for the jobs that will take their place.

McCain may not win his party’s nomination, let alone get to the White House. But I hope the retraining issues that he’s brought to the fore, for the first time by anyone in the campaign, are embraced by the next president.