Archive for the ‘Trade Policy’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

CPA Criticizes Peterson Report on Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

Sunday, March 13th, 2016

On January 25, 2016, the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) released a report  on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. The Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) promptly released their commentary on the Peterson Institute report the same day, which was based on oral and written testimony CEO Michael Stumo had given to the U. S. International Trade Commission on January   15, 2016.

The Peterson Institute used the “”computable general equilibrium (CGE) model.” I’m not an economist. I live and work in the real world of manufacturing. Thus, I am not familiar with some of the terms economists use for economic models, and had not heard of this term previously. I try to find explanations that make sense, but even the Wikipedia definition was complex; “A CGE model consists of (a) equations describing model variables and (b) a database (usually very detailed) consistent with the model equations… CGE models are useful whenever we wish to estimate the effect of changes in one part of the economy upon the rest. For example, a tax on flour might affect bread prices, the CPI, and hence perhaps wages and employment. They have been used widely to analyse trade policy.”

The World Bank states, “Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) models offer a comprehensive way of modeling the overall impact of policy changes on the economy… However, CGEs are significantly affected by the assumptions that they are based on which, depending on their definition, can impact on the results.”

CPA criticized the PIIE for using “the controversial computable general equilibrium (CGE) model to analyze the TPP rather than models that produce less optimistic results.” Stumo stated that the CGE model is increasingly recognized as unreliable because:

Untrue Facts Assumed ? “full employment always exists, trade is in balance, that wages and productivity stay in alignment rather than diverge, and that all countries have perfectly free markets with rational economic behavior.” These assumptions are false ? “full employment rarely exists; trade is almost never in balance; wages have diverged downward from productivity for the past several decades; and many TPP countries have state-directed capitalism or strong industrial policies to influence and alter market outcomes.”

Untrue Past Results ? The CGE model was used to analyze China’s being granted Permanent Normalized Trade Relations with China (China PNTR) in 2000 and the Korea-U. S. trade (KORUS) agreement in 2012. A reduction in the trade deficits were predicted for both countries, but the reality is that U. S. trade deficit with China increased from $68.7 billion in 1999 to $337 billion in 2015, and the Korea trade “deficit worsened by $12 billion annually between 2012 (date of KORUS implementation) to 2015.” (US Census Bureau)

Untrue Assumption of No Net Job Losses? “The CGE model wrongly assumes that there are no job losses to produce its results. The International Trade Administration assumes that for every billion dollars of U.S. exports supported 5,796 jobs, down from 7,117 jobs per billion dollars of U.S. exports in 2009. Conversely, every billion dollars of imports has the opposite result. Thus, where trade agreements result in worsening trade deficits, as is the case for the NAFTA, Korea and China PNTR deals, the job losses are drastic.”

Additionally, Stumo criticized the Peterson report because it ignores the fact the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement does not address problems with currency misalignment, border taxes (VATs), and industrial policies, such as state-owned enterprises and government subsidies.

Stumo stated, “The PIIE model incorrectly assumes that currency valuations will be set by the perfectly free market and will not be manipulated. It does not take into account rising foreign value added taxes – which replace tariffs – charged to imports from the US.  It also ignores the industrial policy and state-directed strategies that Japan, Vietnam and others use to give an advantage to state-influenced or national champion domestic industries.”

Stumo criticized the fact that PIIE admits the TPP will create no new jobs and little growth even if the CGE model’s conclusions are true.

Job Creation Will Not Occur ? “…while the TPP is not likely to affect overall employment in the United States, it will involve adjustment costs as US workers and capital move from less to more productive firms and industries. Section 4 estimates that 53,700 US jobs will be affected—i.e., that number is both eliminated in less productive import-competing firms and added in exporting and other expanding firms—in each year during implementation of the TPP. This kind of movement between jobs and industries is what economists refer to as “churn,” and most kinds of productivity growth cannot occur without it taking place. For perspective, 55.5 million American workers changed jobs in this way in 2014—so the transition effects of the TPP would represent only less than 0.1 percent increase in labor market churn in a typical year. Most workers who lose jobs do find alternative employment, but workers in specific locations, industries, or with skill shortages may experience serious transition costs including lasting wage cuts.”

The Peterson report even admits job loss from past trade agreements, stating “The largest loser is the United States, whose trade and current account deficits have been $200 billion to $500 billion per year larger as a result. The United States has thus suffered 1 million to 5 million job losses.

The reality is that we lost 6.2 million manufacturing million jobs in the past 20 years as a result of NAFTA, China’s being granted PNTR in 1999, and the subsequent trade agreements with Central America, Korea, and other countries. Since manufacturing jobs create three to four other supporting or related jobs, we really lost 18 – 20 million jobs, which partly explains why 94,610,000 Americans are no longer in the labor force, which is the lowest participation rate in 38 years.

What do the report’s authors mean by “import-competing firms”? It appears to me that this means American manufacturing firms whose domestically-made products compete with imports for market share in the U. S. In addition, the Made in USA products are also competing as exports to other countries against the exports of China, Korea, our other trading and non-trading partners. So what guarantee do we have that the people losing jobs at import-competing firms will find jobs at exporting companies? None!

In addition, the CPA commentary highlighted the following:

Income gains are Negligible ? “The study projects that, by 2020, US incomes will rise a mere 0.1% of GDP. (Table 2).  This means that 99.9% of growth will happen without regard to the TPP.  The number 0.1% is equivalent to, or less than, a rounding error. It can only come true if all untrue assumptions in the CGE model are true. It will take another 10 years for the optimistic projection to deliver a meager 0.5% income gain by 2030.”

Middle Class Will Not Benefit ?  “Assuming (which we do not) the small income gains are realized, the study is silent on who benefits from them. The Economic Policy Institute reported that trade agreements account for 90% of wage inequality. If there are any income gains, the middle class will be a net loser.”

Other countries will “benefit” more than the US ? “The Peterson Study projects that Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam will gain far more than the United States.  The US Trade Representative, by pushing the TPP, is helping open markets for competitors in Japan and other countries. Japan is estimated to gain five times more income (in relation to GDP) than the US, Vietnam 16 times more, and Malaysia 15 times more. (Report, Table 2).”

Finally, the CPA commentary points out that other economic models show losses to the U.S. and other TPP countries. The commentary cites the fact that scholars at the Global Development And Environment Institute of Tufts University released a working paper in January 2016 that used the United Nations Global Policy Model (GPM). The Executive Summary of this paper states, “This GDAE Working Paper employs a more realistic model that incorporates effects on employment excluded from prior TPP modeling. We find that any benefits to economic growth are more limited, and even negative in some countries such as the United States. More importantly, we find that TPP would lead to losses in employment and increases in inequality. This is particularly true for the United States, where GDP is projected to fall slightly (-0.54 percent), employment to decline by 448,000 jobs, and inequality to increase as labor’s share of income falls by 1.31 percent.”

The paper states that the job loss would not be limited to the U. S, stating, The TPP would lead to employment losses in all countries, totaling 771,000 lost jobs…Participating developing economies would also suffer employment losses, as greater competitive pressures force them to limit labor incomes and increase production for export.”

In fact, it also states that job losses would not be limited to TPP trading partners: “The TPP would lead to losses in GDP and employment in non-TPP countries. In large part, the loss in GDP (-3.77 percent) and employment (879,000) among non-TPP developed countries would be due to losses in Europe, while developing country losses in GDP (-5.24%) and employment (-4.45 million) would reflect possible losses in China and India.”

The CPA commentary concludes that “the PIIE report as revealing the lack of any economic benefit from the TPP under the most optimistic, albeit implausible, circumstances. It is more likely that job destruction and industry shrinkage will continue being the net result.”

I will be even more emphatic in my predictions if the TPP is approved by Congress. The TPP will result in millions of job losses since past predictions were always exceeded. It will be another nail in the coffin of American manufacturing. The TPP is so overreaching in its scope that it would change many aspects of American life. I’ve written several previous articles posted on the blog section of my website under “trade” on the dangers of the TPP and why we must stop it from being approved by Congress. Do your own research and don’t be fooled by the rhetoric of its supporters. You can read the full text of the agreement for yourself here.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Innovation, Jobs, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

What Could be done about China’s Theft of Intellectual Property

Sunday, March 13th, 2016

Hardly a week goes by without a report of Chinese “hacking” or Intellectual Property Theft, so it was no surprise that a published analysis by CrowdStrike, a California-based cyber security company, revealed that China violated its cyber agreement with the United States the very next day after CNBC reported that President Obama and China’s President Xi Jinping agreed to not conduct cyber theft of intellectual property on Friday, September 25, 2015. President Obama said. “The United States government does not engage in cyber economic espionage for commercial gain, and today I can announce that our two countries have reached a common understanding on a way forward.” However, the U.S.-China agreement “does not prohibit cyber spying for national security purposes.”

It is interesting to note that the day before the announcement, September 24, 2015, Chet Nagle, a former CIA agent and current Vice President of M-CAM, penned an article in the Daily Caller, stating, “At FBI headquarters in July, the head of FBI counterintelligence, Randall Coleman, said there has been a 53 percent increase in the theft of American trade secrets, thefts that have cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the past year. In an FBI survey of 165 private companies, half of them said they were victims of economic espionage or theft of trade secrets — 95 percent of those cases involved individuals associated with the Chinese government.”

He blamed the corruption of Chinese government officials for the problem and stated that “President Xi Jinping has instituted a strict anti-corruption campaign. Regrettably, the campaign has focused on “tigers” — senior government officials — at the expense of eliminating the rampant corruption by the “flies” — officials at the provincial and local level. In any event, putting a dollar value on direct corruption does not address the totality of the costs. Business confidence and foreign direct investment in China are already falling because of the absence of the rule of law.”

He concluded, “China’s disregard of the rule of law should be the underlying driver for all discussions of commercial topics during the coming visit of China’s president. Lack of the rule of law is the most difficult challenge American enterprises face in China.”

In researching this topic, I found out that three years earlier, May 22, 2013, the bipartisan Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property of the U.S. International Trade Commission released a report. Dennis C. Blair, former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, and Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, were the Co-chairs of the Commission.

The day after the release, Forbes published an article about the report, stating that “China accounts for at least half – and maybe as much as 80 percent – of U.S. intellectual property theft.” The article briefly discussed the problem of China’s Intellectual Property theft and included quotes from the co-chairs, but did not go into any detail about the recommendations of the Commission.

The article did provide the link to the 100-page report, which I have since read. In view of the continuing problem, it is time to reconsider the key findings of the report, titled, “The Impact of International IP Theft on the American Economy”:

  • ”Hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The annual losses are likely to be comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia—over $300 billion…”
  • Millions of jobs. If IP were to receive the same protection overseas that it does here, the American economy would add millions of jobs.
  • A drag on U.S. GDP growth. Better protection of IP would encourage significantly more R&D investment and economic growth.
  • The incentive to innovate drives productivity growth and the advancements that improve the quality of life. The threat of IP theft diminishes that incentive.

The report stated, “A core component of China’s successful growth strategy is acquiring science and technology. It does this in part by legal means—imports, foreign domestic investment, licensing, and joint ventures—but also by means that are illegal. National industrial policy goals in China encourage IP theft, and an extraordinary number of Chinese in business and government entities are engaged in this practice.”

The report stated that existing remedies are not keeping up with the problem because of:

  • Short product life cycles – “the slow pace of legal remedies for IP infringement does not meet the needs of companies whose products have rapid product life and profit cycles.”
  • Inadequate institutional capacity ? a shortage of trained judges in developing countries
  • China’s approach to IPR is evolving too slowly – “improvements over the years have not produced meaningful protection for American IP.”
  • Limitations in trade agreements? there are also significant problems in the WTO process that have made it impossible to obtain effective resolutions. “Bilateral and regional free trade agreements are not a panacea either.”
  • Steps undertaken by Congress and the administration are inadequate.

The Commission recommended short-term, medium-term, and long-term remedies. The short-term measures are immediate actions that are largely regulatory or made effective via executive order and include the following:

  • Designate the national security advisor as the principal policy coordinator for all actions on the protection of American IP.
  • Provide statutory responsibility and authority to the secretary of commerce to serve as the principal official to manage all aspects of IP protection.
  • Strengthen the International Trade Commission’s 337 process to sequester goods containing stolen IP.
  • Empower the secretary of the treasury, on the recommendation of the secretary of commerce, to deny the use of the American banking system to foreign companies that repeatedly use or benefit from the theft of American IP.
  • Increase Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation resources to investigate and prosecute cases of trade-secret theft, especially those enabled by cyber means.
  • Consider the degree of protection afforded to American companies’ IP a criterion for approving major foreign investments in the United States under the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) process.
  • Enforce strict supply-chain accountability for the U.S. government.
  • Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to judge whether companies’ use of stolen IP is a material condition that ought to be publicly reported.
  • Enforce strict supply-chain accountability for acquisitions by U.S. government departments and agencies by June 1, 2014, and work to enhance corporate accountability for the IP integrity of the supply chain.

The Commission made the following medium term recommendations to build a more sustainable legal framework to protect American IP that Congress and the administration should take:

  • Amend the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) to provide a federal private right of action for trade-secret theft. If companies or individuals can sue for damages due to the theft of IP, especially trade secrets, this will both punish bad behavior and deter future theft.
  • Make the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) the appellate court for all actions under the EEA. The CAFC is the appellate court for all International Trade Commission cases and has accumulated the most expertise of any appellate court on IP issues. It is thus in the best position to serve as the appellate court for all matters under the EEA.
  • Instruct the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to obtain meaningful sanctions against foreign companies using stolen IP. Having demonstrated that foreign companies have stolen IP, the FTC can take sanctions against those companies.
  • Strengthen American diplomatic priorities in the protection of American IP. American ambassadors ought to be assessed on protecting intellectual property, as they are now assessed on promoting trade and exports. Raising the rank of IP attachés in countries in which theft is the most serious enhances their ability to protect American IP.

The more idealistic long-term recommendations are:

  • Build institutions in priority countries that contribute toward a “rule of law” environment in ways that protect IP.
  • Develop a program that encourages technological innovation to improve the ability to detect counterfeit goods.
  • Ensure that top U.S. officials from all agencies push to move China, in particular, beyond a policy of indigenous innovation toward becoming a self-innovating economy.
  • Develop IP “centers of excellence” on a regional basis within China and other priority countries.
  • Establish in the private, nonprofit sector an assessment or rating system of levels of IP legal protection, beginning in China but extending to other countries as well.

Of particular interest is the mention in the report that an annual survey in late 2012 of member companies of the American Chamber of Commerce in the People’s Republic of China “over 40% of respondents reported that the risk of data breach to their operations in China is increasing, and those who indicated that IP infringement has resulted in “material damage” to China operations or global operations increased from 18% in 2010 to 48% in 2012,” and that “The longer the supply line, the more vulnerable it is to IP theft.”

The risk of Intellectual Property is one of the major reasons many companies are returning manufacturing to America through reshoring. This is also why I urge the inventors that are part of the San Diego Inventors Forum to avoid going to China if at all possible, and if they have to go to China to meet their target Bill of Material cost, they should never source all of the parts of their product with one vendor. Otherwise, they are at risk of being victimized by their Chinese vendor stealing their IP and getting a counterfeit version of their product on the market first.

In conclusion, “The Commission considered three additional ideas for protecting the intellectual property of American companies that it does not recommend at this time.” The following one of the three is particularly interesting to me because of the enormous trade deficits we have with China:

“Recommend that Congress and the administration impose a tariff on all Chinese-origin imports, designed to raise 150% of all U.S. losses from Chinese IP theft in the previous year, as estimated by the secretary of commerce. This tariff would be subject to modification by the president on national security grounds.”

“The Commission is not prepared to make such a recommendation now because of the difficulty of estimating the value of stolen IP, the difficulty of identifying the appropriate imports, and the many legal questions raised by such an action under the United States’ WTO obligations. If major IP theft continues or increases, however, the proposal should be further refined and considered.”

What is outrageous to me is that it is obvious to me that none of the short-term, medium-term or long-term recommendations have been implemented or we would not still have the serious problem of cyber espionage and Intellectual Property Theft three years later.

Supporters of developments in China “essentially argue that when China begins producing its own intellectual property in significant quantities, the country’s own entrepreneurs and inventors will put pressure on political and Communist Party leaders to change the laws and improve IP protections.” Since China has the stated goal of becoming the superpower of the 21st Century and is Intellectual Property Theft is one of their tools to achieve this goal, I do not feel that this will ever happen.

To me, the most important conclusion of the report is “If the United States continues on its current path, with the incentives eroding, innovation will decline and our economy will stagnate. In this fundamental sense, IP theft is now a national security issue.” It will be interesting to see if the next president and the next Congress we elect will have the courage to play hardball with China by implementing some of the recommendations of the Commission.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Inellectual Property, Innovation, Manufacturing, National security, Trade Policy | No Comments »

CPA Releases Competitiveness Strategy for the United StatesCPA Releases Competitiveness Strategy for the United States

Friday, November 20th, 2015

For several years, organizations and elected representatives in Congress have proposed developing a national manufacturing strategy. For example, the Information Technology& Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a report, “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” in April 2011 and the Alliance for American Manufacturing has repeatedly put forward a “Plan to Save Manufacturing,” calling for a national manufacturing strategy to reverse the decline in U.S. manufacturing and the good jobs that come with it. Bills sponsored by Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski (D) have even passed the House of Representatives, but have died in the Senate.

On November 11th, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) released “A Competitiveness Strategy for the United States – America at a Crossroads,” which addresses other sectors of our economy in addition to manufacturing.

“America needs to start winning again,” said Michael Stumo, CEO of CPA. “That is why the mission of the Competitiveness Strategy is to:

‘Win the international competition for good jobs, sustained real economic growth and prosperity with a national strategy to counter foreign mercantilism, balance trade and grow strong domestic supply chains.’”

“Across the USA, localities and states employ plans to attract jobs,” said Brian O’Shaughnessy, CPA Chief Co-Chair and Chairman of Revere Copper Products. “Other countries have sophisticated national strategies to acquire industries and bring good paying jobs to their countries. The USA has no comprehensive national strategy for domestic production and good paying jobs to guide trade negotiators and administration officials.”

CPA’s Competitiveness Strategy argues that:

The United States is losing an economic competition against other nations whose mercantilist strategies are destroying our manufacturing jobs, critical industries, our standard of living, our national security, the security of our food supply, and our children’s futures.

The threat to the U. S. economy and national security is grave. Other trading nations are using comprehensive strategies to import jobs across all economic sectors, but are particularly focused on strategically significant technologies and industries. American companies in these sectors face not only wide-ranging mercantilist practices and non-tariff trade barriers such as currency manipulation, tariffs and subsidies, but also much more sophisticated and specific strategies aimed at identifying, acquiring, or otherwise controlling critical technologies.

CPA’s strategy holds out the promise that the U. S. is in control of its own destiny and can re-assert itself as a great manufacturing and producing nation with a rising standard of living for all. We can develop and implement a comprehensive strategy that retains and reinforces our leadership in innovation, locates investment and production in the United States, and raises employment by creating good paying jobs.

The ultimate mission of the strategy is to win the international competition for good jobs and sustained economic growth. The mission recognizes we are in competition with other countries. The Competitiveness Strategy includes nineteen action steps focused upon three interrelated goals:

  1. Identifying and countering foreign mercantilist strategies that grow their economies at the expense of other countries through achieving a persistent trade surplus
  2. Balancing the national trade deficit
  3. Growing domestic supply chains

“All three goals are interrelated and must be pursued together,” continued Stumo. “The President rightfully created the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation to grow domestic supply chains, but the effort cannot succeed unless we combat powerful foreign tactics to take those industries away. Further, a new effort to counter foreign mercantilism and trade cheating is essential, but must have the goal of balancing trade to be fully effective.”
“Additionally, balancing trade is essential, but merely exporting raw materials is insufficient. American must grow and retain a diverse array of industries that add value to our products and create good jobs, with special attention paid to advanced and critical industry supply chains,” Stumo concluded.

CPA’s competitiveness strategy shown below is succinct, yet comprehensive:

“Identify and counter foreign mercantilist strategies that grow their economies at the expense of other countries through achieving a persistent trade surplus

  1. End both currency exchange rate imbalances and the accumulation of excessive US dollar holdings by non-US public and private entities.
  2. Impose offsetting tariffs to neutralize foreign government subsidies to industries and supply chains that compete with ours.
  3. Counter foreign government policies that force offshoring by conditioning access to their markets on transfers of technology, research facilities and/or production to their countries, as well as compliance with export performance and domestic content requirements, while their exporters have access to US markets without these conditions.
  4. Ensure that foreign greenfield investments in the US and acquisitions of existing US companies provide a clear “net benefit” to the US with special scrutiny in cases of state influenced foreign entities.
  5. Protect US food security from foreign government tactics to seize markets.

Balance trade

  1. Offset cumulative trade deficits of recent decades and excessive accumulations of dollar reserves through sustained trade surplus to ultimately achieve a long term overall trade balance.
  2. Insure that the composition of trade includes a substantial trade surplus in high value added and advanced manufactured goods.
  3. Make the US workforce more cost competitive by promoting fair pay, rising living standards and safe working conditions for workers everywhere.
  4. Reduce US producers’ trade disadvantage through tax reform which finances the reduction of payroll taxes and health insurance costs with a border adjustable consumption tax in a revenue and distribution neutral manner.
  5. Lower corporate tax rates and end corporate inversion and profit shifting tax avoidance by taxing the income of unitary business groups, whether domestic or foreign, based upon proportion of global sales in the US.

Grow Domestic Supply Chains

  1. Preserve and develop domestic manufacturing and agricultural supply chains to maximize value added production in the US.
  2. Develop, build and maintain a world-class land, water, air, communications and energy infrastructure.
  3. Safeguard our military strength and national security by insuring that critical technologies, weapons & IT components are developed and manufactured in America by American controlled companies.
  4. Develop, commercialize and retain strategic and economically significant advanced technology and grow their manufacturing supply chains in the US.
  5. Increase public support for, and incentives for private investment in, basic and applied research, infra-technologies and new product and process technologies.
  6. Continually raise the competitiveness of American workers by improving Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education available at all levels, systematically enhance lifelong learning for existing workers, and fostering a national system of apprenticeship and paid internships through collaborative public-private endeavors that are connected to actual opportunities in the labor market.
  7. Raise the competitiveness of small and medium sized domestic enterprises by increasing long-term private sector financing, the sharing of research on common issues and the diffusion of new technologies and production methods.
  8. Preserve our right to adopt and enforce domestic policies that insure the quality of our food and goods, and protect the health, safety and general welfare of our citizens without restrictions from international trade agreements.
  9. Ensure that domestic manufacturing and agriculture benefit fully from an expanded supply of low cost US produced energy”

Anyone involved in efforts to revitalize American manufacturing already has a bookshelf full of books, studies, and reports containing recommendations on a national manufacturing strategy. My book, Can American Manufacturing Be Saved? Why we should and how we can has a chapter on “How Can We Save American Manufacturing?” that contains a summary of the recommendations of many organizations as well as my own recommendations, which I incorporate into articles and presentations whenever possible. As chair of the California chapter of CPA, I plan to incorporate this competitiveness strategy into future articles and presentations whenever possible.

The brilliance of CPA’s strategy is that it is not limited to manufacturing and is not a “to do list” of actions to take. The Competitiveness Strategy will work best when pursued as a whole. The three objectives are interrelated because, for example, we cannot balance trade without growing domestic supply chains to produce more, and add more value in the U. S. We cannot grow domestic supply chains unless we neutralize foreign mercantilism (trade cheating) that offshores otherwise competitive industries that we started and developed in the U. S. We cannot address foreign mercantilism without the guidance of a balanced trade objective.

Businesses must have a strategic plan to start and grow. This strategic plan guides the business with regard to product development, finance, marketing, production, procurement, etc. Many other countries have an economic strategy to grow their economy. A country’s strategy guides their economic, fiscal, trade, innovation, finance and monetary policy, so that they all work together to enhance their competitiveness as a nation.

The United States has no comprehensive strategy ? just a hodgepodge of laws and rules. Trade negotiators have had no strategic plan to guide them, and neither do the administrative agencies relevant to manufacturing, agricultural, and use of natural resources. The United States needs a comprehensive competitiveness strategy that clearly expresses exactly what we want to achieve for our country… not for an industry or special interest… but our country as a whole.

We do not have to “keep reinventing the wheel.” It is time for our leaders to “stop fiddling while Rome burns” and show some real leadership. Action, not lip service is what we need now!

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economic Development, Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Reshoring, Trade, Trade Policy | No Comments »

House Leadership Blindsides Opposition to Trade Promotion Authority

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2015

On Monday, June 15th, House Republican leadership announced that they had decided to delay the re-vote anytime up to July 30th on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) which “fast tracks” ObamaTrade. Less than three days later, the opposition was blindsided by representatives in the House approving the standalone TPA bill by a close vote of 218 to 208 (see how Representatives voted here.) Because the House approved a standalone TPA bill, the Senate has to vote on a standalone TPA bill as well as legislation extending Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and the U.S. trade preferences program before the president can sign the TPA bill into law. The trade preferences bill would renew the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Generalized System of Preferences, and trade preferences for Haiti.

There was a question whether enough of the 14 Senate Democrats who voted in favor of a combined TPA-TAA bill on May 22nd would vote in favor of a standalone TPA bill. TPA supporters hoped these senators would be influenced to vote in favor of cloture because they have voted for fast track already and because all 28 House Democrats who voted for a TPA bill to be combined with the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) bill were united in voting for a standalone bill on June 18th.

Senator McConnell filed for cloture on both the TPA bill and the preferences legislation late Thursday, for the vote to be held on Tuesday, June 23rd. The vote on cloture requires 60 votes. As I finish this article, I just watched the Republican leadership get the 60 “yes” votes needed to invoke cloture, with 37 senators voting “no,” and three not voting.

This means 30 hours of debate on the bill would begin, meaning that a final vote on the TPA bill could take place as early as Wednesday. Only a majority of 51 votes are needed to pass TPA. After the passage of TPA, the Senate would then vote on cloture on the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and the trade preferences bill. If cloture is invoked, a final vote on the TAA-preferences bill could come Thursday or Friday.

The House of Representatives would still need to vote on the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill. Since only 86 Republicans voted in favor of the TAA bill on June 12th, it would require at least 92 Democrats to vote in favor of TAA in order for it to pass the House. At that time, only 40 Democrats voted to renew the TAA program, while the vast majority joined House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in voting “no” to stop or delay the TPA.

On June 18th, June 18, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that “President Barack Obama isn’t going to support a strategy that gives him half a loaf on his trade agenda.

With Capitol Hill leaders working on a plan that would split Trade Promotion Authority from Trade Adjustment Assistance, Earnest made clear Obama will demand both. ‘The only legislative strategy that the president will support is a strategy that results in both TPA and TAA coming to his desk,’ he said.”

In an email to members of the SoCal Fair Trade Campaign on June 19th, Arthur Stamoulis, Executive Director of the Citizens Trade Campaign, wrote in part, “As short-sighted and inappropriate as the original Ryan-Hatch Fast Track bill was, the House package is actually even worse. It would weaken human trafficking measures; eliminate simple currency measures and other enforcement provisions; and even prohibit the consideration of climate solutions in future trade negotiations. Senators now have even more reason to vote no than they did last time around.

After the previous Senate vote to approve the combined TPA/TAA bill on May 18, 2015, Senator Elizabeth Warren released a 15-page report, “Broken Promises: Decades of Failure to Enforce Labor Standards in Free Trade Agreements,” showing that the United States pursues very few enforcement actions to uphold the labor protections in its trade agreements. In her press release, she stated, ““Supporters of past trade agreements have said again and again that these deals would include strong protections for workers, but assurances without strong enforcement are just empty promises,” Senator Warren said. ” The facts show that, despite all the promises, these trade deals were just another tool to tilt the playing field in further of multinational corporations and against working families.”

In the Weekly Standard of June 17th, anti-TPA Republican, Senator Jeff Sessions, stated, “It is essential that there be no misunderstanding: fast-track preapproves the formation of not only the unprecedentedly large Trans-Pacific Partnership, but an unlimited number of such agreements over the next six years. Those pacts include three of the most ambitious ever contemplated. After TPP comes the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union, followed by the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), seeking as one its goals labor mobility among more than 50 nations. Together, these three international compacts encompass three-fourths of the world’s GDP. Including the nations whose membership is being courted for after enactment, the countries involved would encompass nearly 90 percent of global GDP. Yet, through fast-track, Congress will have authorized the President to ink these deals before a page of them has been made public. Then, the Executive sends Congress ‘implementing’ legislation to change U.S. law—legislation which cannot be amended, cannot be filibustered, and will not be subjected to the Constitutional requirement for a two-thirds treaty vote…This nation has never seen an agreement that compares to the TPP, which forms a new Pacific Union. This is far more than a trade agreement, but creates a self-governing and self-perpetuating Commission with extraordinary implications for American workers and American sovereignty.”

On June 19th, Steve Elliott of Grassfire, emailed, “They made their dirty “back-room” deal behind closed doors and now they are on auto-pilot to “land” ObamaTrade Fast Track despite massive public opposition…Boehner and McConnell use deception and trickery to resurrect the defeated Fast Track bill and then announce that this is on a “glide-path”!

In an email I received June 23rd, Chris Chmielenski of NumbersUSA, stated, “The current version of TPA, H.R.2146, would allow Pres. Obama to negotiate immigration increases into free trade agreements that would only be subject to a simple up-or-down vote from Congress. TPA would not only cover the massive Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) between the United States and 12 other Pacific Rim nations, but also cover the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) between the U.S., European Union, and other nations. TiSA includes labor mobility for more than 50 nations and could increase the number of foreign workers allowed to work in the U.S. and extend the length of their work visas.”

In an email I received on June 22nd, Senator Rand Paul stated, “Over the past few weeks, more and more Americans have begun to see why I oppose Obamatrade. As far as I’m concerned, the American people have had enough of government hiding things from us. And every time they say it’s “for our own good,” we’ve found ourselves in an even deeper mess…If passed, “fast-track” authority would allow trade deals the Obama administration negotiates with the 12 member nations covered in the Trans-Pacific Partnership to pass Congress with a simple majority vote — instead of the 67 U.S. Senate votes the U.S. Constitution requires for ratification of a Treaty…It’s time for this scheme to be released for the American people. If the President won’t release it and agree to an open and transparent process — to ensure Americans’ liberty is protected — Congress must vote “NO!”

Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter, issued a press release June 23rd, which states in part: “Today, the Senate narrowly approved a procedural motion to pass a degraded version of the Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority that passed last month… Today’s bill also weakened the Senate’s earlier provisions addressing human trafficking and currency manipulation and includes new House language that prohibits trade deals from ever addressing climate change or immigration issues…Fast Track will accelerate Congressional consideration of the as-yet-unseen Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact that will undermine key consumer, public health and environmental protections, and other trade deals that follow. These trade deals could undermine America’s food safety standards and commonsense food labeling measures, bringing a rising tide of unsafe imported food to our grocery stores and restaurants.”

After the cloture vote, Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America issued the following statement, which in part states, “The Republican base and the Democratic base remain united in their opposition to current trade and global governance policy. Job creation claims are no longer believed because they have proved false. Growth claims fall flat. The rhetoric in favor of trade deals contrasts shockingly with the data on post-agreement performance.

America needs to establish a long term goal of balanced trade, a medium term goal of becoming a net exporting nation and a short term goal of producing more of what we consume. We need to recognize that tariffs and quotas are no longer the issue. This is not 1906 anymore. The new mercantilism and trade distortions are currency manipulation, foreign border tax hikes, industrial subsidies and a few other tactics that move the net trade needle towards deficit. Any modern trade policy must address these modern tactics. And America must fix its tax policy to substantially increase our trade competitiveness.”

Since the Trade Promotion Authority only needs 51 votes to pass, it is likely that the bill will pass the Senate because of 60 senators voting for cloture. The only path left for the American people will be to convince Congress not to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. At least, the Trade Promotion Authority requires “at least 60 days before the day on which the President enters into the agreement, publishes the text of the agreement on a publicly available Internet website of the Office of the United States Trade Representative.”

I urge all Americans to stop being apathetic and exercise their constitutional right to address their representatives in Congress. We must stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and other treaties in negotiation from destroying our national sovereignty and harming the American way of life.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Jobs, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Boehner and his “Lieutenants” Battle for International Corporate Elite

Tuesday, June 16th, 2015

On Friday, June 12, 2015, the House passed the Trade Promotion Authority. This meant that 191 Republicans and 28 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to surrender their Constitutional authority on trade and allow President Obama to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and other agreements that have been negotiated behind closed doors. The good news is that the House failed to renew the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) portion of H.R. 1314 by a vote of 302 to 126. Since the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1314, contained both the TPA and TAA measures, the House needed to pass both portions of H. R. 1314 for the bill to go to the president’s desk for signature.

Many did not expect the Trade Promotion Authority bill to be voted on if the TAA bill failed, but as soon as it failed, a motion was made to vote on the TPA bill. Then, as soon as the TPA passed, I watched Republican House Speaker John Boehner (OH) make a motion to reconsider the TAA after the House reconvenes on June 15th. The re-vote was expected to take place Tuesday, June 16th, but at a Rules Committee meeting late Monday, June 15th, the House Republican leadership decided to delay the re-vote until July 30th in an attempt to give President Obama and the Republican leadership more time to figure out how to pass the stalled trade package.

If the House and Senate pass bills with different language, then they have to form a House/Senate Conference Committee. That committee negotiates and works out the differences in the two bills, sends the bills to the House and Senate, and if both chambers approve, it then goes to the President for signing.

There was also a third trade-related bill, H.R. 644, the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. This bill was the first of the three bills that the House voted on, and it passed by a vote of 240 to 190. This bill had to pass because it had all the Paul Ryan goodies promised to Republicans who were wavering in exchange for their TPA support (although the currency manipulation language that was in the Senate-passed bill was stripped out.)

It is likely that deal cutting will be conducted behind the scenes to get Democrats to vote in favor of the TAA. Even though Democrats have consistently supported Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation, Democrat leadership and labor unions were unhappy because the TAA program was to be funded by large Medicare cuts, and it would not provide enough funding to offset the harm of TPA. Other Democrats voted “no” to delay or stop the Trade Promotion Authority bill.

The Republican leadership hates TAA, but was willing to help pass it to get Democratic votes. Important conservative organizations like Heritage Action and Club for Growth opposed TAA but supported TPA. A last minute Boehner/Pelosi deal on TAA prevented the defunding of Medicare to fund TAA, and instead would fund it by direct tax hikes by raising the penalties for misfiled taxes. “A vote for Obamatrade on Tuesday is a vote to give the IRS more power and more incentives to go after small businesses,” said Curtis Ellis, founder of the Obamatrade.com website, brought to you by the American Jobs Alliance, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. It seems unlikely that more Republicans will vote for the TAA after the revelation that voting for TAA is technically voting for a tax increase.

What angers me is that the existence of the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill is a tacit admission by both parties that trade bills cause people to lose their jobs so that they need assistance to be retrained for other jobs. What does a person with a good paying manufacturing job get trained to do? Work at Walmart or flip burgers for McDonalds? That is what too many American workers have been forced to do when the company they worked closed their doors due to unfair competition from foreign companies as a result of previous trade agreements concluded in the past 20 years.

There are rumors that if the TAA bill fails again, the Republicans have a “Plan B” and will draft another rule that would bring TPA to the floor on its own without being tied to the TAA legislation. If this is necessary, the Republican House leadership would risk losing the support of some Democrats and some of the Tea Party-supported Representatives that voted “yes.” If a stand-alone Trade Promotion Authority bill does pass, the Senate would have to reconsider and vote on the TPA bill without the TAA portion being included.

If the Trade Promotion Authority is granted to President Obama, future historians may mark this event as the day when our Constitutional representative democracy ended and our country unofficially transformed into an oligarchy, which is defined as “a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.”

In 1995, Republicans concluded a “Contract with America,” while in 2015, Republicans appear to have concluded a contract with the oligarchy composed of the international corporate elite of large, multinational corporations that betray America’s small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and workers. These large, multinational corporations now comprise the majority of the membership of the National Association of Manufacturers and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. Many are no longer American-owned corporations, having been acquired by corporations from foreign countries.

For seven years, Republicans have accused President Obama of overstepping the power of the Executive Branch of our government, but now they just voted to give him even more power in the name of “free trade.” This is why I heard conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin express his outrage against Republican leadership in the House on his show Thursday evening, June 11th, when he said that these “trade agreements aren’t free trade, they are crony capitalism.”

Tea Party members and supporters can feel good that 54 Republicans voted “no” on granting Trade Promotion Authority, nearly all of whom were Tea Party supported candidates in either the 2010 or 2012 election. These Representatives realized that the TPP would be a threat to our national sovereignty and leads us one step closer to global governance. Only seven Tea Party-supported Representatives changed their mind at the last minute and voted “yes” on the TPA. They were: Rod Blum (IA), Mo Brooks (AL), Trent Franks (AZ), Jody Hice (GA), Matt Salmon (AZ), David Schweikert (AZ), and Martin Stutzman (IN).

It is a pity that conservative groups like the Tea Party, Grassfire, and Numbers USA were so late in joining the opposition to the Trade Promotion Authority. Their opposition earlier in the game could have influenced more of the 65 or so Tea Party-supported Representatives to have the courage to vote “no” on the TPA.

Democrats should be ashamed of the 28 Representatives who voted to turn their backs on America’s small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and workers by approving the TPA. Those voting in favor were: Brad Ashford (NE), Ami Bera (CA), Don Beyer (VA), Earl Blumenauer (OR), Suzanne Bonamici (OR), Gerry Connolly (VA), Jim Cooper (TN), Jim Costa (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Susan Davis (CA), John Delaney (MD), Suzan DelBene (WA), Sam Farr (CA), Jim Himes (CT), Ruben Hinojosa (TX), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Derek Kilmer (WA), Ron Kind (WI), Rick Larsen (WA), Gregory Meeks (NY), Beto O’Rourke (TX), Scott Peters (CA), Jared Polis (CO), Mike Quigley (IL), Kathleen Rice (NY), Kurt Schrader (OR), Terri Sewell (AL), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL). I don’t know whether any of these Democrats changed their mind at the last minute, but the two Representatives from San Diego, Susan Davis and Scott Peters, were “undecided” up to the day before the vote.

At the beginning of the year, there were 11 Democrat Representatives in southern California that were undecided on the Trade Promotion Authority. Visits to district offices by me and members of the state chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America for which I am chair played a role in influencing 9 of the 11 to vote “no” on the TPA. This shows how important work at the district office level is to get our elected Representatives to hear and pay attention to our voices.

Now that the re-vote on the Trade Adjustment Assistance has been delayed for two weeks, there is more time to put pressure on Representatives that voted for the Trade Promotion Authority to influence them to vote against it. I urge you to contact your Representative today and ask them to oppose the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill and a stand-alone Trade Promotion Authority bill. Together we can see that H. R. 1314 succumbs to a well-deserved death!

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Trade Policy | No Comments »

How would the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement affect the Reshoring Trend?

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015

Reshoring has become a trend, not just anecdotal, as hardly a week goes by without an article about a company returning manufacturing to America in some news outlet. However, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is projected to reduce the rate of reshoring and manufacturing jobs being brought back to the U. S. Combined with the high U. S. dollar, the impact is likely to be severe.

Utilization of the Total Cost of Ownership worksheet estimator developed by Harry Moser, founder of the Reshoring Initiative, has provided a method for companies to do a true analysis to be able to see that they may not be saving as much, if any, of the money anticipated by sourcing offshore because the cost savings are often outweighed by the hidden costs of doing business offshore.

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is “the sum of all the costs associated with every activity of the supply stream,” according to the 13th edition APICS dictionary.” However, most companies don’t look beyond quoted unit price to make decision of where to source and ignore 20% or more of the total cost of offshored products. According to the Archstone Consulting survey reported in the American Machinist Magazine July 16, 2009, 60% of manufacturers apply only “rudimentary” total cost models: Wage Arbitrage, PPV (Purchase Price Variance), and Landed Cost.

This is because in the cost accounting systems used by most corporations, transportation costs, travel costs to vendors, rework costs of defective parts, cost of inventory, etc. are in separate accounting categories. This is why it is critical that CFOs and Supply Chain managers be trained in how to use the TCO worksheet to increase reshoring. Harry Moser’s TCO worksheet is able to quantify many of the following hidden costs of sourcing offshore that are not captured by any other current method:

  • Currency fluctuations
  • Cost of managing offshore contract
  • Design changes
  • Quality problems
  • Legal liabilities
  • Travel expenses
  • Time and effort to make transition
  • Poor communication
  • Intellectual Property infringement
  • Cost of inventory

The reshoring trend has also benefited by the following changing supply chain dynamics in offshore sourcing that have occurred since 2007:

  • Oil prices tripled, raising logistics costs
  • Labor rates in China rose by 300%
  • Component/material prices increased
  • Automation increased U.S. productivity
  • Political instability in China – Labor riots/strikes
  • Exchange rate variables
  • Risk of disruption from natural disasters

This is why the Boston Consulting Group issued a press release May 5, 2011, stating, “We expect net labor costs for manufacturing in China and the U.S. to converge by around 2015… since wage rates account for 20 to 30 percent of a product’s total cost, manufacturing in China will be only 10 to 15 percent cheaper than in the U.S.” This prediction was very controversial at the time and generated a great deal of debate.

On October 11, 2011, the Boston Consulting Group issued a report, stating, “Seven industry sectors had reached “tipping point” of returning to U.S.” They are:

  • Appliances and electrical equipment
  • Computer/electronics
  • Fabricated metal products
  • Electrical equipment/appliances
  • Furniture
  • Machinery
  • Plastics and rubber products
  • Transportation goods

Note: These sectors account for 70% of U.S. imports and 2 trillion in U.S. consumption

Because robotics, automation, lean manufacturing, and the rapidly improving technology of additive manufacturing have helped companies do more with fewer people, many have been skeptical that reshoring would create many jobs. The Boston Consulting Group’s predictions of which industry sectors would return to the U. S. first are now verified by data that the Reshoring Initiative has captured since its founding in 2010. This data also provides the answer to the question of how many jobs have been created by reshoring.

The following chart shows the number of jobs created by reshoring:

Industry

 Jobs Companies
Transportation Equipment 13,823 33
Electrical Equipment, Appliances, Components 9,240 58
Computer/Electronic Products 3,483 25
Machinery 2,860 20
Apparel/Textiles 2,154 46
Fabricated Metal Products 1,721 39
Food 1,628 9
Wood Products 1,028 18
Medical Equipment    738 17
Hobbies    723 29
Construction    577 4
Plastic/Rubber Products    470 16
Castings      57 8
Non-Metallic Mineral Products      12 1
Primary Metal Products        0 5
Chemicals & Energy        0 1 each
Other 1,016 24

The Reshoring Initiative has also captured reshoring data by state. You will be surprised by some of the states that made it in the top ten because the Boston Consulting Group predicted that reshoring would mainly occur in the low wage states of the south. The data for the top ten states is shown on the chart below.

State

Jobs

 Cases Jobs/Facility
South Carolina 7,530 8 941
Texas 3,792 13 292
Kentucky 3,412 4 853
Georgia 3,145 8 393
Tennessee 3,137 15 209
Ohio 2,739 24 114
Michigan 1,742 16 109
New York 1,165 19 61
North Carolina 1,020 15 68
Kansas 1,000 2 500

Three of these states, Ohio, Michigan, and New York are definitely not low wage states. California dropped from a rank of 10th in the number of jobs shown on the 2014 table to 12th on this new table. Frankly, if a company can reshore to California, Michigan, New York and Ohio, they can reshore to anywhere in the U. S.

According to the 2012 Annual Re-Shoring Report by the MIT Forum For Supply Chain Innovation, the top decision drivers for reshoring are: (1) Time-to-Market – 73.7% (2) Cost Reductions – 63.9% (3) Product Quality – 62.2% (4) More Control – 56.8% (5) Hidden Supply Chain Management Costs – 51.4% and (6). Protect IP – 48.5%.

If reshoring continues to expand at its current rate, the Reshoring Initiative predicts that the $600 billion/year trade deficit would be eliminated; the U. S. economy would add 3 million manufacturing jobs while adding 9-12 million total jobs because of the multiplier effect of manufacturing jobs; reduce unemployment by 4%; cut the U.S. budget deficit by about 50%, and increase manufacturing output by 25%.

Because of my concerns about the impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement about which I have written, I recently asked Harry Moser for his opinion on the potential effects.

He said, “We have made huge progress from around 2003 when we were losing net about 130,000 manufacturing jobs/year till 2014 when reshoring plus FDI exceeded offshoring by about 10,000 jobs. However there are still about 3 million manufacturing jobs offshored. So, reshoring is still in its infancy and is still fragile. Offshore LLC prices are still typically 25% lower than domestic prices. It is a struggle to get companies to understand that in some cases the domestic total cost is lower even though the price is so much higher. Tariffs are one of the largest, most unambiguous of the “hidden costs” that need to be quantified. TPP will reduce tariffs, making the TCO argument more difficult and less likely to suggest reshoring. This is also an especially poor time for TPP with the USD up substantially and at its highest level in several years. The combination of the high USD and TPP will reduce the rate of reshoring by a roughly estimated 20 to 50%.”

He added, “Since the U.S. is the world’s largest market, with one language and with consumers who are mainly driven by price not nationalism, ours is the target market for all offshore companies. TPP will reduce barriers to trade, making our market even more attractive. If TPP has equal percentage impacts on our imports and our exports, the result will be negative since our goods imports exceed our exports by about 40%. ”

The TPP would reduce or eliminate tariffs for 11 more countries, so it will have the most impact on the companies that have reshored because of cost savings. I think Harry’s opinion that the TPP would have a 20 – 50% reduction on the rate of reshoring is conservative. This adverse effect on reshoring is one more reason why we must stop the fast track Trade Promotion Authority from being passed by the House. Now that the Trade Promotion Authority fast tracking the TPP passed the Senate, it is critical that you contact your Congressional Representative to urge them to oppose granting fast track Trade Promotion Authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

International Corporate Elite Steamrolls Trade Promotion Authority Through Senate!

Tuesday, May 26th, 2015

Late Friday evening, May 22, 2015, the Senate voted to pass the Trade Promotion Authority (H.R. 1314) by a vote of 62 to 37 to give President Obama the authority to “fast-track” trade agreements through 2018, with an extension to 2021 possible. If this legislation also passes the House, this would mean that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Agreement may be negotiated and signed without any amendments by Congress and with only a majority vote rather than the supermajority vote required for treaties under the Constitution.

Of the Republican senators, 54 voted yes, four voted no and one did not vote. Fourteen Democrats joined the majority of Republicans in voting yes. According to the Roll Call, they are: Bennet (CO), Cantwell (WA), Cardin (MD), Coons (DE), Feinstein (CA), Heitkamp (ND), Kaine (VA), McCaskill (MO), Murray (FL) Shaheen (NH), Warren (VA), and Wyden (OR). The four Republicans who voted no are: Collins (ME), Paul (KY), Sessions (AL), and Shelby (AL).

Nearly every Democrat or Democrat-leaning organization from unions to the Sierra Club opposed the Trade Promotion Authority, so those fourteen Democrat Senators turned their back on their constituencies and the American working class they claim to support to follow lock-step with the Republicans they accuse of being in the pocket of “big business,” i.e. the large multinational corporations that comprise the membership of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, etc.

There were over 100 amendments proposed, but only ten were allowed to reach the floor for a vote. Three were rejected for discussion or a vote because they were ruled as not being not germane to the topic: Inhofe (R-OK) # 1312 (AGOA), Shaheen (D-NH) SA #1227 (small business), and McCain (R-AZ) #1226 (catfish).

The Hatch (R-UT) (substitute) amendment #1221 was approved without any description or discussion by a vote of 62 yes to 37 no.

The Flake (R-AZ) amendment #1243 to strike the extension of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program (TAA) failed 35 yes to 63 no. The Trade Adjustment Assistance was originally a separate bill and was added to the Trade Promotion Authority to “sweeten” the deal to gain Democrat votes. Trade Adjustment Assistance is a federal program to reduce the damaging impact of imports. The current program features four components for workers, firms, farmers, and communities.

The Brown (D-OH) amendment #1251 purpose was to require the approval of Congress before additional countries may join the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement because the TPP is a “docking” agreement in which other countries may be added after it is signed and in effect. In his comments in support of this amendment, Senator Brown specifically mentioned the need for Congress to approve the addition of China to the Agreement. Unfortunately, the amendment failed by a vote of 47 yes to 52 no.

The Stabenow-Portman amendment #1299, whose purpose was, “To make it a principal negotiating objective of the United States to address currency manipulation in trade agreements,” failed by a vote of 48 yes to 51 no.

The Hatch amendment #1411 was agreed to by a vote of 70 yes to 29 No without any description or discussion.

Two Amendments had already been considered on May 21st:

  • Lankford SA 1237 passed by a vote of 92 to 0 to establish consideration of the conditions relating to religious freedom of parties to trade negotiations as an overall negotiating objective of the United States.
  • Brown SA #1242 failed by a vote 41 to 45 to restore funding for the trade adjustment assistance program to the level established by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011

Of equal importance, the Warren amendment #1327 failed to pass by a vote of 39 Yes to 60 No. Its purpose was “To prohibit application of the trade authorities procedures to an implementing bill submitted with respect to a trade agreement that includes investor-state dispute settlement” [ISDS].

This is the chapter of the TPP that allows foreign corporations to bypass the domestic legal system to use to fight laws they don’t like. International Tribunals, not U.S. courts, would decide on lawsuits between the U. S and “investor” companies in member countries. Foreign “investors” could file lawsuits against city, state, and federal agencies for laws and regulations they feel infringe on their “expected future profits.” They can also sue for compensation for the loss of these “expected future profits.”

In her comments to introduce the amendment, Senator Elizabeth Warren mentioned that over 100 law professors had sent a letter to Congress and the Obama administration urging them to not include the ISDS in the TPP. I discovered that she was quoting from the “Analysis of Leaked Trans-Pacific Partnership Investment Text by Lori Wallach of the Citizen’s Trade group” that was released on Wednesday, March 25, 2015. You can download the leaked chapter at https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/

This 13-page analysis includes this paragraph: “A March 2015 letter signed by 139 U.S. law professors urges congressional leaders and the Obama administration ‘to protect the rule of law and our nation’s sovereignty by ensuring ISDS is not included” in the TPP, stating, “ISDS threatens domestic sovereignty by empowering foreign corporations to bypass domestic court systems and privately enforce terms of a trade agreement. It weakens the rule of law by removing the procedural protections of the justice system and using an unaccountable, unreviewable system of adjudication.’ A May 2012 letter signed by former judges, law professors and other prominent lawyers from TPP nations warns: ‘the foreign investor protections included in some recent Free Trade Agreements (FTA) and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BIT) and their enforcement through Investor-State arbitration should not be replicated in the TPP. We base this conclusion on concerns about how the expansion of this regime threatens to undermine the justice systems in our various countries and fundamentally shift the balance of power between investors, states and other affected parties in a manner that undermines fair resolution of legal disputes.”

This analysis is well worth reading to become fully informed of the dangers of international tribunals adjudicating cases instead of our domestic legal system. Two of the most dangerous features of the ISDS chapter are:

  • “Foreign investors alone would be granted access to extrajudicial tribunals staffed by private sector lawyers who rotate between acting as “judges” and representing corporations in cases against governments, posing major conflicts of interest.”
  • “Foreign tribunals would be empowered to order governments to pay unlimited cash compensation out of national treasuries.”

Senator Warren also mentioned that even the CATO Institute, a champion of free trade, had recommended removal of ISDS from the Trade Promotion Authority legislation. The report she referenced is Free Trade Bulletin No. 57, “A Compromise to Advance the Trade Agenda: Purge Negotiations of Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” by Daniel J. Ikenson dated March 4, 2014. The CATO Institute is a well-known American libertarian think tank, so its recommendations should have had some influence on Republicans in the Senate, but evidently did not. Instead, the vast majority of them chose to follow their cue from the international corporate elite behind this treaty.

Ikenson wrote that there are “practical, economic, legal, and political reasons to expunge ISDS from current trade negotiations.” He presented “Eight Good Reasons to Drop ISDS from TPP and TTIP, which you can read in full at the above link.

Since there was very little information on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement in the major media prior to its introduction in the Senate and the failure of the first cloture vote on May 12th, it is imperative that freedom-loving organizations make Democrat and Republican Representatives in the House aware of the facts about the damage the TPP would do to our country.

America now stands at a crossroads, whether Americans will remain in control of their destiny or will be forced to bow before foreign tribunals and have even more of their jobs shipped overseas. If we are to protect our national sovereignty and our jobs, we must stop this legislation in the House by flooding their switchboards!

Members of the manufacturing task force of the California chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America of which I am chair have done their part by visiting the offices of all 33 of the southern California Representatives in the past year. The final hour is near. Let your Representative hear your voice! If you don’t know who your Representative is, click here.

Posted in Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

Would the Trans Pacific Partnership really be Free Trade?

Tuesday, May 5th, 2015

Free trade ? what does this mean? Businesdictionary.com defines it as “The interchange of goods and services (but not of capital or labor) unhindered by high tariffs, nontariff barriers (such as quotas), and onerous or unilateral requirements or processes.” By this definition, would the Trans Pacific Partnership really be free trade?

Last week, Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) gave a speech in support of passing the Trade Promotion Authority aka “Fast Track Authority” saying, “Every nation that engages in trade prospers from it. Every nation that fails to trade, fails to prosper…It is freedom that produces prosperity – the free exchange of goods between people and between nations for their mutual betterment. The greater the freedom, the greater the prosperity.”

This is only true if the nation benefits from the trade by exporting more than it imports. In 2014, the U. S. imported $2.34 trillion in goods compared to exporting $1.62 trillion in goods, resulting in a trade deficit of $721.6 billion. Because we have a surplus in exports of services, our total trade deficit was reduced to $505 billion. It seems to me that we are not benefitting from our current trade agreements as we should and that another trade agreement with 11 more countries would only make our trade deficit much worse.

Rep. McClintock argued that “…since the 1930’s, Congress has chosen to exercise its responsibility by establishing the broad terms of the agreement it seeks and then giving explicit instructions to our negotiators at the beginning of the process. IF, and only IF, these objectives are advanced in the agreement, Congress will then consider it as a whole package and either approve it or reject it.

McClintock said, “That process is now called ‘Trade Promotion Authority. It has stood the test of time, has been used to the great benefit of our nation in the past and has never been controversial until now… It is precisely because of this mistrust that the Trade Promotion Authority sets forth some 150 objectives that must be advanced before Congress will even consider the resulting agreement. And once those objectives are attained, a majority of the Congress must still approve it.”

What is wrong with this argument is that the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement has been in negotiation for five years without any involvement by Congress; it is not at the beginning of the process. Rep. McClintock seems to mistakenly believe Congress retains the power to direct the President’s negotiations when in fact there is only one more round of negotiations scheduled.

Rep. McClintock wrongly asserts that Congress set forth 150 negotiating objectives in the TPA that the President “must” comply with. This statement is not true. None of the objectives are binding and most are simply vague aspirations of global goals. Indeed, the House Ways and Means Committee firmly rejected any efforts to make the negotiating objectives binding.

The President also is empowered to unilaterally draft “implementing legislation” that will change U.S. laws and regulations to comply with the agreement he negotiated. Through the TPA, Congress even limits its own ability to debate and prevents its ability to amend the implementing legislation.

The Obama Administration made the draft text of the agreement classified and has kept it hidden from public view, making it illegal for the press, experts, advocates, or the general public to review the text of this agreement. Even Congressional members can only view it at the office of the U. S. Trade Representative without pen, pencil, paper or a camera to take picture of any pages. They are also prohibited by law from discussing the specifics of the text in public.

This is why on April 25th Senators Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren wrote President Obama a letter stating, “We write to request that you promptly declassify the latest bracketed negotiating text of the TPP and release it publicly before asking Congress to vote on “fast track” authority to facilitate the TPP’s ratification.”

They add, “Because the negotiations are largely complete, there is no reason the TPP must remain secret from the American people before Congress votes on fast track authority. In 2001, President George W. Bush made public a draft of the scrubbed bracketed text of the Free Trade Area of the Americans (“FTAA”) agreement several months before Congress granted partial fast track authority to facilitate ratification of that deal.”

They conclude, “We have an additional concern: the fast track legislation currently under consideration goes far beyond the TPP. Fast track, as currently written, would preclude Congress from amending or filibustering any trade agreement submitted to this Congress or any future Congress—potentially through 2021.”

Their concerns are shared by Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-IL) who has introduced “the Truth, Transparency, Accountability, and Fairness in Trade Act to protect American workers being harmed by foreign trade agreements.” His bill would require “the Executive Branch to review and report on the operation of existing trade agreements to determine whether American jobs and exports are being negatively impacted. If negative impact is found, any Member of Congress would have the right to submit a “termination bill,” which would have expedited consideration and allow for the cancellation of some or all of the trade agreement causing damage. After passage of a termination bill, any renegotiated agreement would be barred from being considered under Trade Promotion Authority (the fast-track process).”

It is not just Democrats that are opposed to the Trade Promotion Authority bill. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) expressed his concerns about the Trade Promotion authority in an interview on the John Fredericks Radio Show on Thursday, 4/23. (WHKT, AM 1650, and a Network of AM Stations across Virginia.) He subsequently released a critical alert of his Top Five Concerns with Trade Promotion Authority.

“Conservatives like Reps. Walter Jones and Duncan Hunter have said they oppose the measure, wary of giving the White House any more authority. At the end of last year, 19 House Republicans signed a letter calling on their colleagues not to pass TPA in the lame-duck session.”

At www.obamatrade.com, you can listen to videos of several conservatives urging Republican Congressional Representatives to oppose the Trade Promotion Authority, including TV host Lou Dobbs, Frank Gaffney, President of Center for Security Policy, former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes, Niger Innis, Executive Director of TheTeaParty.net, Richard Manning, President of Americans for Limited Government, and Sandy Rios of American Family Association. The American Family Association is part of a broad coalition of conservative organizations urging Congress to reject granting President Obama so-called “fast track” power. Author, talk show host, and defender of the Constitution Mark Levin says no conservative should support Fast Track “Trade Promotion Authority.”

Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, stated, “The minority staff of the House Ways and Means released a side by side comparison of this week’s Fast Track bill with the bill from January 2014. Basically it is more of the same. Will they never learn? From CPA’s perspective, the new bill is a failure.”

The new bill does not have any enforceable provision to address foreign currency manipulation. It does not address the foreign border adjustable taxes (VATs), which are tariffs by another name. It has insufficient language to address the problem of government subsidies to state owned enterprises. It allows the Investor State Dispute Resolution to be handled by the foreign tribunals without providing a rationale as to why the U. S. court systems are not good enough.

For these reasons and other reasons mentioned in my previous article, “What would be the Impact of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement,” this Agreement is the opposite of free trade. It is government controlled trade and is so overreaching on non-trade issues that it would control many aspects of the lives of all Americans, not just businesses.

The Trade Promotion bill passed the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee on April 22nd and 23rd. It could be brought up for a vote in the full House and Senate any time after Congress gets back from this week’s recess. Time is of the essence! Don’t give up your freedom! Tell your representatives in Congress to vote NO on Fast Track.

Posted in Jobs, Trade, Trade Policy | No Comments »

What would be the Impact of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement?

Monday, April 20th, 2015

Last Thursday, Senators Hatch, Wyden, and Ryan introduced “The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015,” which is the Trade Promotion Authority bill that would grant President Obama “fast track” authority for the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.

The TPP agreement has been in negotiation since 2010 between the United States and 11 other countries around the Pacific Rim: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The TPP would cover 792 million people and 40% of world’s economic activity. It is a “docking agreement” so other countries could be added, and India, China, and Korea have expressed interest in joining the TPP.

There has been no involvement by Congress in the writing of the Agreement; instead, 600 corporate advisors have worked with the U. S. Trade Representative and his staff to write the more than 1,000 pages of the Agreement. Members of Congress did not even have access to view the Agreement until last year, and they cannot take any staff with them and are not allowed to take pen, pencil, paper, or a camera when they go view it at the U. S. T. R.’s office.

This Act would give Constitutional power over trade to the President and take it away from Congress. It would allow the Executive Branch to conclude negotiations and sign the Agreement before a vote by Congress. It allows only 45 days for committee analysis and only 15 days to bring it up for floor vote. It allows only 20 hours of debate by Congress and eliminates amendments, filibuster, and cloture. It requires only simple majority vote in the Senate and House whereas the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 Treaty clause requires 2/3 vote of Senate. The TPP would remain in effect until 2018, but could be extended to 2021.

What is missing in the TPP

 The TPP does not address any of the “predatory mercantilist” actions that our current trading partners are using that have created the enormous trade deficit that I wrote about a few weeks ago. These policies are: currency manipulation, “border adjustable” taxes called Value Added Taxes (VATs), which are a tariff by another name, government subsidies for State-Owned Enterprises, and “product dumping” by manufacturers in one country at below their cost to produce to destroy competition in another country.

“Over 20 countries, representing 1/3 of global GDP, are engaged in currency wars” by undervaluing their currency. These governments work with their central banks to manipulate the currency value in order to provide a competitive advantage to boost exports and impede imports. China’s currency is estimated to be 25-40% undervalued. As Paul Volcker, former Secretary of the Treasury, has explained, “In five minutes, exchange rates can wipe out what it took trade negotiators ten years to accomplish.” Foreign government intervention in foreign exchange markets is manipulation, not free trade.

Value Added Taxes (VATs) range from a low of 10% to a high of 24%, averaging 17% worldwide. The U. S. is one of a handful of 159 other countries that do not charge a VAT. This means that American products that are exported are an average of 17% more expensive when imported by a country that adds a VAT. In reverse, foreign imports are an average of 17% less expensive because the U. S. does not charge a VAT. Thus, we reduce tariffs through our trade agreements only to have our trading partners add a tariff by another name to the cost of our products that we export. This gives other countries an unfair competitive advantage in the global marketplace.

We have all read news stories about “product dumping” cases against U. S. industries, such as the tires, steel, and solar panel industries. With regard to government subsidies, the best example is how Foxconn was able to get Apple’s business for manufacturing the iPhone, iPad and now the iWatch because the Chinese government gave them the land and built the building for them.

What is wrong with the TPP?

 The TPP overrules prior acts of Congress and destroys our national sovereignty. For example:

 Buy American Act made Null and Void: For the manufacturing industry for which I play a role, the most adverse effect would be that the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries. What this means is that the TPP’s procurement chapter would require that all companies operating in any country signing the agreement be provided access equal to domestic firms to bid on government procurement contracts at the local, state, and federal level. There are many companies that survived the recession and continue in business today because of the Buy American provisions for defense and military procurement. The TPP could be a deathblow for companies that rely on defense and military contracts, such as the U. S. printed circuit board industry. Most of the commercial printed circuit manufacturing was already offshored to China and South Korea years ago.

Product Labeling: Country of Origin Labeling, labeling of GMO products, and “organic” labeling could be made illegal because of being viewed as an “illegal trade barrier.” Even the health warnings on tobacco products could be viewed as an “illegal trade barrier.”

Many TPP countries are farm-raising seafood using chemicals and antibiotics that are prohibited in the U. S. and farmed seafood from China is being raised in water quality equivalent to U. S. sewers. According to Food & Water Watch, around 90% of the shrimp and catfish that Americans eat are imported. They warn, “The TPP will increase imports of potentially unsafe and minimally inspected fish and seafood products, exposing consumers to more and more dangerous seafood.”

Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) has stated “that fast food restaurants are not required to disclose the origins of their beef and even when restaurants say the beef is “U.S. Inspected,” it is as likely as not to be imported.” When we were in Washington, D. C. together last month, Mr. Bullard told me that the increased importation of sheep and lamb from Australia and New Zealand could wipe out the American sheep ranching industry.

The California Farmers Union recently sent a letter to Rep. Davis Valadao (R-CA) stating, “Passage of the TPP would lead to a flood of dairy imports from New Zealand chronically depressing U. S. dairy producer prices…Agricultural imports will rise dramatically under the proposed agreement…The Agreement further poses a threat to the food security that we have long enjoyed as a nation because imports will replace U. S. produced agricultural products.”

Investor State Dispute Resolution: ISDR is designed to allow foreign corporations to bypass the domestic legal system to use to fight laws they don’t like. International Tribunals, not U.S. courts, would decide on lawsuits between “investor” companies in member countries and the U. S. Foreign “investors” could file lawsuits against city, state, and federal agencies for laws and regulations that may infringe on their “expected future profits.” They can also sue for compensation for the loss of these “expected future profits.” Thus, the TPP would infringe upon states’ rights as state and local governments have the constitutional authority to enact rules governing many areas covered by the TPP. But, they will no longer have the freedom to do so in the many regulatory areas covered by the TPP.

The TPP includes hundreds of pages that govern the policies of states concerning non-trade domestic policy and state and local officials would be bound to comply with much of the Agreement’s rules and regulations.

Space doesn’t allow me to cover all of the things that are wrong with the TPP with regard to non-trade issues, such as patent and copyright laws, land use, as well as policies concerning natural resources, the environment, labor laws, health care, energy and telecommunications.

Except for the large multinational corporations that participated in writing the Agreement and are its beneficiaries, there is something for everyone to hate. Opposition to the TPP cuts across party lines ? there are Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians opposed to many of the “leaked” provisions of the TPP. Organizations from the left to the right are opposed to the TPP as negotiated. It will hurt the 98-99% of American manufacturers who had no place at the table in writing the Agreement. It will hurt American consumers and American workers of all ages. It will harm our environment and put our food and water safety at risk. But, most of all it will destroy our national sovereignty. Now is the time for you to write, call, or email your Senator and Congressional representative to urge them to vote “no” on granting Fast Track authority.

Posted in Country of Origin, Economy, Manufacturing, National security, Taxes/Regulations, Trade, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

Is there a Relationship Between our Trade Deficits and our National Debt?

Tuesday, January 27th, 2015

In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress for Fast Track trade authority to move forward on the two trade agreements that have been in negotiations behind closed doors for the past four years: The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Trans-Atlantic Trade Agreement. I have already written several articles about why Fast Track Authority should not be granted and the dangers of the TPP. The purpose of this article is to show that there is a relationship between our trade deficits and our national debt. As shown by the chart below, we now have a more than $18 trillion national debt.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt

Notice how it sharply ramps up starting in 2001. The recessions of 2001-2002 and 2008-2009 obviously played a significant factor in the increase in the national debt from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to its present level, because during recessions, there is a decrease in tax revenues and an increase in spending for unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other assistance, as well as spending on programs to attempt to stimulate the economy.

However, 2001 also coincides with the first full year of trade with China under the rules of World Trade Organization after “Congress agreed to permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status,” which “President Clinton signed into law on October 10, 2000,” paving “the way for China’s accession to the WTO in December 2000.”

According to Alan Uke’s book, Buying Back America, the United States now has a trade deficit with 88 countries. Of course, some deficits are small, but some are enormous, such as China. According to the Census Bureau, our top seven trading partners are: Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. These seven countries represent 50.9% of our total trade deficit $ -461.3 billion for January – November 2014. At an average deficit of $40 billion per month, the 2014 trade deficit will exceed $500 billion. Our 2014 trade deficit with China alone was $-$314.3 billion for January – November, representing 68% of the total.

Some may claim that we are still the leader in advanced technology products, but this is no longer true. The U. S. has been running a trade deficit in these products since 2002, which has grown to an astonishing average of nearly $90 billion per year since 2010.

Even our most recent trade agreement, the Korea U. S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), which went into effect on March 2012 has had negative impact. The Office of the   Last March, the U. S. Trade Representative for the Obama Administration touted, “Since the Korea agreement went into effect, U.S. exports to Korea are up for our manufactured goods, including autos, exports are up for a wide range of our agricultural products, and exports are up for our services.” However, the reality is that our imports continued to exceed our exports, and the U. S. trade deficit with Korea jumped from -$13.62 billion in 2011 to -$22,838.3 billion through November 2014, which is a 60% increase in two and a half years.

china trade deficitSource:  http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-us-trade-deficit-with-china-2013-4

Notice that there is a similar upward slope on the above graph to the upward slope of our national debt chart. Anyone can see that our trade deficits have a significant impact on our national debt.

The only thing that kept our trade deficits from being higher than they have been is that fact that we have increased the exports of services to balance our imports of goods as shown by the following chart:

 

Year Total Goods Services
1999 -$258,617 billion -$337,068 billion $78,450 billion
2000 -$372,517 billion -$446,783 billion $74,266 billion
2002 -$418,955 billion -$475,245 billion $56,290 billion
2004 -$609,883 billion -$782,804 billion $68,558 billion
2006 -$761,716 billion -$837,289 billion $75,573 billion
2008 -$708,726 billion -$832,492 billion $123,765 billion
2010 -$494,658 billion -$648,678 billion $154,020 billion
2012 -$537,605 billion -$742,095 billion $204,490 billion
2014 -$461,336 billion -$673,612 billion $212,277 billion

Source: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/exhibit_history.pdf

As you can see, our trade deficit in goods more than doubled from 1999 to 2004 and reached astronomical heights just before the worldwide recession.

So how do our trade deficits add to the national debt? One way is that many products, especially consumer products, which were previously made in the U. S., are now made in China or other Asian countries, so we are importing these products instead of exporting them to other countries. The offshoring of manufacturing of so many products has resulted in the loss 5.8 million American manufacturing jobs and the closure of over 57,000 of manufacturing firms. These American workers and companies paid taxes that provided revenue to our government, so now we have less tax revenue and pay to pay for the benefits and public assistance for the unemployed and underemployed.

Our balance of payments indebtedness for trade and the additional cost to the government paid by taxpayers for these benefits has resulted in our escalating national debt. The cheaper China price of goods that we import instead of producing here in the U. S. results in a cost to society as a whole. We need to ask ourselves: Is the China price worth the cost to society?

I say a resounding NO! We need to stop shooting ourselves in the feet. We need to stop benefiting the one percent of large multinational corporations to the detriment of the 99% percent of smaller American companies.

Beyond stopping Fast Track Authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership from being approved, we need to focus on achieving “balanced trade” in any future trade agreement. Until we change the goal of trade agreements, we should refrain from negotiating any trade agreement. The last thing we need is to increase our trade deficit more than it already is.

In addition, we need to facilitate returning more manufacturing to America by changing our tax policies and making regulations less onerous to manufacturers, without compromising our commitment to protect our environment. This is the only way that we will simultaneously reduce our trade deficit and the national debt.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Trade Policy | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »