Archive for the ‘Trade Policy’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Deadly Food Products Coming to a Store Near You?

Tuesday, October 29th, 2013

For the last several years, there has been one story after another about tainted or even deadly food or ingredients to human and pet food coming from China. The two latest stories were  the jerky treats that caused hundreds of pet deaths and the laundering of honey coming from China by a German importer. However, the majority of Americans are blissfully ignorant of the origin of many of the food products stocked in their neighborhood stores. If they really knew the source of many of the products they buy, they would be horrified. The public outcry would be sufficient to put enough pressure on our elected officials to remedy the situation rapidly.

More than a hundred years ago, there was an exposé of the Chicago meat packing industry in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, followed by many other articles in the Progressive Era publications of the day. There was a huge public outcry. As a result, President Theodore Roosevelt sent labor commissioner Charles P. Neill and social worker James Bronson Reynolds to Chicago to make surprise visits to meat packing facilities. Although the meat packers were tipped off in advance about their visits, they saw enough revolting conditions at the meat packing plants to corroborate the claims of the many articles and submitted a report to the president and Congress.

As a result, the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (FMIA) was passed by Congress and signed by President Theodore Roosevelt to prevent adulterated or misbranded meat and meat products from being sold as food and to ensure that meat and meat products are slaughtered and processed under sanitary conditions. All labels on any type of food had to be accurate (although not all ingredients were provided on the label). Even though all harmful food was banned, there were still few warnings provided on the container. USDA inspection of poultry was added by the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957.

Also in 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law the Pure Food and Drug Act, under which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) was formed as an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (abbreviated as FFDCA, FDCA, or FD&C) was passed by Congress in 1938 to replace the earlier Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and gave authority to the USFDA to oversee the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics. This Act has been expanded to include food coloring, food additives, bottled water, homeopathic products, and foods produced by genetic engineering and natural sources. Genetically modified food is regarded as containing a “food additive” and is subject to pre-market approval by the FDA if the protein added to the food by the genetic engineering process is not “generally recognized as safe.” On May 28, 1976, the FD&C Act was amended to include regulation for medical devices. The amendment required that all medical devices be classified into one of three classes.

The FDA is now responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, cosmetics, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), and veterinary products.

Six years ago, there was the biggest pet food recall in history when a Chinese producer contaminated dog and cat food with melamine, a compound used in plastics, causing the deaths of animals across the United States. The public outcry helped lead to the inclusion of animal food in the Food Safety and Modernization Act, a landmark food safety bill passed in 2010 that was the first major overhaul of the Food and Drug Administration’s food safety laws since the 1930s. It gave the USFDA more control over food imports as well as broad new powers to set standards to prevent contamination of produce and processed food.

After the latest scandal regarding jerky treats for pets imported from China, the Food and Drug Administration published a proposed regulation on October 29th that would govern the production of pet food and farm animal feed for the first time. This would help prevent food-borne illness in both animals and people.

The problem with passing more regulations for the USFDA to handle is that it is grossly understaffed and underfunded for its complex and growing regulatory mission. The 2012 budget was only $4.36 billion, and the budget request for 2013 was $4.5 billion. About 45%, or $2 billion of the 2012 budget, is generated by user fees. Pharmaceutical firms pay the majority of these fees, which are used to expedite drug reviews.

The USFDA regulates more than 80% of America’s food supply and $1 trillion worth of consumer goods. Much of the expenditures are for goods imported into the United States. While the USFDA is responsible for monitoring a third of all imports, it only inspects less than 1% of food imports at the ports of entry. Many foreign countries such as China don’t have the same or any standards for source inspections that are required for food manufactured in the United States. They don’t have the same regulations against harmful pesticides and environmental pollution. Thus, importers are bypassing all of these inspections and regulations so can sell their products cheaper. This means that when you eat imported foods, you are playing the Chinese food version of “Russian roulette.”

We need to increase funding for the USFDA, and one simple way would be to require importers to pay a fee for screening of imports  to the USFDA for imports that are under its jurisdiction. This would enable the USFDA to add more staff to expand their inspection of imported goods, especially food imports.

You may be thinking that the U. S. Consumer Protection Agency is recalling food products that are determined by the USFDA to be contaminated or toxic, but you won’t find any food products listed if you go to their site to see the list of the products recalled for the month. This agency recalls manufactured products such as appliances, electrical goods, and toys, etc. The USFDA website lists all of the food, drug, and cosmetic recalls. No country of origin information is listed on the USFDA website. The Consumer Protection agency website has been revamped this year to make it more difficult to find out where a product is manufactured. Previously, you would see the list of products recalled, and the country of manufacture would be listed with the description of the product and why it was recalled. Now, it is a two-step process. On the first page, you see an image of the product and the reason why it was recalled, but no country is listed. You have to select finding products by country of manufacture to get the list for a particular country, such as China. Now, it would be more difficult to come up with how many products are coming from China compared to other countries.

The best solution for this problem would be for Congress to pass a law requiring country-of-origin labels for all human and pet food products similar to the nutritional information labels now required on packaged food products so consumers can see where their food is coming from. San Diego entrepreneur and businessman, Alan Uke has proposed what he calls a “Transparent Label.” in his book, Buying America Back:  A Real-Deal Blueprint for Restoring American Prosperity. He wants such a label for all manufactured products, which would include food for humans and pets. He feels that it is important for consumers to “see the last place where the product was manufactured” and “to discern what portion of its components came from other places.” In the case of food, it should include country-of-origin for all of the major ingredients so that consumers would be able to make decisions on whether or not they want to buy a product based on the origin of the major ingredients.  Mr. Uke also recommends that consumers be provided the country of origin information they need at the point of sale whether at a store or online.

He points out that the current information provided on country of origin labels is “misleading, incomplete, inaccessible, or all of these…In order to support our economy and American industries, we must have easily accessible, clearly communicated, and truthful information about a product’s entire origins.” We desperately need to have such a “Truth in Origin” label.

Hundreds of American pets have been poisoned and died by tainted food products from China. American children have already been harmed by dangerous levels of lead and cadmium in toys. How many Americans must die from tainted Chinese products before Congress acts?

Posted in Environment, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

“Death by China” Film Shows where all the Jobs Have Gone

Tuesday, August 27th, 2013

Are you wondering where all the good jobs have gone? Why do we have less tax revenues creating an out-of-control Federal budget deficit? Why are you working harder for less money than you did in the 1990s?

Death by China, based on the book by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry, shows how the world’s most populous nation and soon-to-be largest economy is rapidly turning into the planet’s most efficient assassin through its shoddy and even poisonous products and environmental pollution. China’s perverse form of capitalism combines illegal mercantilist and protectionist weapons to pick off American industries, job by job. Meanwhile, America’s executives, politicians, and even academia remain silent about the looming threat. To read my full review of the book, click here.

Director Peter Navarro is an internationally acclaimed expert on U.S.-China relations, a regular contributor on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and the Huffington Post, and a professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine. Greg Autry is an entrepreneur, writer, and educator. He has published extensively on business, economics, trade policy, China and space. Greg serves as Senior Economist for the American Jobs Alliance and economist for the Coalition for a Prosperous America. Both Navarro and Autry have testified to the U.S. Congress on China issues.

To Navarro and Autry, the success of the film will be measured by the ability of the public to spur politicians to finally recognize that “the best jobs program for America is trade reform with China – not more empty fiscal and monetary stimulus.”

The film review on “rottentomatoes” states, “Death by China pointedly confronts the most urgent problem facing America today – its increasingly destructive economic trade relationship with a rapidly rising China. Since China began flooding U.S. markets with illegally subsidized products in 2001, over 50,000 American factories have disappeared, more than 25 million Americans can’t find a decent job, and America now owes more than 3 trillion dollars to the world’s largest totalitarian nation. Through compelling interviews with voices across the political spectrum, Death by China exposes that the U.S.-China relationship is broken and must be fixed if the world is going to be a place of peace and prosperity.

The New York Times review states, “The film, based on a book by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry and directed by Mr. Navarro, is blunt as can be in working the premise that the admission of China to the World Trade Organization in 2001 has been catastrophic for the American economy. The influx of Chinese goods has left American manufacturers unable to compete, the film says, and Chinese leaders have been brashly ignoring rules about things like currency manipulation to make sure that their country’s products remain artificially cheap.”

In this review article, Daniel M. Slane of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission said, “American companies cannot compete because they’re not competing with Chinese companies, they’re competing with the Chinese government.”

The New York Post review states, “Narrated by Martin Sheen, the film looks at what it calls America’s increasingly destructive trade relationship with China — we owe them $3 trillion — which goes back to the Asian nation’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001. We hear claims that instead of helping both lands, as President Clinton promised at the time, the deal has resulted in the loss of millions of American jobs and the influx here of shoddy, even deadly Chinese products. Death by China gives that nation a black eye for currency manipulation, intellectual-property theft, political persecution and serious environmental pollution.”

Paste Magazine’s review states, “With his Harvard pedigree and his acclaimed credentials, Navarro is an authority on the subject of the U.S.-China trade relationship. Death by China features him along with several geopolitical experts and activists spelling out exactly how and why this nation’s corporate-political nexus sold out the American worker and consumer to the tune of thousands of factories, millions of jobs and trillions in debt owed to the Chinese.

And who’re the losers in this scenario? Interviews with out-of-work factory workers, college graduates and with both Democratic and Republican legislators paint a picture of widespread blight as unemployment destroys communities and consumers find themselves without any choice but to buy Chinese-made goods.”

Navarro commented: “My goal in creating the film is to draw attention to the urgent need for trade reform with China, and to ensure that it becomes a top priority for legislators. We hope to give the highest possible visibility to an issue that is all too often ignored by politicians, journalists and consumers alike – the incredibly corrosive loss of America’s once formidable manufacturing base to a cheating China. The fact that our government has turned a blind eye to China’s deceitful policies has had an enormously negative impact on the American economy and the standard of living of millions of Americans.”

Francesca McCaffery of Blackbook Magazine said, “A truly life-changing, mouth-dropping documentary film…Peter Navarro’s ‘Death by China’ grabs you by the throat and never lets go…But watch this movie, and you will, in turn, start glowing with a newfound, hit-on-your-head awareness.”

The Hollywood Report review points out that “Narrator Martin Sheen warns upfront that it’s important to “distinguish clearly between the good and hard-working people of China, and their repressive Communist government victimizing American and Chinese citizens alike.”

Death by China made its theatrical debut in Los Angeles and New York in June of 2012 and played theatrically in over 50 cities across the U.S. including key manufacturing cities such as Akron, Chicago, Dayton, Detroit, Cincinnati, Columbus, Detroit, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Toledo, Youngstown and many more.

This was opposite of the typical course of documentary films being shown at festivals first and then in theaters. Navarro and Autry wanted to open the film in theaters throughout the swing states during the 2012 presidential election to draw attention to the issue China’s exploitation of our economy.

After the election, Death by China made a series of festival appearances through the end of June 2013. All total, the film was shown at more than 25 festivals – from Beaufort, South Carolina; Macon, Georgia; and New York City to Green Bay, Wisconsin; Sedona, Arizona; and San Luis Obispo, California.

As part of its festival activity, the film garnered three best documentary awards from festivals in Beverly Hills, Durango, and Studio City. “It was a Best Doc nominee at the Cape Fear Independent Film Festival, was first runner up at the Myrtle Beach festival, and received a Golden Ace award from the Las Vegas Film Festival.”

Don’t miss the following opportunity to see this film. If you are not located in the region, please check the Death by China website for other screenings. If you or your organization would like to sponsor a screening, please contact Peter Navarro.  Of course, you can also order the DVD to watch on your own TV.

The Coalition for a Prosperous America presents:  A Screening of Death by China, A Documentary Film by Peter Navarro and Greg Autry

When: Wednesday, September 18th, 2013, Doors open 6:00 PM, event starts at

6:30 PM.

Where: AMN Healthcare, 12400 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, CA 92130 (exit Carmel Valley Road off Int. 5)

Cost: $10.00 (refreshments served)

Agenda

Introduction: Michele Nash-Hoff, Chair, California chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America

Film: “Death by China”, directed by Peter Navarro and produced by Greg Autry, CPA Economist

Discussion/Q and A: Greg Autry, Producer, Death by China, Economist, Coalition for a Prosperous America

Following the film there will be a discussion and Q and A to talk about how the Coalition for a Prosperous America is working to build a smart trade policy that will counter China’s, and other nation’s, trade cheating and move manufacturing back to America.

Register today at the CPA site: prosperousamerica.org

For more information, please contact Sara Haimowitz (sara@prosperousamerica.org,)

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing, Outsourcing, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

What are the Obstacles to More Companies Reshoring?

Tuesday, July 30th, 2013

While there is still a debate about how much reshoring is actually taking place, there is no doubt it is happening, especially in the seven tipping-point industries that the Boston Consulting Group predicted would reshore:  transportation goods, appliances and electrical equipment, furniture, plastic and rubber products, machinery, fabricated metal products, and computers and electronics.

For example, we’ve read about General Electric reshoring appliances such as water heaters, washing machines, and refrigerators to a factory in Kentucky, and Caterpillar is opening a new factory in Texas to make excavators. And, yes, even furniture manufacturing is coming back. At the High Point Furniture Show in April 2012, where the Made in America Pavilion housed 50 U.S. manufacturers, Ashley Furniture announced that it was building a new factory in North Carolina. Lincolnton Furniture also announced they had broken ground on a new furniture factory.

Earlier this year, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook said the company would invest $100 to build a factory in Texas to assemble Macintosh computers, which would include components made in Illinois and Florida, and rely on equipment produced in Kentucky and Michigan.

The results of February 2012 survey from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG),  showed that 37 percent of U.S. manufacturers with sales above $1?billion said they were considering shifting some production from China to the United States, and of the very biggest firms, with sales above $10 billion, 48% were considering reshoring. The factors they pointed to were not only that wages and benefits were rising in China, but the country is also enacting stricter labor laws and experiencing more frequent labor disputes and strikes.

According to BCG, pay and benefits for the average Chinese factory worker rose by 10% a year between 2000 and 2005 and speeded up to 19% a year between 2005 and 2010. Wages have been predicted to rise by 60% this year alone after additional strikes.

So, we might ask, “Why aren’t more companies reshoring? There are three main reasons:

  1. Most companies don’t conduct a Total Cost of Ownership Analysis when making a decision to outsource manufacturing.
  2. The United States has a high overall cost of manufacturing.
  3. There are still tax incentives to offshore manufacturing.

Total Cost of Ownership Analysis

In spite of the fact that I have spoken to hundreds and hundreds of people about the importance of doing a Total Cost of Ownership Analysis since my book came out in 2009, and Harry Moser, founder of the Reshoring Initiative, has spoken to thousands and thousands of people since releasing his free Total Cost of Ownership Estimator™ in 2010, we have only reached a small portion of the people making the decisions about outsourcing.

Most manufacturing companies that have sourced and are still sourcing parts and products offshore don’t do a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis. They base their decisions largely on low pieces that are based on cheaper foreign-labor rates and government subsidies by the governments of foreign countries to their manufacturers as part of their country’s predatory mercantilist practices.

If a company chooses not to practice TCO, it will impact their success or failure in the long run. It would be better if more companies would move forward by utilizing the freely available TCO spreadsheets, such as the one developed by Harry Moser that will allow you to quantity even the hidden costs and risk factors of doing business offshore.

After doing a thorough TCO analysis on all of outsourced parts for your products, the next step is to build an integrated team will periodically refine and refresh the analysis. You can even expand the definition of TCO to include the physical length of the entire supply chain and the lead times associated with the entire process.

American manufacturers need to embrace the New Industrial Revolution recently written about in the June 11, 2013 Wall Street Journal by columnist John Koten. He wrote, “Welcome to the New Industrial Revolution – a weave of technologies and ideas that are creating a computer-driven manufacturing environment that bears little resemblance to the gritty and grimy shop floors of the past. The revolution threatens to shatter long-standing business models, upend global trade patterns and revive American industry.”

Koten quotes Michael Idelchik, head of advanced technologies at GE’s global research lab, who said, “The future is not going to be about stretched-out global supply chains connected to a web of distant giant factories. It’s about small, nimble manufacturing operations using highly sophisticated new tools and new materials.”

High Cost of Manufacturing in America

While the difference in labor rates between the U. S. and Asia is diminishing, the U. S. has the highest corporate tax rates now after Japan reduced their corporate tax rate last year. In addition, the U. S. has high health care costs that are getting worse instead of better under the Affordable Care Act, and the U. S. has the most stringent environment regulations in the world.

In his November 2011 column in Industry Week, Stephen Gold, president and CEO of the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, wrote, “While manufacturers face a host of challenges, the data demonstrate that domestically imposed costs ? by commission or omission of government ? further undermine our ability to compete by adding at 20% to the cost of making stuff in the country…The single most significant drag on manufacturing competitiveness is the United States’ high corporate tax rate ?an average federal-state statutory rate of 40% that has not changed in decades.”

According to the second quarter 2013 survey of 317 manufacturers by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)/Industry Week, concerns over health care and insurance costs caused by the Affordable Care Act are mounting. Key survey findings include the following:  82.2 percent of manufacturers identified rising health care and insurance costs as their top challenge, an increase from 74.0 percent in the previous survey and 66.9 percent identified the unfavorable business climate due to taxes and regulation as an important challenge.

Other pressures for American manufacturers are revealed by the results of a joint survey conducted by MSC Industrial Supply Company and Industry Week Custom Research, nearly half (49.3%) of the manufacturing executives polled listed “raw material costs as one of the top market pressures, followed by “attracting and retaining talent” at 36.6%, “competition from countries offering lower costs” at 31.5%, and “expansion into new markets” at 31.0%. To help them be as competitive as possible in the global marketplace, 46% have implemented lean practices, and 26.5% have plans underway to implement lean.

Tax Incentives for Offshoring

According to an article in the Houston Chronicle, the U.S. tax code provides the following deductions, offsets, tax credits and incentives to corporations to “offshore” their profits overseas:

Tax Havens ? “The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) defines a tax haven country as one that imposes no or low taxes, does not exchange information about economic activity and lacks economic transparency.” Tax havens are used by a majority of the largest American corporations.

Offshore Deferral ? U.S. citizens and corporations are supposed  to pay tax on income earned abroad, but  “multinational corporations are allowed to “defer” paying income tax on profits made overseas until — or if ever — those profits are repatriated back to the United States.” U.S. corporations take advantage of this offshore deferral rule by setting up subsidiaries in lower tax countries. Subsidiaries, even when they are wholly owned by a U.S. parent company, are not subject to U.S. taxation. The deferral clause has been in the tax code for more than half a century and has outlasted numerous reform efforts. A USA Today article states that in April 1961, President Kennedy asked Congress to rewrite tax provisions that “consistently favor United States private investment abroad compared with investment in our own economy.”

Profit Shifting ? A U.S. corporation can also avoid paying taxes on its income by shifting its income to its foreign subsidiary in a practice called profit shifting. “Profit shifting involves an accounting practice of transferring assets, such as intellectual property rights and patents, to subsidiaries in tax haven countries. All royalty income earned from these assets is booked by the foreign subsidiary and so is not subject to U.S. taxation.” This practice is particularly prevalent in the pharmaceutical and computer industries; for example, pharmaceutical company Merck made more than $9 billion in profits in 2010 but paid no U.S. taxes.

Earnings Stripping ? Earnings stripping is a practice in which a U.S. parent corporation undergoes a corporate inversion so that its foreign subsidiary in a tax haven country becomes the parent company and the U.S. corporation becomes the subsidiary. This “paper inversion” allows all of the corporation’s global income to be booked by its new foreign parent. In addition, the new foreign parent can “loan” money to its U.S. subsidiary. Because it is a debt of the subsidiary, the money is not taxable. What’s more, the interest on the “loan” that the subsidiary pays to the foreign parent is tax deductible in the United States for the subsidiary.

The same USA Today article states, “Corporate lobbyists say that any move to eliminate deferral would have to be packaged with a significant cut in the 35% corporate tax rate…Otherwise, the largest companies, facing an effective tax increase, would have an incentive to switch their legal residence to another country.” Obviously, no one would want large American corporations to move totally out of the U. S. so the only way to address this problem is to eliminate these tax loopholes while significantly reducing the corporate tax rates. We are long overdue for comprehensive tax reform for both personal and corporate taxes.

At the “Manufacturing in California – Making California Thrive” economic summit that was held on February 14th in San Diego, attendees voted regulatory reform and a national manufacturing strategy as the top two critical issues to be addressed. A national manufacturing strategy would encompass such issues as corporate taxes, intellectual property protection, trade reform, and other factors adding to the high cost of manufacturing in the U. S. If you have a strategy that supports manufacturing, it will alleviate these other issues. A Manufacturing Task Force was formed after the summit, of which I became chair. We have been visiting the elected representatives in our region to provide them with our Task Force report and make them more aware of the needs of American manufacturers. Now our Task Force is evolving into the California chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous (CPA) which had facilitated the summit. CPA has established state chapters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Colorado and is developing chapters in Florida, Michigan, and New York. If you would like to support our work in California, please contact me at michele@savingusmanufacturing.com or contact CPA at sara@prosperousamerica.org for involvement in other states.

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

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement Would Harm our Environment

Tuesday, July 9th, 2013

Proponents say that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement would be a platform for economic integration and government deregulation for nations surrounding the Pacific Rim and facilitate free trade to counter China’s financial influence in Asia and the Pacific. The negotiating parties include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. Japan also announced its intention to join the agreement last spring. Because the TPP is intended as a “docking agreement,” other Pacific Rim countries could join over time, and the Philippines, Thailand, Colombia, and others are already expressing interest.

The TPP is poised to become the largest Free Trade Agreement in the world. The ongoing, multi-year negotiations over the TPP are supposed to conclude this year, so the window of opportunity for preventing this free trade agreement is rapidly closing.

Among other reasons about which I have written previously, opponents of the TPP say it would harm our planet’s environment, subverting climate change measures and regulation of mining, land use, and biotechnology. The Pacific Rim is an area of great significance from an environmental perspective. It includes Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest coral reef system, home to more than 11,000 species. It includes Peru and its Amazon Rainforest—one of the most biologically diverse areas on Earth.

In May 2007, citizen-led advocacy groups including the Sierra Club forged a bipartisan consensus   that set the minimum standards for environment, labor and other provisions to be included in future trade agreements. According to sections of the TPP that have been leaked, it appears that these minimum standards are being ignored.

It is essential that the environment chapter of the TPP build on the environmental protection progress that has been made. “At a minimum, the environment chapter should be binding and subject to the same dispute settlement provisions as commercial chapters; ensure that countries uphold and strengthen their domestic environmental laws and policies and their obligations under agreed multilateral environmental agreements; and include biding provisions to address the core environment and conservation challenges of the Pacific Rim region, such as efforts to combat illegal trade in wood, wood products, and wildlife and to strengthen fisheries management.”

If you “Google” TPP and the environment, you come up with more than 20 pages of articles by one organization after another and one author after another expressing reasons why the TPP would harm the environment. The opposition to the TPP began as early as 2011 when the first drafts were leaked and intensified in 2012. These organizations include the Sierra Club, Public Citizen group (founded by Ralph Nader), the Citizens Trade Campaign, and Economy in Crisis, among many others.  A common thread of the articles is either a subtle or overt accusation that President Obama has “sold out” to Wall Street/big banks and multinational/transnational corporations.

On their website, Union-backed We Party Patriots states, “…the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is being put together in extreme secrecy. This secrecy comes complete with a total lack of mainstream media coverage despite serious potential long-term effects. Leaked documents show that the TPP will have a chilling effect on the ability of the United States government to take legal action against multi-national corporations for their abuses of environmental, agricultural, and labor laws.”

The Fair World Project’s website states that in late 2012, “a group of labor leaders, trade justice advocates, family farmers, environmentalists, food sovereignty groups and others from the U.S., Canada and Mexico created a ‘North American Unity Statement Opposing NAFTA Expansion through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),’ with the goal of uniting 1,000 organizations in opposition to the TPP.”

On March 7, 2013, Friends of the Earth announced that it had released a new video, “Peril in the Pacific: Trans Pacific trade agreement threatens people and the planet.” The video illustrates these threats by telling the story of “Chevron v. Ecuador” international investment suit brought under an existing U.S. treaty. The video raises questions like: “Who should pay to clean up what has been called the “Rainforest Chernobyl” in the Ecuadorian Amazon? Why are the people of the rainforest who suffered the most not represented at the international tribunal hearing the case? Is it U.S. policy to favor the financial interests of multi-national corporations over people and the environment in such disputes?”

The video also asks why the negotiating framework for the TPP favors Wall Street and multinational corporations at the expense of current U. S. environmental and climate policy and why does it  allow multinational corporations to challenge laws that protect our air, land and water.

Because the Asia-Pacific region accounts for about one third of all the threatened species in the world, Friends of the Earth is concerned that the TPP trade agreement potentially checkmates many of our country’s past environmental victories and would block new initiatives. The natural environment and rich biodiversity of the Pacific Rim are threatened by illegal and/or unsustainable commercial exploitation of the ocean, natural resources, and forests.

Friends of the Earth recommends that the TPP negotiators must address the following issues to avoid the most serious environmental harms by:

  • Including an environment chapter that would obligate countries to enforce domestic environmental protections and abide by global environmental agreements that are enforceable through international lawsuits.
  • Rejecting the proposed TPP investment chapter that would authorize foreign investors to bypass domestic courts and bring suit before special international tribunals biased in favor of multinationals to seek awards of unlimited monetary damages in compensation for the cost of complying with environmental and other public interest regulations.
  • Rejecting “provisions of the TPP intellectual property chapter that would provide international legal protections for corporate patents on plant and animal life, granting companies ownership and sole access to these building blocks of life.”
  • Rejecting the regulatory coherence chapter that could hamstring environmental regulation and “encourage cost-benefit analysis that exaggerates financial costs and minimizes the intrinsic value of protecting living things, wild places, and the stability of the ecosystem.”

Friends of the Earth urges that the TPP “must serve to strengthen environmental protection and support the biodiversity in the Pacific Rim and not facilitate a race to the bottom in environmental deregulation.”

What surprises me is that all of the above organizations supported President Obama in his bid for re-election last year despite the fact that he had gone back on his pledge “to oppose Bush-style free trade agreements that lead to thousands of lost American jobs”  and his word to ”not support NAFTA-type trade agreements” in his 2008 campaign. Now that he is elected for his second and last term, what incentive does he have to listen to the opinions of these organizations that oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement? None!

A few conservative news outlets such as WorldNet Daily began to recognize the dangers of the TPP early this year, beginning with the article, “Obama skirting Congress in globalist plan?” in which Jerome Corsi warn that “the administration apparently plans to restrict congressional prerogatives to an up-or-down vote” utilizing the  “fast-track authority,” a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress to review a FTA under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame subject to a yes-or-no vote. Under fast-track authority, there is no provision for Congress to modify the agreement by submitting amendments to ensure foreign partners that the FTA, once signed, will not be changed during the legislative process.

In a more recent article, “Obama’s 2-ocean globalist plan,” Jerome Corsi writes, “Quietly, the Obama administration is systematically putting into place a two-ocean globalist plan that will dwarf all prior trade agreements, including NAFTA, with the goal of establishing the global sovereignty envisioned by New World Order enthusiasts. The two agreements are the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TIPP. WND has learned the Obama administration plans to jam the TPP through Congress no later than Dec. 31.”

We certainly cannot expect to influence the President to oppose the TPP near the end of three-years of negotiations that took place under his direction. With the virtual black out  of coverage about the TPP in the mainstream media, the best we can do is make our opinions heard loud and clear to our Senators and Congressional representatives and urge our family, friends, and  members of our personal and business network to do the same. We must urge our elected representatives to vote against granting President Obama “fast track authority” under the Trade Promotion Authority. There is no time to waste. Contact your congressional representative and tell them we cannot afford another damaging “free trade” agreement that would destroy our national sovereignty, hurt American manufacturers, and harm our environment. Tell them to vote “no” to granting the President “fast track authority.”

 

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Environment, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act Would Develop National Manufacturing Strategy

Tuesday, June 25th, 2013

On June 20, 2013, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL-) introduced H.R. 2447, “The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013,”a bill that would bring together the private and public sectors to develop recommendations to revitalize American manufacturing and create good-paying, middle-class jobs here at home.” U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (IL-16) is the lead Republican cosponsor.

This bill is a pillar of the “Make It in America” jobs plan in the House and would require the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Technology to develop a national manufacturing competitiveness strategic plan that would be updated every four years. The goals of the strategic plan would be to promote growth of the manufacturing sector, support the development of a skilled manufacturing workforce, enable innovation and investment in domestic manufacturing, and support national security.

In order to develop a manufacturing strategy, the bill would also require the Committee to conduct an analysis of factors that impact the competitiveness and growth of the United States manufacturing sector, such as “the adequacy of the industrial base for maintaining national security,” “Trade, trade enforcement, and intellectual property policies, and financing, investment, and taxation policies and practices…”

The Secretary of Commerce, or a designee of the Secretary shall serve as the chairperson of the Committee, and the Committee would be required to transmit the strategic plan developed to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives not later than one year after the date of enactment of the Act.

I laud Rep. Lipinski for being so persistent in attempting to get a bill passed that would develop a national manufacturing strategy. Last year, he and Rep. Kinzinger introduced “The American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2012” (HR-5865). The bill passed the House on September 12, 2012, by a roll call vote of 339-77. However, the Senate did not act on the bill.

H. R. 5865 was actually a renaming of H.R. 1366, “The National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2011,” that Rep Lipinski also introduced, which died in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Senators Brown and Kirk had introduced the Senate version of this bill in 2011, but it was never voted on by the Senate. Rep Lipinski had previously introduced H.R. 4692, “The National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010,” which passed the House in July 2010 with overwhelming bi-partisan support. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) introduced the same bill in the Senate, but it was not voted on by the Senate.

Let us hope this new bill not only passes the House this year, but actually gets voted on and passed by the Senate. This new bill is far superior to last year’s bill in that it would utilize an existing committee rather than set up a new committee with a complex appointment structure for the proposed 15-member committee. It builds on the successful development of the 2012 National Strategic Plan for Advanced Manufacturing and utilizes the expertise and knowledge that was developed in that plan. It would be accomplished with less cost and be consistent with prior Administration work and legal authority. By using the existing committee of the NSTC, the strategy will bring together the many agencies and their expertise that interact with American manufacturing.

“American companies and their workers are operating at a severe disadvantage as they face foreign competitors who benefit from coordinated, strategic government policies that benefit manufacturing,” Rep. Lipinski said. “We need to recognize this reality and bring the public and private sectors together to develop a national manufacturing strategy that specifies recommendations for the optimal tax, trade, research, regulatory, and innovation policies that will enable American manufacturing to thrive. Manufacturing is critical for national security, an essential source of good-paying jobs for the middle class, and drives high-tech innovation.”

“Manufacturing is vital to our economic and national security, and it is critical that we do all we can to promote American competitiveness in the global economy,” Rep. Kinzinger said. “I’m proud to work with Congressman Lipinski to put forward bipartisan legislation that focuses our attention on the challenges facing American manufacturers.”

America has a long and proud manufacturing history. Manufacturing is the foundation of our economy and fostered the development and growth of the middle class in the 19th and 20th centuries. Since the 1970s, however, the number of manufacturing jobs has shrunk, from 20 million in 1979 to fewer than 12 million today. We lost 5.8 million manufacturing jobs just since 2000. The recent recession hit workers in manufacturing especially hard. The hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs has contributed to the stagnation of middle-class wages – since 2000, the median household income, after it’s been adjusted for inflation, has fallen by $4,787.

In a press release dated June 21st, Scott Paul, President of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said, “We commend Congressmen Lipinski and Kinzinger for their authorship of the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2013. Our nation’s manufacturers and their workers stand poised for a manufacturing resurgence, but Washington must do its part by implementing a strategy that actively responds to the challenges of the 21st Century.”

The Alliance for American Manufacturing recommends that “a national manufacturing strategy support private business by focusing government programs on increasing national competitiveness, reducing programmatic inefficiencies and redundancy, and coordinating policies across various agencies and departments.” This type of strategy would require the American government to act smarter in its efforts to promote growth, entrepreneurship, and innovation. AAM recommends that a national manufacturing strategy should:

  • Keep our Trade Laws Strong and Strictly Enforced
  • Combat Currency Manipulation
  • Reduce the Trade Deficit
  • Support Buy America
  • Defend America with American Made Product
  • Prepare for the Next Super Storm
  • Invest in American Infrastructure
  • Create New Ways to Invest in America.
  • Use the Tax Code to Incentivize Domestic Manufacturing
  • Educate Americans for Quality Jobs
  • Invest in Energy Efficiency

The Alliance for American Manufacturing is just one of many organizations that have made recommendations on a national manufacturing strategy. In my book, Can American Manufacturing Be Saved? Why we should and how we can, the chapter on “How Can We Save American Manufacturing?” contains a summary of the recommendations of such organizations as the American Jobs Alliance, Coalition for a Prosperous America, Economy in Crisis, National Association of Manufacturers, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, and the U. S. Business and Industry Council, along with my own recommendations.

In April 2011, The Information Technology& Innovation Foundation (ITIF) released a report, “The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy,” that makes a strong case for such a strategy. Authors Stephen Ezell and Robert Atkinson recognize that “most U.S. manufacturers, small or large, cannot thrive solely on their own; they need to operate in an environment grounded in smart economic and innovation-supporting policies with regard to taxes, talent, trade, technological development, and physical and digital infrastructures.”

Ezell and Atkinson recommend adoption of the following actions as part of the national strategy:

  • Increase public investment in R&D in general and industrially relevant in particular
  • Support public-private partnerships that facilitate the transition of emerging technologies from universities and federal laboratories into commercial products
  • Coordinate state, local, and federal programs in technology-based economic development to maximize their combined impact
  • Provide export assistance to build upon the National Export Initiative, which seeks to double U. S. exports by 2015.
  • Increase export support for U. S. manufacturers through the Export-Import Bank loans

In the past eight years since the National Summit on Competitiveness in 2005, there has been a summit or conference held every year on the topic of revitalizing American manufacturing. A first Conference for the Renaissance of American Manufacturing was held in September 2010, and a second Conference on the Renaissance of American Manufacturing: Jobs and Trade was held on March 27, 2012. This conference focused on solutions to the decline of manufacturing in America and highlighted manufacturing and trade issues.

The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report, “Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing,” in July 2012, prepared by the Advance Manufacturing Partnership Working Group, which makes 16 specific recommendations for policies to enable the United States to resume its leadership in the manufacturing industry and strengthen our position in advanced manufacturing technologies.

We need a committee that will review the many recommendations on a national manufacturing strategy we already have and select the ones that will have the most impact in enabling the United States to have a real renaissance in the manufacturing industry. Since a similar bill has passed the House two out of three times since 2010, it is time for the Senate to pass this legislation and “stop fiddling while Rome burns.” We need real leadership in action, not just words. Contact your Congressional representative to ask them to cosponsor the bill and urge your Senator to bring it to a vote in the Senate after it passes the House.

Tags:,
Posted in Jobs, Manufacturing, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

Why the Trans Pacific Partnership Would Hurt American Manufacturers

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

The Obama Administration has continued negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement behind doors closed to the media and without the Congressional involvement that was requested by Congress. Besides being a threat to our national sovereignty as I discussed in a previous blog, it is time to shine the light on another egregious provision that would hurt American manufacturers.

The Buy American Act was passed by Congress in 1933 and required the U.S. government to give preferential treatment to American producers in awarding of federal contracts. The Act restricted the purchase of supplies that are not domestic end products. For manufactured products, the Buy American Act used a two-part test:  first, the article must be manufactured in the U.S., and second, the cost of domestic components must exceed 50 percent of the cost of all its components. Other federal legislation passed since extended similar requirements to third-party purchases that utilize federal funds, such as highway and transit programs.

“Buy American” provisions do not help all U.S. firms equally. Corporations headquartered in the U.S. that offshore most of their manufacturing operations do not benefit from the system designed to promote domestic production in the way that companies with actual U.S. manufacturing operations do. However, strengthening the “Buy American” provisions in our federal procurement system is one of the recommendations I made in my book to benefit American manufacturers and help save American manufacturing.

If a domestic producer offers the government a more expensive bid than a foreign producer, it can still be awarded the contract under certain circumstances, but more recent free trade agreements have granted other nations the same negotiating status as domestic firms.

In certain government procurements, the requirements may be waived if purchasing the material/parts domestically would burden the government with an unreasonable cost, as when the price differential between the domestic product and a identical foreign-sourced product exceeds a certain percentage, or the product is not available domestically in sufficient quantity or quality, or if doing so is not in the public interest. In recent years, the requirements have been increasingly waived to the point that we have lost domestic sources for some defense components and products.

In addition, the President has authority to waive the Act in response to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 GATT Agreement on Government Procurement, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and the Korea Free Trade Agreement, access to government procurement by certain U.S. agencies of goods for the other parties to these agreements is granted. Every one of these trade agreements have increased the trade deficit that the U.S. has with the parties to these agreements.

The Obama administration is currently pushing to grant the several nations involved in the Trans-Pacific agreement the same privileged status. 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 U.S. government procurement contracts over a certain dollar threshold. To meet this requirement, the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries.
Supporters of TPP argue that it would be good for America because these rules would apply to all the countries signing the agreement, so U.S. firms would be able to bid on procurements contracts in other countries on a national treatment basis. The question is whether this new access for some U.S. companies to bid on contracts in the TPP countries is a good trade-off for waiving Buy America preferences on U.S. procurement?

Lori Wallach of Public Citizen has written several articles warning about the dangers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In an article titled, TPP Government Procurement Negotiations:

Buy American Policy Banned, a Net Loss for the U.S., she points out that the total U.S. procurement market is more than seven times the size of the combined procurement market of the current TPP negotiating parties: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. But the United States already has trade deals with procurement provisions with six of these countries: Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and Singapore. Removing these countries would mean that the U.S. procurement market is 24 times the size of the total “new” TPP procurement market.

She concludes “the size of the new procurement markets that the TPP may open for the United States is in the order of $53 billion (national) to $72 billion (total), which is a terrible trade for giving up the U.S procurement market of $556 billion (federal) to $1.7 trillion (total).”

In addition, she notes that the TPP procurement rules would constrain how our national and state governments may use our tax dollars in local construction projects and purchase of goods and limit what specifications Governments can require for goods and services, as well as the qualifications for bidding companies.

She warns that if we do not conform our domestic policies to the TPP terms, the U.S. government would be subject to lawsuits before foreign tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against the U.S. until our policies changed. “Also, any “investor” that happens to be incorporated in one of these countries would be empowered to launch its own extra-judicial attack on our domestic laws in World Bank and UN arbitral tribunals with respect to changes to procurement contracts with the U.S. federal government.”

A letter from Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and 68 other Congressional Reps to President Obama on May 3, 2012 states in part, “We are concerned about proposals we understand are under consideration in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiations that could significantly limit Buy American provisions and as a result adversely impact American jobs, workers, and manufacturers…We do not believe this approach is in the best interest of U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers. Of special concern is the prospect that firms established in TPP countries, such as the many Chinese firms in Vietnam, could obtain waivers from Buy American policies. This could result in larger sums of U.S. tax dollars being invested to strengthen other countries’ manufacturing sectors, rather than our own.”

On November 30, 2012, 24 Senators sent a letter to President Obama outlining guidelines for the TPP and calling for Congressional consultation for the TPP. The letter urged that the TPP:

“Maintain “Buy American” government procurement requirements. The American people, through their elected officials, should not be prohibited from establishing government procurement policies that prioritize job creation in the United States. We hope that you will direct USTR negotiators to ensure that any TPP not restrict “Buyer American” and ”Buy Local” government procurement policies at the Federal or sub-federal level.

Require strong Rules of Origin. The Rules of Origin in the TPP should ensure that only signatories to the TPP will benefit from its increased market access and other provisions so that employment opportunities in the U.S. may be expanded. Non-TPP members must not be allowed to use weak rules of origin as a backdoor way to enter the U.S. market and further depress U.S. job prospects.

Ensure that State-Owned and State-Supported Commercial Enterprises (SOEs) operate on a level playing field.  Given that SOEs are more common in the other TPP countries than in the U.S., the TPP should require that SOEs competing with private U.S. enterprises operate and make decisions on a commercial basis.  The agreement should also incorporate a reporting requirement so that countries have to provide information on the operation of their SOEs in other TPP countries on a regular basis.”

Country of Original labeling is another one of the recommendations I’ve written about in previous blog articles and is the main recommendation of Alan Uke in his book Buying Back America. This would help American consumers make choices when they purchase consumer goods and allow professional procurement specialists in industry and government to choose to support American manufacturers through “Buying American.”

The TPP treaty would exacerbate our trade deficit problem and make it even harder for American manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. Instead of weakening “Buy American” requirements through additional trade agreements such as TPP, we need to strengthen the requirements.

This drastic curtailment of “Buy American” procurement provisions is another reason why we must make sure Congress rejects any fast-track authority the Obama administration seeks to invoke when it comes time to get final congressional approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
Please join me in opposing granting fast-track authority by signing the petition at the American Jobs Alliance website and contacting your representatives directly at http://act.americanjobsalliance.com/5516/tell-obama-no/

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Manufacturing, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

How we could Create Jobs while Reducing the Trade Deficit and National Debt

Tuesday, March 26th, 2013

There are numerous ideas and recommendations on how we could create jobs but most job creation programs proposed involve either increased government spending or reductions in income or employment taxes at a time of soaring budget deficits and decreased government revenue. Other recommendations would require legislation to change policies on taxation, regulation, or trade that may be difficult to accomplish. The recommendations in this article focus on what could be done the fastest and most economically to create the most jobs while reducing our trade deficit and national debt.

Manufacturing is the foundation of the U. S. economy and the engine of economic growth. It has a higher multiplier effect than service jobs. Each manufacturing job creates an average of three to four other supporting jobs. So, if we focus on creating manufacturing jobs, we would be able to reduce the trade deficit and national debt at the same time.

The combined effects of an increasing trade deficit with China and other countries, as well as American manufacturers choosing to “offshore” manufacturing, has resulted in the loss of 5.7 million manufacturing jobs since the year 2000. If we calculate the multiplier effect, we have actually lost upwards of 17 to 22 million jobs, meaning that we have fewer taxpayers and more consumers of tax revenue in the form of unemployment benefits, food stamps, and Medicaid.

In 2012, the U.S. trade deficit with China reached a new record of $315 billion. According to a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the trade deficit with China cost 2.7 million U.S. jobs from 2001-2011. The Department of Commerce estimates that each $1 billion in trade deficit translates to about 13,000 lost jobs, so the $738 billion trade deficit in goods for 2012 cost upwards of 9,599,200 jobs.

What Congress Could Do

First, Congress should enact legislation that addresses China’s currency manipulation. Most economists believe that China’s currency is undervalued by 30-40% so their products may be cheaper than American products on that basis alone. To address China’s currency manipulation and provide a means for American companies to petition for countervailing duties, the Senate passed S. 1619 in 2011, but GOP leadership prevented the corresponding bill in the House, H. R. 639, from being brought up for a vote, even though it had bi-partisan support with 231 co-sponsors. On March 20, 2013, Sander Levin (D-MI), Tim Murphy (R-PA), Tim Ryan (D-OH), and Mo Brooks (R-AL) introduced the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act in the House and a corresponding bill will be introduced in the Senate.

Second, Congress should strengthen and tighten procurement regulations to enforce “buying American” for all government agencies and not just the Department of Defense. All federal spending should have “buy America” provisions giving American workers and businesses the first opportunity at procurement contracts. New federal loan guarantees for energy projects should require the utilization of domestic supply chains for construction. No federal, state, or local government dollars should be spent buying materials, equipment, supplies, and workers from China.

My other recommendations for creating jobs are based on improving the competitiveness of American companies by improving the business climate of the United States so that there is less incentive for American manufacturing companies to outsource manufacturing offshore or build plants in foreign countries. The following proposed legislation would also prevent corporations from avoiding paying corporate income taxes:

  • Reduce corporate taxes to 25 percent
  • Make capital gains tax of 15 percent permanent
  • Increase and make permanent the R&D tax credit
  • Eliminate the estate tax (also called the Death Tax)
  • Improve intellectual property rights protection and increase criminal prosecution
  • Prevent sale of strategic U.S.-owned companies to foreign-owned companies
  • Enact legislation to prevent corporations from avoiding the U.S. income tax by reincorporating in a foreign country

It is also critical that we not approve any new Free Trade Agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trans-Atlantic Partnership that are currently proposed. The U.S. has a trade deficit with every one of its trading partners from NAFTA forward, so Free Trade Agreements have hurt more than helped the U.S. economy.

What States and Regions Could Do

State and local government can work in partnership with economic development agencies, universities, trade associations, and non-profit organizations to facilitate the growth and success of startup manufacturing companies in a variety of means:

Improve the Business Climate – Each state should take an honest look at the business climate they provide businesses, but especially manufacturers since they provide more jobs than any other economic sector. The goal should be to facilitate the startup and success of manufacturers to create more jobs. I recommend the following actions:

  • Reduce corporate and individual taxes to as low a rate as possible
  • Increase R&D tax credit generosity and make the R&D tax credit permanent
  • Institute an investment tax credit on purchases of new capital equipment and software
  • Eliminate burdensome or onerous statutory and environmental regulations

Establish or Support Existing Business Incubation Programs, such as those provided by the members of the National Business Incubation Alliance. Business incubators provide a positive sharing-type environment for creative entrepreneurship, often offering counseling and peer review services, as well as shared office or laboratory facilities, and a generally strong bias toward growth and innovation.

Facilitate Returning Manufacturing to America – The Reshoring Initiative,  founded by Harry Moser in 2010, has a  mission to bring good, well-paying manufacturing jobs back to the United States by assisting companies to more accurately assess their total cost of offshoring, and shift collective thinking from “offshoring is cheaper” to “local reduces the total cost of ownership.” The top reasons for U. S. to reshore are:

  • Brings jobs back to the U.S.
  • Helps balance U.S., state and local budgets
  • Motivates recruits to enter the skilled manufacturing workforce
  • Strengthens the defense industrial base

According to Mr. Moser, the Initiative has documented case studies of companies reshoring showing that “about 220 to 250 organizations have brought manufacturing back to the U.S….with the heaviest migration from China. This represents about 50,000 jobs, which is 10% of job growth in manufacturing since January 2010.”

State and/or local government could facilitate “reshoring” for manufacturers in their region by conducting Reshoring Initiative conferences to teach participants the concept of Total Cost of Ownership, how to use Mr. Moser’s free Total Cost of Ownership Estimator™, and help them connect with local suppliers.

Establish Enterprise Zones and/or Free Trade Zones: Enterprise Zones provide special advantages or benefits to companies in these zones, such as:

  • Hiring Credits – Firms can earn state tax credits for each qualified employee hired (California’s is $37,440)
  • Up to 100% Net Operating Loss (NOL) carry-forward for up to 15 years under most circumstances.
  • Sales tax credits on purchases of up to $20 million per year of qualified machinery and machinery parts;
  • Up-front expensing of certain depreciable property
  • Apply unused tax credits to future tax years
  • Companies can earn preference points on state contracts.

States located on international borders could also establish Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs), which are sites in or near a U.S. Customs port of entry where foreign and domestic goods are considered to be in international trade. Goods can be brought into the zones without formal Customs entry or without incurring Customs duties/excise taxes until they are imported into the U. S. FTZs are intended to promote U.S. participation in trade and commerce by eliminating or reducing the unintended costs associated with U.S. trade laws

What Individuals Could Do

There are many things we could do as individuals to create jobs and reduce our trade deficits and national debt. You may feel that there is nothing you can do as an individual, but it’s not true! American activist and author, Sonia Johnson said, “We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.”

If you are an inventor ready to get a patent or license agreement for your product, select American companies to make parts and assemblies for your product as much as possible. There are some electronic components that are no longer made in the U. S., so it may not be possible to source all of the component parts with American companies. There are many hidden costs to doing business offshore, so in the long run, you may not save as much money as you expect by sourcing your product offshore. The cost savings is not worth the danger of having your Intellectual Property stolen by a foreign company that will use it to make a copycat or counterfeit product sold at a lower price.

If you are an entrepreneur starting a company, find a niche product for which customers will be willing to pay more for a “Made in USA” product. Plan to sell your product on the basis of its “distinct competitive advantage” rather than on the basis of lowest price. Select your suppliers from American companies as this will create jobs for other Americans.

If you are the owner of an existing manufacturing company, then conduct a Total Cost of Ownership analysis for your bill of materials to see if you could “reshore” some or all of the items to be made in the United States. You can use the free TCO worksheet estimator to conduct your analysis available from the Reshoring Initiative at www.reshorenow.org. Also, you could choose to keep R&D in the United States or bring it back to the United States if you have sourced it offshore.

If enough manufacturing is “reshored” from China, we would drastically reduce our over $700 billion trade deficit in goods. We could create as many as three million manufacturing jobs, which would, in turn, create 9 – 12 million total jobs, bringing our unemployment down to 4 percent.

You may not realize it, but you have tremendous power as a consumer. Even large corporations pay attention to trends in consumer buying, and there is beginning to be a trend to buy ‘Made in USA” products. As a result, on January 15, 2013, Walmart and Sam’s Club announced they will buy an additional $50 billion in U.S. products over the next 10 years.

U.S. voters supported Buy America policies by a 12-to-1 margin according to a survey of 1,200 likely general election voters conducted between June 28 and July 2, 2012 by the Mellman Group and North Star Opinion Research. The overwhelming support has grown since prior iterations of the same poll – Buy America received an 11-to-1 margin of support in 2011 and a 5-to-1 margin in 2010. A survey by Perception Services International of 1400 consumers in July 2012, found that 76% were more likely to buy a U.S. product and 57% were less likely to buy a Chinese product.

As a consumer, you should pay attention to the country of origin labels when they shop and buy “Made in USA” products whenever possible. Be willing to step out of your comfort zone and ask the store owner or manager to carry more “Made in USA” products. If you buy products online, there are now a plethora of online sources dedicated to selling only “Made in USA” products. Each time you choose to buy an American-made product, you help save or create an American job.

In his book, Buying America Back:  A Real-Deal Blueprint for Restoring American Prosperity, Alan Uke, recommends Country of Origin labeling for all manufactured products that “puts control in the hands of American consumers to make powerful buying choices to boost our economy and create jobs,” as well as reduce our trade deficit. The labels would be similar to the labels on autos, listing the percent of content by country of all of the major components of the product. This Country of Origin labeling would enable American consumers to make the decision to buy products that have most of their content “made in USA.”

If every American would make the decision to buy American products and avoid imports as much as possible, we could make a real difference in our nation’s economy. For example, if 200 million Americans bought $20 worth of American products instead of Chinese, it would reduce our trade imbalance with China by four billion dollars. During the ABC World News series called “Made in America,” Diane Sawyer has repeatedly said, “If every American spent an extra $3.33 on U. S.-made goods, it would create almost 10,000 new jobs in this country.”

In conclusion, if we want to create more jobs, reduce our trade deficit and national debt, we must support our manufacturing industry so that it could once again be the economic engine for economic growth. Following the suggestions in this article could make the “Great American Job Engine” roar once again.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economy, General, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | No Comments »

How to Fix America’s Economy

Tuesday, March 19th, 2013

 

Last week, I participated in the “Fly-in” for the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) in Washington, D. C.  I was part of several teams that held 105 meetings with legislative assistants for Congressional Representatives and Senators.

We presented informational flyers on the following topics that would help fix America’s economy:

Trade Deficits – In 2012, the U. S. trade deficit was $735 billion, and our trade deficit with China hit an all time high of over $300 billion. This means that we currently consume more than we produce, and we need to reverse this dynamic and produce more of what we consume.  The goal for successful trade is balanced trade, not more trade.  We aren’t going to solve this problem with just doubling exports while we continue to increase our imports at a faster rate.  Trade deficits are our biggest jobs, growth and fiscal problem.  Congress should establish a national goal for balancing trade by the year 2020. Persistent trade deficits are not “free trade, but are “dumb trade.”

Foreign Currency Cheating – currency manipulation is trade cheating because it is both an illegal tariff and a subsidy.  China, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore have manipulated their currency values.  However, China’s currency is estimated to be at least 35% undervalued so our exports to China cost 35% more than they should to the Chinese.  In the past two Congresses, one bill addressing the problem passed the House, and one bill passed the Senate, but we need a similar bill to pass both Houses and be signed into law.  Senator Levin is introducing a new bill this week.

The ENFORCE Act – we need to stop the evasion of countervailing and antidumping duty orders by such means as “transshipment” where goods covered by an Order are shipped to a third country before import to the U.S., with falsified U.S. customs documentation claiming the product to be origin of that third country. Other goods covered by an Order are shipped directly with fraudulent paperwork claiming that they were produced in a country that is not covered by the Order or have incorrect import classification codes or inaccurate descriptions that falsely identify the imports as goods that are not subject to an Order.

The ENFORCE Act would establish a formal process and reasonable deadlines for action when the Customs and Border Protection is presented with an allegation of evasion, require CBP to report on its enforcement activities, and order the retroactive collection of duties on entries that illegally evaded duties.

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) – On March 8, 2013, te USDA announced it is proposing a new COOL rule that will comply with the WTO request to provide more information to consumers and/or reduce the burden on imported product.  The    proposed rule would require labels for muscle cuts of meat to identify the country where each of the three production steps – birthing, raising, and slaughtering – occurred.

Foreign Border Taxes (aka Value Added Tax – VAT) Over 150 countries have at VAT, but the U. S. is one of the few countries that doesn’t.  VATs are “border adjustable” and range from 13% to 24% (average is 17%).  This means that our exports are taxed with a VAT when our goods cross that country’s border. Thus, when we negotiate a trade agreement that lowers or eliminates tariffs, a VAT can be added by our trading partners that is a “tariff by another name.”  Trade agreements do not address VATs when tariffs are lowered, and the WTO allows VATs.  Other countries use the VATs to reduce their corporate taxes to help their manufacturers be more competitive in the global marketplace. VATs are rebated to manufacturers in foreign countries for products that are exported, and the result is a $500 billion hole in U. S. Trade.  We need reject trade agreements that do not neutralize the VAT tariff and subsidy and consider implementing a U. S. consumption tax system to erase this foreign advantage and reduce domestic taxes on income and jobs.

Trans-Pacific Partnership – We need “Smart Trade” not “Dumb Trade” so a summary of CPA’s “Principles for a 21st Century Trade Agreement” was presented that would fix past mistakes in trade agreements. CPA recommends that new trade agreements must include the following principles to benefit America:

  • Balanced Trade
  • National Trade, Economic and Security Strategy
  • Reciprocity
  • Address State Owned Commercial Enterprises
  • Currency Manipulation
  • Rules of Origin
  • Enforcement
  • Border Adjustable Taxes
  • Perishable and Cyclical Products
  • Food and Product Safety and Quality
  • Domestic Procurement
  • Temporary vs. Permanent via renewal or sunset clauses

In the past, Congress has used Trade Promotion Authority to give the executive Branch directives on which countries to negotiate with and what terms to seek in the negotiations. “Fast Track” provisions that prevent Congress from amending any agreement and requiring an accelerated timeline for the vote have also been included. However, the Executive Branch ignored most of the provisions of the 2002 TPA and Congress had no role in the negotiations. Thus, CPA recommends that “Fast Track” provisions not be included because Congress should retain its trade power.

I also took the opportunity to provide copies of my blog article on the dangers to our national sovereignty that the current draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement includes. I enjoyed meeting other businessmen and women from other parts of the country that have similar concerns about the direction of our country and are working to fix our country’s economy.

It was a pleasure to take advantage of my rights as a citizen to express my opinions and those of an organization of which I am a member to our elected representatives in government. If more American businessmen and women would take the time to do the same, we would be more successful in our efforts to fix our trade and national deficit problems and create jobs for more Americans.

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

Import Penetration Still Outweighs Reshoring Trend

Monday, March 11th, 2013

In January, the U. S. Business and Industry Council released a report, “Import Penetration Rises again in 2011; Challenges Manufacturing Renaissance, Insourcing Claims,” by Alan Tonelson. According to the report,” the share of U.S. markets for advanced manufactured goods controlled by imports reached another all-time high in 2011… and domestic manufacturing’s highest value sectors keep falling behind foreign-based rivals.”

The USBIC report shows that “imports captured 37.57 percent of the collective $2.01 trillion American market in 2011 for a group of more than 100 advanced manufactured products,” up from 37.07 percent in 2010. When government data to calculate import penetration rate were first issued in 1997,”imports controlled 24.49 percent of substantially the same group of U.S. manufactured products.”

“Fully 29 of the 106 sectors for which reliable data were available featured import penetration rates of 50 percent or more in 2011. In 2010, 31 of these industries had lost half of their home U.S. market to imports, and in 1997, only 8 of the 114 sectors initially studied were in this situation.”

Between 1997 and 2011, 98 industries lost shares of their home market while only 8 gained shares. The industries that gained shares are:  “semiconductor machinery; saw mill products; paperboard mill products; motor vehicle stamping operations; transformer, inductor, and coil manufacturing; electron tubes; computer storage devices; and heavy duty trucks and chassis.”

The 98 industries include:  “semiconductors; electro-medical apparatus; pharmaceuticals; turbines and turbine generator sets; construction equipment; farm machinery and equipment; mining machinery and equipment; several machine tool-related categories; and ball and roller bearings.”

The report states that “from 1997-2011, output fell in 38 of the 106 total industries studied over this time span – nearly 36 percent of the total. These ‘declining’ industries include electricity measuring and test instruments; relays and industrial controls; motors and generators; motor vehicle engines and engine parts; several machine tool-related categories; and environmental controls.” In 11 more sectors, output growth was less than 10 percent, “including semiconductors; semiconductor production equipment; motor vehicle transmission and power train equipment; miscellaneous industrial machinery; and medicinals and botanicals.”

Mr. Tonelson writes, “High and rising import penetration rates for this many critical domestic industries over nearly a decade and a half represent powerful evidence of chronic, significant weakness in domestic manufacturing.”

In a section titled, “The Manufacturing Renaissance that Isn’t, he disputes the predictions of the Boston Consulting Group’s 2011 report, “Made in America, Again: Why Manufacturing Will Return to the U.S.” This report contends that American manufacturing would experience a renaissance because of rising costs in China and other parts of Asia so there would be a convergence in the total costs of manufacturing by some regions of the U. S. by 2015.

If U. S. manufacturers are still losing market share to foreign competitors through import penetration in their home market, this is a sign that “the United States has not even started to become “increasingly attractive for the production of many goods sold to consumers in North America” as predicted by the Boston Consulting Group, much less experiencing a Manufacturing Renaissance.

What is even more troubling to Mr. Tonelson is that the USBIC report focuses on the capital-and technology-intensive sectors that are “keys to maintaining national prosperity, technological leadership, and national security.”  The report shows that “dozens of America’s most advanced manufacturing industries are becoming just as vulnerable to import competition – and in some cases to import domination – as labor-intensive industries like clothing and toys.”

He concludes that the conventional stimulus strategies have had the disappointing results of “less growth and employment bang per investment-target stimulus buck with each passing year” because “U. S. imports of capital goods as such generates much less American output supported by much less American employment than purchases of domestically produced capital goods.”

In his opinion, President’s Obama’s goal of doubling exports during the 2009-2014 period isn’t going to improve the situation either when imports keep rising faster than exports. While there was a 15.45 percent improvement from 2010 to 2011, the January-October 2012 period only showed a 4.56 percent improvement.

Mr. Tonelson points out that negotiating new trade agreements isn’t producing the desired effect of increasing exports. The latest agreement negotiated with Korea has had the opposite effect  ? U. S. exports to Korea dropped by more than 18 percent while imports from Korea are up 4.74 from when it came into force in March 2012.

He concludes that the continued rise of import penetration in the U. S. indicates that American industry is losing ground relative to foreign-based competitors and “the nation is not making enough of the structural changes needed to create healthy growth and avoid reflating the last decade’s credit bubble.”

In an interview by Richard McCormack in the January 15, 2013 issue of Manufacturing & Technology News, Mr. Tonelson, stated, “I think the only way that these trends reverse meaningfully is if American trade policy changes. Unless we reduce the incentives of U.S. companies and companies all over the world to supply the U.S. market from overseas, this tide will not turn.”

While reducing the incentives of U. S. companies and foreign companies to supply the U. S. market from overseas is an important step in turning the tide, it would be the first of many steps we need to take. As I have written previously, we need to change our trade, tax, and regulations policies to help U. S. manufacturers be more competitive in both their home market and the global marketplace. We need to develop a national manufacturing strategy that would address all of the various factors that are resulting in the decline in the decline in the United States’ share of the global manufacturing output.

I did take exception to Mr. Tonelson’s dispute of the predictions of the Boston Consulting Group’s report and told him that the data is lagging reality ? “reshoring” is happening. As a manufacturers’ sales rep for American companies that perform fabrication services, I am in the “trenches” competing with offshore companies. Nearly every manufacturer I represent has experienced gaining new customers that are “reshoring” manufacturing from China. I have interviewed dozens of companies at trade shows over the past year and a half, and every company I interviewed had experienced “reshoring.” Nearly all of the San Diego region’s contract manufacturers of electronic manufacturing services have benefitted from “reshoring” in the past year.

The Reshoring Initiative, founded by Harry Moser in 2010, has documented case studies of companies reshoring. In the article, “Pumping Muscle into U.S. Manufacturing,” by Craig Barner in the March 6, 2013 issue of Forbes magazine, Mr. Moser said, “For example, about 220 to 250 organizations have brought manufacturing back to the U.S….with the heaviest migration from China. This represents about 50,000 jobs, which is 10% of job growth in manufacturing since January 2010, he said.”

“The top reshoring industries include electrical equipment, appliances and components; transportation equipment; and machinery, Moser said. Key reasons for returning to the U.S. include rising wages offshore, better quality of goods produced in the U.S., easier access to repairs and lower delivery costs, he said.”

On March 4, 2013, Prime Advantage, the leading buying consortium for midsized manufacturers, announced the findings of its eleventh semi-annual Group Outlook Survey. “A large majority — more than 70% of respondents — have increased their material and service purchases from American suppliers and service providers. Mexico is the second choice for sourcing, with nearly 28% of respondents moving sourcing to that region. The most frequently cited benefits that manufacturers hope to see in nearshoring are shorter lead times, as indicated by 67% of respondents, and lower inventories (49%). Among other benefits, companies cited better supply chain control (40%) and better overall communication (39%).”

If more American manufacturers would utilize the free Total Cost of Ownership Estimator™ developed by Harry Moser, more companies would understand the benefits of “reshoring” and foster a true renaissance in American manufacturing.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Economy, Manufacturing, Outsourcing, Reshoring, Trade Policy | 2 Comments »

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Destroy our National Sovereignty

Tuesday, February 26th, 2013

In his State of the Union address, President Obama declared in his intent to complete negotiations for a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The Obama administration has pursued the TPP through the offices of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk instead of under the auspices of the Department of State.

This was the first time negotiations to create a free trade zone with Pacific Rim countries were made public although 15 rounds have been concluded. Eleven nations are participating: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. Although Japan and China are not presently participating in TPP negotiations, “docking provisions” being written into the TPP draft agreement would permit either Japan or China to join the TPP at a later date without suffering any disadvantage.

To implement the TPP free-trade agreement, Congress will be asked to surrender its responsibility under Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and grant President Obama extra-constitutional “Trade Promotion Authority” to negotiate the final TPP agreement. The administration seeks to gain “fast-track authority,” a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority that requires Congress to review an FTA under limited debate, in an accelerated time frame subject to a yes-or-no vote by a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds vote, as required for the ratification of a formal treaty.

Under fast-track authority, there is no provision for Congress to modify the agreement by submitting amendments. Fast-track authority also treats the FTA as if it were trade legislation being negotiated by the executive branch. The purpose is to assure foreign partners that the FTA, once signed, will not be changed during the legislative process.

A report released Jan. 24 by the Congressional Research Service, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress,” makes clear that the present negotiations are not being conducted under the auspices of formal trade promotion authority as the latest TPA expired July 1, 2007. However, the Obama administration is acting as if fact-track authority were in effect already.

The report states that the TPP is being negotiated as a regional free-trade agreement that U.S. negotiators describe as a “comprehensive and high-standard” FTA. The U.S. hopes the agreement “will liberalize trade in nearly all goods and services and include commitments beyond those currently established in the World Trade Organization (WTO.)”

Oppostion to the TPP ranges from one end of the political spectrum to the other ? from the liberal Public Citizen non-profit, consumer rights advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 to the far-right, conservative news organization, World Net Daily founded in 1997 by Joseph Farah.

Lori Wallach of Public Citizen has written several articles warning about the dangers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. According to her review of TPP, foreign firms would gain the follow privileges:

  • Risks and costs of offshoring to low wage countries eliminated
  • Special guaranteed “minimum standard of treatment” for relocating firms
  • Compensation for loss of “expected future profits” from health, labor environmental, laws (indirect or “regulatory” takings compensation)
  • Right to move capital without limits
  • New rights cover vast definition of investment: intellectual property, permits, derivatives
  • Ban performance requirements, domestic content rules. Absolute ban, not only when applied to investors from signatory countries

Ms. Wallach opines that U.S. multinational corporations have the goal of imposing on more countries a set of extreme foreign investor privileges and rights and their private enforcement through the notorious “investor-state” system. “This system elevates individual corporations and investors to equal standing with each TPP signatory country’s government- and above all of us citizens.” This would enable “foreign investors to skirt domestic courts and laws, and sue governments directly before tribunals of three private sector lawyers operating under World Bank and UN rules to demand taxpayer compensation for any domestic law that investors believe will diminish their ‘expected future profits.’ Over $3 billion has been paid to foreign investors under U.S. trade and investment pacts, while over $14 billion in claims are pending under such deals, primarily targeting environmental, energy, and public health policies.”

This opinion was confirmed by Jerome Corsi in an article last week on World Net Daily, in which he reported that a “leaked copy of the TPP draft makes clear in Chapter 15, ‘Dispute Settlement,’ that the Obama administration intends to surrender U.S. sovereignty to an international tribunal to adjudicate disputes arising under the TPP. Disputes concerning interpretation and application of the TPP agreement, according to Article 15.7, will be adjudicated by an “arbitral tribunal” composed of three TPP members.

He states, “Because the TPP agreement places arbitral tribunals created under TPP to be above U.S. law, the Obama administration’s negotiation of the Trans-Pacific pact without specific consultation with Congress appears aimed at creating a judicial authority higher than the U.S. Supreme Court. The judicial entity could overrule decisions U.S. Federal District and Circuit courts make to apply U.S. laws and regulations to foreign corporations doing business within the United States. The result appears to allow foreign companies doing business within the United States to operate in a legal and regulatory environment that would give the foreign companies decided economic advantages over U.S. companies that remain subject to U.S. laws and regulations.”

Another group opposing the TPP is Americans for Limited Government , a lobbying group and advocacy organization which describes itself as a non-partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free-market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties President Bill Wilson states, “This new trade agreement will place domestic U.S. firms that do not do business overseas at a competitive disadvantage. Foreign firms under this trade pact could conceivably appeal federal regulatory and court rulings against them to an international tribunal with the apparent authority to overrule our sovereignty. If foreign companies want to do business in America, they should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. Obama is negotiating a trade pact that would constitute a judicial authority higher than even the U.S. Supreme Court that could overrule federal court rulings applying U.S. law to foreign companies. That is unconstitutional. The U.S. cannot be allowed to enter a treaty that would abrogate our Constitution.”

As a director on the board of the American Jobs Alliance, an independent, non-partisan, non-profit organization, I wish to point out some of the additional problems with the TPP that are cited on our website:

TPP Undermines Our Sovereignty and Democracy – it is misleadingly called a trade agreement when in fact it is an expansive system of enforceable global government.  Only two of its 26 chapters actually cover trade issues, like cutting border taxes (“tariffs”) or lifting quotas that limit consumer choice. In reality, most of the deal would impose one-size-fits all international rules to which U.S. federal, state and local law must conform. This includes limits on the U.S. government’s right to regulate foreign investors operating here and control our natural resources and land use. TPP also would provide preferential treatment to foreign banks and other firms operating here. The pact would subject the U.S. to the jurisdiction of two systems of foreign tribunals, including World Bank and United Nations tribunals. These foreign tribunals would be empowered to order payment of U.S. tax dollars to foreign firms if U.S. laws undermined the foreign firms’ new special TPP privileges.

TPP Threatens States Rights – the agreement undermines the critical checks and balances and freedoms established by the U.S. Constitution, which reserves many rights to the people or state governments. TPP would obligate the federal government to force U.S. states to conform state laws to 1,000 pages of rules, regulations and constraints unrelated to trade? from land use to whether foreign firms operating in a state can be required to meet the same laws as domestic firms.

The U.S. federal government would be required to use all possible means – including law suits, and cutting off federal funds for states – to force states to comply with TPP rules. Already a foreign tribunal related to the World Trade Organization has issued a ruling explicitly stating that such tactics must be employed against U.S. states or the U.S. would face indefinite trade sanctions until state laws were brought into compliance.

TPP bans Buy American – it explicitly prohibits both Buy American and state-level Buy Local programs.

UN and World Bank Tribunals Would Replace U.S. Courts – the “Investment” chapter would submit the U.S. to the jurisdiction of international tribunals established under the auspices of the United Nations or World Bank. It would shift decisions over the payment of U.S. tax dollars away from Congress and outside of the federal court system established by Article III of the Constitution to the authority of international tribunals. These UN and World Bank tribunals do not apply U.S. law, but rather international law set in the agreement. These tribunals would judge whether foreign investors operating within the U.S. are being provided the proper property rights protections. The standard for property rights protection would not be those established by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, but rather international property rights standards, as interpreted by an international tribunal.

TPP Cedes a Quarter of all U.S. Land to Foreign Control (544 million acres of public land)  – it would subject to the foreign tribunals’ judgment all contracts between the U.S. federal government and investors from TPP nations – including  subsidiaries of Chinese firms –  “with respect to natural resources that a national authority controls, such as for their exploration, extraction, refining, transportation, distribution, or sale; to supply services to the public on behalf of the Party, such as power generation or distribution, water treatment or distribution, or telecommunications; or to undertake infrastructure projects, such as the construction of roads, bridges, canals, dams, or pipelines, that are not for the exclusive or predominant use and benefit of the government.”

In conclusion, the TPP is a direct threat to American national sovereignty, the U.S. Constitution and American-owned businesses. TPP would destroy American jobs and our independence. It would have a negative impact on jobs, the safety of our food, Internet freedom, our right to ‘Buy American,’ and our laws. We must make sure Congress rejects any fast-track authority the Obama administration seeks to invoke when it comes time to get final congressional approval.

Please join me in opposing granting fast-track authority by signing the petition at the American Jobs Alliance website: www.americanjobsalliance.com. In addition, email, write, or call your Congressional representative to let them know that you oppose approving the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economy, National security, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »