California’s Metalworking Industry is a Leader in Technology and Environmental Consciousness

May 13th, 2014

The California Metals Coalition (CMC) held their 41st annual meeting in Anaheim on May 8-9th, 2013. Over 150 business leaders from metalworking companies and the industry’s service providers attended the meeting. The California Metals Coalition membership is a diverse representation of the state’s metals industry. Membership in CMC is corporate, and the employees of each facility are individual members of the organization. The member companies are small businesses ? the average number of employees per company is only 50, so without an organization to be the voice and advocate for the metalworking industry in California, these companies and this industry would have no influence on statewide policies affecting them.

California’s metalworking industry began when metalworking facilities were established in1848 to manufacture the tools that led to the start of the gold rush and birth of our state in 1850. Today, California is home to 6,100 metalworking facilities, employing approximately 213,500 Californians, providing high-paying manufacturing jobs, health benefits, and a solid economic foundation to the Golden State. This level of employment represents 18% of California’s 1.2 million manufacturing jobs. This industry generates $12.2 billion in goods and services and $7.9 billion in wages for the economy.

The types of services provided by member companies includes: sand, permanent mold, investment, rubber/plaster mold, and die casting, machining, forging, metal fabrication and welding, metal stamping, metal finishing, metal raw materials, metal recycling, and tools and dies.

According to CMC data, in the metalworking industry, 8 out of 10 employees are considered ethnic minorities or reside in communities of concern. Living-wage employment for this diverse workforce can be found in working-class communities throughout the state because the average full-time hourly wage is $18.00 (not including benefits) or $37,000 per year. Jobs provided by this industry are the path to the middle class for many Californians.

What do these companies make? Metal manufacturers make the parts that go into solar panels, electric cars, medical devices, airplanes, unmanned vehicles, ships for the Navy and private companies, products for the military and defense industry, and thousands of other applications. Metalworking products and services are a direct reflection of the innovation and hard work put forth by California’s workforce and business owners.

Californians discard enough aluminum each day to build five Boeing 737 jets, and California metalworking companies recycle millions of tons of discarded metal each year. Metal is recycled and used as the primary material source to build components that fly our planes, housings that spin renewable-energy windmills, medical devices that keep our families safe, and defense items used by our troops. California metalworking companies recycle about 1,830,000 tons of metal per year, and every ton of waste that is recycled rather than disposed in landfill produces $275 more in goods and services.

The keynote speaker of the conference was Jerome Horton, Chairman of the Board of Equalization, who acknowledged the importance of this industry to the economy of California by mentioning some of the above data. He said that the BOE is helping California companies grow and had worked with the California Metals Coalition and other organizations to obtain the new manufacturers exemption tax credit that was signed into law by Governor Brown as part of Assembly Bill 93 and Senate Bill 90. This exemption will become effective July 1, 2014 and expires on July 1, 2022. It applies to specified NAICS codes, applicable to the whole metalworking industry and has a $200 million limitation. Tax-exempt property must be used 50% or more in one of the following activities:

  • Manufacturing, processing, refining, fabrication, or recycling tangible property
  • Research and development
  • Maintaining, repairing, measuring, or testing any qualified property
  • As a special purpose building and/or foundation

The BOE expanded the meaning of this tax credit to apply to tooling, whether it is retained or sold. Tooling must be either manufacturing by a company or purchased, be used in the manufacturing process, and have a life of over one year.

He also outlined the benefits of the new employee hiring credit that replaces the tax credits offered by Enterprise Zones that have been eliminated. This tax credit is based on wages of $12-$28/hour. There is a maximum of $56,000 per employee over five years, and the credit is equal to 35% each year.

The BOE has a much larger reserve than they need and are starting to refund monies to California companies. Last year the sales tax revenue increased from $52 billion to $56 billion, which helped enable the state budget to be balanced, but the State still has $300 billion in debt.

Kimberly Ritter-Martinez, Chief Economist for the Kyser Center for Economic Research at the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation was the next speaker. She provided an overview and comparison of the national economy and the state economy. If California were a country, it would be the 9th largest economy measured by Gross Regional Product in the world. However, California is lagging the national average in creating jobs, so that the unemployment rate in March was 8.1% compared to 6.7% nationwide. Jobs in durable goods manufacturing only increased by .8% for the state. She predicted 2.4% growth in the State GRG in 2014, and 2.9% in 2015.

Although California is losing businesses to other states, the LAEDC has helped companies such as Space X and American Apparel stay in California.

Jack Broadbent, Executive Office of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, was added to Thursday’s schedule of speakers as he had a conflict with attending on Friday as originally scheduled. The Bay area District was established in 1955, includes 9 counties with a population of seven million, and covers 5,540 square miles. The purpose of the Bay Area District was to improve air quality by reducing particulate matter, noxious odors, reduce visible emissions, and reduce future emissions. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) was formed to coordinate the rules of many local and statewide agencies involved in air quality.

In 2013, two new rules were adopted after extensive consultation with industry and other stakeholders. Rule 12-13 applies to foundries and forges, and Rule 6-4 applies to metal recycling operations. The Bay Area District led the state in creating an Emissions Minimization Plan to focus on fugitive emissions by reducing particulate matter, toxics, and odors. It incorporates continuous improvement via on-going facility assessments and Plan updates. All the draft plans have been received, and the next step will be a determination of District completeness, a public review period, District review and approval, followed by facility implementation.

In the Q & A period, I asked if the air pollution being transported by the trade winds from China is being taken into consideration, and he said that they have had to adjust the base of the ambient air quality because of the transported pollution. He has been to China five times in the past three years, and he said that China’s particulate matter in their air is more than 10 times the U. S. standard.

Brian Johnson, Deputy Director of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) was the next speaker. He briefly described the Hazardous Waste Management program and the new Policy and Program Support Division that was formed after restructuring last year. The metalworking industry is getting a great deal of attention by the legislature, regulators, and the community around specific metals sites. A Hazardous Waste Reduction Initiative was introduced into the legislature last year, and a Safer Emissions Products Initiative is on the horizon. The Department is using 17 categories of pollution burden data of Census Track ratings to prioritize their response to community complaints for specific metals sites.

The next topic was workmen’s compensation insurance, and State Senator Ted Gaines (R) who is a candidate for Insurance Commissioner described how his long experience as an insurance agent would be beneficial to working with the metalworking industry to improve this insurance program. A panel of five members of CMC shared their experiences with regard to this issue. Of note, is the fact that California has some of the highest workmen’s compensation rates of any other state for certain industries. For example, the California rate for die casting companies is 5 times the rate in Mississippi.

The issues discussed at this conference demonstrate why the metalworking industry is challenged in doing business in California. However, many of these companies, especially foundries and forgers, cannot easily pick up stakes and move to other states. The high cost of doing business in California has resulted in more companies going out of business rather than moving to another state.

Adding to these challenges has been the fierce competition this industry has experienced from China in the past decade. CMC Executive Director, James Simonelli, told me that in the year 2000, the industry had about 325,000 employees. This means that the current employment of 213,500 is 40% less than it was 14 years ago. The good news is that all of the attendees to whom I spoke were experiencing some “reshoring” of parts coming back from China.

When compared to manufacturing facilities around the world, California is the place to find the most technologically advanced, and environmentally conscious metal manufacturers. California’s metalworking industry is arguably the world’s leader for efficient, clean, and safe metal manufacturing.

Posted in Economy, Environment, Jobs, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Taxes/Regulations | No Comments »

Nearsourcing is the Next Best Thing to Reshoring

May 6th, 2014

The basic definition of nearsourcing is to source outside your own facility, but within your own region and not on the other side of the globe. Nearsourcing may have a different meaning depending on the region in which you are located in the United States. For the purposes of this article, the definition of nearsourcing means sourcing in Mexico, which is the meaning understood in California and in other states along the international border with Mexico.

As much as it is would be desirable for all the manufacturing we lost to offshoring in China to return to the United States, it is an unrealistic expectation in the global economy. As logistics costs continue to increase worldwide, sourcing regionally will become the most reasonable course of action for companies with a global market.

Although reshoring through returning manufacturing to America is gaining momentum as wages and logistics costs rise in China, there is still a substantial cost differential for high volume and/or high labor content products. What is a good solution to this problem? Nearsourcing to Mexico may be the right answer.

Nearsourcing to Mexico by U. S. manufacturers began in the 1965 after the “maquila program was initiated in 1965 during the Diaz Ordaz presidency as a means of attracting foreign investment, increasing exports, and fostering industrialization along the U.S./Mexico border” By the mid 1980s there were thousands of maquiladoras in cities along Mexico’s border with the U. S. Some of my first customers when I started my rep agency in 1985 were maquiladoras owned by U. S. corporations in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.

For many years, Americans crossed the border to work in the maquiladora plants as engineers, purchasing agents, department heads, and plant managers, but gradually Americans were replaced by Mexican nationals, first the engineers, then purchasing agents, then department heads, and more recently as plant or general managers.

Prior to NAFTA, all production that was generated in the Mexican plants had to return to the country of origin or had to go to a third country. During the first phase of NAFTA from 1994-2000, the maquiladoras continued to benefit from the waiver of Mexican import duties on raw materials while also benefitting from the preferential duty rates on those products that satisfy NAFTA rules of origin. Since then, duties on raw materials that originate in non-NAFTA countries increased, but not as much as originally anticipated. During the second phase of NAFTA, changing rules made it gradually more difficult to sell to the maquiladoras because persons wishing to conduct business at maquiladoras had  to purchase a FN certificate (by the day or year), provide written proof of an appointment, and within a few years, have a passport. If a company was caught having a visitor that didn’t have written proof of an advance appointment, the company was fined. Thus, it became illegal to do what is called “cold calling” on prospects without an appointment.

During the early 2000s, the maquila industry was hit hard by the U. S. recession of 2001-2002, and hundreds of maquiladoras closed along the border. Since I read, write, and speak Spanish, I subscribed to a maquila industry newsletter, and every issue was filled with names of companies that were closing plants in Mexico. Many foreign companies in Tijuana abandoned the equipment in their plants to be sold in auction to pay benefits to the Mexican government for employees that had lost their jobs when the plants closed. I had a business acquaintance who survived the U. S. recession by acting as the Mexican government’s representative to handle the auctions.

The recession coincided with China becoming part of the World Trade Organization and the beginning of the trend to move manufacturing to China. Many U. S., Japanese, and Korean companies chose to move manufacturing to China rather than resume manufacturing in Mexico. The effects of the recession of 2008-2009 were not as severe as the previous recession on the maquila industry, but it meant that it took nearly the whole decade of the 2000s for the maquila industry in the Baja California, Mexico cities of Tijuana, Tecate, and Mexicali to get back to the level of manufacturing they had in the year 2000.

In my opinion, the San Diego region lost less manufacturing to China than other parts of California and the U.S. because so many regional manufacturers already had long-established plants in Tijuana and Mexicali and didn’t see enough cost savings to move manufacturing to China. This was aided by the fact that San Diego’s manufacturing industry has always had more high mix, low volume products than either Silicon Valley or the Los Angeles region.

There was one industry that could not move manufacturing to China and that has remained especially strong in Baja California:  the aerospace and defense industry. According to the report “Aerospace & Defense Manufacturing in Mexico,” released in August 2013. “Mexico is home to more than 260 aerospace manufacturing facilities and a 31,000 strong, highly-skilled direct industry workforce.” Major U. S. defense companies such as BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Delphi established plants in Mexico during the late 19890s and early 1990s. Baja California leads with 28% of Mexico’s aerospace and defense industry exports, and Baja California has the only Binational Aerospace Cluster in Mexico.

“Mexico currently attracts 5% of the total number of licenses granted by the State Department of the United States for the production of dual use goods and technologies.” Mexico has been proactive in pursuing more aerospace and defense business by joining the Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) between the U. S. and Mexico, the international Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Some of San Diego’s aerospace and defense industries that have manufacturing plants in Baja California include:  BAE Systems, Cubic Corporation, Gulfstream, Lockheed Martin, and UTC Aerospace Systems. Other U. S. aerospace and defense manufacturers in Baja California are Delphi Connection Systems, Eaton Aerospace, and Honeywell. The state of Queretaro, a few hours south of Mexico City, is home to such companies as Bombardier Aerospace, GE Infrastructure, ITR, Curtiss Wright, and Eurocopter.

Under NAFTA, the Buy American Act requirement for the U. S. Department of Defense to purchase products that contain a minimum of 50% of U. S. produced content is waived, so defense and aerospace companies are allowed to purchase products made in Mexico and Canada.

Also, under “the Manufacturing, Maquiladora and Export Service Decree, the IMMEX program allows for goods, raw materials and components to be imported into Mexico on a temporary basis, duty-free and VAT-free, as long as they are returned abroad within the established timeframes (most are 18 mos.”

In addition, a Special Aerospace Tariff Section 9806.00.06 “allows for free imports to assemble and manufacture aircraft or aircraft parts when companies have the Certificate of Approval to Produce issued by the Ministry of communications and Transportation.” Section 9806.00.05 allows “gods for repair or maintenance of aircraft or aircraft parts…to also be free of tariffs and have administrative advantages for companies.”

You may ask when nearsourcing is the best decision if you cannot achieve enough cost savings to return manufacturing to the U. S. It may be the best decision in the following cases:

  • Proximity to U. S. customers is important
  • Product labor content is between 20-30%
  • High mix, variable products, mid volume production
  • Intellectual Property protection is important
  • Faster delivery/responsiveness than from Asia
  • Product has substantial U.S. part content
  • Mexico/Latin America are key markets
  • NAFTA benefits fit your products

For California manufacturers, especially in southern California and San Diego, the main advantages of nearsourcing in Baja California compared to China and other parts from Asia are:

  • Right across the border from San Diego
  • Minimal Intellectual Property risk  because of strong Mexican Intellectual Property laws
  • Labor costs are now 14.6% cheaper than China
  • Lower utility rates
  • Direct connection to major transportation centers
  • Industrial real estate lease rates that are 1/3 less than China
  • Mexico’s workforce is highly skilled and educated
  • Low average turnover rate of 2.6% reported in 2011
  • Mexico graduates more engineers/year than U.S. (about 115,000 vs. about 50,000)

As a strong advocate for American manufacturing, I want as much as manufacturing as possible to reshore to create more good paying jobs in order to rebuild our middle class. However, I would rather see U. S. companies nearsource parts in Mexico than source them halfway around the world in China. The Mexican government isn’t using the U. S. dollars they gain from our trade deficit to build up their military, and Mexico doesn’t have any nuclear missiles aimed at the U. S. as does China. It is an advantage to our country if Mexico creates more good-paying jobs in the manufacturing industry to grow their middle class. To me, nearsourcing to Mexico seems like a win-win solution for strengthening the middle class of both countries.

Posted in Manufacturing, Nearsourcing, Reshoring | No Comments »

Del Mar Electronics & Design Show – “Innovation…Through Face-to-Face Interaction

April 22nd, 2014

Don’t miss the Del Mar Electronics and Design Show on April 30th and May 1st at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. The show is an annual trade show and convention for people who design, manufacture, and test products. The two-day event is free for industry professionals and will be held at the Del Mar Fair Grounds with plentiful free parking and easy highway access. Show hours are 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM Wednesday, April 30th and 10:00 AM – 3:00 PM, Thursday May 1st. For more information or to register, visit www.vts.com.

Over the last 18 years, the show has evolved from a sales rep/distributor show to become a major exhibition of local, regional, and national manufacturing companies and organizations.

Program Manager Douglas Bodenstab stated “Manufacturing in America is experiencing resurgence due to many factors, especially the new and exciting technologies that are abundant here in Southern California, and this event is riding that wave.”

New technologies will be displayed on the show floor with over 500 exhibitors. Dozens of free seminars will be provided on both show days. A few of the topics to be presented are:

How Does 3D Printing Apply to your Business?
3D Printing – Overview of Available Technologies & Commercial Applications
Computer-Aided Engineering for the Electronics  Industry
Telepresence Robots for Factory Support
Lithium Battery Technology Update
Optimizing Crowd Sourcing Funding Success Using Engineering Methodologies

I will be one of the keynote speakers at the show on the topic of American Manufacturing Trends:  “Reshoring,” Nearsourcing & Technical Training at 10:00 AM Wednesday, April 30th, Room D in the Mission Tower building, (across from the show registration).

Cost savings of outsourcing in China are eroding from higher labor rates and shipping costs. Quality problems, counterfeit parts & IP theft cause companies to rethink where to source. I will discuss the latest trends of nearsourcing and reshoring and how to calculate Total Cost of Ownership using Reshoring Initiative’s worksheet, sharing a few case stories of companies reshoring. In addition, I will describe the availability of technical training in the region to address shortage of skilled manufacturing workers.

The other keynote speaker is Daniel O’Leary, Award Winning Author & USC Marshall School of Business Professor, who will present “Social Media and the Supply Chain” at 4:00  PM on April 30th in Room B in the Mission Towers building.

This presentation will investigate capabilities of social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, Digg. and others, for their current and potential impact on the supply chain. In particular, this talk will examine the use of social media to capture the impact on supply chain events, analyze the use of social media in the supply chain to build relationships among supply chain participants, and investigate the of use of social media to mitigate and manage the impact of supply chain disruptions.

My company, ElectroFab Sales, will be exhibiting at Booths 207 – 209 in the Bing Crosby Hall at the show. We will have sample parts on display for:

Century Rubber Company – molded and die cut rubber parts, conductive rubber keypads, ISO certified
Bolero Plastics – plastic vacuum and pressure forming, precision plastics machining, and fabrication including secondary operations such as routing stamping, painting, EFI/RFI shielding, silk screening and assembly.
Mina Product Development Company – rapid 3D & SLA prototyping, cast urethane and cast silicone, injection molding of small to medium parts in thermoplastic & elastomeric materials, assembly & special packaging
True Position Machining – CNC and manual machining, turn and mill)

Three of the companies we represent will have their own booths in the Exhibit Hall:  A&G Industries, Alva Manufacturing, and A Squared Technologies. Please drop by all of our booths.

Posted in Innovation, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Training | No Comments »

San Diego’s Maritime Industry is Becoming Increasingly Important to the Region

April 15th, 2014

While we all know that San Diego has a world-class port that is the gateway to the Pacific and the growing markets of Asia and Latin America, most don’t realize that its maritime industry “represents one of the most unique regional economies in the world with more than 1,400 companies producing over $14 billion of direct sales and a workforce of almost 46,000 spread across an array of traditional and technology-oriented sectors.” The knowledge of how important that the maritime industry clusters has become to the regional economy was made clear to me when  I recently came across a report that was released in 2012:  the San Diego Maritime Industry Report, sponsored by the San Diego Workforce Partnership, (SDWP) San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation (SDREDC), and The Maritime Alliance (TMA).

The survey portion of the project was conducted over a period of four weeks during May and June 2012. It involved quantitative economic analysis of data from proprietary business resources (such as Info-USA and Dun and Bradstreet), standard data from the BLS and Census Bureau, and first-hand information from San Diego-based ERISS Corporation through numerous in-person and telephone interviews and both a telephone and an online survey of more than 230 companies.

San Diego’s Maritime Industry and related economic activity comprise what is being called the “Blue Economy.” The maritime technology or “Blue Tech” cluster  “includes nearly 200 separate NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) codes and includes businesses in sectors as obvious as fishing and as surprising as metal forging.”

The 84-page report divides the Blue Economy into three general categories of the functional organization of San Diego’s Maritime Industry:

  • The traditional maritime space, in which industries are exclusively maritime, such as fishing and ship building
  • The traditional maritime space, in which an industry includes maritime and non-maritime activity, such as construction industries capable of working on ports
  • The maritime technology space, or “Blue Tech”

The analysis suggests an estimated 46,000 employees work in San Diego’s Maritime Industry:

  • Total employment (September, 2011) 45,778
  • Traditional maritime exclusive industries 8,176
  • Maritime technology industries “Blue Tech” 18,948
  • Other maritime 18,654  (in traditional industries that include maritime activities but are not exclusively maritime)

Shipbuilding and ship repair provide the most jobs, 6,127, followed by Testing Laboratories, 3,689, R&D in Physical, Engineering, & Life Sciences (exc. Biotechnology), 3,376, and Engineering services, 3,228.

Based on the survey, “the projected total employment growth between 2011 and 2020 is for nearly 6,000 new jobs, or 12 percent of the current total (though fast growth, new technologies, and new opportunities could yield significantly higher numbers.)”

Total revenue was estimated at slightly more than $14 billion (direct spend only) in 2011:

  • Traditional maritime exclusive industries $ 1,403,082,257
  • Maritime technology industries   $ 6,165,840,257
  • Other maritime   $ 6,465,162,848

Source: ERISS; Info-USA; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages; Dun and Bradstreet; Corporation Wiki

The report states, “The region’s focus on the high-technology aspects of the Blue Economy is increasingly well-placed. Technology is becoming ever more enmeshed in even the most traditional maritime activities…The role of technology in San Diego’s maritime economy is also unique because of the close relationship with the U.S. Navy and the need for innovation for the Defense Department and defense industries.”

The Maritime Alliance undertook “yeomen’s efforts to define the totality of the Maritime Technology Cluster – really a sub-set of the larger Blue Economy – similar to how maritime technology clusters around the world seem to identify their industry activity as an innovation industry with close and overlapping relationships to the spheres of traditional maritime activity. Their efforts resulted in 14 sectors for the San Diego Maritime Technology Cluster map with many sub-sectors:”

  • Aquaculture and Fishing
  • Biomedicine
  • Boat and Shipbuilding
  • Cables and Connectors
  • Defense and Security
  • Desalination and Water Treatment
  • Marine Recreation
  • Ocean Energy and Minerals
  • Ocean Science and Observation
  • Ports and Marine Transportation
  • Robotics and Submarines
  • Telecommunications
  • Very Large Floating Platforms
  • Weather and Climate Science

The report made the following general observations about San Diego’s “Blue Tech” industry:

  • Highly differentiated  – 14 sectors in San Diego; 71 sub-sectors
  • Prevalence of multi-use technologies from small, specialized firms
  • Typically high gross margins
  • Largely self-reliant – traditionally modest users of bank debt and outside equity
  • Largely invisible in local markets / limited public & government awareness
  • Little baseline economic data due to non-specific NAICS codes
  • Highly export-oriented – typically 40-60 percent for most companies
  • Markets exist in virtually every country around the world
  • Growth in most sectors strongly outpaces world economic growth

These sectors can largely be used to describe the overall Maritime Industry and doing so “ helps to emphasize the increasing connectedness and overlap between the traditional and technology dimensions of San Diego’s maritime businesses…to leverage shared assets and opportunities, from formal investments all the way to informal instances of collaboration among stakeholders. “

While commercial fishing in the region is much smaller than in its heyday, the industry has the potential to double in size over the next decade. Plans have been made to provide ongoing support for commercial fishing, and recommendations have been incorporated in the Commercial Fisheries Revitalization and Coastal Public Access Plan that took three years to complete. The Port of San Diego staff has begun implementation. Implementation will take several years and cost several million dollars.

For about “one-third of the 22 companies that participated in live interviews, energy, especially offshore oil and gas, directly or indirectly, represented major, if not dominant customers. Most of these firms have few or no local customers. Their customers are either foreign firms or, if U.S. firms, located in either the Gulf of Mexico or foreign waters.” This sector has a high-growth potential market.

San Diego is the world leader in desalination and reverse osmosis technology, which was patented in San Diego in 1964. “More than 3,000 professionals and workers are employed by companies in the region which includes two of the three global market-share leaders in membrane supply.”

“San Diego has a long history in underwater vehicles and maritime robotics, initially driven by the Navy’s needs. The major Navy lab in San Diego (SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific) developed ten manned underwater vehicles and nearly two dozen unmanned vehicles.” Private companies have developed various kinds of UUVs (Unmanned Underwater Vehicles), such as the underwater vehicle models of SeaBotix Inc., the world’s leading MiniROV manufacturer.

The report states, “Workforce development has a critical role to play when cluster strategies consider the practical challenges and opportunities within any region…workers at the top of the income and education spectrum are no longer a central facet of what cluster strategies can offer a region…An occupational strategy for the Maritime Industry must be necessarily unique. On the one hand, the industry composition is too diverse to look for industry-driven occupational patterns as a driving rationale. On the other hand, that diversity includes both the kinds of firms that headline The Maritime Alliance’s membership and those that rely critically on workers who are skilled but unlikely to hold a bachelor’s degree.”

Most of the small, high-tech firms interviewed primarily recruited individuals with college or advanced degrees, with very high concentrations of various engineering disciplines. They reported considerable talent availability, particularly due to the recession. “The primary recruiting concern was lack of maritime-specific experience and training. Lack of undersea experience was especially noted by several firms. A few firms expressed concern about a growing shortage of software developers and programmers.”

The company interviews revealed the following common trends and challenges:

  •  Firms saw considerable opportunity, especially in offshore markets, but some of the most attractive deals are seen as too large or too complex for small companies to pursue effectively by themselves.
  • Strong global competition is emerging, especially from firms with considerable foreign government support or from large firms with access to significant private or public capital resources.
  • A large number expressed concerns about California’s regulatory burden, as well as that of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
  • Many were very concerned about threats to the working waterfront and saw residential and tourism interests eating away at industrial and commercial uses of the waterfront.

Many supported strong local advocacy in support of reducing the state burden on maritime activity, easing commercial regulation on surveying and mapping activity and on recreational yachts over 300 tons, as well as harmonizing California ballast water regulations with those promulgated by the International Maritime Organization, until a common suite of U.S. regulations are issued. Shipyards claimed that they face overlapping and sometimes conflicting regulations and oversight from multiple agencies and that San Diego is worse than the rest of California.

Policy Recommendations

While these are too numerous and detailed to consider in depth in this brief article one of the most important was that it was recommended that the SDREDC focus on attracting and promoting high wage, high value-added, capital and R&D intensive firms and operations, with five focus areas for initial priority attention:

  1. Target offshore energy, and potentially offshore minerals extraction, as a priority cluster strategy effort. The range of companies in the San Diego region with deep expertise and technologies focused on operations in hostile ocean environments face an exciting array of opportunities.
  2. Launch a focused effort to take advantage of (and protect San Diego from) changing DoD strategy and restructuring.
  3. Strengthen organizational participation in the existing TMA Seafood (Aquaculture and Fishing) Working Group that brings together the fishing, processing, aquaculture, and other related interests to determine if the strong mutual interests identified can be leveraged into a seafood strategy for the region or the state.
  4. Aggressively promote shipbuilding, repair, and refit as this is a relatively robust local industry.
  5. Enhance seaborne trade and the associated land-based, logistics infrastructure.

The respondents expressed strong concerns that the various maritime organizations were not doing enough collectively to “protect the working waterfront.” Some of the recommendations included:

  •   Create joint-use facilities such as a world-class testing facility that firms could access
  •  Create incubator space for young firms, which would include access to shared equipment and facilities
  • Create a network of existing specialized facilities, equipment, and other assets that could be made available to smaller firms (for a fee)
  • Create a core marine biology facility for joint use (similar to an existing North Carolina initiative)

Finally, there was strong interest in more networking and collaboration between the Navy and private industry, between large firms and small firms, and among the many maritime-related organizations in the San Diego region. The consensus was that that the San Diego community does not think big enough in the maritime space. A clear recommendation was made for the San Diego maritime community to come up with a big idea and make it happen (such as the Maritime Center of Excellence).

Posted in Economy, Jobs, Manufacturing | No Comments »

We are in danger of losing our country’s assets!

April 8th, 2014

We Americans blithely ignore the long-term effects of allowing foreign corporations to purchase the assets of our country in the form of companies, land, and resources. We are selling off our ability to produce wealth by allowing so many American corporations to be purchased by foreign corporations. It is not just foreign companies buying our assets that is the problem ? it is the state-owned and massively subsidized companies of China that are dangerous because China uses its state-owned enterprises as a strategic tool of the state. By pretending they are private companies abiding by free-market rules to our detriment makes us the biggest chumps on the planet. German economist Fredrich List, wrote, “The power of producing wealth is…infinitely more important than wealth itself.”

How many Americans paid attention to the news last year that Smithfield Foods was acquired by a Chinese corporation? Last September, shareholders approved the sale of the company to Shuanghui International Holdings Limited, the biggest meat processor in China. Smithfield Foods is the world’s largest pork producer, and Americans must now face the danger of polluted Chinese food since our FDA only inspects 2% of our food imports.

In the December 15, 2013, New York Post, Diane Francis, author of “Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country” wrote “Currently, American authorities only evaluate foreign takeovers on the basis of national-security issues or shareholder rights and securities laws. But these criteria are inadequate. A fairer test in the case of Smithfield, and future buyout attempts by China, should also require reciprocity: Only corporations from countries that allow Americans to buy large companies should be allowed to buy large American companies. That is why Washington must impose new foreign ownership restrictions based on the principle of reciprocity. The rule must be that foreigners can only buy companies if Americans can make similar buyouts in their countries”.

How many are aware that the chain of AMC Theaters is now owned by Chinese Corporation? Dalian Wanda Group Company owned by China’s richest man, billionaire real estate developer, Wang Jianlin, bought AMC Theatres in May 2012, creating the world’s largest theater chain. This means that the Chinese will now be in a position to shape public opinion and mold the minds of our children through entertainment media.

In January 2014, Motorola Mobility was sold by Google to Chinese corporation, Lenovo, which means that the nation that invented smart phones is just about entirely out of the business of producing smart phones in America. Lenovo is the same company that bought IBM’s line of personal computers in 2004. This acquisition will give one of China’s most prominent technology companies a broader foothold in the U. S.

Through strategic purchases, China is positioning itself to be our energy supplier as well. Since 2009, Chinese companies have invested billions of dollars acquiring significant percentages of shares of energy companies, such as The AES Corporation, Chesapeake Energy, and Oil & Gas Assets. In 2010, China Communications Construction Company bought 100% of Friede Goldman United, and in 2012, A-Tech Wind Power (Jiangxi) bought 100% of Cirrus Wind Energy.

Chinese companies are even acquiring healthcare companies:  WuXiu Pharma Tech bought AppTec Laboratory Services, and Mindray Medical International bought Datascope Corporation in 2008; BGI-Shenzhen bought Complete Genomics in 2012, and Mindray Medical International bought Zonare Medical Systems in 2013.

Wall Street and the finance industry are not immune from acquisitions by Chinese corporations:  Shenzhen New World Group bought Sheraton Universal Hotel in 2011; China Aviation Industrial Fund bought International Lease Finance Corporation in 2012; and Fosun bought One Chase Manhattan Plaza in 2013.

One of the earliest acquisitions by a Chinese corporation was when the Hoover brand was sold to Hong Kong, China-based firm Techtronic Industries after Maytag that owned Hoover was acquired by Whirlpool in 2006.

The acquisition of American companies by foreign corporations isn’t something new. Many prominent companies founded in America have been bought by corporations from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and other European countries in the latter half of the 20th Century. Most American don’t realize that such iconic American companies as BF Goodrich and RCA are now owned by French corporations, and that Carnation and Gerber are now owned by Swiss corporations.

Most foreign countries don’t allow 100% foreign ownership of their businesses, but sadly, the United States does not exercise the same prudence. We sell our companies to them, and they almost never sell theirs to us. This tilted playing field has gutted America’s economic power.

What is enabling Chinese companies to go on a buying spree of American assets? Trade deficits – our ever-increasing trade deficit with China over the past 20 years is transferring America’s wealth to China and making millionaires out of many Chinese. In 1994, our trade deficit with China was $29.5 billion, and it grew to $83.8 by 2001 when China was granted “Most Favored Nation” status and admitted to the World Trade Organization. By 2004, it had doubled to $162.3 billion. After a slight dip in 2009 during the depths of the Great Recession, the trade deficit grew to $318.4 billion in 2013. If you add the annual trade deficits for the past 20 years, it totals $3.15 trillion. China now has over one billion serious savers and more than a million millionaires whose assets when combined provide billions to spend to buy our assets.

In addition, it is our trade deficit with Japan that has enabled Japanese corporations to go a buying spree of American assets since the 1980s when such companies as Columbia Pictures Entertainment was acquired by the Sony Corporation of Japan in 1989, and Bridgestone Corporation of Japan bought Firestone in 1988. However, our highest trade deficit with Japan of $84.3 billion in 2007 was nearly one third of our current trade deficit with China. While we are still transferring wealth to Japan, it is a democracy and doesn’t have armed missiles pointed in our direction.

In theory, we have the means to protect ourselves from this. CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, has the power to regulate, approve and deny these purchases. However, it is rare for the CFIUS to block deals. “During 2011, the most recent year with data available, the CFIUS was notified 111 times of deals that fell under its purview. Of those 111 covered deals, 40 were investigated and just five were withdrawn during that investigation…This year, Chinese companies have bought 10 companies worth $10.5 billion, says Thomson Reuters. That’s more than 20% of the 484 U.S. companies that have been bought by foreign companies this year worth $43.6 billion, Thomson Reuters says.”

The 2013 Annual Report to Congress by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission states, “China presents new challenges for CFIUS, because investment by SOEs can blur the line between national security and economic security. The possibility of government intent or coordinated strategy behind Chinese investments raises national security concerns. For example, Chinese companies’ attempts to acquire technology track closely the government’s plan to move up the value-added chain. There is also an inherent tension among state and federal agencies in the United States regarding FDI from China. The federal government tends to be concerned with maintaining national security and protecting a rules-based, nondiscriminatory investment regime. The state governments are more concerned with local economic benefits, such as an expanded tax base and increased local employment, rather than a national strategic issue, especially as job growth has stagnated.”

The report, continues, “China has amassed the world’s largest trove of dollar-denominated assets. Although the true composition of China’s foreign exchange reserves, valued at $3.66 trillion, is a state secret, outside observers estimate that about 70 percent is in dollars. In recent years, China has become less risk averse and more willing to invest directly in U.S. land, factories, and businesses.”

Did we let the USSR buy our companies during the Cold War? No, we didn’t! We realized that we would be helping our enemy. This was pretty simple, common sense, but we don’t seem to have this same common sense when dealing with China.

China has a written plan to become the Super Power of the 21st Century. With regard to China’s military buildup, the report states, “PLA modernization is altering the security balance in the Asia Pacific, challenging decades of U.S. military preeminence in the region…The PLA is rapidly expanding and diversifying its ability to strike U.S. bases, ships, and aircraft throughout the Asia Pacific region, including those that it previously could not reach, such as U.S. military facilities on Guam.

It is time to wake up to the real dangers of our dangerously high trade deficits with China. The Communist Chinese government is not our friend. They are a geopolitical rival that is striving to replace the United States as the global hegemony. We should not let Chinese corporations acquire any more of our energy companies or technology-based companies if we want to maintain our national sovereignty.

Posted in Economy, National security, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Manufacturing in Golden State Summit shows how to make California Thrive

March 25th, 2014

On March 19th, over 100 business leaders met at the community center of the City of Brea in Orange County for the “Manufacturing in the Golden State – Making California Thrive” economic summit. The summit was hosted by State Senator Mark Wyland in partnership with the Coalition for a Prosperous America and many other regional businesses and associations. The purpose of the summit was to discuss how our national trade policies and tax policies are harming California manufacturers and what policies should be changed to help them grow and thrive.

After State Senator Wyland welcomed attendees, Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, provided an overview of the schedule for the day.

I provided an overview of California manufacturing in which I briefly discussed the history of manufacturing in California, pointing out that California is the 8th largest market in world and ranks first in manufacturing for both jobs and output. Manufacturing accounts for 12.5 % of the California’s Gross State Product and 9% of California jobs. California leads the nation in monies spent on R&D, and California companies received over 50% of all Venture Capital dollars invested in the U. S. in 2011. California’s high-tech exports also ranked first nationwide, totaling $48 billion in 2011.

California dropped to 50th in ranking for its business climate by the Small Business Entrepreneur Council Survival Index of 2013 because of its high personal and corporate income & capital gains taxes, its high gas and diesel taxes, high state minimum wage, high electric utility costs, high workers’ compensation costs, and stringent environmental and air quality regulations.

As a result, California lost over 600,000 manufacturing jobs since the year 2001, which represents 33.3% of its manufacturing industry. I mentioned that all of us had undoubtedly heard the latest ad by Texas Governor Rick Perry touting that 50 California companies had relocated to Texas in the last two years.

I then moderated a panel of the following local manufacturers, who gave their viewpoints of the challenges of doing business in California:

  • Bob Lane, President, laneOPX
  • Dana Mitchell, President, Advanced Mold Technology Inc.
  • Tim Nguyen, President, Alva Manufacturing
  • Nick Ventura, Co-founder WearVenley.com

Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Nguyen, and Mr. Ventura highlighted the difficulty in competing against Chinese prices and finding skilled workers. Their other comments provided examples of some of the above-cited disadvantages of doing business in California.

Dr. Greg Autry, Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California, led off the national panel with the topic of “Currency Valuation and National Security Concerns with the Current U.S. Trade Regime.” He began by showing the falsity of classical  assumptions behind “free trade” by Ricardo and Hume ? absolute advantages are non-transferable, there are no externalities, such as pollution and military expenses, trade is in kind, there are no fiat currency distortions, and no strategies that are time constrained.

Autry then discussed the currency manipulation models of Japan and China, showing how China’s currency manipulation affects our national security. While China has adjusted the valuation of their renminbi (yuan) slightly since they drastically devalued it in 1994, it has still not reached the level that it was at that time. To keep their currency valuation low they either keep the dollars they get from their trade surplus in reserve or buy U. S. Treasury bonds. The dollars they earn from our trade imbalance and the interest they earn from buying our debt in the form of bonds has funded the dramatic buildup of their military.

Our technical superiority in military systems will not assure our national security any more than the technical superiority of Nazi Germany’s aircraft and tanks did for them. Economic superiority is what matters. The manufacturing industry of the U. S. out produced Germany during WWII and the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Autry stated, “An economy that builds only F-35s is unsustainable – productive capacity is what wins real wars. Sophisticated systems require complex supply chains of supporting industries. They require experienced production engineers and experienced machinists.” He concluded that we cannot rely on China to produce what we need for our military and defense systems. We should not be relying on Russia’s Mr. Putin to launch our satellites and space vehicles and provide us a seat to get to the international space station.

Next, Michael Stumo presented “Can Consumption Taxes Create Jobs and Help Regain American Prosperity?” He said, “America has no strategy to win… in terms of being a successful producing and exporting nation. Growing exports, expanding two-way trade, and establishing global supply chains makes us losers.Unilateral trade disarmament makes us losers.We should want to win and not be ashamed of pursuing our national interest.”

Stumo described the math about how a consumption tax could reduce our income tax burden, include imports in our tax base, and shrink the trade deficit, and increase U.S. production while maintaining progressivity. He explained that our national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) equals Consumption plus Investment plus Government Procurement plus Net Exports (Total exports minus Total Imports). Because our imports exceed exports, our economy is smaller than it would be if the U.S. balanced trade.

More than 150 countries have a form of consumption tax, either a goods and services tax (GST) or a value added tax (VAT), with an average 17% level. These countries rebate these taxes on their exports, which is a subsidy. The taxes are “border adjustable” because they act as a 17% tariff on our goods sent to other countries.

After NAFTA, Mexico replaced its tariff reduction by establishing a 15% VAT, and Central America did the same, establishing a 12% VAT after CAFTA. Other countries use consumption taxes to offset income, payroll, or other employer taxes to help their manufacturers be more competitive in the global marketplace or to offset other costs like national health care or pension programs.

These border adjustable consumption taxes have been a causative factor in increasing our trade deficits with our trading partners, which was $471.5 billion in 2013, $318 billion with China alone. CPA advocates changes in U. S. trade policy to address this unfairness which tremendously distorts trade flows. The goal of a U. S. consumption tax should be:

  • Neutralize foreign tax (tariff/subsidy) advantage
  • Reduce non-border adjustable taxes: Income and/or Payroll
  • Replace them with border adjustable consumption taxes like a GST
  • Be revenue neutral
  • Be distribution/progressivity neutral
  • Minimize fight over exemptions, deductions, and location of profits

Pat Choate (Economist; Author, Saving Capitalism: Keeping America Strong) covered the importance of protecting Intellectual Property to the future of American manufacturing. He said that the U. S. is the most innovative country in the world, issuing more patents than any other country, and California represents 25% of all U. S. patents. Choate highlighted how our current trade policies do not address patent infringement, trademark counterfeiting, and the outright theft of our trade secrets by China and other Asian countries. The intellectual property clauses of the Trans-Pacific Partnership would exacerbate the problems already created by the passage of the America Invents Act in 2012 converting the U. S. from a “first-to-invent” to “first-to-file” that has hurt our innovation. Any future trade agreement must address intellectual property theft.

The next speaker was Mike Dolan, Legislative Representative for the Teamsters, who has long experience working for Fair Trade (fighting expansion of the job-killing NAFTA/WTO model). If we build and maintain a strong bipartisan mobilization, we can stop Fast Track trade authority from being granted to the President and stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreements from being passed. Dolan called the TPP “NAFTA on steroids” said that TTIP is just as bad. Dolan concluded that the path to victory on sensible trade policy is not possible without the Coalition for a Prosperous America and the constituencies it represents — small business, particularly in industries that are sensitive to trade fluctuations, family farmers and ranchers, working families and “trade patriot” activists including Tea Party groups.

Keynote speaker Dan DiMicco, Chairman Emeritus of Nucor Steel Corporation, spoke about “Seizing the Opportunity.” He led off by shocking the audience with facts about the real state of our economy and our unemployment rate. By December 2013, we still had not reached the level of employment that we had when the recession began in December 2007 although 72 months had passed. We lost 8.7 million jobsfrom December 2007 to the “trough” reached in February 2010, but because our recovery has been much slower than the previous recessions of 1974, 1981, 1990, and 2001, the gap in recovery of jobs compared to these recessions is actually 12,363 jobs.  

In contrast to the misleading U-3 unemployment rate of 6.7% for December that is reported in the news media, the U-6 rate was 13.1%.  The government’s U-6 rate is more accurate because it counts “marginally attached workers and those working part-time for economic reasons.” However, the actual unemployment is worse because the participation in the workforce has dropped from 66.0% to 62.8%. In other words, if the December 2013 Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate was back to the December 2007 level of 66.0%, it would  add 7.9 million people to the ranks of those looking for jobs.The manufacturing industry lost 20% of its jobs, and the construction industry lost 19% of its jobs.

Unemployment Data Adjusted For Decline in Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate
(Adjusted For Decline from December 2007 Level Of 66.0% to 62.8% in December 2013)

Reported Unemployed U.S. Workers 10,351,000
Involuntary Part-time workers 7,771,000
Marginally Attached To Labor Force Workers 2,427,000
Additional Unemployed Workers With 66% CLF Participation Rate 7,896,000

 
Unemployed U.S. Workers In Reality 28,445,000
Adjusted Civilian Labor force 162,833,000
Unemployment Rate In Reality 17.5%

We got in this position from 1970 until today because of failed trade policies allowing mercantilism to win out against true FREE Trade. We bought into wrongheaded economic opinions that America could become a service-based economy to replace a manufacturing-based economy. Manufacturing supply chains are the Wealth Creation Engine of our economy and the driver for a healthy and growing middle class! The result has been that manufacturing shrank from over 30% to 9.9% of GDP causing the destruction of the middle class. It created the service/financial based Bubble Economy (Dot.com/Enron/Housing/PONZI scheme type financial instruments.)

In addition, we have had 30 years of massive increases in inefficient and unnecessary Government regulations. These regulations, for the most part, in the past have been put in place by Congress and the Executive Branch. However, today they are increasingly being put in place by unelected officials/bureaucrats as they intentionally by-pass Congress.

American’s prosperity in the 20th century arose from producing more than it consumed, saving more than it spent, and keeping deficits to manageable and sustainable levels. Today, America’s trade and budget deficits are on track to reach record levels threatening our prosperity and our future.

Creating jobs must be our top priority, and we need to create 26-29 million jobs over the next 4-5 years. There are four steps we can take to bring about job creation:

  • Achieve energy independence,
  • Balance our trade deficit,
  • Rebuild our infrastructure for this century.
  • Rework American’s regulatory nightmare

We need to recapture American independence through investment in our country’s people, infrastructure, and energy independence, and by reversing the deficit-driven trends that currently define our nation’s economic policy. In conclusion, DiMicco said, “Real and lasting wealth IS, and always has been, created by innovating, making and building things — ALL 3 ? and servicing the goods producing sector NOT by a predominance of servicing services!”

Now is the time for all Americans to put aside their political differences and work together to restore California to the Golden State it once was and restore the United States to the land of opportunity it once was.

Posted in Economy, Innovation, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Taxes/Regulations, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

CPA’s Legislative Fly-in was a Resounding Success!

March 18th, 2014

Last week, I attended the annual Coalition for a Prosperous America’s legislative fly-in to Washington, D.C. for the second time. My fellow CPA members and supporters came from California to New England and from Washington State to Florida, and we met with over 100 Congressional and Senate offices. As chair of the California chapter, I headed up one of the two teams from the western United States, and my team met with Congressional staff and one Congressmen at a dozen offices. It was obvious that CPA’s influence is growing as we had more scheduled appointments than last year, and our appointment times were twice as long.

We delivered the message that balanced trade needs to be at the forefront of our national strategy. We now have a trade deficit with 88 countries, and our trade deficit with every one of our trading partners is worse than it was prior to concluding trade agreements with these countries. In 2013, we had a trade deficit in goods of $703.2 billion and services, but because we still have a trade surplus in services, our deficit in goods and services went down to $471.5 billion. One problem with services is that many of the services we now export are services being performed for American manufacturers that have set up manufacturing plants in other countries. An additional problem is that over 40% of our trade deficit is with China alone, and this is unsustainable.

Since our U. S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the sum of Consumption plus Investment plus Government Procurement plus Net exports (exports – imports), our trade deficit reduces our GDP. For example, in 2011, our GDP was $15,094.4 trillion, and our trade deficit shaved 4% off our GDP (14% share of GDP for exports minus 18% share of GDP for imports.)

“Our members reported a major improvement this year in congressional willingness to reconsider bad trade policy,” said Michael Stumo, CEO of the Coalition for a Prosperous America. “We were effective in countering the relentless efforts by the wealthy special interest groups who work hard to offshore our industries, our jobs and our sovereignty. The Administration’s efforts to push outdated, economy-killing concepts of trade policy has been stonewalled by the left and the right in Congress. Now they are in disarray.”

“It has become impossible to defend the current neo-liberal trade policy which ignores balance of trade,” continued Stumo. “We will start pushing that concept harder this year as we work with Congressional allies.”

I was happy to see that Congressional offices showed a heightened sensitivity to preserving states rights, American national sovereignty, and legislative branch authority over trade. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being negotiated would allow foreign tribunals to pass judgments on “investment agreements” between the U. S. federal government and investors from TPP nations. This would make the laws and policies of the 50 states to be subject to  international tribunals rather than our Congress and judicial system.

Also, the TPP would create binding policies on future Congresses as it pertains to patent and copyright laws, land use, food and agriculture, and product standards. It would also govern our nation’s policies concerning natural resources, the environment, labor laws, and government procurement policies, along with financial, health care, energy, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.

“Congress is increasingly loathe to transfer its authority over trade and domestic policy to the executive branch and give up its right to full transparency and amendments,” said Stumo. “Trade negotiators have steadfastly refused to pursue balanced trade, a fix for currency manipulation, and multiple other changes to fix the mistakes of the past.”

I have written the following four articles in the past year that were published on the Huffington Post regarding the dangers of the TPP as currently negotiated:

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Destroy our National Sovereignty” (March)

“Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Hurt American Manufacturers” (May)

“The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement Would Harm Our Environment” (July)

“Why we must stop Fast Track Authority from being granted” (January 9, 2014)

In addition to pointing out the harm that has been caused by our current trade policies and what is wrong with the TPP, we presented CPA’s “Principles for a 21st Century Trade Agreement:  Fixing Past Mistakes,” which advocates trade strategies that would create “Smart Trade not Dumb Trade.” Congress should require that future trade agreements provide:

Balanced Trade:  Trade agreements must contribute to a national goal of achieving a manageable balance of trade over time.

National Trade, Economic and Security Strategy: Trade agreements must strive to optimize

value added supply chains within the U.S. – from raw material to finished product – pursuant to a national trade and economic strategy that creates jobs, wealth and sustained growth. The agreements must also ensure national security by recapturing production necessary to rebuild America’s defense industrial base.

Reciprocity: Trade agreements must ensure that foreign country policies and practices as well as their tariff and non-tariff barriers provide fully reciprocal access for U.S. goods and services. The

agreements must provide that no new barriers or subsidies outside the scope of the agreement nullify or impair the concessions bargained for.

State Owned Commercial Enterprises: Trade agreements must encourage the transformation of state owned and state controlled commercial enterprises (SOEs) to private sector enterprises. In the interim, trade agreements must ensure that SOEs do not distort the free and fair flow of trade –

throughout supply chains – and investment between the countries.

Currency: Trade agreements must classify prolonged currency undervaluation as a per se violation of the agreement without the need to show injury or intent.

Rules of origin: Trade agreements must include rules of origin to maximize benefits for U.S. based supply chains and minimize free ridership by third parties. Further, all products must be labeled or marked as to country(s) of origin as a condition of entry.

Enforcement: Trade agreements must provide effective and timely enforcement mechanisms, including expedited adjudication and provisional remedies. Such provisional remedies must be permitted where the country deems that a clear breach has occurred which causes or threatens injury, and should be subject to review under the agreements’ established dispute settlement mechanisms.

Border Adjustable Taxes: Trade agreements must neutralize the subsidy and tariff impact of the border adjustment of foreign consumption taxes.

Perishable and Cyclical Products: Trade agreements must include special safeguard mechanisms to address import surges in perishable and seasonal agricultural product markets, including livestock markets.

Food and Product Safety and Quality: Trade agreements must ensure import compliance with

existing U.S. food and product safety and quality standards and must not inhibit changes to or improvements in U.S. standards. The standards must be effectively enforced at U.S. ports.

Domestic Procurement: Trade agreements must preserve the ability of federal, state and local

governments to favor domestic producers in government , or government funded, procurement.

Temporary vs. Permanent Agreements: Trade agreements must be sunsetted, subject to renegotiation and renewal. Renewal must not occur if the balance of benefits cannot be restored.

Trade negotiators agree to language based upon expectations and judgment in pursuit of national goals.

Labor: Trade agreements must include enforceable labor provisions to ensure that lax labor standards and enforcement by contracting countries do not result in hidden subsidies to the detriment of U.S.-based workers and producers.

We CPA members also delivered a petition signed by over 80 liberty groups across the country objecting to Fast Track and the Trans-Pacific Partnership on constitutional grounds. “Tea Party and other liberty organizations have learned how American sovereignty is at risk as we transfer domestic authority to international governance systems and tribunals,” continued Stumo. “They are not fooled by phony free trade claims as a rationale to permanently give up our sovereignty.”

After this legislative fly-in, the outlook is more promising that CPA will be successful in forging a new consensus on trade and economic policy that balances trade, creates jobs, grows our economy and protects American sovereignty. 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. You can help ensure that this success happens sooner than later by supporting the Coalition for a Prosperous America.

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

Bill to Address Skills Training is Stalled in Senate

March 4th, 2014

In the past 15 years, the manufacturing industry has evolved from needing low-skilled production-type assembly workers to being highly technology-infused. It’s no secret that manufacturing companies are now struggling to fill the gap for workers trained with the specific skills needed for today’s advanced manufacturing jobs.

To address this problem and provide training that the youth and the unemployed need to secure jobs, the House passed the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills (SKILLS) Act (H.R. 803) in March 2013, which was authored by Higher Education and Workforce Training subcommittee chair Virginia Foxx (R-NC). The SKILLS Act would revise and reauthorize job training, employment service, adult education and literacy, and rehabilitation programs currently provided under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), which has not been reauthorized since its enactment, and is now nearly a decade overdue for reauthorization. The Skills Act would eliminate 35 existing programs and consolidate funding into a single Workforce Investment Fund.

Several governors and workforce training leaders praised the bill:  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie stated, “By streamlining federal workforce training programs, the SKILLS Act would reduce the administrative burden that current law places on the states. It also provides states with the needed flexibility to tailor job training programs, acknowledging that the needs of New Jersey are surely different than those of other states.”

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett stated, “The SKILLS Act restores 15% state set-aside funding to support innovative strategies statewide and locally…In addition to providing flexibility and encouraging innovation, the restored state set-aside also supports the needs of our most vulnerable citizens.”

Florida Governor Rick Scott stated, “H.R. 803 proposes a market-driven approach to talent development designed to prepare individuals seeking employment for the jobs of today – and the jobs of tomorrow…Increasing the business representation on state and local boards improves our alignment with market needs.”

Dr. R. Scott Ralls, president of the North Carolina Community College System, noted that it is “important that reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act streamlines programs, limits administrative overhead, and enables state and local flexibility to design systems that meet the legislative goals in the most effective and efficient manner. Simplifying the system and moving past the myriad of multiple program titles and funding streams is a fundamental step.”

 Todd Gustafson, executive director of Michigan Works—Berrien-Cass-Van Buren, noted, “Eliminating the 19 federal mandates on representation will further strengthen business engagement. Requiring two-thirds of board members to be employers will enhance the shift from a supply side designed system to a demand or market driven system.”

The Senate version of this bill is S. 1356, the Workforce Investment Act of 2013, and on December 19, 2013, a Motion to proceed to consideration of the measure was made in the Senate.

During an executive session in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in August 2013, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa delivered the following statement on S.1356, (quoted in part): “It requires states to develop and submit one unified plan to the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of Labor, covering all of the programs authorized under WIA – job training, adult education, employment services, and vocational rehabilitation – streamlining administrative processes at the state level in a thoughtful way. It eliminates several unfunded programs and provides for an innovation fund that will help the system to identify and replicate the most effective strategies for workforce development. It also includes provisions to support better data and evaluations that can be used across all core programs, including common definitions and performance indicators.”

If the Senate passes S. 1356, the measure would then move to conference, a process by which the House and Senate each appoint “conferees” to reconcile the differences between the two pieces of legislation in an effort to produce a version that could gain enough support for passage in both chambers.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the programs covered by these bills are currently overseen by the Departments of Labor and Education and provide grants to state and local governments as well as to private and nonprofit organizations to provide specified services. Those programs received discretionary funding of $5.5 billion and mandatory funding of $3.1 billion in 2013.

The National Skills Coalition has prepared a side-by-side comparison report on the occupational training and adult education and family literacy provisions1 in the House and Senate Workforce Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization proposals with current law. The 41-page report goes into considerable detail in comparing the current law with the Skills Act and S. 1356.

One of the differences between the House Skills Act and the proposed Senate bill is the composition of the membership of the State Board. Under current law, the membership is composed of:

  • Governor
  • Two members of each chamber of the state legislature, and
  • Representatives appointed by the governor, including: Business representatives, Chief elected officials (representing both cities and counties where appropriate),Labor representatives, and Youth organization representatives

Representatives of individuals and organizations with experience and expertise in the delivery of workforce investment activities including chief executive officers of community colleges and community based organizations, lead state officials of mandatory partner agencies, and other representatives and state agency officials that the governor may designate.

In contrast, the Skills Act requires that “two-thirds of board members be representatives of the business community”  and “eliminates requirement that local board include representatives from local educational entities, labor organizations, community-based organizations, economic development agencies, and one-stop partners.” It maintains “the governor, chief elected officials, a state agency official responsible for economic development and other such representatives as the governor should designate to serve on the board.”

The Senate bill, however, revises current law for State Board membership as follows: majority of representatives must be employers or representatives of business or trade associations; at least 20 percent must be representatives of labor and CBOs or youth serving organizations, and adds representatives of a joint labor-management program or apprenticeship program as a required partner.

Judy Lawton, CEO of The Lawton Group, past president of the San Diego Workforce Investment Board and current Chair of the Adult Programs Committee, provided me with the following comments regarding the Skills Act: “The San Diego Workforce Partnership completed their Five (5) Year Plan more than a year ago and rolled it out to the public shortly thereafter. It is very comprehensive, well thought out, and definitely streamlines practices and procedures and strategic thinking along the lines of programs and program delivery methods. At our last Adult Programs Committee meeting, we recommended apprenticeship programs to the full Workforce Investment Board through the collaborative efforts of local Union leaders, business leaders, educators, and skills trainers. As for the Boards being comprised of 2/3rd business people, I’m not so sure. The WIB is already mandated by law to have 51% business and that community is well represented. The Unions belong at the table as they are becoming more involved with the necessary apprenticeship programs, and their presence is welcomed.”

The current law requires a unified state plan that is based on a five-year strategy, while the Skills Act requires a three-year plan, and the Senate bill requires a four-year plan.

Both the Skills Act and the Senate bill maintain the current law with regard to the establishment of the One-Stop Delivery System for services and the delivery of services, but have different plans than the current law for infrastructure funding.

A major difference of the Skills Act compared to current law and the Senate bill is that it repeals the Youth Activities section of the current Workforce Investment Act. It also repeals:

  • Native American programs
  • Migrant and seasonal farm worker programs
  • Veterans’ workforce investment programs
  • Youth opportunity grant program

The National Skills Coalition sent a four-page letter on March 4, 2013 to the Committee on Education and the Workforce Committee of the House of Representatives expressing their grave concerns about eliminating the above programs and explained their additional reasons for opposing the passage of the SKILLS Act. The other reasons for their opposition are too complex for me to attempt to summarize. As usual, the “devil is in the details,” so I highly recommend that readers check out the links to the report and letter that are herein provided.

 San Diego Workforce Partnership President Peter Callstrom provided me with the following word of caution:  “The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is long overdue for reauthorization. There are competing visions with respect to how to best go forward: reauthorize as is, or reconstruct through the ‘Skills Act’ – or some combination of both. The WIA works well and thousands of individuals have, and continue to be, supported in their careers. Where, and how, we go from here is important. In the end, we all want local control in order to address our unique needs. As the local Workforce Investment Board (WIB), we welcome any solution that results in more resources for Our region led by Our residents to support Our workforce. Let’s hope that politics doesn’t get in the way of that.”

Well said, Peter.

 

Posted in Education, Jobs, Manufacturing, Training | No Comments »

Why Manufacturing is Critical to California’s Economy

February 25th, 2014

For every one job created in manufacturing, at least two to three jobs are created to support the sector. Further, manufacturing firms create regional wealth by producing a product that is exported to other states and countries. This attracts additional funds to the region — creating business, individual and community wealth. Because of this ripple effect, manufacturing firms have a deeper impact on the state of the economy than most other industries.

California is the number one state for manufacturing jobs, firms and output – accounting for 11.7 percent of the total U. S. output, and employing 9 percent of the U. S. manufacturing workforce. California manufacturing generates $229.9 billion, more than any other state. Manufacturing is California’s most export-intensive activity contributing significantly to California’s $159 billion in exports in 2011. Overall, manufacturing exports represent 9.4% ($120 billion in goods) of California’s GDP, and computers and electronic products constitute 29.3% of the state’s total manufacturing exports. More than one-fifth (21.9%) of all manufacturing workers in California directly depend on exports for their jobs.

Since January 2001, the manufacturing sector lost 33% of its job base, down from 1.86 million jobs in 2001 to 1.237 million jobs in 2019. In 2010, the manufacturing sector began adding employment, regaining 7,900 jobs. California exports have also increased — up from $104 billion of manufactured goods in 2009 to $124 billion in 2010.

A 2011 report by the Center for Applied Competitive Technologies (CACT) at El Camino College and the Center Of Excellence (COE) of the Los Rios Community College District identified the following 17 cluster industries in California:

  •  Aerospace Manufacturing
  • Biotechnology, Medical Devices, & Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
  • Building Materials Manufacturing
  • Chemical Manufacturing
  • Computers/Electronics Manufacturing
  • Dental Equipment, Supplies & Laboratories Manufacturing
  • Fashion/Clothing Manufacturing
  • Furniture Manufacturing
  • Household Products Manufacturing
  • Machinery Manufacturing
  • Metals Manufacturing
  • Paper Products Manufacturing
  • Petroleum Manufacturing
  • Plastic Products Manufacturing
  • Printing and Publishing
  • Transportation Manufacturing

 The report states, “With the exception of food manufacturing, biotechnology, dental equipment, and petroleum, nearly every manufacturing cluster in California has shed jobs over the last five years [2006-2011.] Building materials lost the most jobs with a decline of 32%, followed by printing (22%), and computers/electronics (10%).”

Challenges

The report states that the “manufacturing sector must address a variety of challenges, from navigating a complex regulatory environment to developing strategies to compete with low cost economics. There are a number of factors that have inhibited the manufacturing sector’s ability to compete locally and internationally.” Some of these challenges are:

  • California’s regulatory climate is difficult, expensive and time consuming to navigate
  • Higher health care expenditures compared to countries where health care is paid for by general tax revenues
  • Higher salaries and other benefits, such as paid leave, insurance, and retirement plans
  • Higher costs associated with litigation claims
  • Higher costs associated with environmental compliance;
  • Higher corporate tax rates than most other countries (the United States’ tax rate is 40%, the second highest tax rate among major trading partners.)

Opportunities

Competition from low-cost economies, such as China, India, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam, is one of the major challenges faced by the manufacturing sector. However, the total cost of outsourcing to other countries is often miscalculated. According to the Reshore Initiative, the true cost of manufacturing outside of the United States does not include costs associated with:

  •  National policy issues (trade negotiations, etc.)
  • Changes in currency exchange rates
  • Intellectual Property theft
  • Supply chain disruptions
  • Lengthy delivery times
  • Traveling to the manufacturing site to assess and resolving production issues

Further, in the last few years many countries have started to raise their prices to adjust for increases in wages and higher transportation/fuel expenses. By examining the total cost of outsourcing, the Reshore Initiative argues that hiring local production firms is just as price sensitive as hiring firms from low-cost economies. Also, there are several benefits to working local, such as:

  •  Improved quality and consistency of inputs
  • Ability to create just-in-time operations that reduce inventory and shipping costs and improve business-to-business relations
  • Intellectual property security
  • Faster delivery to customers

As this viewpoint has gained popularity, it has started to shift production back to the United States, creating jobs and wealth in the process. By 2013, the Reshoring Initiative estimated that about 80,000 jobs returned to the United States through reshoring, about 15% of the nationwide increase of 526,000 manufacturing jobs since 2010.

If you are in the southern California region, you can find out more about how we can help the manufacturing industry thrive in California by attending the “Manufacturing in the Golden State – Making California Thrive” economic summit on Wednesday, March 19, 2014, 9:30 AM – 1:30 PM.

This leadership summit will explore how to grow manufacturing jobs and businesses in California. National experts and local business owners will present the best solutions to help craft a successful growth strategy. 

Where:  Brea Community Center, 1 Civic Center Circle, Brea, CA 92821

Keynote Speaker:   Dan DiMicco, Chairman Emeritus, Nucor Steel Corporation

Speakers/Topics:

* Dr. Greg Autry – Senior Economist, Coalition for a Prosperous America; Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California (Trade Reform)
* Pat Choate – Economist; Author, “Saving Capitalism: Keeping America Strong” (Manufacturing Strategy)
* Mike Dolan – Legislative Representative, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Currency Manipulation) (invited)
* Michael Stumo – CEO, Coalition for a Prosperous America (Tax Reform)

Panel of local business leaders (partial listing):

* Michele Nash-Hoff – Chair, Coalition for a Prosperous America CA Chapter; President, ElectroFab Sales (Overview of California Manufacturing)

*Dana Mitchell, Advanced Mold Technology Inc.
* Nick Ventura – Co Founder, Venley by Youth Monument

Presented by:  Senator Mark Wyland, in partnership with the Coalition for a Prosperous America and other regional businesses and associations.

Cost: Early Bird Rate $25 through March 5, 2014; $35 thereafter (Includes light breakfast and full lunch)

 Sponsors:

City of Brea

ATE Corporation (ATEC)

California Manufacturing Technology Consulting

Industrial Metal Supply Company

Event partners
APICS – Orange County Chapter

Brea Chamber of Commerce

Corona Chamber of Commerce
Cypress Chamber of Commerce

Fountain Valley Chamber of Commerce

Fullerton Chamber of Commerce
Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce
Global Innovative Systems

La Habra Chamber
PlanetTogether

Orange County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Orange County SBDC
Riverside County Manufacturers & Exporters Association
West Orange County Regional Chamber
Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce

Register today for this important event.

For more information, or if you are unable to pay online, contact Sara Haimowitz (202-688-5145, sara@prosperousamerica.org).

Also: click here to find out about becoming an event sponsor!

Thanks,

Michele Nash-Hoff, Chair
California Chapter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America

 

Posted in Economic Development, Jobs, Manufacturing, Reshoring, Taxes/Regulations | No Comments »

The Innovation Act Would Squash American Innovation

February 11th, 2014

Sometimes well-meaning legislation is passed that has unintended consequences that are harmful. This is the case for the Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, passed by a 325 – 91 vote in the House of Representatives on December 5, 2013, The next step is consideration by the U.S. Senate of four similar bills that have been proposed: S. 1720 (Leahy D-VT), S. 866 (Schumer D-NY), S. 1013 (Comyn R-TX), and S. 1612 (Hatch R-UT). What is the purpose of this new Act and how would it have harmful unintended consequences?

The intended purpose of the Innovation Act is to curb frivolous lawsuits for patent infringement by so-called “patent trolls,” a derogatory term defined by Wikipedia  as “a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question, thus engaging in economic rent-seeking. Related, less pejorative terms include patent holding company (PHC) and non-practicing entity (NPE).”

However, the Patent Freedom organization states, “NPEs are not all cut from the same cloth. Some inventors choose not to pursue the development, manufacturing, and sales of their inventions. They may lack the resources to do so, or the interest, passion, and commitment that such an effort requires. Instead, they may seek to license their inventions to others who can use them to deliver better products and services, often with the assistance of those with experience in this area. Or they may choose to sell the patents outright…. some entities buy patents with the express purpose of licensing them aggressively. For instance, about 25% of “parent” NPEs tracked by Patent Freedom are enforcing only patents that they had acquired. Another 60% are asserting patents originally assigned to them, and the remaining 15% are asserting a blend of originally assigned and acquired patents”

The Innovation Act would create additional requirements as part of the legal process associated with patent infringement under United States law. Some of the provisions are paraphrased below:

  • Requires specificity in patent lawsuits – requires specified details concerning each claim of each patent was allegedly infringed.
  • Makes patent ownership more transparent with a “Joinder” clause requiring patent plaintiffs to name anyone who has a financial interest in the patent being litigated.
  • Makes the loser pay – “if a losing plaintiff cannot pay, the bill would allow a judge to order others who had a financial stake in the plaintiff’s lawsuit to join the lawsuit and pay the costs of an unsuccessful patent lawsuit.”
  • Delay discovery to keep costs down – gives time to allow the courts to address legal questions about the meaning of patent claims with the goal of reducing legal costs and allow more frivolous lawsuits to be resolved before defendants have incurred large legal bills.
  • Protect end users – allows technology vendors to step into the shoes of their customers and fight lawsuits against trolls on their customers’ behalf in cases where restaurants, supermarkets, airlines, casinos, real estate agents and other brick-and-mortar businesses are being sued for using technology such as Wi-Fi instead of the manufacturers of the equipment.

Proponents say that” in the two years since the AIA was enacted, patent litigation has exploded. More and more firms are acquiring broad patents not to use the technology but rather to extract licensing fees from companies that infringe the patents accidentally…so a number of industry groups that weren’t traditionally involved in patent debates have begun agitating for patent reform.”

The proposal enjoys broad support from some in the technology sector. Internet companies such as Google have been a driving force behind the bill. Microsoft had opposed one of the provisions of the Bill, but is now expressing support for the legislation after that provision was removed.

Opposition to Innovation ACT

Opponents say that the Innovation Act as currently written weakens our patent system and will have unintended consequences on U.S. inventors. These additional changes to the patent system will result in a shift in the balance of patent ownership, favoring large and better financed companies over startups, investors and inventors who have been responsible for some of the most historic and groundbreaking discoveries in our nation’s history.

The Biotechnology Industry Group (BIO) did not support the Innovation Act because it believed that it would undermine biotech research and innovation. Daniel Seaton noted on BIO’s Patently Biotech blog, “the Act would ultimately make it more difficult for patent holders with legitimate claims to protect their intellectual property…Provisions in the legislation would erect unreasonable barriers to access justice for innovators, especially small start-ups that must be able to defend their businesses against patent infringement in a timely and cost-effective manner, and without needless and numerous procedural hurdles or other obstacles.”

Joe Panetta, President and CEO of Biocom, San Diego’s biotechnology organization, expressed similar sentiments, stating, “Not only does H.R.3309 fail to adequately address the abusive litigation practices it aims to curb, but it would place burdensome and unnecessary requirements and penalties on all patent holders. The bill is likely to inadvertently harm the world’s greatest innovation system by limiting legitimate patent holders’ ability to assert their rights.”

The Independent Inventors of America against Current Patent Legislation, representing independent inventors and small patent-based businesses across the country disputes the claim that patent infringement litigation has escalated. Their January 2014 petition states “The Government Accounting Office Report required by the America Invents Act finds that there is no ‘patent troll’ problem. Data supporting the claim of billions of dollars of reported cost cannot be verified and actually represent primarily voluntary and court directed license agreements for valid patents. In addition, analysis of patent litigation shows that the number of patent suits relative to the number of patents issued today remains consistent over the 200 plus year history of the patent system with the exception of a short period prior to the Civil War when the rate was higher than it is today. The reports supporting this latest round of legislation are simply not valid.”

They argue that “what is being characterized as a “patent troll,” and the target of the proposed legislation, is really an investor. As individual inventors and small patent-based businesses, we need investors to practice and protect our inventions. A patent is sometimes the sole asset we can leverage to attract that investment. Damaging investors therefore damages inventors.”

Their main reasons for objecting to the Act are:

Loser Pays – would significantly increase the risk and cost of defending a patent and “could be fatal to a large percentage of inventions.”

“Joinder” clause – allows investors to be personally liable for legal fees if inventor loses lawsuit, so this would severely limit investment in new technologies.

Patent Term Adjustment – eliminates a patent adjustment for a delay in patent issuance caused by the U. S. Patent Office (Note: Patents are granted for 17 years, but if it takes five years to get a patent, the patent term would be only 12 years instead of 17.)

The petition states, “This legislation will levy grave harm upon independent inventors and small patent-based businesses, as well as the investors we need to help commercialize new technologies and to protect our inventions.” They “stand firmly against the proposed legislation and any future legislation that would weaken the American Patent System.”

Members of the governing body of the San Diego Inventors Forum, of which I am a member, signed the petition. Adrian Pelkus, SDIF President, stated, “The Innovation Act (H.R. 3309) horrifies me with the path that allows corporations to beat up on small inventors…Financial ruin for inventors will be extremely easy due to the nature of startups, meaning most inventors could lose their fledgling businesses disputing challenges to issued Intellectual Property.

To dissuade investors by increasing risk that the IP in the project they are investing in will be challenged (perhaps even frivolously just to stop them from progressing to market) will grind innovation to a standstill.

At a time when we need American ingenuity and investors to rebuild our economy, taking steps to diminish our rights as inventors is un-American, economically dumb and intellectually suicidal. Stifling innovation in a technologically based society is a sure path to economic ruin which is why the USPTO system was originally designed to reward not punish the inventor. We must not allow big multinational corporations the ability to squash. Any and all actions to stop this bill must be enacted.”

Gary Klein, V. P. Public Policy, of San Diego’s CONNECT organization, stated why they oppose the Act:  “A startup company’s main asset is its intellectual property. Most investors’ first question to startups is about how their technology is protected. The Innovation Act that passed the House has several provisions – fee shifting, covered business methods, joinder rules, discovery and customer stay – that will have some very serious adverse consequences for small/startup companies, universities and research institutions, as well as companies who use licensing as a business model.”

Join us in signing the petition and contact your Senator to ask them to oppose all of the similar bills that have been introduced in the Senate.

Posted in Economy, Innovation, Manufacturing | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »