Posts Tagged ‘American manufacturing’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

It’s Time to End China’s Most Favored Nation Status

Tuesday, December 1st, 2020

China was granted Most Favored Nation status through presidential proclamation on an annual basis from 1980 – 1998. This was because the Trade Act of 1974 stated that “MFN status may not be conferred on a country with a nonmarket economy if that country maintains restrictive emigration policies” China was, and still is, a nonmarket economy and restricted emigration, but the Act allowed the president to “waive this prohibition on an annual basis if he certifies that granting MFN status would promote freedom of emigration in that country.”

According to CRS Report 98-603 for Congress, “China’s Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Status:  Congressional Consideration, 1989-1998:” After the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989, there was enough opposition to granting MFN status to China that the “House passed joint resolutions disapproving MFN for China in both 1991 and 1992,” but the Senate didn’t pass the joint resolution. However, the real focus of the debate was not whether to deny MFN status for China altogether, but whether or not to “place new human rights conditions on China’s MFN eligibility.” Congress passed legislation in 1991 and 1992 that would have placed further conditions on China’s MFN status, but President Bush vetoed the legislation.

In 1993, President Clinton announced he would link China’s MFN status to human rights progress beginning in 1994. However, President Clinton reneged on his campaign promise and reversed himself:  “On June 2, 1995, President Clinton transmitted to Congress his intention to waive the emigration prohibition and extend MFN status to the People’s Republic of China for an additional year, beginning July 3, 1995.”

An L.A. Times article of May 27, 1994, reported: “President Clinton, abandoning a central foreign policy principle of his Administration, announced Thursday that he has decided to “de-link” China’s privileged trading status from its human rights record. While acknowledging that China “continues to commit very serious human rights abuses,” Clinton said that he has come to believe that broader American strategic interests justify the policy reversal.” 

The annual granting of MFN status to China by a presidential waiver continued through 1998. Note that “On July 22, 1998, legislation was enacted which replaced the term “most-favored-nation” in certain U.S. statutes with the term “normal trade relations.”  This made it easier for Congress to make the fateful decision to extend “permanent normal trade relations,” or PNTR, to China when the Senate voted to give China permanent most-favored-nation status on September 19, 2000. This vote paved the way for China’s accession to the World Trade Organization.

As Reihan Salam, President of the Manhattan Institute wrote in an article titled “Normalizing Trade Relations With China Was a Mistake,” in the June 8, 2018 issue of The Atlantic, “PNTR was a euphemism designed to get around the fact that the traditional term for “normal trade relations” was “most-favored-nation” (MFN) tariff status…MFN status meant imports would be treated as favorably as those arriving from “the most favored nation.” Absurd as it might sound, this linguistic convention had meaningful political consequences. To argue that we ought to have normal trade relations with China was one thing. Sure, why not? To make the case that China ought to be treated as our most favored nation was a more vexing PR challenge, not least in the wake of the brutal crackdown that followed the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.”

An article in the American Economic Review, “The Surprisingly Swift Decline of US Manufacturing Employment,” byJustin R. Pierce and Peter K. Schott, July 7, 2016, states: “The permanence of PNTR status made an enormous difference: Without PNTR, there was always a danger that China’s favorable access to the U.S. market would be revoked, which in turn deterred U.S. firms from increasing their reliance on Chinese suppliers. With PNTR in hand, the floodgates of investment were opened, and U.S. multinationals worked hand-in-glove with Beijing to create new China-centric supply chains.” 

This change in U.S. trade policy that eliminated potential tariff increases on Chinese imports resulted in industries that were more vulnerable to the change experiencing greater employment loss, increased imports from China, and higher entry into the U.S. market by U.S. importers and foreign-owned Chinese exporters. My three books and the hundreds of articles I’ve written since 2009 have described what has happened to U.S. manufacturing since 2001. Besides the loss of 5.8 million manufacturing jobs and the closure of an estimated 67,000 American manufacturers, American manufacturing shifted toward more high-tech, less labor-intensive production. However, as China upgraded their technology in the past few years, we started losing our high-tech manufacturing also.

In addition to the annual reports to Congress by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission documenting China’s violation of World Trade Organization rules along with human rights violations, the U.S. Department of State submits an annual report on International Religious Freedom in accordance with the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. According to the 2018 International Religious Freedom Report : “Multiple media and NGOs estimated the government detained at least 800,000 and up to possibly more than 2 million Uighurs, ethnic Kazakhs, and members of other Muslim groups, mostly Chinese citizens, in specially built or converted detention facilities in Xinjiang and subjected them to forced disappearance, torture, physical abuse, and prolonged detention without trial because of their religion and ethnicity since April 2017.  There were reports of deaths among detainees.  Authorities maintained extensive and invasive security and surveillance, in part to gain information regarding individuals’ religious adherence and practices.” 

Therefore, it gave me great pleasure when I read that on September 17, 2020, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) introduced a bill (S.4609) that “would strip China of its permanent most-favored-nation status—also known as Permanent Normal Trade Relations—a designation it has held for the last twenty years. If passed, the legislation would make extending most-favored-nation status to China an annual decision for Congress and the president.”

Cotton said, “Twenty years ago this week, the Senate gave a gift to the Chinese Communist Party by granting it permanent most-favored-nation status. That disastrous decision made the Party richer, but cost millions of American jobs. It’s time to protect American workers and take back our leverage over Beijing by withdrawing China’s permanent trade status.”

Senator Cotton’s press release states: “The China Trade Relations Act would revoke China’s permanent most-favored-nation status and return to the pre-2001 status quo, whereby China’s MFN status must be renewed each year by presidential decision. Congress could override the president’s extension of MFN by passing a joint resolution of disapproval.

The bill also would expand the list of human-rights and trade abuses under the Jackson-Vanik Amendment that would disqualify China for MFN status, absent a presidential waiver. The abuses that would make China ineligible for MFN status, absent a presidential waiver, are as follows:

  • Uses or provides for the use of slave labor;
  • Operates ‘vocational training and education centers’ or other concentration camps where people are held against their will;
  • Performs or otherwise orders forced abortion or sterilization procedures;
  • Harvests the organs of prisoners without their consent;
  • Hinders the free exercise of religion;
  • Intimidates or harasses nationals of the People’s Republic of China living outside the People’s Republic of China; or
  • Engages in systematic economic espionage against the United States, including theft of the intellectual property of United States persons”

China’s strategic goal is to dominate the sectors of economic growth that historically have held the key to world power:  transportation energy, information, and manufacturing. Their “Made in China 2025” plan is designed to dominate key technology sectors such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, hypersonic missiles, and 5G. They also plan to become the dominant power in space by 2049.

If this bill isn’t passed in the Lame Duck session, I strongly urge that it be reintroduced into the next Congress and passed unanimously next year. It’s time China for us to stop treating China as a friend and recognize China as the enemy to our national sovereignty it is.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Market Access Charge Would Eliminate Trade Deficit & Increase GDP

Tuesday, October 6th, 2020

In July 2017, the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) released a paper titled, “The Threat of U.S. Dollar Overvaluation: How to Calculate True Exchange Rate Misalignment & How to Fix It” by Michael Stumo (CEO), Jeff Ferry (Research Director) and Dr. John R. Hansen, a 30-year veteran of the World Bank and Advisory Board member.

The purpose of the paper is to explain the problem of the dollar overvaluation, to show how to accurately calculate the dollar’s misalignment against trading partner currencies, and to propose a solution this serious threat to America’s future. At the time, the dollar was overvalued by 25.5% compared to other major currencies.

The solution developed by Dr. Hansen is a Market Access Charge (MAC) “as a system to discourage overseas private investors and return-sensitive official investors such as sovereign wealth fund managers from excessive speculation and trading in U.S. dollar assets.” He believed that the MAC would reduce “the incentive for foreigners to invest in dollars, gradually and safely reduce its overvaluation, benefiting the U.S. economy and restoring control over our own currency.”

In February 2019, CPA released the working paper, “Quantifying Economic Growth and Job Creation from a competitive Dollar,” showing that a 27 percent realignment in the trade weighted US dollar exchange rate over five years would eliminate the US trade deficit, result in an additional $1 trillion in GDP and create 5.2 million new jobs.

The MAC was proposed in a Senate bill introduced in July 2019, S.2357, titled the

“Competitive Dollar for Jobs and Prosperity Act.” It was introduced by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Josh Hawley (R-MO), and is languishing in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

On October 5, 2020, CPA released a working paper, “Modeling the Effect of the Market Access Charge on Exchange Rates, Interest Rates and the US Economy,” by Steven L Byers, PhD. and Jeff Ferry.

In Section 1, The Relationship Between International Capital Flows and the Exchange Rate, the authors state that “The standard open-economy macroeconomic models2 predict that under a floating exchange rate regime, when a country runs a trade deficit/surplus, the exchange rate will adjust to eliminate the imbalance. However, exchange rates have not adjusted and imbalances have persisted. The US trade and current account deficits have continued to run at some 2%-3% of US GDP for decades (Figure 1), suggesting that other forces are preventing the deficits from correcting themselves.”

The authors go into detailed economic models that establish the relationship between equity inflows and the currency dollar exchange rate.

In Section 2, The MAC, Capital Flows and the Dollar Exchange Rate, the authors examined how a charge on capital inflows is likely to impact inflows and the exchange rate, focusing on the Market Access Charge (MAC) discussed above. The authors state: “The MAC would be a one-time fee paid on the purchase of any U.S. dollar financial asset by a foreign entity or individual. The MAC is designed to moderate foreign demand for dollar assets and realign the US dollar exchange rate to a trade-balancing level. The Baldwin-Hawley bill specifies that the Federal Reserve Board would set and manage the MAC to achieve current account balance within a five-year time horizon. Once balance was achieved, the Fed would manage the MAC to keep the US economy close to current account balance over time. “The Baldwin-Hawley bill specifies that the Federal Reserve Board would set and manage the MAC to achieve current account balance within a five-year time horizon. Once balance was achieved, the Fed would manage the MAC to keep the US economy close to current account balance over time.”

This section covers detailed economic models on how the MAC would affect different kinds of equity flows, such as bonds, Treasury notes

In Section 3, How the MAC Impacts Interest Rates, the authors “sought to estimate the impact of the MAC on the financial sector with a focus upon interest rates and government debt service costs.” They investigated and modeled the effect of a 1%, 3%, and 5% MAC on the nominal exchange rate, 10-year interest rates, and interest rate on outstanding Federal debt.

With regard to revenue the MAC would generate for the US Treasury, the authors comment, “Though the MAC would reduce capital inflows significantly, our model suggests that even with a 5% MAC, gross equity inflows would continue at a rate in excess of $3 trillion a quarter, with inflows into debt securities at similar levels. MAC transaction fees, paid by foreign purchasers of US securities, would provide a large new source of revenue to the US Treasury. Table 4 shows that these revenues could reach $672 billion, equivalent to 19% of last year’s total federal tax revenue.”

In Section 4, Effects on the Economy, the authors state: “…US producers of goods and services would gain market share in the US market and export markets. Our model estimates the impact of increased domestic production over the five-year period on US GDP and employment. In the case of a 5% MAC, the dollar’s exchange value would fall by 27…the more competitive dollar would balance trade, increasing exports by $765 billion or 29.5% over the baseline, and reducing imports by $167 billion (5.1%). The fall in imports is modest because while imports lose share in the domestic market, the rise in economic growth from the more competitive exchange rate boosts GDP, which leads to higher imports. But trade would be balanced. The GDP would rise by $1.01 trillion or 4.6%. Compared to the baseline forecast, the economy would create 4.9 million new jobs by 2025… the new jobs would be weighted towards internationally competitive sectors, notably manufacturing and natural resources, which offer higher pay (and often better benefit packages) than the average US job.”

The authors conclude that “The model shows large benefits to the US economy and the US. Treasury. Further study is warranted and should be pursued.”  I would go one step further and say that the Baldwin-Hawley “Competitive Dollar for Jobs and Prosperity Act.” (S. 2357) should be released out of committee as soon as possible to be debated and then passed in the full session of the Senate.  Reducing our trade deficit, increasing our GDP, and creating more higher paying manufacturing jobs are important actions to be taken to create prosperity in America.

Tags:, ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

What Has Been the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on U. S. Manufacturing?

Tuesday, September 15th, 2020

How much the impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic has had on manufacturing depends on the state in which a manufacturer is located and what is the industry of the manufacturer.  According to Ballotpedia, “Seven states—Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming—did not issue orders directing residents to stay at home from nonessential activities in March and April 2020 in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The 43 other states all issued orders at the state level directing residents to stay at home except for essential activities and closing businesses that each state deemed nonessential.” Only South Dakota did not require any businesses to close.

On May 8, 2020, CNBC reported that by the end of the first month of the shutdown, manufacturing had lost 1,330,000 jobs, and its supporting  industry of transportation and warehousing had lost 584,000 jobs, out of the total job loss of 20.5 million. 

Accenture reported: The automotive industry is a critical component of economic growth with extensive interconnections to upstream (e.g. steel, chemicals, textiles) and downstream industries (e.g. repair, mobility services). With nearly 8 million employed in the U.S., employment in the automotive industry has taken a big hit. The automotive industry is considered essential for the global economy and the resulting prosperity.

CNBC reported that the “Aerospace Industries Association estimates that more than 200,000 jobs in the sector are at risk. Boeing earlier this year said it would aim to cut 10% of its workforce, which stood at 160,000 as of the end of 2019. While it is hiring for its defense unit, the commercial aircraft division has been hit by hundreds of cancellations this year, and CFO Greg Smith told investors on July 29 that 19,000 employees are departing Boeing. About 6,000 had left as of the end of June…At General Electric, which makes engines for both Boeing and Airbus planes, the company is cutting a quarter of the jobs, or 13,000 people in its aviation unit, which is based in Ohio.”

An article on PWC.com commented, “On the defense side of the industry, the situation appears less dire, with demand protected by budgeted government spending and a supply chain with minimal exposure to hard-hit jurisdictions such as Asia. However, events outside the US are affecting the US defense industry, as some US military partner nations may experience challenges in military readiness and ability to maintain equipment. Additionally, some defense companies may be financially weakened, but most likely to a lesser extent compared to consumer-facing aerospace companies.”

My manufacturers sales rep agency, ElectroFab Sales, was fortunate in that all of the California companies we represent were able to stay open because they were in the supply chain of one or more of the 16 essential industries allowed to stay open by California Governor Newsome. However, our open sales orders have dropped by 50% since February. This is primarily because too many of  our customers are in the defense and military sector, and all new product development for new systems has been put on hold indefinitely. In addition, repeat orders for existing systems have dropped.

The summer newsletter of the Coalition for a Prosperous America reported: The term ‘Made in USA’ is currently tracking at an all-tie high since 2004” on Google Trends.  Zach Molti of Atlas Tool Works said that “his company’s recent sales are up roughly one-and-a-half times their usual volume.”  “Bryan Hurley, the owner of Florida-based Americraft Cookware says that his sales have been up 167% of late compared to 2019.” Greg Owns, CEO of Liberty Tabletop, the only flatware manufacturer in the U.S., reported on our Buy American Committee call last Thursday, that orders are up 200% compared to 2019.

A number of CPA member companies had retooled and repurposed their operations to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic to make PPE goods and equipment. Numerous other manufacturers all over the country did the same thing.  Even Ford and GM retooled their factories to make ventilators.

Five months after the COVID-19 shutdowns began, manufacturing is bouncing back faster than everyone expedted. The September 1st Manufacturing ISM® Report On Business®  issued  by Timothy R. Fiore, CPSM, C.P.M., Chair of the Institute for Supply Management® (ISM®) Manufacturing Business Survey Committee showed that “The August PMI® registered 56 percent, up 1.8 percentage points from the July reading of 54.2 percent. This figure indicates expansion in the overall economy for the fourth month in a row after a contraction in April, which ended a period of 131 consecutive months of growth. The New Orders Index registered 67.6 percent, an increase of 6.1 percentage points from the July reading of 61.5 percent.  U.S. manufacturing activity came back strong and exceeded expectations for August, expanding at the fastest rate in almost two years.”

However, “…(1) commercial aerospace equipment companies, (2) office furniture and commercial office building subsuppliers and (3) companies operating in the oil and gas markets — as well as their supporting supply bases — are and will continue to be impacted due to low demand. These companies represent approximately 20 percent of manufacturing output. This situation will likely continue at least through the end of the year,” says Fiore.”

In an article on Manufacturing.net, Melvin Bosso, a principal with Myrtle Consulting Group, stated, “Reshoring is also an example of a dynamic that had started long before COVID-19 and will continue far beyond the emotional reaction to the catastrophic effects of the crisis.” He said, there are “four major clusters of reasons why a company makes a decision on how to deploy their supply chains: Costs, Service, Technology and Risk…most organizations have had to rethink their understanding of the fourth cluster – Risk…. All supply chains that run with a just-in-time inventory strategy had to deal with a shortage risk when China, and more broadly Asia, locked down. All essential industries are coming out of the crisis thinking about alternatives. Many are working, or will be working, to find ways to change their exposure.”

Harry Moser, Founder and President of the Reshoring Initiative® recently stated, “COVID has caused companies to reevaluate their supply chains. Often, shorter is better. By 4Q20 we expect to be helping 50 to 100 companies either buy smarter or sell smarter against imports. In most cases, we are providing this support through MEPs (Manufacturing Extension Partnerships) which exist in every state.”

We need to take advantage of this wake-up call to the risk of global supply chains, particularly our reliance on China, to create incentive plans to bring back manufacturing segments that are considered critical for national sustainability. Now is the time to reshore key industries from China to reduce the risk of future supply chain disruptions due to unforeseen events.  American consumers want to buy more “Made in USA” products.  Our government needs to use domestic manufacturing as part of its plan to build up strategic resilience in the aftermath of the current crisis.  It’s time for Congress to support reshoring with the right trade, tax, and currency policies to facilitate making the reshoring trend permanent.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

What is the Vision for the Factory of the Future?

Tuesday, August 18th, 2020

In April 2017, the Manufacturing Leadership Council published its “Vision 2030:  The Factory of the Future, which was a Frost & Sullivan White Paper sponsored by General Electric and Intel. In their vision, the factory of the future “will look like an integrated hardware and software system and “is highly automated and information-intensive… fueled by vast quantities of information from every corner of the enterprise and beyond, moderated by analytical systems that can identify and extract insights and opportunities from that information, and comprised of intelligent machines that learn, act, and work alongside highly skilled human beings in safe and collaborative environments.”

The key trends and developments of the factory of the future were identified as:

  • “Digitization  – transforming how manufacturers think about human capital management”
  • “Modularization, with micro factories capable of mass customization using such technologies as 3D printing as well as digital manufacturing technologies”
  • “Manufacturing innovation process will evolve to be more open and extended, with collaborative models that span internal as well as external constituencies”
  • “Supply chains will become highly integrated, increasingly intelligent, and even self-managing”
  • “New business models incorporating outcome-based services will emerge, enabling manufacturers to diversify their revenue streams and provide greater value to customers”
  • “Cognitive computing and analytic techniques will enable production environments to self-configure, self- adjust, and self-optimize, leading to greater agility, flexibility, and cost effectiveness”

The paper also identified four categories of “Mega Trends” that will have implications for manufacturers over the next 15 years:

  • Globalization/Urbanization/Regionalization/Uncertainty:  Global economic forces are “creating shifts in how manufacturers must think about how they design their production and supply networks. As globalization provokes responses such as the erection of trade barriers and as urbanization and the growth of regional economies lead to a demand for localized products and rising labor costs even in previously low-cost areas, manufacturers must continuously recalibrate where and how they produce, whether they outsource, and how they serve emerging markets”
  • Smart/Material/Open/Green: New, smart approaches to innovation…focus on waste reduction fueled by innovations in material science, open systems, and new forms of social collaboration.”
  • Business Model Innovations: Technology forces are transforming the industrial world. “Smart, connected products and real-time analytics will allow manufacturers to sell outcomes-such as jet engine uptime-not just products. This means manufacturers will need to fundamentally rethink their relationships with customers. It also means they will face an entirely new competitive landscape.”
  • Ambient Intelligence: “Advances in technologies such as cloud-based solutions, digital platforms and applications, machine learning, and the Internet of Things are combining to provide all institutions with the unprecedented ability to gain and act on insights.”

Within the Mega Trends, there are “four major themes and eight sub-themes that, taken together, will transform the manufacturing landscape over the next 10-15 years.”  The four major themes are:

Intelligent Design – “personalization and mass customization of products and the location of production closer to the point of consumption”

  • Federated Manufacturing – “Networks of smaller, more nimble factories”
  • Smart Innovations – integrated product design, production, and support processes”  

Services Revolution – “from product-as-a-service to anything-as-a-service model”

  • New Value Networks – “Suppliers will transform from providers of parts to partners in “as-a-service” business models”
  • Outcome-based – “services sold on the basis of usage and guaranteed outcomes”

Platform Revolution – “connected platforms will allow machine learning of a different order…will unleash an era of cognitive learning and improvements.”

  • Connected Platforms – “Enabled by IoT and cloud technologies as well as advanced, real-time analytics, products will become connected platforms, featuring a range of services that will deliver new revenue sources.”
  • Cognitive Platforms – “Connected products-or platforms-will collect vast quantities of usage, performance, and diagnostic data that can be used to improve next-generation designs.”

Human-to-Machine Convergence (Artificial intelligence advancements and robotic process automation)

  • Machine Dominance – “evolving as robots transition from being programmed only to execute repetitive tasks to being collaborative and even sentient”
  • Human Capital Transformation – …manufacturers must clearly define the skills that will be required, take an inventory of current capabilities, and provide tools that enable self-training and skills certification.”

Each of these themes and sub-themes are expanded upon in detail in the body of the paper leading to the authors conclusion that “The general outlines of what future factories and plants will look like are now discernable. They will be organized for greater speed, flexibility, productivity, and efficiency. The people who work in them will be highly skilled about advanced digital technologies and able to work cross-functionally across the connected enterprise…rapidly changing and increasingly sophisticated information and operational technologies are facilitating a shift to mass customization, from mass production, making it possible to satisfy individual needs from transportation to medicine.”

When this paper was published, I was finishing the last chapters of my book Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity, published in September 2017.  While I agree with many of the trends, themes, and subthemes of the paper, I completely disagree with their conclusion that “the globalization of manufacturing, powered by the relentless march of technology, will continue…” 

In my chapter, “Advanced Technology is critical to Rebuilding American Manufacturing,” I discuss how “advanced industries” are utilizing new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, robotics, 3-D printing/ additive manufacturing, the “digitization of everything, machine learning, and Internet of things (IoT).  As a result, American companies are able to be more competitive in the global market place with domestic production and are returning manufacturing to America through reshoring.  The trend of mass production converting to mass customization and the regionalization of manufacturing and creation of manufacturing networks will also increase the ability of American manufacturers to be able to reshore manufacturing to the USA.

In a Forbes article of Apr 7,2020, “New Data Shows U.S. Companies Are Definitely Leaving China”  Kenneth Rapoza wrote, “U.S. companies are leaving China thanks to the trade war. They’ll leave even more thanks to the pandemic…Last year saw companies actively rethinking their supply chain, either convincing their Chinese partners to relocate to southeast Asia to avoid tariffs, or by opting out of sourcing from China altogether.”

As a director on the board of the San Diego Inventors Forum and as a mentor for CONNECT’s Springboard Program, I have seen how 3D printing/additive manufacturing can accelerate the development of a new product and  enable inventors to have a sample product to show/demonstrate in person or by means of a video to secure potential investors. A 3D printed prototype can be the essential ingredient of a video to do a crowdfunding campaign via Kickstarter or Indiegogo or seek investors. 

I conclude my chapter by saying, “The increased efficiency of additive manufacturing/3-D printing, IoT, and automation/robotics could spell a bright future for American manufacturing. The shift to smart manufacturing using these new technologies will save our corporations money and translate into greater profits, more jobs, and more prosperous economies, locally and nationally. As our manufacturing industry moves into a more complex age, so will our workers and products, ushering in a new era of production.

Tags:, ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

U.S. Must Stop Trafficking of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods

Tuesday, August 4th, 2020

One of the dangers of reliance on foreign manufacturers is the increase of U.S. vulnerability to receiving counterfeit goods.  Over the last ten years, there have been several reports prepared to determine the extent of the infiltration of counterfeits into U.S. defense and industrial supply chains, to provide an understanding of industry and government practices that contribute to the problem, and to identify best practices and recommendations for handling and preventing counterfeit electronics.

The first was the Defense Industrial Base Assessment: Counterfeit Electronics prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce on January 2010as a result of a three-year study. “This assessment focused on discrete electronic components, microcircuits, and circuit board products – key elements of electronic systems that support national security, industrial, and commercial missions and operations. A few of the findings of the study were:

  • all elements of the supply chain have been directly impacted by counterfeit electronics
  • companies and organizations assume that others in the supply chain are testing parts;
  • lack of traceability in the supply chain is commonplace
  • there is an insufficient chain of accountability within organizations
  • recordkeeping on counterfeit incidents by organizations is very limited
  • most DOD organizations do not have policies in place to prevent counterfeit parts from infiltrating their supply chain

The Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) Office of Technology Evaluation (OTE) made the following key recommendations:

  • Consider establishing a centralized federal reporting mechanism for collecting information on suspected/confirmed counterfeit parts for use by industry and all federal agencies
  • Modify Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), including Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFAR), to allow for “best value” procurement
  • Require U.S. Government suppliers and federal agencies to systematically report counterfeit electronic parts to the national federal reporting mechanism;
  • Issue clear, unambiguous legal guidance to industry and U.S. federal agencies with respect to civil and criminal liabilities, reporting and handling requirements
  • Establish federal guidance for the destruction, recycling, and/or disposal of electronic systems and parts sold and consumed in the United States
  • Consider establishing a government data repository of electronic parts information and for disseminating best practices to limit the infiltration of counterfeits into supply chains
  • Develop international agreements covering information sharing, supply chain integrity, border inspection of electronic parts shipped to and from their countries, related law enforcement cooperation, and standards for inspecting suspected/confirmed counterfeits

However, implementing these recommendations didn’t solve the problem.  On May 21, 2012, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee released a report as a result of a congressional investigation into counterfeit goods.  “The year-long investigation launched by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the committee’s chairman, and Ranking Member Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., found a total number of suspect counterfeit parts involved in those 1,800 cases exceeding 1 million.” Counterfeit electronic parts “were uncovered in items ranging from night vision equipment to Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation modules.”

The Committee “discovered counterfeit electronic parts from China in the Air Force’s largest cargo plane, in assemblies intended for Special Operations helicopters, and in a Navy surveillance plane among 1,800 cases of bogus parts.

“Our report outlines how this flood of counterfeit parts, overwhelmingly from China, threatens national security, the safety of our troops and American jobs,” Levin said. “

As a result, “the Committee adopted an amendment to the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to “address weaknesses in the defense supply chain and to promote the adoption of aggressive counterfeit avoidance practices by DoD and the defense industry.”

In the next four years, progress was made as shown by the follow-up report to Congress of February 2016 Government Accountability Office (GAO), which  “found that while the number of counterfeit parts in the DoD supply chain decreased significantly between 2011 and 2015, there were still nearly 50 parts per year that were identified as being counterfeit.  As a percentage of total parts, this was a mere .006% of the DoD supply chain.”

However, a single counterfeit part can have a disastrous impact and identifying counterfeit parts is extremely difficult when they are deliberately manufactured to pass as the “real deal.” Moreover, the threat of counterfeit parts being introduced by U.S. adversaries, such as China, has increased, and these foreign companies are good at figuring out ways to make their counterfeits blend in with other components.

Counterfeit goods are not limited to the defense and industrial supply chain.  The January 24, 2020 report to the President of the United States, “Combating Trafficking in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods,” states, “Counterfeiting is no longer confined to street-corners and flea markets. The problem has intensified to staggering levels…information collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) between 2000 and 2018 shows that seizures of infringing goods at U.S. borders have increased 10-fold, from 3,244 seizures per year to 33,810.”

This report recommended the following immediate actions for the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies:

1.” Ensure Entities with Financial Interests in Imports Bear Responsibility

2. Increase Scrutiny of Section 321 Environment

3. Suspend and Debar Repeat Offenders; Act Against Non-Compliant International Posts

4. Apply Civil Fines, Penalties and Injunctive Actions for Violative Imported Products

5. Leverage Advance Electronic Data for Mail Mode

6. Anti-Counterfeiting Consortium to Identify Online Nefarious Actors (ACTION) Plan

7. Analyze Enforcement Resources

8. Create Modernized E-Commerce Enforcement Framework

9. Assess Contributory Trademark Infringement Liability for Platforms

10. Re-Examine the Legal Framework Surrounding Non-Resident Importers

11. Establish a National Consumer Awareness Campaign”

These recommendations were very timely since there has been a big problem with counterfeit pharmaceuticals, personal protective equipment (PPE), and medical devices during the COVID-19 pandemic this year. Counterfeit goods in the healthcare industry can cause immediate loss of lives just like counterfeit parts in the defense industry can cause loss of life for our military personnel in defending our country.

Since taking office in January 2017, President Trump has issued three Executive Orders strengthening different aspects of the Buy American Act of 1933: 

EO 13788: “Buy American and Hire American,” April 18, 2017

EO 13858: Strengthening Buy-American Preferences for Infrastructure Projects,” January 31 2019

EO 13881:– “Maximizing Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials,” July 15, 2019

I laud the President’s focus on strengthening the Buy American Act, but the best way to eliminate the problem of counterfeit goods is to return manufacturing to America of all critical goods for our defense and military, as well as our pharmaceutical, PPE, and medical device industries.  This is referred to as “reshoring” by Harry Moser, who founded the Reshoring Initiative in 2010. In an article for Assembly magazine of February 12, 2019, Harry Moser wrote: “The Reshoring Initiative has aggregated consumer surveys from 10 sources, gleaning insight into the preferences of more than 14,000 U.S. consumers. Findings show that there is a decisive preference for U.S.-made goods: 97 percent have a positive view of goods manufactured in the U.S. Americans also have a positive opinion of companies that manufacture in the U.S.: 91 percent believe it is important to manufacture in the U.S. and think the government should take steps to support American manufacturing.”

Only Made in USA products will be able to provide confidence in the quality of the products, but government agencies, the health care industry, and consumers need to know where products are being made to make the choice of buying Made in USA products. Currently, there are limitations of county of origin labeling on products, and no information is provided for products sold on the internet and through catalogs.  We must address this situation if we are truly going to be able to stop trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods. 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Who Are My Heroes? Part Two

Tuesday, April 28th, 2020

My additional heroes are people with whom I connected after my first book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can was published in 2009. We shared a focus on doing what we could to save and rebuild American manufacturing. Again, they are presented alphabetically, not chronologically.

Greg Autry, Ph.D., is “an educator, writer and technology entrepreneur. He researches and publishes on space commerce, entrepreneurship, technology innovation and trade policy. He is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Entrepreneurship with the Lloyd Greif Center for Entrepreneurial Studies in the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California, where he teaches entrepreneurship and technology commercialization courses.” I met Greg when he was a doctoral candidate at the Merage School of Business at UC Irvine, before he became Senior Economist for the non-partisan, non-profit organization. Coalition for a Prosperous America,  We were also fellow board members of the non-profit American Jobs Alliance for five years. Dr. Autry is the co-author of the book Death by China and a producer on the documentary film, Death by China, (directed by Peter Navarro). His opinion articles have been published in major news outlets including the San Francisco Chronicle, LA Times, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, and SpaceNews. He was a regular contributor to Huffington Post and is now a regular contributor to Forbes. He is currently on the advisory board of the Coalition for a Prosperous America.

Den Black is President of the non-partisan, non-profit organization, American Jobs Alliance (AJA). He earned a BSME at Kettering University and worked as a Senior Strategist, Futurist, Innovator at Delphi Automotive Systems for 37 years.  Den invited me to join the board of AJA in 2012 after he was referred to me by Executive Director, Curtis Ellis after we met when he was on a West Coast trip. AJA is “dedicated to fostering the public’s understanding of the American System of free enterprise, a system established by the Founding Fathers of the United States to develop the domestic economy of the United States and promote the employment of Americans in diverse occupations through investment in infrastructure and promotion of key industries and technologies in the United States.” Currently AJA is promoting a window decal  “Boycott China for Jobs, Human Rights, Peace” and AJA’s affiliated website:  www.GetOutofChina.us.

Don Buckner is the Founder and CEO of MadeinAmerica.com, MadeinUSA.com, and MadeinAmerica.org. His vision started in 1998 “when he attempted to find several American-made products online, but was unable to do so. Frustrated, he took matters into his own hands, purchasing the Domain MadeintheUSA.com. The website served as a directory resource connecting patriotic consumers to more than 300,000 American-made manufacturers for several years. He also acquired the Domain MadeInAmerica.com.” After the company he founded in 1997, Vac-Tron Equipment, was acquired in 2018, he and his wife decided to invest some of their profits to hold the first Made in America trade show.  They rented the convention center in Indianapolis, IN, where the first show was held October 3-6, 2019. I met Don when I attended the show as one of the many featured panelists and speakers.  The next Made in America show will be held at the TCF convention center, Detroit, Michigan Oct. 1-4, 2020. 

Dan DiMicco, is an American businessman who is the former CEO and chairman of Nucor Steel company and is now Chairman Emeritus. Dan was appointed to the United States Manufacturing Council in 2008 by then-U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, and served on the board until 2011. Dan also served on the boards of the National Association of Manufacturers and the World Steel Association on the Executive Committee. He also served as a Senior Trade/Economic Advisor to the Trump Campaign and the Lead on the USTR Transition Team. He currently serves on the Board of Directors for Duke Energy Corporation and continues to represent Nucor on the US Council on Competitiveness. He is currently Chairman of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA). He is the author of American Made: Why Making Things Will Return Us to Greatness, published in 2015. I had the pleasure of hearing Mr. DiMicco speak as the keynote speaker at several of the Manufacturing Summits held in California between 2013-2018, when I was the chair of the California chapter of CPA and at the Trade Conferences held by CPA in Washington, D. C. during this same time period.

Curtis Ellis was the Executive Director of the American Jobs Alliance, an independent non-profit organization promoting pro-jobs and Buy American policies, when I met him after my first book was published. He recommended me as a potential board member to Den Black of AJA. He had previously worked in Congress and on federal, state and local campaigns. For his work as a journalist, producer, writer and reporter, he has appeared on 60 Minutes, HBO, NBC, CNN, NPR and in the NY Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, TIME, Huffington Post, The Hill, and other outlets. His commentary has appeared on CNN, MSNBC and radio shows nationwide. Currently, Mr. Ellis is currently Policy Director with America First Policies. He served as senior policy advisor on the 2016 Trump-Pence campaign, was on the Presidential Transition Team, and served as special advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Labor in the International Labor Affairs Bureau in 2017.

Ian Fletcher, author of Free Trade Doesn’t Work, What Should Replace it and Why, published in 2011. When I met him, he was a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council. Alan Tonelson asked him to meet me when he was in southern California in the summer of 2010, not long after I started writing blog articles. When, he switched to becoming the Senior Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America in early 2011, he suggested I join CPA, which I did.  I immediately read his book from which I learned everything I didn’t know about the dangerous effects of our trade agreements. While he was at CPA, he and Michael Stumo (CPA CEO) edited the second edition of my book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? – Why we should and how we can, which was published in 2012 by CPA. Ian was a featured speaker at several of the above- mentioned Manufacturing Summits.  He was educated at Columbia and the University of Chicago, and he lives in San Francisco. He is currently on the advisory board of the Coalition for a Prosperous America.

Rosemary Gibson is a “national authority on health care reform, Medicare, patient safety and overtreatment in medicine, as well as “an award-winning author, inspirational speaker, and advisor to organizations that advance the public’s interest in health care.”  She is the co-author of China RX, published in 2018, as well as Medicare Meltdown (2013), Battle Over Health Care (2012), Treatment Trap (2010), and Wall of Silence (2003). I met Ms. Gibson when she was a featured speaker at the Made in America trade show in October 2019. With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic this year, her book is getting the full attention it deserves as an expose of the offshoring to China of pharmaceuticals, PPE, and medical devices.

Harry Moser founded the Reshoring Initiative in 2010 after 25 years as the North American president of GF AgieCharmilles, now GF Machining Solutions. The mission of the Reshoring Initiative is to help bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. using the Total Cost of Ownership Worksheet calculator he developed. Harry was inducted into the Industry Week Manufacturing Hall of Fame 2010 and was named Quality Magazine’s Quality Professional of the year for 2012…won the Jan. 2013 The Economist debate on outsourcing and offshoring, and received the Manufacturing Leadership Council’s Industry Advocacy Award in 2014. Harry and I connected in August 2010 after he read my blog article about the importance of understanding Total Cost of Ownership.  He told me I wrote about what he just started and trained me how to use his TCO worksheet, authorizing me to be a speaker on behalf of the Reshoring Initiative.  

James Sturber is the author of What if Things Were Made in America Again: How Consumers Can Rebuild the Middle Class by Buying Things Made in American Communities, published in 2017. Subsequently, he founded the Made in America again organization. After obtaining a law degree, he “devoted his career to public policy, law and entrepreneurship.  He began his career as legislative assistant to a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, focusing on matters before the Committee on Energy and Commerce.  He subsequently practiced legislative and administrative law in Washington, D.C. I met Jim at the Coalition for a Prosperous America trade conference in Washington, D. C. in 2018. When I read his book, I discovered we had some up with much of the same data in our research as my last book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity was also published in 2017. He currently co-chairs the Buy American committee for CPA of which I am a member.

Alan Uke is a San Diego businessman, entrepreneur, and community leader, who “started his company, Underwater Kinetics, 41 years ago while attending the University of California at San Diego. Uke holds over 40 patents and exports his SCUBA diving, industrial lighting, and protective case products to over 60 countries.”  He is the author of Buying America Back, A Real-Deal Blueprint for Restoring American Prosperity, published in 2012. Uke documented that in 2011, the U.S. had a trade deficit with 88 countries provides a chart showing the trade balance with every country with which the U. S. trades. When we met for lunch, I found out that he was also a member of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, so we had something else in common. “He is also Founder Emeritus/Founding Board President of the San Diego Aircraft Carrier Museum which acquired the USS Midway in June 2004.”

I would be remiss in not giving Honorable Mention to the many members of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission that was “created on October 30, 2000 by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act of 2001…” The primary purpose of this Commission is “to monitor, investigate, and report to Congress on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.” Beginning in December 2002, the Commission submitted “to Congress a report, in both unclassified and classified form, regarding the national security implications and impact of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. The report shall include a full analysis, along with conclusions and recommendations for legislative and administrative actions, if any, of the national security implications for the United States of the trade and current balances with the People’s Republic of China in goods and services, financial transactions, and technology transfers.”  I read several of the reports as I was researching my three books, and each year, China’s unfair trading practices threats to U.S. national security, and other violations of the principles and terms of China’s membership in the World Trade Organization were well documented.  Yet, no action was taken by Congress under the administrations of President Bush or President Obama.   

I met many other people at the Made in America trade show last October, some of whom have recently joined the CPA Buy American committee. Some of these people could very well be listed in a future article on my heroes as I get to know them and their work better.  I would encourage you to join our efforts to rebuild America’s economy to create jobs and prosperity by becoming a member of CPA.

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

San Diego Has Largest Woodworkers Guild in U.S.

Tuesday, August 6th, 2019

On June 29,2019, I attended the San Diego County Fair held at the Del Mar Fairgrounds with my family as I have done annually for the past 20 years. One of my favorite exhibits is the fine woodworking exhibits, actually divided into two exhibits, one for hobbyists and professionals and one for students.  For the first time, I picked up a pamphlet about the San Diego Fine Woodworkers Association (SDFWA) and a flyer for the Cabinet and Furniture technology program at Palomar Community College.

The pamphlet described the new woodworking shop in San Diego, open for all woodworkers to join. The shop is a membership based, non-profit, all volunteer shop run by the SDFWA.  I was able to interview Gary Anderson, Member Shop Chairman about the organization and its history.

Gary said, “The Association was started by Lynn Rybarczyk in 1981 after he had seen some beautiful custom furniture in the San Francisco Bay Area. At that time, woodworkers in San Diego had few opportunities to collaborate and had no way to show their work to the public. Lynn was motivated to present the idea of creating a fine woodworking exhibit at the San Diego County Fair to the exposition staff, who agreed to develop an exhibit as long as there was an active community woodworking organization to sponsor it. 

Fortunately, San Diego’s first retail store selling woodworking supplies, tools, and materials opened about the same time —The Cutting Edge. The owner allowed Lynn to set up a card table at the store during the grand opening, and Lynn began to sign up the members of what became the San Diego Fine Woodworkers Association.

During 1981, regular meetings were held at local public schools to attract members. The San Diego Fine Woodworkers Association (SDFWA) was organized as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation in early 1982, and by June of 1982, the first annual show, initially called The Southern California Expo Fine Woodworking Exhibit displayed 45 pieces selected from 95 entries, all submitted by SDFWA members.  The show was such a success that Fine Woodworking Magazine gave it a multi-page spread.”  

He added, “The exhibit at the Fair is now called the Design in Wood Exhibition, and has grown to display more than 300 entries. It has achieved national and international recognition and includes demonstrations by wood turners, scrollers, carvers, and model ship builders – all members of local organizations. A traditional woodworking shop at the exhibit produces red oak children’s chairs for donation to local social service organizations. More than 1,700 chairs have been donated over the past 34 years.”    

In answer to my question about the growth of the association, Gary said, “Membership steadily increased and peaked at 1690 members in 1999. There are actually over 200 woodworking guilds/associations in the US., but San Diego’s is the largest with about 1200 members.  As far as we know, only four have their own woodworking shop.”

I asked what the difference between a “guild” and “association,” and he said that the term “guild” is often used interchangeably with “association,” but guilds historically referred to individual craftsmen rather than company members.

He explained that most of their members are doing woodworking as a hobby, and only about 10% or less are professionals who make a living from woodworking.

Gary added, “Members have access to a variety of special interest groups that provide the opportunity to connect with experts in a variety of woodworking, such as carving, CNC machining, toy building, and women in woodworking.”

When I asked when the association opened the Member Shop, he replied, “We opened the shop in June 2017, and it is 4,000 sq. ft in size.  Membership provides access to just about every kind of power and hand tool and equipment that a woodworker would need to complete a project, including, saws, router, sanders, lathes, etc.  It also has an extensive library, design software, classes, and a 3D printer.”

He explained, “One of our reasons for opening the shop was that we were concerned about the diversity of membership, both with regards to age and ethnic diversity.  Before we opened our Member Shop, we were an association of “old white men,” above the age of 60. We recognized that we needed to attract more diversity in age and ethnicity. Now, we have a lot of young people joining as members. When the shop opened, only about 3% were female and now 40% of  our new members are female.” 

The SDFWA pamphlet listed two levels of annual membership:

Silver at $250/year, which provides 15 slots (a slot is one visit to the shop for up to three hours

Gold at $395/year, which provides 50 slots

When I asked if they also have an hourly rate like a “makerspace, he said, “no, you have to be a member to use the facilities.  We don’t have provision for using on an hourly rate.”

I told him that I had also picked up a flyer at the Fair for the Cabinet & Furniture Technology program at Palomar College and asked if the association has a relationship with the college

He replied, “We have an Informal, but students have to pay to be a member to use facilities.  Some of their members have taken or are taking woodworking classes at Palomar to get more training on to expand on the member shop classes.” 

When I asked if there are any other colleges in San Diego that have a similar program, he replied, “I don’t know of any other college that has a program as complete as Palomar, which is a nationally recognized program, but I did hear that SDSU has a small program as one of its instructors became a member.”

In answer to my question as to whether there are any high schools that have woodworking shop classes, he said that he heard that Oceanside High School has a program, but he didn’t know of any others. I told him that the San Diego Continuing Education Center on Oceanview Blvd. has a small woodworking shop and classes, and the MakerPlace on Morena Blvd. in San Diego also has a small woodworking shop and classes. After the interview, an internet search showed that Escondido High School also had a woodworking shop and classes

With regards to whether or not there are any local furniture manufacturers, he responded, “I don’t know of any furniture manufacturers in San Diego other than shops making cabinets. But, SDFWA President, Travis Good, recently visited a lumber supplier by the name of Bennett-Crone, and the vast amount of their business is with woodworking manufacturers in Mexico.

After doing search on the internet, I found seven furniture manufacturers listed in San Diego County, but three of the seven have addresses down in Otay Mesa, which is the industrial park on the U. S. side of the border with Mexico, and companies in this park usually have offices on the U. S. side and manufacturing plants on the other side of the border in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.

There are two musical instrument companies that would utilize the woodworking skills of SDFWA members:  Deering Banjo Company in Spring Valley, and Taylor Guitar Company in El Cajon.  However, Taylor Guitar also has a plant in Tecate, Baja California, Mexico.

I thanked Gary for all of the information and arranged to visit the Member Shop soon. I enjoyed learning about the background of my favorite exhibit at the San Diego County Fair. If any furniture manufacturers doing business in China and other parts of Asia decide to return manufacturing to America, the San Diego region would have an abundance of skilled workers to staff their plants

Tags:, ,
Posted in General | 1 Comment »

Congress Must Strengthen Buy America Act

Tuesday, June 4th, 2019

The Buy American Act was passed by Congress in 1933. It required the U.S. government to give preferential treatment to American producers in awarding of federal contracts. The Act restricted the purchase of supplies that are not domestic products. For manufactured products, the Buy American Act used a two-part test:  first, the article must be manufactured in the U.S., and second, the cost of domestic components must exceed 50 percent of the cost of all its components.

After the end of the Cold War and the end of the subsequent Gulf War in 1991, the provisions of the “Buy America Act” were eased to allow purchasing off the shelf commercial parts (COTS) from foreign countries by the Defense Department and other government agencies if they met the same fit and function of parts made to strict military specifications. Previously, parts, assemblies, and systems were required to be substantially made in the United States or in a NATO country, such as Great Britain, France, or Germany.

In the early 1990s, most commercial parts were still being made in the United States, with some outsourcing to the Philippines, Hong Kong, and Singapore, so this change was pretty safe. However, permitting commercial parts to replace Military Specification parts probably drove out of business the small companies that catered exclusively to the military and provided Traceability of Origin per Military Specifications for parts supplied to government agencies, military contractors, and subcontractors. This was all done in the name of cost savings.

Gradually over the last 26 years, the manufacturing of most commercial electronic components and microchips was transferred offshore, so that now they are fabricated in China, Vietnam, or South Korea. 

This is the root cause of counterfeit Chinese parts becoming part of the military/defense industrial supply chain.

The President has authority to waive the Act in response to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 GATT Agreement on Government Procurement, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and the Korea Free Trade Agreement, access to government procurement is granted by certain U.S. agencies for goods from the partner countries to these agreements.

It was reported by Reuters in January 2014 that “The Pentagon repeatedly waived laws banning Chinese-built components on U.S. weapons in order to keep the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter program on track in 2012 and 2013, even as U.S. officials were voicing concern about China’s espionage and military buildup.”

To address weaknesses in the defense supply chain and to promote the adoption of aggressive counterfeit avoidance practices by the Department of Defense and the defense industry, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012  was adopted in the Senate and signed by President Obama.

Instead of implementing the requirements of the Act, it appears that DOD “entered a new phase… characterized by globalization of supply chains” according to Richard McCormack, publisher and producer of the Manufacturing & Technology News, May 20, 2015 edition.

McCormack reported on comments made by Bill Lynn, CEO of Finmeccanica North America and former Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2009 until 2011, at the April 29, 2015 meeting of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

The defense sector and the U.S. military have “moved from being a net exporter of technology to a net importer,” Lynn stated, adding “When their R&D budgets are combined to total a scant $3 billion (or only 1.6 percent of revenue), the five biggest defense contractors — Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, L3 and Northrop — would not even make the list of the top 20 global companies that invest in R&D.”

Lynn told the meeting, “Those are things where the commercial industrial base is stronger than the defense industrial base and in many ways the key to maintaining our future [defense] technology edge is to be able to import those technologies into our defense industrial base… Since many of the underlying technologies now reside outside of the United States, DOD has to figure out how to deal with foreign corporations and state-owned enterprises that hold the keys to its success.”

McCormack noted, “The Department of Defense and its major contractors are now dependent on foreign manufacturers for many of the military’s most advanced weapons systems…The defense industry is a shadow of its former self, representing less than 3.5 percent of the U.S. economy, a position that continues to decline as defense budgets reach new lows with no chance of them growing faster than the economy.”

Lynn commented that “DOD is slowly catching up to the structural change caused by globalization of technology and supply chains. It is wrestling with the regulatory and procurement systems it has in place to monitor and conduct business with foreign suppliers, but it has little time to waste.”

Lynn stated “that changing perceptions about foreign involvement in the defense industry are similar to what happened in the U. S. auto sector…Americans and their representatives in Congress were skeptical about foreign nameplates. But as foreign auto companies started building technologies in the United States and hiring American workers, the tide turned… “

It is incomprehensible to me to compare what happened to the U. S. auto industry to what is happening to the U. S. defense industry. The whole purpose of the defense industry is to protect our national sovereignty and national security. How can anyone in their right mind want to make our defense supply chain vulnerable to the foreign country, namely China, that has a written plan to replace the U.S. as the world’s super power? The Chinese have stolen our technology to build up their own military power as evidenced by the uncanny similarity of China’s stealth fighter, the J-31and the Chengdu J-20 fighter jet to the F-35 Lightning II advanced fighter jet. 

Does anyone believe that we will get the parts and assemblies needed by our defense industry when China has decided we are so weak that we cannot stop their aggression in Asia? We are not even safe to have parts sourced in Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Vietnam. These countries would all be targets for takeover by China once the Chinese lose their fear and respect for U. S. naval and air power.

Four of the last five sessions of Congress attempted to address this problem, but the following bills to strengthen the Buy American Act introduced in Congress failed to be enacted: 

H.R. 4553 (111th), introduced February 2, 2010

S. 2391 (113th), introduced May 22, 2014

S. 2167 (114th), introduced October 8, 2015.

At least, President Trump issued an Executive Order on Buy American and Hire American onApril 18, 2017, which set forth a policy to “maximize …use of goods, products and materials produced in the United States” through federal procurements.

This was followed by the introduction of the 21st Century Buy American Act (S.2196) on Dec. 6, 2017 by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-CN, and a similar bill, H.R. 4812 introduced in the House by Representative David Cicilline. D-RI.  Both bills aimed to strengthen existing Buy American standards, but after considerable support, both failed to be enacted. The legislation focused on five change areas.

  1. The cost of components test for non-commercial-off-the-shelf items would be modified to require that an item’s U.S. component costs exceed 60% of the item’s total costs for the item to be deemed “domestic.” From the current 50%
  2. The so-called “overseas exemption” regarding items procured for use outside the United States would be limited significantly.
  3. Agencies would not be permitted to apply a public interest exception unless it considers the short-term and long-term effects of applying such exception on employment within the U.S.
  4. A program to make or guarantee loans would be created for contractors seeking to manufacture certain items that are not currently manufactured in the U.S.
  5. Actions would be taken to increase transparency related to the use of exceptions

On May 2, 2019, Congressmen Dan Lipinski (IL-3) and Mike Bost (IL-12) “reintroduced the BuyAmerican.gov Act, which helps ensure that federal agencies adhere to Buy American laws and prioritize the purchase of American-made goods. The legislation, H.R. 2472, directs the General Services Administration to establish a website, BuyAmerican.gov, to collect and display information about each request by a federal agency to bypass ‘Buy American’ laws and purchase foreign-made products.  Once the law is approved, manufacturers and others will be able to use the site to identify contract opportunities and challenge pending ‘Buy American’ waivers sought by federal agencies.”

The press release stated, “In the last five years, federal agencies have spent $34 billion on goods manufactured by foreign firms.  The Department of Defense, the largest purchaser of manufactured goods in the world, has spent almost $200 billion on manufactured goods made by foreign companies since 2007.…This bill applies “Buy American” requirements to federal spending programs that are not covered under current law and closes loopholes in “Buy American” programs.

Under current law, federal agencies are exempt from following Buy American laws if American-made goods are unavailable or cost-prohibitive. Unfortunately, federal agencies are too often abusing this waiver authority and there’s no way to hold them accountable,” Lipinski said.”

Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) introduced companion legislation the same day in the Senate.

This bill increases transparency related to waivers and exemptions to the Buy American Act, but it doesn’t address the other four issues that previous bills addressed.

Congress must act to strengthen the Buy American Act, not weaken it, eliminate the incentives for offshoring, and provide incentives for bringing manufacturing back to America. We must protect the supply chain for defense and military products and systems, so that the Defense Department can fulfill its primary mission of defending our country.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Country of Origin, Legislation | No Comments »

Are Tariffs Reducing the National Debt and Federal Deficit?

Wednesday, March 6th, 2019

There is increasing evidence that Trump’s tariffs are working to expand American manufacturing and create jobs.

According to the February 11, 2019 U.S. Manufacturing Technology Order Report press release of The Association for Manufacturing Technology, “The year- end order total for 2018 was $5.5 billion, up 19 percent from the annual sum for 2017…’We finished a fantastic run up in manufacturing technology orders during 2018, with most analysts looking for good growth in units and modest growth in revenue in 2019,” said AMT President Doug Woods.”

In an Op-Ed for The Hill on February 12, 2019, Michael Stumo, CEO of the coalition for a Prosperous America, wrote: “There’s no doubt that America’s manufacturers are currently rebounding. The tariffs that President Trump imposed a year ago on steel, aluminum, solar panels and washing machines have already created more than 11,000 new jobs.”

In 2016 when he was a candidate, Trump told the Washington Post that he could make the U.S. debt-free “over a period of eight years.” Thus, the question is:  Are Trump’s tariffs reducing the Federal budget deficit and paying down the national debt?

For clarity, the Federal budget deficit is the annual difference between what the federal government takes in as revenue and what it spends for expenses. The U. S. has run a federal budget deficit every year since 2001 by spending more than it raises. The national debt is the total amount of money that has been borrowed and not yet repaid.  

At 7 PM on March 6, 2019 when I finished writing this article, the national debt was $22.109 trillion, and the Federal budget deficit was at $846.945 billion according to the U. S. National debt clock website (it registers an increase every second.)  In a CNN Business article by Lydia DePillis, on January 4, 2019, “The US national debt stood at $21.974 trillion at the end of 2018, more than $2 trillion higher than when President Donald Trump took office, according to numbers released Thursday by the Treasury Department.” On the other hand, the national debt nearly doubled under Obama’s eight-years as President going from $10.626 trillion when he was sworn on January 20, 2009 to $19.947 trillion when he left on January 20, 2017.

A Bloomberg article by Mark Niquette on January 17, 2019, states, “According to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, more than $13 billion in duties imposed by the Trump administration were assessed on imported goods as of Dec. 18…Customs and Border Protection collects the tariffs based on the price paid for shipments and the tariff rate in effect, and duties are charged when shipments are released into the U.S. The assessed amount now tops $13 billion, with $8 billion coming from the duties on Chinese goods…The duties are deposited in the U.S. Treasury.”

Thus, although President Trump claims that the tariffs are being paid by China and other countries, the tariffs are actually being paid to the U. S. Treasury by companies that import products.   

As I wrote in my last article, tariffs were a large source of revenue for the U.S. government for over a hundred years. However, in 1913, the 16th Amendment established Congress’s right to impose a federal income tax, and tariffs have represented a smaller proportion of receipts ever since. 

According to an article on the Center for Strategic International Studies website, “As of 2017, 47.9 percent of revenue came from individual income taxes, 35 percent from payroll taxes, 9 percent from corporate income taxes, 5.6 percent from other taxes, and 2.5 percent from excise taxes (taxes on specific goods like gas).”  Their projections for 2018 were that of the “$3.34 trillion in revenue in FY 2018, just $40.437 billion of that is projected to come from customs duties, representing 1.21 percent of the government’s total expected receipts.”

Since nearly half of tax revenue comes from individuals, the growth of high-paying manufacturing jobs as American manufacturing expands will generate more tax revenue and lower budget deficits.  Most people are unaware that it takes four to five persons paying taxes to pay for the unemployment benefits for one out of work person. Therefore, more people working and paying taxes lowers the Federal government’s expenses for unemployment compensation.  In turn, more people working stimulates the economy through their increased spending and consumption.

In fact, economic growth and the tariffs have helped make up for the decline in corporate tax revenue as a result of the reduction of corporate tax rates from a high of 34 percent down to 21 percent. A Breitbart article by John Carney on January 9,2019 states, “Revenue from taxes on corporate profits declined by $9 billion or 15 percent due to the deep cuts in corporate tax rates…The decline in corporate tax revenue, however, was nearly entirely offset by a rise in tariff revenue. These jumped by $8 billion, largely because of new tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese imports imposed by the Trump Administration last year.”

Carney wrote, “Fiscal year i2019 will be the first to fully incorporate the tax cuts passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump in 2017. The first quarter’s numbers show that tax receipts have not declined but are in fact rising, albeit at a slower pace than spending. Which means that thanks to the economic acceleration of 2018, tax cuts are close to achieving the Trump administration’s projection that they would pay for themselves.”

We know that President Trump has proposed a 25 percent tariff on $200 billion of imports from China and another 25 percent tariff on all cars and car parts.  Even if the proposed tariffs get up the projected $140 billion, it would still be a long way from making up for the projected budget deficits to pay down the Federal budget deficit, much less start to pay down the national debt.

However, saving the American steel and aluminum industries, fostering the expansion of our domestic manufacturing industry, and preventing the loss of more manufacturing being transferred offshore to China is still reason enough to impose the tariffs on steel and aluminum and justify the additional tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods.  

Tags:,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Tariffs Benefit the American Manufacturing Industry

Wednesday, February 13th, 2019

Most people are unaware that for over 150 years, the American government protected the development and growth of its manufacturing industry with high tariffs, ranging from a low of 5% to as high as 50% in some cases. The first tariffs were imposed by the Tariff Act of 1789, whose purpose was to raise money for the new federal government, slash Revolutionary War debt and protect early-stage American industries from foreign imports.

Prior to achieving its independence, Americans were dependent on goods imported from England, France, and Holland, so it was critical to develop their own manufacturing base to maintain independence as a country in the event of future wars.

These protectionist policies enabled its fledgling manufacturing industries to grow until the United States became the preeminent industrial nation in the 20th century.  American manufacturing dominated the globe for over 70 years.

After World War II, the U.S. switched from protectionism to free trade in order to rebuild the economies of Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan and bind the economies of the non-Communist world to the United States for geopolitical reasons.

To accomplish these objectives, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was negotiated during the UN Conference on Trade and Employment, reflecting the failure of negotiating governments to create a proposed International Trade Organization. Originally signed by 23 countries at Geneva in 1947, GATT became the most effective instrument in the massive expansion of world trade in the second half of the 20th Century.

GATT’s most important principle was trade without discrimination, in which member nations opened their markets equally to one another. Once a country and one of its trading partners agreed to reduce a tariff, that tariff cut was automatically extended to all GATT members. GATT also established uniform customs regulations and sought to eliminate import quotas.

By the 1970s, Japan’s economy was flourishing to the point that Japan became a major exporter to the U. S. for consumer electronic goods such as cameras, stereos, radios, and TVs. During the 1980s, Japan further expanded its U. S. market share with automobiles and machine tools for the manufacturing industry, such as mills, lathes, and turret presses.

Germany focused on high-end products in all of the same markets as the Japanese, so that American products faced stiff competition at the low end and high end.

Manufacturing employment in the U. S. reached a peak of 19.5 million in 1979, and slid down to 17.3 million by 1993 from the effects of job losses from increased imports from Japan, Germany, and other countries because of free trade policies and lower tariffs.

By 1995, when the World Trade Organization replaced GATT, 125 nations had signed its agreements, governing 90 percent of world trade.

Another major blow to the American manufacturing industry took place when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was negotiated under President Bill Clinton and went into effect in January 1994. The agreement was supposed to reduce market barriers to trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico to reduce the cost of goods, increase our surplus trade balance with Mexico, reduce our trade deficit with Canada, and create 170,000 jobs a year. Twenty years later, the fallacy of these supposed benefits is well documented.

According to the report “NAFTA at 20” released in 2014 by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, “More than 845,000 specific U.S. workers have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as having lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries.”

In 1994, GATT was updated to include new obligations upon its signatories. One of the most significant changes was the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO.) The 75 existing GATT members and the European Community became the founding members of the WTO on January 1, 1995. The other 52 GATT members rejoined the WTO in the following two years, the last being Congo in 1997. Since the founding of the WTO, a number of non-GATT members have joined, and there are now 157 members.

The loss of jobs accelerated after President Clinton granted Most Favored Nation status to China in the year 2000, and China was able to join the WTO. As a result, the U. S. lost 5.9 million manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2010, and manufacturing employment dropped from 17.3 million down to 11.4 million in depth of recession in February 2010. In addition, an estimated 57,000 manufacturing firms closed.

On January 31, 2017, the Economic Policy Institute released a report, “Growth in U.S.–China trade deficit between 2001 and 2015 cost 3.4 million jobs,” written by Robert Scott.

Scott stated, “Due to the trade deficit with China, 3.4 million jobs were lost between 2001 and 2015, including 1.3 million jobs lost since the first year of the Great Recession in 2008. Nearly three-fourths (74.3 percent) of the jobs lost between 2001 and 2015 were in manufacturing (2.6 million manufacturing jobs displaced).”

Why were so many jobs lost? A large percentage of the people who lost jobs were in industries decimated by Chinese product dumping and below market pricing; i.e., textiles, furniture, tires, sporting goods, and garments. In addition, American manufacturers chose to outsource manufacturing offshore as the U.S. Department of Commerce data shows that “U.S. multinational corporations… cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million.”

Thankfully, manufacturing employment increased to 12.8 million by December 2018 as shown by the chart below. This was the result of a very slowly improving economy, reshoring (returning manufacturing to America), and increased Foreign Direct Investment (foreign manufacturers setting up plants in the U.S.) Notice that it took six years to increase by 904,000 under the Obama Administration, and it’s only taken two years to increase by another 441,000 jobs under the Trump Administration. While an increase of 1.4 million jobs is good news, at this rate, it would take about 30 years to recoup the 5.8 million jobs we lost from 2000 to 2010.

 

We need to accelerate the growth of manufacturing jobs, and that is what the tariffs imposed by President Trump are designed to do.  In the only few short months since the tariffs went into effect, I’ve seen the following headlines about job growth in the past week:

“U.S. Steel Corp. Restarts Texas Plant That Closed in 2016,”  IndustryWeek, February 5, 2019

“Tariffs Helping US Manufacturers Add Jobs, Says Group,” IndustryWeek, February 7, 2019

“US Steel Resumes Construction on Idled Facility,” IEN, February 11, 2019

On December 04, 2018, the article “Contrary to popular belief, Trump’s tariffs are working” by Jeff Ferry, Research Director for the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), stated,  “The tariffs have contributed to this growth directly and indirectly. Directly, we’ve catalogued some 11,000 US jobs that are being created by companies in the four tariffed industries, and that’s not including any of the Section 301 industries. Since that 11,000 tally in August, more investments and jobs have been announced, like the massive $1.5 billion steel plant to be built by Steel Dynamics, which will create some 600 new jobs in the southwest. Solar Power World lists a dozen solar companies now investing in US production of solar modules.”

“At CPA, we built an economic model looking at the effects of the tariffs on the US economy from 2018 through 2021. We found that the tariffs boosted US economic growth, adding $9 billion to GDP this year. Further, our growing economy leads to growing US imports each year. In other words, by boosting our own economic growth, we buy more goods from our trading partners, not less.”

If we want to protect our national security and maintain our national leadership in the 21st Century, we cannot continue down the path of increasing trade deficits and increasing national debt by allowing countries with predatory trade policies to destroy the American manufacturing industry.  I support the new path the Trump Administration is forging by developing and implementing a national strategy to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth, and strong domestic supply chains.

 

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »