Posts Tagged ‘“Buy American”’

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 One

Tuesday, April 21st, 2020

As you might expect my heroes are people who have played a role in trying to alert Americans to the effects to our economy of the decimation of American manufacturing and the dangers of outsourcing manufacturing to China and other countries.  These are real people and none are elected officials.

This month marks the 13th year of my journey to do what I could to save American manufacturing. In May 2007, I e published one of my periodic San Diego County Industry reports that I had been writing since 2003.  I titled it, “Can U.S. Manufacturing be Saved?” My report had grown from four pages to 13 pages, and I realized that what I was documenting about the loss of manufacturers in San Diego and California was going on all over the country.  That’s when I made the decision to start writing my first book, Can American Manufacturing be Saved? Why we should and how we can, published in May 2009.  In the course of researching and writing my first book, my second edition of the same (2012), and my third book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity (2017), I have connected with many people who shared my concerns and were early advocates of saving American manufacturing.

My first set of heroes are those who either wrote books, articles, or newsletters that I came across researching my first book. When I was writing my reports, I was blaming the loss of manufacturing in California on the bad business climate, high taxes, and the cheap Chinese wages. These heroes expanded my knowledge greatly by showing that it was our primarily our national trade and tax policies, the trade cheating of China and other Asian countries, and corporate greed that was responsible for losing over five million manufacturing jobs between the year 2000 and 2009.  In alphabetical order, my heroes are:

Michael P. Collins is author of Saving American Manufacturing, Growth Strategies for Small and Midsize Manufacturers, published in 2006 and its companion handbook, The Growth Planning Handbook. Prior to becoming a writer, he was Vice President and General Manager of two divisions of Columbia Machine in Vancouver Washington. He is President of MPC Management, a consulting company that focuses exclusively on the problems and challenges of small and midsize manufacturers (SMMs) of industrial products and services. His book is written from the viewpoint of what manufacturers can do to save themselves and grow their business.  I arranged for him to come to San Diego to give a presentation to the Operations Roundtable of the American Electronic Association in 2011.

Lou Dobbs, is an American television commentator, radio show host, and the anchor of Lou Dobbs Tonight on Fox Business Network, and author of Exporting America, Why Corporate Greed is Shipping American Jobs Overseas, published in 2004 as hard cover and 2006 as a paperback. In his book, he “takes aim at the corporate executives and Washington politicians who profit by exporting U.S. jobs overseas—and shows readers what they can do to save not only their own careers, but the American way of life.

Ralph Gomory, who is well-known for his mathematical research and his technical leadership. For twenty years he was responsible for IBM’s Research Division, and then for 18 years was the President of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. He is the co-author with the late William J. Baumol of the book, Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests, published by MIT Press in 2001. After connecting by phone and email for years, it was nice to finally meet him at the Coalition for a Prosperous America trade conference in Washington, D. C. in 2018.

Richard McCormack, journalist and founder/publisher of Manufacturing & Technology News which he found in 1994. McCormack also served as the editor of the 2013 book on revitalizing manufacturing, ReMaking America. I read every issue of MT&N from July 2007 until it stopped publication at the end of 2016. He was also recognized as an American Made Hero by AmericanMadeHeroes.com for his newsletter “coverage of the profound financial and economic ramifications of the shift of industrial capability from the United States to Asian competitors.” He wrote “thousands of articles on outsourcing, industrial and technological competitiveness, government policies, and trends related to management, quality, technology and markets.”Mr. McCormack is currently Press Secretary and Program Manager, Office of Public Affairs, for the Department of Commerce.

Peter Kent Navarro is a Harvard Ph.D. economist and author of several books. I read his book The Coming China Wars, published in 2006, while I was researching my book. At that time, he was a professor of public policy at the University of California, Irvine. He currently serves in the Trump administration as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator. I first met Mr. Navarro when he was a professor at the University of California, San Diego and running for mayor in 1992. I also had the pleasure of seeing him when I attended the trade conference in 2018. I also read his book, Death by China, which he co-authored with Greg Autry, published in 2012.

Raymond Richman, Howard Richman (son), and Jesse Richman (grandson), authors of Trading Away our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and faulty Tax System Before It’s Too Late, published by Ideal Taxes Association in 2008. Raymond died in October 2019 at the age of 101. His tribute by Ideal Taxes states, he “authored four books, dozens of journal articles and hundreds of commentaries about economic development, tax policy and trade policy…Beginning with a commentary in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on September 14, 2003 (The Great Trade Debate), he became one of the first advocates of a policy of balanced trade, an alternative to the free trade vs. fair trade debate. His essential argument was that trade, free or not, benefits both countries if it is balanced.” I am sorry that I didn’t get to meet him before he died.

Roger Simmermaker, author of How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer Patriotism, third edition published in 2008. He also writes Buy American Mention of the Week articles for his website and World New Daily. His book provides a guide to assist American’s who wish to purchase products made in America and discusses the importance of “Buying American” for the future economic independence & prosperity of America. He earned special recognition as an American Made Hero. After years of connecting to him by phone and email, it was a pleasure to also meet him at the same trade conference in 2018.

Alan Tonelson, a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation, and a columnist for the Foundation’s globalization website, Tradealert.org and a Research Associate at the George Washington University Center for International Science and Technology Policy. He is also the author of The Race to the Bottom, published in 2000. “He has written extensively on the trade deficit between the United States and other countries. He has also written on free trade, globalization and industrial decline. He argues that U.S. economic policy should aim for “preeminence” over other countries, just as, he believes, other countries’ economic policies seek their own national interests. He is critical of various forms of “globalism” and internationalism.”

When I was researching my first book, the U.S. Business and Industry Council was the only organization that had a written plan to save American Manufacturing.

I introduced my book as a speaker at the Del Mar Electronics Show in San Diego County, California on May 6, 2009, and had my book on display at my company’s booth at the show. One of the first persons to buy my book was Adrian Pelkus, President of contract manufacturer, A Squared Technologies.  He was also the informal leader of the steering group running the San Diego Inventors Forum.  He invited me to the next SDIF meeting which I attended, and then invited me to join the steering committee, which I did.  After reading my book and endorsing the purpose and ideas I presented in my book, the steering committee changed the focus of SDIF from helping inventors source their products in China to sourcing the manufacture of their products in the U.S.

The SDIF meetings have an informal curriculum of topics to cover in a year, and I have been giving an annual presentation on how to select the right manufacturing processes and vendors to make their products.  It has a pleasure to be able to help so many inventors and entrepreneurs source their products in America.

My connections to theses heroes led me to connections with many other people and organizations who became part of my second set of heroes after my book was published.  I will write about these people in My Heroes Part Two. 

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

How Could the Trans Pacific Partnership Affect you or your Business

Tuesday, April 19th, 2016

On February 4, 2016, President Obama signed the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement on behalf of the United States. The TPP agreement has been in negotiation behind closed doors since 2010 between the United States and 11 other countries around the Pacific Rim: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. The TPP is a “docking agreement” so other countries could be added without the approval of Congress. India, China, and Korea have expressed interest in joining the TPP.

Our elected representatives in Congress had no involvement in writing the TPP – it was written by the staff of the U. S. Trade Representative office, with over 600 corporate advisors (think corporate lawyers) helping them write it. It contains more than 5,500 pages, and no member of Congress could view it as it was being negotiated until late 2014. Even then, they could not take any staff with them and were not allowed to take pen, pencil, paper, or a camera when they went to view it at the U. S. T. R.’s office.

The full text of the TPP was finally released to the public to review in November 2015, and it now awaits Congressional approval. According to the rules established by the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that passed Congress narrowly in June 2015, Congress will only be allowed 45 days for committee analysis after the bill is introduced, only 15 days after that is completed to bring it up for a floor vote, and only 20 hours of debate in the House and Senate. The TPA does not allow any amendments, filibuster, or cloture. Notice that the TPP is called an “Agreement,” as was NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS, and every other trade deal in the past 22 years. The purpose for this is to get around the requirement of the two-thirds vote of the Senate to approve a Treaty that is required under Article 1, Section 8 of the Treaty clause in the U. S. Constitution. The TPP requires only a simple majority vote (50% + one.)

Supporters of the TPP say that it represents 40% of the world’s economic activity (GDP), but they fail to mention that the U. S. and its current trading partners represent 80% of that 40%. The other five countries represent the other 20%, with Japan alone being 17.7% of that total.

The current goal of trade agreements as given by Congress to the U.S.T.R is to “remove trade barriers,” such as tariffs, quotas, etc. and increase U. S. exports. The U. S. cut tariffs and opened our markets by means of these trade agreements. However, our trading partners didn’t really open their markets to us. They played another game ? mercantilism, featuring rampant global currency devaluation, consumption taxes called Value Added Taxes (VATs) that are tariffs by another name, massive subsidies to their industries, and industrial policies that favor their domestic supply chains.

In brief, the effect to the United States of this unbalanced trade has been:

  • Loss of >600,000 mfg. jobs from NAFTA
  • Loss of 3.2 million mfg. jobs between 2000 – 2010 from China’s entry into WTO
  • Loss of >60,000 mfg. jobs since Korea-US Agreement went into effect in 2012
  • Loss of an estimated 3.4 million U. S. service & call center jobs since 2000
  • Loss of an estimated 700,000 public sector jobs (2008-2013)
  • Racked up cumulative trade deficit of $12 trillion in goods (average $500 billion each year) since 1994

As a result, we now have the worst trade deficit in U. S. history, and we are off to even a higher deficit this year based on the trade figures released for January ($45.9 billion) and February ($47.1 billion). As a recent example of the effect of trade agreements on our total trade deficit, our trade deficit with Korea has nearly doubled in less than four years, increasing from $14.7 billion in 2012 to $28.4 billion in 2015. Proponents of KORUS promised that it would create 70,000 jobs and $10 billion in exports.

As mentioned in a previous article, proponents of the TPP aren’t even giving such rosy predictions. The Peterson Institute’s analysis of the TPP states: “…GDP is projected to fall slightly (-0.54 percent), employment to decline by 448,000 jobs…”

What are some of the ways the TPP could affect you or your business?

Buy American Act would essentially be made Null and Void: The worst effect would be to those businesses who sell to the government, whether it be local, state, or federal because under the TPP procurement chapter, the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries. This means that all companies operating in any country signing the agreement would be provided access equal to domestic firms to bid on government procurement contracts at the local, state, and federal level. There are many companies that survived the recession and continue in business today because of the Buy American provisions for government procurement, especially defense and military. The TPP could be a deathblow for companies that rely on defense and military contracts. However, it would also affect procurement for infrastructure projects, such as bridges and freeways, as well as construction of local, state, or federal facilities.

Of course, this means that U. S. companies could bid on government procurement projects in TPP countries, but the trading benefit is miniscule. The U. S. government procurement market is 7X the size of current TPP partner countries (+550 billion vs. $55 -70 billion.) It is also highly unlikely that U. S. companies would be the low bidder against domestic companies in these TPP countries because of the vast difference in wages in countries such as Vietnam, where the average wage is 55 cents/hour. Past trade agreements has resulted in an average annual wage loss of 5.5% for full-time workers without college degrees, and U. S. wages have been stagnant for decades, growing by only about 2% per year since 2008. The result has been increased wage inequality from low to high wage earners.

Product Labeling could be Made Illegal: If you like to know if your food is safe, then you won’t like the fact that “Country of Origin,” “Non-GMO,” or “Organic” labeling could be viewed as a “barrier to trade” and thus be deemed illegal. According to Food & Water Watch, around 90% of the shrimp and catfish that Americans eat are imported. They warn, “The TPP will increase imports of potentially unsafe and minimally inspected fish and seafood products, exposing consumers to more and more dangerous seafood.” Many TPP countries are farm-raising seafood in polluted water using chemicals and antibiotics prohibited in the U. S. Farmed seafood from Malaysia, Vietnam, and China is being raised in water quality equivalent to U. S. sewers. Today, the FDA only inspects 2% of seafood, fruits and vegetables, and the USDA only inspects 4-5% of meat & poultry. Increased imports of food from TPP trading partners could swamp FDA and USDA inspections, so that even less is inspected.

TPP would Increase Immigration: If you are concerned about jobs for yourself or family members, then you won’t like the fact that the TPP increases “the number of L1 visas and the number of tourist visas, which can be used for business purposes.” Any service provider (phone service, security, engineers, lawyers, architects or any company providing a service) can enter into a TPP partner country and provide that service. Companies don’t have to hire Americans or pay American wages – they can bring in own workers and pay less than the American minimum wage.

TPP would Increase Job Losses in Key Industries: If you work in the automotive or textile industries, you may lose your job. The Center for Automotive Research projects a loss of 91,500 U. S. auto jobs to Japan with the reduction of 225,000 automobiles produced in the U. S. Also, the National Council of Textile Industries projects a loss of 522,000 jobs in the U. S. textile and related sectors to Vietnam.

TPP would Reduce Reshoring: Because TPP will reduce tariffs in trading partner countries, such as Vietnam, it will make the Total Cost of Ownership analysis to return manufacturing to America more difficult to justify. The high U. S. dollar has already diminished reshoring in the past year, so Harry Moser, Founder and President of the Reshoring Initiative, recently told me that “The combination of the high USD and TPP will reduce the rate of reshoring by an estimated 20 – 50%.”

Remember that the TPP is missing any provisions to address the mercantilist policies practiced by our trading partners: currency manipulation, Value Added Taxes that are both a hidden tariff and a hidden export subsidy, government subsidies/state owned enterprises, and “product dumping.”

 America is at a crossroads. We can either continue down the path of increasing trade deficits and increasing national debt by allowing anything mined, manufactured, grown, or serviced to be outsourced to countries with predatory trade policies. Or, we can forge a new path by developing and implementing a national strategy to win the international competition for good jobs, sustained economic growth and strong domestic supply chains. If you support the latter path, then add your voice to mine and millions of others in urging Congress not to approve the TPP in either the regular session before the Presidential election or the “lame duck” session after the election.

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Country of Origin, Inellectual Property, Jobs, Manufacturing, National security, Reshoring, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Why the Trans Pacific Partnership Would Hurt American Manufacturers

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, March 26th, 2013

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

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

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

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

What Congress Could Do

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

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

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

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

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

What States and Regions Could Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Individuals Could Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Reshoring” Opportunities Abound at Del Mar Electronics & Design Show

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

If your company is considering ”reshoring” manufacturing of some parts, assemblies, or products to the U. S., then you should attend the 18th annual Del Mar Electronics & Design Show, which will be held at the Del Mar Fairgrounds (Map) Wednesday May 2nd, 10am – 5pm and Thursday May 3rd 10am – 3pm.  Admission to the show, the seminars, and parking at the show are ALL FREE.

This is the only industrial trade show for manufacturers held annually in the San Diego region so this is the best opportunity for companies to find local and regional suppliers to “reshore” manufacturing to the U. S.

To help your company analyze the true Total Cost of Ownership to determine whether or not you should be returning manufacturing to America, I will be giving a presentation on “Returning Manufacturing to America” at 10 AM on Wednesday May 2nd.    I will be considering:

  • Hidden costs of doing business offshore that comprise a true understanding of the “Total Cost of Ownership”
  • How you can calculate these costs utilizing the Total Cost of Ownership worksheet calculator developed by Harry Moser of the Reshoring Initiative
  • Case stories reviewing some of the problems companies have experienced in outsourcing offshore
  • Reasons why some companies are choosing to “reshore” manufacturing to the U.S.

For the past 15 years, manufacturers have outsourced their manufacturing offshore in Asia, especially in China, to reduce costs to keep or increase market share.  However, the supply chain dynamics are changing, and the cost savings of outsourcing to China are eroding due to higher labor rates and shipping costs.  In the last few years, there have also been many news reports about outsourcing horror stories regarding poison or tainted Chinese products, Chinese counterfeit parts, intellectual property infringement, quality problems, and lawsuits so many companies are rethinking their decision about manufacturing in China.

In August 2011, the Boston Consulting Group’s released their first report “Made in America, Again: Why Manufacturing Will Return to the U.S.,” explaining how rising wages and other forces are steadily eroding China’s once-overwhelming cost advantage as an export platform for North America.  By around 2015, BCG concluded that when higher U.S. worker productivity, supply chain and logistical advantages, and other factors are taken fully into account, it may start to be more economical to manufacture many goods in the U.S.

Now, a new BCG report, “U.S. Manufacturing Nears the Tipping Point, Which Industries, Why, and How Much?” released on March 22, 2012 by Harold L. Sirkin, Michael Zinser, Douglas Hohner, and Justin Rose has identified “seven industry groups that account for $200 billion in goods imported from China for which rising costs in China will likely prompt manufacturing of goods consumed in the U.S. to return to the U.S.”

The report predicts that production of 10 to 30 percent of U.S. imports from China in these industries, which account for approximately 70 percent of goods that the U.S. imports from that nation, could shift to the U.S. before the end of the decade, adding $20 billion to $55 billion in output annually to the domestic economy.”  The tipping-point sectors are transportation goods, appliances and electrical equipment, furniture, plastic and rubber products, machinery, fabricated metal products, and computers and electronics.

BCG predicts that improved U.S. competitiveness and rising costs in China will put the U.S. in a strong position to add 2 million to 3 million jobs in a range of industries and an estimated $100 billion in annual output by the end of the decade which would reduce unemployment by 1.5 to 2 percentage points, and lower the nonoil-related merchandise deficit by 25 to 35 percent.

According to a new survey which BCG conducted in late February, “More than a third of U.S.-based manufacturing executives at companies with sales greater than $1 billion are planning to bring back production to the United States from China or are considering it.”

The top factors cited as driving future decisions on production locations:  labor costs (57 percent), product quality (41 percent), ease of doing business (29 percent), and proximity to customers (28 percent).  In addition, 92 percent said they believe that labor costs in China “will continue to escalate,” and 70 percent agreed that “sourcing in China is more costly than it looks on paper.”

In the new survey, “67 percent of respondents in rubber and plastic products, 42 percent in machinery, 41 percent in electronics, 40 percent in computers, and 35 percent in fabricated metal products said they expect that their companies will reshore production from China to the U.S.”

“Not long ago, many companies regarded China as the low-cost default option for manufacturing,” observed Michael Zinser, a BCG partner who leads the firm’s manufacturing work in the Americas. “This survey shows that companies are coming to the conclusion surprisingly fast that the U.S. is becoming more competitive when the total costs of manufacturing are accounted for.”  To request a summary of the survey findings, please contact David Fondiller at fondiller.david@bcg.com.

The Del Mar show will also feature a number of other free technical seminars.  A few of the topics are:  “Using LinkedIn as a Business Development Tool,” “New Energy Storage Options for the Transportation Sector,” “Best of SolidWorks Tips and Tricks,” and “Counterfeit Electronic Components Are No Longer a Threat; They are a Reality.”  For the full seminar schedule, go to www.vts.com.  In addition, all attendees are invited to the Post Time Party, Wednesday, May 2nd, from 5 – 7pm, with free refreshments provided thanks to sponsorship by Quality Systems Integrated Systems, Luscombe Engineering, Concisys Electronic Manufacturing Services, and National Test Equipment.

My company will be exhibiting products for the companies we represent at Booths 207 – 209 in the Bing Crosby Hall, which is to the left of the main entrance to the show.   We look forward to seeing you at the show!

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Manufacturing, Outsourcing, Reshoring | No Comments »

What Led to the Problem of Chinese Counterfeit Parts?

Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported that an investigation found and examined about 1800 cases of suspected counterfeit electronic parts dating from 2009 to last year, totaling about a million individual components.  Tracing the supply chain, 70% of the components came through China, where a variety of methods were used to misrepresent the parts as new and genuine.  Hearings now being conducted by Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) and Senator John McCain (R-Arizona).

At a news conference on Monday, November 7, 2011, Sen. Carl Levin told reporters, “There’s a flood of counterfeit parts entering the defense supply chain.  It is endangering our troops and it is costing us a fortune.”

Sen. John McCain said the investigation documents the alarming “threat counterfeit parts pose to the safety of our men and women in uniform, to national security and to our economy.”  He added, “We can’t tolerate the risk of a ballistic missile interceptor failing to hit its target, a helicopter pilot unable to fire his missiles, or any other mission failure because of a counterfeit part.”

This dangerous state of affairs has taken over 20 years to develop and is a complex web of unintended consequences of seemingly innocuous changes in policies.  There are four main reasons for the problem of Chinese counterfeit components:

1.      Mil. Spec. qualified components replaced by off the shelf components

2.      “Buy American” requirements relaxed

3.      Manufacturing outsourced offshore, mainly in China

4.      Rapid obsolescence of components, especially micro chips

It all started with the scandals of the 1980s over the $600 toilet seats and $400 wrenches that President Reagan’s Defense Department, under Caspar Weinberger, was accused of wasting its money on by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

At the time, the news media ignored reasonable voices pointing out that tooling often has to be made to produce metal, plastic, rubber, and fiber glass parts in certain manufacturing processes.  This tooling cost then has to be amortized into the piece price of the part; i.e., tooling cost divided by the number of parts ordered plus piece price equals selling price. Since defense and military parts are produced in much lower volume than commercial products, the amortized tooling costs add much more to the part cost than it does for commercial parts.

The $600 toilet seat was actually a uniquely shaped, molded fiberglass shroud that fits over the toilet and had to satisfy specifications for vibration resistance, weight, and durability for the P-3C Orion antisubmarine aircraft, which went into service in 1962.  Since the airplane had been out of production for years, new tooling was required to produce the part.  The price reflected the design work and the cost of the equipment to manufacture them, and Lockheed Corp. charged $34,560 for 54 toilet covers, or $640 each.  The president of Lockheed at the time, Lawrence Kitchen, adjusted to the price to $100 each and returned $29,165.

Because of the public outcry over these scandals, the procurement regulations were changed.  The Defense Department, branches of the military, and their supply chain of vendors were allowed to purchase commercial off the shelf parts (COTS) if they met the same fit and function of parts made to strict military specifications.  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.  Permitting commercial parts to replace Mil. Spec. parts probably drove out of business the small companies that catered exclusively to the military and that provided traceability, per Mil. Spec., for parts supplied to government agencies, military contractors, and subcontractors.  This was all done in the name of cost savings.  Now, however, most commercial electronic components and micro chips are fabricated in China.

Second, after the end of the Cold War and the successful conclusion of the first Gulf War, the provisions of the “Buy American Act” were eased to allow purchasing off the shelf commercial parts from foreign countries by the Defense Department and other government agencies.  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, and Germany.

This led to parts being made in China as more and more American companies started to outsource manufacturing in China either by selecting Chinese companies as vendors or setting up their own manufacturing plants in China.   This trend accelerated after China received “most favored nation” status with the approval of the World Trade Organization treaty in the year 2000, and American companies started to build semiconductor wafer fab plants in China to produce micro chips.

The problem with counterfeit parts is not something new to industry – there were always a small number of rejected parts that went out the “back door” of companies to be sold on the black or “gray” markets by individual employees.  What is new is the purposeful production of counterfeit parts by a foreign government, namely, China, as a form of economic warfare and counter espionage.

Brian Toohey, president of the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA), testified Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee calling counterfeit parts “a ticking time bomb.”   He added, “The catastrophic failure risk inherently found in counterfeit semiconductors places our citizens and military personnel in unreasonable peril,” said Toohey. The SIA estimates that counterfeits cost US-based semiconductor companies more than $7.5 billion a year.

EBN Editor, Barbara Jorgensen wrote in her blog, “Counterfeits have been appearing in the consumer and industrial sectors for as long as anyone can remember, but their presence in mission-critical defense equipment and military and passenger aircraft threatens lives  The efforts have a ways to go, but the dialogue between industry associations such as the SIA and the Defense Department and Justice Department are a major step in the right direction.”

Bruce Rayner, Contributing Editor, EE Times, wrote “counterfeiting is on the rise and it is getting harder to detect.  Counterfeit computer hardware, including chips, was one of the top commodities seized in 2010 by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) … up five-fold over 2009…The reason for the increase is that there’s a lot of money to be made.  Many obsolete components are in demand by the military because they need to repair very old equipment, such as 1980s-vintage fighter jets.  But the parts are no longer manufactured, and only a few authorized distributors stock the vintage components.  In some cases, the only place to buy these chips is from independent distributors or brokers who don’t have formal sourcing relationships with the original component manufacturer. They buy them over the Internet from sources they don’t know and who can’t validate their authenticity.”

The August 2011 issue of Industry Week reported, “In 2010, government agents seized fake goods totaling $188.1 million, which if genuine would have been worth $1.4 billion.  Goods from China accounted for 66% of the value of seizures by U. S. Customs and Border Protection.”  In the same article, Wes Shepherd, CEO of Channel IQ, said that the outsourcing of manufacturing in China combined with online selling “introduced the specter of counterfeiting as a much more serious problem.”

Joe O’Neill, owner of O’Neill Technologies and formerly with Intel, Samsung and Toshiba, told me in an interview, “the counterfeit problem is a product life cycle mismatch between consumer and more traditional applications, such as industrial, medical, and defense.  The life cycle of micro chips, also referred to as micro processors and controllers, are very short in the networking, computer, and telecommunications industries.  The life cycle of a cell phone model may range from six to 12 months, while industrial and military products may have a life cycle of decades.  Products for the military are a small piece of the market so there is a real problem with part obsolescence.  Availability of these parts that have been made ‘end of life’ force manufacturers to go into the Gray Market or other non-traditional sources to keep their factories supplied with parts.  There are a few companies that specialize in making obsolescent microprocessors for industrial, medical or military manufacturers by “cloning” the parts.” One such company is Innovasic, which makes the X86 series of Intel and AMD micro processors.

During the Senate hearings, part of which I watched after work, photos of bins of electronic parts were shown as Thomas Sharpe, V. P. of SMT Corporation, described visiting electronic component marketplaces in July 2008, where scrapped electronic parts were washed in rivers or left for the daily monsoon rains, dried on river banks, and collected in bins to be ready for counterfeit processing.  Counterfeiters buy used parts for pennies in the street markets of Shenzhen and other Chinese cities, re-mark them, fix broken leads and buff them up, then ship them to brokers in the West who unknowingly or knowingly sell them to other brokers or to OEMs for multiples of what they paid.

Last year, the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property was created specifically to prosecute counterfeiters, and last week Stephanie McCloskey was sentenced to 38 months in federal prison for her role in a scheme by VisionTech Components to import fake chips from China into the U. S. that were sold to a variety of customers including defense contractors and the military.

Until we implement more stringent procurement regulations, strengthen “Buy American” procurement regulations for defense and military components, and return more manufacturing to the United States from offshore, it will be up to manufacturers to have a system to detect and deter counterfeits.  Many defense contractors have put in place strict regimen for inspecting, testing, and reporting counterfeits, but all companies need to be vigilant by inspecting, testing, and reporting.

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in General, Outsourcing, Trade Policy | 2 Comments »

Why John Stossel is All Wet ? “Buy American” is Smart, not Stupid

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

John Stossel’s blog article on WorldNetDaily® on November 1, 2011, “The stupidity of ‘Buy American,’ is based on a premise so fallacious that one wonders how a usually intelligent commentator like Stossel could have been taken in by it.

The premise is that “we should buy things where they’re cheapest.  That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing these things,” according to the explanation of why “Buy American” is “nonsense” by economist David Henderson of the Hoover Institution.

First of all, “buying things where they’re cheapest” isn’t always the best decision on where to spend your money ? the old adage “you get what you pay for” is more often true.  Most of the everyday items that people buy today at “big box” and other retail outlets are being manufactured in China and other countries in Asia.

What do you get for your money when you buy products that are made in China and other Asian countries?  Clothes and shoes that don’t fit or fall apart, toys that choke or strangle children, baby buggies, strollers, and cribs that maim or even kill, household items that either don’t work properly, cause fires, and explode, and tainted food.  The U. S. Consumer Protection Safety Commission’s website provides a monthly list of products that have been recalled, and month after month, more than 90% are made in China.   For example, there have been eight recalls thus far in November, and seven of the eight products were made in China.  In October, there were 21 product recalls: 12 were made in China, two were made in Taiwan, two were made in Vietnam, two were made in Mexico, and three were made in the U. S.  The products ranged from glass bowls and toys to tents, battery packs, and baby strollers.

Recently, a Senate Armed Services Committee investigation led by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) reviewed more than 100,000 pages of DOD documents and found that U.S. Department of Defense had purchased counterfeit electronic parts (defective and with “back doors”) from China in 1,800 cases, running to more than 1 million parts.

Second, buying cheap goods that are made offshore only creates American jobs if you use the money to buy American products.  If you just buy more products made “offshore,” you don’t create any new American jobs.   About the best it does is keep people who work in wholesale and retail employed.  That’s why tax rebates and refunds haven’t created the jobs that were expected.  Consumers used the extra money to pay down debt, add to savings, or bought the everyday products that are now made mostly in China.

Why does it matter where products are made and why is it smart to “Buy American?”  A  report released in April 2011 titled, “The Importance and Promise of American Manufacturing, Why It Matters if We Make It in America and Where We Stand Today,” co-authored by Michael Ettlinger and Kate Gordon of the Center for American Progress provides the answer to these questions.  The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to promoting a strong, just and free America that ensures opportunity for all.

The authors opine that “Manufacturing is critically important to the American economy.  For generations, the strength of our country rested on the power of our factory floors—both the machines and the men and women who worked them.  We need manufacturing to continue to be bedrock of strength for generations to come … The strength or weakness of American

In addition to maintaining our standard of living as Americans, there are several other important reasons why it’s smart to “Buy American.”  They are:

Manufacturing is critical to our national defense ? American manufacturers supply the military with the essentials needed to defend our country, including tanks, fighter jets, submarines, and other high-tech equipment. The same advances in technology that consumers take for granted support the military, particularly soldiers fighting overseas.

The U.S. cannot rely on other countries to supply its military because their interests may run counter to its own.   America cannot risk being held hostage to foreign manufacturers when it comes to products that are essential for its national security and the U.S. military. It is crucial that key components and technologies that are critical to the production of U.S. weapons and the related industrial capacity to produce such items be located within the United States.

Manufacturing supplies millions of jobs ? Manufacturing jobs are the foundation of the U.S. economy and the basis for its middle class. Manufacturing provides high-paying jobs for nearly 12 million Americans.

Manufacturing Jobs Pay Higher Wages than Service Jobs ? Manufacturing wages and benefits are approximately 25 – 50 percent higher than in non-manufacturing jobs.

In an opinion article in Industry Week magazine, John Madigan, a consultant with Madigan Associate, wrote “Jobs paying $20 per hour that historically enabled wage earners to support a middle-class standard of living are leaving the U.S… only 16% of today’s workers earn the $20-per-hour baseline wage, down 60% since 1979.   Service and transportation jobs, per se, cease to exist in the absence of wealth. Rather, they exist and thrive as by-products of middle-class incomes buying products and services.”

Manufacturing Creates Secondary Jobs ? There is a multiplier effect of manufacturing jobs that reflects linkages that run deep into the economy. For example, every 100 steel or automotive jobs create between 400 and 500 new jobs in the rest of the economy. This contrasts with the retail sector, where every 100 jobs generate 94 new jobs elsewhere, and the personal and service sectors, where 100 jobs create 147 new jobs.  It is manufacturers who hire services such as banking, finance, legal, and information technology.

Manufacturing is the Engine of American Technology Development and Innovation ? American manufacturers are responsible for more than two-thirds of all private sector R&D, which ultimately benefits other manufacturing and non-manufacturing activities. More than 90 percent of new patents derive from the manufacturing sector and the closely integrated engineering and technology-intensive services.

Manufacturing R&D is conducted in a wide array of industries and businesses of all sizes. The heaviest R&D expenditures take place in computers and electronics, transportation equipment, and chemicals (primarily pharmaceuticals.)

Manufacturing is an incubator for technology and science, which require proximity to facilities where innovative ideas can be tested and worker feedback can fuel product innovation. Without this proximity, the science and technology jobs, like customer service jobs, follow the manufacturing jobs overseas.

Manufacturing Generates Exports — The United States was the world’s first-largest exporter until 1992 when Germany took over this position.   Germany remained number one until 2009 when China surpassed it to become the world’s top exporter, and the United States fell to being the third-largest exporter.  The difference between the top three was small:  Germany exported $1.17 trillion compared to the $1.057 trillion of the U. S., but China’s exports were $1.2 trillion in 2009.

Manufactured goods make up more than 60 percent of the value of U.S. exports, double the level of ten years ago. While agricultural exports amount to about $50 billion a year, manufacturers export about that much each month.  High tech products are America’s largest export sector, and the European Union was the top importer of these goods, followed by Canada, and Mexico.

Manufacturing Supports State Economies ? Manufacturing is a vital part of the economies of most states – even in those areas where manufacturing has declined as a portion of the Gross State Product (GSP). As a share of GSP, manufacturing was among the three largest private-industry sectors in all but ten states and the District of Columbia. Manufacturing is the largest sector in ten states and in the Midwest region as a whole. It is the second largest in nine states, and the third largest in 21 others.

For the past decade, manufacturing corporations paid 30 to 34 percent of all corporate tax payments for state and local taxes, social security and payroll taxes, excise taxes, import and tariff duties, environmental taxes and license taxes.  Since many small manufacturers are not incorporated and pay individual taxes as sole proprietors, the tax revenue generated by all manufacturers is impossible to calculate.

In summary, it’s smart, not stupid to “Buy American” because manufacturing is the foundation of the U.S. national economy and the foundation of the country’s large middle class. Losing the critical mass of the manufacturing base will result in larger state and federal budget deficits and a decline in U.S. living standards. This, in turn, would result in the loss of a large portion of our middle class, which depends on manufacturing jobs. America’s national defense will be in danger, and it will be difficult, if not impossible to maintain the country’s position as the world’s super power.  “Buying American” will help ensure that American manufacturing survives and grows in the global economy.

Tags:, ,
Posted in General, Outsourcing | 1 Comment »