AAM’s “Keep it Made in America” Town Hall meeting tour reached Buffalo, NY last night.  WNY Media offers a photographic recap.

AAM’s “Keep it Made in America” tour rolls into Buffalo, NY tonight.  You can listen to an interview with host John Ratzenberger on Buffalo’s NPR radio station, WNED.

Just Thinking Out Loud’s Matthew Stewart posted an interesting piece today calling for a “lead-free” Christmas.  He happily pointed toward his Pennsylvania neighbors at Holgate Toys, who have been making toys in the U.S. for 200 years, including the very famous trolley train that rolls through Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood every day.  Matt suggested that Americans buy domestic this year, and help avoid unsafe lead products.

  Matt isn’t the only person concerned about lead-tainted products during this shopping season, though.  News reports have offered ongoing coverage of consumer concern over the safety of the toys and goods they’re buying for their families.

This raises an interesting point: if there’s now a heightened awareness of unsafe imports, what about all the cheap goods and toys that consumers have purchased in recent years?  Who can say if those items were lead-free?

For help on that, parents can turn to a free service being offered by the United Steelworkers.  USW recently launched ‘Get the Lead Out,’ an educational program that provides free lead testing kits and screening information to identify potential hazards in the home.  Parents can request a lead testing kit via their website.
 

With the holiday shopping season upon us, AAM’s Scott Paul published an op-ed in last Friday’s Buffalo News that noted a connection between the low cost of Chinese goods and the “dangerous cost” posed by unsafe imports.  Specifically, Scott’s piece asked readers to consider “what the endless procession of ‘Made in China’ labels on goods means to their families”—and why there is an all-too-clear connection between “toxic” imports and “millions of American layoffs.”

It’s not just toys that pose a problem, though, and as AAM Senior Analyst Kerri Houston noted in yesterday’s Harrisburg Patriot News, America’s manufacturing workers “should not have to compete with unrestrained economic cheating and worker exploitation.”  In a timely commentary, Kerri discussed the crux of the “China price”—namely, the “incomplete view that the low cost of Chinese-produced goods outweighs the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs.”  As Kerri pointed out, 202,000 Pennsylvania manufacturing workers have lost their factory jobs since 2000—evidence that a flood of underpriced goods from China can have both consumer safety and job safety issues.

As the discussion of imported product safety continues, American consumers would do well to consider the ramifications of continued dependence on imports. 

##

If you want a break over the Thanksgiving holiday from turkey, parades, and football games, feel free to check out some videos from AAM’s Town Hall meetings program.  They help to explain why there’s a high cost for those low-cost goods from China that people tend to purchase during holiday shopping

ManufactureThis will be back on Monday.  Until then, we hope these videos prove informative.

CNN recently reported the story of toy beads from China coated with a chemical substance similar to the coma-inducing “date-rape” drug GHB.  Several American children became violently ill after ingesting the toxic beads.

Unfortunately, toy beads are not the only unsafe products to come from China.  The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission keeps a running tally of unsafe toys on their ‘Toy Hazard Recalls’ page.  Making a parent’s job even more difficult is that more than 400 different toys are listed, including products from FAO Schwartz as well as household names like Lego’s, Barbie, Curious George, Battlestar Galactica, and Winnie the Pooh.

American companies regularly adhere to far more stringent safety codes for both workplace conditions and the materials used in manufacturing.  In fact, both Chinese steel and chemical companies spend only 10% of what U.S. Steel and Dow Chemicals routinely spend for environmental controls.

Thanks to such non-existent environmental controls and a lack of oversight, Chinese companies follow only the most rudimentary standards—yielding the sometimes disastrous results noted in recent toy recalls.

It’s worth considering, then, why more American consumers should start buying American-made goods.
##

AAM Senior Analyst Kerri Houston penned an insightful piece on the state of manufacturing in last Friday’s Scranton Times Tribune entitled ‘China trade not fair trade.’  Kerri’s piece notes that Pennsylvania has lost at an estimated 78,200 jobs since 2001 as a direct result of the enormous U.S. trade deficit with China. 

The great irony is that China refuses to play by the rules of international trade.  In addition to unsafe working conditions and a reckless disregard for environmental concerns, China illegally subsidizes its production by manipulating its currency.  The resulting low-cost imports that come into the U.S.—many of which are proving to be unsafe for U.S. consumers—actually come at a cost in terms of lost American manufacturing jobs.

This unbalanced trade was the subject of AAM’s Town Hall meeting in Pittsburgh last week.  ‘Just Thinking Out Loud’ editor Matthew Stewart has published an interesting piece on the event that looks at both Pittsburgh’s longtime steel industry and the overall issue of U.S. manufacturing.

##

Now, here’s a fine how-do-you-do…  In yesterday’s HuffingtonPost, AAM’s Scott Paul offered a rather simple wager: whether it was more likely that last night’s Democratic debate in Nevada would feature a question on candidate sightings of UFOs or “a serious question about jobs and manufacturing.”

   Well, surprise, surprise—for once Scott (and the rest of the AAM crew) misjudged the media’s commitment to serious journalism.  CNN’s Campbell Brown asked a very pertinent question.  After noting that Chinese imports have proven to be sometimes shoddy or hazardous, she asked Congressman Dennis Kucinich if his Democratic rivals “who voted to fully open trade relations with China bear some of the responsibility.”

We’ve included the entire portion of the transcript because it makes for fascinating reading, with the China question launching a meaty discussion of America’s overall trade policy, and the candidates alternately sparring and agreeing on the problems facing American manufacturers.

Dennis Kucinich answers the China question followed by Edwards saying something about U.S. trade policy in general not working.  Barack Obama then mentions Japan’s practice of stationing regulators in China—something he believes the U.S. should do as well.  Hillary Clinton notes her concern about unsafe products from China, to which Chris Dodd responds by calling on the president to put a moratorium on trade coming out of China.  And Joe Biden suggests that the China problem is about President Bush not enforcing existing trade law.

Reading the transcript, with its many references to workers right violations, unsafe products, and lost American jobs, it’s seems obvious that there’s a problem. 

So here’s a follow-up question then: if these issues are as critical to America’s economic health and security as the various candidates suggest, then why haven’t ALL of them been talking about this ALL the time.  Why did it take till Campbell Brown’s innocent question to Dennis Kucinich on November 15, 2007, many months into an already droning debate season?

**Democratic Debate, Nevada, Nov. 15, 2007:

BROWN: Congressman Kucinich, we’re approaching the holiday season right now and parents across the country are in a panic. They are riffling through their toy boxes, they are throwing things away, because they are so worried that toys, the products coming from China right now are too dangerous for their children.

Do you believe that the people on the stage who voted to fully open trade relations with China bear some of the responsibility for what’s going on right now?

REP. KUCINICH: Well, of course they do; I mean, in the same way that people who voted for the war bear responsibility for what’s going on, people who voted for the Patriot Act bear responsibility for what’s going on — (cheers, applause) — people who voted for Yucca Mountain bear responsibility. People have to take responsibility for their positions.
Now, let’s talk about China trade. The fact of the matter is, Wolf, it was well known when China trade came up that China doesn’t have environmental quality standards, doesn’t have health standards, doesn’t have workers’ rights, doesn’t permit people to form unions. Everyone knew that.

And for someone to come up afterwards — and I think in the last debate I think Hillary Clinton was criticized by John Edwards for some trade-related issue; but the fact of the matter is, John, you voted for China trade understanding that workers were going to be hurt.

Now, you’re a trial lawyer. You knew better. I’m saying that it’s important — (boos) –

BLITZER: All right.

REP. KUCINICH: Really.

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, he made a — he made a specific reference to you.

REP. KUCINICH: This is a fact, though. I mean, I’m not backing down from this. This is a fact.

BLITZER: Well, let’s let –

REP. KUCINICH: People have to take responsibility for their positions. (Applause.)

BLITZER: Let’s ask Senator Edwards to respond. Was that vote a mistake?

EDWARDS: Well — (chuckles) — I’m not sure what being a trial lawyer has to do with it, but — what my response is –

REP. KUCINICH: Product liability.

EDWARDS: — America — America’s trade — (laughs) — cute. Cute, Dennis. (Applause.)
I think America’s — America’s trade policy has been a complete disaster. I do believe that. NAFTA, CAFTA, Colombia, Korea, Peru — which we’re now considering — has been a complete and total disaster.

And I think it’s really important to pull what’s been happening with trade into the bigger picture of what’s happening with America because what I believe is that powerful interests — particularly big corporate interests — have literally taken over this government, and they’ve taken over it against the interests of ordinary Americans. (Applause.) And a living, breathing example of that is, in 1993, when we were in control of the White House, of the United States Senate and the United States House, we made an effort to pass universal health care.

The big drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists killed it. At the same time, NAFTA was put on the table.

BLITZER: All right.

SEN. EDWARDS: The big corporations in America were for NAFTA.
So what did we get with a Democratic Congress, with a Democratic president? We didn’t — no, let me finish this. We didn’t get something that America desperately needed, which is universal health care, but we got something America did not need, which is NAFTA, which has cost us millions of jobs. (Applause.) We will not change this country if we replace a crowd of corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats. (Cheers, applause.) We have to give the power in this democracy back to the American people. That’s what’s at stake in this election.

BLITZER: All right. I’m going to let Senator Clinton respond, but let me just rephrase the question.

Was your vote to normalize trade relations with China a mistake?

EDWARDS: I think what’s the mistake is allowing China to operate unfettered, to send dangerous products into this country, to not have the president of the United States hold them responsible for their trading obligations or the WTO, which has not been done.

BLITZER: So it was a mistake?

EDWARDS: I think it was right to bring them into WTO. It’s wrong to not hold them responsible for their obligations.

BLITZER: All right.

Senator Clinton, all of us remember the big NAFTA debate when your husband was president of the United States, and a lot of us remember the debate between Al Gore, who was then vice president, and Ross Perot. Ross Perot was fiercely against NAFTA.
Knowing what we know now, was Ross Perot right? (Laughter.)

SEN. CLINTON: All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts. (Laughter.) That sort of is a vague memory.

Look, NAFTA did not do what many had hoped, and so we do need to take a look at it and we do need to figure out how we’re going to have trade relations that are smart, that give the American worker and the American consumer rights around the world.
And I want to go back to Campbell’s question for a minute because it’s really related to this. It is something that every parent should be worried about. It’s not only the toys; it’s the pet food, it’s the medical components and prescription drugs. If we don’t impose a third-party, independent investigative arm on our corporations that do business in China as well as the Chinese government, we should not permit any items to be imported into our country until we’re sure they’re safe. (Applause.) I mean, that to me is rule number one. (Applause.)

BLITZER: All right. So let me rephrase the question. I’ll rephrase the question. Was NAFTA a mistake?

REP. KUCINICH: It was passed in the Clinton administration.

BLITZER: Was NAFTA a mistake?

SEN. CLINTON: NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that’s why I call for a trade timeout when I am president. I’m going to evaluate every trade agreement. We do need to get back to enforcing the ones we have, which the Bush administration has not done. They have totally abdicated that. But I think we have to get broader than that. We’ve got to have enforceable labor and environmental standards. We’ve got the WTO that enforces financial and corporate rights; we need the International Labor Organization and other mechanisms that will be there to enforce labor rights and environmental rights, and that’s what I intend to do as president. (Cheers, applause.)

BLITZER: I want to go to John Roberts in a second, but I know Senator Dodd and Senator Obama want to weigh in on this.

Senator Dodd, you first.

SEN. DODD: Well, first of all, look: I respect the fact that we’re calling for timeouts, but as was pointed out earlier by John Edwards, we’ve had Senator Obama and Senator Clinton both came out in support of the Peruvian free trade agreement — now switching our positions on these issues here for the convenience of a debate and discussion on where polling data may be.

We are in a global economy. It is critically important that we do everything we can to expand those markets so that our products and our services can be sold in foreign nations here. It was outrageous in a sense here — had a U.S. corporation produced contaminated toys or food, they would have been shut down in 20 minutes.

: Absolutely.

SEN. DODD: I called upon the president to put a moratorium on trade coming out of China when those products were announced to be contaminated. It should have stopped right then and there for eternity. (Applause.)

BLITZER: All right.

Senator Obama, was NAFTA a mistake?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I hope Chris is clear — I haven’t changed positions on Peru. I am intending to –

SEN. DODD: Oh, you are for it.

SEN. OBAMA: I am for it, and I plan to vote for it because it is a small country.

SEN. DODD: Okay.

SEN. OBAMA: This is a trade agreement that has the labor agreements and the environmental agreements that we’ve been fighting for in it, and I think it’s the right thing to do.

I am opposed to CAFTA. I’ve been opposed to South Korea.

But going back to the issue of China — you know what Japan does with the Chinese when it comes to, for example, food importation? They send their own inspectors over to China and they set up their own safety system and they say, “If you don’t abide by our rules, you can’t send food into Japan.”

Now, the question is, why doesn’t the United States impose these same rules and regulations as Japan has? (Cheers, applause.) This is the biggest market — this is the biggest market in the world. China has to sell here.

But this goes back to how we did most favored nation trading status with China. The problem was we had one (level ?) when we allowed them in. We should have said, “We will review this every single year, so if you are not behaving properly, if you are not safeguarding our consumers and we find that you are not looking out for American workers or the administration is not, we won’t have that subject to review.” That was the failure on that China bill.

SEN. BIDEN: Wolf — 30 seconds, Wolf. Thirty seconds.

BLITZER: All right — 30 seconds. I’ve got to let Senator Biden –

SEN. BIDEN: Look, it’s not the agreement; it’s the man. Under the WTO, we can shut this down. What are they all talking about here? It’s about a president who won’t enforce the law. (Applause.) When they contaminated chicken, what happened? They cut off all chickens going in from Delaware — a $3 billion industry — into China. They cut it off. We have power under the — this agreement. I don’t know what anybody’s talking about here. Enforce the agreement.

BLITZER: Thank you.

SEN. BIDEN: Shut it down. (Applause.)

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

REP. KUCINICH: (Inaudible) — put it there from the beginning.

BLITZER: All right. Hold on.

REP. KUCINICH: They weren’t — it wasn’t in there from the beginning.

BLITZER: John Roberts.
Everybody’s going to have a chance –

REP. KUCINICH: It wasn’t in there from the beginning. That — it wasn’t in there from the beginning — (inaudible).

##

The presidential debates may not be discussing it very much, but the national media can’t ignore it: U.S. manufacturing is becoming a hot-button issue.

Yesterday, Reuters’ Andrea Hopkins launched into a piece on voter concerns with this salvo:
It could be expected that Iraq would play a big role in the 2008 U.S. election campaign. But if recent populist rallies are an indication, another country may be rousing even more anger from voters: China.

    And the focal point of Hopkins’ analysis?  AAM’s Tuesday night Town Hall meeting in Pittsburgh—what Hopkins described as “an overflowing convention room” where “voters, union officials and company executives alike railed against unfair trade — and demanded U.S. politicians do something.”

Just what is it that AAM has hit on so explicitly? 

On Tuesday night, U.S. Steel C.O.O. John Goodish said it bluntly: “It’s our job, together with the union, to make sure we keep manufacturing competitive.  It’s the government’s job to make sure we have a level playing field. They’re not doing their job.”

    As AAM’s Town Hall meetings build up steam, and roll toward upcoming events in New York, Virginia, and South Carolina, a critical consensus seems to be building, and one that is playing out clearly in each town.  Voters are worried about losing their manufacturing jobs to China—the very country that keeps shipping unsafe food and toys to them.

Where there’s smoke, there should be fire, and as AAM’s Scott Paul noted in Tuesday’s Pittsburgh Post Gazette, “Any candidate looking for a head start to November 2008 would be wise to articulate a positive, forward-looking vision on how to strengthen manufacturing in Pennsylvania and across our nation.”

One by one, the presidential candidates are going to have to react to the public clamor.  And it seems that former Senator John Edwards has become the first one to make the leap.  Yesterday, Edwards released a manufacturing policy paper yesterday that cites AAM’s work several times and calls for “smart trade.”  Astutely, Edwards notes that “currency manipulation, illegal foreign subsidies, bad trade deals and rising energy and health care costs” that have taken a toll on American manufacturing.”  It could be a page right out of AAM 101.

    ManufactureThis asks the inevitable question, then: Who’s next?  Which of the presidential candidates will be next to take a proverbial look out the window and embrace the cause of strengthening U.S. manufacturing? 

##

A guest column from: Robert H. Crane Jr., Biddeford, Maine

Since I moved to Maine in 1973, I have worked for six employers with five of them no longer in business due to closing, bankruptcies, or mergers. I was hoping to grow with one of these companies until I retired but they left me…I didn’t leave them. Like many US manufacturers, the company I work for now has been struggling because of the economy and their past customers outsourcing work for cheaper labor.
 
As I have seen these different events unfold during my career, it amazes me that the people who have the power in government and industry who could do something about this situation, have not stepped up to the plate to respond to this problem. The USA’s manufacturing self sufficiency is being lost by allowing the manufacturing jobs, related technology, and companies that have been American icons to leave our homeland.

Are we being sold out? I can’t help but think of how companies pulled together in manufacturing during WWII to produce the military equipment that was needed for the war effort. We have lost that type of ability by the outsourcing we now rely on.   
 
While living in Maine I have seen losses in various types of manufacturing…..textile, shoe, paper, plastics, electronics. The loss of these manufacturing jobs impacts so many other businesses. We hear politicians speak of the number of new jobs that have become available but what is not told are the number of people working two lower paying jobs to make ends meet to replace the one good paying manufacturing job they lost. In our city we are seeing manufacturing going out and box stores coming in to fill the need for employment.
 
There are a lot of skills that are handed down in various manufacturing businesses that you cannot find by reading a book. Are there people in industry and politicians who can turn this problem around before it is too late?
 
##