The Washington Post’s Tom Shales suggested that last night’s bland Democratic debate on ABC was “another step downward” for the network and “dwelled” too long on “specious and gossipy trivia.”  AAM director was similar appalled by the lack of serious discussion on jobs and the economy.  In response, Scott offered the following:

  “Pennsylvania voters were shortchanged by this debate.  Every poll shows that the economy matters most in this election.  Yet economic issues like jobs and trade received scant attention from the moderators.   Instead, we were treated to a range of stale questions about as compelling as Vanilla Ice’s Greatest Hits.  We expect and deserve better.”

##
 

  On Monday, Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton came to Pittsburgh for substantive dialogue about their trade policies and, particularly, how they plan to address China’s unfair trade practices.  The Alliance for American Manufacturing, a labor-management, non-partisan partnership, hosted the forum  and rightly put the candidates on the spot about their plans to get tough on trade.  Tonight, the candidates will meet again, answer tough questions, and debate important issues facing the country.   I’m sure trade and the economy will again be top of the agenda. 

Let’s hope this time the coverage more accurately reflects the tone of the discussion.

 In the aftermath of the AAM forum on Monday, scores of media reports in the mainstream press and the blogosphere, as well as a new television ad by Senator Obama, focused on a few jeers that Senator Clinton received at the event for her response to the well-publicized “bitter” remarks Obama previously made.  As the convener of that forum, I’m disappointed that this exchange has been blown far out of proportion.  But I’m not surprised.

 It’s much easier for the media and the blogosphere to comment on the inevitable back-and-forth, which amounted to a mere fraction of the time that both candidates spent with us, than to focus on the substance.  For those media elites and bloggers who do not understand the economic challenges facing every day people, and who may be too uninterested or too lazy to actually do some research and real reporting, the back-and-forth became the story. 

Few in the media or blogosphere have bothered to report that both candidates received lengthy standing ovations for their remarks on international trade and the economy, and that both candidates were frequently interrupted with applause.  (The Obama ad didn’t mention that aspect, either.)

The fact that both candidates outlined detailed agendas on how to get the manufacturing economy back on track and reform the country’s flawed trade policies also received scant attention.  The important news for Pennsylvanians on Monday was that both candidates committed to a new direction on trade—one that won’t allow countries like China to cheat, and one that won’t encourage further outsourcing of manufacturing jobs.

In Pittsburgh we had an audience of blue collar workers, white collar workers, CEOs, retirees, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.  We expected about 1,000 to attend when we finalized the event about ten days ago.  We were blown away on Monday morning—1,600 manufacturing workers, managers, and retirees came through our doors.  Of those 1,600, maybe 50 or so offered a few jeers.  The overwhelming majority offered positive  responses to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.
Our audience came to the forum to learn more about what the candidates would do to grow manufacturing, crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, and reform our own trade policies to benefit more Americans.  And they came away from the forum pleased they had that opportunity.  It’s a real shame that the media and the blogosphere didn’t give more people that opportunity through responsible coverage of the event.  As for the Obama ad, I’m convinced that more people would respond to his plan to crack down on China’s cheating, but then again, I’m an idealist, not a political consultant.

##

AAM held a candidate forum in Pittsburgh on Monday that focused on the serious, ongoing consequences of the U.S. trade deficit with China.  Unfortunately, much of the media coverage has been focused on perceived crowd response to Senator Clinton’s speech. 

  AAM Executive Director Scott Paul, who directed the event and oversaw audience questions for each candidate, released the following statement today:

“The candidates responded candidly and directly regarding the serious policy issues they will face when one of them becomes the Democratic nominee.  As we move from our event on Monday to tomorrow’s debate in Philadelphia, we hope that the candidates will continue to discuss their positions on issues like China’s cheating on trade laws.

“It is unfortunate that media coverage of AAM’s forum has focused on determining whether Sen. Hillary Clinton received “boos” for remarks she made regarding her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.  AAM hopes that in the future the press will provide voters with intelligent and meaningful coverage of the issues and stop reporting to the lowest common denominator. 

“The crowd reacted strongly throughout both candidates’ remarks, voicing agreement or disagreement, cheering and applauding in response to both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.   Many of those in the audience remain genuinely undecided, and were grateful to have the opportunity to hear both candidates address their concerns about China’s unfair trade practices.

“Unfortunately, we have not seen coverage of the detailed and diverse policy positions discussed on Monday, including Sen. Clinton’s statement that she intends to designate China as a currency manipulator or Sen. Obama’s that he would use sanctions to insist that China stop its cheating.  These candidates have not previously offered such strong policy prescriptions on trade with China.

“Issues like trade are integral to the worries most Americans currently have about the U.S. economy.  And, just as Americans are looking to the candidates to voice their opinion, they are looking to the press to provide a means for that voice to be heard.”

##

  In today’s New York Times, David Brooks offers a critique of Sen. Barack Obama’s remarks to AAM’s Pittsburgh candidate forum (”A speech about nothing”) that ignores some basic facts.

Brooks  suggests there “is little evidence that trade has been a major cause of job loss or even wage stagnation” and instead touts “technological change” as the driver of “anxiety” for America’s “struggling working class.” 

In truth, foreign producers have access to the same advanced technology as U.S. producers.  As such, their only competitive advantage is to utilize predatory trade practices in order to produce more cheaply.  What Sens. Obama and Clinton discussed at AAM’s forum is that China is violating the rules of world trade when it artificially manipulates its currency to gain a price advantage.  When U.S. workers fret about foreign cheating that robs them of good paying jobs, they’re right to be concerned.  For Mr. Brooks to suggest otherwise is patronizing, elitist, and simply ignorant.

##

Candidates address growing concerns about swelling U.S.-China trade deficit that has cost Pennsylvania workers 78,000 jobs since 2001, 1.8 million jobs nationwide. 

PITTSBURGH, PA — April 14, 2008 — Democratic Presidential Candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vowed to hold China and other offending countries accountable for unfair trade practices that disadvantage U.S. workers and manufacturers at a candidate forum this morning in Pittsburgh.  Senator John McCain was invited but unable to attend.

The forum was sponsored by the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), a non-partisan, non-profit labor-management coalition of the United Steelworkers and the nation’s leading manufacturers forged to strengthen manufacturing in America.

“Today, voters demanded that their presidential candidates get tough on China,” said AAM Executive Director Scott Paul.  “And while the candidates at today’s forum made strong commitments on trade, we must ensure that their promises become policies that enforce our laws against unfair trade and defend our workers and domestic industries.”

The candidates appeared separately.  Each spoke for 20 minutes on trade and manufacturing issues before fielding several questions from the diverse audience of over 1,600 union workers, manufacturers, and local elected officials. AAM principals and partners also addressed the crowd, including United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard, United States Steel Corporation Senior Vice President Terrence Straub, Allegheny Technologies Chief Executive Patrick Hassey and AK Steel Chief Executive Jim Wainscott.

“China must stop manipulating its currency because it’s not fair to American manufacturers, it’s not fair to you, and we are going to change it when I am President,” said Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in his remarks to forum attendees, where he also criticized trade agreements like NAFTA.  He pledged to “fight for manufacturing, modernize the steel industry, strengthen our manufacturing base, and have a manufacturing policy to open as many markets as we can for American workers.”

“I’m calling for changing our laws to send China a message,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who outlined her trade agenda to the audience and highlighted national security concerns related to unfair trade.  “If you subsidize your exports and hurt our manufacturers, you’ll pay a price.”  She argued that “you cannot be a strong nation without a strong manufacturing sector.”

The candidate forum is part of a larger effort by AAM to highlight the impact that China’s unfair trade practices have had on American workers and manufacturers. AAM has called for stronger enforcement of U.S. trade law and last week launched a statewide advertisement and grassroots campaign entitled, “China Cheats. Pennsylvania Loses.” A PDF of the ad is posted here.

AAM Executive Director Scott Paul applauded the candidates for their willingness to engage on the issues before a largely Pennsylvania audience one week before that state’s Democratic primary election.  “Senators Obama and Clinton faced an audience who believe that jobs and manufacturing issues are at the heart of this election and they were gratefully received.”

##

  AAM is holding a candidate forum on Monday in Pittsburgh, with Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama scheduled to discuss their views on U.S. trade policy and their specific approaches to unbalanced trade with China.  The event itself is already generating considerable discussion, with USA Today likening it to a near debate.  ManufactureThis will be certain to keep you updated.  More information follows:

Clinton and Obama to Discuss Manufacturing Issues at Candidate Forum in Pittsburgh, PA
Democratic candidates will address members of the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) and its partners:  United Steelworkers union, SOAR, U.S. Steel, AK Steel, and Allegheny Technologies; event will focus on strengthening American manufacturing

What: Presidential Candidate Forum on Manufacturing, sponsored by the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) and its partners.  Senators Obama and Clinton will discuss their proposals to address the challenges facing America’s manufacturers, including China’s dumping, subsidies, and currency manipulation.  Sen. John McCain was invited, but is unable to attend.

Who:  Senator Barack Obama
  Senator Hillary Clinton
 
When:  Monday, April 14, 2008
  Doors Open 8:00 a.m.
  Event begins 8:45 a.m. 
 
Where: The David L. Lawrence Convention Center
1000 Fort Duquesne Blvd.
Pittsburgh, PA

More: Pennsylvania has lost more than 207,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, with more than 78,000 jobs moving to China alone since 2001.  The event will focus on strengthening American manufacturing and addressing China’s unfair trade practices. 

The forum will be attended by members of the United Steelworkers, SOAR (Steelworker retirees), and employees and executives of event partners U.S. Steel, ArcelorMittal, AK Steel, and Allegheny Technologies.  It is not open to the general public.

Media Notes: The event is open to the media.  Credentialing and site details pending; please call Steven Capozzola at 202.393.3430 with questions. 

##

  AAM has launched an ad campaign throughout Pennsylvania tied to the upcoming April 22 primary.  Titled “China Cheats, Pennsylvania loses,” the ads note that unbalanced trade with China has claimed more than 78,000 jobs in the Keystone State since 2001.  A key point of the campaign is to push the presidential candidates to tell Pennsylvania’s voters exactly how they’ll address the dumping, subsidies, and currency manipulation that China uses to cheat on trade agreements.

Both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have covered the ad campaign.  The question now is whether the candidates will recognize the toll that China is taking on Pennsylvania jobs and explicitly state what they’ll do to end China’s cheating.

AAM is closely watching the candidates’ statement and is tracking their China-related and trade-related comments.  You can follow their latest comments on our new CandidateWatch blog.  We welcome your comments and feedback as well.

##

With race tightening, state-wide campaign demands commitment to end China’s cheating on trade laws; trade deficit costing 15,640Pennsylvania jobs per year

WASHINGTON, DC.  — With jobless claims at a two year high, and the economy the top concern for voters in the tightening Pennsylvania race, the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) launched a statewide advertising and grassroots campaign today focusing on Pennsylvania job losses.  The ad campaign - “China Cheats.  Pennsylvania Loses.” - urges the presidential candidates to hold China accountable for its unfair international trade practices that result in Pennsylvania job losses. The campaign will run through the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary and continue in Indiana and North Carolina.

“China is a major contributor to today’s economic woes,” said AAM Director Scott Paul. “China cheats, and Pennsylvania loses.  From toxic toys to nonexistent environmental standards, China continues to demonstrate that it’s not playing by the same rules as everyone else.  Pennsylvanians have lost over 78,000 jobs since 2001 as a result of the trade deficit with China. We’ve heard about Iraq, NAFTA, health care, and home mortgages, but we have yet to hear any of the candidates clearly commit to solving the China crisis.”

The “China Cheats” ads will appear in seven media markets across the state, including: Allentown, Altoona, Erie, Harrisburg, Johnstown, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Scranton, and Wilkes-Barre.  A PDF of the ad is posted at: http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/aam_pennsylvania_032708a.pdf

In addition, the campaigns are now seeing and hearing from members of AAM Action, which includes retired and active employees.  AAM Action coordinators are working across the state to press the candidates on trade and China issues.  These efforts have begun to show results.  Recently, an attendee at Hillary Clinton’s Greensburg, PA town hall meeting asked a question about what the Senator would do about “imports from China.” At a subsequent event in Raleigh, N.C., Senator Clinton said she would “get tough on China.”  In an Indiana television ad Senator Obama posed in front of a closed steel mill to demonstrate concerns over outsourced manufacturing jobs.

 “With the race tightening, the candidates cannot dodge this issue any longer,” said Paul.  “The economy is the number one concern for Pennsylvania voters.  Our ‘China Cheats’ campaign features a hard hitting, direct ad that makes it clear that when Washington lets China win, workers in cities like Pittsburgh and Allentown lose.  The campaign will follow the candidates until primary day, pushing them to make a real commitment to solving the China problem.”

AAM will also launch CandidateWatch (http://candidatewatch.manufacturethis.org/), a blog that will track what the candidates are saying, or not saying, about their plans to stop China from cheating on international trade laws.

THE FACTS:

The damaging effects of unfair trade are clear across the state.  AAM’s analysis of Economic Policy Institute data found that Pennsylvania lost 78,200 jobs from 2001-2006 (all sectors) as a result of the U.S. trade deficit with China [source: EPI, ‘Costly Trade with China’], for an average of 15,640 lost jobs per year.  Using an identical analysis, AAM found that Pennsylvania lost 44,173 jobs from 1993-2004 (all sectors) as a result of NAFTA, for an average of 4,016 jobs lost per year [source: EPI, ‘Revisiting NAFTA’].

“If the presidential candidates want to save Pennsylvania jobs, they should commit to fighting China’s illegal trade practices such as dumping, subsidies, and currency manipulation,” said Paul, noting that the U.S. racked up record annual trade deficits in 2007 with both China ($256 billion) and its NAFTA partners ($138 billion).  “We can no longer allow China to chip away at the foundation of America.”

A state-by-state breakout of U.S. jobs lost to China is available at: www.americanmanufacturing.org/inyourstate/

ABOUT AAM

The non-partisan, non-profit Alliance for American Manufacturing is a labor-management partnership between the United Steelworkers and major manufacturers, including Pennsylvania-based United States Steel Corporation and Allegheny Technologies. 
#####

  According to the latest Labor Department report, U.S. jobs declined by 80,000 in March, the biggest drop in five years.  The U.S. manufacturing sector alone lost 48,000 jobs.

AAM’s Scott Paul said:  “America shed another 48,000 manufacturing jobs in March.  Since 2001, we’ve lost more than 3.5 million of these good-paying jobs.  The ripple effects are being felt in communities across our nation in the form of strained local budgets, record numbers receiving food stamps, and an epidemic of foreclosures. 

“The largest challenge facing manufacturing today is our unbalanced trade relationship with China.  The U.S. racked up a record $256 billion trade deficit with China last year.  Since 2001, our trade deficit with China is responsible for more than 1.8 million lost jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute.  Yet Washington stands by and does nothing.  Congress and the Administration do not seem prepared to seriously address this job crisis by cracking down on China’s subsidies, dumping, and currency manipulation.  They should, before it is too late.”

##
 

  ManufactureThis was doing some clothes shopping in Pittsburgh recently and happened into an American Apparel store.  The two pairs of sweatpants we selected cost $36 each.  This was a surprising price tag, but as the cash register person pithily explained, “These pants were made in America.”

In fact, the pants were made in Los Angeles.  American Apparel is based in L.A. and stitches its clothes there in a “vertically integrated” warehouse operation.  The company makes a point of paying its workers well, a cost reflected in their slightly higher than average prices.  The company’s website states that their average factory worker with experience earns “about $25,000/yr (i.e. $12/hr, well over twice the federal minimum),” and is eligible for “company-subsidized, affordable health insurance ($8/week, $1-3/week for children).”

In addition to a living wage, the company prides itself on “significant brand awareness and a cult status worldwide.”  While the price tag may be slightly higher, American Apparel’s products are intended to be both fashionable and durable—an offshoot of their hip L.A. reputation.

In a surprise move, the company hopes to expand their reputation and operations by attempting to sell their products in China.  They believe that a chic American label can appeal to Chinese consumers.

In today’s Los Angeles Times, American Apparel’s CEO Dov Charney noted that “It’s more efficient and less expensive to source from one country than from multiple sites, as many other companies do.”  Charney said that importing products from a collection of nations involves more headaches and costs.  And so, for American Apparel, “Made in the USA becomes a competitive advantage,” one he hopes to promote internationally.

With regard to stores in Beijing, Charney noted that sales clerks would earn hourly wages exceeding the U.S. minimum of $5.85—more than some Chinese workers earn in a day.  The company simply believes in “knowing the faces of our workers and providing them the opportunity to make a fair wage.”

It remains to be seen how such a reverse move to China will work, but some industry experts suggest that because American Apparel’s clothes are actually made in America, they might attract a following among some consumers in China—gaining “cachet to young fashion-oriented Chinese.”

The company’s concern for worker rights and fair trade puts an unusual spin on relations with Beijing.  If anything, their lofty ambitions highlight China’s lack of labor and safety standards as well as opaque trade practices and outright cheating.  If American Apparel can go to Beijing and promise to pay Chinese workers a living wage, why are the Chinese allowed to continue their wanton violation of international trade law as well as human rights violations?

America’s politicians should have answers for those questions.

##