“Don’t ask, don’t tell” seems to have taken on new meaning when it comes to the presidential debates. In the more than 500 questions that have been posed to the presidential candidates in both parties in five debates since late April, only two – yes that’s two – questions have related to the economy, jobs, manufacturing and/or international trade.

According to our friends at The Gallup Poll, the Economy (including jobs) ranks as the #3 top concern among voters, behind #1 Iraq and #2 National Security. So expecting the candidates to talk about these issues isn’t out of the question.

After the first debate on April 27 included no mention or discussion of manufacturing, jobs or the economy, ManufactureThis began calling on the candidates to tell us how they plan to address the immense challenges facing manufacturing; tell us how they plan to tackle the angst so many Americans are feeling about their economic security these days; and yes, tell us how they plan to take on the continuing challenge of holding China and other trading partners accountable when they don’t follow the rules and undercut American producers and workers.

In all, the candidates have talked about these issues for less than five minutes in the five debates. BUT the candidates can’t tell us anything, if they’re not asked about the issues – remember, one of the debate ground rules is to stick to the topic you’re asked about. And, only two questions out of more than 500 have been related to the economy.

We do know the candidates are talking about these issues on the stump. We’ve seen press coverage of it (for example click here and here). So, the candidates at least know that the economy, trade and jobs are a top concern for Americans.

And, MT isn’t the only one who’s noticing the absence of the economy in the debate discussions. In the past two days, both the Detroit News and the Atlanta Journal Constitution have made many of the same points MT has been making.

Please, please, please Tavis Smiley or Ruben Navarette or Michel Martin or DeWayne Wickman (who will all be questioning the Democratic candidates on June 28) ASK the candidates about the economy, jobs and trade, so they can TELL us what they plan to do about these issues.

Be sure to check out Scott’s latest posting on The Huffington Post, in which he urges the presidential candidates in both parties to use the debates as a chance to talk about how they will address the angst Americans have over jobs, the economy and the challenges facing American manufacturing.

If you believe The Gallup Poll, the Economy rates #3 behind Iraq (#1) and Terrorism and National Security (#2). In fact, Gallup points out that half of Americans still believe the economy is getting worse, not better.

Yet last night’s debate among the Democratic presidential hopefuls offered little for viewers and voters on the economy. While the debate did seem to be more spirited than previous ones, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer didn’t ask any of the candidates about the economy and the angst Americans have over job loss and economic security.

The New York Times

Healthcare, which rates #6, according to Gallup, merited its own questions, giving the candidates a chance to offer general overviews of their healthcare proposals. Yes, healthcare is an important issue, one that is severely undermining the economic security of families and employers across the country. So, yes, ManufactureThis was happy to see the discussion.

Immigration, #5 according to Gallup, also was had its time on the stage, with questions coming from Blitzer…again, an important issue that deserves discussion.

Energy, #4 on Gallup’s list, also drew questions from Blitzer, mainly related to gas prices. Energy is definitely an important issue that needs to be discussed and debated among the candidates, as is Iraq and National Security.

Was it an error on Blizter’s part that the economy wasn’t asked about? Did he inadvertently, in the heat of the moment, skip over #3? When it came to the issues most important to voters, according to our trusted friends at Gallup, Blitzer asked about #1, #2, #4, #5 and #6, but NOT #3.

Debate organizers made note of the fact that they relaxed the rules to allow more free-flowing discussion, rather than limiting the candidates to 30- and 60-second sound bites. MT, though, thinks it may be time to impose a rule on the moderators of all upcoming debates – equal time for the issues that are of most concern to voters.

With New Hampshire holding the top spot on the list of states that has lost the largest share of its jobs as a result of the trade deficit with China – a deficit that exists due in large part to China’s refusal to follow the rules it agreed to – Blitzer had every reason to put the candidates on the spot about the economy, jobs and trade. He didn’t and MT feels it was not just a missed opportunity, but a disservice to viewers and voters.

With more debates coming up in the next few days, ManufactureThis is continuing to call on presidential candidates in both parties to tell voters how they plan to address the challenges facing American manufacturers and workers. The two debates – Democrats on Sunday night and Republicans on Tuesday night — will take place in New Hampshire, which gives the candidates all the more reason to talk about manufacturing:

• New Hampshire has lost more than 27,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000.
• According to a recent study, New Hampshire has lost 13,000 jobs across all sectors just because of the U.S. trade deficit with China alone. That amounts to 2.1 percent of the state’s total employment (the highest percentage of any state) in 2001, when China entered the WTO.

Clearly, the loss of a vital manufacturing base is an issue in New Hampshire, as it is across the country. It’s time we start hearing from the candidates on these issues. American workers and producers deserve a vigorous discussion and need to know how the candidates plan to protect and strengthen American manufacturing.

Well, from pretty much all directions, the reviews are in and this week’s U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue had disappointing results. As ManufactureThis predicted earlier this week, it was a polite exchange, a few pre-arranged agreements were touted and the real problems in the U.S.-China trade relationship, at best, were mentioned, but not addressed.

The Washington Post

What may be most disconcerting about this week’s talks is that Chinese delegation leader Vice Premier Wu Yi proclaimed the meeting “a complete success.” For China, maybe it was. This largest-ever Chinese delegation to the U.S. came, saw and talked; and now has left without conceding, or even in most cases acknowledging, the underlying problems of the predatory trading practices China continues to allow – dumping, subsidies, currency manipulation, an unwillingness to enforce basic workplace regulations.

Here in the U.S., some experts are advising “tread lightly” with China and predict a trade war may be eminent. However, as MT has discussed before, China needs the U.S. market, and China’s current trade practices, which are based on broken promises of free trade it agreed to in 2001 when it entered the WTO, risk hurting its country and its economy too.

MT certainly understands the delicacy of international negotiations. But the American workers and producers who stand to lose the most deserve more than “chit-chat diplomacy” and a “polite exchange” when it comes to China. They deserve progress and results, and we saw neither this week.

If you didn’t catch AAM’s Scott Paul on CNBC’s “Closing Bell” yesterday here is a little of what he had to say during a “roundtable” discussion that included China scholar Robert Kuhn:

“It’s very disappointing that the talks didn’t deal with any of the underlying structural problems of our trade relationship with China….We’re talking here about the agreements that China made to gain access to the U.S. market when it entered the WTO. It said it would stop subsidizing its industries, stop dumping its products, and appropriately regulate its industries. It’s broken virtually all of those promises.”

“We argue that if you actually counter China on its unfair trade practices, it’s going to respond and we’ll have a level playing field for our workers….We have trade rules on the books for a reason, to ensure our workers and producers have the same opportunities as their competitors overseas.” (click here for the full discussion)

Scott wasn’t the only one dissappointed. Much of today’s news coverage of the U.S.-China points out that Congressional leaders also feel there was a lack of progress.

In his CNBC appearance, Scott also pointed out the findings of the study AAM released this week - Enforcing the Rules - which found that the economic gains of enforcing trade laws outweigh by more than 50 times any so-called benefit from artificially low priced imports into the U.S.

The economic gains of enforcing U.S. trade laws outweigh by more than 50 times any so-called benefits of allowing artificially low priced goods into the U.S. market, according to a new study released today by the Alliance for American Manufacturing.

“Enforcing the Rules” is a first-of-its-kind look at the consequences of predatory trade practices, like dumping and subsideies, on workers, manufacturers and their communities, and emphasizes the economic benefit of enforcing U.S. trade laws.

A companion video produced by AAM goes on location with workers in the shrimp, steel and furniture industries to hear first hand the damage caused when our trading partners are allowed to break the rules.

Check out Scott Paul’s op-ed on this week’s U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue in The Huffington Post.

Syndicated columnists Steve and Cokie Roberts this weekend attempted to marginalize criticism of the recent trade agreement brokered by the White House and Congressional leaders by implying opposition to the proposal came primarily from the Labor community. Steve and Cokie in essence say Labor has its “head-in-the-sand view” when it comes to trade and is ignoring the benefits of trade:

“Add another point that labor leaders never mention: their members, like all American consumers, can buy more goods more cheaply, from sweaters to softballs, when they are made abroad.”

ManufactureThis wants Americans to have “cheap sweaters and softballs” too. But only if those products are not the result of subsidies intended to undercut U.S. producers. Furthermore, Steve and Cokie shouldn’t be surprised that neither Labor leaders nor any Americans would be very interested in giving a free ride to those who break the rules.

Americans — rural, suburban, Republican and Democrat, Labor activist and investor — are concerned about the inattention that American policymakers give to predatory trade tactics by many of our trading partners. Subsidies, currency manipulation, piracy and other barriers prevent Americans from having the benefits of free and open trade and yet they have to pay the price for the cheating of others.

Here’s a question that Steve and Cokie don’t address: Why go through the trouble of negotiating new agreements if we’re not going to enforce the rules on the existing ones? In fact, according to an AAM study out this week, when we do enforce our trade laws to combat predatory trade practices, the economic gains for Americans are substantial.

Steve and Cokie also suggest that the “losers” in free trade must accept their fate:

“But there are losers as well as winners, and any free trader must also support better education, smarter midcareer training and more generous benefits for workers who do lose their jobs to international competition.”

This conclusion leaves out a step. While welcoming international competition, ManufactureThis like most Americans, insists that those small businesses, employees, and American investors whose opportunities are uprooted because of predatory trading practices should not simply be dismissed as “losers.”  

Americans should have access to softballs and sweaters at the most economical price — and many of them also believe that before they endorse any new trade agreements, American policymakers should insist that the terms of the earlier agreements are adhered to.

The proposed agreement needs a thoughtful and thorough discussion, not one where those who raise questions or concerns are shut out or dismissed.

As you know, ManufactureThis has been urging the 2008 presidential candidates – both Democrats and Republicans – to tell Americans how they plan to address the challenges facing American manufacturing. Yesterday, several Democratic officeholders in Michigan, including the state’s two U.S. senators and governor, also joined the chorus, calling on their party’s candidates to step up to the plate and discuss plans to strengthen manufacturing.