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.

##

Check out my blog on the Huffington Post for some analysis of the CNN/YouTube candidates debate on Monday night. 

This afternoon, I’ll be headed up to the Senate Commerce Committee to testify at a hearing on the U.S. trade relationship with China.  You can check out my testimony here.

Tonight the Democratic candidates will meet at a debate sponsored by CNN, YouTube and the South Carolina Democratic Party.  The debate is drawing a lot of attention in part because of its interesting and perhaps unpredictable format:  the candidates will respond to video questions posted on YouTube.

 Do you think there’s a chance that the candidates will be asked to respond to any questions on manufacturing or trade?  Hard to tell based on the nearly 3,000 entries.  I saw questions submitted on China, NAFTA, plant closings and more. 

 What question would you like to pose the candidates?

 I’ll be blogging tomorrow about the debate and a Senate hearing at which I’ll be testifying on Wednesday.  Stay tuned!

While millions of American will be celebrating on the Fourth of July with parades, fireworks and picnics, we should know that the free market in which we live is not truly free, nor does it enhance the freedoms we enjoy as citizens. 

On Independence Day, take a look at the labels on your bikes, fireworks, grills and even your food, and consider what the future holds for this nation.

Blind faith in the free market has resulted in unsafe consumer products from China on our dinner plates, in our tubes of toothpaste and in our pet’s food dishes. 

It has produced millions of layoff notices for manufacturing workers in our factories. 

It has delayed getting domestically-made armor plating to protect our soldiers in Iraq. 

And it has piled up record trade deficits, leaving America with a debt that will limit the opportunities for our children.

This isn’t a rant against trade.  On the contrary, it’s a plea for trade that truly benefits everyone:  workers, producers, consumers and investors. 

It’s a plea for accountability and for enforcing the existing laws we do have to guarantee safe products and the opportunity for workers and producers in America to compete with those abroad.

Now that the issues of pending free trade agreements and presidential fast-track trade authority have been settled in Congress, the debate about a new trade policy needs to begin among our presidential candidates. 

I’d love to hear just one question at a presidential debate about trade and manufacturing from Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer or Chris Matthews. 

But I’m not holding my breath.  You are more likely to hear a question about Paris Hilton’s jail time than anything focusing on our economic future.

Fortunately, some groups are finding ways to burst through this blockade. 

The United Steelworkers are hosting a presidential candidates’ forum on trade and manufacturing in Cleveland on July 5 and 6. 

And Stand Up For Steel is urging all those candidates who will be in Iowa on July 4 to consider the consequences of our flawed trade policies.  Check out the amazing ad here.

The point of the ad should resonate with citizens on Independence Day. 

The American people have become all too aware of the limitations that dependency on foreign sources of energy creates for foreign policy and national security purposes; it makes no sense to exacerbate that problem by depending on China and other nations to supply our critical defense needs. 

Just as our nation is seeking to achieve energy independence from the Middle East, we also should avoid becoming more dependent on others to supply our national and homeland defense needs. 

Our Founding Fathers were visionaries.  They shaped policies not only for their time, but for generations to come.

All of us would profit if we could only harness that wisdom today.

An interesting piece from the Financial Times last week:

China heads for top of manufacturing league
By Peter Marsh

China will take over the role as the world’s largest manufacturer from the US by 2020, but the US’s position in the global league table of manufacturers will remain surprisingly strong, according to Global Insight, a Washington-based economics consultancy.

Its forecast that the US will keep its share of global manufacturing output above 20 per cent, at least until 2024, goes against the widespread feeling, at least in the US, that the country is losing ground rapidly.

The US share of global manufacturing output will fall to 22.2 per cent by 2020 from 25.5 per cent last year. By 2020, China’s share will rise to 22.4 per cent, from 12.1 per cent in 2006.

 ManufactureThis wants to know what you think.  Is America #1 in manufacturing?  Where will we be in 2020?

ManufactureThis was thrilled to have Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Rep. Phil English (R-PA), Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-IA) and Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH), as well as congressional staff from many offices join us on Tuesday evening for our Capitol Hill launch of “Enforcing the Rules,” AAM’s new DVD and book that argue for strengthening and deploying our trade laws. 

Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH) addresses AAM’s Capitol Hill event. 

Greg Mastel, one of the study’s co-authors, introduced the DVD.   Everyone agreed on the importance of our trade laws and the economic benefits they bring to communities across our nation. 

The study explains in understandable terms why our trade laws are so important.  And the DVD, in under 11 minutes, puts a human face on the issue. 

If you would like a copy of the DVD, book, or both, write us at info@aamfg.org.  We look forward to hearing from you.

The second U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue gets underway nets week. Already, forces supporting the status quo are making their case for more of the same. Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi penned an editorial, “It’s a Win-Win on U.S.-China Trade” in the WSJ today warning against stronger enforcement of trade laws. Regrettablly, she cites evidence that only tells half the story.

ManufactureThis thinks the U.S. $235 billion trade deficit with China is unacceptable. We believe China should abide by all the commitments it made in 2001 when it joined the WTO and was granted additional access to U.S. markets. Those commitments include ending many types of subsidies, opening China’s domestic market to more U.S. goods and following the rules of trade that prohibit below-cost dumping into our market.

What do you thin? More of the same, or insist that China honor the commitments it made?

Many of you may have read Ben Bernanke’s speech on trade today in Butte, Montana.  I have enormous respect for the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and for his insights into the economy.  But I’m very disappointed that he fell into three very easy traps for policymakers, journalists, and others trying to frame the trade debate.

First, what’s with the name calling?  Highly-skilled American workers and efficient businesses trying to sell their products – but face: (1) competitors who are unfairly and illegally subsidized through currency manipulation and other means, (2) illegal barriers to selling their goods abroad, or (3) both — are not “economic isolationists.” 

These enterprises are not seeking protection or isolation—they are desperately calling for accountability and being given the same opportunity to compete in the global marketplace. When American manufacturers follow the rules and their competitors don’t, that’s not free trade—it’s trade crime. 

We need to have an honest debate about whether or not current trade rules and globalization are really working to the benefit of America that doesn’t resort to distortions and mischaracterizations. (Perhaps we should start calling Ben Bernanke and his colleagues “soft on trade crime.”) 

Second, when framing the trade debate, it’s important to draw on a variety of sources of information from different perspectives.  One look at the biography and footnotes sections of the Chairman’s speech demonstrates that his mind was already made up. 

There really is a serious academic and economic debate about the costs and benefits of globalization and trade; that debate was not reflected in any way in his speech.  Many distinguished scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and financial and business leaders have raised doubts about some of our current policies.

Third, avoid using overstated estimates, such as those included in the speech on the “consumer effects” of free trade.  We’ve lost more than 3.2 million manufacturing jobs, racked up a $764 billion trade deficit and accumulated a running current account debt that places a dangerous drag on our GDP.  The next generation will bear these enormous costs if we don’t make dramatic changes. 

The very modest “consumer effects” that result from many kinds of illegally dumped imports are more than offset by the loss of income, business activity and profits suffered by domestic manufacturers, according to new research done for AAM that will be released later this month.

The L.A. Times on Monday had this compelling story of the people of Lorain, Ohio (population 68,000), who are trying their hardest to weather an economic crisis. 

Much of the auto industry in Lorain has packed up and left, and the town is feeling the effects.  Ted Kalo, a county commissioner there, summed up the damage for the article:

“The number of orthodontists in town dwindled to two. Furniture shops closed, as did clothing boutiques, hair salons and day spas. Kalo said his family’s carpet and flooring business watched its sales fall by half as residents scaled back on home-improvement projects.

“In a town whose official moniker is the International City, residents said it used to be no big deal to get Thai food. Now you have to drive nearly 10 miles to Elyria, Ohio. Sushi? Indian? Get in the car and head to Cleveland.

“More than half of the two-story brick storefronts along the city’s downtown stretch of Broadway Avenue sit abandoned and boarded up. A florist across the street from Kalo’s shop left three months ago.”

Why did this happen?  There is no easy explanation.  But a combination of health care and retirement costs, currency rate manipulation and other unfair trade practices, along with energy issues has contributed to the hemorrhage of manufacturing jobs here.  When manufacturers go out of business, the ripple effects can be devastating. 

We’ve always said that manufacturing means more.  More jobs.  More opportunities.  More hope.  More choices.  We’re rooting for the people of Lorain.  But we’re doing more than that.  Americans need to know how much is riding on the future of manufacturing.  We intend to tell them.

While the Democratic candidates for President had a serious and detailed discussion on a number of important issues last night, they didn’t mention one key issue - manufacturing. In the 90 minute debate, the word “manufacturing” was not uttered once, even though it’s the largest sector of the economy of South Carolina, where the debate was held.

I’m not blaming the candidates or Brian Williams for the omission. The burden falls on all of us who care about not only manufacturing, but also American workers and companies, and the economic future of this country.

Next time, let’s make sure someone uses the “M” word.