Posted on 09/01/2003 12:33:45 PM PDT by sixmil
On a rain-soaked Labor Day trip to a factory training center, Bush said he had directed Commerce Secretary Don Evans to establish an assistant position to focus "on the needs of manufacturers." Keeping factory jobs is critical to a broader economic recovery, the president said, his outdoor venue ringed by cranes, backhoes and bulldozers.
Bush said the nation has lost "thousands of jobs in manufacturing." In fact, the losses have soared into the millions: Of the 2.7 million jobs the U.S. economy has lost since the recession began in early 2001, 2.4 million were in manufacturing. The downturn has eliminated more than one in 10 of the nation's factory jobs.
The president attributed the erosion to productivity gains and to jobs flowing to cheaper labor markets overseas. He suggested that jobs moving to foreign shores was his primary reason for creating the new manufacturing czar.
"One way to make sure that the manufacturing sector does well is to send a message overseas, (to) say, look, we expect there to be a fair playing field when it comes to trade," Bush said.
"See, we in America believe we can compete with anybody, just so long as the rules are fair, and we intend to keep the rules fair," Bush said, his audience of workers and supporters cheering.
Bush administration officials believe one way to spark the economy and deal with the bloated trade deficit is for other countries to remove trade barriers. That would allow U.S. companies to more freely do business in overseas markets, boosting America's global competitiveness. The nation's trade deficit ran at an annual rate of $488.5 billion for the first six months of this year, heading for another record.
Congress approved pacts with Singapore and Chile earlier this year, and the administration says it now is striving for an agreement for all of Central America.
Bush did not name the new manufacturing official, and gave no timetable for offering a nomination to the Senate. Nor did he specify what duties the new post would include.
He spent most of his speech expressing empathy for anxious workers, and wiping rain from his head, which became thoroughly drenched despite his union hat.
"I want you to understand that I understand that Ohio manufacturers are hurting, that there's a problem with the manufacturing sector," Bush said. "I understand that for a full recovery, to make sure people can find work, that manufacturing must do better," Bush said.
Ohio lost 185,000 jobs during the recession from 2001 through last March, nearly two-thirds in manufacturing, according to a study released Sunday by a private economic think tank.
Politics loomed large in Bush's 11th trip to Ohio — a state he carried in 2000, and one where he also spent the July Fourth holiday.
Monday, Bush brought along his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, for the half-day trip to address the International Union of Operating Engineers, which represents 400,000 construction and maintenance workers in the United States and Canada.
Bush has tried to woo some trade and industrial unions, which tend to be more conservative than public and service sector unions. The Operating Engineers union is among the largest labor donors to Republicans, contributing 16 percent of its $1.3 million to the GOP in 2002, and its president, Frank Hanley, has appeared at several previous events with Bush.
The White House chose politically friendly territory for the event. Although surrounding communities tilt Democrat, Richfield leans Republican. Bush's motorcade route took him along stately homes in an affluent neighborhood, and clusters of supporters waved signs backing the president.
His crowd applauded when Bush argued that two rounds of tax cuts had kept the recession shallow and had helped spur factory jobs.
Democrats said the tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest taxpayers and have sent the deficit spiraling to $480 billion for next year, while doing little to jump-start the economy. "I hope his tour of the state will include the empty factories and bankrupt corporations," said Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news, bio, voting record), one of nine Democrats vying to challenge Bush. The Labor Day trip marked Bush's first public appearance since he returned Saturday from a monthlong stay on his ranch in Crawford, Texas. It kicks off a burst of heavy travel in the 15 months leading up to Election Day. Bush still had Crawford on his mind as he addressed the operating engineers. "We need a little rain in Crawford," he told an audience shielding itself with rain slickers and garbage bags. "Send it that way, if you don't mind."
It seems the definitions have been changed. "The redefinition of computer output was a crucial factor in driving the manufacturing revival of the late 1990s. . . Without the quality imputations to the real value of computers, this increase in the manufacturing share [of GDP] would not have been measured."
Gordon R. Richards, NAM testifing before the Subcommittee on the Census Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives On The quality of GDP data, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/about/test-grr.pdf
On can argue the significance in terms of, Well it's manufacturing ain't it? But it's misleading and confusing vis-a-vis traditional manufacturing of widgits. My guess is that the official of NAM I cited in a prior post is right about job loss and loss of capacity in traditional manufacturing while Mr. Linbaugh and Mr. Reynolds for whatever their reasons are less than truthful.
I'll defer to the experts but it seems to me there's more here than just a "constant" percent of GDP "proves" no one has lost a job and no manufacturing capacity has been lost.
And, no, 4/5 of all new business starts do not, nor ever have, failed. The % is about 50, and always has been. But what is different today is that new starts are typically very small and stay that way to get out of regulations and taxes---they are called "micro businesses" and they are the fastest growing share of the U.S. business population (5 employees or less). Typically these employ a couple of family members or "consultants" who do not get health or taxes paid for them, but who can make pretty good money.
And they are a significant share of the jobs "lost" that actually haven't disappeared, but have transformed.
That statement is so ridiculous. It is the statement of a man who does not work in manufacturing. It is the statement of a man who doesn't have a clue. BTW the Arabs and Japs couldn't tow our land back to Japan and Saudi Arabia. The Chinese, Mexicans and Indian have got our factories now. And we paid for them.
Rush is right. We are not exporting toymaking/trinket making jobs to China. Period.
Your statements are so convoluted I can't make heads or tails of them. What side of this issue are you on? You are right we are not exporting toy/trinket making jobs. We are exporting heavy industry. When we ordered an injection mold that we couldn't make in house from a tool making firm in Ohio, it arrived from CHINA. That was a wake up call. When practically all the mills and machine tools are made in China that is a wake up call. All our castings come from China (and they are beautiful). (The Indian castings were for shit.) Our steel . . . . (China and Japan) Electronics (Malaysia).
Fine. Explain to me when these jobs "came back."
People were layed off in 91 - 92 because of demand. The factories were still here. The factories are in China, India, and Mexico now. These jobs are not coming back period.
Most of these people gave up on getting a good job and work in the "service sector" now. That is why the rates went down.
Yeah from high paying manufacturing jobs that were creating wealth into burger flipping, insurance selling, car detailing, gutter cleaning, lawn care jobs. Sheesh you are clueless if you think this is good.
Nothing big government here. Big government is big spending. Big spending is what leads to big taxing. I would never have a tax increase without cutting another tax at least as much.
We know that trade surpluses are bad in the long term. It's inefficient; just look at Japan and Germany. We are now starting to admit the trade deficits have their problems, unemployment and wage erosion to name a couple. What I am suggesting is to find a happy medium with the advantages of both. Have a control system where the tariff rate floats in order to keep as close to possible to 0% trade deficit/surplus.
I don't get why it is natural for a rich country to import more (as a percentage). Can it not produce enough to supply itself? That would be a weird argument since we currently feed a large portion of the world.
A tariff consists of a tax on domestic consumers, by the way.
An indirect tax for most people. It's certainly a lot easier than paying the income tax, and a lot less frequent. Something has to be taxed, and tariffs are a lot easier to deal with.
Thanks for the article. I have read some Limbaugh, but he is much better on the topic of law, instead of policy. Here is where his argument broke down for me:
"Buyers of such products would have extra money to spend on other things. The demand for other items would go up, as would employment in enterprises producing those items. Of course, it would take time to absorb the now unemployed steelworkers. However, to balance that effect, workers in other industries who had been unemployed would find jobs available. There need be no net loss of employment, and there would be a gain in output because workers no longer needed to produce steel would be available to produce something else."
Up to this point he was talking facts, now he is injecting theory which sounds logical. But the reality is that steel workers did not become software engineers. Maybe a couple did, but their jobs just got shipped off to India, or a Chinese national was imported to do their job instead. I know you guys are supply siders, but what about demand? It is the other half of the equation. Where is demand when you have perpetual unemployent?
Give the people that import so much stuff the same deal they have had in the past...a 35-40% corporate income tax rate.
For those who source from the US, give them a 15-20% corporate income tax rate.
Its a tax cut.
You gonna complain about that too???
Definately deserving of a BUMP.
WTO, particularly Doha is nothing more than welfare.
Its sickening.
I want to see (not just hear noise) some action. I want to see action that will bite large corporate special interests in the ass...
A Mr. Faryar Shirzad is already the head of the agency with the [empty] slogan of "Safeguarding American Industries and Jobs against Unfair Trade"
What in the hell new is going to come of all this? Not a damn thing I don't think. Looks a bit like ass kissing with no real substance to me.
I hope I am wrong.
We need policy shifts, not retraining or studies. I want GW to do something that Wal Mart really won't like (for once).
I'm going to challenge you with this once, and only once, and if you can't answer it, then you have an obligation to shut up: WHEN DID THESE "JOBS" APPEAR?
1) During the late 1970s, in the Carter "malaise," when steel and autos shed more than 2 million jobs getting competitive?
2) In the Reagan years when the only tariffs we had were on Harley-Davidson competitors, SOME Japanese cars for about 3 years, and/or semiconductors? (BTW, we lost our entire semiconductor manufacturing during that time---with no ill result, because our people moved into the more VALUE-ADDED design and software development. Today, semiconductor mfg. is negligible as a share of computer value).
3) In the Clinton years, when taxes were increased and under NAFTA?
Ya'see, dude, there is Grand-Canyon-sized gap in your argument: if we have "lost" manufacturing jobs (we haven't), when did we HAVE them? If they existed, it was due to the "wonderful" Carter policies, or to the free trade of Clinton, or to the relatively tariff-free (high-deficit) Reagan years. Which is it? And you can't go before 1976, because we went into a BIG recession, where we LOST JOBS.
Now, as for "burger flippers," this argument gets old. I guess you don't consider software designers, architects, professors, lab technicians, chemists, biologists, robotics designers, high-tech service workers of ANY sort to have "good" jobs, because these are all "service" jobs. Yet, surprise, surprise, they are the very jobs that ADD ALL THE VALUE to the economy, NOT "manufacturing." Manufacturing accounts for less than 3% of a given piece of software, for example; design, more than 10%. And yes, I think this is VERY good, because we control all the design, all the content, most of the world's software market, virtually everything EXCEPT the meaningless chip production, which is the cheapest, least-value-added part of the process.
Then all those stories about the auto and steel workers being laid off were false?
The proposal is a cut and ONLY a cut. It would be a real rate and real dollar lowering of the current tax rates on corporations.
I would probably tailor it up a little bit, but by and large the corporations that import so much stuff will be left then as they are now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.