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."
Would like a reposting or a link to the article a few weeks back about Bush offering "assurances" to India to help keep the outsourcing rolling along...haven't been able to turn it up as yet on search. Will keep trying.
Thanks for setting me straight. I really got off track thinking we need manufacturing.
It would help you a great deal to confront this, because your options are they came either in the Reagan years (no protection on 99% of American manufacturing); or in the Clinton years (NAFTA); or in the Carter depression.
To "lose" jobs, they had to come from somewhere. When did they "come?"
WOW things are great after all. I must be imagining all the Chinese lettering in the recieving department!
As to your question again. The normal business cycle will have jobs created and lost. What is happening is not a normal business cycle. There have been uptrends but ONLY A MORON WOULD THINK THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR IS DOING WELL. I don't know why I am arguing with you. You won't grasp the obvious. It is not good in the long term for factories to close here and open in China. If you can't see that. . . . . . . .
The difference in the recieving dock in the past ten years is unbelievable and it represents lost jobs.
when did the manufacturing jobs in this country "come." If they "left," when did they come? What decade? When did mfg. GROW? This is a very simple concept. Instead of answering, you want to go off on a tangent.
Answer the question.
You maintain we are "losing" manufacturing jobs. OK, for us to have "lost" jobs, when did all these jobs appear? Just give me a decade. When did we have massive manufacturing job growth since 1970?
This is critical because if you say that all these manufacturing jobs came in the Carter years, you must then credit the extremely high taxes of the Carter years. Therefore, I assume your "solution" to job loss is to raise taxes.
If you say the job growth occurred in the Reagan years (which is what I say) then you have a problem, because Reagan cut taxes, and had almost NO protective tariffs on anything. (Briefly, on Harleys, briely on some cars---never on computers or high tech, which was the most rapidly growing sector, or on steel, which lost jobs).
If you say that the job growth occurred during the Clinton years, then you must credit NAFTA, which I don't think you want to do.
There is a fourth alternative that I know you don't want to face: we might not have EVER changed our share of mfg. jobs since 1950.
We haven't had massive manufacturing growth since the early 40's. However we have never had OUR OWN INDUSTRY fleeing the country at ever increasing rates like we see today. I see the results at work daily. I don't care what Rush's one study says. We have serious problems.
Good luck and believe what you want.
You mean when we had a trade surplus we had less manufacturing?
They came during the 40's, they are leaving NOW.
Because there was nothing else happening in the 1940s except the war. Inflation was at a near-all-time high; there WAS no real "civilizan" production until about 1947 (see Robert Higg's study), and we had worldwide captive markets, because no one else had any industry left. Is that your idea of a healthy U.S. or even healthy world economy?
Or do you advocate a major war? Either way, this is pure Keynesianism: Government spends money, jobs "get created." (Which, of course, is false.)
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.