From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JUNE 2009

Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in June (-467,000), and the unemployment rate was little changed at 9.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Job losses were widespread across the major industry sectors, with large declines occurring in manufacturing, professional and business services, and construction.

As for manufacturing:

Employment in manufacturing fell by 136,000 over the month and has declined by 1.9 million during the recession. Within the durable goods industry, motor vehicles and parts (-27,000), fabricated metal products (-18,000), computer and electronic products (-16,000), and machinery (-14,000) continued to lose jobs in June. Since the recession began, employment in motor vehicles and parts has declined by 335,000, or about one-third.

Associated Press, “Obama: More work needed to create new jobs”

Be not discouraged. Washington Post, “Federal Agencies Could Add 120,000 Area Jobs”

Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources Inc., a leading advocate of reforming the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, enthusiastically endorses the NAM CPSC Coalition’s renewed request for a one-year stay of the CPSIA’s product tracking label requirements:

In its letter, NAM called the lack of CPSC implementing guidance on tracking labels “an unconscionable dilemma for industry”. The tracking labels fiasco creates enormous burdens for industry and is in many ways pointless and unjustifiable. See my earlier posts (here, here, here and here) on this topic and my testimony before the CPSC for background (here and here). To allow this provision to stand, without having given ANY guidance or answered ANY of the legitimate and appropriate questions of industry, would be shamefully irresponsible of the CPSC Commission. [Unfortunately, Congress seems immune to shame when it comes to the CPSIA and will not act to delay this provision. As its leaders will tell you, Congress has already acted with great "common sense".] The notion that it is okay to induce widespread economic convulsions as part of some kind of jolly “learning process” must be REJECTED.

If Rick comes across as exercised, frustrated and angry, well, thousands of manufacturers — including many, many small, home-based business owners — are similarly besides themselves. When Congress passes a law that puts you out of business and then pretends there’s not a problem, frustration and anger seem like a reasonable reaction.

From (our new favorite) the Consumer Advertising Law Blog, “FTC Prepares to Crackdown on Conflicts of Interest in the Blogosphere“:

Controversy is brewing over whether the FTC will exercise its enforcement discretion and go after bloggers for violations of the current testimonial guides or the revised testimonial guides once they are approved (likely later this summer). The issue is whether a blogger who is compensated by a manufacturer should disclose the connection when recommending the product. The compensation can be in the form of cash, advertising dollars or products, such as a free computer or a free vacation. Does compensation in any form affect the bias of the blogger such that a failure to disclose violates Section 5? Should the concern be limited to cases of cash payment but not free product? Does it depend on the total value of the compensation, whatever the form?

Conflict of interest for bloggers, eh? And if the FTC has the power to regulate that, well…

From Politico, “Washington Post sells access, $25,000+“:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — is a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

In light of the arrival of new CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, the National Association of Manufacturers and the CPSC Coalition have submitted another request for an emergency, one-year stay of enforcement of Section 103 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) which requires a new tracking label for children’s products made on or after August 14, 2009.

A request was first made on March 24, 2009, but on May 13 the two-member Consumer Product Safety Commission split one/one on the emergency stay. (Commissioner Nord voted yes, Commissioner Moore no.)

From the CPSC Coalition letter (copy here):

The Section 103 tracking labels provision is a novel manufacturing requirement in the United States and has raised legitimate questions about implementation, feasibility and the breadth of application. The lack of guidance or implementing rules has created an unconscionable dilemma for industry. Taking action now will provide the Commission, industry, and other product safety stakeholders time to work together to develop an orderly approach to this new requirement, maximizing the prospects for a tracking label system to be both useful and cost-effective for all stakeholders and minimizing the possibility of yet another economic crisis.

In Chairman Tenenbaum’s confirmation hearing testimony, she emphasized the importance of guidance in making sure the CPSIA worked effectively. But right there is nothing to guide manufacturers or retailers in implementing the tracking label requirements. Even if the CPSC produces the greatest guidance ever drafted within the next month, it will be impossible for business to put into place.

Chairman Tenenbaum can demonstrate her belief in the value and seriousness of CPSC guidance by voting to provide the necessary time, a one-year stay.

Regarding the Institute for Supply Management’s June report on manufacturing:  Today’s report indicates that the manufacturing recession could end sometime in the second half of the year.

The fact that the overall PMI index improved for a sixth consecutive month in June is significant.  After bottoming out at 32.9 last December, the PMI Index rose to a level of 44.8 in June, still shy of the break-even point of 50, which signals that the manufacturing sector is expanding. 

And while it has yet to break into positive territory, positive developments, especially over the past few months, mirror similar improvements in other regional surveys of manufacturing activity throughout the second quarter.

The fact that the ISM’s measure of manufacturing production rose into positive territory in June for the first time since last August is noteworthy.  And, while there have been significant improvements in both overall orders, as well as export orders, over the first half of the year, the fact that both continued to contract last month signals that a general upturn in manufacturing activity in the second half will likely be gradual.

From The Examiner, taken aback (as were we) by the President’s recent remarks holding up California as a model of energy conservation and economic leadership. From today’s editorial, “California here we come“:

While promoting his new cap-and-trade energy tax bill, which passed the U.S. House last week, President Obama revealed in a White House address on Monday his model for the nation’s economy - California. “In the late 1970s, the state of California enacted tougher energy-efficiency policies,” Obama said, noting that the state and its residents use less energy today per capita than the national average. “Think about that,” he said, “California producing jobs, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the country and yet they’ve been able to maintain their energy usage in a much lower level than the rest of the country.”

Obama might want to rethink his choice of a model state because it is easy to understand how California has curbed its energy use. Between 2000 and 2007, before the current recession, the state shed nearly 21 percent of its manufacturing jobs, driving down its industrial electrical consumption by 21 percent. California’s industrial users pay electric rates twice as high as their Midwestern counterparts - which helps explain why so much heavy industry has fled the state. In addition to alienating its industry, California has also curbed energy use through exorbitant residential electric rates (50 percent higher than the national average) and massive net out-migration. Between 2005 and 2007, 2.14 million Californians moved to other states, while only 1.44 million people from elsewhere moved to the Golden State, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

California’s state leaders failed to get a budget in place for the start of the new fiscal year, and state employees may soon be paid in IOUs.

There’s a news peg for the White House press corps to ask a question of Mr. Gibbs today: “Earlier this week President Obama held California up as a model of energy and economic leadership. California is some $20 billion in the red, failed to get a budget in place for the new fiscal year, and is going to issue IOUs instead of paychecks. In what way does the President regard California as leader?”

Many manufacturers and NAM member companies have been disappointed by the slow and weak impact the stimulus measure — which the NAM supported — has had on the economy. (See this post.) The goal was both immediate stimulus (a la shovel-ready) AND dollars spent on investments that would strengthen U.S. competitiveness, especially infrastructure.

Now MSNBC provides some numbers that affirm the manufacturers’ dissatisfaction:

Of the $478 billion in direct spending (the rest is mostly tax cuts), the Congressional Budget Office figures only about $150 billion will be available this year.

Of that money, some agencies have done at lot better than others at writing checks. The Social Security Administration — which knows a thing or two about writing checks — has spent all $13 billion of its stimulus budget for this year. About three-quarters of the $21.5 billion allocated to Health and Human Services has been spent. And the Agriculture Department has processed about two-thirds of the $3.2 billion it has available this year.

But it seems that other agencies are having a harder time getting the money out the door. As of mid-June, for example, spending by the Transportation Deptartment for so-called “shovel ready” projects represented barely 2 percent of available funds. The EPA has barely touched its $4.4 billion in stimulus spending. Same for the Defense Department.

So spending with minimal stimulus and little if anything to enhance U.S. competitiveness. Sure. Bring on Stimulus II!

(Hat tip: Jonah Goldberg, who writes today on the primacy of pork.)

To our Canadian friends, Happy Dominion Day!

To Walter Olson, happy 10th anniversary of Overlawyered.com, the Web’s single most effective puncher-of-holes in the excesses of the litigation industry.

UPDATE (1:20 p.m.): Back from the Canadian Embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue, the nicest piece of real estate in Washington. That’s Ambassador Michael Wilson talking about the U.S.-Canada alliance, partnership, amity.

Dignitaries took a moment to honor the memory of Arthur Erickson, the architect of the Embassy Building. Erickson died May 20th at the age of 84.

If you’re out and about over the Independence Day holiday — attending a Fourth of July parade, perhaps — and you spot a member of Congress, be sure to let him or her know why the Employee Free Choice Act will harm employers, employees and the right NOT to be unionized.

Here’s an NAM-produced video about EFCA, including the voices of workers who think EFCA is a bad, bad idea.

Thanks to the NAM’s Matt Preiss and James Skelly for producing the video.

We took note last week of Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks to the political and legislative conference of the Communications Workers of America, checking to see what he had to say about the Employee Free Choice Act. (Transcript.)

Amid the expected exhortation, one phrase jumped out when the Vice President attacked union opponents generally and the Bush-era National Labor Relations Board specifically for being biased against union organizers.

You know, the National Labor Relations Act says we should “encourage” – paraphrase – “encourage” unions, not mandate them, encourage them. Why? It’s good for the economy. It’s gotten lopsided, folks.

The guys who were supposed to be wearing striped shirts have been wearing black shirts the last eight years. We don’t have referees out there doing it the right way. We’re switching out the shirts, because we’re switching out the people wearing the shirts.

Black shirts? Black shirts? That’s the term used to describe the Italian paramilitary squads and bully boys who helped Mussolini’s rise to power after WWI. (Oswald Mosely’s fascists in England were also known by the term.) If you call someone a “black shirt” you’re calling him a fascist.

We chalked the use of the term up to rhetorical haste, a confusion of black hats — bad guys — and striped shirts — referees. True, you would think someone with vast foreign policy experience would be sensitive to a term like black shirt. Still, a mistake.

But the Vice President has used the term in other speeches to union groups. It’s obviously part of his stump union speech. At some point he or his speech writer said, “Yeah, black shirts. That’s good. Put that in.”

From Vice President Biden’s remarks to the 2009 Legislative Conference Of The American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, May 12, 2009:

There has been a steady drumbeat. The guys wearing striped shirts were wearing black shirts, not striped shirts as referees. They’ve done anything administratively, legislatively and creatively for someone who wants to join a union to join a union.

Black shirts AND drumbeats.