There sure have been a lot of stories lately about the revival of manufacturing in the United States, examining the rise of productivity, investment and employment. Indeed, since the dark days of 2008, manufacturing has led the economic recovery and company leaders are generally optimistic.

Today’s front page of The Washington Post provides an example. The story is “The Rust Belt Shows Some Luster“:

NORTH CANTON, OHIO — More than 1,000 applicants began lining up this week outside a former Hoover vacuum plant here in the hopes of joining a surprising trend in this part of the nation’s manufacturing heartland: new jobs.

Come June, the plant will be churning out EdenPure space heaters, vacuums, air purifiers and other small appliances once made in China. The turnabout for this factory and scores of others across the long-suffering Rust Belt offers vivid evidence of a budding revival in American manufacturing that has been a key driver of the economic recovery.

The nation’s factories have added 250,000 jobs since the beginning of last year — about 13 percent of what was lost during the recent recession — marking the first sustained increase in manufacturing employment since 1997.

The Post provides a counterpoint: The jobs don’t pay as much as they used to, back in the halcyon days of American manufacturing. The photo gallery included with the online package tells the story: “There’s a surprising trend in the long-suffering manufacturing heartland: new jobs. But even so, the hiring reflects another emerging reality of U.S. manufacturing: Jobs don’t pay what they used to.”

Other recent examples of this trend story:

• The Economist, May 12, “Moving back to America: The dwindling allure of building factories offshore“
• Joel Kotkin, Forbes.com (blog), May 9, “Manufacturing Stages a Comeback“
• Financial Times, May 4, “US set to regain industrial crown“
• Financial Times, May 1, “America’s ‘rust belt’ states lead recovery“

Yes,  FT had the same story the Post did today more than two weeks ago, with both papers citing the same economist, Mark Perry of the University of Michigan in Flint (currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute). The Post’s story has more detail and local color, though. Nothing wrong with covering the same news.

Still, it makes us nervous to see so many articles pile up about manufacturing’s growing might.  It’s a trend story, the conventional wisdom, and it’s journalistic practice to follow up with rebuttals and popping of balloons. In political journalism, you build up a candidate’s reputation and prospects only to tear him down later. When do the backlash stories about manufacturing begin?

From The American, the online magazine of the American Enterprise Institute, “A Toxic Setback for the Anti-Plastic Campaigners“:

Advocacy groups targeting plastic products made with bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates took it on the chin last week.

A comprehensive review by the German Society of Toxicology of thousands of studies on BPA concluded, “[BPA] exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.” The group, which included several scientists who have advised regulatory caution on BPA, bucked calls by advocacy groups to lower safe exposure levels…

In reviewing what it called a long-running “scientific and journalistic controversy,” the panel urged the public to avoid being seduced by each and every provocative small-scale laboratory experiment on a handful of rats. “It is not helpful to count how many academic studies are positive versus negative and to decide by majority vote whether a health hazard has to be expected or not,” as the anti-BPA crowd and compliant media do as a matter of course. Science is not “majority feelings” win; it’s about “weight of evidence.”

Journalistic controversy is right. Consumer scares are the staple of today’s journalism, especially local TV news and the morning shows, which became avid consumers of hyped allegations made by self-interested activist groups (cheered on by trial lawyers).

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel , a good newspaper, mounted a journalistic campaign against the chemical, driving public policy and winning a Scripps Howard prize in the process. We haven’t seen the German study reported yet in the paper. Soon, we’re sure.

Yes, it’s old hat. There are many, many examples of “consumer activists,” trial lawyers and their political allies attacking the chemical du jour to win publicity, votes, lawsuits and journalistic prizes. But in doing so, they exaggerate risk, play on people’s fears, create a demand for more government (and less freedom), and deprive the consumer of safe, useful and affordable products that make life more pleasant. Look at the kind of foolishness this phenomenon produces, courtesy ABC Channel 7 News in Denver:

DENVER — If you’re the type who has a wallet or purse full of receipts, you might want to throw them out. They could have the chemical Bisphenol A, or BPA, on them.

Give us the scientific method over fear-mongering any day.

Upon enactment of the U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement, Colombia’s tariffs on U.S.-manufactured autos and auto parts will fall from 7.4 percent to zero. (White House fact sheet.)

Here’s the front page of Portafolio, the daily business newspaper in Colombia.

The lead story reports the agreement on the FTA with the headline, “After a long wait, Free Trade Agreement with U.S. Will Become a Reality.”

And the graphic tells the story of a growing market: “Sales of new cars rose 79.4 percent in March.”

The story in Spanish is here. From the Google translation, “New car sales in March totaled 32,320 units“:

As predicted by Portafolio.co, Econometrics SA showed that March was the best month ever. Sales broke the record of November 2010, when 30,963 units were sold. Additionally, the March figure was higher than the same month of 2010, which was 18,015 units.In total, the cumulative sales for the first quarter of 2011 reached 78,618 vehicles, which means that growth was 58.3 percent, compared to the same period in 2010, which 49,676 were invoiced.

The president of the Colombian Association Renault, Saulo Arboleda, said the market reacted to offers and good prices and the preliminary figure is “fantastic.”

The front page comes from Newseum.org, which publishes a global selection of newspaper front pages every day. We’re glad to see the Newseum will remain open in the event of a federal government shutdown. It’s an excellent museum, and Saturday it celebrates its third birthday.

Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware writes about state competitiveness and what’s needed to attract businesses in a Washington Post op-ed today, “Taxes are the wrong focus for economic growth. He raises many serious points toward which manufacturers will be sympathetic:

[Where] will the innovation come from if we don’t make necessary investments in federally funded research? Who will take innovation to market if we don’t help millions of workers retool their skills with appropriate job training? How will we get these new goods to market cost-effectively if we don’t improve our infrastructure? These are precisely the investments other nations are making. We must, too.

The NAM’s Manufacturing Strategy for Jobs and a Competitive America argues for the same priorities, among others. We’re with him.

Gov. Jack Markell of Delaware

Indeed, Gov. Markell, a Democrat, is a friend to manufacturing, and his State of the State address in January was right on the mark on how to encourage business.

Still, it seems to us that the Governor is offering a false dichotomy: tax competitiveness versus the other factors like R&D, skills and infrastructure. When Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin pounced on Illinois’ decision to raise income taxes by inviting companies to relocate to his state — a story Gov. Markell begins his column with — Gov. Walker was not just telling business he was going to keep taxes under control, he was sending the message that Wisconsin was going to put its entire house in order. A state that can’t balance its budget without a major tax increase is unlikely to set the other policy priorities needed to create a positive business climate.

The other consideration that Gov. Markell does not address is that competitiveness is really a global issue today. States continue to battle each other to attract business, but the real fight is on the country-to-country level.  Taxes are so critical in this competition,  and the United States is so far behind.

In the Tax Foundation’s latest Fiscal Fact, Scott Hodge reports, “Countdown to #1: 2011 Marks 20th Year That U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Is Higher than OECD Average“:

There is increasing recognition in Washington that the U.S. corporate tax rate is out of step with the lower tax rates of most industrialized and emerging nations. Indeed, 2011 marks the 20th year in which the U.S. statutory tax rate has been above the simple average of non-U.S. countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

It is now well known that with a combined federal and state corporate tax rate of 39.2 percent, the U.S. has the second-highest overall rate among OECD nations. Only Japan, with a combined rate of 39.5 percent, levies a higher rate.

As Gov. Markell points out, other countries’ governments are spending in critical areas like R&D, infrastructure and skills training. But here’s the point: They’re doing so even with corporate tax rates lower than in the United States.

Ben Smith at Politico writes about a “Fact Check” from the National Labor Relations Board, responding to blog posts – including this one at Shopfloor – that objected to the NLRB running Google ads. The NLRB states:

Google Ads

It has been reported that the NLRB spent Agency funds on Google ads. An initial review indicates that the ads were provided at no charge beginning in 2008 by Google. The Agency has decided to discontinue them.

Politico’s Smith observes: “Among the curious things about this: Google, serving as volunteer labor booster in this instance, is not exactly a union shop.” No, but CEO Eric Schmidt is supportive of the White House.

If the NLRB did not pay for the ads, as asserted here, our apologies for the error.

Odd, though. Many people in law firms and business groups follow the NLRB’s activities very closely. It’s funny that no one had ever commented on the ads before, if indeed they “were provided…beginning in 2008 by Google.”

Oh, and based on our search of the NLRB site, this is the first “Fact Check” the agency has essayed. Generally speaking, it seems like a reasonable practice for government agencies to call attention to clear error, but not if it’s just another spin operation.

More …

• LaborRelationsToday.com, “NLRB Explains Its Google Ads, Discontinuation of Practice“
• Unified Patriot, “Short: NLRB Admits Google/Administration Collusion (Updated)“

UPDATE (12:30 p.m. Sunday): Writing at Red State, the LaborUnionReport.com raises many interesting questions about the NLRB’s sponsorship of the ads. The post is well worth reading: “Union-Controlled NRLB Suddenly Pulls Google Ads on ‘How to Start a Union’.”

Now, without a law degree (although Holiday Inn Express is like a second home), it is unknown whether a private-sector company like Google is legally allowed to provide free ads to an agency of the federal government, or whether it is permitted for an agency of the federal government to accept free services without violating a certain law (or two).  That would be something for lawyers and, perhaps, Congressional committees to decide.

However, it would be interesting to know:

• Who wrote the ad on “How to Start a Union”
• What the total value of the free advertising was
• When the NLRB began accepting free advertising from Google
• How many other agencies are getting free advertising from Google
• Whether Google is getting any other form of recompense or favorable treatment for its free advertising

A reader brings the results of this Google search to our attention, which indicates the National Labor Relations Board is buying Google ads to help workers form unions.

We added the yellow screen. Here’s the ad by itself.

We tried replicating the search but could not generate the same ad. We did get this, however:

Government agencies often buy ads as part of public service campaigns, true. But this is the first time we’ve seen one use Google Adwords, which offers a variety of pricing strategies based on per clicks and search terms.

Medium aside, why is a federal agency using taxpayer dollars to promote the formation of unions? That’s what the first ad does.

UPDATE (1:55 p.m.): LaborUnionReport.com makes the same point, more pungently, “Tax-Payer Funded, Union-Run NLRB Using Google to Advertise ‘How to Start a Union’.”

In the flood of news coverage after Ecuadorian Judge Nicolas Zambrano announced an $8.6 billion damage award against Chevron, reporters sought out ostensibly independent experts to comment on the award. We laughed upon reading one such comment in an AP report:

A professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who has studied the case, Georgene Vairo, said the comparatively small judgment is a signal from Ecuador that it is willing to negotiate a smaller fine.

“This is way low compared with what everyone was expecting to happen,” she said. “They are trying to show the world they are reasonable people. This is Ecuador coming to the table.”

Oh, please. The U.S. trial lawyers and their allies in Ecuador are on the record numerous times talking about their strategy to make those most outrageous, exorbitant claim for damages — $113 billion! — so they can pretend anything less is a sign of judicial reason and compromise.

Here’s an example, yet another damning revelation from outtakes from the documentary-style movie on the litigation, “Crude.”

(continue reading…)

A common and much-justified complaint against mainstream newspapers is how the media can give prominence to even the most speculative charges against a person or company and when those charges are disproved, it’s a fleeting, one-day story buried inside.

Thus, kudos to The Washington Post for so prominently displaying the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s report that cleared Toyota from the accusations their vehicles’ electronics produced incidents of unintended acceleration. Scientific investigation by top NASA engineers disproved the claims: “NASA found no evidence that a malfunction in electronics caused large unintended accelerations,” said Michael Kirsch, Principal Engineer at the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC).

Here’s The Washington Post’s front page. The newspaper also publishes an excellent editorial on the hype and ginned-up attacks against the company, “NHTSA report clears up mystery – and hysteria – on Toyota cars.” Excerpt:

AFTER A 10-MONTH study, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and NASA have concluded that the cause of sudden accelerations of Toyotas last year was not, as widely speculated, a software flaw that the company would not acknowledge. Some of the incidents were caused by “pedal misapplication” – that is, a driver mistakenly slamming on the gas instead of the brake – and some by sticking pedals or floor mat entanglement. And what of the spike in reported malfunctions? The publicity that enveloped the federal investigations – which led to the recall of more than 8.5 million cars and congressional hearings that hauled Toyota President Akio Toyoda to Capitol Hill – “was the major contributor to the timing and volume of complaints.”

In short, human error, mechanical errors that Toyota repaired and a dose of politically induced hysteria were to blame. The congressional hearings often were aimed more at generating headlines than getting to the bottom of a confusing situation. It’s right to ask tough questions of corporate executives and public officials. But the absence of restraint and perspective did not help get at the truth. Company officials were put in an impossible situation, since blaming Toyota customers – though this was true in many cases – would have been a public relations disaster.

The Post’s editorial cites the NHTSA study that concludes that “the most likely cause” of acceleration was “pedal misapplication.” The paper’s good advice to readers — “Remember this when the next crisis hits” — might also be applied to many of the nation’s editors and reporters, too.

P.S. And here’s The New York Times front page coverage. Hardly seems to balance the more than 900 articles and other items on Toyota and acceleration over the past year, does it?

After watching the Sunday morning TV news chats shows back in November, we wondered at the absence of Joe Kennedy’s usual heart-tugging ads about heating fuel for the poor, his Citizens Energy program that relies on Venezuelan-owned Citgo for free oil. The ads serve the propaganda purposes of Venezuela’s commie caudillo, Hugo Chavez, but Chavez’s policies have so wrecked the country’s oil industry, the Joe-4-Oil program was in doubt.

Propaganda wins the day. We saw our first Joe Kennedy ad of the year last night, a new one that ran during the 5 p.m. news on WUSA, Channel 9, in Washington, D.C.

The Daily Caller had the story earlier this week,”Former Rep. Joe Kennedy teams up with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez — again”:

For the sixth straight year and with the help of Joseph Kennedy II’s non-profit Citizens Energy Corporation, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez is again attempting to win over America’s less fortunate with the promise of free energy.

The end of January marked the beginning of the CITGO-Venezuela Heating Oil Program, a Venezuelan initiative to provide energy for needy individuals throughout the United States.

Chavez marked his 12th year in power this week, a reign that has included nationalizing companies — including U.S. firms — petroleum, cement, communications, electricity and banking.

In a statement announcing the program’s renewal — words reflected in the new TV spot — Kennedy, who earned more than $500,000 in salary and benefits in 2008, says, “We are deeply grateful to CITGO and the people of Venezuela for their generosity to those who need help keeping their families warm.”

That’s inadequately polemical, Joe. Let’s turn to the Venezuelan official for the real message:

“CITGO is very proud to mark the sixth anniversary of our Heating Oil Program, our flagship social development initiative, which is in alignment with the humanitarian and solidarity principles endorsed by the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela through its national oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A (PDVSA),” said CITGO President and CEO Alejandro Granado. “Since its beginning in 2005, this program has been fully supported by President Hugo Chávez and it has been maintained over time thanks to the solidarity that exists between the people of Venezuela and the United States. It is without doubt one of the most important and long-lasting social development initiatives implemented by any large energy corporation in the U.S. and around the world.”

WCVB-TV in Boston did a puff piece on the Kennedy’s program last week. Didn’t mention any of Chavez’s anti-Americanism, expropriations, censorship or repression. It would have gotten in the way of such a warming story.

James Lawrence, editorial page editor of the Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle, is annoyed at a new TV ad campaign that protests plans to raise taxes on beverages. Perhaps his pique comes from the ad’s effectiveness, its punchy “give me a break” message to government officials: Cut your own budgets, and let me make my own spending decisions. We like it.

Lawrence’s critique relies on the what purports to be an argument: See, see, it’s big corporations that are backing the ad, which runs with the nofoodtaxes.com identifier. (The group is actually called Americans Against Food Taxes.) Lawrence blogs his dyspepsia under the headline, “Coalition Heavy on Corporate Interests.”

And the list goes on.

So Lawrence contends this list proves supporters “are not exactly your next door neighbors.”

Funny. I’ve had plenty of next door neighbors just like that, folks who work at places like Minges Bottling Group, Allen Beverages, ALCOA or American Fuji Seal. They’re people who pay their bills and raise families with paychecks from companies that might lose business if beverage prices go up because of taxes. Why, some of them might even hold the opinion that governments should stop looking for ways to raise taxes and instead reduce their spending.

Take a walk around the block, Mr. Lawrence. We bet some of your neighbors might surprise you and agree with the lady in the ad. You know, “Give me a break!”