In “Nuts-and-bolts advice for the new manufacturing czar,” The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s business columnist, John Torinus, previews Wednesday’s press briefing by Rockwell Automation’s CEO, Keith Nosbusch, who propose a comprehensive national manufacturing strategy. (Rockwell’s news release.)

Torinus discusses the possible appointment of Ron Bloom, the White House’s person in charge of the automotive restructuring, as a White House manufacturing czar; he names several manufacturing leaders he regards as more qualified than Bloom, a former investment banker and Steelworkers union executive.

Torinus then proposes policies to compromise a manufacturing policy.  The first four suggestions:

• Keep the pressure on the Chinese government to harden the yuan. Henry Paulson got it done in the Bush administration when the yuan rose about 20% against the dollar. That was a big help to U.S. exporters, the most important job and wealth creators for the country.
• Push for balanced trade on a bilateral basis with China, so their exports to the United States are better matched to their imports from the U.S. The gigantic trade imbalance with China is one of the biggest destabilizing forces on the U.S. economy. It has to be fixed.
• Understanding that the U.S. cannot sustain itself with a lopsided service economy – we have to make things, too – drop or eliminate the corporate tax on manufacturing. Other countries have dropped corporate taxes without triggering trade pact violations. If necessary, go to a value-added tax on goods as a replacement, a consumption tax on consumers.
• Promote Toyota-like lean disciplines across the whole manufacturing sector, much as Wisconsin government is attempting to do. Persuade union leaders to support lean disciplines and junk work rules that get in the way.

There’s a lot to like in his list for strengthening the manufacturing economy. You could add other items, to be sure, such as enacting tort reforms to bring the cost of the U.S. legal system in line with other leading manufacturing countries. In the process, speak out against the campaigns by the alliance of trial lawyers and “consumer activists” that ignore risk and demonize safe products and ingredients. (Since we’re reading the Journal-Sentinel, the campaign against BPA comes to mind.)

Torinus says the “manufacturing czar” strategy repeats the Bush Administration’s practice. Not quite. There the advocate was an Assistant Secretary of Manufacturing and Services in the Department of Commerce. Admittedly, that’s post has a much lower profile than a White House point person, but it does require the vetting and accountability that accompanies Senate confirmation.

Thanks to the Van Jones debacle, we’re about to see a new round of debate about the wisdom of manufacturing czars. On Fox News Sunday this morning, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), a member of the Republican leadership, responded to a question about the radical-cum-green-jobs czar by calling White House czars “an affront to the Constitution”: “When you take all these people that make policy close to the president and the White House … and aren’t approved by the Congress, you’re just adding fuel to the fire by those who think Washington is taking over everything.”

We imagine most manufacturers would welcome a strong advocate in the White House to promote U.S. industry. Still, czars, prelates or factotums aside, most important are the policies the Administration and Congress pursue. First, as NAM President John Engler likes to say, “Do no harm.” And after that, there’s a lot of good substance in Torinus’ list, and we look forward with interest to the Rockwell briefing.

The old political saw is that personnel is policy. Sure. But in the case of the manufacturing economy, the primary strategy should be to have policy be policy. Good policy being good policy, that is.

From The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, “Rockwell calls for national industrial strategy“:

Warning that U.S. manufacturing competitiveness is “very vulnerable,” Rockwell Automation Inc. Tuesday lauded President Barack Obama’s decision to appoint a policy “czar” to shape the nation’s manufacturing strategy.

“American industry needs a transformation unlike any other in its history,” said Rockwell chief executive Keith Nosbusch.

Milwaukee-based Rockwell, which is widely regarded as a bellwether of the manufacturing sector, supplies automation technology that helps improve productivity of factories and refineries.

Rockwell issued a news release on the issue yesterday, also announcing a press briefing next Wednesday at the National Press Club.

Rockwell Automation is organizing a press briefing of manufacturing experts that will encourage the Obama administration and Congress to support incentives for U.S. businesses to make this transformation to smart, safe and sustainable manufacturing. That briefing will be Sept. 9 at 8:30 a.m. at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Scheduled to speak are:

• Emily DeRocco, president, the Manufacturing Institute and senior vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers;
• R. Neal Elliott, associate director of research, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy;
• Evan R. Gaddis, president and CEO, National Electrical Manufacturers Association;
• Tom Duesterberg, president and CEO, Manufacturers Alliance / MAPI: and Keith Nosbusch, chairman and CEO, Rockwell Automation.

It’s still unclear how serious the Administration is about appointing a manufacturing czar; the only news we’ve seen on the possibility — and of former U.S. Steelworkers’ executive Ron Bloom being named to the post — comes from unnamed White House sources. The comments looked an awful lot like the floating of a trial balloon. And of course, the value of the position is distinct from the merits of the person placed in that position. And better no strategy than a bad strategy that harms U.S. competitiveness — but that’s why Rockwell is weighing in.

More reporting, commentary on the possibility that President Obama will name Ron Bloom the White House’s manufacturing czar:

Detroit News, “Bloom to oversee U.S. manufacturing policy,” which reports the appointment as almost a done deal and then elicits a response from the White House.

“Ron Bloom is doing a great job on the auto task force. There are no plans to shut down or repurpose the auto task force and we expect Ron to continue to do a great job,” said Gannet Tseggai, a White House spokeswoman. “We don’t have any other announcement to make at this time.”

The unions are delighted with the prospect, since it would put a former United Steelworkers official in charge of industrial policy, and they’re hoping for industrial policy in the old ’60s, protectionist sense. For example, Tom Conway, a vice president at the Steelworkers:

“He really does get manufacturing and industrial America,” Conway said. “We’re hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs through trade deals out of balance. Ron knows that manufacturing companies need incentives to bring jobs back. People need a legitimate return on their investment but it also doesn’t have to be harsh and exploitative.”

Time magazine detects a hands-off approach from Bloom in his auto-czar role in a brief article, “Ron Bloom Monitors GM — And Eyes The Exit,” quoting him, “I don’t think the government should decide who should make axles and who should make steering wheels. That’s not a proper role.”

James Parks at the AFL-CIO blog comments, “Bloom in Line for Administration Manufacturing Post.”

And from Will Collins at the National Right to Work Foundation’s Freedom@Work blog, “Union Car Czar Poised to Dictate America’s Manufacturing Policy“: “The result of this personnel move seems likely to be more forced unionism, less American competitiveness, more job losses, and ultimately more bankruptcies and taxpayer-funded bailouts of corruptly run union pension plans.”

A thought: Having failed to put enough political muscle behind the Employee Free Choice Act to satisfy Big Labor, the White House offers Mr. Bloom as the consolation prize.

An editorial, “More Bloomin’ Czars”

The question naturally arises: Do we really need a factory guru, especially one whose expertise is in advising labor unions — the cause of much of the U.S. steel and car industries’ woes?

The obvious answer is no. This is just another attempt to revive the long-discredited idea of industrial policy — the notion that markets are inefficient and unfair, and the economy can best be managed by government “experts.”

Most manufacturers, we’d contend, would welcome a federal focus on manufacturing competitiveness. But an industrial policy that picks winners also picks losers.

Which, we see, is also what the the Heritage Foundation worries about. From “Auto Czar to Become Manufacturing Czar?“

Yet another Obama Administration czar? Don’t expect the White House to use the dreaded “C” word, but that seems to be the plan. By itself, of course, that’s no bad thing — after all even George Bush had a “manufacturing czar” within his Commerce Department. And there are plenty of positive steps that can be taken to ease burdens on manufacturers. In 2005, in fact, OMB published a list of regulatory changes that could help.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration — having just nationalized General Motors — seems to have quite different policies in mind. According to Bloomberg, the new position may be a response by the White House to calls for a full-blown national industrial policy for manufacturing. In recent congressional testimony, Obama advisor and former cable executive Leo Hindery starkly described the elements of such a strategy: government picking winners and losers among products and firms, government spending to support industry, and trade protectionism.

Yesterday’s forum at The New America Foundation, “Manufacturing a Better Future for America,” featured a discussion of federal support — the term “bailout” was used — for GM and Chrysler.

The context: Speakers advocated a national industrial policy and more restrictive trade policies to invigorate the U.S. manufacturing sector. We think of the panel as representing the organized labor wing of the Democratic Party.

Asking a question, Bill Frymoyer, director of government relations at the Stewart and Stewart and a former Gephardt aide, hailed what he described as the apparently successful rescue of the domestic auto industry. He elicited this response from Leo Hindery, Managing Partner of Intermedia Partners, chairman of the foundation’s Smart Globalization Initiative, and an influential Democratic activist. Hindery:

The reason the auto recovery worked so well is Ron Bloom largely steered it. And Ron Bloom, for those of you who don’t know, came out of the Steelworkers. He spoke more cogently and capably about the need for a manufacturing policy before a lot of us…and I think he brought a sense of manufacturing policy to that initiative, not strategy but policy.

And this is an issue that Scott [Paul] and I have gone back and forth on: Are what we talking about here, is it a strategy or is it a policy? And we think, Scott and I and Ron, I think, would say, it’s a policy. And when you have a policy, then you save CIT if it needs saving, because it does certain things, you approach GM and Chrysler as he tried to drive the administration, because it would fit under his sense of policy. Strategy is transient. Policy’s the same.

Also commenting was Scott Paul, executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing: (continue reading…)

Better that then Potemkin villages.

Or maybe we can just retire the whole Czar political nomenclature. For one thing, it prevent a president from ever appointing someone named Ivan to one of the jobs.

Anyway, here’s the story from Politico: “Ron Bloom to replace Steve Rattner as car czar.”

And here’s Mickey Kaus’s compendium of theories why Rattner’s time was so short-lived, “3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Rattner Theories.