With President Obama’s naming of Ron Bloom to be the senior White House counselor for manufacturing policy, the National Association of Manufacturers has this comment:

The NAM is pleased the Obama Administration will be appointing a manufacturing advisor to serve as a part of the National Economic Council. As our nation struggles to come out of our deepest economic recession and as the world’s largest manufacturing economy, it makes sense to have a senior policy position focused on manufacturing in the White House.

According to this Bloomberg report, President Obama issued a statement Sunday:

Ron has the knowledge and experience necessary to lead the way in creating the good-paying manufacturing jobs of the future. We must do more to harness the power of American ingenuity and productivity so that we can put people back to work and unleash our full economic potential.

UPDATE (4:20 p.m.): A roundup from The Hill, “Manufacturing czar expected to have more sway than others.”

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.

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.

From Bloomberg, “Obama May Tap Auto Chief Bloom to Craft Manufacturing Policy“:

Aug. 20 (Bloomberg) — The Obama administration may elevate Ron Bloom, head of the government’s auto task force, to a job that would set U.S. manufacturing policy more broadly, people familiar with the matter said.

Bloom, a former United Steelworkers union adviser and Lazard Ltd. investment banker, helped guide General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC through bankruptcy as part of the government’s rescue of the auto industry. The task force will continue, and it hasn’t been decided whether Bloom will remain its leader while taking on the new role, the people said.

We’re all for focused attention on the manufacturing economy, but (and these are personal musings)…

Another czar? A union-official-investment-banker-negotiator czar? You would think it would make sense to name someone like a manufacturer to help coordinate manufacturing policy.

Or let the Department of Commerce do its job. The trouble with czars is their unaccountability, lack of transparency, and lack of transparent accountability.

And the potential for favoritism and caprice. “Nah, you can’t touch that company. They’re all czarred up.”

You’d also have to think U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, Commerce Secretary Locke, and others who have made the case for trade and exports would also take note of a former Steelworkers official being put in charge of manufacturing policy.

But it’s a trial balloon. So we’ll read up on Mr. Bloom while its shadows slowly move across the sultry summer landscape.

Wall Street Journal, Real Time Economics blog, February 19, 2009, “Who Is Ron Bloom?”

The Nation, February 16, 2009, “Labor’s Man Joins Treasury Team.”

Ron Bloom has the sophistication of a Wall Street financier, but the head and heart of a labor guy. He knows how to “run the numbers” and do deals, techniques he learned years ago at Lazard Frères. When he left the world of capital, however, he went to work for organized labor. Bloom steers capital strategies for the steelworkers and advises Leo Gerard, the union’s heads-up president. The steelworkers have been in the vanguard of unions aggressively using their financial power–the invested capital of pension funds–to force reform and worker-friendly policies on the corporate world. These are always tough fights. It takes smart strategies and hard-nosed negotiating to prevail. Bloom and Gerard have developed a “rep” for both.

United Steelworkers news release, February 17, 2009, excerpt:

The administration was lucky to find a person who so deeply believes in organized labor and so clearly understands corporate finance, [USW President Leo] Gerard said. “Saving the domestic auto industry is crucial to the economic renewal of the U.S.” said Gerard. “The steel, glass, auto parts, tires, and paper industries produce products for this industry and employ a quarter million of our members alone.”

• BusinessWeek, October 30, 2003, “Q&A With Ron Bloom“
• Ron Bloom speech to Insol, May 21, 2006, Scottsdale, Arizona.

Blogger cmmjaime, associated with a store that sells educational supplies in northern Alabama for homeschoolers and others, the Creative Learning Connection, watches a video from a January 2008 rally in Oregon and reminds us that organized labor was very vocal in its campaign against contaminated toys from China. Labor’s political pressure helped lead to passage of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, now destroying jobs because of its inflexibility and disconnection from the real world.

From the post, “Video: Stop Toxic Toy Import Campaign”:

This video is about 1 of 100 events held across the U.S. on January 16, 2008 on the “National Day of Action on Toxic Trade”. It was organized by the United Steelworkers, who were protesting the import of “toxic toys”. (But as I watched the video, I felt like I had finally found the money trail for CPSIA — this Union group was using the “toxic toys” as an excuse; what they were really fighting was what they were calling “toxic trade”. The irony is that because of the CPSIA that they fought so hard for, more jobs will be lost here!)

Signs displayed included “Get the Lead Out — Stop Toxic Imports” and “Protect our Kids — Save American Jobs.”

cmmjaime concludes:

All in all, an interesting 20 minute look at why we are not getting anywhere with Congress on fixing the real problem here — this toxic law!

It’s a thought and useful history. Still, in watching the current debate over reforming the CPSIA we have not seen any activity from organized labor.

In 2008, the unions did what they normally do, find a hot button issue and use it to organize coalitions, inspire activists and raise money with the goal of electing anti-trade candidates. Once that goal was accomplished, thousands of small businesses could go out of business and the United Steelworkers would not make a peep. They never really cared about “toxic toys” except as an organizing tool.

Although you would think the Steelworkers might recognize that outlawing dirtbikes and other kids’ recreational vehicles might cost some of their union members their jobs.