|
That vote certainly suggests that this is not a controversial bill and that, at some point, the Senate too will pass it. The question is when? To coin a phrase, time is money. That is to say, the more time that passes without the legal suspension of these tariffs that injure rather than protect, the more money U.S. producers will spend on taxes they can ill afford.
Andrew Durant of Samuels International Associates put it this way:
"Support in the Senate seems strong. But every day lost means business pays another $1 million in taxes for inputs that power American manufacturing."
In Praise of Lobbying. But let's leave the issue of Senate action for now and return to the process that has been playing out these last few years. The job that Congress handed to the International Trade Commission is a big one. Anyone who doubts that should take a look at the ITC report, which is the basis of the current legislation. The work load here is not just that of the staff of the International Trade Commission. It is also the efforts of all of those men and women around the country who filed petitions in the hope of making their companies more competitive.
And last but not least there are the private organizations in Washington - entities like NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many others - who are in the business of explaining to Congress and the Administration (and sometimes the courts) just what the practical ramifications are of the laws they pass - or don't pass - and the regulations they enforce.
Ms. Dempsey's December 6 blog. Its immediate subject was a letter that NAM and roughly 190 other organizations had sent earlier that day to the House of Representatives. Forget the subject matter, just gathering 190 plus approvals must have been a task in itself. And these communications do have an effect.
In her December 6 post, Ms. Dempsey talked about some of the products and companies affected. The lion's share of the products are chemicals, but many are less arcane, more easily described products. For example, she mentioned the motors that Lasko Products of Pennsylvania imports for the pedestal and desktop fans it makes. It is the only U.S. company still producing such fans. Most of the others are from China. She also talked about the molds that Goodyear needs to import in order to make large, off-road tires for earth moving equipment.
We doubt that it is entirely coincidental that Congressman
Mike Kelly (R) of Pennsylvania also talked about Lasko Products. He did that on the House floor, shortly before the vote on January 16. Here is what Rep. Kelly had to say about Lasko:
Mr. PASCRELL [D-NJ] and I sat in a hearing and we listened to these folks as they talked about what makes them competitive, what takes them off the shelf where they can't compete, and too often it was their own country that was making it difficult. Lasko is an 11- year-old company. They employ 1,000 people.
Now, Mr. McCasey, who is the chief operating officer, came and talked to us. When you hear what goes on with Lasko-this is in his words, and I think this is where we have to really concentrate-Mr. McCasey says: We are in a business of pennies and can sometimes lose the sale of a fan to an overseas competitor due to a cost differential of 20 to 30 cents.
***
In this household, we have two Lasko fans. Other than that, our knowledge of Lasko Products is limited to what we have shared here. Our point is simply that good law depends, among other things, on good communication between citizens and law makers, and it is groups like the NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that help to ensure that the critical conversations takes place.
|
