What is the Status of Legislation that Would Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?

May 26th, 2026

This past January, I wrote an article titled, “Has the 119th Congress Passed Legislation to Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?” in which I gave an update on whether or not Congress passed any of the legislation I had recommended in my article of January 2025, “What Legislation Should Congress Pass to Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?  to fulfill their campaign promise to support President’s Trump goal to Make America Great Again and help rebuild American manufacturing. 

We are now nearly six months later, so it’s time to examine if any of the bills I recommended have passed. 

Number one on my list was legislation to establish a Market Access Charge (MAC), defined as a proposed fee on foreign purchases of U.S. financial assets (like stocks, bonds, and treasuries)—intended to manage large capital inflows, influence exchange rates, and promote economic stability. This is a concept promoted by some economists and organizations like the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA).

Legislative Activity:

  • As of May 2026, no bill specifically titled “Market Access Charge” or directly imposing such a charge has been introduced in the 119th Congress (2025–2026).
  • The concept is discussed in economic policy circles but has not yet reached the stage of formal legislation.
  • Related proposals may occasionally surface in hearings or working papers, but have not led to a standalone bill. Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees have occasionally heard testimony on capital flows and financial stability, where the MAC is sometimes raised, but to date there is no active bill establishing a MAC.

2. H.R. 5811 – Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2023 (RALIA)

  • Status: Introduced 10/24/2025 by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
  • Summary: This bill aims to reform the U.S. patent system, making changes to post-grant proceedings and patent eligibility.
  • Latest Action: As of May 2026, H.R. 5811 was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. No further action (such as a hearing or vote) has been reported.

3. H.R. 694 – The Restoring Trade Fairness Act

  • Status: Introduced January 23, 2025 Rep. John Molenaar (R-MI)
  • Summary: A bill to address perceived unfair trade practices, particularly relating to China.
  • Latest Action: H.R. 694 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. There have been no further reported actions or movement out of committee.

3. S. 206 – The Restoring Trade Fairness Act

  • Status: Introduced on January 23, 2025 by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
  • Summary: Companion bill to H.R. 694 in the Senate.
  • Latest Action: S. 206 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. No additional reported activity at this time.

4. Legislation to Reduce the Allowed Value of De Minimis Imports

  • Status:  Multiple bills have been introduced in Congress to reduce the de minimis threshold (the value below which imports can enter the U.S. duty-free and with minimal documentation).
  • Latest Action: None have passed either chamber or advanced beyond committee.

5. S. 1053 – FIGHT China Act of 2025

  • Status: Introduced on March 13, 2025 by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
  • Summary: This bill is aimed at countering economic and national security threats posed by China.
  • Latest Action: Introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. No additional major actions have been reported.

6. H.R. 3946 – FIGHT Act of 2026

  • Status: Introduced on March 13, 2025 by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY)
  • Summary: Similar in intent to S. 1053, but focuses on U.S.-China relations and economic policy.
  • Latest Action: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Awaiting further action.

7. S. 1357 – SAFE Act (Secure America’s Financial Exchanges Act)

  • Status: Introduced April 8, 2025 by Rep. Rick Scott (R-FL) Marsha Blackburn (R), Bill Cassidy (R), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R), and John Neely Kennedy (R) are co-sponsors.
  • Summary: Seeks to ensure the security and integrity of U.S. financial exchanges.
  • Latest Action: Referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. No additional committee activity reported.

8. S. 1358 – TASK Act (Transaction and Sourcing Knowledge Act)

  • Status: Introduced
  • Summary: Aims to improve the transparency of financial transactions crossing U.S. borders.
  • Latest Action: Referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. No further movement to date.

Summary Table

Bill NumberTitleLatest StatusCommittee
H.R. 5811Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation ActReferred to JudiciaryHouse Judiciary
H.R. 694Restoring Trade Fairness ActReferred to Ways & MeansHouse Ways & Means
S. 206Restoring Trade Fairness ActReferred to FinanceSenate Finance
    
S. 1053FIGHT China Act of 2025Referred to FinanceSenate Finance
H.R. 3946FIGHT Act of 2026Referred to Ways & MeansHouse Ways & Means
S. 1357SAFE ActReferred to BankingSenate Banking
S. 1358TASK ActReferred to BankingSenate Banking

You can use the links provided for each bill to read the bill text, see the sponsors and cosponsors, view all actions and amendments, and sign up for alerts by creating a free account on Congress.gov. These Congress.gov pages are updated in real time.

There was one bill that I had overlooked previously:  S.99 – Strengthening Support for American Manufacturing Act introduced into the Senate on January 15,2025 by Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI).

“This bill requires the Department of Commerce to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration to study and report on the offices and bureaus of the department that are relevant to critical supply chain resilience and manufacturing and industrial innovation.

The report must evaluate the purpose, statutory authority, effectiveness, efficiency, and limitations of each such office and bureau and provide recommendations to improve their effectiveness, efficiency, and impact.” This bill passed the Senate on October 23, 2025 without amendment by Unanimous Consent, but hasn’t been voted on by the House. 

It’s not enough just to introduce a bill; the bill’s sponsor needs to recruit as many co-sponsors as possible to gain support to hold committee hearings so that the bill can get enough votes to be passed out of committee for a vote by the House or Senate. Then, the sponsors and co-sponsors have to work to gain enough support for the bill to pass the House and Senate.

We need to stop the destruction of American industry and innovation, the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, and the collapse of communities. The bills listed above would be a big help in rebuilding American manufacturing’s capacity and eliminate dependence on China. They would help rebuild manufacturing capacity in industries that are critical to U.S. economic and national security. They would help to create prosperity for our children and grandchildren and ensure that they will continue to live in a free country. 

Because of the shorter legislative cycle caused by the mid-term elections in November, we only have a few months for Congress to pass these critical bills.  Each of us needs to pick one of the above bills that we support and then call our Congressional Representative and Senator to urge them to support that bill. 

Remember, “We the People” are supposed to be the basis for our Constitutional form of government.  If “We the People” are silent and do nothing, then the lobbyists for the multinational globalist corporations and organizations will have the power to influence our elected representatives to support their interests to the detriment of the American people as a whole.  If we want to remain an independent country, we need to be citizen activists and urge our elected Representatives not to allow us to become an economic vassal state of China.

Tags: ,
Posted in General, Legislation, Manufacturing | No Comments »

The Globalization Trap: Reclaiming American Prosperity

April 29th, 2026

Michael Collinsadded to his extensive body of work as an American Manufacturing advocate with a fifth book, The Globalizaton Trap: Reclaiming American Prosperity.  This book is about “how neoliberalism and globalization were adopted by American Corporations and the U.S. government and how they radically changed the American economy and exploited the working class…globalization and the rise of neoliberalism as a political ideology turned out to be a trap where the average middle-class citizen bore the brunt of the economic changes through job losses, stagnant wages, and not being able to keep up with inflation.”

The preface sates: “From 1940 to 1980 the growth of the middle class increased with productivity growth and all boats rose with the tide.  He explains that “Neoliberalism is an ideology that emphasizes globalism, free trade, and letting the markets regulate the economy…The resultant deindustrialization has led to the decline of the middle class, and sacrificing jobs, industries, technologies, suppliers, and communities.”

Chapter One, “The Rise of Neoliberalism,” describes how Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek developed a new theory called neoliberalism.” Neoliberalism is an ideology that emphasizes globalism, free trade, privatization, and deregulation.  Neoliberalism was a 180-degree reversal from Keynesian economics used in the New Deal…”  It incorporated Freidman’s dictum “An entity’s greatest responsibility lies in the satisfaction of the shareholders.”  

I believe this theory is fallacious because recent data from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), shows that “approximately 98% to 99% of American manufacturing firms are privately owned” and “98.6% are classified as small businesses (fewer than 500 employees),” meaning that less than 2% of companies are benefiting. which Michael calls Multi-National Corporations (MNCs).

Also, “Neoliberalism was the theoretical foundation for radical economic changes and was closely connected to the strategy of outsourcing and globalization.”

He then documents the role Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama played in advancing neoliberalism and globalism. He concludes the chapter writing that “The good news is that the era of neoliberalism, free trade, and globalism is coming to an end.”

Chapter Two, “The Middle-Class Decline,” quotes a Pew Research Center analysis of government data, showing that “the middle class, has steadily contracted in the past five decades. The share of adults who live in middle-class households fell from 61 percent in 1971 to 50 percent in 2021.”  He attributes the decline to the following major reasons:

  • Automation
  • Outsourcing
  • Job losses in manufacturing (since 1979, 7.5 million jobs were lost due to automation and outsourcing)
  • Trade Agreements
  • Decline of Unions
  • Deregulation of Financial Industry
  • Rising prices for essential costs like housing, energy. health care, education, and food

In Chapter 3, “Winners and Losers in the Free Market,” he shows how globalization and free trade has led to: worker insecurity, abandonment of cities and towns in the Heartland, middle class despair, and evidence of the failure of the Service Economy.  As a result, he writes “since 1990, job quality as measured by the income earned by workers, has significantly declined. Less hours worked with less pay and little room for growth is becoming the norm.”

In Chapter four, “The Decline of American Manufacturing,” he presents these facts:

  • “U.S. manufacturing has fallen from 21 to 25 percent of Gross Domestic Product, in the 1950s to about 10 percent today.”
  • “American manufacturers have lost 11 percent of our domestic market since China was given most favored nation status in 2002 [now down to a Domestic Market Share Index of 66.9 percent.”
  • “In 1979, manufacturing jobs represented approximately 22% (19.7 million) of the total U.S. nonfarm workforce. By 2025, that figure had fallen to about 8% (12.7 million).”

He discusses why economists don’t think manufacturing is important to the U.S. economy, the damage caused by granting China Most Favored Nation Status (MFN), Free Trade Agreements, and outsourcing.  He concludes the chapter with a discussion of Why America must have a strong and growing manufacturing sector, much of the information corroborating information I have included in my three books and hundreds of blog articles.  I agree with his declaration, “The decline of manufacturing is the high price we pay for cheap imports.”

Chapter five, “The Disintegration of American Industry” discusses what has happened to the critical sectors of the manufacturing industry that all other manufacturing industries depend on, such as machine shops, tool and die makers, Industrial mold companies, Ferrous, Iron, Steel Foundries, Nonferrous Foundries, Forging and stamping shops, Cutting tool accessories, and the plastic and rubber industries.

Representing manufacturers in these sectors is how I have made a living as a sales representative for over 40 years, so I have personally experienced the decline of these manufacturing industry sectors.

He also documents the decline in other industries, such as automobiles, shipbuilding, semiconductors, magnetic media, communications equipment, paper, textile and apparel, ceramics, pottery, tile, hardware, cutlery and hand tools.  I agree with his two major conclusions: “We won’t remain the number one economy and a world power if we allow the continued disintegration of American manufacturing industries and transition to the postindustrial service economy, and we can’t maintain national security and weapon systems if materials like aluminum, steel, and rare earth have shortages and cannot be controlled by the United States.”

In Chapter Six, Michael opines that the policy of Globalization that led to deindustrialization, redistribution of wealth, stagnant wages, the decline of living standards, and insecurity not experienced for generations, resulted in the backlash that resulted in the election of Donald Trump as President in the 2024 election when the middle class voted for their pocketbook.

In conclusion, he recommends, “If we are to have a chance of reducing inequality and reindustrializing the country, the United States needs a more robust industrial policy that protects key industries, manufacturing jobs…with a general goal of increasing manufacturing’s share of GDP to at least 15 percent. Perhaps the best solution is for millions of workers who are struggling financially to vote out their congressional representatives and elect politicians that are more sympathetic to the middle-class problems.”

In Chapter 7, “Protecting our Technologies,” he poses the question “How many technologies and industries are we willing to lose, before we lose our ability to compete using innovation as our primary strategy?”  He describes the problem and then examines the pros and cons of outsourcing. He discusses the importance of protecting the Advanced Technology Industries (ATIs), which are at the forefront of economic growth.

Chapter 8, “Critical Minerals and Metals Shortages,” is a well-documented and thorough discussion of this major problem. Two glaring statistics stood out the most:

  • “The United States remains fully import-dependent for rare earths and 14 critical minerals and more than 50 percent dependent for another 34.
  • The United States currently imports roughly half, or about 47 percent, of the aluminum consumed in the United States.”

Michael provides suggestions to solve these problems that are too complex and numerous to cite.  You will have to read them yourself.

The shortages of American-made pharmaceuticals are equally if not more critical than minerals and metals, and this topic is thoroughly discussed in Chapter 9. Two points to ponder are:

  • “The United States is dependent on imports for two-thirds of generic medicines, which are 90 percent of all prescriptions.
  • In 2002, U.S. manufacturers produced 84 percent of domestically consumed pharmaceuticals. In 2023, the number declined to 37 percent of the domestic market.”

He concludes, “The collapse of U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturing is the result of decades of free trade, increased market penetration due to state-sponsored subsidies and dumping, and the absence of government protection or and industry strategy.” Michael proposes a number of solutions that you need to read for yourself.

Chapter 10 discusses the many other industries and products that are also facing shortages, such as semiconductors, auto parts, rechargeable batteries, aviation components, solar panels, magnets. Michael asserts” Losing control of the supply of many critical products has made us susceptible to price manipulation and economic extortion…we must reclaim supply chains from China and other countries for everything from pharmaceuticals to semiconductors. I don’t think it is possible without some kind of monetary pressure on:

  • U.S. companies to reshore products
  • Foreign countries to reduce exports to the United States, running surpluses, manipulating currencies and dumping products into the United States below their production costs
  • The government to help find new sources of products that can’t be sourced from the United States.”

Chapter 11 discusses the role the overvalued U.S. dollar and finalization of the economy have played in the globalization trap. The concepts of the value of the dollar, currency manipulation, and unfair trade practices by China are too complex to describe in this article. I like his support for a Market Access Charge to balance the value of the dollar and achieve a current account balance within five years, about which I have written articles previously.

Chapter 12, “How Will We Solve the Problems Caused by Free Trade Policies,” Michael writes. “America must abandon free trade and globalism, bring manufacturing back to the United States, reduce our trade deficit, and protect our industries and technologies. We will also have to incentivize U.S. multinationals to stop outsourcing and incentivize both foreign and U.S. companies to establish manufacturing operations within the United States.” 

After summarizing the main problems caused by free trade policies, he concludes, “I think it can be done and will require a combination of tariffs, tax credits, quotas, selecting key industries, and adjusting the value of the dollar.”

In Chapter 13, “Productivism – A Plan for American Manufacturing,” he explains that “A new economic policy that favors production and investment is called “productivism.” The term was invented by Dani Rodrik of Harvard…Productivism is a supply side strategy to boost the most productive industries so it is important to select and prioritize the key industries that must be protected. “

He states, “Productivism using tariffs, tax credits, quotas, key industries, technology protection and training will generate economic growth, create jobs, raise household incomes, and with a forecasted one-time increase in consumer prices. But productivism also needs to be part of a federal plan that defines the goals and measurable objectives.”

With regard to tariffs. Michael echoes what I have expressed, “Tariffs are the first step in developing a new industrial policy…If using tariffs to incentivize U.S. corporations to reshore products is to work, the government must convince the corporations that tariffs are permanent and that the government is in it for the long haul.” He reminds us that “In fact, the U.S. tariffs averaged 30 to 40 percent from 1890 to 1945.”

The rest of the chapter discusses the pros and cons of tax credits, tax incentives, quotas, and protecting key industries.  Then he asks the question: “Where Will We Find the Workers?He cites that “A recent study by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute found that U.S. manufacturing could need as many as 3.8 million new employees by 2033, and nearly 2 million of those jobs could be left unfilled.”  The rest of the chapter provides suggestions on how to solve this problem

Chapter 14, “Economic Factors that Must Be Considered to Make the Trump Plan Work,” outlines the following factors and provides suggestions on how to address these factors:

  • Decline in federal basic research
  • Loss of Technology Dominance
  • Capital investment and Stock Buybacks
  • Growth of National Debt
  • Transshipping to Avoid Tariffs
  • Banning Specific Products or Specific Companies
  • Artificial Intelligence and Additional Energy

In Chapter 15, “Refloating the Boats – What do we Have to Do to Grow the Middle Class?” Michael summarizes some of the points he wrote about in previous chapters.  Then, he posed the question: “is it still possible for the average worker to attain the American Dream and can the decline of the middle class be reversed? He states, “I think it is possible to grow the middle class, increase wages, and improve living standards and income for much of the middle class if the country can commit to production, not consumption.” This book was an easy read and holds your attention right up to the end.  I highly recommend this book to everyone who is concerned about the future of the manufacturing industry, the decline of the middle class, and our country’s ability to protect our national security.  Every Senator and Congressional Representative needs to read this book.  I suggest you buy one book for yourself and one to give to your Representative.

Tags:
Posted in Economic Development, Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Companies Reshoring Receive Awards for 9th Year

March 31st, 2026

For the past three decades, outsourcing was the cornerstone of U.S. manufacturing. First, manufacturers outsourced to Mexico, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines.  Then, manufacturers started outsourcing to China after it was granted Most Favored Nation status in the year 2000.  As I have written in my three books and over 300 articles, returning manufacturing to America is critical to rebuilding America’s industrial base. This process became known as “reshoring” after Harry Moser founded The Reshoring Initiative in early 2010. Returning manufacturing to America through reshoring is critical to rebuild America’s industrial base to ensure that we have the commercial and military/defense products needed to keep Americans healthy and safe

I had the honor of being an early supporter/collaborator of The Reshoring Initiative after I wrote about why it was important to understand “Total Cost of Ownership” when selecting vendors to manufacture products.  I based my opinion on the hard copy worksheets of the National Tooling & Machining Association and the American Mold Builders Association. Harry Moser called me after reading my article and told that he had just founded The Reshoring Initiative and “created the Total Cost of Ownership Estimator® – a free online tool that helps companies account for all relevant factors — overhead, balance sheet, risks, corporate strategy and other external and internal business considerations — to determine the true total cost of ownership.” He trained me in how to give presentations on TCO and authorized me to be a substitute speaker for him on the West Coast or when he had a scheduling conflict for a trade show or conference. Every year, Harry provides me with new data so that my presentations remain consistent with his presentations.

The good news is that reshoring is rapidly increasing and making a significant impact on U.S. manufacturing, driven by supply chain resilience, geopolitical risks, and government incentives. According to the 2024 Reshoring report by The Reshoring Initiative, “244,000 jobs were announced in 2024; 1.7 million jobs have been filled since 2010.” Reshoring is improving our country’s self-sufficiency capacity for goods essential to our economy and national security according to a number of surveys and reports that I highlighted in my article titled, “Is Reshoring Making a Difference and Increasing?” published March 19, 2025.

When I asked Harry why he started the Reshoring Awards, he responded, “We started the Awards, initially as a feature of the NTMA/PMA Purchasing Fairs that connected industrial buyers with contract manufacture providers of machined components and tooling. When the Fairs ended, we promoted the awards to the national industry and included AMT, SME and FMA as supporters.” He added, “We wanted to establish a Reshoring Award to “motivate more companies to reevaluate their offshoring and see that it is often more profitable to produce or source domestically.  We hoped that other associations would choose to support similar awards to show that their industries are now successfully reshoring.”

On May 25, 2017, The Reshoring Initiative andPrecision Metalforming Association (PMA)invited companiesthat have “successfully reshored parts or tooling made primarily by metal forming, fabricating or machining to apply forthe First National Reshoring Award. There was one award for buyers and one award for suppliers.” To be eligible for an award, a product or component has to meet the following criteria:

  • Reshoring or foreign direct investment (FDI) of the work occurred between Jan. 1, 2010, and the year prior to the year’s award.  April 30, 2026.
  • Work had to be returned to North America from outside North America.
  • The products, parts, or tooling reshored must be made primarily by forming, casting, fabricating, or machining, including additive machining.

The criteria for winning are:

  • Number of North American jobs created
  • Dollars per year of sales reshored or nearshored from further offshore
  • Capital investment
  • Product innovation
  • Process innovation
  • Success of the project
  • Completeness of application

Bonus points are awarded to PMA, AMT, SME, FMA, and NTMA members. Winners include companies ranging from 20 to 15,000+ employees.

On October 31, 2018, AMT (The Association For Manufacturing Technology) and NTMA (National Tooling and Machining Association) joined the Reshoring Initiative and Precision Metalforming Association (PMA) to invite “Companies that have successfully reshored products, parts or tooling made primarily by metal forming, fabricating, casting or machining, including additive manufacturing,” to apply for the award…the work must have been reshored between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018, from outside North America to North America.” 

These four organizations have continued to grant Reshoring Awards every year since 2018.  The winners by year are:

2018 – Mitchell Metal Products, located in Merrill, WI

2019 – Sherrill Manufacturing, located in Sherrill, NY

2020 – Die-Tech & Engineering, located in Walker MI

2020 – Trenton Forging, located in Trenton, MI

2021 – ACME Alliance, located in Tempe. AZ

2022 – Hardinge, located in Elmira, NY

2023 – Hobson & Motzer, located in Durham, CT

2024 – Sumitomo Drive Tech., located in Chesapeake, VA

2025 – Marlin Steel, located in Baltimore, MD

2025 – GE Appliances, located in Louisville, KY

The 2026 Award will be presented at IMTS 2026 to be held September 14-19, 2026 at McCormick Place, Chicago, IL.  The event will take place on the Main Stage between the North and South Halls, probably at 9am on Sept 17th. Applications are due by May 31, 2026. The application form is located at  https://www.amtonline.org/article/reshoring-award.  You may email Harry Moser at <harry.moser@reshorenow.org> for a file for applying.

While each of the above recipient companies may have had a variety of different reasons for reshoring using the Total Cost of Ownership Estimator®, the reality is that companies will only bring back the majority of offshored work if the economics of producing in the U.S. justifies doing so.

In last year’s Reshoring Report cited above, The Reshoring Initiative issued a call for smarter industrial policy that included the following to increase reshoring:

  • Massive investment in skilled workforce development (modeled after German apprenticeships).
  • A 20% lower USD to improve global cost competitiveness.
  • Retention of immediate expensing of capital investments.

I agree with these recommendations and have expressed in previous articles that the actions needed to achieve more reshoring are the same as needed for rebuilding manufacturing in general. These include developing a national manufacturing strategy that encompasses corporate tax reform, regulatory reform, Border Adjustable Taxes (aka VATs), and a Market Access Charge while addressing the predatory mercantilist practices of other countries with regard to currency manipulation, product dumping, and government subsidies.

President Trump has addressed tax reform and regulatory reform, but the other recommendations still need to be addressed.  While we can take advantage of tariffs being a key motivator for reshoring now, we need to have other beneficial policies in place for the future to have long-term growth of our domestic manufacturing base.

Tags: ,
Posted in General, Made in America, Reshoring | No Comments »

Why it is Critical to Reshore IT Services

March 9th, 2026

The Reshoring movement is gaining momentum as recent surveys show that a majority of U.S. manufacturers have either reshored or are actively evaluating reshoring portions of their production.  President Trump’s tariffs are only one factor in the increase of reshoring.  According to The Reshoring Initiative, the most common incentives for reshoring include shorter lead times, higher product quality and consistency, lower inventory levels, better responsiveness to changing customer demands, minimal intellectual property theft risk, and improved innovation and product differentiation.:

Data from the Reshoring Initiative shows “As of November 2025, we have recorded over 7600 cases of manufacturing companies that have brought work back to the U.S and from 2010 through November 2025. 2.3 million jobs returned from offshore vis reshoring and FDI.” This article will discuss why reshoring IT services is also critical to the success of American manufacturers and the protection of our national security.

The idea for this topic was presented to me by David Vickery, President of IT GuidePoint Corporation (or IT GuidePoint) who is a fellow member of the Coalition for a Prosperous America whom I used to see on our monthly member calls.  He has been reading my blog articles regularly and contacted me after reading my previous article about Marlin Steel Wire Products.  We met via Zoom last Wednesday and discussed why it is critical to reshore IT services.

David said, “I founded IT GuidePoint Corporation in May of 2008 after a decade as a principal at a publicly traded consulting firm in the Midwest that focused on $50 to $500 million manufacturing and distribution companies. My company focuses on Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software optimization and new software selection for manufacturing and distribution companies mostly in the Midwest states of Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana. Let’s say you have a bad implementation and you need someone to review it and help you go through and say, why isn’t it working for us? The business system that you use on your computer to enter orders, ship things, check inventory, run the lines through the manufacturing plant all connects in some way, shape, or form to your planning or ERP system. I like to use the word business system because most people because most people just can’t get their arms around ERP unless they’re in the industry. I work with a network of specialized consultants, including former CIOs and CFOs, to provide practical solutions for clients facing challenges with their business systems.”

He told me, “I believe that your latest article has the same core principle highlighting the value of full domestic self-sufficiency. At least, that is my view because it is a repeated theme in your articles that America must stop outsourcing critical production and become self-reliant with no more depending on China for steel, baskets, chips, printed circuit boards, etc. I’m trying to take that message into the digital realm discussion: ERP and IT systems are now the “nervous system” of every modern manufacturer. Outsourcing those services to non-US citizens creates the same national security, IP, and supply-chain vulnerabilities that David Greenblatt warns about with physical goods. Defining “Made in the USA services” to require USA-citizen ERP/IT resources is simply completing the self-sufficiency picture you already champion.”

David shared his experience from MBA school in the 1990s, where a professor accurately predicted that outsourcing would eventually affect white-collar jobs, similar to how it had impacted blue-collar manufacturing jobs. He mentioned reading an Economic Policy Institute report that said “By 2010, trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 good U.S. jobs, most (60.8 percent) in manufacturing.” 

I mentioned that a 2017 Economic Policy report stated,  “Growth in U.S.–China trade deficit between 2001 and 2015 cost 3.4 million jobs.

He emphasized how the hollowing out of rural manufacturing towns leads to broader economic decline, affecting everything from infrastructure to educational systems when major manufacturing plants leave. He said that he wrote an article called Rural Manufacturing Perspective that talks about the little town that he grew up in where manufacturing and agriculture together kept the town going because it has a ripple effect. He said, “When a major manufacturing plant goes away, it can destroy a town. When you hollow out Main Street, you hollow out the churches, you hollow out the infrastructure, the educational system, the police, and the fire department.”

I told him that I understood what he was saying as I wrote blog articles about small towns in North and South Carolina that were nearly destroyed by losing their furniture and textile industries. Everything gets hollowed out because you don’t have tax payers and the local businesses don’t have customers. Both of us agreed that the loss of these jobs in rural America is particularly crushing because there’s no other options for these people.

David mentioned that Deloitte’s 2026 manufacturing industry outlook predicted companies are going to invest another 20% in domestic computer systems. David said, “I’m trying to take that message into the digital realm discussion: ERP and IT systems are now the “nervous system” of every modern manufacturer. Outsourcing those services to non-US citizens creates the same national security, IP, and supply-chain vulnerabilities that David Greenblatt of Marlin Steel warned about with physical goods. There is a security risk when you outsource your ERP and IT systems, which are basically the brains of your business, Intellectual Property, trade secrets, and all that kind of stuff. You have to be really, really careful about who gets access to that information and from what country

He added, “Defining ‘Made in the USA services’ to require USA-citizen ERP/IT resources is simply completing the self-sufficiency picture you already champion. Modern Manufacturing firms like Marlin Steel depend on a sophisticated software implementation behind the scenes for things such as inventory, scheduling, finance, pricing, customer service, quality control, supply-chain management, robotics integration, etc. If that ERP/IT layer is outsourced to be delivered and supported by foreign providers or non-citizen contractors, the entire ‘Made in America’ claim has a hidden security leak.”

I said, “Definitely, because if China has access to your IT systems, they can steal your intellectual property from your CAD systems.  They learn how you price your products, how you schedule production, what your wages are, et cetera. I can’t understand how American manufacturers can’t see that any foreign company that has access to all of your IT systems can get any data they want about you. Very few Chinese companies are privately owned companies. They’re either partially or fully-owned by the government or they have investors that are top-level government employees or CCP members.

David responded, “That’s right, and it’s so dangerous. Not only that, but the configuration of ERP systems takes specialization and knowledge of specific business functions. All of these programs take expertise.  I could name 100 different ERP software programs besides the well-known NetSuite, Infor, Global Shop, and SAP. What we do is we listen to people. The software is made to be infinitely generic because it has to be able to support a very wide swath of companies. So, we have to come back and give them two or three options to configure the software to meet the needs of their company. If you have consultants from another country that don’t speak the English well, they aren’t going to be able to understand what you want and need. They may have a different thought process about quality. My thought process on quality is that it’s not done until it’s 100%, right, and I don’t care how long it takes.”

In closing, David said, “It seems like you have spent decades writing about how to save American manufacturing. I’m asking the ‘Made in the USA’ community to evolve their definition to include ‘Made in the USA’ by U.S. citizens when they select IT & ERP implementation resources for all the positive community and domestic self-sufficiency reasons you outlined.

We agreed that sourcing IT services with American companies will provide a company with the following tangible benefits:

  • In person consulting vs. consulting via Zoom, phone, and email
  • Personal interaction in configuring the ERP software to fit the needs of your company
  • Reduced risk of key company data being stolen
  • Compliance traceability
  • Domestic accountability

We need to do whatever it takes to rebuild our manufacturing industry to ensure that we have the commercial and military/defense products needed to keep Americans healthy and safe.  Reshoring of IT services is another way we can ensure that we have a secure domestic supply chain.

Tags: ,
Posted in General, Made in America, Reshoring | No Comments »

Made in America Manufacturer Prospers in Rust Belt

February 17th, 2026

Last November, I watched a video interview on LinkedIn where Drew Greenblatt, President of Marlin Steel Wire Products, was talking about how he was investing in his companies located in rural areas of Indiana and Michigan.  I connected with him and asked him if he would be willing to let me interview him about his company’s success as I like to write articles about successful American manufacturers.

Our schedules final coincided last Friday, and to start the interview, I asked Drew to provide a brief history of Marlin Steel.  He said, “The company was founded in 1968 by another fellow. I owned a company that made medical devices and burglar alarms. I did very nicely with it. It was hard hours, early in the morning appointments, late in the night appointments, and it was a business selling to consumers. It didn’t match my personal deportment. I like dealing and working with engineers that are very black and white, that are very precise.  So, I craved working with more scientifically bent people.

We got an offer to buy my company, and I used the proceeds of the sale to buy Marlin Steel in 1998 when it was in a 3,000 sq. ft. building, The newest piece of equipment was from the 1950s. The company had no health insurance plan. The health insurance plan was going to the emergency room. They had no retirement plan.  The retirement plan was Social Security. So, we’ve come a long way. Everybody has the same health insurance plan my wife and I have, and my three boys have. And we’re very fortunate. More than half the employees own a home. Most employees own at least one car, most have two cars, and they all have 401ks, and they’re very well paid.  Manufacturing is fabulous for American workers, and they’re feeling it at Marlin. It’s great stuff.  I moved the company to Baltimore, MD, and the plant is now 37 times bigger than the Brooklyn plant.”  

I asked Drew what kind of equipment he has now.  He said, “We have press brakes up to 230 tons and 10 ft. wide, laser cutting machines, and we just acquired a new Trumatic 3000 robotic laser punch combo machine that is 10x faster than our other machines. It’s going to enable us to cut brass, cut copper, as well as stainless steel, aluminum, and sheet metal like we’ve done in the past.  Separately, in our Indiana plant, we also have a lot of wire equipment, three-dimensional benders. We have automated mesh welders.  We do cable access trays, wire baskets, carts, point of purchase displays. We do a tremendous amount of Top-of-the-line quality production out of all these three facilities.”

I asked Drew when he acquired the plant in Orland, IN, and he answered, “Marsden Steel Wire Products was established in 1938, and it was a fabulous company in the rural Indiana. We I heard through the grapevine in 2021 that it was available for sale. We bought the company and put over $5 million dollars of cash into it:   brand new bathrooms, brand new break rooms, brand new offices, brand new roof, just made the building sparkle.  We now have 100,000 sq. ft. of manufacturing space and took the company from 33 employees to 80 employees We have wire fabrication equipment, 3D benders, and automated mesh welder. We are hiring people there, and we’re growing. “

I next asked Drew when he expanded to having a plant in Bronson, MI., and he responded, “In March 2023, we wanted Marsden Steel to have their own powder coating plant, and we heard about a building ten miles north of Orland in Bronson that was available. The building had been empty since the recession of 2008 when the company closed down after being the major employer of this small rural community.  We bought this decrepit building and had a career fair where 350 people applied for jobs.  We put millions of dollars into the plant buying equipment, modernizing the bathrooms, lunch break room, and offices.  We are hiring more people and growing to become the major manufacturer in the community. We pay good wages and provide good benefits to our employees. We’re very excited. We love Michigan. We love Indiana. They have great manufacturing communities. We look at how fabulous the workforce is. It’s just tremendous. We’re just so fortunate and blessed to be in these communities. 

I changed the subject to ask how tariffs are affecting his company.  He responded, “Tariffs are fabulous for Marlin and Madsen Steel Wire because we only make in America and we only use American steel.  So, entities that build in America don’t have a tariff problem. I would recommend to people that are having a hardship with tariffs, build in America, and then you don’t have to pay a tariff. 

It’s really good for the local community because what happens is you hire locals. And then these locals buy homes, and they buy cars, and they go to the local dry cleaner, and they go to the local barbershop, and they’re gainfully employed, and they’re making a nice middle-class living.  I implore communities to encourage manufacturing. This policy is about time because it gives us an opportunity to make a level playing field with people that have been subsidizing their steel, subsidizing their currency, despoiling their environment.  You know, we treat our environment A++. I live right by the Chesapeake Bay in Baltimore. I love eating Maryland crabs. We want to have a clean environment. It’s not right that people bring in things from dirty factories that are putting smog in the world and despoiling the Yangtze River and their environment, and then shipping to us for a ‘low price.’  The low price is despoiling our environment. They’re using slave labor, and it’s just not a fair fight competing with state-owned enterprises over in China.  I believe that we have to recalibrate our thought process, buy from the hometown heroes in Maryland, Indiana, Michigan, and other American local communities so that they can support a middle-class lifestyle.”

Drew said, “I think there’s a dramatic change that’s about to happen. We are right now at a junction point. I contend that we are right now de-risking as a nation and decoupling from China. For decades, we’ve had a very poor policy description of outsourcing all of our factories to China and not making things as much as we used to.   And that was a foolish policy.

We are now pivoting, thankfully, to a policy where we embrace American manufacturing because we need to make things here.  We can’t be beholden to outsiders that they will make us ships and they will make us shoes and they will make us baskets and they will make us racks and they will make us carts when times get tough.  We have to be self-sufficient. We have to make our own printed circuit boards. We have to make our own silicon chips.  We have to make things here in America. I think there’s a realization by our policymakers that we have to re-look at how we did things in the past, and there is a fabulous, bright opportunity for the American people because there’s going to be a lot of new avenues to make a decent, solid, middle-class living again in our country.  We can’t just be a nation of baristas and housekeepers and service workers at restaurants.  We have to have very fulfilling jobs, jobs with dignity, making high-end pay with great benefits.”

I told him that couldn’t have said it better and have said it similarly in my books and articles. We have been outsourcing our pollution by sourcing manufacturing in China and other Asian countries. China is one of the most polluted countries in the world.  What China and India have done to their countries is criminal.  I agree that we need to make things in America because we make them in a non-polluting way because of beneficial environmental regulations.

Next, I asked if he was involved in any kind of industry association, and he answered, “Yes,

I’m a proud member of the National Association of Manufacturers and the Regional Manufacturing Institute.  I am a former member of the NAM Executive Board, and I was the chairman of the small and medium-sized manufacturers comprising 14,000 members.   I love NAM. I think they’re fabulous. I think there are discussions at NAM about the right way to approach the tariffs and some of these other policies. I think NAM is an important advocate for American manufacturing and think they’re doing a great job for our country.”

Finally, I asked him if his company practiced the principles of Lean manufacturing and done any training in lean. He replied, “I had the honor and privilege as the chairman of the Regional Manufacturing Institute here in Baltimore to introduce Ellie Goldratt on his last speech in public to a huge crowd in Baltimore, Maryland. He spoke at a local community college in a huge auditorium, and I was privileged to introduce him before his speech.  He was unfortunately dying of lung cancer, and he gave a most beautiful speech for his class public speech. 

Afterwards, he pulled me aside, and he said that he was touched by my intro because I expressed to the crowd that his book had changed my life and changed how we ran the business and saved my business because we followed his methods. He said that he was heading back to the hotel before he went to the airport and invited me to ride in his limo to talk.  I accepted his offer even though I had my own car in the parking lot because I realized that this was one of the greatest opportunities of my life. For the next 20 minutes, he basically did an autopsy on me even though I was alive.  All of his piercing, smart questions really dove deep into Marlon Steele and gave me some great ideas. Unfortunately, he soon passed after returning to Israel. It was a touching moment in my life, and we changed our business because of him.  A lot of my success is because of his great advice.”

In conclusion, I asked him if he has any plans to expand to any other locations in the future. He responded, “Yes, absolutely. We are going to be growing in America, only in America. We need more thriving small and medium-sized manufacturers, but we also need big ones because, you know, I hope to be one of the big boys and keep on growing.  We’re 37 times bigger than the day I bought the factory in 1998, and I want to be 37 times bigger than I am today. We are having discussions with several other entities.  We are aggressively looking to acquire other manufacturers that make wire fabrications and sheet metal fabrications. We’re very optimistic about the future.  We’re very bullish on America.”

I told him that his company was definitely the kind of company that I like to write about and he is the type of company owner we need to have more of in America —  people that appreciate our country, appreciate making things in America in the communities in which they live, appreciate the people that work for them by giving them the right kind of benefits and safe working conditions, and training. I want more companies to be successful like his company because it’s beneficial to the communities you’re in and beneficial to our economy because manufacturing jobs create taxpayers instead of people who receive benefits.

Tags:
Posted in General, Made in America, Manufacturing | No Comments »

Has the 119th Congress Passed Legislation to Help Rebuild American Manufacturing?

January 20th, 2026

should pass that fulfills their campaign promise to support President’s Trump goal to Make America Great Again and help rebuild American manufacturing.  This article will examine whether or not Congress passed any of the legislation I recommended.

Impose a Market Access Charge (MAC) as proposed by Dr. John R Hansen, (PhD economist and  Economic Advisor, The World Bank (retd.)  “forcing foreigners to pay a market access charge (MAC) on inflows of all foreign-source money.”

The answer is still “no” as revealed in my article, “Why a Market Access Charge Would Have Greater Benefits Than Tariffs,” dated December 12, 2025. The passage of such a bill would address the problem of the U.S. dollar competing against the undervalued currencies of China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan.  It would moderate the gross inflows of “trash cash” into the speculative financial market of stocks and bonds and help American products be more competitive in the global marketplace, which would grow our manufacturing industry and create more higher paying jobs.

Pass a Patent Reform Bill to restore inventors’ rights and end abuses by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). 

As revealed in my November  18, 2025 article, “Legislation Protecting Inventors’ Rights Reintroduced to Congress,” the answer is “yes” as the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA) (H.R. 5811) was introduced in the 119th Congress by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) with Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) as a key co-lead, with its text filed on October 24, 2025, aiming to overhaul U.S. patent law, including abolishing the PTAB and restoring “first to invent” standards.

Revoke China’s Most Favored Nation Status (aka Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)

The answer is “no.” The 119th Congress has not yet revoked China’s Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), but several bipartisan bills have been introduced: H.R. 694, The Restoring Trade Fairness Act, introduced on January 23, 2025 by Rep. John Molenaar (R-MI) and S. 206, The Restoring Trade Fairness Act, introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on January 23, 2025.

These bills represent a  bipartisan effort to end China’s PNTR, applying Column 2 tariff rates (minimum 35%, strategic goods 100%) and eliminating duty-free de minimis treatment on small shipments. These bills are stalled in their respective committees in the House and Senate.

Reduce the Allowed Value of De Minimis imports

No, Congress hasn’t enacted legislation, but  a White House Fact Sheet states that on April 2, 2025, “President Trump is ending duty-free de minimis treatment for covered goods from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Hong Kong starting May 2, 2025.”

“All relevant postal items containing goods that are sent through the international postal network that are valued at or under $800 and that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption are subject to a duty rate of either 30% of their value or $25 per item (increasing to $50 per item after June 1, 2025).”

Them, on July 31, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order suspending duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments. “Effective August 29, imported goods sent through means other than the international postal network that are valued at or under $800 and that would otherwise qualify for the de minimis exemption will be subject to all applicable duties.”

Executive Orders may be revoked by subsequent presidents, so it is important that Congress passes legislation to permanently suspend duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments.

Both :  H.R. 694 the Restoring Trade Fairness Act and S. 206 The Restoring Trade Fairness Act, mentioned above would permanently suspend duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments in addition to revoking China’s PNTR status.  It is important that these bills be approved by their committees to be voted on by the House and Senate.

Reauthorize a Reformed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)

The answer is “yes”.  The Bloomberg Government newsletter of September 30, 2025, states “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), P.L. 119-21, makes permanent key provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, including lower individual tax rates, enhanced deductions, a higher estate and gift tax exemption, and the 20% pass-through deduction. Business tax breaks for research and development, property depreciation, and interest expenses are also now permanent…the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap rises to $40,000 for five years, then reverts to the $10,000 cap… The OBBBA also fulfills several campaign-trail promises with short-term measures, many set to expire after 2028 to limit their cost. These include new deductions for tips, overtime pay, and car loan interest on American-made vehicles, and an additional $6,000 deduction for individuals aged 65 and older.”

The manufacturing industry will also benefit from some of the other provisions of the OBBBA:

  • Authorizes sizable investments in technology and infrastructure
  • Automakers no longer face civil penalties for violations of fleetwide fuel economy standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • Increases the advanced manufacturing tax credit, including for chipmakers, from 25% to 35%.
  • Restores the Federal Communications Commission’s authority (lapsed in 2023) to auction spectrum licenses through 2034
  • Authorizes $1 billion to fund the Defense Production Act
  • Prioritizes fossil fuel development, while renewable energy programs are to be phased out
  • Expands drilling on public land, including four onshore lease sales in nine western states, broader access to all leasable lands, and an extension of drilling permits to four years (up from three)
  • Mandates offshore lease sales in the renamed “Gulf of America,” Alaska’s Cook Inlet, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
  • Directs the Interior Department to approve qualified coal leasing applications, offer 4 million acres for coal leasing, and increase annual federal timber sales through 2034
  • Lowers royalty rates on oil, gas, and coal; eliminates royalties on extracted methane; and ends fees for nominating parcels for leasing

Pass Legislation to Address China’s Exploitation of U.S. Capital Markets, Economic Incentives, and Trade Policy

Congress is actively considering the following bills to counter China’s economic influence, targeting capital markets, trade, and technology:

The FIGHT China Act of 2025 (S.1053) was introduced in the Senate by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) on March 13, 2025. A sister bill (H.R.3946) was introduced in in the House introduced by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY). The FIGHT China Act restricts American investment into Chinese Communist Party (CCP) military and surveillance companies and other sensitive technologies of adversarial nations.  The December 17, 2025 press release by Rep. Barr states:  “Today, the FIGHT China Act led by U.S. Congressman Andy Barr (R-KY) and U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) passed the U.S. Senate…The legislation is the strongest sanctions ever passed by Congress on China…This legislation will make President Donald J. Trump’s America First Investment Policy permanent and prevent American investors from unknowingly bankrolling military and tech companies that threaten U.S. national security.”  Instead of being signed by President Trump as a separate bill, it was added to the 2026 National Defense Authorization Bill mentioned below.

The SAFE Act, Secure America’s Financial Exchanges Act (S.1357)  has five co-sponsors in the Senate: Rick Scott (R),  Marsha Blackburn (R),  Bill Cassidy (R),  Cindy Hyde-Smith (R),  and John Neely Kennedy (R). It “would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to address the issuance of securities by Chinese entities… would require Chinese companies seeking to list securities on U.S. exchanges to disclose detailed information about their relationship with the Chinese government. Specifically, companies would need to reveal any financial support received from the People’s Republic of China, including subsidies, loans, tax benefits, or procurement policy advantages. They must also describe the conditions attached to such support, such as requirements to meet export targets, purchase from specific entities, use certain intellectual property, or employ Chinese Communist Party members. Additionally, companies would have to disclose the presence and composition of Chinese Communist Party committees within their organization, and provide background on any officers or directors who currently or previously held positions in the Chinese government or Communist Party.”

The TASK Act, Transaction and Sourcing Knowledge Act (S.1358), introduced by Senator Rick Scott on April 8, 2025, aims “to enhance transparency by requiring public companies to report on supply chain due diligence, particularly concerning forced labor in Xinjiang, China, to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), bolstering investor protection and addressing human rights concerns through mandated disclosure.”

However, there was another bill that became law in late December that has provisions that benefit American manufacturers and helps rebuild American manufacturing.  This is S.1071 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, which includes significant provisions to benefit American manufacturers by boosting domestic production, funding advanced technologies, creating new networks like the Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network, and focusing on key areas like semiconductors, shipbuilding, and munitions to strengthen the defense industrial base (DIB). Key measures are:

  • Defense Industrial Base Fund Expansion: Broadens allowable spending for materials, equipment, facility construction, and advanced manufacturing investments within the DIB.
  • Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network (CRMN): Establishes a system to rapidly qualify commercial factories to produce defense items during emergencies, increasing surge capacity.
  • Advanced Manufacturing & Technology:
    • Funds R&D for next-gen tech and mandates DoD to adopt advanced methods like additive manufacturing (3D printing).
    • Elevates advanced manufacturing in acquisition governance, co-chairing key groups.
  • Supply Chain Resiliency: Focuses on domestic production for critical items like semiconductors and aims to build advanced manufacturing facilities in the Pacific.
  • Workforce & Skills: Supports upskilling workers and creating pathways for military skills to translate to civilian manufacturing jobs.
  • Targeted Sector Investments: Allocates billions to shipbuilding, munitions, and drones to rebuild stockpiles and capacity. 

Because the OBBBA and the National Defense Authorization bills passed, I am able to give Congress a grade of “B” instead of the “C” they earned because so many of the important bills mentioned above are stalled in their respective Committees.  It is imperative that these bills be voted out of their respective Committees and brought forward into the House and Senate for a vote. My suggestion is to pick one of the above bills that you support and then call your Congressional Representative and Senator to urge them to support that bill.  Remember, “We the People” are the basis for our Constitutional form of government.  If “We the People” are silent and do nothing, then the lobbyists for the multinational globalist corporations and organizations will have the power to influence our elected representatives to support their interests to the detriment of the American people as a whole. 

Tags: , ,
Posted in Legislation, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Why a Market Access Charge Would Have Greater Benefits Than Tariffs

December 9th, 2025

The uproar over President Trump’s tariffs reminded me of another proposed way to balance trade, the Market Access Charge (MAC)  created by John R. Hansen, PhD, Founding Editor of Making America Competitive Again. I met John in 2017 at the annual trade conference of the Coalition for a Prosperous America when he was on CPA’s Advisory Board,, and we have been keeping in touch ever since.

I have written previous articles about the MAC and included a description of the MAC in one of the chapters of my book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity. For first-time readers, I explained that the MAC is “a small charge that would be collected on all foreign-source money entering America’s financial markets…which would probably start at two percent and would be collected by U.S. banks receiving foreign money transfer orders via systems like SWIFT.”

I recently connected with John to find out the status of the MAC, and he expanded on the description of the MAC saying, “it is an import tax of probably 1-3% on inflows of all foreign-source money. The MAC would moderate gross inflows of “trash cash, like the trillions of Chinese RMBs and Japanese JPYs, of about $90 trillion per year. This money is “trash cash” because only about two or three percent of these inflows are used to finance real physical investments such as new or updated factories that can be counted as true foreign direct investment (FDI). The remainder goes into America’s “Capital Casino” aka financial sector. We need moderation because speculative portfolio investments such as bonds are money that we do not need and the MAC would reduce the undervaluation of foreign exchange monies relative to U.S. Dollar.

In other articles, I’ve written about how other countries such as China, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan have undervalued their currencies, making their products more competitive in the global marketplace, while our overvalued dollar makes American products more expensive in the global marketplace.  Low exchange rates for foreign currency mean that the dollar prices of foreign goods and services fall relative to the dollar prices of made-in-America goods and services. This makes the dollar prices of foreign-made goods cheaper, hurting the ability of made-in-America goods to compete with foreign-made goods both in domestic U.S. markets and in foreign markets for our exports.

As a result, we import more products than we export, causing the increasingly large trade deficits of the past 25 years. Trade deficits have grown from $451 Billion in the year 2000 to more than double at $918.4 billion for 2024. The increasing dependence on debt from foreign countries causes severe risks for America’s financial, economic, political, and social future.  Our national debt has nearly doubled since 2020 and was $28.1 trillionat the end of 2024.

In contrast, John explained, “The MAC would make America-made goods more competitive against imports in the U.S and against foreign-made products as exports. The MAC would be a “duty on financial imports” that would be set on a quarterly basis — much as the FED sets interest rates. Upon initial implementation, the FED would set the rate to a low non-zero rate if the trade deficit was greater than 1% of GDP. On a quarterly basis, the FED would review trends in the US trade balance (much as it does with interest rates and inflation). If the deficit was greater than 1% of GDP, the MAC rate would be raised by an amount judged to be small enough to not cause a crisis and large enough to move the trade deficit in the right direction.

Conversely, once the trade deficit began to trend downwards towards zero, the MAC rate would be reduced gradually towards zero. The rate would be publicly available on government websites on a 24/7 basis, and at any point in time, only a single rate would apply to all financial inflows, regardless of currency, country of origin, amount, ownership, or intended use.

The MAC would always remain in effect — even at a zero rate. Then, if changing global conditions led to new U.S. trade deficits greater than, for example, 1% of GDP, the FED would simply move the MAC rate back to a non-zero rate and immediately publish the decision. It would be a perfect blend of ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent,’ both required by the IMF for capital flow management tools (CFMs) such as the MAC. The MAC tax would be collected by U.S. banks receiving foreign money transfer orders via systems like SWIFT.”

In our conversation, John clarified a misunderstanding about the word “investment.” He said, “The rich, especially those in the banking community who sponsor America’s “capital casino,” — seem to call all money “investment.” However, this term can be very misleading because it fails to distinguish between money that builds America’s physical productivity and money that the rich use for speculation.

Depending on the year, of America’s roughly $90 trillion of gross annual inflows of “money” from abroad, only 1-3% actually goes into fixed capital formation such as construction or physical improvement of factories, farms, infrastructure, and office automation as defined by BEA.”

He explained, “The vast bulk of the capital inflows — the remaining 97-99% of them — go primarily into portfolio investments such as bonds, non-controlling shares of stock, bank deposits, etc. These speculative financial investments, which have exploded over past decades relative to GDP, make rich speculators even richer (or poorer if they place their bets wrong), increase risk and volatility, increase the risk of massive economic meltdowns for America like the one of 2008, and help drive inflation ever higher. However, such investments do virtually nothing to increase America’s physical productivity or its real GDP.”

He added, “The MAC would target the most important cause of the growing U.S. trade deficits, the decline of U.S. jobs that produce internationally traded goods and services, and the shrinking U.S. budget revenues. Expenditures by foreign direct investors to acquire, establish, or expand U.S. businesses totaled $151.0 billion in 2024, according to preliminary statistics released today by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Expenditures decreased $24.9 billion, or 14.2 percent, from $176.0 billion (revised) in 2023 and were below the annual average of $277.2 billion for 2014–2023. As in previous years, acquisitions of existing U.S. businesses accounted for most of the expenditures.

I asked John what would be the benefit of the MAC compared to tariffs, and he listed the following:

  • No cost to Americans – the MAC is paid by foreigners
  • Increases exports of goods and services — not just reduce selected imports
  • Increases manufacturing jobs and jobs in wide range of sectors including upstream and downstream suppliers to manufacturers, such as raw materials, agriculture, and transportation.
  • Provides an even playing field – same ratefor all products, producers, countries, etc. instead of the widely varying rates for tariffs.
  • Provides almost zero opportunity for evasion
  • Provides almost zero risk of retaliation
  • Reduces casino capitalism by increasing profitability of real investments in real made-in-America production compared to simply spinning the roulette wheels faster in America’s speculative capital casinos
  • Increases affordability of goods for all Americans
  • Provides Twenty to Thirty times greater fiscal impact as tax base is $90 trillion, not just $3 -$4 trillion
  • End trade deficits by expanding exports, not just reducing imports
  • End budget deficits without raising taxes on Americans

I asked John if there any economists or organizations besides the Coalition for a Prosperous America of which we are both members that support the MAC.  He replied with the following  examples:

  • Economic Policy Institute – Robert Scott
  • Peterson Institute for International Economics – Joe Gagnon
  • American Compass – they published an excellent booklet promoting the MAC
  • Michael Pettis of Carnegie
  • Former U.S. Trade Representative Bob Lighthizer
  • Steve Miran of Hudson Bay Capital/CEA/Fed
  • Financial Times – Martin Wolf and Gillian Tett
  • Harry Moser, The Reshoring Initiative

I next asked what support does the MAC have by members of Congress, and he replied that Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) have been supportive of the MAC in the past.  In fact, they had introduced S. 2357, The Competitive Dollar For Jobs And Prosperity Act, on July 31, 2019. This bill would have tasked the Federal Reserve with achieving and maintaining a current account balancing price for the dollar within five years by implementing the “Market Access Charge. But as the bill was competing at the time for attention with the Covid pandemic, it died in committee without receiving a vote. John is currently having discussions with other Senators and Representatives in the House to gain support.

I conclusion, I asked what the chances are of the MAC being added to a bill or being a separate bill in the current Congress.  He said the chances are better than ever because it would be a basis for a bi-partisan agreement/compromise that would break the current budget deadlock.

He added, “In contrast to tariffs, the MAC meets the four criteria set by the International Monetary Fund for Capital Flow Management measures (CFMs), criteria which state that such measures must be transparent, temporary, targeted, and non-discriminatory.”  I didn’t know what CFMs were, so he explained that they are temporary measures aimed at stabilizing a country’s economy during crises. They may include capital controls to manage capital flows and protect foreign reserves. CFMs can involve restrictions on foreign exchange transactions to stabilize currency value. These measures are often linked to IMF lending programs and economic reform conditions. CFMs are designed to prevent excessive volatility in financial markets and promote economic stability. They are typically reviewed and adjusted based on the country’s economic recovery progress.

If we want to increase prosperity based on growing productivity, not growing mountains of debt, it’s time to stop the destruction of American industry and innovation, the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs, and the collapse of communities.  We must stop importing more goods than we export, leaving us deeply indebted to our trading partners. I urge Congress to urgently pass a bill that would implement the Market Access Charge.  Call your Congressman and Senator today to urge them to support the introduction of such a bill.

Tags: ,
Posted in General, Legislation, Trade Policy | No Comments »

Legislation Protecting Inventors’ Rights Reintroduced to Congress

November 18th, 2025

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY4) and co-sponsor Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) introduced bipartisan legislation, HR 5811, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA). This bill would put a halt to and reverse many of the adverse changes to our patent system that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 established, changing our patent system from being the best in the world to one that has nearly destroyed inventors’ rights. The America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 was H.R. 1249 in the House and S. 23 in the Senate. The House Judiciary Committee played a significant role in advancing the legislation.

In his press release, Congressman Massie stated, “The RALIA legislation restores to Americans a patent system as the Constitution of the United States originally envisioned it…In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers gave Congress the authority to protect the discoveries of inventors. Specifically, they created a patent system to ‘promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.’ Regrettably, Congress’s 2011 enactment of the Leahy-Smith ‘America Invents Act’ has worked in concert with several Supreme Court decisions to erode this protection’s strength and value.”

The press release also states: “RALIA affirms that a patent secures private property rights, allows inventors to get injunctions again against intellectual property thieves, restores inventors’ rights to defend their inventions in court by abolishing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and ends the automatic publication of patent applications unless a patent is granted. 

Congressman Massie’s RALIA legislation is supported by organizations including AMAC Action, American Policy Center, Americans for Limited Government, Center for American Principles, Conservatives for Property Rights, Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, IEEE-USA, Less Government, Let Freedom Ring, 60 Plus Association, the Small Business Technology Council, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, Tea Party Patriots Action, The Committee for Justice, Tradition Family Property Inc., U.S. Business & Industry Council, US Inventor, and Veterans Intellectual Property.”

Rep. Massie first introduced RALIA as H.R.5874 – Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021  to the 117th Congress (2021-2022) and then as HR 8134, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA) to the 118th Congress (2023-2024) on April 16, 2024 with  Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) as co-sponsor. Neither of the above bills was approved by the IP subcommittee to be voted on by the Judiciary Committee to be released for a vote of the full House.

The protocol is for a bill to be introduced to the appropriate subcommittee of the appropriate House Committee.  In the case of legislation related to patents, it would first be introduced to the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet (commonly referred to as the “IP Subcommittee”), which oversees intellectual property matters. The Senate has a similar subcommittee Intellectual Property (IP) Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Here’s a detailed breakdown based on publicly available Congressional records and official committee rosters for the IP subcommittee:

1. Intellectual Property Subcommittee Members by Congress

A. 117th Congress (2021–2022)

Chair: Hank Johnson (D-GA)
Ranking Member: Darrell Issa (R-CA)

Democratic Members:

  • Hank Johnson (GA, Chair)
  • Jerry Nadler (NY)
  • Zoe Lofgren (CA)
  • Sheila Jackson Lee (TX)
  • Steve Cohen (TN)
  • Karen Bass (CA)
  • Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)
  • Madeleine Dean (PA)
  • Deborah Ross (NC)

Republican Members:

  • Darrell Issa (CA, Ranking)
  • Jim Jordan (OH)
  • Ken Buck (CO)
  • Steve Chabot (OH)
  • Mike Johnson (LA)
  • Tom Tiffany (WI)

B. 118th Congress (2023–2024)

Chair: Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Ranking Member: Hank Johnson (D-GA)

Republican Members:

  • Darrell Issa (CA)
  • Tom Tiffany (WI)
  • Scott Fitzgerald (WI)
  • Ben Cline (VA)
  • Cliff Bentz (OR)
  • Jim Jordan (OH, ex officio)

Democratic Members:

  • Hank Johnson (GA)
  • Mary Gay Scanlon (PA)
  • Deborah Ross (NC)
  • Madeleine Dean (PA)
  • Jerry Nadler (NY, ex officio)

C. 119th Congress (2025–2026)

Chair: Darrell Issa (R-CA)

Ranking Member: Hank Johnson (D-GA)

Republican Members:

  • Darrell Issa (CA)
  • Thomas Massie (KY)
  • Ben Cline (VA)
  • Scott Fitzgerald (WI)
  • Lance Gooden (TX)
  • Kevin Kiley (CA)
  • Laurel M. Lee (FL)
  • Russell Fry (SC)
  • Michael Baumgartner (WA)

Democratic Members:

The biggest problem for getting the RALIA bills approved by the IP Subcommittee and Judiciary Committee of the 117th and 118th Congress is that there were notable Judiciary Committee members who co-sponsored the AIA during the 112th Congress (2011–2012):

  • Lamar Smith (R-TX) – Chairman of the Judiciary Committee; Principal Sponsor of H.R.1249.
  • Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) – Judiciary Committee member; Original co-sponsor.
  • Howard Coble (R-NC) – Judiciary Committee member; Original co-sponsor.
  • Darrell Issa (R-CA) – Judiciary Committee member; Co-sponsor.
  • Mel Watt (D-NC) – Judiciary Committee member; Co-sponsor.

Source: Congress.gov – H.R. 1249 (America Invents Act) Co-sponsors\

Of these co-sponsors, only Congressman Darrell Issa is still on the IP subcommittee, but he has considerable influence as Chair of the subcommittee. 

All three versions of the RALIA bills would repeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR;) return the patent system to a “first-to-invent” model, rather than first-to-file, and would end automatic publication of patents. Inventor groups such as US Inventor and conservative groups have supported the legislation

The US Inventor website states: “Recent legislation and court decisions have all but destroyed what once was the world’s “gold standard” patent system, established by our Founders within our U.S. Constitution. Unless something is done soon, our Patent System will be pretty much ravaged, and with it, the American Dream.”

Randy Landreneau, President of US Inventor, Inc. stated, “RALIA returns the US Patent System to what it was prior to the negative changes from bad law and Supreme Court decisions that have greatly harmed American inventors and startups. These changes have 1) enabled monopolies by making it infinitely harder for startups to compete and 2) allowed China to threaten to take the lead in almost all key, future technologies. RALIA will not only restore America’s leadership in innovation, it will restore the American Dream for millions.”

Dirk Tomsin, Chief Operating Officer of US Inventor, Inc., stated “Unlike PERA, PREVAIL, and RESTORE—which fall short of addressing the core problems—the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act uses the correct statutory language to truly fix the problem. If we were to compare the patent system with the PTAB to a patient with a tumor. RALIA is the operation that removes that tumor.”

As a member of US Inventor and a board member of the San Diego Inventors Forum for 11 years, I understand the importance of safeguarding intellectual property and fostering an environment where inventors can thrive and strongly support this legislation. My call to action is, if your Congressman is a member of the current IP subcommittee, contact them to express your support for HR 5811, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act (RALIA).

Tags: ,
Posted in General, Inellectual Property, Legislation | No Comments »

Ohio Leads in Workforce Training

October 28th, 2025

Many of my business connections don’t think it is possible to train enough workers in manufacturing skills to fill the millions of open jobs in manufacturing.  I Have a more positive view because of all the successful programs I have written about over the past ten years.  After seeing a recent post on LinkedIn about workforce development in Ohio by Paola Masman, CEO and Creative Director of Masman Media located in Columbus, Ohio, I reconnected with her. I know Paola from when she was Media Director for the Coalition for a Prosperous America from 2017 to 2019 for which I was chair of the California chapter from 2013-2018 after being a member r since 2011.

Paola said, “Workforce development is a cornerstone of Ohio’s economic vitality, especially in an era where manufacturing requires advanced skills and adaptability. Ohio is in the midst of an economic renaissance. With billions in investment from companies like Intel, Honda, and others, Ohio is seeing incredible job creation across advanced manufacturing, semiconductors, logistics, and biotech. And the training infrastructure to meet this moment is already here: Several state agencies, notably the Ohio Technical Centers (OTCs), facilitate the upskilling and reskilling of workers to meet industry demands. These programs offer accessible pathways to lucrative careers through short-term certificate programs and specialized training tailored to the needs of Ohio’s robust manufacturing sector. The Ohio Technical Centers, community colleges, short-term credential programs, and upskilling initiatives are ready to equip our workforce. But there’s a problem, no one knows these opportunities exist.

I told her that is what I have found to be the case in California and many other states that have successful programs about which I have written.  I asked her why and when her company got involved with workforce development. She replied, “In 2021 after COVID shutdowns ended, manufacturers were open and the difficulty in finding skilled workers that had existed prior to the shutdowns became worse.  We saw the need to assist manufacturers in a new way to develop a skilled workforce and fill the pipeline. There are incredible job opportunities in manufacturing, and it was time to help workers get the training they need to bridge the gap. That’s where my company, Masman Media comes in. We are a full-service advertising agency with six full-time employees that lives inside this ecosystem.  We get hired by organizations, colleges, workforce boards, and economic development organizations for our expertise in manufacturing marketing as well as workforce development marketing. We work directly with colleges, OTCs, manufacturers, economic development organizations, industry sector partnerships, and workforce boards. Our job is to raise awareness and drive action, connecting people to programs that change lives and fill critical jobs. We’re not just a media-buying agency. We create the stories, the videos, the ads, the flyers, the landing pages, the scripts, and the strategies that get people to stop scrolling and start thinking, “Maybe that could be me.”

She explained, “We specialize in program-specific marketing, because telling someone to “go to college” isn’t enough. We tell them about the EMEC program that can lead to a $60,000/year technician job at Intel. Or the mechatronics certificate that gets them hired at a local manufacturing facility in 10 months. And we’ve seen it work: over 8,500 leads, 697 program registrants, and a 55% growth in one college’s engineering tech program just from one campaign. Some of the programs ae free and some have fees.  The OTC even has a free 4-week program to train people for entry level manufacturing jobs paying $19.50/hour. 

Working alongside regional partners and education providers, a single campaign produced 8,500 leads for technician pathways in advanced manufacturing. Because the training is employer-agnostic and stackable, participants remain job-ready across sectors like semiconductors, robotics, aerospace, and autonomous systems, regardless of individual facility timelines.”

I asked if they have measurable goals, and she said, “We track Key Performance Indicators such as how many leads are we getting, how many registrations are we getting from the leads, and how many students earn certificates. It’s harder to track the registrations because partner organizations are following up on the leads from the ad campaigns. We understand the urgency of the skilled talent gap, the nuance of marketing short-term training, and the importance of storytelling in economic development. That’s why Masman Media exists. We’re proud to be part of this mission in Ohio and we’re just getting started.”

I thanked Paola for sharing information about Ohio’s successful training program and wished her continued success.  Then, I researched the history of Ohio’s Career Technical Education and discovered that Ohio had long been a leader in this field.

In the 1970s when most states were ending their “shop” classes like machine shop, wood shop, and auto shop that had successfully trained students for non-college careers in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, the “Ohio Department of Education instructed school districts to form career tech planning districts (CTPDs). The demarcation of a CTPD was largely defined by population, with each CTPD required to deliver secondary CTE instruction…State legislation requires every Ohio student in grades 7-12 to have access to 12 CTE programs across at least eight of the 16 Ohio-approved career fields.  Every local school district in the state is part of a CTPD of some kind.  Career-tech inspires students to identify paths to future success and provides students opportunities to demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary for high school graduation and beyond. Students learn through career exploration, taking college courses and earning industry credentials. They receive customized learning that aligns their passions and interests to their career aspirations.”

“Ohio Technical Centers (OTCs) are an association of independently operated career-technical institutions operating across the state, primarily linked to the Ohio Department of Higher Education to facilitate the upskilling and reskilling of workers to meet industry demands. These centers play a vital role in enhancing the job skills and professional competencies of Ohio’s workforce. They provide flexible, timely adult education programs tailored to meet the specific needs of local communities. Because of their strong partnerships with local employers, an OTC can deliver immediate and lasting impact to prepare workers for real-world job opportunities and requirements. “With 50 centers across the state, OTCs provide adult learners with the training and credentials required for the most in-demand jobs, offering a direct pathway to employment and career advancement. Each year, nearly 25,000 adults enroll in OTC programs. The most recent program completion and job placement rates were 82% and 97%, respectively.”

Example Certificates at OTCs for Manufacturing

  • Welding Technology Certificate:  Offered at centers like the Cuyahoga Valley Career Center and Great Oaks Career Campuses, this program covers arc, MIG, and TIG welding, blueprint reading, and industrial safety. It directly correlates with jobs in fabricating, construction, and automotive manufacturing.
  • Industrial Maintenance Technician:  The Columbus State Community College and various OTCs provide this training, focusing on machinery repair, PLC programming, and hydraulic systems. It’s a core pathway for maintaining the advanced machinery found in modern manufacturing plants.
  • CNC Machining Certificate:  Available at locations such as the Butler Tech Adult Education and the Penta Career Center, this program trains students in computer numerical control (CNC) operations, blueprint reading, and precision measurement—skills essential for jobs in parts manufacturing and metalworking.
  • Manufacturing Skills Standards Council (MSSC) Certified Production Technician (CPT):  Many OTCs offer the CPT certification, which covers safety, quality practices, manufacturing processes, and maintenance awareness—a foundational credential recognized nationally by manufacturing employers.

Other Key Workforce Development Initiatives in Ohio

  • OhioMeansJobs Centers: These centers, present in every county, provide job seekers with resume workshops, career counseling, and connections to apprenticeship and certificate programs, including those tailored for manufacturing.
  • Apprenticeship Ohio: Managed by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, this initiative supports earn-and-learn models in partnership with manufacturing companies, allowing individuals to gain paid work experience while earning industry-recognized credentials.
  • TechCred: The Ohio TechCred program reimburses employers for training current and prospective employees in technology-focused certificates, including those relevant to advanced manufacturing processes.

These programs are vital in preparing Ohio’s workforce to fill high-demand manufacturing positions that require technical proficiency and adaptability. By offering stackable credentials, accessible training, and strong employer partnerships, Ohio’s workforce development ecosystem empowers residents to achieve upward mobility while helping companies remain competitive in a global market.

If every other state would follow Ohio’s example of successful programs for workforce training for manufacturing jobs, the United States would be able to close the gap of insufficient skilled workers for unfilled manufacturing jobs in 10-12 years instead of a generation.   This would enable our country to become self-sufficient again domestically for the manufactured products needed to protect the health and welfare of American citizens and the products needed to defend and protect our country.   

Tags: ,
Posted in General, Workforce Development | No Comments »

Are Tariffs Creating Inflation?

October 14th, 2025

There is considerable debate on whether or not President Trump’s tariffs are creating inflation. Many economists argue that tariffs are inflationary because they directly raise the cost of imported goods and may lead to higher prices for domestic alternatives. This perspective was echoed by former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, who stated in 2022, “Tariffs tend to boost domestic prices and make goods more expensive.” This article will examine the data to determine whether tariffs are causing inflation.

When a government imposes tariffs on imports, the immediate effect can be raising the price of those imported goods. And, if domestic producers also increase their own prices, this can create upward pressure on the overall price level—an effect referred to as inflation.

However, some analysts believe the inflationary impact of tariffs depends on context. For instance, if tariffs are targeted at goods with plentiful domestic alternatives, or if the affected imports are a minor component of household spending, the inflationary effect might be muted. The Congressional Research Service notes: “The overall effect on inflation depends on the share of products subject to tariffs and the ability of consumers to substitute away from higher-priced imports.”

While there is agreement that tariffs tend to increase the prices of affected goods, the extent to which they contribute to overall inflation depends on the structure of the economy and the scope of the tariffs. Most empirical evidence suggests tariffs do put upward pressure on prices, but the scale and significance can vary.

After President Trump announced new and expanded tariffs on a wide range of Chinese imports in 2025—covering sectors like electric vehicles, batteries, and advanced technology—economists expressed their opinions on the likely impact on inflation. Here’s an overview of professional opinions from several economists and economic organizations:

1. Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs economists argued that “The new tariffs are likely to have a small direct impact on inflation, since the targeted products account for a minor share of consumer spending. However, if tariffs are broadened or trigger retaliation, the impact could be more significant, especially if supply chains are disrupted.” However, they noted that “broader or retaliatory tariffs could have a more meaningful effect if they lead to supply chain disruptions or higher costs for intermediate goods.”

2. Lawrence Summers (Former U.S. Treasury Secretary and Harvard Professor)

Lawrence Summers criticized the 2025 tariffs, stating, “Tariffs are taxes that get passed on to consumers. The more tariffs, the more upward pressure on prices,” and that the new measures “risk modest but noticeable increases in prices for consumers, especially on goods made with Chinese components.”

3. Paul Krugman (Nobel Laureate, New York Times Columnist)

Krugman wrote that while the immediate, direct impact of the 2025 tariffs on inflation “will likely be limited and largely sector-specific,” there’s a risk that trade wars escalate: “Retaliation and further trade barriers could eventually seep into broader price increases.”

4. Moody’s Analytics (Mark Zandi, Chief Economist)

Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics stated the 2025 tariffs “will have a marginal, temporary effect on inflation,” estimating an increase of “less than 0.1 percentage point” on the Consumer Price Index in the following year. He cautioned, however, that “if the trade conflict escalates, the inflation impact could be more significant.”

5. Peterson Institute for International Economics

A policy brief from PIIE pointed out, “Past experience shows that tariffs are paid by U.S. importers and often passed on to consumers, though the 2025 set of tariffs mainly target industries where substitution is possible, potentially blunting the inflation impact.”

Summary Table

Economist/OrganizationOpinion on Inflation EffectSource Link
Goldman SachsSmall direct impact, higher risk if escalation occursGS Research
Lawrence SummersModest but noticeable upward pressure on pricesFinancial Times
Paul KrugmanLimited sectoral effect, bigger risk if trade war escalatesNYT
Mark Zandi (Moody’s)Marginal, temporary rise; more if conflict escalatesMoody’s Analytics
Peterson Institute (PIIE)Tariffs paid by importers, inflation muted by substitutionsPIIE

A September 25, 2025 report titled , “Tariffs Are Not Causing Inflation: Breaking Down August 2025 CPI” by Andrew Rechenberg of the Coalition for  Prosperous America argues “Inflation today is moderate, running far below the post-COVID peak and even below January 2025 levels, before any new tariffs were enacted. Furthermore, the main drivers of August 2025 inflation are housing shortages, energy demand, and food supply shocks — not tariffs.”

The report breaks down the August Consumer Price Index showing that the following drivers for inflation were:

  • Shelter: +0.4% m/m
  • Airline Fares: +5.9% m/m.
  • Beef: +2.7% m/m retail; +8% wholesale PPI.
  • Coffee: +6.9% m/m.
  • Electricity: +0.3% m/m
  • Eggs: flat m/m, but +10.9% Year over Year

Surprising to economists was the fact that many imported goods were not the drivers of inflation as shown below:

  • Autos: New vehicles rose +0.3% m/m and used vehicles +1.0% m/m
  • Steel & Aluminum: +0.4% m/m
  • Electronics: flat to +0.1% m/m
  • Pasta, Olive Oil, and Spices: 0.0–0.2% m/m

Andrew concludes: “If tariffs caused “economic disaster,” inflation wouldn’t be at 2.9% — it would look like 2022 all over again. Inflation data does not support these dire warnings. CPI rose just 0.2% in August, while PPI actually declined. As shown in Figure 1, Inflation today is running 63% below the 2022 average and even just below January 2025 inflation levels, hardly the sign of an “economic disaster.”

In reality, an examination of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from March 2025 to July 2025 shows that the main drivers of price increases (inflation) are similar to the August report examined by CPA. 

1. Energy Prices

  • Import-related: Increases in global oil and gas prices due to geopolitical tensions or supply constraints (e.g., OPEC+ production cuts, Middle East instability) drove up domestic fuel and electricity prices.
  • Domestic: Infrastructure failures or domestic supply chain issues (e.g., refinery outages, grid failures) also boosted local energy prices.

2. Food Prices

  • Import-related: Rising prices of imported foodstuffs (such as coffee, cocoa, grains, or meat) due to poor harvests, supply chain disruptions, or currency depreciation.
  • Domestic: Domestic droughts, floods, or other adverse weather events affected local crop yields, and labor shortages increased local production costs.

3. Wages and Labor Costs

  • Domestic: Wage increases from tight labor markets or new government policies (minimum wage hikes) led to higher costs for services and goods, which was passed on to consumers.

4. Rents and Housing Costs

  • Domestic: Continued demand for housing, supply shortages, and higher mortgage interest rates pushed up rents and property costs.

As we can determine from data for the CPI from March to July 2025, the main drivers for inflation are related to domestic policies, not tariffs.  Each of these drivers could be explored in separate articles, but that would be out of my area of focus and expertise. 

Thus, I continue to support President Trump’s tariffs that will balance our trade deficit and help rebuild American manufacturing.  I still believe that fluctuating tariffs on Chinese imports that are only temporary and at lower levels won’t have the lasting effect needed to rebuild America’s industrial base.  Tariffs on Chinese imports need to be made permanent at a high level (100-125%) to influence CEOs of American companies to decide to reshore manufacturing to America, expand existing plants, and/or build plants in new locations.  This action is truly the only way to Make America Great Again.

Tags: ,
Posted in Manufacturing, Trade Policy | No Comments »

« Older Entries