• Top 5 states by tariffs paid due to expiration: California ($287 million), Florida ($98 million), New York ($80 million), Texas ($80 million), Georgia ($61 million)
  
  
• Top 5 states by highest average tariff paid due to expiration: Colorado (12.1%), Maine (11.0%), Wisconsin (9.3%), Montana (9.1%), Utah (9.0%)
  
  
• Top 5 source countries by value of GSP imports: Indonesia ($3.9 billion), Thailand ($3.3 billion), Cambodia ($2.7 billion), Brazil ($2.5 billion), Philippines ($1.9 billion)
  
  
• Top 5 source countries by value of (eventual) tariff savings: Cambodia ($268 million), Indonesia ($218 million), Thailand ($139 million), Philippines ($121 million), Brazil ($94 million)
  
  

Import growth in 2021 was massive. Total U.S. goods imports grew by 21%, while those from GSP countries grew by 35%. Yet “competitive need limitations” (CNLs), which lead to GSP loss for specific products, only grew by 2.6%. As a result, $1.8 billion of the currently eligible imports exceeded the 2021 CNL and another $1.5 billion likely will exceed the 2022 cap based on import levels and trends, putting a huge share of future GSP benefits at risk:

• Top 5 states by share of benefits at risk for exceeding the 2021 CNL: Mississippi (42%), Louisiana (26%), Florida (20%), New York (15%), Virginia (13%)
  
  
• Top 5 states by share of benefits likely at risk from the 2022 CNL: Maine (37%), Colorado (27%), Iowa (27%), Hawaii (19%), Michigan (15%)
  
  

Representatives Stephanie Murphy (D-FL) and Jackie Walorski (R-IN) introduced the bipartisan CNL Update Act (H.R.6171), which would amend the CNLs to grow more in line with historical trends. Not only would the CNL Update Act help preserve GSP for much of that “at risk” trade, it would help restore GSP for some of the $10 billion (!!!) in imports that lost GSP in the past due to product reviews:

• Top 5 states by potential GSP savings increase for products that “should” be restored by H.R.6171: Alaska (84%), South Dakota (72%), Michigan (41%), Maryland (38%), Mississippi (42%)
  
  
• Top 5 states by potential GSP savings increase for products that “may” be restored by H.R.6171: South Dakota (4,565%), Wyoming (218%), Maryland (213%), New York (196%), Minnesota (166%)
  
  

While the CNL Update Act has a chance to “preserve and restore,” there remains considerable down-side risk. The GSP renewal language in the House’s America COMPETES Act not only maintains the current CNL thresholds, but creates a high likelihood of full or partial termination for key GSP supplier countries, particularly Brazil, Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippines, and Thailand. Loss of GSP due to current CNL rules, combined with loss for those countries, would decimate the program:

• States where at least 90% of current GSP benefits are at risk: Wisconsin (-97%), West Virginia (-96%), Montana (-92%), Utah (-91%)
  
  
• States where at least 80% of current GSP benefits are at risk: Colorado (-88%), Connecticut (-86%), Arkansas (-85%), Hawaii (-84%), Wyoming (-83%), Maine (-83%), Alaska (-82%), Kansas (-82%), Mississippi (-82%), Texas (-81%), Indiana (-81%)
  
  
• States where at least 70% of current GSP benefits are at risk: Nebraska (-79%), Georgia (-79%), North Carolina (-79%), Michigan (-79%), Washington (-78%), Rhode Island (-78%), Nevada (-78%), Illinois (-77%), Alabama (-76%), New Mexico (-76%), California (-76%), Minnesota (-75%), Tennessee (-75%), Virginia (-74%), Massachusetts (-74%), Oklahoma (-74%), Kentucky (-73%), South Dakota (-72%), Florida (-72%), Oregon (-71%)
  
  

This last set of stats shows that GSP “renewal” can’t be the only priority. It must be renewed in a way that doesn’t decimate the program in the next 2-3 years. After all, it’s impossible to “promote development through trade” with a program that covers no trade.

No similar linear diaphragm pumps are manufactured in the United States, though competitors in China often try to copy Hiblows design and sell for lower prices. Hiblow’s operations also exemplify GSP’s original development goals: workers at the Philippines factory receive competitive wages, bonuses and family outings throughout the year, and private health insurance benefits. GSP is one tool that helps Hiblow workers in the United States and the Philippines stay competitive in the global market.

GSP benefits have helped Hiblow mitigate Covid-19 impacts, particularly a 500% increase in freight costs. Ocean shipping delays meant Hiblow had to use air freight to get its product American manufacturing customs in time.

If GSP expires, Hiblow will need to recoup $400,000 “from somewhere.” That is likely less money spent with local vendors, for conferences, for marketing and advertising materials and – most importantly for policymakers – by freezing any new hires. That is bad news at a time when there are 10 million fewer American jobs than than there were earlier this year.

Watch Hiblow President Tim Smith explain how “renewing GSP is imperative to us to grow our business and hire more people in 2021 and beyond.”

If you’re a GSP importer, submit your own video testimonial here.

To be clear: they’re not paid by the countries and haven’t achieved any other U.S. policy goals and won’t be refunded if benefits are reinstated. They’re just $500 million in new taxes on U.S. companies at a time of unprecedented economic collapse and job losses.

Above is the breakdown of estimated tariffs paid by state. Imports into California and New Jersey have faced about $50 million in new tariffs each. Companies in traditional – or newfound – election battleground states Texas, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio were all in the top 10 of tariffs paid, collectively paying up to $168 million in extra taxes.

And the taxes paid continue to climb.

The bulk of taxes – up to $366 million from June 2019 to August 2020 – have been paid on imports from India. The typical GSP importer from India had 14 employees and saved $100,000 per year. The burden falls overwhelmingly on small businesses struggling to make it through the pandemic, not the large multinational that can rapidly shift sourcing to suppliers in other countries. A report from April 2019 profiled many U.S. companies that would be hurt by termination for India (and others).

Up to $111 million in tariffs have been paid on imports from Turkey from May 2019 to August 2020. In similar comments submitted as part of the Turkey review, we noted the typical GSP importer from Turkey had 14 employees and saved about $150,000 annually. The Turkey review was launched over “market access” issues, but there were no known discussions about resolving issues. Instead, Turkey was “graduated” for sufficient economic development despite just entered a recession and having a GDP per capita that has now fallen in 5 consecutive years (the metric used to determine if countries should be graduated from GSP automatically).

Up to $23 million in tariffs have been paid on imports from Thailand from May 2020 to August 2020. Importers from Thailand tend to be a little bigger – but far from large! – with the typical importer having 28 employees and savings $183,000 annually under GSP. Most unhelpfully, the product facing the most tariffs appear to be face masks. Higher tariffs on face masks may not have seemed like a big deal when Thailand’s partial suspension was announced in October 2019, but we’re in a very different world with mask imports surging due Covid-19.

Potential GSP renewal legislation is highly unlikely to address country-specific issues, but the impacts from terminations are no less real for American companies than the prospects of expiration. If Congress considers changes to the GSP programs in the future, ensuring importers interests are not ignored in the country review processes should be a top priority.

While California is far-and-away the #1 state for GSP savings, Texas edges it out for most tariffs paid this year due to country suspensions – companies in each state have paid up to $18.6 million in extra taxes. Companies in New Jersey are not far behind, having paid up to $18.2 million in extra taxes due to country suspensions.

The costs are driven by different Trump administration actions. Texas is the top state in tariffs paid due to India’s suspension, New Jersey has paid the most due to Turkey’s suspension, and California has paid the most due to Thailand’s partial suspension. The table at the very bottom shows tariffs paid, by country suspension and total, for all states.

Including the tariffs paid due to suspensions, both in 2019 and 2020, drastically changes the state savings trends. Instead of the sea of dark red states with declines of over 20% shown yesterday (and below, right), only a 5 states are likely to have seen such declines without country suspensions. Similarly, there would be savings growth for states in every region of the country instead of limited to the Mountain West.

Swings states, including big states not traditionally in play in Presidential or Senate elections, account for some of the biggest dollar swings. Without country suspensions:

• Texas companies’ savings would’ve increased up to $2.4 million instead of declining by $12.7 million, a $15+ million swing
• Georgia companies’ savings would’ve increased up to $3.1 million instead of declining by $5.8 million, nearly a $9 million swing

In more traditional swings states, maintaining full GSP eligibility for all countries would have mitigated declines likely associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. For example:

• Florida companies’ savings would’ve declined by $4.3 million instead of $12.6 million, an $8+ million swing
• Pennsylvania companies’ savings would’ve declined by $350,000 instead of $8.2 million, nearly an $8 million swing
• Michigan companies’ savings would’ve declined by $3.2 million instead of $8.2 million, an $5+ million swing

Swings were even bigger on a percentage basis in states where GSP savings are traditionally lower:

• Instead of declining by 47%, New Mexico companies’ savings would’ve increased by up to 161%, a 200+ percentage point swing
• Instead of declining by 60%, Minnesota companies’ savings would’ve increased by up to 17%, nearly an 80 percentage point swing

These are real costs to real American companies and workers – many in places that will be hotly contested in the 2020 elections – on top of the challenges related to the Covid-19 pandemic and economic fallout. In addition to congressional reauthorization of GSP, administration decisions to restore lost GSP eligibility would provide significant benefits to struggling American companies.

The top states by GSP savings have been fairly consistent over the years. California accounts for more than a quarter of GSP savings – about as much as the next 4 states (Florida, New York, Texas, New Jersey) combined. Washington and Tennessee have moved into the top 10 states in 2020, replacing Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

Savings are down sharply, from $555 million in 2019 to $407 million in 2020. The map below shows the widespread declines, with the Mountain West being a notable exception. Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona form a string of growth states from the Canadian to Mexican borders. Colorado’s savings increased over 150% from 2019, largely driven by a jump in backpack imports. Massachusetts is the only other state where GSP savings are up in the first half of 2020.

Savings declined by over 40% in more than 20 states, including a whopping 78% in Vermont. GSP savings also declined by 67% in Montana and Oklahoma, 63% in North Dakota, 61% in Michigan, 60% in Minnesota, and 52% in West Virginia.

Declines are NOT due to Covid-19. American companies have paid up to $183 million in extra tariffs in 2020 due to GSP suspensions for India, Turkey, and Thailand. In the first half of 2019, tariffs paid due to suspensions (India and Turkey only) were about $35 million. Add those potential savings to actual savings in both years, and the first half totals were nearly identical ($590 million) in spite of Covid-19-related declines. Our next post will dig into state-by-state costs in 2020 associated with the suspensions.

In a major shift from 2018, consumer goods were the largest category of GSP imports by both value ($6.6 billion) and savings ($512 million). Consumers goods accounted for 32% of total GSP imports, up from 24% the prior year. Because average tariffs (without GSP) are much higher (7.7%), consumer goods accounted for about half of all GSP savings. Expanding GSP to cover travel goods in 2016/2017 has led to steadily increasing consumer goods imports over the last several year.

Industrial materials ranked second among GSP products both by import value ($6.0 billion) and estimated tariff savings ($256 million). Industrial materials were the largest GSP imports, usually by a wide margin, in each of the last 10 years. The reason industrial materials slipped to #2 is clear from the “top countries”: 5 months of GSP for India eliminated more tariffs on materials used by American manufacturers than full-year GSP for any other country.

Agricultural and food products ranked third among GSP products by import value ($2.9 billion) and estimated tariff savings ($116 million). Among the more surprising data points: Ecuador was the second-largest source of food and agricultural products in 2019 by the value of GSP savings, primarily on tropical plants such as taro, mangoes, and guavas.

Capital goods ranked fourth among GSP imports by value ($2.8 billion) and savings ($83 million) in 2019. Despite similar import values, GSP savings on capital goods were much lower than GSP savings on agricultural and food products due to lower average tariff rates (3.0% versus 4.0%, respectively). India was the second-biggest source country in terms of tariff saving on capital goods, again demonstrating how American manufacturers are bearing the brunt of the decision to end GSP for India.

Autos and parts ranked fifth among GSP imports by value ($2.3 billion) and savings ($66 million) in 2019. Passenger vehicles are not eligible for GSP, so imports tend to be concentrated among parts such as engines, tires, and wire harnesses. Not surprisingly, states with a heavy automotive presence such as Michigan and Tennessee are among the top importers by GSP savings on these components and parts.

The estimate is based on an analysis of GSP imports and tariff savings for products flagged in the USITC’s recent report COVID-19 Related Goods: U.S. Imports and Tariffs, which was requested by House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. This is a narrow definition that likely discounts savings on a wide range of indirectly-related products, as made clear by responses to the Coalition for GSP’s Covid-19 survey (take the survey here, see results to date here).

Tim Smith, President of HIBLOW USA in Saline, Michigan, reported “98% of the air pumps we sell to American OEM’s for medical devices come from the Philippines.” Specific medical applications for HIBLOW’s pumps include respiratory devices, bariatric air mattresses, and immunity/ blood examination equipment. GSP eliminated several million in tariffs on air pumps in 2019, but the pumps themselves are not considered medical products in the USITC report.

Another respondent expects increases in their imports of acrylic plastics from Indonesia and Thailand in 2020. The plastics are used to make sneeze guards for supermarkets and retail locations, which are in high demand due to Covid-19. But again, acrylics are not really “medical” products and do not appear on the USITC list. GSP eliminated several million in tariffs on acrylic plastics in 2019.

The Covid-related product list also shows the harm from seemingly unrelated GSP decisions by the Administration.

GSP would have eliminated $31 million in tariffs in 2019 on the Covid-19 products if the Administration had not terminated eligibility for India and Turkey. Due to the decisions, American companies paid those $7 million in tariffs.

More recently, the Administration suspended GSP benefits for about 1/3 of imports from Thailand, including products on the USITC list such as safety goggles and textile articles. The decision went ahead despite warnings that the suspension list contained products related to Covid-19 response.

That’s right: in the middle of a pandemic the Administration chose to impose new tariffs on products deemed necessary to fight the pandemic.

Looking only at products still eligible for GSP today (i.e., no savings for products from India, Turkey, or on the Thailand partial suspension list), GSP savings for Covid-19 related products in drops to $17 million. Obviously the Administration did not eliminate GSP benefits with the intent of adding $14 million in tariffs annually to Covid-19 related products, but that is the practical impact of their actions.

If Congress wants to promote a cost-effective response to Covid-19, it should immediately extend GSP’s authorization and push to restore benefits that have been lost over the last year.

Lost GSP for India and Turkey cost American companies as much as $33 million in extra tariffs in July, including up to $26.5 million in new taxes on imports from India and $6.5 million on imports from Turkey. The impacts of the decisions are clear, as shown in the graph below. Before June 2019, year-over-year GSP rose in 37 straight months.

GSP savings from other countries continued to grow, increasing $18.4 million (30%) from September 2018 to September 2019. Savings on imports from Cambodia grew by $10.9 million, from Indonesia by $4.1 million, from Burma by $2.1 million, and from the Philippines by $1.6 million.

By value, the states with the largest year-over-year savings declines were Florida (-$2.1 million), New Jersey (-$2.1 million), Texas (-$2.1 million), Pennsylvania (-$1.1 million), New York (-$984,000), Michigan (-$955,000), North Carolina (-$878,000), Louisiana (-$605,000), Iowa (-$545,000), and Massachusetts (-$490,000).

Savings for companies in Delaware declined over 90%, driven by lost GSP for India. Savings for companies in Maine declined by 84%, resulting from broader-based declines in imports from Brazil, India, Thailand, etc.

Fifteen states saw GSP savings increase in September. Among those, California (+$3.4 million) accounted for 60% of GSP savings increases.

Lost GSP for India cost American companies an estimated $30.4 million in July, while lost GSP for Turkey cost them another $6.4 million. The impacts of the decisions are clear, as shown in the graph below. Before June, year-over-year GSP rose in 37 straight months.

GSP savings from other countries continued to grow, increasing $11.1 million (18%) from July 2018 to July 2019. Savings on imports from Cambodia grew by $8.1 million, from the Philippines by $2.7 million, and from Indonesia by $1.7 million

But growth from other countries was not able to offset the loss of GSP ineligibility for India and Turkey throughout the country: 41 states plus DC and Puerto Rico saw GSP savings decline from July 2018 to July 2019.

By value, the states with the largest year-over-year savings declines were New Jersey (-$3.4 million), New York (-$3.3 million), Florida (-$2.5 million), Texas (-$2.1 million), Michigan (-$1.3 million), South Carolina (-$1.1 million), Maryland (-$1.0 million), Kentucky (-$976,000), North Carolina (-$858,000), and Pennsylvania (-$852,000).

By percent, the states with the largest year-over-year savings declines were New Mexico (-87%), Louisiana (-78%), Vermont (-75%), Iowa (-72%), and West Virginia (-54%).

The impacts of the India and Turkey decisions are clear, as shown in the graph below. Year-over-year GSP savings regularly were growing by $10+ million per month. In fact, June marked the first time since April 2016 (37 months) that year-over-year GSP savings declined. The $15 million year-over-year drop was the largest decline in GSP savings since the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

GSP savings from other countries continued to grow, increasing $12.5 million (23%) from June 2018 to June 2019. Savings on imports from Cambodia grew by $7.3 million, from Indonesia by $3.0 million, from Thailand by $1.6 million, and from Burma by $1.3 million.

But growth from other countries was not able to offset the loss of GSP ineligibility for India and Turkey throughout the country: 39 states plus DC and Puerto saw GSP savings decline from June 2018 to June 2018.

By value, the states with the largest year-over-year savings declines were New Jersey (-$4.1 million), Florida (-$3.6 million), Texas (-$2.0 million), New York (-$1.2 million), Illinois (-$1.1 million), Louisiana (-$1.0 million), Michigan (-$942,000), North Carolina (-$882,000), Georgia (-$716,000), and South Carolina (-$512,000).

By percent, the states with the largest year-over-year savings declines were Louisiana (-88%), Nebraska (-82%), Vermont (-76%), Wyoming (-71%), Minnesota (-71%), Mississippi (-68%), New Mexico (-65%), Iowa (-62%), Arkansas (-60%), and Idaho (-54%).

In many of these states, declines were wholly attributable to lost GSP for India and Turkey, leaving little chance that savings will bounce back in July.