When viewing the modern history of industries based on vitality, success, and profitability, much of this is based on them having successfully lobbied state legislatures or federal bodies like the U.S. Congress to benefit themselves. At one time, just several decades ago, the aroma of a paper mill often defined the most common "local issue" debate - one over whether their operations should even be permitted in the area!
The fact that young people today might not even know this was ever a heated debate in cities across the country between environment vs. economy is constant proof to nearly everyone that the P&P industry has really, really, done a good job of "turning itself around". It's not just the odor of paper... it's toxic byproducts into the water supply, the air where it can travel and leave contamination, etc. are the traditional considerations of pollution risks with industrial development. And at one time these pollution risks did exist with the pulp and paper industry, but instead of simply trying to launch cynical and mean spirited campaigns to call potential victims of community pollution a lie, the forest and related industries have tended to be one of the strongest "listeners"... Indeed it can be difficult to find any anti-P&P bloggers or "writers" on the internet who can call themselves credible today because the examples given, by this current year, at least in North America, are always related to the same handful of companies who are being fined many times, in the same places, for the same things that are just not cost effective to fix (and usually result in a shut down and lost jobs). A bipartisan solution tailored for the industry one might hope both parties could get behind is a government investment not into a big broad stimulus nor a big broad cutting of regulations but rather a specific investment so as to fix the small problems at historic mills that provide important jobs for their local people that will either be shut down or exist in perpetual non-compliance (and supposedly risk) to the residents of their community.
That wouldn't be going where government hasn't gone, this type of line-by-line omnibus "pork-barrel" spending for districts used to be normal until this decade where elections were more nationalized in federal races than an attempt to boast about what an incumbent can "bring back home" from D.C. to their local people with them when they come to campaign after the end of each session. In this case, it would be a type of government spending that also helps businesses instead of trying to put them out of business with yearly fines for no-fix or compete with them public market vs. private or telling them what to do as much as fixing a problem we know they want fixed. Still today, and for some industries in some great amounts mo so than ever today, government policy decisions have either directly benefited from having that policy in control of government or suffered from having opponents. In the 1980s the nuclear power industry was the symbolic image of this phenomenon, in the late 2000s coal powered plants were becoming the symbol.
The U.S. paper and related type forest product industry is not currently in a type of scenario cornered into specific political needs to such an extent that a split government election will hurt it, especially not more so than potential challengers such as plastic (unlike paper - plastic is currently a target by many prominent Democratic Party politicians in the state). Split government might mean one frustration for the industry: much was invested in the trade stance held by President Trump. It's unlikely that Democrats, with some irony considering that trade protection for workers had once been a position of at least one entire congressional caucus for the party, will be willing to stand behind President Trump on the same and instead will likely support conciliatory measures on trade with other nations or a "surrender" in the trade war. It would mark a loss, great wishes gone, but also eliminate a mounting threat to the economy. The industry has been willing to sacrifice, but it's yet to be seen if a payout is going to result in a revamped or amended agreement for trade of paper-related goods both new and recycled, or if under the pressure of Democrats, the President will work a conciliatory tone that means ending a "trade war" situation that would benefit workers but end up being a lost and profitable cause for businesses to have to endure.Some pundits argue President Trump is more a "populist" with American workers and their general attitude and interest and is not a traditionally or consistently conservative Republican. It's not limited to only a few Democrats, however, who consider fair trade to be an issue of importance. With incoming speaker Nancy Pelosi holding onto a thin majority of seats and many new Democrats elected on moderate platforms that include patience for working with President Trump, such a reverse of his course is by no means certain.Democratic Argument: Tax cuts work sometimes, if they're for the right people. The middle class benefits from tax cuts such as those proposed by Democrats during the 2018 election, which included targeting many mill workers including those in the Northeast and in the upper Mid-west where paper is produced. The Democratic Party would likely have more of an argument in its platform for the paper industry as a whole if it had a more moderate union policy. Instead there is a disparity between non-Democratic states where their lack of success may lead to extreme low wages under Republicans and a loss of job talent for investors in businesses where the best employees have moved to areas that pay more. A more moderate labor policy, such as the new middle-class tax cut is for the party, would better represent a more successful argument on behalf of the paper industry that would lead more clearly to a path to prosperity instead of towards potential economy crashing strikes, The Democratic party not only can but should consider becoming the party of paper in the U.S. because of how important the states of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are to their electoral map. Democrats also argue for investments into improving U.S. public education. As the industry becomes more automated, nonetheless, operators capable of programming a machine for the top quality products of the future will need a successful education to go along with their natural talent. Having more educated workers is a win-win for both workers seeking wages and employers in the industry who need to hire workers able to understand how to run their machinery so as to compete with the quality and capacity level correct operation of mills and their respective staff on a global level
In a split party government scenario that could benefit the industry, the Democratic party would stand for worker's rights and safety without threatening the profitability of businesses too much out of a motive for salary increases alone that are not justified by productivity levels to successfully pay for this without cutting down on company profitability. At the same time, Republicans would help the industry in future years by investing in our nation's students, providing a solid education in math, science, and engineering in bipartisan agreement or as part of a principled compromise with Democrats, who are no longer fully out of power and control the speaker's gavel.
One essential split-government scenario that needs to continue as it was recently announced by OTW when the Trump administration announced their intent to recognize it in much a similar way as the Obama administration has, at least on this issue compared to the stark contrast in others. It will for now and hopefully in the future persist in policy the view that bio-mass boilers are carbon neutral for implementing into the power systems of a facility when calculating a mill's environmental impact...
TAPPI
http://www.tappi.org/