That's a way to win! </sarcasm>
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
Posted on 03/23/2009 2:28:30 PM PDT by GOPGuide
Anyone worried that, once in charge, Democrats wouldn’t be vigilant in protecting our southern border can relax. The grave threat of Mexican long-haul truckers has been shut down. With any luck, Mexicans will never have the temerity to attempt to deliver commercial goods into the United States again.
At least such is the fervid hope of the Teamsters, the fiercest adversary the Mexicans have faced since Pres. James Polk sent Winfield Scott south in the Mexican-American War. The union can’t abide Mexican trucks because they represent competition, and so they must be blocked — legal obligations, economic rationality, and diplomatic sense aside.
We agreed with Mexico in the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 to open the border states to Mexican trucking by 1995 and the entire country by 2000. Otherwise a fairly stalwart free-trader, Bill Clinton never delivered on that obligation. A NAFTA panel in 2001 ruled that we were in the wrong. Given how sacrosanct Democrats consider treaties, this should have settled the matter — if it weren’t for the outsized power of the Teamsters.
Eighteen months ago, Pres. George W. Bush implemented a pilot program under which 100 Mexican trucks were operating in the U.S. No sooner was it in place than Democrats set out to kill it, finally succeeding in the $410 billion omnibus spending bill; already infamous for its 8,500 earmarks, the law now also has a shameful trade dispute to its name.
The stated ground for killing the pilot program is safety. Anti-trade politicians talk of Mexican trucks as if they were the Tripod fighting machines deployed by the Martians in War of the Worlds. The interstate-highway system itself will be hard-pressed to survive their onslaught. Polk should have finished the job and annexed all of Mexico, just so we could have pre-empted this danger decades before the invention of the automobile.
The safety issue is a red herring. Despite a ban on them dating from the 1980s, 800 Mexican trucks were allowed to continue operating in the U.S. “A survey by the Arizona Republic newspaper found that those Mexican trucks allowed to operate in the U.S. have a superior safety record compared with U.S.-owned trucks,” Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute writes. The Department of Transportation found no safety problem with the trucks here under the new pilot program either.
The Teamsters simply want to protect their economic turf. The current arrangement is so comically byzantine, it’s worthy of a “Monty Python” skit spoofing the irrationalities of feudal Europe. Mexican trucks carrying goods into the U.S. have to drop them in a commercial zone 20 miles within the U.S. border, where they’re eventually loaded back onto U.S. trucks and delivered to their destinations.
This creates extra jobs, but at the cost of some $200 million to $400 million a year in economic inefficiency. We’re lucky that rickshaw operators don’t have a union as powerful as the Teamsters or all the goods would have to be transported around the country under human power.
Our third-largest trading partner, the Mexicans have retaliated by saying they will impose tariffs on 90 U.S. industrial and agricultural products, worth $2.4 billion in 2007. So the cost of this “victory” against Mexican trucking will be borne by farmers and manufacturers around the country. The tit for tat is unlikely to escalate into a full-blown trade war, but we send a dreadful signal by violating a trade agreement at a time when protectionist pressures are rising worldwide.
Pres. Barack Obama says he’ll find a way to address Mexico’s complaint consistent with safety concerns. Since those concerns are a proxy for flat-out opposition to Mexican trucking, it’s not clear how that’s possible.
Democrats profess to love our allies — unless they want to trade with us. Mexico joins South Korea and Colombia among friends we are stiffing on trade. Perhaps if they got together and started an illicit nuclear-weapons program, they would be treated with more solicitude.
With "Republicans" like National Review's, who needs liberals...
national review, townhall.com, populated by pinkshirt countryclub republicans like fred barnes etc.
Open-borders fellow travellers like the Wall Street Journal. Kudlow is one as well. I donated to Club for Growth until CEO Steve Moore came out for open-borders. The checks quickly stopped.
I used to like NR but they are sinking now. i do not waste my time going there anymore.
Poor Bill Buckley - he was a good man.
If I wish to buy goods from Mexico, you are a tyrant if you stand in the way of MY RIGHT to do so.
Protectionism caused the Great Depression.
Protectionism, under Smoot-Hauley, made the Depression deeper and longer than it needed to be.
Cut the corporate tax rate, we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world!
Cut regulations, cut “green” mandates, provide some liability protection and the United States will win in the global economy.
Protectionism is for tyrants and banana republics.
Free trade and open borders are NOT the same thing.
The Mexican trucks don’t have as good safety inspection as the US.
They are not safe for our roads.
And I support trade, but letting dangerous trucks on our road is NOT trade.
Protectionisim is not Obamas goal, more beauracracy, to oversee forigen trucking is, thats more jobs he “created”.
The Mexican trucks don’t have as good safety inspection as the US.
Really .... Who does the inspections for those trucks in the program to ply the interior US roads?...... The US or Mexico? I thought it was the US inspectors, if so and they are fudging then they need to be held accountable.
How can they check and track ALL the thousands of Mexican trucks that will be unleashed on US highways everyday.
This Jackass Lowry probably doesn’t even know how stringent the safety rules are for American truck drivers because he’s been sitting on his ass counting money and typing on a keyboard in New Yaawwwwk his whole life.
The Teamsters simply want to protect their economic turf. .. and those who want Mexicans to replace "expensive" American drivers just want to keep on trucklin' to Mexico.
Send more U.S. taxpayer-subsidized cheap labor, please!. Obama's running up trillions of dollars of new debt.. just what we need. More "guests" (cheap-labor families) to feed, house, educate, heal, entertain. . . .
OK, I will support the ban on Mexican trucks IF the Teamsters give up their support for Card Check.
Not every trucker is a Teamster, and I would still rather have these jobs for Americans than cheap labor.
Wow..... How do they check and track the tens of thousands of American trucks that are unleashed on US highways every day?
FWIW, the "Mexican trucks" in question have to cross the border. The safety inspections can be (and are) performed at the border.
Something that never seems to be mentioned is these discussions is: what about American trucks going into Mexico?
Do they?
Do they want to deliver into Mexico?
Is it considered safe?
Or would the cheaper Mexican drivers get all the freight in each direction?
Anyone know about US drivers going into Mexico?
How dare you state facts!!!!!!
You can’t do rigorous safety inspections at the border everyday, not enough agents trained for inspections.
Also missing is the fact that the trucking program was a pilot program that was due to end a long time ago. They can throw all the tantrums they want.
NR has many authors who oppose immigration, NAFTA, etc. Conservative populists get used to agreeing with conservatives on so many issues, we forget to recognize taht there often are conservative arguments for both sides of an issue. As much as I think that Mexican truckers are an absolute menace on the highways, and the congressmen who support them are selling out our own workers, there are certainly conservative justifications for this argument.
And I think that’s the problem with the label “conservative.” It doesn’t always capture the essence of an issue.
How can they check and track ALL the thousands of Mexican trucks that will be unleashed on US highways everyday.
Well maybe they will be thousands and then again maybe not. The initial test phase was 100 trucks. The trucks are required to meet the same standards, safety, ins. etc that US carriers meet.
“As much as I think that Mexican truckers are an absolute menace on the highways”
If they are a menace, what good arguments are there for letting them on the highway?
Enriching NRO writer’s stock portfolio does not trump highway safety.
Teamsters are the driving force in the opposition to Mexican truckers.
mexican trucks are dangerous to everyone,especially the dope haulers,coyote truckers,this border thing is a shambles for the USA,if we can’t control the border,what use is there in having a country,as for unions,they are making it Ok,but small independants are fading away,American truckers,families,jobs lost to a narco-state,the shame of it all.
If this were just a free trade vs. unions issue, the author would be on firmer ground, but realities about the border and NAFTA make this a good move.
1. Mexican trucks are usually sub-standard vehicles in terms of maintenance and driver skills (and probably insurance as well).
2. While the agreement is supposed to allow American goods to be trucked into Mexico by American truckers, no trucking company or independent operator in their right mind would risk taking a load of anything into Mexico. The risks of hi-jacking and / or kid-knapping are too high.
3. Mexico has not made good on opening their markets to many American goods under NAFTA and has treated the whole thing as a one-way street.
N-North
A-American
F-F**k
T-The
A-Americans
Treaty.
You also cannot do rigourous daily safety inspections of the far more numerous American trucks for the same reasons -- and yet you're not complaining there.
And, of course, the Mexican trucks no more need daily inspections than American ones do. It is certainly possible and desirable that periodic safety inspections be performed at the border; but it is possible also to certify trucks that pass periodic inspections.
There are valid reasons to object to the introduction of Mexican trucks onto American highways -- American jobs being one of them; but this safety argument is not a very compelling one.
They are not safe for our roads.
Good post.
Very true.
Yep, and I've always found it odd that no article ever seems to mention what the US trucking industry is to get from NAFTA, or what the industry and independent truckers want out of this. I bet it's another deal where the US competitors would lose out in both directions due to much lower pay for Mexican drivers and support personnel.
FREE TRADE WILL KILL YOU
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/lou/video/x2a7gh_lou-dobbs-china-manufacture-in-mexi_news
right up from mexi
Who can imagine the carnage if we let these Mexican trucks on our road? Oh, that’s right, they’ve been operating since August or September. Never mind.
I don't think anyone can be sure of that. You can bet the relatively few trucks and drivers involved in the recent pilot program were hand picked to the nth degree. No way that program was representative of how things would be if Mexican trucks had free access to US highways.
Well, that’s the fallback position, now that Mexican trucks have been shown to be safer than (Teamster) trucks.
Proven by WHOM? The Osama Government? Don't make me laugh.
Why not? If the inspections and certifications can be made rigorous, there's no reason to expect that equipment issues will be any more a problem than they are for American rigs.
Driver training is probably a bigger problem than the rigs themselves.
ping
Easy. Because it was a pilot program in which the Mexicans had an enormous amount to gain. And I believe it was only 100 or so trucks. The trucks and drivers would have been cherry picked several times over to yield the most favorable result.
Do you really believe the rigor exercised in such a high stakes pilot program would have always been followed when large numbers of trucks might have become involved?
And why won't anyone answer my question: what was the American trucking industry to get from the NAFTA agreement? And what do they want, and what do our independent truckers want re: trade with Mexico now and in the future?
Or was this just another 'trade' agreement where most US industries and workers were on the losing end of the deal?
That's a way to win! </sarcasm>
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
All I know is that over the last year and a half, I’ve seen scores more “retreads” all over our roads and highways than in previoous years...
The damage to property and lives lost because of that I’m sure the insurance companies have had to pay out a lot of money to fix what has been left on the roads and highways...
Mexican trucking survives on low maintenance and low standards of safety etc etc to keep in business...
This all would/could be an educated assumption on my part, but the timing is incredible...
I have a long-distance (independent) trucker that lives across the street from us, and we had a conversation last year about this very thing...
WORD!
According to the Arizona Republic and the DoT they are just as safe as American trucks. Do you have data to refute these findings? Or are you just guessing?
>> If they are a menace, what good arguments are there for letting them on the highway? <<
Don’t make me argue for them! All I’m saying is don’t confuse conservatism with populism or doing the right thing, just because they often are in agreement. As for “good argument,” obviously they haven’t been good enough to convince me. But there are conservatives out there who regard the regulations being waived by the government in the instance of Mexican truckers to serve restrain. I say Mexico is no ally, and that such regulations are reasonable to maintain safety, and that the states’ reasonable authority is being superceded by the government.
Do you really think a trucker who cannot communicate with those around him is safe? Maybe a Mexican trucker communicates as well as an American in El Paso and other border areas, but you put him in Missouri or West Virginia and you’re going to have a communication problem.
And by the way, the Arizona “Republic” is the most enthusiastic cheerleader for Mexican domination over the United States this side of the Rio Grande, not exactly an impeccable witness.
US industries? How do they lose? They get product that is cheaper, which, in turn, allows them to sell a cheaper product to the consumer, who, in turn, has more money to buy other things. I'm not really seeing how US industry loses here.
Some US truckers, on the other hand, might lose. But as a whole, US workers come out ahead. That's why we trade. You can't sit around and fret about buggy whips when the cars are zipping by.
Oh yeah, all that ever matters is getting the cheapest possible product. Right? No other value penetrates the skulls of the true free trader. Any proof that such savings are actually passed along to consumers?
So, this is just one more trade deal that costs US jobs, and the only justification that can be offered is cheaper products. If that's the standard, we really need a crash program to reduce all US compensation, including yours, to what one might earn doing the same thing in Mexico, or some global average.
By the way, how do you earn a living? What would someone in Mexico earn doing what you do?
Yes.
Any proof that such savings are actually passed along to consumers?
The market will ensure that they are, but whether they are or they aren't, it is of no real concern for me. If they aren't passed along, that is increased value for shareholders, and that is the purpose of the corporation.
If that's the standard, we really need a crash program to reduce all US compensation, including yours, to what one might earn doing the same thing in Mexico, or some global average.
If someone in Mexico can provide the same product as me at a cheaper price, I wouldn't expect to be paid what I do.
By the way, how do you earn a living? What would someone in Mexico earn doing what you do?
I'm a lawyer. And I haven't the foggiest.
Try about 15% - 20% of US earnings. Plenty of civil servants and teachers earn around $6,000. Don't you think it's a good idea to begin globalizing all US compensation? Why just jobs that can be moved.
How can a true free trader such as you accept earning many times what others earn for doing the same thing in less affluent nations? How can you live with yourself when US earnings provide you with a far higher living standard than attorneys in poorer nations?
I don't see a really great salary comparison, but here is one. Looks like attorneys deserve about $20,000 - $25,000 a year, based on some of the jobs that are shown:
What steps do you suggest to put US attorney earnings in line with Mexico? Just think of the reduced costs of legal services for US consumers. After all, the lowest cost to the consumer is the only goal. Right?
No one is limiting your right to buy Mexican goods. Just limiting your options for shipping them to American carriers who meet standards for operating in the US.
Also, why should Mexican trucks be allowed to operate in the US, when US trucks can’t safely operate in Mexico?
I have no problem with this. The biggest competition to US lawyers in not Mexican lawyers, however: it is Indian lawyers. A number of large firms already outsource a significant portion of legal work to Indian lawyers that have been trained in American law.
If the client is satisfied with this arrangement and it is cost efficient, then Ok.
I'm not talking about some gradual averaging of earnings, but legal action to average those earnings now. Of course, I don't favor that. I don't support putting any US worker in competition with the world's cheapest labor. But if it's be done to some, those whose jobs can be easily moved or done from remote locations, then it should just be done for all compensation.
If the lowest price of goods and services is the goal, as you and others often state, then that process can be sped up significantly by reducing all US compensation to something closer to global averages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.