Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

McCain move sparks furor from shipping industry
The Daily Press ^ | 1/16/2015 | Hugh Lessig

Posted on 01/17/2015 5:19:21 AM PST by outofsalt

A proposal from Sen. John McCain has sparked a furious backlash from shipbuilding and ship repair executives who say the plan would cripple their industry and compromise coastal security..

The Arizona senator wants to repeal a key provision of a 95-year-old law that governs shipping in America's coastal waters and between domestic ports. It would strike the requirement that vessels engaging in port-to-port, domestic waterborne trade be built in the U.S. .............. In a news release, the Arizona senator said, "It costs six dollars per barrel to move crude from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast United States on a Jones Act tanker, while a foreign-flag tanker can take that same crude to a refinery in Canada for two dollars per barrel — taking money directly out of the pockets of American consumers."

The backlash across the maritime industry hits home in Virginia, where there are more than 63,000 shipbuilding jobs. Shipbuilding and ship repair are major pillars of the Hampton Roads economy. ....

(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: economy; juanmclame; mccain; shipbuilding
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last
To: exit82

“I swear John McCain is the original Manchurian Candidate.
Everything he does is to weaken this nation while appearing to do the opposite.”

It would seem..


21 posted on 01/17/2015 5:44:54 AM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: outofsalt
The money phrase here is "Juan McLame is an idiot."

Not only was he the worst candidate the GOP has had since I can recall, but he would have made a terrible president. I seriously don't think we would have been an better off had this mental case won the White House in 2008 instead of Obama. He snuggles up to the left so often that it is hard to tell whether he's a democRAT or not.

Best evidence yet that we need term limits for some of these old fogies that can't think clearly.

22 posted on 01/17/2015 5:48:27 AM PST by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldmomster
The Canuks clobbered that aspect of the Jones Act two decades ago.
CN railroad owns and operates U.S. Steel's Great Lakes freighter fleet.
23 posted on 01/17/2015 5:49:39 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (Rip it out by the roots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

Red Dawn....peace of mind to pursue other dreams...let Chine do al! The heavy lifting for you America!

The ad coming to a flat screen near you that was produced in.........China!


24 posted on 01/17/2015 5:53:11 AM PST by BCW (ARMIS EXPOSCERE PACEM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 9thLife

Using that logic then why not ship ALL JOBS overseas? That we will be prosperous right??? LOL!

There is no such thing as free trade.... That horse$hit! It’s RIGGED trade. For instance, did you know we (the United States) still pay tariffs to China, but they don’t pay tariffs to us. Oh and they call that free trade.

It’s a rigged poker game to send EVERYTHING overseas, and what they can’t.... replace it with cheap labor from the our open borders and Automation.

I don’t understand why is that so hard to understand?

How can we be prosperous if we have no jobs. Don’t tell me innovation because all those new jobs will either go overseas, automated or hired by cheap labor from all the illegals coming into the country.


25 posted on 01/17/2015 5:53:40 AM PST by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: outofsalt

-— “This would mean all ships used by our U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard — which of course will be built in the United States — would have a higher cost per ship due to increased overhead costs, and would have a less reliable industrial base.” -—

A higher cost per unit for the military doesn’t justify protectionism, since higher transportation costs also come out of taxpayers pockets. But “a less reliable industrial base,” which could not be quickly converted to war-time usage, could be a justification for some degree of protectionism.


26 posted on 01/17/2015 5:55:10 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HotHunt
LOL! I feel the same way. It's terrible because Obama is without a doubt the worst president. At the very same time, I'm so happy McCain did not get elected. We would probably be in a nuclear war by now if that worthless S.O.B. McCain was President.
27 posted on 01/17/2015 5:56:37 AM PST by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: outofsalt
I agree that many of the provisions of the Jones Act are essential, but some of them make no sense in today's economy and today's shipping industry. Shipping a container from Los Angeles to Honolulu costs ten times more than shipping the same container to China -- which is ridiculous when you consider that a ship taking a container to China passes Hawaii on the way. There are a number of factors here in this price discrepancy, but the Jones Act requirements for U.S.-made and U.S.-flagged vessels for the Hawaii trip is a big part of it. This is why the Congressional delegations of Hawaii and Alaska are among the strongest proponents for some revisions to the Jones Act.

I believe it makes sense to limit the Jones Act to transport along the internal waterways of the U.S. Beyond that, there's no practical reason to restrict domestic shipping in a way that doesn't apply to international shipping. What exactly does the U.S. gain by forcing a shipper to use an American-made and American-flagged ship and American crew for a trip from New Orleans to New York if there is no such restriction for a trip from Saudi Arabia to New York?

28 posted on 01/17/2015 5:59:54 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1

There is no political party currently supporting jobs in America.

EVERYONE is selling us out.

Everyone. In both parties. It continues even now.


29 posted on 01/17/2015 6:00:05 AM PST by Cringing Negativism Network (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: outofsalt

Not really news, just about everything this clown has done his entire career has been against American Interests.


30 posted on 01/17/2015 6:07:36 AM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
There is excess refining capacity on the gulf coast, but the refineries are set up for heavy crude that previously came from Venezuela. As I pointed out in reply 15, these gulf coast refineries want the heavy oil from Canada and want the pipeline built.

Meanwhile the refineries on the east coast and west coast are set up to refine light oil that was imported, commonly called Brent crude, which carries a premium price and they want the light shale oil from Texas and Dakota to replace the imported oil.

The underlying problem, is that it is illegal for US producers to export oil, except to Canada and Mexico because of NAFTA. Also except for Obama's recent bending of the rules that allows US producers to export light condensate oil. Congress needs to change the law on exports.

In recent weeks Mexico has cut their price of heavy crude being exported to the US because they are worried about losing market share to the Alberta tar sands oil. They have also requested an increase in the amount of condensate oil that they import from the US.

Its an oil transportation problem. Getting the sweet light oil being produced in Texas and the Dakotas where it needs to be. Getting the tar sands oil being produced in Canada to where it need to be.

Its definitely not a problem in refining capacity, so they don't want to build new refineries.

31 posted on 01/17/2015 6:09:19 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Yep our government represents foreign governments and not U.S. citizens.

This is why we are in such trouble.


32 posted on 01/17/2015 6:09:20 AM PST by Enlightened1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Enlightened1
You realize that a lot of the pressure in Washington to overturn the Jones Act (or at least some of its provisions) is coming from American shippers who employ American workers?

If I own a manufacturing facility along the Gulf Coast, the shipping costs for steel from China are lower than the shipping costs for steel from Pittsburgh. How does that benefit people working in the U.S. steel industry in Pennsylvania?

33 posted on 01/17/2015 6:16:36 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
Those are all very good points.

I would also like to see a breakdown of McCain's math, and a consideration of all the factors that enter into the costs. Here's a recent Congressional publication about this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43653.pdf

It seems that the fleet of US-built ships is fairly small. This is part of the problem, because there are delays in booking these vessels. It also seems that most tankers in the world are already built in Korea, China, and Japan - so we've already ceded this industry to foreign nations in a big way.

I would like to see the opposite - a strategy to increase the number of US-built ships in the international fleet. Also, what are the potential security and environmental consequences of taking American control away from the building and piloting of these vessels?

34 posted on 01/17/2015 6:17:43 AM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
You realize that a lot of the pressure in Washington to overturn the Jones Act (or at least some of its provisions) is coming from American shippers who employ American workers?

You realize that repealing the Jones Act will also end the requirement that cargos going from one U.S. port to another must be carried in U.S. ships with U.S. crews? So those American jobs will go into the dumper.

35 posted on 01/17/2015 6:21:19 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: albie
Simply lower the federal tax on gas.

That has nothing to do with the price of shipping oil and would slash federal funding for transportation projects, which is already far lower than it was 10 years ago.

36 posted on 01/17/2015 6:26:49 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin
Is this true?

Possibly. Take a tanker built in China and crewed by people from Asia and Africa and your costs will be much less.

37 posted on 01/17/2015 6:28:15 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: maggief

I don’t know what the picture is about, or if its Photoshopped,

But he looks like a walking dead zombie, scary


38 posted on 01/17/2015 6:32:31 AM PST by captmar-vell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

So the American manufacturer has to deal with foreign competition, but the American ship builder and vessel operator do not? Does that make any sense at all?


39 posted on 01/17/2015 6:33:08 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: outofsalt

Sorry, but this is a tough call for me. I can see the strategic importance of the Jones Act...as it’s tough to be a world superpower if you don’t have any ships in your name.

On the other hand, try taking a cruise from New York to Miami, for example. You CANNOT. I mean you could, but the ship would have to comply with the Jones Act, and thus be priced out of the range of its market...so no company does that...and hence no cruise options. Same for Alaska - you can certainly take a ship from Vancouver (Canada) to Alaska (international trip and thus Jones compliant), but you cannot take one from Seattle to Alaska, as the Seattle to Alaska ship would have to comply with the Jones Act, but not the Vancouver ship - so you have the pain in the butt of having to go to a foreign land (without gun rights or free speech) and also deal with customs twice, just to get around the Jones Act.

So maybe a compromise - lift the Jones Act for cruise ships, since it isn’t doing US shipping any good, anyway, but keep it for other shipping - for strategic interests.


40 posted on 01/17/2015 6:34:12 AM PST by BobL (REPUBLICANS - Fight for the WHITE VOTE...and you will win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson