.jpg)
Por que? No hay Problema aqui. Pasenle.
Posted on 09/11/2007 5:09:04 PM PDT by ruination
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to ban Mexican trucks from U.S. roadways, rekindling a more than decade-old trade dispute with Mexico.
By a 74-24 vote, the Senate approved a proposal by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., prohibiting the Transportation Department from spending money on a North American Free Trade Agreement pilot program giving Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways.
The proposal is part of a $106 billion transportation and housing spending bill that the Senate hopes to vote on later this week. The House approved a similar provision to Dorgan's in July as part of its version of the transportation spending bill.
Supporters of Dorgan's amendment argued the trucks are not yet proven safe. Opponents said the U.S. is applying tougher standards to Mexican trucks than to Canadian trucks and failing to live up to its NAFTA obligations.
Until last week, Mexican trucks were restricted to driving within a commercial border zone that stretched about 20 miles from the U.S.-Mexican boundary, 75 miles in Arizona. One truck has traveled deep into the U.S. interior as part of the pilot program.
Blocking the trucks would help Democrats curry favor with organized labor, an important ally for the 2008 presidential elections.
"Why the urgency? Why not stand up for the (truck) standards that we've created and developed in this country?" Dorgan asked.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who drafted a Republican alternative to Dorgan's amendment, said the attempt to block the trucks appeared to be about limiting competition and may amount to discrimination against Mexico.
"I would never allow an unsafe truck on our highways, particularly Texas highways," he said.
Under NAFTA, Mexico can seek retaliation against the U.S. for failing to adhere to the treaty's requirements, including retaining tariffs on goods that the treaty eliminates, said Sidney Weintraub, a professor emeritus at the University of Texas LBJ School of Public Affairs in Austin.
The trucking program allows up to 100 Mexican carriers to send their trucks on U.S. roadways for delivery and pickup of cargo. None can carry hazardous material or haul cargo between U.S. points.
So far, the Department of Transportation has granted a single Mexican carrier, Transportes Olympic, access to U.S. roads after a more than decade-long dispute over the NAFTA provision opening up the roadways.
One of the carrier's trucks crossed the border in Laredo, Texas last week and delivered its cargo in North Carolina on Monday and was expected to return to Mexico late this week after a stop in Decatur, Ala.
The transportation bill is S. 1789.
Well, at least we know who the RINOs are...
Por que? No hay Problema aqui. Pasenle.
Keep trying you aren’t going to change the meaning of a scab. They are in the same catagory with terrorist, child molesters and free trade globalists.
They are in the same catagory with terrorist, child molesters and free trade globalists.
So if a job was ever held by a union member, a non-union worker can never do it? Very interesting doctrine you have there. It sounds familiar. Ah, the Brezhnev Doctrine, eh comrade?
The unions are the terrorists, not the scabs.
That’s an interesting perspective, em2. Are you equating “scab” will “illegal alien?” What about scabs that are legal citizens? Aren’t they closer to “independent contractors?”
Great, so we’d have surly foreign nationals doing all the trucking in the U.S. That would be great. /s
I agree that primaries are the place to push for better candidates. The only alternative in 2000 was McCain. I prefer Bush to McCain. Overall, I like John Coryn so I would not vote against him in a primary. He seems like a good conservative on most issues including illegal immigration.
You cannot ignore electibility. Sometimes the most conservative candidate is not electable. The rat alternative is usually a much worse alternative.
Bruising primaries can hurt the eventual primary winner. In Colorado, we had a bruising primary for governor in 2006. The primary loser badly damaged the eventual winner, making it easier on the rat opponent.
The reality is that international trade is growing and will grow. Hell, we don't have the port capacity to handle it all.
You better get you a piece of the action. If you are interested in exporting condoms and combs to Mexico, I can set you up, for a fee.
Not only will you make some money doing this, it would entitle you to become a member of the NACC and be part of the SPP conspiracy to destroy America and create the NAU.
You have presented a MOST accurate assessment on "free trade".
Thanks Ben. That’s an offer I’ll have to think about. LOL
BTW, it’s the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) that I’m focused on.
Have a good day.
By stating the obvious? That’s a pretty low bar.
I hate it when I find myself on the side of a liberally controlled senate.
GOOD, ban ‘em all.
You mean, you love it, right?
That said, protectionism is a bad thing economically speaking. The only ones that union sponsored bans like this will hurt is ourselves collectively. I understand also that US drivers will be driving in Mexico as well.
As for what things cost in Mexico, they are costing more and more what they cost here...the per capita income is rising to about $10,700 in 2006 second only to Chile’s at $12,000 something per capita. We cannot afford to stop the progress being made by free trade agreements which improve standards of living to the point where people in Mexico or wherever can afford to purchase products and services made here in the US.
To that end, they have all agreed that, whichever direction they go, it will take substantial investment in transportation infrastructure, and more precisely, intergrated infrastructure.
The infrastructure plan is called IIRSA, and you will find info at google, google news, and maps at google images.
IIRSA was patterned after President Fox's Plan Puebla Panama.
Thank you Ben. I’ll check that out.
D1
Although the UN does not make the distinction, US law does.
And so the statements about 2/3rds Senate are moot.
“Yes I agree about the language and FAA requirements. I am advocating the same for the Mexican drivers and trucks.
The same will apply to Mexican trucks. The Mexican trucks will be inspected at the border and final destination.”
But that is not what our dear President and Congress propose. I also suggest drug and background checks on drivers. Class “A” drivers in Florida are checked frequently. It not for the DL also for insurance. Maybe we should require all these Mexican drivers to buy US insurance also.
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.