Posted on 09/23/2008 7:12:09 AM PDT by indcons
The House has made it veto-proof clear: The controversial pilot program allowing big Mexican trucks to cross the U.S. border and travel into the country must end.
The Senate has yet to act, though. And Mexico and its U.S. big-business allies are ramping up their efforts to block the repeal, including a renewed warning by Mexican officials to retaliate against U.S. exports if the program is abolished.
Mexican Embassy officials say the year-old pilot program has been a positive development for both countries, allowing Mexican and American drivers to deliver goods across the border. Before, Mexican truckers were allowed to transfer goods only within a 20-mile commercial zone along the border.
Just back from its long summer recess, on Sept. 9, the House overwhelmingly voted, 395-18, to scuttle the program only a few weeks after U.S. transportation officials announced it would be extended for another two years. Lobbyists supporting the program say they are already having an increasingly tough time getting the attention of the Senate.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is bolstering Mexico’s efforts to save the program, arguing that the Mexican trucks are tightly regulated and offer unique business opportunities to the U.S. economy. And to highlight the issue, Chamber President Thomas Donohue recently traveled to Mexico to confer about the program with key officials.
--snip--
The threat of a retaliatory boycott from Mexico, reiterated after the House vote, has particularly concerned U.S. pork producers, who sell a lot of product in Mexico, and some produce farmers who also export across the border.
--snip--
And, should the ban reach President Bush’s desk, the White House has vowed to veto it.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Ping
with Mexico subsidizing fuel, this is bad way to try and subvert American Small Businesses.
I’m opposed to this program until that fuel subsidy is abolished, and the same rules for American Truckers are imposed on Mexican Truckers.
The pilot program only covers trucks picking up loads in the US and taking them to Mexico, or trucks picking up loads in Mexico and taking them to the US.
After the first run down to the border, US trucks and Mexican trucks face the same fuel costs for the runs because both can fill up in Mexico for the same price.
The Mexican government is subsidizing the cost of fuel in Mexico, not the cost of fuel for Mexican truckers.
Since both American truckers and Mexican ones are competing for the same routes, the fuel subsidies have no real effect on the competitiveness of one over the other after the first trip to the border.
Either way, if a Mexican trucking company runs a load into America, they are doing so on subsidized fuel, when they pick up in the US and run deep into Mexico, then they will fuel up with subsidized fuel inside Mexico, it is just smart business for them to do so and puts American Shippers at a disadvantage.
That covers the zero-sum argument, thanks.
The American trucks can fuel up with that same subsidized fuel that the Mexican trucks can.
You're creating a distinction where there isn't one. The pilot plan operates for both US and Mexican trucks. Not just Mexican trucks.
Not so, any load originating in Mexico will have a built in subsidized cost advantage, the same hold true for any load that reaches into America for the range of the fuel in the tanks.
An American Trucker would have to cross into Mexico and fill up then wait at the border to leave Mexico as well as enter the country with the more expensive US fuel in their tanks as well as the inefficency that such a trip to buy the subsidized fuel would entail.
So we have an inefficient system that requires that trucks from one side of the border deliver the cargo to an area at the border. The trucks are then unloaded, and another truck from the other side of the border must come and have the cargo loaded on so it can deliver the cargo in the other country.
When we try and change this horribly inefficient system we are told we can't because making it more efficient would cost jobs...
Why not just pass a law that no one trucker can haul cargo more than 50 miles. It would create lots of jobs...
Why should it matter if it increases costs that get passed on to all the consumers and that those consumers end up subsidizing a horribly inefficient system. It creates American jobs to do it that way...
When someone tries to do it more efficiently, which benefits not only themselves, but all the consumers buying those products, just scream about the evils of free trade like protectionists and socialists have for decades...
Mexico needs to get their own house in order, we do not need to bend over backward and give up part of our economny so that some business has effectively slave labor to cut costs.
Mexico does need to get it's house in order. They need to fight the corruption among their own government that is keeping the common people from having real opportunities to advance their lot in in life.
The rich families in Mexico control most of the large businesses and they aren't interested in sharing power. It's very difficult to be successful when companies only sell you the goods you need if your company is owned by one of those families, or has close ties to one of those families.
However, there has been some progress made because companies here in the US don't limit themselves to just working with those families if there is money to be made. That means that there is opportunities for Mexican truckers who can come up with the money to buy a truck and jump through the hoops to get into this pilot program.
There are also opportunities for small Mexican companies that couldn't get their products to market in the US without going through a trucking company owned by one of those rich families. They can either work with an independent Mexican trucker, or even an American trucking company that is willing to pick up and deliver their cargo and can now do so thanks to this program.
NAFTA has been creating opportunity for ordinary Mexicans in Mexico.
It is mostly close to the border, and it isn't a massive change at this point, but there is real change. A real start that could grow, and it doesn't just benefit Mexicans. It also benefits American consumers, and Americans that are willing to work with Mexicans so that both can have opportunities.
I guess you would rather the government decide who should be able to do which jobs and how much they should earn regardless of it it passes on high costs to consumers?
Regardless of if you realize it or not, you are promoting the fail policies of socialism.
Change almost always means that some people will be worse off while others are better off, and despite what some would have you believe it isn't just Mexican truckers benefiting from this program. Some American truckers also benefit. American and Mexican consumers benefit. Companies in both America and Mexico benefit.
On the whole Americans benefit more from this than they suffer. However, free trade is philosophically opposed by plenty of people that want you to only concentrate of the relatively few truckers that lose their jobs because of free trade.
An American trucker could fill up when he enters Mexico, and could fill up before they leave. If the American truck goes to Mexico intermittently, the trip down to Mexico would be more expensive, but since they could leave Mexico with full tanks, they would have the cost savings from the cheaper fuel on trips in the US for the rest of that tank.
For the same routes, both have access to fuel at the same prices along those routes. Neither has an inherent advantage. Both would be wise to keep regular routes that allowed them to travel empty as little as possible and both would be wise to refuel where fuel is cheapest.
An American Trucker would have to cross into Mexico and fill up then wait at the border to leave Mexico as well as enter the country with the more expensive US fuel in their tanks as well as the inefficency that such a trip to buy the subsidized fuel would entail.
This program only covers taking loads from one country to the other. It doesn't cover picking up a load at one place in a country and taking it to another place in the same country.
You are artificially saying that only the US truck has to drive across the border to Mexico, fuel up, return, and then start their run. That's a ridicules, unfair comparison.
The trucks are competing for the same runs. Both start and end at the same place. If one has to buy more expensive fuel at the beginning in the US, the other is going to have to buy more expensive American fuel at the end.
The American may fill up in the US to start, but they have cheap fuel left in their tanks when they return to the United States.
The only difference is the part of the drive that is to and from their homes and not part of the route. Basically, their equivalent of their commute to work. That part is overhead that they always work to minimize by picking up loads and dropping off loads near where they operate out of. In an efficiently run trucking operation very little of the driving is done outside of the routes, and if the trucker lives far away from the route he drives, he should be leaving the truck at work and driving a car home.
As far as the routes that both are competing for, neither has an advantage on fuel costs because both are competing for the same routes.
“The trucks are competing for the same runs. Both start and end at the same place. If one has to buy more expensive fuel at the beginning in the US, the other is going to have to buy more expensive American fuel at the end”
Not at all, for any trip inside the Mexican Truck’s round trip range, the Mexican Truck saves 50% on fuel costs making his bid cheaper just due to the subsidy.
300 miles from the Mexican border and they have a huge advantage and will thusly be awarded more contracts, there is no reason that they market would support a US truck driving into mexico with expensive American Fuel, quite the opposite.
“You are artificially saying that only the US truck has to drive across the border to Mexico, fuel up, return, and then start their run. That’s a ridicules, unfair comparison.”
Hardly, if the American trucker wishes to compete, they have to buy fuel in Mexico at the reduced cost.
“For the same routes, both have access to fuel at the same prices along those routes. Neither has an inherent advantage. Both would be wise to keep regular routes that allowed them to travel empty as little as possible and both would be wise to refuel where fuel is cheapest”
Even if the “best” routes were chosen a 50% reduction in cost for a Mexican truck vs an American truck will lead the market to prefer using the Mexican truck, that is an inescapble fact of the market.
Until that subsidy is removed and comparable regulations imposed, this deal is a non starter as all it would accomplish is the destruction of American Shipping and American jobs in favor of a subsidy.
Even the knuckleheads in Congress can grasp that fact of the market place.
We frickin blew it not nominating this patriot.
IMO, if we vote for what the RNC and MSM give us, we are just giving them license to do it again. I know we won’t get the candidate we want this time; but it is the only way to break the cycle and their stunts.
The Kennedy Wing of the GOP is as useless as the democrats.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808735/posts
Roadblocks for Mexican trucks in U.S. (Duncan Hunter - NAFTA Trucking Safety Act)
FMCSA - "Cross Border/ NAFTA" rules and regulations."
>>>Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA, bill titled the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Trucking Safety Act.<<<
SPECIAL REPORT: Mexican carriers want out of pilot program
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 – A trade association representing Mexican motor carriers has asked the Mexican Senate to cancel the cross-border pilot program with the United States.
“CANACAR has formally requested not to open the borders for trans-border services and to have the pilot program suspended until conditions for a fair competitive environment are existing and that the Mexican trucking industry has the guarantee of not being subject to unfair inequitable and discretional treatment by U.S. authorities,” CANACAR National President Tirso Martinez Angheben wrote in a press release.
Angheben appeared before the Communication and Transportation Committee of the Mexican Senate this past week to explain why the transportation industry opposes the opening of trans-border services and the pilot program between the U.S. and Mexico, according to a press release issued by CANACAR.
CANACAR is an organization which represents the general interests of the Mexican Trucking industry.
The group claims the U.S. government has not complied with agreements established in the 1995 North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexican trucking companies were not allowed to invest in U.S.-based trucking businesses or allowed to provide services within the U.S.
However, according to the Angheben, U.S.-based trucking companies have invested in infrastructure within Mexico and already have a “commercial presence in our country … which represents a commercial disadvantage of a great importance.”
In the released message, Angheben said he also told the Mexican Senate committee that the regulations facing Mexican trucking companies coming into the U.S. “include uneven regulation for Mexican carriers that will not guarantee a fair competitive market in U.S. territory.”
Angheben said the pilot program moved forward without Mexican Senate approval and without input from the Mexican motor carrier industry.
The CANACAR president told the committee that opening the border will not have any benefits to Mexico because:
* Transportation prices in Mexico are lower than in the USA;
* It will cause transportation prices in Mexico to increase;
* It will not accelerate the border crossing process;
* It will generate strong pressure on salaries paid to Mexican drivers, which in turn will increase the cost of domestic freight in Mexico; and
* The Mexican government lacks the capacity and infrastructure to supervise U.S. carriers entering Mexico and to prevent foreign companies from providing domestic transportation only reserved for Mexican nationals.
This isn’t the first time CANACAR has tried to shut down a NAFTA provision.
In 2001, the group petitioned the Mexican Senate to cancel the trucking section of NAFTA.
“The majority of people in the United States don’t want Mexican trucks to go there, and we told our president that we don't want to go, either,” said CANACAR president Manuel Gomez in 2001. “Nor are we interested in having U.S. trucks come to Mexico.”
Meanwhile, back in the states
Movement to delay the pilot program continues in the U.S. Senate with the debate of the supplemental appropriations bill. The bill includes an amendment that would restrict spending any money on allowing Mexican motor carriers to operate beyond the border zone until three conditions are met. Those conditions are:
* Granting such authority must first be tested as part of a pilot program;
* The pilot program must comply with the requirements of Section 350 of the 2002 appropriations legislation and the requirements of Section 31315(c) of Title 49, United States Code, related to the pilot programs; and
* Simultaneous and comparable authority to operate within Mexico is made available to motor carriers domiciled in the United States.
Murray submitted the amendment to the Senate Committee on Appropriations and it was accepted on a voice vote – with no opposition.
The only discussion related to the amendment was brought up by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, one of the co-sponsors of the amendment. The amendment was also co-sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND.
Feinstein discussed the fairness – or lack thereof – of allowing Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate within the U.S., while the Mexican government isn’t ready to allow U.S. motor carriers access to Mexico.
The amendment was introduced because of concerns raised during a Senate subcommittee hearing on March 8.
Thursday things will also heat up on the House side of Congress, when Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA, will introduce a bill titled the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Trucking Safety Act.
The NAFTA Trucking Safety Act looks to clarify and strengthen current regulations imposed on Mexican motor carriers entering the United States beyond commercial zones along the international border.
– By Jami Jones, senior editor
“We frickin blew it not nominating this patriot.”
I find it curious that all the McCain supporters NOW notice the bias of the media....the same bias we complained about during the shut out of good candidates during the primary and they told us we were silly.
The democrats have blue dogs that empathize with us.
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.