Let the trade wars begin!
posted at 2:35 pm on March 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Color me completely unsurprised by this development. The Obama administration, under pressure from the protectionist wing of the Democratic Party, reneged on a key NAFTA component regarding international trucking. In response, Mexico has slapped tariffs on American exports, and ag producers are steamed:
Mexico said Monday it will increase tariffs on about 90 U.S. products in retaliation for last week’s decision to end a pilot program that allowed some Mexican trucks to transport goods in the United States.
Economy Secretary Gerardo Ruiz Mateos said the U.S. decision violates a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement that was supposed to have opened cross-border trucking by January 2000.
“We consider this U.S. action to be wrong, protectionist and a clear violation of the treaty,” Ruiz Mateos told reporters. “By deciding to protect their trucking industry, they have decided to affect other countries and the region.”
The measure will affect about $2.4 billion in trade involving approximately 90 agricultural and industrial products from 40 U.S. states. Ruiz Mateos said the department later this week will publish a list of the products, which he said were chosen to represent a large number of U.S. states and significant trade items.
The US has claimed that Mexican trucks lack safety equipment required for American truckers, giving them an unfair advantage. Mexico says that safety concerns are nonsense, pointing to the comparable safety records of Mexican and American truckers during the pilot program. Now, trucks will have to stop at the border and workers will have to transfer loads from Mexican to American trucks.
Why did Obama end the pilot program? For a politician as friendly to open borders as Obama and his allies are, it doesn’t make much sense — until one considers the unions. The Teamsters pressed hard to end this program to protect themselves and their union jobs. Obama’s NAFTA Dance on the campaign trail ended with Austan Goolsbee insisting that Obama remained committed to the trade pacts, but hoped to negotiate on open issues of safety and outsourcing. It looks more like Obama intended to begin abrograting key pieces of the agreement as soon as practical.
What does this mean for American jobs? The trucking jobs may be safe in the short run, but the tariffs threaten to curtail the reason for them. Kevin Brady, the ranking Republican on the trade subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, says that wheat and beef exports will start drying up. In this economy, that could put some farms on the edge of bankruptcy, precipitating another land crisis on top of the burst housing bubble in the cities and suburbs. This time, few people will have the means to help through Farm Aid telethons.
Obama now says he’ll work something out with the Mexican government, but perhaps he should have done that first.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Jerome Corsi to post in 5…4…3…2…1….
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on March 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Everything he touches turns to FAIL.
Kent18 on March 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Wait a second.
Wasn’t this blog opposed to this program back when Bush was president?
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Not that I’m against picking fights with Mexico over certain subjects *coughIMMIGRATIONcough*, but this just seems short-sighted and stupid even for Obama.
Cloward-Piven, indeed.
teke184 on March 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Why yes. Yes it was.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Obama is the Bizarro King Midas.
CP on March 17, 2009 at 2:40 PM
He’s putting up protectionist measures and sparking a trade war during a hard recession? That didn’t work out so well last time, if I remember correctly.
amerpundit on March 17, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Shocker. No offense to anyone here that may be in one, but unions are pretty much the boils on the butt of America.
Grafted on March 17, 2009 at 2:42 PM
good those Mexician trucks have no reason to be on our highways. they are unsafe. the New world order is a failure time to go back to the consitution as orginally intended when revenue for the fed gov that being Tarrifs not income taxes. Those that want to do business in this country should have to follow our laws and regulation
unseen on March 17, 2009 at 2:42 PM
His pandering to the unions will be the down fall of our country. I mean ALL unions!
L
letget on March 17, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Big difference between sparking a trade war during a recession and sparking one when the Dow’s at 14,000 and the economy is booming.
amerpundit on March 17, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Can we slap a tariff on the humans Mexico exports north?
el rey on March 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Yep. But for fatally different reasons. For us it was a safety and illegal immigration issue. With Obama it’s all about union power. Illegal immigration and safety is not his concern.
Guardian on March 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM
The regulations are the reason why so much stuff has to be imported.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Well that settles it. We need to stop importing “meatbags” in retalitation.
reaganaut on March 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Teamsters are shooting themselves in the foot! I wonder did Mexico also stop US truckers from transporting the distance in Mexico or is that still to come?
Obama can always redevelop the land once those small farms go bankrupt into government owned wind farms and solar energy fields.
Texas Gal on March 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Mexico’s still a country?
Trent1289 on March 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM
We signed a treaty allowing it.
amerpundit on March 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Oh that’s rich.
Who cares of why. So if he did it because of “illegals” you’d be happy, right?
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Please try really hard not to confuse Allahpundit with Mr.Morrissey.
canditaylor68 on March 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Another Obama skid mark.
AubieJon on March 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Looks to me like The Obama has a referse Midas touch. Everything he touches turns to crap.
cpodug on March 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM
But for
fatallytotally different reasons.I have no idea what happened there.
Guardian on March 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM
REVERSE – sheesh!
cpodug on March 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM
This is as close as I’ll ever come to giving Obama props. This was the right thing to do. Obama, you’re an idiot and you’ve done this for all the wrong reasons, but at least you did it.
innominatus on March 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Not the point.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:47 PM
What’s “rich” about it? Passing Smoot-Hawley probably wouldn’t have dropped us into the Great Depression if we were riding high and doing well at the time of its passage. Instead we passed it when we were on the verge of a depression.
Look, I think my position from ’07 is still opposition to the program. But that doesn’t mean you can pull out the rug whenever you want. Insulting someone and insulting someone with a gun to your head are entirely different things.
amerpundit on March 17, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I think Ed and Allah should have a boxing match to settle their differences
Ed could broadcast the audio live on his shows
Although with Allah being a beta male would he just run away once he saw the ring?
offroadaz on March 17, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I was never happy with the idea of truckloads of illegals careening down American roads in unsafe vehicles.
Guardian on March 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Fixed.
WashJeff on March 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Read that a second time. Smoot-Hawley was bad and dampened exports; but it’d be cool to pass during the booming 80s.
That doesn’t make sense at all. Bad legislation is bad in a slow economy; and its bad during a strong economy.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Obama is concerned about the cities — that’s where his votes are. Farmers tend to be Republicans — why should he care?
unclesmrgol on March 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Good.
Now start building the 2000 mile Wall.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Until they formally renounce and call off the Reconquista, I’m not listening to one word from them.
Christien on March 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Obama is the perfect example of the Liberal Democrat creed: Symbolism over Substance.
He looks good.
He talks a good game.
But now that he’s actually in the game it’s nothing but error after error.
Kowboy on March 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Good catch…you have an excellent memory. I wasn’t even aware HA even existed when that story was written. I am all for free trade so I think them doing this is BS. If you are against it for immigration purposes than the buffer inspection zone should have been enough. We need to keep our borders more secure, but in an economy like this we also need to ensure free trade doesn’t get hurt. Once tariffs and trade walls start to take shape then the thing that most likely knocks them down is a tank.
txaggie on March 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM
“Obama now says he’ll work something out with the Mexican government”.
Yeah, can see it now; “Okay, we’ll take 20,000,000 illegals and call NAFTA a wash. Deal?”
Maybe we should send ‘the smartest woman in the world’ down to deal with them.
GarandFan on March 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM
So the reasoning is irrelevant isn’t it? You agree with Obama here. It’s okay.
I won’t speak for Ed, but I bet dollars to donuts his position on the mexican trucks was the same as AP’s back in 2007.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Yes, I’m totally in support of price increases on goods for no reason at all myself.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Well then you do support the NAFTA agreement, it was a law.
And show me where the Mexican trucks were unsafe…at each of the border crossing there were inspectors, inspecting the safety equipment, of brakes, lights, etc. There was a pretty good American business of fixing these trucks to bring them up to standard…now they are out of a job. That fact alone shows you know little about what you post, you just don’t want “Mexicans” in our country.
right2bright on March 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Geithner ticked off the Chinese re: protecting the Yuan.
Dear Leader’s now ticked off Britain and Mexico, two important friends. Yeah, good luck with all that “be respected around the world again” thing.
Now I am in favor of the Mexican trucks being held to the same safety standard as US ones (and the Mexican truckers should know some English) but this is just payback to the unions. And besides, we have a looming tucker shortage. Which will lead to shortages and higher prices, further hurting the US economy.
It’s almost as if Dear Leader had a plan to destroy the US economy. . .
rbj on March 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM
The regulations are the reason why so much stuff has to be imported.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:43 PM
then change the laws do not allow one group to aviod the laws and another to have to follow them.
unseen on March 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM
FarmAid telethons really did nothing to help farmers. The aid generated then and now would be smaller than a drop in a bucket of the ag economy.
MajorKong on March 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM
I thought our only export to Mexico was the US dollar.
James on March 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM
I’ve seen the trucks on the highways. If the mexican trucks were up to US standards, there should be no argument that the program should be allowed to continue, but they aren’t.
Vashta.Nerada on March 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Well, first we would have to lift the quota/ban on those imports, but, other than that, its probably doable.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM
A small price to pay to keep junk and unsafe goods out.
sethstorm on March 17, 2009 at 2:53 PM
I’m not saying Smoot-Hawley should’ve ever been passed. Only that it wouldn’t have been as devastating if we weren’t on the verge of a depression at the time. Timing is everything.
I don’t think that the trucking idea was a good one to begin with. But now wouldn’t be the time to ditch it. You can think things should be ideally different but recognize that they can’t be at the present.
amerpundit on March 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM
We signed a treaty allowing it.
amerpundit on March 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM
yeah and the New world order people have done other stupid things too. Internationalists have proven to be total failures. It is time we break the ties that bind us to idiots across the world and return to the consitution
unseen on March 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM
right2bright on March 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM
The economist in me says “oh no, don’t tell me.”
The border enforcement hawk in me says “oh, really? tell me more?”
cadetwithchips2 on March 17, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Yes and my take on it at the time was that it was a position born of emotion rather than well seated in conservative principles. I supported the pilot program because the regulations mandated the trucks meet safety standards and had to be checked to go the additional distance. What some probably don’t know is that Mexican truckers are already allowed to enter the US up to a designated distance and those trucks are not regulated. This pilot was directed at transportation beyond that distance where they were made to off load and on load onto teamster trucks. So as far as the previous position of being against the program because of the potential for human smuggling, that was just silly because those Mexican trucks still rolled across the border.
Texas Gal on March 17, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Could you explain that? Are you saying it is against the constitution to trade with countries, it is against the constitution to have treaties?
Seeing as you were so wrong about the Mexican trucks not being safe…you owe us an explanation of your other “statements”.
right2bright on March 17, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Dude, I don’t care if the reason for not doing it is because water is wet, I don’t want thousands of illegals jammed in trucks that aren’t safe careening down our highways. Find a way to fix that problem and ask me again. I’m all for international commerce as long as it is not inherently a security threat.
Guardian on March 17, 2009 at 2:57 PM
I do not want to fight in Obama’s unjust trade war.
myrenovations on March 17, 2009 at 2:57 PM
People are frisky today. Must be all that pinching…Exit question, if we stop the Mexican trucks from coming into the country what are we gonna do with that great big superhighway that we’re building in Texas?
Gohawgs on March 17, 2009 at 2:57 PM
FIFY
ladyingray on March 17, 2009 at 2:57 PM
It would only be fair if Mexico recalled all of their illegal immigrant exports.
It’s only fair.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM
don’t think that the trucking idea was a good one to begin with. But now wouldn’t be the time to ditch it. You can think things should be ideally different but recognize that they can’t be at the present.
amerpundit on March 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM
I disagree. Sometimes you have to go thru pain if your beliefs tell you so. Nafta has been a mistake and part of the problem. I don’t have a problem with trade yet I have a problem with free trade. There is no such trade as free trade. All trade carries a price. the free trade pushes that cost to someone other than the corparations. It lowers consumer prices yet in the short term yet takes away jobs and thus in real terms raises the prices in the long term.
The idea of free trade from the trade imbalance to the finacial breakdown of the past year to the rise in commodity prices, the endless wars that result all together the idea of free trade has proven to be a dismal failure and I would hope the GOP party abandons that failed part of the new world order
unseen on March 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM
We need protection even though there is no evidence of lack of protection.
Ugh. You’re killin’ me. It’s either a good idea or a bad idea. If it’s a good idea, it can be implemented in a good economy or a bad economy. If it’s a bad idea, then it can’t. Apparently, it’s a bad idea.
There are US trucks that are probably in the same condition. It’s not about their origin (Mexico/Canada/Texas), its about their ownership and who maintains them.
Labeling all trucks coming out of Mexico as “bad” just because of their origin is wrong. If a line of trucks – or a company – has a bad track record. Do something at that point, fine. But just labeling an origin (Mexico) as bad is just wrong.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM
And jobs.
Matticus Finch on March 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM
“In this economy, that could put some farms on the edge of bankruptcy, precipitating another land crisis on top of the burst housing bubble in the cities and suburbs.”
That’s exactly what the Obama administration wants – more people depending on the government for their meager subsistence.
sadatoni on March 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Tractor pulls
Matticus Finch on March 17, 2009 at 3:00 PM
You’re right – I should have said ‘in general’. I see the trucks all the time, and would prefer to not be adjacent to many of them.
Vashta.Nerada on March 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM
I disagree with your reasoning. There are a lot of things we should do. That doesn’t mean we can afford to at the time. My buying a mansion and having a chauffeur would be ideal. That doesn’t mean I can afford it.
amerpundit on March 17, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Could you explain that? Are you saying it is against the constitution to trade with countries, it is against the constitution to have treaties?
Seeing as you were so wrong about the Mexican trucks not being safe…you owe us an explanation of your other “statements”.
right2bright on March 17, 2009 at 2:56 PM
try to read the entire statement:
that being:when revenue for the fed gov that being Tarrifs not income taxes
As far as Mexican trucks being safe. I am glad you are willing to trust you, your family, and other citizens to one person who may or may not be bought off by drug money, political issues/pressure orideaology.
When the EVERY MEXICIAN TRUCK has to be inspected by our mechanics under our laws. When EVERY MEXICIAN trucker has to show he/she can read/write and speak english and has passed our Federal and local laws to drive a truck within the USA than and only than will the Mexician trucks be considered safe
unseen on March 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM
sadatoni on March 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Never waste a good crisis.
MajorKong on March 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM
OK, Obama has always been a druggie wants to get rid of the military. And he’s officially hard-core in favor of unions and protectionism.
So NOW will all those God-damned liberaltarians start pestering the Democrats to dump that one tiny little bugaboo they have with them over the economy, and quit demanding that Republicans give up EVERYTHING ELSE in our Party platform?
Seems pretty obvious. But somehow, I’m guessing that still ain’t gonna happen.
logis on March 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM
I see a lot of comments indicating that this program a) caused more accidents, and b) reduced boarder security and allowed more illegal immigrants in. Anybody got solid reasoning, or, heaven forbid, actual data, to back that up?
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Macro, not micro.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Let me try to act like a Democrat\Regressive:
This is blatant attempt at penalizing Hispanics for not supporting Democrats in November’s election at the 90% level and for throwing Gov. Richardson under the bus.
WashJeff on March 17, 2009 at 3:06 PM
The point is that what’s ideal isn’t always viable at the time.
amerpundit on March 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Economically, tariffs are a backward idea, but they are fairly easy to collect for a primitive government. Once you have the technology to collect income or sales taxes, it is a relief to be able to shed the dead weight of tariffs.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 3:08 PM
If anyone offers AllahPundit a ring, he should take it.
Loxodonta on March 17, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Knock yourself out.
Guardian on March 17, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Bwaaahhhhaaahhhaa!!! …caught like a rat in a trap! …stuck in the middle between Big Labor and La Raza. It’s priceless!
If Obama had any spine at all he’d tell Mexico to spit in one hand and wish in the other. What are they gonna do if he taxes the crap out of all those Western Unions illegals are sending back to Mexico? For that matter, what’re they gonna do if he simply enforces our immigration laws?
Murf76 on March 17, 2009 at 3:10 PM
It only effects long-haul not commercial within the 20 mile limit of the border. Those within the limit get the same kind of random check for contraband that everyone else does at the border. They don’t check safety and nothing stops those trucks from moving outside their legal limit until they might happen to be stopped by law enforcement.
Texas Gal on March 17, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Here’s you:
Economy is growing.
Let’s raise taxes; it’ll only hurt the economy a little bit.
Economy is shrinking.
Let’s not raises taxes; it’s a bad time.
Here’s me:
Economy is growing.
Let’s not raises taxes to hurt the economy.
Economy is shrinking.
Let’s not raises taxes to hurt the economy.
I simply cannot make it more obvious than this; sorry.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Random google searches are always the basis of my research as well.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 3:12 PM
A blind person could have seen the trade wars on the horizon.
hawkman on March 17, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Which will require more government help, causing more government control over our landowners.
And now you know why it was done.
MBuck on March 17, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Sorry but national security and the security of me and my family on the road with these trucks (I live in AZ) is much more important then having to import stuff!
Mexico doesn’t have a very good record (no matter what they say) when it comes to environmental, health, and SAFETY requirements when compared to the US on any issue, including trucking.
For them to say:
Makes me highly suspicious, e.g., what were the criteria used in determining the safety records, surely Mexico doesn’t operate as many trucks nor drives as many miles as the US does, so color me sceptical.
I’m not saying our economic health isn’t important, it is, but survival needs always come first and based on my experiences driving in AZ I feel safer passing a truck registered in the US more than I do passing a truck registered in Mexico!
Liberty or Death on March 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM
My point was that if you want evidence, it’s out there in abundance. It’s not my responsibility to do all the legwork. If you want to know if there are realistic safety concerns all you have to do is look.
Guardian on March 17, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I worked for Wal-Mart’s General Office in the early 90′s… specifically explaining NAFTA to our Mexican counterparts and setting up clothing sales south of the border. needless to say they were very excited about the prospect of their trucks getting through easier… this would save them time and money thus increasing their profits.
make no mistake… the Mexicans will not take this laying down, as we have seen with these new Tariffs. I expect even more walls to be built between the two trading communities by the Mexicans if this continues.
way to go Obama… making friends in new places all the time.
Kaptain Amerika on March 17, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Economically, tariffs are a backward idea, but they are fairly easy to collect for a primitive government. Once you have the technology to collect income or sales taxes, it is a relief to be able to shed the dead weight of tariffs.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 3:08 PM
You really want to argue that easier taxing is a net plus?
Ok. Me?: the harder it is to tax me and the products I buy the better it is for my country, my family and me.
You the government needs to be able to tax people quickly and effiecently.
As far as tarrifs vs income tax. One the companies pay the other the workkers pay.
As far as tarrifs vs sales tax: one the producer pays the other the consumer pays.
You tax things you want less of. You repeal taxes you want more of. since we tax income and sales that means we want less income and less sales and since we do not tax tarrifs that means we want more imports and less jobs.
thus the entire tax system is one designed to decrease employment and raise costs to consumers and income earners while at the sometime giving tax breaks to producers that invest outside our country.
Yeap you got a winning arguement there. Let’s go and sell that to the Americian people that will win so many votes.
unseen on March 17, 2009 at 3:18 PM
If the safety records of Mexican truckers are comparable to those of American truckers even though the Mexican truckers lack the required safety equipment, does that not mean that we are requiring too much safety equipment on American trucks? If we eliminate this onerous regulation, perhaps it would not be much cheaper to use Mexican trucks instead of American trucks.
hicsuget on March 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 2:58 PM
“It’s either a good idea or a bad idea.”
Context. And timing.
To use a medical example, a patient may need cardiac surgery. If they have a raging infection, it’s probably wise to treat the infection, then do the surgery later.
Transferring this logic to this situation- the Mexican trucks may be less safe. It would probably be a good idea to block them, especially if the fears about safety are grounded in data from the pilot project.
To abruptly shut the program down, in apparent violation of Nafta and without consultation with Mexico to avoid a trade war, is a Bad Idea.
cs89 on March 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Obama is clueless as to working with anyone.
He’s a reactionary puppet, inept in diplomacy.
The union angle makes sense as to why Obama’s sticking it to Mexican truckers. As per “truck” safety measures, at least one would hope that in the transfer of goods from Mexican to US trucks, our borders would be more secure. We should be able to thwart a lot of illegal alien human trafficking and drug entry, and perhaps catch biological or other terrorist threats at the border rather than within the interior. Small comfort for border towns to be more vulnerable than they already are; such is life.
But watch Obama’s slight of hand, as whatever makes the news headlines is merely distracting attention from what is much worse behind curtains 1, 2, and 3.
maverick muse on March 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM
OT – Turbo Tax’s career dissipation light just went into overdrive.
“Defend” is always the first step to removal in politics.
lorien1973 on March 17, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Not all truckers are union. In fact, a huge majority of AG truckers are NOT union at all.
Mexican trucks do not have to go through all the red tape we do.
So the govt needs to get rid of ALL regulation regarding trucks if they’re going to let the Mexicans come in & haul whatever.
Some regulation is good, like on pulling triples, etc.
Some roads can’t take certain loads.
Your axle weight is very important when considering safe driving.
So the REASON our stuff is always so expensive is bcs of DOT regs in every state + fed regs.
You get rid of all the regs except for the basic ones concerned with safety, your stuff will be cheaper.
Bcs most of your ‘stuff’ (food, clothing, etc) is moved about by truck, NOT trains.
Badger40 on March 17, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Now, trucks will have to stop at the border and workers will have to transfer loads from Mexican to American trucks.
IOh cry me a river. this will produce jobs for those transferring the frieght. Thus the mexicians get a job to deliver the frieght to the border, the freight movers get a job transferring the frieght to the Americian trucks and the Americin truckers get a job moving the frieght to points within the country.
Which means more job creation, more income in the hands of workers. wasn’t the stimulus bill designed for that. Isn’t that a good thing?
If the law goes thru. you have less jobs and more profits. Notice that consumers will more than likely pay the same regardless because of competition from China. Thus I will side with the workers on this one because it giuves me the added benefit of safer roads, less immigration and more economic activity within the country.
unseen on March 17, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Good analogy. There is a way to satisfy everyone’s concerns and be fair to everybody. Obama just screwed this up like everything else he tries. I say tries because as far as I know he still has not accomplished or fixed anything. Nothing good anyway.
Guardian on March 17, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Ag producers who produce using illegals? If so then I hope they get so steamed their heads blow off.
MB4 on March 17, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Dude, I hope so.
Guardian on March 17, 2009 at 3:30 PM
I am also concerned with the immigration & smuggling opportunities this may create.
This really is a safety issue. The teamsters & other unions may be whining about this for other reasons, but don’t you want your border safe?
Don’t you want your food & other goods to be inspected BEFORE they come into this country?
This is a good way to introduce eradicated animal diseases.
What are the vets saying about this?!
The mexicans have already brought back TB to the US through their illegal immigration.
What else will this do?
Any body care about the consequences of this BESIDES the union foul cry?
Or do you all just want your cheap goods?
Badger40 on March 17, 2009 at 3:31 PM
?
Uh, no. The ease of collection is a net plus for tariffs, but their damage to trade is such that they should be discarded when other taxing methods become feasible. As far as taxing and its effect on behavior goes, income taxes and general sales taxes have the lightest touch, because they are spread more evenly across the population (which is not to say that a flat tax and lower spending wouldn’t be even better). Tariffs don’t preserve jobs by any means–actually, the whole idea of “preserving jobs” is ridiculous to start with. Labor is a resource, and, should we use it inefficiently by making things that can more cheaply be imported, we are all worse off.
You are eating up the socialist mems, here.
Count to 10 on March 17, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I happen to know (ok, I’m married to) someone at DOT who was closely involved with the Pilot Program.
Some facts:
–Canadian truckers have been driving in the US for years, with no complaints from anyone.
–The Mexican trucks that were part of the pilot program were COMPLETELY SAFE. In fact, they were safer than many US trucks. Why? The Mexican trucking companies didn’t want to give any excuses for failure on this, so they made sure their trucks met–& even exceeded–US safety & environmental standards.
–US truckers were driving in Mexico.
–In every case (US, Canada, Mexico), drivers are only allowed to pick up loads IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY & drive into another country. They are also allowed to pick up a load & return to their country. They are NOT allowed to drive loads within the country.
So guess who was doing the objecting to the MEXICAN truckers? (You’ll notice that there has never been an objection to Canadian truckers.) Yes, unions.
Why? On the Mexico-US border are large warehouses–on the US side. As it currently stands, trucks carrying loads going either way take those loads to the warehouses, where they’re unloaded. By UNION workers. The loads are then ferried across the warehouse to the other side. By UNION workers. They’re then loaded on to trucks headed into either the US or Mexico. By UNION workers. All in all, a pretty sweet gig with lots of UNION workers. So guess who really doesn’t want to see truckers allowed to bypass those warehouses? Hmmmmmm…..
BTW, there was a Chamber of Commerce calculation that if the program succeeeds, with Mexico building shipping ports on the Pacific (to compete with Long Beach & its UNION workers), & then Mexican truckers driving loads into the US–that consumer prices would ultimately DROP by about 2%. Think about that. And then guess why UNIONS are so adamently opposed to this program succeeding. They’re able to team with the Dems on this & use the prevailing anti-Mexican sentiment to make this go.
I’m one who is totally opposed to illegal immigration & allowing illegals shamnesty. But I support this program. Think about it–if you’ve got Mexican truckers with good jobs IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, they’re going to go back home. US truckers would also be carrying loads into Mexico. Why would we not be encouraging a program that gives Mexicans jobs in their own country & reduces the allure of illegal immigration?
Kittymama on March 17, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »