Truck war - Digging through the garbage to arrive at the truth
Sep 25, 2007 General Interest
It typically takes three trucks to haul a load of cargo from Mexico to Chicago. The first one carries it into the U.S., where the load is transferred to a second Mexican truck, which is allowed to operate only within 25 miles of the border. That truck shuttles the goods to an American-owned truck, within that 25-mile border zone, that will deliver it to the heartland.
That routine applies to all but one carrier — Transportes Olympic, of Monterrey, Mexico — which this month became the first Mexican trucking company to receive a permit to carry cargo all the way to its U.S. destination. By year’s end, the U.S. Department of Transportation plans to issue 100 such permits.
Congress wants to put the brakes on this pilot program. Last week, the Senate voted 75-23 to strip program funding from next year’s transportation spending bill. In May, the House vote 411-3 to do the same.
Mexican trucks were supposed to be granted free access to U.S. highways under the North American Free Trade Agreement, which went into effect in 1994, but the Teamsters didn’t like the idea of foreign competition. Then-President Bill Clinton obliged by restricting the trucks to a transfer zone close to the border, a clear violation of NAFTA.
In early 2001, a federal arbitrator ruled against the U.S. and threatened fines of as much as $2 billion annually. When President Bush tried to remove the restrictions, a cry went up again: Mexican trucks are unsafe! They’re too heavy, they’re old and they aren’t inspected thoroughly. Their drivers aren’t trained as well as American drivers, spend too many hours on the road without stopping to sleep and often don’t speak English well enough to navigate U.S. highways. Opponents said truckers would smuggle drugs or terrorists into the country.
“We don’t know who these drivers are, and we don’t know what they’re bringing in,” Teamsters President James Hoffa said as the pilot program got under way. “The weapons of mass destruction George Bush is looking for could be in the backs of these trucks.”
Oh, give us a break.
As the arbitrator pointed out six years ago, the U.S. is free to set and enforce whatever safety standards it sees fit. The Department of Transportation says Mexican trucks will be subject to more rigorous inspections than U.S. carriers: Every single truck that participates in the pilot program will be inspected; every driver will have to undergo background checks and random drug and alcohol tests. Officials also point out that trucks crossing the border into the transfer zone last year had a slightly lower inspection failure rate than U.S. trucks.
You’d think that would let the air out of the Teamsters’ argument, but they’re still spouting disingenuous warnings about safety, and Congress is only too happy to go along — by a seemingly veto-proof margin. That won’t be the last word.
If the U.S. doesn’t live up to its side of the NAFTA bargain, Mexico has the right to retaliate by retaining tariffs it had agreed to lift. Watch for trouble next year, when tariffs on Mexican corn and beans are supposed to be removed. Mexico also could renege on its end of the pilot program, shutting out American trucks.
The big losers are consumers on both sides of the border. The current system adds $400 million annually to the cost of transporting goods between Mexico and the United States. This isn’t about protecting Americans from dangerous Mexican truckers; it’s about protecting the Teamsters from competition.
Response of the Mexican Ambassador
View this Post in: 
This post was read 144 times until now
These might be of interest
Tags: , Chicago Tribune Editorial, Mexican trucks, NAFTA
Loading ...
.JPG "P1000621 (Small).JPG")
September 26th, 2007 at 2:32
Good for the Teamsters. NAFTA has been a disaster for the average working person in the United States, and believe me, it will be a disaster for the poorer worker in Mexico, especially in the Southern part of the country. When all this cheap crap made in China comes flooding into the United States and Mexico you will see an increase in unemployment amoung the average worker. Products, even tho they are junk, can be produced cheaper in China than even in Mexico. Wake up folks. The ONLY people that benefit from the so-called “free trade” agreements like NAFTA are the politicians, the CEO’s of the global corporations, the private investers that will make millions on the Super Highways from Mexico to Canada, the lawyers who will make millions stealing the land of the farmers for the Super Highway, the international bankers, the World Bank and the list goes on. In a recent article in the establishment magizine, Foreign Affairs publish by the Council on Foreign Relations it was admitted that only 3.4 per cent of the American people benefit by this “free trade” rip-off. That leaves 96 per cent that have actually seen their wages go DOWN. This is also true in Mexico. How do you think the average Mexican worker will compete with millions of tons of cheap, poor quality products produced by slave labor in China? I am for the average “lunch box joe,” the average blue-collar worker, the ones that work hard, try to earn money to support their families, educate their kids and just want a joyful, peaceful life. Who needs these global idiots that are super rich ramming some obscenity like NAFTA down our throats? Not I, that’s for sure. And if you don’t think that the ultimate goal for Bush and his ilk is to create a “North American Union,” where the US, Canada and Mexico will lose their sovereignity, you are sadly mistaken.
View this Comment in:
September 26th, 2007 at 2:34
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION, NAFTA ETC., SEE MY BLOG:
http://www.seeyouontop.blogspot.com
View this Comment in:
September 26th, 2007 at 3:42
I honestly do not think that we’ll see a North American Union as the loony toons perceive it to be.It is impossible, without regard to whether the leaders of the U.S., Canada and Mexico want one.
If you remember you civics lessons from high school, there are too many checks and balances built into each of the three countries Constitutions and Charters to allow this to happen. There is no way in hell that George Bush, Felipe Calderon or the Prime Minister of Canada can do anything to infringe on the sovereignty of their respective countries, let alone throw out the Constituitons and Charters of their particular country. Their governments would not allow it and the people sure as hell would rise up to stop it.
If one takes the time to read the SPP.gov website, there is nothing in their mission statement nor their annual reports remotely suggesting the impending dissolution of borders and convergence of governments. It does show where the objective is the free flow of information to combat pandemics and other health problems. Streamlining the process for each countries citizens to move across borders, tightening maritime and air security and establishing more navigation channels for airplanes. Good stuff that can enhance each country. And whether you like it or not, these three countries are joined by a common land mass.
Look at you road maps at the roads already linking the U.S., Canada and Mexico. They’ve been there for 50 years without a name doing the same thing as any Super highway would do.
The difference in us is I’m not seeing black helicopters and a conspiracy around every corner as some people are.
View this Comment in:
September 26th, 2007 at 5:03
I don’t see any black helicopters, but I have read the website of the NAU, and other essays by very well-informed people on what is going on. As for checks and balances, forget it. Bush, Bush Senior, Clinton and many other President’s get around checks and balances by issuing “Executive Orders” in the Federal Register. These obscene, diabolical orders are enough to make your hair stand on end. Probably, like you, I don’t want Mexico, Canada or the United States to blend into some bland group known as the NAU. However, it is happening. As for the Super Highway always being there, not true. We have a great Interstate system that needs to be maintained and improved, but this Super Highway that is already having money spent to build it, is a reality. When the Texas Legislature voted to deny funds, that black-booted facist that heads the Home Land Security threatened Texas with the loss of millions of dollars in highway funds. That’s just another term for extortion. The “funds” do not belong to the Federal Government. They are paid by the person who buys gasoline and were suppose to go into a fund to keep the highways in good repair, not into a fund used by the Federal Government to extort and force obedience to the will of the mindless politicians in Washington.
Why do you suppose the NAU website has on their masthead a flag that is a combination of the Mexican, Canadian and U.S. flags?
Here is a website around the “nonexistent” NAU and their obscene blended flag. And obscene for any Mexican as well as any American or Canadian.
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx
View this Comment in:
September 26th, 2007 at 5:09
sorry, I forgot to plug in my blog which has a lot of information. There is so much material out on this subject it’s hard to review it all, but, folks, it is happening and is NOW in the process of being implemented. Witness the money to build the Super Highway, and by the way, in order to build that thing the government has to seize hundreds of thousands of acres from individual farmers and their families. Talk about a land grab!! Who benefits from this stealing of private land? Politicians, international bankers, CEO’s of global corporations, leaders in the so-called “education” field, World Bank, and let’s not forget all the lawyers working with the politicians. The average worker will be hurt tremendously, as NAFTA has already proved:
http://www.seeyouontop.blogspot.com
View this Comment in:
September 26th, 2007 at 5:28
Oooopss Caught you in a whopper St Dismas…
The link you posted as belonging to the mythical NAU is in reality the the Tri-Lateral committee to hear and settle disputes between the three trading partners in NAFTA.
As their mission statements reads:
The NAFTA Secretariat, comprised of a Canadian Section, a Mexican Section and a United States Section, is responsible for the administration of the dispute settlement provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
This site is a joint collaborative endeavor of the three national sections. It contains information on the dispute settlement proceedings, legal texts and panel decisions and reports respecting the NAFTA.
And absolutely nothing more! Nothing about the formation of a NAU or anything else.
You are correct. The President does have the ability to issue executive orders but imagine any President issuing one setting aside the very basis of government. The ink wouldn’t be dry before his ass would be up for impeachment and charged with treason and and injunction would be issued against the order.
What you folks suggest is simply not possible, unless the people desire it and make it happen through armed revolution. It ain’t gonna happen.
You are also correct about the attempted land grab to build the corridor and it is meeting resistance in Texas. As I said before, it may happen eventually, but not in our lifetime. It would take 20 years and 100’s of billions of dollars to accomplish this.
And since some think it is wise to put a stop to the Mexican Pilot Program, in direct violation of our agreements, which can ultimately cost the American Taxpayer $2 BILLION dollars a year in penalties, the only place the money to build this thing could come from would be private investors which in return means TOLLS and Texans are dead set against this.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. But again, you link directs the person to the NAFTA ARBITRATION PANEL. Check it out.
The flag? Some flaky graphics designers idea…. Nothing to get your panties in a wad over.
View this Comment in:
September 26th, 2007 at 7:22
You really think that this “arbitration panel” is not a fore-runner of the NAU? First of all, I find NAFTA obscene, and a great evil to the average working men in all countries involved, as it has proven to be. Secondly, I don’t know about you, but I don’t want ANY multi-national arbitration panel having anything to do with the United States. We have our own laws to govern these matters, even tho our politicians, including both President Bush and his father, and Clinton have been signing away these rights. It is truly amazing that people can’t see what’s going on.
I don’t know if you have read all the links I have posted, but if not, do so. I have included a lot of information on my blog.
Do I hope that I am wrong about all this. I sure do, but I’m not. Can you deny that the trend these days is to global corporations? And these are at the expense of 97 per cent of the people in all countries. Only the super rich benefit as I have stated.
No whopper. You stated it plainly. The group represents three countries and want to add all of South America and Central America. There you have it. I oppose all these international “agreements”, especially since they were not even voted on, but shoved down our throat by a bunch of internationalists. These agreements are basically the rape of the working man and women and the statistics are proving it.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to have the major papers in the three countries post on the front page of their newspapers all the individuals that stand to get rich off this nonsense? Millions are going to be made by the super rich and millions, including decent jobs are going to be lost by millions of average workers. I think we all need to learn Chinese.
View this Comment in:
September 26th, 2007 at 10:19
I think we need to revisit trade agreements made with the Chinese which are resulting in inferior goods being shipped into this country. Only problem there is that Chinese investors hold a shitload of treasury bonds that could literally bankrupt the country.
The arbitration panel is not a precursor to a NAU. We have three countries who entered into the NAFTA agreement. And anytime you have something such as this, there are going to be disputes. Mexico challenging the U.S. over the failure to allow it’s trucks into the U.S. and winning. Canada and the U.S. going at it over soft wood imports and beef. These issues and more were all resolved by this arbitration panel consisting of 2 representatives from each of the participating countries.
You know, I don’t know if NAFTA and CAFTA and GATT is good for America or not. And since I can’t be sure, I’m not going to be running around like Chicken Little worrying that the sky is failing.
The concept of these trade agreements are sound. Lowering or removing tariffs from goods moving between countries can actually save the end user money, provided the companies benefiting pass some of the savings on to the consumer. Many don’t though.
Here in Mexico, consumer goods manufactured here, which should be cheaper, are actually less expensive to buy in the U.S., pay an import tax at the border and bring them home as opposed to buying them here in Mexico
The alternative is to pull out of these agreements, in the case of NAFTA, it would take a 6 month notice to Canada and Mexico, and suffer the results of tariff’s being put back in place for goods sold to the other two countries and brought in from our former trade partners. We do that, the U.S. loses while Canada and Mexico prosper under the agreement. The U.S. would be left out in the cold. Trade between the two countries would still pass through the U.S. “in bond” and we’d be the losers.
There is no good answer but throwing out all these conspiracy theories does not help anyone.
View this Comment in:
September 27th, 2007 at 8:34
“You know, I don’t know if NAFTA and CAFTA and GATT is good for America or not. And since I can’t be sure, I’m not going to be running around like Chicken Little worrying that the sky is failing. ”
I know that they are NOT good for America or Mexico. The statistics prove it, and these statistics are from the orginators of these agreements, the CFR. Read the article they themselves published on the negative effects of these agreements. Now mind you, they are FOR these agreements, but have been objective enough to give us the statistics. Here’s the article:
A New Deal for Globalization
As for conspiracy I don’t look at it as conspiracy, and it is easy to argue by “intimidation” but it doesn’t prove anything. In other words, use the catch words like “conspiracy” then imply that anyone who holds those views are loonie, and doing so without meeting the substance of the argument head on. These agreements ARE NOT a conspiracy–they are out in the open for all to read (although most people don’t read these days).
I still advocate “free trade” it if is done in the sense of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” But this is not what we have. What we have is a bunch of elitists, globalists, and disgusting politicians that stand to benefit greatly by these agreements and at the expense of the working men and women of all countries involved, with the exception of China and their slave labor. You have corporations that are, basically, on government welfare. If they do well with these agreements they keep the profit. If they lose on their investments, the TAXPAYERS pick up the bill. They have NOTHING to lose, while the working people have their jobs to lose. So we can buy products (although inferior) cheaper. Big deal! Eventually we won’t even be able to buy cheaper products, since their will be only lower, and lower paying jobs available. It’ll take 3 jobs to make enough to pay the rent, buy food etc. Forget the extras like educating our children.
You have a point that to abolish these agreements would cause short-term harm. I agree, but it still has to be done. These agreements are all about the rich and the middle and lower classes be damned.
View this Comment in:
September 27th, 2007 at 11:09
What in the hell is the CFR? “Crazy Folks Reunite”
NAFTA and CAFTA were trade agreements hammered out by trade representatives from Canada, the United States and Mexico
Being agreements, instead of Treaties, they did not need the blessing of Congress. Right or wrong, Congress gave the President the Fast Track authority to enter into these agreements.
The representatives of the countries involved all sat around the bargaining table and fought to get the best deal for their respective countries.
There is no closed door conspiracies here. Now some would say that Congress should rescind the Fast Track authority given to Presidents and maybe they should, but then again, perhaps not.
Take the Mexican Truck issue as an example. Everytime a potential trade deal comes our way, do we want it held hostage in Congress by the protectionists and isolationists, the lobbies who have millions of dollars to buy members of Congress to vote their way?
I think not. We’ve had gridlock in Congress for 20 years to the point that the peoples business is not getting done. The only business being conducted is the business of big business.
I agree they need to drop subsidies for corporations and tax loopholes for the oil companies. Let business stand on it’s own two feet and confront competition head on. And let the best man win.
A good start would be abolition of the personal income tax and replace it with a flat tax on sales of durable goods and services. Food, medicine and medical services exempted.
That’s what we have here in Mexico. Everyone from the richest to the beggar on the street contributes their fair share to the economy. At the moment, it’s 10% which will rise to 16% on January 1, 2008
For that reason, we don’t have tax cheats and tax evaders here, because the tax is paid POS. Interesting concept wouldn’t you agree?
View this Comment in:
September 27th, 2007 at 11:59
I agree about getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with a flat tax, or a sales tax. I think the sales tax would be better, but either would be an improvement over the “legalized theft” known as the income tax.
The CFR is the Council on Foreign Relations. Basically if you want to know what the US government is planning six months to a year in advance, read their journal “Foreign Affairs.” The CFR is made up of most the one worlder’s, the educators, the politicians, the globalists etc. Just about every single high government official in the US has been or is a member of the CFR. They are the group of about 2500 people that actually run the government.
That’s the problem. These “agreements” are not called treaties so they can by pass the Congress. Believe me, it is only the super rich that benefit from these miss-named “free trade” agreements. The poor and the middle class are getting screwed big time. Please read the link I provided about who benefits from these sick agreements.
If the corporations had to stand on their own two feet they would all fail. They are the biggest receiptents of welfare. They put to shame the poor family that receives a pittance to support their wife and kids, get medical care, send their kids to school, etc.
What is even worse than that, is that these blood-sucking corporations use taxpayer money to make risky investments. Then when they make tons of money, like the oil companies, they keep the profit. When their investments go bad and they lose money guess who makes up the loss? Not the corporations. Oh no. God forbid!! It’s the taxpayer, that very hard working person that has to pay an income tax out of his hard earned wages to support the folly of a multi-billion dollar welfare corporation. And it is even worse than that. Last year the CEO of Oracle, a huge welfare corporation made a BONUS of several million dollars while at the same time his company lost 60 per cent of it’s value and the stockholders lost money. Go figure!!
Your system of taxes is much better than ours. I agree, but I think a sales tax would be better. The more you buy the more you pay. So one of these greedy CEO’s wants to buy a fancy car, a boat, a helicopter, a multi-million dollar estate he would pay sales taxes on the amount. Instead, under the present system, he pays a tax accountant to find the loopholes and pays nothing. Even Warren Buffet, the second richest person in the world, said that he would pay a million dollars to anyone who could prove that he paid more taxes than any of the workers that worked for him. At least he’s honest. It’s sick. And NAFTA, CAFTA and any of the other letters these rich, blood-sucking dips come up with, are going to do nothing but further improvish the working class. God, it is awful. These people in power are in it for themselves. If you think they are working for the common folks, think again.
As for our politicians and voting here is my answer. Go to the local phone book and at RANDOM pick out the names of 500 people. Let them run the government for two years, then repeat the process. It can’t possibly be any worse. I swear to God, that the common person, the person that works for a living has more sense, more morals, and more concern for their fellow man than all these rich globalists put together.
By the way, 16 per cent is still too much. Someone who makes 5000 a year pays 800 in taxes. Well, that is much more difficult to pay than someone who makes 10 million and pays 1.6 million. If you only make 5,000 that 800 really hurts. If you make 10 million, gee you are only left with only 8.4 million. I think most of us could scrape by on 8.4 million.
View this Comment in:
September 28th, 2007 at 2:05
The flat tax or IVA (Impuesto Valor Addicional) or Value Added Tax, is a sales tax; on everything you purchase here with the exception of food. It is charged on tolls, telephone bills, both landline and celluar, internet services, lights, gas, everything.
And what makes this fair, every single person in Mexico contributes to the tax base. The underground economy that we have in the US does not exist here. Everybody pays something.
So a person making $5,000 a year would not necessarily pay $800.00. He would pay 16% on every dollar spent. Currently it is 10% as I noted before
In Mexico, a middle class family of professionals, depending on where they live, make about $500 combined or $5000 pesos. So the family income for the year would be about $24,000.00 You add to that the mandatory Christmas bonus, (it has a name, but I’ll be damned if I can think of it at the moment) that family income could well exceed $30,000 per year.
The working poor in Mexico, those who work in the maquiladoras, earn about $80 per week or $800 pesos. $7,600 per year assuming both or working. Of course, this group pays less. And they also get the Christmas cash.
Yeah, the flat tax or whatever name you want to hang on it, needs to be explored for the U.S.
Oh, and don’t confuse the IVA with Corporate taxes. That’s a whole different ball of wax and Mexican corporations have loopholes and tax dodges American corporations never dreamed of.
One of the reasons the countries economy is so screwed up!
View this Comment in:
September 28th, 2007 at 9:58
Thanks for the clarification. The system in Mexico sounds much better than the one in the United States. There is a program that we should copy from Mexico.
View this Comment in:
September 29th, 2007 at 5:05
Christmas bonus is aguinaldo
View this Comment in:
September 29th, 2007 at 5:59
Thanks Genie. Had it on the tip of my tongue and could not remember. Am I pretty much on point that it is generally given and expected by all workers in Mexico? I know all the ones that I am acquainted with got some nice ones.
View this Comment in:
September 29th, 2007 at 6:20
Yes, it is a legal requirement, equal to at least two weeks pay, I think. I can’t recall exactally, but it migh be more based on years of service. Some employers I know pay up to a months salary as a bonus, but I think that may be voluntary on the employers part, but I know two weeks is required.
View this Comment in: