Mexico Trucker Online Articles

An Inconvenient Truth – Blame the GOP, not Obama for $4.00 a gallon gas

Listening to the callers to the Steve Sommers show last night on ATN (America’s Trucking Network) railing against President Obama, accusing him of everything from being an “illegitimate President” to being singularly responsible for the high cost of gas and diesel (some nefarious conspiracy to wean Americans off of fossil fuels), I found an interesting article by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton Administration, who points the finger of blame squarely where it belongs.

Gas prices continue to rise, which is finally giving Republicans an issue. Mitt Romney is demanding the president open up more domestic drilling; the super PAC behind Rick Santorum just released a new ad in Louisiana blasting the president on gas prices; and the GOP is attacking the White House on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

But the rise in gas prices has almost nothing to do with energy policy. It has everything to do with America’s continuing failure to adequately regulate Wall Street. But don’t hold your breath waiting for Republicans to tell the truth.

As I’ve noted before, oil supplies aren’t being squeezed. Over 80 percent of America’s energy needs are now being satisfied by domestic supplies. In fact, we’re starting to become an energy exporter. Demand for oil isn’t rising in any event. Demand is down in the U.S. compared to last year at this time, and global demand is still moderate given the economic slowdowns in Europe and China.

But Wall Street is betting on higher oil prices in the future — and that betting is causing prices to rise. The Street is laying odds that unrest in Syria will spill over into other countries or that tensions with Iran will affect the Persian Gulf, and that global demand will pick up as American consumers bounce back to life.

These bets are pushing up oil prices because Wall Street firms and other big financial players now dominate oil trading.

Financial speculators historically accounted for about 30 percent of oil contracts, producers and end users for about 70 percent. But today speculators account for 64 percent of all contracts.

Bart Chilton, a commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — the federal agency that regulates trading in oil futures, among other commodities — warns that too few financial players control too much of the oil market. This allows them to push oil prices higher and higher — not only on the basis of their expectations about the future but also expectations about how high other speculators will drive the price.

In other words, a relatively few players with very deep pockets are placing huge bets on oil — and you’re paying.

Chilton estimates that drivers of small cars like Honda Civics are paying an extra $7.30 every time they fill up — and that money is going into the pockets of Wall Street speculators. Drivers of larger vehicles like the Ford Explorer are paying speculators $10.41 when they fill up.

Funny, but I don’t hear Republicans rail against Wall Street speculators. Could this have anything to do with the fact that hedge funds and money managers are bankrolling the GOP as never before?

Wall Street isn’t bankrolling Democrats nearly as much this time around because the Street is still smarting from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law pushed by the Democrats, and from the president’s offhand remark in 2010 calling the denizens of the Street “fat cats.”

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is trying to limit how much speculators can bet in oil futures — a power it was given by Dodd-Frank. It issued a rule in October, but it won’t take effect for another year.

Meanwhile, Wall Street has gone to court to stop the rule. It’s already won a stay.

As rising gas prices start wagging the election-year dog, the president should let America know what’s really causing prices to rise.

Those who would attack the President over energy policy have it flat out wrong. The United States is producing in access of 20% more crude than during the Bush Administration, despite the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. And while I totally support the Keystone XL pipeline project, that is a long term, not a short term solution to our energy problems.

Based on what Robert Reich truthfully points out, there is a short term solution that would immediately bring the American public some relief from high gas prices. Enforce the damned Dodd-Frank Reform Law.

But we can’t do that because the Wall Street Republicans went to court and got an injunction against the law before it was even in effect.

A little-noted provision of that 2010 law, which was passed in reaction to the 2008 financial crisis, requires an even littler-noticed federal agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to establish “position limits” for commodity and swaps traders. Wall Street will not allow that.

But we have an ally in Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who along with 67 of his Congressional colleagues, sent a letter to the CFTC demanding them to do its job.

According to this article,

If enacted in a sensible fashion, position limits would go a long way toward easing consumer pain at the gas pump. That’s because speculators have played a major role in driving up gas prices. That’s not just empty rhetoric, or conspiracist theorizing, but proven fact. A recently updated study by the staff of the St. Louis Federal Reserve (get your copy here), found that speculation “played a significant role in the oil price increase between 2004 and 2008 and its subsequent collapse.”

It’s reasonable to conclude that speculators are also playing a key role in the current oil-price run-up, in addition to the sabre-rattling over Iran and other geopolitical and economic factors. A study by none other than Goldman Sachs has found that each million barrels’ worth of speculation adds 10 cents to every barrel of oil.  There were about 233.9 million crude oil contracts that were the subject of speculation as of Feb. 28. Thus speculation added $23.39 to the price of a $108 barrel of oil, which translates to 56 cents a gallon at the pump. Without speculation, Forbes writer Bob Lenzner notes, a barrel of oil would have cost as little as $74.61, and the cost of fuel would have been $3.12 a gallon on Feb. 28, and not the price it was actually commanding in the northeastern U.S.: $3.68.

It’s way past time to stop blaming the President for a situation he had no control over and start demanding Congress and the President to come down on the speculators and Wall Street hustlers who have put America into the position it is in today.

Is Racism at work in Border Trucking debate?

Mexican T-660 Kenworth southbound for Monterrey on Mx 85

That’s the question posed on the blog “ALL THAT’S TRUCKING” as she writes about the many nasty, racially tinged comments being thrown about as the red hot debate over Mexican cross border trucking heats up once again, and the usual actors, OOIDA, TEAMSTERS and their allies in talk radio fan the flames of their listeners prejudices.   “Is racism rearing its ugly head in the debate over the long-delayed opening of the border to long-haul Mexican trucks, as required under the North American Free Trade Agreement that was signed nearly 20 years ago? I’m not saying anyone who opposes opening the border is racist or prejudiced, but in reading and listening to some of the comments on the debate, I can’t help but think it’s a factor.” says Deborah Lockridge, Editor in Chief at truckinginfo.com She goes on to write;

Many in this country appear to believe in a stereotype of Hispanics as lazy, greasy, thieving good-for-nothings — you know, the guy in the sombrero sleeping under the cactus. But in case you haven’t looked lately, Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) have become a vital part of our economy. Check out “A gringo in the lettuce fields” and think about how long you could keep up with one of these “lazy” migrant workers. Back in 2004, the film “A Day Without a Mexican” tried to “make the invisible visible” by taking a satirical look at what would happen to California if its Mexican population suddenly disappeared. Lawn work? Restaurants? Nannies? Construction crews? Maids? Car washes? Nada. So I wonder: Are some in the trucking industry letting racism, either consciously or subconsciously, affect their views on the wisdom of opening the border?

You can read the rest of the article here We tend to agree with her, especially after reading some of the 2274 comments received following the call to comment on the Cross Border Proposal by FMCSA. Comments such as this one, calling into question an FMCSA officials heritage, as if it matters.

This Mexican trucker issue is an insult to every hard working American!! (noting you are Mexican or of Mexican descent?). I have put much thought toward this issue and have come up with many reasons this should not become law. That said, bottom line??? There is NOTHING of value for us LEGAL Americans to support such a bill. Don’t do it! This is just one more idiotic move of Obama! We are Americans! Not Russians/Soviets, Not Mexicans, Not Chinese. This country as we have known it is rapidly deteriorating. Thank you for your time. Geoffrey A. Blair Lease operator

Or perhaps this one, proof that stirring the pot of hysteria and prejudice has worked for groups like OOIDA and TEAMSTERS

Hello, I am a US born citizen. I am also a self-employed truck driver. Cross border trucking will be devastating to the trucking industry. It will drive wages and rates that are already low ,even lower. Last year was the safest highways on record and you want to bring in the Mexicans. They will not abide to our laws because they won’t understand them. Highway travel will become unsafe because they can’t read ENGLISH signs. They will be making wrong turns in front of us and our families. U-turns on a Interstate Highway will become the norm and very dangerous. Mexican trucks are not maintained to our standard. When there is an accident (and there will be) ; how will the victims collect for damages or even worse ? Illegal drugs will be more common. Rape and crime will be on the increase because these people do not have the same morals as an AMERICAN. PLEASE WAKE UP AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT ! KEEP THE MEXICANS IN MEXICO – MIKE BOOKS

Here’s another one submitted by “Anonymous”, rightfully so with his apparent lack of education and more.

what kind of idiots are you . taking americans jobs away and allowing non americans ones that dont pay taxes to work here what the fuck are you dong . in this day and time when so many are out of work you alow this to pass do you know how many trucking companies are going to be out of work because of this

That one is sure to get the FMCSA to sit up and take notice. Actually, when you ignore the more than 1500 boilerplate “form letters” submitted by Teamsters members and the few such as those above, submitted by obvious OOIDA members, there are a number of good comments from folks such as mom and pop pork producers and other agri-business owners who give logical valid reasons why the proposal should go forward, as it will. The number of comments received, 2271 as of today, isn’t a realistic number though as there are many duplicates by the same commenter. However, the strategy appears to be for TEAMSTERS and others to submit as many meaningless and irrelevant comments as possible as a delaying tactic. The FMCSA must read each and every one of them, even the form letters, and that takes time. However, it is only delaying the inevitable.

CATO Institute – The Pilot Program on NAFTA Long-Haul Trucking Provisions

Comments for the Federal Register
FMCSA–2011–0097
by Daniel Griswold
These comments were submitted on May 4, 2011.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed restoration of long-haul cross-border trucking with Mexico in compliance with our commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

My name is Daniel Griswold. I’m director of the Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. Cato is a non-profit, non-partisan educational institution supported by voluntary donations from individuals and foundations who share our core values of individual liberty, free markets, limited government, and peace.

The suspension of the cross-border pilot trucking program by Congress in 2009 has been a breach of our international commitments, an embarrassment to our nation, and a barrier to two-way U.S. trade with the people of Mexico. The time is long overdue to correct this injustice and economic distortion by fully implementing the trucking provisions of NAFTA.

Under the 1994 agreement, the United States and Mexico were to allow trucks from each country to deliver goods to destinations inside the other country, provided the trucks and their drivers met all safety regulations mandated by the host government. According to Annex I of the agreement, licensed and qualified Mexican trucks were to be allowed to make deliveries in U.S. border states by 1995, a year after the agreement went into effect, and throughout the U.S. by 2000. U.S. trucking firms were to be granted the same access to Mexico. But under pressure from the Teamsters union, President Clinton unilaterally suspended implementation of the provisions in 1995, citing safety concerns.

President George W. Bush, to his credit, tried to fulfill the U.S. obligation under NAFTA. His administration launched a pilot program in 2007, which allowed a limited number of Mexican trucking companies to deliver goods to U.S. destinations beyond the 25-mile commercial zone along the U.S.-Mexican border. Citing unsubstantiated safety concerns, and in the face of ongoing union pressure, a bipartisan majority in Congress voted to cut off funding for the program in 2009.

The Obama administration has sought to reinstate the program under the “concept document” released in January 2011. The document and the attending regulations would go a significant way toward implementing the original NAFTA obligations and should be adopted as soon as possible.

Suspension of the pilot program in 2009 was based on protectionism and prejudice, not legitimate safety concerns. Although Teamsters union leaders talk about safety, their real agenda is not to promote safer roads but to protect themselves from increased competition. The broader agenda of their congressional allies is to thwart full implementation of a successful trade agreement with Mexico, our third-largest trading partner. The real objection they have to Mexican trucks making deliveries to U.S. cities is not that they are unsafe but that those trucks are driven by Mexicans. In the eyes of too many members of Congress, “driving while Mexican” remains an unacceptable public hazard.

In contrast to those stereotypes, experience from the pilot program has demonstrated that Mexican trucks and their drivers are fully capable of complying with all U.S. safety requirements. An August 2009 report from the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General found that only 1.2 percent of Mexican drivers that were inspected were placed out of service for violations, compared to nearly 7 percent of U.S. drivers who were inspected. The “out of service” rate for Mexican trucks was slightly lower than the rate for U.S. trucks, even though Mexican trucks were inspected six times more often than the U.S. trucks.

The Congressional Research Service confirmed the superior safety record of Mexican trucks and drivers in a February 2010 report to Congress:

The safety of Mexican trucks [in the demonstration program] is now comparable with U.S. trucks. ‘Out-of-service’ violations are those that are serious enough to keep the truck from continuing its journey until the violation is resolved. … However, recent data provided by the FMCSA [Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration] … indicate that other Mexican trucks [those operating just in the 25-mile "commercial zone" across the border] are as safe as U.S. trucks and that the drivers are generally safer than U.S. drivers.

The failure of Congress to allow implementation of the NAFTA trucking provisions has proven costly to the United States in three important ways.

First, U.S. failure to comply has deprived our economy of the efficiencies of moving goods across our mutual border at lower cost. With the ban in place, trucks approaching the border are required to unload their cargo into warehouses in so-called commercial zones within 25 miles of the border, only to have that cargo reloaded onto short-haul vehicles and then onto domestic trucks for final delivery. This inefficient system causes delays, increased pollution and added costs at busy border crossings such as Calexico East; San Ysidro; Nogales, Ariz.; and Laredo, Texas. Because more than 70 percent of U.S. trade with Mexico travels by truck, the ban on cross-border trucking imposes an additional $200 million to $400 million in transportation costs each year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Second, failure to comply has exposed U.S. exporters to perfectly legal sanctions imposed by the Mexican government. Under the provisions of NAFTA, and after waiting patiently for more than a decade, the Mexican government imposed sanctions in 2009 on more than $2.4 billion in U.S. exports affect 100 products, from Washington apples to Iowa pork. The sanctions would be lifted in two stages as the U.S. government implements the proposed program to comply with Annex I.

Third, failure to comply has compromised the U.S. government’s reputation as a good citizen of the global trading system. Simply put, the U.S. government has failed to keep its word to our Mexican neighbors. Our government has been in flagrant violation of a major trade agreement for more than 15 years. This breach of trust has undermined the U.S. government’s standing to challenge other governments, from Mexico to China to the European Union, who may also be in violation of various trade agreements. The Obama administration’s promise to more vigorously “enforce” our rights in the World Trade Organization and other agreements will lack credibility as long as the U.S. government fails to comply with such clear commitments as the trucking provisions of NAFTA.

For all these reasons, the U.S. government should act as quickly and as thoroughly as possible to implement the proposed regulations to bring our nation into compliance with our mutually beneficial agreement with our Mexican neighbors on cross-border trucking.

 


Griswold, Daniel. “The Pilot Program on NAFTA Long-Haul Trucking Provisions.” May 4, 2011. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13075 (accessed May 5, 2011).

Guest Editorial – Mexico trucking issue hits home for U.S. agriculture

By Nelson Balido
President
Border Trade Alliance

Nelson Balido – President – Border Trade Alliance

The Border Trade Alliance earlier this month expressed its optimism that a framework announced by President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderón for setting the trucking issue was a real step in the right direction.

If all this sounds familiar, it’s because the dispute over trucking dates back to the Clinton administration, when bogus claims over truck safety and environmental damage first won out over the need to comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement signed with our friends and neighbors, Canada and Mexico.

We’ve been close to settling this issue before, and yet here we are again.

Perhaps no other debate in NAFTA has featured the same level of high-pitched hyperbole as the trucking debate. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), one of the most vocal anti-Mexico trade voices in Congress, once famously called Mexican trucks “rumbling death traps” and painted a picture of Mexican truck drivers as sleep-deprived, drug-addled, 18-wheel drag racers.

But instead of claiming to worry about American jobs while he repeats talking points for Big Labor, the congressman might want to worry instead about the $36 million in retaliatory tariffs his protectionist position has cost Oregon agricultural products like Christmas trees, pears, frozen potatoes, cherries, wine and onions.

Because of the U.S.’ continued failure to live up to its responsibilities under NAFTA, Mexico finally resorted to slapping retaliatory tariffs totaling in the billions of dollars on a host of U.S. goods headed south.

Perhaps nowhere is the economic damage to the U.S. starker than in the agricultural sector, where what is commonly believed to be a U.S.-Mexico border issue has suddenly landed in America’s farms and ranches.

Our friends at Texas A&M’s Center for North American Studies recently completed an analysis of the Mexican tariffs’ effect on U.S. agriculture. They found that nationally nearly $153 billion in U.S. agricultural production has been impacted. They further found that four of the five states most impacted by Mexican tariffs are nowhere near the Mexican border: Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina and Wisconsin.

The trade community is holding out hope that the Obama and Calderón administrations can finally put this debate to an end, but there are powerful labor interests that will surely be reminding the White House of their ability to affect elections.

The importance of U.S.-Mexico bilateral trade has been made clear now to states not usually associated with the intricacies of cross-border trade. The Mexico border is suddenly closer to places like Davenport, Iowa and Madison, Wisconsin. This is just one more reminder of why issues like improved port infrastructure, increased human resources and better technology should be just as important to representatives and senators from the interior of the U.S. as they are to border state delegations.

The pro-trade argument can’t just be won on the border; it has to be won in the heartland, too.

Source Article: Border Trade Alliance

SA Express News Editorial – Take action on truck program – End a self-defeating trade war with Mexico over NAFTA provision

Let’s see if I’ve got this right. James P. Hoffa of the Teamsters and Todd Spencer of OOIDA are correct in their opinions of Mexican trucks and 1400 plus trade associations, newspaper editors and business groups are wrong? And the aforementioned duo “speak” for the “majority” of Americans? I think not.

The San Antonio Express News editorial board offered their opinion on the issue this morning.

Read more

Opinion – Mexican trucking tariffs harm U.S. pork industry’s market

By Sam Carney
U.S. pork exports to Mexico are falling, and it’s not because Mexicans have lost their taste for pork.
Since August, the price of getting U.S pork into the Mexican market has increased because of a tariff Mexico slapped on it, retribution for the United States failing to live up to a trade obligation.

That duty makes U.S. pork more expensive for Mexicans to buy compared with, say, Canadian pork, which enters Mexico at a zero tariff rate.

In fact, from August to September, U.S. pork exports going south of the border fell 20 percent while Canada’s increased 49 percent.
Read more

NAFTA compliance, finally / Obama will end 17-year ban on Mexican trucks

Safe Mexican carriers such as this one will soon be seen on US highways as the Obama administration does the right thing and fulfills our promises under NAFTA. The time for the lies, fear mongering and hysteria is over with.

BY UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD

The North American Free Trade Agreement was ratified by Congress almost 17 years ago. It’s about time the United States began honoring a key part of it. A sticking point in the treaty has been the provision allowing truckers from Mexico, Canada and the United States cross-border access to each nation’s highways.

The United States allowed Canadian truckers access, but kept out Mexican trucks. Democratic lawmakers claimed they were worried about “safety concerns” related to the Mexican trucks. But what they were really worried about was how best to cater to labor unions and address the Teamsters’ concerns that Mexican truckers represented unwelcome competition.
Read more

Mexican Trucking Retaliation to continue…… Indefinitely

SCOTT LINCICOME, an International trade attorney, published author, political adviser and frustrated libertarian had this assessment of the current state of the dispute between the US and Mexico over the illegal ban on Mexican trucks.

Quoting an article from “INSIDE TRADE”, a subscription industry publication:
Read more