Trucks such as these safe and modern Mexican rigs are prevented from operating in the US because of the xenophobic protection agenda of people like James Hoffa, Todd Spencer and their hip pocket politicians, and the US trucker and consumer is paying the price
It doesn’t take long for shortsighted politicians to initiate a market-closing trade war. Neither does it take long for the consequences of a trade dispute to hit home. Ask Washington growers.
It’s only been a few weeks since the Democrat-controlled Congress and Obama administration caved to the Teamsters union and closed the southern border to long-haul Mexican trucks. Mexico quickly retaliated with punishing tariffs on 89 U.S. products, including such Northwest exports as wine, onions, pears, potatoes and Christmas trees. The tariffs’ impact on this trade-dependent state was immediate. By Friday, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire had seen enough. She fired off a letter pleading with the Obama administration to quickly fix the mess it and the 110th Congress made of a once profitable trading relationship.
The administration can resolve this dispute unilaterally, if it chooses. President Obama could immediately restart the trucking pilot program that was shut down in March, once again allowing Mexican trucks full access to U.S. highways. That’s what should be done. That’s what the United States promised to do when it signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Mexican long-haul trucks were supposed to have full access to U.S. highways by 2000, but a very influential Teamsters union and other opponents of free trade managed for years to block implementation of that treaty provision. They and their congressional allies argued that Mexican trucks weren’t safe, though all available evidence says otherwise. Indeed, the 18-month trucking program allowing a limited number of Mexican trucks access to U.S. roads showed that concern to be baseless. Mexican trucks crossed into the United States at least 46,000 times during that program without one significant incident.
No, safety isn’t what motivates this program’s opponents. For Teamsters, it’s a matter of protecting U.S. truckers against foreign competition. For members of Congress and the administration, it’s a matter of pleasing an influential union constituency. The cost of their pandering is too high to tolerate.
Reneging on NAFTA’s promise to give Mexican truckers access to U.S. roads justifies Mexico’s punitive tariffs which, by some estimates, could cost the United States more than 40,000 jobs. In Washington, it jeopardizes agricultural exports valued at $87 million last year alone. Pear growers in the state lost exports of about 25 percent on last year’s refrigerated crop and could see the entire Mexican market disappear in the upcoming export season, according to Associated Press writer Shannon Dininny.
The Mexican market for pears, frozen potatoes and other produce could disappear for a very long time, if the administration fails to act quickly. Dininny reports that Canadian potato growers are beginning to replace U.S. exports to Mexico and pear growers in Argentina and Chile are beginning to take over the U.S. market there. In her letter to the administration, Gregoire warned that there is “no guarantee that Mexican importers will resume their earlier trade relationship with our producers.” Unfortunately, she is right. The damage from this protectionist action could continue long after it is corrected. The sooner it is set right, the better.
SOURCE: TDN.com Editorial
Way to go Hoffa and Spencer! You speak for truckers my ass! You promote your own selfish self interests and to hell with the truckers who are losing freight because of your xenophobic protectionist agenda!
With the announcement of the new commenting period on a proposed new Cross Border program with Mexico to allow us to fulfill our legal and ethical obligations, the first comment posted by Dr. Jim Giermanski, Chairman of Powers Global Holdings Inc. is perhaps most relevant. Hopefully, those that follow will be as well thought out and relevant as Dr. Giermanski’s.
Mexican Motor Carriers Right to Entry into the United States
While all the arguments for keeping out Mexican carriers have been shown in the NAFTA Dispute Panel Decision, and the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, to lack substance and credibility, Congress still acted on a basis of politics rather than facts.
The most prevalent argument to keep out Mexican motor carriers was based on safety issues. Other arguments were based on security. Regardless of the argument, all have failed before every objective judicial and regulatory forum except Congress.
I am providing my evaluation of the Mexican trucking issue by demonstrating the lack of substance of the arguments to prevent their entry.
As an expert on international transportation issues and the southern border, in particular, I am contributing my opinion in accordance with the call for input under Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26367, (Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee Public Meeting).
SAFETY
Up until 1982, Mexican carriers always had operating authority to work in the territory of the United States. There were no objections based on safety. In fact, comparing the safety records of Mexican, U.S. and Canadian long haul operations, one will find that the old U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) data showed that Mexicans had the best safety record of the three nations.
Since 1982, all the safety data on Mexican trucks were data obtained not from Mexican long-haulers, but from inspecting drayage or transfer tractors which simply hauled trailers from one side of the border to the other.
Those trucks would not be used and could not be used in long haul operations in the United States. As a matter of fact, U.S. drayage tractors were equally poor.
What is amazing, however, is that in a February 23, 2007 press release, USDOT stated that out-of-service rates for Mexican trucks (drayage only, since there are no Mexican long-haulers in the U.S.) dropped 64% to a 21% out-of-service rate, equal to the 21% out-of-service rates for U.S. trucks.
What USDOT does not say is that the U.S. 21% is the out-of-service rate for U.S. long-haulers, making Mexican drayage as safe as U.S. long-haulers. One would assume, then, that Mexican long-haulers would have an even better (safer) out-of-service rate compared to U.S. long-haulers.
In fact, this was confirmed by the USDOT Office of Inspector General Audit Report dated November 4, 1999. The audit revealed that 66 roadside safety inspections were made, 52 of which on Mexican motor carriers operating illegally beyond the U.S. border-states. These 52 were actual Mexican long-haulers, not drayage that is sometimes caught beyond the commercial zone but never far from the border. As a result of the 66 inspections, only 10 vehicles were put out-of-service. If all 10 were Mexican, and that isn’t likely, it would be a 19% out of service rate, less than the out-of-service rate for U.S. long-haulers. It also is reasonable to conclude of the 10 out-of-service citations, some were U.S., making the Mexican long-hauler out-of-rate much less than its U.S. counterparts.
Furthermore, Mexican carriers have been meeting U.S. standards for years. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) has been in Mexico cooperating with Mexican carriers to meet U.S. standards, and each Mexican motor carrier participating displays a sticker on the tractor showing safety compliance.
LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES
The chronology of the legal and legislative process that took place in the United States regarding Mexican trucking is quite clear and is best shown in USDOT’s own words.
- …The trucking provisions of NAFTA were put on hold in 1995. In 2001, a NAFTA dispute resolution panel ruled that the United States was violating its NAFTA obligations by adopting a blanket ban on trucks from Mexico.
- In 2001, Congress approved and President George W. bush signed legislation detailing 22 safety requirements that must be met before allowing trucks from Mexico to drive beyond the U.S. commercial zones.
- In 2002, U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta certified that DOT had met each of the 22 requirements set by Congress. The last three audits by the U.S. DOT Inspector General confirm it as well.
- Litigation stymied the DOT program; a 2002 U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that barred implementation of the treaty’s trucking provisions. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision in 2004.
- U.S. DOT began working immediately with its Mexican counterparts to develop a NAFTA trucking pilot program. (Release dated February 27, 2007)
In light of NAFTA, its dispute resolution mechanism, and a Supreme Court ruling, there was no legal basis for preventing Mexican motor carriers from access to the United States until Congress prevented their entry in 2009. But without a safety or legal problem to use to deny access, there now is talk of a security and unfair competition problem. A closer look at each will also show that these are also unsustainable.
SECURITY
It has been well documented that there are clear security problems with Mexico. First, Mexico has refused to enter into the Container Security Initiative (CSI) and has even refused to sign its “Declaration of Principles.” Secondly, participation in C-TPAT is marginal in the Mexican motor carrier industry. Having said that, no matter how much of a potential security risk Mexico’s non participation creates, the Mexican long haul motor carrier is a 100 times less likely to be a security risk than the current drayage carrier that enters the United States daily. Mexican long-haulers coming into the United States are likely to be subsidiaries or partners of U.S. companies, for instance, Jaguar (Mexican) and Celedon Trucking Services, Inc. (U.S.).
Therefore, the U.S. partner or parent will ensure that its Mexican long-haulers comply with C-TPAT mandates. The U.S. will now know for the first time something about the Mexican long-hauler that picks up cargo in Mexico which is destined for the interior of the United States. Hopefully it will be the carrier that actually transports the cargo directly into the United States bypassing the drop lots where trailers sit for days waiting to be released by Mexican Customs brokers for entry into the Untied States. These drop lots are, in fact, a present security risk for the United States since the waiting trailer can be breached and prepared to serve as a host for explosive devices or terrorists, themselves. Even with the continued use of drop lots, we will know more about the Mexican long-hauler than we know about the transfer or drayage carrier which is currently one of the weakest links in the security chain linking the United States and Mexico. In short, the Mexican long-haulers should be a security benefit compared to the transfer or drayage carriers, about which we know nothing, now entering our country.
UNFAIR COMPETITON TO U.S. MOTOR CARRIERS AND SHIPPERS
Having spoken to many U.S. motor carriers, especially small ones who have to haul goods to the southern border, there is a general sense of relief. They are happy with the prospect of not having to carry goods to the border where there is a likelihood of not finding a backhaul. In essence, not having to drive to the border frees them to concentrate their efforts, equipment, and drivers in more lucrative lanes, maximizing their marketing operations and economies of scale.
I believe that the real benefit to U.S. motor carriers will come from Mexican carriers that will provide relief to U.S. carriers in short lanes between the United States and Mexico. Mexican carriers will probably service regional areas generally close to the border. Short lanes like Mexico-Dallas; Mexico-Houston; Mexico-San Antonio; México-Phoenix; and Mexico-Los Angeles are ideal for Mexican carriers because these short-lane runs are in regions relatively close to the border where there is consistent return cargo (backhauls) to Mexican destinations which are generally not cost effective for U.S. carriers. For U.S. carriers, these short miles still mean the loss of a trailer and driver that could otherwise produce more revenue out of longer U.S. lanes. Because U.S. carriers have to calculate the trailer costs of the average turn around time in Mexico as part of their per-mile costs, it is more efficient not to have to enter Mexico. However, since Mexican carriers have few trailers, they will have to relocate equipment (trailers and tractors) to sites in the U.S. to support their activity. Until that is done, Mexican carriers are likely limited to what is equivalent “regional drayage.” Another benefit of Mexican carriage in the United States will likely be to increase pressure for the use of a North American Bill of Lading which, if used, ought to equalize some of the negative differences in liability issues among the NAFTA nations.
With respect to U.S. shippers, there will be an absolute benefit to the larger shippers who require routine transport between Mexico and the United States, especially in those close regional areas near the border. One can envision contractual relationships between firms like Emerson Electric, Toyota, and Daimler Chrysler and Mexican long-haulers to provide two-way carriage between origin and destination sites in both countries. In effect, these large shippers could make Mexican carriage their virtual private motor carrier company. This euphoria could be short lived since as Mexican truck drivers learn and understand the impact of a likely wage disparity, one could expect some negative reaction to driving in the United States, competing equally with, but being paid less than a U.S. driver.
There is one more economic benefit of Mexican carriers operating in the United States. There is no doubt that if Mexican carriers drive into the interior of the U.S., they will need terminals, additional equipment, and employees to manage their facilities in the United States. In effect, Mexican carriers will likely produce new jobs in the United States without taking existing U.S. jobs.
CONCLUSION
While there will be problems with Mexican motor carriers coming into the United States, they will not be the problems typically discussed in the media and Congress. The problems will stem from as often happens, a lack of communication between and among U.S. agencies that work on the border and have divergent goals and operations. One example should suffice. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is instituting a truck e-manifest as part of the new Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system. The truck e-manifest must be completed by one of the following: the entering motor carrier, a Mexican Customs broker association, or U.S. Customs Broker. Unfortunately, not allowing Mexican long-haul entry makes all ACE entries suspect since the drayage driver or his third-party long-hauler carrier will make entries without any direct knowledge of trailer contents. Therefore, only Mexican drayage drivers now have the proper driver identification and know-how to have a manifest entered and they, the drayage carriers, have the least knowledge of contents of those trailers they cross into the United States.
It is certainly time to look at the real issues and not the political ones. I, like many others, am becoming more and more disenchanted with this Congress and Administration. Please do something morally right, reasonable, and that which will actually help the economic situation in which we find ourselves. We have a moral as well as legal obligation under NAFTA to allow Mexican motor carriers to enter the U.S. territory to which they were given access by Treaty.
Somebody up there do something honorable and constructive!!
From E-Trucker
The Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee is having two public sessions to discuss guidance for implementing a new cross-border trucking program between the United States and Mexico.
President Obama has asked the Department of Transportation to work with the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of State, Congressional and Mexican officials to propose legislation creating a new trucking project that will meet Congressional concerns and North American Free Trade Agreement commitments.
FMCSA has invited all interested parties to participate, such as motor carriers and drivers.
The meeting will be held by conference call. To participate, contact Shannon Watson at (202) 385-2395, or via e-mail at shannon.watson@dot.gov by May 13, to receive information on how to access the call.
People can also submit written comment to the committee, along with the Federal Docket Management System Docket Number FMCSA-2006-26367 using any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.
• Fax: 202-493-2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, D.C. 20590.
Me wonders just how ridiculous and off point the comments will be this time around. I remember when comments were opened on 2007-28055, of the more than 2400 comments, fully 98% of them were off point, as the FMCSA noted in it’s Federal Register announcement of the original Cross Border Program.
The 18 month that the original program was in place showed us that the Mexican carriers are fully capable and qualified to operate in our regulatory environment, a point made early on in this forum.
The comments from 28055, from the nativists, the mexenophobes and others who were convinced that allowing a few more Mexican trucks in the country would result in catastrophic accidents, increased smuggling of contraband, and introduction of the terrorist elements into this country were totally unfounded and the result of the fear mongering tactics of the opposition.
I’m sure we can expect more of the same this time around, and with the same predictable result.
I’ve been unable to connect for most of the past week and was surprised to see the numbers of our current poll.
The question asked was “Should the US honor it’s word and reinstate the Mexican Cross Border Demonstration Project?”
Well, apparently 85% of the respondents think we should. Not surprising since there is a rising groundswell out there to do the right thing and reinstate the damned thing. Another 18 months isn’t going to hurt anything. To hell with the egos of Todd Spencer and Jimmy Hoffa.
I imagine my friends over on Kevin Rutherford’s site aren’t too happy with the results, and less so, since their discovery of the poll drove thousands to vote. Kevin has an interesting site and a great bunch of drivers participating. Check it out.
I guess we’ll send copies of the poll to Washington, Congress, FMCSA and others, as well as our friends in the print media. I can’t forget the 141+ groups and organizations that recently asked President Obama to resolve the issue quickly. More ammunition to help in the fight against the mexenophobics and protectionists.
Alliance starts trucking coalition
More good news from our friend David Hendricks who writes for the San Antonio Express News.
David is reporting that the FREE TRADE ALLIANCE has launched a Cross Border Trucking Coalition to advocate for a new cross-border trucking agreement between the United States and Mexico. More heavy hitters in the game.
The initial members of the coalition are Port San Antonio and Alice/Jim Wells County Economic Development Corp. Other applications are pending from companies, industry organizations, trade associations and chambers of commerce.
Let’s see if the Obama Administration can make a decision whether to continue to kiss Hoffa’s ass, or do the right thing and save American jobs by fulfilling our obligations.
Should the US honor it’s word and reinstate the Mexican Cross Border Demonstration Project?
Loading …
Mark Reddig of OOIDA has been well indoctrinated by the leadership of the association who for years have had a problem revealing the truth about Mexican trucks since the facts interfere with their exaggerated spin.
But today, on his blog, Mark Reddig is going to tell his version of The truth of Cross-Border Trucking that no one else will tell you Of course Reddig wouldn’t know the truth if Jesus Christ came down from the mount and delivered it to him in laser etched stone tablets.
Once again, it falls to this site, expert in the Mexican truck issue to reveal the real truth about the Mexican trucks.
Reddig says:
But here’s the deal – the trade arbitration panel that made that statement, that we are obligated – also said that we (meaning the United States) have every right to enforce on every truck and trucker from Mexico entering this nation every single regulation American trucks and truckers face.
For a change, he is correct and FMCSA has enforced EVERY SINGLE REGULATION US trucks and truckers face. As with Canadians, when the Mexicans cross our border, they play by our rules, not theirs.
Here’s where Mark H. Reddig becomes delusional and his mind separates from the truth.
Well, folks, they don’t meet our equipment standards. They don’t meet our hours of service. They don’t have an MVR or CDL database listing violations. They don’t have the same insurance requirements. They don’t have any – not one – qualified and certified drug lab for testing drivers, and not any drivers who are tested. They don’t have the same cargo securement regulations
- Don’t meet our equipment standards? 2007- 2009 Kenworth T-660′s, Freightliner Columbias, Navistar 9400i?
- Actually, Mexico’s Hours of Service is different from ours, as is Canada’s! Canada’s is more liberal, Mexico’s more restrictive. 8 hours a day is permitted driving time in Mexico. However, as with the Canadians, when they cross the US border, they are under our HOS rules. And since drivers in Mexico who are English proficient are in demand, these drivers are held for the cross border trips. They haven’t been driving 20+ hours as Reddig and the others would have you believe.
- According to the DOT OIG Final Report, the OIG stated that : “FMCSA’s automated Licensing and Insurance and Mexican Monitoring systems are working well to identify infractions of motor carrier safety rules and regulations and initiate enforcement actions. ” That’s right boys and girls, the MDLIS that Rddig claims does not exist is working well to indentify….. State, Federal and local law enforcement have access to this database.
- What the insurance requirements are in Mexico is of now concern to the US. The issue for the US is does the Mexican carriers have the required insurance coverage to operate within the US. And according to the USDOT OIG Report, they all carried the required $750,000.00 policies issued by a US underwriter. The one carrier which let theirs lapse was immediately identified, sanctioned and operating authority pulled.
- Number 5, Drug testing, is where I can truthfully call Mr Reddig a bald faced liar or else he is a damned illiterate fool who has not bothered to read any of the OIG reports. OIG states: “The Mexican drug and alcohol test collection system was at least equivalent to U.S. requirements in most respects. In most respects! Where is the difference? Well, in Mexico, the drug testing is part of the process to obtain the Licencia Federal and is done at the GOVERNMENT TESTING FACILITY where the medical and psychological evaluations are done. So why does the government need to certify itself? This is more of OOIDA and others twisting the facts to defraud their members and the public. And Reddig claims not any of the Mexican drivers are tested? Another bald faced lie! All the drivers who participated in the Cross Border Program were tested in US drug labs and collections made on the US side of the border, under US rules. Shame on you Reddig! But, you had a good teacher I guess.
- Cargo securement requirements? Wow hero! You really are grasping at straws! Who cares! It is not important. As long as that load on that trailer is secured and complies with our rules and regulations when it crosses the border, that is all any of us need to be concerned about.
Reddig says in conclusion;
Want me to keep going <with my lies> ? I could do that for hours.
We know you could Mark, and we see the desperation in your words. The desperation you and other seem to be feeling as you see the American public and yes, some of your own members waking up and realizing the giant amount of smoke and lies you’ve been blowing up peoples ass for years. And we sense the desperation in your voice in the afternoons and your words as more and more newspaper editorials, noted economists and other academics continue to expose your side for what you have done.
Keep it up Reddig, you are always good for a laugh, a pitying laugh, but a laugh!
This is what we elect to represent us? Rep. Peter Defazio D-Or responded to Mexico’s tariff’s resulting from the Obama administration shutting down the Mexican Cross Border Program by calling Mexico’s action “illegal”!
According to an article in Landlinemag.com Defazio made this baseless claim.
“These tariffs are illegal and should be treated as nothing more than political gamesmanship. Mexico has no legal grounds to implement any of these tariffs. Even if there was a legal basis for the tariffs, the $2.4 billion price tag is a disproportionate response, and the 90 U.S. products targeted for tariffs were illegally selected,” DeFazio wrote in his letter to Obama.
Those pushing to open the border to Mexican trucks often point to a 2001 NAFTA tribunal decision that found the U.S. in violation of the agreement, because at that time the U.S. was refusing to open the border.
He calls the tariff’s illegal which they’re not, but in the next breaths says “Even if there was a legal basis for the tariffs,.
Defazio goes on to make these claims which have been debunked by the latest DOT OIG report.
“In 2001, a NAFTA arbitration panel found that the U.S. refusal to permit entry to any Mexican truck carriers was NAFTA illegal, but the panel also made it clear that U.S. safety standards do not need to be waived to comply with NAFTA,” DeFazio explained in his letter to Obama.
DeFazio leaned on several studies that have time and again proven the lack of equivalent safety performance by Mexican motor carriers. He pointed out that repeated studies by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Inspector General showed that neither Mexico’s carrier truck fleet nor its driver licensing and safety rules meet the requirements of U.S. law.
“The path forward is clear. Your administration can be compliant with the 2001 NAFTA arbitration panel by allowing Mexican trucks access to the U.S. roadways if those carriers can prove they meet U.S. safety standards regarding hours of service, driver training, licensing, drug testing and vehicle safety,” DeFazio wrote.
Drug tests as part of the licensing requirements. Background checks as a part of the licensing requirements. Psychological and Physical examinations, all by government doctors in government facilities as part of the process for obtaining the Licensia Federal. It seems to me the Mexican government is a step ahead of the US.
We’re seeing how the opposition is going to fight this. OOIDA has their paid propaganda sources on a rant. Stevie Sommers seemed like he was about to wet his panties last night on the air railing against the program. His daddy likewise. And this morning, Dave Nemo is finally leaving his neutrality behind, sadly and joining the voices of the opposition in spreading the disinformation about the program and Mexico.
You know, some such as Mark Reddig of OOIDA are saying 10 to 20 years for Mexico to establish databases to satisfy Todd Spencer, not that they don’t already have the databases, but to satisfy Todd Spencer and delay the inevitable, Nemo and the editor of the Trucker are saying we’re 4 to 5 years away from having things as WE want them. Well guess what. Delay all you want, and the tariff’s will continue until we comply with our obligations.
A Freightliner Columbia belonging to Nuevo Laredo based Frio Express, a Mexican refrigerated line haul company
I have been overwhelmed at the response around the nation and the world to the Obama administrations illegal action in pulling funding for the successful Mexican Cross Border Demonstration Program. Under NAFTA provisions, Canadian and Mexican trucks were to be allowed to operate in and out of the United States and American carriers were to be given reciprocal privileges. Canadians have been given that privilege.
Due to lies and exaggerations from Teamsters President Jim Hoffa and his protectionist allies and corrupted politicians, the Mexican trucks were denied access. Hoffa and Todd Spencer of OOIDA would have the American people believe that the majority of Americans do not want Mexican trucks in this country. They have promoted the lies that involved the immigration debate and preyed on people groundless fear of things they know nothing about.
But the tide is turning. Editors, Reporters, Economists and more have taken a close look at the issue of Mexican trucks and have arrived at the same conclusion that those of us at Mexicotrucker.com have been preaching for two years. Here is a sampling of the reaction from around the nation.
From FORBES and Sidney Weintraub
Mexico Is Right To Retaliate On Trade
The U.S. Department of Transportation and an independent evaluation commissioned by the department both reported that the safety and out-of-service record of the Mexican long-haul trucks was superior to that of U.S. trucks…….
It was also incomprehensible other than it may have acted as a repayment of debt owed to the Teamsters Union for its support of the Democrats in the recent presidential and congressional elections……
The proponents of the funding cutoff repeatedly assert that Mexican long-haul trucks pose a safety danger, ignoring the unbiased evidence to the contrary……..
Sidney Weintraub holds the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank.
FROM the WALL STREET JOURNAL
Washington Starts Another Trade War
In violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. last week again closed its southern border to any Mexican trucks additional to those with existing permits. It did so on the usual grounds that Mexican trucks are unsafe, even though that hoary claim has been demolished by extensive testing. But Congress and President Barack Obama are catering to the Teamsters union, which has spent more than a decade lobbying to keep Mexican competition off U.S. highways………
Congress seemed to be acting in bad faith. “When the inspector general confirmed that the department was making substantial progress toward those goals, Congress began adding additional requirements in subsequent appropriations bills. And it continues today.”………
A 2007 DOT study of the performance of Mexican carriers in the U.S. from 2003-2006 found Mexican trucks to be safer than U.S. trucks. Even Mexican short-haul trucks operating in the border zone had a better record than U.S. trucks……….
he 27 Mexican carriers in the pilot program compiled an impressive safety record in 2008, judging by the rate at which randomly stopped vehicles received an “out-of-service” designation — meaning they did not comply with all safety regulations — from DOT inspectors. Whereas all U.S. carriers had a vehicle “out-of-service” rate of 21.6%, all Mexican carriers had a rate of 20.7% and Mexican carriers in the pilot program had a rate of 7.3%………………….
Mexico says it will retaliate, and if it’s smart it will hit U.S. producers in strategic markets. This will be bad for Mexican consumers, but if constituents of protectionist U.S. senators feel the pain, it might succeed in changing attitudes in Congress. Given the political muscle of the Teamsters, there aren’t many other options…….
FROM THE OREGONIAN EDITORIAL BOARD
What if there’s nothing left to protect?
After nine years of expecting the United States to live up to the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and of being rewarded finally with a step in the opposite direction, Mexico has responded with a crushing set of tariffs that will punish everyone from Oregon potato farmers to independent truckers……..
The Teamsters, which represent many truckers, helped persuade the White House and the Democrat-dominated Congress to stop the cross-border trucking program, which was supposed to take effect in 2000. The union argued, disingenuously, that Mexican trucks and drivers aren’t safe enough to drive American roads, even though the evidence suggests the opposite. (Last month, the U.S. Department of Transportation published a report that found that Mexican freight carriers had fewer accidents and less downtime than their U.S. counterparts,…….
FROM INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY
MEXICO BITES BACK
Free Trade: Congressional Democrats have a bad habit of viewing treaty obligations as favors, forgetting that trade is a two-way street. Now that they’ve broken NAFTA, the Mexicans are about to educate them…….
FROM NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
Teamster Unilateralism
Now the Democrats in Congress have put Obama in a real bind. Sen. Byron Dorgan, a stubbornly protectionist Democrat from North Dakota, inserted a provision into the recently passed omnibus spending bill that erased the funding for a pilot program allowing Mexican truckers to haul goods into the U.S. interior. The Mexican government has claimed, correctly, that this provision violates NAFTA, and it has announced that it will retaliate by levying tariffs on a range of U.S. agricultural and industrial goods……..
FROM THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Mexico’s punitive tariffs raise stakes on US trucking dispute
“It is a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a case of protectionism, at a time when the Obama administration is messaging to the rest of the world not to succumb to the temptations of protectionism as a way to trigger a recovery,” said Armand Peschard-Sverdup, a Mexico expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington……….
FROM NRO CORNER
Krauthammer’s Take
f you thought AIG was an example of Democratic incompetence over a relative triviality, look at this. There are over 6.5 million trucks in the United States. This program allows 98 Mexican trucks to roam among them. And over that, they are willing to risk a trade war with Mexico.
FROM FOX NEWS “FAIR and BALANCED”
TRADE WAR WITH MEXICO
This policy, it’s wrong as a matter of legality, it’s wrong diplomatically, it’s wrong economically. It is just wrong every way you look at it.
And the way we work with Mexico now n the trucking situation is absurd. It’s like something out of Monty Python. The Mexican trucks have to stop 20 miles or so over the border in a commercial zone, drop their goods off, then they go on short haul trucks, then they eventually go to domestic U.S. trucks and then they can be delivered.
It’s a system that makes zero sense. But this is all about politics. And I’m afraid if Obama has the choice between needlessly antagonizing a neighbor or pleasing the teamsters, and a very political choice, he will take the teamsters.
FROM BLOOMBERG NEWS
Mexico Puts Tariffs on U.S. Goods in Truck Dispute
Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, speaking on the Senate floor today, said the U.S. should bring back the pilot program.
“Eliminating the Mexican truck program will hurt American consumers” by raising prices, McCain said…….
FROM THE NY TIMES
A Small and Dangerous Spat
The truck drivers’ argument that Mexican trucks are unsafe is spurious — a flimsy cover for protectionism. Data from the Department of Transportation show that Mexican trucks and drivers operating in the United States — along the border and in the pilot program — have a better inspection record, with fewer violations, than their American counterparts……………….
He can start by persuading Congress to revive the truck pilot program or start a new one. And he must make clear that — sometime soon — all properly inspected Mexican trucks must be able to work throughout the country, as Nafta requires. That would not only solve this trade spat, but it would provide the world with needed reassurance that the United States will stand by its trade agreements in these difficult times.
FROM DALLAS?FORT WORTH CBS NEWS 11
Mexican-American Trade War Hits Texas
If toothpaste wants to come down from Minnesota, it’s probably going to be stored somewhere in Texas, or it’s going to get shipped through a rail yard in Texas, or a truck driver is going to drive it through Texas. Whether it’s our restaurants, our hotels, our warehouses, or our boats, it will be felt in Texas,”….
There’s a growing concern about the hypocrisy of trade policy where we (the United States) say, ‘Do as we say, not as we do,”‘ said Kevin Gallagher, an economist and international relations professor at Boston University who has written three books on NAFTA. “I think countries are getting a little fed up with that double standard.”……..
FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
A truckload of protectionism
The best way to avoid having such childish tit-for-tat protectionism escalate into an all-out trade war when international trade is already declining precipitously is for Congress to rescind this foolish move…..
FROM THE BLOG “GDCRITTER”
Sign a Budget, Breach a Treaty
That wasn’t good enough to satisfy the Teamsters Union, which has consistently demanded this treaty provision be changed or breached. The Teamsters claimed their objection is based on safety concerns, but their real objection is that the Mexican truck drivers don’t pay them. Now they have Congress and the White House doing their bidding, and they are willing to go to war over 98 trucks. (If safety were really their concern, they would have dropped their objection — the Mexican trucks have turned out to be safer than their US counterparts.)…………………..
FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Mexico Retaliates
When the U.S. closed the southern border to Mexican trucking last week — in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement — Mexico promised to retaliate. Yesterday it did, releasing a list of 89 U.S. products that will face new tariffs of 10% to 45%.
Mexico’s decision wasn’t taken lightly. Since 1995, three successive Mexican administrations have worked to get the U.S. to respect its Nafta obligation of allowing long-haul trucks across the border. In 2007 the two countries agreed to a pilot program that permitted a limited number of Mexican carriers into the U.S. under rigid safety regulations. After 18 months that program proved that Mexican carriers are as safe as their U.S. counterparts. That was bad news for the anti-competition Teamsters union, and last week it got Congress to kill the pilot program. Yesterday Mexico fired back.
Trade wars are never pretty. But given the downturn in demand that already exists in the U.S. economy, this one could be ugly, and dangerous……………………
FROM “XICO’s BLOG” an ex-pat in Mexico
What Abrogating the Mexican Trucker Program Will Cost the US
The Teamsters Union had a fair bit to do with this violation of NAFTA. In the 1990s I worked at a state hospital in Illinois. I have no idea why the Teamsters was the union of record for a lot of the employees. I do know that Union drivers earned more than practically anybody else on staff who wasn’t a member of the Teamsters and spent many days just hanging out on the grounds. I know that Teamsters were responsible for various chores and that the rest of us were forbidden, for instance, to change our own light bulbs. And when lightbulbs needed to be changed, two Teamsters came which lead, of course, to the well-worn joke about how many Teamsters it took to change a light bulb………
THE US CHAMBER OF COMMERCE quoted in a newspaper from Tbilisi Georgia (Russia)
U.S. Chamber Comments on Cross-Border Trucking with Mexico
“It’s profoundly disappointing the U.S. hasn’t met its commitment to open our borders to Mexican trucks — with full reciprocity for U.S. carriers. Doing so would reduce congestion and air pollution at the U.S.-Mexico border while promoting growth and jobs.
“Every Mexican truck entering the U.S. must meet every U.S. safety requirement, so these are some of the most inspected trucks anywhere in the world. Since the pilot project was launched, their safety record has been outstanding.
“We have no credibility calling on other countries to meet their trade obligations if we refuse to keep our own. Mexico is our second largest export market in the world, and it’s very unfortunate we’ve been unable to resolve this issue after more than a decade.
“The Chamber is committed to working with our friends in Congress and in Mexico to expedite a thoughtful deal that leads to open borders as our two countries agreed more than 15 years ago.”
FROM THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM
Mexican trucks: Obama’s chance to stand up to the unions
President Obama says he will work with Mexico on a new cross-border trucking program. Here’s a better idea: Just tell the unions they’re coming in and that’s the end of this story……
There are a few who tow the party line so to speak such as the UNION REVIEW There analysis of the issue contains not one word of truth to it.
Mexican Tariffs on U.S. Exports, A Move of Retaliation for Halting the Mexican Trucks Program
The U.S. Inspector General had found that the trucks were substandard and that the Mexican drivers were not held to the same standards as their American counterparts. While it was determined a few years ago for the program to halt, President Bush ignored that law. With the former Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, the government blatantly broke the law and simultaneously put a lot of Americans in danger……
And leaving the least and most insignificant comment for last……
FROM the reality challenged and delusional mind of TEAMSTER PRESIDENT JAMES HOFFA the lies continue…. (He has to pay a newswire service to put his statement out by the way)
Hoffa Denounces Mexican Tariff Threat Over Unsafe Trucks
Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa today said the Mexican government’s threat to raise tariffs on U.S. exports is an absurd overreaction to the shutdown of the unsafe cross-border trucking pilot program……
“The U.S. needs to stop agreeing to trade deals like NAFTA that allow our own safety standards to deteriorate,” Hoffa said…….
So who is right and who is wrong? On one side of the issue is noted economists, editors, writers, reporters, analysts and common folk who see through Hoffa’s BS and on the other side is a delusional little man trying to fill his daddy’s shoes and failing miserably and his allies such as Todd Spencer of OOIDA, who has used this issue to bolster his membership preying on the irrational and unfounded fears of his members. Organizations like Public Citizen and other self appointed watchdog groups who use this issue to raise funds for their organizations, again using fear. And how about the anti immigration groups like FAIR, a nativist hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center who states in their 2009 Agenda against Immmigration Reform that one of their goals is stopping ANY Mexican Cross Border Program.
You decide! Don’t let special interest groups, protectionists, isolationists, xenophobes and all the other loony toons who have latched onto this issue speak for you! You have a mind, use it! The information is here, it is factual.
Take a moment to call you Congressman or Senator and DEMAND that the Mexican Cross Border Demonstration Program is reinstated under the same rules as before, which seemed to work perfectly well.
The number to the Capitol Switchboard is (202)224-3121. Give them your zip code and they will connect you to your Senator or Representative. Or you can use this ONLINE CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTORY
Remember that telephone calls are usually taken by a staff member, not the member of Congress. Ask to speak with the aide who handles the issue about which you wish to comment.
After identifying yourself, tell the aide you would like to leave a brief message, such as: “Please tell Senator/Representative (Name) that I support/oppose (S.___/H.R.___).”
You will also want to state reasons for your support or opposition to the bill. Ask for your senators’ or representative’s position on the bill. You may also request a written response to your telephone call.
Readers Reponses