Click Here to follow the progress of the participants in the 2011 Mexican Cross Border Pilot Program.
Participants are listed as well as their status, number of crossings made and number of inspections and the results of those inspection or enforcement actions.
Interesting interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow, American Enterprise Institute’s Phil Levy, and Independent Drivers Association Owner-Operator Rod Nofziger on the future of NAFTA and trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
It’s interesting to watch Nofziger’s vacant stare like a fish out of water against Davidow and Levy, two heavyweights who know what they are talking about.
Nofziger’s rant starts at about 4:02 into the video and it is nothing special. Simply repeating the same scripted lies which Ambassador Davidow easily debunks, as we have here, many times.
The Obama administration began efforts Friday to ease an erupting trade dispute with Mexico by starting work on a new program to give Mexican truckers broader access to U.S. highways.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood met with officials from the State Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to design a cross-border trucking program “that will meet the legitimate concerns of Congress and our [North American Free Trade Agreement] commitments,” said a White House spokesman.
A person familiar with the meeting said the participants “are going to work to get a proposal everyone likes before President Barack Obama’s trip to Mexico in April.”
The administration’s move comes after Mexico earlier this week slapped tariffs on $2.4 billion in U.S. goods ranging from grapes to toilet paper. Mexico said its action was retaliation for a provision in a budget bill Mr. Obama signed earlier this month that effectively shut down a pilot program that had allowed some Mexican truckers to transport cargo beyond a 25-mile commercial zone inside the U.S. border. Mexico says the U.S. is failing to meet its obligations to cut barriers under Nafta.
Business interests ranging from Pennsylvania-based Hershey Co. to the USA Rice Federation are urging the White House to permit qualified Mexican truckers to drive on U.S. roads. Exporters affected by the tariffs say the government is causing economic damage by catering to unions that are more concerned with protecting jobs than improving safety.
“This is the Obama administration trying to appease the Teamsters union without taking into account the effect it’s going to have,” said John Crossland, chairman of the California Association of Winegrape Growers.
The results of the pilot program, while limited, suggest that Mexican truckers in it operated safely. A year into the program, the Transportation Department’s inspector general and independent examiners reported no major crashes caused by Mexican participants. They said Mexican truckers passed inspections at a much higher rate than U.S. carriers.
The investigators also said fewer than 30 Mexican carriers and only about 100 trucks participated in the pilot program, making it hard to draw final conclusions. They said U.S. regulators couldn’t ensure that every Mexican truck was being inspected when it crossed the border.
Democratic lawmakers and unions say Mexican truckers pose serious safety concerns because they don’t have to comply with the same standards as American carriers. Critics say the pilot program was flawed because too few trucks participated to make up a representative sample, and most trucks in the program never ventured beyond the 25-mile commercial zone, so their broader impact is still unknown.
Kenneth Mead, a former inspector general who reviewed the pilot program, said the Mexican trucks that participated in it received scrutiny well beyond what the average U.S. trucker faces. “If you applied the same standards to U.S. trucks, you’d probably enhance safety,” he said. The problem, he said, is that the study was so small. “Will you be able to apply the same level of scrutiny if you open it to a much broader population of Mexican trucks?” he asked.
Jose Gil, traffic manager at Transportes Olympic, a Mexican company that had four trucks in the pilot program, said the company met U.S. regulations “every single time.”
One indicator on the safety of Mexican trucks could be that roughly 1,700 are already on America’s highways, “grandfathered” out of the restrictions. Mr. Mead’s review team found that these trucks failed vehicle inspections at rates that were slightly higher than those for U.S. trucks.
Has anyone thought about the cost to American business and American consumers when the righteous tariff’s take effect in a couple of hours? Has anyone thought of the potential job loss to American workers?
It is for certain Jimmy Hoffa could care less. Nor does Todd Spencer of OOIDA who is of the opinion that Mexico is simply blowing smoke up peoples asses, as he so disdainfully stated on the Trucking Bozo radio program the other day. They’re both preening and patting themselves on the back about their shallow victory.
That’s right, it was published in the Federal Register today. The highly successful Cross Border Demonstration Program with Mexico, was officially ended today.
American business is already assessing the potential losses, in profits and in terms of job losses and the numbers aren’t pretty.
More than 40,000 American workers in 17 or more states can potentially lose their jobs because of Hoffa’s protectionist attitude, an attitude not based on any factual data concerning the safety of Mexican trucks, but simply because the Teamsters are not allowed to organize in Mexico, as they are in Canada. Let’s hope the majority of those 40,000 jobs lost are union jobs, Teamster jobs. Wouldn’t that be ironic.
There are over 6.5 million trucks in the United States. The Cross Border Program allowed 98 Mexican trucks to roam among them. And over that, they are willing to risk a trade war with Mexico. They are getting what they asked for and what they deserve
From the vineyards of California’s Napa Valley to Oregon, to little towns in the heartland, there is a sense of impending doom.
Wine, which has been shipped to Mexico without any tariffs since 2006, will face a 20 percent tariff, said Joe Rollo, export director for the Wine Institute…….
Mexico is an emerging market for California wine exports, fueled largely by U.S. tourism. More than 100 California labels are represented in the market, mainly in coastal tourist areas, according to the Wine Institute……..
California wineries sold $23 million in wine in Mexico in 2008, down slightly from the prior year. Sales leapt from $17 million in 2006, when the tariff was 20 percent, to $24 million in 2007 when the tariff was eliminated, Rollo said.
Up the coast in Oregon
The Oregonian Mexican tariffs will cost Oregon ‘millions’
…………. a move effective today that could cost Oregon exporters tens of millions of dollars.
The duties include 20 percent tariffs on Christmas trees, pears and frozen potatoes, all of which Oregon sells to Mexico……
Mexico spent $748 million last year on goods from Oregon…….
“The vote was to save jobs for the unions, but it’s going to cause problems for several other industries,” said Bill Brewer, executive director of the Oregon Potato Commission.
He said the United States could lose its entire $80 million in annual french-fry exports to Mexico, for example, because Canadian competitors won’t have to pay $16 million in tariffs. Most of those fries came from the Northwest.
And for those who mistakenly assume Mexican businessmen are stupid, A Mexican official confirmed Wednesday that pressuring specific U.S. politicians was one consideration in picking products from certain states for tariffs. He spoke on condition of anonymity, saying Mexican officials don’t want to inflame the dispute further. The same Mexican official confirmed his government chose the $2.4 billion worth of products partly to target states with powerful Democratic politicians.
“The intention is to let the constituents know that it’s important the United States respects and abides by its international obligations,” the Mexican official said.
Proving that the politicians the unions have in their hip pockets are continuing to march to the beat of their masters drum, U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. stuck by his position and blasted Mexico for its tariffs, which he branded illegal. “I don’t think these things can or should stand,” said DeFazio, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he chairs the Highways and Transit Subcommittee.
No Mr. Defazio. You know perfectly that Mexico has the right to impose these sanctions in retaliation for us reneging on our word for the past 15 years. You have been part and parcel of perpetrating the fraud that led to this moment.
As I previously mentioned, Mexico’s tariffs could cost the United States more than 40,000 U.S. jobs, including roughly 1,000 in Oregon, according to one economist. Many of the targeted products are easily available from other countries, meaning Mexican consumers won’t be inconvenienced, said Dermot Hayes, an Iowa State University professor.
The list includes grapes — targeted for the highest tariff, of 45 percent — which are grown in California, home state of Democratic U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Hayes cited other examples such as shampoos and sunglasses, from Obama’s state of Illinois; bowling equipment, from U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s state of Nevada; and books and brochures, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s home, New York.
“Keep in mind that all these tariffs come up from zero percent,” said Edgar Navas, trade director for Nafta Group, a Portland consultancy. “A lot of products that are in transit will be affected.”
Navas feels that Mexico’s action is justified and within the country’s rights under the Nafta pact. He faults the Teamsters for provoking Mexico and risking a trade war.
“You take the economic panic, and it’s very prone to nationalistic reactions and pseudo-patriotism,” Navas said. “It’s just going to accentuate the economic crisis.”
There are tariff’s being raised on personal hygiene products that will effect workers from Proctor and Gamble headquartered in Ohio. Just about anything you can imagine that Mexico imports from the US is covered except for the basic commodities.
And Hoffa and Todd Spencer claim they are concerned about the loss of American trucking jobs? Well, during the 18 months of this successful program, not one American job was taken by a driver from Mexico. On the other hand, the tariff’s and the lowered demand for American products will impact an already slow freight base.
Remember that boys and girls, when you’re sitting in a truck stop for a day or two and finally have to take a shit load of freight just to be moving. Thank Mr Hoffa for your troubles. And don’t forget to thank Todd Spencer and all those who have propagated the lies of him and Hoffa over this issue.
These retaliatory tariffs were unnecessary and we would not be having this discussion if people would learn to think for themselves and research a subject, instead of letting their fears and prejudices overrule common sense, which has been the case here.
Imagine, one little man’s ego causing so many people so much misery, and needlessly. Sleep with that thought if you can.
If you wanted to do protectionism, do it competently. Go the full Smoot-Hawley. But over 98 to enrage Mexico, to threaten to destroy NAFTA, and to show the world that the American Congress is willing to impose protectionism over trivialities at a time when the economy is hanging by a thread, where every other country is looking to see if American is going to turn protectionist.
And, as we saw in the stimulus package, it included a provision to buy American, which enraged the Europeans. There is a huge amount at stake, meaning the world economy and the risk of a world depression if you have trade wars. And to do it over 98 truck is absolutely absurd.
SOURCES: National Review The Oregonian
and others, including my own brilliant mind containing a brain that I know how to use.
Mexico’s Economy Secretary Gerardo Ruiz Mateos, released the list of products to be subject to retaliatory tariff’s for the United States continuing violation of our NAFTA obligations.
Fruits and vegetables, juices, wines and Christmas trees are among the products that will be subjected to the tariff. Most agricultural products will be assessed punitive import tariffs of 20 percent, while some other goods will be charged duties of up to 40 percent.
The duties will take effect on March 19. Mexico did not specify how long the retaliatory tariffs will remain in place, but said it would reconsider them as soon as the U.S. comes up with a trucking program to replace the pilot program.
The translated list is available for download HERE
A call was made this afternoon to the offices of OOIDA concerning the retaliatory tariff’s. The person who would not identify themselves said OOIDA was taking a “wait and see” approach to the issue because they were certain that Mexico was “bluffing”!
Considering OOIDA is equally responsible with the Teamster’s for bringing us to this point, it is not surprising they are doing the backward two step of denial.
La fracción priista en la Cámara de Diputados exhortó a las secretarías de Economía y Hacienda a fijar una postura respecto a la decisión del gobierno de EU para bloquear el ingreso de camiones mexicanos a ese país
México.- Luego de que el presidente estadunidense Barack Obama canceló el programa piloto de transporte transfronterizo, la bancada del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) en San Lázaro exigió al titular de Economía, Gerardo Ruiz Mateos, aplicar medidas urgentes en este tema.
El coordinador del Grupo de Trabajo en Materia Migratoria del PRI en la Cámara de Diputados, Edmundo Ramírez Martínez, lamentó la decisión de Obama, que consideró es contraria al fallo de la Organización Mundial de Comercio que ordenó el ingreso de camiones mexicanos a esa nación.
“Nuestro gobierno tiene todo el derecho y la obligación de interponer un recurso ante los páneles de comercio mundial por la violación al Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN), donde Estados Unidos se comprometió al ingreso de camiones transfronterizo”, comentó.
En entrevista en San Lázaro lamentó que hasta ahora ni la Secretaría de Economía, ni la de Hacienda hayan manifestado una postura al respecto, cuando miles de transportistas y comerciantes mexicanos se verán afectados por esta medida.
Ramírez Martínez consideró que esta situación puede provocar tensión en la relación de ambos país, ya que demuestra que el gobierno de Obama recurrirá a prácticas proteccionistas para beneficiar a sindicatos como el de los transportistas estadunidenses, aunque se viole el TLCAN.
“Hasta el momento sólo la embajada de México en Washington ha deplorado esta situación, pero ninguna instancia de la Secretaría de Economía ha tomado cartas en el asunto”, subrayó el también secretario de la Comisión de Población, Fronteras y Asuntos Migratorios.
Recordó que como parte del TLCAN, Estados Unidos debió haber permitido el ingreso gradual de camiones mexicanos de carga desde 1995, pero el entonces presidente William Clinton incumplió el acuerdo bajo presión de los Teamsters, el Sindicato de Transportistas.
Sin embargo, la administración de George W. Bush aplicó el programa piloto a pesar de las presiones de los demócratas en el Congreso.
“Ahora se da marcha atrás y el gobierno mexicano debe actuar ya y no seguir esperando más tiempo, porque puede ser el inicio de más prácticas proteccionistas al comercio mexicano”, agregó.
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico says it will increase tariffs on about 90 U.S. products in retaliation for last week’s decision to cancel a pilot program that allowed some Mexican trucks to transport goods within the United States.
The Mexican Economy Department says the U.S. decision violates a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement that was supposed to have opened cross-border trucking years ago.
Department officials told a news conference Monday that the measure will affect about $2.4 billion in trade: 90 agricultural and industrial products from 40 U.S. states.
It did not name the products or specify the amount by which import tariffs will increase.
Activists in the United States had argued that Mexican trucks were unsafe, something Mexico denies.
White House wants new US-Mexico trucking program
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says it wants to work with lawmakers to restore a program that allows a cross-border trucking program with Mexico.
Mexico on Monday put in place tariffs on 90 U.S. products after Washington canceled a program that allowed some trucks from Mexico to operate in the U.S.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says the administration wants to work with Congress to come up with a plan that would restore that program.
Lawmakers had safety concerns and other reservations and did away with the program in last week’s spending bill.
Gibbs says the White House is working with Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota to write a bill that would deal with lawmakers’ concerns.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the successful Pilot Program that the Omnibus Appropriations Bill stopped other than the egomaniacal bastard James Hoffa and his butt buddy Todd Spencer didn’t want it. Simple solution is to pass a quick bill rescinding Section 136 and turning a blind ear to all special interests!
What exactly is NAFTA?
The North American Free Trade Agreement, an international treaty, was adopted in 1994 by the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. It created the world’s largest free-trade zone, with a combined population of almost 400 million and more than $6 trillion in combined gross domestic product. U.S. approval came only after a bitter congressional debate that pitted most U.S. business interests—which saw the treaty as a way to expand markets—against unions and environmentalists, who feared that NAFTA would depress U.S. wages and lower environmental standards. To address those concerns, two “side agreements” were aimed at ensuring that U.S. and Canadian companies would not adopt Mexico’s looser pollution and labor standards to remain competitive.
How does NAFTA work?
It eliminates tariffs—surcharges that make imported goods more expensive than their domestic counterparts—on more than 70 percent of the products and services that the U.S., Mexico, and Canada sell one another. Before NAFTA, for example, Mexico slapped a 20 percent tariff on imported American cars, which made them prohibitively expensive for most Mexicans. After NAFTA, the tariff was cut in half (it was eliminated altogether in 2004), immediately boosting U.S. car sales. NAFTA also set timetables for eliminating agricultural subsidies and for easing restrictions on cross-border commercial traffic. After 9/11, though, the U.S. tightened up on truck traffic into the U.S. from Canada and Mexico, prompting protests that the U.S. was unilaterally changing the treaty’s terms. Such disputes are addressed by a mediating body with representatives from all three treaty partners.
What has its economic impact been?
“On balance, researchers have found NAFTA a slight positive for the U.S. as a whole,” says Anil Kumar, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Mexico and Canada have gained, too. In the 14 years since NAFTA was enacted, job creation and economic growth in all three countries have been more robust than in the 14 preceding years. Businesses in all three countries have benefited from easy access to the others’ consumers—two-way trade between Mexico and the U.S. alone has tripled since 1994. “Ten years ago, 70 percent of our clients were Mexican and the rest foreigners,” says Veronica Gonzalez, a Guadalajara-based business consultant. “Today those proportions have been reversed.” But wages in Mexico and the U.S. have stagnated, and the deal hasn’t curtailed illegal immigration as promised; two-thirds of the estimated 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. arrived here after 1995. “What they earn there in four months,” says Dionisio Garcia, a farmer in southern Mexico, “we don’t earn here in a year.”
Have Americans been helped or hurt?
There have been both winners and losers. Jim Cole, owner of Noshok, a Cleveland-based maker of pressure gauges, credits NAFTA with transforming Noshok from a struggling start-up to a company with $20 million in annual sales and 49 employees. “All it’s going to do is create jobs here,” says Cole of NAFTA. “We’re very optimistic.” But North Carolina textile worker Tim Cloninger is one of the many workers hurt by NAFTA. The plant where he worked shut down when it couldn’t compete with low-priced Mexican textiles. “Us poor people in the South, we’re suffering,” he said.
How is NAFTA viewed in Mexico and Canada?
Mexicans disapprove of NAFTA by a 2-to-1 margin, according to a recent poll. That finding reflects disappointment that NAFTA hasn’t brought widespread prosperity to Mexico. “Executives and high-skilled workers have found opportunities,” says consultant Gonzalez. “But for most workers things have not improved.” Forty percent of Mexicans still live in poverty, and small farmers have been especially hard-hit; many went under after they were unable to compete with cheaper agricultural imports from the U.S. and Canada. NAFTA has been more popular in Canada. The U.S. has always provided a ready market for Canadian natural resources—the U.S. imports more oil from Canada than from any other country. But since NAFTA, Canadian exports of goods other than natural resources have tripled. Yet some Canadians fear that competitive pressures will force them to dismantle their European-style social safety net in favor of the harsher American model.
Is it fair to blame NAFTA for Americans’ economic woes?
Probably not. Economists point out that trade agreements don’t have much effect on the total number of jobs. Instead, they shift employment patterns, with some sectors losing jobs and others gaining them. It’s true that America has lost more than 3 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA’s adoption, but those jobs went primarily to China, India, and other low-wage offshore manufacturing centers, not to Mexico. “My plant manager told me they were sending some of the older looms to India,” says North Carolina textile worker Delores Gambrell. “He said they’d be doing jobs we used to do.” But in political campaigns, during which sound bites play better than nuanced arguments, NAFTA is a handy scapegoat. NAFTA, says American University professor Robert Pastor, “has become this piñata that everybody has put their frustrations into.”
Renegotiating NAFTA
While Republican presidential hopeful John McCain supports NAFTA, Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both say that as president, they would renegotiate NAFTA’s terms. But that won’t be easy. All three nations would come to the table with its own wish list, and any gains would be offset by politically unpalatable concessions. “If any American government ever chose to make the mistake of opening NAFTA,” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned recently, “we would have some things we would want to talk about as well.” Canada, for instance, would likely press the U.S. to drop tariffs on Canadian lumber, which without tariffs is cheaper than U.S. lumber. And renegotiation would only be a first step—winning congressional approval for a revised deal would be a long, messy wrangle. Like it or loathe it, then, NAFTA will probably be around for a long time—which in a way makes it the perfect campaign issue. “There is no risk calling for NAFTA renegotiation,” says American trade lawyer Larry Friedman, “because they know it won’t happen.”
Thousands of Mexican farmers, some riding tractors and herding cows, flooded the capital Thursday to demand government protection against cheap U.S. imports.Trade barriers under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, were lifted in January, opening Mexico for the first time to tariff-free U.S. exports of traditional food like corn and beans.
Mexican farmers complain the government of President Felipe Calderón is not doing enough to protect them against highly subsidized U.S. goods.
Protesters are demanding Mexico renegotiate the treaty with the United States to maintain protections for corn and beans.
Long lines of slow-moving tractors choked highways from rural areas toward Mexico City for a march toward the main Zocalo square in the city center.
“The free trade agreement is like an open wound for the Mexican countryside,” said Victor Suarez, who heads a small farmers’ group. “You can give the patient medical attention but if you don’t stop the hemorrhage first the patient will die.”
Since NAFTA took effect in 1994, corn tariffs have gradually been phased out and imports of U.S. yellow corn to Mexico, mostly used in animal feed, have soared. They now account for close to 35 percent of Mexican consumption.
Mexican farmers fear zero trade barriers will encourage highly mechanized U.S. farms to start producing white corn, which has been Mexico’s main crop since the Aztec times and is a staple food.
Opposition legislators who support the rural sector have called for the resignation of Agriculture Minister Alberto Cardenas for failing to do enough to support farmers.
In an effort to dampen criticism, Cardenas announced on Wednesday an expansion of cash supports to meat and egg producers to buy corn for animal feed, since international prices for the grain have skyrocketed in recent months.
Cardenas said the negative effects of the trade deal for corn and wheat growers will be offset by high international prices on increasing U.S. demand for ethanol.
“High prices are helping us bring thousands of Mexican farmers out of poverty. We have support programs for all the agricultural sectors in place,” Cardenas said.
Loading ...
Readers Reponses