Elimination of U.S. Pilot Truck Program Triggers Mexican Tariffs

Kind of delayed but I'm curious to know what are the main arguments for preventing Mexican trucks from using the US highways? Safety doesn't seem to be an issue and I don't see protectionism befitting many people in this situation.

I can't tell if Obama unknowingly scrapped the program or not.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/wm2357.cfm

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6313809.html

Mexico wants a trade war? LOL.

This will be like kicking a midget.

piercehawkeye45;550127 wrote:

Safety doesn't seem to be an issue

Are you nuts?

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration--the relevant oversight agency in the Department of Transportation--"recently issued a report showing there had been no accidents involving trucks participating in the program."[7] The Mexican trucks are constantly monitored while in the U.S. and must meet rigorous USDOT safety requirements.[8] In fact, "Mexican trucks in the program have a better safety record than their American counterparts."[9]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LatinAmerica/wm2357.cfm

In fact, "Mexican trucks in the program have a better safety record than their American counterparts."[9]

And if you follow the links it goes to a Texas newspaper editorial, with no substantiating evidence or corroboration. That don't make it true, Skippy.

Heritage.org? Should have known. They'd sell their own grandmothers.

My territory.

The main arguments are safety (unsubstantiated), job protection(also unsubstantiated) and somehow this is Bush's fault (it's not, blame Clinton, he signed NAFTA). Mexican trucks are all inspected at the border, Their out of service rate IS less than ours. While in the USA, Mexican drivers must abide by our rules. The only valid safety point is that it is possible for a Mexican driver to use two logbooks, one for the US and another for Mexico, to drive more than the allowed hours per day.

The unions are worried about the job loss, but the Canadians have been running here under the same rules and have taken no jobs.

The shrill refusal to admit our part in the treaty, signed years ago and only now are we beginning to live up to our obligations as we have required others to do. We either obey our own treaty or we should repeal it.

The Cross Border Demonstration Project has been defunded through the fiscal 2009 budget. What this means to NAFTA remains to be seen. I am watching.

BrianR;550737 wrote:

My territory.

The main arguments are safety (unsubstantiated), job protection(also unsubstantiated) and somehow this is Bush's fault (it's not, blame Clinton, he signed NAFTA). Mexican trucks are all inspected at the border, Their out of service rate IS less than ours. While in the USA, Mexican drivers must abide by our rules. The only valid safety point is that it is possible for a Mexican driver to use two logbooks, one for the US and another for Mexico, to drive more than the allowed hours per day.

The unions are worried about the job loss, but the Canadians have been running here under the same rules and have taken no jobs.

The shrill refusal to admit our part in the treaty, signed years ago and only now are we beginning to live up to our obligations as we have required others to do. We either obey our own treaty or we should repeal it.

The Cross Border Demonstration Project has been defunded through the fiscal 2009 budget. What this means to NAFTA remains to be seen. I am watching.

Wasnt it a one year demonstration project implemented in FY 08....with the US having the right to extend it for two years?

I dont doubt that US labor is opposed to it...but why should it be automatically extended?

Is it also correct that Mexico has no mandatory drug/alcohol testing for CDLs? We may inspect the vehicles for safety violations at the border but do we test the drivers?

I dont know the answer to these questions...just asking.

Pilot programs are always limited in scope and under a magnifying glass by lots of concerned parties, so everyone involved is on their best behavior.
The problems arise when the pilot program has been declared a success, then the gates are thrown open to all. At the same time, most of the people that had magnifying glasses walk away and leave the poor understaffed agencies to deal with it.

According to an interim DOT IG report issued last year, it has not been all that successful...fewer than expected number of carriers and no assurances that they were all checked:

On March 10, 2008, we issued our Interim Report on NAFTA Cross-Border Trucking Demonstration Project, as required by legislation enacted in May 2007. By law, we are required to issue an interim report at the six-month point of the demonstration project, which was initiated on September 6, 2007, and a final report 60 days after the conclusion of the project.

Our audit found that at the 6-month point, fewer Mexican carriers and vehicles have participated in the project than expected. The low number of carriers currently participating is not sufficient to provide reliable statistical projections regarding safety attributes of Mexican carriers. The Department has established and is supporting an independent panel to assess any adverse safety impacts from the project; however, the panel is also concerned that it will have insufficient data when the project ends. Finally, FMCSA has established and enhanced mechanisms for state and Federal monitoring and enforcement of safety rules. Federal Motor Carrier Administration records show that checks of Mexican vehicles and drivers are occurring at the border, but FMCSA does not have assurance that every participating truck and driver is checked every time it crosses the border into the United States because a key quality control measure designed to ensure this occurs has not been implemented.

http://www.oig.dot.gov/item.jsp?id=2254

I know Bush extended it for two years right before he left office, despite the deficiencies noted in the DOT report and Obama just revoked that extension.

Makes sense to me to revoke the extension, if the FMCSA is not able to assure that every truck and driver is checked when there are such low numbers involved to-date (fewer than expected)...at least until there are greater assurances that quality control border check measures are fully implemented.

I really don't know enough about this to comment so I will stay out of it. I'm glad it's being discussed though.

I see, you don't know much about trucking, except how to flash the drivers.;)

:D

TGRR;550332 wrote:

Mexico wants a trade war? LOL.

This will be like kicking a midget.

You've clearly never fought a midget, have you? They're small, but that means they're smaller targets, but still plenty strong. The vicious little buggers will duck your kick and have your balls off in no time. BEWARE!

sugarpop;550860 wrote:

I really don't know enough about this to comment so I will stay out of it. I'm glad it's being discussed though.

Come on, this is the Cellar. Since when has knowing what you're talking about been a requirement for posting?

xoxoxoBruce;550864 wrote:

I see, you don't know much about trucking, except how to flash the drivers.;)

And they're worried about safety problems from the truckers. :headshake

So, the companies that moved their factories to Mexico for the cheaper wages are crying because we might not let them also truck the stuff in to the States with cheaper drivers too. Figures.

I've spent a while looking, but I can't find where NAFTA says we have to allow foreign trucking firms to operate on our soil.

The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement approved broader access for ground shipments from both countries but the Clinton administration never complied with the trucking provision. A special tribunal ordered the Bush administration to do so in 2001.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0129981820070901

TheMercenary;551078 wrote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0129981820070901

Ah, okay, so it was in there.

We should withdraw from that treaty now.

Just saying.

lol - we should have never gotten involved in the first place.

classicman;551124 wrote:

lol - we should have never gotten involved in the first place.

Tell it to presidents 41-44.

Doesn't change my opinion - Does it affect yours? Whats your point?

classicman;551136 wrote:

Doesn't change my opinion - Does it affect yours? Whats your point?

Sure it affects my opinion. Both parties are whores (or more so, anyway), and neither one deserves anyone's vote.

But I do love when adherents of one party try to claim that the other party is the only one responsible for this shit.

So, you have no point. Gotcha. Just wanted to make sure that was clear.

classicman;551249 wrote:

So, you have no point. Gotcha. Just wanted to make sure that was clear.

Or you're just ignoring it to be a shit, because you pretty much know you're wrong.

Enjoy your tantrum.

I'm not ignoring anything and I'm certainly not throwing a tantrum. Your point is what? That you think "both parties are whores"?

ZenGum;550941 wrote:

You've clearly never fought a midget, have you? They're small, but that means they're smaller targets, but still plenty strong. The vicious little buggers will duck your kick and have your balls off in no time. BEWARE!

yea, don't we ever learn? Just look at Iraq, and Afgahnistan.

Come on, this is the Cellar. Since when has knowing what you're talking about been a requirement for posting?

:D Well all righty then! It's just that, when I post and don't really know what I'm talking about, I always get called out. I figured it would just be easier to keep my mouth shut. But what the hell, I'll play.

And they're worried about safety problems from the truckers. :headshake

We probably really need stricter regulation for our own truckers, I can't imagine the nightmare of trying to enforce OUR SAFETY LAWS on Mexican drivers and trucks. They whine about everything we do, while they do the exact opposite in their own country (like immigration laws). For crissakes, we need MORE CONTROL over the borders, and that includes with truckers.

Pico and ME;550975 wrote:

So, the companies that moved their factories to Mexico for the cheaper wages are crying because we might not let them also truck the stuff in to the States with cheaper drivers too. Figures.

Good point.

classicman;551315 wrote:

I'm not ignoring anything and I'm certainly not throwing a tantrum.

Of course you are. You always get really bitter and hostile when you're pissed off. When you're in a regular mood, you just post non-stop strawman arguments.

Then you expect everyone to take your shit like they're your little bitch.

Too funny.

And your point was? I think you missed the question ... again.

classicman;551332 wrote:

And your point was? I think you missed the question ... again.

I made my point. Your hilarious insistence on dodging it IS amusing, though.

Humor us all - what was your point?

TGRR;551127 wrote:

Tell it to presidents 41-44.

TGRR;551192 wrote:

Both parties are whores and neither one deserves anyone's vote.

But I do love when adherents of one party try to claim that the other party is the only one responsible for this shit.

TGRR;551276 wrote:

Or you're just ignoring it to be a shit, because you pretty much know you're wrong.

TGRR;551327 wrote:

Of course you are. You always get really bitter and hostile when you're pissed off. When you're in a regular mood, you just post non-stop strawman arguments.

Then you expect everyone to take your shit like they're your little bitch.

TGRR;551334 wrote:

I made my point. Your hilarious insistence on dodging it IS amusing, though.

Which one was your point?

classicman;551364 wrote:

Humor us all - what was your point?....

Here is my point again...not that you asked.

Why should we extend the Bush pilot demonstration project that the Bush DOT said in its post-year review of the program is lacking key quality control measures to assure that every participating truck and driver is checked every time it crosses the border into the US?

There is no violation of the "letter of the law" of NAFTA that I am aware of... despite Mexico's claim...perhaps in the "spirit of the law" in which case Mexico is no shining example.

I would like to see Obama bring Mexico and Canada to the table to renegotiate NAFTA...but that's not likely to happen.

So we'll deal with these little flare ups and disagreements instead on a case by case basis.

This is the TGRR - classicman slapdown thread.

sugarpop;551372 wrote:

This is the TGRR - classicman slapdown thread.

I'm having a hard time finding a slapdown-free thread today.

Perhaps we need a renegotiation of a Cellar Dwellers Free Discussion Agreement.

Perhaps you could start a group for that. :eyebrow:

Redux;551368 wrote:

assure that every participating truck and driver is checked every time it crosses the border into the US?

Is that really feasible? Seriously. To put every truck through an extensive inspection every time is crosses the border would create a traffic jam all the way to Brazil. Wouldn't it?

classicman;551382 wrote:

Is that really feasible? Seriously. To put every truck through an extensive inspection every time is crosses the border would create a traffic jam all the way to Brazil. Wouldn't it?

According to the DOT report, there were only 18 Mexican carriers/trucking companies (and less than 100 total trucks) participating in the pilot demonstration and they still couldnt assure compliance. I think its safe to assume that they all were not arriving at the border at the same time on the same day.

Wow - thats it? Then it would seem like a no-brainer. Then again is it worth the expense for a few dozen trucks?
Doesn't really seem worth it - the whole program, I mean.

classicman;551388 wrote:

Wow - thats it? Then it would seem like a no-brainer. Then again is it worth the expense for a few dozen trucks?
Doesn't really seem worth it - the whole program, I mean.

Nope...sure doesnt.

The DOT/IG final report summaryr on the demo project

From the full report - the numbers were 29 carriers (including 2 that withdrew) and 118 trucks. (my numbers were from the mid year report)

classicman;551381 wrote:

Perhaps you could start a group for that. :eyebrow:

I couldnt pass a Cellar confirmation hearing....skeletons in the closet and issues of "attitude and overt partisanship"

yeh, tell me about it.

Redux;551399 wrote:

I couldnt pass a Cellar confirmation hearing....skeletons in the closet and issues of "attitude and overt partisanship"

:D At least you haven't "crossed the line from being an irritatingly naive idealist to being a fucking moron."

Mexico just does not have the same kind of laws and regulations we have in this country, just as China doesn't. So why should we be forced to accept their trucks and drivers, if they are not up to our standards, and why should we accept certain products from China, when it's been proven they use lead and other toxic things in products they are selling us? What about the safety of our roads, and the safety of our people?

Sugarpop - its 118 trucks - this whole thing is a joke.

classicman;551364 wrote:

Humor us all - what was your point?

Who's "us all"? You and your tapeworm?

When you're done trolling, let me know.

I'm just saying... there is a double standard when it comes to Mexico and China, (and let's not even talk about Israel). Mexico and China are forcing us to rewrite our own safety standards, and Israel pushes us around with regard to our foreign policy. We really are wimps when it comes to this stuff, and it's because of corporations. They must have big trade agreements that are not in our best interests, but it lines their wallets.

sugarpop;551828 wrote:

I'm just saying... there is a double standard when it comes to Mexico and China, (and let's not even talk about Israel). Mexico and China are forcing us to rewrite our own safety standards, and Israel pushes us around with regard to our foreign policy. We really are wimps when it comes to this stuff, and it's because of corporations. They must have big trade agreements that are not in our best interests, but it lines their wallets.

Welcome to the Post-American Century. If you listen very closely, you can hear Teddy Roosevelt grinding his big choppers in his grave.

TGRR;551768 wrote:

Who's "us all"?

You don't have a point - its obvious. Attacking me will not change that.
"Us" is the rest of the people reading your dribble.

classicman;551332 wrote:

And your point was? I think you missed the question ... again.

classicman;551847 wrote:

You don't have a point - its obvious. Attacking me will not change that.
"Us" is the rest of the people reading your dribble.

So wait.

You speak for everyone here?

That's quite an ego you have there, bro.

TGRR;551852 wrote:

So wait.
You speak for everyone here?
That's quite an ego you have there, bro.

nope, just reminding you that the world doesn't revolve around you.
And thankfully I am not your "bro".

classicman;551332 wrote:

And your point was? I think you missed the question ... again.

classicman;551858 wrote:

nope, just reminding you that the world doesn't revolve around you.
And thankfully I am not your "bro".

By claiming that it revolves around you, my sister? :3eye:

This childish game may be fun over at that "other site" you came from, but here it is just lame. Make your point or Fuck off -- preferably the latter.

classicman;551870 wrote:

This childish game ma be fun over at that "other site" you came from, but here it is just lame. Make your point or Fuck off -- preferably the latter.

Oh, so now you're giving orders?

If you guys come to blows, I could use one.

xoxoxoBruce;551897 wrote:

If you guys come to blows, I could use one.

What? Wait, isn't this where you are suppose to call someone a troll?

You don't have to state the obvious Merc.

:corn:

I gotta be me. :)