Note: I’ll be discussing this issue on Fausta’s podcast at 11:00AM Eastern time today. If you don’t have the time to listen in today, bookmark her blog and check in over there anyway.
I’ve been writing about Congress’s eagerness to violate U.S. treaty commitments by banning Mexican trucks from U.S. roads (most recently here). It’s gotten precious little attention in the U.S. press, but folks in Mexico are understandably angry that Congress voted without debate to renege on our NAFTA obligation – without even acknowledging that our own government says that Mexican trucks and truckers are as safe as those of the U.S.
Yesterday Barack Obama signed the omnibus bill, putting us formally out of compliance and giving Mexico an opening to retaliate against U.S. exports to Mexico. But just as he did with his signing statement, Obama put his hypocrisy on display by telling the Mexican government to negotiate with Congress over a replacement program!
An 18-month-old pilot program that allowed a few Mexican trucks beyond a border buffer zone died when President Barack Obama signed a sweeping $410 billion government spending bill on Wednesday. The bill barred spending on the pilot program.
A spokeswoman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Debbie Mesloh, said Obama has told the office to work with Congress, the Transportation and State departments and Mexican officials to come up with legislation to create “a new trucking project that will meet the legitimate concerns” of Congress and U.S. commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement…
Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chairman, cheered the end of the truck program.
“I am pleased that Congress has reclaimed its ability to have some bearing on the obligations contained in the surface transportation provisions of NAFTA and has voted for this step forward for highway safety,” Oberstar said.
The Mexican government has protested the trucks ban, and prohibits U.S. trucks from driving far into Mexico. It could take additional retaliatory steps, such as raising tariffs on U.S. goods. The administration’s announcement Wednesday did not comfort Mexican officials.
“Mexico still believes that the United States’ noncompliance on this issue, more than 14 years overdue, is a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement,” said Ricardo Alday, embassy spokesman. But he said Mexico is willing to continue to work with Congress and the U.S. “in finding a solution that honors its international obligation.”
Mexican officials are familiar enough with the Democrats in Congress to know that they’re firmly in the pocket of the Teamsters on this. The negotiating phase is unlikely to take very long – only long enough to show that there’s no chance Democrats will reconsider. Then Mexico will proceed to retaliation.
According to Mexico City’s El Universal:
Legislators and businessmen in the transportation sector criticized the decision of the U.S. Senate to block the operation of carriers ‘beyond the border commercial zones,’ “in rejecting the terms of the trade agreement.”
Lawmakers in the Chamber of Deputies urged the Mexican government to resort to NAFTA dispute mechanisms to force the removal of what they considered “a form of protectionism.”
Mexico is within its treaty rights to retaliate, and they’re likely to begin the process before long. Without even addressing the issue, Obama has soured relations with one of our most important trading partners and energy suppliers.
Steve Maley
Moe Lane
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Seems like Standard Operating Procedure
Michael Dugas (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 8:34AM EST (link)from Obama’s administration. He spits in the face of England and
even now are having a hard time getting anyone top answer the phone here4 when the UK calls. And now we show the world that our word still means nothing by violating the NAFTA treaty we agreed to.
I was never completely on board with NAFTA but my country signed it and should live up to it.
Maybe Mexico should change it’s deal with us on the huge amount oil it sells us? Would be quite the bargaining tool/weapon.
This is just more proof that Obama considers his position as more likened to a king than a president. He won so he can do what he wants and to hell with the rest of the world. Funny how the Dems were going to “repair” our image abroad.
The One seems only interested in making deals with countries that hate us and dissing our friends.
Next on the list of friends Obama will insult….Canada!
This is going to be one painful 4 years.
Intro to Federalist Papers; section 5;
paragraph 4.
“…dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the zeal for a firm and efficient government.”
Remember: A Citizen on the dole is a Liberal Vote at the Polls.
END ENTITLEMENTS!
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum !
He took care of insulting Canada long ago
Finrod (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 2:35PM EST (link)Back when he was still just a candidate, he made some bad noise about renegotiating NAFTA, to which Canada said “say what?” and one of his lackeys had to go tell the Canadians “that’s just
pillowtalkcampaign rhetoric, baby”.Let’s get down to brass tacks here. How much for the ape?
Trade war with Mexico
franklinslocke Thursday, March 12th at 9:10AM EST (link)The ramifications of starting a trade war with Mexico are immeasurable. Smoot-Hartley Tariff in 1931 that contributed to the Great Depression is very similar to this. The tariff caused a trade war with Canada and contributed to Canada’s government to collapse. This could happen with Mexico. Mexico is already on the brink of collapse now. Could you imagine violence on border after that? Could you imagine the illegal immigration after that? The unintended consequences of this move could be catastrophic.
http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
Congress negotiates with foreign governments?
daves_not_here (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 9:23AM EST (link)Maybe I am remembering my civics classes badly through the haze of decades, but isn’t the Executive Branch responsible for negotiations with a foreign government?
“I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.”
Signing Statement
ss396 Thursday, March 12th at 10:16AM EST (link)He takes away the trucking program and violates NAFTA in the process, and then offers it back to Mexico through “…“a new trucking project that will meet the legitimate concerns” of Congress and U.S. commitments under the North American Free Trade Agreement…”
He is still voting “present”.
He never was an executive; he will never be an executive. The British have demonstrated that he is out of his depth, as have the Russians. I am sure that the rest of the world has noticed this, too. God, how I fear for our nation.
If you pay someone to sit on his butt, you can’t be surprised when he does.
I Don't
IJB Thursday, March 12th at 10:22AM EST (link)Chickens come home to roost – the majority of the American people brought this on themselves.
I’m more than happy to go along for the ride, as long as a hard and permanent lesson is learned here. (One way, or the other…)
It’ll be good for the nation, long-term.
NAFTA is NOT a Treaty
jackbenimble (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 2:20PM EST (link)Congress’s eagerness to violate U.S. treaty commitments
NAFTA is an agreement and was passed as a simple law by a bare majority of Congress. It was never ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate and is therefore not a Treaty and does not enjoy the status of a Treaty. It is just a law and like every other law on our books is subject to change at the whim of a majority in Congress plus the President’s signature.
I think it is fair to argue that it is not advisable for Congress to exercise these whims and that it may well precipitate negative consequences.
But one of the reasons NAFTA could never garner the support in Congress necessary to ratify it as a Treaty was that in many respects it was a crappy deal. The Bush 41 and Clinton Administrations had no business singling out the trucking industry and all of its independent operators who are mainly just small business people for competition from people living on a wage scale that is less than a quarter of the US living wage. I would not want the Congress shafting me and my industry in this manner and I completely understand why the truckers are unhappy about it and have fought ever since to keep it from coming to pass. I have several friends in the trucking business and today I am happy for them.
“I repudiate the idea of voting for a Democrat
NAFTA's effects on trucking are over blown
Michael Dugas (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 4:38PM EST (link)My Pops has been a truck driver his entire life, both a line driver and
intra-state. There may have been an initial negative impact to the trucking industry but the huge increase in trade with Mexico, in both directions, ended up offsetting that impact.
“The Mexican economy is the world’s 13th largest. Yet it is the United States’ third-largest trading partner and the second-largest market for U.S. exports. This partnership owes much to NAFTA; two-way trade between Mexico and the United States has more than quadrupled since the agreement was implemented.”
The biggest negative impact to trucking has been in operating costs,
mainly diesel fuel, which didn’t drop in price as dramatically and as fast as regular gas did.
Intro to Federalist Papers; section 5;
paragraph 4.
“…dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the zeal for a firm and efficient government.”
Remember: A Citizen on the dole is a Liberal Vote at the Polls.
END ENTITLEMENTS!
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum !
It's only been a trial
jackbenimble (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 6:00PM EST (link)Your talking about this in the past tense as if we had already worked through the “initial negative impact” so it makes me wonder if you know of what you speak. Of course the impact of Mexican trucks has been tiny. It has only been a trial which involved about100 companies and a few hundred trucks. We have millions of trucks on the road so the addition of an additional few hundred did not make a noticeable impact.
The plan though was to expand the trial into full blown open cross border trucking and I’m not sure the impact would have been so tiny. I think your Dad and other truckers might have noticed a very substantial negative impact had they been forced to compete with tens of thousands of trucks that are driven by drivers who earn about 1/4th of his wages and work under totally different standards. One very noticeable difference you pick up on immediately if you travel to Mexico is that truckers are treated like garbage by their employers. They don’t get nice comfy sleeper cabs. They string a hammock under the trailer and sleep in the open by the road.
Frankly, I’m not all that fired up about the benefits of free-trade and globalism anymore and neither is my 201k. I studied all this International Economics in my MBA program two decades ago and I used to be a believer but now I am a sceptic. From my perspective it has been tried and it has failed and we are in a lot worse shape because of it. I’m wondering which of our non-existent industries is going to lead us out of this mess? Our economy has been gutted by globalism and in the past decade our wealth has become illusory. We have gone from one bubble to the next with very little wealth being created to sustain the big spending. The truth is that we are now living on credit cards and we are squandering at an unsustainable rate the wealth that was built by the labors of previous generations. Wealth is either mined, manufactured or grown and we are fast exporting our capability to do any of those things.
With respect to trade with Mexico, I am underwhelmed. Most of what we import and export from them was stuff we used to make ourselves only a decade ago and which provided the jobs that defined our middle class. The exception would be oil but they were selling us that before NAFTA and they would continue to sell us that after NAFTA because without the revenue, their country falls apart.
Take a look at things we are exporting. Mexico’s Top Exports & Imports . Most of it is parts that gets assembled and then re-imported right back into America. That is not trade but rather just cheap labor arbitrage. It is probably good for some Multinational Company bottom lines but I don’t see how it is so good for America.
Trucking is essentially a service and truckers are service providers. I am an accountant which makes me a service provider too. Most Mexicans don’t have the skills to do what I do but I bet a lot of Indians could be trained up pretty fast. I’d be damned pissed off if anybody signed a “free trade agreement” that said Indians were welcome to come here in unlimited numbers and take my accounting job at 1/4 the pay. The government had no business picking one industry like trucking and cutting our workers off at the knees. I frankly don’t think it is either good governance or good electoral politics to be very enthused about doing that.
Republicans had better think about how we are going to get the middleclass to vote for us and importing Mexicans to take their jobs probably is not going to be the right answer.
“I repudiate the idea of voting for a Democrat
What? You don't think there are any Mexican Accountants?
Michael Dugas (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 6:46PM EST (link)LOL….just kidding.
As I said in the previous posts, I was not a fan of NAFTA to begin with.
Most of my beef is really about the treatment of our allies by this current administration. And considering that the government seems to be dead set on us not getting our own oil it seems stupid to piss off Mexico and Canada, who we get vast amounts of our oil from, by violating our NAFTA agreement. Whether or not NAFTA is all it’s cracked up to be we did agree to it and I am of the opinion that we should attempt to re-negotiate prior to violating it.
Maybe that’s wrong on my part, I’m no expert on such things. Our economy has been “gutted” by government interference in the market place and punitive taxes and regulations that have driven businesses to other more business friendly locals.
Intro to Federalist Papers; section 5;
paragraph 4.
“…dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the zeal for a firm and efficient government.”
Remember: A Citizen on the dole is a Liberal Vote at the Polls.
END ENTITLEMENTS!
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum !
Who agreed to it?
jackbenimble (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 7:33PM EST (link)Whether or not NAFTA is all it’s cracked up to be we did agree to it
Who is this “we” that you speak of Kemosabe?
It was never ratified as a treaty! Most of the Democrats that are currently changing the law never liked it in the first place and not enough of them agreed to it at the time to ratify it and by not ratifying it they reserved the right to change it just like we change any other law.
I suspect that if it had the support of the American people it would have been ratified a long time ago. But it was shoved down our unwilling throats and the only people who have ever benefitted from it are the Canadians, the Mexicans and the Multinationals. I
bet a lot of folks in Ohio and Michigan wish they had back all the jobs that got transferred to Mexico. And I didn’t notice the price of cars or anything else going down as a result either..
“I repudiate the idea of voting for a Democrat