Thread: Slamming on the brakes

Here is an editorial from my globalist hometown newspaper

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/s ... an-trucks/

Slamming on the brakes

The Issue: Mexican trucks banned from U.S. highways.
Our View: It gives ammunition to our critics.

The Senate has joined the House in voting effectively to ban Mexican trucks from U.S. highways. The lawmakers did it in backdoor fashion by banning the U.S. Department of Transportation from spending any money to administer the program and to perform the necessary inspections to allow the trucks in.

This is just the latest in a shabby runaround the United States has given Mexico to avoid our having to live up to the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which began implementation in 1994. Under the treaty, Mexican trucks were to have full access to U.S. highways by 2000, the same access Canada has long enjoyed.

In 2002, President Bush directly ordered the department to begin allowing the trucks in. To date, exactly one has, and that was on a one-time trial basis. Opponents, led by the Teamsters union, have thrown one roadblock after another in the path of the trucks, challenging their entry on safety, environmental and economic considerations. Mainly, the union fears the competition.

No amount of U.S. government pledges of stiff licensing requirements for the drivers and regular inspections of the trucks satisfies the opponents. They don't want Mexican trucks in the country, period.

We would note that this development should sit well with some opponents of the Interstate 69 project because, they warn, it will bring trucks from Mexico through the area.

The congressional votes reflected a rich combination of growing Democratic protectionism and political catering to organized labor laced with a heavy dose of anti-Mexican animus stemming from the immigration battles.

The ban is part of a larger $106 billion transportation and housing bill that Bush has vowed to veto on the only slightly overstated grounds of an "irresponsible and excessive level of spending."

The veto is unlikely to give cooler and wiser heads a second chance to prevail on the truck provision. It is a rare president who is willing to stand between Congress and a transportation spending bill, and this one passed by the comfortably veto-proof margin of 88 to seven.

This ban does no credit to the United States. We've reneged on an agreement we freely entered into. We've called into question our trustworthiness as a negotiating partner on other trade agreements. And it gives ammunition to our growing number of critics in the World Trade Organization and the Doha round of trade talks who say we're hypocrites. On this particular issue, they have a point.

The veto is unlikely to give cooler and wiser heads a second chance to prevail on the truck provision. It is a rare president who is willing to stand between Congress and a transportation spending bill, and this one passed by the comfortably veto-proof margin of 88 to seven.

This ban does no credit to the United States. We've reneged on an agreement we freely entered into. We've called into question our trustworthiness as a negotiating partner on other trade agreements. And it gives ammunition to our growing number of critics in the World Trade Organization and the Doha round of trade talks who say we're hypocrites. On this particular issue, they have a point.

This author is ignorant of NAFTA. First of all dumb@$$ this is not a TREATY, Clintoon (yes CLINTOON) couldn't muster the votes needed to make this a treaty, it is a LAW, nothing more, which I hope and pray we overturn in time as it's done nothing but bring us problems after problems since it was enacted. I do not care of this countries critics, the critics this author speak of want to buy this nation while we pay the cost. Screw the critics and this author to even think we should care what others think of what we do with OUR nation.

This author is ignorant as he is stupid.

Duplicate post. Thread locked.