Another question for conservatives & republicans

[usmc1]

Who are you going to side with on this one? The teamsters trying to save American jobs or this Republican administration out to destroy the middle class and unions.

Teamsters aim to block plan giving Mexican trucks more U.S. access

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Teamsters Union said Wednesday it will ask a federal appeals court to block the Bush administration's plan to allow Mexican trucks to carry cargo anywhere in the United States.

The union said it has been told by officials in the Transportation Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the first Mexican trucks will be coming across the border Saturday.

Teamsters leaders said they planned to seek an emergency injunction Wednesday from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"What a slap in the face to American workers, opening the highways to dangerous trucks on Labor Day weekend, one of the busiest driving weekends of the year," said Teamsters President Jim Hoffa.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/29/mexico.trucks.ap/index.html

[nudeM]

I may be wrong, but I don't think this is a Republican agenda. I believe that this has been in the works for quite some time. I do not agree with it. Our truckers (owners and operators) are bound by laws on our highways, bound by strict safety operational standards that if failed, the truck is pulled from the roads until the repairs are made.

Are these foreign trucks going to be held to these same standards? Probably not. NAFTA was a huge mistake, and this is just another part of that agreement just to keep it 'fair'. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[usmc1]

I don't blame you for distancing yourself and you're not entirely wrong. But, the Republicans have had more than six years to abrogate this arrangement. This Republican administration, if one reads the piece, is forging ahead.

After all, KYOTO and the peremptory invasion and occupation of Iraq come to mind as examples of what a Republican president and Republican congress & senate can do when they wish to.

May I count you as standing in solidarity with the Teamsters, AFL/CIO and American workers?

[nudebushwalker]

While the Republicans over there, (and the Liberal Party down here,) are deeply mired in this - through their Big Business ties, and shared anti-worker philosophies and agendas - this is an international problem that is being organised by big business groups, a couple of big law firms in the USA, and several international brokerage firms that arrange for these groups of cut-price workers.
Their main thrust seems to be undercutting local wage levels, and weakening the influence of Unions, in most Western countries. [Also note they will often also use "Security services" to guard these groups, which are in reality the same groups of Mercenaries, as being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, to guard business interests there - as it is now widely illegal to use our own armies and police against us, which was a lot more common around 75 - 200 years ago..].
Over there you have problems with "Guest Workers" from Mexico and Central America;
In Europe and Russia, they are being flooded with cheap labour from Africa and eastern Europe;
Down here, they are mainly being brought in from South-East Asia on 6 or 12 month contracts...
The general and average pay-rate for these temporary 'scab' workers from third world countries is $US48 a day ("plus Keep"..) - up to ten times what they might get at home, but 2-4 X lower than the local wages for the workers they replace..
The Republicans in the US, the Lib's in Oz, the Tories in England, and their counterparts in all other 'first-world' countries, have always identified themselves as the party for Capital, big business and the wealthiest elites, so that they also see workers and individual freedoms as being their natural enemies.

[nudeM]

Posted by usmc1: May I count you as standing in solidarity with the Teamsters, AFL/CIO and American workers .................................................. .................................................. ....................................

I am a Union member and attend all of their meetings. I do not agree with everything they stand up for or against, but I being a shop steward, I do fight management when they get out of line. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[pahjo2]

How about fair trade instead of free trade?
Maybe we could come closer to balancing the import/export issue.
Stay nude and stay happy--I'm always happier when I'm nude---Pahjo

[blackrebel]

Your wording is TYPICAL of your people (FLAMING leftists) who can not ask a question from the middle. As usual, your wording is biased. (Do you really think up these questions, or are you copying these from MoveOn.org?)

Want some cred? Just ask the question WITHOUT the bias, for instance ... "Who are you going to side with on this one? Those who want to allow trucking from Mexico or those who dont want to allow it?" See how simple that is?

[nudebushwalker]

Instead of that typical right-wing fascist abuse, above there, you could also apply a clear and logical, "economical rationalist" approach to that same question, by applying a simple "cost:benefit" or "risk analysis" approach, like so :

Benefits/Pluses/'For'= cheaper costs

Costs/Risks/'Against'= dangerous and poorly maintained trucks;
dangerous and poorly trained drivers;
avoiding or side-stepping rules and regulations pertaining to driver safety and welfare, driving times and conditions;
applying downward pressures - via unfair and artificial competition - on pay rates/wages and living standards;
making life harder for unions and unionised labour;
depressing the transport sector of the economy - through the enforced removal of incomes in those places (homes, businesses, communities) where there would be a large and significant dependance on income from these transport businesses, companies that service and support them, and their suppliers;
widespread loss of jobs across all sections of these transport-related businesses - all the way from the drivers themselves, through to the workers on the truck factory floors...

There you go then, 'blackrebel', or are you really so narrow-minded, and fixated on your hard-core Republican agendas, that you don't even want to look at a 'centrist' and 'rational' analysis of this problem?

[Boreas]

While the Republicans over there, (and the Liberal Party down here,) are deeply mired in this - through their Big Business ties, and shared anti-worker philosophies and agendas - this is an international problem that is being organised by big business groups, a couple of big law firms in the USA, and several international brokerage firms that arrange for these groups of cut-price workers.

This is the issue. It is called globalization. It is shown through the WalMarts of this world and other more subtle organizations. There has been a concerted effort by the neo-conservative/neo-liberal forces to create a so called "free market economy". That is code for cutting costs as much as possible in order to have the biggest profits for the big guys.

[nimrod]

I see what I believe to be a growing trend here in the U.S. of the so called elite wanting only the elite and their servents to live in the U.S. The labor cost outside of the U.S. is lower which helps the elite become even more elite. Why pay an American to do a job that a Mexican will do for cheaper and not ask for health benefits? Why have a business in the U.S. when it can be done in China cheaper and we do not have to worry about silly things like safty? I saw a report that said a Barbie doll made in China cost about 40 cents to make and sells for $20 here.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by blackrebel:
Your wording is TYPICAL of your people (FLAMING leftists) who can not ask a question from the middle. As usual, your wording is biased. (Do you really think up these questions, or are you copying these from MoveOn.org?)

Want some cred? Just ask the question WITHOUT the bias, for instance ... "Who are you going to side with on this one? Those who want to allow trucking from Mexico or those who dont want to allow it?" See how simple that is?

I don't see how it could be any simpler than I put it. I guess what threw you was my failure to completely dumb down and give a detailed explanation of that which was implicit in the question.

A quandry for conservative Republicans, where on one hand we have "gasp" the Teamsters in opposition to something most, if not all, conservatives oppose---further opening of our borders to Mexico and giving American jobs to Mexicans and on the other, a Republican administrtion hell-bent on doing that very thing!

Teamsters versus Republicans. Seems simple to me. And I think the rest of the responders got it. But, now I've explained it for you and any other special needs folks out there.

Still, I can see it as a tough call for some. Support the Teamsters' position or support the President's. Really tough for you it seems, since you didn't even bother.

You chose to attack with name calling: "you people" "flaming leftists" rather than to extend the intellectual effort to understand and respond to the question.

Guess we'll put you down as supporting the adminstration on this one.

Oh yeah, we're also still waiting for your response to the morning after pill question. We've a long wait ahead, right?

[nacktman]

Originally posted by nudeM:
I may be wrong, but I don't think this is a Republican agenda.
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Not entirely wrong it IS a 'republican' administration's agenda.</span>

I believe that this has been in the works for quite some time.
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">True, that ... the cabal has been working toward this and similar goals since grandaddy Prescott's time and before.</span>
I do not agree with it.
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Ditto.</span>
Our truckers (owners and operators) are bound by laws on our highways, bound by strict safety operational standards that if failed, the truck is pulled from the roads until the repairs are made.

Are these foreign trucks going to be held to these same standards? Probably not ... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif
<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Having lived in Mexico and seen the 'trucks' on the roads there, 'probably not' is a mistake ... 'most definitely not' is more accurate. There is no safety standards in Mexico, if you can make it run, you can drive it - also there is no pollution standards so there is not one Mexican truck that will pass minimal standards for either safety or emisions</span>


I see the ideologues made an early appearance here and as per form bile and vitriol was all they could sputter, also true to form they did not answer the question posed. For mindless drones they have the playbook down pat.

[Sanslines]

I walked across the border from San Ysidro, Calif to Tijuana a couple of days ago. After business, I returned to the USA via walking. While waiting in one of the enormous lines that always seem to exist to enter the USA from Mexico, I looked around and noticed that 90 to 95 percent of those who were walking across the border to the USA are Mexicans.

Anyone who has ever spent any time in Tijuana (or to a lesser extent Ensenada) will understand the filthy and putrid conditions in these places. Looking at the Tijuana River is enough to make anyone very ill as the water is a dark brown with white foam - a purely toxic mix. Given these terrible conditions, it is easy to understand why so many Mexicans are attempting to come to the USA. They simply want to work and to provide for their families and they absolutely want to escape the hopeless and grinding poverty that exists for them in Mexico. The majority of Mexicans are good family people and will keep attempting to come to the USA for opportunities that do not exist in Mexico. They will work harder and for less money then many American citizens because they fully understand their roots of poverty and hopelessness. Building walls or creating treaties will not keep them out. Unions will not stop them for unions can not stop a man or woman who is motivated by hunger. The only solution to this sad problem is to create a fair and just system of opportunity in Mexico. Then and only then will Mexicans remain in Mexico.

Another very important point to be made here is that many of the so called Mexican truck drivers are actually Mexican Americans who have USA citizenship.

[usmc1]

Another uninformed and mostly non-sequitur like vote for the Republican administration's position.

[blackrebel]

EVERY TIME you type, you prove my point that LIBERALS like you are the intolerant and love to have a narrow view.

BOTH Dems and Reps have been caught doing wrong, yet you want to bash only the Reps. Why? If you knew me, you'd know that I AM a Rep, yet, will very much go up any Reps butt for wrong doing. In fact many of us Reps are that way. Sadly, you folks dont have too many friends who are on the right or else you'd know that we laugh at Sean Hannity, and those like him who are so narrow that they are an embarassment. By the way, MY friends are left, right and in the middle and all of them, even those on the left want to ignore people like you with narrow partisan bigots like you

Originally posted by usmc1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blackrebel:
Your wording is TYPICAL of your people (FLAMING leftists) who can not ask a question from the middle. As usual, your wording is biased. (Do you really think up these questions, or are you copying these from MoveOn.org?)

Want some cred? Just ask the question WITHOUT the bias, for instance ... "Who are you going to side with on this one? Those who want to allow trucking from Mexico or those who dont want to allow it?" See how simple that is?

I don't see how it could be any simpler than I put it. I guess what threw you was my failure to completely dumb down and give a detailed explanation of that which was implicit in the question.

A quandry for conservative Republicans, where on one hand we have "gasp" the Teamsters in opposition to something most, if not all, conservatives oppose---further opening of our borders to Mexico and giving American jobs to Mexicans and on the other, a Republican administrtion hell-bent on doing that very thing!

Teamsters versus Republicans. Seems simple to me. And I think the rest of the responders got it. But, now I've explained it for you and any other special needs folks out there.

Still, I can see it as a tough call for some. Support the Teamsters' position or support the President's. Really tough for you it seems, since you didn't even bother.

You chose to attack with name calling: "you people" "flaming leftists" rather than to extend the intellectual effort to understand and respond to the question.

Guess we'll put you down as supporting the adminstration on this one.

Oh yeah, we're also still waiting for your response to the morning after pill question. We've a long wait ahead, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Boreas]

I wonder how this discussion would go if the labels "conservative" and "liberal" and "Republican" and "Democrat" were eliminated. Frankly, from this side of the border, both Reps and Dems are pretty darned conservative. What do those labels mean anyway?

Why not just ask: "What do you think about this; Teamsters aim to block plan giving Mexican trucks more U.S. access"?

I am sick of the polarization that has been happening south of our border, and which is creeping in up here. There is no use in building walls. It is past time to start talking in ways that build solutions rather than in ways that sling mud.

[usmc1]

And your position on the issue is......?

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by blackrebel:
Want some cred? Just ask the question WITHOUT the bias, for instance ... "Who are you going to side with on this one? Those who want to allow trucking from Mexico or those who dont want to allow it?" See how simple that is?

That wording is deceptive because it avoids the issues at question.

They way it has been set up, Mexican trucks and drivers do not have to meet the same American safety and training standards that the domestic industry has to.. Yet they are now allowed free access to our highways and can compete against American truckers and trucking companies that must meet the standards and follow the rules.

Not quite so simple, is it?

-Mark

[Sanslines]

Not quite so simple, is it?

It actually can be very simple. Everyone, regardless of where they are from (domestic or foreign), is required to meet the same set of safety standards. According to the CNN article, no unsafe trucks have yet been allowed to enter this country. The article points out that it is not known if the trucks are safe or unsafe and this is the major concern. This is what the article specifically said: "A one-year demonstration project would allow 100 Mexican motor carriers full access to U.S. roads. It can begin as soon as the inspector general certifies that safety and inspection plans and facilities are sufficient to ensure the Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. trucks."

What you posted above: "They way it has been set up, Mexican trucks and drivers do not have to meet the same American safety and training standards that the domestic industry has to.. Yet they are now allowed free access to our highways and can compete against American truckers and trucking companies that must meet the standards and follow the rules." is not supported by or mentioned in the CNN article. No where does the CNN article state that unsafe Mexican trucks are being allowed into this country or allowed to roam freely on our highways. There is no mention of some specific set of separate procedures that knowingly allow unsafe trucks or vehicles into this country. I have personally seen the state police pull over unsafe vehicles and they do not give a free pass to an unsafe vehicle just because the vehicle has out of country license plates.

This issue is not about politics, Repubs, Dems, Teamsters, or anyone else. It is not about anyone openly advocating to allow obviously unsafe vehicles from entering this country and knowingly killing or injuring people. It is not about setting up separate standards that allow foreign vehicles to bypass all of our safety laws. It is simple about ensuring that Mexican trucks and truck drivers meet the same standards that USA trucks and truck drivers must adhere to. Once a procedure is identified to ensure this, then this whole topic will become a non issue and will fade away.

[Sanslines]

I wonder how this discussion would go if the labels "conservative" and "liberal" and "Republican" and "Democrat" were eliminated. Frankly, from this side of the border, both Reps and Dems are pretty darned conservative. What do those labels mean anyway?

Making everything politically based is just another way to play the political blame game and avoid identifying the real problems and possible solutions. When will some people learn that playing politics accomplishes nothing.

[LamontCranston]

Please allow me to introduce background material --

The North American Free Trade Agreement is the trade bloc in North America created by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), whose members are Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It came into effect on 1 January 1994. Further detail here NAFTA on WikiPedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#The_North_Amer ican_Agreement_on_Labor_Cooperation)

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the signatory nations.

The objective of the protocol is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."[1]

As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries).[2][3] Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement. Again, more detail here -- KYOTO Protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol)

It was the Clinton Administration which ratified NAFTA and the Bush Administration (and Clinton before) who refuse to ratify KYOTO.

I support globalization. I do not support tariffs designed to limit prosperity of some players.

If Mexican truck drivers do not pay road use taxes, then neither should U.S. truckers.

If employers do not pay social security tax and paid holidays on India labor, then they shouldn't for me.

It's an artificial economic advantage. Cheap labor is cheap because it gets around the tax law and regulation.

[LamontCranston]

And all the talk about Republican this and Democrat that is noise designed to hide what's really happening: those in power are increasing it.

"Those in power" include both parties. Where do you think all the Presidential hopefuls are getting their millions? $20 from you and me? Not hardly.

It's an orderly trasnition of power from one side to the other and back again, all the while increasign their wealth and power at the expense of yours.

As I get older and wiser I think the Confederates might have had it right with their states rights argument. The Fed is TOO BIG.

[nacktman]

Yep right out of the ideologue playbook and still avoiding answering the question.
Bile and vitriol and blame those whom they spew it upon for their sputum ... it is all they know. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/disappointed.gif

[NudeAl]

Originally posted by LamontCranston:
And all the talk about Republican this and Democrat that is noise designed to hide what's really happening: those in power are increasing it.

"Those in power" include both parties. Where do you think all the Presidential hopefuls are getting their millions? $20 from you and me? Not hardly.

It's an orderly trasnition of power from one side to the other and back again, all the while increasign their wealth and power at the expense of yours.

As I get older and wiser I think the Confederates might have had it right with their states rights argument. The Fed is TOO BIG.

Amen! The Federal government is too big and no way to stop it. It is only going to grow we need to look at some measure like term limits for senators and congress. How about some real and meaningful election/ campaign finance reform. However it will be a cold day in Hell before any politician gives up his money or his power it is like crack cocain to them.

[Naturist Mark]

t actually can be very simple. Everyone, regardless of where they are from (domestic or foreign), is required to meet the same set of safety standards. According to the CNN article, no unsafe trucks have yet been allowed to enter this country. The article points out that it is not known if the trucks are safe or unsafe and this is the major concern.

Clearly drivers in Mexico are not subject to American training and examination standards, nor subject to American work rules. Obviously their trucks are not subject to the same standards and examinations that EVERY single American truck is subject to. Somehow that is supposed to be taken care of when they cross the border and become subject to all the same rules as the American trucking industry. But that isn't at all what happens. We have a long history of short haul Mexican trucking along the border - particularly Texas. Compliance is a joke.

According to congressional findings in the Transportation-HUD 2008 appropriations bill (as reported by the Teamsters):
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> There is no certified laboratory in Mexico that can test drug and alcohol samples.
<LI> Mexico does not enforce hours-of-service regulations.
<LI> The Mexican Commercial Drivers License (CDL) has questionable medical standards and no real assurance that the license is authentic.
<LI> State databases in the United States do not adequately track Mexican drivers’ history. For example, the Transportation Department’s Office of Inspector General has reported that more than 40,000 traffic violations by Mexican drivers hadn’t been entered into the State of Texas’ database. [/list]

The Administration has deliberately fudged inspections of Mexican carriers, according to a close examination of the DOT's raw data (http://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/international/border.asp?cvar=mc&sy=2005&redirect=Inspections.asp) compared to their reporting: <UL TYPE=SQUARE>According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's NAFTA Safety Stats Web site, inspections of Mexican trucks within the border zone have increased 212% from 2001 through 2005. However, the actual number of Mexican trucks operating in the border zone increased only 60.6%.

How is this possible? Because the only trucks allowed to drive from Mexico into the border zones are short-haul drayage trucks. These trucks make multiple trips a day across the border, hauling the cargo dropped off by Mexican long haul trucks south of the border to long-haul U.S. trucks in the commercial zones.

It's fairly obvious that the DOT is cooking its stats by inspecting the same trucks over and over again. If a truck passes a safety inspection at 10 a.m., how likely is it to fail by 1 p.m.? Is it any wonder then that U.S. and Canadian trucks taken out of service average around 6% a year, but the rate of Mexican trucks taken out of service average around 1%?

Where the true failures show themselves is in driver stats. For example, the average percentage of all truck drivers taken off the road for not having a commercial drivers license is 3.44%. For American drivers the rate is 3.27%. For Canadian drivers, the rate is 0.85%. For Mexican drivers, the rate is 22.6%. dKos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/22/20376/3412) [/list]
According to Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen during Congressional testimony: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> The abbreviated 12-month duration of the pilot program is shorter than any previously considered or authorized FMCSA pilot program and only one-third of the three-year maximum time limit allotted by Congress for such programs in current law. As a result, there is no possibility that this pilot program will achieve the goal of collecting sufficient safety data to allow for accurate and reliable analysis of the safety issues at stake.
(Emphasis added)

It is apparent that this pilot program is not really a pilot program, and thus does not comply with 49 U.S.C. 31315(c), which establishes a template for all pilot programs conducted by DOT. In addition, Section 350 does not permit it. Section 350 makes no exceptions for compliance with all elements of its requirements in subsections (a), (b) and (c). These obligations must be fully complied with before ANY truck is permitted to cross the border. What Secretary Peters proposes is to comply with some parts of Section 350 and assert that the border can be open for that slice. Her proposal does not comport with the law. [/list]

Still sound like a simple matter of 'fairness'?

-Mark

[LamontCranston]

Who are you going to side with on this one? The teamsters trying to save American jobs or this Republican administration out to destroy the middle class and unions. I sided with Ross Perot when he campaigned against NAFTA. I sided against the Clinton Administration when they put it in place. What we hear today is the giant sucking sound Perot warned of.

Free trade is good, but this isn't free trade. And note the highway runs both ways. It's set up for export as well.

Question for the top poster --
Does this Mexican trucking program fit within the NAFTA rules and guidelines? Or is it something new and different?

If it's a new program under NAFTA then we're just whining. That horse left the barn over 12 years ago.

[usmc1]

My answer. This administration abrogates treaties and agreements at will. It enforces portions of some while disregarding other portions. It could do the same in this instance. I am in solidarity with the Teamsters and AFL/CIO.

Do we put you with the Teamsters or the Republican administration on this?

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wonder how this discussion would go if the labels "conservative" and "liberal" and "Republican" and "Democrat" were eliminated. Frankly, from this side of the border, both Reps and Dems are pretty darned conservative. What do those labels mean anyway?

Making everything politically based is just another way to play the political blame game and avoid identifying the real problems and possible solutions. When will some people learn that playing politics accomplishes nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is politics. DUH!

That is how policies are developed in a democracy...through politics. And no one is playing, right now it is a deadly serious business affecting the future of this country and the livelihoods of its hard-working citizens.

So, don't you demean and attempt to marginalize the process with your supercilious and insipid and thoroughly thoughtless cliches and bromides.

[Sanslines]

Compliance is a joke.

American trucks are also required to meet American standards. Some do and some don't. Foreign trucks that operate in the USA are also required to meet American standards. Some do and some don't. Much of your posting refers to Mexican standards (or lack of them) as they pertain to Mexican trucks operating in Mexico. American standards do not apply in Mexico and the Mexican government is free to do whatever they chose. American trucks clearly do not need to meet American standards to operate in Mexico. As an aside, many people from California take their vehicles across the border to Tijuana to have body and paint work done. This work is done in an open air shop more or less in the outdoors where paint emissions and vapors are allowed to dissipate in the open atmosphere. Clearly, such 'procedures' are not allowed in California due to strict air quality controls and standards. However, with a total lack of such standards in Mexico and much lower labor costs, is it any wonder that so many American vehicles maker their way across the border to those shops?

I do not know of anyone who wants any trucks (or vehicles), either foreign or domestic, to be operated in an an unsafe condition by unsafe drivers. These standards should apply evenly to all drivers and vehicles.

Given the enormous cross border traffic that presently exists, it might prove impossible to inspect thoroughly every truck that crosses our borders. Heck, we can't even ensure that every domestic truck on our highways are safe. However, if it is determined that an unacceptable high degree of Mexican trucks are unsafe, that the drivers are unqualified, and that these vehicles through inspections can not be prevented from entering the USA, then this program will fail and the existing procedure of transfering goods from Mexican to American truck driver hands at the border will stand. However, we will still have to inspect and ensure that the American trucks and drivers still meet American standards and proceedures at the border. As such, some form and degree of inspections at the border will always occur.

Sounds like a simple matter of fairness? When drivers such as the American idiot who cut across 4 lanes of the 805 fwy in San Diego yesterday while driving his sportscar at 100 miles per hour (yes he was driving THAT fast) is removed, then fairness can be discussed. Fariness and safety applies to American drivers as well and far too many unsafe American vehicles and unsafe drivers exist on our roads. We need to address this issue first as well as address the issue of not allowing unsafe (foreign) vehicles and drivers onto our roads.

The real issue here is simply about the Teamsters trying to protect their jobs and wages by objecting to Mexican drivers who will undercut their wages. They do have that right and can and will use any means possible to achieve their objectives. Nothing wrong with that as long as others see then entire issue honestly.

[Sanslines]

It is politics. DUH!

That is how policies are developed in a democracy...through politics. And no one is playing, right now it is a deadly serious business affecting the future of this country and the livelihoods of its hard-working citizens.

So, don't you demean and attempt to marginalize the process with your supercilious and insipid and thoroughly thoughtless cliches and bromides.

It may be politics as usual to YOU. You may wish to keep playing th political blame game. However, playing blame games accomplishes nothing and wastes the precious gift of valuable time when resolving problems.

We all make choices and see things differently from each other. You are free to say what you wish and so are the rest of us. You can do us all a favor by rejecting the temptation to 'dress us down' with your nonsensical and personalized comments. Stick to the topic at hand. Thanking you in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

[nacktman]

Stick to the topic at hand.

This from one who hasn't yet touched the topic?
Though their attempts at obfuscation here so far have been somewhat less than their usual vitriolic ooze.
However, the bile and vitriol sputum has another spigot to more than take up the slack.

[BinCo]

I vote with (gulp) the Teamsters. They, however, are only a small group opposed to this travesty.

Do a Google Search for SPP and look at some of the other wonderful things we get to look forward to.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.


How about the Trans-Texas Corridor, which will probably get converted into the NAFTA superhighway (as much as some in power say it is not possible).

The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) is a transportation network in the planning and early construction stages in the U.S. state of Texas. The network, as planned, would be composed of a 4,000 mile (6,000 km) network of supercorridors up to 1,200 feet (370 m) wide to carry parallel links of tollways, rails, and utility lines[1]. The tollway portion would be divided into two separate elements: truck lanes and lanes for passenger vehicles. Similarly, the rail lines in the corridor would be divided among freight, commuter, and high-speed rail. Services expected to be carried in the utility corridor include water, electricity, natural gas, petroleum, fiber optic lines, and other telecommunications services. The Trans-Texas Corridor will allow passenger vehicular speed limits of up to 85 mph (140 km/h).[2] The network will be funded by private investors and built and expanded as demand warrants.


We already have Mexican Nationals who run away from Auto accidents in Colorado where people are seldomly killed. Now get an 80,000 pound truck and highway deaths due to poorly maintained trucks will go up. Also the lack of accountability to the driver and trucking company after accidents. The legalilties need to be worked out to protect the public and guarantee they the public is safe FIRST before we let any of these junkers on the road.

[Sanslines]

We already have Mexican Nationals who run away from Auto accidents in Colorado where people are seldomly killed.

Mexican nationals are involved with vehicle accidents in Southern California day in and day out. However, so are a myriad of other nationalities including American citizens. There has been a constant effort to allow Mexican nationals in California to obtain driver's licenses. However, the opposition to this is too strong, as many consider a driver's license as a right of citizenship and a priviledge.

There are many problems with the constant and enormous influx of Mexican nationals into the USA. Until people go to Mexico and really understand what motivates so many Mexicans to continue to attempt to come to the USA regardless of any walls that we may build, any laws that we create to prevent them from coming, or any law enforcement efforts to capture them, nothing will ever change. The reasons are very simple and those reasons involve the desire for most Mexicans to escape from a life of never ending and hopeless poverty to a country where there is opportunity for them to work and to build lives for themselves and their families. To these individuals, having a job (any job) regardless of how low the wages are or how demanding the conditions might be is immaterial considering from what they came from. If Americans really want to change this situation, then one answer is to continuously pressure Mexico to create meaningful opportunities for her own people. Corruption is still very rampant in Mexico. Then and only then will the enormous numbers of Mexicans who attempt entry into this country decrease.

[walter05]

USMC1;

Allowing the Mexican trucks in is required by NAFTA. The first President Bush negotiated NAFTA. However, it was President Bill Clinton that pushed and achieved ratification.

BlackRebel;

USMC1 was pointing out that in this case the Teamsters' Union appears to be the patriotic pro-American voice. He was wondering if any usually anti-labor Republicans were comfortable supporting the Teamsters. I find his question interesting and reasonable.

It is true that his language is colorful, however, you started with the flaming language.

Sanslines;

This is not an illegal immigration question. Many of your observations on that are off topic.

USMC1;

It is common to see Canadian trucks on American highways and to see American trucks on Canadian highways. Therefore, the precedence for allowing foreign trucks on American highways is there.

The issue is with Mexican trucks. Since Mexico is a major place from which drug and human smuggling takes place, it is natural to insist on protections there. In addition, it would be natural to insist on safety standards that meet U.S. and Canadian standards.

Unfortunately, George Bush the first and Bill Clinton did not negotiate a strong enough treaty. Bill Clinton got a bad treaty ratified. The current President Bush is required by the Treaty to allow those Mexican trucks in.

[Sanslines]

The issue is with Mexican trucks.

The issue is with a certain percentage of Mexican trucks. Not all Mexican trucks are broken down safety hazards and not all Mexican national truck drivers are incompetent road hazards. The concern is to prevent the broken down safety hazzard Mexican trucks and incompetent and unsafe Mexican truck drivers from entering this country and operating on USA highways. Such controls should pertain to all truck drivers regardless of where they come from.

Look what happened over 20 years ago between Canada and the USA:

"Twenty years ago the U.S. closed the border for commercial traffic with Canada (in 1982), and reopened it in 1984 once Canada agreed to reciprocal measures, including safety measures, to govern commercial traffic between the two nations. Today the U.S. and Canadian authorities conduct on-site inspections of commercial carriers in each other’s country."
Obviously commercial truck safety issues are not new.

The same can occur between Mexico and the USA. However, the Mexican government must cooperate. Here is a link to the Facts and Fiction between the Murray / Shelby provisions concerning this issue:

http://www.trucksafety.org/Urgent_Info_About_Mex_Trucks.php

[Sanslines]

Sanslines;

This is not an illegal immigration question. Many of your observations on that are off topic.

Please reread my above postings carefully and you might see that I address two really separate issues. One issue concerns the safety aspects of Mexican trucks and competence of Mexican truck drivers. The obvious solution to this is to have border inspections of Mexican trucks, to insist that certain USA commercial rules be adhered to such as requiring that any commercial Mexican trucks carry safety equipment such as fire extinguishers, flares, reflectors, etc, and to require Mexican truck drivers to pass a knowledge and driving competence based test and rules of the road and then issue to those drivers special non forgeable driving permits that will allow them to operate their rigs in the USA. The second issue (and this is a separate issue that I was trying to address above) concerns the wages that Mexican truck drivers will accept. I addressed the issue as to why, in general, Mexicans (legal or illegal) will work for less then their American counterparts.

[Boreas]

Look what happened over 20 years ago between Canada and the USA:

"Twenty years ago the U.S. closed the border for commercial traffic with Canada (in 1982), and reopened it in 1984 once Canada agreed to reciprocal measures, including safety measures, to govern commercial traffic between the two nations. Today the U.S. and Canadian authorities conduct on-site inspections of commercial carriers in each other’s country."
Obviously commercial truck safety issues are not new.

It seems to me that there was a problem with American trucks coming into Canada and losing wheels and other less than safe things. Both countries had reason to be concerned. There were particular problems in the Windsor to Montreal Corridor since it is so close to the US border. I am sure there were problems with Canadian trucks on the US side as well.

Reciprocal arrangements can work quite well. If it can happen between Canada and the US, I am sure it can happen between Mexico and the US. After all, when we are driving in another country we do need to abide by that country's rules.

[Sanslines]

It seems to me that there was a problem with American trucks coming into Canada and losing wheels and other less than safe things.

Better for you to say this then I. I have seen plenty of unsafe American trucks roaming the highways in spite of all of our safety regs and requirements. In order to make money with such high diesel fuel costs, enormous pressure is on the trucking system to move the goods from point A to point B as fast as possible. Many times corners are cut to keep the costs down. The only real way to move goods in today's world is for couples to take to the roads and drive their rigs in shifts so that when one driver reaches his/her driving time limit, the other driver can take over and keep that rig moving.

[BinCo]

I voted with the Teamsters on this one, even thought they screwed me over on transit at a convention.

Sanslines. You have many good points. What method would you use to get Mexico out of the quagmire it is in? I suggest locking out all Mexican trucks until they have 99% compliance on a random check to American safety standards. Mexico's #2 source of income is from remitals from nationals in the US. Money that is sucked out of our economy. Maybe we should increase the tarrifs on those monies?

I don't have the answers, but letting some of the junk they drive all over this country is a problem waiting to happen.

[walter05]

Sanslines;

I understand better the comments about Mexican wages. Thanks for the clarification.

In the case of Canada, we are talking about a modern country where rule of law is important. It is possible have cooperative relationships between countries, states and provinces, and even cities. These are quite common.

In the case of Mexico, corruption, drug trafficking, and human trafficking, this is very different.

I live in Savannah, Georgia. We already have a serious security problem with containers coming in. However, the Georgia Ports Authority, GBI, and ICE are working to secure the containers as much as possible. When working with modern, law-abiding countries overseas, the techniques are starting to be quite effective.

Trucks often pull containers. It would be easy to fill the back half of a container with legitimate merchandise and transport drugs and humans in the inside half of the trailer. In the case of Mexico, the U.S. does not have a modern, law-abiding country as a partner.

This is a bad part of the NAFTA treaty. I blame President Bush senior and President Clinton for this one. However, the current President Bush never attempted to correct this, as a result, he shares in the blame.

[usmc1]

Well, as near as I can make out, 7 have sided with the Teamsters and 3 with the Republican Administration.

Gee, that's 30%...no surprise there!

And, here, for the record, the full article which I linked in the original question and which it is obvious that at least three respondees did not exert the effort to read...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Teamsters Union said Wednesday it will ask a federal appeals court to block the Bush administration's plan to allow Mexican trucks to carry cargo anywhere in the United States.

The union said it has been told by officials in the Transportation Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the first Mexican trucks will be coming across the border Saturday.

Teamsters leaders said they planned to seek an emergency injunction Wednesday from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"What a slap in the face to American workers, opening the highways to dangerous trucks on Labor Day weekend, one of the busiest driving weekends of the year," said Teamsters President Jim Hoffa.

Joining the Teamsters in seeking the emergency stay were the Sierra Club and Public Citizen. "Before providing unconditional access throughout the country to tens of thousands of big rigs we know little to nothing about, we must ensure they meet safety and environmental standards," Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope said.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in a statement, said: "We believe this lawsuit is without merit and that our program will benefit consumers by reducing the costly practice of requiring all cross-border shipments to be hauled by three separate trucks operated by three different drivers and provide U.S. trucking companies the opportunity to expand their business into our nation's third largest trading partner."

The Bush administration said last week it would start the cross-border program once the Transportation Department's inspector general certifies safety and inspection plans.

Leslie Miller, a Teamsters spokeswoman, said attorneys for the federal truck safety agency advised the union's lawyers that they expect to get that certification Friday. She said the Teamsters also were told by the agency attorneys that limited authority for trucks to begin crossing the border will be approved Saturday.

The Teamsters got a powerful labor ally in its protest.

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney said in a news conference "the real issue there is the situation of safety and how this involves the delivery of food or product of Mexico to United States and vice versa.

"It's an ongoing dispute, and we don't think the Mexican government is enforcing their laws in that situation," said Sweeney in support of the Teamsters, who left the AFL-CIO to join a rival labor federation in 2005. "I think the Teamsters are taking the lead in this situation and rightly so deserve support."

Supporters of the plan say letting more Mexican trucks on U.S. highways will save American consumers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Labor and driver-owner groups have been fighting the measure -- part of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement -- since it was first proposed, saying the program will erode highway safety and eliminate U.S. jobs.

A one-year demonstration project would allow 100 Mexican motor carriers full access to U.S. roads. It can begin as soon as the inspector general certifies that safety and inspection plans and facilities are sufficient to ensure the Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. trucks.

Since 1982, Mexican trucks have had to stop within a buffer border zone and transfer their loads to U.S.

[Sanslines]

In the case of Mexico, the U.S. does not have a modern, law-abiding country as a partner.

Yes this is very true and creates a whole group of problems including this particular one. The Mexican Gov't plays by their own rules and will not change just to accomodate our rules unless it suits their interests. Concerning the drug problem, the issue is one of supply and demand. As long as Americans demand and use illegal drugs, a means of supply will always exist. This particular topic (drugs) is probably best left for another thread.

[Sanslines]

And, here, for the record, the full article which I linked in the original question and which it is obvious that at least three respondees did not exert the effort to read...

Not true. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they did not read the article. Just because someone does not see this as an issue of Repubs versus Teamsters as you chose to do does not mean that they must side with either the Teamsters or Repubs. You are free to read articles and conclude whatever you wish to. Like it or not, others are also free to read articles and conclude whatever they wish to. Whether their conclusions agree with you or not is not important - to them! I just don't think that you are interested in listening to anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours. I suppose that we could all patronize you by parroting your comments but then this forum would become even more boring.

[Naturist Mark]

Many of us, including myself, have been arguing that we need to think twice before opening our highways to Mexican trucking for safety reasons, and because of the harm it will do to our domestic truckers. Do we really want to see what has happened to the skilled carpentry industry happen to trucking?

But ...

I think a lot of people are missing the point that this is supposed to be a demonstration project - designed to see if opening up US highways to the Mexican trucking industry is safe. But the Administration has cut corners, reduced the program length and compliance tracking capabilities and shortened the project so much that a proper determination of the outcome is not possible.

In other words ... there won't be enough data for critics to be able to prove it is a failure, and the program will end prematurely early so that George Bush will still be in office and able to 'direct' that the DOT proclaim it a success and immediately open up the US highways to all Mexican trucking. Of course the Administration had to break the law in order to set this sham up, but this is an administration that has proved time and time again that it is allowed to break the law whenever it pleases.

-Mark

[Sanslines]

In other words ... there won't be enough data for critics to be able to prove it is a failure

If it is a failure before it has even occured, then why even have this test?

Do we really want to see what has happened to the skilled carpentry industry happen to trucking?

But it is already too late as the independant truckers have already beaten the Mexicans and have already done 'it' to the Teamsters.

Of course the Administration had to break the law in order to set this sham up, but this is an administration that has proved time and time again that it is allowed to break the law whenever it pleases.

Where is Congress when all of these laws are being broken? Have we forgotten about the responsibilities of Congress???

[BinCo]

Mark- Could not agree more.

Sanslines- We will have to test to "show" people that it was tried out and was a "success". That way the people shoving in our faces, who are the ones making money on it, can say it's all good.

The independant truckers will lose out to the Mexicans who will drive for fuel + a few pennies per mile.

If you want to talk about industries that have lost, let's add up a few more besides skilled carpentry. How about, Lawn Care, Landscaping, Food industries, Hotel industry. Basically every single OJT job has been lost. Unfortunately these are the low pay jobs to start with, but one used to be able to live off of it. No longer. Not when a friend can have 1.3 acres mowed and trimmed for $45 a week.

I might not mind as much if my truck made in Mexico saved me any money that the mfg profited on it. Didn't someone say that we could save consumers money?

[Sanslines]

Didn't someone say that we could save consumers money?
If you want to talk about industries that have lost, let's add up a few more besides skilled carpentry. How about, Lawn Care, Landscaping, Food industries, Hotel industry. Basically every single OJT job has been lost.

Who are hiring these cheap laborers? Americans are!

[nudebushwalker]

After giving both my pro-Union, and 'centrist'/rationalist views on this topic earlier, I will now try for a hard left turn, and present my Deep Green spin on some more of the wider evils of globalisation in general, [as the leading question of widespread job losses, reallocation and relocation have already been discussed above..]:

RUN FOR THE HILLS !! WE'RE ALL DOOOOMED !!!

China has 1.3 billion people, India around 1 billion, and both have a "middle class" of around 20% (that's around 260 and 200 million, respectively, for a total of >460 million consumers (more than the USA and Japan combined..), with fast-growing discretionary incomes - and this increased consumption will also mean an increased demand for finite resources, especially energy.

With the current consumption of resources (especially those all-important energy supplies) this planet may have had quite a few decades left with known reserves, but when these figures are extrapolated after factoring in increased use by developing economies - particularly China and India, but also including improving 'First World' countries like Russia, eastern Europe, South-East Asia (and Mexico) - the time left before resource "crunches" will hit drops severely :
*Petroleum ~ 30 - 40 years
*Uranium ~ 50 - 55 years
*Coal ~ 70 - 75 years [Coal is a special case, though, as there are more known reserves that will become 'viable' as demand, and hence profits, increases - so that they may be good for another couple centuries; but it has a much bigger problem - it is the dirtiest of these fuels, and will add a lot more pollution over the next few decades..].

And, what is more unfortunate here, is that those of us who already have the benefits and 'trappings' of modern society, don't have any moral right to deny those people in the growing economies..

It just would have been a lot better for this planet, if only this globalisation had not been racing along at such a cut-throat profit-driven pace - so that increasing problems of alternative power supplies, pollution, global warming, over-population, housing shortages, and the like - could have been addressed first...

[LamontCranston]

What method would you use to get Mexico out of the quagmire it is in?

the nudebushwalker figures --
China has 1.3 billion people, India around 1 billion, and both have a "middle class" of around 20% (that's around 260 and 200 million, respectively, for a total of >460 million consumers (more than the USA and Japan combined..), with fast-growing discretionary incomes - and this increased consumption will also mean an increased demand for... By extention, there is also a middle class in Mexico and South America, although the numbers are smaller.

So what we do is manufacture or grow and *export* goods for consumption by these classes.

The trucks can't be empty on the way back. What are we exporting as part of this program?

Will it be less expensive to use this new trucking system to move product from here to South America than it is to ship over water? And if the profits are poured back into the infrastructure there will be jobs and living condition improvements.

The enterprise could feed off itself and grow.

If the forward-looking 20 year view is to bring the Mexican economy up many rungs on the ladder, then that's a good thing.

[LamontCranston]

I've read the article. Near the top someone is complaining about "tens of thousands" of unsafe trucks. Near the bottom it says this is a one year program involving 100 trucks. Big difference.

Your question is like this one, "Senator, do you regret accepting the bribe." And then you insist on a yes or no answer. But you haven't demonstrated that a bribe took place.

The product they carry is already being brought in but transferred at the border. That sounds expensive and it's only a matter of time before business works it's way around expensive hurdles.

If this program fits within the guidelines of NAFTA, then it's nothing really to do with Republicans or Teamsters.

Still_Boreas points out there were safety problems across the US-Cananda border and they were addressed. I expect the same will happen here.

What the Teamsters ought to be doing is running their own rigs back down the highway, exporting product into Mexico and bringing more back out... creating jobs. Go on offense and take the project away.

If one grocery store chain used Teamster truckers to do that, while another used low-cost Mexican drivers.. I'd shop at the first. So get on with it.

If the implication here is that everything Mexican is sub-standard and poor quality, then that ought to be winnable for the mighty US trucking industry. So instead of partnering with attorneys and the "save the planet crowd" how about the AFL-CIO go win the contracts away from them?

[Naturist Mark]

I've read the article. Near the top someone is complaining about "tens of thousands" of unsafe trucks. Near the bottom it says this is a one year program involving 100 trucks. Big difference.
If you had kept reading, you would realize that the "demonstration project" was set up as a sham that would result in the automatic opening of US highways to all Mexican trucking at the end of the year no matter how unsuccessful the project was. It is DESIGNED to not find out what the law Congress passed requires it to find out. Thus the charges that it breaks the law.

-Mark

[nudebushwalker]

Certainly couldn't call all Mexican products "low quality" - low cost would be more accurate.
US Auto' companies have their truck factories in Mexico and Brazil.
Japanese companies are getting their trucks and commercial vehicles built in Thailand, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines.
European companies have factories in South Africa, the Czech Republic and some Eastern European sites.
All of these major motor companies are involved in developments in China, India and Russia.

Even with those job losses in the USA, it is still a major manufacturer and exporter...
Australia buys twice as much from the US, than it buys from here; [with Japan it is the opposite situation - Japan buys around 50% more from Oz, than what we import from them - they are one of our best customers..].
The top three exporters into Australia are China, the USA and Japan..
Irrespective of whether those US products are made over there, or in the your foreign-located factories [GM, Ford, Exxon(Esso), Caltex and News Corp are all over here; Apple, IBM, HP, Dell and the rest have businesses here (even though their computers are built in China!!); the USA is in the top 5 foreign investors in Australia..].

And just look at how many American brands are found all around the world : Coca Cola, McDonalds, KFC, Ford, GM, Dodge Chrysler, Levi's, Columbia, The North Face, Heinz, Kellogg's, IBM, Dell, Apple, Compaq, GE, Starbucks, Playboy, CNN, Master Card, Visa, Western Union, and the list goes on..

Probably already a lot of these brands heading "south of the border" - and the exporters are probably hoping for a lot more, to satisfy that growing demand. And what the various unions, social commentators, welfare and environmental groups will be hoping for - and working against - is that the negative impacts (job losses, family and community dislocations and breakdowns, pollution, downward pressures on incomes and conditions..) can be avoided, or at least reduced and minimised in their impacts.
And the juggling acts for the politicians - on all sides, and in all our governments - between their community and constitutional responsibilities on one side, and their own agendas and business pressures (i.e. their backers, and in the case of the current US executive branch, their own family fortunes..), on the other side.

[Sanslines]

If you had kept reading, you would realize that the "demonstration project" was set up as a sham that would result in the automatic opening of US highways to all Mexican trucking at the end of the year no matter how unsuccessful the project was. It is DESIGNED to not find out what the law Congress passed requires it to find out. Thus the charges that it breaks the law.

We have almost exclusively focused upon Mexican trucks operating within the USA. We have not discussed anything about the restrictions, if any, on USA trucks operating within Mexico. Do USA trucks have free reign in Mexico or does the Mexican Gov't place tariffs and restrictions on USA trucks?

[LamontCranston]

If you had kept reading, you would realize that the "demonstration project" was set up as a sham that would result in the automatic opening of US highways to all Mexican trucking at the end of the year no matter how unsuccessful the project was. It is DESIGNED to not find out what the law Congress passed requires it to find out. Thus the charges that it breaks the law. I have read it, top to bottom three times now and it doesn't say this.

It doesn't say anything about automatic approvals, congressional oversight or anything about breaking any laws. These charges are what you and others think might happen.

So... what is being exported? Are the trucks returning empty? Why can't U.S. drivers take over the routes from source to destination? Why are the Teamsters letting the Mexican truckers get the better end of the deal?

They're hitching their fortunes and future on an environmental safety angle along with the Sierra Club ?! Can't their leadership wield more power than that?

Name and organize a boycott of companies receiveing these goods by this method and the program will die.

Where's the beef? I thought Labor was powerful.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by LamontCranston:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you had kept reading, you would realize that the "demonstration project" was set up as a sham that would result in the automatic opening of US highways to all Mexican trucking at the end of the year no matter how unsuccessful the project was. It is DESIGNED to not find out what the law Congress passed requires it to find out. Thus the charges that it breaks the law. I have read it, top to bottom three times now and it doesn't say this.

It doesn't say anything about automatic approvals, congressional oversight or anything about breaking any laws. These charges are what you and others think might happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you kept reading the thread. (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/4250093805?r=4010057805#4010057805)

Others include former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Joan Claybrook (http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2465), who said in Congressional testimony:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> The abbreviated 12-month duration of the pilot program is shorter than any previously considered or authorized FMCSA pilot program and only one-third of the three-year maximum time limit allotted by Congress for such programs in current law. As a result, there is no possibility that this pilot program will achieve the goal of collecting sufficient safety data to allow for accurate and reliable analysis of the safety issues at stake.
(Emphasis added)

It is apparent that this pilot program is not really a pilot program, and thus does not comply with 49 U.S.C. 31315(c), which establishes a template for all pilot programs conducted by DOT. In addition, Section 350 does not permit it. Section 350 makes no exceptions for compliance with all elements of its requirements in subsections (a), (b) and (c). These obligations must be fully complied with before ANY truck is permitted to cross the border. What Secretary Peters proposes is to comply with some parts of Section 350 and assert that the border can be open for that slice. Her proposal does not comport with the law. [/list]

-Mark

[Sanslines]

The abbreviated 12-month duration of the pilot program is shorter than any previously considered or authorized FMCSA pilot program and only one-third of the three-year maximum time limit allotted by Congress for such programs in current law. As a result, there is no possibility that this pilot program will achieve the goal of collecting sufficient safety data to allow for accurate and reliable analysis of the safety issues at stake.

I must also be reading this incorrectly. From what I am reading, this particular test is of a one year duration which is less then the maximum three year duration as allocated by Congress. Does the law require that all tests be of three year duration and that since this program is of only one year, then this program is automatically bogus and/or breaking the law? Can not test programs vary in duration from perhaps one hour up to three years? The above quote does not speficy a minimum time allocation as required by law - what is the minimum requirement as required by law? Why is it automatically assumed that since this test program is of only one year duration, that this test program is bogus? What specifically is considered 'sufficient' test data? What is considered an 'accurate' and 'reliable' analysis of the test data? Without seeing the exact test program, it is really impossible to conclude that this program is a failure based only upon the duration of the tests. The important thing for any test is not necessarily that the length of the test conform to some rigid time standard, for test durations vary from test to test based upon the specifics of the test. The most important thing is that whatever test data that is collected be accurate. If the test data does not conform to some set of accurate and rigid standards, then the final test results will be meaningless regardless of the duration of the tests. If the real purpose of this test is a 'show' test to comply with the law's requirement for a test, then the test might as well be of one month duration and all test data collected could be anything for in the end any anaylsis and conlusions will be ignored. The final conclusion is 'open the border' and any gathered data that supports this may be used and any that does not support this will be ignored.

[Naturist Mark]

? Without seeing the exact test program, it is really impossible to conclude that this program is a failure based only upon the duration of the tests.
Lacking a time machine, what one does is compare the program to what was required by Congress, rely on experts, like Joan Claybrook, and investigate what the same people running the project have done in similar situations. (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6500016152/m/4250093805?r=1140095805#1140095805)

Following these principles it is clear that the project is not in compliance with the law, does not provide sufficient data, and is being done by an agency with a proven record of inadequacy in similar programs. Add to that the fact that the unusually abbreviated test period just happens to end while the chief proponent of the program is still in office and able to direct what conclusions will be made and what results will ensue.

It is clearly a sham.

[Sanslines]

It is clearly a sham.

What is this test program supposed to prove - that Mexican trucks over a certain period of time (one year, two years, three years) meet some kind of safety and inspection standards? What happens after the tests are concluded? Is it then automatically assumed that a certain percentage of Mexican trucks that enter the USA will conform to past test results?

This is like saying that a certain state has a vehicle inspection program for a year or two and then stops all inspections assuming that all subsequent vehicles will more or less conform to past results.

The only conclusion that can be achieved from this test is that initially a very high percentage of trucks from Mexico that enter the USA meet safety standards. If this percentage is not reached, then the status quo remains. If this percentage is reached, then trucks from Mexico are allowed into the USA AND continuous inspections continue to ensure that subsequent trucks do meet USA safety standards.

[Naturist Mark]

What is this test program supposed to prove
No, that is what the test program should have been designed to prove, however it is very clear that this test program is a sham designed to put lipstick on the pig of a policy already decided.

[usmc1]

Yep, still 7 standing in solidarity with American labor, and 3 siding with Bush and obfuscating and sniveling and sulking and parsing and rewriting.

Lordy, give us a huss y'awl.

[Sanslines]

Don't forget the one who should be quarterdecked and brought up against charges of violation of Article 93 of the UCMJ.

[nacktman]

Don't forget the one who should be quarterdecked and brought up against charges of violation of Article 93 of the UCMJ.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif
Unified Code of Military Justice Chapter 893 Article 93: Cruelty and Maltreatment - Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

And what pray tell does this have to do with anything remotely having to do with the topic at hand I wonder!?!

Someone would be better off remaining silent than to prove yet again (and unnecessarily BTW), their ignorance.

It would also behoove them to cease watching so many J*A*G re-runs on TV - that box will rot the brain.