March 26, 2008 7:34 AM
Bush official says cross-border trucks boosts trade
Opening the border to allow truckers from Mexico and the U.S. open access across the border will help the economy - in spite of questions about safety, security and economic concerns - says the secretary of transportation.
The long-delayed provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been under fire for years from unions, environmental groups and congress, which has refused to fund a pilot program and isn't happy the administration has pushed ahead with it anyway.
James Paton reports:
Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, addressing reporters at Maverick Ranch Natural Meats in Denver, said putting the brakes on the initiative would hurt the economy.The pilot program has drawn criticism in Congress, which has voted to stop funding the effort, and has angered unions, including the local Teamsters. Opponents have cited an array of safety, security, environmental and economic concerns.
But Peters, who followed Maverick Ranch President Rex Moore on a tour of the meat facility before holding a news conference outside, said it's "no time for the politics of pessimism."
Without the ability to travel freely in Mexico, "every slab of beef and every sack of potatoes has to come to a complete stop," she said. "Those delays cost money and put businesses like those in Colorado at a disadvantage."
Peters has described the program as a "long-delayed implementation" of North American Free Trade Agreement provisions. Since 1982, Mexican trucks have been restricted to a 25-mile zone near the U.S. border and forced to transfer goods to American trucks. U.S. truckers have faced similar restrictions.
Colorado's exports to Mexico - the second biggest market - decreased about 7 percent to $949.9 million last year. While a weaker dollar made U.S. exports more attractive, the value of Colorado exports overall dipped 7.6 percent in 2007, mainly because of a decline in semiconductor sales.
Ted Textor, political director of the Teamsters Local Union 455, concerned primarily about safety, called the pilot program "reckless" and said that Peters "is thumbing her nose at Congress.""We want her fired," he added.
Two weeks ago Senators clashed with administration officials over the program after a
report raised questions about it.
The pilot program, with 18 Mexican companies participating, began in September. On Monday, the Department of Transportation's inspector general released a report on its first six months, showing that despite the fears about unsafe Mexican trucks on roads across the country, only 6.7% had destinations outside the border zone.Of those 247 trips outside that zone, 89% were to destinations in California. Eight of the companies are based in Baja California.
During Tuesday's hearing, Inspector General Calvin L. Scovel III told the panel that despite plans to inspect every participating truck each time it crosses the border, methods to check driver's licenses and inspection decals were not yet in place. "We don't know that every truck has been inspected every time," he said.
March 26, 2008
8:56 AM
JMH writes:
Just another example of the Bush Administration selling out America piece by piece... Can we just throw this administration out of office already before it can do anymore harm to our country?
At this point, I think it is safe to say that if the Bush administration favors something, it will not be good for America. Period.
March 26, 2008
9:13 AM
just sayin' writes:
Don't forget that Bush also thought it would be a good idea to have the Saudi's secure our ports.
March 26, 2008
9:19 AM
Stand and Wave writes:
Without the ability to travel freely in Mexico, "every slab of beef and every sack of potatoes has to come to a complete stop," she said. "Those delays cost money and put businesses like those in Colorado at a disadvantage."
I didn't just fall off the cabbage wagon. Those trucks better stop and be inspected for foreign pests(insects), contraband and illegal aliens. The bureaucrat that said the above statement, Mary Peters, needs to find another job or else learn about what she is speaking.
March 26, 2008
9:28 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) "Ask not what your country can do for you." writes:
JMH,
On this we agree. I believe that Bush has committed an impeachable offense here.
I am not a protectionist, but I do believe in borders, language and culture defining a country. All are under assault under his so called leadership.
March 26, 2008
9:34 AM
JMH writes:
Hogar,
Truth is, I don't think anyone can defend this. Enough is enough... as far as "impeachable offenses", I know we wont agree, but I think he had reached that threshold long ago.
P.S.
How was your Easter my friend? I hope it was a good one. Mine was uneventful, which is exactly what I was hoping for...
March 26, 2008
9:47 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
The inspector general himself states "We don't know that every truck has been inspected every time"
This in and of itself should indicate that the plan is nowhere near being ready for implementation. I am not in favor of protectionism, but this is just giving another piece of our country away to the thieves.
And in a related story:
http://cbs4denver.com/business/truckers.strike.diesel.2.684735.html
March 26, 2008
9:54 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Jesus died, was buried and rose again. writes:
JMH,
I got together with family and friends and about 15,000 others for the Easter service of Cherry Hills Community Church at Fiddlers Green Amphitheater. Everyone brought food for Compa Food Bank http://www.compa.org/index.php .
We had great music and a great message, enjoyed the sun and it only took 30 minutes for my feet to thaw out.
Glad to hear you enjoyed your day.
March 26, 2008
10:50 AM
Matt writes:
Bush is doing his best to erase America's borders, subject it's citizens to foreign courts and basically take control of America away from Americans. I'm pretty sure McCain will be the next president and will continue the exact same policies.
March 26, 2008
12:08 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
Wouldn't forbidding easy-pass trucking be a better counter against hypothetical nuclear terrorism instead of, say, practicing torture or attacking Iran?
The next time the government tries to scare us about terrorist threats, we can look at our open borders as a measure of how serious the government considers the danger.
March 26, 2008
12:37 PM
Shaggy writes:
This will make T. Kennedy and all the other open border people happy.
America used to be the biggest exporter in the world and now we have become the biggest importer.
We have outsourced the middle American by shipping his jobs overseas and letting the illegal invasion swallow up what was left behind.
Everyone...check this video out on Peters web site...it is hilarious and sad as hell.
http://www.khow.com/pages/boyles.html
March 26, 2008
1:24 PM
Ben's Border Street writes:
Well if Bush said it you know it is exactly the opposite. It's good alright, for him and his cronies. Good Lord, bring on the next presidential clown and their administration already.
March 26, 2008
1:30 PM
RG writes:
Being a transplant from Colorado to Austin, TX, I see first hand what the current amount of truck trafficing does to the I35 corridor here in Texas. Until the U.S. infrastructure is sound enough to handle what will endoubtedly be a large volume increase of possibly unsafe vehicles, I don't support opening the routes. Their current sample size showing the trucks to be safe is just too small and they really don't talk about the impact to major trucking routes....let alone talk about opening our borders to potential threats of terrorism.
March 26, 2008
1:33 PM
JW writes:
"Well if Bush said it you know it is exactly the opposite. It's good alright, for him and his cronies. Good Lord, bring on the next presidential clown and their administration already."
LOL! Boy Ben, youre totally fucked arent you? Spend all your time bashing Dems, so clearly you can't support them. But McSame is just another term of Bush...so clearly you cant support HIM!
Catch 22 baby.
March 26, 2008
1:39 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Does anyone else here feel like the last sane guy at the asylum???
Part of me is really outraged, but another part says "WTF...if the gov't doesn't care, why should I??? My time here is relatively limited, but what will America look like in 40 years??? Our jobs are going away (and we should have seen that coming and gotten educated. Kudos to those who did), the illegals are invading and nobody in power seems to care. Next up in the presidential race is a choice between two who both favor amnesty. Not a bright outlook to be sure, and I am not even heavily attached to this issue. Shaggy must be apopleptic over this thread.
March 26, 2008
1:41 PM
Anonymous writes:
Does Mary and the others in Wash. have blinders on ? Must be the Washington planet they're from.
March 26, 2008
1:44 PM
just sayin' writes:
RG- Austin sure is a nice town. If I had to live in Texas I could do so in Austin or San Antonio. The rest of it sucks.
March 26, 2008
1:51 PM
Ben- Former Democrat writes:
Jw, I believe "we" are screwed. I never had plans to support Juan McCain. I won't support any presidential candidate who ever mentioned giving amnesty to illegal aliens. I also bashed McCain and Bush on certain occasions as I don't care for either of them, but you have your blinders on again.
My very first presidential vote was for Perot, so I guess it is Nadar 08 or a write in candidate.
"Catch 22"? Is this more of your funkatated jw math?
March 26, 2008
2:01 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Ben - A Catch 22 is a situation with no appreciable way out or means of success. Sort of like having two prerequisites that are mutually exclusive. It is a term taken from the Joseph Heller novel of the same name, set during WW2.
March 26, 2008
2:03 PM
JW writes:
"Jw, I believe "we" are screwed."
You maybe. Me? HEHE. See Gr8's post and pay attention to the "education" part. (for those of you who arent educated, no time like the present!)
"I also bashed McCain and Bush on certain occasions as I don't care for either of them, but you have your blinders on again."
Bah. You may bash them ON OCCASION, but you bash dems daily.
""Catch 22"? Is this more of your funkatated jw math?"
Hehe, no idiot. Its a common expression, and a book as well. A "catch 22" is a situation where you are damned if you do, damned if you dont, or between a rock and a hard place...etc. It means you must chose one of two options, and they both suck, so youre screwed either way. Example, youre in the top floor of a sky scraper and trapped by fire. You can stay and die, or jump and die. Catch 22.
March 26, 2008
2:16 PM
JW writes:
Gr8's is a better explanation of Catch 22. You could have more than two choices.
Like Ben, he can vote dem, he can vote repub, he can write in, or he can not vote. Same result any way he choses.
March 26, 2008
2:27 PM
Anonymous writes:
Fellas, lol
I am well aware of what a catch 22 to is, it was sarcasm in regards to jw's delusions of economic education grandeur and numbers. Though I have yet to read the book, thanks anyway.
March 26, 2008
2:33 PM
Anonymous writes:
Ben - Joseph Heller's muse@ 227
March 26, 2008
2:40 PM
JW writes:
"I am well aware of what a catch 22 to is, it was sarcasm in regards to jw's delusions of economic education grandeur and numbers."
Yea, I know what you mean. Calculation of percentages, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction. Its a very, very complicated stuff.
Reminds me of a scene from "In Brughes".
"You have to admit, its really impressive."
"If I was born on a farm....and I was retarded. But...I wasn't. So...it isn't."
March 26, 2008
3:04 PM
Ben writes:
No math is easy... for some.
March 26, 2008
3:14 PM
Ben's Border Street writes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkQR_7Gr8DI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I3vA7szzDI
hell punch in Mexican truckers
March 26, 2008
5:41 PM
Tree writes:
Speak of the Devil, I have Catch 22 in paper back so old the pages are yellow sitting in box at my feet right now. I'm taking another box of books to the used book store for donation.
Normally I would take them to my lake house and shelve them all for everyone to read while they visit as the TV is forbidden at the lake house. But you know me, that ain't gonna' happen b/c I don't have either so far this lifetime. And policies for this cheap labor ain't gonna' help the rest of us get ahead either.
March 26, 2008
5:53 PM
Tree writes:
Shagdog-
So did we go to Iraq for all the right reasons or did we go so a select few and proud team R's could profit? I think the Dem's on this site have been telling you this for 2 straight years now.
I watched the Frontline special about the Iraq conflict last night on PBS. Had to turn it off it was so depressing.
Shag, you seem to enjoy your video. You might want to check out M. Moore's 9/11 and watch the money trail. That's what it is all about "BABY" - Dick Vital
March 26, 2008
7:33 PM
Anonymous writes:
So Bush sez:"Opening the border to allow truckers from Mexico and the U.S. open access across the border will help the economy - in spite of questions about safety, security and economic concerns - says the secretary of transportation"
I think Bushies wants to help the smuggling illegal aliens business sector. Hell those guys are not interested in protecting our borders at all.
March 27, 2008
7:38 AM
once again racism is blamed for concerns about OUR SAFETY writes:
Objections to this "emperor's new clothes" idiocy by Bush-political appointee Mary Peters are about REALISM, NOT pessimism, sheeple! We already know Mexican truckers aren't, and haven't been, subject to the same compliance and enforcement as Canadian truckers, DUH. How about our highway safety? How about those big steep grades on I-70, among others? And no formal process to check IDs and truck safety are in place? This is a no-brainer recipe for DISASTER on our roads. Wake up, sheeple!
March 27, 2008
7:45 AM
Anonymous writes:
This says it all
" the administration has pushed ahead with it anyway"
Voters don't matter.
March 27, 2008
9:06 AM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person, Don't strawman me bro! writes:
"So did we go to Iraq for all the right reasons or did we go so a select few and proud team R's could profit?"--Tree
When a dictator uses weapons of mass destruction to commit ethnic cleansing we have an obligation to man kind to go in a take him out...period.
I will never ever watch anything the looney socialist progressive MM fabricates.
March 27, 2008
9:15 AM
JMH writes:
When a dictator uses weapons of mass destruction to commit ethnic cleansing we have an obligation to man kind to go in a take him out...period.-shaggy
You realize that happened 10 YEARS before we invaded right? I'm sure you were screaming about that 10 years ago, right? Using this logic (which is pure spin on your part) we should invade China right now huh?
You just don't want to face the facts that this whole thing was about the oil & war for profit, do you?
As far as Michael Moore, I know it is convienent for you to just dismiss him as making up the facts", but 5 years after Farignheight 9/11 came out, I would challange you to watch it and tell me what was made up, knowing what we know now. Not that you would have the balls to do it of course.
March 27, 2008
9:27 AM
Shaggy: aka Obamas typical white person, Don't strawman me bro! writes:
JMH,
Glad to see you agree with me that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
I will not watch any fabrication by MM.
Just so I know how far left you are let me ask you a Q.
Do you think our Government blew up the towers?
Do you think GW went into Iraq with the purpose of destroying it and then profit from rebuilding it?
March 27, 2008
10:00 AM
JMH writes:
"Glad to see you agree with me that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."
HAD is the key word shaggy. He HAD them 10 years ago. Clinton and the UN took care of the rest. He DID NOT HAVE them when we invaded. That is a fact and it isn't even debateable anymore. Even teh Bush administration had to admit it!
"I will not watch any fabrication by MM.
Just so I know how far left you are let me ask you a Q.
Do you think our Government blew up the towers?"
Of course you wont watch. God forbid you have to face reality! I am laying out a challange to find anything that isn't true in it, but you revert to the same old tired GOP BS as usual... :It's all a leftwing consperacy". Pathetic how small minded you truely are!
Do I think our government blew up the towers? No. But I would not be surprised to find out the Bush administration let it happen. It gave them thier exuse to invade a country that was no threat to us. Remember, we invaded based on lies. Lies that have been proven to everyone except the 19%ers like yourself that refuse to accept reality!
"Do you think GW went into Iraq with the purpose of destroying it and then profit from rebuilding it?"
Yes I DO!!! This was always about the oil. I know this is another fact you will never face, but wishing it isn't true isn't the same as it not BEING true.
Are you really naive enough to believe that we went there with noble intentions and for the Iraqi people? What am I saying? Of course you are. You prove it everyday that you are willing to swallow any BS told to you by the GOP propagandists...
March 27, 2008
10:41 AM
Shaggy writes:
I see, you are saying we should have took Saddams word that he didn't have any anymore.
JMH, MM is a fruit man, I won't waste my time watching his fabrications..sorry
You can call me whatever you want...The world is better off with out Saddam.
The world will be better off when Iraq is stable and an ally of the U.S.
I am glad McCain sees this.
I know you hate Bush and want to blame him for everything wrong in the world...I am not to happy with him for other reasons so I feel for ya man.
I will tell you something though...I don't care who gets elected and what they promise the people about Iraq...We will be in Iraq for many many years to come...You can take that to the bank.
March 27, 2008
1:27 PM
history buff writes:
There were U.N weapons inspections going on at the time Bush was making his unfounded allegations. Hans Blix said that he couldn't find weapons of mass destruction. Bush said he knew better and he used that sense of fear to invade.
The world may be better without Sadaam, but the debacle against Sadaam could have been handled differently. We didn't have to kill so many Iraqis and we could have preserved the infrastructure. But Bush & Co. are very impatient, intolerant of ambiguity, and basically the stupidest bunch of a-holes to govern since before the Civil War.
March 27, 2008
3:12 PM
JMH writes:
The world will be better off when Iraq is stable and an ally of the U.S.-shaggy
An ally of the US? Man you live in an imaginary world.
Quick question shaggy, and try to answer directly instead of the spin job you usually do.
If Iraq is going to be such an ally, why does Bush and Cheney have to fly into Iraq unannounced and in secret, but Amadinigad visits in braod daylight and gets a "hero's welcome"?
Hate to break it to you, we are not getting a "victory" (though I have yet to see what "victory" even is from you NeoCons, we aren't going to get some great ally out of Iraq and we will have to pull out of Iraq soon, we just can't sustain this occupation anymore. We can't afford it, it is bankrupting us and the American public wants out ASAP and teh Iraqis have consistantly siad they want us out.
So shaggy, if they are some great ally, why do our leaders have to sneak in? Please explain this to me...
March 27, 2008
3:41 PM
Shaggy writes:
"If Iraq is going to be such an ally, why does Bush and Cheney have to fly into Iraq unannounced and in secret, but Amadinigad visits in braod daylight and gets a "hero's welcome"?"---JMH
Lets see..why do important people of the United States need to fly into a Country that is in the midst of a War...hmmmm
Hey I know, Maybe if it got out the terrorists would try to target them.
Please.
It is of the up most importance for the United States to have a say and a stay in Iraq to keep Iran from becoming the lone super power in the middle east.
March 27, 2008
9:18 PM
Anonymous writes:
The world will be better off when Iraq is stable and an ally of the U.S.-shaggy
Just like Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 guys come from? Wow I feel safer already