TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Why, oh, why is the Jones Act not being waived?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why, oh, why is the Jones Act not being waived?

post #1 of 47
6/11/10 at 4:28am
Thread Starter 
The Jones Act is a law enacted in the 1920s. Its a protectionist law that requires vessels working in US waters be built in the US and be crewed by US workers.

Belgian, Norway, and the Dutch have huge skimmer ships. They were used in Kuwait in 1991 when Aramco had a massive spill off the coast. These ships recovered 900,000 barrels of oil in roughly three months. The industry views that effort as the gold standard in oil spill cleanups.

Waivers to this act were granted by the Bush administration in the cleanup from Katrina. When asked about this, Robert Gibbs remarked "if there is a need for a waiver, it will obviously be granted. But we have not had that problem so far."

OK, just when does this white house think it will be appropriate for the waiver to be granted? Now that it is the worst spill in US history, maybe that would be a good time. Just my opinion.

Thad Allen, Admiral of the Coast Guard said "if it gets to this point where a Jones Act waiver is required, we are willing to do that too. Nobody has come to me with a request for a waiver."

After 50 plus days of spillage, you have to ask why these ships are still on the sidelines? Why is such needed help ignored?

Senator Bill Nelson of Florida is hearing from his folks they want all the skimmer ships they can get now that it is spreading along the coast of his state.

What is the holdup???? Come on, Mr. President. Waive the law! And if it's not up to him to do, then who???????
Reply
post #2 of 47
6/11/10 at 7:52am
I think it's all about right hand doesn't know what left hand is doing. Obama needs to appoint one person to oversee and coordinate the cleanup and cut through bureaucratic red tape. But he's obviously too green or too narcissistic to do the obvious.
Reply
post #3 of 47
6/11/10 at 8:17am
It sounds like a good idea...but the moment you play one-upmanship with BP on the cleanup, you will have handed them an Ace to use in court to keep from paying the bill; which will probably eventually fail in court, in 2 or 3 decades.

Choose one.
Reply
post #4 of 47
6/11/10 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
It sounds like a good idea...but the moment you play one-upmanship with BP on the cleanup, you will have handed them an Ace to use in court to keep from paying the bill; which will probably eventually fail in court, in 2 or 3 decades.

Choose one.
For my taxpayer money, I'd rather see the mess cleaned up first and sort out the finances later - clear down to the state/county level. Cut up the red tape and get done what needs to be done, keep track of the cost, and send the bill later.
Reply
post #5 of 47
6/11/10 at 8:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
For my taxpayer money, I'd rather see the mess cleaned up first and sort out the finances later - clear down to the state/county level. Cut up the red tape and get done what needs to be done, keep track of the cost, and send the bill later.
Okie dokie.

I'm bookmarking this one.
Reply
post #6 of 47
6/11/10 at 9:14am
Thread Starter 
Agree, worry about the money later. This is Obamas Katrina on steroids.
Reply
post #7 of 47
6/11/10 at 12:00pm
The Jones Act, and it's companion Passenger Services Act, have essentially killed the American Merchant Marine and American-owned cruise ships.
Reply
post #8 of 47
6/11/10 at 1:15pm
Thread Starter 
Well, why then is it still on the books? What possible good does it do?
Reply
post #9 of 47
6/11/10 at 4:44pm
It supposedly reserves work for American ship owners and crews. What it actually does is raise the cost of everything and, as I said, put American shippers out of business.

In case you're unaware of the act, it has some interesting consequences. It says that if a cargo ship leaves an American port with freight, it has to stop at a non-American port before it can stop at another American port, if the ship is not built, owned, and crewed by Americans. In other words, a French ship could load up with fertilizer in Texas, but before it could deliver that freight to the New Jersey docks, it has to stop at a non-American port. That would be, oh, say, Cuba, the Bahamas, etc. Or if it loaded up Christmas trees in Boston, it has to go to Canada and make a stop before it can deliver them to Savannah.

This leads to some very funny cruises, too. You may have noticed that not many cruise ships leave for Seattle, although they could. If an Alaska cruise left from Seattle, it would have to make a stop in Vancouver (probably) before it could continue on to Alaskan ports.

Cruises leave from Los Angeles (or San Diego) for Hawaii, but they have to make a 15-minute stop in Ensenada, Mexico, before they can continue on to Hawaii. Or, if they embark in Honolulu, they have to make a stop down in Christmas Island (usually done overnight) before they can continue on to the other Hawaiian ports.
Reply
post #10 of 47
6/12/10 at 2:04am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
It supposedly reserves work for American ship owners and crews. What it actually does is raise the cost of everything and, as I said, put American shippers out of business.

In case you're unaware of the act, it has some interesting consequences. It says that if a cargo ship leaves an American port with freight, it has to stop at a non-American port before it can stop at another American port, if the ship is not built, owned, and crewed by Americans. In other words, a French ship could load up with fertilizer in Texas, but before it could deliver that freight to the New Jersey docks, it has to stop at a non-American port. That would be, oh, say, Cuba, the Bahamas, etc. Or if it loaded up Christmas trees in Boston, it has to go to Canada and make a stop before it can deliver them to Savannah.

This leads to some very funny cruises, too. You may have noticed that not many cruise ships leave for Seattle, although they could. If an Alaska cruise left from Seattle, it would have to make a stop in Vancouver (probably) before it could continue on to Alaskan ports.

Cruises leave from Los Angeles (or San Diego) for Hawaii, but they have to make a 15-minute stop in Ensenada, Mexico, before they can continue on to Hawaii. Or, if they embark in Honolulu, they have to make a stop down in Christmas Island (usually done overnight) before they can continue on to the other Hawaiian ports.
That's nuts!
Reply
post #11 of 47
6/17/10 at 5:56am
IMO the Jones Act has not been waived for the same reason that many countries offer to help us has been rejected. Our leaders do not want to waste a good crisis. They might be hoping this disaster is going to help them shove through this cap and trade junk. It is not going to happen. These democrats are shaking in their shoes now and they won't dare pass it. They know their days are numbered.
Reply
post #12 of 47
6/17/10 at 6:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
IMO the Jones Act has not been waived for the same reason that many countries offer to help us has been rejected. Mr. Obama does not want to waste a good crisis. He is hoping this disaster is going to help him shove through this cap and trade junk. It is not going to happen. These democrats are shaking in their shoes now and they won't dare pass it. They know their days are numbered.
Nice to know that good ole' Presidential tradition is being preserved after all. Just like when all those offers of aid were rejected after Katrina...
Reply
post #13 of 47
6/17/10 at 9:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Nice to know that good ole' Presidential tradition is being preserved after all. Just like when all those offers of aid were rejected after Katrina...
Bush administration waived the Jones Act within 5 days of the Katrina storm, and we consequently received aid from foreign vessels.

It's now day 59 after the BP blowup, people are begging Obama to waive the Jones Act so we could receive the help of foreign vessels with skimmers etc., but he refuses to act. He is playing politics with the lives and livelihood of the Gulf coast people (those "small" people), and taking advice of Rahm Emanuel by "never letting a crisis go to waste."

I think Obama's numbers may continue to drop, and the only people still entranced by him are the high school dropouts that voted for him because of his race - and even those that fit that description, but live in Louisiana have changed their mind about him. Too bad the 2012 election isn't this Nov.!!!
Reply
post #14 of 47
6/17/10 at 10:03am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Nice to know that good ole' Presidential tradition is being preserved after all. Just like when all those offers of aid were rejected after Katrina...
It seems you tend to excuse the present administration by pointing out other administrations problems. We have to live in the present. It's like saying, well all the other kids steal, so it must be ok for me to do it too.

I posted a thread a bit back saying no one came to our aid during Katrina. And I think it was you who pointed out that other countries did indeed come to our aid.

I could be wrong, I couldn't locate the thread. Sorry if I am mistaken.
Reply
post #15 of 47
6/17/10 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
IMO the Jones Act has not been waived for the same reason that many countries offer to help us has been rejected. Mr. Obama does not want to waste a good crisis. He is hoping this disaster is going to help him shove through this cap and trade junk. It is not going to happen. These democrats are shaking in their shoes now and they won't dare pass it. They know their days are numbered.
From what I have heard is the Jones Act is not being waived because of the Unions. Barack kisses bootie to the Union and the Union don't want foreigners taking THEIR work away.
Reply
post #16 of 47
6/17/10 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
It seems you tend to excuse the present administration by pointing out other administrations problems. We have to live in the present. It's like saying, well all the other kids steal, so it must be ok for me to do it too.

I posted a thread a bit back saying no one came to our aid during Katrina. And I think it was you who pointed out that other countries did indeed come to our aid.

I could be wrong, I couldn't locate the thread. Sorry if I am mistaken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...ricane_Katrina
No worries, the U.S. accepted aid from foreign countries for Katrina. Some were not taken up on their offers, some were.
Reply
post #17 of 47
6/17/10 at 10:43am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9363899/

Quote:
Baby food from Israel, blankets from India
Foreign aid for Katrina flows into Arkansas air base

5:14 a.m. PT, Mon., Sept . 19, 2005

JACKSONVILLE, Ark. - Baby food from Israel. Blankets from Egypt and India. Tents from Russia. UNICEF school supplies sent via Denmark. Generators from China. Rice from Thailand. Bottled water and detergent from Tunisia.

The Little Rock Air Force Base has become the U.S. clearinghouse for an extraordinary international outpouring of relief supplies for Hurricane Katrina’s victims.
You know if MSNBC said it, it MUST be true.
Reply
post #18 of 47
6/17/10 at 10:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
It seems you tend to excuse the present administration by pointing out other administrations problems. We have to live in the present. It's like saying, well all the other kids steal, so it must be ok for me to do it too.

I posted a thread a bit back saying no one came to our aid during Katrina. And I think it was you who pointed out that other countries did indeed come to our aid.

I could be wrong, I couldn't locate the thread. Sorry if I am mistaken.
Oh, but I said that other countries offered aid, most of it was turned down, just like in this instance. About 5% of it was accepted, but that appears to have been tied up in red tape for years, and almost none of it used... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801113_pf.html

And I'm not using one to excuse the other...I pointing out the how hypocritical it is to condemn one administration for it, while giving another a pass.
Reply
post #19 of 47
6/17/10 at 11:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Oh, but I said that other countries offered aid, most of it was turned down, just like in this instance. About 5% of it was accepted, but that appears to have been tied up in red tape for years, and almost none of it used... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...801113_pf.html

And I'm not using one to excuse the other...I pointing out the how hypocritical it is to condemn one administration for it, while giving another a pass.
As I recall, this thread is about the Jones Act, and why it is not waived for this crisis, and I pointed out here that the act was lifted within 5 days by the Bush Admin. and we are now at 59 days and counting and Obama shows no interest in lifting the act here so we could get help from foreign vessels in the clean up operation.

So where's the pass?
Reply
post #20 of 47
6/17/10 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
As I recall, this thread is about the Jones Act, and why it is not waived for this crisis, and I pointed out here that the act was lifted within 5 days by the Bush Admin. and we are now at 59 days and counting and Obama shows no interest in lifting the act here so we could get help from foreign vessels in the clean up operation.

So where's the pass?
It was about the Jones act. Then that was compared to refusal of ALL aid right here... ...and I was replying to that
Reply
post #21 of 47
6/17/10 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Nice to know that good ole' Presidential tradition is being preserved after all. Just like when all those offers of aid were rejected after Katrina...
Mike you were the first to mention another presidential administration. I never compared this administration to another. I did not agree with every thing George Bush said and did. At any rate, he is not the leader of this country now. What was done in the past has nothing to do with what is happening now. A person in leadership does not have to know the solution to every problem. But they do need to surround themselves with competent advisors. Cut the red tape, make it happen. In a country like America and with knowledge and help from our allies, I know there must be an answer somewhere and a way to get it done. Get off the pot and do it. This country is depending on it's leadership. Where is it?
Reply
post #22 of 47
6/17/10 at 11:33am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
Mike you were the first to mention another presidential administration. I never compared this administration to another. I did not agree with every thing George Bush said and did. At any rate, he is not the leader of this country now. What was done in the past has nothing to do with what is happening now. A person in leadership does not have to know the solution to every problem. But they do need to surround themselves with competent advisors. Cut the red tape, make it happen. In a country like America and with knowledge and help from our allies, I know there must be an answer somewhere and a way to get it done. Get off the pot and do it. This country is depending on it's leadership. Where is it?
I also did not agree with everything Bush did. How long will it take before we can get on with the future and stop blaming the past?

Its getting old.
Reply
post #23 of 47
6/17/10 at 11:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
I also did not agree with everything Bush did. How long will it take before we can get on with the future and stop blaming the past?

Its getting old.
It isn't blaming the past, any further than pointing out the every action in law and government sets a precedent...what worked before will work again. So, if the actions of one President are not criticized, but similar actions by the next are, then that displays a double standard. Of course, there is the whine "but this is different!" Well, no, it isn't different. It is another very bad situation being handled badly. But the only difference with the "this is different" is nothing more than "but we don't LIKE this guy!"
Reply
post #24 of 47
6/17/10 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
It isn't blaming the past, any further than pointing out the every action in law and government sets a precedent...what worked before will work again. So, if the actions of one President are not criticized, but similar actions by the next are, then that displays a double standard. Of course, there is the whine "but this is different!" Well, no, it isn't different. It is another very bad situation being handled badly. But the only difference with the "this is different" is nothing more than "but we don't LIKE this guy!"
So are you saying here that because Bush made mistakes the same thing will work in this administration. I didn't like everything Bush did and I like even less what this administration is doing. IMO, it is kicking a dead horse to even speak of what Bush did or didn't do. He is gone. Two wrongs don't make it right.

Mike do you argue with sign posts??
Reply
post #25 of 47
6/17/10 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
So are you saying here that because Bush made mistakes the same thing will work in this administration. I didn't like everything Bush did and I like even less what this administration is doing. IMO, it is kicking a dead horse to even speak of what Bush did or didn't do. He is gone. Two wrongs don't make it right.

Mike do you argue with sign posts??
No, I'm saying that if a mistake isn't condemned as a mistake, then it's going to be repeated. If it was wrong the first time, then the one doing it the first time should have been beaten over the head with it.
Reply
post #26 of 47
6/17/10 at 12:34pm
Like others have said, Bush deserves criticism over Katrina, but if Bush had waited 59 days to request foreign help, he would have been burned at the stake.
Reply
post #27 of 47
6/17/10 at 7:25pm
Well, did Barack lift the Jones Act today? Nope, didn't think so.

Bush lifts it in five days, it is now 12 times that, oh well guess Barack doesn't think the Unions will vote for him in 2012 if he actually does something to plug the well.


"Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?" "No dear, the Unions won't let me."
Reply
post #28 of 47
6/17/10 at 7:44pm
The Jones Act should have been waived right away and the offer of assistance by the Dutch should have been accepted. The other problem is the EPA. They won't allow the use of those highly effective Dutch skimming vessels because there is a small amount of residue that would be released back into the ocean with the sea water after skimming. According to their lack of logic it must be better to have thousands of barrels of oil on the surface of the Gulf so it can wash up on the coast and in wetlands instead of a few drops at a time being released back into the ocean.
Reply
post #29 of 47
6/17/10 at 7:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essayons89 View Post
The Jones Act should have been waived right away and the offer of assistance by the Dutch should have been accepted. The other problem is the EPA. They won't allow the use of those highly effective Dutch skimming vessels because there is a small amount of residue that would be released back into the ocean with the sea water after skimming. According to their lack of logic it must be better to have thousands of barrels of oil on the surface of the Gulf so it can wash up on the coast and in wetlands instead of a few drops at a time being released back into the ocean.
Exactly, somebody needs to get past the red tape, the EPA, and anyone else standing in the way of cleaning up the oil. They won't waive the Jones Act because of the Unions. Bureacracy, it is disgusting.
Reply
post #30 of 47
6/17/10 at 10:23pm
As I recall, Bush and FEMA were beaten soundly about the head and every other part about how the Katrina/New Orleans disaster was handled. I don't think there is a person here that would say that there were no mistakes made and no room for improvement. There was, certainly. And there's that old saying that those who do not learn from past are doomed to repeat it. Although Obama seems quite content quoting all the ways that Bush has messed up, his actions say that he wasn't really paying much attention to the mistakes that were made and learning how to improve the process if/when another crisis happens on his watch.

However, for the sake of future legalities nothing is done by a President who campaigned as being more concerned for the environment than any other in history. Mike, that's the only explanation I've heard for why the Obama Administration is dragging its heels with this whole thing - and that includes any explanation from the Administration! That's just pathetic, IMO.

Obama's words seem to indicate that he is more interested in making sure BP pays with blood and tears as well as dollars than he is in making sure that it is cleaned and that people who are losing their livelihoods are able to work again.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Why, oh, why is the Jones Act not being waived?