[QUOTE=RkyMtn Paul;38292]Maersk Alabama anyone? Most, if not all, are under the MSP (maritime security program)…[/QUOTE]
MSP, does this mean taxpayer funded?
Maersk Alabama, US flag, US crewed, heroes all. Can carry guns to anyone else’s country we desire yet can not carry a container from Miami to New York.
It’s the small details I do not understand. If the Jones Act was working then then either the Maersk Alabama would be US built or not even allowed to be working for the Government, thus forcing it to be built here.
[QUOTE=gCaptain;37908]favors labor unions over consumers.[/QUOTE]
I guess no one has a complaint about the price of vehicles because of the unions? I worked at Delco Products back in '91 in the engineering office, prior to that time they “moved” operations to Mexico. All the United Rubber Worker union members were paid 3/4 pay to sit in a conference room (bring a pillow, blanket, cards, watch tv, etc.) to sit and wait for a “call” to come down on the floor. Using the Jones Act to justify why products cost so much is lame. I think EVERYONE inside the beltway should be voted out and new “meat” in there. Talk about being real discouraged about the good ole US of A. Does not matter the political party they are all morons!
[QUOTE=RkyMtn Paul;38292]… to ensure that we have ships and mariners to supply our troops and assist with US Aid …[/QUOTE]
Call me cynical but the “honorable senator from Arizona” has his head up his two sided ass. Cabotage, and that is the part of the Jones Act that he and his contributors want everyone to believe is the evil of the Act is part of nearly every maritime nation’s policy. We can’t haul domestic cargo in Japan, they can’t do it here. This latest attack on the Jones Act is nothing more than another effort to literally ship more American jobs out of this country so a few fat contributors can fatten his own accounts.
You cannot fly your family from Chicago to Orlando on Somalian Airlines, why is the senator so eager to allow the same people to carry our wheat from Idaho to North Carolina? A foreign air carrier cannot even land in the US unless it has been vetted by the US government and shown to be competent, have the maintenance and training facilities required to meet international standards and the financial ability to maintain those standards. Even when it obtains landing rights, it cannot carry domestic passengers between US airports. I haven’t heard much rumbling from congress or the lobbyists for “reform” of air carrier cabotage. Personally I think all members of the US congress should be required to fly wherever they go on Kyrgyzstan Airways or some other goat carrier. If it’s good enough for the domestic maritime trades it ought to be good enough for their travel needs.
This whole bill is a cynical attempt to undo what little protection remains for the American merchant marine. It was submitted under the cloud of fear, panic, and misinformation surrounding the gulf oil spill.
If the good senator gave a damn about American shipping and the American merchant marine he would have expended equal energy to make sure that as long as a single American ship of the Ready Reserve Force sat at the dock, no American government or military cargo would ever load on a foreign flag, foreign manned vessel anywhere in the world. Where is this American “hero” when our own military contracts with foreign carriers to lift American military cargoes from American ports to deliver to American forces abroad? Why are American cargoes paid for by American taxpayers loaded on foreign ships while American mariners are forced to work ashore because the are no jobs? Why are American ships, supported by American taxpayers for the purpose of ensuring a sealift capacity in the name of national security allowed to rot at the dock while foreign ships carry our military cargoes? Cargo preference to the good senator and his ilk means preference goes to whoever contributes the most to their campaign coffers.
To close this rant, does anyone else find it incredible that the good senator’s mailbox is full and he is taking no input from those who don’t have his personal contact and contribution information? Has anyone ever tried to submit a message to one of these pirates on his/her website. Unless you provide an address in their constituency, they won’t accept it. They will however take money from any source, no questions asked. Who is paying this American hero to slap the face of the American mariner, the ones who supported him in Vietnam and who manned the ships that did NOT turn around and refuse to enter the Persian Gulf? Where does he think the mariners will come from next time we have to reflag a fleet of ships to have a reason to protect them as we did in the “tanker war”? The crews of those ships were real heroes, they were American mariners, the same people John McCain now wants to flush down the lobbyist’s toilet. Has his memory faded as quickly as his regard and respect for the nation that made him a hero, or does he only remember who wrote the last check he cashed? Shame on you John McCain.
[QUOTE=Old Bakelite;38309]MSP, does this mean taxpayer funded?
Maersk Alabama, US flag, US crewed, heroes all. Can carry guns to anyone else’s country we desire yet can not carry a container from Miami to New York.
It’s the small details I do not understand. If the Jones Act was working then then either the Maersk Alabama would be US built or not even allowed to be working for the Government, thus forcing it to be built here.[/QUOTE]
Jones Act only applies to coastwise voyages. Maersk Alabama sails foreign.
A U.S. flagged, non-Jones Act ship (no coastwise endorsement on the ship’s registry) can run coastwise in the U.S. It can call into U.S. ports to load and discharge cargo. What it can not do is discharge cargo loaded in a U.S. port in another U.S. port. As long as all the cargo discharged is of foreign origin and all cargo loaded in the U.S. stays on board to be discharged foreign the ship will be in compliance with the Jones Act.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;38329] As long as all the cargo discharged is of foreign origin and all cargo loaded in the U.S. stays on board to be discharged foreign the ship will be in compliance with the Jones Act.[/QUOTE]
Then it is not engaged in coastwise trade. When most people in the shipping industry say a ship is “sailing coastwise” they mean it to be engaged in coastwise trade, transporting domestic cargo between American ports. The route it takes between ports is not what makes it coastwise trade.
[QUOTE=Steamer;38348]Then it is not engaged in coastwise trade. When most people in the shipping industry say a ship is “sailing coastwise” they mean it to be engaged in coastwise trade, transporting domestic cargo between American ports. The route it takes between ports is not what makes it coastwise trade.[/QUOTE]
A U.S. flagged, non-Jones Act ship (no coastwise endorsement on the ship’s registry)can sail along the coast and call into U.S. ports to load and discharge cargo. What it can not do is discharge cargo loaded in a U.S. port in another U.S. port. As long as all the cargo discharged is of foreign origin and all cargo loaded in the U.S. stays on board to be discharged foreign the ship will be in compliance with the Jones Act.
I really don’t believe this bill is going to go far as it has been referred to committee but any mariner that ever again votes for McCain, Hutchinson, Cronyn or Lemieux is stabbing themselves in the back.
All we have left is a vote since we can’t afford lobbyists.
[B]I agree that keeping the Jones Act is in our best interest, as USA mariners and for our country. [/B]
[B] I have found it interesting though how many of you who have been pro McCain/Palin earlier are now calling him an old fart amongst other things. You might read the definition that I have enclosed for [/B][B][U]hypocrisy[/U][/B][B]:[/B] [B]a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; [I]especially[/I] : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion. [/B]
[B] It would appear that many in this forum are prepared to throw crap at the democratic President over health care and his support of the American Unions, but when it is your job the Republicans are after…well let’s just say it’s abit like whining and you don’t sound so virtuous now.[/B]
[I]“This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact – maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in the midst of such difficult economic times.[/I]
Let me correct that statement…it would end up with 22% more profits for corporations that no longer have their HQ’s on US Soil. Can we take the 22% and any additional costs the consumer would end up paying out of McCain’s fortune? The consumer in Hawaii would never see those cost savings but the corporations would be able to give their CEOs an additional 22% bonus that year!
[QUOTE=captobie;38321]Jones Act only applies to coastwise voyages. Maersk Alabama sails foreign.[/QUOTE]
I understand this part. What I do not understand is that if the Jones Act is supposed make us have a strong fighting Navy and strong Merchant Marine to back it up in time of crisis, why should we be allowed to bring in Foreign tonnage like the Alabama to do the dirty work for us? Why don’t we just can this MSP program as well?
John McCain has no love for the U.S. Merchant Marine. To understand why you need to understand the Navy/ Merchant Marine relationship during WWII. Both his father and grandfather where both Naval Officers during the war. The Navy did not like that the U.S. Merchant Marine did not come under the complete control. Also you had rumors of strikes, the people sailing on merchant vessels were draft dodgers, and we had high salaries. (http://www.usmm.org/rumors.html) The good senator has repeated blocked legislation that would honor or aid those who served on merchant vessels during WWII even though “[B]1 in 26 mariners[/B] serving aboard merchant ships in World WW II [B]died in the line of duty[/B], suffering a [B]greater percentage[/B] of war-related deaths than all other U.S. services.” (http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html) So it is not surprising that McCain would introduce legislation to repeal the Jones Act.
So what would happen if the Jones Act was repealed? Would goods get cheaper? Probably, just look at what happened when companies outsourced manufacturing jobs to foreign lands. But does benefit out weigh the costs? What would happen if a foreign sailor flys into a US port city, jump onto a foreign boat, works in our harbors and off our shores, then flys home? Is that considered illegal immigration or the cost of doing business? Would they be as well trained as US sailors? Would they have a good grasp of the English language because effective communication prevents accidents? Would they abide by our stricter laws or try to bring us down to the international minuimum? Would they work hard to protect our nations waters? Would opening up our waters enable terrorists and smugglers greater access to our ports? Can foreign ships be counted on to move US military supplies when US foreign policy is unpopular?
These are the questions our elected representives should be asking. These are the questions the press should be asking. Unfortantly we, the United Stated Merchant Marine, has sat in the shadows so long the people of the United States don’t what it is we do. I tell people I’m an officer in the US Merchant Marine and they either ask what is that of think I’m a Naval or Marine Corps officer. We need to band together and inform the public of what we do and why we are the best people to sail the waters of the United States.
Because the Jones Act was never intended to prevent Americans from owning and operating ships that are built elsewhere, it only says those ships cannot operate in domestic coastwise trade. The Alabama and many other ships are not “doing the dirty work” they are conducting American business, paying American taxes, and employing American seafarers.
Why don’t we just can this MSP program as well?
Because, like the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, it is considered a good value to the Department of Defense. Not only that, it has brought 42 ships under the American flag and provided jobs for many American seafarers as well as the shoreside support companies who sell everything from groceries to crescent wrenches in American ports.
And what is with the “we” thing? If you were an American seafarer you would know who feeds you and how the industry works and hopefully a bit about the history behind the few programs we have left to protect it from the likes of McCain and others who would sell it for a vote or a vacation trip on the company jet.
[QUOTE=Steamer;38575]Not only that, it has brought 42 ships under the American flag and provided jobs for many American seafarers as well as the shoreside support companies who sell everything from groceries to crescent wrenches in American ports…[/QUOTE]
I would be interested to know the percentage of American seafarers employed on non Jones Act vessels vs those employed on Jones Act vessels?
QUOTE=Steamer;38575]And what is with the “we” thing?[/QUOTE]
Ouch! This sounds like a cheap (and unnecessary), insult…is that how it was intended? And pardon me for my lack of knowledge. If I should stop asking stupid questions as I try to understand, just let me know, but for now, here is another one:
If the Jones Act is supposed to be protecting American seafarers and shipbuilding, how come those 42 vessels above were not built here?
I don’t think anyone was trying to insult you but we all get a little defensive when it comes to the Jones Act because it is the only thing protecting the US mariner.
As far as your questions go.
Vessels not built in the USA but now engaged in work normally reserved for Jones Act vessels were built elsewhere and reflagged. Is this allowed? Yes, but it’s a tough row to hoe. Why weren’t they built in the USA? Because it is more expensive to build a vessel in the USA as opposed to building one in Korea. Building a vessel in the USA incurs about the same cost as building one in Norway, Japan and other advanced countries. All advanced first world countries have shipyards capable of building excellent vessels [except for Northup Grumman in the US].
How many American seafarers are employed on non Jones Act vessels? Quite a few, primarily those employed by the likes of Transocean and other offshore companies who are operating foreign flag vessels in US waters and have to employ US citizens under the Jones Act. They had rather not but the Jones Act says they must and this is a good thing for keeping the unemployment rate down. No one has gone bankrupt abiding by the Jones Act contrary to what the lobbyists would have you believe.
If there was an act similar to the Jones Act that protected land based workers from non US citizens taking their jobs we wouldn’t have to be listening to all the current illegal immigrant political BS.
The Jones Act preserves the maritime trade including shipbuilding, business ownership and mariner employment within US waters to US citizens. Personally I think that’s a good thing. If it means I have to pay a few cents more for a product delivered by a US vessel I will do so, I support my fellow working folks