Marad should not be a dumping ground for retired naval officers who were not savvy and crooked enough to get jobs with defense contractors.
Marad should be run by people with solids expertise in merchant shipping management, shipping operations, shipping finance, shipping law, and ship construction and repair.
I’m not putting Buzby in the crosshairs (yet), nor do I think MSc should be disbanded, not any of the other individual items I mentioned.
Individually dismantling these things would be disastrous.
You said that we mist be desperate to want the Navy to come to us for help. I was simply showing that the Navy has already come to us for help on several fronts so why should should we not ask for Quid Pro Quo??
MARAD also absorbed the United States Maritime Commission (MARCOM) and the United States Maritime Service (USMS) and is supposedly managing those functions as well…
Works for me
And aircraft carriers and their support vessels are cheap to man and operate?
Maintaining the status quo:
“In his new role, Buzby said, he would continue to push to strengthen what he sees as the “three pillars” of MARAD.
The first is the Jones Act, part of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. It requires that goods transported by water from point to point domestically be carried in vessels owned by a U.S. citizen, U.S.-flagged, built in the United States and crewed with U.S. mariners.
The second is the Maritime Security Program, which pays the owners of 60 U.S.-flagged vessels a $5 million yearly stipend in exchange for the ships being made available to the government in times of war or national emergency.
The third is the “Cargo Preference” program, which mandates that at least 50 percent of all government cargo paid for with taxpayer funds, such as U.S. aid cargo, as well as 100 percent of Defense Department cargo, moves on U.S.-flagged ships.”
US$ 5 Mill./yr. and guaranteed return cargo from US at inflated rates?
No wonder several foreign shipowners are eager to put some of their ships under US flag.
Where else could you get such a gift packet at taxpayer’s expense??
Nowhere. We’re big spenders and good tippers. You gotta problem wid dat?
I agree totally. This “war” between MSC, MARAD and the Commercial Sector has went on for much too long. MSTS/MSC was repeatedly questioned by previous Merchant Marine Subcommittee’s about their wanting to displace or replace Commercial Shipping- this Congressional scrutiny dates back to the late 1940’s after Forrestal created MSTS with Adm. Callaghan.
It is my firm belief that the USN’s role in US Merchant Marine affairs is primarily self-serving and in the long run does NOT benefit any of the commercial sector.
The recent rash of retired and former USN and USCG personnel joining commercial companies (without the benefit of ANY commercial experience) in management positions has proved frustrating to many seasoned USMM Officers… These individuals are often hired “because of who they know” and because they can undercut the mainstream due to the companies not having to give them benefits and thereby reduces their cost.
MARAD should be run STRICTLY by commercially experienced management in a commercial fashion. Most of MSC’s Surge Sealift and all other non-UNREP vessels should be transferred to MARAD with MSC retaining only operational control of cargo and delivery- NOT ship management.
As of lately, MSC has been on a push to get all of the Surge Sealift vessels under CIVMAR control- this would be a monumental mistake…
The entire defence Budget of Australia would keep the US carriers at sea for about 130 days. New Zealand would manage 8 days. I think we will keep our heads down.