Wow - MARAD Chief - strong words on the jones act

In Service MARAD
44

Steamer,

I believe John’s theory was that because the US was caught flatfooted at our entrance to WWI that the Congress wanted to ensure the US had enough merchant vessels in the event that another foreign intervention in Europe was required in the future, however with so many US built vessels in the period 1918 to 1920 the need for new merchant shipbuilding in the US disintegrated during the period 1921 through 1936 when storm clouds once again were growing to both America’s east and west.

Franklin Roosevelt saw that the US was again suffering from a merchant fleet far too antiquated and small to be an effective war asset and so the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 was passed by the Congress which was truly an massive shift in US maritime policy and spending. Direct building of vessels to the Federal Government’s account which were then chartered to US flag operators plus the advent of CDS and ODS subsidies. It was the beginning the the greatest shipbuilding effort in human history under men such as Emory Land and my personal hero, Howard Vickery. Literally, 6000 merchant vessels over 1000grt all built in the USA in the span of less than a decade but once the wars ended, narrow minded personages in Washingtoon began to give it all away yet again. For three decades after the War, the US flag was seen fly in posts around the globe but the old warhorse ships grew old and tired…by 1980 it was time to rebuild the WWII era fleet but it was not to be. You and I were both there when in 1982 Ronald Raygun stuck a long knife into the belly of the US Merchant Marine and the decline ever since has been precipitous. Terminating CDS and ODS caused a permanent cessation of the construction of liner ships for foreign trade in the USA as well as a unrelenting decline in the number of any ship flying the US flag calling in a foreign port with commercial cargo aboard. All that is now left are building merchant ships in the US for domestic trades and we see a ceaseless effort by many to also take that one away so that even greater corporate profits are earned for Wall Street investment bankers.

Of course, KP also came out of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and I only wished Ronnie Raygun stuck the knife into its belly in 1982 instead of the shipbuilding and operating subsidies. Probably would have save much more money in the end.

.

45

[QUOTE=Steamer;168561]Yes, and I read it literally as well as figuratively.[/QUOTE]

Well first of all I shared my thoughts after asking “Why do the Brits get so pissy about the Jones Act?”. So clearly I’m not an expert and haven’t put all the pieces together (or I wouldn’t have asked).

But I do agree with c.captain’s clarification of my thoughts (except the part about knifing KP).

46

Even if 1936 was influenced by wartime profiteers, everyone saw the inevitable coming and it certainly didn’t make it any less necessary to ensure the success of the allies. Without it, and the further build up of US merchant shipping as we finally entered, there might still be a Third Reich.

48

Anyone know of any good books on the history of this stuff? I would love to read a “Team of Rivals”-style account of how the writing, lobbying, and passing of both the Jones Act and the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 came to pass. Does such an account exist?

49

[QUOTE=c.captain;168550]When Donald Trump becomes president he can nominate Max Hardberger to be Maritime Administrator and FoC ships will be everywhere! Mind you, not that Trump will be Pres but you can just imagine his support of the Act? His entire agenda will be Profits Uber Alles![/QUOTE]

This is very true and a good point. It amazes me how many of my friends and coworkers support Trump, but they do not realize that one of his first actions will likely be to eliminate the Jones Act, and our jobs with it.

50

[QUOTE=john;168566] (except the part about knifing KP).[/QUOTE]

That was the best part and would contribute more than anything except getting the CG out of licensing and lobbyists out of finding ways to kill the USMM.

51

[QUOTE=Hove2;168545]" You do know that Finland fought on the side of Nazi-Germany during World War II?"

No I don’t. The Finns were “co-belligerents” against Stalin’s Russia, not allies with the Nazis. There’s a difference. And the Finns had a decent excuse for it anyway. Read up on the “The Winter War”.[/QUOTE]

Like I don’t already know about the Winter War. Do not excuse the Continuation War that was a war of aggression as and allied of cause with Nazi-Germany.

But what debt did Finland pay back to USA? I’m guessing they didn’t have one to pay back.

And I’m still waiting on the numbers and source on Norway’s WW2 debt to USA.
Norway covered war expenses with the money made by Nortraship.

52

[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;168571]Anyone know of any good books on the history of this stuff? I would love to read a “Team of Rivals”-style account of how the writing, lobbying, and passing of both the Jones Act and the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 came to pass. Does such an account exist?[/QUOTE]

there are several which tell the tale but if I was to recommend just one, it would be “Sailing on Friday, the Perilous Voyage of America’s Merchant Marine” by John Butler

everyone of my brothers here on gCaptain.com needs to have this one book in their libraries…that, and all of Maximus Turdburger’s epic tomes

53

[QUOTE=LI_Domer;168568]Even if 1936 was influenced by wartime profiteers, everyone saw the inevitable coming and it certainly didn’t make it any less necessary to ensure the success of the allies. Without it, and the further build up of US merchant shipping as we finally entered, there might still be a Third Reich.[/QUOTE]

I believe the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 was not to fatten the profits of the shipbuilders but more as a one) depression relief effort for an industry on it’s face and two) that Roosevelt was a maritime minded man and knew having a fleet of US merchant vessels was something of value to the Nation.

the major wartime shipbuilding effort began when the British Merchant Shipbuilding Mission paid a visit to the US and Canada in 1940 to contract for the building of vessels in North American to replace some of the tonnage being lost by them in the North Atlantic to Germany’s U-Boat war. The first 60 Liberty Ships were actually ordered by the Brits to be built in new shipyards established in Portland, ME and Richmond, CA. It didn’t take President Roosevelt long to realize that ships such as those were something the US also needed so it was not long afterwards that the contracts for an additional 200 of the ship which was to become the true “Liberty” design (EC2-S-C1) were ordered. After Pearl Harbor happened, those initial 200 rapidly became more than 2700. All built in the period from late 1941 through 1945! That is more than one Liberty delivered per day throughout the War while we were also building a few thousand of a whole range of other classes of merchant ships and thousands of warships all in four short years!

54

I too have all of Florian’s books. I scoop them up for <$1 on Amazon whenever possible and use them rather than toilet paper, coarse texture but cheaper than TP and removes such literary nonsense from circulation.

55

Mikey and I are in New York attending Tradewind’s annual Jones Act Conference… "[B]Chip[/B]” Jaenichen just stepped down from the keynote speech. The speech started with the story of George Washington cutting down the Cherry Tree then he proved how that story is false. He then said the number one risk to the Jones Act is the amount of mis-information which surrounds us. From the cost of milk in Hawaii to the financial troubles in Peurto Rico and how/why waivers are given, he slayed many misconceptions with facts and statistics. He mentioned that the date 1920 is important (thanks Chip!) and briefly mentioned historic misconceptions. He concluded by reaffirming both MARAD’s and the Obama Administration’s support of the Jones Act.

He didn’t say much that hasn’t already been posted to this thread except for one thing… He made it very clear that (at least from MARAD’s perspective) the Jones Act is not about protectionism and that domestic trade and commerce are ancillary benefits. He said clearly and with conviction that the Jones Act exists today, above all else, [U][B][I]to support national defense[/I][/B][/U].

He did not answer any questions after the speech.

56

[QUOTE=john;168838]He didn’t say much that hasn’t already been posted to this thread except for one thing… He made it very clear that (at least from MARAD’s perspective) the Jones Act is not about protectionism and that domestic trade and commerce are ancillary benefits. He said clearly and with conviction that the Jones Act exists today, above all else, [U][B][I]to support national defense[/I][/B][/U].

He did not answer any questions after the speech. [/QUOTE]

I wished he have taken questions because then he could have been asked by you how MarAd is fostering the health of the entire US flagged merchant marine instead of ONLY the Jones Act trades because all US flagged vessels and services are defense assets to the Nation. He could have been asked about new foreign trades being opened to US ships? the export of US produced energy on US flagged ships? eliminating of using ANY foreign ship to carry one ounce of DoD cargo anywhere on the planet? getting PL480 cargoes back to 50% in US ships (thanks Mr. President for that one)? is the US Ex-Im bank coming back and will Ex-Im exports still be reserved for US flag vessels? and my personal favorite, getting all the foreign ships and mariners out of the US GoM?

John, I ask that you request an interview with Mr. Jaenichen to put him on the record regarding his answers to each and everyone of these questions? You are a voice for the US citizen mariner and the man has a duty to come forward and make a clear public statement concerning the entire industry and not just the domestic trades part.

I hope you will and that he will grant you your request?

In the mean time…many thanks from this American mariner for your efforts!

.

57

missed this one earlier but I like it!

[B]The White House Does Not Support a House Bill to Repeal the US Oil Export Ban[/B]

September 15, 2015 by Reuters

WASHINGTON, The White House said on Tuesday it does not support a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the 40-year-old ban on exports of crude oil.

“This is a policy decision that is made over at the Commerce Department, and for that reason, we wouldn’t support legislation like the one that’s been put forward by Republicans,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at a briefing.

“The administration believes that the American people are better served by making sure that we pursue the kind of approach that also invests in renewable energy,” he said.

The full House is expected to pass the bill to repeal the ban in coming weeks, after a vote on Thursday in the chamber’s energy panel.

Energy interests say the domestic drilling boom could soon choke on a glut of crude if producers are not allowed to ship the oil to consumer countries in Asia and Europe.

A similar bill faces a tough battle in the Senate, however. Even if all 54 Republicans in the 100-member Senate voted for the bill, they would need support from six Democrats to overcome a procedural roadblock.

In July, the Senate energy panel passed a bill to lift the ban, but no Democrats voted for it.

The top Democrat on the panel, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state, has said she needs to know more about whether lifting the ban would be good for consumers. Cantwell has also voiced concerns that repealing the ban could increase the number of trains carrying oil through her state.

58

[QUOTE=john;168838]

He made it very clear that (at least from MARAD’s perspective) the Jones Act is not about protectionism and that domestic trade and commerce are ancillary benefits. He said clearly and with conviction that the Jones Act exists today, above all else, [U][B][I]to support national defense[/I][/B][/U]. [/QUOTE]

Sounds like a bit of revisionist story telling to keep the halls of MARAD echoing with the pitter patter of little admiral shoes.

If MARAD or DoD gave a single little tiny turd about the role of the USMM in national defence, the RRF vessels rotting away all around the country would be broken out and used whenever a DoD cargo needed to be moved somewhere and no DoD cargo would ever ride on a foreign bottom. Those ships and their trade routes are rarely, if ever, Jones Act routes and even if they were, the ships are public vessels and the Act does not apply so the national defence statement is a diversion.

MARAD’s role should be to support and promote American shipping and American mariners, not just provide a retirement income for Admirals and keep the clubhouse at Kings Point open.

I hear his “strong words” as a smokescreen for continuing to do nothing to support the US mariner or the USMM, either coastwise or blue water. Ask the questions that C.Cap proposed and hold the administrator to the questions and don’t settle for smoke and mirror responses.

59

[QUOTE=Steamer;168875]Sounds like a bit of revisionist story telling to keep the halls of MARAD echoing with the pitter patter of little admiral shoes.

If MARAD or DoD gave a single little tiny turd about the role of the USMM in national defence, the RRF vessels rotting away all around the country would be broken out and used whenever a DoD cargo needed to be moved somewhere and no DoD cargo would ever ride on a foreign bottom. Those ships and their trade routes are rarely, if ever, Jones Act routes and even if they were, the ships are public vessels and the Act does not apply so the national defence statement is a diversion.

MARAD’s role should be to support and promote American shipping and American mariners, not just provide a retirement income for Admirals and keep the clubhouse at Kings Point open.

I hear his “strong words” as a smokescreen for continuing to do nothing to support the US mariner or the USMM, either coastwise or blue water. Ask the questions that C.Cap proposed and hold the administrator to the questions and don’t settle for smoke and mirror responses.[/QUOTE]

or the American shipbuilder.

If the Jones Act was all about national defense, how does that relate to MARAD’s continuing support of MSP? A small fleet of 47 vsls, expanded to 60, actually more than that. Foreign build, given cargo pref and subsidized to boot run by a U.S. shell corp for foreign owners. This fleet carries military cargo, not the Jones Act boats. MARAD could ratchet down on this fleet, but I would surmise the Administrator would give the same answer to MSP law that he should give about jones Act. These are laws, and MARAD has to work within the legal construct Congress has made and track accordingly. That’s a lot more truthy than suggesting it’s a considered decision to ‘support’ Jones Act, which was primarily to ensure among other things US builders who could support a national need to build ships when required for us and the allies–a function that doesn’t mean much when any foreign PCTC can get a US flag and preference, despite foreign control and get crew subsidies for the privilege. I don’t see Matson, (former) Horizon or Tote vsls on this list, they don’t get $3mil a year, but the foreign build ones do? Maybe the protections of the Jones Act trade are enough–no, wait, he said it’s not protectionist… Maybe they aren’t trying to be enrolled, maybe the vsls are too darned old, I dunno, but seems like Jones Act hulls should get to fill this list if the Jones Act is about national defense.

http://www.marad.dot.gov/wp-content/uploads/pdf/MSP-Participants-7-1-15.pdf

61

This is just another example of how so much that government does is a counterproductive joke.

62

This is the most encouraging stuff I’ve heard in weeks- nay, months. Bully for this Administrator. I had lost faith. I hope he wasn’t using empty words. Protectionism? Damn straight it is.

Go for my job and I’ll rip out your jugular.