NAFTA corridor has given way to Chinese goods corridor

NAFTA “Superhighway” Spells the End of NAFTA Countries Manufacturing Alliance
William R. Hawkins
American Economic Alert
Tuesday, July 18, 2006

“HIGHWAY OF DEATH” FOR NAFTA

There has been a flurry of media reports about what has been dubbed the “NAFTA Highway,” a corridor of both highways and railroads running through Mexico and into the American Midwest. Interstate Highways 35, 29 and 94 are central to this transportation network and the key terminal is an “inland port” in Kansas City, Missouri.

Many of the reports have sought to reopen the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement, which allowed many U.S. factories to relocate to Mexico, laying off thousands of American workers and replacing them with much cheaper labor south of the border. Some reports have taken an alarmist tack, claiming that further economic integration of the United States and Mexico would lead to a political union that would open America to mass migration and political corruption on a scale that would destroy U.S. institutions, culture and sovereignty.

In actuality, the new energy being put into expanding the transportation network from Mexico into the United States heralds the collapse of NAFTA, and further discredits the trade strategy followed by the administrations of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

NAFTA was enacted in 1993. The main public arguments put forward by its proponents were that it would open Mexico to more U.S.-made exports and that Mexico, with the addition of new, American-owned factories, would become an export platform permitting American firms to compete in markets throughout the world. (It was also supposed to halt illegal immigration and illegal drug transhipment – but that’s a subject for another column.)

Since the Mexican economy was only five percent the size of the American economy, our export opportunities were limited by the lack of purchasing power to the south. The real interest of the business groups that pushed NAFTA through Congress was to combine cheap Mexican labor with American capital and technology to improve competition with overseas rivals – for shares of the American market. At the time, Japanese firms, which had located factories in other Asian countries with cheap labor, were thought to be the main rivals. Yet China was already looming, unrecognized, over the horizon.

Two of the most vocal proponents of NAFTA testified to this effect before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade on September 11, 1997. C. Fred Bergsten and Jeffrey Schott, of the Institute for International Economics, stated, “The United States sought to increase its imports from Mexico as a result of NAFTA. In particular, we wanted to shift imports from other countries to Mexico – since our imports from Mexico include more U.S. content and because Mexico spends much more of its export earnings on imports from the United States than do, say, the East Asian countries.” The higher U.S. content in imports from Mexico was the result of sending components from American factories to Mexican factories for assembly into products that are then exported back to the United States.

Such imports from Mexico grew rapidly (while Mexico never emerged as the “export platform to the rest of the world”), and there was congestion in the US-Mexican transportation system as a result. But that is not what is driving the NAFTA superhighway activity now, over a dozen years later. The North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO) was formed in 1994 to lobby for government funding for improvements in the multi-modal U.S.-Mexican transportation system. But over half the money it claims to have raised has come since 2003. In 2005, the Kansas City “SmartPort” received $4 million for highway corridor projects, plus another $500,000 earmark from Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO) to further develop the capabilities of the inland port to process a greater volume of international trade. Additionally, the first steps to establish a Mexican customs office at the Kansas Smartport were taken last year. And it wasn’t until last December that the Texas Transportation Commission opened negotiations with a the Spanish-led Cintra consortium to start the first phase of a $7.5 billion, 800-mile corridor from Oklahoma to Mexico that would parallel Interstate 35.

Upon closer examination, something other than the “success” of the NAFTA model, as sold to the American voter, is propelling all this transportation and Smart Port activity – and that is the massive wave of imports from the previously unrecognized export superstar, China. U.S. west coast ports are swamped with container ships filled with Chinese goods, and a scramble is on to find new Pacific ports to bring even more Chinese products into the United States. Container ship traffic from China is growing at a rate of 15 percent a year. Between 2003 and 2005, annual imports from China increased by $92.2 billion, and from other parts of Asia by $41.0 billion. (So much for NAFTA allowing American firms to compete more effectively with the Japanese.)

The Hong Kong-based shipping company Hutchison Whampoa and retail giant Wal-Mart are partners in a new $300 million expansion of Mexico’s Pacific port of Lazaro Cardeñas to increase its annual handling capacity from 100,000 containers to 700,000 containers initially, with possible expansion to two million containers by the end of the decade. Hutchison Whampoa is run by billionaire Li Ka-shing, whose business empire is closely aligned with the Beijing regime.

In April, the American Chamber of Commerce in Guangdong, China conducted seminars to promote Lazaro Cardenas as a destination for good shipped from Chinese ports. At the Mexican port, shipping containers are loaded onto the Mexico–U.S. rail line operated by Kansas City Southern Railroad de Mexico. The containers do not clear U.S. Customs until they reach San Antonio. On October 24, 2005, the San Antonio Business Journal reported on a new agreement signed by U.S. and Mexican officials to allow for the movement of air, rail and ground cargo, through Mexico into the United States via KellyUSA – the industrial park created at the former Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. The report noted that the cargo would originate “principally from Asia and South America” – not Mexico.

Another deep water port just north of Lazaro Cardenas is Manzanillo. Situated between Acapulco and Puerto Vallarta, it caters primarily to cruise ships and tourists. But NASCO includes it in its future plans to expand trade shipments.

While American-based manufacturers will continue to suffer under the barrage of Chinese goods,Mexican industry and the hope of economic development south of the border will be smashed flat by what should be called a new Chinese Silk Road rather than a NAFTA highway. The goals of NAFTA for North American economic integration and development are being abandoned. The effect of expanded and modernized Mexican ports linked to the U. S. Midwest by new express routes is to allow China to jump over Mexico, kicking it in the face as it passes by.

Over 600 maquiladora’s, the assembly plants that sprang up along the U.S. -Mexican border to take advantage of NAFTA, have relocated to China, leaving 250,000 unemployed Mexican workers behind. Chinese interests also own factories in Mexico, which assemble imported components, rather than locally sourced parts, into products than are then exported to the United States. The new trade routes will allow these plants to expand at the expense of their competitors. In 2003, China passed Japan as the second largest exporter of goods, primarily components, to Mexico, behind the United States.

Chinese consumer goods also fill Mexican stores. The traffic in Mexican ports are as one-way as in American ports. In 2004, Mexico imported $9.1 billion worth of good from China, but sold China good worth only $1.9 billion in return. This deficit is similar to the U.S. trade ratio with China, which saw only $41.5 billion in exports against $244.6 billion in imports last year.

A fatalism has crept into Mexico, paving the way for acceptance of the new Chinese-focused investment in infrastructure. “Mexico had been the Number Two supplier to the U.S. [after Canada] within the context of the North American Free Trade Agreement” recalls Raul Rodriguez Barocio, manager of the North American Development Bank (NADB) in Mexico. “However, in 2003, Mexico was displaced by China and seems to have lost that position forever,” he laments. For Mexican industrialists, the Chinese invasion has been devastating, particularly for labor intensive industries such as footwear, toys, and garments. There is little chance for Mexican wages to rise if at $1.50 an hour they can be undercut by Chinese labor at 50 cents an hour, with the products rushed from Asia into the North American market.

Mexico has filed over 90 complaints against China at the World Trade Organization and has imposed anti-dumping duties. Mexico was the last country to approve Beijing’s membership in the WTO, fearing what China would do if given a “level playing field” subject only to its own mercantilist devices. But these efforts have been to no avail. Simon Levy-Dabbah, a foreign trade professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, epitomizes the defeatest attitude south of the border when he says that Mexican industrialists must get over their hatred and accept that China is “the factory for the world.” He suggests that Mexican firms form joint venture’s with Chinese business, “The Chinese only care about having their goods arrive into the United States. So what is needed now is for products from China and other Asian countries that do not have the required free trade agreements, to be able to use Mexican preferential tariffs to enter these markets.” In other words, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em and hope for some small share of the spoils.

Charlie Banks, president of R. L. Banks & Associates, a transportation consulting company in Washington, told the L. A. Times (June 20) that Mexico is repositioning itself in a world in which its manufacturing base is eroding and its labor is considered relatively expensive by Asian standards. Part of that repositioning, Banks said, is as a logistics and supply chain corridor for goods heading to the United States. But “lift that bale, tote that barge” labor moving Chinese goods to Kansas will not enrich either Mexico or the United States, as real national wealth comes from production, not mere transport.

NAFTA was sold not just on the basis of trade, but as a means to lift Mexico out of poverty and to help establish democracy by creating a more affluent, optimistic polity. Such a development would improve U.S. security by fending off political radicalism and lessening the exodus of illegal immigrants. The same arguments were made last year during the debate over CAFTA, with the added note that an expanded trade bloc could protect regional industry from Chinese competition. As Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) said on the House floor during the CAFTA debate, “I stand here convinced that it is the best strategy available to combine with our neighbors to the south to compete with the Chinese.”

The new transport plans make a mockery of these arguments, as they are being constructed purely to help China improve its competitive advantage over all North and Central American commercial rivals. It is well past time to rethink the sophistry of “free trade” with China. Instead of spending billions of private and public funds aiding Chinese traders, a major effort should be launched to rebuild and expand the production base of North America. A key part of that effort would be to renegotiate NAFTA to create a true trade bloc that would drive Chinese goods off the continent, rather than into its heartland.

Scathing criticism of Trans Texas Corridor in Bosque County; Unanimous opposition called the corridor "prostitution of our great state, and with filthy money!"

Bosque County Says ‘NO!’ To Corridor

By David Anderson
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Clifton Record
July 21, 2006
CLIFTON — An estimated 400-plus packed the Clifton High School cafetorium Wednesday evening to issue a resounding “no thanks” to the Trans-Texas Corridor 35 running through Bosque County. An open house and public hearing hosted by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Texas Transportation Commission ran into the court still opposes the project, whether it comes through the county or not.
Verlie Edwards, chief of staff for District 58 State Rep. Rob Orr, spoke for the legislator, urging TxDOT to “listen closely, and slow down the process so all options are explored.” From there, the elected officials gave way to speakers from the general public, who one by one pled for the project’s elimination.
“No one has been able to give me a list of benefits of the corridor to Bosque County. I don’t believe it exists,” John Faubion said to applause from the crowd.
John Campbell asked anyone in the crowd of over 400 who supports the project to identify themselves, if they weren’t too afraid to.
No one stood, to laughter from the crowd.
As to the alternative route that could slice Bosque County in half, many pointed to the effects it would have on the landscape.
“Our rolling wooded hills, valleys, the abundant wildlife, the fertile soils. The attractions that brought the settlers here in 1854 remain the very essence of the county today,” Walt Lewis said.
“We’re known as the Top of the Hill Country,” Morgan Mayor Pro-Tem Keith Vandiver said. “Bringing the corridor through here would mean blasting the tops of many of our mesas. We don’t want to become known as the Flat-Top of the Hill Country.”
Jamie Finstad wanted to know what the state believes is “just compensation” for taking land and memories that has been in his family for 150 years.
“I wonder where all the wildlife that’s being displaced will go, and I wonder why we’re all in such a hurry,” Finstad continued.
“If we give it up (the land) now, it’s gone forever, and they’ll just want more later on,” Carl Aspen said.
“We haven’t adjusted yet to the second stop light in our county,” Judge Word jokingly remarked. “We’re not for one inch of the Trans-Texas Corridor in Bosque County. If we wanted to live in the Metroplex, we’d move there. We don’t want the Metroplex brought here.”
Several spoke to the corruption they believe underlies the Trans-Texas Corridor, and the lack of legislative action to end the project.
“Do you believe in communism or dictatorships? That’s what we appear to be headed for,” Sam Wells told the panel receiving the comments. “I hope TxDOT feels like General Custer, because the public is like Sitting Bull’s tribe, and we’ll do what we need to stop this. We won’t stand for somebody taking our land.”
“I’m appalled the state legislature has not stopped this. Our legislators have yet again turned a blind eye to the needs of this district,” said former Clifton Mayor W. Leon Smith.
“It gives me heartburn to think we’ll build a toll road and send the money to a company in Spain,” said David Pieper, adding that the state is diverting billions of dollars that should be earmarked for transportation improvements to other uses.
“This is not progress,” said Martha West. “It’s prostitution of our great state, and with filthy money.”
Aspen, who said he spoke with a TxDOT official before the public hearing, was not surprised at a comment he received.
“He told me, ‘We don’t want to hear, “Not in my back yard.”’
“Of course, he also told me the corridor won’t affect him where he lives,” Aspen added.
Many testifying suggested that, if the infrastructure is built, the name should be changed. Suggestions ranged from “The Corridor of Regret,” to the “Trans-Texas Horror-Door,” to “Ben Dover.”
Other concerns centered on the facilities being outdated before they are finished, especially considering quantum leaps in technology from year to year.
“It’s like trying to build a better manual typewriter,” Smith told the commission.
While many of those who spoke addressed generations of families that have lived in the county who will lose land should the corridor be brought through, others told of being proud transplants to the county, including Ron Harmon, Les Bowers, and David Anderson.
One by one, most of those testifying put the onus on the state’s legislators. Many said it was past time to send them comments. Most said it was time to send them home by voting them out in the next election.
“House Bill 3588 passed, effectively, unanimously, so they all need to go,” said Linda Curtis, founder of Independent Texans. “We need to get organized, and tell them where to put this corridor.”
Harmon agreed, saying Texas needs to get rid of any politician who supports or does not specifically oppose the TTC.
TxDOT’s officials remained after the public hearing to answer questions, but most of the crowd began filing out of the cafetorium as the public testimonies came to end, apparently having heard enough.

Phyllis Schlafly: Council on Foreign Relations plan to integrate North America, including free flow of goods & people

Link to article here.

CFR’s Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada

——————
by Phyllis Schlafly
Eagle Forum
July 13, 2005
——————-
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what’s really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the “establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community” with a common “outer security perimeter.”

“Community” means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. “Common perimeter” means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.”Community” is sometimes called “space” but the CFR goal is clear: “a common economic space … for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely.

“The CFR’s “integrated” strategy calls for “a more open border for the movement of goods and people.” The CFR document lays “the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America.” The “common security perimeter” will require us to “harmonize visa and asylum regulations” with Mexico and Canada, “harmonize entry screening,” and “fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals.”

This CFR document, called “Building a North American Community,” asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin “committed their governments” to this goal when they met at Bush’s ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005.

The three adopted the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” and assigned “working groups” to fill in the details.It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet “vigilantes” on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.

A follow-up meeting was held in Ottawa on June 27, where the U.S. representative, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, told a news conference that “we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders.” The White House issued a statement that the Ottawa report “represents an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.”

The CFR document calls for creating a “North American preference” so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border;employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.Just to make sure that bringing cheap labor from Mexico is an essential part of the plan, the CFR document calls for “a seamless North American market” and for “the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico.”

The document’s frequent references to “security” are just a cover for the real objectives. The document’s “security cooperation” includes the registration of ballistics and explosives, while Canada specifically refused to cooperate with our Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

To no one’s surprise, the CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called “multilateral development” from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, “long-term loans in pesos,” and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.

The experience of the European Union and the World Trade Organization makes it clear that a common market requires a court system, so the CFR document calls for “a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution.” Get ready for decisions from non-American judges who make up their rules ad hoc and probably hate the United States anyway.

The CFR document calls for allowing Mexican trucks “unlimited access” to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities. The CFR document calls for adopting a “tested once” principle for pharmaceuticals, by which a product tested in Mexico will automatically be considered to have met U.S. standards.

The CFR document demands that we implement “the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico.” That’s code language for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, which is bound to bankrupt the system.

Here’s another handout included in the plan. U.S. taxpayers are supposed to create a major fund to finance 60,000 Mexican students to study in U.S. colleges.

To ensure that the U.S. government carries out this plan so that it is “achievable” within five years, the CFR calls for supervision by a North American Advisory Council of “eminent persons from outside government . . . along the lines of the Bilderberg” conferences.

The best known Americans who participated in the CFR Task Force that wrote this document are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Bill Clinton’s immigration chief Doris Meissner. Another participant, American University Professor Robert Pastor, presented the CFR plan at a friendly hearing of Senator Richard Lugar’s Foreign Relations Committee on June 9.

Ask your Senators and Representatives which side they are on: the CFR’s integrated North American Community or U.S. sovereignty guarded by our own borders.

Cornyn introduces bill to integrate U.S., Mexican, and Canadian economies; making us pay to build roads for Mexico

Think the merging of North America is all hype? Feast your eyes on this!

As published in this week’s Plain Talk from the Texas Hill Country newsletter by Jim McGrody

Overview of SB 3622
On June 29, 2006, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced SB 3622 – a bill to authorize the creation of the North American Investment Fund between the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy.

The purpose of the bill shall be:

• to increase the economic competitiveness of North America in a global economy
• to reduce the income gap between Mexico and Canada, and between Mexico and the United States
• to promote economic development in Mexico in the areas of infrastructure, education, technology, and job training
In general, grants shall be awarded from the Fund for projects to carry out the purposes of the Bill, including projects-
to construct roads in Mexico to facilitate trade between Mexico and Canada, and Mexico and the United States
• to encourage the development and improve the quality of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education throughout Mexico
• to expand the deployment of communications and broadband infrastructure throughout Mexico, with emphasis on rural and underserved areas and, to expand job training and workforce development for high-growth industries in Mexico.

The agreement shall require the governments of Canada, of Mexico, and of the United States to contribute to the Fund. Canada and the United States will contribute to the Fund if the Government of Mexico – increases the tax revenue collected by such Government, with the goal of annually collecting an amount of such revenue that is equal to 18 percent of the annual gross domestic product of Mexico; and carries out a program of reforms to increase private investment and economic growth, reduce poverty, and maintain economic stability in Mexico.
You can read the complete bill by clicking here…

Background Reading – The Council On Foreign Relations
North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a trinational, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.

Read the complete background on the Council on Foreign Relations.

Read Eagle Forum’s dissenting opinion here.

Wanna know how much of the world's infrastructure Cintra-Macquarie controls?

This information is taken from a news release in 2000 when Cintra-Macquarie acquired an airport in Bristol, England. This information was compiled prior to Cintra-Macquarie acquiring the Chicago Skyway toll road (January 2005), the Indiana Toll Road (Spring 2006), before they gained the development rights for the Trans Texas Corridor (2005), and before becoming the only bidders for the San Antonio toll starter system (2005). Do we really want America to come under the control of multi-national corporations (perhaps more accurately, quasi-governments)?

About Cintra
Cintra is an international infrastructure company based in Spain which develops, owns and operates transport assets worldwide. Cintra is currently ranked as the world’s largest infrastructure developer by value of investment and, over the last three years it has been ranked as the second largest developer of transport based infrastructure in the world by number of concessions. It is a subsidiary of Grupo Ferrovial, one of the leading industrial groups in Spain and listed on the Spanish Stock Exchange.

Cintra owns and operates transport based assets on a world-wide basis. It has three primary businesses; airports, toll-roads and car parks. Cintra currently has eleven airports in Southern Mexico, the Antofagasta airport in Chile and Niagara Falls airport in New York State, handling over 12 million passengers. In addition to being an investor in those airports, Cintra provides an extensive range of operational and management support to them.

Cintra also owns and operates toll roads in Spain, Canada, Portugal, Chile and Colombia and manages over 130,000 car parking spaces in Spain, Portugal and Puerto Rico.

Then here’s more info about the majority owner of Cintra, Grupo Ferrovial, from the Hoover’s financial web site:

When in Spain, trains, planes, and automobiles travel by Grupo Ferrovial. One of Spain’s largest engineering and construction firms, Ferrovial also provides housing and community development, toll road and car park management, and environmental and telecommunications services. Ferrovial Agromán is the group’s main construction unit. Projects include commercial and residential construction to road, rail, energy, and airport infrastructure development. Through its Cintra stake Ferrovial has concessions interests in toll roads, car parks, and airports. It has taken over UK services group Amey and owns more than 28% of British airports operator BAA. Founder Rafael del Pino y Moreno and his family control Ferrovial.

About Macquarie
Macquarie is Australia’s leading investment bank, with total assets in excess of £9.4 billion, and a further £14.9 billion in funds under management and administration. It is listed on the Australian Stock Exchange and ranks as one of Australia’s largest 30 companies by market capitalisation.

Macquarie has over 4,000 staff in offices throughout Australia and in 22 locations throughout the world, including the United Kingdom. Macquarie’s second largest office outside Australia is located in London.

Macquarie is at the forefront of the infrastructure sector, both in Australia and internationally, and has one of the largest and most successful infrastructure businesses in the world. Macquarie manages infrastructure funds and investments in projects in the UK and Europe valued at nearly £3 billion.

Macquarie has a unique combination of strategic, commercial and financial expertise in the airport sector.

As part of a long-term strategy to build a significant global airport business, Macquarie strengthened its airport business expertise through the acquisition in October, 2000 of The Portland Group, the UK’s leading airport management consultancy.

Toll talk is spreading to AZ, PA

Arizona sec transport favors tolls talk.

Arizona sec transport favors tolls talk
Toll Road News
2006.07.14
AP quotes Victor Mendez director of the Arizona department of transportation as saying of proposals for toll financing: “I think it’s a great debate to have. I think it’s something that may actually enhance our ability to deliver more infrastructure.” (AP 2006-07-10)He doesn’t see how taxes can provide sufficient funding for road improvements in the state.

The debate was set off by Chuck Walton mayor of Casa Grande, a city to the south of Phoenix. Walton wants toll financing for a new north-south expressway located west of I-10 and heading in toward Phoenix.

_____________________

Then in PA:

Pennsylvania’s Rendell admin to consider toll concessions.

Pennsylvania’s Rendell admin to consider toll concessions
Toll Road News
2006.05.17
Pennsylvania Gov Ed Rendell (Dem) has said toll concessions “would be a great way to get money to put into immediate repair or construction.” He is quoted by AP answering a question at Harrisburg Region Chamber of Commerce May 15. He said the city of Chicago and Indiana have done concessions with major roadways and “that kind of transaction” could mean immediate money for building and improving other transport projects. He then proceeded, according to AP, to say it would be “at least a year” before his administration was ready to decide whether privatization of this kind was feasible and legislative support would be needed.

Geist in state House also interested

House and senate committees are both studying investor involvement by way of public private partnerships. House transp committee chair Rick Geist (Repub) is a strong supporter of concessions for new road projects in Pennsylvania. He said in an interview in his office last fall that he wants to see investors getting involved in all kinds of toll projects and other concessions for which the established Pennsylvania Turnpike is unsuited. They could move faster and more efficiently, he said.

But when we asked him if he favored privatizing the Turnpike itself his sunny disposition suddenly vanished and he said severely: “I wouldn’t change that at all. The Turnpike is fine as it is.”

Maybe it was our blunt language: “privatization.” Maybe if we’d finessed the words and asked about a “partnership with investors” or a “longterm lease” his answer would have been less rejectionist. But I doubt it. The guy is smart enough to see through the semantics. He wants to leave the Turnpike as it is.

When we asked Geist about Gov Rendell’s attitude toward investor roads, he said he hadn’t talked to the Governor yet. But he added: “He’d be crazy to be talking about this in an election year.”

Yet now he is talking about it – and not just for new roads but for the Turnpike. Of course his talk while generally upbeat is carefully nuanced.

________________________

If only Texas were this fortunate. Minnesota lawmakers pass ANTI-TOLL bill!

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/cgi-bin/a.cgi/kVEmjubwEdqcEYJ61nsxIA

Anti-tolling bill HF886 passes state House in Minnesota
Toll Road News
2006.05.18

A bill to prohibit new tolling in the state has passed the Minnesota House of Representatives. HF886 and titled “Toll Facilities Prohibited” it states simply: ” BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: Neither the commissioner nor a local road authority may impose or authorize the imposition of a toll for the use of a bridge or a highway or highway lane. This section does not apply to any toll that was being collected on January 1, 2005.”

The bill also contains a routine “Repealer” which cancels existing authorities to impose tolls. It is described thus:

“1.1 A bill for an act

1.2 relating to highways; repealing authorization for

1.3 construction of toll roads; repealing authorization

1.4 for collecting tolls for single-occupant vehicle use

1.5 of high-occupancy vehicle lanes; prohibiting

1.6 imposition of tolls on existing roads or construction

1.7 of new toll roads; proposing coding for new law in

1.8 Minnesota Statutes, chapter 160; repealing Minnesota

1.9 Statutes 2004, sections 160.84; 160.85; 160.86;

1.10 160.87; 160.88; 160.89; 160.90; 160.91; 160.92; 160.93.”

Joint Repub/Dem sponsorship

FRAUD: Highway firm, PBS&J, settles overbilling case with TxDOT and Florida DOT

http://www.tollroadsnews.com

PBS&J settle with TxDOT and Florida DOT
Toll Road News
2006.07.11

PBS&J have settled overbilling disputes with TxDOT and Florida DOT which affected much tollroad work. PBS&J, one of the largest engineering firms in the US was formally blacklisted by TxDOT May 24 and had ceased seeking new work at FDOT in April under warnings of a blacklisting.PBS&J told TxDOT, FDOT and other clients March 2005 that they had discovered about five years of overbilling committed by their chief financial officer and two other conspirators which defrauded clients and PBS&J itself to the tune of some $36m. The three were fired and the law called in. They have pled guilty to charges of fraud.

PBS&J pledged to unravel the fraud in detail and recompense clients.

Apparently by the spring of this year TxDOT and FDOT got annoyed at the time this was taking – leading to the now-lifted bans.

Todd Kenner president of PBS&J is quoted in a press statement today as saying: “We are pleased to have reached an amicable agreement with the Texas and Florida departments of transportation, and we are currently working with our other impacted clients to reach resolution of this issue… We are looking forward to putting this difficult period behind us and getting back to… delivering top-quality consulting services to our clients.” TOLLROADSnews 2006-07-11

Both political parties are pushing tolls

Whichever party is in power is the party pushing tolls in a given state. Either way, this comes down to politicians abusing their power to force citizens to privatize public assets at the behest of special interests in order for government to make a buck and enslave the electorate under the chokehold of the highest tolls possible.

Read this in Toll Road News:

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/cgi-bin/a.cgi/tM.f.vvOEdqcEYJ61nsxIA

Republican gov candidate in Illinois against Tollway “sale”
Toll Road News
2006.06.14

Judy Baar Topinka, the Republican candidate for governor in the Illinois elections in November is campaigning against any toll concession of the Illinois Tollway system – something which is being studied by the Democrat incumbent governor Rod Blagojevich and the Democrat leadership in the Illinois legislature. On her website she styles the proposal for a toll concession – in which the business operations of the Tollway would be leased for a term under contract conditions – as a “sale” of the Tollway.

Her statement is headed up “Topinka/Birkett stand up to protect suburban motorists” (Birkett is her running mate) and reads:

“I want to be very clear about my position and give it to you straight. As Governor I will not I WILL NOT support selling the Tollway to a private vendor.”

“First, selling assets to pay for ongoing programs is just wrong. Second, selling an asset to a private vendor will lead to higher tolls. Third, 75% of Illinois Tollway users are commuters. Higher tolls are going to hit suburban commuters harder than anyone.”

“For several weeks the Governor’s supporters have been promoting the concept of selling the Tollway as an asset, while the Governor allows the process to move forward and remains silent on the issue.

“Today I challenge the Governor to say ‘No’ to the Tollway sale. Anything short of ‘no’ leaves the door open to potentially huge increases in tolls without any accountability from a private vendor. I challenge him to follow my lead.”

Blagojevich has not responded to the challenge. His official position is that the proposal is worthy of analysis and study. Leading Democrats in the state house are more clearly favorable.

Topinka, 62, a former journalist and state legislator is presently state Treasurer, an elected position. She was the first woman to be elected Treasurer of the state.

_______________________

Then later, a change of heart by the Democrat Governor:

Illinois governor nixes concession of Tollway
Toll Road News
2006.06.27
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has said he has no intention of leasing or otherwise privatizing the Illinois Tollway. The Governor’s official website has nothing on the subject but he is quoted by the Chicago Tribune (2006-06-23) as firmly ruling out privatization: “I like the fact that we’re doing great things with the tollway. We’ve made it easier for motorists to go to and from places much sooner than later. And, we’re in charge. I have no interest in giving up the tollway when we’re doing so many good things. I have no interest in turning it over to private investors.”

A push toward a toll concession was led by state senator Jeff Schoenberg (Dem, Evanston), chair of the senate’s appropriations committee who has held hearings and put in train a study. The Governor’s office said at the time that he supported study of a concession but had formed no position on the issue.

Now he appears to have moved decisively against it.

Blagojevich is the dominant figure in Illinois government and politics and seems certain to be re-elected for another four year term later this year.

The Illinois Tolllway – Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is its formal legal name – will therefore remain a state toll authority for the forseeable future.

Foreign Ownership of U.S. Airlines? Bush set to defy Congress to allow more foreign ownership of airlines

See the World Net Daily article here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51113 or read below.

Just when you think it couldn’t get worse, it does. Now our airlines are up for grabs to foreign ownership as we’ve reported here (http://satollparty.com/post/?p=54 and http://satollparty.com/post/?p=155). The media wouldn’t cover the foreign management of our highways during the Dubai port deal, but this may help us reach critical mass to sink this trend once and for all!

Foreign ownership of U.S. airlines?
Bush ready to defy Congress’ ban despite pilots’ fears of another Dubai ports deal

By Jerome R. Corsi
July 18, 2006
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The Department of Transportation, acting under President Bush’s orders, is preparing to issue an administrative ruling that would open U.S. airlines up to foreign ownership, despite specific prohibitions and warnings from Congress, as well as predictions by pilots that another Dubai ports controversy is in the offing.The proposed ruling puts the Air Line Pilots Association, or ALPA – the largest airline pilot union in the world representing 61,000 pilots who fly for 40 U.S. and Canadian airlines – at odds with the Bush administration.

The administration is determined to comply with European Union demands presented in the November 2005 “open skies” negotiations. (So-called “open skies” agreements are bilateral or multilateral agreements that liberalize the rules for international aviation markets and minimize government intervention.)

The EU is threatening to delay the signing of an open skies treaty unless the U.S. changes restrictions on the percentage of a U.S. airline that can be foreign-owned. The U.S. currently has 74 bilateral open skies agreements, none of which require any rule changes on the foreign ownership of U.S. airlines.

ALPA is encouraging pilots to write letters and e-mails of protest to Congress, newspapers and national television and radio outlets.

“Do not underestimate the seriousness of this issue!” ALPA has advised, “This is do-or-die, sink-or-swim time.”

Some U.S. pilots who have spoken with WND on condition of anonymity expressed concern about job reprisals.

The pilots have argued another Dubai Ports World-type controversy is brewing in which the “Bush administration does not care about selling out key U.S. assets to foreigners.” ALPA calls for action echo the alarm:

The writing is clearly on the wall! This Administration wants foreign investors, airlines or otherwise, to pay for the costs of our aviation infrastructure, while risking hundreds of thousands of aviation jobs, the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program (CRAF), and the safety and security of our national airspace. Forty percent of all Air Force Reserve and National Guard pilots are also airline pilots.

ALPA believes the foreign-ownership issue is a fight for survival:

The time to act is now! Together, with every pilot across this country participating in this effort, we can stop this rogue attack on our profession and our industry. There is no issue more important than preventing this NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) from moving forward. If the White House is successful in changing the foreign ownership rules through DOT affirmative action, within just a few short years our industry will mirror the maritime industry. Our jobs will no longer exist, our country’s ability to militarily act abroad will be handicapped, and our families may no longer be safe in our own airspace!

On June 14, in an official statement of administration policy, the Office of Management and Budget in the executive office of the president put out a notice that the Department of Transportation intended to change the foreign ownership rule by issuing a new administrative rule:

To counter the Bush administration, five congressmen wrote a letter eight days later, June 22, to DOT Secretary Norman Mineta on U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure stationary.

In citing specific congressional prohibitions, the letter noted Congress had taken two specific actions to put the White House on notice that “a major change to the current law regarding foreign ownership of U.S. airlines should be accomplished only by congressional action, not unilaterally imposed by the executive branch.”

The letter cited the following congressional prohibitions:

First, the Conference Report on H.R. 4939, Making Emergency Supplementary Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2006, includes ‘language preventing the Secretary from issuing a final rule regarding foreign control of U.S. airlines for 120 days.’ Second, during consideration of H.R. 5576 – the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (TTHUD appropriations), the House adopted, by an overwhelming vote of 291 to 137, an amendment prohibiting the department from finalizing or implementing the policy proposed in the rulemaking during the next fiscal

Signing the letter were Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; chairman of the Armed Services Committee; Frank A. LoBiondo, R-N.J.; chairman on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee; Ted Poe, R-Texas; James L. Oberstar. D-Minn., ranking Democratic member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee; and Jerry F. Costello, D-Ill., ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Aviation.

A major proponent of the rule change has been Under Secretary of Transportation Jeffery Shane, who was quoted on a government Web site in April suggesting Mineta remains “committed to completing this important rulemaking procedure.”

Shane also noted the proposed rule “has been the focus of far more controversy in the U.S., frankly, than we had anticipated.”

Zachry, highway lobby fund Perry's re-election

See Perry’s latest campaign fundraising report:

http://www2.mysanantonio.com/news/includes/sidebars/2006CampaignContributions/Perry.htm

None of us is surprised to see H.B. Zachry listed among Perry’s top campaign contributors. Also of note are an aggregate and concrete political action committee called, TACPAC – Texas Aggregates & Concrete Assoc (remember Perry’s quote recently: “No state is laying more asphalt than Texas” http://satollparty.com/post/?p=295), NSF Railpac (Cintra-Zachry awarded the bid to expand TX rail http://satollparty.com/post/?p=196, rail also tied to Trans Texas Corridor toll road network), as well as a host of real estate and oil companies or PACs (who also benefit greatly from more highways).