Read Wes Pruden’s piece in the Washington Times. See text below. The Washington Times is a conservative newspaper, so this is a stinging piece from a conservative to the Republican Party. Unfortunately, there are plenty of Democrats in Texas and in America willing to abdicate their public authority to keep the foreign money coming. Judge Nelson Wolff and most of the San Antonio delegation are among them with the exception of State Rep. David Leibowitz and Commissioner Tommy Adkisson.

Also see this article on the U.S. addiction to foreign money and the dangers of continuing this trend here.

Taking a chance on love for sale

By Wesley Pruden
Published February 24, 2006

George W. Bush is about to fritter away his party’s last advantage. What Republicans have had going for them is that they aren’t Democrats. Over the past few days we’ve seen the men at the top of the Grumpy Old Party drifting toward something that looks suspiciously like an Old Boys’ Party.
When he hears applause only from Jimmy Carter, who gave away the Panama Canal (now controlled by the Chinese), and Bill Clinton, his newly adopted little brother, George W. should be looking for the panic button.
Once they’re no longer regarded as the toughest party on national security the Republicans will be burnt toast. Not even Karl Rove’s dream of a mighty coalition of Muslims and illegal Hispanic immigrants will be enough to put Humpty Dumpty together again. “Vote Republican, we’re not as bad as you think” is persuasive only as long as the tough guys put first things first. The Great Seaports Giveaway is enough to persuade a lot of Americans, including reliable and devoted friends of George W. Bush, that maybe the Republicans really are as bad as they think.
John McCain argues the point, a reasonable one, that George W.’s stubborn determination to fight the war against Islamist terror entitles him to a pass on the ports. “We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts,” the Arizona senator says. “The president’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short.”
True enough, and George W. Bush still looks light-years safer than Al Gore or John Kerry. But the president’s remarkable morning-after explanation that the first he knew about the sale of control of six of the nation’s most important ports was what he got from the newspapers is not exactly what Americans expect to hear from a president, any president, and proves once more that trust must be earned anew every day.

The newspapers, as it turns out, are still widely read at the top of the administration. Donald Rumsfeld didn’t know about the sale of the ports until he read about it in the newspapers, although his representative sat on the government panel that OK’d the sale. John Snow, the secretary of the Treasury, actually chairs that committee but he, too, sent a deputy to the meeting and had to read about it in the paper. It’s not national security that worries him but whether angry Arabs will withdraw their investments from America. The protection of commercial interests, making the world safe for mergers and acquisitions, seems to interest the president and his men most.
Like every president, George W. wants whatever he says to be taken as the last word, but no president before him, not even Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln, was accorded that kind of deaf, dumb and blind acquiescence to authority. That kind of acquiescence is practically un-American.

The White House sent a panel of executives up to Capitol Hill yesterday to try to mollify the senators of the Armed Services Committee, and they were reduced to talking about how well the bureaucratic process worked. The White House does not seem to understand that the public is not outraged by a shortage of process. We trust our bureaucrats to lollygag in process. The public is outraged by the very idea of entrusting national security to those who were not our friends a decade ago, when they entertained Osama bin Laden and blocked an attempt to kill him, and who may not be our friends tomorrow or the next day.
The president argues that an ally is an ally is an ally, and appears to see no difference between our old friends the British and our new friends the emirs of the United Arab Emirates. So here’s a lesson from the old country: Queen Victoria once asked her prime minister who were England’s “permanent friends.” Lord Palmerston replied that England had no permanent friends. “England has only permanent interests.” Perhaps, as the president seems to suggest, the Arab chiefs of the United Arab Emirates who are bound to their brothers across Arabia by blood, history and religion will prove as reliable as our own English cousins. But counting on their loyalty and friendship being permanent is a risk too far. That’s what the president’s friends are trying to tell him.

Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.

Copyright © 2006 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

See it here.

BBC NEWS
March 7, 2006

US airline attacks foreign move
Leading US airline has criticised government proposals to give foreign investors greater say in how carriers are run, calling the plan “unlawful”

Washington revealed last November that it was looking at ways of boosting foreign investment in the industry, which has suffered huge losses.

Foreign firms could be given input into route selection and marketing to encourage them to invest capital.

But Continental Airlines said the proposals were unworkable.

Legal threat

“We intend to challenge it in court,” Jeff Smisek, Continental’s president told aviation analysts on Thursday.

Current regulations limit the degree of influence which foreign investors can have over US airlines.

The 49% cap on foreign ownership of US carriers or the 25% limit on voting rights are not up for discussion.

However, the US government is seeking ways to allow foreign firms a more active role in the decision making of US airlines.

The proposed changes would only apply to investors in countries with existing aviation agreements with the US and which permit US investment in their own domestic airlines.

Mr Smisek said he was not opposed to US carriers being given greater scope to raise money from foreign investors.

However, he said the US government was trying to reinterpret legislation on control of airlines without reference to Congress as part of its efforts to negotiate an aviation agreement with Europe.

Talks on an “Open Skies” agreement between the US and Europe resumed late last year after stalling for several years.

Financial crisis

The US aviation industry has been in financial crisis since the 11 September terrorist attacks, its problems compounded by soaring oil prices, fluctuating demand and huge labour costs.

United Airlines, Delta Airlines, US Airways and Northwest have all been forced into bankruptcy protection as they try to sort out their finances.

Despite the industry’s financial problems, Washington has baulked at relaxing the ownership rules governing the industry, citing safety and national security concerns.

Unions have argued that foreign ownership could threaten jobs and employment rights.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/4745178.stm

Published: 2006/02/23 20:44:38 GMT

© BBC MMVI

US pushes for more foreign investment in airlines
Tue Mar 7, 2006 6:26 PM ET
By John Crawley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Bush administration will push ahead with a proposal to ease limits on foreign investment in U.S. airlines, despite some congressional pressure to slow down the plan or withdraw it, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said on Tuesday.

The proposed regulation was opposed earlier this year by mainly Democratic lawmakers concerned about the impact on U.S. jobs and airline service if global capital options for financially struggling domestic airlines were expanded.

But in recent weeks a few Republicans have begun to question whether the initiative is wise in light of the firestorm of controversy that has consumed plans by a Dubai-based company to manage six U.S. ports as part of its multibillion-dollar purchase of a rival British firm.

Many Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as well as state and local officials who lease port facilities, are worried that giving a company owned by the United Arab Emirates management control of key U.S. ports could undermine security.

The administration said any security concerns have been adequately addressed but pressure from Congress has forced a new review of the ports proposal.

While Mineta did not comment directly on the ports saga at a House of Representatives appropriations hearing on Tuesday, he did respond to concerns from two Republican lawmakers that the airline deal could pose similar security risks for the United States — especially since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington involved hijacked jetliners.

He also angrily denounced a three-page anonymous document circulating on Capitol Hill — believed generated by an unnamed U.S. airline — that also questions the wisdom of allowing more foreign investment in the airline industry.

“They’re saying we’re going to hand over the keys of the cockpit,” Mineta said. “That’s not true. This paper is replete with inaccuracies.”

“There is nothing in the rule that would change the ownership law,” Mineta said of federal standards that limit control of an airline to U.S. citizens.

It would, however, allow overseas investors more input in key airline company operating decisions in return for a maximum investment of 25 percent of voting stock.

“We want Americans to own American airlines. We’re trying to split hairs,” said Rep. John Culberson, a Texas Republican. “This raises all kinds of red flags.”

Mineta resisted a suggestion by Culberson to pull the ownership proposal, or at least delay it. “I don’t believe we should postpone the rule,” Mineta said.

“We gave this a lot of thought. When it comes to safety and security — that’s walled off,” Mineta said.

There is little if any overseas capital in U.S. carriers. ACE Aviation Holdings, the parent of Air Canada, has an equity stake in US Airways.

In a separate interview, Rep. Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, one of the first Republicans to openly question the administration’s handling of the ports deal and original opponent of the airline ownership proposal on economic grounds, said it is appropriate to link the two in the security debate.

“One is as critical as the other — these are critical infrastructure issues,” LoBiondo said.

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Direct link to article here.

Overview of the Cement Industry
Concrete Basics Home > Cement Industry

Economics of the U.S. Cement Industry
Information on aspects of the U.S. cement industry including imports, exports, ownership, economic cycles, employment, and trends.
(Updated May 2003.)

The cement industry is a relatively small but significant component of the U.S. economy, with annual shipments valued at around $8.6 billion. In the United States, 39 companies operate 118 cement plants in 38 states. Worldwide, the United States ranks third in cement production, behind China — the world’s leading producer — and India.

U.S. cement production is rather widely distributed. The largest company produces just over 13% of the industry total, and the top five companies collectively produce around 53%. Foreign companies now own approximately 81% of U.S. cement capacity, up from about 22% in 1980. Investments during the 80’s by European companies, as well as Asian entities, were spurred by the favorable position of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies.

Construction Markets
In 2002, U.S. Portland cement consumption was 103.8 million metric tons, a decline of 4% from 2001 levels. Cement’s fate — like that of most of the other building materials — is closely tied to that of the construction industry. Cement consumption is spurred by strong performance in the construction industry as a whole; however, individual sector growth, such as highway construction, affects cement consumption more heavily.

Inflation-adjusted construction spending was $693 billion in 2002, down 1.7% from 2001 levels and accounting for a 7.3% share of the national economy. Strong construction markets in the 1990’s helped boost cement consumption in that decade. Nonresidential construction, until recently, was one source of cement consumption growth. Continued strength in the public construction sector also contributed to cement’s performance. Public construction spending was $168 billion in 2002, up 3.7% from the previous year.

Authorizations of the Federal Surface Transportation Act of 1980, as well as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, have provided much of the funding needed to keep the highway construction sector moving forward. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and its current pending reauthorization (SAFETEA) should support future consumption.

Cyclical, Seasonal, Regional
Although cement consumption is closely tied to overall construction industry performance, cement is somewhat protected from extreme cycles because cement is used in nearly every type of construction. While individual construction markets have their own distinct business cycles, at any given time cement is usually needed by at least one segment of the construction industry.

The cement business, however, is fairly seasonal. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. cement consumption occurs in the six months between May and October. The seasonal nature of the industry can result in large swings in cement and clinker (unfinished raw material) inventories at cement plants over the course of a year. Cement producers will typically build up inventories during the winter and ship them during the summer.

The cement industry is also regional in nature. Because the cost of shipping cement quickly overtakes its value, customers traditionally purchase cement from local sources. Nearly 96% of U.S. cement is shipped to consumers by truck. Barge and rail modes account for the remaining distribution modes.

Approximately 75% of all shipments are sent to ready-mix concrete operators. Plants shipped 13% of the cement they manufactured to concrete product manufacturers, 6% to contractors, and 3% to building material dealers.

Imports Fill Production Gap
The gap between domestic production and consumption was filled in 2002 by 24.2 million metric tons of imported cement and cement clinker. About 56% of cement and clinker imported in 2002 came from four major countries: Canada, Thailand, China, and Greece. Imports from Thailand, less than one million metric tons in 1998, surged to 4.3 million metric tons in 2002.

Cement and clinker importation is generally cyclical. Typically smaller amounts of cement are imported during recessions — perhaps less that 5% of total national consumption — but during boom times, imports can increase to 20% or more of total national consumption. U.S. producers tend to import the most when plants are operating near full capacity. According to PCA estimates, U.S. cement plants achieved an average capacity utilization rate of 90% in 2002.

Exports of cement seldom exceed 1% of total U.S. production. Like imports, exports are cyclical reaching marginally higher levels during economic recessions when domestic markets are slack. In 2002, the United States exported 438,000 metric tons of cement to final customers.

Efficiency Gains
Employment in the U.S. cement industry has declined dramatically during the past 20 years. In 2002, the cement industry employed 19,140 workers—a 29% reduction compared to 1982 levels. This drop in employment is the result of industry efforts to increase efficiency by automating production and closing small kilns. The average kiln in use today produces over 60% more cement than an average kiln produced 20 years ago: 468,000 metric tons in 2002 compared with 287,000 metric tons in 1982.

The cement industry has boosted efficiency by concentrating new capital investment in plants that use the dry process of cement manufacture, and by phasing out operations that rely on the more energy-intensive wet process. Since 1974, the number of wet process kilns has dropped from 234 to 54 — a decline of 77% — while the number of dry process kilns has only been reduced from 198 to 136. Nearly 56% of existing U.S. clinker production capacity has been built since 1975 — all utilizing the dry manufacturing process. Currently, about 81% of the cement produced in the United States is manufactured using dry process technology.

For More Information
Information and statistics used in this summary are presented in reports compiled by PCA from various government and private sources. For additional information of the U.S. and Canadian cement industry, refer to the Economic and Market Research pages of our web site, or contact PCA directly.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE