Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SHIPPING: Keep using American vessels

Letter by Richard A. Horn, University Place on June 30, 2010 at 2:51 pm with 12 Comments »
July 6, 2010 9:57 am

Re: “Plan to toss shipping act?” (TNT, 6-29).

Sen. John McCain wants to let foreign ships carry goods between U.S. ports.

Trickle-down economics means American workers lose jobs. The American shipbuilders and shipping crews make American salaries and profits that they spend in the United States.

McCain cites a reduced cost for agricultural products shipped to Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. I am sure there are foreign shippers that pay a pittance to their crews and have poor safety regulations that could reduce the cost to the agribusinesses.

The foreign shippers will spend their money in their country, and America will lose again.

The article didn’t directly state that shipping between ports on the continent will also be affected. What’s next? Foreign truckers! With the unemployment rate at 10 percent, we need all the jobs we have.

Leave a comment Comments → 12
  1. Mudbone says:

    Mccain is an absolute moron! The U.S. flag fleet is down to nearly nothing already. We would not have won WWII without them. They lost more men in proportion than any of the armed services except the marines. They had to fight very hard to get the reduce subsidy of $ one billion over ten years to keep in business while agriculture recieved $33 billion dollars in one year mainly to not grow certain crops.

  2. Sumner401 says:

    When will people realize that the right has never, ever done anything to help the middle class working man?
    Trickle down?? How did that ever get passed off as a good thing? Why do some still think it works or will at some point in the far distant future, all we have to is give more money to the top 1% and soon, soon it will rain back down on us like manna from heaven, It will, Saint ronnie said so!

    De-regulation? Again, how did that get passed of as a good thing?
    Look at how much it has cost the nation every time we do it?
    Savings and loan
    and the latest, banking. All failures of the highest order.
    Add it up people, add up the costs to the nation and to the middle class.
    And if your calculator doesn’t burns up add up the costs of ‘privatization’, the other scam the right has sold the non-thinkers on. The prison system alone has cost trillions and they want to ‘privatize’ social security and medicare!
    Or is it ‘personalize’ now, is that the new word for it?

    Why would anyone continue to vote for the republicans knowing how much damage they have to the country with their conservative agenda?

  3. george14017 says:

    Great letter. Right on.

  4. witchiwoman says:

    I second the motion….great letter Richard. Right on!

    The only places money trickled down to were the pockets of the men at the top.

  5. LuckyCharm says:

    I love how Republicans keep demanding Obama “fix the economy,” yet go around supporting legislation that does just the opposite. They’re blocking immigration reform, which would open up more jobs for Americans. They blocked progressive health care reform, which has a direct impact on things like personal bankruptcies and hiring costs. They block energy reform, which would create hundreds of thousands of jobs right here in our country. What DO they expect the President to do about the economy, when they know all they’re going to do is block it?

  6. Publico says:

    Me thinks the writer has the issues confused. Try this in today’s paper.
    In any event, McCain is wrong again and so is Palin wrong again. It seems to be a pattern with them. Hmmmmmm?

  7. I think you’re on to something, Richard.

    The right wants to give all the jobs away, then blame labor for the lack of employment opportunities.

    We need meaningful tariffs.

  8. Which party was it that proclaimed that opposition is patriotic? Let me think….. hmmmmm…… maybe there’s a sound bite somewhere of that very same person stating that they were in charge now. That would have been just after the 2006 elections. Hmmmm….. I wish I could remember who that was. It was the party that crowed about making sure new judges didn’t get confirmation hearings, wasn’t it?

    Now that the tables are tilted the other way, everyone is supposed to go along and agree with everything they want. A little disingenuous if you ask me.

  9. LuckyCharm says:

    bucks, I don’t think anybody’s ever claimed that opposition for opposition’s sake is patriotic. It really depends on what you’re opposing — is it something good for the country, or bad for it?

  10. And that’s the crux of the matter. One side is claiming that they stopped “bad” legislation based on their beliefs, but the other side is just stopping legislation to be obstinate. Somehow one has to step back far enough to see that there are 2 sides to every issue and that the side you or I believes in, isn’t always right. Other people really can be stopping legislation based on their beliefs too. There is not one right way to run the country. There are many different ways to govern. What seems to be a good way to run the country for you might seem to be bad for me.

    The different ways to view things is often hard to believe. For example, many on one side of the aisle blasted the other party for running up the deficit. Then when they got in power ran the deficit higher in order to ‘fix’ the problem. How can it be bad one day and the cure the next. Isn’t it always bad to spend more money than you have year after year?

  11. LuckyCharm says:

    bucks2, sometimes you have to spend money to make money. Applying this on a personal scale, I met a woman last year who was forced to rent out part of her house to make ends meet. She was barely keeping her head above water as a hairdresser or something, but to qualify for anything higher-paying, she would have had to go to school. Since she was already operating in the red, or close to it, college would have been out of the question. So she was stuck.

    With the pace of the job losses we were seeing at the end of 2008, there was no way we were ever going to pull out of it by not spending money, because that’s a vicious cycle. More people lose jobs, forfeit their homes, property values go down, communities lose revenue and start laying off employees, who lose their homes, causing property values to fall even further, etc. Meanwhile all these people are turning to unemployment insurance, food stamps, charities, etc., straining these resources even as there is less and less there to pay for them. Somehow, the cycle had to be stopped — the housing market needed to be stabilized, people needed to start staying in or going back to their jobs, etc. That can’t happen unless there’s money. Eventually, we hope the opposite kind of cycle takes hold — more people making money means more buying homes, dining out, traveling, etc., which creates more jobs in the community, higher property values, increased community revenues which translate to better service, which makes the community more desirable and attracts new businesses, etc. etc…

  12. LuckyCharm says:

    But you are correct in one thing, bucks — there are basically two ways in which Americans view the way the country should be run: either to benefit Big Business (the trickle down theory) or to beef up the middle class. We’ve seen examples of both in practice — which has resulted in the most robust, prosperous economy for all?

    One of the most depressing things I heard recently was from a caller to a radio show. She described in a nutshell how basically all the oil drilling research and development is done here, on the taxpayer’s dime. Then, the oil companies export that technology elsewhere in the world to take advantage of their reserves. And the taxpayer winds up screwed yet again, enriching everybody in the world except ourselves. This is a pattern that’s been set up over decades, and yet we still bicker about breaking our addiction to foreign fuels. I cannot think of one rational argument for not making all cars and trucks electric and outfitting them with solar panels, or encouraging start-ups to develop biomass energy from algae, but spokesmen from Big Oil (Republicans and Blue Dog Dems) would kill that idea before it even got out of committee. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0