Jones Act postpones Puerto Rico recovery from hurricane

 Washington Examiner:

Last week, Puerto Rico was devastated by Hurricane Fiona. The entire island was left without power. Unfortunately, its residents continue to suffer a week later, and this time, nature alone cannot be blamed, as an archaic federal law called the Jones Act is preventing needed supplies from reaching the island territory as quickly as they could otherwise.

"There is a ship with 300,000 barrels of diesel off the southern coast of Puerto Rico, that is prepared to deliver the diesel at a time when the island needs all the diesel it can get," CBS News correspondent David Begnaud confirmed Monday morning on social media.

The problem is that this ship is foreign-flagged and its cargo comes from Texas. Therefore, the Jones Act prohibits its delivery.

"Diesel helps gas stations, hospitals, the government of Puerto Rico," Begnaud explained. "Because of the Jones Act, I am told that the foreign-flagged ship cannot move into Puerto Rico to deliver the diesel unless it obtains a Jones Act waiver."

The Jones Act, a piece of special interest legislation passed in 1920 to protect U.S. shipping companies from competition, prevents foreign vessels from carrying goods between U.S. ports. The law failed, as all protectionist laws ultimately do, to protect the Merchant Marine from its demise. The law simply incentivized greater use of railroads and trucking for interstate shipping. The fleet of merchant vessels grew to more than 2,000 during World War II but has since declined to fewer than 200.

Unfortunately, this law's consequences can be felt every day by residents of island locations such as Hawaii and Puerto Rico. In normal times, the Jones Act causes consumers to pay needlessly high prices. In times of crisis, it can have tragic consequences, which is what is happening in Puerto Rico right now.

...

The US would be better off if the law was repealed and certainly Puerto Rico and Hawaii would.  This law failed in it original intent and now harms the US. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more