NASCO Super-Corridor Transmogrified

[longeyes]

NASCO Alters Super-Corridor Message

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jul 05, 2006

NASCO has altered the organization’s website homepage, apparently in direct response to the North American Union series we have published here, including discussion of NASCO and NAFTA Super-Highways.

NASCO appears to be reacting from recent publicity deriving from our argument that NASCO actively supports the goals of their members, including the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and the Kansas City SmartPort. TxDOT plans to start the first segment of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) as early as next year and the Kansas City SmartPort plans to house a Mexican customs operation within their Inland Port design. These are new infrastructure developments along the North American NAFTA Super-Corridor that NASCO as a trade organization was created to support.

A box has been inserted to the left of the NASCO map on the homepage, emphasizing the following:
This map is not a blueprint or plan of any kind. The Infrastructure depicted on this map is not drawn to scale. The highways shown EXIST today, and have been enlarged to highlight the NASCO Corridor focus area. The rail lines have been placed on the map to show NASCO’s multimodal approach.
The subtitle on the home page still reads “Secure Multi-Modal Transportation System,” evidently referring to the automobile, truck, and railroad nature of the “NASCO Super-Corridor” described in the top title on the page. By so adding to the homepage, NASCO appears engaged in a public relations marketing effort to defuse concerns that the organization supports any new NAFTA Super-Highway development that would include TTC features.

This modification to the homepage echoes an email the author received from Tiffany Melvin, NASCO’s Executive Director, on June 23, 2006, in which she wrote:
If the map were drawn to scale, it would be very difficult to see our focus area. The map is designed for marketing purposes, to highlight the highways we are focusing on. It is for our Coalition. That’s it.
An insert box has been placed on the homepage in the Atlantic Ocean area east of Massachusetts, reading “NASCO Myths Debunked.” We understand that our articles are among the “myths” intended to be “debunked.” The first line of text in the 4-page document linked to the “debunked box” reads: “There is no new, proposed ‘NAFTA Superhighway.” The next paragraph seems to say the NAFTA Super-Highway already exists -- it is evidently the current I-35:
As of late, there has been much media attention given to the “new, proposed NAFTA Superhighway.” NASCO and the cities, counties, states and provinces along our existing Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor) have been referring to I-35 as the “NAFTA Superhighway” for many years, as I-35 already carries a substantial amount of international trade with Mexico, the United States and Canada. There are no plans to build a new NAFTA Superhighwary -- it exists today as I-35.
The “debunked text” even wants to de-emphasize the “Super” in the NASCO “Super Corridor” name. As Ms. Melvin expressed in a June 22, 2006 email to the author:
We have been using the name “SuperCorridor” since 1996. It does not mean huge, mega highway. We use “Super” in the sense of “more inclusive than a specialized category” (dictionary definition). Like Superman was not a huge, giant four football field wide man. He was MORE than a man. We are MORE than a highway coalition. We work to promote the use of multiple modes of transportation. We work on economic development along the corridor. We work on environmental issues. We work on networking inland ports. We work on developing business relationships for our members.
Perhaps NASCO would be well advised to review the Trans-Texas Corridor website of its member TxDOT agency. There the 4,000 page Environmental Impact Study (EIS) clearly describes the 1,200 foot new Super-Highway that TxDOT plans to build parallel to I-35. Page 4 of the EIS Executive Summary shows an artist’s rendition of the full build-out of the TTC-35 concept, an automobile-truck-railroad corridor with a utility space for energy pipelines and electronic circuits, along with tower electricity strung out on the perimeter. No artist’s conception of the TTC drawn by the TxDOT bears any resemblance to the current I-35 in Texas or anywhere else.



This TTC-35 description belies NASCO’s contention that the organization does not support the constructing any new Super-Highway infrastructure.

Perhaps NASCO wants to advance the argument that no state north of Texas will continue the TTC-35 project to connect through Oklahoma City with the Kansas City SmartPort, continuing north toward Duluth, or that TTC-35. As we have already shown, the investment bankers and international capitalists who are funding the development of TTC-35 can be expected to develop extend this NAFTA Super-Highway north, whether NASCO or the states north of Texas have the funds or current plans to do so.

From a public relations point of view, NASCO’s emphasis that the “NASCO Super-Corridor” only involves existing highways, truck routes, and rail lines is a strategy consistent with a desire to stay below the radar of public awareness, so as to avoid criticism that might otherwise stop or impede NASCO’s true mission -- to support the development of a NAFTA Super-Highway, either through enhancements to the existing north-south corridor along Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor), or any Super-Highway enhancements its members initiate, including the TTC and the Mexican customs facility in the Kansas City SmartPort.

Today, there are some 50,000 miles of interstate highway in the U.S. and the TxDOT is proposing a full build-out of the TTC network that will build some 4,000 miles of TTC Super-Highways in Texas over the next 50 years. The TTC project at full development will involve the removal of as much as 584,000 acres of productive Texas farm and ranchland from the tax rolls permanently, while displacing upwards of 1 million people from their current residences. The 11 separate corridors planned will permanently cut across some 1,200 Texas roads, with cross-over unlikely for much of the nearly quarter-mile corridor planned to be built. Our research shows that dozens of small towns in Texas will be virtually obliterated in the bath of the advancing TTC behemoth. Reviewing statistics such as these, we can see why NASCO might prefer a low profile, preferring to stay below the radar of public scrutiny.

We also note that George Blackwood, NASCO President, attended the January 10-11 meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, held by the Council of the Americas and the North American Business Committee to conduct a “Public/Private Sector Dialogue” on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. A key finding of this meeting was that associations in the U.S. organized to promote particular corridors needed since the dawning of SPP in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, to coordinate their efforts in a less provincial style, more reflective of the North American regional orientation of SPP itself:
For instance, conversation at the Louisville forum raised the potential for commonalities and/or synergies between disparate transportation efforts in the US Midwest (the “SuperCorridor” initiative), the North American West (“CANAMEX Corridor”), and in the Southeast United States and Mexico (the “Gulf of Mexico Trade Corridor” initiative). Before SPP, there was no obvious mechanism through which to promote coordination of these discrete activities.
The Louisville SPP meeting also advised “the establishment of bilateral or trilateral commissions to facilitate border and cross-border infrastructure.”

While the NASCO “debunking text” is correct in asserting that NASCO is a trade organization, not a government organization, NASCO officers appear deeply involved in working with federal and state departments of transportation, local and state governments, and regulatory agencies in promoting the goal of developing a “Super Corridor” structure for “integrating” the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a corridor-dimensioned transportation system to promote NAFTA trade. NASCO trade organization professionals evidently are much more comfortable working in professional SPP conferences and dealing with government bureaucrats in the closed confines of their offices than answering the questions that public citizens are openly discussing on the Internet.

The NASCO “debunking text” continually asserts that a primary NASCO concern is transportation security, much as SPP itself asserts that the North American Partnership is put in place to promote security and prosperity, two goals SPP could assume no one would object to pursuing. The idea seems to be that NASCO wants to present itself as only concerned about security and efficiency as the volume of traffic on the existing “NASCO SuperCorriror” of existing interstate highways gets expanded under NAFTA.

NASCO’s “debunking text” asserts that the organization’s mission is “develop (NOT BUILD) the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America.”

Given this, we have a challenge. Let’s see NASCO come forward and repudiate the TTC-35 plans of their TxDOT member, because clearly the TTC-35 plan to build 4-football-field-lengths wide of NAFTA Super-Highway corridors is inconsistent with NASCO’s goal as expressed in the “debunking text” of only using existing transportation infrastructure. We also challenge NASCO to come forward and repute the Mexican customs facility plans of its Kansas City SmartPort member. Otherwise, we will assert that NASCO is continuing to say one thing for public relations effect, while doing something quite different -- quietly supporting their members as the members build the “new and improved” NAFTA Super-Highway infrastructure along the NASCO Corridor.
Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Waitone]

These people have been outted with their propensity to publish via the internet. I look for a lesson to be learned in the near future. spp.gov will sustain changes if not outright reduction in content. I wonder what Corsi would have if he lost the content at spp.gov.

Our transportation guru's have responded quickly albeit with a ham-hand.

Look for a lessons learned memo to go out.

 

[Thin Black Line]

The highways shown EXIST today, and have been enlarged to highlight the NASCO Corridor focus area.

Everyone keeps forgetting that I-35 isn't the only highway involved.

I-69 is the other highway from Texas to Canada. To complete this project
they DO have to build a new stretch of highway from Evansville to
Indianapolis. The people who live there don't want and there's plenty of
evidence that there's some shady stuff going on behind the scenes when
it comes to "following the money":

Route critics question tax dollars for group Coalition that backed path chosen for highway had received $157,000 from state and city.

By Jason Thomas
[email protected]
April 10, 2004

The route approved last week for the I-69 extension is the same one that has been backed for years by a nonprofit group that received more than $150,000 in taxpayer money.

Opponents of the route, which will connect Indianapolis and Evansville, think the situation shows officials had, in essence, already chosen the route that cuts through farmland and undeveloped property.

"To me it shows this whole process was rigged," said Andy Knott, air and energy policy director of the Hoosier Environmental Council. "I think we have to go back and look at how can this process be objective, when the same government doing the study is giving taxpayer money to lobbyists who are pushing for this route. It can't be an objective study."

James G. Newland, longtime friend of the late Gov. Frank O'Bannon and executive director of the I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition, said receiving tax dollars does not show the choice of a route was preordained. The state and local officials involved in sending him the money agree. "We did get some funding from the Department of Commerce during those years," Newland said. "I saw nothing wrong with that. I solicited their help in trying to get this done. It was for the route that would finally be decided by the state."

The I-69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition was incorporated in 1993 after a meeting between a handful of transportation heavyweights representing seven states, from Indiana to Texas. I-69 eventually will pass through each of those states, stretching from Canada to Mexico.

As early as 1999, Newland wrote editorial pieces advocating the "straight-line" route, the same route eventually chosen by O'Bannon and approved by the feds. "We felt it was proper as citizens of this state to express our opinion on where it ought to go, and we did," Newland said. "We're taxpayers, too, you know."

Newland and O'Bannon shared a similar vision for I-69. "I met with Frank shortly before he died," Newland said. "He told me then, 'Look, this road simply has to serve Bloomington. It has to serve the Crane naval base and on down to Evansville.' "

From 1996 to 2001, the coalition received $97,000 in grants -- taxpayer money -- from the Indiana Department of Commerce. In addition, from 2000 to 2003, the city of Indianapolis paid the coalition a total of $60,000 to inform city officials of the latest developments concerning I-69. Tim Monger, executive director of the Department of Commerce, defends the funding, saying that what began as an initiative to study an I-69 extension naturally evolved into a tighter focus. "When you look at the time the coalition came to the Department of Commerce, it was a multistate initiative simply advocating and pushing for the establishment of I-69, period," he said. "As time goes by, you have to narrow the focus down to a specific location. Otherwise, it would probably never get built. I really think of (the coalition) as a grass-roots coalition. Having been involved in economic development over the years, one thing you want to do is have grass-roots involvement to let the legislators know what the preference is."

Knott would disagree... "Not with our tax dollars," he said. "That's the scandal in this thing -- that our money went to someone who was advocating one side of this thing."

That distinction isn't lost on 80-year-old John McCall. Since 1867, his family has farmed in Daviess County. And now his 440-acre farm will be sliced in two by I-69. "I'm all for progress," McCall said, "but the way (the state) is going about this stinks. They have a very high-handed attitude that the people down in southwest Indiana are a bunch of peons that hardly know how to make their way to the bathroom."

Newland insists his coalition took an objective approach. "We supported the studies that were made that determined this," he said. "If the studies that had been made had recommended another route, then we would have supported that. "Every study that I have seen tells me the same thing -- this is the route that must be taken to solve Indiana's transportation problem." One of those alternate routes was to use I-70 and U.S. 41, a choice touted by the Terre Haute Chamber of Commerce because it would take the highway through Terre Haute. But in the mid-1990s, after meeting with Newland, the chamber was dissuaded from seeking funding from the Department of Commerce to advocate the I-70 route.

Rod Henry, president of Terre Haute's chamber, said funding was not possible because the chamber was advocating a particular route. "Mr. Newland was very much in the opinion that there was only one route, Henry said. "Basically, he said the coalition was only looking at one route and advocating one route. "The route was ordained years and years ago."

What the coalition has to show for the money also is in question. The coalition's grant agreement with the state stipulated that it was required to submit a quarterly progress report. A public records search revealed one report was an environmental study performed by HNTB Corp., an architectural and engineering firm.

Also in the public documents was a letter sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation and a speech given to the coalition board of directors by its congressional consultant -- all labeled as quarterly reports. "It costs money to operate a coalition," Newland said. "There's travel, studies, all the other work."

The city also signed a similar agreement with the coalition. "We presume all the agreements we enter into are worthwhile or we would terminate them at some point," said Jim Garrard, director of the city's Department of Public Works. "We got benefit out of it, or we wouldn't have kept the contract."

Garrard said the department received "a stack of materials" from the coalition, but that it never advocated one route. But public documents show the coalition provided only its own newsletters and clippings from area newspapers.

J. Bryan Nicol, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Transportation, said equal weight has been given to both sides of the issue. The coalition's comment "was given equal weight with every other comment we received. We did not give any one comment preference over any other. "Our job has been to conduct a fair and objective study, and we believe that our study has been legally sound and has taken into account all opinions."

As the opinions continue, the approach toward building I-69 will long be the subject of debate.

"From the days of the Founding Fathers, there's been a question of whether citizens should be compelled to furnish funds for causes they disagree with," said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan citizens group. "Unfortunately, the answer seems to be, 'Well, grin and bear it and get out your wallet.' "That's not a satisfactory answer to most taxpayers. Folks on both sides of the I-69 question ought to be able to agree the political aspects should be funded by private pockets and not the public purse."

Knight-Ridder reported that:

Since May 1995, the I-69 Mid Continent Highway Coalition, which is promoting a new Houston-to-Laredo interstate, has paid the younger DeLay $120,000, records show. He's earned another $155,999 from Pharr Economic Development Corp., which is part of a coalition of Texas border cities, including Brownsville and McAllen, that seek federal money for highways connecting them to Houston.

Rep. DeLay is a co-chairman of the congressional I-69 coalition and second-ranking Republican on the House Appropriations subcommittee that hands out federal grants for highway construction.

No significant federal money has been committed yet for any interstate linking Houston to Mexican border cities that lie due south. But Rep. DeLay proposed last month that priority be given to aid for highways that promote the goals of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The measure would be popular throughout southern Texas and is precisely what lobbyist DeLay's clients are seeking.

So will the residents of Indiana who don't want this will be forking over $2
billion in taxpayer dollars?

 

[longeyes]

These people have been outted with their propensity to publish via the internet. I look for a lesson to be learned in the near future. spp.gov will sustain changes if not outright reduction in content. I wonder what Corsi would have if he lost the content at spp.gov.

If we want a "NASCOgate," we're going to have to create the investigative journalists and legal support troops to work for the real public interest. Not impossible. The blogosphere is a great new development but most of it is compiled sources, not first-hand digging in the raw world of experience. We need watchdogs and bloodhounds, lots of them.

Yes, the politicians and bureaucrats will find ways to throw a tarp over what's going on, just like the good ol' days.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Well, as we can see from the lack of interest in this thread, this is why the
"other side" is winning. Yep, this was an interesting topic a couple weeks
ago, but now no one gives a crap. Oh well, let's all just go shopping at
Big-Mart and pick up our Chinese trinkets trucked in by Mexican drivers
and then wonder why our wages aren't going up and the local factories and
local family-owned businesses/farms are closing.

Soon, we'll be living in the nightmare town of Jimmy Stewart's "It's a Wonderful
Life", but it will be real.

 

[longeyes]

As the burger ad says, "Don't bother me, I'm eating!"

"Dubai" is another example: in the end they got what they wanted and the game goes on.

Will it be the same story with the "comprehensive solution" to the immigration problem? Just wait 'em out?

 

[Art Eatman]

Thin Black Line, are people not supposed to be able to buy trinkets? Are those lower-priced trinkets which are of equal desirability to higher-priced trinkets a Bad Thing?

Why is it at all unusual for city government or state government people to want expanded transportation facilities? Or unusual for there to be interest and attempts at influence on the part of those in the actual transportation business?

Where else but in rural areas would you build any new large-scale rail and road facility?

I'm not at all saying that there is no chicanery involved, or that some of those involved are looking to feather their own nests. It's "people", so there's bound to be some crookedness. What I object to is this breathless air of "This is something new!" in the emotional oratory against the overall grand scheme.

And nobody has ever answered my questions about what happens, overall, if nothing gets done.

Art

 

[longeyes]

Low-priced trinkets?

You mean the trinkets that fuel our mounting trade deficit, prop up Mexican billionaires, encourage cheap imported illegal labor, break down our own middle class workers,and fund the Chinese military build-up?

No, there are no "low-priced trinkets," only consumer items that are part of a much grander economic, social, political, and cultural matrix that most of us refuse to examine.

Is the NASCO Corridor just "inevitable progress?" If it is this American Republic is in serious trouble. We can trade with Mexico and Canada without abolishing sovereignty, destroying our own middle-class, and superseding our own Constitution and Bill of Rights. We can. But the political issues are of little interest to the economic interests who are behind this. They really can't be bothered with the inconvenient niceties of preserving our political values. The Almight Consumer must be served, and even more importantly, the people selling to that Almighty Consumer must be enhanced and enlarged. If it takes eliminating borders and civil liberties, well, low-priced trinkets are way more important.

The fact that none of this was part of Bush's campaign in either Election or has been openly discussed in public political forums should tell us all we need to know about whether this is really A Good Thing for most of us. If it were, on all fronts, we'd all be jumping to embrace it and it wouldn't have to be hidden (even in plain sight) and spun.

 

[LAK]

Art Eatman

Why is it at all unusual for city government or state government people to want expanded transportation facilities? Or unusual for there to be interest and attempts at influence on the part of those in the actual transportation business?

Since when did gov become a sort of person - with "wants"? The "want" in this case is the unhealthy merger of corporation and gov for private/personal gains - not the national interests. And certainly not the interests of any State and local folk along the way; except those "lucky" folk holding the handful of executive positions etc.

If you want to look at a good example of expansion for expansion's sake - just look at Houston, or a few other of our largest cities for that matter. Gross overcrowding, rising crime, trash everywhere, stinking sewers, stinking dumpsters, appalling roads in most areas - and still being expanded with no end in sight. It is irrational - insane.

Aside from the most important issues of the geo-political agenda behind these people, the theft of public money and property for private corporate gains, and it's effect on national security, culture, wages etc - all this is going to do is fuel more Houston clones. From smaller on up. Some might prostrate themselves and grovel at the thought of all those c. $6 to $7 an hour openings; but we do not need expansion - we need a thorough housecleaning and consolidation.

And speaking of the transportation business - when Mexican trucks can haul goods all the way to Alaska and back, what is that going to do to the wages in that business? Because it is business that will decide what needs trimming to be competitive. When upward of 15 to 20 million get their "guest worker" cards, what will be the average rate of pay for a truck driver in this country? Equal to about $6 an hour? $7?

-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Thin Black Line]

I'm not at all saying that there is no chicanery involved, or that some of those involved are looking to feather their own nests. It's "people", so there's bound to be some crookedness. What I object to is this breathless air of "This is something new!" in the emotional oratory against the overall grand scheme.

"Some of those involved" being the ones who do the lobbying and make the
final decisions in gov't --just the key people.

And, Art, this is not the "breathless air" of fear over "something new."
Obviously, you do not live in the midwest Great Lakes area that has lost
many many factory jobs to Mexico, but just to be fair, to other countries as
well.

What industry do YOU work in, Art? One that benefits fron the increased
border trade? Because it's hurting us up here. "Something new" may be
good for you and your niche economy in TX, but not up here where all it
does is truck in trinkets, and increasingly the cheap labor that seems to
show up at 5:00am behind the Big Box home improvement stores. Do you
care about you fellow Americans losing jobs?

We could discuss traitor economics all day, Art, and you and I won't agree
because we've discussed it before. You and your friends are benefiting from
the trickle down of it and 10's of 1000s of people up here are not. Try our
entire auto industry for a start. What kind of auto do you drive, Art?

 

[brufener]

First post on this topic, but I tend to agree with Art. I do not agree with every aspect fo the NASCO Super-Corridor, but on the whole it seems like a good idea.

There is just one issue I want to address:

Do you care about you fellow Americans losing jobs?

I do not agree with the idea of job entitlement. Seems to me that is what many here are arguing. Even though there are people who are willing to do the SAME JOB for less money, the argument says that Americans should do the job for more money because they are American. I don't agree with that.

Yes I think Americans should have jobs, but it is wasteful to pay someone a higher wage to do a job when the same job could be done by someone else for a lower wage. If the American is really worth more, the market will find a place where he is paid what he is worth. If Americans are losing jobs, perhaps it is time to get new training.

I am aware that some areas of the country have been hit hard by manufacturing job loss. However, other parts of the country (e.g. Washington, D.C.) are doing great because the populace has gotten new skills.

For the record, my wife and I both drive Chevrolets.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Here's for buying a Chevy

However, other parts of the country (e.g. Washington, D.C.) are doing great because the populace has gotten new skills.

Due to increased employment by the fedgov from all the tax $'s gleaned from
the rest of the nation, and all the local jobs (restaurants, hotels, etc) that
support those government jobs inside the beltway. Yeah, things are great
for those closest to the trough. However, that trough is filled by taking
the produce from elsewhere.

I'm not talking "job entitlement." I and many others have addressed this
point in earlier posts on immigration as well. It's a simple fact that when
you move an entire factory overseas where the people are paid a $1-$10
per day (a large part due to exchange rate alone) and then bring the goods
back over here at little or NO tariff, that the people here will not be able to
compete. Such moves are made in the first place due to top-down rules
that allow it. I ***always*** find that those who use the "my fellow
Americans need to find new job skills" line are not in industries affected by
such moves.

I'm very familiar with the "service economy" theory and began as far
back as Toffler and "Powershift." According to him and his discussions with
the leaders of goverment and industry in the late 80s, Americans were
suppose to find employment after manufacturing job losses through domestic
service jobs (now the ones being undercut by illegal aliens) and high-tech
jobs (now the ones being outsourced to the far east).

So far, government, education, and healthcare jobs seem completely
unaffected. It's great if you're in those fields --most of which are
taxpayer subsidized This game of musical chairs still has plenty of
record left for them. They fail to notice a growing number of Americans
left on the sidelines who are asking "where are the jobs going to come
from?" No one can answer them.

It's convenient, even lifesaving, that some services such as x-rays can
be read at 3am here in America by someone in Australia. This only works
because we still have *full-employment* anyway in certain critical skills and
some things just can't be moved off-site. That would change if such
services were increasingly outsourced to foreign workers. Imagine if 50%
of US hospital/clinics had 100% 24/7/365 lab interpretation operations
off-shore? Considering hipaa and other *federal* measures are requiring all
health data to be electronic in the future, don't rule that out. But, no one
here will care if their x-rays or blood tests are read in another country and
those results and recommendations for treatment are sent back to your local
dr by someone who speaks a language OTE, right?

It doesn't make any difference until it affects you.

 

[Justin]

You know what?

If national sovereignty is threatened by a ribbon of asphalt, I have to say that there's probably not much that can be done to save The Republic.

 

[Art Eatman]

Neither I nor anybody else knows any sort of "the" answer to the loss of high-wage blue collar or IT jobs--beyond "Learn to do something else".

Me? I dropped out of professional engineering (civil) in 1979. I did gunshows and coinshows and rebuilt cars for resale. I then moved to Terlingua in 1983 when the population was 20% of what it is now. Bought a backhoe and dumptruck on time payment and managed to sell work and pay for them and feed myself.

I ran across the datum that we import $2 trillion's worth per year. We export $1.2 trillion's worth per year. (Rough numbers) So, yeah, deficit, but we're still the world's largest exporter of "stuff".

Our population is growing. The amount of business activity is increasing. The amount of "stuff" that people buy or produce is increasing. The highways and railroads are pretty heavily loaded. And that's happening and will continue to happen regardless of anybody's personal opinion of likes and dislikes.

Change is gonna keep on changing and history is gonna keep on happening. I used to kill deer and turkey on my 230 acres, five miles from the Austin City Limits. It's all residential rooftops, now. None of those many hundreds of people give a hoot if I'm happy about it.

Our primary trade routes into/out-of/through the U.S. are north/south, from Mexico to Canada. Our imports/exports from/to Asia have overloaded our west coast ports, so there is expansion in western Mexico.

Why do cities and states become proponents of grandiose schemes of this sort? Simple. It's jobs and it's increased tax income. 'Cause it IS jobs. And more sales tax income and ad valorem property tax income.

In Texas, every time there has ever been a highway improvement near any town or city, there has been an increase in business activity in that county. Invariably. The Texas Transportation Institute at A&M has the numbers to prove it. I see no reason for it to be different in other states.

Again: I, too, have questions/concerns about how all this will be financed and managed. I have no doubt as to the overall need for some such project, whether as large as proposed or possibly lesser.

But separate the arguments. I think I've answered the "Do we need?". I have no answer for the "how to". The cost is more than I make in a week...

, Art

 

[longeyes]

The Americans who don't care about what's going on are either in government-subsidized fields or in those still somewhat limited sectors that benefit directly from illegal immigration. When will it change? When Indian lawyers start taking business, big-time, from American lawyers, probably.

One thing is clear, to me at least: Businesses will not automate or robotize if they can find serfs to work for sub-standard wages. Agri-business is a prime candidate for higher efficiencies through technology.

As for Americans getting "realistic" and re-training, maybe if we weren't spending tens of billions of dollars a year on social welfare, all kinds, for illegal aliens and their offspring, we'd have monies to throw at American workers to upgrade their skills. "Katrina" was an opportunity to do something about re-building trades skills among southern Blacks; instead, in a classic example of what's wrong, our own Government brought in illegal aliens to do the work, breaking the law in the process.

Yes, the issue is complex, but the motives behind the NASCO Corridor are not.

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, as long as we're gonna wander off onto other topics:

"...we'd have (tax) monies to throw at American workers to upgrade their skills."

Lessee: After I got my mechanical engineering degree and worked a year for GM, I left and got a job learning electrical engineering stuff. After a year I left and got a job learning about civil engineering and dams/floods/spillway design and hydrology and that sort of stuff.

On the side, on my own time, I learned about auto mechanics, rare coins, guns, real estate, offshore fishing and boats, small-time gunsmithing, ranching and home maintenance such as plumbing, wiring, roofing and general carpentry. All that either subtracted from my overhead, or brought in more income.

I had never sat on a backhoe or in a dumptruck until they showed up at my house. Taught myself how to run them; made a fair living from them.

At least I've learned more than one trade, and I never cost anybody any tax dollars to do extra learning.

, Art

 

[longeyes]

If national sovereignty is threatened by a ribbon of asphalt, I have to say that there's probably not much that can be done to save The Republic.

When the "ribbon of asphalt" is the root system of a growing cancer, it's a problem.

 

[Thin Black Line]

It's these kind of contrasts that make me ask questions:

June layoffs rise by 25 pct vs. May: survey

Add: in the United States of America.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060706...rEF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

So, manufacturing jobs in the US are lost...ok....hold on, we know that
and there's no disagreement among posters here. However, compare and
contrast with this:

European Manufacturing Grew Most in Six Years in June

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=worldwide_news&sid=aHIFcra9Rb_Y

I mean isn't it strange considering how strong the Euro (currency) is that
they should have GROWTH in manufacturing?! It's the $ that's been
weakening...One would think that manufacturing in EU would be worse off.
One would think *they* should be losing manufacturing jobs faster than us.
To answer the "where will the jobs come from" ? that no one could answer
earlier, maybe we should ask "How does Europe do it?" Do they impose
high tariffs to non-EU manufactured goods --like those from China?

I know that the EU economy is expected to expand and the Euro is
expected to supercede the $ at some point as the world's reserve currency.
Well-known wealthy connected Americans have already been moving their
money to Europe, in addition to the usual municipal bonds that gets them
out of paying taxes. Some even change their citizenship to an EU country,
but retain their US business. They get to use carry-forward losses on the
corporation to get out of paying the corporate tax and then as a resident of
another country, get out of the US income taxes.

 

[Thin Black Line]

When the "ribbon of asphalt" is the root system of a growing cancer, it's a problem.

Like melanoma. The little lesion on top seems minor, but it's the stuff behind
it that kills you. It's one of the most deadly forms of cancer.

 

[longeyes]

Art,

I'm not questioning your initiative or even necessarily championing some kind of WPA project for the Katrina-affected areas. What I am saying is that we clearly are not playing fair with American citizens in terms of what subsidies government DOES hand out (we can debate whether there ought to be any, ever). And I'm still waiting for an explanation from this Administration over how they justify bringing in illegal aliens to do clean-up and rebuilding in the South.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

longeyes, the government explanation is simple, "We want blacks in Louisiana to remain a reliable voting bloc, having them become construction laborers allows many of the poorer ones on the dole a way out of government assistance, and a way onto voting for people that don't like more taxes."

Oh, and the corporations that recieve the vast majority of subsidies, they are citizens. Even if they are only supposed to be "persons"

 

[longeyes]

I think you covered it.

 

[LAK]

brufener

Do you care about you fellow Americans losing jobs?

..... I do not agree with the idea of job entitlement. Seems to me that is what many here are arguing.

This is not about "job entitlement"; i.e. a right to a job. It is about our government which has a duty and responsibility to the citizens of the United States over those of all other nations.

And this road - both literally and politically speaking - is going to further contribute to turning our country into a third world nation. Where there is a mass low level income population, a small middle class, and a very few at the upper level. Much like Mexico today, along with a couple of other continents. The levelling of the playing field; which means that most middle class earners in this country can expect to have their standard of living reduced to the lower class in a very short span of years, and join the rest of the slaves on the global plantation.

That is the role of our government?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50981

" ...... Does the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America include a common currency that would scrap the dollar in favor of what some are calling the "amero"? ..."

-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates

 

[Sheldon J]

Only if I can put a toll gate at every property line it passes,

 

[longeyes]

the saga continues...

Bush Administration Fast-Tracks Formation of North American Union

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jul 11, 2006

With virtually no mention in the mainstream media, Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez convened on June 15, the first meeting of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), an apparently extra-constitutional advisory group organized by the Department of Commerce (DOC) under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

A March 31 press release on the White House website, under the title “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: Progress,” announced the formation of the NACC. The press release noted that the NACC would meet annually “with security and prosperity Ministers and will engage with senior government officials on an ongoing basis.” The “SPP Ministers” were not identified. Moreover, the term “Ministers” was an unusual reference to the U.S. government, especially when the founding fathers had taken such pains to rid the U.S. of all terminology that could be reminiscent of monarchical systems such as the British royalty against whom the Revolutionary War was aimed. Evidently, the reference was to Gutierrez, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, the three cabinet officers to whom the extensive SPP working groups organized in DOC are now reporting, as well as their cabinet level counterparts in Mexico and Canada.

The White House press release references no U.S. law or treaty under which the NACC was organized. Yet the press release notes that:

We are convinced that regulatory cooperation advances the productivity and competitiveness of our nations and helps to protect our health, safety and environment. For instance, cooperation on food safety will protect the public while at the same time facilitate the flow of goods. We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation in this and other key sectors and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007.
According to a notice on Trade.gov, a website maintained by the International Trade Administration of the DOC, the NACC membership consists of 10 “high-level business leaders” from Mexico, Canada, and the United States. An April 2006 report in the Mexican media quoted Angel Villalobos, undersecretary of International Trade Negotiations for Mexico’s Secretariat of Economy, as saying that nothing like NACC had ever before been created in NAFTA. Mr. Villalobos described NACC as “an umbrella organization within the SPP,” claiming further that SPP was created in 2005 to operate parallel to NAFTA.

A DOC press release on the day of the first NACC meeting seems to confirm that the “SPP Ministers” are the various cabinet level secretaries in the three countries to whom the SPP working groups report. The press release also references the March 23, 2005, Waco, Tex., meeting as the origin of SPP:
On March 23, 2005, leaders of North America launched the SPP. This initiative is meant to reduce trade barriers and facilitate economic growth, while improving the security and competitiveness of the continent. The leaders of North America confirmed their commitment to SPP when they met on March 31, 2006 in Cancun, Mexico.
The press release quotes Gutierrez as affirming the importance of NACC within SPP:

“Today is a continuation of President Bush’s strong commitment to our North American partners to focus on North America’s security and prosperity. The private sector is the driving force behind innovation and growth, and the private sector’s involvement in the SPP is key to enhancing North America’s competitive position in global markets.”

The Council of the Americas provided the more detail regarding the June 15, 2006 meeting of the NACC than was found on U.S. government websites. A NACC membership list found on the Council of the Americas’ website lists the U.S. members as coming form the following corporations (listed in alphabetic order): Campbell Soup Company, Chevron, Ford, FedEx, General Electric, General Motors, Kansas City Southern Industries, Lockheed Martin Corporation; Merck; Mittal Steel USA; New York Life; United Parcel Service; Wal-Mart; and Whirlpool.

A separate document on the Council of the Americas website presents a summarized transcript which claims that U.S. representatives in the June 15 meeting explained the composition of the U.S. delegation as follows:

“The U.S. section of the NACC has organized itself through a Secretariat -- composed of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Council of the Americas -- to maximize its efficiency and better communicate with its members.” Secretary Gutierrez was also paraphrased as stating, “The purpose of this meeting was to institutionalize the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the NACC, so that the work will continue through changes in administrations.”

The Council of the Americas is a private organization with offices in New York and Washington, D.C. According to the organization’s own description, the group’s members “include some of the largest blue chip corporations domiciled in the United States, who, collectively, represent the vast bulk of U.S. investment in and trade with the rest of the Americas.” The Mexican -- U.S. Business Committee (MEXUS), organized as a standing committee of the Council of the Americas, is “the oldest bi-national private sector business organization with a focus on economic, commercial, and political relations in North America.” A MEXUS document on the Council of the Americas’ website self-credits MEXUS with having played “a critical role in the conceptual work that led to NAFTA,” plus active lobbying in that “its [MEXUS’s] members wore out significant shoe leather on Capital Hill, ultimately leading to successful passage.”

The Council of Canadians, a Canadian advocacy group that opposes NAFTA and SPP, charged that nine of the 10 appointees of the Canadian NACC delegation was drawn from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Maude Barlow, the National Chairperson for the Council of Canadians objected, stating, “This latest development clearly puts business leaders in the driver’s seat and gives them the green light to press forward for a North American model for business security and prosperity.” Ms. Barlow additionally questioned, “How truly accountable is the Harper government to the Canadian people when it gives preferential treatment to the big-business community in the design of its policies?”

Even a quick glance at the “North American Security and Prosperity” page of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives makes clear how ardently the organization champions SPP. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives was listed alongside the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations (COMEXI, Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internationales) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) itself as being the sponsors for a March 2005 CFR-published task force report titled “Creating a North American Community -- Chairman’s Statement,” pubpublished before the March 23, 2005 trilateral proclamation of SPP in Waco, Texas. The three groups are also attributed with sponsoring the May 2005 CFR publication, “Building a North American Community.”

The creation of the NACC is following the course prescribed by Robert A. Pastor, the American University professor who is was co-chair of the CFR task force that produced the two CFR publications described in the above paragraph. At a press conference presenting the CFR report, “Building a North American Community,” Robert Pastor said:

The North American summit that occurred in Texas on March 23rd is a very important statement. But if it’s to be more than a photo opportunity, we felt that a second institution was essential, and that would be a North American advisory council made up of eminent individuals, appointed for terms that are longer than those of the governments, and staggered over time. This council would propose ideas for dealing with North American challenges, whether they be regulatory or transportation or infrastructure or education, and put forth options to the three leaders to consider ways to adopt a North American approach.
Robert Pastor described this council as playing an active policy role in the formation of his hoped-for North American Community.
And hopefully, the three leaders would turn to this North American council and say, “Look we’re getting wonderful advice on what we should do about North America as a whole. Why don’t you prepare a plan for us on education, on agriculture, on the environment, and we would consider that even as we consider the advice of our government.”
Dr. Pastor’s comments seem to prefigure the June 15, 2006 first meeting of the NACC, even down to describing the membership of his “advisory council” as consisting of ten members from each of the trilateral states. If Dr. Pastor’s roadmap continues to be predictive, we recommend a serious look at his book, "Toward a North American Community," in which he argues for the creation of a European Union-style fully institutionalized North American Union, constituting a super-regional government complete with a court, a parliament, a chief executive, and a new currency described as the “Amero.”

The Council of the Americas website lists five top priorities identified for the U.S. Section of the American Business: Energy Integration; Supply Chain Management/Trade Facilitation/ Customs Reform; Regulatory/ Standards issues -- Harmonization and Sharing of Best Practices; Counterfeiting and Piracy -- “Fake Free North America”; and Private Sector Involvement in Border Security and Infrastructure Projects.

A White House website shows photographs of President Bush, Mexico President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at their March 31 joint news conference in Cancun, Mexico, shaking hands in front of a backdrop proclaiming “Cancun 2006. Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” Increasingly, the three leaders are referring to the SPP as if the Waco, Texas press release announcement of March 23, 2005 constitutes an official new treaty-like trilateral status, advancing the trilateral partnership forward into a more institutional phase that can be termed at a minimum “NAFTA-Plus.”

At the Cancun press conference, Prime Minister Harper confirmed that the decision had been reached to advance SPP by forming NACC:
During my meetings with Presidents Bush and Fox, we reviewed the progress of our Security and Prosperity Partnership, which provides a framework to advance the common interests in the areas of security, prosperity, and quality of life.

We committed to further engage the private sector. We’ve agreed to set up a North American Competitiveness Council, made up of business leaders from all three countries, to advise us on ways to improve the competitiveness of our economies. They will meet with our ministers, identify priorities, and make sure we follow up and implement them.
In his comments at the Cancun press conference, President Bush also affirmed the presence of unnamed business leaders who had attended the trilateral summit meeting. President Bush commented, “I want to thank the CEOs and the business leaders from the three countries who are here.”

The DOC's SPP website announcing the formation of NACC provides no information as to the membership requirements, the selection process, or the terms of the members appointed to the NACC. Nor is there any discussion of who pays for the travel expenses and the time of the participants. We find no charter published for the NACC, or any other specific delineation of roles and responsibilities, or reporting authority (except for a mention of the “SPP Ministers”). Equally lacking is a description of the enabling legislation or treaty under which the NACC operates.

According to an attendance list produced by the Council of the Americas, the June 15, 2006 meeting of the NACC was attended by Geri Word, deputy director of Office of NAFTA and Inter-American Affairs in the U.S. Department of Commerce; Dan Fisk, senior director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council; Al Martinez-Fonts, director of the Office of the Private Sector in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Elizabeth “Betsy” Whitaker, deputy assistant secretary of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the U.S. Department of State; and Christopher Moore, deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.


Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.