It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Weather, Climate, & Natural Disasters => Topic started by: Pandora on February 18, 2014, 02:19:40 PM
-
State officials say a shipment of 40,000 tons of salt had been halted in Maine because a foreign-flagged vessel is carrying the salt. (http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/02/18/jersey-city-tackles-snow-removal-as-nj-deals-with-salt-shortage/)
... According to the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, ships carrying cargo between U.S. ports must be carried on U.S.- flagged ships.
... On Tuesday afternoon, Sen. Cory Booker told WCBS 880?s Steve Scott that he and Sen. Robert Menendez were able to work with federal authorities to release much-needed rock salt to the Garden State.
... The senators noted in a letter to DHS that parts of New Jersey have been hit with more than 70 inches of snow so far this winter.
In addition, the New Jersey Department of Transportation filed a request with the DHS on Feb. 13 to waive the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 under the national security exception and allow a foreign-flagged vessel to deliver the salt.
... New Jersey DOT Commissioner James Simpson says the salt shortage could force him to close major roadways during storms if a solution isn’t reached.
Simpson says the U.S. Department of Transportation told him it has found two barges that could carry a total of 15,000 tons to New Jersey in about three weeks.
DOT Spokesman Joe Dee said the state has used more than 370,000 tons of salt as of Feb. 11, before last Thursday’s storm. That compares to 258,000 tons of salt used all of last winter.
A smaller U.S. vessel is scheduled to bring one-quarter of New Jersey’s total order to the Garden State by this weekend.
Idiots. They don't have three weeks; two more inches of glowball warmink dropped there AGAIN yesterday.
H/T Drudge
-
I remember this same issue came up during the oil spill in the Gulf a few years ago. There was some controversy about a Dutch vessel that had specialty equipment onboard, and they were prohibited from moving between ports because of this Act. This Act is of course just a sop to the unions.
-
I remember this same issue came up during the oil spill in the Gulf a few years ago. There was some controversy about a Dutch vessel that had specialty equipment onboard, and they were prohibited from moving between ports because of this Act. This Act is of course just a sop to the unions.
Yep. And there was very little noise about it in the news.
-
Another argument for sun setting most laws. Here is another bad law that will soon be a century old. This junker should have been repealed 99 years ago already, but here it is, still rearing its ugly head.
There will be bad laws passed every generation, its an fact of life we seem to be able to do little about. That's why most laws should have an end date. So all you have to do is nothing to end it.
-
Absolutely. I am a big advocate of the automatic sunset. I heard a saying somewhere that goes something like "Good government comes not from electing perfect men, but from forcing imperfect men to do the right thing". Something like that. A sunset provision would force imperfect men to do the right thing by giving them a passive way of eliminating laws. Rather than putting their neck out to actively repeal a law, they could just let it silently expire while maintaining the coveted noncommittal posture of the politician.
We can forget about ever getting a majority of them to do the right thing out of principle, but we can and should arrange things so that they have no choice but to do the right thing by default.