Oh gee, more trucking problems.

This one is going to be huge.

I wonder if Buttigieg will come off paternity leave for this or will the Administration continue to bumblefuck this up?

Who am I kidding, never underestimate Biden’s ability to fuck things up.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

3 thoughts on “And the supply chain problems intensifys”
  1. This might be good news for our supply chain issues. The only government contract that uses trucks for transportation that I care about is the one from the Post Office for truckers to move the mail.

    What other goods are you getting that the government is paying to move? I don’t think they move goods to your local Walmart or grocery store.

  2. Part of the problems, at least with the ports in CA is the dumb laws they passed, such as Long Beach limiting container stacks to two high. There’s also an issue of the hassles truckers face simply picking up loads. That kind of dysfunction is hard as hell to fix. – https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2021/11/why-americas-shipping-crisis-will-not.html

    That said, of all the things they could fix easily this is part of it – Lift the Obama era law on how truckers manage their time, use the interstate commerce clause to force CA to accept OTR drivers.

    FFS they love declaring emergencies and granting themselves powers, just declare it in the interests of the US (which it is) to expedite shipping.

    Problem is they’ve tangled things so badly, a lot of truckers bailed.

    BTW – this is something orangeman should’ve fixed day one in 2016. Remove the edicts on shipping.

    1. Unfortunately, Trump was far less of a disrupter than he could, and should, have been.
      Two obvious examples tie to current foreign affairs. He exited the Paris “climate accord” with two (?) years notice. The right action would have been a press release saying “The so-called Paris Accord is a meaningless piece of paper, never submitted for ratification let alone actually ratified, so effective immediately we will disregard it entirely”.
      He treated the Iran nuke agreement the same way, and should have summarily scrapped it for the same reason. In both cases, we have non-treaties, meaning they have zero legal or constitutional meaning.
      For extra credit he could have submitted both for a ratification vote in the Senate, with his recommendation to vote No. That would have put them to a formal end.
      Chances are the State Dept. swamp dwellers talked him out of this, which would be the sort of thing you’d expect from those people.

Login or register to comment.