Tony Munoz Thinks Obama is Brief Sighted on Brief Sea Transport

by Jared Winery

He’s ba-aaaack.

Again in November of 2011, I posted a weblog on Tony Munoz, editor-in-chief of The Maritime Govt Journal and MarEx e-E-newsletter, calling President Obama out on his maritime coverage.

Scratch that.

Munoz referred to as Obama out on his lack of maritime coverage. There isn’t a Obamaritime.

Nailed it!

Okay, I didn’t nail it. Obamaritime wasn’t that intelligent after I first wrote in 2011 both.

What had Munoz riled up again then was the dearth of a brief sea transport community within the US and Obama’s 447 billion greenback infrastructure plan. The plan put billions of {dollars} towards getting floor transportation initiatives off the bottom, specializing in highways, rail, and air whereas ignoring maritime. Dwarfing the $50 billion finances the US usually spent on all types of transportation, the plan was to place over $70 billion towards highways, over $22 billion towards transit, near $19 billion towards aviation, over $8 billion towards railroad, and solely $357.8 million towards maritime to help the navy.

If I bear in mind accurately, republicans had been profitable in blocking that exact plan of Obama’s. So issues labored out as Munoz hoped, proper?

Improper.

In a current article, Munoz factors out:

Sadly, the U.S. doesn’t have an efficient maritime coverage past normal rulemaking for its EEZ [exclusive economic zone]. Lately, the Division of Transportation was awarded a further $1.4 billion to its $98.5 billion finances for 2013. The Obama Administration supplied a further $492 billion over 5 years (2014-2018) for planes, vans and rail. Sadly, when it got here to transport, the Administration gave the Maritime Administration (MARAD) a paltry $433 million for its 2013 finances.

That’s proper, Munoz is again to calling out Obama’s administration, and the U.S. authorities typically, on its lack of funding for maritime. Particularly, he desires to see funding for a brief sea transport system, making a marine freeway with America’s 96,000 miles of shoreline and 22,000 miles of inland waterways.

These are robust instances for the federal government’s finances; why ought to they offer extra money to maritime?

Munoz argues:

…there are greater than 15.5 million vans on the nation’s highways that log greater than 450 billion miles a 12 months. Gridlock yearly prices the U.S. economic system about $80 billion, and People spend 4.5 billion hours caught in site visitors annually. Most city areas have failing grades for smog, and one other 60,000 folks will die this 12 months resulting from sicknesses introduced on by air pollution.… One small freighter or barge can displace a whole bunch of vans and the attendant air pollution and congestion.

Munoz additionally factors out that the cash is there for the massive mission of growing a brief sea transport program/marine freeway within the US. His article laments Capitol Hill being gridlocked with insurance policies on spending to develop maritime infrastructure on maintain:

In the present day, the Inland Waterways Belief Fund – funded by a person tax on gasoline oil – has about $100 million sitting idle as a result of Congress won’t launch it to rehabilitate the 191 locks and 238 lock chambers that help about 11,000 miles of inland waterways. Moreover, there may be over $7 billion sitting within the Harbor Upkeep Tax Fund, paid for by a person price on the worth of a ship’s cargo and supposed for dredging and sustaining the 360 business ports within the U.S.

Munoz says that the US can’t wait on taking motion on this space, however “the [Obama] Administration has tabled discussions about maritime initiatives till 2017, which primarily means maritime insurance policies will wait till the following administration takes workplace.”

Pointing to the EU, Munoz says there’s an instance of what the US ought to be doing relating to maritime:

The European quick sea transport community has been an infinite catalyst in constructing the world’s best and environmentally pleasant transportation infrastructure during the last 20 years. The imaginative and prescient and foresight – to not point out the political will it took to maneuver the mission ahead – was unprecedented, and the dedication of stakeholders from throughout the EU nations will present advantages for generations to come back.

In the present day, the Motorways of the Sea, as it’s identified within the EU-27, is a significant part of the transportation infrastructure supporting an enormous and various economic system, second solely to the U.S. The unified effort of eliminating borders, coping with regional congestion and environmental points, and integrating the assorted economies and cultures of the EU serves as a robust instance of what could be carried out via co-ordinated and centralized authorities coverage to strengthen long-term prosperity.

Fascinated with all the roles that will be created by growing a brief sea transport community within the US and imagining much less congestion from import and export cargo being moved alongside such a maritime system, I are inclined to suppose Munoz may be proper.

Possibly dwelling with the every day site visitors congestion of Los Angeles makes me keen to leap on board with any concept that claims it may scale back that congestion.

However billions upon billions of {dollars} are pumped into the US economic system via import and export of ocean freight cargo. Doesn’t maritime appear to be a strategically sound place to speculate?

What do you suppose? Do you suppose Munoz is true that the federal government has been quick sighted relating to quick sea transport within the US? Tell us within the feedback part under.