• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Government Waives Destructive Jones Act for 12 Days—Why Not Longer?

    In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, the federal government recently waived the Jones Act for 12 days to allow oil tankers to deliver fuel to northeastern ports.

    The Jones Act, which has been on the books since 1920, mandates that any goods shipped between two points in the United States via water must be transported on U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-operated vessels, even if more affordable options are available. However, the government has the authority to waive Jones Act shipping restrictions.

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano took advantage of this option, announcing: “The Administration’s highest priority is ensuring the health and safety of those impacted by Hurricane Sandy and this waiver will remove a potential obstacle to bringing additional fuel to the storm damaged region.”

    This raises an obvious question: If removing an obstacle to bringing fuel to the Northeast for 12 days is a good idea, wouldn’t it be an even better idea to remove that obstacle forever?

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Government Waives Destructive Jones Act for 12 Days—Why Not Longer?

    1. Bobbie says:

      America(ns) prove time and again government is not the solution government is the intrusion. If the Jones Act didn't exist either would the hurricane victims wait that much longer to recovery! Had America the freedom of people to do the necessary acts to aid, government hindering acts wouldn't slow down recovery or the economy! Time to get rid of governmental abusers!

    2. jim scott says:

      Did this Administration refuse to waive the Jones Act during the Gulf oil spill recovery? Could elections have any reason for this change in crisis recovery policy?

    3. Bobbie says:

      Instead of sending fuel truck tankers transporting gas and potential disaster on the road, why not fix the power to pump their own and in the mean time eliminate all regulations that hold up/set back recovery processes and the economy? There's no reason power isn't running now if it was taken as priority from the beginning. And why is christie threatening insurance companies? They can't change a signed contract and if people don't like what they signed, its learned lessons all the way around. There's alot of trouble that as Americans are better served by Americans and charities who will get people on their feet, not into government control. The less government the more sincere Americans. Americans give from the heart, because we do take care of each other as are own. People with obama's authority want all control and doesn't do a job without pay and union backing. I hope that red cross ad with Barack Obama's endorsement doesn't mean red cross has to pay him while his union supporters are threatening Mitt Romney and the sincere help of true Americans whom take responsibility to be encouraging by generous giving from their own free will that ted strickland uses the good works against people working them to hide strickland's own selfish guilt. Bruce Springsteen really put this country and we the people of all incomes, down! Very disturbing! Taking words of slander as facts! Once fans, no more. Sure he could care less as he likes Americans who are poorly educated to think freedom comes from Obama's department of socialist programs Springsteen is anxious for the rich to pay for. He doesn't respect people have their own gifts to find in themselves as if he's above. Now he supports Obama appointing those gifts by superficial favor, eliminating personal dignity and empowerment? Freedom? Lets get rid of everything turning people coo coo! I like the America seen rich in positive character, faith in each other, not rich in support of government belittlement programs and services…

    4. guest says:

      Mr. Riley's final question is an excellent, but since it is based on logic, the government won't consider it.

    5. kevin says:

      why not just export all our jobs so your profit margins are even bigger cause u will just take ur money and move to another country, when this one fails. how about we tax the investments at 40% to pay for the re-training lost to such tactics and tax outside the country profits at 40% if kept off shore and 19% if kept in us

    6. Teri says:

      The 1920's was a time of increasing "Unionization" of this country and I think that the Teamsters Union has something to do with the Jones Act. Perhaps they were threatening to halt shipments if a certain group didn't respond to their wishes, hence the Government involvement.

      Times have changed and Government is no longer needed to "solve" this problem. Time to rescind not ONLY the Jones Act but indeed MOST Government regulations that interfere with the private sector. We know better now and don't need "Big Government Nanny" to oversee our lives. Government should be there to protect us from criminality…not become the criminal that we need to fight against.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×