Standoff Suspect Facing Weapons Charges in Taney County:

Mark David Simmons (Taney County mug shot)

Charges have been filed in Taney County against a capital murder suspect from Texas that was involved in an eight-and-a- half hour standoff with authorities in Branson Tuesday June 29th.

Taney County Prosecutor Jeff Merrell filed a single count of unlawful use possession of a firearm against Mark David Simmons, 51, of Rockport, Texas, late this afternoon. Those charges stem from the rifle and two handguns that Simmons had in his motel room when he was arrested.

A patrol officer was checking license plates at hotels in Branson following a pair of motel robberies Sunday when he got a hit on a stolen blue Hyundai parked at Walnut Lane Motel. The vehicle matched the same description as the getaway car used in the robberies. That hit also revealed that the suspect thought to have stolen the vehicle was wanted in Hays County, Texas on a capital murder warrant.

Prosecutors in Texas say that Simmons allegedly shot his business partner Steven Wayne Woelfel in April and lived with the mans decaying body for a week before he moved the mans body to a detached garage and set it on fire. Investigators believe he also unhooked a gas line to a stove in the house and left a candle burning that caused an explosion that blew out the windows and walls of the house as first responders were battling the garage fire.

Investigators believe the rifle and handguns found in Simmons motel room were stolen from Woelfel residence at the time of his murder.

Taney County Prosecutor Jeff Merrell

Merrell says, "There is a possibility that Simmons could stay here and answer our charges first before he is extradited back to Texas to face the charges there. It comes down to who has him in custody. We're still trying to work all of the details out."

No charges connected to the weekend robberies have been filed, "I've not filed any charges connected to the robberies because the investigation has not been completed on those yet."

Simmons is scheduled to be arraigned on the weapons charge tomorrow according to Merrell.

Merrell cited Missouri Revised Statute 571.072 as the charges filed after hours when reached by phone this evening.

Obama & KORUS, ctd.

Well, that didn't take long:

Kim Jong-hoon, the trade minister at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, said yesterday that there would be no renegotiations or changes made to the original Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement.

The remarks came after U.S. President Barack Obama promised Korean President Lee Myung-bak during the G-20 Summit in Toronto that he would push the U.S. Congress to approve the FTA, which was signed three years ago yesterday.

But congressional approval is seen as unlikely unless Korea makes more concessions on improving the access of U.S. beef and cars into the Korean market as demanded by American lawmakers.

Kim’s remarks underscored that Korea was in no mood for further compromises. “Taking just one period - one comma - out of the agreement will mean a complete revision. This will not happen,” he told reporters at a press briefing.

I would pat myself on the back here, but predicting the Korean response wasn't exactly rocket science (or any science for that matter).  They've been perfectly consistent about (not) renegotiating the FTA for a long while now.

(h/t Phil Levy, who also catalogs today the chorus line of anti-trader opposition to Obama's KORUS announcement. Good times.)

Arkansas Man Placed On Probation For 2007 Beating Death Of Disabled Man In Taney County:

Daniel Pease

A man from Russellville, AR, who pleaded guilty in April to involuntary manslaughter for the 2007 beating death of a disabled man in Taney County has been placed on five years probation.

Daniel L. Pease, 29, was originally charged with second-degree murder for the August 4, 2007 beating death of 53 year-old John Ingram, Jr of Hollister. Ingram, who had suffered a stroke in 2002, died of cardiac arrhythmia after Pease and Joshua K. Brokaw beat him with their hands, knees and feet.

According to court records, Pease told detectives that Brokaw repeatedly kneed and kicked the Ingram in the face while he held him down for an over an hour. Brokaw told police that Pease punched Ingram four or five times in the face while Ingram was sitting on a couch, then stomped the man's head and face while he was lying on the floor.

Joshua K. Brokaw

Brokaw, 28, told investigators that Pease asked him to help him put Ingram in the trunk of a car to "help get rid of him." Brokaw told cops that they dragged the man outside where his body was found by deputies.


Brokaw pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter last May for his part in Ingram's death. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison.

Pease must also perform 100 hours of community service.

Miller Not "Bona Fide" Candidate For Senate; Stations Do Not Have To Air Hate Ad's:

The Federal Communications Commission has ruled that radio and TV stations in Missouri are not legally obligated to broadcast offensive ads by a white supremacist who is a write in candidate for U.S. Senate.

The federal agency made the determination that 69 year-old Glenn Miller of Aurora is not a "bona fide" candidate entitled to "mandatory reasonable access" to broadcast airwaves following a request by Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster in April.

What the ruling means is that over-the-air broadcasters don't have to play or accept advertising money to play anti-Semitic ads from Miller like some that aired in March that told white people to "unite" and "take our country back."

Miller is running for retiring Republican Senator Kit Bond's seat. Miller's opponents will be determined in the August 3rd primary. The general election will be held in November.

Tunas Teen Charged With Manslaughter In Alleged Drunk Driving Crash:

Christian County Prosecutor Ron Cleek

A teenager from Tunas is facing charges for allegedly driving drunk and causing the death of her boyfriend last month after her car slammed into a truck in Ozark last month.

Christian County Prosecutor Ron Cleek charged 17 year-old Karena Dawn Smith with one count of first-degree involuntary manslaughter and two counts of second-degree assault. But this isn't Smith's first alcohol related charge. Less than two weeks before the fatal crash in Ozark, Smith pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated in Fair Grove Municipal Court for a June 2009 incident when she was 16, and was placed on two years probation.

Joshua W. Bridges (family photo)

Twenty one year-old Joshua W. Bridges, of Fair Grove was killed when Smith's car turned into the path of a truck on Highway 14 and Business Route 65 at South 17th Street. Another passenger in Smith's vehicle, Ashley Pierce, suffered a broken pelvis and a head injury. The driver of the pickup, Shannon Mitchell, broke his wrist in the crash.

Court records say that Smith had a blood alcohol content of .191 percent, over twice the legal limit. Smith should not have been operating a vehicle that night as the Department of Revenue had revoked her driver's license.

Cleek says authorities are attempting to locate Smith to arrest her, "She's on the run...but they'll find her." When they do, she will be booked into the Christian County jail on a $25,000 cash only bond or she will be held on a probation revocation.

If convicted, Smith could be sentenced to between 5 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter. The assault charges carry a 1 to 7 years in prison sentence.

Is Obama's KORUS Deadline Good News for US Trade Policy?

As most everyone reading this blog already knows, President Obama announced over the weekend a November 2010 deadline for (re)negotiations on the US-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) before he submits the deal to Congress for a final vote:

US President Barack Obama launched a new initiative Saturday to wrap up a free trade deal with South Korea delayed for three years due to market access problems over American beef and autos.

Obama ordered his officials to complete talks by November, when he visits Seoul for the next G20 summit, so that he can push the deal through Congress and implement it soon after.

"I want to make sure that everything is lined up properly by the time I visit Korea in November, and in the few months that follow that, I intend to present it to Congress," Obama said after talks with South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak....

Obama has asked US Trade Representative Ron Kirk to start discussions with his Korean counterpart, Kim Jong-hoon, "to resolve the outstanding issues in a way that levels the playing field for US producers," a senior administration official said.

During the past year, Kirk said his office conducted extensive discussions with "stakeholders" and congressional leaders to gain a detailed understanding of their concerns about the agreement.

"Now, at President Obama's direction, we look forward to finalizing ways to address these concerns, level the playing field for US workers and producers in the key sectors of autos and beef, and deliver to Americans the jobs and economic opportunity this agreement can bring," Kirk said in a statement.

"I expect to speak to Minister Kim today to express our intention to get to work as quickly as possible."

When news of the announcement hit Sunday morning, the ensuing response was pretty predictable.  Pro-trade CEOs, business groups and members of Congress were strongly supportive.  Anti-trade unions, and their congressional lapdogsallies, angrily vowed to oppose the FTA.  And the general consensus among the wonks - like AEI's Claude Barfield and Phil Levy - was that the announcement was praiseworthy because the establishment of a firm deadline here was a decent (and unprecedented) sign that the Obama administration was - after almost a year-and-a-half in the embarrassing wilderness - going to get serious about US trade policy.  And if the President can confront his Party and emerge victorious, it could mean great things for the broader policy future.  Quoth Levy:

The looming KORUS battle raises a number of questions about the administration's political strategy. Is this a decision to override the concerns of skeptical House Democrats, thereby paving the way for Colombia, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and more? Or will the administration try to split the difference, as with Chinese tires, and pass only the one agreement while leaving the others hanging?

The answers will say a great deal about the prospects for trade policy in the remainder of the president's term. If the administration sees this through, it may mark a welcome return to U.S. trade leadership. If political obstacles prove too much, it will be very hard to conceal the failure in light of this weekend's specific and public commitment.

I must admit that I've been struggling with the President's announcement since I first heard of it on Sunday.  On the one hand, the pro-trade folks have it right: it's nice to hear our all-too-squirmy President finally pin himself down on an FTA and set a real deadline for action.  And anti-traders' public angst is always music to my ears.

On the other hand, there are several reasons for serious concern here, and it appears that, in the aggregate, the bad news here could very well outweigh the good.

First, as Barfield notes in his blogpost, the fact that the final call on moving KORUS forward came from the National Security Council instead of USTR shows that (i) this decision apparently had very little to do with free trade and almost everything to do with foreign policy, namely containing that nuke-craving psychopath on Korea's Northern border; and (ii) it took a nothing less than a nuke-craving psycho to finally force the President's political team to relent and let an overwhelmingly beneficial agreement with a key strategic ally that was signed three years ago finally move forward.  So what does that mean for the Doha Round or other trade agreements with less strategic partners?  Does USTR (or free trade's undeniable economic benefits) have any say in the matter, or will US trade policy be guided only by politics and foreign policy for the next 2.5 years?  If it's the latter, we're looking at a very, very limited US trade agenda through 2012 and an unlikely resolution of bilateral irritants like Mexican trucking or Cotton subsidies or Buy American.  And that's a shame.

Second, concern #1 above raises big doubts about the future of the completed US-Colombia and US-Panama FTAs, despite the fact that those agreements also deserve passage for both economic and foreign policy reasons.  But hey, who knows, maybe if Hugo Chavez tries to get nukes then the Colombia agreement will move.  Dare to dream!

Third, even with that raging, nuke-craving psycho in North Korea, the President didn't promise to actually advance KORUS in the near future.  He only promised a deadline for bilateral discussions, and not only is this deadline a really cowardly punt of the issue until after the November elections, but it also could be, contrary to the sunny optimism cited above, where things get really bad for KORUS and US trade policy more generally.  Remember, this agreement was completed and signed in 2007, and USTR Ron Kirk's team has been meeting with "stakeholders" for the last 18 months.  Yet the FTA's still not ready for primetime (i.e., Congress) and, even worse, the President has just made clear that it won't be ready until USTR and its Korean counterpart re-negotiate a few more details, namely Korean market access for US automobile and beef exports.  So all we have is a deadline to complete negotiations over a fully-negotiated-and-completed trade agreement.  Hmm.  Now, it appears that the President's commitment to these new talks is real, as he forced Deputy USTR Demetrios Marantis to cancel his plans to go to Angola for TIFA negotiations in order to begin staff work on KORUS.  But as Heritage's Anthony Kim explains in today's WSJ Asia, the Koreans aren't going to take this "re-negotiation" lightly:

From Seoul's point of view, the pact is signed and sealed. Mr. Lee has already stood up to trade unions and opposition parties to get his parliament to pass the deal. Especially after taking a beating in local elections earlier this month, he cannot afford to be seen making further concessions to the U.S.

Even if South Korea does come to the table, it's unclear whether the U.S. side can stand up to America's own trade unions, who likely want more concessions on U.S. access to Korea's beef and automobile markets. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said over the weekend that he would work "to ensure that our proposals adequately address outstanding concerns." Never mind that Congress has already demanded the Koreans renegotiate the deal's terms—twice.

A third attempt to push for concessions would further tarnish America's fading international credibility and leadership in free trade.

Kim's opinions are on very solid ground - the Koreans have repeatedly said over the last two years that yet another re-negotiation of the FTA is off-the-table.  And why on earth would they?  First of all, KORUS' automobile and "non-tariff barrier" provisions are the strongest of any US FTA ever, and yet the US automobile industry - in which this administration still has a political, emotional and financial stake - has promised to oppose the agreement unless it contains "meaningful market access" provisions (read: guaranteed market share).  That's "managed trade," not "free trade," and it has no place in a "free trade agreement."  Second, US trade stagnation over the last two years has given the Koreans a serious upper hand in any future negotiations because they've been signing trade deals - including a massive one with the EU - at a breakneck pace over that period.

So even if the President's commitment to advancing KORUS is, while admittedly less-than-courageous, genuine (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), there's still a very real chance that the Koreans stand firm, and that these new bilateral talks thus fail to produce anything new by this November.  Maybe an innocuous side agreement or two, but re-opening the text of the FTA seems like a real longshot.  And if that turns out to be the case, then the American automakers and their congressional allies (like Ways & Means chairman Sandy Levin (D-MI)) will almost certainly continue to oppose KORUS, and Obama's big November deadline could become a very big problem, rather than some great solution.  Don't think that's possible?  Well, just ask yourself the following questions:

If nothing changes between now and November, will the President - who thus far has caved to every anti-trader out there, no matter how small -  really stand up to US automakers and labor unions, as well as a very a large swath of his Democrat allies in Congress, and advance the agreement next year as he promised in Toronto last weekend?  Or will he cave to the political pressure and use the missed deadline as an excuse to bag KORUS altogether (something like "well, we tried, but we just can't agree on an agreement that truly provides a 'level playing field,' so we're abandoning our efforts")?

If Obama takes the former route, then his KORUS announcement could, as Levy states, open the door to real movement on US trade policy in 2011.  If he chooses the latter, then KORUS will die, and so will any hope for US trade policy in the next two years.

Now, are you really willing to bet that he'll choose door number one?  Because I sure as heck ain't.

UPDATED~~DEVELOPING~~Capital Murder Suspect In Standoff With Branson PoliceTransferred To US Marshal's Custody:

Mark David Simmons mug shot

A capital murder suspect wanted in Texas is in a stand-off with authorities in Branson.

Jerry Adams, spokesman for the City of Branson says "Early this morning (06-29-10) a police officer was conducting routine license plate checks at area hotels looking for a car believed used in a pair of motel robberies in Branson on Sunday."

The officer located a stolen vehicle believed used in the robberies at the Walnut Lane Motel on Highway 76 and learned that Mark David Simmons, 51, Rockport, Texas, was wanted on a capital murder warrant there. The Hyundai Sonata was reported stolen to authorities in Rockport by Simmons mother. "The officer made contact with Simmons inside his room at the motel and he has refused to come out," Adams says.

As a result of the stand-off police have barricaded a two block stretch of Highway 76, and motorists have been advised to find alternate routes.

Branson police chief Carroll McCollough says negotiations to get Simmons to surrender, "Have been up and down."

The motel has been evacuated of all guests and workers as a precaution because authorities believe that Simmons is armed and dangerous after talks with detectives in Texas.

Adams says, "Communication is open and ongoing, which is always a good sign."

When asked if authorities were prepared to turn off power to the motel in an effort to get Simmons to come out, Adams said, "We haven't talked about that. You're the first person to ask that."

According to the Hays Free Press, authorities in Buda, Texas, found the decomposing body of Steven Wayne Woelfel, 55, in detached garage that had been set on fire on April 17th. Sources say that Simmon's lived with Woelfel's decaying body for a week then moved it to the garage and set it on fire in an attempt to cover-up the crime. Sources close to the investigation say that Woelfel was shot at least five times execution style.

About five minutes after fire crews arrived on the scene an explosion from inside the house blew out the windows and back and front walls of the residence. Investigators say the explosion was rigged by a lit candle that was left near a disconnected gas line to the stove.

Buda firefighters on scene of April 17 fire/explosion that destroyed home of Steven Wayne Woelfel. (photo by Sean Kimmons/Hays Free Press)

Authorities had been contacted by an ex girlfriend of Woelfel's who told them that a man named Mark, who had been in trouble with the law for selling guns to drug dealers in the past, had been staying with Woelfel.

A guest bedroom and bathroom in Woelfel’s house had been wiped clean with a chemical and the bedding stripped from the bed, as if the person living with him wanted to hide their identity, the affidavit says. Investigators say the bedding was located inside the burnt garage along with a torn-up note, matching Simmons’ handwriting, on how to clean up a crime scene.

In 2008, Simmons completed 10 years probation for prohibited 1997 weapons charges out of College Station, Texas.

According to published reports, in the early morning hours of May 2, 1997, a police officer in an unmarked patrol car on burglary detail witnessed Simmons carrying a duffel bag into a wooded area. They later stopped him and noticed a 9mm Glock pistol and a .32 caliber Beretta automatic Tomcat pistol in his wristband and on his ankle, court records say. Simmons told cops that he was a racist who does not like black people.

An investigator says that in 2009 Simmons was being investigated by the Texas Department of Public Safety for allegedly leaving several racial messages to state senators on their answering machines after hours.

On Feb. 11, 2010, Simmons was busted and charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He failed to appear for his court date, and an active warrant for his arrest was issued.

Simmons' mother, Wanda Simmons, says that her son is a paranoid schizophrenic who she believes is not taking his medication. She says investigators that her son was employed as a ceramic tile worker. Woelfel, owned Precision Tile, a business he operated out of his home.

UPDATE @ 3:24 p.m:


photo courtesy of Hometown Radio

Branson City spokesman Jerry Adams says the standoff with Simmons was resolved peacefully about 3:04 p.m. "He had just one condition, he asked that he not be thrown to the ground and handcuffed when he was arrested." Once the man was assured that he would not be thrown to the ground after exiting the room, he walked out with his hands on his top his head.



photo courtesy of Hometown Radio

Police Chief Carroll McCullough agreed to the demand and handcuffed Simmons as he exited the room with his hands on top his head. Officers outfitted in SWAT gear hastily enetered the room to gather evidence. McCollough says authorities recovered a rifle and two handguns.



photo courtesy of Hometown Radio

Simmons has been transfered to the custody of U-S Marshals, and will be extradited back to Texas to face murder and weapons charges.

Monday Quick Hits

Lots to clear off here, so let's get right to it:

• New Peterson Institute study: imports don't put downward pressure on wages.  The authors conclusions: " This analysis suggests that the fears of rising US wage inequality from developing-country imports in recent years are unwarranted. While conventional trade theory makes such expectations plausible our investigation reveals they are far off the mark.... US industries competing with developing country imports are not particularly intensive in unskilled labor. Moreover, the relative effective prices of the US industries that are unskilled labor–intensive have actually increased rather than decreased since the early 1990s.  Changes in effective US prices from whatever cause have not mandated changes in relative wages. Neither have changes that can be ascribed to import prices mandated increases in wage inequality.... The goods exported by developing countries are highly imperfect substitutes for those produced by developed countries. This means that for the most part, unskilled US workers are not competing head to head with their counterparts in developing countries. It also suggests that methodological approaches to the question of trade and wages that measure the net factor content of trade or that assume that imports and domestic products and/or tasks are close substitutes rest on extremely shaky grounds." (h/t Alec Van Gelder)

• US manufacturers: Obama's National Export Initiative is "misguided" because it's economically illiterate.  Money passage:
  

  David Speer, chief executive of Illinois Tool Works, a large diversified manufacturer widely seen as a bellwether for the sector, noted that most big industrial companies have spread their manufacturing operations around the world, making the focus on exports a poor reflection of the health of the sector.
  
  The export drive “is very misdirected”, Mr Speer said in an interview with the Financial Times. “You often hear the politicians say: ‘those are US jobs that went overseas, they should be here.’ Well, most of the jobs go overseas for rational reasons – that’s where the growing market is.”
  
  “We’re not going to be any better off by saying: ‘we’re going to ship our product to China from the US’,” Mr Speer said.
  
  “We can’t do it. It won’t work. We won’t be able to compete – for lots of reasons, the smallest of which is the wage rates. It’s logistics, it’s the duties, it’s the closeness to the customer end-market that you can’t service remotely.”
  
  The ITW chief’s comments reflect a view expressed in private by many industrial companies that the export drive is unfeasible and gives the false impression that lost manufacturing jobs in the US will be replaced.

  Gee, now where have we heard that before?
  

• WSJ (subscription): Changes in China's currency won't change trade surplus because bigger, systemic changes are needed.  Cato's Dan Ikenson adds more here.  (And, yes, all of this also sounds vaguely familiar.) 

• WTO releases its Annual Report.  The new publication has lots of good info on the WTO's history and recent activities.

• AEI's Claude Barfield: Here's the real "big news" about the President's big weekend announcement re: the US-Korea FTA.  "Finally, for Washington inside baseballers, it is interesting that the planning and announcement of this decision was carried out by the National Security Council (NSC). This will undoubtedly feed the speculation that the White House staff really directs key U.S. trade policy decisions and that Michael Froman, the NSC Deputy Director for International Economics, is really the “go-to” guy, rather than U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk."

• Mark Perry: Colombia's economy is dominating because of its commitment to free markets and free trade.  Too bad the President didn't make an FTA announcement about them last weekend too, huh? 

• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): The current system for requesting miscellaneous tariff suspensions is awful; my legislation will fix it.  Me: it also would end an ongoing spat between some US manufacturers and anti-earmark Republicans in Congress. 

• The UK: here's a simple reminder of why Americans should fight tooth-and-nail against a VAT.  (And, yes, that's twenty - two-zero - percent tax on top of everything else.) 
  

Ozark Man Charged With Stabbing Girlfriend's Father:

Oscar Nava (CCSO)

An man from Ozark has been charged with felony assault with serious physical injury and armed criminal action for allegedly stabbing his girlfriend’s father over the weekend.

Prosecutor Ron Cleek says Oscar Nava, 26, who had been drinking, was charged for the June 26th incident in which he allegedly stabbed Christopher Bryan Wood, in the abdomen with a 15- to 18-inch serrated bread knife at Nava’s residence at 1788 West Grapevine.

According to the probable cause statement, "Genevie Wood (Jenny) was tending to the injuries Oscar received during the fight with Scott Cornelius. He (Christopher Wood) said he waited outside and Nikki Wood (his wife) entered the residence and sat on the other couch. He said he could hear Oscar getting sarcastic with Nikki and Genevie so he entered the residence and sat in a chair by the front door. Christopher said Oscar got in Nikki's face and continued with the sarcasm. Christopher said he told Oscar to stop and Oscar responded by calling Christopher names like punk and bitch."

--

Christian County Prosecutor Ron Cleek

Wood told investigators that Nava then told Wood, "He owed him money and they began to curse at one another."

The fight spilled over into the kitchen where it escalated. At some point Genevie (Jenny) stepped between her boyfriend and her father and Oscar pushed her. According to court records that's when Wood punched Nava in the nose, causing him to fall back into a window, breaking it.

The men scuffled on the floor for a bit before Nava allegedly, "Got up and grabbed a knife from the kitchen counter." Wood told investigators he backed up into the living room and Nava, "Followed him swinging the knife at him." Wood says he was able to restrain Nava on the couch while his daughter attempted to take the knife from her boyfriend. "He (Wood) advised it was at this time he felt a burning feeling in his stomach and realizes he is bleeding excessively."

Wood told detectives he got up and ran out the front door but that Nava followed him and they got into another physical altercation in the carport. Wood says that he was once again able to restrain Nava who began, "Pleading with him to let him go because the cops would put him in jail." Feeling weak from his wounds, Wood let Nava go and he left the residence in a truck.

Ozark police chief Lyle Hodges says Nava was apprehended at a nearby residence.

Wood, who was taken to Cox South Hospital, says he underwent surgery and is in a lot of pain. "I'm hurting, but I'm gonna live."

Nava is also facing charges of third degree domestic assault for an unrelated incident in May. He is being held in the Christian County Jail on $75,000 bond.

Branson Police Investigating Pair Of Weekend Motel Robberies:

Authorities in Branson are investigating two weekend robberies at motels that happened within 20 minutes of each other Sunday night.

Police Chief Carroll McCollough says a man entered the Spinning Wheel Inn on Schaefer Drive about 7:10 p.m. and demanded cash from the clerk who ran into a back room. The crook fled hotel without any cash.

About 20 minutes later the Super 8 on Green Mountain Drive was held up. This time the thief displayed a handgun, swiped money out of the clerks drawer then fled.

Investigators are working to determine if the robberies were committed by the same person. Police are looking for a white male who was driving a blue compact car with Texas disabled license plate 8J MML

If you have any information that can help authorities call 417-334-3300 or the police catch line at 417-334-1085

New Op-Ed: "G-20 Summit: Fresh Winds of Economic Leadership from the North"

I have a new op-ed on FoxNews.com today.  Here's the tease:

Leaders from 19 countries and the European Union will gather for the G-20 summit in Toronto beginning June 26 to discuss how to stem the global recession and get the world back on the path to strong, stable economic growth. They picked a good spot, as the assembled leaders could learn a lot from their host country.

Since the global recession hit two years ago, Canada has implemented a broad array of free market tax and trade policies. As a result, our neighbor to the north has surpassed an increasingly statist, mercantilist United States in The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. More importantly, Canada is emerging from the “Great Recession” much more rapidly than the U.S. and virtually every other G-20 participant as well.

Read the whole thing here.  Go ahead.  You know you want to.

Australia Investigates US Biofuels Exports: A Sign of Things to Come?

Because of the US-Brazil cotton dispute, the irrationality of American agriculture subsidies and their problems under global trade rules have been in the spotlight a good bit lately.  But now that the dispute has been "resolved" (for now), it seemed that - much to the pleasure of US agribusiness and their congressional patrons - things would be quieting down on the ag-subsidy/trade front.  Well, recent news out of Australia could thwart those plans and make for a rougher-than-expected summer, as Law360 explains:

The Australian government has decided to probe allegations that U.S. companies are dumping biodiesel in the country and benefiting from subsidies, a year after the European Union imposed anti-dumping duties on U.S. biodiesel producers including Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Cargill Inc.

The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service said in a report Monday that it was investigating a complaint by a domestic company, Biodiesel Producers Ltd., that biofuel from the U.S. had been exported to the country at dumped prices.

According to the report, Customs believes there are reasonable ground to support the claim that U.S. biodiesel is being dumped in Australia and that the U.S. industry is receiving countervailable subsidies.

There also appear to be reasonable grounds to support the claim that the dumping and subsidies have injured the Australian market by causing lost sales and market share, price undercutting, and loss of employees, Customs said.

The report estimated the dumping margins for U.S. biodiesel at 38 percent in January 2009 and 26 percent in February 2010.

It also described tax credits available to U.S. biodiesel producers as countervailable subsidies, which amounted to 40 percent of the estimated export price.

Customs wrote to the U.S. government about the allegations on June 7, but did not get a response, according to the agency....

Customs will now conduct a formal investigation and decide whether to recommend that the Australian government impose anti-dumping and countervailing duties on the U.S. products. The minister for home affairs has the final authority to impose the duties.

In July, the EU imposed five-year anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel from the U.S....

The tariffs counter an American subsidy of $1 per biodiesel-gallon to producers of blended biodiesels. U.S. exporters commonly export biodiesel in a B99 blend — 99 percent biodiesel and 1 percent petroleum diesel — in order to take full advantage of the subsidy, according to the EC.

These subsidies allow biodiesel companies to capture a 17.2 percent share in the European market, compared with 0.4 percent in 2005, at the expense of European producers, according to the commission.

ADM was hit with countervailing duties of €237 a ton and an anti-dumping duty of €68.60 a ton, while Cargill was given anti-dumping duties of €213.80 a ton and an anti-dumping levy of zero.

As the article makes clear, this is the second trade action against American biofuels exports, and if the EU case is any guide, an Aussie finding that the US illegally subsidizes biofuels exports appears pretty likely.  (They still have to prove injury or threat of injury before imposing remedial tariffs on those products, of course, but that's entirely case-specific so we can't really speculate about it.)  So with two trade investigations of American biofuels exports, you'd think that the Obama administration and Congress might begin to recalibrate US biofuel policies - particularly when those policies have come under intense scrutiny for a lot of other non-trade reasons (like the fact that corn ethanol is really inefficient and might actually harm the environment).

Well, folks, think again:

June 23, 2010 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today released a report outlining both the current state of renewable transportation fuels efforts in America and a plan to develop regional strategies to increase the production, marketing and distribution of biofuels. The report provides information on current production and consumption capacities as well as projections to meet the Renwewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) mandate to use 36 billion gallons of biofuel per year in America's fuel supply by 2022.

"The Obama Administration has made domestic production of renewable energy a national priority because it will create jobs, combat global warming, reduce fossil fuel dependence and lay a strong foundation for a strong 21st Century rural economy, and I am confident that we can meet the threshold of producing 36 billion gallons of biofuel annually by 2022," Vilsack said. "The current ethanol industry provides a solid foundation to build upon and reach the 36 billion gallon goal. As we prepare to celebrate Independence Day, we must reaffirm our commitment to bring our country closer to complete energy independence and this report provides a roadmap to achieve that goal."...

The report provides data on the significant impact the ethanol industry will have on job creation. It is estimated that as many as 40 direct jobs and additional indirect jobs are created with each 100-million-gallon ethanol facility built. USDA plans to adopt regional strategies that allow the placement of biorefineries in areas of economic distress through the leveraging of regional resources for transportation, labor and feedstocks. The regional strategy provides greater potential for economic benefit.

Yes, you read that correctly.  Instead of reevaluating problematic US biofuels policies, the Obama administration is doubling-down.  And in case you're wondering, USDA's new report (available here) - while chock-full of discussion about the need for existing and planned "incentives" (read: subsidies) for corn ethanol and other biofuels - completely fails to mention the potential for trade infractions and the significant duties on US exports that they can produce.  Yep, nary a mention of those EU tariffs, the new Australian investigation, or other possible trade cases.  Such non-reporting is particularly, umm, interesting, considering the administration's single-minded obsession with expanding US exports as part of its National Export Initiative.

Odd that they wouldn't mention that, huh?

Now, the administration's selective memory aside, all of this news raises broader and more important questions - ones that I've raised in the past - about the future of US biofuels subsidies, as well as other "green energy" policies that could produce similar trade frictions, particularly now that the President is determined to double US exports by 2015 under NEI.  For example, consider this story from today's Wall Street Journal:

Through the Department of Energy, [the US government]'s guaranteeing loans to clean-energy companies. But the loan program's success depends on the viability of firms involved. And a closer look at two big recipients reveals some of the risks in store for taxpayers.

First, take Solyndra, which makes solar-energy panels for commercial rooftops, and has a $535 million government-guaranteed loan. Solyndra's chief selling point is its cylindrical panel-design, which is said to reduce installation costs for users. However, there is no shortage of solar-panel manufacturers, and the prices of flat polysilicon panels have already plunged, boosting their affordability.

There are doubts about Solyndra itself. Despite the cheap government loan, Solyndra last week withdrew plans to do a $300 million initial public offering. It decided instead to sell $175 million of debt to existing investors. The IPO cancellation wasn't unexpected. In its IPO registration, Solyndra's auditor said that the company's weak financial performance raised "substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern."

What is more, Solyndra has applied for a second government-backed loan, of $469 million, to help expand its manufacturing capacity. The company said that, if it doesn't get the second loan, it intended to raise financing from other sources that included the now-cancelled IPO....

Next, consider electric car maker Tesla Motors, which has a $465 million government-backed loan and is expected to do an IPO at the end of this month. The company will stop producing the vehicle it became known for, the Roadster sports car, and focus instead on a premium sedan called the Model-S. This car's selling point is that, according to Tesla, it will be able to travel up to 300 miles per-charge-a far higher "range" than other manufacturers are claiming for their electric cars. Tesla says it hasn't actually based its range projections on a working Model-S prototype but on internal computer models. And, according to its IPO filing, potential new government testing standards could result in a 30% cut to Tesla vehicles' advertised ranges.

Leaving aside the absurdity of a flat-broke nation subsidizing sketchy firms with borrowed money, stories like this have "future trade problem" written all over them.  You see, cheap government loans to struggling domestic companies are a common example of an illegal (or "countervailable") subsidy under global trade rules.  And, if Solyndra and Tesla survive (a big "if" from the looks of it), their exports to other nations that produce similar solar panels/electric cars would be very vulnerable to national trade remedies cases, just like those EU and Aussie cases against US biofuels.   And if those cases result in new tariffs and copycat cases in other markets (a very common occurrence), these companies will lose precious foreign market share and, in some cases, could even go bankrupt entirely unless alternative markets quickly materialize. Big problem.

The US is simultaneously (i) throwing billions of tax dollars at companies like ADM, Cargill, Solyndra and Tesla through various agriculture and energy programs and (ii) pushing these companies' exports through the NEI.  As I mentioned months ago, such a combination is a recipe for trade frictions and maybe even a bunch of new investigations of - and eventual tariffs on - US agricultural and "green energy" exports.  So is the Australian biofuels case, and the EU one before it, a harbinger of bad things to come or just isolated instances caused by unique market conditions?

Only time will tell, but if I had to bet on it, my money'd be on the former.

Canada's Senate Approves Canada-Colombia FTA: Good for Them, Bad for the US

AFP reports that Canada's Senate approved the Canada-Colombia FTA today, only a few days after the Canadian House of Commons did the same:

A Canada-Colombia free trade pact is expected to be signed into law here next week, after Canada's senate voted in favor of the agreement late Monday, an official told AFP Tuesday.

The trade legislation adopted last week by members of parliament must still be signed by Governor General Michaelle Jean, representative of Queen Elizabeth II, said Monika Bujalska, press secretary to Trade Minister Peter Van Loan.

"This is expected next week," she said.

Canada's senate passed the bill despite some reservations about "the seriousness of human rights violations" in Colombia, which had held up signing the accord for two years.

Both governments must still set a date for the free trade agreement to come into force.

The deal is expected to boost Canadian investment in Colombia's mining and oil sectors, as well as increase agricultural exports, primarily wheat and barley. Canada-Colombia trade topped 1.3 billion dollars in 2008, according to the latest figures.

Colombia's Congress approved the FTA back in August 2009, and President Uribe gave the agreement his final approval shortly thereafter.  The agreement still needs to be ratified by Colombia's constitutional court, which (so I'm told) is expected as early as September 2010.  So despite the fact that the two countries haven't set a date for the agreement to enter into force, it could be as early as July 2010 (as IBD's Monica Showalter noted last week)this Fall.  Meanwhile, the US-Colombia FTA, completed and signed about two years before the Canadian agreement, has absolutely no chance of entering into force this year due to continuing fecklessness by the Obama administration and its Democrat colleagues in Congress.

The Chamber's John Murphy comments today on this development and its implications for US businesses:

Last night, Canada’s Senate gave final approval to the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. For months, the U.S. Chamber and others have warned that the Canada-Colombia FTA will put U.S. workers and farmers at a marked competitive disadvantage in Colombia. Canadian wheat farmers will be able to sell their crop to Colombians at a discount, and Canadian manufacturers will be better able to undercut their U.S. competitors in the Colombian market.

Unfortunately, this scenario is already unfolding. Following implementation of a new trade accord between Colombia and Mercosur, the U.S. share of Colombia’s market for soybean meal, yellow corn, and wheat dropped by 67%, 53%, and 37%, respectively, in 2008-2009.

In other words, a newly-minted Canada-Colombia deal is fantastic news for Canada and Colombia and awful news for US exporters (and consumers).  Grrrreat.

And in case you're wondering, there was nary a mention of any of this today from our wonderful USTR.  (Of course not.)

UPDATE:  My original post was wrong about the earliest that the Canada-Colombia FTA can enter into force.  I've corrected the post above to include mention of Colombia's constituional court and a revised timeline for implementation.

Ozarks Jailer On Paid Leave For Posing For Playboy:

Jessie Lunderby (Playboy photo)

A Washington County, AR jailer has been placed on paid administrative leave after posing nude for Playboy

Officials are investigating to to see if Jessie Lunderby, 21, violated violated department policy for her off duty modeling when she posed as cyber girl of the week for Playboy's website.

A spokesperson for the sheriff’s office says the investigation would look at policies that include one barring “conduct unbecoming of an officer or employee of the department,”another that requires a sheriff’s office employee to get permission for off-duty work and another that forbids working at jobs that have anything to do with sexual conduct.

Lunderby says her phone is ringing of the hook and her email account is full, but she has no regrets.

Former Supervisor Of Teen Rehab Sentenced To Four Years For Statutory Sodomy:

Jana E. Carter mug shot JCSO

The former night supervisor at a Joplin center for teens dealing with alcohol and drug abuse has been sentenced to four years in prison after pleading guilty to statutory sodomy.

Forty five year-old Jana Carter, of Goodman, was originally charged with two counts of statutory rape and three counts of statutory sodomy for an October 2008 incident where she had sexual intercourse and performed oral sex with two boys, ages 16 and 14 at the Scott Greening Dependency Center. Another 16 year-old alleges he was sexually assaulted by Carter as well.

Trial Date Set For Father Accused Of Killing Infant Then Throwing Him In River:

Eddie Salazar Sr. mug shot JCSO

A trial date has been set for a man from Carthage who allegedly killed his infant son then threw his body in the Spring River.

Prosecutors say Eddie A. Salazar Sr., 29, first told authorities that masked men broke into his home last February, beat him up and kidnapped his 8 month-old son, Eddie Salazar Jr. (b.), which triggered a two day statewide Amber Alert for the little boy.

After Salazar Sr. was charged with filing a false police report he allegedly told authorities he lied and told them where the would find his son.

The autopsy report says the baby died from blunt force trauma to the head. He had other broken bones in his body as well, according to the report.

A trial date has been set for almost one year to the day of little Eddie's disappearance. The trial is scheduled to begin on Febrary 7th with back-up dates of April 4th or May 16th.

My (and Your) Tax Dollars to Subsidize Brazilian Cotton Farmers Indefinitely

Great* news!  Because of an agreement reached last week between the United States and Brazil, American citizens will continue to be forced to provide hundreds of millions of tax dollars in hush money"technical assistance" to Brazilian cotton farmers!  Granted, the new agreement also delays the imposition of about $1 billion in Brazilian retaliatory sanctions against American exports due to US refusal to implement multiple adverse WTO rulings against the US cotton subsidy program.  But considering the undeniable fact that such a move was in both country's commercial interests (the sanctions would punish Brazilian consumers and American exporters alike), the big news here is the embarrassing fact that the agreement continues the aforementioned Brazilian briberycompensation.  Cato's Sallie James does a good job summing up this debacle as follows:

Notwithstanding the efforts of four brave congressmen, the belated concession to reality by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, and the misgivings of trade analysts including myself, it appears that the “temporary” deal struck by Brazil and the United States in April to ward off Brazil’s retaliation for WTO-illegal U.S. cotton supports is here to stay....

You will recall that the deal includes about $147 million worth of taxpayers’ money given to Brazilian cotton farmers in the form of “technical assistance,” just so we can continue our own insane cotton support programs without fear of U.S. exporters (including holders of patents and copyrights) being hit by retaliatory trade barriers and unpunished piracy.

Brazil in some senses has the right idea, of course. They recognize, correctly, that retaliation in the form of increased tariffs on American imports only hurts their own consumers, hence their stated desire for “negotiation and reform” instead of sanctions.  But they sure do have a lot of faith in the willingness of Congress to enact reform without serious pressure from, among others, aggrieved trade partners.

I hope their faith and saint-like patience is rewarded. In the meantime, we have (at least) two more years of subsidizing Brazilan farmers in addition to our own.

What a mess.  But I would disagree with Sallie on one thing: I don't think that the trade-savvy Brazilians have any delusions about the "willingness" of Congress to enact ag subsidy reforms, with or without foreign pressure.  Instead, I think the Brazilians realize perfectly well that (a) this Congress certainly isn't going to do anything about the US cotton program, (b) a billion dollars in trade sanctions will do nothing but harm their struggling economy; and (c) their threat of sanctions loses value the longer it's dangled out there (and it's been dangling for a while now).  So they're going to keep their (remaining) powder dry until (a) the global economy improves and (b) a new Congress takes over in 2011 that will probably be more, umm, "budget-conscious" and will very, very likely be without one of "King Cotton's" biggest champions - Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), whose chances of getting re-elected in 2010 are currently hovering between slim and none.  So the Brazilians' move last week might not reflect pie-in-the-sky idealism, but instead some good ol' fashioned DC cynicism.

But regardless of Brazil's motivations, one thing is very clear here: the US government's unwillingness to reform its insane, illegal agricultural subsidy programs means that, for the foreseeable future, American taxpayers will be forced to not only throw billions of their hard-earned dollars at American agribusiness, but also dish out millions in bribes to Brazil's cotton farmers.

Is it any wonder why a clear majority of the American people have finally had enough?


* "Great" may or may not actually mean "crappy."

Woman Charged With Second Degree Murder In Park Avenue Stabbing Death:

Sharon Lacanski-Shimkus mug shot

A forty four year-old Springfield woman has been charged with killing a man last week in his South Park Avenue home.

Sharon Lancanski-Shimkus is charged with second-degree murder and armed criminal action for the stabbing death of 45 year-old Jeffrey Chambers.

Shortly before noon on Friday June 18th, Chambers' sister, Kimberly Chambers, went to her brothers home with her friend Larry Teer after their mother had not heard from him for a few days and became concerned.

According to the probable cause statement filed with the charges, Kimberly nobody answered the door when she knocked and she found the front screen door and the back door of the home locked, "which worried her because Jeff could not lock the screen door from the outside and thought that he must be inside."

Kimberly then next door to the landlord's home and told him she thought there might be something wrong with her brother and got a key.

"Kimberly reported that upon entering Jeff's residence she discovered him inside his bedroom where he was laying on the floor between the dresser and bed, at which time she ran out of the house where she infomled Larry Teer of what she had observed inside the residence."

Teer and a man working in the area, Mark Schmidt, then went inside the home and where they saw blood throughout the residence and discovered Jeff's body lying on the bedroom floor, "covered in blood, with what appeared to be a puncture wound to his throat." They also found Lancanski-Shimkus lying near the deceased Chambers "moaning, unresponsive and covered in blood."

When first responders moved Lancanski-Shimkus, "they discovered that she had been lying on a bloody folding knife with the blade extended."

At the scene, the victims mother, Brenda Holton told an officer, "her son was having ongoing problems with a woman she only knew as Sharon, who along with Jeff were alcoholics and when Sharon became intoxicated she would assault Jeff."

An autopsy determined Chambers died from multiple stab wounds to the chest.

During an interview with Springfield Police Detective Kevin Shipley, Lancanski-Shimkus admitted she stabbed Chambers 10-11 times with her pocketknife during an argument.

Lancanski-Shimkus, who is also facing tampering with a motor vehicle charges for an August 2009 incident in Greene County, is being held in the Greene County jail on $250,000 bond. He next court

Hearing Underway For One Of Rowan Ford's Alleged Killer's

David Spears mug shot

A motions hearing is underway today in Pulaski County for a man accused of raping and murdering 9 year-old Rowan Ford back in 2007.

A motion has been filed to obtain tapes of KY3's coverage of the past few months coverage of Ford's stepfather, David Spears' hearings. A special master appointed by the court has also filed a supplemental report regarding confidential taped phone calls between Spears, Christopher Collings and their attorney's made from within the Barry County jail. Also, a judge will rule at a later date if Spears' alleged taped confession will be allowed to be admitted as evidence at his trial.

Christopher Collings mug shot

Spears and his friend Collings are accused of raping the little girl at Collings trailer in Wheaton. In the probable cause statements filed against Spears and Collings, each of them claimed responsibility for Rowan Fords murder. One of them said that the little girl was killed inside of Collings trailer (b.) the other said that Ford was tied to a fence that held goats outside the trailer and killed there.




Several days after the little girl went missing her body was found in a sinkhole in rural McDonald County on a hunch by a sheriffs deputy on his way to work.

Collings and Spears are due back in court next month for motions hearings pertaining to the special masters report, a telephone survey conducted by Collings defense team and depositions and the taped confession.

Collings trial is scheduled to begin in January of 2011---Spears' in August of 2011.

HAPPENING NOW:Springfield Police Investigating Suspicious Death:

Springfield police are investigating a homicide on the west side of the city at 721 South Park Avenue.

Police spokesman Lt. Roger Moore says that police were called by family members about 12:15 this afternoon (06-18-10) after they went to check on Jeff Chambers and S. L., who are both in their forties, after not hearing from the couple for several days.

One of the family members got a key from the landlord of the home and went inside where she found her brother dead from apparent stab wounds....the woman lying near him.

Moore says officers found a deceased male inside the residence and, an injured woman who was sent to the intensive care unit of a local hospital suffering from cuts and possibly being under the influence of drugs/and or alcohol.

At this hour (3:00 p.m.) police are waiting on a search warrant to enter the house to gather additional evidence.

Sources on the scene say that the mother of Chambers was running up and down the street screaming, "She killed him...I knew she was gonna kill him"

Moore says that officers have been called out to the rental property about a dozen times since the beginning of this year. He says he's not sure if all the calls pertain to Chambers & S. L., or other people, since the home is a rental.

Unions, Protectionism and the Deepwater Horizon Disaster

One of the loudest criticisms of the Obama administration's lackluster efforts in the Gulf of Mexico was that the White House has, for some bizarre reason, refused many countries' offers to help with the BP oil spill's clean-up and containment efforts.  Those refusals are well-documented, and according to the State Department, the United States government has received assistance offers from 18 foreign countries, but thus far has accepted only four of them: (i) Mexico’s offer of two skimmers and 13,780 feet of boom (accepted in early May); (ii) Norway’s offer of eight skimming systems (accepted in early May); (iii) the Netherlands' offer of three sets of Koseq Rigid Sweeping Arms (accepted on May 23); and (iv) Canada’s offer of 9,843 feet of containment boom (accepted on June 4).

As you can see, that's not a whole lot of foreign help, especially for a disaster this size, and it's mostly equipment - only two Mexican skimmer ships have apparently been employed by the US government so far.  So what's up?  Well, many critics of the administration's efforts have cited an obscure protectionist law (the "Jones Act" ), which prevents foreign ships with foreign (i.e., non-union) workers from engaging in "cabotage" in US waters, as the reason why there aren't more foreign ships helping with the cleanup efforts.  Here's Steve Horowitz with the gist of the critics' argument (h/t Mark Perry):

With all of the damage and finger-pointing taking place around BP's Deepwater Horizon disaster, one of the most frequently asked questions is whether the federal and local governments are doing all they can to address the problems. One way in which they are clearly not doing so is the President's continued refusal to request an emergency waiver of one piece of legislation that is slowing down the response: the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, better known as the Jones Act.

The Jones Act is actually section 27 of the MMA and requires "that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents." This, of course, includes the Gulf of Mexico. Thus any attempt to move equipment from one U.S. port to another for the purpose of either stopping or cleaning up the Deepwater Horizon leak must involve U.S. ships, fully constructed in the U.S., etc..

Of course in a world of globalized trade few such ships exist. In fact, a number of foreign-constructed or crewed ships are in U.S ports at the moment and could easily transport oil sucking equipment or more booms to the Gulf, but the Jones Act prevents them from doing so. Like the school buses that sat in a parking lot while folks were stranded during Hurricane Katrina, those non-U.S. ships and their equipment are sitting idle while an environmental disaster unfolds.

Interestingly, two days after Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff got approval for a blanket waiver of the Jones Act so that oil and natural gas could be brought into the area on non-approved ships. Meanwhile, President Obama and others continue to insist that such a blanket waiver is "not needed at this time."

From the pictures we're seeing of the Gulf, that seems a hard position to defend. However, as an economist, it's always worth asking: cui bono? Who is benefiting from this law's enforcement. One major beneficiary is organized labor. Ships that meet the requirements of the Jones Act are crewed by unionized labor and granting waivers to it (or outright repealing it as it needlessly raises the costs of all kinds of U.S. made goods) would bring lower-wage labor into competition with those nice union jobs, potentially threatening them. One theory is that President Obama does not want to risk alienating the labor vote by waiving the Jones Act even for a short period of time. President Bush had no such concerns as labor wasn't going to vote for him anyway.

Ok.  So basically, Horowitz and others argue that the Gulf clean-up effort isn't firing on all cylinders because President Obama, with a watchful eye on the November midterm elections, caved to the pressure of US labor unions and their hired guns and refused to issue a blanket waiver of the Jones Act.  Blech.

However, as Horowitz notes, the administration's response has been that such a waiver isn't needed right now, and they and other outlets have noted that foreign vessels are working in the Gulf as we, errr, speak.  Indeed, those two aforementioned Mexican ships are operating there already (no, there's no NAFTA exception because the US expressly exempted cabotage from NAFTA's rules), and according to a June 15 article by Offshore, there are actually fifteen foreign vessels doing clean-up work in the Gulf.  Admiral Thad Allen, the guy in charge of the big clean-up effort, also stated last week that no one has even requested a Jones Act waiver.  Hmmm.

So who's wrong and who's right here?  Horowitz and his fellow angry critics or the White House?

Well, it appears that, technically, they're both right, but while the White House probably can't be accused of outright lying, they're definitely not telling us the whole story, and the whole thing reeks of of labor union patronage.  (Shocking, I know!)  The aforementioned Offshore article helps to explain (emphasis mine):

National Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen instructed the Coast Guard federal on-scene coordinator, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Maritime Administration to ensure any Jones Act waiver requests regarding the BP oil spill response receive accelerated processing.

The admiral’s guidance would route waivers through the on-scene coordinator and the national incident commander for expedited clearance.

No Jones Act waivers have been required for the 15 foreign-flagged vessels currently in operation in the Gulf of Mexico. A foreign flag vessel can conduct certain operations as part of the flotilla if it is an oil spill response vessel and meets the requirements of 46 USC § 55113.

Federal law prohibits a foreign-flagged vessel from transporting merchandise between points in the United States encompassed by the Coastwise laws. The CBP determines the application of the Jones Act.

Being a diligent lawyer, I took a look at 46 USC § 55113 and here's what it says:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an oil spill response vessel documented under the laws of a foreign country may operate in waters of the United States on an emergency and temporary basis, for the purpose of recovering, transporting, and unloading in a United States port oil discharged as a result of an oil spill in or near those waters, if (1) an adequate number and type of oil spill response vessels documented under the laws of the United States cannot be engaged to recover oil from an oil spill in or near those waters in a timely manner, as determined by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator for a discharge or threat of a discharge of oil; and (2) the foreign country has by its laws accorded to vessels of the United States the same privileges accorded to vessels of the foreign country under this section.

So basically, Jones Act waivers aren't needed if a foreign-documented "oil spill response vessel" meets the two criteria listed above.  This explains how (a) the Jones Act remains unwaived; (b) some foreign vessels are working in the Gulf right now; and (c) other foreign vessels - like the transport-type that Horwitz describes above - can't operate in the Gulf because of the Jones Act.  It also explains how the White House technically isn't lying when it says that foreign ships can operate, and are operating, in the Gulf without a Jones Act waiver, so a blanket waiver isn't "needed."

Yet something still stinks here.  And bad.

First, if there's no political benefit to not issuing a blanket waiver like Bush did after Katrina, then why not stop the PR bleeding (such as these comments by Hawaii Congressman Charles Djou (R) or this Fox News story) and just issue the damn waiver?  Seems like a no brainer, right?  Well, unless, of course, the AFL-CIO's spokesman on the Jones Act issue has met with the White House and expressed his clients', ahem, views on the subject, and the White House has already exhibited a strong willingness to cave to union pressure on obscure trade issues (see, e.g., mexican trucks).

Second, now that the Jones Act has become a political issue, will the Obama adminstration openly deny a new limited Jones Act waiver request?  Earlier administration statements from White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs "that there are no pending requests" came before today when Dallas businessman Fred McCallister formally requested one pursuant to the expedited process described above:

Fred McCallister, an investment banker with Allegiance Capital Corporation, sent a letter to Incident Commander Admiral Thad Allen today asking for a limited waiver of the Jones Act, to enable 12 to 25 foreign flagged skimmer ships to assist in clean-up efforts in the Gulf.

"Many in the Gulf have been calling for this equipment, which can collect 3,500 gallons of oil per hour per vessel from Gulf waters. With estimates now at 2.5 million gallons of oil spilling into the Gulf every day, the urgency can't be overstated," said McCallister, a Vice President at Allegiance Capital.

The Jones Act has been waived as part of disaster response in the past, including a waiver to assist in response to Hurricane Katrina. More recently it has been waived to support renewable energy development efforts off of the coast of Delaware. Several Gulf state leaders have asked for a general waiver of the Jones Act this week.

Mr. McCallister has 12 skimming vessels specifically designed to remove surface oil from the Gulf that are immediately available and at least 13 more that can be made available over the next few weeks. The firm also has specialized vessels for deploying oil booms and providing housing for personnel working in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP oil spill cleanup.

McCallister's vessels probably don't meet one of the waiver requirements set forth in 46 USC § 55113, so they're going to provide a test for the White House.  It appears that, contrary to Admiral Allen's earlier statement, at least one Jones Act waiver request was submitted and denied, but that was long before the new media and political firestorm.  Things are much different now, and a denial of this new waiver request would certainly make news, especially considering that the quotes above come from a press release by McCallister's investment firm, and he was on Fox earlier this week.  (Something tells me that he's probably not going to keep quiet if his request is denied.) 

So will the White House really deny a(nother?) formal Jones Act waiver request when the Deepwater Horizon effort is, from a PR perspective at least, an abject failure?

It appears that the answer to that question depends on just how much all that union support is worth, and we're all about to find out about that very, very soon.