The PVSA is Anachronistic, Counterproductive, and Stupid, and Should be Repealed!

[Hlitner]

4 minutes ago, BJzink said:

I have a relative who worked about 45+ years in government, mostly classified positions.  His opinion on elected positions was that their job was to be reelected, never mind what was best for the country or anything else.

I would say that is a good description of a majority of politicians I met (and worked with) throughout my career.  But there were also some notable exceptions not to mention some fantastic hard working folks on the staff's of some politicians.  But a good friend who was also in government once mentioned that most of the best politicians quickly get frustrated and move on to other opportunities in the private sector.

[cruisemom42]

20 hours ago, KirkNC said:

I bet taxi drivers, hotel workers and waiters in Fort Lauderdale have certainly been impacted.

 

I'm sure you're not wrong. But by the same token, given Fort Lauderdale's miles of beaches and many hotels (and reputation as a tourist hot spot), cruise passengers are only a part of the overall tourist economy.

[KirkNC]

4 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I'm sure you're not wrong. But by the same token, given Fort Lauderdale's miles of beaches and many hotels (and reputation as a tourist hot spot), cruise passengers are only a part of the overall tourist economy.

True but just think of all those cabs that line up each morning that a cruise ship comes in.  The ones in FLL are lucky that they do have other draws unlike some places that rely more completely on the industry.  Think of the business in some of the towns in Alaska, they are being crushed.

[GUT2407]

On 2/10/2021 at 9:26 PM, chengkp75 said:

And I disagree that he can grant a temporary waiver.  From what I've read, an Executive Order can tell the agencies how to enforce a law, but cannot change the law.  Both laws involved (the PVSA and the Immigration acts that set the visa requirements and limits) grant specific authority to the President in these areas, and he cannot exceed this authority without Congressional approval.  The ability to grant PVSA waivers is limited, by statute, to situations where it is in the best interest of national security, and where there are no US flag services available.  Frankly, a case could be made that granting a waiver would be detrimental to national security, in that it could lead to further public health emergencies.

But considering they applied the visa requirement in a way that previously permitted cruises to nowhere, why can’t an executive order direct they do so again? Genuinely puzzled.

[chengkp75]

7 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

But considering they applied the visa requirement in a way that previously permitted cruises to nowhere, why can’t an executive order direct they do so again? Genuinely puzzled.

Because the visas are not just for cruise ship crew.  They found that they were not enforcing visa requirements evenly across all businesses, requiring some businesses to have visa workers and the cruise ships not.  Therefore, it wasn't an application that changed it was that the application was not consistent across the board.

[nocl]

29 minutes ago, KirkNC said:

True but just think of all those cabs that line up each morning that a cruise ship comes in.  The ones in FLL are lucky that they do have other draws unlike some places that rely more completely on the industry.  Think of the business in some of the towns in Alaska, they are being crushed.

Think of some business in Kansas, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico and every other state that have also gotten crushed.  Far more than those related to the cruise industry.

[KirkNC]

6 minutes ago, nocl said:

Think of some business in Kansas, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico and every other state that have also gotten crushed.  Far more than those related to the cruise industry.

Yea but this forum is about cruising 😉.

[nocl]

Just now, KirkNC said:

Yea but this forum is about cruising 😉.

Yes it is and as soon as the US can considering the epidemic controlled the sooner cruising can restart.

 

Failure to control it land and cruising will have a hard time starting back up. 

 

The cruising related jobs will need to take there place along with all of the others impacted.

[rkacruiser]

5 hours ago, BJzink said:

I have a relative who worked about 45+ years in government, mostly classified positions.  His opinion on elected positions was that their job was to be reelected, never mind what was best for the country or anything else.

 

In the last two months, I can attest to your statement about what was best for the country,  I have experienced postal service issues that were significant enough that I contacted I called my member of the House of Representatives and spoke with an aide.  Her response--or shall I say the lack of--to my phone call was dismissive at best.  I e-mailed the Junior Senator of Ohio with a detailed story of what I experienced with the Post Office.  I received a response, 2-3 weeks later, concerning the Senator's view about Afghanistan.  I e-mailed the exact same message to the Senior Senator of Ohio.  After 2-3 weeks, I received his response and it was a specific response to my concerns.  

 

As a "batting average" in response for representative democracy, .333 is great for baseball, but not so great for what our Founding Fathers tried to form.  

[rkacruiser]

5 hours ago, Hlitner said:

 But there were also some notable exceptions not to mention some fantastic hard working folks on the staff's of some politicians.

 

My opinion with no experience in Washington, but having been in contact over the years with my Representatives and Senators, it's the staff that "makes" the man or woman.  

 

Yesterday, I saw a video of a staff member accompanying a newly elected Senator to the floor.  The Senator started to walk in a direction opposite from where he should.  The staff member directed him to the path he needed to follow.

 

 

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

 

My opinion with no experience in Washington, but having been in contact over the years with my Representatives and Senators, it's the staff that "makes" the man or woman.  

 

Yesterday, I saw a video of a staff member accompanying a newly elected Senator to the floor.  The Senator started to walk in a direction opposite from where he should.  The staff member directed him to the path he needed to follow.

 

 

You are wise :).  It is the staff (in both Washington and the State Capitals) that usually make the difference.  My job (in healthcare policy) had me dealing with the staff of quite a few Senators and Reps.  Some of the Senators had amazing staff while others had "lightweights."  As a State technocrat (I never liked the bureaucrat label) it was part of my job to know what Staff members could be helpful.  There was also the usual "you scratch my back I scratch yours" situation where bonds were formed which helped things get done.  In government it is the personal relationships that count for a lot.  Unfortunately, the current situation in Washington has deteriorated to such a degree that many personal relationships have been strained or eliminated.   That is sad and I am happy to be retired. The few friends I still have who are working in government are generally depressed because it is difficult to get things done.  In my day if a senior staffer called from Washington and needed something done it would never have occurred to me to treat a D different then a R.  But now I suspect that most staffers or technocrats would be afraid to think that way.

 

Hank

[nocl]

During my time in DC I have met some Senators and Representatives that were knowledgeable and impressive, as well as some that were somewhat clueless. The best could explain exactly what was possible, why, and who was key.

 

The art of politics used to be accomplishing what is possible and the best strove to do that.

 

Now the goal of accomplishing what is possible has been replaced with dogma that is defended at the expense of accomplishing nothing.

 

 

[rkacruiser]

21 hours ago, Hlitner said:

In my day if a senior staffer called from Washington and needed something done it would never have occurred to me to treat a D different then a R.  But now I suspect that most staffers or technocrats would be afraid to think that way.

 

How do we get this mind set changed?

 

21 hours ago, nocl said:

The art of politics used to be accomplishing what is possible and the best strove to do that.

 

Now the goal of accomplishing what is possible has been replaced with dogma that is defended at the expense of accomplishing nothing.

 

As I just typed in response to another post, how do we change this? 

 

 

[oaktreerb]

20 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

How do we get this mind set changed?

 

 

As I just typed in response to another post, how do we change this? 

 

 

Be careful who you vote for.  Don’t vote a strictly party line.  Don’t vote for someone just because you recognize the name.   The parties have changed their philosophies through the years.  Take a good look at the party platform, maybe you have evolved.....I did.

[nocl]

2 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

How do we get this mind set changed?

 

 

As I just typed in response to another post, how do we change this? 

 

 

Basically it is a case of you get what you ask for.  We (as in the country) are getting the politicians we have voted for.  Moderates are largely eliminated in the primaries, leaving those that tend to be more extreme it into the general election.  You now only have a small number of moderates.  

[iceman93]

21 minutes ago, nocl said:

Basically it is a case of you get what you ask for.  We (as in the country) are getting the politicians we have voted for.  Moderates are largely eliminated in the primaries, leaving those that tend to be more extreme it into the general election.  You now only have a small number of moderates.  

That's certainly part of it, but doesn't explain the whole problem.  I sometimes think of Tip O'Neill, one of the most liberal politicians of his day, compromising often with Ronald Reagan to get things done.  Both of those leaders recognized that progress required working together, and that neither one would get everything they wanted.  That kind of spirit of cooperation and compromise for the greater good is sorely lacking in politicians today.

[cruisemom42]

15 minutes ago, iceman93 said:

That kind of spirit of cooperation and compromise for the greater good is sorely lacking in politicians today.

 

That's a different time and place. Now every decision and every vote made by every politician is immediately trumpeted (or lambasted) by whatever media (dis)agree with that politician's position or party. And election commercials have sunk to a new low in digging up any decision that could possibly be interpreted as a "concession" to the other side, or an agreement with the "enemy" and ensuring that politician does not get re-elected.

 

I sometimes think we've about reached the point where a frenzied mob of voters would attack a politician merely for "crossing the aisle" to give his or her condolences to a member of the other party. 

 

As long as we -- as voters -- demand such strict fidelity to party loyalty and the corollary lack of compromise, this is what we'll get.

 

 

[nocl]

1 hour ago, iceman93 said:

That's certainly part of it, but doesn't explain the whole problem.  I sometimes think of Tip O'Neill, one of the most liberal politicians of his day, compromising often with Ronald Reagan to get things done.  Both of those leaders recognized that progress required working together, and that neither one would get everything they wanted.  That kind of spirit of cooperation and compromise for the greater good is sorely lacking in politicians today.

Of course both Tip O Neill and Reagan were both considered to be somewhat extreme in their day, but would be considered moderates today.

[KirkNC]

I thought politics is persona nongrada.

[deliver42]

If people continue to vote along party lines, we will continue to have this discusion. We, as a people, are allowing this partisanship to expand. We, as a people, are the only ones to bring bipartisanship back.

[ontheweb]

6 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

That's a different time and place. Now every decision and every vote made by every politician is immediately trumpeted (or lambasted) by whatever media (dis)agree with that politician's position or party. And election commercials have sunk to a new low in digging up any decision that could possibly be interpreted as a "concession" to the other side, or an agreement with the "enemy" and ensuring that politician does not get re-elected.

 

I sometimes think we've about reached the point where a frenzied mob of voters would attack a politician merely for "crossing the aisle" to give his or her condolences to a member of the other party. 

 

As long as we -- as voters -- demand such strict fidelity to party loyalty and the corollary lack of compromise, this is what we'll get.

 

 

And let's not forget that most seats in Congress are "safe seats" that will never have a change in party representation, possibly through gerrymandering. That makes the primaries the only possible elections that could be considered as contested. And that leads to the kind of fear of not following the party line that we see today.

[Lady Arwen]

Sorry, but the last two pages has been a discussion of American politics and not even remotely tied to cruising.  I think perhaps it would be prudent to move these discussions to a more appropriate forum.  Cruise Critic is not the place for political rhetoric.  Thank you.

[CruiserBruce]

1 hour ago, Lady Arwen said:

Sorry, but the last two pages has been a discussion of American politics and not even remotely tied to cruising.  I think perhaps it would be prudent to move these discussions to a more appropriate forum.  Cruise Critic is not the place for political rhetoric.  Thank you.

Totally agree...getting far away from what we are supposed to be discussing....

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Lady Arwen said:

Sorry, but the last two pages has been a discussion of American politics and not even remotely tied to cruising.  I think perhaps it would be prudent to move these discussions to a more appropriate forum.  Cruise Critic is not the place for political rhetoric.  Thank you.

 

9 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

Totally agree...getting far away from what we are supposed to be discussing....

While I agree that there has been some drift, and that always happens no matter what the thread, since politics makes the laws, any discussion about changing laws will almost always venture into political debate.

 

Since few of us here on CC are lawyers, and fewer still admiralty lawyers, we can speculate all day on the legal aspects of the PVSA, but lets try not to bring partisan politics, nor politics in general, into the discussion.  It will take effort, but let's try before the thread gets locked.

[igraf]

On 2/7/2021 at 12:27 PM, CruiserBruce said:

@jimdee3636, we get your opinion of the PVSA. But there are always two sides to everything.

 

Agree the others...there have been MANY, MANY, MANY discussions here on the topic. As mentioned consistently, the cruise industry doesn't want the PVSA to be changed!! And, as the Biden Administration has already stated, they support the Jones Act and the PVSA. And, also frequently stated by the Biden Administration, they are operating from the science aspect, not pro business first aspect.

 

This topic has been beaten viciously to death.

 

This may change now that Canada has banned cruise ships for another year. 

 

igraf