Selling American Highways to Foreign Interests


About the author: David is executive director and founder of CEOs for Liberty, a private membership-only group for CEOs, business owners, and executives with a mission to enhance and protect American business exceptionalism. David founded CFL in 2011 given his concer ... [read 's FULL BIO]

Texas NAFTA Superhighway Built by Spanish Company

The Bush-launched “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP 2005) and its companion “NAFTA Superhighway” was heavily opposed by the public and shut down several years ago after Lou Dobbs, then on CNN, exposed it.

The SPP was an off Congress radar intra-U.S., Canada, and Mexico infrastructure planning program — top corporations, government agencies actively planning for the eventual merging of these three countries into a NAU, including currency, legal, financial, to a supranational Constitution and courts. Congress had no knowledge or oversight. Today, this planning has resumed under Obama’s “Security and Prosperity Initiative”… and this TxDOT project, approved by Governor Perry, is a sub-set:

“TxDOT signed the 50-year deal with NTE Mobility Partners Segments 3 LLC, a U.S.-based wholly-owned subsidiary of Cintra, the Spanish-owned construction company. TxDOT picked Cintra in 2005 to build what some critics called the ‘NAFTA Super Highway’.

…The Cintra deal meant that once the TTC was completed, anyone who wanted to drive on it would have to pay an investment consortium in Spain for the privilege of driving in Texas. Although somewhat incomprehensible to most U.S. citizens, these public-private partnerships involve selling off key U.S. infrastructure projects to foreign entities. Granted, the ‘ownership’ rights of projects like TTC-35 would have remained with the state of Texas, yet selling off the leasing rights amounts in the thinking of most U.S. citizens to selling off the highway to foreign interests for the term of the lease.”

If one cannot see the larger picture here, there is always paint-by-numbers.
Read more at WND

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • I don’t know of any “public-private partnerships” that have ever been successful. AmTrack and possibly the Post Office would fit into this category. It usually results in a half-breed of the worst of both worlds.

    I am surprised and amazed at how many free-market conservatives and libertarians I hear advocating the privatizing of our infra-structure, as if this were a true ‘free market’ idea where competition produces the greatest value for the consumer. Competition ends as soon as the bidding process is over, and is therefore non-functional for the end user. It then becomes a monopoly where there is no incentive to provide value to the consumer.

    Minimal compliance to contractual maintenance obligations falls far short of the usual competition driven forces that would otherwise produce value. Those of us who operate businesses in the transportation sector know all too well how poorly this works. We are subjected to exorbitant tolls to operate on some of the most poorly maintained roads and bridges in the country, destroying our equipment, increasing operator fatigue, and further driving up operating costs. They also see to it that there is no practical alternative (at least not without plenty of harassment to ‘punish’ those who try to circumvent their highway robbery).

    Politicians love it, however, since it provides a way to raise substantial amounts of quick cash. This is very short sighted, however, and makes about as much sense economically as selling equity in one’s home to raise cash to go on a vacation.

    Selling infrastructure to a foreign entity for a corridor to cross national boundaries takes this insanity to an even higher dimension.

    • handyhammers

      I’m not sure of the position of the libertarians that you have spoken to, personally, but as for myself, free market infrastructure, is not on my agenda. Nor would I vote for such action. However, I would agree to you claim of lunacy to aspire to combine our continent to model the New world Europe.