Jones Act unfairly hurts Hawaii while jeopardizing security of U.S.

The Jones Act makes shipping between Hawaii and the mainland very expensive, harms the economy of Hawaii while giving advantages to foreign competitors, and damages our national security.

This is not a legacy worth continuing.

The 19th-century economist Henry George declared, “What protection teaches us to do to ourselves in time of peace is what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.”

Fresh in his mind was the experience of America’s Civil War. The Northern states had damaged the economy of Southern states with high import tariffs before the war and with a coastal blockade of European trade during the war.

In 1920 Congress passed the Jones Act to prevent international vessels from taking cargo between U.S. ports, i.e., Honolulu and Los Angeles. Since then, only ships built, owned and mostly crewed by Americans could be hired for domestic transport.

Outlawing international competition is advantageous to U.S. ship builders, but is very costly to every other industry in America wanting to hire state-of-the-art ships that are built in Japan or South Korea for as low as one-fifth the price.

“At its peak,” reported Jad Mouawad in The New York Times on Oct. 14, “the ocean fleet comprised nearly 1,300 vessels. Today it has shrunk to about 166 ships and accounts for about 1 percent of the global fleet.”

With so few American vessels left to hire, even the U.S. military routinely seeks waivers to Jones Act restrictions.

Other waivers have been sought in emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Sandy and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Such access to world shipping should be available at all times, not just in times of emergency. It is estimated this could save every household in Hawaii $3,000 a year.

Shielding one industry from international competition has harmful effects on others.

Merchants across Asia can readily compete with Hawaii agriculture by using lower-cost ships than the people of Hawaii are allowed to use when selling to California.

Higher shipping costs mean that Hawaii farmers cannot buy as much feed for cattle and poultry.

Consumers on the mainland are more likely to buy sugar from the Philippines than from Hawaii.

The high cost of shipping means fewer ships in port and fewer jobs for longshoremen.

And the high cost of living in the islands weakens the purchasing power of vacationing tourists and of the U.S. defense budget.

Proponents of the Jones Act contend that buying South Korean or Japanese ships would jeopardize national security.

Really?

Why then does the U.S. station 100,000 U.S. servicemen, dependents and civilian personnel in those countries — but not trust Koreans and Japanese to sell, own or operate ships to carry our goods?

The world has changed greatly since the passage of the Jones Act in 1920. The U.S. Air Force and Stryker Brigades with global reach didn’t exist then and we had no mutual defense alliances with Japan, South Korea and NATO. We have all these now.

The people of Hawaii and Alaska bear the brunt of Jones Act costs because most of our livelihood depends on ocean shipping.

But if the purpose of this law is for “national” defense, then the cost of American-built shipping should be borne by the whole nation, not disproportionately by the people of Hawaii and Alaska who comprise less than 1 percent of the nation’s population.

The strength of our economy and of our military are mutually beneficial.

Throughout the Cold War Americans have preached to the world about the virtues of free markets for prosperity and for security.

We should practice at home what we have preached to others abroad.