kscarbel2

C'mon Paul. You can't blame are Navy's unacceptably small size, including carriers, on Obama. Any ex-Navy man can tell you that our Navy has been shrinking since the end of the Vietnam war. I myself want a return to a large and well-funded Navy. But every presidential administration since Nixon has underfunded the Navy. As a result, for example, rather than buy similar replacements for the "purpose-designed" A6 bomber and F-14 air superiority fighter, the Navy was forced to buy an inferior flying compromise, the F-18, saddled with both missions, all because they weren't funded to do the right thing. Our oldest Ohio Class ballistic submarines are as old as 41 years, and their replacement (Columbia Class) is still a 3D picture. By 1990, President H.W. Bush had sent our four battleships (Iowa, Missouri, New Jersey and Wisconsin), which had figured so prominently during the first Iraq War, back into retirement. These platforms, modernized, had (have) vast potential. Nothing send a "message" better than the sight of a dreadnought. (And there's also the strong argument that the aircraft carrier, with today's weapons in mind, is a sitting duck. That's a now vulnerable critical wheel need to cleverly re-invent.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1972-1978 DATE ^ 6/30/72 6/30/73 6/30/74 6/30/75 6/30/76 6/30/77 9/30/78 BATTLESHIPS - - - - - - - CARRIERS 17 16 14 15 13 13 13 CRUISERS 27 29 28 27 26 26 28 DESTROYERS 132 139 119 102 99 92 95 FRIGATES 66 71 64 64 64 64 65 SUBMARINES 94 84 73 75 74 77 81 SSBNS 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 COMMAND SHIPS - - - - - - - MINE WARFARE 31 34 34 34 25 25 25 PATROL 16 14 14 14 13 6 3 AMPHIBIOUS 77 65 65 64 65 65 67 AUXILIARY 153 148 135 123 116 114 113 SURFACE WARSHIPS 225 239 211 193 189 182* 188 TOTAL ACTIVE 654 641 587 559 536 523 531 EVENTS • Last U.S. forces withdraw from South Vietnam following the ceasefire 1973. • South Vietnam falls to North Vietnamese communists 1975. NOTES ^ Beginning with FY 78, the fiscal year runs 1 October through 30 September. * Post-Vietnam low for surface warships. U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1979-1985 DATE 9/30/79 9/30/80 9/30/81 9/30/82 9/30/83 9/30/84 9/30/85 BATTLESHIPS - - - - 1 2 2 CARRIERS 13 13 12 13 13 13 13 CRUISERS 28 26 27 27 28 29 30 DESTROYERS 97 94 91 89 71 69 69 FRIGATES 65 71 78 86 95 103 110 SUBMARINES 80 82 87 96 98 98 100 SSBNS 41 40 34 33 34 35 37 COMMAND SHIPS - 3 4 4 4 4 4 MINE WARFARE 25 25 25 25 21 21 21 PATROL 3 3 1 4 6 6 6 AMPHIBIOUS 67 63 61 61 59 57 58 AUXILIARY 114 110 101 117 103 120 121 SURFACE WARSHIPS 190 191 196 202 195 203 211 TOTAL ACTIVE 533 530 521* 555 533 557 571 EVENTS • Grenada operation 1983. • Attempted peacekeeping in Lebanon 1983. NOTES * Post-Vietnam War low (total active ships). U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1986-1992 DATE 9/30/86 9/30/87 9/30/88 9/30/89 9/30/90 9/30/91 9/30/92 BATTLESHIPS 3 3 3 4 4 1 - CARRIERS 14 14 14 14 13 15 14 CRUISERS 32 36 38 40 43 47 49 DESTROYERS 69 69 69 68 57 47 40 FRIGATES 113 115 107 100 99 93 67 SUBMARINES 101 102 100 99 93 87 85 SSBNS 39 37 37 36 33 34 30 COMMAND SHIPS 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 MINE WARFARE 21 22 22 23 22 22 16 PATROL 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 AMPHIBIOUS 58 59 59 61 59 61 58 AUXILIARY 23 127 114 137 137 112 102 SURFACE WARSHIPS 217 223^ 217 212 203 188 156 TOTAL ACTIVE 583 594* 573 592 570 529 471 EVENTS • Fall of the Berlin Wall and many East European communist governments, 1989-1990. • Gulf mobilization and war, 1990-1991. • Dissolution of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, 1991. EVENTS ^ 1980s high for surface warships. * 1980s high for total active ships. A rapid decline in force level is evident after the anticommunist revolutions in Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union, 1989-1991. U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1993-1999 DATE 9/30/93 9/30/94 9/30/95 9/30/96 9/30/97 9/30/98 8/17/99 BATTLESHIPS - - - - - - - CARRIERS 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 CRUISERS 52 35 32 31 30 29 27 DESTROYERS 37 41 47 51 56 50 52 FRIGATES 59 51 49 43 42 38 37 SUBMARINES 88 88 83 79 73 65 57 SSBNS 22 18 16 17 18 18 18 COMMAND SHIPS 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 MINE WARFARE 15 16 18 18 18 18 18 PATROL 2 7 12 13 13 13 13 AMPHIBIOUS 52 38 39 40 41 40 41 AUXILIARY 110 94 80 67 52 57 57 SURFACE WARSHIPS 148 127 128 123 122 109 106 TOTAL ACTIVE 454 404 392 375 359 344 337 NOTES End of the Cold War 'peace dividend' leads to decommissioning of many older ships, especially cruisers and auxiliaries, in a manner similar to downsizing at the end of the Vietnam war. U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2000 - 2006 DATE 9/30/00 9/30/01 9/30/02 9/30/03 9/30/04 9/30/05 9/30/06 CARRIERS 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 CRUISERS 27 27 27 27 25 23 22 DESTROYERS 54 53 55 49 48 46 50 FRIGATES 35 35 33 30 30 30 30 SUBMARINES 56 55 54 54 54 54 54 SSBN 18 18 18 16 14 14 14 SSGN 0 0 0 2 4 4 4 MINE WARFARE 18 18 17 17 17 17 16 AMPHIBIOUS 41 41 41 38 37 37 35 AUXILIARY 57 57 56 52 51 45 44 SURFACE WARSHIPS 128 127 127 118 115 111* 114 TOTAL ACTIVE 318 316 313 297 292 282 281 NOTES • 9/11 and the GWOT does not increase Navy ship force levels. • START treaty limits encourage creation of SSGN class, fleet ballistic missile submarines converted to carry conventional strike cruise missiles. Older surface warships continue to be replaced at a less than one-to-one ratio. * Low since 1921 • To clarify the ship numbers included in this table, the year 2000 entries include active commissioned ships, those in the Naval Reserve Force (NRF) and ships operated by the Military Sealift Command (MSC). Row entries are self-explanatory, with the auxiliary category including combat logistic ships (such as oilers, ammunition, combat store ships), mobile logistics ships (such as submarine tenders) and support ships (such as command, salvage, tugs and research ships). Command ships have been subsumed into that category and the separate line entry removed. A new row has been added for guided missile submarines (SSGN). Post-1999 data provided by N8F. U.S.Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2007 to 2010 DATE 9/30/07 9/30/08 9/30/09 9/30/10 CARRIERS 11 11 11 11 CRUISERS 22 22 22 22 DESTROYERS 52 54 57 59 FRIGATES 30 30 30 29 LCS 1 1 2 PATROL COASTAL 0 0 0 0 SSN 53 53 53 53 SSBN 14 14 14 14 SSGN 4 4 4 4 MINE WARFARE 14 14 14 14 AMPHIBIOUS 33 34 33 33 AUXILIARY 46 45 46 47 SURFACE WARSHIPS 115 118 121 123 TOTAL ACTIVE 278 282 285 288 U.S.Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2011 to 2016 9/30/11 9/30/12 9/30/13 9/30/14 9/30/15 9/30/16 Combatant (Warship) 221 222 217 222 201 204 Aircraft Carrier (CVN) 11 11 10 10 10 10 Cruiser (CG) 22 22 22 22 22 22 Destroyer (DDG) 61 62 62 62 62 62 Destroyer (DDG 1000) - - - - - 1 Frigate (FFG) 26 23 17 10 - - Littoral (LCS) 2 3 4 4 5 8 Patrol Coastal (PC) - - - 10^ - - Attack Submarine (SSN) 53 54 54 55 54 52 Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) 14 14 14 14 14 14 Guided Missile Submarine (SSGN) 4 4 4 4 4 4 Amphibious Assault Ship [General] (LHA) 1 1 1 2 1 1 Amphibious Transport Dock (LHD) 8 8 8 8 8 8 Amphibious Assault Ship [Multi] (LPD) 7 8 9 9 9 10 Landing Dock Ship (LSD) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Combatant (Other) 63 65 68 67 70 71 Mine Countermeasures Ship (MCM) 14 14 13 8 11 11 Ammunition Ship (T-AE) 1 1 1 - - 0 Fleet Replenishment Oiler (T-AO) 15 15 15 15 15 15 Fast Combat Support Ship (T-AOE) 4 4 4 3 3 2 Dry Cargo & Ammunition Ship (T-AKE) 11 11 12 12 12 12 Command Ship (LCC) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Submarine Tender (AS) 2 2 2 2 2 2 *Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) Expeditionary Fast Transport (T-EPF) - - 2 4 5 7 Surveillance Ship (T-AGOS) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Salvage Ship (T-ARS) 4 4 4 4 4 4 Fleet Ocean Tug (T-ATF) 4 4 4 4 4 4 (MPS T-AKE) 1 2 2 2 2 2 Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB) - 1 1 1 1 1 *Afloat Forward Staging Base/ Expeditionary Sea Base (T-ESB) - - - - - 1 *Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Expeditionary Transfer Dock (T-ESD) - - 1 2 3 2 Hospital Ship (T-AH) - - - 2 - - High Speed Transport (T-HST) - - - 1 1 1 TOTAL BATTLE FORCE LEVEL 284 287 285 289 271 275 ^ Patrol Coastal (PC) were counted in the battle force level only for FY 2014. *JHSV and MLP classifications changed to T-EPF and T-ESD in August 2015. Additionally, the classification T-ESB was created for AFSBs used for expeditionary support. Published:Tue Dec 06 14:17:14 EST 2016

Trailer/Body Builders / January 26, 2017 European Union (EU) demand for new commercial vehicles increased 10.4% in December, totaling 211,941 units, and 11.6% in 2016, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA). Growth was sustained across all commercial vehicle segments. Italy ended the year extremely strong (+97.0%), with registrations almost doubling as a result of government incentives for fleet renewal that were introduced in September. Spain (+13.3%), Germany (+3.4%) and France (+2.9%) also posted growth, while the UK saw its demand decline during the last month of the year (-9.7%), mainly due to a drop in registrations of vans. In 2016, the EU market showed consistent growth (+11.6%) and rose for the fourth year in a row, reaching 2,324,371 million commercial vehicles registered. Throughout the year, the five big markets performed better than in 2015. Italy (+49.9%) showed the most significant increase, followed by Spain (+11.3%), France (+8.3%), Germany (+7.0%) and the UK (+1.2%). New heavy commercial vehicles (HCV) over 16 tonnes December 2016 results show a significant surge in the heavy truck segment (+16.1%), with 24,044 new vehicles registered. The Italian market (+200.2%) saw spectacular growth, driven by government support for transport companies, although Italy’s market is still below pre-crisis levels in volume terms. Germany (+8.8%), Spain (+6.6%) and France (+5.4%) followed with more modest increases, while the British market contracted by 9.1%. In 2016, the market for new heavy trucks grew by 12.3%, reaching 292,170 units. All major markets made a positive contribution to the overall upturn, especially Italy (+52.9%) and France (+12.9%) with their double-digit increases. New medium and heavy commercial vehicles (MHCV) over 3.5 tonnes In December 2016, new truck registrations in the EU totalled 30,428 units, up (+12.0%) compared to December 2015. Italy finished the year strongly (+193.0%) with registrations nearly tripling, while France (+4.3%), Germany (+1.3%) and Spain (+0.8%) saw more moderate growth rates at the end of 2016. In 2016, 365,051 new trucks were registered in the European Union, 11.0% more than in the year before. Italy (+54.4%), France (+12.6%) and Spain (+10.1%) made particularly significant contributions to this growth. New medium and heavy buses & coaches (MHBC) over 3.5 tonnes In December 2016, new registrations of buses and coaches increased again (+5.5%) following a slowdown in the third quarter of the year, now totalling 4,210 units. Growth was mainly driven by Spain (+68.5%) and Italy (+57.4%), while France (-25.1%) and Germany (-1.7%) performed less well than in December 2015. Overall in 2016, the EU market for buses and coaches only registered a moderate increase (+2.3%), counting 40,370 new vehicles. During the year, most growth came from Spain (+26.1%), Italy (+16.1%) and Germany (+8.9%), while France (-10.2%) saw demand decline. Noteworthy is the positive performance of the Dutch market (+144.2%). New light commercial vehicles (LCV) up to 3.5 tonnes In December 2016, new registrations of light commercial vehicles totalled 177,303 units, up (+10.3%) compared to December 2015. Demand was mainly driven by the Italian (+90.3%) and Spanish (+14.1%) markets with double-digit increases, while the German (+4.3%) and French (+3.3%) markets only saw modest growth. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, performed less well than in December 2015 (-10.4%). Overall in 2016, nearly two million new vans were registered in the European Union, 11.9% more than the year before. Italy (+50.0%), Spain (+11.2%), Germany (+8.5%), France (+8.2%) and the UK (+1.0%) all contributed to this positive upturn.

Robert Boxwell, Reuters / January 27, 2017 President Donald Trump kept one of his major campaign promises on Monday when he withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The ramifications of Trump’s decision are worrisome and, whether or not the withdrawal helps American workers, it would be helpful to U.S. standing in the region if he communicated better, and to a larger audience, exactly what he’s trying to do. I have lived and worked in Asia for 25 years. Feelings of uncertainty about the United States right now are palpable. People want to know what’s going on. Trump was seated at his desk in the Oval Office on his first weekday as president. Behind him were Vice President Mike Pence and an entourage of advisors including Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus and Peter Navarro. Navarro’s presence seemed incongruous for a University of California economist whose fame comes from warning Americans about the menace China’s government poses to the United States’ well-being. The TPP’s standards on intellectual property protection, the environment and labor conditions effectively excluded China from joining the treaty because it would have made Chinese manufacturers spend what TPP members spend, something Beijing – always welcome to join – doesn’t want to see happen. Trump surely knows that with the United States out, the treaty might die – and with it this leveling of the playing field – a gift for Beijing. Priebus, a leather folio in hand, stepped forward. “OK, we’re going to sign three memorandums right now. The first one is the withdrawal of the United States from the Trans- Pacific Partnership.” Trump reached for his pen as Priebus handed him the portfolio. He gave it the Chief Executive once-over, cocked his head, looked at the reporters in front of him, and jutted his jaw toward them slightly. “Everyone knows what that means, right? We’ve been talking about this for a long time, thank you.” He signed it. “Okay.” He held it up for the cameras – I’d hold it up too if I had a fabulous signature like his – and concluded, “Great thing for the American worker, what we just did.” That was it. Problem is, nobody really does know what that means. Besides calling it “the death blow for American manufacturing” he hasn’t said much about what he else has in store now that the United States is out. And while there’s a lot of merit in the president’s seeming willingness to let Beijing do a little guesswork for a change, there’s not much merit in letting the other eleven countries in the TPP do the same. Some of the United States’ closest allies – Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand – are in the TPP, and all the others are friends. Even if one agrees with Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the TPP, there’s a lot of work to be done between now and the “great thing” arriving. Economists and the media have been insisting that jobs sent abroad aren’t coming home and, even if they did, robots would be doing most of them. There’s some truth in this. But I’d never bet against American business. As a retired private equity friend said to me recently, after complaining about his industry brethren who buy domestic businesses to send abroad to cash in on cheap labor, “We have to make stuff here.” He didn’t mean everything and he didn’t mean all of it, but the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing base so the private equity guys and their banker friends can get rich was never a good thing for the country. China might be able to make the world’s steel at the lowest cost, for example, but what government would cede this strategic industry to Beijing? If the right policies emerge from Washington as the Trump team fleshes out its trade and related policies – which can’t be simply increasing tariffs to keep the competition less competitive – expect American business to rise to the challenge. But they need to know what those policies are – uncertainty freezes business – and American allies and friends around the world do, too. Here’s what Trump should have said or, better, read from the written statement that wasn’t on his desk, because his audience isn’t hostile reporters, it’s the rest of the world. “Before I sign this, I’d like to say a few words. We recognize that our allies and close friends, with whom the last administration worked on the pact, are disappointed by our withdrawal from the TPP. International treaties like the TPP require ratification by our government, and we are not moving forward in no small part because the American people don’t like the TPP, and we can’t – I can’t – go ahead. It’s worth noting that my opponent was also against the TPP. “We are not abandoning the Pacific region. From Japan to Australia, to Chile, to Canada, and stops in between, we value our relations with all the TPP countries and will continue to expand our trade with them all. Making America great again does not, in any way, come at the expense of our friends and does not, in any way, mean backing away from our long-term commitments and friendships. The TPP doesn’t exist now, so trade tomorrow will be the same as trade today. “As I said many times, we like trade and are happy to trade, even with China. We just want the trade to be fair. Since Richard Nixon extended a hand of friendship to China and the economic help from trade that came with it, our position has always been one of fair play and mutual gain. No Chinese government has reciprocated. It’s time to change. Beijing doesn’t play by the rules that have helped its rich accumulate vast personal wealth at the expense of others, both inside and outside of China. We’re done being part of that. This is a regime that taxes our exports to them, bars some of our companies from entering, keeps entire sectors off limits to foreigners, and is making it increasingly difficult for foreigners who are there to do business. They want to buy our successful companies, especially in the technology sector and, recently, Hollywood, yet won’t allow foreigners to wholly own or even control companies in many industries and restrict or prohibit outright investment in dozens of other industries. “The United States and our allies and friends have led the postwar world in trade and establishing international institutions that have benefited billions of people globally. The United States has no intention of ceding that role or impeding global trade. We are studying all aspects of our trade and look forward to increased, mutually beneficial trade and security with all our allies and friends.” That’s not a tweet, but it’s the message America’s allies and friends would like to hear directly from Trump. He hasn’t actually done anything that’s bad for global trade yet, except create a lot of uncertainty. Better communication from him can serve everyone well, and the sooner, the better.

The correct way to reach your goal is to contact your preferred local Mack brand dealer, or Watts Mack (provider of the BMT website) and provide them with your model and serial number off the vehicle identification plate on your driver's door. They'll take that information and submit a "changeover request" to Mack parts operations, who will research what parts would have been used had the truck originally been ordered/built that way. They'll provide the list of necessary parts to your chosen Mack dealer who can then order them for you.

Are Trump administration press office members university graduates? First I noticed they spelled energy without a “g’……”enery” “President Trump Takes Action to Expedite Priority Enery and Infrastructure Projects” Then they mistakenly posted the same press release on Jan 25 and Jan 26......"President Trump Approves Georgia Disaster Declaration" ".................https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog Then they title a press release without spaces between the words......"President TrumpReleasesNationalSchool Choice Week Proclamation" Now they repeatedly spelled the UK’s visiting prime minister’s name without an “h”, Teresa May rather than Theresa May, which went over like a lead balloon with one of our oldest allies. The rule of thumb is, in the world’s greatest country, our White House staff ensures they spell……correctly. Misspelling the name of a head-of-state simply isn't allowed, and there's no excuse for it. .

Will Trump Rescue Theresa May? Matt Purple, The National Interest / January 26, 2017 British Prime Minister Theresa May touched down in America on Thursday and spoke at a Republican retreat in Philadelphia. How would she react to Donald Trump? She offered accolades for his election, pledged to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him in fighting radical Islam, and agreed that Europe needed to pull its weight within the NATO alliance. Yet she also contradicted his nationalism, touting Britain’s overseas humanitarian aid and reiterating her intention to become “even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.” It was a tightrope of a speech and her upcoming huddle with Trump will have to be just as carefully balanced, given the single word that underscores all of this: “Brexit.” May is often compared to Margaret Thatcher. It’s a clunky analogy—the prime minister’s preference for conservatism lite has more in common with John Major—but the similarities are still there: both are Tory women, both have imperturbable demeanours, both regularly batter their hapless Labour counterparts in Parliament. On this, though, the comparison falls apart: whereas Thatcher came to office able to define her own circumstances, turning the British ship of state as she saw fit, May’s job has been largely defined by forces beyond her control. The bulging Brexit portfolio was dropped in her lap by the British people, who voted “out,” and by her predecessor David Cameron, who called the referendum and then skedaddled when it didn’t go his way. Leaving the EU is consequently her primary concern. It is also her secondary concern and her tertiary concern. Its success or failure will define her premiership. In a speech earlier this month, more candid than the one she gave in Philadelphia, May acknowledged that the most likely outcome for Britain was a “hard Brexit,” crashing out of the EU’s free-trade single market. This is probably realistic: the European Union can’t let Britain slip away without leaving a scar first, lest they empower nationalists in other countries. That means May needs to start laying the groundwork for trade agreements with other nations, especially Anglophone ones, to compensate for whatever post-Brexit trade impediments the EU throws up. New Zealand and Australia have both expressed interest, but the United States, the world’s largest economy and the UK’s top national trading partner, is the crown jewel. A strong bilateral relationship with America, free of any lingering post-Blair hangovers, is a necessity for Britain. I rather doubt the polished May is particularly keen on Trump’s brand of politicking and I’d bet money that she winced when he referred to her recently as “my Maggie.” And yet, in a perverse way, Trump is valuable to May. The European Union has indicated it intends to take a very hard line indeed toward the UK during the Brexit talks. Brussels has appointed to its negotiating team ruthless operators like Martin Selmayr and hardline federalists like Guy Verhofstadt. In Trump, May will have an invisible bully in her corner, one who snarls with contempt for the EU, one who clinched the most powerful job on earth by waving the same banner of populism that now threatens European elites. There is approximately zero chance that Trump will let the boys in Brussels sway him out of prepping a trade deal with Britain, an assurance that May needs. The devil will be in the details of that trade deal. The United States and United Kingdom share a language, true, but there are still plenty of divergences in the two nations’ policies, over the environment (Britain is more committed to renewable energy than America), health care (open market access for the United States could draw cries of NHS privatization from May’s Labour opponents), agriculture (the use of growth hormones in meat is illegal in Britain), and financial services (the UK will want its powerful City of London advantaged). There’s also the matter of timing. Britain is forbidden from formally negotiating trade deals until it’s free from the EU, which lessens the pressure May and Trump can apply on Brussels. But something else is becoming clear: the Brexit negotiations aren’t between a slingshot-deprived David and a club-thumping Goliath, as many EU elites would like to portray it. In order for the European Union to effectively punish Britain—which is the objective, make no mistake—it has to turn the UK into an isolated hostage, walling it off from the rest of the planet and slamming it with tariffs. In our globalized and open world, that simply isn’t possible. With the United States still a heavyweight, China rising in the east, and Europe’s own economies expanding at a glacial pace, Britain has plenty of attractive alternatives to pursue. London can also retaliate against any punitive actions taken by the EU. May, in her Brexit speech, warned that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal” and hinted that her Conservative government could drastically lower UK taxes to poach business from the continent. For France, where GDP growth is anemic, and Germany, already timorous over Brexit denting its exports, that’s a resonant threat indeed. Trump might be a difficult partner, but it could be that he helps May make a success out of Brexit yet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over. But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene." British Prime Minister Theresa May .

Associated Press/Reuters / January 26, 2017 A federal judge has refused to force Wal-Mart to pay $80 million in penalties in a lawsuit that accused the retail giant of failing to pay hundreds of truck drivers in California the minimum wage for certain tasks. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said in San Fransisco Wednesday that Wal-Mart acted in good faith when paying the drivers, believing its payment policy was in line with California's labor law. A jury awarded the workers more than $54 million in back wages in November after finding that Wal-Mart didn't pay the drivers the state's base wage for pre-and post-trip inspections,10-hour layovers and 10-minute rest breaks, the news services report. Attorneys for the drivers had asked Illston to award an additional $80 million in penalties and damages. Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said its drivers earn among the highest salaries in the field and that the plaintiffs were "overreaching." The company has said its drivers earn from about $80,000 to more than $100,000 a year. Illston largely agreed with Wal-Mart, citing testimony that she said showed Wal-Mart's compensation was among the highest in the trucking industry. Attorneys for Wal-Mart also had said in a court filing that "reasonable minds could differ" about the legality of its pay and layover policies. The judge said Wal-Mart's payment policy developed in an "uncertain" legal landscape, giving the company reasonable grounds to believe it was complying with California minimum wage law. Wal-Mart drivers are not paid by the hour rather remuneration is based on mileage and specified activities. The company argued during trial that it paid drivers for activities that included smaller tasks and could not have a separate payment designation for everything they did, some of which took just minutes. Wal-Mart pays drivers $42 for 10-hour overnight layovers as an extra benefit, but it does not control their time during that period

I've no time nor pity for a country blatantly playing both sides of the fence. Choose your side. Don't play games.

Reuters / January 26, 2017 The United States [taxpayer] will upgrade and build facilities on Philippine military bases this year, Manila's defense minister said on Thursday, bolstering an alliance strained by President Rodrigo Duterte's opposition to a U.S. troop presence. The Pentagon gave the green light to start the work as part of an Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), a 2014 pact that Duterte has threatened to scrap during barrages of hostility towards the former colonial power. "EDCA is still on," said Defence Secretary Delfin Lorenzana. EDCA allows the expansion of rotational deployment of U.S. ships, aircraft and troops at five bases in the Philippines as well as the storage of equipment for humanitarian and maritime security operations. Lorenzana said Washington had committed to build warehouses, barracks and runways in the five agreed locations and Duterte was aware of projects and had promised to honor all existing agreements with the United States. This week, Republican Senator John McCain, who headed the U.S. Senate's Armed Services Committee, proposed $7.5 billion of new military funding for U.S. forces and their allies in the Asia-Pacific. The geopolitical landscape in Asia has been shaken up by Duterte's grudge against Washington, his overtures towards erstwhile adversary China, and the election of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration has indicated it may take a tough line on China's activities in the South China Sea. The Philippines has said it wants no part in anything confrontational in the strategic waterway and will not jeopardize promises of extensive Chinese trade and investment, and offers of military hardware, that Duterte has got since he launched his surprise foreign policy shift. Lorenzana said the Philippines had asked China for two to three fast boats, two drones, sniper rifles and a robot for bomb disposal, in a $14 million arms donation from China. The arms package would be used to support operations against Islamist Abu Sayyaf militants in the southern Philippines, he said. "If these are quality equipment, we will probably buy more," he said. Lorenzana said Russia was offering hardware such as ships, submarines, planes and helicopters. As with China, those offers have come as a result of a charm offensive by Duterte, who has praised Russia and its leadership. Duterte last year said if Russia and China started a "new order" in the world, he would be the first to join.

There are few things that I'd rather have than a cherry first generation Ford Bronco with a 302 V-8, auto and the dual fuel tank option (14.5 + 11.5 gal).

Trump has repeatedly repeatedly about a 35 percent import tariff to force companies to produce U.S. market-sold products………in the U.S., rather than Mexico. Where did 20 percent come from ? Why is Trump going to give companies producing in Mexico for the U.S market a 15 percent discount ?

Trump floats 20% border tax for wall as Mexico feud deepens Bloomberg / January 26, 2017 The Trump administration floated a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico to pay for a wall along the southern U.S. border, a plan revealed hours after Mexican President President Enrique Pena Nieto canceled a meeting with Trump. "When you look at the plan that’s taking shape now, using comprehensive tax reform as a means to tax imports from countries that we have a trade deficit from, like Mexico, if you tax that $50 billion at 20 percent of imports," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said. "By doing that we can do $10 billion a year and easily pay for the wall just through that mechanism alone." Spicer spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One as President Donald Trump returned from a speech to a congressional Republican retreat in Philadelphia on Thursday. Spicer didn’t explain how such a tax would work or how it would affect U.S. consumers and companies. Asked if the tax could be applied to other countries, Spicer said the administration is "focused on Mexico right now." Later, Spicer summoned reporters to his office and said the tax was only one idea to finance the wall, and that its economic impact would have to be examined. The conflict between Trump and Mexico escalated over a 24-hour period after Trump signed a directive Wednesday to initiate the process of building the border wall. Trump’s border plan rapidly exploded into a showdown that threatens one of the world’s biggest bilateral trading relationships. Mexico’s currency has plunged almost 14 percent since Trump’s election on concern that Trump will renegotiate or scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement. After Pena Nieto said in an address Wednesday that his country would refuse to pay for a barrier on the U.S. southern border, Trump blasted him with a tweet Thursday morning. “If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting,” Trump wrote. Pena Nieto, who was to meet with Trump Jan. 31, responded a few hours later with his own tweet: “This morning we’ve informed the White House that I won’t attend the working meeting scheduled for next Tuesday with @Potus.” The border tax Trump floated wouldn’t directly be imposed on Mexico but added to the cost of products as they crossed the border, translating into either lower profits for companies that import goods such as Ford Motor Co., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Target Corp. or higher prices for U.S. consumers who buy the products. "Mexico doesn’t pay for the wall," said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "American consumers who shop at places that import, like Walmart and Target, pay for the wall, making it a regressive tax supporting a dumb, wasteful idea." Spicer’s comments appeared to move the president closer to embracing a “border adjusted” tax approach that House Republicans favor, Bernstein said. That plan would radically remake the U.S. corporate tax system to apply a 20 percent tax rate to companies’ domestic sales and imports, while not taxing their exports. It would apply to all imports, not just those from Mexico, and would generate roughly $1.1 trillion in revenue over a decade, according to an analysis by the conservative Tax Foundation. Currently, the U.S. taxes its corporations’ worldwide income at a 35 percent rate -- though they can use foreign tax credits to reduce that amount, and companies don’t have to pay any U.S. tax on overseas income until they bring it to the U.S. The border tax Trump floated would be a clear violation of NAFTA, which allows the duty-free movement of goods between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, though Trump already has said he will demand a renegotiation of the deal or withdraw. Under existing treaties, Trump could impose 15 percent duties for 100 days on Mexican imports, claiming a “balance payments emergency,” but that would fall short of the punishment he’s threatened. Other fines, such as anti-dumping duties, require special and lengthy procedures to enact. For his tariff to stick, Trump would likely have to ask Congress to include it in a broader overhaul of the U.S. tax code. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell both suggested Thursday that, after months of studiously ignoring the border wall proposal, they’re now ready to act on the wall as part of a spending request they expect from Trump that would help jump-start construction. The two leaders said they’re ready to spend as much as $15 billion from the federal treasury to build the wall.

As of today, it has been confirmed that no less than five Trump family members and top administration appointees are/were registered in two states during last fall's election. Steven Mnuchin is registered to vote in both New York and California. Steve Bannon was registered to vote in both Florida and New York (Florida removed Bannon from its rolls just this Wednesday). The President Trump's son-in-law and White House adviser, Jared Kushner, is registered to vote in both New Jersey and New York. Tiffany Trump, the president’s youngest daughter, is registered to vote in both Pennsylvania and New York. Sean Spicer, White House press secretary, is registered to vote in both Rhode Island and Virginia. Gregg Phillips, who Trump has promoted as an expert on voter fraud, is registered to vote in Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. “You have people that are registered who are dead, who are illegals, who are in two states,” President Trump told ABC's David Muir Wednesday. “You have people registered in two states. They're registered in a New York and a New Jersey [like Jared Kushner]. They vote twice. There are millions of votes, in my opinion.” [including Trump’s own people] It is not illegal to be registered to vote in two states, and of course it doesn’t automatically mean that these voters are casting ballots in two locations. BUT, Trump’s clear position is "they vote twice" (his comment above). Here in year 2017, in the electronic age, why isn’t there a national registration system that, should you attempt to register in a state, it would immediately note that you are already registered in another state, and give you the choice to switch your registry, should you choose, but effectively preventing you from registering in two or more states ? And again, in year 2017, why isn’t there a national (federal) electronic “direct vote” system that, after presenting your voting ID (driver’s license), allows every American to cast one vote, and one vote only, in any state they happen to be in at that moment ?

You guys certainly enjoy a colorful discussion. I enjoy hearing everyone's thoughts, as you all bring valid points to the table. We're all different. As has been said, if we were all exactly the same, the world would be a pretty dull place. In my mind, the last great president with significant accomplishments was Dwight D. Eisenhower. What can I say......I have high expectations in a president. I myself don't think Obama was any worse that George W. Bush, who, I feel, created a real mess in foreign affairs (e.g. Al Qaeda, ISIS, ect.).

Trump’s order for "major investigation" into voter fraud is based on misquoted university’s research The Associated Press / January 25, 2017 If Jesse Richman could get one message to President Donald Trump, it would probably be this: Stop misquoting our research. Richman, an associate professor at Old Dominion University (ODU) in Virginia, found his work tangled up in Trump’s latest effort to support his unsubstantiated claim that millions of illegal ballots were cast in November – the reason Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million. Trump announced Wednesday that he’s ordering a “major investigation“ into voter fraud – a claim he first made on the campaign trail, then repeated this week at a meeting with Republican leaders. Richman heard his research – or some twist on it – being cited by White House press secretary Sean Spicer as he defended Trump’s “long-standing belief“ to a room full of reporters Tuesday: “I think there have been studies; there was one that came out of Pew in 2008 that showed 14 percent of people who have voted were not citizens.” Spicer got it all wrong, according to Richman. “First of all, he’s confusing our study with another study,” Richman said, “and then he’s flipping ours around and exaggerating the most extreme estimates from it.” The Pew Charitable Trusts did release a study in 2012 that indicated 1.8 million deceased voters remain on the roles and millions of other voter records are out of date. But the study did not say anything about voter fraud. The 14 percent cited by Spicer appears to have come from research Richman and ODU co-authors published in 2014, an analysis titled “Do non-citizens vote in U.S elections?“ Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which interviews tens of thousands of people every election year, the ODU study concluded that, at most, “maybe 14 percent of non-citizens engaged in some type of voting behavior,” Richman said. Repeat: That’s not 14 percent of all voters. That’s 14 percent of all non-citizens. “And keep in mind that non-citizens are a fraction of the total U.S. population,” Richman said, around 20 million adults. “So they maybe make up, at the very, very high end, 1 percent of an electorate.” Even if every one of them voted for Clinton, would that have been enough to cost Trump the popular vote? “The answer is no,” Richman said. The White House has yet to provide details about the investigation. In back-to-back tweets, the president revealed that it would cover “those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal” and “those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time).” Trump used all capitals – VOTER FRAUD – for emphasis. “Depending on results,” he tweeted, “we will strengthen up voting procedures!” Ironically, Trump’s treasury department nominee and chief strategist and senior counselor was among those who fit the first category. Steven Mnuchin is registered to vote in both New York and California, and during the campaign it was discovered that Steve Bannon was registered to vote in both Florida and New York. Florida removed Bannon from its rolls just this Wednesday. Trump has been fixated on his loss of the popular vote and a concern that the legitimacy of his presidency is being challenged by Democrats and the media, aides and associates say. Secretaries of state across the country have dismissed Trump’s claims of voter fraud as baseless. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have finalized their election results with no reports of the kind of widespread fraud that Trump is alleging. Trump’s own attorneys dismissed claims of voter fraud in a legal filing responding to Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s demand for a recount in Michigan late last year. “On what basis does Stein seek to disenfranchise Michigan citizens? None really, save for speculation,” the attorneys wrote. “All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake.” As for Richman: “We wish Donald Trump would stop citing our work.”

Renault Trucks Press Release / January 25, 2017 Renault Trucks, the leading European truck manufacturer in Algeria with almost a 40% share of the 16-ton market for European vehicles, has just commenced construction of the SOPROVI assembly plant in Meftah. In order to comply with new Algerian regulations, C and K range vehicles for this market will now be assembled locally. Renault Trucks and Algeria enjoy strong, long-standing ties. In 1958, Berliet started building its GLR Trucks in Rouiba and since then, Berliet Trucks, followed by Renault Trucks, have never left Algeria. The manufacturer now plays a leading role with a 40% share of the 16-ton market. Renault Trucks Algeria and its network employ nearly 600 people. In order to comply with new Algerian regulations, vehicles manufactured for this market will now be assembled locally. Renault Trucks and the BSF Soukari group therefore signed a shareholder joint-venture agreement in August 2016 and construction of the new plant began in January 2017. Extending over an area of 24,000 m², the SOPROVI plant is being built in Meftah, in the province of Blida, in two stages, with 1000 vehicles set to be assembled in 2018 and 2000 in 2019, and with production capacity that can be adjusted to meet market requirements. The plant is set to create nearly 500 jobs, including 200 direct jobs and will be mainly dedicated to assembling Renault Trucks C and K ranges. This new Algerian production site confirms the commitment of Renault Trucks to the Algerian market and is set to play a long-term role in the economic and social development of the country.

Heavy Duty Trucking / January 25, 2017 The commercial vehicle market in 2016 was a tug of war between gaining medium-duty and declining heavy-duty sales, according to analysts. In 2017, however, medium-duty sales may be high enough to stabilize the commercial vehicle market. Class 3-7 medium-duty registrations in 2016 increased compared to the previous year, contrasting with the Class 8 market which declined throughout the year. This led to a decline overall in the commercial vehicle market last year. Market analyst expect the commercial vehicle market to stabilize in 2017, due primarily to gains in the medium-duty segment. With the medium-duty market set to grow again in 2017, gains in the Class 4-7 range could increase enough to offset expected softness in the heavy-duty end. Combined Class 4-8 commercial truck sales are projected to settle in the range of 400,000 units for the year, virtually flat from 2016. “The market for commercial vehicles in GVWs 3-8 has performed in line with our expectations during the 2016 calendar year,” said one analyst. “The decline in GVW 8 new registrations by large (501+) fleets was first identified during the middle of the 2015 calendar year and the subsequent decline continued throughout the 2016 calendar year.” A large factor in the sales decline was that new commercial vehicle registrations were down among large fleets operating more than 501 vehicles. These large fleets registered 8.7% fewer new vehicles over an 11-month period in 2016 compared to the year before. “These large fleets accounted for less than 40% of new GVW 8 registrations prior to the 2008 calendar year and reached a peak of over 50% during the 2011 calendar year,” he said. “The recovery in GVW 8 new registrations will need renewed activity by these large fleets if the annual volume is to remain in the 225,000-250,000 unit range annually.” Ford was the top-selling brand in the commercial vehicle market last year, with new registrations up 10% year-over-year as a result of strong performances in the Class 3-5 segments. In the Class 8 market, Freightliner remained the segment leader with a 34.4% share, followed by Kenworth with a 14.9% share and Peterbilt with a 13.9% share. Regionally, sales were better in the West and Northeast U.S. last year, contrasting with declining sales in the South and Central regions of the country.

Sean Kilcarr, Fleet Owner / January 25, 2017 A wide range of start-up companies could reshape the trucking world and how freight gets moved. A new study by global consulting firm Frost & Sullivan indicates that a growing variety of start-up ventures are fomenting broad change in the global trucking industry – altering everything from how trucks operate, including driving themselves, to how freight shipments are booked, paid for, and moved. “The fact is that trucking offers a huge potential for being disrupted,” Sandeep Kar, global vice president for research and mobility at Frost & Sullivan, told Fleet Owner. In the firm's report, entitled, Start-ups Disrupting Global Connected Truck Market 2016-2017 Kar said there is a "huge upside for improvement [in trucking] for it is not the most optimized industry – there are so many moving parts moving at sub-optimal speeds." He added that consumers and shippers today are being “born into reality called Amazon” where the low-cost yet extremely speedy delivery of all manner of goods is now an everyday expectation. “That’s why these start-ups are moving the needle and driving the innovation,” he pointed out. “They are here to drive efficiencies, drive opportunities to lower TCO [total cost of operations], enhance safety, and to increase revenue potential for [industry] stakeholders.” What is attracting all of these new start-ups to trucking – firms such as Transfix, Trucker Path, Otto [newly purchased by Uber], MyLumper, Peloton, Loadsmart, and many others – is that while hauling freight by truck is “not a very sexy industry” in Kar’s words, it moves $700 billion worth of a freight per year in the U.S.; a number that gets people’s attention. From that perspective, then, and using the “connected truck” as a launching pad of sorts for a variety of services, Wallace Lau, industry principal with Frost & Sullivan and primary author of this study, expects industry-wide “disruption” of the traditional freight world by start-up companies to be concentrated in five areas: Autonomous or self-driving truck technology; Video-based safety systems; So-called “utility” applications for smart phones, largely driver-focused; Fleet management solutions; Digital freight brokering. Altogether, those markets are expected to offer big revenue opportunities over the next year, rising from $10 billion today to roughly $245 billion by 2025, according to Frost & Sullivan’s projections. Lau notes that $210 billion of that future $245 billion market is going to be based solely on digital freight brokering. At the same time, he said a “new use of telematics” by digital freight brokers could disrupt how that technology is deployed in trucking. “There’s always been a cost barrier with telematics in terms of hardware and monthly fees,” he explained. “Now digital freight brokers can come in not only with lower fees but offer a wide variety of telematics services basically for free, just for using their [freight brokering] service,” Lau said. “These new [digital] brokers get a lower commission as their costs are lower and for that also offer location-based tracking, ETA [estimated time of arrival] notices, hotel rate shopping [for drivers], parking spot location, and [vehicle] prognostics. It is similar to Netflix vs. Blockbuster; all of sudden center of gravity shifts. And that could be a game changer for fleets.” It could be a “game changer” for truck manufacturers, too, he stressed, as technology-focused start-ups could help OEMs reduce research & development spending by 20% to 30% and cut anywhere from three to five years off the time-to-market pipeline. That’s critical because Lau said “connected trucks” could be the norm in the future. Right now, according to Frost & Sullivan survey data, nearly 40% of fleet managers feel connected trucks are a “must have” item. As a result, the firm expects 35 million trucks worldwide will be “connected vehicles” by 2020. “With smart roads and smart cities, the smart truck will be a necessity,” he emphasized, as connected trucks will allow users to more easily pay for fuel, toll, parking, infotainment, and many more services in real-time with fewer hassles. For OEMs, they offer opportunities “beyond point-of-sale,” Lau added, notably in terms of warranty management. “The entire organization within the fleet – dispatch, drivers, maintenance, and operations – all are being connected with new apps and software to shipments,” he told Fleet Owner. “This is all being moved into digital freight market. Right now, a lot of time is being wasted with current [freight shipment] process,” Lau said. “Having everything automated with connectivity will help overall by making trucking more efficient. It’s about the optimization of assets; every dollar saved is key.”

Eaton updates Advantage Series clutches Truck News / January 25, 2017 Eaton has updated its line of Advantage Series heavy-duty clutches, to increase durability, reduce vibrations and improve shifting. The new clutches were shown for the first time during Heavy Duty Aftermarket Week, with production set to begin in the second quarter for OEMs and the third quarter for the aftermarket. “The improvements we have made support the changing requirements of contemporary diesel engines and powertrains, including downspeeding designs,” said Ben Karrer, global product strategy manager, Eaton. “In addition, this newest line of clutches is the smoothest and most durable ever developed by Eaton.” Improvements include: a new strap drive system, which affixes the intermediate plate to the housing and prolongs clutch life by eliminating lug fatigue; soft rate dampers that better absorb engine vibrations to prevent driveline damage; a spring separator that permits cleaner, quicker disengagement with the engine; and a second wear tab indicator. The new clutches will replace the existing Advantage Series clutches and parts numbers will be reduced from 41 to 28. The biggest change, Karrer explained in an interview, is the strap drive system. “The reason why we’re making this change is because more and more, we see vehicles produced with boosted hydraulic linkages,” he explained. “Those decrease the amount of pedal effort to disengage the clutch. Combined with drivers who have less experience, we’re seeing more clutch open time. The lug is not designed for a lot of clutch open time so it’s a system that needed to be updated. This system is much stronger and eliminates that as a failure mode.” An added benefit is that it also eliminates rattle when the clutch is open. Karrer said Eaton has increased its focus on noise reduction, as quieter cabs and engines are now causing even small noises and rattles to become audible in the cab. “It’s not a common complaint, but it’s something you hear,” he said. “These sorts of rattles that have been there for ages are starting to be heard through all the other noises that are decreasing in amplitude.” Karrer said customers in applications with frequent clutch actuations will see a noticeable increase in service life. Pricing is set by OEMs but will be close to current product, Karrer added.

Fleet Owner / January 25, 2017 The newest generation of the Advantage Series heavy-duty clutches from Eaton have received a number of design upgrades intended to improve performance in low-RPM downspeeding applications as well as provide better shift performance, reduce vibration and chatter, and make it easier to monitor clutch wear. Introduced during Heavy-duty Aftermarket Week, both the Eaton Advantage Self-adjust and Easy-pedal Advantage have been fitted with soft-rate spring dampers to prevent driveline damage in powertrains speced to deliver improved fuel economy through downspeeding. By better isolating driveshafts in low RPM/high-torque conditions from engine combustion pulses, the softer damper springs can improve driveline durability while handling torque ratings up to 1,850 lbs. ft., according to Ben Karrer, global product strategy manager at Eaton. A second wear tab indicator added to the self-adjust model will make it easier for shop personnel to visually inspect the clutch for wear, he pointed out. Other changes for both Easy-pedal and Self-adjust Advantage clutches include a new strap drive system said to eliminate lug fatigue wear and rattle when the clutch is disengaged. A new spring separator system is designed to deliver quicker disengagement for smoother shifts. Torque ratings for the newest Advantage heavy-duty models range from 1,650 to 2,250 lbs. ft. The Self-adjust Advantage is covered by a 3-year/350,000-mi. warranty and the Easy Shift by a 2-year/unlimited-mi. warranty. .

Automotive News Europe / January 25, 2017 Ford Motor was criticized by the European Union’s Euro NCAP safety organization after its Mustang scored just two stars out of a maximum of five in crash tests. "Ford did not expect Euro NCAP to test the Mustang and chose not to fit safety technology which is available to its American consumers," Euro NCAP Secretary General Michiel van Ratingen said in a statement. Mustangs sold in Europe are not equipped with automatic emergency braking (AEB) technology [but that’s no excuse for the poor crash results. Without the AEB “option” Mustang should still provide a high level of acceptable safety in year 2017]. Ford said it will fit the technology on an updated version of the car available to European customers who order after September. The company said its decision to leave out the automatic emergency braking technology when it launched the Mustang in Europe in 2015 was due to low demand from target customers. The Mustang is a "safe car, meeting or exceeding all applicable safety standards globally," Ford said in a statement. The automaker said the Mustang scored a five-star rating in crash tests carried out by NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) in the U.S. Euro NCAP also penalized the Mustang for insufficient inflation of the driver and front passenger airbags that caused the crash test dummies' heads to make head contact with the steering wheel and dashboard. Protection for children seated in the back of the car was also criticized. The car scored 32 percent for child occupant protection. Euro NCAP changed the way it scored crash test results to include automatic emergency braking last year, citing research in UK and Germany showing that the technology could prevent one in five fatal pedestrian collisions. Ford said if the Mustang been tested before this new protocol was established, the car would have scored much higher. Euro NCAP scored the Mustang four stars out of five for adult occupant protection. Euro NCAP rarely tests sports cars because of their low volume, preferring to focus on more popular cars. The organization is backed by the European Union and its safety results are closely watched by automakers because they can influence buying decisions. .

So Trump asked the CEOs of General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) to come to the White House on Tuesday for a meeting aimed at getting them to produce U.S. market light vehicles...........in the U.S. Otherwise, he’s threatening a 35% tariff on goods sold in the U.S. but made in foreign countries. Why weren’t representatives of Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, Hyundai and Kia, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and BMW also invited to the party? The situation involves them just as much as GM, Ford and FCA. After all, Toyota and Honda are ranked no. 2 and no. 4 respectively in U.S. market sales. One could ask, why was FCA in attendance and not the other foreign automakers? FCA is owned by Italian automaker Fiat, and incorporated in the Netherlands. And where were the representatives of the major parts suppliers who have outsourced more than 50% of their manufacturing in the last 20 years to foreign countries with cheaper labor? Lastly but not least (drum roll here), where were the representatives of Daimler, Navistar and Paccar, and truck parts suppliers, who have relocated so much of their production to Mexico ???