kscarbel2

GM axes 2,000 US jobs as small car demand wanes The Financial Times / November 9, 2016 General Motors will lay off 2,000 employees at two car plants in the US Midwest, the latest sign that the US car industry is suffering from softening demand, especially for some smaller models. GM said in a statement on Wednesday that it will cut the third production shift at plants in Lordstown, Ohio and Lansing, Michigan early next year. These plants build some of the slower-selling small car models in the GM stable at a time when demand for trucks and sport utility vehicles continues to be strong. The announcement, made on the morning after Donald Trump’s stunning victory in the US presidential election, did not appear to be election-related. Other US carmakers, including GM’s rival Ford, have recently announced production cutbacks in response to falling demand as the US car market hits its peak after seven years of rapid post-recession growth. The Lansing Grand River plants makes Cadillac ATS and CTS models as well as the Chevrolet Camaro, while the Lordstown facility produces Chevrolet Cruz sedans. While reducing the shifts will affect 1,243 and 840 hourly and salaried workers, respectively, GM said it will invest $900 million in three of its plants, including Lansing Grand River, to prepare for future product programs. The shifts come in response to changing consumer demand, GM said, as customers increasingly favor crossovers and trucks instead of cars. GM has been more bullish than other carmakers about the strength of the US market, leading investors to worry that it could end up with a glut of product, especially unpopular smaller models. “As expected, GM is cutting production of slower-selling cars so as not to build up inventories that require big incentives to move. This is evidence of the continuing and enormous shift of consumers buying far more utilities than traditional cars,” said Michelle Krebs, senior analyst at Autotrader. “This comes on the heels of Ford making similar cuts with cars in the same categories,” she said. But news of job cuts could further inflame President-elect Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the need to keep carworker jobs in America. Yesterday, a senior GM executive defended the company’s use of Mexican plants, indicating it will not yield to political pressure to relocate manufacturing jobs to the US.

Volkswagen Wary Trump Election May Disrupt Diesel-Settlement Talks Bloomberg / November 9, 2016 Volkswagen AG expressed concern that Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president could disrupt talks to reach a settlement with U.S. authorities over the German automaker’s cheating on emissions tests for diesel cars. “I hope the election result won’t have more negative consequences for Volkswagen,” Chief Executive Officer Matthias Mueller said Wednesday. While Volkswagen has agreed to a $14.7 billion civil settlement covering 480,000 cars with 2.0-liter diesel engines, the company still faces criminal penalties and has yet to reach a deal on about 80,000 cars with tainted 3.0-liter motors. A delay in the talks would prolong the scandal and complicate Volkswagen’s efforts to emerge from the crisis, which erupted in September 2015. “The election of Donald Trump causes me great concern,” Stephan Weil, prime minister of the German state of Lower Saxony and member of Volkswagen’s supervisory board, said [arrogantly]. “Trump’s first task should be to bridge the existing divides -- that he himself deepened during the past weeks -- and carry out his duties with prudence and care.”

It’s Not Just Ford: Trump’s Trade Barbs Threaten VW, Toyota Too Bloomberg / November 9, 2016 Ford Motor Co. was a favorite target of Donald Trump, who lambasted the company for producing cars south of the border throughout his campaign. Toyota Motor Corp., Volkswagen AG and other U.S. carmakers are just as exposed. Toyota and Nissan Motor Co., Japan’s largest automakers, were spared from Trump’s critique by name on the campaign trail. Yet, along with General Motors Co. and VW, they all rely on Mexican plants for millions of vehicles and a high volume of parts. That puts them at risk if the president-elect makes good on his threat to levy hefty taxes on cars assembled across the Rio Grande. “Trump could, or will, try to set up trade barriers,” said Ferdinand Dudenhoeffer, director of the Center for Automotive Research at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany. “Automakers with U.S. factories will therefore be on the winning side. Mexico, the new El Dorado of the auto industry, could suffer.” Since 2010, nine global automakers, including GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV, have announced more than $24 billion in Mexican investments. VW’s Audi, BMW AG and Daimler AG each build or plan to assemble luxury vehicles, engines or heavy trucks in the low-cost country, which Trump says has benefited at the expense of the American voters who propelled him to victory. Output in Mexico may more than double this decade, from 2 million to 5 million vehicles, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Republican candidate and real-estate developer grabbed headlines during his campaign by threatening to slap a 35 percent tariff on any cars Ford builds in Mexico and ships back to the U.S. He called Ford’s plans for a new plant in Mexico “an absolute disgrace.” A levy would lead to higher prices and hurt demand, said Joe Spak, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets. Trump would “start a worldwide trade war” if he decides to end trade pacts and uses anti-dumping provisions to impose widespread tariffs on other countries, said Donald Grimes, an economist at the Institute for Research on Labor, Employment and the Economy at the University of Michigan. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example, requires only six months’ notice of termination to Canada and Mexico and doesn’t specify that the president would need congressional approval, he said. “These other countries would retaliate. Prices consumers would pay would increase sharply. The Federal Reserve would then increase interest rates. It would be ugly,” Grimes said. Despite that threat, U.S. automakers and the United Auto Workers union extended an olive branch to the president-elect. “We agree with Mr. Trump that it is really important to unite the country -- and we look forward to working together to support economic growth and jobs,” Ford said in a statement. The company’s plan to shift small-car production from a factory in Michigan to Mexico was attacked by Trump during his first answer of the initial debate with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in September. GM and Fiat Chrysler said in separate statements they would work with Trump and the new Congress on policies that support manufacturing in the U.S. “It’s obvious there is work to be done,” UAW President Dennis Williams, whose union endorsed Clinton, said in a statement. German executives attending an industry conference in Munich on Wednesday also expressed concerns about Trump’s views. BMW is building a new car plant in Mexico’s San Luis Potosi that’s due to start production in 2019, while Audi started assembling autos in San Jose Chiapa in September. “We need open trade,” said BMW CEO Harald Krueger. The luxury automaker ships many of the SUVs assembled at its South Carolina factory to markets around the world and in turn exports sedans and Mini cars to the U.S. from Europe. “We live off exports and imports. The U.S. market is fundamental for us.” Conciliation Hopes Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche and James Verrier, who heads supplier BorgWarner Inc., are among executives who held out hope that much of Trump’s trade talk was campaign rhetoric and would soften with the practicalities needed to govern. “Many things get said during the heat of an election campaign,” Zetsche said. “I hope and believe this is also the case here.” For Bob Lutz, the retired vice chairman of GM, Trump’s victory could ultimately help the auto industry if his advisers and Congress keep him from pushing his protectionist agenda too far. “He’s not a dictator,” Lutz said in an interview. “No one can go in and abrogate trade deals. There are some aspects of NAFTA that will probably be re-negotiated, but he will probably be talked out of his crazier ideas.” Rather than threaten Japan auto imports with tariffs, Trump has pointed to wealth generated from the cars being sold in the U.S. to bolster his argument for America to pay a smaller share of the costs related to stationing troops in its biggest Asian ally’s territory. “Japan is ripping us off with the cars,” Trump said at an Oct. 12 campaign event in Florida. In remarks to Ohio volunteers in July, he spoke of “massive ships” delivering vehicles to the U.S. from Japan, which he told Americans was “rich because of us.” Representatives for Toyota, Nissan and Honda Motor Co. declined to comment. Japan’s automakers have combined capacity to build about 1.36 million vehicles annually in Mexico and have announced plans for new plants capable of assembling another 430,000 vehicles a year. Models built or planned for Mexican production and sale in the U.S. include the Toyota Corolla, the Nissan Versa and Sentra, and the Honda Fit and HR-V. “If NAFTA is going to be up for discussion somewhere down the line, that would affect Japanese companies very much, especially auto-related investments in Mexico,” said Bob Takai, president and CEO of Sumitomo Global Research Co. “If the trading and investing is going to be very difficult because of the new presidency, we may go somewhere else.” .

US Xpress testing real-world fuel economy Fleet Owner / November 9, 2016 Using six linehaul tractors taken out of regular service plus two pre-production new models provided by manufacturers, truckload carrier US Xpress is just concluding three days of fuel-economy testing on public roads. The PIT Group, a Canadian-based organization created to conduct unbiased efficiency testing, the project is intended to help US Xpress and other fleets associated with PIT identify the most fuel-efficient powertrain combinations available, according to Yves Provencher, PIT group manager. “Like most carriers we take fuel economy seriously, and we believe this test will help validate the decisions we make about our equipment,” said Gerry Mead, sr. VP of maintenance at US Xpress. With US Xpress drivers behind the wheel and support from the fleet’s maintenance staff, the trucks in the fuel-economy run ran a 52-mi. loop that started with a half-mile local access road from US Xpress’ Tunnel Hill, GA, terminal to I-75. They ran south for 25 miles using cruise control as much as possible and then turned around for the trip back to the terminal. PIT followed TMC Type III fuel consumption test procedures, Provencher said, adding that traffic was light, terrain was rolling hills, and weather was dry and temperate all three days. The six US Xpress tractors represented a mix of 2016 and 2017 models, engines, transmissions and rear axle ratios currently found in the company’s linehaul fleet, according to Dwayne Haug, consultant working with PIT and a former fleet maintenance manager. All six had automated or automatic transmissions and were speced with axle ratios and engines set up for low RPM highway operations. The six were as delivered from the manufacturers with no aftermarket items installed, Haug pointed out. “This is real-world testing, not track testing,” Haug said. That makes the data collected especially valuable to US Xpress and other fleet members of the PIT organization when investigating future equipment purchases that will maximize fuel economy, he added. Using fleet drivers was also an important aspect of the test, according to Provencher. “We wanted to get real driver input on these new technologies. That will be important for driver buy-in when [fleets] move to implement them later on.” Basic specs for the six US Xpress tractors were: Freightliner (MY2017) Cascadia Engine: Detroit DD15 455HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission: Detroit DT12 DA 1550 12 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Detroit DA RT 40 Ratio: 2.41 Peterbilt (MY2016) 579 “6X2” Engine: PACCAR MX13 455HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission Transmission: Eaton Advantage 10 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Dana Econo TREK w/ Bendix eTrac System Ratio: 2.69 Peterbilt (MY2016) 579 Engine: PACCAR MX13 455HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission: Allison TC-10 Automatic Transmission Rear Axle: Dana DSP40 Ratio: 2.69 Peterbilt (MY2016) 579 Engine: PACCAR MX13 455HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission: Eaton Advantage 10 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Dana DSP40 Ratio: 2.69 Kenworth T680 (MY2017) Engine: PACCAR MX13 405HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission Transmission: Eaton Advantage 10 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Dana D40-155H ADVANTEK40 Ratio: 2.64 Navistar Prostar ES (MY2017) Engine: Cummins ISX15 450HP 65MPH Set Speed Transmission: Eaton Advantage 10 Speed Direct Drive Automated Manual Transmission Rear Axle: Dana D40-155H ADVANTEK40 Ratio: 2.64 The test also included two pre-production new models provided by their manufacturers – an International LT and a new-generation Freightliner Cascadia. The LT had a Cummins/Eaton/Dana powertrain, and the new Cascadia an integrated Detroit powertrain. Preliminary results from the three days of testing will be shared with the 50 fleet members of PIT in about three weeks, with a full report to members following in about six weeks, according to Provencher. Any new members joining the organization will also be given access to the reports, he said. .

[Kowtowing] ATA Congratulates President-Elect Trump Heavy Duty Trucking / November 9, 2016 Trucking's biggest lobby, the American Trucking Associations, has congratulated President-elect Donald Trump on his victory in the 2016 presidential election. In a statement, ATA president and CEO Chris Spear expressed a desire to work with his administration to improve the economy and the nation’s infrastructure. “During the campaign, he highlighted the need to create jobs, and recognized that improving our nation's infrastructure is critical to strengthening the economy,” said Spear. “As the industry that moves nearly 70% of our nation's freight and is a key economic driver, we look forward to working with President-elect Trump on a host of issues, including long-term, sustainable infrastructure funding, tax reform, and fair and free trade.” As the President-elect assembles his Administration in the coming months to prepare for taking office on Jan. 20, 2017, ATA noted that it has already begun to work with Trump. “We have already begun meeting with the Trump transition team and look forward to working closely with the new Administration on issues that will allow the trucking industry to continue to grow and move America forward,” said Spear.

Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer May Be Trump Ally on Infrastructure Transport Topics / November 9, 2016 President-elect Donald Trump may end up turning to an unexpected ally — incoming Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer — to pursue several major elements of his agenda, including infrastructure. At times, Trump’s agenda lines up more closely with that of the New York Democrat than his own party’s leaders. When Trump delivered his acceptance speech early Nov. 9, the only policy proposal he mentioned was his desire to rebuild “our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals.” Such a plan is at odds with the fiscal restraint enforced by congressional Republicans, but echoes Schumer’s own statements. Trump has also talked frequently about cracking down on China for manipulating its currency, something that Schumer has spent years trying to persuade presidents to pursue. Later that morning Trump called Schumer, who congratulated his fellow New Yorker on his improbable victory. "It is time for the country to come together and heal the bitter wounds from the campaign," Schumer said in a statement. Trump, 70, a Manhattan real-estate developer, had long been a patron of Schumer’s political operation, donating thousands to his previous campaigns and to Senate Democrats in years past, before he embarked on his presidential bid. Schumer, meanwhile, has spoken repeatedly in recent days about needing to make Washington work in a bipartisan way regardless of who won the presidency. "There is a yearning among people in both parties to get things done," Schumer, 65, said in an interview before the election. "I think the party that’s seen as obstructionist is going to pay a price in 2018." That’s when Democrats will be defending 25 Senate seats to just eight for the GOP. Of course, there will be plenty of areas where Trump and Schumer will have a much harder time finding common ground, including broader tax relief, energy policy and the president-elect’s goal of repealing Obamacare. But Schumer has championed the idea of infrastructure spending tied to a corporate tax overhaul and has said he wants to rethink U.S. trade policies — in particular getting much tougher with China. Schumer previously authored bills with South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham to crack down on China currency manipulation. Lewis Alexander, a former Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury official, said Nov. 9 that he expects Trump to follow through with his campaign pledge to declare China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. Trump has said he wants to spend more than $500 billion on an infrastructure package, with House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California among those on the left lauding the idea Nov. 9. “We can work together to quickly pass a robust infrastructure jobs bill," she said in a statement. House Speaker Paul Ryan, by contrast, doesn’t have an ambitious infrastructure stimulus on his to-do list. During a Sept. 19 appearance before the Economic Club of New York, Ryan said such a massive construction program isn’t a panacea for “organic economic growth.” "We’re not Keynesians, so we’re not a big believer in these multipliers," Ryan said. "There’s no substitute for organic economic growth, free enterprise, private sector growth," he said about infrastructure. Trump explicitly mentioned jobs in calling for infrastructure spending during his victory speech early Nov. 9. “We will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it,” he said. That statement sounded a lot like Schumer’s speech Nov. 8 celebrating his own re-election, where he pledged to work to "create millions of good-paying infrastructure jobs." As an outsider, Trump may also have little hesitation about working across the aisle. During the campaign, he frequently praised onetime Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont for opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Sanders also has long backed an infrastructure stimulus to create jobs.

Range-extended electric Wrightspeed refuse truck enters service Fleet Owner / November 9, 2016 The first refuse truck featuring a Wrightspeed range-extended electric powertrain has entered municipal service with the Ratto Group, a Santa Rosa, CA-based refuse, yard waste and recycling collection and processing company. Designed to deliver economic, environmental and performance benefits in both OEM-installed new vehicles and existing fleet retrofits, Wrightspeed’s The Route is a scalable solution that has been recognized by The State of California for its ability to help meet progressive climate and air quality mandates, the company said. The Ratto Group's fleet of refuse, recycling and compostable yard waste trucks services over 140,000 customers in Sonoma County, Mariposa County, the City of Novato, and West Marin. Ratto and Wrightspeed plan to deploy more than 15 Route-equipped trucks over the next 12 months to meet community needs. "In a business that puts a premium on re-use, this represents the ultimate in recycling. We're literally recycling the recycling truck," said Lou Ratto, COO of The Ratto Group. "By integrating Wrightspeed's powertrains into our existing commercial fleet, we're initiating a progressive solid waste and recyclables collection strategy that will maximize the life of our vehicles, cut fuel consumption and emissions, and have a positive environmental impact on our service areas." "As an early adopter of our powertrain technology, Lou Ratto has solidified Sonoma County as a leader in pioneering new technologies that will improve and preserve the region for future generations," said Ian Wright, Founder and CEO of Wrightspeed. "We're proud to collaborate with Lou and his team and to establish our powertrain technology as the economical and environmental choice for cleaner, quieter and more efficient communities." .

Fleet Owner / November 9, 2016 Dorsey Trailer announced the introduction of the weight saving Aluminum Giant all-aluminum platform trailer series. “Designed and engineered for significant weight savings, outstanding payload capacity and northern element corrosion resistance, the all-aluminum has a capacity of 80,000 lbs evenly distributed and an available 52,000 lbs. capacity in 4 feet,” according to the company. The Dorsey Aluminum Giant Series boasts a one piece welded I-beam design. Aluminum Giant trailers come standard with 5" extruded channel cross members on 15" centers and a coil package while maintaining a starting tare weight under 8,900 lbs. The 1-1/2" hollow core box extruded aluminum floor combined with custom pipe spool design allows the aluminum giant to withstand rigorous fleet conditions and the most demanding owner operator usage, the company said. Standard features such as 6061 T-6 aluminum construction, fully galvanized suspension, aluminum landing gear and fully sealed wiring harness ensure years of corrosion free work even in the harshest northern conditions. The Aluminum Giant Drop Deck shares the same fabrication materials, procedures and components, while featuring an all-aluminum drop neck design, which allows the end user to haul tall loads while maintaining higher payload capacity and superior corrosion resistance. All Aluminum Giant Series trailers are available with multiple beam packages and multiple axle configurations to meet all legal requirements and hauling needs, Dorsey concluded. .

Trump and trucking: 'great' infrastructure, end to NAFTA Fleet Owner / November 9, 2016 President-elect Donald Trump has promised to make America’s infrastructure great again, but exactly how he’ll put his vision into action—and what those policies will mean to trucking—has not been settled. While highway users can be hopeful about his campaign pledge, based on his extensive construction experience, to “build the greatest infrastructure on the planet earth,” his recent policy outline leans heavily on user fees (and which some suggest means privatization, which means tolling). Still, the American Trucking Assns. anticipates having a seat at the transition table. “During the campaign, he highlighted the need to create jobs, and recognized that improving our nation's infrastructure is critical to strengthening the economy. … We look forward to working with President-elect Trump on a host of issues, including long-term, sustainable infrastructure funding, tax reform and fair and free trade,” said ATA President and CEO Chris Spear, in a statement. “We have already begun meeting with the Trump transition team, and look forward to working closely with the new Administration on issues that will allow the trucking industry to continue to grow and move America forward.” Free trade, however, might be a tough sell. In addition to his famous pledge to build a wall at the border with Mexico, Trump campaigned on a promise to undo the North American Free Trade Agreement. Not only do trucks carry the majority of overland trade with Mexico and Canada, truck makers have assembly plants south of the border. Morningstar analyst Keith Schoonmaker points out that railroads Kansas City Southern and Union Pacific would both be hurt by substantial changes to the trade agreement. “It’s pretty uncertain what the long-term renegotiation of NAFTA would look like, but even just the sentiment of ‘there’s a candidate who just won who thinks NAFTA is a bad idea,’—that certainly wouldn’t be a positive,” he said in a Bloomberg Markets report on the “aftershocks” of the Trump victory. Also, the Trump administration could roll back some Obama-era regulations. A morning-after note to clients from the Stifel transportation equipment team suggest the second round of greenhouse gas limits for trucks could be such a target, given the long lead time to implementation. As to Trump’s cabinet, the post of Transportation Secretary is conspicuously absent from the Politico’s post-election speculation. Broadly, the report suggests the transition team has a short list that features “industry titans and conservative activists who could comprise one of the more eclectic and controversial presidential cabinets in modern history.” Of course, every president submits budgets and plans, then Congress does what it wants. Trump the candidate was often at odds with the Republican leadership in Congress, so the first infrastructure project of the Trump administration is likely to be the repair of the political bridge to Capitol Hill. But Trump still should face less partisan resistance than President Obama, now that Republicans have held on to majorities in both the House and Senate. A key ally, after surviving challenges in the both the primary and general elections, will be Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. But as recently as the Republican National Convention in July, Shuster told Business Insider that Trump had not provided him with any specific plan. Still, Shuster noted that Republicans historically have been the “infrastructure presidents.” “Infrastructure is a Republican issue, but over the years we’ve lost,” Shuster said. “We’ve got to get back to figuring out how to build out and rebuild our national transportation. It’s essential to having a strong economy.” Another trucking ally in Congress, Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) appears on the road to a narrow victory in his hotly contested contest. Denham has led the legislative effort to give interstate carriers relief from California’s minimum wage and rest break laws. A range of state and local transportation and infrastructure measures were on ballots, as well. These included: a “lockbox” amendment in Illinois, which passed easily, to require all transportation taxes and fees be spent exclusively on transportation projects similarly, New Jersey voters approved a constitutional amendment dedicating gas tax proceeds to transportation projects gas tax proposals struggled in several locations in Oregon and Nevada a transportation sales tax in Venture County (CA) failed to meet the two-thirds majority it needed, while voters in Stanislaus Country approved the tax. AASHTO has posted a more complete list of the transportation votes.

Trucking with Trump: Beware Fog Ahead Heavy Duty Trucking / November 9, 2016 While roughly half the electorate is still reveling in a historic presidential victory and the rest remains reviling it, the brass-tacks business of transitioning from the outgoing Obama to the incoming Trump Administration is already under way. Once Donald Trump is sworn in on Jan. 21st as the 45th President of the United States, it will be the first time since 2011 that one party has occupied the White House and controlled both the House and Senate. So, there will be lots of jockeying among key Republicans— both those previously for or against Trump-- and non-GOP Trump supporters for power in the roughly 10 weeks left until Inauguration Day. But since President-elect Trump has never been in lockstep with Republican orthodoxy let alone with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI)-- who barely endorsed the President-elect-- there’s no way of telling now how their vision of governing jointly will ultimately turn out. The handing over of the presidency began when President Obama on Nov. 9 pledged that he and his staff will “work as hard as we can to make sure that this is a successful transition for the President-elect.” Much earlier that day in his acceptance speech, Trump called “for America to bind the wounds of division.” Right after describing the electoral support he had received as “a movement comprised of Americans from all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs,” Trump pivoted to a brief rundown on specific policies he will pursue in which he noted infrastructure right off the bat. “We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals,” Trump stated. “We're going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none, and we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.” The only published specifics on how the next President will accomplish that appear on his campaign website, where a policy plan declares that Trump will rebuild infrastructure via a “deficit-neutral plan” of infrastructure tax credits. A key albeit nebulous part of that plan aims to “refocus government spending on American infrastructure and away from the Obama-Clinton globalization agenda.” Trump also promises to “provide maximum flexibility to the states” for infrastructure projects. In addition, his plan echoes a core element of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in that Trump aims to “create thousands of new jobs in construction, steel manufacturing, and other sectors to build the transportation, water, telecommunications and energy infrastructure needed to enable new economic development in the U.S., all of which will generate new tax revenues.” On the other hand, he sounds more like the business executive he has been for decades with his call for funding infrastructure by leveraging “new revenues” and working with financing authorities, public-private partnerships, and “other prudent funding opportunities.” Trump also wants to employ incentive-based contracting to ensure projects run on time and on budget and to “link increased investments with positive reforms to infrastructure programs that reduce waste and cut costs.” Trucking, if not every industry (and motorist) in the country, can’t argue with such a full-throated commitment to infrastructure. That the Trump plan’s heavy reliance on public funding, a.k.a. user fees and tolls, will be so warmly received by trucking advocates and other major industry lobbies is far less certain. Certainly, it is highly likely less regulation will be generated by Executive Branch agencies under Trump. Less certain is whether any rulemakings still in the pipeline, such as the GHG/MPG Phase 2 rules, will be delayed or simply abandoned outright. Given the reaction to Trump’s victory by Friends of the Earth, there is real concern among environmental advocates that little to no action on climate change will be taken by the Trump Administration. “Technicalities aside about whether President-elect Trump can remove the U.S. from the Paris [climate change] agreement, it’s clear that for the next four years, the U.S. government is unlikely to be a partner in global climate action,” said Friends of the Earth U.S. Climate and Energy Director Benjamin Schreiber. “The U.S. will likely make international climate protection efforts more difficult and that is why the rest of the world can no longer wait for U.S. action. Friends of the Earth U.S. is calling on the world to use economic and diplomatic pressure to compel U.S. leaders to act.” While some household GOP names— like former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani as Attorney General— among other candidates for Cabinet posts have been publicly bandied about, there has yet to be any mention of a possible nominee for Secretary of Transportation. One interesting potential pick being talked up, by the way, is Forrest Lucas, co-founder of Lucas Oil, for Secretary of the Interior. Regardless of who joins the Trump cabinet, major lobbies, such as the American Trucking Associations, will keep pushing their respective agendas on Capitol Hill. So, for example, any new safety-related rules sought by the trucking industry, such as speed limiters on trucks or hair-testing for driver drug use, legislated into law as Congressional mandates will have to be enacted by the Trump Administration. ATA and other trucking advocates could find common ground with President-elect Trump on some issues. ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said the lobby looks forward to working with Trump “on a host of issues, including long-term, sustainable infrastructure funding, tax reform, and fair and free trade.” Working with Trump on the latter issue may take some doing as Trump did campaign heavily and harshly against free trade agreements, including the existing NAFTA accord with Canada and Mexico and the yet-to-be-ratified Trans Pacific Partnership. Speaking about international trade just last month, ATA’s Spear said that “any attempt to reopen or threaten this longstanding [NAFTA] agreement could have dire repercussions on our industry. And not adopting TPP will undoubtedly will push those potential Asian Rim partners towards a future agreement with China. America relies of free trade and trucking is key.” Trump, of course, also got good news about the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. The House remains solidly in GOP hands while the Republicans held onto their Senate majority. The real question going forward is whether Trump and the GOP leaders on Capitol Hill leaders will see eye to eye and for long enough to pass major legislation, including all the nuances of how various measures will actually be funded. For one big example, will trucking sign off on a highway bill that is largely funded by private sources? And let’s not forget free trade. That's an arena in which many Democrats lately have been sounding and acting more like Republicans long have and Donald Trump has not— at least not when he was in campaign mode.

Fleet Owner / November 9, 2016 Executives with Volvo Trucks North America (VTNA) and Mack Trucks – both subsidiaries of the Sweden-based Volvo Group – continue to expect Class 8 sales to finish 2016 down from 2015 levels, with that decline to continue on into 2017. By contrast, however, demand for construction trucks remains strong, according to Jonathan Randall, the newly-installed senior vice president for Mack – he’s been with the OEM for six months – with the construction truck segment size climbing from 11% of the market based on year-to-date numbers through August 2015 in the U.S. and Canada to 14% based on year-to-date data through August of this year, with further “segment expansion” expected in 2017. “This is for 10-liter engine equipped construction trucks and above,” Randall emphasized. “This is right in our wheelhouse and represents a strong opportunity for Mack.” Yet overall Class 8 truck market demand will continue to shrink, he pointed out during a press event here to provide an in-depth look at the company’s Uptime Centers program. Randall said Class 8 demand is expected to fall to 240,000 units by the end of this year, compared to 301,740 units in 2015, and decline further to 215,000 units in 2017. He also believes demand for over-the-road tractors will keep shrinking as a percentage of the overall Class 8 sales market as well. Jeff Lester, VTNA’s senior vice president, offered a similar outlook for the Class 8 market, expected total Class 8 demand to end 2016 at 240,000 units and dropping to 215,000 units in 2017. “We’re seeing continued high inventory-to-sales ratios across the economy, leading to flat manufacturing rates and reduced freight volumes,” he said. Lester added that the long-haul portion of Class 8 demand is projected to continue shrinking from just over 50% of the market in 2015 to 45% this year and next. Demand in the regional segment is expected to remain flat, though demand for construction trucks expected to continue growing. Mack’s Randall added that the OEM plans to make its GuardDog Connect service a standard feature on its LR and MR low-entry cabover truck models equipped MP engines starting in the first quarter of next year. “I love our iron – I think it’s gorgeous – but we recognize it is also a means to an end for our customer,” he explained. “Uptime support is as important for our refuse customers as our highway customers,” noted Curtis Dorwart, Mack’s refuse product marketing manager, in a separate statement. “Uptime is a must-have for all of our customers, and refuse customers are no exception,” he added. “Offering GuardDog Connect enables us to provide the same high level of service and support to all Mack-powered vehicles in our lineup, addressing the needs of all customers, in all applications.” Related reading - http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/44647-mack-trucks-names-senior-vp-of-sales-for-north-america/

Labor union anger fueled Trump in Midwest Automotive News / November 9, 2016 Union members helped Republican Donald Trump win surprising victories in the industrial Midwest. In Ohio, Trump won a majority of votes from union members, according to exit polling, which also showed added strength for Trump in union households nationally and in other auto-producing states. The reason, says labor expert Harley Shaiken: “Trump’s message resonated, and Clinton’s did not.” Shaiken said Clinton may have underestimated “how much damage had been done to communities in the Midwest” as she talked about trade and the loss of manufacturing jobs. He said the UAW’s election efforts, as well as those from other unions, were swamped by the anger of Trump supporters. “It was far more than any single union could address, and even the labor movement generally,” said Shaiken, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. On social media, a number of UAW members said they supported Trump in the election and chided their union for its earlier support of Hillary Clinton over her Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. In a written statement, UAW President Dennis Williams thanked his members and retirees for their efforts during the campaign, and called for unity. “It’s obvious there is work to be done. We have high hopes that elected officials heard the American people loud and clear about trade, jobs, education and the inequality in this country.” Williams is scheduled to speak to the media Thursday afternoon. Shaiken said the election’s outcome will likely cause the UAW to “redouble” its ongoing organizing efforts under the current labor-friendly administration. Though he didn’t get a vote, Jerry Dias, president of Unifor — the union representing tens of thousands of Canadian auto workers — was more blunt. “The politics of hate are not part of my beliefs and move us [backward],” Dias wrote. “My resolve to fight for progressive change is renewed.”

Did GM downplay debut of SUV to avoid Trump's wrath? USA Today / October 30, 2016 If you're wondering why you haven't read a review of the Buick Envision SUV yet, blame Donald Trump. That theory has gained currency among the automotive press, and I find myself increasingly persuaded by it. General Motors has been completely open about the fact that it builds the Buick Envision in China. It is one of the first new vehicle models imported into the U.S. from China from a major automaker. The Republican nominee so politicized the auto industry this year with factually challenged attacks on Ford that General Motors may have soft-pedaled the introduction of a promising new vehicle to avoid becoming a partisan target. GM, having spent way too much time in the political cross hairs during the Great Recession, declined to comment. The Envision, if you haven’t heard of it — and you may not have, because its sales launch this summer was quiet as a ninja at midnight — is an intriguing new compact SUV. Attractive and well-equipped, it competes with small luxury crossovers like the Audi Q3, BMW X1, Lexus NX and Mercedes GLC. It has sold well and won Buick new customers since reaching dealerships in May, but the U.S. sales launch has been anything but typical. Normally, automakers can’t wait to get a vehicle like this into the hands of journalists who will write about its technology, design, efficiency and value. Not so the Envision, which went on sale months before most reporters and critics got to sit in one, much less give it a meaningful test. Why? The theory — first espoused in Automotive News in the summer, I believe — was that GM felt the political winds blowing from an ugly quarter this year and battened the hatches. Since Envision was an addition to the Buick lineup, its Chinese production didn’t cost American jobs [U.S. production would have created jobs in the U.S. market where GM would profit from sales], and strengthens GM and Buick with sales of a vehicle they wouldn’t have without Chinese production. Yet earlier this month, Buick didn’t send an Envision to the North American Car of the Year jury’s test of semifinalists for the car, truck and utility vehicle of the year awards. The comparison drive attracted several dozen vehicles from nearly every major manufacturer. It took place among southeast Michigan lakes and woods, barely an hour’s drive from Buick headquarters on the Detroit riverfront. Hyundai, Nissan, Honda, Mercedes, Audi, Jaguar, Ford, Fiat Chrysler, Porsche, Volvo, Kia and Genesis had no trouble getting vehicles to the event, where about 40 leading journalists spent three days evaluating them. Buick’s stablemates at General Motors — Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC — had no trouble getting vehicles to the test. Buick managed to deliver a LaCrosse large sedan, the other new model it launched this year. There are a hundred good reasons to build the Envision in China [???], but Ford had a hundred good reasons for moving production of the Focus compact car to Mexico. That didn’t keep Donald Trump from making Ford his piñata in a series of vituperative speeches.

GM invests millions in Mexico as Ford absorbs Trump's blows Bloomberg / October 14, 2016 After more than a year of watching Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump bash Ford Motor Co. for moving jobs to Mexico, General Motors Co. has pushed ahead with its own expansion. It just hasn't said as much as Ford. GM is advancing on an $800 million investment for its global small-car lineup that includes a factory retooling in San Luis Potosi state. That plant and another factory in Mexico will also build the redesigned Chevy Equinox crossover next year, people familiar with the matter said. The automaker has only said that the next Equinox will be built in a factory in Canada and two other sites, keeping mum about Mexico and avoiding both attention from Trump and the chance that the news might have roiled labor talks in Canada last month, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the matter is private. Taking a lower profile has kept GM out of Trump's cross-hairs and helped the Detroit company reach an agreement with its Canadian union, even as the Republican candidate singled out Ford's latest Mexican factory plan as "an absolute disgrace." For Mexico, GM's tight-lipped approach hints at how U.S. companies might operate if Trump wins the election after campaigning against the North American Free Trade Agreement. "Big American companies are being cautious, they don't want to have issues with the presidential candidates," Mario Chacon, head of global business promotion at Mexico's foreign investment agency, said in an interview. "They're feeling repressed because anything they say can be used against them." GM has been clear about its investment in Mexico, starting with an announcement in late 2014 that it would spend $5 billion there. The automaker just hasn't said much about the details since then. Ford splash Ford made a splash in April when, in the heart of primary season, the company said it would invest $1.6 billion in Mexico to make small cars. Ford CEO Mark Fields then said in September that the company would move all small-car production there. Trump's attacks have forced a reaction from Ford Chairman Bill Ford, who is great-grandson of the company's founder. Ford said in late September that the company makes more cars in the U.S. than any other automaker and that, "we are everything that he should be celebrating about this country." GM's investment in its factory in the Mexican state of San Luis Potosi was initially announced in November 2015, without specific plans or details. The plan came in addition to the $5 billion the company said it would invest in December 2014 to expand and retool existing plants in the country. GM says it isn't hiding its investment in Mexico. "For competitive reasons -- especially as it relates to future product -- the specific details behind the investments get rolled out as we deem appropriate," Pat Morrissey, a spokesman for the automaker, wrote in an e-mail. Morrissey also said GM has invested $20 billion in its U.S. operations since 2009 and employs 97,000 people in the U.S. and 15,000 in Mexico. In past years, GM has been vocal in promoting its new investments in Mexico. It held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new railway extension in San Luis Potosi in 2014, invited a governor to announce an expansion in Coahuila in 2010, and fired off press releases detailing even its smallest investments -- including an $87 million contribution to a stamping plant in March 2015. That same month it also announced a new model it would produce in Mexico: the new generation Chevrolet Cruze. Investing 'quietly' By contrast, GM has no press statements on its website about investments in Mexico this year. There has been no information about the Equinox in Mexico, nor on where all of the $800 million pledged in November would be spent. The automaker has confirmed it will build the Chevrolet Equinox at a plant in Ingersoll, Ontario. GM also said it would make the Equinox and its stablemate, the GMC Terrain, at two other unidentified factories. "Companies don't halt their investment decisions for political reasons, they simply do it quietly," Chacon said. "No company wants to have big announcements now because they could see a negative reaction from unions in other countries. So decisions aren't made out in the open but they continue. They can't stop." GM President Dan Ammann had little to say about the political controversy that has embroiled Ford during election season. "We're observing," Ammann said in an interview with Bloomberg. Mexican benefits Labor costs that are about a fifth of U.S. levels have lured most carmakers to set up shop or expand in Mexico in recent years. Since the beginning of 2010, Mexico has snared $25.8 billion in announced investments, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Kia Motors Corp. and Volkswagen AG's luxury Audi unit inaugurated billion-dollar plants last month. A joint venture of Daimler AG and Nissan Motor Co. is working on a factory that will assemble compact vehicles, while Toyota Motor Corp. plans to produce Corollas. BMW AG is also building a plant. In addition to lower labor costs, Mexico also offers a network of international trade deals and proximity to the U.S. car market. "Mexico's free trade agreements, geography and labor costs make it more attractive than Brazil," Horacio Chavez, Kia's Mexico country chief, said in an interview last month. "It allows us to reach many markets."

Automakers, dependent on Mexico, face a rougher road with Trump Reuters / November 9, 2016 The election of Republican Donald Trump as U.S. president put new pressure on automakers and other manufacturers that depend on open trade with Mexico. Shares fell for U.S. automakers and suppliers, which rely heavily on production in Mexico to feed their U.S. manufacturing and sales operations. General Motors shares dropped as much as 4 percent on Wednesday before recovering some of that decline in the late afternoon. The automaker said on Wednesday it was laying off 2,000 people and cutting a shift at a Lordstown, Ohio, factory that builds Chevrolet Cruze small cars and at a Lansing, Mich., plant that builds slow-selling Cadillac sedans and Chevrolet Camaro sports cars. Ford Motor Co. shares were up 1.2 percent in late afternoon trading after sliding earlier in the day. Electric luxury car maker Tesla Motors Inc. shed 3.3 percent. Tesla could be hurt if a Trump administration cuts federal support for electric cars. Shares of big automotive parts makers that have shifted operations to Mexico were hit hard. Delphi Automotive fell nearly 6 percent after rebounding from deeper losses. Canada's Magna International Inc., whose Mexican operations account for about 14 percent of sales, were down 3.7 percent. Trump made attacks on the outsourcing of American auto jobs to Mexico a recurrent theme in his campaign, a message that rallied blue-collar workers while threatening to upend the business assumptions behind billions of dollars in planned investment by the auto industry. Tension over Ford plants In announcing his campaign in June 2015, Trump vowed to block Ford from opening a new plant in Mexico and threatened to impose tariffs on cars it shipped back across the border. But those moves would force U.S. consumers to pay higher prices for vehicles, said Charles Chesbrough, senior economist at the Detroit-based Original Equipment Suppliers Association trade group. "(Trump's) trade policies could add $5,000 or more to the price of a small car from Mexico," Chesbrough said. U.S. vehicle manufacturers and many of their suppliers have based billions of dollars of investment on relatively open trade with Mexico, China and other countries. Ford in April announced plans to invest $1.6 billion to expand production of small cars in Mexico. Trump took aim at that move as well as GM's plans to invest $5 billion there. GM said in a statement on Wednesday that it "looks forward to working with President-elect Trump and the new Congress on policies that support a strong and competitive U.S. manufacturing base." Ford spokeswoman Christin Baker said: "We agree with Mr. Trump that it is really important to unite the country, and we look forward to working together to support economic growth and jobs." In September, Ford said it would shift small-car production from U.S. plants to lower-cost Mexico, drawing another rebuke from Trump. "We shouldn't allow it to happen," Trump said. Ford said its decision to build new vehicles in Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford last month said he met with Trump to discuss criticism from the candidate but called the discussion "infuriating" and "frustrating." Ford said his company employed more people at its U.S. plants than any other automaker. Ford has not slowed investment outside the U.S. As ballots were cast in the United States on Tuesday, Bill Ford was in India to announce a $195 million investment in a new technical center near Chennai. Between 1994 and 2013, the number of auto factory jobs dropped by a third in the United States and rose almost fivefold in Mexico as lower-wage production boomed. Mexico now accounts for 20 percent of all vehicle production in North America and has attracted more than $24 billion in investment from the industry since 2010, according to the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. Based on current investment plans, Mexico's auto production capacity will grow by another 50 percent over the next five years, said the [biased] center, which draws funding from the industry. "Dismantling NAFTA at this point would be pretty hard to do," said Kristin Dziczek, the center's director of industry, labor and economics.

Car & Driver / November 2016 Overview: The GMC Canyon was revived for a second generation in 2014 alongside its Chevrolet Colorado twin and immediately reinvigorated the moribund mid-size pickup market. Where once these trucks were left to languish for a decade or more without significant changes—or were killed outright—the fresh General Motors duo were quickly joined by an updated Toyota Tacoma and a redesigned Honda Ridgeline, while a new Nissan Frontier and a reborn Ford Ranger should be online within three years or so. The Canyon offers two cabs (extended and crew) and two bed lengths. Four-wheel drive can be found on most trim levels. Available engines include a 200-hp, 191-lb-ft 2.5-liter four-cylinder in lower trims that’s as slow as it is undesirable. If you can spring for a higher trim where the 308-hp V-6 is standard—or the roughly $1200 to upgrade where it’s not—do it. [Only] Crew-cab Canyons can be ordered with an optional diesel engine. The 2.8-liter Duramax four-cylinder costs $3730 more (except in the 2WD SLE short-bed crew cab, where it runs $4965) and delivers 181 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque, along with up to 7700 pounds of towing capacity. Although if you’re towing anywhere near 7000 pounds with a Canyon—never mind 7700—we suggest you step up to a half-ton truck like GMC’s Sierra 1500. While pricing for the most part is fairly close between the Chevy and the GMC—the gap widens slightly when moving to the upper trim levels, where the Canyon offers a few additional baubles—the main difference is that the GMC offers the Denali trim at the top of the range for those who desire the fanciest mid-size truck money can buy. The truck we drove for this review was a four-wheel-drive Denali crew cab equipped with the Duramax diesel, and it had all of the luxury and tech appointments one can get in GMC’s smallest pickup, including 4G LTE Wi-Fi connectivity, Apple CarPlay, lots of USB ports, heated and cooled front seats, a stitched dashtop, and more. What’s New: For 2017, the Canyon’s V-6 option was upgraded to GM’s latest 3.6-liter model, paired to a new eight-speed automatic. While the displacement remains the same as before, the six-cylinder is substantially revised and adds 3 horsepower and 6 lb-ft of torque over last year’s model. It’s more efficient, too, but only just: city and highway economy are unchanged, but the EPA combined rating has gone up by 1 mpg on both two- and four-wheel-drive models. Perhaps more important is that V-6 Canyons should be quicker; we recently tested a V-6 Colorado with the new hardware and it shaved more than a second off its zero-to-60-mph time. Two trims are new this year: the Denali and the All Terrain X. The former brings a brash chrome grille, more chrome exterior trim, 20-inch wheels, heated and ventilated front seats, nicer leather upholstery, and a heated steering wheel. The Denali also features the top-level 8.0-inch infotainment touchscreen, navigation, remote start, and automatic climate control. Oh, and a pile of Denali badges and logos for the door sills, front headrests, steering wheel, doors, tailgate, and floor mats. The Canyon’s All Terrain X package isn’t as badass as the one available for the Sierra 1500, but it does snag off-road tires, all-weather floor mats, side steps, hill-descent control, specific 17-inch wheels, and an off-road-tuned suspension. What We Like: If you want a diesel engine in a truck that’s somewhat easier to maneuver and park than a full-size rig, your list starts and ends with the Canyon and the Colorado. The diesel engine pulls smartly off the line thanks to its abundant torque, which helps enable the big-for-a-small(er)-truck tow rating. The diesel powertrain is relatively well-behaved in terms of noise, vibration, and harshness, thanks in part to the extra sound-deadening material it gets; while the Duramax isn’t exactly quiet, it never sounds unpleasant. The diesel returns impressive fuel economy, achieving 22 mpg overall in our testing and 28 mpg on our 200-mile highway loop. The Canyon is easy to wield around town, especially in short-wheelbase form, it’s relatively quiet while cruising, and its ride quality is good even with the larger wheel options. (Broken pavement can introduce a chopping motion at the rear when unladen, but, hey, it’s a leaf-sprung pickup.) The updated V-6 is smooth and powerful and the new eight-speed automatic shifts unobtrusively. The extended-cab versions have adequate rear-seat room, while rear passengers have access to two USB charging ports. Finally, interior ergonomics are solid, and the Canyon looks handsome inside and out. What We Don’t Like: The Denali has most of the features you’d expect at its price, but the interior appointments disappoint. Even in our approximately $44,000 example, the door panels are topped with hard, shiny plastic—and the pockets in those door panels are exceptionally undersize—while the “wood” trim is obviously plastic playing dress-up. All Canyons and Colorados, including the Denali, come up a bit short in features and amenities, however, including only a single-zone automatic climate control, no full-power seats, and no proximity key entry and push-button start. These faults can be forgiven in some of the lesser trims, but then you dance with the possibility of the four-cylinder engine, which feels wheezy and overtaxed even before you start to put the Canyon to work. Ingress can be a bit of a chore, requiring a hop up through somewhat small door apertures. The Canyon also can get quite expensive, approaching $50K when fully outfitted—at that point, we’re eyeing any of several excellent and well-equipped full-size pickups, including the $52,505 F-150 Raptor. The Canyon’s biggest problem, however, comes in the form of Honda’s Ridgeline, which offers enough capability for most day-to-day chores while delivering comfort, handling, stowage solutions, and refinement that the better-looking GMC can’t come close to matching. Verdict: A solid, stylish, and small(ish) truck with a Honda problem. Photo gallery - http://www.caranddriver.com/photo-gallery/2017-gmc-canyon-quick-take-review

Dana Press Release / October 17, 2016 . . .

One of the biggest surprises for me about the election is I lost some respect for Giuliani. Perhaps his age is showing. He used to choose his comments well. But the quality of his comments fell, I thought, towards the end of the election.

You speak of regen issues........... I want to take this opportunity to share something. The trucks in Europe, from DAF to Mercedes-Benz, are not having any of the problems that some U.S. operators are experiencing. Trucks can and do break, but generally they're not having these problems. Why? The US truck is priced cheaper than the European truck. There's typically a 4 year lag before the US market receives new technology from Europe. And when they do, here's the nutshell, they have to reinvent it in a cheaper (lower cost) form to match up with the cheaper U.S. truck price. In summary, the U.S. market truck price is lower than Europe. The cost of all parts/components has to be tallied with still some room for profit (margin), while remaining in the competitive range. Since the US truck sells for less, either leading edge global truck technology doesn't come to the US market at all, it is delayed 3-5 years, or it arrives in a lower cost form that isn't as reliable as the European market version.

It can be easily argued that Trump is not a "successful businessman". Trump has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy no less than four times. There's an alarming pattern there, and few would argue it is the mark of a successful businessman. ------------------------------------------------- If Trump fulfills even half of his promises, that in itself will be interesting. Hundreds of times, he promised to build a wall on the US border with Mexico and deport all or many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country. [And rightly so.] https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration However, in a June 2012 CNBC interview, Trump said he didn't believe in deporting undocumented immigrants who "had done a great job." "You know my views on it and I'm not necessarily, I think I'm probably down the middle on that also,” said Trump. “Because I also understand how, as an example, you have people in this country for 20 years, they've done a great job, they've done wonderfully, they've gone to school [for free], they've gotten good marks, they're productive — now we're supposed to send them out of the country, I don't believe in that. I don't believe in a lot things that are being said." He completely flipped on his "illegal immigrant" position. If they've successfully evaded capture by the INS for 20 years, they can stay ! My wife is from Norway. I had to go through the whole immigrant process with her, from green card to U.S. citizenship. Why should these illegal immigrants be allowed to cross our borders at night and stay? Why should I have gone through all the procedures for "legal" immigration, when these people can ignore our laws and receive amnesty to stay? Who's the fool? I want EVERY "illegal" immigrant deported........period. ------------------------------------------------- You should be scared. I am. Unlike the average American, I travel throughout the world. I can report to you that things are very, very bad. We particularly plunged downward from George W. Bush's tenure. America has massive issues before it, almost indescribable in scale. And, we face them without the significant edge (superiority) that we once enjoyed for decades.

Why the Elite Wanted Trump To Lose Daniel McCarthy, The National Interest / November 9, 2016 Elections pose a basic problem. Should the direction of a government be set by amateurs, by a majority or plurality mass of people who know nothing about policy detail, or should the best and brightest, the educated elite, make informed decisions for the good of everyone? Last night, the amateurs chose a new leader and a new direction for the country. Donald Trump is now president-elect. The elite thinkers of the media and policy realms are appalled. They spent months insisting that Trump was an ignorant bigot, a dangerously unstable fellow who could not be trusted with the kind of power that only they were fit to wield. The elite in both parties, among “conservative” journalists as well as “mainstream” ones, wanted Donald Trump to lose, and they confidently predicted he would. They were wrong. Trump does not have the conventional resume of a presidential aspirant. He has never held elected office. He has never served in the armed forces, either. Instead, he has been a high-profile businessman and television celebrity. His name is a brand. How does that prepare anyone to occupy the Oval Office? Trump is prone to making off-the-cuff remarks and articulating his policy themes in sometimes shockingly blunt language. This plain-spokenness and tendency toward hyperbole is perhaps as objectionable to educated elites as his policies: a good, well-educated technocrat, a polished politician, simply doesn’t use that kind of rhetoric. He has violated “norms,” and those norms—the etiquette of the elite—are sacrosanct. If this is as far as one’s analysis goes, it seems obvious that the voters are wrong to make Donald Trump president. But maybe some things are more important than credentials or elite norms: perhaps, it’s worth considering, policy results also matter—and matter rather more. Judged by the standard of her policies and their results, Hillary Clinton was evidently unfit to to be president. She voted for a Republican president’s unnecessary and wholly catastrophic war in Iraq. She urged a Democratic president to effect regime change in Libya. She has been a staunch friend to institutions of high finance that bear a large degree of responsibility for the financial crisis of 2007/8 and Great Recession. And she subscribes straight down the line to a progressive social agenda that Americans have never been willing to support when given a direct say in the matter. Gun control? Abortion? Clinton was considerably to the left on such questions. She has long been a peculiar mixture of centrist and leftist, combining many of the worst elements of each. Yet she had credentials. She followed the prescribed etiquette. And many of her screw-ups, however lethal they proved to be, were screw-ups in which other leaders in both parties shared responsibility. What Republican could criticize Clinton for her Iraq vote? How different was Clinton’s involvement with, say, Goldman Sachs from that of other politicians? Clinton’s policy faults were not faults at all in the eyes of her fellow educated elites. Indeed, as anyone who’s spent a bit of time in Washington, DC discovers, it’s professionally better to be wrong in a crowd than to be right by yourself. Clinton did not stick out. She did not make others of her class uncomfortable. George Will could have tea with her. America’s educated elite—in the academy, the media, government, and the para-governmental world of think tanks and pressure groups—has been systematically and collectively wrong about some of the biggest questions in foreign policy, economics, psychology, sociology, and culture. The best and brightest have assumed for twenty years that what every man and woman on earth most deeply desires is to become a liberal democrat. Steel workers in Pittsburgh and goat-herders in Afghanistan really in their heart of hearts yearn to be more like Washington Post op-ed columnists. What could be a higher human aspiration? The belief that comfortable, sexually satisfied consumerism, wedded to gauzy notions universal brotherhood (or sisterhood, or gender-nonspecific siblinghood), is all people want out of life has fueled the drive to integrate world markets, merge populations across borders, and dissolve the sovereignty of any state that falls short of the liberal-democratic ideal. Anyone who rejects this anthropology is irrational—much as Donald Trump is irrational—and requires education, if not medication. So bizarre and incompatible with historical humanity is this vision that all the wealth and prestige at liberalism’s disposal have not been enough to keep even Americans from demanding something else. The alternatives Trump offers are the nation-state and a vague idea of greatness—which, vague though it might be, is still rather more than what liberalism is selling. The voters who elected Trump don’t subscribe to the complex ideological formulae of Beltway apparatchiks. But they know how they feel, and they know what’s happening in their own lives. They know that being an American doesn’t seem to mean as much or promise as much as it once did. And so they want to make America great again, and Trump is the instrument at hand. They know from experience things that a Brookings scholar’s flowcharts can never reveal. A false anthropology undergirds the terrible errors that our educated leaders have made in foreign policy, economics, and governing in general. A different anthropology—hardly a completely correct one, but a more realistic one—is what informs the Trump vote, however inchoately. The amateurs know more than the experts. Donald Trump figured that out, and it’s won him the White House.

How Trump Replaced America's Globalist Consensus With A Nationalist Sensibility Robert W. Merry, The National Interest / November 9, 2016 Trump revealed through his often Quixotic campaign that millions of Americans agreed with him that the real threat came from the country’s ruling elites. The old order of American politics crumbled on Tuesday with an election that signaled an inflection point in the nation’s history. Donald Trump’s victory, almost universally considered impossible until it happened, shattered the globalist consensus of America’s governing elite and replaced it with a nationalist sensibility exemplified in the slogan, "America First." Never in the country’s history has it seen an anti-status quo, anti-establishment politician of such force and effectiveness. The globalist consensus contained a number of central tenets, all rejected by Trump. They included: — We live in a unipolar world, with America at its center as an "indispensable nation" with an imperative and mandate to dominate events and developments around the world; spread Western-style democratic capitalism; and salve the hurts and wounds of humanity in far-flung precincts of the globe. — The nation state is in decline and is being replaced by emergent multinational super-institutions such as the European Union, the United Nations and, presumably, Hillary Clinton’s proposed "hemispheric common market," with open trade and open borders. — The demands of constituent identity groups, based mostly on ethnicity and gender affiliations, are more important than any concept of national unity. — Borders have lost their significance as nationalist sentiments have receded, and while something probably needs to be done about illegal immigration, largely to assuage political pressures, there is nothing essentially wrong with mass immigration. — Free trade is an imperative in the post-Cold War era of globalization to lubricate global commerce and spur global prosperity. — Despite the advent of Islamist radicalism, fueled primarily by intense anti-Western fervor, there is no reason to believe that large numbers of Muslims can’t be assimilated into Western societies smoothly without detriment to those societies. This globalist consensus was embraced by American presidents from Bush I to Clinton I to Bush II to Obama and then to Clinton II. It was so entrenched within the top echelons of American society—the federal bureaucracy, the media, academia, big corporations, big finance, Hollywood, think tanks and charitable foundations—that hardly anyone could conceptualize any serious threat to it. Then Trump attacked it and marshalled a rowdy following of people bent on upending it. The globalist sensibility won’t go away, but it now is seriously challenged. The result is a new fault line in American politics. The Trump constituency rejects most of the central tenets of the post-Cold War consensus. Its beliefs include: — The American experiment in national building, with an attendant propensity for regime change, has been an utter failure, particularly in the Middle East, and needs to be replaced. America must be in the world but shouldn’t try to dominate it. — Nationalism is a hallowed sentiment, tied to old-fashioned patriotism, and shouldn’t be denigrated or rejected. — Identity group politics is eroding national cohesion and, through political correctness, is threatening free speech on the country’s college campuses; that threat will grow throughout society if not checked. — Borders matter; countries without clearly delineated and enforced borders soon cease to be countries. Immigration numbers should be calibrated to ensure smooth absorption and assimilation. — Free trade, as practiced in the post-Cold War era, is killing us, hollowing out the country’s industrial base and devastating its middle class. — Islamist radicalism represents a serious threat to homeland security, and it is merely prudent, therefore, to consider adjustments in immigration policy as one tool in seeking to lessen the threat. Clearly, a clash is inevitable between the post-Cold War elites and the Trump constituency. And its intensity was presaged by writer and thinker Shelby Steele in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal. Steele traced the emergence over recent decades of the view that America was a "victimizing nation," tainted by its history, particularly slavery, its treatment of its native Indian populations, and its diminishment of women and minorities. This raised a perceived imperative, in the view of many, that the country must redeem itself from its oppressive past. This could be done, writes Steele, only through a kind of deference "toward all groups with any claim to past or present victimization." But this call for deference assumed a moral high ground—and thus became a political weapon. From this moral position, the deference cadres could look down upon those who didn’t embrace the argument and stigmatize them as "regressive bigots." Writes Steele: "Mrs. Clinton, Democrats and liberals generally practice combat by stigma." He cites Clinton’s famous "basket of deplorables," those Trump followers who don’t embrace her view of America as victimizing nation. They are stigmatized as "irredeemable," subject to her sense of political correctness. "And political correctness," says Steele, "functions like a despotic regime." Then along came Trump, a thoroughly non-deferential figure, "at odds with every code of decency," who "invoked every possible stigma" and rejected each with dismissive sneers. "He did much of the dirty work," writes Steele, "that millions of Americans wanted to do but lacked the platform to do." It didn’t take long for the writer’s stigmatization concept to manifest itself in the coverage of Trump’s victory. The New York Times lead story, by Matt Flegenheimer and Michael Barbaro, revealed the dismissive bias explored by Steele. Trump, wrote Flegenheimer and Barbaro, won the presidency through a campaign "that took relentless aim at the institutions and long-held ideals of American democracy." The reporters predicted "convulsions throughout the country and the world, where skeptics had watched with alarm as Mr. Trump’s unvarnished overtures to disillusioned voters took hold." Here we see the one-sided elitist view that the post-Cold War consensus and the imperatives of deference toward victimization, past and present, constituted the only proper outlook. Rejection of it, in this view, poses a threat to the very institutions and ideals of the republic. And certainly no concept of journalistic objectivity should get in the way of exposing such nefarious thinking. But Trump revealed through his often Quixotic campaign that millions of Americans agreed with him that the real threat came from the country’s ruling elites of both parties who presided over national decline and economic inertia, failed to secure the country’s borders, got America mired in unceasing Mideast wars, and pursued trade policies viewed as harmful to the country’s middle class. He galvanized white working class voters and rural folks throughout the nation, even in traditionally Democratic states in the Midwest and Great Lakes region, such as Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. By 2:40 a.m. Eastern time, when Pennsylvania put Trump over the top in the Electoral College, the Republican candidate had flipped five major states that had voted for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012—Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In addition, Michigan and New Hampshire, also Obama states in the two previous elections, teetered between the two candidates as votes were counted late into the night. Trump was particularly strong among whites without college degrees, expanding his margin of victory with this voter segment to nearly 40 percentage points from just 25 percentage points in 2004. Whites with college degrees remained with the GOP but by a much smaller margin than in previous years. Wealthy Americans shifted away from the Republican Party in significant numbers. All this suggested the possibility of a serious realignment in American politics, with more wealthy voters (educated suburbanites, Country Club types, urban dwellers) moving toward the Democrats and with working class Americans (once the bedrock of the Democrats’ old FDR coalition) shifting to the GOP. But the intensity of voter angst in this particular campaign year could be seen in some exit poll results. Responding to a question on what voters considered the most important issue, some 40 percent said they were animated primarily by a desire for change. Of those, 82 percent voted for Trump, compared to only 13 percent for Clinton. Two other question segments revealed a willingness on the part of many voters to overlook Trump’s personal shortcomings in the interest of getting the country on a new course. Among those who felt neither major candidate was qualified for the presidency, Trump garnered 69 percent. Among those who said neither had the temperament for the office, he collected 70 percent. In other words, when forced to choose between two unpalatable choices, a large majority considered Trump the least unpalatable.

My friend, we all enjoy hearing your opinions. What the gentleman actually wrote is: "There's also the problem of supplying Volvo "legacy" parts, as Volvo has corrupted Mack with their engines and more for over a decade now." Most folks agree there's a big difference between some people have a clean, constructive and intelligent conversation, .......and bashing. Please step back, take a deep breath and reread the posts. There's no Volvo bashing above, rather, just some thoughts related to a financially-challenged Volvo now selling off many assets. Mack could easily be next. If you are thrilled to death with your Mack-badged Volvo trucks, I think that's great. If you're happy, I'm happy. And if you're that pleased with Volvo engineering, i.e. the better choice as you put it, you can simply buy a Volvo the next time around. I don't care for Cummins myself, aside from the Cummins-Scania XPI common rail fuel injection. I don't care for Western Star's direction in the US market, but they sell a superb product in Australia and New Zealand. As many fleet managers will tell you, and our own Bullhusk (Ernie), the Detroit engines are arguably the best powerplants currently available in the North American market. I myself wouldn't touch a Volvo engine, one reason being the Delphi fuel injection and its related problems.