kscarbel2

You're 500 percent right. Both sides distort the truth to the extremes, cherry-picking to support their agenda. I actually saw dozens of articles across the media on Nunes and that rapist (bear in mind that thousands of U.S. citizen rapists are in play 24/7).

Heavy Duty Trucking / March 24, 2017 Following its announcement last year that it would enter the commercial truck tire market here, Pirelli is showing its commercial tire product lineup here at the Mid-America Trucking Show. Under the TP Commercial Solutions entity, Pirelli is launching sales and marketing of the Pirelli brand of radial truck tires, agricultural tires, and off-the-road tires along with the Formula brand in the U.S. and Canada. TP Commercial Solutions is based in Rome, Ga., and supplies commercial truck tires and fleet solutions under the Pirelli brand to the global market. “We are excited to announce at MATS that we have the start of a solid product lineup now available for sale – and most importantly, all of these products uphold Pirelli’s iconic brand values and quality after exhaustive testing on our end in this market,” said Clif Armstrong, president of TP Commercial Solutions. Before launching its product line, Pirelli said its tires underwent extensive research and development and testing with multiple fleets in multiple applications to meet the needs of the U.S. market. The products being shown include: Pentathlon D – A long-haul drive tire that is SmartWay-verified, offering fleets high mileage, fuel savings, and low emission benefits. Pentathlon will be the name of the long- haul Pirelli product family in the U.S. and Canada. Pentathlon D will be the first to launch and as the name implies, this tire has five distinct areas that distinguish it – high mileage, energy efficiency, even wear, high traction and high retreadability. Incorporating a dual layer tread compound for long lasting performance, a special undertread compound to equal low rolling resistance and fuel consumption, an optimized pattern geometry and 3SB belt evolution for durable, even wear; a directional tread pattern for excellent grip on wet and dry, and finally, Pirelli’s Spiral Advanced Technology for Truck and Hexa Bead Wire to deliver on retreadability needs. G:85 Series for On/Off Road – The FG:85 and TG:85 are specifically designed for steer and drive on/off road applications. The G:85 Series comes in both an All Position rib product as well as an aggressive Drive companion. These tires are for mixed use vehicles, designed to enhance structural integrity while resisting extreme stress factors and laceration. Equipped with a durable casing for multiple retreads, both tires were placed in the most demanding service environment tests possible and performed at the highest levels versus the competition. FH:01 Motor Coach – The long-haul and regional all position FH:01 Motor Coach are designed for the bus fleet market. Its key product features include durability and a smooth comfortable ride. An optimized tread pattern promotes steering precision and grip on both dry and wet surfaces. A shoulder tread contour allows even distribution of pressure, ultimately resulting in even wear and high mileage. Formula Driver II All Position rib – This product is part of the Formula Brand, a Pirelli Tier II brand that will be launched in the U.S. and Canada, including the Formula Driver II All Position rib, which will start with limited sizes and then expand to a full product line. Formula Driver II delivers value in mileage, handling, and durability thanks to Pirelli SATT technology, designed to enhance uniformity of wear, tire life, handling characteristics and retreadability. “All of these products offer best in class benefits for North American fleet needs. Pirelli has been a world leader in tire technology for over 140 years,” said Armstrong. “We’re confident in the results, and in providing superior products for truck and fleet applications. We look forward to building relationships and discussing our products’ features and benefits in-depth at the show.”

Schneider National Goes Public With IPO Announcement Heavy Duty Trucking / March 24, 2017 Schneider National Inc. announced on March 24 the launch of its initial public offering of 28,947,000 shares of Class B common stock at an anticipated price of $18-$20 per share. At that price, the stocks will be worth around $520 million to $580 million. Schneider is issuing and selling up to 16,842,000 shares and the selling shareholders named in the registration statement are selling up to 12,105,000 shares. The company’s Class B common stock has been approved for listing on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SNDR. Schneider expects to grant the underwriters an option to purchase up to an additonal 4,342,000 shares of Class B common stock at the initial public offering price, less underwriting discounts and commissions, to cover any over-allotments. The company will receive no proceeds from the sale of stock by the selling shareholders who consist mostly of members of the Schneider family and directors and executive officers of the company, according to the Milwaukee Business Journal, Morgan Stanley, UBS Investment Bank and BofA Merrill Lynch are acting as active joint book-running managers of the proposed offering; Citigroup, Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, and Wells Fargo Securities are acting as passive joint book-running managers, and Baird and Wolfe Capital Markets and Advisory are acting as co-managers.

Another reason to skip the MATS show and head to the North American Commercial Vehicle Show (NACV) outside Atlanta (http://nacvshow.com/).

You know me, I haven't liked CNN since Ted Turner sold it. But in this case, my gut feeling is the quote is legitimate and telling.

Close Confidante Gets VW CEO In New Dieselgate Trouble Forbes / March 26, 2017 When former Porsche chief Matthias Müller took over as CEO of Volkswagen from disgraced Martin Winterkorn, the jovial Bavarian was welcomed as a new start for Volkswagen. Now, the past has caught up with him. A close confidante and engine computer specialist, supposedly dispatched by Müller to get to the bottom of the dieselgate morass, was involved in the defeat device development from the early get-go, according to documents cited by Germany's BILD newspaper. Meanwhile, the only VW top executive indicted in the U.S. sued the Volkswagen at home for an unpaid $1.5 million performance bonus, while Volkswagen fired the law firm it hired to “relentlessly” investigate its emissions scandal. Matthias Müller and Jörg Kerner are old friends. They worked together at Audi. From 2003, Müller was responsible for all Audi and Lamborghini product lines. His friend Kerner was made chief of engine electronics at Audi in 2004, after working for nearly 20 years at Bosch. At around the same time Kerner took the new job, Audi engineers developed a software routine to minimize that clattering noise cold diesel engines are infamous for. It was called “Acoustic Function.” The software routine “injected additional fuel into the engine upon ignition, which achieved the effect of reducing noise,” wrote Road&Track, but it also “increased emissions significantly. To combat this issue, Audi then developed the now-infamous defeat device software.” In 2007, a task-force of Volkswagen Group and Bosch engineers discussed a “group-wide coordination of requirements,” BILD said. On February 9, 2007, a Bosch engineer sent an email to members of the taskforce, and to electronics-chief Kerner, said BILD: “Next steps acoustic function: VW wants to use the function, and will improve it. Audi wants to deactivate the function, and hide it (leaving it installed with the opportunity to be activated.)” According to BILD, this was “nothing else than a conspiracy to commit fraud.” The same Kerner was dispatched by Müller to Audi in 2015 “to find out how the Volkswagen group company cheated, and to assist in the negotiations with U.S. regulators,” BILD wrote today. “All the while, the supposed investigator was clued-in on the fraud from the start.” Shortly after Matthias Müller was made CEO of Porsche in 2011, he installed confidante Kerner as head of powertrain development. Kerner took the job of Shortly after Matthias Müller was made CEO of Porsche in 2011, he installed confidante Kerner as head of powertrain development. Kerner took the job of Heinz-Jakob Neusser , who rotated to Volkswagen in the same job. Neußer is one of six Volkswagen managers indicted in America. He most likely is the “Supervisor A” in the Statement of Facts signed by Volkswagen, an admission of guilt that led to the indictments. Living in Germany, Neußer is out of reach of the arm of U.S. justice. He also is not poor. Neußer has been suspended since late 2015, and he is still drawing the not inconsiderable salary of a Volkswagen board member. What he did not get was his annual bonus of around $1.5 million, but he insists to get paid. Last Thursday, Neußer’s lawyers were in a Braunschweig, Germany, court room, and demanded the money. The next court date will be June 27. A month ago, suspended Audi engineer Ulrich Weiß sued in a German labor court, and his lawyers produced documents that bolstered the story written today by BILD. Also last week, Volkswagen stopped the enquiry of the scandal by the U.S. law firm Jones Day. Jones Day was hired by Volkswagen in 2015 to perform a “relentless investigation,” as VW said back when. The investigation did cost around $150 million in lawyers fees, said BILD, but the findings were never published. German labor courts, along with the really relentless reporting of BILD, seem to shed more light on the scandal than the high-paid Jones Day lawyers. Last week, the Munich offices of Jones Day were raided by German police. Should Volkswagen CEO Matthias Müller and Audi CEO Rupert Stadler finally fall over the never-ending scandal, and high-ranking executives at Volkswagen I talk to pray nightly that they will, to give the company the fresh start it needs, the executives need not be worried about their retirement money. BILD tells the story of Wolfgang Hatz, until recently head of Porsche development and boss of Jörg Kerner. In a “night of the long knives” type operation, Hatz was suspended in fall of 2015 along with many high-ranking and lower-ranking engineers throughout Volkswagen. Most took the golden parachutes thety were offered, and bailed, henceforth not to be seen in public. Hatz professed his innocence, and “Müller wanted to bring his old buddy back into the board,” wrote BILD. Union representatives voted against it, and Hatz finally was let go in late 2016. It was a very cushioned fall from grace. Until his retirement (Hatz is 58) the engineer will draw a monthly salary of around $54,000, wrote BILD. A likewise generous pension is paid for. The whole package is said to be worth $13 million, not including the Porsche 911R supercar Hatz received as a good-bye present.

The Guardian / March 26, 2017 Joe Biden believes he could have won the presidency in 2016, had he made it through a tough Democratic primary. Barack Obama’s vice-president also hopes Donald Trump, who has had a tempestuous first two months in office since beating Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, “grows into the job a little bit”. “I don’t have a lot of hope now,” Biden said. “I hope that he succeeds.” The former Delaware senator with a dazzling smile was speaking to a student audience at Colgate University in central New York state on Friday. A local newspaper, the Observer-Dispatch of Utica, reported his remarks. “On a college campus I will never, never do anything other than answer the question completely unvarnished and straightforward,” said Biden, 74. “The answer is that I had planned on running for president. And although it would have been a very difficult primary, I think I could have won.” Biden had “a lot of data collected” which backed his confidence, the paper reported. In October 2015, after much press speculation and an organised attempt among activists to draft Biden, the vice-president announced that he would not run for the White House for a third time, after short runs in 1988 and 2008. In an emotional speech delivered in the White House rose garden, with Obama and his wife, Dr Jill Biden, at his side, Biden said the “grieving process” for his son Beau, who died of brain cancer in May 2015, had affected his decision. At Colgate, Biden said: “At the end of the day, I just couldn’t do it. So I don’t regret not running. Do I regret not being president? Yes.” He added: “I didn’t run because no man or woman should announce they’re running for president of the United States unless they can look the public in the eye and promise you they can give you 100% of [their] attention and dedication to this effort. I couldn’t do that.” Clinton, who defeated a strong primary challenge from the Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, beat Trump by nearly 3m ballots in the popular vote but lost in the electoral college, after a string of working-class states usually strongly Democratic plumped for Trump’s populist platform. “I don’t regret not running in the sense that it was the right decision for my boy, for me, for my family at the time,” Biden said. “But no man or woman announces for president of the United States unless they honestly believe that from their experience they’re the best-qualified person to do that. And at the time I thought that the circumstances were such that I was the best qualified.” Biden’s question and answer session with students followed a 30-minute lecture about technology, taxation, education, infrastructure investment and what Biden called “the fourth industrial revolution”. “To all of you students assembled in this auditorium, we’re counting on you,” he said. “You understand this better than most of us.” The Observer-Dispatch highlighted what it said was Biden’s likely bipartisan and multigenerational appeal, quoting the husband of a local Republican couple in their 60s who said he thought Biden was “an extremely intelligent person”. “I think if he had run,” the husband said, “I would have liked to have heard what he had to say.” .

“He [Trump] didn't care or particularly know about healthcare,” a GOP congressional aide told CNN. “If you are going to be a great negotiator, you have to know about the subject matter.”

"Mack Trucks achieved a 1% market share gain in 2016" Even with a 1% bump, the Volvo brand continued its notable lead over the foreign-leashed ex-American brand. This all despite the fact that Volvo, depending on the on-highway market almost exclusively for sales due to the failure of the VHD to attract sales, took a hit in 2016 when a weak economy drove fleets to cut orders, Once the economy takes off again, and with it tractor sales, Volvo will once more outsell the Mack brand by nearly 2 to 1. Mack of course at one time dominated construction and refuse. Now largely dependent on those segments owing to its small market share in tractors, Mack has seen its market share in construction and refuse dwindle in the face of strong competition from Paccar and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sales Results: Volvo versus Mack (North American market) Full Year 2016 Volvo 21,686 units (23.3% greater sales than Mack) Mack 17,167 Q4 2016 Volvo 4,458 (22.6% greater sales than Mack) Mack 3,551 Q3 2016 Volvo 4,645 (25.9% greater sales than Mack) Mack 3,581 Q2 2016 Volvo 6,786 (26.6% greater sales than Mack) Mack 5,192 Q1 2016 Volvo 5,797 (17.9% greater sales than Mack) Mack 4,843 Full Year 2015 Volvo 38,890 (42.3% greater sales than Mack) Mack 25,302 Q4 2015 Volvo 8,756 (28.8% greater sales than Mack) Mack 6,553 Q3 2015 Volvo 9,147 (39.9% greater sales than Mack) Mack 6,105 Q2 2015 Volvo 11,208 (52.5% greater sales than Mack) Mack 6,547 Q1 2015 Volvo 9,779 (46.4% greater sales than Mack) Mack 6,097 Full Year 2014 Volvo 33,800 (35.4% greater sales than Mack) Mack 23,634 Full Year 2013 Volvo 26,066 (35.3% greater sales than Mack) Mack 18,244

You can order/purchase a manual at your local Mack brand dealer.

Lisa, that emblem was used on early production of Mack Truck's first generation "Cruise-Liner" grille. Unrelated to your question, this all reminded me of the three different turn signal locations for the Hayward, California-built Cruise-Liner, the first two being bad.

Calif. upholds Obama emissions rules, setting up clash with EPA over mpg targets Automotive News/Bloomberg/Reuters / March 24, 2017 California approved light-vehicle pollution targets that the Trump administration has put on hold, setting up a potential face-off between federal and state regulators that could be expensive for automakers and a headache for consumers. California Air Resources Board (CARB) members criticized the auto industry for asking federal regulators to reconsider light-vehicle emissions targets for 2022-25 established by the Obama White House in 2012. The board on Friday then finalized vehicle pollution rules for the state, set a mandate for zero-emission sales over the same time period, and ordered its staff to start work on emissions targets for after 2025. California regulators have a long history of independent efforts to reduce tailpipe pollution from cars and light trucks, and Friday's move signals the state is prepared to fight the Trump administration. “We’re going to press on,” Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board, said during a meeting of the agency here. The state’s rules on greenhouse gas emissions for light vehicles were written in cooperation with the Obama administration and created a single national standard for new vehicles through 2025. Targets for the share of California light-vehicle sales that need to be powered by battery, fuel cell or plug-in hybrid powertrains are set for 15 percent by 2025, from about 3 percent today. CARB’s vote to continue down the path of stricter emissions rules could lead to a showdown with Trump, who described environmental regulations in the U.S. as “out of control” when meeting the CEOs of General Motors Co., Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV in January. Nichols chastised the industry for seeking the review of federal standards that Trump agreed to reopen earlier this month. “What were you thinking when you threw yourselves on the mercy of the Trump administration to solve your problems?” Nichols said during the hearing Friday. “What did you mean when you said you don’t want to question the overall thrust of the standards? Why do another review if the current program is basically OK?” Pruitt’s review EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt plans to review the state’s legal authority to enforce its own limits on pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. Myron Ebell, the former head of Trump’s EPA transition team, told Bloomberg News last week that Trump’s Transportation Department may determine only the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can regulate fuel economy and exclude the EPA and California from such rule-making. “We tried very hard not to provoke or defy the national government and we’ve had a good past with the EPA,” Nichols told reporters following the hearing. “I don’t expect there to be a war on California. I was obviously disappointed when I heard Pruitt commenting that he might reconsider the California waiver.” The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said ahead of the CARB meeting that EV's share of overall demand for new light vehicles has been roughly flat for years. The trade group representing automakers including GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler asked the regulator to wait at least two years before considering the higher zero-emission vehicle targets for 2030. The alliance hasn’t asked Trump to revoke the state’s right to set its own emissions standards, Steven Douglas, the group’s senior director of environmental affairs, said during the CARB hearing. California divide Trump has reinstated a review of national greenhouse gas limits that run through 2025, which California had agreed in 2012 to accept as interchangeable with its own. Pippin Mader, a CARB engineer, said the state may have to return to insisting on compliance with its own standards if the Trump administration dials back those at the national level. As a result of Trump’s decision, the EPA and NHTSA will spend another year evaluating the federal standards that call for cars to average more than 50 miles per gallon by 2025. CARB defended its cleaner-car targets Friday as a necessary component of its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Matching states Nine states including New York and New Jersey have pledged to adopt the GoldenState’s targets. Zero-emission vehicles were 0.74 percent of sales in those nine states last year, according to IHS Markit. Automakers face penalties if they don’t meet the zero-emissions sales goals. A provision that allows automakers to fulfill their obligations in New York and other matching states by selling cars in California is set to expire in October, putting pressure on automakers to increase zero-emission vehicle sales. EV sales lag outside California because automakers barely advertise them there, and some don’t even sell certain models, according to Christine Kirby, acting assistant commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Most carmakers “have not tried to build the zero-emission vehicle market in the Northeast to the extent that is necessary,” she said. Two tracks? A two-track emissions regulatory system would leave consumers with potentially higher prices and could complicate their ability to move cars between states. Board member Hector De La Torre compared a potential split between federal and state regulators to a divorce. "If a divorce is going to happen at some point, we are going to litigate that divorce strongly," he said. A White House official, anticipating the California vote, told Reuters the Trump administration was committed to protecting jobs and providing consumers with affordable cars. “We are disappointed that California has chosen to refuse our good-faith offer to work together with all relevant stakeholders on this important matter,” the person said. California regulators said they would cooperate with federal regulators who are reviewing the federal tailpipe emissions standards. John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Global Automakers industry alliance, focused on the potential for cooperation, rather than the Board's criticism. "I think we are where we want to be, which is working together," he said. "We're committed to a national program."

Paul Kane, The Washington Post / March 25, 2017 President Trump and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan made it a binary choice: You’re either for their health-care legislation or you’re for “Obamacare.” From Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) to Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), spanning the party’s ideological spectrum, the answer came back Friday: No, it’s much more complex. It was filled with several different options and possible routes ahead, and dozens of Republicans agreed with their sentiment. That left Republicans well short of the votes they needed to fulfill a seven-year promise to destroy the 2010 Affordable Care Act once they were fully in charge, delivering a stinging defeat to both Ryan and Trump. It also suggested a new dynamic in which both the right and left flanks of the Republican conference are emboldened to challenge leadership. And that could make each future negotiation more difficult as the issue matrix gets more complicated and the pockets of internal GOP resistance continue to grow, not shrink, in the new era of Trump’s Republican-controlled Washington. Some parts of these botched negotiations looked a lot like the recent past. Franks and his House Freedom Caucus cronies played the role of obstructionists who will buck party leaders no matter if it’s John A. Boehner, Ryan’s predecessor, or now Trump, as well. These ideologues gobbled up tons of attention, resulting in much care from Trump, Vice President Pence and top West Wing advisers. By lunchtime Friday, Franks still would not commit to publicly supporting the bill — even though he admitted it was far better than current law. “Of course it is, yeah, it’s a lot better than Obamacare, of course it is. There’s not even any comparison,” Franks said a few hours before the legislation went down in flames. Franks remained upset that conservative proposals were left out of the bill because they would have violated Senate budget rules, meaning that the proposal to replace the ACA was nowhere near to his liking. “That still is like putting dirt in ice cream,” Franks said. Other parts of the negotiation, however, were new and quite different from the previous six years of Republican control of the House. Nothing capped this off more than the stunning announcement Friday morning from Frelinghuysen, just three months into his hold on the coveted Appropriations Committee gavel, that bucked leadership. “Unfortunately, the legislation before the House today is currently unacceptable as it would place significant new costs and barriers to care on my constituents,” he said in a statement. A 22-year veteran whose family traces its establishment lineage to the Continental Congress, Frelinghuysen won his chairmanship uncontested with the blessing of Ryan and the leadership team. He’s not someone who rocks the boat — he supported impeachment articles against President Bill Clinton — but his pronouncement Friday sent a jolt through the Capitol. He also joined a long list of influential centrists who rejected the proposal on policy grounds, not out of fear politically. Frelinghuysen has received more than 60 percent of the vote in all but one election. If anyone should back Ryan — he’s a new committee chairman, he’s safe back home — it would have been Frelinghuysen. Instead, he sent a message to a few dozen other Republicans who have more troubling districts that they, too, should break from the president and the speaker. In some corners, Republicans saw the past week as a defining moment when lawmakers went from the hypothetical exercise of previous fiscal proposals, which they knew the White House of President Barack Obama would block, into the world of live ammunition in which these proposals could become law. That gravity, among moderates and some mainstream conservatives as they saw Trump agree to concessions to the Freedom Caucus, altered votes. “Sometimes you’re playing Fantasy Football and sometimes you’re in the real game,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), a Freedom Caucus member whom Trump had won over to support the bill. By the time Ryan arrived at the White House, delivering the bad news about the whip count for the vote, those Republicans were doing just that. Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), who brought Ryan into her suburban district outside Washington, broke against the bill, followed by Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio). Joyce’s district, a mix of suburbs and working-class towns east of Cleveland, actually went for Trump by more than 11 percentage points, as Joyce was reelected by a 25-percentage-point margin. In the past, his biggest political fear has been a primary challenge from the right, yet the slight hint of Trump-fueled challengers to those opposed to the bill did not sway Joyce. Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) had accepted expanded Medicaid funding as part of increasing insurance coverage through the ACA. Ryan’s American Health Care Act would phase out the Medicaid coverage. Joyce made a simple, binary choice about Obamacare: “The American Health Care Act was not a better solution.” This new combination, with Ryan’s right and left flanks willing to buck him and the new president, presents deep concern for the long-term effort to take up the more complicated effort to overhaul the corporate and individual tax codes. Before they can even get there, however, Ryan faces an April 28 deadline to come up with a funding stream for the federal agency budgets through the end of the fiscal year. In previous federal spending fights, the Freedom Caucus has refused to lend a hand unless policy riders were attached. Democrats, who have been relied on in the past to backfill those lost conservative votes, have signaled they will not do so this time if the legislation includes funding for controversial measures such as Trump’s request for funding to build a border wall. That messy task falls to Frelinghuysen’s committee — and it will become much more difficult for the new chairman to ask for loyalty votes on his legislation just a few weeks after he walked away from Ryan on the AHCA. Democrats believe this attempt, and failure, has left Republicans politically in charge of health care from now on. They can’t complain about something if they can’t come up with their own fix. “If it passes, they have to answer for it,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said early Friday. “If it doesn’t pass, they have to answer for that as well.” Some Republicans rejected that, but others took a more holistic view. Passing the Ryan legislation would have only led to a very messy fight in the Senate, setting up what might have been an even more contentious fight later in the spring between the two different pieces of legislation. Said Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who opposed the legislation: “Even if it passes today, it’s like — I wanna pick these words very carefully — the adolescent dance school will still continue in full view.”

Trump’s Obamacare failure and the backlash ahead David Smith, The Guardian / March 25, 2017 The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House was crammed as usual but there was an extra frisson of suspense. As the press secretary, Sean Spicer, walked to the lectern, a conversation was unfolding just 27 paces away in the Oval Office. It would invalidate almost everything he said. Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House of Representatives, told Donald Trump the news he did not want to hear. Weeks of cajoling and arm-twisting to win over skeptics of their healthcare reform legislation had failed. Ryan asked the president to ditch the bill and avoid the humiliation of putting it to a vote in the House. Trump agreed. It was a chastening defeat for a president whose election campaign was built on his reputation as a negotiator and a winner. His book, The Art of the Deal, brags: “Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks.” When it came to his first major legislation as president and the question “deal or no deal”, the answer was, emphatically, no deal. In a poetic twist, the president who has espoused a rightwing agenda of economic nationalism, law and order and “America first” was undone by the right wing of his own party. Conservatives said the bill did not go far enough to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). “Today was a big win for the president. The 44th president, Barack Obama,” declared TV host Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC. “And it was, to put it in Trump-speak, a complete disaster for the current president.” It came hard on the heels of two legal knock-backs to his attempt to ban travelers from certain Muslim-majority counties. That policy too was imposed with a missionary zeal that masked a lack of competence and grasp of detail. But Trump appears to be playing the role of a chief executive intent on shaking up a business and his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, is said to admire a creed from the tech sector in Silicon Valley: “Move fast and break things.” But Washington politics are different. Add in the Russia affair – the resignation of the president’s national security adviser, groundless claims of wiretapping against Obama and an ongoing FBI investigation into his associates – and the first two months of the Trump presidency reek of chaos, crisis and confusion. In his rambunctious election campaign, the 70-year-old novice promised to repeal and replace the ACA “immediately”. It was a bad choice for an opening offensive. Healthcare reform is to American presidents what the Russian winter was to Napoleon. Obama got further than most but even then the notion of an American National Health Service remained a distant dream. With Republicans controlling both the House and Senate, Trump should have had the cards in his favor. In what Democrats regarded as an act of spite, he and Ryan set a deadline to erase the ACA on its seventh anniversary, 23 March. They would supplant it with the slimmer American Health Care Act (AHCA). But as the negotiations gathered steam, it was clearly not going to be plain sailing. Last month, Trump admitted: “Now, I have to tell you, it’s an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.” The bill was, in the eyes of many, rushed and deeply flawed, falling well short of Trump’s campaign pledge to provide insurance for everyone. Grassroots protests erupted across the country, citizen activists hitting the phones and constituents berating congressmen at town hall events. Groups representing hospitals and medical professionals derided the legislation. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the AHCA would lead to 24 million fewer Americans having health insurance over the next 10 years. The bill achieved the rare feat of uniting the far left and far right in opposition. The biggest holdouts in Republican ranks were the hardline conservatives of the House Freedom Caucus. Trump tried to woo them with White House bowling sessions and trips on Air Force One. In the final week, he made a desperate bid to prove his credentials as “the closer”, offering concessions such as the removal of 10 so-called essential health benefits, including maternity care and emergency services. But by Thursday, the supposed day of the vote, the wheels were coming off. Trump digressed, greeting commercial truckers to the White House, climbing into the cab of a 18-wheeler to pose at the wheel and honk the horn. Apparently unaware that the vote had just been postponed until Friday, he said: “It’s going to be a very close vote.” Meanwhile, the scramble continued. Bannon and the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, were dispatched to Capitol Hill to try and turn the doubters. Spicer told reporters on Friday that more than 120 members of the House had had a visit, call or meeting at the White House in the past few days. Trump had been making calls from 6am to 11pm, he said. But even as the press secretary put on a brave face – “Why don’t we continue with a very positive, optimistic Friday?” he said. “The sun is coming out, I feel really good” – Trump and Ryan were about to agree the terms of surrender. The speaker’s funereal expression as he left the White House spoke volumes. Republicans, who voted more than 60 times to repeal or alter Obamacare over the past few years only to be vetoed by Obama, had got their big chance and blown it. The party’s deep ideological and factional divisions, temporarily papered over amid the euphoria of last November’s surprise win, were back with a vengeance as it struggled to go from opposition to governance. About a mile and half away, tourists crowded under the magnificent dome of the US Capitol building. As they filed out of the rotunda they saw, outside Ryan’s office, clutches of reporters trading gossip and making mental tallies of votes. Any passing House member was asked eagerly which way they were leaning. The corridors of power in one of the world’s biggest democracies teemed with life. Trump announced the pulling of the bill in calls to the Washington Post and New York Times. Soon after, digesting the biggest defeat of his career, Ryan admitted that the ACA would remain in place for the foreseeable future, though he claimed it was in a state of collapse – something Democrats fiercely dispute. The minority party, traumatized by Hillary Clinton’s shock defeat, finally had something to cheer. They called it a moment to “breathe a sigh of relief” for the American people. The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, said sarcastically: “So much for The Art of the Deal.” The Democrats may have been right about the merits of Obamacare, and the havoc that would have been wrought by “Trumpcare”. But Friday’s debacle may yet be a blessing in disguise for the president. Bob Shrum, a Democratic consultant and politics professor at the University of Southern California, said: “The truth is it might have been worse for him had it passed because he would have faced a potentially devastating midterm election. “It’s clear from what he said he was not that personally invested in this. He felt he was obligated to do it for the party. I think his preference was to go first on taxes and maybe infrastructure. The way forward would be to push taxes and then take a leaf out of Ronald Reagan’s book and work with Democrats on infrastructure.” Trump has said tax reform is next, and years of Republican planning might allow for that legislation to pass more easily. But his ability to work with Congress is in grave question. His unique selling point, as a dealmaker, has taken a huge hit. Gwenda Blair, a Trump biographer, said of Trump’s supporters: “They voted for a guy who could fix it, the CEO, on The Apprentice for 10 years, who could make a deal with anybody.” But the tactics that served Trump so well in business – playing the alpha male, holding one-on-one meetings – did not translate to politics, she said. “Now he’s up against 535 other people [in the House and Senate], other people who have their own independent power base and are not really interested in rolling over. The model of taking one person in a room and beating up on them doesn’t work with 535.”

If Paccar was on the market, which it isn't, Volkswagen would be the buyer. The continual product improvements at Peterbilt are all about being competitive......producing a great truck. Take a tour of their Denton, Texas plant and you'll see for yourself. https://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/36531-paccar-no-merger-talks-with-vw/

This news article is from January 12, 1999. Under foreign aggressor Volvo ownership, the Mack "brand" ranks no. 6 (the Volvo brand ranks no. 5). http://www.todaystrucking.com/mack-records-sixth-straight-year-of-us-market-share-growth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mack records sixth straight year of U.S. market share growth Today’s Trucking / January 22, 1999 LEHIGH VALLEY, Pa. -- Mack Trucks Inc. recorded its sixth straight year of market share growth in U.S. class-8 retail sales last year, but lost ground in Canada. The company said it closed 1998 with 26,801 U.S. Class 8 retail sales, which represented 12.8% of the heavy-truck market. This is an increase from 12.5% in 1997, making Mack the only U.S. class 8 truck manufacturer to consistently increase its market share over the last six years. The company's Canadian subsidiary, Mack Canada Inc., increased its retail sales volume by 4.2%, to 2886 vehicles. This represented a 10% share of the Canadian market, compared to 10.4% in 1997. Mack is North America’s No. 3 class-8 truckmaker, behind Freightliner Corp. and Navistar International.

Peterbilt Model 579 Updates Aimed at Fuel Economy Heavy Duty Trucking / March 24, 2017 Peterbilt has made changes to the Model 579 Epiq package that it says deliver an 8% fuel economy improvement for the 2018 model year. For the 2018 model year, Peterbilt’s Model 579 Epiq is available with the Paccar [DAF] MX-13 and MX-11 engines and is paired with the Fuller Advantage automated transmission, offering a wide range of horsepower and torque ratings. Fuel economy improvement resulting from the 2017 MX engines is up to 4% over the prior model year. The new Paccar engines are also lighter by 50 pounds than previous options and offer extended service intervals, leading to more uptime and lower maintenance costs over the life of the vehicle, according to Peterbilt. Predictive Cruise Control on the MX engine provides additional fuel economy improvements of up to 3%, according to Peterbilt. By optimizing the truck’s speed based on the terrain, Predictive Cruise Control allows the truck to operate in the most efficient manner for the situation. The recently introduced Paccar 40,000-pound tandem drive axle is also standard with the Model 579 for linehaul applications. Its design optimizes power distribution and has fewer parts for reduced maintenance, greater reliability and a 150-pound weight savings. It features a through-shaft design that optimizes power flow in the forward rear axle for better efficiency and less oil churning losses, resulting in a 1% fuel economy improvement. Peterbilt has also introduced new interior color options, automatic interior temperature control for the Model 579 and several other features to improve driver comfort, the company said. “Peterbilt trucks and Paccar MX engines are optimized to deliver unprecedented levels of value,” said Kyle Quinn, Peterbilt general manager and Paccar senior vice president. “The newest generation of Paccar MX engines and powertrain technologies once again raises the bar for fuel efficiency, performance and reliability, resulting in the lowest cost of ownership in the industry.” .

Peterbilt’s Chassis Routings Improve Serviceability Heavy Duty Trucking / March 24, 2017 Peterbilt has implemented newly engineered routings in all configurations of the Models 579 and 567 as well as in the Model 389 to enhance serviceability across product lines. The engineered routings bundle each system-- air, fuel, and electrical-- separately, to allow easier identification and service by technicians. These routing enhancements are standard with orders specifying 2017 emissions engines. “Thanks to the innovative features of the engineered chassis routings, Peterbilt customers will enjoy enhanced ease of repair and maintenance,” said Scott Newhouse, Peterbilt chief engineer. “Peterbilt has taken great strides to improve product quality with the implementation of the engineered routings, which provide consistent manufacturability, improved product quality and improved serviceability.” Peterbilt also announced the introduction of the Paccar Engine Pre-Owned Warranty for Peterbilt Red Oval-certified truck customers.The warranty is offered and administered through Peterbilt dealers and Paccar Financial USed Truck Centers, providing protection for the MX engine and aftertreatment system for one year and 125,000 miles and a 90-day buyer assurance plan covering major chassis components. Peterbilt Red Oval Certified vehicles pass a comprehensive 150-point factory certified inspection performed by factory-trained service technicians. All Red Oval certified trucks are reconditioned and serviced, including DPF cleaning and an oil and filter change. Additionally, every Red Oval truck is DOT-certified. “With the Paccar Engine Pre-Owned Warranty, Peterbilt further enhances the Red Oval certified program,” said Robert Woodall, Peterbilt assistant general manager of sales and marketing. “Buyers of Red Oval certified trucks benefit from additional assurance of the MX engines’ proven durability and reliability.” .

According to multiple Trump administration officials, the president’s chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon is advising him to take names and keep a hit list of Republicans who worked for Trumpcare’s defeat. “[Bannon] has told the president to keep a sh*t list on this,” one official said. “He wants a running tally of [the Republicans] who want to sink this…Not sure if I’d call it an ‘enemies list,’ per se, but I wouldn’t want to be on it.” One aide described it as a proposed “hit list” for Republicans not sufficiently loyal. Courses of action stemming from any related tally is yet to be determined, but the idea and message is that “we’ll remember you.” Two senior Trump administration officials say Bannon and Trump have taken a “you’re either with us or against us” approach at this point, and that Bannon wants the tally of “against” versus “with us” mounted in his so-called West Wing “war room.” “Burn the boats,” Bannon advised Trump. Burning one’s boats is a reference to when military commanders in hostile territories order his or her troops to destroy their own ships, so that they have to win or die trying. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/24/bannon-tells-trump-keep-a-shit-list-of-republicans-who-opposed-you.html

BBC / March 25, 2017 US President Donald Trump says he will turn to tax reform, following his failure to get his healthcare bill through Congress on Friday. The draft bill would have scrapped the Affordable Care Act, which requires all Americans to have healthcare but offers subsidies to people on low incomes. "I would say that we will probably start going very, very strong for the big tax cuts and tax reform. That will be next," said Trump at the White House. However, the tax cuts were supposed to be paid for by savings from the withdrawn healthcare bill. Without the spending cuts in the failed bill, any tax cuts will add to the federal budget deficit. The president refrained from criticising Mr Ryan, whose job as speaker of the House involves rallying support for controversial bills. "We learned about loyalty; we learned a lot about the vote-getting process," Trump said. Obamacare has been troubled by increases in insurance premiums. It also imposes tax penalties on uninsured Americans - many of them low- to moderate-income earners. However, it also bans insurance companies from denying health coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions and allows young people to remain on their parents' plans until age 26. . .

The Guardian / March 24, 2017 Republicans’ efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, looked a lot like a tall man trying to stay warm under a short blanket. When Republicans pulled in one direction, they lost coverage at the other end. Hardline conservatives wanted to change regulations that define health insurance, such as a requirement that health plans cover maternity care. But when they got the concessions, the Republicans lost moderate members, who were concerned their constituents would lose basic services. That left the party leadership with no choice but to pull the bill or risk a humiliating defeat. What would the bill have done if it had passed? A late amendment to American Health Care Act struck at the heart of Barack Obama’s ACA, allowing states to define the health benefits that insurance policies must cover, called “essential health benefits”. Just as they sound, these benefits define American health insurance. They require companies to cover the expense of having a baby, catching a cold, or breaking a leg. Republicans argued that people should “choose” the coverage they want, but because health insurance is interconnected, such a policy was likely to harm all patients. Think of the health insurance system as a tower of blocks – if you remove one from the middle, it makes the entire structure less sound. That is a good analogy for how removing essential health benefits works. Once one benefit is removed, it makes plans which continue to offer that benefit more expensive, meaning only really sick people will buy them – which further drives up the cost. For example, before the protections were passed, 62% of insurance plans bought on the open market did not include maternity care, according to the health and human services department. Often, maternity care was offered as an expensive add-on. Another 34% of plans did not cover substance abuse (think: opioid crisis) [self-inflicted, why should/would it?], and 9% did not cover prescriptions (remember that cold?). That kind of federal plan could be hard for states to decide on by January 2018, and could tempt them instead to certify “bare bones” plans as eligible for federal tax credits. Hollowed-out protections for sick people With the essential health benefits gutted, some experts believed insurance companies would have an incentive to offer a narrower list of benefits. Why? Because Republicans maintained a requirement that insurance companies sell policies to even very sick people. Experts believed that would push companies to offer skimpy plans, to keep sick people off their rolls. Imagine a world in which some health plans did not cover chemotherapy. Plans that that did would be much more expensive, because people who had cancer in the past, or whose family had a history of cancer, would be more likely to sign up and use those services. The effect would be that so many sick people would sign up, the cost of coverage would increase for everyone under that plan. But wouldn’t people still get help to buy insurance? Yes – and that was one of the reasons the health plan was always going to be difficult for a broad base of Republicans to support. Giving Americans tax credits to buy health insurance looked to conservatives too much like Obamacare, while huge overhauls to Medicaid – public health insurance for the poor – left moderate Republicans worried about constituents who depend on those services. [Why should the poor continually depend on Medicaid at the expense of the middle class? (You know the upper class, like Trump, weasels out of taxes) If Trump is going to create good paying jobs for the masses and the vast majority of the “poor” are able-bodied, this concern would be resolved]. Further, Republicans’ last-minute amendments actually increased the price tag of their bill, without insuring more Americans. A Congressional Budget Office analysis found that the changes still left 24 million Americans without insurance and reduced savings over the next decade, from $337bn in the first draft, to just $150bn. The age tax On the moderate end, the very powerful American Association of Retired Persons was upset at what it called the “age tax”. That was a plan to allow insurance companies to charge Americans aged over 50 five times more than the young. Combined with Republicans’ plans to offer less financial help to the poor, it meant a 64-year-old earning $26,500 per year would pay $12,900 more every year for their insurance. Republicans added an $85 billion slush fund to the bill to try to counter these costs, but it was unclear how much that might have helped older Americans. Currently, insurance companies are allowed to charge older Americans three times more than the young. Poverty penalties Under the Republican plan, the less money you made, the worse off you would be. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center found that people who make less than $10,000 per year would have lost $1,400 per year because of cuts to Medicaid. [Middle class] People earning between $50,000 and $75,000 would have seen a small tax break of about $60. However, the very poorest would probably suffer the most. A vast $880bn cut to Medicaid would result in 14 million fewer people using the service, Congressional analysts found. By contrast, rich Americans would have seen a significant tax benefit. People who earn $200,000 per year or more would see an average tax break of $5,640, or about 1.1% of their income. Nearly all of that is from tax breaks Republicans included in the bill. But wouldn’t this bill spur competition? Some analysts think it would, especially for young people. But it would still leave many more people, 52 million by the end of the decade, uninsured. That is not just an inconvenience. Lack of health insurance could result in more than 44,000 deaths per year, researchers at the American Journal of Public Health found. That is more than kidney disease causes. .