The Source for Trucking News, Opinions and Trucking Jobs | The Great Trucking Debate

The Great Trucking Debate

As the November 2nd election approaches and the 2004 Presidential campaign heats up, it shouldn’t be too surprising that neither candidate says much about trucking issues directly. Historically, most candidates have not – until now.

President George Bush and Democratic nominee Senator John Kerry recently offered some valuable campaign time to be interviewed on trucking issues. Each candidate was asked the same 10 questions, which should allow everyone affiliated with trucking a glimpse at what it would mean to the industry for either man to be the next President of the United States. This is, in essence, the Great Trucking Debate.

I was flattered when I saw that the candidates took time out to talk about trucking. Until I heard on the radio that they are both giving “boutique” interviews to everyone. Even Runner’s World has interviews about how the candidates feel about running. This article doesn’t change my mind but it’s nice to hear them talk about trucking.

Even though trucking is a highly regulated industry and the President’s policies can affect truckers including myself, I like to think that less is more and the market can take care of itself. (More on my stupidity later.)

MH: What, if any, personal exposure or experience do you have with the transportation industries, and the trucking industry in particular?

JK: I’ve been a member of the Commerce Committee for nearly 18 years, so I’ve had a lot contact with the various transportation industries and have worked on many of the major issues facing the trucking industry. In 2002, for instance, I introduced a bill that would have required fuel surcharges in shipping contracts for independent owner-operators. This would have significantly reduced fuel costs for independent drivers and placed them on par with some of the larger companies that already have these fuel surcharges built into their contracts.

OOIDA and others were for that bill that would have made mandatory fuel surcharges. I’m not. I like money, but this, in my opinion isn’t the way to get it. If a fuel surcharge was mandatory a shipper could include the fuel surcharge and lower the freight rate and you’re back to the same rate you had before. If your going to regulate fuel surcharges, might as well regulate rates too. The bill was originally introduced in the House. Mr. Kerry did sponsor the Senate version. In reality, he didn’t come up with the bill until the House handed it to his committee in the Senate.

GB: I’ve never owned or operated a commercial truck, but I appreciate and respect the job these hard-working drivers do to make all our lives easier and keep our economy growing, from delivering food to grocery stores to delivering purchases made on the Internet to our front doors.

I’d rather have an honest answer like that then the ‘suck-up’ answer the Senator gave.

MH: Fuel prices are a major portion of a carrier’s/owner-operator’s expense in operating a truck. Do you anticipate a continued rise in diesel prices, and if so, what will your administration due to mitigate the increases? (release SPR, work with OPEC, increase domestic production, etc.?)

JK: I understand that diesel prices go to the heart of the trucking business and I am committed to working on this challenge. I believe that we can stabilize energy prices and reduce price premiums caused by the Bush Administration’s mishandled foreign policy. I will not be afraid to stand up to OPEC to ensure a reasonable flow of oil and my committed approach to stabilizing Iraq and promoting peace in the Middle East will help mitigate the “terror premium” that is contributing to high prices.

“I feel your pain”, please, spare me the fake empathy. “Stand up to OPEC”? Yeah right, whatever. “Promoting peace in the Middle East” How is he going to do that? Carter “promoted” peace in the Middle East and look how OPEC screwed us back then. How about “securing the peace” instead of “promoting” it. Can’t do that with a summit.

A Kerry administration will also manage the SPR in a more consumer friendly manner by suspending fill when prices are above normal.

Manage the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) in a consumer friendly manner? The SPR is for our security, period. Nothing consumer friendly about it. What’s a normal price? What if the price doesn’t come down? Our strategic reserves are S.O.L.? GW takes a lot of heat for building up the SPR but I’d rather err on the side of caution. Analysts say that taking that oil off the market only accounts for a few pennies of the total price anyway.

GB: I am concerned about how the price of fuel affects consumers and those whose livelihood depends on road travel, such as truck owners and operators. Diesel prices have risen in recent months along with other energy prices. Fortunately, the markets seem to expect diesel prices to moderate again in the coming months.

I am firmly opposed to increasing gas taxes and will fight any attempt to do so. I have proposed a comprehensive energy plan that will help to lower energy prices for the long term. It is designed to increase domestic production, encourage alternative and renewable energy, reduce dependence on foreign sources of energy, create jobs, and promote economic growth.

Additionally, I called for opening just 2,000 acres of ANWR (out of a total 19 million acres) for energy development. ANWR could produce up to one million barrels of oil a day for the next 20 years, dramatically decreasing dependence on foreign oil and enhancing our national security.

Yeah! Except for the tree hugging idiots we have to deal with. I like animals and I love Alaska, but Alaska’s a big place, if we forced the drilling to be as eco-friendly as possible, we should do it. No matter how much we spend on alternatives it’s going to be a long time before you get a big truck to run on a fuel cell and we are completely weaned off of oil. Let’s concentrate on weaning off of foreign oil.

As part of my National Energy Policy report, I called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to direct a Federal study examining potential improvements to State and local “boutique” clean fuel programs. The EPA has implemented regulatory changes to increase flexibility during the transition from winter to summer fuels. However, the renewable fuels standard in the energy bill represents the best opportunity to simplify our fuel requirements and increase flexibility within the system.

Refinery capacity is strained as it is. And then they have to shut down to change formula’s from winter to summer to California to Arizona. And the tree-hugging-freaks won’t let us build any more refineries to increase capacity.

MH: Terrorism remains a risk in the United States. What role should the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) have in CDL Oversight? (Currently there is concern about terrorists using trucks as weapons, similar to the 9/11 attacks.)

You’ll notice, no one mentions the waste of time Highway Watch pork Program.

JK: I think that the FMCSA’s role should be to help States run an effective licensing system that can prevent terrorists or criminals from fraudulently obtaining a commercial driver’s license. Also, the Department of Homeland Security requires background checks for Americans applying for a hazardous materials license, but does not require the same of Mexican or Canadian drivers. The highway bill, which President Bush has threatened to veto, contains a provision to extend the background check to these drivers, which will help reduce the chance that a terrorist could skirt foreign laws to obtain a license in order to cross the border. Ultimately, the federal role should be to ensure that those who deserve licenses get them, and identify those who try to exploit the system.

I believe the President signed that bill he’s talking about. Background checks for legitimate drivers is a waste. When a terrorist hijacks a truck he’s not going to worry about a license or a background check. And don’t even get me started on that whole border issue.

GB: We are facing a new kind of threat since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. My Administration has taken and will continue to take every precaution necessary to defend America against any future attacks.

My Administration has implemented a variety of measures to secure our transportation systems and to prevent future attacks. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has conducted over 30,000 Security Sensitivity Visits (SSVs) since October 2001. During these visits, the FMCSA and State investigators met with top carrier officials to assess security vulnerabilities and identify countermeasures that can improve security. FMCSA has since begun including SSVs as part of all compliance reviews on hazardous materials carriers to encourage increased vigilance within the industry.

It’s makes more sense to have the carriers and shippers that ship Hazmat to take care of their facilities and equipment than it is to do a background check on every single driver that has a Hazmat endorsement. They may only have an actual Hazmat load once in awhile and when they do it may not be the kind of chemical that terrorist would want. They still have to go through the headache of a background check for nothing.

MH: Do you believe toll roads are the solution to funding the construction of new highways? Would you oppose the implementation of tolls on existing highways? Along the same lines, would you support increased funding in the transportation bill to expedite the development of “truck only” lanes?

Let me speed this up – they both said the same thing. They’re both against more toll roads and think that funding should come out of the Highway Trust Fund.

MH: Do you anticipate Mexican carriers operating throughout the NAFTA zone by the end of the next presidential term?

Both, pretty much the same thing. They want Mexican trucks to be as safe as American trucks. Face it people, it’s going to happen no matter who is in office.

MH: Would you support extending special tax status to independent truckers, the small business sector that maintains shipping capacity in much the same way that subsidized farming programs guarantee that we have the infrastructure to feed ourselves if the world turns on us? Energy corporations also have singular status with respect to taxation (wellhead and pipeline and refinery values, etc.)

JK: I’ll look at a variety of options to help the small business sector of the trucking industry maintain growth and viability. Policy makers tend to overlook how important independent truckers are to the economy. Last year, for instance, there was a strike at the Port of Los Angeles that prevented truck drivers from delivering their cargo to market.

I’ll look into it. That sounds promising. And one fact, the truckers were the ones’ on strike, not the port.

GB: The tax relief package I signed into law immediately increased the amount of money that small businesses can write off on their taxes from $25,000 to $100,000. Whether they are purchasing new machinery, communications equipment, or even a new vehicle, small and independent trucking firms will benefit from these qualified expenditures, because as small business owners make investments in their businesses and improve their equipment, they will save money on their taxes.

I don’t think subsidies are a good idea. Look how well they work for farming. Tax credits are good, but don’t subsidize the industry or any part of it.

MH: Would you support tax credits exclusive to trucking in exchange for retrofitting diesel engines for reduced emissions, as most will likely still be on the road in 10 years?

Neither one of them really answered the question. Both mentioned putting idling reduction facilities on the interstate system. I’d rather have tax credits for the truckers that install APU’s on their trucks. Not build more facilities to take money from me.

MH: Since three quarters of the truck-involved crashes are caused by non-trucks, shouldn’t the government vigorously enforce the rules of the road on the motoring public as a means of reducing truck-involved crash injuries and fatalities, in addition to enforcing the rules of the road on the trucking industry?

Where have we heard that statistic before? Besides the stat, that was a dumb question. What were they expecting for an answer? No, we’re only going to enforce the rules on trucks?

MH: Lastly, why should the truck driver community, with an estimated 10 million registered commercial driver licenses, vote to elect you as the next President of the United States?

JK: I think, simply, that I understand the needs of the trucking industry and the policy issues surrounding it better than the president. As I noted earlier, I’ve spent nearly two decades working on national transportation policy, so there won’t be a learning curve when I enter office. Beyond that, we need to turn the economy around so that it’s not slanted against the average American, especially the self-employed. I have a an economic plan that maintains tax cuts for low income workers and the middle class, helps reduce the deficit, and creates jobs. The stronger the economy, the better off the trucking industry will be. The president has had three and a half years to strengthen the economy, and he has failed. It’s time for new leadership.

Insert your own comment, I’m too busy reaching for a barf bag. Two decades working on national transportation policy? So, it’s his fault the infrastructure (roads and rails) are in such bad shape and lack the needed capacity? Last I checked, the economy was doing pretty well. Trucking’s not doing too bad at the moment either, Mr. Doom & Gloom. Did he say truckers are low income workers? A small fleet owner with 2 or 3 trucks could very well be in that $200,000 mark that he can’t wait to raise taxes on. There are a lot of small fleet owners in trucking. There are more small fleets than large fleets. They comprise the majority of the trucking industry, and he wants to raise their taxes. But he feels our pain.

GB: A strong U.S. economy means more trucks are on the road delivering more goods for Americans and the world. Over the past four years, my Administration has focused on improving our economy and making America more secure. The tax relief I signed into law has helped to turn a fragile recovery into strong and robust economic growth. I worked with Congress to create an environment in which small businesses can prosper, by reducing the tax burden, increasing opportunities for government contracting, and making healthcare more affordable for small business owners and employees. And I have urged Congress to make tax relief permanent.

He goes on, but that’s the important point of it. Yeah George, reduce my tax burden and keep America safe. No matter how well the economy is doing, one attack and it all goes down the crapper. If we’re safe and secure, the other stuff will take care of itself.

The President’s last comment -

I seek a second term as President because there is so much more we need to do to keep America strong, and safe, and growing, building on the progress we’ve made in these first four years, and I would appreciate your support.

For me that says it all. GW’s humble and encouraging, the last four years have been tough but we’re getting better and I appreciate your support.
Compared to Senator Kerry’s negative and arrogant last comment.

I wasn’t thrilled with all the questions, but in my purely biased opinion, Kerry sounds like a politician telling us what we want to hear. Kerry’s been in the Commerce committee for 18 years, the only thing I could find that he did for trucking was that he voted for NAFTA in ’93. That wasn’t really “for” trucking. It helps in the big picture, kind of.

GW is going to stay the course, secure our nation, cut our taxes and get my vote.

Originally posted 2004-10-14 04:00:00.