These are challenging times, and our nation is at a crossroads. Our economy is ailing, unemployment is soaring, spending is out of control, and deficits are at record levels. And yet, rather than pursue sound policies that create jobs, the administration remains steadfast in its efforts to push ahead with its job-killing “cap-and-tax” scheme.

Nearly one year ago, the House first embarked on its cap-and-tax experiment. The carbon mandates under the House-passed bill would mean that the United States could not emit more in the year 2050 than we emitted in 1910, requiring us to scale back our emissions to a per capita level equivalent to that of the tiny coastal nation of Belize.

And despite near double-digit unemployment and an electorate growing more restless by the day, the Senate has picked up the administration’s cap-and-tax torch with the recent introduction of the Kerry-Lieberman bill. Study after study has predicted cap-and-tax will result in skyrocketing energy bills and massive job losses, and Kerry-Lieberman puts a bull’s-eye squarely on the backs of working families who are already struggling to keep the lights on.

Last September, with little fanfare, Treasury Department documents came to light that put the administration’s projected annual costs associated with cap-and-tax in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The bombshell documents were initially released in mid-September in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. However, Treasury blacked out vital analysis specifically related to the costs of cap-and-trade. Upon urging Secretary Timothy Geithner to release the documents in their entirety, Treasury finally acquiesced, and it became clear that by the administration’s own calculations, cap-and-trade would have a devastating effect on our economy.

One particular Treasury document states cap-and-trade “will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of tens (and potentially hundreds) of billions of dollars.” Upon examination of the documents, CBS News pegged the annual cost at more than $400 billion a year.

How on earth can our economy absorb such a hit? Especially at a time when the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the president’s fiscal 2011 budget forecasts a record $1.5 trillion deficit for 2010 and $1.8 trillion in tax increases through 2020. By 2020, the debt is predicted to surpass $20 trillion, an alarming 90 percent of the economy. Interest payments on the debt are expected to more than quadruple in the next 10 years, rising from $209 billion this year to $916 billion in 2020.

These long-term figures are of particular significance as the climate debate resumes this summer, as they do not reflect the costs associated with cap-and-trade. We could be in even worse financial shape than the CBO reports suggest.

Unfortunately, it seems that no one is listening to the economic alarm bells, as the administration is still moving forward with a $100 billion handout for developing nations to cut emissions. Where are our priorities?

We cannot allow Kerry-Lieberman to sell out American workers to the international community for a policy that will cost well over $1 trillion and eliminate countless more jobs with negligible, if any, global environmental benefit.

It is not just Beltway analysts or government officials who are forecasting exorbitant costs to families. In my corner of Michigan where the unemployment rate is nearly 15 percent, Consumers Energy conservatively estimates rate increases for families in excess of 38 percent over the next 15 years just to comply with cap-and-tax. Some Michigan manufacturers have also indicated they will cease operating during the daytime and solely operate at night when electric rates are cheaper.

Meaningful climate legislation requires global participation, especially that of India and China. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said that if China’s emissions of greenhouse gases keep growing at the pace of the past 30 years, the country will emit more in the next three decades than the United States has in its entire history.

Without international participation, jobs and emissions will simply shift overseas to countries that require fewer environmental protections, harming the global environment as well as the U.S. economy. Efforts to include the world’s leading emitters — India and China — in the House bill last June were rebuffed.

As the administration has continued to ignore the concerns of working families in the climate debate, House Republicans listened and developed the “all of the above” American Energy Act that would reduce emissions, create jobs and keep energy affordable. A principal component of our legislation calls for the construction of 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years. According to data from Oxford Economics, building 100 new nuclear reactors and an appropriate number of enrichment and reprocessing plants over the next 20 years would create more than 1 million jobs. Nuclear power is not only emissions-free, but renewing our commitment to nuclear would create countless jobs at a time when our nation endures near double-digit unemployment.

We have a unique opportunity and responsibility to both reduce emissions and preserve our economy. The American public is desperate for solutions that will boost economic growth, create jobs and protect the pocketbooks of working families. Jobs must be our top priority, not a national energy tax, and folks will be paying very close attention this summer and in November.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) is the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. His commentary on cap and trade legislation first appeared earlier this month in Roll Call magazine.

Source: www.transportation1.org

Truth #1: Truckers and railroaders do not get along.  I sometimes like to pose provocative questions to groups of truckers or railroaders (but not both together) to watch the impassioned discussion that ensues.

Truth #2: Demand for transportation was rising steadily before the recent recession.  Although much of the increase is attributed to rising GDP, growth in VMT must also be attributed to shifts in transportation use.  Increasingly, GDP is made up of services that require fewer VMTs.  Freight (and car) VMTs per capita have steadily increased indicating greater consumption of freight services.

Truth #3: The funds (user fees) collected by all forms of government in the U.S. are not enough to fund road infrastructure.  The recent TRB Special Report 285 and the report by the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission highlight the loss of purchasing power of the all user taxes for road construction and maintenance.

Truth #4: The root cause of our road funding problems is not abuse of the Highway Trust Fund.  Even evil “Mass Transit” may provide capacity by removing cars from highways at a cost cheaper than construction of new lanes.  How many lanes of highway would have to be constructed to replace the Washington Metro?  What would the city look like without it?

Truth #5: Some trucks do not pay the full cost for their highway use.  The book “Road Work” by Small, Winston, and Evans (1989) pointed out that very heavy trucks do not pay the true marginal cost of their highway use.  The primary culprit according to the authors is a user-charge based on fuel use rather than axle weight and miles traveled.  Transportation Research Board Special Report 246 showed much the same thing by comparing several modes of transportation.

Truth #6: Lower cost is not equal to higher efficiency.  For economists, efficiency means getting higher value outputs from a given value of inputs.  While the lower total costs associated with heavier, six-axle trucks are difficult to argue with (with the possible exception of bridge costs), lowering the price of an already underpriced good could be a bad thing for all concerned.  Economists know that price controls, cause shortages because suppliers will refuse to supply at the lower price.  We are facing just such a situation with road infrastructure today.  States are refusing to provide (or maintain) road infrastructure because the revenue received for its use is less the cost to provide it.  In such a situation, lowering the cost still further by permitting slightly more efficient trucks could have the undesired (by some) effect of stimulating increased road use, therefore exacerbating problems with infrastructure financing.

In my opinion, loosening Federal weight restrictions will not occur until usage-based road financing is changed to some scheme that is both accurate and fair.  Such a scheme should be based on the cost of road use.  While many truckers have asked for increased fuel taxes to cover the cost of maintaining roads, few have advocated an approach like Oregon’s experimental VMT tax or Germany’s VMT tax.  Should my colleague’s Mercedes Benz diesel pay the same fuel tax as an eighteen wheeler?  Should a straight truck pay the same tax as a rocky mountain double?

Yes, railroads protest too much, but permitting heavier trucks is no panacea for the highway system either.  Economic sustainability comes from having prices reflect true costs, not from cheaper prices.  Any change that accomplished the later without the former will only make the situation worse.

It is now time for me to step out of the room.

Pete Swan is assistant professor of Logistics and Operations Management at the Penn State Harrisburg School of Business Administration. He is a regular contributor of research, commentaries and papers on freight transportation industry issues and has been a member of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) since 2002. He is currently chair of the TRB’s Freight Systems Group in addition to his academic responsibilities for Penn State.

After graduating high school in 1976 I was living in an old steel/manufacturing town where there were few employment possibilities.  At that time continuing on to college just wasn’t an option.   I was 18 years old. I needed to decide what to do with my life. How do you know what you want to do when you’ve experienced so little?

My father ingrained in me simple but important qualities that you should always work hard and give a job your best effort.  Surely there were employers looking for workers with such traits. But what could I offer an employer? My father worked in a small family business alongside his 4 brothers.  The rest of my family worked in one of the large manufacturing plants.  There was no room in the family business, and the large plants were all in decline.

The only things at that time that interested me were truck driving and serving in the military.  If I wanted to enter a truck driving school, I would have needed to take out a loan.  Most employers wanted their drivers at a minimum age of 21. If I didn’t get a job in trucking how would I pay back the loan? If I entered the military, they would train me to drive a truck, and when my enlistment was up I would be 21.  So that’s the course I took, serving my country and being a truck driver in the military.

I came out of the service three years later, smack into a slumping economy. I decided to focus all my efforts on one employer that was hiring drivers.  I submitted 54 applications to this employer in hope for an opportunity.  Finally I got an interview and a road test.  While being tested, the safety manager told me he was impressed with my determination, and I got the interview because I always filled out a consistent application and never gave up.

I was so excited to get that job.  Not only did it alter my career, but it changed my life. It gave me purpose. It reinforced basic principles about respect, integrity, dignity, being accountable to yourself and others, and the value of an honest day’s work. It gave me confidence that I could achieve things I once doubted, such as owning a home and providing well for my family.

I have been a professional truck driver for 28 years now, and increasingly I ask myself, where will we find the next generation for our industry?  I realize that today’s young adults are different (Twitter? Facebook? Online everything all the time?) from my generation in lots of ways.  Yet many of them will come out of high school much like I did: unsure of their future, not knowing what options are available to them to shape it.  They will ask many of the same questions I did 28 years ago.

How do we attract them to the trucking industry? Simple. Just ask them. Take a page out of the past, invite them to join as an “apprentice” (when did you last hear that term) where they can learn and experience the profession through paid, on-the-job training.

That’s exactly what my company, Con-way Freight, has set up, and what I will be doing as a driver-training instructor in this new program. Apprentice drivers will be offered a part-time 20 hour week working on the dock to provide them with income.  The other 20 hours will be spent learning the industry’s rules, safety regulations and how to drive a truck – at no cost. When the candidate successfully completes the program, they’ll be offered the opportunity for promotion to full-fledged Con-way Driver Sales Representative.

This program is designed to do much more than fill the seats of Con-way Freight’s trucks.  When the student completes the program, not only will they have their Commercial Drivers License (CDL), they will have learned how to be CSA 2010 compliant – a requirement for the future. They’ll be among the best trained, safest and most knowledgeable drivers in the industry.

Many things have changed over my 28 years of trucking, but the need for good people has not.  Tomorrow’s drivers will have to be better and more knowledgeable than I was when I started.  I’ve learned a lot over the years, and as a driving instructor I hope to share that insight and experience with the young people who join our program.  For me, it’s time to “Pay it Forward” by giving back to an industry that’s given me so much.

David May is a driver-sales representative for Con-way Freight and works a city route for the company’s Buffalo, NY service center. A 28-year industry veteran, he is an America’s Road Team captain and a vocal advocate for the trucking industry, professional truck drivers and improving safety for all motorists on America’s highways.

Source: www.wikipedia.org

For the past 18 years, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville has conducted its “Annual Trends in Logistics and Transportation” study.  This year, the unprecedented challenges brought on by the global recession were at the forefront of survey participants’ minds. Economic hardship produced intense pressure to reduce costs across supply chains. Unpredictable demand for goods and services, increased customer demands, and volatile commodity and fuel prices combined to make 2009 one of the most difficult operating years ever for businesses.

Over the many years that we have been conducting the Annual Trends study there have been several economic down cycles, although none compared to the intensity of 2009. While companies always seek to become more efficient, challenging economic times drive companies to become even more relentless in their quest to reduce costs. What we discovered from our analysis is that these cost-cutting initiatives can impact firms both positively and negatively for several years after the economy recovers. What lessons have we learned that can be applied to the current situation?

• Cost-cutting must be done using a “strategic filter”
• Investments in improving supply chain capabilities should not be delayed
• Even in bad times, customer service cannot be sacrificed

The reflection on the past led us to the theme of the 2009 study — sustainable supply chain management practice. The changes we are dealing with today are not for a season. Some argue that continual economic and social change is the “new normal.” Instead of constantly re-orienting to the changing conditions, perhaps a wiser approach would be to create a supply chain practice that adapts to conditions. While the term “sustainable” has been used lately in the context of environmental and green issues, it also succinctly conveys the need to build and develop approaches and techniques for managing and operating the supply chain that will make the firm more responsive to a host of circumstances such as those cited above.

We have identified five drivers that constitute the core of sustainable practice in supply chain management. These drivers are optimization, synchronization, profitability, adaptability and velocity. They comprise the engine that will fuel growth and success. They represent capabilities that will be difficult for the competition to emulate, and they are fundamental to creating a supply chain that will outpace the competition.

Why are these drivers so critical to successful supply chains? Perhaps it is the unique set of capabilities, both individually and collectively, that they represent. The following provides a short descriptor for each driver:

Optimization is the alignment of global supply chain resources — both tangible and intangible, owned or outsourced — to facilitate the success of supply chain members.

Synchronization is the ability to coordinate, organize and manage end-to-end supply chain flows — products, services, information and financials — in such a way that the supply chain functions as a single entity.

Profitability is the result of creating value through supply chain activities. Asset performance, working capital and returns on investment for infrastructure, technology and people are some of the critical parts that create value in a global environment.

Adaptability is the degree to which respective supply chain members can change practices, processes and/or structures of systems and networks in response to unexpected events, their effects or impacts.

Velocity is the speed at which end-to-end flows occur in the supply chain. It encompasses speed-to-market for new product introduction and execution when conditions are rapidly changing.

As companies work to recover from the economic perfect storm of 2009, revisiting and reexamining their supply chain process against these five drivers of sustainable practice should be a priority. It is an exercise that will help determine if your supply chain can adapt and be successful in today’s “new normal” of continual economic and social change.

Dr. Mary Holcomb is associate professor of logistics at The University of Tennessee. The findings of her 2009 Annual Survey and more information on the five drivers of sustainable supply chain performance can be found at www.transportation-trends.com.