Friday, February 22, 2013

Obamas Short Term Fix - Really?

Source: CNN: Go to CNN Site Page
02/22/13

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama called on Tuesday for a short-term agreement to put off deep cuts to government spending, including the military, set to take effect next month.
Obama made his pitch in a statement to reporters at the White House, urging Congress to pass a measure that would offset some of the imminent automatic spending cuts -- known as sequestration -- that were part of a 2011 debt ceiling deal.
 
The president made clear that he still wanted a broader deficit reduction agreement with Republicans that included spending cuts, entitlement reforms and increased revenue from eliminating some tax breaks.
 
However, Obama said, with time running out before the sequestration cuts slash government spending and result in job losses and economic slowdown, Congress should pass a temporary fix that will allow time for further negotiations on a broader plan.
 
 
Obama, Congress punt on spending cuts
"Our economy right now is headed in the right direction and it will stay that way as long as there aren't any more self-inflicted wounds coming out of Washington," he said.
 
"So let's keep on chipping away at this problem together, as Democrats and Republicans, to give our workers and our businesses the support that they need to thrive in the weeks and months ahead," he added.
 
Before Obama spoke, House Republican leaders slammed him for failing to produce a budget proposal the day before, which they said is a long-standing deadline to do so under federal law.
 
In the 2011 debt ceiling deal that ended a showdown over whether to increase the federal government's borrowing limit to meet its obligations, Congress and the White House agreed to include the automatic spending cuts of sequestration as motivation to pass a comprehensive deficit-reduction plan.
 
Deep partisan divisions prevented such an agreement from happening in 2012, an election year, leading to the impending sequestration cuts this year. The government has already delayed the impact of sequestration for the first two months of 2013.
 
On Tuesday, Obama said he still supported a broader deal and made clear that revenue from tax reform measures previously agreed to by Republicans -- such as eliminating some loopholes to increase revenue for the government -- should be part of it.
However, he noted that it was unlikely Congress would reach a deficit-reduction deal by March 1 to render the sequestration cuts moot.
 
"If they can't get a bigger package done by the time the sequester is scheduled to go into effect, then I believe that they should at least pass a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would delay the economically damaging effects of the sequester for a few more months until Congress finds a way to replace these cuts with a smarter solution," Obama said.
 
Earlier, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, reacted to news of Obama's plan by saying it was the president who "first proposed the sequester and insisted it become law."
 
Reiterating the longstanding position of Republicans in budget negotiations, Boehner called for replacing the sequester plan with spending cuts and what he called reforms -- a reference to changes in popular entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
 
A last-second agreement in the previous Congress that passed in the first days of 2013 raised tax rates on top income earners as part of a limited deficit-reduction package.
 
That measure followed weeks of tough negotiations involving Obama and Congress in which other steps to increase government revenue, such as eliminating some tax breaks for corporations, were considered but not included in the final deal.
 
Obama and Democrats now want such revenue-raising steps to be part of a package that would replace the mandated deficit reduction of the sequester cuts.
 
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky expressed his opposition to such a move Tuesday, saying "the American people will not support more tax hikes in place of the meaningful spending reductions both parties already agreed to and the president signed into law."
Federal spending cuts under sequestration total more than $1 trillion over 10 years, half of which would come from the Pentagon.
 
Military officials have warned that those cuts, on top of steep budget reductions already in the pipeline over the next decade, would be devastating to its operations as well as the civilian economy that depends on defense-related jobs and spending.
Obama's push to avoid the sequester cuts comes a week before he outlines his second-term agenda in the State of the Union address.
 
Congress, which authorizes federal spending, has failed to pass detailed annual budgets in recent years due to partisan gridlock over spending and debt, as well as electoral politics.
Instead, it has approved a series of extensions of past spending authorizations -- called continuing resolutions -- to keep the government funded.
 
During his first term, Obama's annual budget proposals prompted immediate opposition from Republicans -- and Democrats at times -- that rendered ineffective the early year exercise of outlining his spending priorities.
 
The plan for temporarily extending the sequester deadline follows a similar move by congressional Republicans last month on raising the nation's debt ceiling. That deal put off further wrangling on the federal borrowing limit until mid-May.
 
Some analysts warn that Washington's fiscal paralysis harms the nation's fragile economy and could bring another recession.
 
Short-term approaches like the recent debt-ceiling measure and now Obama's push on the sequester cuts allows more time for negotiations on a possible broader deal that would address all issues at once.

DOT & Sequestration

Source: www.dot.gov
Friday, February 22, 2013
 
It is my opinion only, (your humble Blog-o-sphere host) but doesn't it seem odd that if the sequester deadline is going to spell out Armageddon for our nation which will impact the entire world like air travel, would the house and senate have gone on break this month and would the POTUS have vacationed in Hawaii? I mean c'on! I think it means only one of 2 things why nobody is working overtime on this supposedly Sequester Cliff we're about to go over, again:
 
1) Our government officials could care less
2) It's not all 'that' for them to be concerned about, which begs the question, is this for real??
 
Outgoing Secretary Ray LaHood spoke to the press at today's White House press conference and what he basically told "we the people" is partially pasted below from the DOT site for how the sequester will affect air travel almost immediately........which if drivers who pick up or deliver freight to airports, could also be adversely affected:

Statement on Sequestration, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, 22 February 2013

On Sequestration and the Federal Aviation Administration

Sequestration will have a serious impact on the transportation services that are critical to the traveling public and the nation’s economy.

At DOT we will need to cut nearly a billion dollars, which will affect dozens of our programs. Over $600 million of those cuts will need to come from the Federal Aviation Administration – the agency that controls and manages our nation’s skies.

As a result of these cuts, the vast majority of the FAA’s nearly 47,000 employees will be furloughed for approximately one day per pay period until the end of the fiscal year and in some cases it could be as many as two days.

Today we are sharing more details with our unions and with industry so they can start planning for the serious impacts of sequestration.
Here is what these automatic cuts are going to mean for the traveling public:
  • Safety is our top priority and we will only allow the amount of air traffic we can handle safely to take off and land – which means travelers should expect delays.
  • Flights to major cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco could experience delays of up to 90 minutes during peak hours because we will have fewer controllers on staff.
  • Delays in those major airports will ripple across the country.
  • Cuts to budgets mean preventative maintenance and quick repair of runway equipment might not be possible which could lead to more delays.
And once airlines see what the potential impacts of these furloughs will be, we expect that they will change their schedules and cancel flights.

We are beginning discussions with our unions to likely close over 100 air traffic control towers at airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations per year – we’re talking about places like Boca Raton, Florida; Joplin, Missouri; Hilton Head, South Carolina; and San Marcos, Texas.
We are also beginning discussions with our unions to eliminate midnight shifts in over 60 towers across the country.

These closures will impact services for commercial, general aviation, and military aircraft.
This will delay travelers and delay the critical goods and services that communities around the country need.

These are harmful cuts with real world consequences that will cost jobs and hurt our economy.
The President has put forward a solution to avoid these cuts, and we need Congress to come together to work on a long-term, balanced solution to our deficit challenges.
 

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Marge on SiriusXM Radios Valentines Day

Marge, the Den Mom, will be on channel 106 on Sirius & XM radios Thursday, Valentine's Day starting at 1pm ET. Please tune in and if possible call in! 88-88-ROADDOG
I would love to talk to you on air Valentines Day! Join me, Chris T & Meredith for some midday fun!

Marge/Admin

SiriusXM Freewheelin'FreeWheelin' Channel 106

Monday, February 11, 2013

US Gov't WASTE - OUR $$ Flushed Down the Drain

Below is just one instance of government mis-handling of our tax payers' money. It's absolutely embarrassing how much goes on, that, in today's technological advanced systems, should never, ever happen! No wonder the US is getting flushed down the toilet! Write your representatives constantly or as often as you can and DEMAND they take care of our country! That's their job!

SOURCE: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
Charlene Corley is a former defense contractor who was convicted in 2007 on two counts of conspiracy.[1] Over the course of nine years leading up to September 2006, the company owned by Corley and her sister [Darlene] was found to have received over 20 million dollars from the United States Department of Defense for fraudulent shipping costs; in one instance, the company was paid $998,798 for shipping two 19-cent washers.[1][2] In 2009, Corley was sentenced to six years in prison and ordered to pay $15.5 million in restitution.[3]

[edit] Crime

Along with her twin sister Darlene Wooten, Corley was the co-owner of C&D Distributors, a supplier of small hardware components, plumbing fixtures and electronic equipment to the military. The company used a computerized government system that allowed shipping costs for each order to be submitted separately and automatically reimbursed. Using the system, C&D Distributors received payment from the Department of Defense on 112 fraudulent invoices, totaling 20.5 million dollars in illegitimate charges, for parts sent to priority military installations, including destinations in Iraq and Afghanistan.[1]
Among the invoices submitted by C&D Distributors were:
  • $445,640 for shipping an $8.75 elbow pipe
  • $492,096 for shipping a $10.99 machine thread plug
  • $403,436 for shipping six machine screws worth a total of $59.94[1]
The scheme was discovered in September 2006. According to a Pentagon spokesman, the system has been modified to safeguard against similar exploitation in the future.[1]

[edit] Aftermath

In October 2006, Darlene Wooten committed suicide after being approached by federal investigators.[1] She left behind a suicide note and a check made out to the Defense Department for 4.5 million dollars.[3]
Corley pled guilty in August 2007 to two conspiracy charges to commit wire fraud and money laundering, each charge carrying a maximum sentence of twenty years.[1] She was freed on bond until sentencing.[3] In March 2009, she was sentenced to the minimum recommended sentence of six and a half years in federal prison. The judge rejected Corley's request to serve the time in a halfway house. Corley was also ordered to pay $15.5 million in restitution, at a minimum rate of $300 per month.[3]
Corley claimed that Wooten had been more responsible for the scheme and had received more benefit.[1] During the sentencing, Corley's attorneys asked the judge to consider Corley’s clean criminal history and her record of community service. They presented a video featuring eight Corley supporters, including several from Pineview Elementary School, where Corley had become a mentor to an autistic child. The boy's mother and grandmother testified in court about their immense appreciation for the help Corley had given their family, and the mother said that she would bring her son to visit Corley wherever she went. Corley herself told the court, "I messed up really bad. I'm sorry. I'm desperately ashamed."[3]
Following the guilty plea, Corley's possessions stemming from the fraud became subject to seizure by the South Carolina United States Attorney's office.[2] Corley's spending had included, according to various news reports, at least six pieces of property including four beach homes at Edisto Island; a collection of ten cars including a BMW, a Lexus, and matching Mercedes-Benzes; expensive jewelry and vacations; five businesses, including a cookie store; and a $250,000 luxury box at the football stadium of Clemson University, Corley's alma mater.[1][2][3] A prosecutor at Corley’s sentencing claimed the spending list spanned "ten pages, single-spaced."[3]

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Merle, Renae. "Defense Contractor Was Paid $1 Million to Ship 2 Washers." The Washington Post, 2007-08-17, p. D02.
  2. ^ a b c Zimmerman, Matthew. "Convicted War Profiteer Still Lives High Life." ABC News, 2006-06-19.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g LeBlanc, Clif. "Woman Gets 6½ Years for Bilking Taxpayers." The State, 2009-03-03
Story reposted here by Marge Bailey/Admin

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Top reasons we sabotage first dates or a relationship


Top reasons we sabotage first dates or a relationship
1.     Fear

We want someone in our life but we also do not wish to be hurt, scammed, or dumped so we are in the wrong frame of mind from the first moment we meet someone in person therefore we don’t get past the first date.
 
2.     Judgment

We judge the next possible life partner by previous partners who didn’t work out, whether their fault or our own. Those who can’t forget their past failed relationships for the right reason unconsciously set the first date up for failure with someone new.
 
3.     Independence

We are afraid we may have to give up some or all of our independence. This is especially true for women.
 
4.     Habits

We aren’t willing to give up any possibly offensive (to others) habit(s), like smoking tobacco, we have formed while single or over our lifetime even if it means losing or missing out on our true soul mate.
 
5.     Sharing (Selfishness)

Some of us are just not willing to share our ‘stuff’ or maybe anything else we consider our ‘own’ property or personal space. ANY relationship is about 'sharing' even if it's just a roommate or co-driver situation.
 
6.     Money

Some people today live by the rule, “What’s yours is yours and what’s mine is mine”. Others hold to “What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is mine”. So many of us are tight fisted with our money and then there are those who are too liberal. An otherwise perfectly matched union can be separated off and on or permanently due to money issues.

(Borrowed comment)
By recognizing the cycle of destruction in sabotaging relationships, we can identify the problem, rather than the symptom, and begin to move forward. It is possible to have a healthy, happy relationship.

(My conclusion)
Compromise is not an easy task for some people but if we are not willing to compromise, we are likely going to either live alone forever or have failed relationships, one after the other. Some people end up getting a pet and stop trying to have a human relationship. And there are people who simply love themselves so much they have decided to remain single. It is possible for each of us to have a true "soul mate" relationship while retaining and holding onto our own identity, self respect and space.
 
Blog Post by:
 
Marge Bailey/Admin
Creator/Owner of www.TruckerCupidPlus.com
Join FREE today!

 

Sunday, January 20, 2013

The Obama Machine Will Live On


New Face Of Lobbyist?
OBama’s 2012 campaign organizer and workers officially launched a 501 C-4 non-profit organization today (Under that tax code, 501[c][4] groups are not required to disclose contributors). Their agenda is to help carry through and support the president’s initiatives. Obama once called Super PACs, many of which are connected to 501(c)4 groups “a threat to democracy and in light of Obama’s claims that lobbyists should be abolished he is 100% all in for his own lobbying 501 C-4 non-profit group.

When one of the spokespersons for the unions made the statement that this time they would not only get him re-elected but would follow up with real support throughout this 2nd term, he wasn’t kidding. List of Labor Unions helping fund the multi-million dollar inaugural celebration Mon, Jan 21, 2013.

Through this 'non-profit organization', Obama and the First Lady, Michelle, will thrive quite well long into the future after his 2nd term is over. If it were not for the 22nd Amendment after Roosevelt's presidency (Roosevelt held 3 terms) there is no doubt that Obama would be elected at least once more in 2016 for a 3rd term.

Roosevelt was also a part of the Chicago machine and though he did some great things for America, he also unleashed hardships on a war torn nation that left a great number of Americans in poverty and ruin. In fact if you read up on Roosevelt you’ll find remarkable similarities between FDR and Barack H Obama. Both men usually get exactly what they want and have their own hides covered even if everyone else is left high and dry.

The report below is Copied from today’s LA Times online news reports:

Seeking to harness Obama's campaign resources for a second term
January 17, 2013
|By Matea Gold, Los Angeles Time

An ambitious new political organization is being built out of the machine that propelled him back into office, with the hope of supporting his policy objectives.

President Obama's reelection campaign is reinventing itself as… (Brendan Smialowski, AFP/Getty…)
WASHINGTON — As he launches his second term, President Obama may get help from an ambitious new political organization being built out of his reelection campaign, a group that could reshape how future presidents harness supporters to press their White House agendas.

Run by former Obama campaign officials, the advocacy group will seek to leverage the campaign's sophisticated organizing tools and rich voter database to support the president's policy objectives, including raising the debt ceiling, gun control and immigration reform.
If it is able to sustain the passion that propelled Obama twice into the White House, the pro-Obama group may outstrip the role played by traditional interest groups, from organized labor to the environmental movement, and could form an independent power base outside the White House and the Democratic Party.
      
     "This just dwarfs any part of the Democratic coalition," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. "This is the biggest leg of the stool. There are really significant implications in terms of the permanent power center within the party."

Although details of the group's structure — and its name — may be released Friday, the launch is set for Sunday, when 4,000 former campaign staff and volunteers are expected at a Washington hotel for a daylong event dubbed the Obama Campaign Legacy Conference. Thousands of supporters are expected to watch online.
Even before its launch, Republicans described the group's resources as a threat.

    "Obama, who's not going to be running for re-election, has an enormous database, a lot of political muscle, a machine, that I believe he intends to focus squarely on the House," Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, told reporters Thursday at the House Republican Conference retreat in Williamsburg, Va. "So we have our work cut out for us."

A similar effort fizzled after Obama first won the White House. In 2009, Obama campaign organizers also hoped to use its database, millions of email addresses and a corps of trained operatives to help push White House goals. But Organizing for America — then housed within the Democratic National Committee — played a limited role during the bitter debate over Obama's healthcare overhaul, which barely squeaked through Congress.
Obama's volunteer network was remobilized in the 2012 race, when the campaign used social media and other technology to connect supporters to their neighbors and friends. Supporters donated a record $1.1 billion — including $216 million in contributions of $200 or less, according to the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute.

Leadership for the new group has not been announced, but former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina and several other former campaign operatives are expected to play key roles. On Thursday, Messina sent out an email blast to Obama campaign supporters urging them to back the White House gun policy proposals.
Making the leap from a campaign built around the singular goal to one with a broader — and ongoing — mission is no easy task. [end LA Times article]

If this all seems a little scary to you then you are not alone!
This blog article written and posted by:

Marge Bailey/Blog Administrator/Contributing Writer
Political Affiliation: Independent

 

 

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Obama Care - The TRUTH??

Chris Conover
Chris Conover, Contributor
I explode myths that pervade health policy debates.             

Young People Under Obamacare: Cash Cow For Older Workers             


It’s official: the health care law will unduly stick it to young Americans by making them pay far higher premiums starting January 1, 2014.[1] New rules announced this month are even worse than expected when it comes to shoveling an unfair burden onto our nation’s youth. Moreover, they also perversely increase the incentives of young people to remain uninsured.
The newly announced rules limit insurers to charge their oldest customers no more than three times as much as younger ones. As shown in the following chart based on estimates by international management consulting firm Oliver Wyman, the rule will force insurers to hike rates for 18- to 24-year-olds by 45 percent even as rates for those 60 and older drop by 13 percent in most states.[2] That means a 22-year-old waitress paying $2,068 for her health insurance will have to fork over $3,000 when Obamacare takes effect.[3] And these figures even underestimate the actual impact.

Analysts based these estimates on average premiums for 5-year age groups (i.e. 55-59, 60-64, etc.). However, the new rules say that the restriction must apply to 1-year age groups (i.e. 25, 26, 27, etc.). Since health spending rises steadily by age—about 3.5 percent per year between 25 to 64—expected spending for 64 year-olds is higher than for the 60-64 year-old age group as a whole. That means insurance companies will have to charge 18-year-olds at least 10 percent more using the 1-year age groups to ensure their premiums fall within the mandated range of those of 64 year-olds.

The real-world consequence of this regulatory misjudgment is that young people will have an even greater economic incentive to simply pay the $695 annual penalty for not having coverage and wait until they are sick before they purchase it. [4] In short, it is now even more likely that Obamacare will amplify the perverse incentives for “free-riding” that it was intended to counter.
Clearly, until we observe actual behavior next January, we won’t know precisely how large an adverse selection problem has been unnecessarily created by these new rules. But what we can say for certain is that for young adults who elect to have health coverage, it will be way more expensive next year than it is today.

Is this fair? Ask the typical 20-24 year-old—whose median weekly earnings are $461—whether it’s fair to be asked to pay 50 percent higher premiums so that workers age 55-64—whose median weekly earnings are $887—can pay lower premiums. Think about that. The median earnings for older workers are $420 a week more than those of younger workers, or roughly $20,000 more a year. How is mandating a price break on health insurance for this far higher income group at the expense of the lower income group possibly fair?

The difference in mean health spending for those age 45-64 and those age 18-24 is a mere $4,100—less than $350 a month.[3] In short, the group benefiting from this transfer earns enough extra in a single week to cover the expense of their high health insurance premiums. I’m in the age category that would benefit from this type of transfer, yet even I can see how grossly unfair it is to the typical young worker.

As well, this unnecessary and undesirable feature of Obamacare is complicating discussions about how to reform Medicare. One very logical tweak to the program is to raise the age of eligibility to age 67 (so that it matches the eligibility age used for Social Security). After all, life expectancy at age 65 has risen by 4.5 years since Medicare’s inception. But because of the restrictions placed on premiums under Obamacare, such a simple change would require the premiums of young adults obtaining coverage through the exchanges to increase by at least eight percent, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study.

This is what comes of “taxation by regulation.” If older people truly are deserving of help in paying for their premiums, then we should be relying on honest and open subsidies to assist them. This would permit the burden to be borne by society in general in a fashion that we can agree is distributionally fair. In contrast, loading all of these generational cross-subsidies onto young people is manifestly unfair. When we see “Occupy Obamacare” protests, we’ll know that young people have finally figured this out.

Footnotes

[1] Even enthusiastic proponents of the law such as Washington and Lee University professor Timothy Jost, have acknowledged that age rating compression “is going to force younger people to pay more in the individual market as older individuals pay less.”

[2] Many states already place restrictions on age rating in the individual insurance market (as codified in the Oliver Wyman report), but use a much more generous 5:1 ratio, which does not distort pricing nearly as much given that there is a 6:1 ratio of spending for older compared to younger individuals. In an unregulated market, we would expect premiums to mirror the 6:1 ratio of expected spending for these two groups so that each age cohort effectively self-financed its own spending, just as we observe in markets for life insurance, long term care insurance and auto insurance. The chart shown shows the increase in rates required for each age category to move from a 5:1 maximum ratio to a far more restrictive 3:1 ratio.

[3] These are illustrative figures. The CBO projects that in 2016, the average premium in the individual market under Obamacare will be $5,800 ($300 more than without Obamacare). The age rating rules will allow this premium to be lower for the youngest subscribers so long as their premium is no less than one third the amount charged to the oldest subscribers. Thus, one can imagine a plan that charges $3,000 for its youngest subscribers and $9,000 for its oldest, averaging $5,800. But the Wyman figures imply that without Obamacare, a $3,000 policy would have cost a young subscriber only $2,068 in the current market.

[4] The penalty starts at only $95 in 2014, growing to $325 in 2015 and $695 in 2016, after which the penalty will be adjusted for cost-of-living increases (just as Social Security payments are). Obviously, the incentives to simply pay the penalty rather than spend thousands of dollars are coverage are even greater in 2014 and 2015, when the dollar penalty is relatively smaller.

[5] These are based on 2010 data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, which are the latest available. Mean spending for age 18-24 was $1642, compared to $5737 for those age 45-64. Unfortunately, there is no more fine-grained age breakdown reported. However, average spending for those 65-90 is only $9,896, so the difference in spending between the oldest and youngest workers cannot possibly exceed $7,300.

OpEd Source: Chris Conover

Comments by Marge:

AARP suppored Obama to get elected, twice and Obama care and just this month their monthly magazine reported on the high costs to seniors who sign up for Medicare and for incomes lower tan $22k, also Medicaid. The article reports how much money seniors will most likely spend before their demise. It's outragious and not affordable for 99% of us. AARP seems to be walking back their glowing support of 'all things Obama'. Take a moment and read AARP's January edition, starting on page 16.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat, gives her facts as she knows them, about older Americans and what The Affordable Care Act will do and is doing for those 65 and over. According to AARP and many other sources, she doesn't have her facts straight. However, you read it and you decide what is truth and what is fact.  CLICK to open the Schakowshy PDF file.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Fiscal Cliff Hangover?

So what did the government get done yesterday? Some Both sides of the asile claim it's a bandaid and it's not goign to solve much or even begin to touch the deficit... This is taken from a memo sent out by.....

David Plouffe
Senior Advisor
The White House

Graphic: Seven things you need to know about this tax deal


Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Will this END Trucking?

About half way through the video trucking is said to be one of the first industries to go bye-bye if Iran or any other country targets the USA and perhaps starts WW3. This is scary stuff and I pray never comes true. I am in no way making this a political issue but we must face facts in today's world - almost everything is political.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXj7MF7e0GY

Take care,

Marge@Large

Join the conversation with Marge & Ellen every third Wednesday from 1 to 2 pm on SiriusXM radio, channel 106 as we discuss issues for females in the trucking industry and take listeners calls.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

The season of giving is upon us

The Women In Trucking Association’s mission includes the goal to encourage women to consider a career in trucking while addressing obstacles that might keep women from entering this industry. For that reason we have established a scholarship foundation to provide needed funds for our members seeking additional training.
 
Scholarships will be provided in four areas: safety professional, technician, leadership, and driver training. For now, the foundation is focused on raising the needed funds to offer scholarships beginning in January 2013.
The Women In Trucking Foundation (womenintruckingfoundation.org) is a separate organization with its own board of directors and has received 501(c) (3) charitable organization status from the Internal Revenue Service. This means your donations are tax deductible (in the United States).
 
“As a newly created foundation, we are excited to be able to help members who choose to work in the trucking industry by obtaining additional training to further his or her career,” said Jan Hamblin, chairwoman of the foundation’s board of directors. “We are looking forward to starting the funding process for tuition and thank our early donors for their support in providing the scholarship money for us to give.”
The board of directors for the foundation is led by Jan Hamblin, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. and Vice Chairwoman Jeana Hysell, Safety Compliance Professionals, LLC. Other directors include Joyce Brenny, Brenny Transportation, Inc., Don Hess, John Wood Community College, Sonya Kivisto, Marcello & Kivisto, LLC., Les Rozander, Trimac Transportation, Sandra Sanford, Travel Centers of America, LLC, Kreigh Spahr, Cuyahoga Community College, and Deborah Whistler, Fleet Owner Magazine.
 
The nonprofit organization is a volunteer organization with no paid staff members and is assisted by the Women In Trucking Association. Donations to the foundation will support the scholarship program and will provide funds for training for members of the association.
 
Applications for funding can be made on the website, www.womenintruckingfoundation.org, and are open to anyone seeking training in one of the four designated career areas. The scholarships will be reviewed by the board of directors and must be used for tuition or expenses related to the educational purpose only.
In addition to being a member in good standing of the Women In Trucking Association, the recipient of the scholarship must demonstrate financial need and a desire to further his or her career in a trucking industry related career.
 
Please consider making a donation to the Women In Trucking Foundation for scholarships to members seeking training in one of the following areas: leadership, technical, safety, or as a professional driver. You may donate online or mail a check made out to Women In Trucking Foundation at PO Box 400, Plover, WI 54467.
 
Your check will provide needed funds for individuals who have shown an interest in furthering his or her career in the trucking industry as a driver, safety professional, technician, or a leader. Donations will be awarded to Women In Trucking Association members based on the applicant’s need and course relationship within the trucking industry.
 
Please consider supporting this charitable organization during this season of giving.
Ellen Voie CAE, President/CEO
P O Box 400 Plover, WI 54467-0400
888-464-9482 920-312-1350 Direct

Thursday, November 1, 2012

More women behind the wheel

11/1/2012

More women behind the wheel in the U.S.

Source: Volvo Truck


The transport industry is still a male-dominated sector, despite of the shortage of drivers and calls for increased equality. However, in different parts of the world, there are crusaders who are working to bring about change and Ellen Voie is one of them. Her organisation, Women in Trucking, with the support of Volvo Trucks, has helped to ensure that there are more female truck drivers in the United States than in many other countries.
About one per cent of truck drivers in Europe are women. This is a very small number but no fewer than in many other parts of the world. At the same time, the transport industry is crying out for more drivers. In the U.S., the situation is somewhat better, as women account for more than five per cent of the country's 3.2 million truck drivers. In the U.S., the organisation, Women in Trucking, has been working for a number of years to change attitudes and norms in the industry.
Ellen Voie, the founder and president of the organisation, says that the U.S.'s current driver shortage would be adressed by doubling the number of female truck drivers to just over 10 per cent.
"There is an old-fashioned, male-oriented culture in the industry and women aren't appreciated as being capable and available," she says.
For this reason, Women in Trucking has, for example, put together a recruitment guide with tips on the ways haulage companies can attract more women to join them.
"First and foremost, the haulage companies and their male employees need to think again and dispense with their macho culture. The women in this industry are tearing down the barriers and this is a source of irritation to some men. It is still too common for women to be harassed by their male colleagues and for truck stops and transshipment terminals to feel unsafe. We are working to change this," says Ellen Voie.
Ellen Voie started Women in Trucking in 2007, after working as a recruiter for one of the U.S.'s largest transport companies and discovering that very few women even considered working in the industry - as drivers or in other areas. Haulage companies had not fully recognized that women could be a solution to both the shortage of drivers and the poor profitability. Women in Trucking was faced with a difficult challenge, but it has now succeeded in bringing about a positive change in the U.S. As things stand, the organisation has around 2,000 members and three employees, all of whom are working actively on getting information to schools, government agencies, politicians, haulage companies and other transport companies.
"It isn't just the transport industry but also the whole of society that can benefit from more women being employed in the traditional male professions. Female drivers are often safer drivers and incur less damage to their trucks. This is something from which haulage companies can benefit," stresses Ellen Voie.
In the U.S., it is not uncommon to find driving teams in which a married couple, father and daughter or boyfriend and girlfriend undertake long-distance transport assignments together. These teams live in their trucks, which are frequently extended trailers, otherwise known as "sleepers", with a kitchen, bathroom and berths for two people. Ellen Voie believes that this culture could be one of the reasons why more women drive trucks in the U.S. compared with Europe.
­"Women have a natural way into the industry and they share the responsibility and the cost of a truck with a partner," she explains.
Volvo Trucks is a member of Women in Trucking and is actively supporting the organisation's work, including sponsorship of the organisation's Salute to Women Behind the Wheel. It is an annual event celebrating female professional truck drivers, many of whom have driven more than a million accident-free miles.
"It's vitally important for female drivers to have a strong network of role models and to understand the many career opportunities within the trucking industry, says Svajone Drabatiene, director of brand development for Volvo Trucks in North America. "We continue to work with Women in Trucking to help raise awareness and support the women already working in the industry."
In Europe, there are organisations similar to Women in Trucking in countries including the UK, France and Sweden. In the largest EU project to date, the haulage industry in Sweden conducted the "Drivers on the road" project. It was designed to increase the number of young people, immigrants and women in the industry and it was so successful that several of the networks that were created within the framework of the project are still active.
Brigitta Paas is vice chairman of the ETF's (European Transport Federation) women's committee and every day she deals with the question of bringing more women into the industry. The ETF's plan of action for 2009-2013 states that all the member organisations must implement the necessary measures before 2013, in order to increase the recruitment of women in the transport industry. However, the work is going slowly and laboriously, even if the projects are successful and the aims are ambitious.
"As long as there is cheap labour available in Eastern Europe, the haulage companies are going to employ those people rather than existing drivers or women who are keen to start driving. I wish the associations would do more in this area," she says.
Since 1999, Volvo Trucks in Sweden has been organising what are known as Ladies' Days. The aim here is to arouse the interest of women and girls in driving as a profession by telling them about the industry, organising meetings with female drivers and giving them the opportunity to drive Volvo's trucks. So far, Ladies' Day has been a success and has attracted more than 100 participants on each occasion.
"The haulage companies that do not employ women risk losing out on valuable skills and know-how, which is neither good nor particularly smart. I am convinced that women have a great deal to offer the industry when it comes to safe, fuel-efficient driving," says Martin Bramsved, global manager Corporate Social Responsibility at Volvo Trucks.
Martin Bramsved feels that it is only natural for manufacturers like Volvo Trucks to take an interest in the people who sit behind the wheel, sell trucks or perform service.
"Even if we don't employ drivers, we are still eventually dependent on truck transport that operates efficiently and effectively. This is why we are involving ourselves in social issues such as recruitment. As we see it, it's reasonable for the industry to extend its recruitment base and regard women as a natural part of it - especially as there is a shortage of drivers."
In the past, the actual truck and its handling represented an obstacle for women. Trucks today, on the other hand, do not require drivers who have exceptionally strong arms or are especially tall.
"Truck cabs are designed for drivers to live and work in, no matter whether they are women or men and independent of the strength of the drivers' arms. For example, the drivers' seats and steering wheels in Volvo trucks are extremely adaptable and are therefore ideal for short and tall drivers alike," Martin Bramsved explains.
Earlier this year, Volvo Trucks was eager for Ellen Voie to share her experience and knowledge outside the U.S. and it therefore brought her to Sweden and the truck fair at Elmia in Jönköping. Support from the industry is contributing to Women in Trucking's success.
"It's incredibly important that manufacturers get involved, just like Volvo Trucks is doing. After all, if there are no drivers, they won't be able to sell trucks," says Ellen Voie.
Watch an interview with Ellen Voie on youtube
1 November 2012

Facts Ellen Voie

Age: 54
Education: technical draughtswoman, diploma in "Traffic and transport management", master's degree in communication and a truck driving licence
Occupation: president of Women in Trucking
Career: designed equipment for materials handling, traffic manager at a steelworks, transport consultant in her own company, wrote the book Marriage in the long run, Trucker Buddy, head of staff recruitment at Schneider National, founded Women in Trucking in 2007 and is the organisation's president
Family: a son aged 28 and a daughter aged 25
Lives in: Greenbay, Wisconsin, U.S.A

Facts: Women in Trucking

Founded: 2007
Founder and president: Ellen Voie
Headquarters: Plover, Wisconsin, U.S.A
Number of members 2012: just over 2,000 individuals and companies
Objectives:
To encourage women to apply for jobs in the trucking industry
To make the challenges faced by women in the industry visible
To motivate the transport industry to examine every obstacle that could stand in the way of women considering a career in the transport sector
To act as a network and forum for women in the transport industry

Facts: women in the truck industry

In global terms, female truck drivers are still very unusual. Statistics are not, however, available in many countries.

Number of female truck drivers in some countries where statistics are available

U.S.A, 5.3 per cent
Canada, 3.5 per cent
Sweden, 3 per cent
UK, 1-2 per cent
Australia, 1-2 per cent
Denmark, 1-2 per cent
Europe as a whole, 1 per cent

Organisations for female truck drivers

Women in Trucking, U.S.A
Lady Truck Drivers, UK
La Route Au Féminin, France
Queen of the Road, Sweden
NaisPark, Finland
Kitty Truckers, Slovenia
Bouna Strada, Italy
International Lady Truck Drivers Association, co-ordinates the European organisations

For more information, please contact: Marie Vassiliadis, Volvo Trucks media relations, phone +46 31 322 41 27, e-mail marie.vassiliadis@volvo.com