In the spirit of Thanksgiving, we would be remiss if we didn’t thank all the people who have been a huge part in the success of Land Line Now.

OOIDA headquarters is full of people who know this business inside and out. We’ve called on their knowledge and talent on a daily basis to bring you the news and information that you ask for.

We want to thank Jim Johnston, Todd Spencer and Rick Craig as well as all of the OOIDA Board of Directors, who have supported the show and always been willing to go on air with us to give us “the real story.”

We wouldn’t make it through the day without the contributions of all of the staff and departments at OOIDA who have shared their knowledge and expertise.

That includes the staff at Land Line Magazine, who help us bring you the same hard-hitting, insightful news you’ve come to count on in every issue of the magazine. Thanks for stepping up to the mike whenever asked.

Those of us on air also can’t give enough thanks to sound engineers Barry Spillman and Jim Fetzer, and to traffic coordinator Sherry Murry. Words really don’t express our gratitude to them for making this task of bringing Land Line Now to you every day a real pleasure.

Last, but certainly not least, we need to thank you, our listeners, for your loyalty, your input and your support.

From all of us at Land Line Now,

Happy Thanksgiving.

Public officials everywhere are looking for new ways to raise money for highway repairs. And for the most part, they blame the drop in fuel tax revenue for the bulk of the funding shortfall.

Cars are going fewer miles, they say. We need to charge more or raise more or toll more to make up the difference.

Well, count on a trucker to see the hole in that argument.

One called in to point out the obvious. If fewer miles are being traveled, then there should be less highway wear. And that means less need to costly repairs, and less strain on highway funds.

And for the most part, that’s a good, basic, logical analysis of the situation.

However, the argument has a hole in it.

The problem is the shortfall is not only the result of the drop in miles traveled. It’s also caused by cars that get higher mileage, and therefore pay less fuel tax at the pump – but cars that still wear down the highway.

There are some even bigger problems that they should deal with.

No. 1, let’s look at the amount of highway money diverted to other, non-highway purposes. If every dime of fuel tax was spent on highways, we would have far less of a problem.

No. 2, we have a huge backlog of work that hasn’t been taken care of. In the good times we had up till the past couple of years, why weren’t they keeping up the highways, maintaining our infrastructure? If we had taken care of business then, we wouldn’t have the problem to solve now.

So where are out public officials turning? Vehicle Miles Traveled, a tax that charges you a fee for every mile.

And this also has problems. For example, how do you determine accurately who travels how far and where.

Vehicle miles traveled depends, just like IFTA does, on charging you not only for how much you drive, but where you drive. The government could collect the data during your license renewal at the DMV, but that wouldn’t tell them where you went.

Where you travel and how far you travel there is a big source of the privacy concerns about vehicle miles traveled taxes.

What concern is it of the government where you go in your private vehicle? Some of these VMT plans initially called for using GPS to track vehicles. And I doubt many folks would want big brother watching them quite that closely.

We are likely, in the end, to have some taxing system for highways that replaces fuel tax. Until then, the fuel tax is the most efficient and fair way to tax us for roads.

However, when and if we do switch, we need to make sure it’s a system that works, that replaces and doesn’t add to taxes, and that sends the money to the roads, and not thousands of other causes that the tax was never intended to pay for.

A while back on our show, Terry Scruton told us the story of a hero – trucker David Zorn, who saved the life of a police officer who was beaten nearly to death by a drunken driving suspect.

One of the most difficult aspects of the story was the number of people who were also on the same highway, saw what David saw, and yet did nothing to help an officer who was clearly in need of aid.

I suspect their inaction was due to fear, which is understandable when you see someone beating a police officer. And I don’t want to criticize too much. If one of those drivers was a woman with a small child in the car, would we expect them to stop?

But that would only be part of the drivers there. And certainly some of the folks in those cars would have been people who could have helped.

It takes a very brave person indeed to step forward in a situation like the one faced by David Zorn. And I suppose charging in to help another human being, despite the obvious danger to himself, despite the doubt or fear almost any person would feel at that moment, is what really does make him a hero.

As I writer, I generally tried to avoid clichés. But sometimes you realize that those clichés are there for a reason: There is a nugget of truth to them, or else they wouldn’t be repeated so often in the first place.

Take the phrase “you can’t judge a book by its cover.” Cliché? Yes. Trite? Absolutely. True? Without a doubt. Unless that book is part of the “For Dummies” series. With those it’s pretty much obvious what you’re getting without reading a single page.

Anyway, that phrase came to mind recently when country music star Aaron Tippin stopped by the studio to talk about the Arrow Truck Back on the Road 2009 contest.

I have to confess that I was only vaguely familiar with Mr. Tippin before he came to the studio. I had heard the name before. My wife is a big country music fan. After doing a little research, I found that I even knew one or two of his songs. I’m partial to “There Ain’t Nothin’ Wrong With the Radio” myself.

I also found out that he has written several patriotic songs and was a big supporter of John McCain and Sarah Palin in the presidential election. He especially supported the idea of drilling for oil in Alaska and offshore.

Which is fine.

The point is, after reading all of this stuff about him I had built up a preconceived notion in my mind of what he would be like. I envisioned him wearing a cowboy hat, blue jeans, cowboy boots and a red, white and blue shirt, ready to punch anyone who dared badmouth the good ol’ U.S. of A. In other words, a stereotypical country singer.

So you can imagine my surprise when he showed up in our offices wearing a baseball cap, a fleece jacket and a fanny pack. He also turned out to be one of the nicest guys I’ve ever interviewed.

When I told him my wife was a big fan of his, he looked at me, smiled and said he appreciated it. Then the smile faded and he said, “Why aren’t you?” I thought I was in trouble for a minute there, but the smile quickly returned along with a laugh.

I also found out that he started out as a truck driver, and when he talks about it you can hear in his voice just how much he loved doing it. He came off as a basic, down-to-earth, genuinely likeable guy.

So much for clichéd stereotypes. You really can’t judge a book by its cover. The proof is in the pudding. And you can take that to the bank.

To bail, or not to bail.

That’s the question being asked regarding the Medium Three automakers (formerly the Big Three … until Toyota kicked GM off its pedestal).

The Medium Three are asking for another $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money to “bridge” the tumultuous financial waters ahead. GM, for example, has $6-billion in cash left, owes $28-billion, and says it may run out of money early in the new year.

Congress has already approved a separate $25 billion in low-interest loans for GM, Ford and Chrysler – provided they spend the money making clean, fuel-efficient cars.

The CEOs of the Medium Three and a lot of Democrats say if the carmakers are allowed to go bankrupt, millions of Americans will lose their jobs and the U.S. could find itself unable to build cars and trucks in time of war.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner (who spent an estimated $20,000 to fly his corporate jet to Washington to plead for money) warns the entire U.S. economy could face “catastrophic collapse.”

Critics of the bailout, like former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, say “Let them go bankrupt.”

Romney argues Detroit brought most of its problems on itself and that bankruptcy (and new executive leadership) would force the new, lean and mean companies to adopt 21st-century auto-making tactics.

If I were king, I’d probably give the Medium Three some bailout money.

But the strings I’d attach might make the CEOs flee to bankruptcy instead.

A few of the strings:

1) U.S. taxpayers get an equity stake in your company proportionate to any loans that are not repaid.

2) The loans can only be used to support production of your most fuel-efficient vehicles. (In the case of Ford, the company would be required to market its European version of the Fiesta in the U.S. – because the car gets 60 miles per gallon!)

3) Government auditors will be on site to assure compliance.

4) And naturally, fellows, no bonuses for under-performing execs.

Without those kinds of safeguards, I’m afraid the “bridge” loans could be a bridge to nowhere.

Are you safe in your truck?

I’m not talking about when you’re driving. It’s when you’re sitting still that has become the big concern. And that’s especially true in California.

I won’t go over the new idling regs again – suffice it to say, we all know more than we ever wanted. But now we have to talk about the effect those regs are going to have on truckers.

And in talking about that, there are really two issues: the situation for owner-operators and the situation for company drivers.

I want to go back to my conversation with Don Anair, the guy with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

While for the most part, I had concerns about what Don had to say – especially the lack of attention to the real effects the CARB plan would have on truckers – I do think he had a few good points.

On of those good points he made is that when we talk about company drivers, this should be a safe workplace issue.

If I run a factory, and I employ people in that factory, I have to meet certain standards that are designed to protect the safety of the workers in that facility. If I don’t, OSHA is going to make very quick work of me.

So that raises the question – why shouldn’t the large motor carriers be required to do the same thing with their employed company drivers?

I think this is a question we should be asking the folks in California. If you’re going to require no idling, and that threatens the health of the trucker, why isn’t that trucker’s employer being made to do something that makes the trucker’s workplace – the truck itself – safe to be in?

CARB keeps saying these regulations are all about public health. Well, truckers are part of the public. And I guess we’ll see just how concerned about people’s health CARB really is.

On our program, we like to focus on the issues in the industry, and not on criticisms or the chatter that seems to be such a constant in the industry these days.

But earlier today, on another program, a statement was made that we feel we need to correct.

A caller to another program on Open Road said that OOIDA had made a contribution to the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama. They even gave an amount – $300,000.

This is plain untrue.

I talked with Angel Burnell, who is the administrative assistant to OOIDA President and CEO Jim Johnston. Here’s what Angel said:

“OOIDA does not endorse presidential candidates. OOIDA does not contribute to presidential campaigns. We did not contribute to any presidential campaign during this election. Any contribution that OOIDA makes is through the OOIDA PAC, and all of those contributions are public record. They are available through the Federal Election Commission, or the FEC.”

To clarify further – OOIDA does contribute to other candidates, such as members of Congress.

During a recent discussion on the OOIDA Members Only Forum, the Association’s executive vice president, Todd Spencer, explained how the Association’s Political Action Committee chooses which legislative candidates will receive contributions from the PAC:

“As far as factors we look at, they include what committee involvement they have, where they rank on the committee.

“Seniority means you move up to the top rung. Committee chairmen make the decisions about what issues get considered.

“We also try to identify which lawmakers are most receptive to the concerns of truckers, and which ones have stood up on our issues previously.

“We also look at the districts where lawmakers come from. If we have a large base of members for a particular district, this can be a motivator for a lawmaker from that district, or maybe we just have one or two members that are already close to the lawmaker.

“Being able to develop or take advantage of a personal relationship can be extremely helpful.

“Bear in mind, the folks on the other side of issues are trying to do the same thing. Oftentimes, they can provide bigger contributions. We can offset that by getting truckers personally involved with phone calls, letters, etc.”

So back to the topic at hand. Once again, this rumor is entirely false. We thought it was important to clear that up, and we hope this did just that.

Let’s run a little hypothetical situation for all of you.

You’re in a truck stop out in California – a piece of private property. An enforcement officer for CARB walks up, and knocks on your cab door.

Suddenly, you have a ticket for idling past 5 minutes in an hour.

It’s something that’s likely to happen a lot. But a lot of truckers are asking, can CARB do that? Can they go onto private property to ticket you for an offense?

I talked with Joe Rajkovacz, who’s also trained to be a police officer, and served as one. He says some jurisdictions do allow that.

Here’s an example: If you’re firing a gun wildly on private land, do you think the police will say, hey, it’s private property, we can’t go there?

Here’s another one: If an endangered species lands in your yard, I wouldn’t go hunting – the game warden will come after you.

In some areas of this country, officers either do not have the right or are reluctant to travel onto private property for some offenses. Folks often bring up the simple fender bender – a minor accident where little damage occurs. Some officers will tell you to exchange insurance information and keep them out of it.

But that’s not the case here. CARB is different. Here are a few reasons why.

CARB officials are not police officers. And much of their enforcement occurs on private property.

We think of CARB in terms of vehicles. But they enforce rules on power plants, factories, retail outlets, and on and on.

And since air is not “fixed” to a single location, they can fine folks based on the fact that the air is shared with everyone in that area.

What’s interesting is it may not always be the trucker who gets the fine. The truck stop could face a fine as well, as CARB often approaches the property owners, expecting them to control emissions so CARB doesn’t have to be everywhere.

Of course, where will the truck stop turn? They’re going after you, the trucker who’s running his truck, and they might tell you to split.

In the end, enforcement always seems to come down to the trucker.

I have a confession to make. I’ve been working for a trucking organization for more than three years now and until a few days ago, I had never actually ridden in a truck.

That all changed thanks to Howard Hart and “The Spirit of the American Trucker.” Howard happened to be at OOIDA headquarters recently, getting things wrapped up for the end of the year, and he agreed to take me and Land Line Magazine Staff Writer Dave Tanner for a ride.

It wasn’t a long ride. We did a loop from Highway 40 in Grain Valley, MO, out to Interstate 470 in Independence, then hopped on Interstate 70 back to Grain Valley. But it was long enough for me to get some idea of what the world looks like from up there.

The thing that struck me the most was the visibility. You can see for miles from up there on a clear day. You can see over even the biggest car or SUV, which I’m sure comes in handy if there’s something slowing down traffic up ahead.

But there’s a lot you can’t see, too. If someone were to walk directly in front of the truck, they would disappear from view. Every vehicle has its blind spots, but on a truck, they’re just that much bigger. A car might be visible in your side mirror one moment, then gone from view the next, even though it may be right beside you the whole time.

The other thing that struck me was the speed. Even though we got up to speeds as high as 65 miles per hour, it sure didn’t feel like we were going anywhere near that fast. And other vehicles would just whip on by us like we were standing still.

I guess that was the third thing that I noticed about riding in a truck. The reaction of the other drivers. As we rode in the right lane approaching an on ramp, Howard wondered aloud what the car that was making its way on to the highway was going to do.

Sometimes they slow down and wait for the truck to pass. Sometimes they speed up and go flying by. Sometimes they ride alongside you at the same speed until the last minute, as though they are not really sure what to do.

If the speed seemed slower in a truck, then the reaction time of the truck itself seemed even slower. When I’m driving home in my car, I can maneuver with ease. If someone slams on their brakes in front of me, I can swerve quickly and get out of the way. Big trucks have no such luxury, at least, not without it potentially resulting in a major accident.

I’ve always known why we urge other motorists to share the road with big trucks. But being up there in that cab and watching the world go by gave me a good opportunity to ponder exactly what happens when they don’t.

A lot of the current wave of new emissions regulations are designed to get older trucks off the road.

But is that really the solution to pollution?

We know that the big fleets turn over their trucks pretty frequently, but we also know that some of them don’t do a very good job of maintaining them.

In fact, most environmental agencies, at one time or another, have acknowledged that owner-operators do a far better job of maintaining their rigs than fleets, and they acknowledge that well-maintained rigs are generally better for the environment than those that are not.

Some truckers have even said they’ve seen some large fleet trucks, fairly new equipment, pumping clouds of black smoke into the air, while a nearby owner-operator with a 10-year-old truck is running clean.

So shouldn’t we be putting our efforts into helping those truckers who have better maintained equipment stay in business, rather than focusing on fleets that may or may not be emitting less pollution?

Unfortunately, instead of looking at the individual truck, who’s driving it, how it’s maintained and how it’s driven, they focus on big averages and statistics, which really don’t tell them what they need to know.

Getting environmental officials to understand how this industry really works is an education process, which can take a long time.

We are working on it, and we hope that you’ll help, that you’ll communicate with your elected officials and with regulators when you have the chance.

In recent years, many states have passed “Move Over, Slow Down” laws – originally designed to protect police and emergency workers parked on the shoulder of a highway.

If their lights are flashing, we’re to either move over a lane or slow down as we pass.

Most truckers have been doing that for years.

Now, states are increasingly adding other categories of protected people – such as tow truck drivers, state highway crews, motorist assist vehicles or anyone who’s displaying blue, flashing lights.

The laws are laudable.

It’s only right to try to protect people on the shoulders.

Trouble is, none of the many categories include you or me – or our friends or families.

Why not just pass a law saying “move over or slow down” for any vehicle that’s parked on the shoulder with its flashers on?

Or, if people are tired of new laws, just have an informational campaign urging drivers to cut everyone on the shoulders some slack.

Police officers, paramedics, highway workers and tow trucker drivers are all good folks who should be protected.

So should you and I.

Over this past week, we’ve spent a lot of time discussing some of the long-running battles truckers have been fighting during the past couple of years.

And one of the big ones we haven’t mentioned lately is the effort to stop the privatization of America’s highways.

One of the big figures in that battle has been Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana. And while we’ve been critical of Gov. Daniels, he’s not without his fans.

One of them called us recently, saying he was tired of our constant criticism of Daniels and the way he’s run the state. That caller – and a few others – have said Daniels has put the state on the right track financially. He asked that we stop picking at Daniels about the toll road and look at the big picture.

I understand what he meant about looking at the big picture. And I’d urge him – and everyone else who supports Daniels – to do the same thing.

First, I don’t think we’ve ever contended that Gov. Daniels is pure evil. I’m sure he’s done some good.

However, it’s easy to put a state on the financial fast track when you get $3.8 billion handed to you. It’s harder when you don’t cheat and instead actually work with the money you have, and balance the books without screwing anyone.

But an even more important point is at stake here. What Daniels has started is a national trend that could end up destroying small trucking operations and other businesses that depend on our interstate highway system.

How long will some owner-operators run if the cost per mile of using a highway is higher than their cost of fuel?

That’s what the contract in Indiana calls for. In fact, if the toll increase schedule under that contract is put into full force, in a few years truckers will pay more per mile for using that toll road than they did for fuel when it was $4 a gallon.

That is nothing less than ridiculous.

But that’s not even the big picture. The big picture is that after Gov. Daniels took that action, states across the country started to follow his lead.

It costs more than $150 for a trucker to cross Pennsylvania on the turnpike now. Lease proposals for I-80 in that state call for similar tolls.

And lease proposals for the turnpike call for the tolls to go even higher.

Imagine if it cost you that much to cross every state – on top of the fuel taxes you pay. How long will you be in business?

To us – to a radio program, and an organization, that is about trucking and transportation that fights for the rights of truckers – that is the big picture.

All the good Gov. Daniels may have done isn’t worth much if trucks can’t afford to bring us the food, clothing and other things we need to live. And for the truckers themselves, all that good he may have done is worthless if those truckers are denied any reasonable way to earn a living.

As I said earlier, I’m sure that Gov. Daniels has done some good things for Indiana.

But we can’t let people forget that it came at a price that every American – trucker or otherwise – could end up paying.

We can’t ignore that issue, and we can’t stop bringing it up. Not when the fight to stop the sale of our highways to foreign owners is still under way.

Until that battle is over, we’re going to keep fighting against that sale, and for the truckers.

For some time, we’ve been discussing the CDL Medical Review Board’s proposal to require sleep apnea testing for all truckers who have a body mass index, or BMI, of 30 or higher.

And we’ve been pretty clear that we think it’s ridiculous.

But not everyone has liked what we’ve had to say.

That became very clear after a recent discussion on our program. I engaged in a little hyperbole, a bit of creative exaggeration, in an attempt to make a point in a different way. And some of our listeners didn’t get what I was doing.

I said that the whole push by the sleep disorder industry for this testing was starting to look like a conspiracy.

I was called on that by a couple of our listeners. I shouldn’t, they said, lump all doctors and medical personnel who deal with sleep apnea together the same way the mainstream media lumps truckers together.

Good point. So let’s get more specific.

Here’s a passage from a blog by Land Line Magazine Staff Writer Charlie Morasch:

“One member of FMCSA’s Medical Review Board – the group that recommended expensive overnight sleep tests for all CDL holders with body mass indexes of 30 or greater – is an executive committee member and board member of the National Sleep Foundation.

“That Medical Review Board member – Dr. Barbara Phillips – herself pushed the argument for lowering the BMI threshold to 30 during the board’s January meeting.

“The National Sleep Foundation is funded largely by drug companies, and also receives funds from CPAP manufacturers.”

That being said, I want to add this: I have sleep apnea myself, and I think the folks who treated me were entirely ethical, including the referring doctor, the sleep testing center, and the equipment company that fitted me for my CPAP.

But they didn’t test me based on BMI. They tested me after my personal physician recorded a series of symptoms that had only one condition in common – sleep apnea.

The test was to confirm a diagnosis he said was already – according to my doctor – extremely likely.

My comments regarding apnea and the people who support BMI-based testing was in no way intended to target any of the many fine, ethical physicians who are trying to help truckers and others.

And I don’t think that all these folks who are supporting BMI-based testing are entirely wrongheaded on everything just because we disagree on this one issue.

Many of the folks pushing these tests – and doing so, for the most part, to make more money at truckers’ expense – also provide needed medical services and equipment.

Here’s an example: One of the truckers who called us referred to criticism of Res-Med, a company that makes CPAP equipment. I use a Res-Med brand CPAP mask myself. It was the only brand that worked for me, and it’s a high-quality product. I’d recommend it to anyone who asked.

However, just because they make good equipment doesn’t mean that it’s OK for them to support BMI-based testing.

My comments may have been a bit too general, and that I’ll acknowledge. And I may not have been clear when I overused sarcasm to make a point.

But on the facts of this matter, I stand by what I said.

Times are tough all over. Just the other day I was talking to a friend of mine who said that because the company he works for is not doing well, not only was he not going to get a Christmas bonus this year, but he was facing a salary cutback as well.

Another friend works for a large telecom company and goes week-to-week not knowing whether he’ll get to keep his job.

And how many truckers do you know who have parked their rigs this year because they just couldn’t afford to keep driving?

Even on Wall Street things are tough. As I’m sure you know, the government recently paid $700 billion taxpayer dollars to bail out securities firms like Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

So you would think, in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, that those companies would be cutting back on things like bonuses, too, right? Think again.

Bloomberg news reports that those three companies will be handing out some $20 billion in bonuses this year between them.

Merrill Lynch, which has reported five straight quarters of losses, is set to hand out $6.7 billion in bonuses. Even Lehman Brothers, which declared bankruptcy last month, is still handing out bonuses to some of its employees.

But here’s the real kicker: The Bloomberg story mentioned a Morgan Stanley investment banker in Europe, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for obvious reasons. This dirtbag said his bonus last year was five times his salary and that he would quit if he didn’t get a bonus this year unless his salary was doubled.

Aw, poor baby. Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it. People like this make me sick to my stomach. They have no conscience. They have no soul. They have no regard for anyone or anything but themselves and their bank accounts.

These people have completely lost their minds. They are completely, totally and in all other ways out of touch with the real world.

It’s amazing. Absolutely amazing. They seem to have no clue how this whole thing looks to the outside world and just how angry people are with them right now. They just keep on handing out money like nothing is wrong and whining when they don’t get their share.

But something is wrong. Very wrong. These people ought to be ashamed of themselves. I don’t know how they sleep at night or even look at themselves in a mirror. And I don’t think that the government should give them another single dime of our hard-earned money.

In fact, maybe we should even take back the $700 billion and see how they like going from Wall Street to living on the street. It’d be like the movie “Trading Places,” except no Jami Lee Curtis hooker with a heart of gold is going to help them out.

You’d be all on your own, Wall Street, just like the rest of us. Merry @&%$#*! Christmas.

We’ve talked a lot about the CDL Medical Review Board’s plan to require testing for sleep apnea based on nothing more than a trucker’s height and weight.

And for the most part, the entire effort seems like a very transparent profit-generating scheme set up by sleep labs and CPAP manufacturers.

But I recently heard another suggested reason: that some larger carriers want a way to lose their older, more experienced drivers. They cost more in pay, and they cost more on health insurance.

Now, this may sound like conspiracy theory nuttiness. But honestly, we’re talking about a requirement that would cost individual truckers thousands of dollars each year by forcing them to undergo medically unnecessary testing.

That’s the kind of thing that’s going to get people thinking in terms of conspiracies. And unfortunately, sometimes, those conspiracies turn out to be the truth.