The ethics of gas-guzzling

Who is responsible for the consequences of our actions?

Somehow I lost about 9 hours yesterday watching Goldman Sach's testimony. Wow. What a circus.

Anyway, ethics was a big theme at the Goldman grilling, and subcommittee Chairmen Carl Levin essentially called Goldman's recent profits, and the bonuses those profits created, unethical. Since, Levin's focus on ethics has been ringing in my head.

For instance, as a staunch advocate of the Big 3 - and a protector of the gas-guzzler - I cannot help but wonder about the ethics of Mr. Levin. Was it ethical, for example, for Levin to habitually protect an industry that could only compete in the American market if it produced the biggest gas-guzzlers, despite very early and significant evidence that highly profitable SUVs would lead to outrageous road deaths, increased pollution, and much greater foreign oil dependence?

Furthermore, even after events like Katrina and 9/11, did the Michigan Congressional delegation, including Levin, begin to demand more of their hometown industry? Did they dare to lead America, to do the right thing, even if it meant a short term loss of profits? Of course not. Instead, companies like GM rolled out upgraded versions of their largest gas-guzzlers as survivors sifted through wreckage from the World Trade Center.

Ethical?

Obviously, this question of ethics extends far beyond Goldman and Michigan and onto the driveways of many Americans, for instance. And, Mr. Levin was right to hammer down on ethics. Yet, the real question seems to be, can you even legislate ethics, particularly when even most legislators, like most Americans, seem to have regular and significant ethical lapses.

Recalled Toyota's 19 times safer than walking

A new Congressional logo?

I am not a Toyota apologist. Yes, I own and drive a Toyota hybrid, but that's only because they've provided the best choice in hybrid cars when I've hybrid shopped. Nevertheless, I'd dump Toyota as my brand of choice in a heartbeat if I found a more cost-effective hybrid that fulfilled my needs.

Ultimately, the only thing I really like about Toyota are their efforts into hybrid cars. As I stated earlier today, last year Toyota sold about a 1/2 million hybrid cars. Ford, the leading US manufacturer of hybrids, sold about 30,000 hybrids. That's what I like about Toyota. And that's partially while I've defended Toyota during this recall 'scandal'. Inevitably, a healthy Toyota puts pressure on US automakers to develop more fuel efficient vehicles.

Moreover, I've defended Toyota because Congress simply isn't making much sense. And, when someone exerts a lot of effort advancing illogical endeavors, especially on my dime, I take offense. Is Congress just illogical, inept? Is this related to the bailout? I don't know, but something stinks.

For instance, anyone looking at safety, crash and death statistics in the automotive sector - which I assume Congress has done - will find that the Toyotagate recall scandal isn't much of an issue, at least if the actual numbers of crashes and deaths matter. In fact, according to death statistics, it is 19 times safer to drive a recalled Toyota than it is to walk.

Besides, if Congress really wanted to save lives in the automotive sector, they'd simply outlaw SUVs. In one swift move 10,000+ lives per year would be saved, and we could probably stop importing OPEC oil.

Then again, in light of these scandalous walking statistics, I think Congress should form a panel on the benefits of outlawing walking.

House investigation set to ban SUVs!

Time to start saving lives?

Finally! One of the more interesting angles to come out of Toyotagate is Dimitrios Biller.

Biller's testimony regarding SUV rollover - completely unrelated to unintended acceleration - and Toyota's attempt to 'cover-it up' demonstrates, " a systematic disregard for the law and routine violation of court discovery orders in litigation," stated House oversight committee Chairman Edolphus Towns.

Well, thanks for opening up that can of worms, Mr. Towns! So, how many people have died in Ford Explorers in the last few decades? How does Ford's coverup compare to Toyota's? More important, why, for decades, has Congress willingly allowed the SUV rollover cover-up to continue?

For the past few weeks Congress has taken numerous opportunities to slam Toyota and the NTHSA. What about Congress?

34 people have died via Toyota's unintended acceleration. Unacceptable and horrible, no doubt. Nonetheless, for decades, Congress enabled more than 100,000 to die, despite mountains of evidence demonstrating SUV design flaws covered up in thousands of lawsuits involving every major automaker.

Maybe it's time for an independent investigation of Congress?

Toyotagate: House Panel more concerned with Big 3 profits than safety?

10,000 rollover deaths per year

Since 2000 there have been 2,600 complaints of unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles that have led to 34 deaths. Rather than fix this problem, according to a Congressional Panel, Toyota was 'more concerned with profits than safety'.

Of course, since 2000, Toyota has sold many tens of millions of vehicles, and more than 99.9 percent of them have been safer and more reliable than most other brands on the road then or today. So, it isn't that surprising that Toyota was slow to react, or that they assumed the problem must be with drivers.

Nonetheless, 34 people have died. For that, Toyota deserves some vilification.

Still, in the last decade, for instance, anyone driving a Honda Civic has been 2 times safer than someone driving a Chevy Cavalier. Why? Was GM more concerned with profits than safety? Likewise years of crash data demonstrate that foreign autos are consistently and significantly safer than domestic autos. Why? Did the Big 3 sacrifice safety for profits?

Finally, there is the House Panel itself, now led by Michigan's own John Dingell, a fearless lobbyist - I mean Congressperson - for GM and the Big 3.

Finish: Toyotagate - House Panel more concerned with profits than safety

Best Plug-ins: EVs, Range Extended EVs or Plug-in hybrids

Range extended EVs are better?

Just finished watching one of the latest Chevy Volt YouTube videos on the virtues of range extended EVs versus pure EVs, a topic that tens of billions in federal funds could soon be built around.

So, what's the best plug-in vehicle? Which plug-in vehicle is a legitimate game-changer?

Let's imagine it's 2012. Numerous plug-in vehicles are available for sale. Which one is best? A short range plug-in hybrid, such as a Toyota Prius plug-in, or a full electric vehicle, such as the Nissan Leaf? Or, how about a combination of the two, such as a Chevy Volt?

Finish: Best Plug-ins: EVs, Range Extended EVs or Plug-in hybrids

GM fights Energy Department funding for Aptera?

No funding for innovation and out-of-the-box thinking

So, the government has pumped tens of billions into GM. Likewise, GM has requested at least an additional $10 billion in loans from the Energy Department.

However, GM has been opposing new legislation moving through Congress that would make companies like Aptera eligible for Federal loans because they aren't big enough according to AutoWeek.

So, it's alright for the government to give GM tens of billions of dollars - much of which will never be paid back according to experts - for failing as an innovative automaker, but providing $75 million to an innovative start-up is wrong?

Maybe if GM focused more on innovation rather than lobbying Congress, they could have pulled a Ford and stood strong during this recession.

Time to get real about hybrids and plug-ins

All about the dead Presidents?

Several months ago, a JD Power survey found that, despite declining gas prices, more than 70 percent of Americans were interested in buying hybrid cars. More than 40 percent of that 70 percent indicated they would pay as much as $5000.00 more for a hybrid.

At the time, however, hybrid sales were declining, as hybrid market share fell below 3 percent. Apparently, it's not easy to put your money where your mouth is.

Can we change this disconnect? Finish: Time to get real about hybrids and plug-ins

Political leadership? Congress set to offer up another $1/2 billion for hybrid research

1 million and counting

Between automakers, their banks, suppliers etc. the government is into the US auto industry for $100 billion+. Additionally, the government is handing out $50 billion in loans to help automakers increase fuel efficiency. On top of that, if a Committee OK on hybrid research passes through Congress, another $590 million will go to hybrid research.

Why? Is there really any mystery?

No. I'm not referring to the fact that Toyota has sold more than a million Toyota Prius hybrids. Regardless of Toyota's Prius success it's obvious that hybrids and electric vehicles are over-hyped niche vehicles. They are going nowhere fast.

Unless gas prices rise significantly. How much more research do we really need to validate that point?

Without massive, long term government incentives (including tons of pork and waste) or much higher gas prices, these vehicles will not achieve sufficient economies of scale for many, many years. Ultimately, America's energy policy simply does not support the costs of developing efficient technologies in the real world.

Yet, the cost of gas, for instance, is far higher than the pump price. Why? Unfortunately, it's far easier to spend an extra $500 million on top of tens of billions than it is to show some political courage and to confront the tough issues. It's all about incumbency anyway, right?

Incentives for a Toyota Prius plant in the US?

Can protectionism save US auto jobs?

For a few years Toyota has been toying around with the idea of a US plant to manufacture its red hot Toyota Prius. Unfortunately, the current recession crushed any such plan for the short term.

Would it be wise for the US government to help bring such a plant to the US, or should the government only protect US companies, or only just UAW workers?

Likewise, Nissan is now planning a US plant for electric vehicle and electric vehicle battery development, with a significant eye on US government help. Should they get it?

Are incentives for transplants to bring more manufacturing jobs to the US a good or bad idea?

Japan is incentivizing hybrids, the US guzzlers

Congress set to pass cash for clunkers next week?

Hybrid cars have never been hotter in Japan. It started with the Honda Insight and the new Toyota Prius is primed for explosive sales as well. While these two not new hybrids are reason enough for a hybrid sales spike, Japan has helped the hybrid cause by providing tax incentives for consumers to buy hybrids.

In America, we're promoting cash for clunkers. Bring in your big 15 mpg gas guzzler and replace it with an 18 mpg gas guzzler and the government will hand you a check for up to $4500.

Obviously, the US economy is struggling and a surge in gas-guzzlers - the bread and butter of the US auto industry - could help the economy while protecting the large tax payer investment into the US auto industry. Still, this is a terribly bitter pill to swallow, and despite the worthy intentions, America should be embarrassed by this cash for clunkers program.

Energy Independence: An American joke

Can the US auto industry end America's foreign energy dependence?

Chrysler isn't paying back $7 billion that the government lent to the automaker to stay out of bankruptcy. GM is losing billions by the week. Yet, the government is about to loan the auto industry up to $50 billion to help the US auto industry retool for greater fuel efficiency.

Then there are bailouts for auto suppliers, financing units like GMAC, cash for clunker programs, etc., but why dwell? The real point is, when will all of this bailout money lead to energy independence?

In terms of future fuel efficient, oil dependence-fighting vehicles, it's all about the plug, right? Yet, GM's Chevy Volt probably won't be profitable until the 2020s according to Obama's auto task force unless there is a tripling in gas prices. What happens in the interim? Why can't the Big 3 compete with Toyota's already profitable, 50 mpg Prius?

Thus, many claim that only a gas tax can push America off foreign energy. However, as popular as President Obama is today, even he couldn't push such an idea through Congress.

Today, America's Achilles heal, foreign oil dependency, is more exposed than ever, and by the time we truly realize the dangers of this sick joke, it might be too late. Ironically, however, now that gas prices have fallen, this issue isn't even on America's radar.

Can green vehicles really save the Big 3?

The Chinese auto has only just emerged

As Congress and the Obama auto task force contemplate many tens of billions - perhaps even much more - in aid to the US auto industry, is the US auto industry already a dead industry walking?

Kudos to President Obama for playing hardball - even if it is just for show - with the UAW, bondholders and corporate boards. Still, today these concessions are being forced in an effort to compete with Japan and Korea.

Tomorrow, even mighty Toyota might not be able to compete with Chinese automakers, and smart people like Warren Buffett are already making that bet.

Today, many claim that hybrid and electric vehicles are the key to the Big 3's future - vehicles with little profit potential for Big 3 automakers in the next few decades. Yet, Chinese automakers are quickly rushing to fill this segment with their own products. Moreover, China has far better access to lithium than does the US, hordes of engineers and an endless supply of cheap labor.

Can hybrid cars really save the Big 3? Can anything?

Can Democrats survive cap and trade?

A Congressional conundrum

I believe that humans have contributed to global warming. I also believe that human caused global warming might have actually prevented an ice age that would have had a devastating impact on the human population. Regardless, it's time to regulate CO2 emissions, even if you don't believe in human-made global warming.

Like it or not regulating CO2 is ultimately about efficiency, and with today's massively growing population, limited resources, and the ever increasing computerization of the world's economy, efficient, clean energy is the only sustainable way forward.

Still, a significant percent of Americans don't agree, and even more don't believe that now, in this recession, is the time to deal with such a monumental issue. Nonetheless, now that the EPA is set to label CO2 emissions a danger to health, doesn't the government have to act? Yet, can Democrats retain control of Congress if they push ahead with a cap and trade plan?

EPA ready to institute cap and trade, will voters comply?

Greenhouse gases to be a "health danger"

The EPA is ready to declare carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a public health danger according to reports. If the White House accepts the EPA's proposal, sweeping change is forthcoming. Already, the White House has indicated that it wants Congress to act on this issue, such as in greater fuel economy standards - probably similar to those California is seeking - along the way to President Obama's cap-and-trade plan.

But will consumers balk?

Ultimately, such legislation will lead to higher auto prices - higher everything prices. Assuming cap-and-trade revenues will help subsidize these higher costs for low income consumers might be too big of an assumption for many voters. And with a majority of Americans now picking the economy over the environment, serious plans to regulate CO2 emissions could become a political braking point for the Obama Administration if the economy does not soon recover.

Kudos to Obama for now

This is not the future

UAW boss Ron Gettelfinger is telling members to ratify a new round of concessions with Ford. Otherwise, according to Gettelfinger, Ford will not survive.

Holy cow. During the first round of Congressional testimony on this issue, the UAW seemed pretty resistant to any further concessions. I guess the UAW has finally seen the light. Certainly the problems associated with the Big 3 are not purely the fault of the UAW, but the union did play a significant role.

Kudos to the Obama administration and Congress for playing some hard ball with Detroit. With the significant tie between labor and Democrats, an earlier cave in was expected, at least by this blogger. Of course, such a cave in probably would have guaranteed the eventual collapse of Detroit's automakers.

Still, now comes the hard part. How do the Big 3 deal with the fact that 10 million sales per year might be America's new run rate? Can the Big 3 compete at producing small, fuel efficient vehicles at a profit? Will any US automaker produce 100,000 hybrid cars per year within the next 5 years?

Bailout Nation: Calling Big 3 haters and supporters

Are the Big 3 ready?

"Get me a plan that works."

That's what President Obama is hoping for on Tuesday, when automakers present their restructuring plans to the Treasury Department. Is such a plan, however, even possible?

Auto sales sunk 37 percent in January as automakers struggled for survival. GM, for instance, is slashing 10,000 white collar jobs and offering early retirement to every hourly worker as it tries to raise cash from partnerships in China and Korea. Additionally, GM is trying to unload brands such as Hummer.

Serious changes are occurring within the auto industry, which is good, but is it enough? And, what about the product?

In recent weeks and months, all of the Big Three have been showing off their EV plans as proof of how they will help America reduce foreign oil dependency and global warming? But is this all just poppycock?

If these cars are going to save the Big 3, the Big 3 will need to sell millions of such vehicles EVERY year, right? When is that going to happen? 2020? Later?

Yet, in just a few months, California might put into law emissions requirements that will soon make most of the Big 3's money makers unfit for sale in the Nation's most important auto market. How will GM or Chrysler compete with the Toyota Prius or the Honda Insight in such an environment?

So, what should Obama and Congress do? Undoubtedly, a new bailout is inevitable, but should America's new energy vision focus only on protecting the Big 3, or should it be more focused on achieving results, on achieving real change?

For instance, why not do just enough to keep the Big 3 afloat, while providing massive consumer-driven tax incentives for highly efficient, manufactured in America, vehicles made by any automaker? Besides, isn't competition the mother of innovation?

Tax credits for guzzlers - Does it ever end?

One last dance on the Congressional gravy train?

I've had a hard time not commenting on the plan, now part of the stimulus package before the Senate, to give consumers a tax credit for buying new cars. So, I'm just going to get it out of my chest.

Are you kidding me? Foreign-oil sucking, 911-causing, gas GUZZLERS?

This is change?

I say, F cars right now, unless we're talking a serious change, such as a plan to end foreign oil dependency by 2020. If not, just give Detroit enough money to stay above water for now. That's it. We'll sort it out later when there is time for a better plan.

Besides, if it doesn't kill you, it only makes you stronger, right?

I mean, really, if you wanna spend a trillion dollars today, there should only be one focal point: the real estate and the mortgage mess.

Isn't that the root of our problems in the first place? So, why focus on anything else right now?

Don't have any ideas?

Here's one. Since the banks screwed us on this thing in the first place, let's just force them to lower rates on ALL mortgages significantly, or something like that.

They owe us, right? Direct and simple. Transparent.

But tax credits for gas guzzlers? Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom right now.

Congress and fuel economy - Can you say hypocrisy?

Even Barack doesn't have much high ground

I remember, just as gas prices were rising, a press conference that members of Congress had at a Washington DC gas station to address the rising cost of gasoline prices. Even though the gas station was just ONE block from Congressional offices, most members drove. Even worse, their drivers waited in idling cars as members spoke, then were quickly driven back the one block to their offices.

Reporters on scene also noted how most drove SUVs, or gas-guzzling performance cars. Only a couple members - in total - drove hybrids then, at least in Washington.

Around the same time President-Elect Obama told supporters at a town hall meeting in Illinois that America had to give up their love affair with gas-guzzling SUVs, then he left the meeting in a gas-guzzling SUV. Later, reps for Obama explained that it was a flex fuel vehicle. Unfortunately, in Chicago, where Obama spent most his Illinois time, there weren't but a couple of ethanol stations throughout the entire metro area. Of course, ethanol guzzlers are little better than gas guzzlers.

Yet, these same politicians - now holier than thou - cannot understand why US automakers haven't focused on more fuel efficient vehicles, more hybrid vehicles. With their leadership - on both sides of the aisle - is there really any wonder?

Govt would have to fund Big 3 bankruptcy

No one has the money to fund a bankruptcy?

So, you want the Big 3 to go into bankruptcy to clean house? Alright. I was just watching some pre-coverage of the bailout testimony before Congress and analysts were discussing how there is no financial institution strong enough to finance the bankruptcy of the Big 3. Oddly enough, financing a bankruptcy would actually cost more than the bailout loans - and the bankruptcy wouldn't be a loan.

I don't know, folks. There is a lot of reason to hate the Big 3, I realize that. Still, we're giving hundreds of billions to just Citibank, and no one hardly says anything. Yet, when we try to help the auto industry - an employer of millions directly and indirectly - America wants to crush them? Does America really hate the UAW that much more than billionaire Wall Streeters?

Give the Big 3 a break, Take 1

Even Honda is getting hammered?

Both Toyota and Honda posted sales declines of over 30 percent in November compared to last year. While that wasn't as bad as GM or Chrysler, those numbers were roughly in line with Ford's numbers.

And, for those buying cars, would you buy a car from a company that was weeks away from bankruptcy without government help? I wouldn't.

Does that justify Detroit's years of SUV madness at the expense of a balanced product portfolio? Of course not, but all of these automakers had started making serious changes before the credit crisis - a crisis that is hurting all automakers, even those making hybrid cars and small cars.

This alone doesn't justify a bailout, but it adds a little perspective. More coming on Take 2.

Autos: Let the new world order begin

Everything soon as efficient as the Prius?

By 2020, if all goes well, the average fleet-wide fuel economy of the US fleet will be 35 mpg, a far cry from the fuel efficiency required to end foreign oil dependency. On the upside, there could be more than a million plug-in vehicles on the road by 2020.

Unfortunately, even if automakers are selling 1 million plug-ins per year in the US by 2020, probably an aggressive number, that would still represent significantly less than 10 percent of total yearly US auto sales, and we'll still be very dependent upon Persian Gulf oil.

Yet, achieving that million EV mark is going to cost many, many billions in government tax incentives. Even then, most automakers will make little profit off these vehicles. In fact, the move towards fuel economy is probably going to mean that total US auto sales per year will decline, even significantly.

Sadly, getting serious about fuel economy probably means significant job loss, not gain - at least in the US.

Is Congress even considering these issues as they ponder the legitimacy of the Big 3's plans for the future? We'll soon find out, but one thing is certain: bailing America out of its foreign oil dependency will cost far, far, far more than US automakers are seeking in loans.

Waxman to make life tougher for automakers?

Higher CAFE requirements coming?

If I had to make a wager, I'd bet that a bailout for US automakers is inevitable, despite the recent hardball from Democrats. While that might irritate most, relax a little if your focus is fuel economy and global warming.

Now that Henry Waxman has replaced John Dingell as the leader of the Energy and Commerce panel, tougher CAFE and global warming requirements for automakers now seem inevitable. If Democrats hold to their guns, a bailout can be a good thing.

F Congress: Give automakers the money

Or do I mean F America?

Congress is in a tough spot. The majority of Americans don't want Congress to help the US auto industry, despite the fact that all of the Big 3's competitors receive heavy subsidies from their governments.

I understand. For decades the Big 3 built a lot of crap and, even after 9/11, they still didn't react to fuel economy. Profit was more important than national security.

Nonetheless, Congress has to give automakers the money and, we the people, should accept that because we the people are also responsible for the state of the US auto industry. We bought the gas-guzzlers. We demanded that gas stay cheap. We voted for politicians that made gas taxes and increased fuel economy standards dirty word for decades.

I know. None of that justifies the failures of the Big 3, whom helped brainwash the people into gas-guzzling stupidity. And, I know most Americans want the corporate big wigs of America, including those from Detroit, to suffer. Yet, it will be average Americans - all over America - that will suffer most if Detroit goes under. Now is not the time to seek revenge, it's time to turn a wrong into a right.

LeBeau - Automakers open to fuel efficiency strings for cash

Time to make the best out of this bailout?

During CNBC Reports just a few minutes ago, Phil Lebeau - whom interviewed GM CEO Rick Wagoner this morning - stated that US automakers would be open to fuel economy strings for government cash.

Seems like a positive sign, and an angle that Congress should exploit.

Democrats ready to play hardball with Detroit?

Time to Californiacate Detroit?

The state of California wants to regulate CO2 emissions, which would require massive increases in fuel economy - meaning automakers would be forced to roll out tons of new alternative technologies, such as hybrid cars.

In Washington, California Congressman Henry Waxman has argued California's case, and he appears ready to take California's case to a higher pulpit. According to the Financial Times, Waxman "is challenging the dean of the House, John Dingell of Michigan, in his role as chairman of the House energy and commerce committee."

Dingell's protectionism of Detroit, at the expense of CAFE and global warming, according to FT, has irked both Waxman and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. Thus, if Waxman does replace Dingell, it would seem that fuel economy and global warming would play a far more significant role in the next session of Congress.

Another $25 billion for automakers in the works

Smelling the White House

Democrats are kicking around the idea of another $25 billion for automakers as a "bridge financing" loan according to the DetroitNews. Such funding now appears inevitable as Congress will eventually offer the Big 3 some kind of bailout. Fortunately, it seems that money will come with strings, such as the money can't be used for bonuses. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear the new legislation will come with enough strings, such as a fuel economy requirement, for instance.

If Democrats attain a super-majority in Congress, I worry a little that Congress might save too much of the Big 3. Yesterday's auto sales numbers indicate quite clearly that the US auto industry MUST be downsized in some way, and it seems that must begin with Chrysler.

Can Democrats clean and green the US auto industry?

America's freedom fighter?

On the NYSE floor, an Obama win has already been priced into stocks, and there is a belief that an Obama win, coupled with a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, will lead to 'new deal' style projects and bailouts, such as the one needed for the US auto industry.

Can politicians cost-effectively manage both a successful bailout of the US auto industry, while increasing fuel economy and reducing emissions?

More important, if Congress is going to invest many billions more of tax payer money into the US auto industry, shouldn't fuel economy requirements be even more stringent than new CAFE regulations? For instance, shouldn't a massive bailout plan be structured around a real world plan to end foreign oil dependency by, say, 2025?

Does a bailout take a bite out of CAFE?

Chevy Cruze delayed

A bailout to help GM and Chrysler merge now seems inevitable. So, why did Cerebrus buy Chrysler? That's right, to make money, and probably at taxpayer expense. Anyway, back to the bailout. It seems there are just too many jobs, healthcare and pension funds at stake for Congress to let the auto industry go under. So, when these companies emerge, one can only assume that means GM will then forever be too big to go under.

Whatever, right? It's the jobs. It's the economy.

Fine, but what happens if GM says it can't meet new CAFE requirements without tens of billions more of taxpayer money, or bankruptcy? How can the government enforce legislation like CAFE when the auto industry knows Congress won't let it fail?

Automaker bailout - Why I'm losing faith

Does Congress really care about the people?

I was just watching some coverage on CNBC about how a number of Wall Street firms are using taxpayer bailout money to fund executive bonuses. Thus, our taxpayer money is funding the bonuses of executives whom lost 100's of billions of our wealth because, according to one expert on the panel, Congress left loopholes in the bailout bill, as usual. 

Thus, as we sit on the verge of an automaker bailout, I only feel anger. Yes, I want the US auto industry to succeed. Yes, I want to protect US auto jobs. Yet, I cannot trust this Congress, nor the corporations it protects. This Congress has proven that Democrats and Republicans suck.

Besides, if the auto industry is bailed out, how many more hybrid cars will the US auto industry make next year, or the year after? Probably none. 

At this point, I'll take a depression and give my house up to bankruptcy rather than watch any more of my tax dollars go to some incompetent, greedy, rich executive's bonus. Perhaps, the auto industry isn't Wall Street, still I can't take any more, I've lost all faith.

Should automaker loans become a bailout?

How much change does Barack really want

So, Barack Obama wants the Energy Department to quickly provide the $25 billion in loans that automakers are to receive to help meet increased CAFE regulations because of tough financial times. Yet, such regulatory efforts, according to reports, often take 18 months or more to structure.

Lest we forget, these loans - which cost tax payers several billion to fund - were specifically created for fuel efficiency projects, such as new hybrid cars. They are not, as the auto industry reiterated numerous times, a bailout. Thus, how much can retooling a factory help today's bottom line for the Big 3?

More important, if rushed and loopholed, is not a bailout exactly what these loans are in danger of becoming? Should the US auto industry be bailed out at any cost? Is the Nationalization of the US auto industry inevitable?

New tax credits for Non-plug-in hybrids needed?

Tax credits helped drive the Prius

There is no doubt that tax credits for hybrid cars, especially the Toyota Prius, helped sell these vehicles. But, are new tax credits needed to keep moving these vehicles?

Probably not, considering that most hybrid dealers have been adding massive dealer markups to these vehicles. Of course, if the economy keeps tanking all car sales will suffer.

Still, what about a tax credit for non-plug-in hybrids that rewards significantly higher fuel economy - say for hybrids that achieve at least 60 or 70 mpg combined fuel economy? Or, at least a tax credit for plug-in conversions?

If Congress truly wants to end foreign oil dependency, isn't a more aggressive, comprehensive incentive program required?

Tax credits for plug-in's a done deal

Will a Prius plug-in qualify?

Tax credits for plug-ins are now a done deal, as the President has promised to pass the bailout bill that Congress has now approved. Plug-ins with at least a four-kilowatt battery pack will qualify for a credit ranging from $4,168 to $7,500 depending on the number of kWh's in the battery pack.

It is know that the Chevy Volt will qualify for the entire $7,500.

Originally, Toyota was against this bill, but the company seemed to change its tune when the kWh battery requirement was reduced. So, it appears plug-in hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius, will also qualify for this credit.

Revised plug-in tax credit in new bailout bill

$4,168 - $7,500 tax credit for plug-ins

If the new bailout package in Congress is approved on Friday, it will also include a new plug-in tax credit.

Plug-in vehicles weighing under 10,000 pounds with at least a 4 kWh battery pack will qualify for a $4,168 tax credit. The value of the credit will scale up to a maximum of $7,500 for each extra kWh of battery capacity.

Once automakers, collectively, sell 250,000 plug-ins in one year, the credit will expire.

Automaker bailout goes to President

Chevy Volt and EV1 at Alt Car Expo

Both the House and the Senate have signed off on a bill to give $25 billion to automakers to help make more fuel efficient vehicles. And, I'm OK with that. This is about jobs at a time when jobs are desperately needed.

Still, this isn't just a loan, it is a bailout. Tax payers ARE putting up $7.5 billion to secure these loans. Besides, despite new CAFE regulations, the markets are DEMANDING the Big 3 move towards efficiency. The Big 3 have no choice but to change, something that should have been obvious after 9/11 and Katrina.

Let's hope they get it right this time.

Automaker loans easily pass through House

Hopefully its used to develop plug-in hybrids like this Escape plug-in hybrid at NAIAS

Don't call it a bailout, but the House of Representatives has passed a bill that includes $25 billion in loans for US automakers, and the bill is expected to easily pass through the Senate. Still, even though its not a bailout, it will cost US tax payers $7.5 billion to fund these loans.

Hopefully, the language in this bill remains tough, particularly that language requiring the loans be used only on projects that achieve at least a 25 percent increase in fuel economy - a standard automakers were fighting to lower.

If it stays at 25 percent, I won't call it a bailout. If automakers successfully lobbied Congress to reduce this requirement, however, then how can you call it anything but a bailout?

Automaker loans sneaking through Congress

Big 3 to get a little help?

With the Wall Street bailout providing cover, the $25 billion dollar loan package for automakers is gaining momentum. Nonetheless, legislation coming out of Congress, including these loans and many other programs, is said to be filled with many billions in earmarks that could force the President to exercise his veto powers.

Nevertheless, at least compared to the hundreds of billions, minimally, needed to bail out Wall Street, $25 billion for automakers is chump change. Sadly, however, the real question might be, is $25 billion nearly enough to save the Big 3?

Give Detroit the money, but....

Toyota's very fuel efficient Tundra?

The Big 3 continue to increase their efforts to acquire as much as $50 billion in loans from the US government - $25 billion of which was written into CAFE increasing legislation, and momentum is gaining in Congress.

Thus far, I've been against this bailout, but I think I've changed my mind. Perhaps the bailout can be the impetus for desperately needed change.

Finish: Give Detroit the money, but....

Momentum gains for automaker bailout

Talks have started at the White House

Automakers have gained momentum in their quest for some $50 billion in US backed loans, although that amount could get slashed to $25 billion.

The Detroit News has reported, "It's something we're aware of and we're talking to the members of Congress and also the people in the (auto) industry, and thinking about what they might think would be required from their perspective," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said at a press briefing Tuesday. She said she wasn't prepared to say what funding amount "the White House would or would not support," noting "there's a lot of details that go into something like that."

And, with both John McCain and Barack Obama supportive of at last $25 billion - Obama supports the $50 billion - some type of bailout seems inevitable.

Fuel economy: Double jeopardy for tax payers?

Just let Congress manage our economy?

Yesterday, I blogged on how the city of Flint is providing millions in tax breaks to GM to help fund the Chevy Volt, and GM is also seeking millions from the state as well. Likewise, GM is also requesting part of $50 billion in low interest, government backed loans to help in the conversion to vehicles with better fuel economy, such as smaller vehicles and hybrid cars. And, when GM finally starts selling the Volt, it will probably need large tax incentives for consumers in order to make these vehicles affordable.

And, if Ford and Chrysler ever develop real plans to address fuel economy, they'll need just as much help.

Yet, the pain doesn't stop there. Automakers claim that CAFE will increase the price of all vehicles significantly. Thus, not only are tax payers committing billions in loans and tax breaks to Detroit, they're also going to have to pay more for the products their tax dollars are helping to fund.

Without doubt, US automakers provide great jobs for many Americans, but how did things get so screwed up? More important, can the US auto industry really be saved, or are we just delaying the inevitable?

US automakers need $40 billion

A Ford plug-in hybrid at NAIAS

There is an interesting article, The Next Bailout: Detroit,
that covers the latest talks the Big 3 US automakers are having with some members of Congress. Apparently, the Big 3 need about $40 billion to both survive and to develop next generation hybrid cars and electric vehicles.

This blog has covered automaker bailouts in the past, and most that have commented seemed to be against any bailout. Nonetheless, feel free to again express your opinion for or against, but how likely do you think an automaker bailout is, regardless of your bailout opinions? Is it a sure thing? Is it dependent upon the race for President?

Fuel economy, cars and politics

Large gas-guzzlers still qualify for tax incentives

Democrats are the party for greens, right? So, why are solar tax credits set to expire? Why are tax credits for hybrid cars expiring while tax incentives for huge gas guzzlers are not?

We shouldn't be surprised according to an interesting chart The Fast Report sent to Hybridcarblog. The chart shows a strong correlation between gas prices and the ratio of small to large vehicle sales. Overall, higher gas prices lead to less guzzler sales, more small car sales and greater US fuel economy. Great for greens, right?

And yet Democrats want to tap into oil reserves, grill oil executives and whatever else to try to lower gas prices, an event that will only lead to more gas-guzzler sales and decreased fuel economy. Contradictions?

Republicans couldn't run Congress and now Democrats can't either. Talk, talk, talk. Spend, spend, spend. Man, I gotta run for office. What a job!

A $20 billion bailout for automakers?

America's automotive "Apollo Project"?

A bipartisan group of US senators is proposing a $20 billion package to help automakers achieve "the goal of transitioning 85 percent of America's new motor vehicles to non-petroleum-based fuels within 20 years."

The bulk of the money goes to automakers to both retool and to develop new battery-orientated technologies, including hybrid cars and electric vehicles. Additionally, in the short term, the plan would also significantly increase tax credits for hybrids and hybrid conversions. Of course, the plan also offers a few billion more for biofuels.

While there is a dire need for such an "Apollo Project", from where will the money come? Who is going to ensure that the tax money isn't wasted on pork and boondoggles with few conclusive results - Congress? Perhaps I'm just grumpy from driving more than 2000 miles in the last 36 hours, but I can't help but ask, do automakers deserve such a bailout?

Auto industry spends $70 million on Congress

Save our guzzlers

The auto industry spent $70 million in 2007 trying to influence Congress, up from $59 million the year before. All in all, lobbyists spent $2.70 billion to lobby Congress last year. (DetNews)

Foreign oil: Democrats just as pathetic

No leadership in Congress

It's easy for many to find too comfy of a relationship between Republicans and Big Oil. Nancy Pelosi and Democrats, however, continue to be just as disappointing. Leading Democrats want to start a witchhunt into high pump prices - as if $120 barrels of oil don't say enough. Pandering, pandering pathetic Democrats. Maybe Nancy should call up John McCain to see if they can work out a bi-partisan 'gas is free for the summer' campaign.

Thanks to high gas prices, consumer behavior is changing - something Congress has failed to do for decades. Congress should be focusing on what else can be done to reduce foreign oil dependency, not what else they can do to lower fuel prices and INCREASE dependency.

Will we ever have elected officials that can handle the truth, or are pandering, pork-loving liars forever inevitable?

Republican Candidates Stand with California on Emissions?

McCain with CA and buddy Schwarzenegger on emissions

"I applaud the governor's efforts and that of other states in this region and other states across America to try to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change," said John McCain last night during a debate in California.

Other Republican candidates were supportive as well, though some not as vigorously. "I side with states being able to make their own decisions, even if I don't always agree with the decisions they make," stated Mitt Romney.

I'm sure Democrats will say the same, which irks me a bit. Most of these people are already in Congress. If they couldn't lead Congress as members on such issues, will they really be able to lead as President?

California Emissions Suit: An American Tragedy

Congressional Hearing Today on California Emission Waiver

Congress, led by Barbara Boxer of California, intends to overturn the EPA's decision to deny California a waiver to determine its own tailpipe emissions. Yet, it's no wonder that the EPA ruled as it did, despite the fact that most EPA staffers felt the EPA had to rule in favor of California.

Ultimately, the entire US auto industry and a very important slice of the American manufacturing sector is at stake. And, while some might argue that automakers will get what they deserve, I still have the same lingering angst: Why does Congress continue to artificially deflate the cost of gasoline?

Cheap gas is and has been the root of America's foreign oil dependency, yet neither Barbara Boxer nor Nancy Pelosi have the guts to address this issue. Nor does the President or any other member of Congress. Of course, since we the people keep voting for these idiots, I guess we're the real fools.

Foreign oil: Congress versus automakers

US Coast Guard protecting imported energy

It costs, minimally, tens of billions of dollars every year just to secure the oil that the US imports from the Middle East, not including war costs. Yet, this cost is NOT included in the cost of our gasoline?

Why? And, who pays for these costs (duh, right)?

More important, if Americans had been paying the real cost of gasoline over the last few decades, would America be so dependent upon foreign oil today?

While Congress scapegoats automakers with historically-ineffective CAFE legislation, isn't the real problem the cheap cost of gasoline kept artificially low by Congress?

Still no new hybrid vehicle tax credits: Let's take action

Give them credit

Congress has passed CAFE. By 2020 foreign oil dependency will end, significant reductions in global warming will be achieved, and all Americans will drive in any vehicle and achieve at least 35 mpg, while saving 100s of dollars in gasoline costs per year.

Now will reality please stand up?

It's time to put the power in the hands of the people. Tax credits for hybrid cars, clean diesel and bio-diesel conversion kits give the people the power to make smarter, clean and greener consumer purchases, while rewarding the companies making cleaner and greener energy and products. Power to the people, not the corporations! Join the Revolution! Read more.

Should politicians drive American?

The best hybrid for members of Congress?

Just a couple of years ago there were just a couple of members of Congress whom drove hybrid cars. Thus, at a Congressional news conference on high gas prices at a gas station a few blocks from Congressional offices, several reporters mocked Congress for both not walking to the conference and for driving fuel-inefficient cars.

Today, many more members of Congress now drive hybrid vehicles and many of those hybrids are foreign hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius. This has continually bothered some members of Congress, especially those from Michigan.

Obviously, there aren't many choices when it comes to hybrid cars, and the Prius is the most fuel efficient hybrid. So, is it really that big of a deal that American members of Congress buy non-American hybrids? Or, as members of Congress, would it be more ethical to drive a hybrid like the Ford Escape hybrid?

CAFE passes Congress: Sorry I don't care

Once again, take it easy Nancy

Well, CAFE has passed Congress, and all I can say is big deal.

A 6-fold increase in ethanol production - much of that coming from corn. Please. I mean, c'mon. Already, corn-based ethanol has increased food prices by 5 percent overall, but for some products, prices have increased much more. The cost of a gallon of milk, for example, is up 90 cents. How much higher will a 6-fold increase raise prices, especially if a big drought hits once we get there? Forget just costs, suddenly we might be talking shortages. Now that's smart.

I already made my thoughts pretty clear in my post Pelosi is a comedian and CAFE is the joke. But, for another perspective check out Warren Brown's article, Energy bill hangs on to the myth that we can have our oil and guzzle it, too.