Homestead mailing list

[bob ford <bobford79 AT yahoo.com>]

The Dems just announced on CNBC they plan to vote for the auto bail-out this 
afternoon.  The Repubs are opposing.  The Dems have the numbers , except in 
the Senate, and the moderate Repubs will probably follow the Dems.  We shall 
see.  Below is an article from the WSJ atating that even if the bail-out 
passes, it will not work, for reasons he gives in the article.  You may agree 
or disagree; personally, my new car is small and fuel-efficient, and that was 
my preference.

What I believe, and it is just myu opinion; is that this is nothing but 
political payoffs.  The large (& corrupt) Union have always supported the 
Dems; this cycle, all big business also supported the Dems .  Go to the site 
Lynn or someone mentioned and see the percentages of money given by those 
groups to the dems.

For much of the Bush administration, the repubs have governed as Dems, now we 
are seeing the beginning of the real thing.  For those who pay t*xes, or have 
children or grandchildren who expect to pay t*xes, g-d protect us from these 
fools............................

-------------------------------------------------------------------


The Bailout That Won't Would you buy a car from Congress?

By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
 
Leave it to Bob Lutz, GM's voluble vice chairman, to puncture the unreality 
of the auto bailout he himself has been championing. In an email to Ward's 
Auto World, he notes an obvious flaw in Congress's rescue plan now taking 
shape: The fuel-efficient "green" cars GM, Ford and Chrysler profess to be 
thrilled to be developing at Congress's behest will be unsellable unless gas 
prices are much higher than today's.

 

The profitable part of Detroit.
"Very few people will want to change what has been their 'nationality-given' 
right to drive big and bigger if the price of gas is $1.50 or $2.00 or even 
$2.50," Mr. Lutz explained. "Those prices will put the CAFE-mandated 
manufacturers at war with their customers -- and no one will win in that 
battle."

Translation: To become "viable," as Congress chooses crazily to understand 
the term, the Big Three are setting out to squander billions on products that 
will have to be dumped on consumers at a loss.

None of this was mentioned at four days of congressional bailout hearings, 
because Detroit knows better than to suggest Congress has a role in the 
industry's problem. Yet its own recently updated Corporate Average Fuel 
Economy regime, or CAFE, makes a mockery of the idea that government money 
will render the companies profitable, even as the same bailout bill demands 
that the Big Three drop their legal challenge to a California mileage mandate 
even more unsustainable than the federal government's.

Forget Chrysler, which has needed a bailout from Washington or Stuttgart in 
three of the last four recessions. The tragedy of GM and Ford is that, inside 
each, are perfectly viable businesses, albeit that have been slowly murdered 
over 30 years by CAFE. Both have decent global operations. At home, both have 
successful, profitable businesses selling pickups, SUVs and other larger 
vehicles to willing consumers, despite having to pay high UAW wages.

All this is dragged down by federal fuel-economy mandates that require them 
to lose tens of billions making small cars Americans don't want in high-cost 
UAW factories. Understand something: Ford and GM in Europe successfully sell 
cars that are small but not cheap. Europeans are willing to pay top dollar 
for a refined small car that gets excellent mileage, because they face 
gasoline prices as high as $9. Americans are not Europeans. 

In the U.S., except during bouts of high gas prices or in the grip of a Prius 
fad, the small cars that American consumers buy aren't bought for high 
mileage, but for low sticker prices. And the Big Three, with their high labor 
costs, cannot deliver as much value in a cheap car as the transplants can.

Under a law of politics, such truths were unmentionable in last week's 
televised circus because legislators are unwilling to do anything about them. 
They won't repeal CAFE because they fear the greens. They won't repeal CAFE's 
"two fleets" rule (which effectively requires the Big Three to make small 
cars in domestic factories) because they fear the UAW. They won't hike gas 
prices because they fear voters.

make no mistake: An even more massive auto wreck lies ahead when a soon-to-be 
taxpayer-financed and taxpayer-owned auto industry confronts a California 
rulemaking that, in a silly gesture against global warming, would render most 
of its auto designs, profit centers and tooling unsalvageable.

We hate to admit it, but the only good idea from the bailout debate is the 
proposal for a new "auto czar." Along with disposing of Chrysler and 
downsizing Ford and GM, his job should be to confront Congress with its own 
policy cowardice and failure. If saving gasoline and Detroit are both worthy 
goals, let's ditch CAFE and institute a gasoline tax to make consumers value 
the cars government is forcing auto makers to build. If Congress doesn't have 
the tummy for that, at least ditch the "two fleets" rule so Detroit can 
import small cars to meet the mandate.

Alas, Barack Obama's vaunted "change" apparently doesn't include spending the 
political capital to make Congress acknowledge the failure of CAFE. If he 
can't do better than throw taxpayer money at a dismal policy disaster like 
our fuel-economy regulations (and so far he seems to be joining Congress in 
pretending it's all Detroit's fault), we might as well give up on his 
presidency along with any hope of progress on the nation's other unresolved 
dilemmas.

His campaign never really answered the question of whether he was Chance the 
Gardener or Abraham Lincoln. We might as well find out now.