Government Motors: Are You Ready To Be Forced Into a Hybrid?

[vector7]

When the Government "owns" an industry they have the power to create the environment necessary to force the masses to change their behavior.

Auto Execs Urge Government to get Fuel up to $8/Gallon to Increase Fuel Efficiency

Published on 11-06-2009

Source: Daily Tech

CEO at leading parts supplier: "Energy independence...ultimately means that fuel has to be more expensive"

It's no secret that when gas prices dropped early in the year and with the recession in full swing, hybrid sales saw their first drop in years. Faced with tough new fuel economy restrictions, auto executives had come up with all sorts of unusual suggestions -- such as cutting crash testing -- but now had to puzzle over a new dilemma; what if consumers don't want the higher-priced electric vehicles that they plan to start flooding the market with in less that a year?

At a special Reuters summit in Detroit, numerous auto industry executives are cited as suggesting that the government raise taxes on gasoline substantially to spur the adoption of fuel efficient vehicles.

States Tim Leuliette, chief executive of privately held parts supplier Dura Automotive, "In the United States, we're afraid to touch the fuel price.

We've got to continue to raise taxes in the United States so that, by the end of the next decade, gas is about $8 a gallon in today's terms."

He adds, "What you have to do is do it in a manner that is slow enough and predictable enough that vehicle selection and choices by people over the cycle can be made in a logical way."

Eight dollars-per-gallon gas?

The idea certainly sounds absurd. However, the idea of the government pouring over $100B USD into the auto industry and partially nationalizing GM and Chrysler might have sounded ridiculous a decade ago too.

Mike Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc., offered similar sentiments, complaining, "The U.S. allows the price of gasoline to go back and forth across this line where the consumers don't care about fuel efficiency and where consumers do care about fuel efficiency."

He suggests a near term fix of taxing gas to around $4 or $5 a gallon to help vehicles like GM's 2011 Chevy Volt EV grab marketshare.

Jerry York, a former GM board member and an adviser to billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian, concurred. He states, "Unless gas is $3.50 or $4 a gallon, consumers are not going to want to buy those cars."

Hearing such pleas for government intervention and taxation certainly seems a strange one coming from the business sector, which normally argues and lobbies for minimal government involvement. However, a growing number of industry executives feel that a $25B USD advanced technologies loan program and the expensive cash-for-clunkers program just aren't doing enough to boost the sales of clean autos. The solution, they argue, is for the government to hit consumers where it hurts -- in the wallet.

Some are suggesting tax rebates at the end of the year for customers with hybrids and a food-stamp-like subsidy for poor citizens. But at the end of the day the general message is the same; tax fuel. Concludes Dura's Leuliette, "Energy independence in this country ultimately means that fuel has to be more expensive."

[vector7]

GM's Lutz: Raise Gas Tax 25 cents a Year

Raise gas tax 25 cents a year

By Chris Isidore, senior writerJanuary 11, 2010: 6:57 PM ET


GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz with Chevrolet's electric hybrid Volt.

DETROIT (CNNMoney.com) -- Bob Lutz is generally not a close ally of environmentalists.

The vice chairman of General Motors is a frequent critic of fuel economy rules and once declared that global warming was a "total crock" of excrement, although he used a more common and colorful word in that description.

GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz with Chevrolet's electric hybrid Volt.
Lutz also declared in 2004 that hybrid cars didn't make sense to sell or buy. And just this week, as he and GM were hyping the new electric Chevrolet Volt, at Detroit's North American International Auto Show, he declared that internal combustion engines would dominate the auto industry for the next 20 years, no matter what advances were made in electric vehicles.

So Bob Lutz wouldn't seem a likely candidate to argue for significantly higher gasoline taxes, or to suggest that such taxes would be a good thing for the auto industry. But in a meeting with journalists at the auto show Monday, he did just that.

"If the rise in gasoline prices is gradual, I think that all of us in the industry would frankly welcome that, because there is nothing more illogical than forcing fuel-saving technology when gasoline is extremely cheap," he said when asked about any concerns about oil again rising above $80 a barrel.

Lutz was asked if that means he would favor higher gasoline taxes, as in Europe where taxes drive fuel to more than $5 a gallon. He said he couldn't speak for GM, but he said he saw a lot of value in a steady tax rise to much higher levels.

Driving the Volt when the juice runs dry
"You either continue with inexpensive motor fuels and have to find other ways to incent the customer to buy hybrids and electric vehicles, such as the government credits," he said. "Or the other alternative is a gradual increase in the federal fuel tax of 25 cents a year, which in my estimation would have the benefit of giving automobile companies a planning base, and giving families that own vehicles a planning base."

Lutz said if a car buyer knew that gas that costs $2.75 a gallon today would likely go to $3 next year and $3.25 the year after that, it would prompt some buyers to say: "You know sweetheart -- this time we should go one size down because we know what fuel is going to do."

The biggest problem hitting automakers from rising gas prices, Lutz said, is the fact that consumer preferences change suddenly when gas prices rise and fall, which makes it impossible to match supply of vehicles to demand.

"Every time gas prices go back down, everybody starts buying big stuff again. Gas prices go up a buck, the big stuff is unsellable and everyone wants small cars. Go figure," he said. "It's like the collective memory is about three weeks long. We can't run a business that way."

But the chances of Washington following Lutz's recommendation are slim to none, let alone his finding support for his argument elsewhere in Detroit.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who spoke at the auto show Monday morning, said that the Obama administration was not considering any rise in gasoline taxes. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also dismissed the idea at a press conference at the show Monday afternoon, saying there was no support in Congress for an increase gas tax.

Lutz said he's not surprised the idea isn't likely to go anywhere.

"Fuel taxation is the third rail of politics," he said.

[vector7]

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced that federal transportation policies will no longer favor “motorized”

Wednesday, March 24, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief


Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)


(CNSNews.com) - Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced that federal transportation policies will no longer favor “motorized” transportation, such as cars and trucks, over “non-motorized” transportation, such as walking and bicycling.

LaHood signed the new policy directive on March 11, the same day he attended a congressional reception for the National Bike Summit, a convention sponsored by a bicycling advocacy group, the League of American Bicyclists. LaHood publicly announced his agency’s new direction four days later in a posting on his blog—“Fast Lane: The Official Blog of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation”--where he effusively described it as a “sea change” for the United States.

“Today, I want to announce a sea change,” LaHood wrote. “People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”

LaHood’s policy statement not only called for this change to take place in programs funded by the federal government, but also said the federal government would “encourage” state and local governments to do the same in their own programs.

“The establishment of well-connected walking and bicycling networks is an important component for livable communities, and their design should be a part of Federal-aid project developments,” said LaHood's policy statement.

“Because of the benefits they provide, transportation agencies should give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is given to other transportation modes,” it said.

LaHood's policy statement envisions the development of a transportation system in which people walk and bike for short distances and rely on mass transit for longer trips. “The primary goal of a transportation system is to safely and efficiently move people and goods,” said LaHood's statement. “Walking and bicycling are efficient transportation modes for most short trips and, where convenient intermodal systems exist, these nonmotorized trips can easily be linked with transit to significantly increase trip distance.”

On May 21, LaHood told reporters at the National Press Club that the “Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ his department had formed with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing—sometimes known as the “livability initiative”--was designed to “coerce” people out of their cars.

“Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative,” said the moderator at the National Press Club event. “Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”

“It is a way to coerce people out of their cars,” said LaHood.

The moderator later asked: “Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it's an example of government intrusion into people's lives. How do you respond?”

“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people's lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.”

Motorists now pay a federal tax of 18.3 cents on every gallon of gasoline they buy, and 24.4 cents on every gallon of diesel fuel. These taxes fund the federal Highway Trust Fund. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, 26 percent of the money in this trust fund was diverted in fiscal 2008 to pay for things other than highways and roads.

Of the total of $52 billion spent that was spent that year, $9.7 billion went to mass transit, even though mass transit passengers accounted for only 1.6 percent of surface-transportation passengers. The highway trust fund also gave $80 million that year to build trails.

[vector7]

Electric ride
Obama runs Volt at 'crawling speed'

By MATT NEGRIN | 07/30/10 2:14 PM


President Obama tests out the new Chevrolet Volt Friday afternoon. AP

After consulting with the Secret Service, President Obama drove a Chevrolet Volt at a plant in Hamtramck, Mich., the pool reports.

The pool summarizes: “He stepped excitedly into a Black Chevy Volt, behind the wheel, buckled himself in and haltingly drove perhaps 10 feet at a crawling speed.”

“Pretty smooth,” Obama remarked.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs noted that it was unusual for a president to drive, but he said Obama had actually drove a Dodge Charger at a Secret Service training site three to four months ago.

---

G.M.’s Electric Lemon (NY Times)
NY Times ^ | 7-29-10 | EDWARD NIEDERMEYER
Posted on Friday, July 30, 2010 12:00:46 PM by WOBBLY BOB

So the future of General Motors (and the $50 billion taxpayer investment in it) now depends on a vehicle that costs $41,000 but offers the performance and interior space of a $15,000 economy car.

The company is moving forward on a second generation of Volts aimed at eliminating the initial model’s considerable shortcomings. (In truth, the first-generation Volt was as good as written off inside G.M., which decided to cut its 2011 production volume to a mere 10,000 units rather than the initial plan for 60,000.)

Yet G.M. seemingly has no plan for turning its low-volume “eco-flagship” into a mass-market icon like the Prius.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

[vector7]

bump

[vector7]

Obama Pimps for Jihad Petrol Dollars: U.S. Blocks Oil Drilling at 60 Sites in Utah but The US has "more than all the Middle East put together"

And then...

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling...

Too bad it's not in U.S. waters

You read that headline correctly. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is financing oil exploration off Brazil.

The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.

Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminary commitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas.

But look on the bright side. If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire.

The Bush Administration's five-year plan (2007-2012) to open the outer continental shelf to oil exploration included new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. But in 2007 environmentalists went to court to block drilling in Alaska and in April a federal court ruled in their favor. In May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his department was unsure whether that ruling applied only to Alaska or all offshore drilling. So it asked an appeals court for clarification. Late last month the court said the earlier decision applied only to Alaska, opening the way for the sale of leases in the Gulf. Mr. Salazar now says the sales will go forward on August 19.

This is progress, however slow. But it still doesn't allow the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along the East and West Coasts, which could be our equivalent of the Tupi oil fields, which are set to make Brazil a leading oil exporter. Americans are right to wonder why Mr. Obama is underwriting in Brazil what he won't allow at home.

---

Obama, Soros, Petrobras, Brazil & offshore drilling double standards

By Michelle Malkin • August 19, 2009 09:22 PM

Yes, it’s true.

Barack Obama has chipped in $2 billion in loans to exploit offshore oil resources in hopes of extracting a major new source of petroleum…in South America.

And yes, it’s true.

There is a Soros link.

Ed Morrissey has a round-up and notes:

Is it a coincidence that Obama backer George Soros repositioned himself in Petrobras to get dividends just a few days before Obama committed $2 billion in loans and guarantees for Petrobras’ offshore operations? Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Waiting for enviro-nitwits to chain themselves to gas pumps near the White House.

Speaking of enviro-nitwits…EXCLUSIVE: Lies Revealed — Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration.
***
Flashback: The Democrat Party platform’s hidden Soros Slush Fund

Soros's Progressive Cabal Machine to Socialize America (CRIME INC)

[vector7]

Government Motors is looking to create the right atmosphere to move more of their cars, and just in time as Japan is falls behind in manufacturing after their 9.0 earthquake.

Companion Threads:

• Feds Launch New Crackdown Against Nissan Skyline Owners
• Taxing your driving miles.....

Cash for Clunkers 2: The Return of Government Motors

← return to Water Cooler
Kerry Picket
Published on March 29, 2011

Charging America Forward

Senator Stabenow introduces her legislation, the Charging America Forward Act, to speed up tax incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles.




Ready for another cash for clunkers program? It looks like General Motors is attempting to replace it's own consumer incentives with tax payer money. The car company, bailed out of bankruptcy in 2009 by the American tax payer, appears to be turning the government into an automatic rebate provider.

The Obama administration and their friends on Capitol Hill are floating around a proposal to change the $7500 tax credit for green vehicles. This change can be found not only in President Barack Obama's budget but also a bill proposed by Senator Debbie Stabenow, Michigan Democrat.

Edmunds.com, a 45 year old trade magazine company that provides automotive information, posted a Department of Energy document listing the department's funding highlights. The proposed Obama Budget, changes the existing $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit “into a rebate that will be available to all consumers immediately at the point of sale.”

According to Senator Stabenow's website, her proposed legislation, known as the "Charging America Forward Act" (S.298), "will provide consumers with a rebate worth up to $7500 for plug-in electric vehicles at the time of purchase."

Essentially, if one were to buy a $41,000 Chevy Volt, the buyer gets a $7,500 coupon, so the final price is $33,500. In the end, the auto dealer assumes the risk of the government giving them this tax credit.

It is pretty convenient that Ms. Stabenow, who represents a state where GM is headquartered is pushing a bill that is also supported by Edison Electric Institute, whose president was loaned a Chevy Volt, Eaton Corp: the sole American producer of car recharge systems, and Battery Electric Vehicle Coalition, a lobbying group for the electric car industry.

In fact, Department of Energy's David Sandalow told Bloomberg News in February the insta-credit would operate the “same way the 2009 ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program worked.”

The Detroit News reported Vice President Joe Biden said at an Indiana battery assembly plant, "You won’t have to wait,’ it would be like the cash-for-clunkers program.”

GM is likely the most excited about this instant credit plan. “General Motors supports the instant credit saying the bill “integrates all of the components necessary for successful acceleration of electric vehicles in the marketplace," The Detroit News reported.

Is the United States really prepared to deal with another tax payer paid for deal that will only benefit the now government owned GM? After all, did Cash for Clunkers part one really work out for the tax payers and auto dealers? Washington, D.C. based organization Americans for Tax Reform didn't think so and wrote in late October of 2009:

The program began on July 24th with a budget of $1 billion and by July 30th they were out of money. Giving people “free” money to buy cars is definitely popular. Congress then allocated another $2 billion that lasted almost until the end of August.

That’s right, $3 billion in under a month. The program didn’t help the economy or auto industry. Despite a bump in the 3rd quarter to GDP and auto sales, consumer spending dropped 0.5% in September and the vehicle output bump was artificial and unsustainable, meaning it will drop off considerably in the next quarter as the market stabilizes to its real level. As Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy pointed out today over at Reason, even the reported GDP bump is misleading, because is includes government spending. So if government spending increases it will increase the GDP, but that doesn’t mean any more was produced.

There are also the unseen costs of this program. By encouraging people to junk older vehicles, they lowered the supply of cheap used cars. When you lower supply and keep demand stable, the price goes up. With fewer used cars on the market, the prices for remaining used cars increases. This will make it more difficult for younger drivers or low income drivers to buy cars to get to work or school. (A video by Congressman Ron Paul further explains how it hurts the poor here.) At least the wealthy got a handout to buy their brand new cars though right?

Unfortunately, when ideas turn bad, it does not preclude another similar bad idea to be proposed later on.

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

Toyota May Lose 500,000 Vehicles of Output Post-Earthquake, Analyst Says

By Makiko Kitamura and Masatsugu Horie - Mar 31, 2011 3:55 AM CT

Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) may delay the production of at least 500,000 vehicles in Japan because of a shortage of parts and electricity after the nation’s record earthquake, said an analyst at Advanced Research Japan.

Toyota’s operating profit may be hurt by at least 100 billion yen ($1.2 billion) in the fiscal year ending today and up to 200 billion yen next fiscal year, said Koji Endo, an auto analyst at the research company. Any impact on production that spills overseas will further damp earnings, he said.

Toyota, the world’s largest carmaker, has said the company lost 140,000 units of production from March 14 to March 26, citing a shortage of electronic parts, rubber and plastics. The carmaker resumed output of three models at two factories on March 24, prioritizing hybrids including the Prius. All 18 plants in Japan were halted until then. Toyota built 3.28 million cars in Japan in 2010.

“Hardly any cars will be built in April and a very low level of production will continue from May,” Endo said.

Toyota rose 0.6 percent to 3,350 yen at the 3 p.m. close of trading in Tokyo. The stock has lost 8.2 percent since March 10, the day before the magnitude-9 temblor struck off the coast of Sendai, north of Tokyo.

Toyota has been able to resume hybrid output using parts from suppliers who have recovered and remaining inventory, spokeswoman Shiori Hashimoto said.

Japanese manufacturers face a cut in summer power supply of about 15 percent after the March 11 temblor knocked out generators, curbing growth in the world’s third-largest economy.

Toyota may cooperate with other carmakers to devise a production rotation plan or conserve power in other ways, spokesman Masami Doi said.

Nissan Resuming Production
Nissan Motor Co., Japan’s second-largest automaker, said it lost 55,000 units of production this month. The Yokohama-based carmaker is supplying its factories in Japan with some automobile components from overseas as some of the local suppliers were affected by the earthquake and tsunami, Senior Vice President Andy Palmer said on March 29. The parts being supplied include engine components from the U.S. as its Iwaki engine factory in Fukushima was damaged, he said.

Nissan will resume production at all car factories in Japan from April 11, the company said today. A damaged engine plant in Iwaki, Fukushima prefecture will restart mid-April, it said.
North America
The parts shortage is already affecting North American production at Honda Motor Co., which said earlier this week it is reducing output on the continent from March 30. The company declined to say how much North America production would be lost as a result of the cuts.

Tokyo-based Honda has said it will lose 46,600 units of auto production from March 14 to April 3. Car output in Japan will resume at half the originally planned level on April 11, the company said today. Parts production will restart on April 4, it said.

Globally, automakers may give up production of 600,000 vehicles by the end of this month, and manufacturing at plants in North America may be affected when parts supplies start running out as soon as early April, Michael Robinet, vice president of Lexington, Massachusetts-based IHS Automotive, said last week.

[vector7]

Presidential Math: Cash for Clunkers Spent $3 Billion to Save $375 Million

The calculations that show the economic failure of the “Cash for Clunkers” government sponsored program was a waste of taxpayer money.

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $375 million.

The government sponsored program, we the taxpayers spent $8.57 for every dollar saved.

With that I’m pretty sure the government will do a great job with health care, though.

Cash for Clunkers, not just a Failure, but a Failure of Governmental Magnitude

[vector7]

June 8, 2011 · 9:58 AM
↓ Jump to Comments

GM’s CEO, appointed by Obama, is calling for $1 Dollar Federal Gas Tax Hike

What else would you expect from a guy appointed by the Obama regime? Obama, his Energy Secretary, his Interior Secretary and now Government Motor’s CEO want higher gas prices. They do it because Democrats care about the working class.

Detroit — General Motors Co. CEO Dan Akerson wants the federal gas tax boosted as much as $1 a gallon to nudge consumers toward more fuel-efficient cars, and he’s confident the government will soon shed its remaining 26 percent stake in the once-bankrupt automaker.

“I actually think the government will be out this year — within the next 12 months, hopefully within the next six months,” Akerson said in a two-hour interview with The Detroit News last week.

He is grateful for the government’s rescue of GM — “I have nothing but good things to say about them” — but Akerson said the time for that relationship to end is coming because it’s wearing on GM.

“It’s kind of like your in-laws: It was a nice long weekend. We didn’t say a week,” Akerson said with a laugh.

GM had no issue with receiving our tax dollars that were handed over by President Obama.

And while he is eager to say goodbye to the government as a part owner of GM, Akerson would like to see it step up to the challenge of setting a higher gas tax, as part of a comprehensive energy policy.

A government-imposed tax hike, Akerson believes, will prompt more people to buy small cars and do more good for the environment than forcing automakers to comply with higher gas-mileage standards.

“There ought to be a discussion on the cost versus the benefits,” he said. “What we are going to do is tax production here, and that will cost us jobs.”

For the years 2017-25, federal officials are considering 3 percent to 6 percent annual fuel efficiency increases, or 47 mpg to 62 mpg. That could boost the cost of vehicles by up to $3,500.

So the American taxpayers are forced to bailout Obama’s union buddies and now the cost of their vehicles will go up by $3,500. The taxpayers are getting screwed twice.

“You know what I’d rather have them do — this will make my Republican friends puke — as gas is going to go down here now, we ought to just slap a 50-cent or a dollar tax on a gallon of gas,” Akerson said.

Sounds like someone wants to force Americans to pay more for gas to sell more vehicles. Brought to you by Government Motors and the Obama regime.

“People will start buying more Cruzes and they will start buying less Suburbans.”

This is another myth. Americans have purchased more SUVs than hybrids.

[vector7]

Companion Threads: Taxing your driving miles..... Gas Crisis - The High Price of Driving Czars Obama's TRUE colors coming out Communist Green Jobs Advisor(Van Jones) says 'Republicans are Assholes" President Obama's EPA Gives Pollution Exemption To GE Obama Administration approves G.E. and Boeing to transfer technology to China Boeing technology heading to Russia Be Prepared To Learn Chinese Obama's Car Czar Praises Mao, Violence to Achieve Goals

| Print |

E-mail

Written by Raven Clabough

Monday, 11 July 2011 10:15

Ron Bloom (left), President Obama’s former car czar, has been finding himself in hot water as of late. First, he has been called on by the House Oversight Committee to answer for actions he took and statements he made in the midst of the controversial auto bailout in 2009. Then, the same committee demanded that the czar explain his remarks of praise for Chinese dictator Mao Zedong and his clear affinity for violence in order to achieve particular goals, all of which were captured on video and aired on Fox News’ Glenn Beck Program. Conservative pundit Glenn Beck was one of the first major media outlets to expose car czar Ron Bloom for statements he made in praise of Mao Zedong’s violent tactics. Beck aired a video clip of Bloom issuing the statements in 2009. The same video clip also exposes Bloom as a staunch opponent of the free market system. The clip features Bloom making the following assertions: Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system. To beat the market or at least find someone who will pay a lot of money cause they’re convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults-only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun and we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog. The Blaze explains: When the video surfaced of this top White House official praising the Chinese communist, Beck used the clip to help build the growing narrative of Obama officials’ admiration of aggressive and oppressive governments. Of course it can often seem that these reveling details are lost in the fast moving news cycles and giant machinery of the bureaucratic system. As noted by The Blaze, the video failed to garner the necessary media attention to tarnish Bloom’s reputation, at least until now. During a June 22 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending on the leading implications of the General Motors Bailout, Congressman Connie Mack questioned Bloom on a number of items, including his statements pertaining to the free market and Mao. The Blaze continues, Until recently when Congressman Connie Mack (R-Fla., 14) brought a little poetic justice to our political process during a late June hearing for Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending by asking Mr. Bloom a tough series of questions about the remarks he made in the video. Mack played the clips for Bloom as he awkwardly tries to explain them away. The question/answer session between Bloom and Mack went as follows: Mack: Do you believe that the free market is nonsense? Bloom: No I don’t. Mack: Alright then, let me ask, if I could, for the first clip to be played. (The first part of the video clip aired on the Glenn Beck program was played, wherein Bloom calls the free market “nonsense”.) Mack: That is you, isn’t it, Mr. Bloom? Bloom: Yes it is. Mack: Ok, so do you believe that it is appropriate for somebody who has been a union leader, and someone who doesn’t believe in the free market, to then be picked by the President and placed in charge of restructuring a private company in our American free market. Bloom: Well, first thing, I think a comment I made in jest at a speech does not represent my view on this matter. Second thing, I would leave to others whether or not the choice of my work, the choice for me to work on this is appropriate or not, and I was part of a large team. There were about a dozen people at the staff and Treasury Department- Mack: Alright, well let me just get back to this. But that was you making that comment. Mack then went on to question a statement Bloom had made during a speech in 2006 before the International Association of Restructuring Insolvency and Bankruptcy Professionals Arizona, where Bloom referenced a “dentist chair bargaining technique.” During the interrogation, Mack asked Bloom to explain the reference. Bloom replied: In a lighthearted speech, I indicated I thought it was important that all parties to the bargaining table had some skin in the game in order to produce the best result. [The dentist chair bargaining technique] is a reference to how a person might go into the dentist office and make sure that the dentist doesn’t hurt them. They would do that by making clear that they also had leverage on the dentist by grabbing him where it might hurt. Visibly disgruntled, Mack went on to attempt to confirm and summarize Bloom’s philosophies and background: So you think the free market is nonsense…you worked either for or on behalf of unions. You believe that there is a way to bargain by making sure that the dentist feels the pain. There are some people who might disagree with your approach. He then played the rest of the video clip wherein Bloom praises Mao and criticizes the free market, and asked Bloom whether his statements are representative of leadership in the unions. Bloom replied, “I think it’s representative of trying to make a point through exaggeration.” According to Mack, exaggeration was not the most appropriate approach at a time when Americans were hurting the most. Ultimately, Mack concludes that it was a poor choice to place Bloom in any position of power, particularly one that involves the restructuring of a private enterprise within the American free market. He attempted to learn how Bloom acquired the position in the first place, and whether Obama played a key role in the decision, but was given an elusive answer. During that same hearing, Bloom was also called upon to answer for a statement he made in 2009 in the midst of the automobile bailout. On June 22, Representative Dan Burton asked Bloom: Did you say this at a dinner? There was a dinner, and it was reported by David Sheppardson, Washington correspondent for the Detroit News, at a farewell dinner of the auto task force held in the restaurant Rosa Mexicano in late July 2009 that you allegedly said, "I did this all for the unions." Though Bloom adamantly denied making such a statement, The Blaze notes that those who levied the claims that he in fact did make the statement were credible sources: The problem is, Bloom’s denial contradicts two otherwise credible sources, including a book written by his car czar predecessor, Steve Rattner, and a published account in the Detroit News. Both claim that Bloom did in fact make the comment in question, though both accounts also agreed that it was made in jest. What is so problematic about Bloom’s statement, “I did this all for the unions,” is that the House Oversight Committee is in the process of investigating actions that took place during the auto bailout, most notably that the unions benefited greatly while salaried employees faced extreme benefit cuts. As the committee is particularly interested in learning why the unions seemed to have been given special consideration during the bailout, Bloom’s confession that he “did this all for the unions” is of particular interest. Though Bloom is no longer the car czar, he continues to serve in the Obama administration as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury, director of the President’s Task Force on the Automotive Industry, and the Administration’s Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy.

[vector7]

Obama unveils sharp increase in auto fuel economy

Ayesha Rascoe and Deepa Seetharaman Reuters 2:18 p.m. EDT, July 29, 2011

WASHINGTON/DETROIT (Reuters) - Several major automakers on Friday embraced the Obama administration's proposal to push the industry further away from once-dominant gas guzzlers to more lean and efficient vehicles.

The proposal, which is the result of months of negotiations between the Obama administration and automakers, would require automakers to reach an average fuel efficiency across their fleets of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

"This agreement on fuel standards represents the single most important step we've ever taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," Obama said at an event announcing the new standards.

The plan bolsters Obama's pledge to cut U.S. oil imports by a third over ten years, which was announced earlier this year.

Flanked by top auto maker executives, Obama said the new rules would lower the country's oil use by 2.2 million barrels a day over the next 15 years and save U.S. consumers almost $2 trillion in fuel costs.

In addition to lowering oil use, the standards are also expected to cut more than 6 billion metric tons of carbon pollution during the life of the program -- more than the entire amount of carbon the United States emitted in 2010 -- the White House said.

"Can we do it? Well, we put a man on the moon; of course we can do this," said Fadel Gheit, senior analyst covering the oil and gas sector at Oppenheimer. "If the will is there, we will be successful and this is the best way to achieve this by pushing and cajoling."

The compromise reached with auto makers is slightly less than the administration's original proposal for corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards.

But it is a major step up from current standards that require auto makers to achieve 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Earlier, the administration had proposed increasing the CAFE target to 56.2 mpg between 2017 and 2025, but that plan ran into opposition from the industry and some lawmakers.

CHALLENGE FOR TRUCKS

The biggest auto sellers -- General Motors, Ford Motor Co, Chrysler, which is run by Italy's Fiat, Toyota Motor Corp and Honda -- have all backed the administration's plan.

The new program includes average increases in fuel economy of 5 percent for cars and 3.5 percent for light trucks through 2021, with a 5 percent increase for all vehicles after that.

"We have a challenge on trucks, but we think this is a fair way to handle it," Sue Cischke, Ford vice president for sustainability and the environment, told reporters at the event. "The standard before was very stringent on trucks and so this is a better balance."

Mercedes-Benz, the luxury car line owned by German car and truck maker Daimler, did not back the new program, saying it "clearly favors large SUVs and pickup trucks."

"Our customers expect a range of vehicles from which to choose so this program creates a very real disconnect between government regulation and customer demand," the carmaker said in a statement.

To meet the new targets, automakers will have to cut weight from their vehicles, develop smaller engines and boost fuel efficiency through direct injection, start-stop technology and turbochargers.

The Center for Automotive Research projected bringing cars and trucks to a 56 miles per gallon CAFE standard would cost about $6,700 per vehicle. The study has been criticized for overestimating the cost of technologies.

"I have to really question the sanity behind that," Dennis Virag, president of Automotive Consulting Group Inc, said of the new CAFE standard. "It's going to be a very difficult mark to achieve and I think it's going to be very costly."

The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation, the agencies developing the new standards, will release the full details of the program by the end of September.

[vector7]

GE “Forcing” Employees Into Chevy Volts
(via Gas 2.0)