Should the US bailout the big three automakers?

[1ntCobra]

Tom,

If I was Ford, I would not want any of the government money as the government would try to interfere with them.

The money going to GM and Chrysler is supposed to be a loan, not a free handout.

Ford perhaps lucked out with timing to get their loans refinanced prior to the financial meltdown. It seems that GM and Chrysler were not as lucky with their timing. With the banks not wanting to (or perhaps incapable) of refinancing GM's or Chrysler's debt after the financial meltdown, that leaves GM and Chrysler running to the government for finance. This is exactly the same situation that killed Circuit City, no bank would refinance their existing debt, no buyer to save them, they went into liquidation.

You have a similar situation with people not buying cars. The drastic cutdown in car purchases is not just people worried about the recession. There are people going to dealers just thinking they are going to finance or lease their next new car, just like they do every 4 years or so, and finding out that they can't get the financing any more.

I was watching to that pjtv video above and how the one guy was saying that he liked old school GM cars, but if GM was not selling what the consumer wanted, they should perhaps go down. But the big 3 were selling what the public wanted, big gas guzzling SUVs, and they were making a nice profit on them. The fickle public doing a 180 degree turn on what they want, and the public also finding out that the banks aren't lending money to buy new cars is the problem. GM was the number one auto maker until Toyota just nudged them out recently. Now you have the government talking like the people running these companies were idiots. Nobody plans for such a large reduction in sales. Nobody plans that the banks are not going to refinance their debt when the time comes. Blame the banks for this mess. And be glad that Ford does not have to deal with the government to survive the financial mess going on now.

[cobra bill]

Why is it everyone is so willing to hang the UAW out to dry on this one like it's their fault, it's OK that the bankers get there bonuses, because they have a contract, well union workers have a contract as well.
The CEO's of Toyota make 20x what the worker makes, in GM and Chrysler and ford they make 300X what the worker on the floor makes, so you tell me who is really over paid! if we could have universal healthcare, it would be enough to level the playing field, Toyota gets Tax incentive, free infrastructure and all sorts of deals to get them to bring their plants in to the country, how is that a level playing field, there's more to it than just the UAW who over the last 5 years has made many concessions.

[What'saCobra?]

Ref from 5.8.2007: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...705080373/1148
"... The Ford family today is a sprawling clan anchored by the 13 great-grandchildren of Henry Ford. Many family members don't live in Michigan and have never worked at the auto company.
They are intricately tied, however, by the 70 million shares of so-called "Class B" Ford Motor stock that they collectively own -- shares that have a combined voting power of 40 percent of all outstanding Ford Motor stock.
Those shares have always been voted in unison, and the family is famous in corporate circles for standing together through any crisis. But with Ford Motor struggling amid falling sales and record losses, the vast wealth of the family is under unprecedented attack...."

------------------------
Ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...090324?sp=true
Lifting the Lid-Ford family in focus as car crisis deepens
Tue Mar 24, 2009
* Ford family control of automaker faces challenge again
* Proponents see Ford family as stabilizing influence
* Ford only Detroit automaker to shun bailout to date
By David Bailey

DETROIT, March 24 (Reuters) - Out of the Big Three remains the Big One.

Ford Motor Co (F.N) -- needing no U.S. bailout of the kind that has kept its Detroit rivals afloat -- remains the last independent American car company. That makes its founding family one of the last surviving dynasties of its kind.

It also adds an unexpected twist to a long-running debate over governance and control at Ford: Has the Ford family been good for investors, or just lucky?

The question is expected to go before shareholders again in May at Ford's annual meeting, in a nonbinding vote on whether to abolish the separate class of shares the family has used to control the automaker since it went public in 1956.

But Ford can point to its relative success in escaping the worst of the brutal downturn to bolster its long-held case that family control offers stability in a volatile industry.

"They have a very significant interest in the company," said Paul Lapides, director of the corporate governance center at Kennesaw State University. "Their wealth is very much in the company and it demands they pay a lot of attention."

Ford family members' Class B shares control 40 percent of the vote with just 3 percent of the stock.

FAMILY CONTROL A HINDRANCE?

Ford shareholders -- watching the stock lose 93 percent of its value in the last decade -- have pressed for change, saying the family influence may have led to the hiring of industry outsider Alan Mulally as chief executive officer, but did not prevent costly misdirections in the past decade.

"Unfortunately, they spent all this money over the last decade on Jaguar and Land Rover," said John Chevedden, a dissident shareholder in the campaign to end the family stock structure. "In part that is why they are where they are today."

"The family had influence during all of those years," he said in a telephone interview.

Chevedden supports an annual and largely symbolic challenge to the family voting structure that is expected to be on the agenda for the company's annual meeting this year as well.

"Dual-class stock companies like Ford take shareholder money but do not let shareholders have an equal voice," the proposed resolution states. "Without a voice, shareholders cannot hold management accountable."

The resolution took 27 percent of the vote in 2008, down slightly from 2007.

Family members have suffered along with other shareholders, losing their dividend and watching the value of Class B shares fall to $206 million from $2.4 billion a decade ago. They met with investment bankers two years ago, but held their shares.

"The Ford family has shown through its actions that the success of the company for the benefit of all shareholders has been the primary purpose of their involvement," Ford spokesman Mark Truby said.

OR LONG-TERM ASSET?

Ford has so far shunned the emergency government loans that have kept General Motors Corp (GM.N) and Chrysler LLC in operation. Ford's rivals have received $17.4 billion and seek up to $22 billion more.

That has allowed Ford investors to skirt the pain of government oversight. GM shareholders, by contrast, could be wiped out as new stock is issued to pay off creditors under terms dictated by the government.

Still, Ford shareholders face the risk of heavy dilution as it funds up to half of its $13.1 billion obligation to a healthcare trust for union retirees in stock, and issues equity to buy back debt.

Barclays Capital analyst Brian Johnson estimates the share count could more than double, rising to about 5.6 billion, from 2.3 billion with trust-related issuance through 2018.

Johnson said he remains negative on Ford equity though, with reduced sales and increased cash burn potentially leading to a Ford request for government aid.

Former Ford President Jim Padilla sees the family as a long-term steadying influence for the automaker.

"I have always felt that the active participation in the ownership structure with the Ford family has been a benefit," Padilla said in an interview. "I think there is a greater commitment to the company, to the community to the employees."

"I think it will continue to be so long as they can keep the structure they have today. And that is going to require that they remain independent, in my view," Padilla said.

Analysts generally see Ford management as headed in the right direction under Mulally with a wave of upcoming smaller vehicles after losses of $30 billion over three years.

"Ford has all the elements of a successful turnaround: compelling new products; strong leadership; and significant cost-cutting opportunities," UBS analyst Colin Langan said in a note to clients.

Executive Chairman Bill Ford gave Mulally his seat at the head of the company in 2006 after taking heat for a bad bet on European luxury brands and deep problems in the United States.

Lapides, who holds some Ford stock, believes the automaker is on the right track in large part because of Mulally.

"Did they make a better decision than the other companies because of the family?" he asked. "I think people can argue that, but I think they just really just made a good decision and things worked out. I don't think this is family magic here."
(Reporting by David Bailey; editing by Richard Chang)
----------------------

A more detailed explanation of the Class B shares and details is found here:
http://www.fordforums.com/f349/how-f...control-39452/

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

Finally, for a very detailed and excellent article in the Detroit News last November 2008 about the FORD family's control and the family's huge personal losses to date, see this:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...11260382&imw=Y

[1ntCobra]

Universal Healthcare will help? Aren't the big 3 paying billions into trust funds for UAW healthcare. Those funds will be under control of the UAW, not the big 3, in order to get that liability off of the books of the big 3 . I wonder what the UAW would do with that money if they suddenly did not need to use it to pay for healthcare anymore? I bet the UAW would love universal healthcare.

Originally Posted by cobra bill

Why is it everyone is so willing to hang the UAW out to dry on this one like it's their fault, it's OK that the bankers get there bonuses, because they have a contract, well union workers have a contract as well.
The CEO's of Toyota make 20x what the worker makes, in GM and Chrysler and ford they make 300X what the worker on the floor makes, so you tell me who is really over paid! if we could have universal healthcare, it would be enough to level the playing field, Toyota gets Tax incentive, free infrastructure and all sorts of deals to get them to bring their plants in to the country, how is that a level playing field, there's more to it than just the UAW who over the last 5 years has made many concessions.

[cobra bill]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

Universal Healthcare will help? Aren't the big 3 paying billions into trust funds for UAW healthcare. Those funds will be under control of the UAW, not the big 3, in order to get that liability off of the books of the big 3 . I wonder what the UAW would do with that money if they suddenly did not need to use it to pay for healthcare anymore? I bet the UAW would love universal healthcare.

Well that's a good question, I would think it would belong the company and should be returned at that point.

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by VRM

Pontiac Aztek... born 2001- died 2005.

Any president and chief executive who allowed that thing (not to be confused with the VW Thing) to roam the streets needs to step down.

But a government hack will probably be far worse.

Steve

THe Aztek can make a train take a dirt road.THe problem is that no cars today are one mans vision(Shelby,DeLorean,Duntov).All cars are designed by committee.Wagoner is not the only one that needs to go.

[What'saCobra?]

1. Everyone is not willing to blame the UAW, as if it is all their fault. Without taking up a lot of your time, it was the auto management that agreed to the UAW deal(s), so they are at least 1/2 responsible for the awful legacy costs going forward in these companies. Takes two to tango...

But: Those old managers are gone, retired, dead and otherwise feebleized. The UAW's legacy costs remain as targets of need and opportunity...

2. For the last two weeks, the entire world has expressed shock and anger that "bankers get their bonuses". Where have you been that you have missed all that scheduled hatred and grandstanding? Did you miss the pictures of the hired toughs yelling and screaming at the banker's family residences?

But: Didn't you notice that it was Senator Dodd that secretly re-wrote the bailout plans to authorize those payments, anyway, at AIG? Did he do other deals? Bet on it. Check-out his Irish cottage.

3. Many bankers not only didn't get their bonuses, but are unemployed without severance pay, before their pensions kick-in, if ever.

But: Did you see any screams for the return of fraud-based bonuses (Jamie Gorelick), excessive board-member fees (Rahm Emanuel) and campaign donations (Chris Dodd) paid by the banks (Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac) with illegal activities that were covered-up by Barney Fwank's grandstanding and purposeful mis-direction?

4. Of course UAW members have a contract and they have not missed either a single payroll, health plan payment or performance bonus, despite everyone else's considerable suffering to date. Nor should they, if they performed to specification. That's why we have contracts.

But: Have you read about any UAW concessions? Can you name a single issue that has been mitigated in these pre-bankruptcy talks? Did our walk-on-water President fire the head of the UAW for not acting in good faith or for incompetency? Why does the sacrificial lamb have to be the Chairman of Government Motors? Where is the parity and fairness in that? Didn't Wagoner have a severance contract in addition to his pension?

5. Pay ratios are an interesting way of complaining. Wagoner was at GM for 31 years, an inside ball player who had dozens of jobs, ALL of which he did with flying colors, including union negotiating; where he may very well have given away the farm instead of taking an industry-wide strike, a typical UAW strike strategy. He EARNED the job, friend. NOBODY forecast this GLOBAL downturn and political policy screw-ups.

But: If you wish to apply situational moral rules to employment and service contracts, how moral is it for President Clinton to have received $10 Million advance for his book? How moral was it for Dodd to receive sugar-daddy mortgage rates for his home(s) refinancing from Countrywide, while Chairman of the Banking Committee? How moral was it for Emanuel to have received nearly $400K for six meetings at Freddy Mac? How moral was it for the UAW to buy and operate a 1000 acre world-class resort and golf course with member's dues ($33M), losing millions per year ($23M loss the last 5 years)? i thought investments were supposed to make money? You know, profits? Returns on investments? Rents? Hello?

6. As a union employee, you don't need universal healthcare. And installing it in the USA will reduce your own access to healthcare, as it becomes rationed mostly to "productive" citizens (preferred citizens is more precise). So-called Universal Healthcare certainly will not mitigate Toyota's advantages in various right-to-work states, where flexibility and far less legacy costs are more favorable to a new company. Once UH is installed, ALL of the company's will drop their health plans, so no advantage will accrue.

But: Toyota, Honda and BMW have also more highly automated and far more flexible facilities, with less labor hour content per ton, sales dollar or unit. They are all in tax juristictions that are fair to corporations that start-up and the BIG THREE were welcome to move there years ago AND WERE ADVISED TO DO SO. They knuckled-under to the UAW at the time. Have you actually been to Detroit and experienced its raw ethnicity, urban pride and visual treats? You want your kids to work and live there?

7. "... a level playing field..." This is frequently the plea of the incompetent and incontinent. They cannot really compete in the real world and need "special concessions" from the judges, rule-makers or their political masters to remain in business, despite their poor performance and attitudes. (Air America leaps to mind.) Personally, i prefer to play down-hill and will mostly arrange my affairs accordingly, if possible. i do not ask favor, permit or privilege, but perform according to contract, specification or generous interpretation of local custom. Around the world. i play the course offered or do not play.

But: You may wish to continue to use political power to help protect the Big Three's poor performance, but i think it is not a viable strategy to contain the inevitable. Sooner or later the dems will screw the UAW. It is the thing they do. Sooner or later. Of course, only when it is absolutely necessary. Naturally. It is called situational ethics by theologians, philosophers and Constitutional conservatives.

Last note:
When dems notice that pubbies increase spending 10% on something on which the dems promised 20%, dems scream spending was "slashed".

When the UAW demands 12 percent wage/benefit increases, rather than the 5 percent offered, then both accept a mutually agreed 6 percent increase, the UAW calls that a 6 percent "concession".

Spending of any sort on anything is NEVER slashed by dems and unions, let alone reduced even a wee smidgeon.

Detroit needs complete structural and financial reform through creative destruction and re-assembly. Pelosi will not allow it. Therein lies the story for the rest of this year... the contest between President Obama and Speaker Pelosi.

i'm getting out the popcorn and plan to watch it with gleeful admiration for the contest between the gifted leviathans and political dinosaurs. Detroit will be ground zero.

[Mark IV]

Originally Posted by What'saCobra?

-----------

Family members have suffered along with other shareholders, losing their dividend and watching the value of Class B shares fall to $206 million from $2.4 billion a decade ago. They met with investment bankers two years ago, but held their shares.

Two years, ago when the family met with the investment bankers, Ford stock was $10-13. They could have taken the company private at that time based upon market cap and proven debt/asset ratios. How much would it cost them now? Sure, the stock they hold will be worth less to pledge for collateral, but if they didn't need to answer to stockholders and do the "dog and pony show" for Wall Street how much more room would management have to run the company and turn things around?

[What'saCobra?]

Yes, sir, the FORD family has protected the management from the public's over-reactions and various market vicissitudes. FORD was seldom the biggest modern firm, but frequently the best managed. Will Government Motors live as long? Will it last the 60 days? GM is managed and owned today by the US Government and our President (amongst his other duties in Europe). His minions are deciding today the constitution of the Board of Directors, on what basis you might rightly concern yourself. Will they all hail from Chicago, you fairly ask?

Well, in the last century, the euro-visigothian-sourced mythic and "noble" Aryans twice failed to lead us to the perfect man and heaven on this earth. Nor were the Steppe-borne Attilla's of the Volga and Carpathians, despite their 70 years of practice and 60 million murders and their nuclear-tipped spear-chuckers, able to perfect modern man, despite Marxian certitude and voluminous logical but broken promises.

These were all Socialisms, National or Communist. They all knew that "modern man" could be developed and 'trained' to act in collective interest, like ants or bees. They ignored the social examples and behaviors of wolves and hyenas; but that is what mostly emerged, didn't it?

So, as the islamoNazi Persians threaten us, while we subdue and re-train the Assyrian civilization, shall we now let the Upper-Nile Ethiopians or pseudo-Nubians down the street further perfect the Great Marxian promise upon us and chaste our ways? Will Bill Ayres Prairie Fire be prophetic?

What drives their wish to perfect us? Is it the self-loathing of their other perhaps better-half, festering racial hatreds implanted by the party cadre upon a lonely child or simply human ego, misplaced personal pride and the colossal narcissism of a pampered man-child with no paternal guidance, pride and respect?

Do we imagine running Detroit, Washington and New York will be enough for any mortal? Does the King ever have enough wives?

Lord, save us from those who wish to save us from ourselves.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by Cobrabill

THe Aztek can make a train take a dirt road.THe problem is that no cars today are one mans vision(Shelby,DeLorean,Duntov).All cars are designed by committee.Wagoner is not the only one that needs to go.

Even back in the 60's they were not all one mans vision. Shelby had AC, Delorean had Iacocca, Duntov had Shinoda. Iacocca was an industrial engineer who ended up running the company. He knows how to build stuff, and the rest were engineers or designers.

Wagoner is an economics major. Cars are often a passionate purchase, and I just think an accountant is usually just going to take the passion right out of whatever the engineers and designers do. A lot of GMs head honchos have been engineers who worked their way up. The ones that weren't (like Harlow Curtice) allowed guys like Harley Earl to play a large role.

Yep, lots of others need to go as well - the UAW is a problem, but they are not the biggest one.

Steve

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by What'saCobra?

So, as the islamoNazi Persians threaten us, while we subdue and re-train the Assyrian civilization, shall we now let the Upper-Nile Ethiopians or pseudo-Nubians down the street further perfect the Great Marxian promise upon us and chaste our ways? Will Bill Ayres Prairie Fire be prophetic?

Good points made, and well put; but don't you think that likening the policies and actions of one man of mixed ancestry to "the Upper-Nile Ethiopians or pseudo-Nubians" imposing their vision of Marxist utopia on western society just a bit of a stretch?

[Dwight]

just saw this on AOL news

Dwight
################################################## #


a cursory analysis of the evolution of executive compensation over the past few decades is enough to bring out one's inner Karl Marx. By now, the statistics are pretty well-known, but let's review them one more time: in 1982, the average CEO made 42 times as much as the average worker; by 1990, they were making 107 times as much as their employees, and by 2007, 275 times as much. This meant, incidentally, that the average CEO made more in one workday than the average employee made all year.

Some studies have suggested that employees don't begrudge their bosses the extra pay as long as the company is doing well. However, even by that metric, CEO compensation has grown out of control. With companies lining up to take government bailouts, it is worth asking exactly what companies are getting for their money. One can only imagine the feelings of AIG's rank-and-file employees, and the attitude among low-level workers at Merrill Lynch must be downright mutinous.

At its base level, the incredible disparity between CEO pay and that of rank-and-file workers suggests an out-sized veneration of the executive suite. Based on pure numbers, the idea seems to be that every CEO is worth 270 trained workers. Disturbing enough as that is, this perspective also goes a long way toward explaining the massive decline in customer service over the past few years.

[Keithc8]

This seems to be a problem with big companies these days. I feel that these CEOs need to be concerned about this and how it effects employee moral. Being the owner of a Company myself I worry about what my employees think of my work habits and what I have. I try to work more than any of my employees and with the hours that I put in I do not make a lot more than they do. I feel that if you are out of lne of this stuff that your quality and employee performace will suffer.
I try to do some things for my guys to keep them motivated and let them know I appreciate their work. I know that I am small compared to these guys but it sounds like they need to get back to basics with both upper management and the union if they want to stay in business.

[What'saCobra?]

Beats me, Mr. B. When they come to your company and your neighborhood, let me know if it was a stretch. Whatever excuse or jargon they use will be sufficient, i suppose.

One man's stretch is another man's caution, they say.

"Then they came for the Jews, and i didn't speak up because i wasn't a Jew..." When they came for GM, i didn't speak up because i was working for FORD?

Read Prairie Fire and let me know if the new Holy Roman Emperor of Asia, Europe and the Americas is following the script and forecast written by Ayres.

Oh yes, by the way, look at the bended knee to the King of Saudi Arabia... Sort of King to King? Isn't that a bigger stretch?

How could such a genius geo-politician make such an un-American faux-pas?

Say, wasn't it General George Washington that refused to be made King, saying something like, "we just fought a war in which many many good men gave their lives to rid us of one king, should we just swap one for another?"

“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts.” Lincoln, of course. But, were the people given the real facts?

As President Lincoln said, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Seems to me, the test is under way and many things are already visible...

[Buzz]

Ok What'sa - no real issue with the issues, and sorry for dragging this off-topic - just some deliveration on the delibery uh, uh, I mean, deliberation on the delivery (*&^%$#@#$ teleprompter!). Since Obammah was (supposedly) born in Hawaii can we therefore also declare that an archipelago in the Central Pacific Ocean, physiographically and ethnologically part of the Polynesian subregion of Oceania is out to impose the great Marxian promise upon the beleaguered Western way of life? Can we hold the man accountable for his policies and actions as an individual, or do we really believe he is a Manchurian Candidate - planted in the White House to execute his part of an elaborate strategy to destroy the American way of life from within the belly of the beast?

[What'saCobra?]

Well, B, we are Americans, you and me. If we chose to attack Canada, no doubt the Ottowa Sun ( like the London Mirror) would say, "the Americans have attacked us!", while the Citizen might be more circumspect and say it was just a couple of half-bright right-wingers looking for publicity.

To your point, i would measure President Obama according to his own definitions, declared training and proven preferences. i would look to his mentors, communists and America haters all and his mother, grandmother and grandfather, all party cadre intent on changing America into their atheistic big government vision.

After all, REv. Wright and Elijah Mohummed speak loudly about black supremacy, a black Christ and a GD America, i recall. They want a separate America. A Better America. Black power. Reparations. Ayres instructs them to "...bring the revolution home and kill your parents." Michele has never been proud of America, until He was the candidate.

You have read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, correct?

As Larry King says, "we have over 300 million people, SOMEBODY is going to have to make decisions for them!" So, friend, size does matter after all.

At your leisure, read both of His books again, now with an eye to his current acts against Christian faith, Catholic reason (common sense will do) and our Constitutional Right to Life. Liberty and Happiness are not options for the dead, either born or unborn. For a self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar to prefer a mother's choice of death for her accidently born child (botched abortion) is indeed a severely illogical and foundationally revealing choice. But, we know the current crop of dem party leadership believe that up is just as well down, over could easily better be under and black is the new white. When you are an accomplished "new" socialist cum communist, chaos is your friend, friend.

"Never let a good crisis go to waste", Rahm Emanuel instructs them.

So, shall let them re-interpret the laws of physics (global warming), economics ("i know that lower tax rates on the rich collect higher tax revenues, but it isn't "fair"), private property (the "dis-advantaged" ought to be helped by requiring the lowering their mortgage debt, interest rates and credit status)? Shall they institute nationwide union election rules, striking down long-standing states-rights, guaranteeing ever larger union membership and muscle? Shall they force anti-christian ethical standards of the medical community membership by requiring abortion participation, despite many state's citizen-chosen limitations?

Shall they destroy "the rich" between the twin millstones of debt and inflation? Lenin.

Let's hear it for the Leader of the Party of Death. Let His people cancel our missile systems, our new ships, our best fighters, our laser weapons and more. Perhaps this will encourage our enemies to be more considerate of our new-found peaceful intentions. Likely, the pot-bellied (i should talk!) piglet is laughing his buttinski off, just like Kruschov laughed at JFK after their first meeting. A few months later, Nikita Sergeyevich shipped nukes to Cuba. What shall the Great Leader of the PRNK do? What has our own Great Leader learned? At least JFK woke up from his domestic dreaming.

But, then they put him to sleep, forever, may he finally rest in peace.

N Korea's Kim-shee stuck it in His eye with a missile test during His speech on Saturday. Sarkozy stuck it in His eye over Turkey's EU membership (MYOB) and promised to take all of 1 Guantanamo detainee. Merkel told Him to take a hike about throwing more good money after bad. Not a single Republican voted in either House to accept his budget proposals, 1 million bridges to nowhere. There was a bi-partisan group of No votes.

And we should give Him a pass? Or think He is alone? Or not think about what could be?

Friend, we've just seen his second speech for the election of Holy Roman Emperor, at least.

Berlin was His first. And you knew that US Foreign Service workers in Berlin were instructed NOT TO ATTEND? And we don't wonder why? Who paid for the free opening rock concert, free draft, free pretzels and free chicken? That's the new economics for you!

It's only fair.
-------------------------------------
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_114752.html

[Jamo]

interesting discussion...but let's bring it back on topic

[Buzz]

Okeydokey big buddy. Cheers What'sa - It was good while it lasted.

[Don]

Quoted as published:

AutoWeek: By WES RAYNAL

" So much paper and ink and bits and bytes have been wasted writing about the Obama administration firing General Motors boss Rick Wagoner. Whether or not you think Wagoner deserved it is beside the point. And that level of government intervention into business making you queasy doesn't really matter, either. What's important is to be aware of the amount of bad information our elected officials are still spewing as fact, and that huge decisions are being made in Washington based on those falsehoods.

The latest comes from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. No surprise there--many say she's been misinforming the populace for years. U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers called her "crazy" and "mean as a snake."

Then he apologized to snakes everywhere.

As much as I'd love to, I won't go that far. But I will call her out when she gets it wrong, and on Wagoner and the industry in general, she gets it really wrong. At least she's consistent.

Let's take a couple of her latest gems. Speaking to some reporters in Washington, Pelosi said, "You lose billions of dollars a year, you get millions of dollars in salary, and you get $20 million to leave. Pay for performance is something we'd like to see here."

Amen to that: Let's start with Congress. Need I remind Ms. Pelosi that Congress helped create the situation with the automakers by failing to develop a comprehensive energy policy, one that could include a floor on the price of gasoline? If it were to do so, that would drive the market toward smaller, more efficient vehicles, not government forcing them down our throats. Congress also failed to regulate the financial community, which led to the banking collapse that ultimately toppled the auto companies. I mean, really. Do we have to go over all of this again?

Pay for performance? Bring it.

Pelosi also questioned why Wagoner and other auto executives did not foresee "that they had to compete, that the world was changing, that people wanted more fuel-efficient cars that were friendlier to the environment. . . . I don't know how some of these people have lasted so long."

C'mon. That's just ignorant. Yet again: GM, Ford and Chrysler did see the future and have plenty of fuel-efficient and advanced-technology cars and trucks for sale now and in the pipeline. In fact, Nance, GM offers 20 models with 30 mpg or better EPA highway ratings--more than any manufacturer. Heck, Chevy alone has more 30-mpg-highway models than beloved can-do-no-wrong Toyota or Honda.

And by the way, need I remind the government, sales of small cars and hybrids are down significantly now that gasoline is cheap again. Study after study show that consumers' vehicle choice is influenced by gasoline prices.

So, do you feel good about people of Pelosi's ilk? About these people being in charge of the auto industry? Wanting to take over health care? Wanting to dictate to companies who the CEO will be and how much that person will get paid? Neither do I.

I know, I know, it's all politics. Pelosi needs to come out every once in a while and spew nonsense to stoke the anti-big-company flames. Her constituents demand it. It's all politics.

At least, I hope that's why she does it.

Either that, or Rogers was right. "


AutoWeek | Updated: 04/08/09, 1:53 pm et

[1ntCobra]

A lot of good points there.

But the proposed solution is a floor on the price of gasoline? I think we have a minimum price for a gallon of milk here (well in PA, not sure if that is national). That is supposed to help out the poor dairy farmers. Would a minimum price for a gallon of gas help out those poor oil companies? Or would the extra price above fair market get skimmed off the top by the poor government?