Showing posts with label Auto. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Auto. Show all posts

The UAW Has Blood On Their Hands While We, The US Taxpayers Have Dirt In Our Faces. [Bailout]

12/19/2008 02:49:00 PM

(0) Comments

JCPenny catalog2Your own little Detroit, just in time for Christmas!   And again I state, if the UAW is so good, then why is Detroit in trouble?  Why don’t the import auto makers have problems?  Why aren’t they screaming for a bailout?  The difference between the two?  The UAW.

This morning President Bush announced that his Administration, acting unilaterally after Congress declined to intervene, due to the UAW refusing to make concessions, will bail out the auto industry to the tune of $13.4 billon now, and possibly another $4 billion in February.  “The time to make hard decisions to become viable is now, or the only option will be bankruptcy,” Bush said.  “The automakers and unions must understand what is at stake and make hard decisions necessary to reform.”

The White House admits that it consulted with Obama on the loan package.  They briefed the Obama transition team over the last several days and options under consideration, according to a transition aide not authorized to speak publicly.  White House spokesman Joel Kaplan confirmed that there had been “consultations ongoing” between the two sides but he declined to go into specifics.  The financing will be drawn from the $700 billion TARP, the fund set aside in October to bailout Wall Street firms and banks.

Obama issued a statement on the bailout loan to Detroit:

Today’s actions are a necessary step to help avoid a collapse in our auto industry that would have devastating consequences for our economy and our workers.  With the short-term assistance provided by this package, the auto companies must bring all their stakeholders together – including labor, dealers, creditors and suppliers – to make the hard choices necessary to achieve long-term viability.  The auto companies must not squander this chance to reform bad management practices and begin the long-term restricting that is absolutely required to save this critical industry and the millions of American jobs that depend on it.

DETAILS ON THE “LOAN”

Here’s a sneak peek of the plan, as released by the White House:

  • Amount:  Auto manufacturers will be provided with $13.4 billion in a short-term financing from the TARP, with an additional $4 billion available in February, contingent upon drawing down the second batch of TARP funds.
  • Viability Requirement:  The firms must use these funds to become financially viable.  Taxpayers will not be asked to provide financing for firms that do not become viable.  If the firms have not attained viability by March 31, 2009, the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury.
  • Definition of Viability:  A firm will only be deeded viable if it has a positive net present value, taking into account all current and future costs, and can fully repay the government loan.
  • Binding Terms and Conditions:  The binding terms and conditions established by the Treasury will mirror those that were voted favorably by a majority of both Houses of Congress, including:
    • Firms must provide warrants for non-voting stock.
    • Firms must accept limits on executive compensation and eliminate perks such as corporate jets. [The companies must show the White House they are “taking all reasonable steps” to sell aircraft or interest in aircraft.  And they must provide plans to control their expenses that would include details about spending on holiday parties, travel and new real estate.]
    • Debt owed to the government would be senior to other debts, to the extent permitted by law.
    • Firms must allow the government to examine their books and records.
    • Firms must report and the government has the power to block any large transactions (> $100 million).
    • Firms must comply with applicable Federal fuel efficiency and emissions requirements.
    • Firms must not issue new dividends while they owe government debt.
  • Targets:  The terms and conditions established by Treasury will include additional targets that were the subject of Congressional negotiations but did not come to a vote, including:
    • Reduce debts by 2/3 via a debt for equity exchange. [The companies would need to provide the government with restructuring plans by Feb 17.  Those plans would need to show the companies and their subsidiaries have used their best efforts to reduce outstanding unsecured public debt, with the exception of pension and employment benefits obligations, by two-thirds.]
    • Make one-half of VEBA payments in the form of stock.  [The White House has called for the automakers to make 1/2 of the approximate $21 billion owned to UAW retiree health-care trust in stock instead of cash.]
    • Eliminate the jobs bank. [The bank provides nearly full pay to union workers on long-term layoff.  The workers receive normal unemployment benefits however, the jobs bank provides compensation that would make the workers benefits, while on layoff, equal to about 95% of their weekly income.]
    • Work rules that are competitive with transplant auto manufactures by 12/31/09. [Meaning equal to that of Nissan, Toyota or Honda however, the U.S. Treasury has changed its stance, saying it had identified an error it wanted to correct to make terms of the package consistent with its intent.]
    • Wages that are competitive with those of transplant auto manufacturers by 12/31/09.
    In addition, the firm will be required to conclude new agreements with its other major stake holders, including dealers and suppliers, by March 31, 2009.


    These terms and conditions would be non-binding in the sense that negotiations can deviate from the quantitative targets above, providing that the firm reports the reasons for these deviations and make the business case to achieve long-term viability in spite of the deviations.

    Interest on the loans is currently set at 5% for three years.  In the event of a default, interest rates could rise to 800 basis points above either Libor or 2%, whichever is greater and is payable immediately.

    The companies would need to provide the government with weekly status reports, beginning this week.  The reports would need to detail companies’ 13—week rolling cash forecasts.  The companies also are required to provide biweekly liquidity status reports after loan disbursements and monthly certifications of expense policy and compensation compliance.

    WHO GETS WHAT, MAYBE

    GM     - $17.4 billion.  GM is set to draw $4 billion on Dec. 29, followed by another $5.4 billion on Jan. 16.  Should Congress release a second set of TARP funding, GM would get an additional $4 billion on Feb. 17.

    Chrysler - $4 billion on Dec. 29.

    Ford – Ford is not seeking any assistance.  “As we told Congress, Ford is in a different position.  We do not face a near-term liquidity issue, and we are not seeking short-term financial assistance from the government,” Ford President and CEO Alan Mulally said.  “But all of us at Ford appreciate the prudent step the administration has taken to address the near-term liquidity issues of GM and Chrysler.”

    MEANWHILE THE UAW IS NOT HAPPY ABOUT PAY AND BENEFIT CONCESSION

    If you remember, because the UAW would not make concession, that was the reason that the Republicans said no to the Detroit bailout.  Well, Bush added in that concession, and the UAW is not a happy camper.

    House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D) is calling the wage stipulation “an unfair assault on working men and women” that could force them to accept “a disproportionately large reduction in what is currently legally owed to them.”  The provision, Frank said, “could give foreign auto companies in effect the ability to dictate wages for all American auto workers,” and “it’s outrageous to be giving foreign companies the right to set wages for American workers.”  He is already pushing for Obama to change that portion of the emergency loan package, something the U.S. Treasury said the incoming Administration will have the power to do. 

    House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) said the White House package “unfortunately singles out workers and clearly put them at a disadvantage before negotiations have even begun.”

    “All stakeholders – management, directors, bondholders, suppliers, dealers, workers – will have to participate in shared sacrifices to help the industry move forward,” UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said, noting that the UAW members have already made more substantial sacrifices to help make the domestic auto companies more competitive.  [Those concessions were over a year ago, in an totally different economy.]

    ”We are disappointed that,” President Bush, “has added unfair conditions signaling out workers,” Gettlefinger said.  “We will work with the Obama administration and the new Congress to ensure that these unfair conditions are removed, as we join in the coming months with all stakeholders to create a viable future for the U.S. auto industry.”

    “Because these provisions are unnecessary to achieve our goal and because they were unilaterally inserted by the President into what was otherwise a negotiated agreement, I believe that the incoming administration and the Congress should take whatever step are necessary to remove them,” he said. 

    The UAW has criticized the idea of cutting employment compensation.  “While we appreciate that President Bush has taken the emergency action needed to help America’s auto companies weather the current financial crisis, we are disappointed that he has added unfair conditions singling out workers,” UAW President Ron Gellelfinger said in a statement.

    What the UAW needs to remember, is that this money is a loan to GM and Chrysler, a bailout for the auto makers, the company itself, NOT to the workers.  Because if the company doesn’t exist, then the workers don’t have a job.  If the UAW needs money to continue giving their members the same lifestyle they are use to in pay and benefits, then they should solicit Congress for money and take a loan out themselves.

    TARP

    Then there is the entire issue of the second part of the TARP funds.  Currently of the first $350 billion allocated to the Treasury, the department has committed:

        ■  $315 billion to inject capital into banks and AIG
        ■  $20 billion to unfreeze consumer credit markets
        ■  $13.4 billion for GM and Chrysler

    This leaves the Treasury will less than $2 billion at its disposal.  Treasury Secretary Paulson said that Congress must release the second half of the $700 billion TARP, stating he would meet with lawmakers and Obama’s transition team to discuss when to ask for the rest of the rescue money. 

    But some administration officials suggested that the final decision to request the funds might not come until after Obama takes office.  Treasury officials have grown increasing concerned in recent weeks that they could be left without enough cash to stem another financial crisis, such as the collapse of a bank or other major institution.  But on the other side of the coin, many in Congress have been critical of how the US Treasury has handled the first part of the $350 billion in funding.

    In order for the Treasury to access the second half of TARP, the White House must send Congress a plan detailing how the money would be spent.  Congressional Democrats say they don’t expect a request to come before Jan. 4, when the new Congress is scheduled to convene.

    Once that submission is made to Congress, they have a 15 day window on voting to pass a measure to block release of the money.  If Congress passes a bill to not release the money, then the White House could veto and overrule the congressional vote, but then Congress could also overturn that veto.

    The reason Paulson is talking to the OBama team, is that the timeline for all of this, puts the passage into the first days of Obama’s presidency.  It is unlikely, and I would be very surprised, if Bush petitions Congress to release the money.

    Congressional Democrats say they don’t expect a request to come before Jan. 6, when the new Congress is scheduled to convene.  Once a request is made from the White House, Congress has 15 days to pass a measure that would block release of the money.  Six plus fifteen equals 21, meaning Obama is in office.  Or if Congress passed immediately, Bush could veto the funds which would mean that Obama would have to make the request to Congress, thus adding additional responsibility on Obama’s Administration. 

    OBAMA

    ”Today’s actions are a necessary step to help avoid a collapse in our auto industry that would have devastating consequences for our economy and our workers,” Obama said.  “With the short-term assistance provided by this package, the auto companies must bring all their stakeholders together including labor, dealers, creditors and suppliers to make the hard choices necessary to achieve long-term viability.”

    Obama has also said that “the American people’s patience is running out.”  He says the automakers should “seize the opportunity” to come up with a plan to make their companies sustainable.

    Obama also said a final restructuring package shouldn’t just include concessions from the workers.  He said they shouldn’t be the ones “taking all the hits”.  Obama says everyone involved with the auto industry has to be “part of the process.” 

    Obama wouldn’t say if he had any specific changes to the plan laid out by Bush this morning because he had yet not examined the exact details.

    Bush however, has handed off to Obama his probable first and major difficult decision when he becomes President regarding our economy.  Then his administration must politically and economically judge whether GM and Chrysler have become financially viable at the end of March.  If his new team concludes that the automakers have not become financially viable, it means bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler and widespread layoffs far beyond the automakers.  Meanwhile, Bush has insured that the automakers do not fall on his presidential watch, while it will be up to Obama and his administration to determine if GM and Chrysler are viable, and possibly fall.

    CERBERUS

    Cerberus owns 80 percent in Chrysler.  The White House package strips away the requirement that Cerebrus be held liable for any losses experienced by the taxpayers.  Lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, have expressed outrage that Cerebrus, which is profitable, had refused to put up any more cash aid to Chrysler. 

    In an emailed statement, Cerberus said that it will hand over equity in the company’s automotive operations to labor and creditors as part of the loan agreement.  “Concessions by all relevant constituencies” are needed to restructure Chrysler.  The fund agreed today to put up another $2 billion into Chrysler.  Administration officials said the investment effectively put Cerberus on the hook for far more than just the government loan, and that taxpayers were being protected through tough restrictions imposed in the loan agreements – including provisions that would give the government an equity stake in GM and Chrysler.

    RANT ON

    First of all, this is a bailout plan, plain and simple.  Sure, the White House will point to a long list of requirement in the deal’s terms as proof that this isn’t just another bailout.  But that’s bogus:  this is a politically-driven plan and none of the important concessions listed by the White House are binding or likely to happen.  That’s because, unlike in bankruptcy court, this bailout offers no accountability.  There is a zero chance that the government will require GM or Chrysler to pay back these loans if they are unable to right themselves by March. 

    Second, the “deal” is non-binding.  Detroit could come back and simply say they haven’t obtained “viability” because no one is buying cars.  That’s their ticket out.

    Third, it’s an end-run around our representative democracy.  Congress spent over one month debating whether and how to support the automakers and, in the end, decided to put no taxpayer money on the line.  The White House’s action today nullifies that congressional decision, violating the constitutional command that the legislative branch makes law and the executive branch enforces it.

    Forth, it’s just a downpayment.  According to industry analysts and economists (e.g., Mark Zandi) future bailouts, or even bankruptcy, are inevitable.  How much will it cost?  Zandi says up to $150 billion.

    Fifth, according to the terms, if the auto makers have “not attained viability by March 31, 2009, the loan will be called and all funds returned to the Treasury.”  What if they auto makers haven’t attained viability, and they don’t have any money to pay it back immediately?

    Sixth, there nothing in the loan terms to keep Detroit from continuing layoffs and sending jobs to Mexico.

    Seventh, is another small problem:  this bailout is ILLEGAL.  The administration does not have the legal authority to use funds from the bank bailout in this way.  Congress earmarked that money for “financial institutions,” which the UAW automakers clearly are not.  The funds were to be used to restore liquidity and stability in the overall financial system, not to help nonfinancial corporate companies in distress because of  the UAW.

    And finally, the fact is that this bailout probably isn’t going to work.  Put simply, if the goal is turning the automakers around to achieve long-term profitability, this bailout is clearly inferior to a straightforward reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code, which so many large corporations have relied upon to escape dire financial straights and return to profitability.  A bailout actually makes achieving this goal less likely.

    And then there is the fact that auto sales have been SLASHED at record lows.  Detroit can continue to make cars however, who is going to be buying them? 

    And where is the “car czar” in all of this?  Oh yea, its the U.S. Treasury secretary, and we all know how good he’s been with that, right?

    SIDE RANT

    Why aren’t the same type of restrictions or concessions given to the “too big to fail” banks, who are still laying off workers, paying stockholders, paying bonuses, buying other banks, increasing interest rates on current balances on credit cards, and not making any credit available to consumers and businesses?

    And do I feel sorry for current employees and retirees who benefits may end up being cut 60% in the end?  Nope.  Why should they be any different from any other American who is suffering right now?  Join the recession with the rest of the country where you must choose between housing, food and health care.  And if you say the UAW has acquired rights to those items, then why doesn’t the rest of the country have the same?

    As for those who paid into the pension fund, and may not get those funds?  Well, what about all the millions of people who have paid into FICA, and come to find out, those funds are probably going to be gone and thus then what?   I paid in enough funds within a 10 year period to acquire enough points to be eligible to retire and eligible for disability.  Why do I have to wait at least 32 years AFTER that to be eligible for 70% of my retirement benefits, and wait a total of 37 years AFTER I’ve paid in enough to be eligible for 100% of my measly $1000 a month.  Can I have interest on all that money over the years?  Nope.

    There is the option of the 401(k) however, the Democrats in Congress want to seize those funds.

    And why do average US workers, making $10 to $15 a hour, if not less, have to pay taxes to support the UAW for workers who make two or three times those hourly wages, not including all their benefits?

    The UAW has blood on their hands while we, the US taxpayers have dirt in our faces.

    MEANWHILE

    A bailout for Wall Street was done in days in Congress.  A bailout for the auto makers was done in a few weeks.  Why is it taking MONTHS to do a bailout for US taxpayers?  In the meantime, the US taxpayer, who is suffering from record high foreclosures and unemployment get to move into their new digs while the UAW wants to make sure that their workers have everything they have had in the past.  A box under an interstate, or bridge. Are you going to choose a refrigerator box or build one from wooden skids?

    If Unions are so good for the economy, then why are automakers in trouble?  If the auto workers are so good, then why are the US made cars mostly sub-standard compared to foreign autos?  And if UAW made cars are so good, then why isn’t the import car industry in trouble?  Why aren’t the import companies screaming for bailouts?  Why is Detroit in so much trouble, but the import auto companies not?  What is their difference?  The UAW.

    Let the auto workers know what it’s like to have to sleep in one of their own cars in the middle of winter as a home or they can take pay cuts and come back to Earth with the rest of the United States and suffer along with everyone else.   Settle with something, and not nothing.  The UAW’s greed will be the downfall of at least GM.  Greed and Vanity are two of my favorite sins.

    FINAL NOTE

    I never thought I would say this, but Bush is a smart man.  If you don’t understand that statement on the “loans”, then you are obviously not getting the ‘whole picture” and /or are an Obama supporter.

    SOURCES:

    •  Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

    Misery Index

    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Congress Bails Out Banks, Now Car Makers, Taxpayers Left Holding The Bill [Jane, Stop This Crazy Thing!]

    11/11/2008 01:40:00 PM

    (0) Comments

    jane_stop And yes I'm in a mood today.....

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now calling for "emergency and limited financial assistance" for the auto industry, to be completed within days in a post election session of Congress.  So first it was banks, and then investment companies who decided they wanted to be banks so they wouldn't fall, taking loans from the Fed and then using that money to buy out other banks while not loaning anyone money, which is what was suppose to have been done with the loans.  Credit card companies such as American Express have decided to become "banks" so they can access the Fed loans and stay in business.  And the Fed says that they aren't going to tell us how the $2 trillion black hole money is being used.  Bloomberg has filed a Freedom of Information Act and a Federal law suit just to get the information.

    Now Pelosi says that we as a nation must bail out a carmaker?  In a written statement, Pelosi said the aid was needed "in order to prevent the failure of one or more of the major American automobile manufacturers, which would have a devastating impact on our economy, particularly on the men and women who work in that industry."  "Congress and the Bush administration must take immediate action," she added.

    Congress has already passed legislation providing for $25 billion in government-backed loans to the automakers to prod them to retool their factories to make more efficient vehicles.  The more efficient vehicles are not necessarily vehicles that will get more gas mileage, but vehicles that will conform with new, and extremely stringent air quality standards, basically those that will pass California's extremely strict CARB emissions policy by the year 2010.

    But like AIG, the auto makers said that wasn't enough, we want more.  Auto execs and officials in the United Autoworkers union have called for more than the $25 billion to avert a collapse of the auto maker industry, including $50 million more to help cover future health care payments for about 780,000 retirees and their dependents.  My opinion is too bad.  That's a contract between the auto makers and the union.  If the auto makers can't pay up, that's their bad business, not mine.    Make sure that 780,000 union retirees have health care insurance when over 1 million people have lost their jobs this year... yea.......

    So, one small question for Pelosi; you bail out the banks and investment companies, now you bail out the auto makers.  And now you are going to bow down and give the auto makers money just so that they can cover their commitments to retirees on health care while the rest of the nation has no health care?  Lets give the automakers money that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy.  And this is while states are running out of money for health care?  And why people like me, who have no health care are going deeper and deeper into debt that I will probably never be able to pay, and can not get the health care I need to become a productive citizen of society again to pay off those bills.  And as for banks, umm.. if no one has any money, then where are the banks going to get money for capital?  There's going to be a million nationalized banks, but their deposits are going to be nill.

    As what is starting to be usual Pelosi, bail out businesses, leave the taxpayers paying for the next 50 years, and leave taxpayers homeless and broke isn't going to work.

    And for once, Im going to agree with a statement that Obama has said *GASP*.  Currently Congress is looking to "fix" things from the top down by giving all these banks and corporations loans to carry them over until the economy stabilizes.  The only way the economy is going to stabilize is when we, the consumers, have money to spend, thus staring at the bottom.  If we have no money to spend, then there isn't going to be any money in the banks, and there isn't going to be any consumer spending.  It gets us nowhere except for us, the taxpayers left holding the bill to pay for something that isn't working.  And if we have no jobs, then we pay no taxes, and thus all these bailout bills won't get paid off.  And if we have no jobs, then we don't buy anything, and companies and banks make no money, how are they going to pay off their loans?

    Round and round we go, on the merry-go-round to poverty.  "Jane, stop this crazy thing..... "

     Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

    Misery Index

    , , , ,

    The Bailout You Didn't Hear About

    9/29/2008 03:05:00 AM

    (0) Comments

    ventureone-road The "Big Three" car makers, Ford, GM and Chrysler, are getting help from the government, in the amount of a $25 billion loan, but don't call it a bailout according to Detroit.  "It's not a bailout," said Chrysler Vice Chairman Jim Press.  "It's a good investment between industry and government."

    However, opinions vary.  "Oh, I'd call it a bailout," said Peter Morici, economics professor at the University of Maryland.  "[The Big Three] are having increasing difficulty borrowing money in the private credit markets because there's a high risk of default.  In that environment, giving them a government loan is a bailout."

    GM had a $38.7 billion loss in 2007 according to the Associated Press, but it's not a bailout, right?

    In the beginning, the 'Big Three' wanted $50 billion, but they settled for $25 billion.  Under the legislation, car makers and suppliers will get loans for the development and manufacture of motor vehicles that will boost their fuel efficiency by at least 25%. Detroit had wanted no such restrictions on the loans, but to be free to allocate to any area it wished to. (Wait, doesn't that sound like a bailout to you?)

    The vote in the House or Reps was 370 to 58 to approve a broad spending bill that includes $7.5 billion to start the loan program.  The Senate is expected to agree to the budget this week, and the President is expected to sign it.

    And why do they need this money?  It's to retool plants to build fuel-efficient vehicles and components.  The car makers are crying because car sales are down, and dealers are closing.  So, I guess I'm confused (insert sarcasm) of if people can't afford a new car right now, because of the economy, then what does that have to do with retooling to build fuel-efficient vehicles?  Is that really going to get people to change their mind to purchase something they can't afford?  Wait, isn't that what got us here in the first place?

    But GMAC and banks seemed to have learned some lesson.  They have tightened credit for car buyers, making auto loans harder to get.

    So, people aren't buying new vehicles, because they can't afford it.  Auto makers seem to think that by retooling to make changes for higher gas mileage will increase sales again, when in reality, its more about the new EPA laws that are just about to take effect in a few years.  And the retooling to make those engines is quite a major expense.  In fact to the point where Catapillar, the number #1 engine maker of semi-trucks, stopped making engines for semi-trucks because they can't afford the technology, and see no profit in it.  Thank's California.....

    And, half of all vehicles sold in the United States by 2000 were either SUVs or trucks.  Both models of vehicles were exempt from the automobile emission standard and were not counted as part of the calculation of fleet fuel efficiency mandated by federal law.  During the early 2000s, moves by environmentally conscious Congress, to increase the fuel efficiency of the entire vehicle fleet were opposed by Detroit.

    Subjecting SUVs and trucks used as passenger vehicles to air pollution/fuel efficiency standards mandated for passenger vehicles would have hurt the market, and reduced the American auto industry's profits.  It also would likely make Japanese vehicles more attractive, as the Japanese auto makers were able to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.  They currently have cornered the market in electric hybrid vehicles as Detroit, abandoned it.

    But Ford is planning on showing new hybrid models in Paris next month, including its replacement for the Ka minicar, as well as the Focus RS, Ford's fastest European-built model, and a fuel-efficient Fiesta..... with plans on rolling out in 2010.  Wait, I thought they needed the money to develop more fuel efficient vehicles.... but they already have them?

    The Ford Fiesta ECOnetic gets 65 mpg and goes on sale in November.  But if you live in the United States, you can't have one.  Ford is only planning on selling them in Europe.  "We know it's an awesome vehicle," says Ford America President Mark Fields.  "But there are business reason why we can't sell it in the U.S."  The main reason is the car runs on diesel.  Ford feels that since diesel is now more expensive than unleaded, there won't be a market for it here in the U.S.  "Americans see hybrids as the darling," says Global Insight auto analyst Philip Gott, "and diesel as old-tech."  And Ford feels the price of the car, $25,7000 is too high for the American market.  But it seems affordable to the European market!  But Ford doesn't feel it could charge enough to make money on an imported ECOnetic, since the engines are built in Britain.  HOWEVER, Ford plans on making a gas-powered version of the Fiesta in Mexico for the U.S. (Wait, Mexico? Ummm... hello?  Unemployment in the US!.. Freakin' cheapskates and NAFTA.)  But they still don't plan on building the diesel engines there either.

    And Chevrolet is planning on showing a new car called the "Volt" at the Paris show. The Volt is a hybrid and it goes on sale in the United States in 2010.  For the first 40 miles, it runs entirely on electric.   Hmm.. I thought they needed the money too, for retooling to develop more fuel efficient vehicles..................

    And Chrysler plans on producing three electric models.  The Chrysler EV, Dodge EV and Jeep EV.  They too will be available in 2010.  Am I seeing a pattern here?

    Oh BTW, GM had an electric car in 1999 called the EV1, but not too many heard about them due to limited production.  It went up to 160 miles and 80 mph, and provided 0 emissions (passing CARB requirements, emissions in CA).  They were only leased out under a "no purchase" clause.   The program was canceled in 2003 despite unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees.  GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable.

    But yet, credit is hard to come by.  Have I missed something again?  Why do I feel like I'm running in circles again............  or am I just a mouse on a wheel?

    Oh and Warren Buffett, just today, out of the blue, has decided to invest in the electric car market.  He is paying $230 million for a 10% stake in BYD, China's largest maker of rechargeable batteries.  BYD plans to start selling its first all-electric car in China next year and to start selling gasoline-electric hybrids in the U.S. and Europe by 2010..... so Buffet has decided to invest his money in a company from China, and none of the Big Three in the United States....... is that a clue?

    Let's just hope that whatever the Big Three decided to do, it comes out better than the Reva.  The Reva is an all electric car  from India, that was among the world's first electric vehicles sold commercially.  Its priced between $9,000 and $11,000 making it extremely affordable for a new vehicle.  Size wise, its only eight-feet long, and weighs about 1650 lbs. "Top speed is approximately 50 mph, which takes some time to achieve.  Range is 49 miles.  A full charge takes eight hours."  ...is that a carrot in front of me while I pull this cart?

    So, 8 hours to charge, with a top speed of 50 mph, and a running time of an hour?  So are you in Boston, in the middle of winter, on the freeway in rush hour, rushing to get one?  I think I need to buy a horse.......................... and use the carrot from above to feed him.

    Oh, BTW, there's 9 other cars that won't be coming to the US either........................  And here's a list of "The 11 Least Fuel Efficient Hybrids" ranging from 19 mpg to 32 mph.  Wanna see the stylish Electric cars?

    And one more thing.  If you like the Chrysler PT Cruiser, Pacifica, Crossfire, or Dodge Magnum, you better get em now.  Chrysler executives have decided to kill the entire PT Cruiser line after the 2009 model year.  Chrysler, in announcing the expanded restructuring this month (cutting it's North American hourly work force almost in half by 2010), said that it was dropping the PT Cruiser convertible, Chrysler Pacifica, Chrysler Crossfire and Dodge Magnum.  Also in the works, a new plan that would eliminate all passenger vehicles from the Dodge and Jeep brands. 

    Additional Sources:

    Detroit Free Press, "Auto industry loans may take up to 18 months"
    Los Angeles Times, "House passes $25-billion loan package for auto industry"
    ABC NEWS, "Big Three to Get Check From Government"
    Green Energy News, "Electric Drive To Revive Detroit?"
    The Consumerist, "The 11 Least Fuel Efficient Hybrids"

    Before anyone asks, the picture is of a "Venture Ventureone" a two-passenger, three-wheeled, 100-mpg plug-in series hybrid from Venture Vehicles in Los Angeles.  It runs $18K to $23K.

     Click Here To Read The Rest Of This Post! (Opens in a new window.)

    Misery Index

    , ,