Volt Lacks Spark, Chevy Scales Back Production

Americans have always loved our cars. During the 50's and 60's, boys dreamed of owning a Bel Air or T-Bird and roaring down the highway. Then came the 70's and 80's where the big three turned out horrible cars like the Vega, the Chevette and the Buick revamped Mustangs. I won't even mention the GMC Gremlin and Pacer. The unions gained enormous clout, the designers had a tin ear when it came to creating what people wanted and gas prices became a factor.

From the 80's until the 00's we saw some innovative designs released. Ford and the Japanese companies designed stylish cars that were built to last with Hyundai offering 100,000 mile warranties.

Now here we are in the 21st century and we may as well be back in the bad years again. Now, unions own two of the big three (gifted to them by Obama) and they've politicized the business to the point that they are back resisting what we actually want to buy and trying to force us into cars we have no desire to be seen in.

At the top of that list is the Chevy Volt:

General Motors has told 1,300 employees at its Detroit Hamtramck that they will be temporarily laid off for five weeks as the company halts production of the Chevrolet Volt and its European counterpart, the Opel Ampera.

“Even with sales up in February over January, we are still seeking to align our production with demand,” said GM spokesman Chris Lee.

Lee said employees were told Thursday that production would put on hold from March 19 to April 23.

The Chevrolet Volt, an extended-range electric car, is both a political lightning rod and a symbol of the company’s technological capability.

Chevrolet sold 1,023 Volts in the U.S. in February and has sold 1,626 so far this year.

In 2011, Chevrolet sold 7,671 Volts, but fell short of its initial goal of 10,000.

GM had planned to expand production of its Volt plug-in hybrid to 60,000 this year, with 45,000 earmarked for the U.S.

Will Americans buy an alternative fuel vehicle? Yes they will. But one that is priced right from the outset and doesn't require government subsidies to afford. 80 miles just isn't cutting it and the public isn't buying it because of that. Add to the cost the fact that GM and Chrysler accepted government funding that they will never pay back and you have the exact reasons why the Volt is not selling.

Democrats demagogue the oil companies while the majority of the public blame Obama's policies for skyrocketing prices. Green jobs and green tech have failed to materialize and be self-sufficient in the way Obama planned and the Volt is just the latest case on top of Solyndra and the myriad other "green" companies propped up by our dollars.

Americans want style, comfort and quality above all else and the Volt is none of those.

Picture borrowed from a guy in my profession.

Inquirer Hack: That Auto Bailout Worked Out Great, Huh?

On the front page of the Inquirer's editorial page today, Mark Zandi gushes that the auto bailout saved the US car companies and was a huge success:

The government bailout of the U.S. auto industry was a success.

Without financial help from Uncle Sam, General Motors and Chrysler likely would not exist today. The American auto industry would be a shadow of its former self. And the U.S. economic recovery would be even more drawn out and frustrating than it has been.

Saving the automakers was distasteful, but necessary.

Without help those two companies would no longer exist? That's a bold statement and one that has absolutely no basis behind it. Aside from the fact that both GM and Chrysler manufactured cars that none wanted to buy, how can Mr. Zandi make such a blanket statement as this? Chrysler would have been sold off, that's a given and probably should have been. But GM would have gone into bankruptcy, reorganized--most-likely by renegotiating onerous union obligations--and come out leaner and meaner, the way many great American companies have.

For the record, they were not "saved", they were propped up and made to look profitable--a Potemkin village if you will. They paid back the loans with more government money in a ruse that was eagerly reported as "repayment" by the compliant media.

Rehashing this bit of history is timely on the eve of the Republican primary in Michigan, where the economy has long been tethered to the auto industry. The potential GOP nominees have all spoken out against the bailout, which the Obama administration helped engineer. Yet it is worth remembering that when the bailout was being debated three years ago, in the teeth of the Great Recession, it had bipartisan support. And it was the Bush administration that provided the first substantial chunk of financial aid to the industry.

See how Zandi used that line about Bush to make it look like it was Bush's plan? He knows that Americans are still disgusted with the Obama-engineered bailout and lie Obama, still blaming Bush. Furthermore, I don't believe it was Bush that gave shareholder's the finger and showered money on the United Auto Workers in what could only be described as pandering to Big Labor for political gain using our tax money.

Mr. Zandi may consider 205 Democrat votes with 32 GOP votes bipartisan but I don't. 150 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted against, can that be considered bipartisan against? This was purely an Obama and Democrat bill and they own so quit trying to push it off as a joint effort, it's beneath you Mr. Zandi.

He continues:

Detroit's need for government assistance was partly its own fault. For years, the automakers had been using deep price discounts and cheap financing to support sales, instead of making the tough choices necessary for them to stay viable in the long run.

But the industry's predicament was not entirely of its own making. The broader U.S. economy was in free fall, demand for cars was weak, and the banking system's near-collapse made car loans scarce.

In a glaring omission, Zandi does not even mention the insane union contracts hanging around the necks of these two companies. Both GM and Chrysler (and Ford) bear the weight of contracts negotiated using strong-arm tactics. Japanese companies negotiated excellent contracts with US unions where workers make a fair wage with good benefits but do not impede the growth and sustainability of the companies. I don't recall Nissan, Toyota nor Subaru screaming about bankruptcy at the time Chrysler and GM were. The UAW is the primary reason that the car companies were failing and Zandi doesn't even mention them. I think the term I'm searching for to describe this type of writing is hackery.

Bailing out the automakers had some downsides. While taxpayers will get most of their money back, the government will likely sell its remaining GM stock before taxpayers are made completely whole.

The bankruptcy process was painful all around, but the government cushioned the financial blow to the unions at the expense of the automakers' bondholders, partly for political reasons. True, many bondholders were speculators looking to make quick profits, but changing the rules during the game isn't good policy. One reason U.S. households and businesses can borrow cheaply is that creditors feel confident that loan terms won't be changed. The way creditors were treated during the auto bailout arguably weakened that sense of safety.

Aha, we've spotted the word union but note how Zandi equivocates. The emphasis is mine take notice how he describes the bailout as cushioning the blow for unions at the expense of bondholders but those bondholders were just scumbag bottom feeders looking for a quick buck. This is knot just hackery but hackery on a par with Paul Krugman. Real people lost money because the Obama administration bailed out the UAW and gave them a nice gift of ownership. But those people were probably Republicans so it serves them right.

As for repayment of the loans, see how Zandi softens it. When you're talking about a $14-billion dollar loss on an $82-billion dollar investment, how can that be judged a success? I'm sure if Mr. Zandi lost 17% on every deal he brokered at Moody's Analytics his bosses or shareholders wouldn't think he was all that successful. But Zandi is a shill for Obama and the unions and it was only government money anyway that us taxpayers should just shut up about. The fact that they used government money to pay off the loans in a sleight of hand is conveniently forgotten by Zandi.

As a side note, most Sundays the Inquirer has a pro-con front page on the Op/Ed section. You know the format, a Dem on one side of the issue and a Republican on the other. They didn't do that this week because the Inquirer only wants one side to be commented on. To have a conservative rip the auto bailout apart just would not have been acceptable to the Inqy editorial board.

Some "Oops" are Bad and Some are Ignored

In what is the latest example of a liberal picking and ignoring his facts to support his conclusion, I bring you "progressive" blogger Michael Wood.

Mr. Wood hates drilling in the Marcellus Shale natural gas sites in Pennsylvania; an industry that has created numerous jobs and helped the US become more energy independent. The former governor of that great state just across the Delaware River from me decided--smartly--that he would allow it and would tax it. He saw the potential for creating jobs and increasing revenue. As with all tax estimates, the numbers were off somewhat:

Back in May, the Department estimated that taxable Marcellus Shale royalties generated $102.7 million in PIT collections in 2010. Now the Department says that figure is a tad lower — $46.2 million, a decrease of $56.5 million or over 55% from what was reported six months ago. To quote Britney Spears, “Oops!”

Yes, that's million, with an "m". And yes, this imbecile included a decade old quote from a bad album to punctuate his point...dude, really?

Mr. Wood goes on to excoriate the entire industry and rail about the amount of taxes received from that sector, which is supposed to indict Governor Corbett and the industry as a whole. The essay was so good that it made to the front page of hard left circle jerk FDL from it's original post on some obscure lefty blog dedicated to PA state issues.

So I entered the search terms "General Motors" in the original site where Mr. Wood usually drivels to see if he or any of his brethren over there ever wrote anything about the abortion known as the auto bailout. To my complete surprise, there was one obscure mention about GM and it was about a plant closing in Edison.

So I got to thinking; how could Mr. Wood be upset about a report that showed a 55% shortfall in estimated taxes for a thriving PA industry but not get equally as irked about a union bailout using billions of dollars in taxpayer money--money already collected, not estimated--that will result in the American people being short-changed $23.6 billion. Yes, with a "b". How can this be? I mean, we have the gas drillers bringing tens of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs into a part of the state that desperately needs it, which provided millions in new revenue versus a bailout that was basically a campaign plan using our money and shoring up dying, crony unions.

And that describes the liberal mindset in a nutshell. Poorly estimated tax revenue that equals roughly ten minutes of federal government spending versus losses of billions on a bailout that helped no one but the United Auto Workers leadership, which one is worse?

As we see in Mr. Wood's post, there's no comparison. And the irony that the state's estimates were--as he suggested--a mistake while Obama's plan functioned by design is lost on him completely.

Tuesday Night News and Notes

Here's what's new, new posts below.

-The Dems are dropping out in droves. Now Sen. Byron Dorgan is bailing in what could be a portent of the way the Dems think the mid-terms will go. That will be a GOP pick up for sure if they don't act their usual stupid selves and blow it somehow.

-Michael Yon is handcuffed by customs officials in what will surely be another embarrassing faux pas on top of many recent ones.

-Yeah, that whole bailout thing is working really well.

-The Obama administration may be different than the Clinton's in one respect; the Clinton's took the silverware while Obama is robbing us so badly with crony schemes that the only thing left may be the silverware.

-Start paying attention to the race for Ted Kennedy's seat. A Republican within 9% is striking and may be another sign this will be a great year for the GOP.

-Nancy Pelosi is shameless. But I'm redundant.

Chinese Smarter Capitalist's Than Obama, Pelosi and Reid

The Chinese want some reassurance that Obama isn't going to destroy their investment:

Guess what? It turns out the Chinese are kind of curious about how President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform plans would impact America’s huge fiscal deficit. Government officials are using his Asian trip as an opportunity to ask the White House questions. Detailed questions.

Boilerplate assurances that America won’t default on its debt or inflate the shortfall away are apparently not cutting it. Nor should they, when one owns nearly $2 trillion in assets denominated in the currency of a country about to double its national debt over the next decade.

Nothing happening in Washington today should give Beijing any comfort or confidence about what may happen tomorrow. Healthcare reform was originally promoted as a way to “bend the curve” on escalating entitlement costs, the major part of which is financing Medicare and Medicaid. That is looking more and more like an overpromised deliverable.

For instance, a new study from the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds that the healthcare reform bill recently passed in the House of Representatives would increase healthcare spending to 21.3 percent of GDP by 2019 compared with 20.8 percent under current law. That’s bending the curve the wrong way. The study also questions the “long-term viability” of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts meant to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.

When even the ChiComs are questioning our slide toward socialism, perhaps we as a nation should stop and take notice. Several things can happen here and they're all bad; the Chinese can call in the IOU's and cause us to default. The Chinese can say they will no longer buy our paper and we run out of funds unless we grovel to the Saudi's or Russians. Thirdly, the ChiComs realize they have us over a barrel and start their ambitious plans to become the dominate player in the region and start to threaten Japan (whom they will never forgive for the rape of Nanking), South Korea (who would lean toward the Chinese and also owe Japan one from WWII) and strategic ports like Singapore (the busiest port in the world).

Tax revenues are in the sewer and jobs are becoming more scarce by the month. The Chinese have to be feeling a bit edgy about the ability of Obama to lead us out of this. Hell, maybe we can give them GM and Chrysler to stave them off for awhile, they buy alot of those inferior brands anyway and they can send the UAW over with them.

This is where Obama has brought us and wants nothing more than to go ever farther and implement every social policy the Democrats have dared dream about since LBJ bowed out.

In Obamanation, Capitalist Lawyers are "Terrorist"

In Obamanation, the safest job in the world is a terrorist so it would seem the guy has nothing to be concerned with. But oh no, in the new domestic war on terror, these terrorists are standing in the way of "progress" and the creation of our new socialist utopia so they must be debased and punished.



Note the last part:

The important part comes at the end: an email exchange between Matthew Feldman, attorney on the President’s Auto Task Force, and Robert Manzo, Chrysler restructuring expert. Manzo is basically pleading to further negotiate to prevent bankruptcy, but Feldman is having none of it. Here is the exchange:

Robert Manzo, Chrysler restructuring expert: “I hope you think it’s worth giving this one more shot.”

Matthew Feldman, attorney on the President’s Auto Task Force: “I’m now not talking to you. You went where you shouldn’t.”

Manzo: “Sorry. I didnt’ mean to say the wrong thing and I obviously did. I was trying oto make sure that if we had to contribute to the solution you knew we had some room. Sorry I did not realize the mistake!!”

Feldman: “It’s over. The President doesn’t negotiate second rounds. We’ve given and lent billions of dollars so your team could manage this properly….And now you’re telling me to bend over to a terrorist like Lauria? That’s B.S.”

The fact that liberals have had no qualms in the past "bend(ing) over to terrorists" it seems as if they shouldn't this time as well. But when you have instituted policies in the auto-wrecking jihad like the Obama team has done--policies that would make Vito and Michael Corleone cringe--you don't bend over to capitalist "terrorists".

Welcome to Obamanation where hard-working men and women--people willing take risks and create wealth--are labeled "terrorists". Lord help us over the next 3 1/2 years.

Via Hot Air.

Now Obama Thinks He's Above Supreme Court

Chutzpah for sure from The One. He may well be smacked down by the high court, however:

The Obama Administration argued Monday that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to hear a challenge by Indiana benefit plans to the role the U.S. Treasury played in the Chrysler rescue, including the use of “bailout” (TARP) funds. The Indiana debt holders, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote, simply have no right to raise that issue, thus putting it out of the reach of the courts.

...All of the legal filings expected in the Chrysler case are now before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as Circuit Justice, and thus she or the full Court could now act on the three applications to postpone the sale of most of the auto company’s assets to a new company representing a combination with Fiat, the Italian auto company.

Ginsburg or the full Court probably will act by mid-afternoon, since there is a 4 p.m. deadline set by the Second Circuit Court. After that, the plan can go forward, unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise. A federal bankruptcy judge and the Second Circuit have approved the deal. The Circuit Court is expected to issue one or more opinions Monday explaining its decision. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to wait for that in order to act.

I wish it was Alito instead of Ginsburg but she got the draw.

This is a power play of historical proportions and one that will test the checks and balances intended by the framers of the Constitution. A check on Obama here may well give investors some confidence that their investment will be somewhat protected but a decision to allow Obama to go forward would have the opposite effect.

The Supreme Court has the chance to put a stop on our march to socialism and Obama doesn't want anyone standing in his way, not even SCOTUS. Let's wait and see if Ginsburg has the guts to challenge him.

Tigerhawk has more.

Public Won't Buy From Government Motors

A large majority of GM owners say that no, they would not be interested in buying a GM vehicle in the future:

Only 42% of those who currently own a General Motors car are even somewhat likely to buy a GM product for their next car. That figure includes just 30% who are Very Likely to do so.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% of current GM owners are not likely to buy another GM car, while 16% are not sure.

Democrats who own GM cars are somewhat more likely than others to buy their next car from GM.

i was discussing this with someone the other day and said the exact same. I would buy a Ford since they've not gone into bankruptcy but never a GM. I'm not sure if it's the fact that the union that sank them was handed a gift of ownership or the fact that those who invested were given the finger that bothers me so bad but both do.

No thanks, if the quality was suspect before, it's going to be atrocious now and the unions will get a good idea of just how bad things are for those of us who don't have the government to bail us out. They took our money and acted smug about it so now they'll understand that socialism is a cancer and they were the reason it was foisted on us.

I'm kind of mixed on this as GM is the test case for Obamanomics and he won't let it fail. He'll pour more money into the black hole and we'll be paying for it for decades. Even so, I'm not buying from Obama Motors.

Hat tip: Hot Air who also brings us the stunning news that more people trust the GOP with the economy than BHO.

Update: SCOTUS stays sale of Chrysler.

Whither America? GM Now Government Motors

It is incomprehensible but yet it is true. Here we sit on June 1, 2009 and GM-- a company that is synonymous with America--is now owned by America and the unions who were instrumental in the downfall of the once-proud manufacturing behemoth.

We now own stakes in banking firms, insurance firms and now two automobile manufacturing firms. in short, we've become a socialist nation that nationalizes industries under the guise of saving them.

There once was a time that a company that couldn't survive was allowed to claim bankruptcy, work deals out with their creditors and then re-emerge slimmer and more productive. Not so anymore; Obama saw his opportunity and he took it. He gave the unions a gift and men and women who invested their hard-earned money the finger. It's a sad day to be an American in what is now fully Obamanation.

Michael Moore--as usual--gets it as wrong as anyone could. Other thoughts here.

Obama Tactics Nixonian

Richard Nixon used the government to achieve his ends; it appears Obama has learned from more than one 1970's president:

A tipster alerted me to an interesting assertion. A cursory review by that person showed that many of the Chrysler dealers on the closing list were heavy Republican donors.

To quickly review the situation, I took all dealer owners whose names appeared more than once in the list. And, of those who contributed to political campaigns, every single one had donated almost exclusively to GOP candidates. While this isn't an exhaustive review, it does have some ominous implications if it can be verified.

However, I also found additional research online at Scribd (author unknown), which also appears to point to a highly partisan decision-making process.

It sure appears Obama or his staff targeted GOP-supporting dealers and the data generally plays that out.

Good work by Doug Ross.

Monday Night News and Notes

In Sacramento. Nothing like that cross-country plane trip to make ones mood better.

Anyway, here's what's new in the world:

-The NY Times quashed a story laying out the Obama/ACORN connection in October because it was a "game-changer". you think? No media bias there.

-Hot actress says what she means and means what she says. Shew won't be working anytime soon I'm guessing.

-I don't know what irritates me more, the fact that Obama forced out a CEO or that the dude walked away with a cool $20-million. I'm glad the administration has a close eye on our money.

-Families celebration of Earth Hour doesn't work out as they had hoped.

-It looks as if Britain is in line for a full government enema like us here in the states.

-Perhaps it's about time for Terry Nicholls to join Timothy McVeigh in hell.

Update: Things are bad so The Offspring announced their Shit is Fucked Up tour comencing in May. dexter spells it out:

Sen. Chris Dodd Gives America the Finger

Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd has more chutzpah than anyone else in the US government. That is one amazing statement I know, yet Dodd has managed to retain his position in spite of bearing the largest burden of anyone for the current financial mess we find ourselves in:

Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, suggested on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that Rick Wagoner, the chief executive of GM, “has to move on.”

Where does Dodd get the temerity to make such a proposition in light of his own incompetence and scandal? Dodd is in charge of the committee that could have kept us from entering the current credit crisis. He’s the same man who is in charge of regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and is No. 1 on their list of donations.

When Congress approved $25 billion to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Dodd denied rumors these firms were in financial crisis. He called the firms “fundamentally strong,” said they were “in good shape” and to “suggest they are in major trouble is not accurate.”

Dodd also received preferential loans from Countrywide Mortgage Bank, and then said he wasn’t aware that he was getting a “special” deal. How is that possible?

Good question, I would suspect the answer is that Connecticut voters are among the most uninformed voters in the nation or the most stupid. I'm guessing the real answer lies somewhere in between. Note that when Dodd was given a forum in front of the American people as a whole, he registered zero interest among the electorate.

Now Dodd wants the federal government to bail out each and every failing business in the US and tell the executives of those firms how to run their businesses or worse, to "move on". The man has balls the size of Groton and a morality meter that never works. Yet he is among the elder statesmen of Congress and will continue to be re-elected every six years.

Release the documents, Senator Dodd. Allow the American people to see how much of a screw up you are and a liar to boot. We bought these bad debts and failing companies, not you. We are funding the largest nationalization of goods and services in history, not you. Release every applicable document that sheds light on the who, why, where and when of every company we now own as a nation including the mother lode and your the companies that donated money to you more than anyone else: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

H/T: Glenn Reynolds.

The GOP vs. the UAW

Senate Republicans have halted the auto bailout plan for now but it appears President Bush will continue adding to his legacy as the man who sold out free-markets:

United Auto Workers President Ronald A. Gettelfinger lashed out against Senate Republicans a day after a congressional compromise on an auto industry bailout failed, accusing the lawmakers of trying to "pierce the heart of organized labor."

Gettelfinger, at a news conference yesterday in Detroit, welcomed a statement from the White House that said the administration was willing to use funds targeted for bailing out the financial system to help the autoworkers. But he repeated his insistence that bankruptcy isn't an option, saying failure at any one automaker would force firms across the industry to collapse.

The Republican Senate proposal sought to cut UAW wages, bringing them in line -- or at "parity" -- with what workers earn at foreign-owned, non-unionized plants in the United States. A failure in Congress to reach an agreement on the wage-cut proposal Thursday night doomed the $14 billion industry rescue package.

"They believe workers are expendable and wages mean nothing," Gettelfinger said.

That last line is standard union rhetoric but it has no real relevance here and now. UAW workers in Detroit make anywhere from $40 to $50 per hour (and in some cases much more) for doing labor that is not considered highly skilled. The American public finds it hard to swallow that a union whose workers make $100,000 per year (not including overtime and the generous benefits package worth tens of thousands more) are not willing to give any meaningful concessions to keep the industry alive.

The GOP has the backing of the public on this issue, especially now that jobs are being shed with regularity. Many people I've talked with--hard-core union folks--say that the US auto industry has failed to exploit the one big advantage they have, the ability to manufacture and sell American brands cheaper than foreign manufacturers. The sole reason for that is that the UAW got greedy every time a contract was up for negotiation and added benefits and pay raises on an already bloated compensation apparatus. Now we find ourselves at the point where lean and mean companies (those companies that forced the UAW to concede to reduce wages) will survive and come out way ahead in the long run while the morbidly obese and out of shape American makers will crash and burn.

The UAW has to give back something and that's something they've been extremely loathe to do in the past (check out the 2,215 page contract as exhibit A). Well this is the future and if the UAW gives a damn at all about the economy as they profess or their members, they'll agree to give-backs and bring the pay scale for American makers in line with those of Japanese firms.. Perhaps they should do it the purely democratic way and put it to a member vote--one in which the vote is not secret, of course.

Exit question: Is Gettlefinger the prototypical union rep or not? The dude looks a bit shady.