Obama: U.S. auto industry must lead on 'clean cars'
President Barack Obama on Monday said U.S. automakers General Motors and Chrysler will require further restructuring to receive additional government aid.
In a press conference at the White House, Obama, flanked by members of his Cabinet, detailed the measures the administration is imposing on the struggling companies following the evaluation of his auto industry task force.
President Obama announces initial findings of the government's auto industry task force.
(Credit: Screen capture by Martin LaMonica/CNET)The U.S. government will give GM working capital for 60 days but has demanded additional concessions from GM bondholders, union workers, and management. Rick Wagoner was asked to step aside as CEO and will be replaced by Frederick "Fritz" Henderson.
In its evaluation, the U.S. government found Chrysler less financially viable. An additional $6 billion loan is contingent on Chrysler striking a partnership with Fiat or another automaker in the next 30 days.
In his comments, Obama made clear that the administration considers fuel-efficient vehicles integral to revitalizing U.S. automakers.
"I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: the United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars," Obama said. He noted that many American-made car companies, including GM, have made significant advances in producing fuel-efficient cars.
The administration determined that bankruptcy is one possible way to restructure GM quickly, although Obama said he opposes a drawn-out legal proceeding or dismantling the company. "What I am talking about is using our existing legal structure as a tool that, with the backing of the U.S. government, can make it easier for General Motors and Chrysler to quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down," he said.
To allay concerns of potential buyers, Obama announced that the U.S. government will "stand behind" warranties of GM cars starting on Monday.
"Let me be clear: the United States government has no interest or intention of running GM. What we are interested in is giving GM an opportunity to finally make those much-needed changes that will let them emerge from this crisis a stronger and more competitive company," he said.
Demands for fuel efficiency also figure into Chrysler's potential tie-up with Italy's Fiat, which is prepared to transfer its technology to Chrysler and build fuel-efficient cars and engines in the U.S., Obama said.
Other measures include a lending program at the Treasury Department to ensure a flow of credit to dealers and consumers and a tax incentive that will allow consumers to deduct sales and excise tax on vehicle purchase.
Obama also said he favors a "fleet modernization program" now being considered by Congress and operating in Europe where consumers have an incentive to turn in older cars to purchase more efficient new ones.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 



Is it the intention of this gov't to get the raw end of every deal they enter into?
You should consider yourselves lucky they didn't appoint Michael Moore as car czar... which one hundred percent of the forum posters at New York Times Online probably would think is a wonderful idea! (Of course, they all live in NYC and none of them own cars... except one guy upstate who tried to convert a Merc 220D to biodiesel, but lost interest and decided to build a bong instead...)
The other issue is pensions. (we agree here) Most non american companies use 401K or other retirement plans that don't create legacy costs for buyers and workers that jack up the price of the car. The American Companies were saddled with these costs. Fix that and you give them a much better chance. Hence, Toyota and Honda won't be in the same position.
Same issue played out in American Steel. When the companies went bankrupt, Executives bought the assetts and started over sans pensions.
And having the government force GM into producing cars nobody wants is a classic case of throwing good money after bad. There would have been a good deal of pain had exactly NO bailouts of ANY company occurred, but now those companies are going to fail BECAUSE of all the governmental intervention brought on by the bailouts and the ensuing pain will be exponentially worse! If anyone in the government REALLY had a clue about how to run a company, wouldn't they be doing that instead?
Secondly, the work force doesn't 'force' GM and the others to do JACK ****! The only people who have ANY input on what the factories build: the designers of the cars and upper management, most of whom are NOT unionized at all.
From: http://wsjclassroom.com/archive/06may/auto2_jobsbank.htm
"Each person costs GM around $100,000 to $130,000 in wages and benefits, according to internal union and company figures"
This is a recipe for disaster, with our tax dollars. I'd rather GM went the Chapter 11 route and got it over with.
If people do not want to buy GM's cars now, I doubt they're going to want buy the over priced, under powered clean cars.
I surely have no interest in buying a GM car myself. Their brand image is really bad right now.
And I'd venture to say that the the reason why the clean tech cars haven't been popular to date is because the manufacturers (like GM) haven't had any incentive to make them enticing. Hell, if I had the money, I'd buy a Tesla right now. GM has better resources to mass produce cool cars at an inexpensive price... they just chose not to because it would have (initially) negatively affected their bottom line. In addition, the kickbacks they get form the oil companies would have gone the way of the do-do bird.
I think this is a good plan. You guys have to remember, Obama's only been in office for 100 days. It took Bush 8 years to get us in to this mess; the clean up is not going to happen fast and it's not going to be cheap. We're not going to get out of this mess by not spending money.
Look, today's fuel-efficient cars aren't the boring "stripped down" tin boxes of old. Go to Europe and take a look at the new Ford Fiesta (the latest version came out last year to great acclaim). VERY stylish in design, reasonably roomy, handling that would shame most "sports" cars of even ten years ago, surprising amount of inteirior amenities and of course with pretty good fuel economy (with Prius-like fuel economy if Ford decides to bring their Duratorq turbodiesel engines to the US model). Is it small wond er why Ford doesn't want the bailout money, because they already have the lineup of vehicles that America wants nowadays?
The fed must buy weak foreign currency. The fed must buy mortgage backed securities--their collateral is illiquid that is their only real sin. It's land in America. What could possibly be safer than that? The fed must buy small percentages of many securities across the board and accept those assets for the federal treasury. They can be sold to counter inflation when the time comes. Prices for homes have fallen because the dollar deflates, not because the market has 'collapsed' and our federal reserve is entirely responsible. The federal reserve must do its job and stop quibbling. Get on with it. And they could stop sloshing around so much too, with extravagant announcements. Just work little by little every day. Titrate efforts to AVOID the damped driven oscillations that foment economic catastrophe! Am I the only competent economist on this planet or what?
It sounds like you copied and paste a response to one of your econ homework questions.
How about looking at things from a political angle.... if the troops were not sent into Iraq; and, if all the things that you have mentioned did not happen as far as the U. S. Economy was concerned: Do you think that America would have had its first African-American President!!!
"Mission Accomplished" - Again!
Btw, What's ERR?
Guess what, with the Chinese, the Indians, the Iranians, the North Koreans, Pakistan.... all trying to acquire nukes as well as increasing the debris fields in outer space... "The Concorde" is sitting on an Old Aircraft U. S. Aircraft Carrier in New York's Hudson River. Well, let the world wait and see what happens when they all "consume" their own production (Baby Milk Formulas, Leaded Toys, Pet Foods...included).
To demonstrate how out of touch GM is ... they are touting their Cadillac Escalade Hybrids with bringing 20 MPG Highway ... they just don't get it and its why they are in the situation that they're in. They need to re-tool themselves and steer that sinking battleship to land before its too late. Government is setting mandates because they feel entitled now that GM and Chrysler are begging for billions. Serves them right.
Don't feel sorry for them as I wrote to GM 5 yrs ago asking them to build alternative fueled vehicles like that in South America. There response was essentially stating that the demand is not there and they are already building the most fuel efficient vehicles. The rest is history. RIP GM.
So, why stop at the "financial analysis" and not complete the "economic and technical analyses" that would produce multi-year projection. And, these are what are needed to be done for the entire engineering economy of the United states of America. But, then again, are the "skills set" available in the United States of America; or, will these have to be acquired through "H-1B" Visas" or through "Outsourcing" to India, China, Italy....!
Like I said earlier, Ford will end up being the big winner in this. Their incredible luck in getting financing for product development in 2006 has resulted in the enormous success of the new version of the Ford Fiesta (coming to the USA the beginning of 2010), and Ford's expertise in hybrid drivetrains is only bettered by Toyota. Indeed, by 2011 don't be surprised that Ford will become the #1 US automaker because of their decision to develop stylish small cars everybody wants and automobiles with trully effective hybrid drivetrains.
- by Suchy21 March 31, 2009 7:30 AM PDT
- Why is there no mention of Aptera? They actually have a solution, it is affordable, and it uses a bit of the same technology that GM throws into Corvettes.
- Reply to this comment
-
(31 Comments)See: http://www.aptera.com/
Additionally, much of the technology to make cars more fuel efficient doesn't involve new fuels! By reducing weight, rolling resistance, and most importantly aerodynamic drag, any car can achieve higher fuel efficiency!
Just check out what Car and Driver could do with a Pinto 34 years ago:
http://ecomodder.com/blog/11-on-mods-plus-new-tires-car-and-driver-improves-mpg-by-25/
For the extremes in fuel efficiency, see www.uksolarcar.com and www.americansolarchallenge.org. These cars can do 55+mph using less than 5 HP.