Obama picks Michigan’s Granholm on the Economy – More Smoke & Mirrors

This might be funny, if it were not so sad. It is actually heartbreaking. Michigan will get what it deserves – after 6 years of Granholm – you moved her policies to Washington.

There is nothig to be gained from saying I told you so, but I told you so ……. read  https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/michigans-dem-governor-granholm-appoves-of-obama-tax-policy-matches-her-policies-of-last-6-yrs/



This is simply tragic. Obama hasn’t been sworn in yet, but he is clearly demonstrating his intent to govern from the far left. Woe to Michigan ……….

The economic disaster will certainly worsen as predicted …….. TAX AND SPEND BIG GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER WORKED ANYWHERE AT ANYTIME. The economic turmoil of the Jimmy Carter days may look like “good times” compared to where we appear to be heading …………

Obama to hold meeting with economic advisers today


WASHINGTON — Gov. Jennifer Granholm and former U.S. Rep. David Bonior are to serve on a panel of financial luminaries and corporate experts advising President-elect Barack Obama on the nation’s hard-bitten economy, ensuring Michigan, its troubled auto industry and labor have a seat at the table.   http://www.freep.com/article/20081107/NEWS15/811070378/1/VIDEOS01                                           


If you think either Michigan or the Michigan Auto Industry will have a seat anywhere you are mistaking ……. If the Democrats were going to offer a seat at their table they could have done so years ago ….. Michigan has been sending two Democratic US Senators and a predominantly Democratic Congressional caucus to Washington for years – nothing has changed in that regard.  Remember it was Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Speaker of The House of Representatives, who demoted the “Big Three” to the “Detroit Three”. For those of you that have not caught on yet, the term “Detroit Three” is not only a derogatory insult and dismissive, but it carries far more sinister tones – As the “Detroit Three” the “Big Three” were no longer a “National” issue but became a local Michigan problem.

Pelosi and the liberal Democrats despise the Auto Industry – they want your vote on election day and spit in your face after the votes have been counted. The votes have been counted – its time to shut your eyes again …………. here comes the spit.

As for your seat at the table, watch out when you go to sit down – they are liable to pull the chair away . The talk about a “bailout”, if one takes place, is smoke and mirrors. Another corporate handout with the right hand while the left hand increases business taxes and implements policies that will inhibit US car sales. They take away more than they give ……..

You think not – then read this ……………..

The Los Angles Times

Power struggle may open rift among House Democrats

Rep. Henry Waxman wants to replace Rep. John Dingell as head of the energy and commerce committee, which will take the lead on Obama’s plans on global warming.

Reporting from Washington — Opening a split among congressional Democrats that could affect President-elect Barack Obama’s efforts to curb global warming, a California environmentalist is trying to wrest control of a crucial House committee from its chairman, who is the automobile industry’s strongest ally in fighting stricter antipollution standards.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills[CA]) has announced that he wants to replace Rep. John D. Dingell (D-[Detroit]Mich.) as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which will take the lead on Obama’s signature issues of energy, global warming and healthcare. [Oh, you didn’t think the auto industry was a signature issue did you? Only “National” issues get signature status.]

Over the years, Dingell has given invaluable support to the auto companies’ fights against pollution and fuel economy standards that they considered unrealistic, and Waxman’s challenge to his leadership is the culmination of a decades-long rivalry between the two powerful lawmakers, the panel’s top two Democrats.

The outcome of the fight could affect whether action on Obama’s energy agenda will be tilted toward the interests of Rust Belt industrial Democrats or more aggressive antipollution efforts that California has spearheaded.

It opens divisions among triumphant Democrats just as they come off a landmark election that put Obama in the White House and expanded the party’s majorities in the House and Senate — and it is a window into how power struggles among Democrats may intensify now that there is so much more power to wield. [It is a window into how Liberal Democrats have thwarted economic growth while blaming the Bush Administration].

Dingell, who in the Democratic primaries endorsed the presidential candidacy of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, represents a district near Detroit, and the loss of his position would be seen as a blow to the auto industry at a particularly trying time. Detroit is being battered by declining car sales, high gas prices and an economy in turmoil. In a sign of the political sensitivity of the fight, several auto industry spokesmen declined to comment on the choice between Dingell and Waxman.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco[CA]) is officially neutral in the dispute, but she is known to be sympathetic to Waxman’s positions on the environment and has repeatedly crossed swords with Dingell over the years:


* In 2002, Pelosi endorsed an unsuccessful primary challenger to Dingell.

* In 2007, she set up a special panel to address global warming, a move that was seen as a way to circumvent Dingell.

* Last year, she and Waxman fought against a Dingell global warming bill that would have prohibited California and other states from taking tougher action than the federal government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Officially neutral, who are they kidding?].

Dingell supported that provision because, he said, it was easier for auto companies to comply with a uniform national standard than a patchwork of state laws, and Waxman and Pelosi saw it as a direct shot at California’s landmark law to cut tailpipe emissions. The provision was dropped from a global warming draft bill Dingell circulated this fall.

[Question the scientific validity of Global Warming? See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/

Waxman’s feud with Dingell is even longer-running. Throughout the 1980s, as they rose in seniority on the energy and commerce committee, the two battled over clean-air laws, toxic waste regulation and other environmental issues.

As chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Waxman has been a thorn in the Bush administration’s side with frequent hearings and reports critical of its performance. But now that a Democrat will be in the White House, that oversight role may not be as appealing to Waxman as the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, which has jurisdiction over many issues important to the new administration.

“In large measure, our success as a Democratic caucus will depend on how the commerce committee performs,” Waxman said in a letter to Democrats announcing his plans.

Environmentalists are delighted at the prospect of a Waxman chairmanship.

“It is much more likely we will advance a progressive, forward-looking agenda with a progressive, forward-thinking leader like Waxman than with an old bull who defends Detroit like Dingell,” said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, an environmental advocacy group.  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-energy7-2008nov07,0,7068890.story?track=rss  

They couldn’t demonize Dingell anymore than this, even if he were, say, a Republican. So Dingell is now being protrayed as an anti-environmental zealot.  This is no accident. Do you think any Speaker of The House has previously endorsed a Primary challenger over a Representative with 53 years of party senority in Washington. Dingell is the longest serving US Representative currently in Congress. (1955 to date). In the history of the United States only 1 Congressman has served longer. Wait, just a minute, he supports the right to own guns too …. he has just gotta go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dingell 

As for being anti-environment, consider these comments made on December 20, 2006, “The formidable Democrat from Michigan, now 80, has served 51 years in the House of Representatives — the second-longest of any congressional career in history. During that time, he played a key role in pushing through many of America’s cornerstone environmental laws, including the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the original Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)“. http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/20/dingell/  

Considering this track record on environmental issues, what was the bottom line in this article, “That’s why some environmentalists see Dingell as the single biggest roadblock on the path toward meaningful climate policy in the 110th Congress”. 

What? Wasn’t it all Bush’s fault? This article presents a rare opportunity to read about Democratic double dealing. Promises made only to be broken, again. Michigan’s auto industry isn’t playing “second fiddle” any longer, now it is about to lose its only chair in the band.

This writer is not a Dingell supporter, however, this is a political lynching. Dingell has been a loyal, moderate, center-left, Democrat who has obtained the trust and admiration of his electorate like none before him. Now the “new administration” is painting Dingell as representing some “fringe” element of the Democratic Party.  

If Michigan is lucky, Obama, Granholm, Pelosi and Waxman will send a few of the “windmill factories” your way when they are done. 

Ford announces $129M 3Q loss, burns $7.7B in cash – Ford to cut 2,260 workers after reporting $129 million 3Q loss                                                                                 

By TOM KRISHER and JAMES PRICHARD, AP Business Writers  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_ford   

General Motors will release its 2008 3rd Quarter results at 10:30 AM this morning.

“Due to deteriorating market conditions and a dire cash crunch, General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner will be announcing “important changes” during his company’s 3rd quarter earnings report on Friday at 11AM EST The Detroit News obtained an executive level email that foretells the bad news ahead but doesn’t go into specifics ……….” http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/06/gm-announcing-important-changes-on-friday/         The Friday announcement will likely include a hefty financial loss, too, as evidenced by an earlier announced loss of $2.5 billion by GMAC financial.

GM reports $2.5B 3Q loss, says running out of cash

DETROIT, Mich. – General Motors Corp. says it lost $2.5 billion in the third quarter and warned that it could run out of cash in 2009. GM also said it has suspended talks to acquire Chrysler. While it didn’t specifically name the automaker, GM said it was setting aside considerations for a “strategic acquisition.”

The automaker also said its cash burn for the quarter accelerated to $6.9 billion due to a severe U.S. auto sales slump. The company on Friday reported a net loss of $4.45 per share during the quarter, compared with a record-setting loss of $39 billion, or $68.85 per share, a year ago.  GM shares fell 53 cents, or 11 percent, to $4.27 in morning trading. 

A Chrysler LLC sale to GM seems unlikely -Chrysler LLC is privately held, however, Daimler AG holds a 19.9 % stake in the company –                                                   

Oct 23, 2008 – “Today, Daimler AG reported a net loss of euro 351 million for its 19.9 per cent share of Chrysler Holding LLC’s second quarter 2008 results under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). On a U.S. GAAP basis, Daimler AG’s net loss for Chrysler Holding LLC was euro 88 million, of which a euro 76 million net loss is attributable to the automotive business of Chrysler LLC.” [This report allows us to project that Chrysler LLC’s loss in 2nd quarter 2008 (80.1 % stake) would approximate $352 million euro loss or $447 million dollar loss]. http://research.scottrade.com/public/markets/news/news.asp?docKey=100-297u1992-1&section=headlines                                                                    

Michigan Recession Continues to Deepen Reports Comerica Bank’s Michigan Business Activity Index – “September’s advanced figure is the lowest level in 14 years.” [That would make it the lowest since November 1994 – A Democratic Congress and the Clinton Administration – Wasn’t the Clinton Administration all “milk & honey”?].                               http://www.mlive.com/prnewswire/index.ssf?/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=MI2&STORY=/www/story/11-06-2008/0004920315&EDATE=Nov+6,+2008

Then there is Toyota – Toyota’s Q1 profit drops 39% – Posted Aug 7th 2008 6:58PM – Toyota is not used to seeing its profit margins drop, as the Japanese auto giant has enjoyed increased profit for nine straight years. Expect that run to end this year …. For the year, Toyota has revised its sales forecast from 9.06 million units to an estimated 8.74 million. For the first quarter of the year that ended in June, Toyota has also announced that its operating profit took a 39% plunge from lower sales in both the United States and Europe …. Still, Toyota sales remain fairly strong in this sinking market and a profit is a profit. We’d imagine that this is a problem any one of the Detroit 3 would love to have on its hands. http://www.autoblog.com/tag/toyota+profit/   


November 19, 2008

Waxman wins Steering Committee vote


California Rep. Henry A. Waxman accomplished a critical first step in his bid to unseat Michigan Rep. John D. Dingell atop the Eneryg and Commerce Committee, beating the chairman, 25-22, in a vote of the Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro tells Politico’s Ryan Grim.       http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/


November 19, 2008

Waxman wins Steering Committee vote


California Rep. Henry A. Waxman accomplished a critical first step in his bid to unseat Michigan Rep. John D. Dingell atop the Eneryg and Commerce Committee, beating the chairman, 25-22, in a vote of the Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro tells Politico’s Ryan Grim.


The Picken’s Commercial On Iran – The Real Reason Iran is switching to CNG Cars

The following article is not presented as an argument against alternative energy development – it is being included in this Web site as an alternative explanation for why Iran is switching to CNG powered autos. Mr Milloy’s comments inregard to the “hidden costs” of CNG conversion might interest some of this sites visitors. 

This writer perfers that we pursue all energy sources – Oil and Gas (Drill Baby Drill), Wind, Solar, Ethanol, Nuclear – If it is out there – lets go get it. The more sources we can target and develop the lower the price will be for any individual energy source. Development of American Energy sources is crucial to improving the American Economy and strengthing American Security.

There is no “one source” that America should target. I, for one, don’t want to see all of “our eggs in one basket”.         

Pickens’ Natural-Gas Nonsense

Friday, September 12, 2008

“Get this one,” says billionaire T. Boone Pickens in his latest TV ad, “Iran is changing its cars to natural gas and we’re not doing a thing here. They’re doing this to use less oil and sell it for $120 a barrel. We can switch our cars to natural gas and stop sending our dollars to foreign countries.”

Readers of this column know better than to take at face value the marketing of the so-called “Pickens Plan.”

So what’s the full story behind Iran’s move, and what would be the impact of switching our cars to natural gas?

Although Iran is a major oil and gas producer, it lacks oil-refining capacity and must import about 50 percent of its gasoline. To be less vulnerable to international pressure concerning its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decided to reduce Iran’s reliance on imported gasoline.

He started with rationing in May 2007. But that quickly led to violent social unrest.

Ahmadinejad then decided to convert Iran’s new car fleet to natural gas. So 60 percent of Iran’s car production this year — about 429,000 vehicles — will be dual-fuel-ready, capable of running on both gasoline and natural gas.

But contrary to Pickens assertion, Iran isn’t trying to use less oil:; It’s trying to use less imported gasoline — and only to thwart a possible international gasoline embargo.

Though hardly a role model for energy policy, should we nevertheless follow Iran’s lead with respect to natural-gas cars? Just what would that mean to you and to our economy?

While the natural gas sold for auto fuel is as much as 50 percent less expensive than gasoline — at least for now — the cover charge to get into a natural-gas vehicle can easily erase any savings.

A new natural-gas-powered car, such as the Honda Civic GX, for example, is almost 40 percent more expensive than a conventional Civic ($24,590 versus $17,700).

While tax credits can reduce the cost by thousands, somebody — either you and/or taxpayers — will be paying the difference.

If natural gas fuel saved you, say, $2 per gallon, then you’d have to drive 124,020 highway miles or 82,680 city miles to break even on fuel costs against the $6,890 purchase price premium.

You can convert an existing car from gasoline to natural gas, but the costs are daunting.

Converting a car to dual-use (as in Iran) costs between $6,000 to $10,000. Converting a car to run on natural gas only is about half as expensive.

Even so, the conversion has to be done correctly or, in the worst case, you risk leaks that could turn your car into an improvised explosive device. And if your car is altered without proof of EPA certification, you might not get any of the all-important conversion tax credits.

Then there’s the inconvenience. Though their fuel tanks are larger — which, incidentally, reduces trunk space — natural gas cars have less range.

While a new Honda Civic can go as far as 500 miles on a tank of gasoline, the GX’s range is less than half of that — and, currently, there are only about 1,600 natural-gas refueling stations across the country, compared with 200,000 gasoline stations.

If your home uses natural gas, you could buy a home filling station at a cost of about $2,000 plus installation. While home filling stations can further reduce fuel costs to substantially below $2 per gallon, the devices take about 4 hours to replenish the fuel consumed by only 50 miles of driving. So much for gas-and-go.

Moving past the personal expense and inconvenience, the broader implications of natural-gas cars are worrisome.

The U.S. currently uses about 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year. Like all commodities, the price of natural gas is supply-and-demand dependent.

Switching just 10 percent of the U.S. car fleet to natural gas would dramatically increase our consumption of natural gas by about 8 percent (1.9 trillion cubic feet) — an amount that is slightly less than one-half of all current residential natural gas usage and one-quarter of all industrial usage.

The price ramifications of such a demand spike would likely be significant. The current cost advantage of natural gas over gasoline could easily be reversed. Our move toward energy independence could also be compromised.

Domestic production of natural gas has not kept pace with rapidly increasing demand. Consequently, about 15 percent of our natural gas must now be imported.

Without more domestic gas drilling, additional demand will need to be met with natural gas imported by pipeline and in liquefied form from the very same foreign sources that T. Boone Pickens rails about in the context of oil.

In its most recent annual outlook, the U.S. Department of Energy projects that the U.S. natural-gas market will become more integrated with natural-gas markets worldwide as the U.S. becomes more dependent on imported liquefied natural gas — causing greater uncertainty in future U.S. natural-gas prices.

The natural-gas supply problem will be additionally magnified if significant greenhouse-gas regulation is enacted.

Here’s how: Currently, when natural gas gets too expensive, electric utilities often substitute coal or cheaper fuels for power generation.

Under a greenhouse-gas regulation scheme, however, inexpensive coal might no longer be an alternative because of the significantly greater greenhouse-gas emissions involved with its combustion.

Utilities, and ultimately consumers, could easily find themselves at the mercy of natural-gas barons — like T. Boone Pickens himself, a large investor in natural gas.

Is that the real “Pickens Plan?”


%d bloggers like this: