Today’s White House blog post documents the revival and resurgence of the American auto industry that was once believed to be on the verge of extinction. The whole story is explained in the following three simple gifs.
Image courtesy: Whitehouse.gov
Image Courtesy: Whitehouse.gov
Image Courtesy: Whitehouse.gov
America’s energy security gets a boost from the White House. President Obama proposed the creation of Energy Security Trust during his visit to the Argonne National Research Lab to talk about American energy security. The Energy Security Trust, a$2 Billion investment over 10 years, uses revenue generated by oil and gas development on federal lands to support new research and technology that will shift our cars and trucks off of oil for good. Below is an infographic that outlines how this works:
Energy Security Trust Infographic via Whitehouse.gov
Here is an excerpt from the White House Blog:
So how does it work? The Energy Security Trust will invest in research that will make future technologies cheaper and better – it will fund the advances that will allow us to run cars and trucks on electricity or homegrown fuels, and on the technology that will enable us to drive from coast-to-coast without a drop of oil.
Over 10 years, the Energy Security Trust will provide $2 billion for critical, cutting-edge research focused on developing cost-effective transportation alternatives.The funding will be provided by revenues from federal oil and gas development, and will not add any additional costs to the federal budget. The investments will support research into a range of technologies – things like advanced vehicles that run on electricity, homegrown biofuels, and domestically produced natural gas. It will also help fund a small number of real-world experiments that try different transportation techniques in cities and towns around the country using advanced vehicles at scale.
If it is worth something, President Obama has indicated his desire to use the executive powers to curb climate change impacts should Congress fail to act. According to Bloomberg, the president is also thinking of using a Nixon-era law, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, to instruct all federal agencies to consider the impact of climate change when approving “major projects, from pipelines to highways.” Of course, this can have some serious implications for large scale projects and some constituencies in the business sector are already freaking out over this mandate.
While we are busy discussing this issue, I’d like to share with you an address by President Obama from March 2011 in which he outlined his goals for reducing American energy dependence, heavily emphasizing new technology and alternative sources in addition to “safe and responsible” offshore drilling. A lot of what he outline in his blue print for change is already starting to take effect and I can only say that we are poised for a big change in the way we power our vehicles and industries. Fossil fuels are definitely beginning to see a slow demise (but it will be decades before they are completely phased out in the transportation sector).
The U.S. Department of Transportation and the White House Office of Public Engagement will host a White House Champions of Change featuring Transportation Innovators on July 31. Transportation Innovators are individuals or organizations who have provided exemplary leadership in the growth and expansion of the transportation industry at the local, state or regional level.
Logo of the United States White House.(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The White House Champions of Change program highlights the stories and examples of citizens across the country who are “Building an America to Last” with projects and initiatives that move their communities forward. Each week, the White House Office of Public Engagement hosts an event to honor those who are working to empower and inspire other members of their communities. A Transportation Innovation Champion’s work may entail:
Please submit nominations using the attached form no later than July 3, 2012 toChampions@dot.gov. Note: You can also submit a nomination in a text document, but all of the questions and information requested in the attached nomination form must be included in your submission.
(Sources: White House.gov & Freep.com)
Watching GM turn the corner from a disastrous dud and morph into a Detroit’s Stud and a Wall Street darling, no could’ve been happier than President Obama and his team of economic advisors at the White House, who advised him on the bailout that rescued thousands of jobs and the iconic brand from a collapse. The stunning turnaround culminated with a successful IPO debuting in the marketplace today. General Motors stock closed at $34.19 today, just above the $33 price of the initial public offering.
An elated President Obama convened a press conference this afternoon and shared his sentiment and belief in GM’s recovery strategy.
Today, one of the toughest tales of the recession took another big step towards becoming a success story.
General Motors relaunched itself as a public company, cutting the government’s stake in the company by nearly half. What’s more, American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested in GM.
And that’s a very good thing. Last year, we told GM’s management and workers that if they made the tough decisions necessary to make themselves more competitive in the 21st century — decisions requiring real leadership, fresh thinking and also some shared sacrifice –- then we would stand by them. And because they did, the American auto industry -– an industry that’s been the proud symbol of America’s manufacturing might for a century; an industry that helped to build our middle class -– is once again on the rise.
Our automakers are in the midst of their strongest period of job growth in more than a decade. Since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, the industry has created more than 75,000 new jobs. For the first time in six years, Ford, GM and Chrysler are all operating at a profit. In fact, last week, GM announced its best quarter in over 11 years. And most importantly, American workers are back at the assembly line manufacturing the high-quality, fuel-efficient, American-made cars of tomorrow, capable of going toe to toe with any other manufacturer in the world. Click here to read the president’s entire speech.
Freep’s awesome cartoonist Mike Thompson charts this wonderful recovery from a dud to a darling with a series of cartoons on his blog. He also adds the following to go with his nice drawings:
As if this weren’t bad enough for auto bailout critics, the Ann Arbor-based Center for Automotive Research has released a report that validates the logic behind the bailout. As Free Press business writer Greg Gardner reported, “The CAR study says the federal government would have spent $28.6 billion more than it did on unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security and other programs had the automakers liquidated. So the entire rescue will pay for itself if the government can generate $38 billion from selling its shares.” But perhaps the most chilling details in the story were the report’s conclusions that liquidation of the two auto companies would have meant the loss of 1.4 million jobs and $121 billion in personal income.
Whew! This above facts-full paragraph must be making many of the naysayers, like the conservative columnist Mr. George Will feel like throwing up. A couple of days ago, he wrote an op-ed titled , Toxic Volt, on Washington Post saying a whole lot of negative things about the President’s Bailout for GM. The President and Steven Rattner, the brains behind the execution of the bailout plan, should be chuckling over the phone talking about how bad they feel for George Will. Sadly enough, the doubters still continue to find a way to question the legitimacy of success. Fox Business News in an article on its website says massive dilution from existing shares, warrants and grants, as well as unfunded pension costs. And GM’s cash flow is still heavily reliant on tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks and taxpayer-backed loans from the Dept. of Energy.
Image Courtesy: Freep.com
If this is not victory enough for the President, today GM notched another impressive feat, which is more like a beautiful foil to the wonderful present inside – the IPO. The Detroit Free Press reports that the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle has won Green Car of the Year, beating out the pure-electric Nissan Leaf, hours after General Motors returned to the stock market. The award, decided by judges that include environmental enthusiasts and Green Car Journal editors, comes the same week as the Volt won MotorTrend Car of the Year and Automobile Magazine’s Automobile of the Year. How awesome could that for a man who was chided constantly by his opponents for the decisions he made to save the brand and the thousands of jobs associated with the existence of the brand.
I bet tonight the President of the United States will have a drink to celebrate one of his biggest victories since assuming office. He will probably sleep a little better tonight with one less thing to worry about.
(Source: Huffingtonpost; The Washington Monthly)
Let me make this clear upfront that my intention is not to make a political statement with this post. I’m simply trying to find a reason and logic (possibly seek help from others to find these elements in our society). Today’s Huff post had this article
“…On Tuesday morning, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told the Minneapolis Star Tribune that she wants to redefine exactly what an earmark is. Specifically, she said, transportation projects should not be placed under the umbrella. Advocating for transportation projects for ones district in my mind does not equate to an earmark,” said the Minnesota Republican. “I don’t believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark… There’s a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway.” The Star-Tribune notes that Bachmann “did solicit some earmarks when she first came to Congress” but “has been outspoken in pushing House Republicans to continue an earmark moratorium enacted last year.” But transportation funds are vital for job creation. And it seems likely that the reality of having a major spigot cut off is a bit frightening to even the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives on the Hill.
Isn’t that what the White House was trying to accomplish via the Stimulus package – revitalize our nation’s infrastructure with targeted spending? Why did they take so much flak and blame for out of control spending? If such selective exclusions are to be made for one sector (i.e., transportation), why not make it possible for other sectors (i.e., agriculture, education, etc.)? Does this mean Ms. Bachmann would be supportive of building a High-speed rail network, which is identified (and funded) by the White House as an important piece of the nation’s future growth strategy, if it is funded as an earmark? Are Earmarks are bad, unless they’re going to Ms. Bachmann’s district? Cutting spending is good, except for the “legitimate projects that have to be done.”Are we missing something here?
(Source: ITS America Newsletter & White House Office of Urban Affairs)
Shelley Poticha - Image Courtesy: Planetizen
On Thursday, July 15, the White House Office of Urban Affairs will host a live chat with the leadership of the Sustainable Communities Partnership, an agreement between HUD, Transportation, and EPA to coordinate federal housing, transportation, and environmental investments. Last month, the Partnership released a joint notice of funding availability — $35 million in TIGER II Planning grants and $40 million in Sustainable Community Challenge grants — for local planning activities that integrate transportation, housing, and economic development. And, HUD also announced $100 million in funding for Sustainable Communities Regional Planning grant program that will support regional planning efforts that integrate housing, land use, economic development, and transportation.
What:
Sustainable Communities Live Chat
Who:
Shelley Poticha, Director of the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, HUD
Beth Osborne, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy, Department of Transportation
Tim Torma, Deputy Director of the Office of Sustainable Communities, EPA
Moderated by Derek Douglas, Special Assistant to the President on Urban Policy, White House
When:
2:00PM EST, Thursday, July 15, 2010
How:
Watch and participate at www.whitehouse.gov/live
Send questions in advance to Planetizen.
For more information on the partnership, read their latest blog that summarizes their work and accomplishments.
(Sources Contributing to this Hybrid Report: Streetsblog; PBS -The Dig; Journal of Commerce)
Every six years the law authorizing national transportation policy and funding needs renewal. The current law expires Sept. 30 — in nine days.The House will consider a three-month extension of the current highway bill rather than the 18-month extension the administration and Senate want. The extension will avoid a collapse of highway spending on Oct. 1, according to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee press secretary James Berard.
Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.), Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, is staunchly against an 18-month delay. As a result, it is likely he will propose a three-month extension later this week.
The 18-month extension is favored by the Senate and White House. A Senate spokesman said that the four committees with jurisdiction over the highway bill have reported legislation to the floor, but the bills have not been up for debate before the full body.
Will this month’s version end with the House again bowing to the Obama administration’s preference that a new transport bill not be considered until early 2011? Now, as in July, the deck is stacked against the lower chamber of Congress. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business interests are behindOberstar’s three-month plan, but their lobbying in favor of a gas tax increase has not yet succeeded in rousing a reluctant Congress.
Meanwhile, State highway officials warn that unless Congress acts, they will lose $8.7 billion in money allocated for projects ranging from interstate highway maintenance to safe routes for school buses on Oct. 1.
The Federal Highway Administration announced that it will rescind funds that have been budgeted but not obligated for highway contracts on Sept. 30. The action will not be affected by congressional legislation to extend the highway law known as SAFETEA-LU. Tony Dorsey, spokesman for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), said preventing the loss will require separate legislation.
An AASHTO press release on this subject notes that all 535 members of the House and Senate received an urgent letter from AASHTO yesterday, requesting that Congress repeal an $8.7 billion rescission of highway contract authority. The rescission was written into SAFETEA-LU, the highway and transit authorization bill passed by Congress in 2005.
In his letter, AASHTO executive director John Horsley contends “…an additional $8.7 billion rescission will result in substantial, real program cuts, not merely a reduction of unused dollars on the books. Provisions in section 1132 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which require that the states apply the rescission proportionately across all programs, will exacerbate the problem by further reducing state discretion to make reductions according to priorities. The letter also states that the rescission must be repealed or “it will nullify the benefits from economic recovery efforts.”
(Source: NY Times)
WASHINGTON — Ray LaHood, the secretary of transportation, is not one to toot his own horn over how much he knows about planes, trains and automobile bailouts. On the contrary.
“I don’t think they picked me because they thought I’d be that great a transportation person,” Mr. LaHood says with refreshing indifference as to how this admission might play if, say, he were ever to bungle a bridge collapse.Yes, transportation is Mr. LaHood’s day job, a post that a few days ago required him to attend a groundbreaking ceremony for a highway in New Hampshire, speak to a group about the dangers of tailgating trucks and discuss “bird strikes” on CNN.
But one of the astonishing things about Mr. LaHood, 63, is how limited his transportation résumé is, how little excitement he exudes on the subject (other than abouthigh-speed rail) and how little he seems to care who knows it. So why exactly did President Obama pick this former seven-term Republican congressman from Illinois to oversee everything that moves?
Mr. LaHood posits a theory. “They picked me because of the bipartisan thing,” he explained, “and the Congressional thing, and the friendship thing.”
The “bipartisan thing” and the “Congressional thing” are self-evident: Mr. LaHood is a Republican with close ties to Capitol Hill. One White House insider described Mr. LaHood as “a master of odd jobs,” whose knowledge of Washington allows him to take on assignments as varied as lobbying lawmakers on the budget and helping political novices in the cabinet navigate Beltway social rituals (“cocktail situations,” as Energy Secretary Steven Chu calls them).
In the White House, Mr. Chu describes Mr. LaHood, a former junior high school social studies teacher, as a source of “fatherly advice” for Washington newcomers like himself.
One “cocktail situation” occurred recently at the annual Gridiron Club dinner. Mr. LaHood was seated at the head table near Mr. Chu, and between Arne Duncan andTimothy F. Geithner, the education and Treasury secretaries. The men asked Mr. LaHood if they could flee the dinner before the interminable speechifying ended. No, Mr. LaHood counseled.
“I said, ‘Look, you’re window dressing,’ ” Mr. LaHood said. “ ‘You’re more of a prop. But it’s part of what we have to do.’ ” Mr. Chu and Mr. Duncan heeded the advice; Mr. Geithner did not.
(Source: CNN)
Pontiac owners around the United States are feeling nostalgic amid reports that cash-strapped General Motors will end one of its most coveted brands.
Pontiac models, such as the 1969 GTO, helped usher in the era of the muscle cars, enthusiasts say.
Jean Lindsay of western New York fondly recalls the muscle cars in her family’s driveway: Two 1967 GTOs.“I had two brothers, and they each had one of these cars,” she said. “The GTO represented the suburban culture of its time, heavily laden with root beer and plain beer.”
“Those were the days of Bob’s Big Boy [hamburger restaurant], when girls wore skates. Back then we pleasantly wasted gas looking for fun. It was a social thing.”
Debuting in 1964, the Pontiac GTO is widely regarded as the original muscle car. It was a risky model in that it featured a big-block engine in an intermediate-size frame.
The GTO’s success not only buoyed GM but helped jumpstart the high-performance market for Detroit’s Big Three automakers — and ushered in the era of the vehicle as status symbol.
“It was a chick magnet, for God’s sake. Even from a girl’s standpoint,” Lindsay said.
Pontiac’s other emblematic performance car, the Firebird Trans Am, featured the outline of a firebird on the hood — the whole hood. It enjoyed a rise in popularity and brisk sales after being featured in the “Smokey and the Bandit” movie franchise beginning in the late 1970s.
But like even the most sturdy odometer, the numbers, years ago, had begun to work against Detroit.
After years of watching their market share erode to foreign automakers, GM, Ford and Chrysler were beset by a perfect storm of declining sales, slow innovation and a dogged recession. While all three shed jobs, GM and Chrysler took bailouts to survive; Ford chose to rely on its cash reserves to ride out the storm.
In February, GM announced the end of the Saturn and Hummer lines while casting a ray of hope for Pontiac enthusiasts by saying that the brand would survive but be scaled back to a niche product.
But as a potential bankruptcy filing looms on June 1, the automaker has reportedly studied closing down the Pontiac brand. In the midst of pressure from the Obama administration to present a restructuring plan that shows the company’s long-term viability, the automaker recently released a statement to downplay fears that brands Americans have patronized for generations are on the chopping block.
“General Motors has not announced any changes to its long-term viability plan or to the future status of any of its brands,” the automaker said Friday in a statement on its Web site.
Click here to read the entire article.
(Source: Washington Post)
Top officials at Chrysler Financial turned away a $750 million government loan because executives didn’t want to abide by new federal limits on pay, sources familiar with the matter say.
The government had been offering the loan earlier this month as part of its efforts to prop up the ailing auto industry, including Chrysler, which is racing to avoid bankruptcy. Chrysler Financial is a vital lender to Chrysler dealerships and customers.
In forgoing the loan, Chrysler Financial opted to use more expensive financing from private banks, adding to the burdens of the already fragile automaker and its financing company.
Chrysler Financial denied in a statement that its executives had refused to accept new limits on their pay.
The company’s decision comes amid a firestorm on Capitol Hill and elsewhere over the lavish pay of executives at companies being aided by government money. The uproar has made companies skittish about taking federal aid and hindered the Obama administration’s effort to revive lending by replenishing the coffers of the nation’s financial firms.
The Treasury Department previously had loaned Chrysler Financial $1.5 billion, when less stringent requirements on executive compensation were in place for recipients of federal bailout money. Since that first loan was announced on January 16, the Obama administration and Congress have toughened the rules.
During March, when it seemed that the first loan would run out, the Obama administration began working on a deal to lend the company another $750 million.
