June 18, 2007

Congress Hates Auto Industry

Congress is more interested in promising things to make them look good then in proposing things that are based in reality.

The battle for fuel economy regulations is being played out in the halls of the
Congress as we speak. They are trying to play up the recent gas price
hikes as being the fault of the evil automotive industry unwillingness to make
cars use gas more efficently.

What's so infuriating is that Washington's hostile attitude is rooted in the myth that Detroit is doing nothing to make its products environmentally friendly.

Here's the truth: The auto industry spends more on research and development -- $21 billion a year -- than any other segment of the economy.

Fuel efficiency has nearly doubled over the last 30 years, while tailpipe
emissions decreased almost 100 percent.

General Motors, which offers 24 vehicles that reach 30 miles per gallon or
better, spent $40 billion over the past 10 years to meet federal regulations,
or twice its current market capitalization.

And yet Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein in
the Senate saw fit last week to lecture the automakers on their laziness and
resistance to change.

The bill in Congress right now pushes what the Congresspeople feel gas economy should be at, reguardless of technology. The are pulling data out of their asses and feel any opposition from the Automakers is unwillingness to make fuel economy better and being in cahoots with the evil oil companies.

The June 12 article on possible new automobile fuel-efficiency standards, "Safe cars versus fuel efficiency? Not so fast." draws largely on studies by experts in fields outside the automobile industry. The thrust of the article, that the industry is stonewalling on improved fuel efficiency, fails to consider the economic feasibility of the necessary changes. There is a vast difference between technological and economic feasibility.(emphasis mine)

Developing new vehicles and engines to meet sudden increases in fuel-efficiency standards requires many billions of dollars. And many billions would be required because there are very few cars of any size that can meet the suggested 35 m.p.g. standard, much less a manufacturer's fleet of vehicles capable of that level.

They are getting all their facts and data from people who don't even work in the
automotive industry. That would be like asking me for data about the medical industry.

Yet Michigan Congresspeople are working hard to get a proposal out there that is technological possible.

Ridiculous, yes. But it's the prevailing notion in Congress. And that explains why Stabenow, Dingell and the Michigan delegation are in the distasteful position of fighting for legislation that will add new and excruciatingly painful regulatory burdens on automakers.

Dingell is moving a fuel economy bill in the House, and Carl Levin in the Senate
that pushes the automakers to their absolute technological and financial limits.
The proposal represents the single greatest regulatory burden ever imposed on an American industry.(empahsis mine)

The Michigan members of Congress would nearly kill the patient to save it. But
the bills are aimed at heading off even harsher measures sure to be fatal.

The Single Greatest Regulatroy Burden EVER .. think about that, no other industry is being told to regulate their business more than the auto industry on fuel.

Think about all the things with motors or burns fuel, yet it's only the auto industy
being whipped for greenhouse gases and ozone burning products.

But that historic embrace of higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards is not enough to quiet the mob. Led by California Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman in the House and Dianne Feinstein in the Senate, many in Congress are demanding more, more, more of an industry whose survival is already uncertain.

Congress has an obligation not to regulate beyond the industry's capability to comply.(emphasis mine)

That says it all, congress should not regulate an industry out of business, which they are heading to do with there proposals. It would lead to 1 in 7 Americans losing their jobs because that is how many people in America are directly and indirectly related to the American Automotive Business.

Congress needs to start looking at what the American people want from their vehicles and not what they feel the American people should have in a vehicle.

Posted by Quality Weenie at June 18, 2007 09:03 AM | TrackBack