<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Chrysler</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/chrysler/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:25:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s Halftime Hypocrisy</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/obamas-halftime-hypocrisy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/obamas-halftime-hypocrisy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white-house]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/obamas-halftime-hypocrisy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ On Super Bowl Sunday, America was treated to the most expensive political commercial in history—brought to you by Chrysler—called &#8220;It&#039;s Halftime in America.&#8221; In a series of vapid non sequiturs, Clint Eastwood&#039;s gravelly voice pinned the promise of a city—no, a nation—to government dependency, claiming that &#8220;the people of Detroit&#8221; lost almost everything but because &#8220;we&#8221; pulled together and the &#8220;Motor City is fighting again&#8221;—punching, roaring, imbued with American grit—we survived. Or, some might argue, after screwing stakeholders, discarding legal contracts, rewarding failed business models (while punishing those who employ better ones) and sticking taxpayers with the unions&#039; fat pension tab, America got a heaping spoonful of the Obama administration&#039;s economic policy. Either way, it&#039;s odd that we didn&#039;t hear much griping about &#8220;corporatism,&#8221; oligarchies and Citizens United, though a corporate-sponsored campaign spot laid out the president&#039;s re-election narrative rather nicely. Now, I have no beef with Chrysler&#039;s running a campaign ad, but the thing is that if Obama had his way, Republicans would have a good case for banning this kind of politicking. You know, for the good of democracy. You may remember that the Supreme Court&#039;s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision centered around the ability of a corporation to air a documentary critical of then-candidate Hillary Clinton. In her first case as solicitor general for the Obama administration, in fact, current Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan went so far as to argue that the federal government should be empowered to ban books if Washington deems that they amount to &#8220;political electioneering.&#8221; Let&#039;s just say the spirit of Voltaire is not exactly soaring in Washington these days. You may also remember that when Ford ran a TV ad praising its innovative strategy of competing without taxpayer charity (a bit of a myth itself), the White House was reportedly incensed, viewing Ford&#039;s defense of free enterprise as an attack on the president. Needless to say, upsetting this administration is bad for business, and Ford pulled the ad. What about commercials? What about commercials produced by companies that benefited (in this case, a Bush bailout supported by Obama) from policies supported by this administration? What about &#8220;It&#039;s Halftime in America&#8221;? Well, cheers all around! White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, &#8220;Saving the (American) Auto Industry: Something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on.&#8221; (Eminem apparently read a script that was written by the same people who wrote the script that Eastwood read.) Obama&#039;s campaign architect, David Axelrod, tweeted: &#8220;Powerful spot. Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?&#8221; Hmm. Not sure. David—if I may—maybe you could ask Clint or the agency that created the commercial, Wieden+Kennedy, because it is reportedly staffed by folks who have worked on Obama campaigns and Democratic causes for years. As for those super PACs—the main boogeyman of Citizens United— The Washington Examiner reminded me, the president once asked voters to &#8220;challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us (in) stopping it.&#8221; Join us? Let&#039;s start with Obama, who is going to have to challenge himself, as this week, his campaign asked top fundraisers to support his own super political action committee. Admittedly, brutes like me live under a preposterously antiquated notion. We believe that citizens should be free to support any candidate with as much money as they&#039;d like—anonymously, if they desire. But if super PACs and corporate-sponsored politicking are really jeopardizing the very fabric of American life—Obama once claimed they were a &#8220;threat to democracy&#8221;—why would the president partake in this orgy of gruesome selfishness? It was reported that Obama had one of his internal &#8220;evolving conversations&#8221; on the issue, conversations that always seem to evolve into Obama&#039;s rationalizing whatever is best for Obama. Conversations that are educational. Because the next time the administration claims that more speech is threatening democracy—corporate speech, super PACs, Citizens United—what it really will mean is that more speech is threatening its second term. David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi. COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM Read more here: Obama&#8217;s Halftime Hypocrisy ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/obamas-halftime-hypocrisy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Defense of Clint Eastwood</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/in-defense-of-clint-eastwood/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/in-defense-of-clint-eastwood/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LautzVanderbeck393</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eastwood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[only-the-medium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super-bowl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weekly-standard]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/in-defense-of-clint-eastwood/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ As I wrote here shortly after it aired on Sunday night, I really liked the Clint Eastwood Chrysler Super Bowl ad ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/in-defense-of-clint-eastwood/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clint Eastwood 2012</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/clint-eastwood-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/clint-eastwood-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 06:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LautzVanderbeck393</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clint-eastwood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debate-sage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[half-time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lifelong]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[more-convincing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super-bowl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-lifelong]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[two-minutes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/clint-eastwood-2012/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The only Super Bowl commercial I am going to remember is the spot Clint Eastwood did for Chrysler. In two minutes, the lifelong Republican made a more convincing case for America than any of the GOP hopefuls have in six months. "It's half time America and our second half is about to begin." Damn! Talk about words of iron . President Obama has to be thankful he doesn't have to share a debate sage with Eastwood. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/clint-eastwood-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sockpuppet Friday (UAW Bailout Fact-Checking Edition)</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/sockpuppet-friday-uaw-bailout-fact-checking-edition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/sockpuppet-friday-uaw-bailout-fact-checking-edition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TakakiVian404</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[answers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[auto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[establishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[glenn-kessler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politically]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thread]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/sockpuppet-friday-uaw-bailout-fact-checking-edition/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [Posted by Karl] As usual, you are positively encouraged to engage in sockpuppetry in this thread. The usual rules apply. Please, be sure to switch back to your regular handle when commenting on other threads. I have made that mistake myself. And remember: the worst sin you can commit on this thread is not being funny. — Yesterday, WaPo &#8220;fact checker,&#8221; Glenn Kessler , evaluated Pres. Obama’s claim that &#8220;some wanted to let the auto industry die.&#8221;  After wryly noting that Obama has &#8220; a fondness for using rhetorical straw men in his speeches,&#8221; he awards the president a mere two Pinocchios.  Kessler somehow manages to get through the column without mentioning the Ford Motor Company, which afaik is part of the auto industry.  Nor does he mention the other members of the auto industry aside from GM and Chrysler who manufacture and otherwise employ folks here in the US.  Granted, we tend to think of a company like Toyota as &#8220;foreign,&#8221; but Chrysler was sold to Fiat, so the nationalism card should not be in play from a fact-checking standpoint. Indeed, Kessler also writes &#8220;a credible case can be made that an auto industry bankruptcy likely would not have been possible in November or December of 2008 (when Romney and other Republicans pushed for it) because there was no bank financing available.&#8221;  If we want to talk about &#8220;cases,&#8221; a case can be made that a regular bankruptcy would have yielded about the same number of continuing jobs at GM as the taxpayer-funded bankruptcy.  And a case easily could be made that a GOP administration could have come up with a bankruptcy deal that would have looked a lot more like a normal proceeding than a politicially-motivated bailout of the United Auto Workers.  But a &#8220;case&#8221; is not a fact.  In short, it&#8217;s  another example of Kessler, like other establishment media operations, pretending political debates are much simpler questions of fact. And this is a particularly bad example of the genre: Okay, out of 300 million Americans, maybe there were “some folks” who felt the auto industry should die. But Obama appeared to be suggesting that GOP lawmakers were willing to let the auto industry collapse. On that basis, the evidence is not very strong. The quotes we received — and others we researched — were mostly questions of tactics. As the administration’s internal debate suggests, the answers were not clear. Certainly, some top administration officials thought at least one car company should die. From the left, I can argue that Kessler concedes the vague &#8220;some&#8221; is almost undoubtedly true, meriting no Pinocchios.  From the right, I can note that Kessler came up with zero examples of Obama&#8217;s GOP critics wanting the US auto industry to die, which is the politically salient claim.  Indeed, Kessler notes the GOP&#8217;s real problem was with the UAW, while largely avoiding the fact that the Obama adminsitration&#8217;s maneuver here was mostly about bailing out the UAW&#8217;s unsustainable pension and healthcare benefits. As Kessler seems bent on keeping this up, it is again time to note   the WaPo fact-checker blog was on hiatus from the last day of the 2008 election campaign through January 9, 2011 . When the federal government was run entirely by a supermajority of Democrats, there was no need for fact-checking.  In an election year, there is a demand for media spin of Obama&#8217;s rhetoric. &#8211;Karl ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/sockpuppet-friday-uaw-bailout-fact-checking-edition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s Used Chrysler On The Market For $1 Million</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/obamas-used-chrysler-on-the-market-for-1-million/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/obamas-used-chrysler-on-the-market-for-1-million/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:52:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HigleyLocklear930</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[headlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/obamas-used-chrysler-on-the-market-for-1-million/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama&#8217;s Used Chrysler On The Market For $1 Million]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/obamas-used-chrysler-on-the-market-for-1-million/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UAW Fund, Underfunded By $20 Billion, To Cut Retiree Benefits</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/09/uaw-fund-underfunded-by-20-billion-to-cut-retiree-benefits/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/09/uaw-fund-underfunded-by-20-billion-to-cut-retiree-benefits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 23:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[benefits-trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retiree]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retiree-benefit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[saginaw-metal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stock-market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veba]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/09/uaw-fund-underfunded-by-20-billion-to-cut-retiree-benefits/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ You may remember how, during the Obama-structured bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler, shareholders were shoved to the side by the UAW&#8217;s retiree benefit trust (called a VEBA), which assumed partial ownership of GM and majority ownership of Chrysler. That was in addition to the American taxpayers pumping in billions to the American auto companies. Well, as it turns out, the UAW&#8217;s retiree benefit trust is, according to Crain&#8217;s , still running in the red: A nasty combination of rising health care costs and poor stock market performance has caused a drop in available funding for the UAWs Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, according to documents filed in October with the U.S. Department of Labor. The trust pays for health care benefit costs for 840,000 retired autoworkers and their dependents that currently amount to $4.5 billion each year. The fund has net assets of $58.8 billion and total benefit obligations of $79 billion, resulting in a $20.2 billion shortfall, said the UAW documents. This shortfall is leading the UAW VEBA to begin cutting retiree benefits: “ I’ve already gotten letters saying they are raising premiums for dental and eye coverage, ” said Lyle Roussey, a worker who retired from GM’s Saginaw Metal Casting plant in Michigan two years ago. “I never had faith when the UAW took over medical benefits. We don’t know what they are doing with all the money. “From the beginning, the VEBA was underfunded by billions of dollars. Now all we are going to see is more letters, saying ‘we’ve got to cut this, we’ve got to make you pay for more this.’” In 2007, in exchange for cutting entry-level wages, the UAW achieved its long-standing goal of getting the auto companies to fund the VEBA, a union benefit trust fund that the UAW would administer to its retirees. Then UAW-president Ron Gettlefinger pitched the agreement to both the media and his members, claiming that the VEBA would take care of the UAA retirees for 80 years. &#8220;I am pleased to say we have a VEBA,&#8221; Gettelfinger said, &#8220;and that it stretches out for the next 80 years. And that&#8217;s all I&#8217;ll say.&#8221; Gettelfinger and UAW Vice President Cal Rapson stressed that the VEBA should help GM become more competitive by relieving the automaker of direct health care costs. Instead, the company and the union will put money into the trust, which will be administered by a third party. We  know how that turned out, don&#8217;t we? Now, with an additional $20 billion of under funding, will American taxpayers get asked to kick in more money? _______________ “I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776 Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com Image source: LibertyWorks.com ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/09/uaw-fund-underfunded-by-20-billion-to-cut-retiree-benefits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFE Spells RIP for Trucks</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/13/cafe-spells-rip-for-trucks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/13/cafe-spells-rip-for-trucks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chevy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[countries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[highway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mpg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ranger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vehicle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/13/cafe-spells-rip-for-trucks/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The government's pending (2016) 35.5 MPG CAFE fuel economy requirements -- which for the first time apply to trucks as well as passenger cars -- are going to make it very difficult for any automaker to sell trucks in volume in this country. Ford has just dropped the compact-size Ranger from its U.S. model lineup -- making it the first CAFE casualty -- and I predict that larger trucks are on the endangered species list now, too. Just as large V-8/RWD sedans were almost completely killed off as mass-market vehicles by the original -- and far less punitive -- CAFE requirements that went into effect a quarter century ago. Even a small truck with a four-cylinder engine will have a hard time averaging 35.5 MPG. To get there, the truck would need to be capable of 40 MPG on the highway and 30 MPG in city driving. There are only a handful of economy cars that achieve 40 MPG on the highway right now. Trucks do worse, MPG-wise, because they're heavier (to be able to do work such as pull a trailer or carry a pallet of bricks in the bed), less aerodynamic, in part because they need to ride higher off the ground than a car -- and often, ride on M/S-rated tires that have higher rolling resistance than standard passenger car radials. Fuel efficiency takes a back seat to capability. The just-canceled Ranger managed 23 city, 27 highway -- so, about 25 MPG average. For a truck, that's not bad. But Ford would have had to get another 10 MPG out of Ranger to make the CAFE cut -- and avoid CAFE fines. I suspect Ford dropped the Ranger from its U.S. product portfolio because it realizes that getting a truck (any truck) to achieve 40 on the highway and 30 in city-type driving will probably -- almost certainly -- require: • A dramatic reduction in weight via the use of composites rather than steel while maintaining the same level of crashworthiness. • Very high-efficiency turbodiesel engines or other advanced technology, such as a hybrid powertrain. • Significant reduction in power/capability. All of which will increase the cost of the vehicle, perhaps to the extent that it is no longer economically viable to manufacturer. The Ranger got nixed first in part because it's a lower-on-the-totem-pole model than the best-selling F-Series. But CAFE is gunning for the F-truck, too. It gets considerably poorer fuel economy than the Ranger, which will make it that much harder (read, economically untenable) to achieve compliance with the 35.5 MPG CAFE diktat . Even the government's own estimates of the costs imposed by CAFE so far are startling high: $2.4 billion -- and that was back in 2003, when the Congressional Budget Office issued its report , The Economic Costs of Fuel Economy Standards Versus a Gasoline Tax . Mind, the $2.4 billion referenced by CBO assumed the old CAFE standard of 27.5 MPGs, not the recently enacted 35.5 MPG standard -- which also for the first time applies to trucks. The old CAFE standard was much more lenient, with a separate -- and higher -- CAFE peg for "light trucks." The CBO study also noted, presciently, that "unit sales of light trucks would ultimately decline about twice as much as would those of cars." So what will the new 35.5 MPG standard cost us? Automotive Fleet Magazine , an industry journal, estimates it will add at least another $1,000 to the sticker price of every new vehicle sold and $52 billion cumulatively. And don't forget : CAFE does not stop at 35.5 MPG by 2016. Chief Engineer Obama pushed for -- and got -- a further bump to between 47 and 62 MPG by 2025. Want to take a guess what that will cost? The Chevy Volt sort-of electric car gives us a clue . It is capable of operating on electricity alone for 20 or 30 miles at a stretch and so uses very little gas. It also has a sticker price of $40,000. Even with a massive federal subsidy of $7,500 the thing still costs about as much to buy as a new BMW 3 series or similar entry luxury-vehicle. It's thus a toy, or at best, an engineering concept. Whatever you'd like to call it, it's not economical -- and few people, other than affluent people, can afford to buy one. It is doubtful GM would have even produced the Volt for retail sale absent the PR value -- and, of course, government subsidies. With trucks, it's even worse, because to a great extent the market for such vehicles is middle and working class. There are people in San Francisco and Washington with $200k annually incomes who will buy the Volt. But how many $40k-per-year electricians will be willing or even able to plunk down $30,000 for a "high efficiency" compact truck, as outlined above? Hence Ford's decision to pull the Ranger from its U.S. model lineup -- while continuing to sell it in other countries where there is no CAFE law. It's an impossible situation for the car companies. You can't have both very high fuel economy and the capability people expect at a reasonable cost, while also meeting all the government's existing crashworthiness standards, too. The latter is especially interesting because, for the first time, two mutually exclusive government edicts -- one relating to fuel economy, the other relating to crashworthiness -- are coming into obvious conflict. It would be relatively easy to chop a few hundred pounds off the typical truck and without doing anything else, score a significant increase in fuel economy. It would also be possible, with a lower curb weight, to use a smaller (or less powerful) engine and still maintain approximately the same performance while further increasing fuel economy (by dint of the fact that a smaller, less powerful engine would use less fuel). This would also have the happy effect of lowering the price of the vehicle since it costs nothing to remove weight, or equipment that adds weight, such as the now-mandatory multiple air bags that all vehicles come equipped with. But maintaining the vehicle's compliance with existing and pending federal crashworthiness requirements while also significantly reducing its curb weight won't be easily or cheaply done. It will probably require wholesale re-engineering of the vehicle, not merely replacing steel with high-strength, lightweight (and very expensive) composites. Major R&#038;D will be involved and the end result, though possibly both "safe" and "efficient" will also cost a small fortune, just like the Chevy Volt. The people on the top floor of the Ford building are not idiots. They've crunched the numbers. They see the future. There is none for the Ranger -- and soon, bigger trucks, too. Bet your bippie GM and Chrysler are hip, too. I predict it's all over for trucks as mass-market vehicles. We just don't realize it yet. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/13/cafe-spells-rip-for-trucks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unionized Clerical Workers Fight UAW Greed…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/15/unionized-clerical-workers-fight-uaw-greed%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/15/unionized-clerical-workers-fight-uaw-greed%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 05:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[black]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[black-lake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bob king]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opeiu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solidarity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united auto workers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-auto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/15/unionized-clerical-workers-fight-uaw-greed%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Their employer has nearly $1 billion in the bank, owns a golf resort, and is a major shareholder of not one but two U.S. auto companies. Given that, one would think their employer wouldn&#8217;t treat its employees like the very corporations their bosses often do battle with. However, since 2009, the union workers have been subjected to cut backs and are now facing even more layoffs. No, the workers don&#8217;t work at some Wall Street bank. They work for the United Auto Workers and, according to the Detroit News , they trying to fight back against their union bosses&#8217; draconian heavy-handedness. Members of the Office Professional Employees International Union, which represents clerical and janitorial workers at Solidarity House and other UAW offices around the country, say the UAW has pushed them to take major concessions during the past couple of years and is now insisting on layoffs. But the workers are fighting back.  They have picketed Solidarity House . On Thursday, they held a meeting to decide what to do next. &#8220;Bob King always talks about creative problem-solving, but the only creative problem solution he&#8217;s offering is more layoffs,&#8221; said Audrey McKenna, vice president of OPEIU Local 494, which represents UAW office employees in Detroit. &#8221; We know times are tough, but they&#8217;re spending like the &#8216;Housewives of Beverly Hills. &#8216;&#8221; She and other union members said the UAW has been hiring a small army of consultants for its organizing campaign against foreign-owned automakers. They also accuse King and other UAW officials of spending big on foreign travel and remodeling projects at Solidarity House. According to the UAW&#8217;s financial reports, at the end of 2010, the United Auto Workers&#8217; headquarters brought in more than $274 million from its local unions and other income, but it spent $275 million—including nearly $10.5 million on political activities and lobbying and sent over $3 million to the AFL-CIO. On top of the extensive list of properties the UAW owns, the UAW did pump over $200,000 in remodeling its headquarters in 2010. Moreover, according to Reuters, over the last decade (even as it was stripping its unionized workers of wages and benefits), the UAW was dumping over $39 million into its resort in upper Michigan. Over the past decade, the UAW has also been forced to provide about $39 million in loans to the Walter and May Reuther Family Education Centre and Black Lake Golf Course, known collectively as Black Lake, to keep them open. [snip] &#8220;I don&#8217;t even know why we call them loans,&#8221; UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams said in an interview in July. &#8220;I mean, it isn&#8217;t like they pay them back.&#8221; [snip] In 2000, former UAW president Stephen Yokich opened the golf course. At the time, the union&#8217;s membership was less than half its 1979 peak of about 1.5 million members. The union&#8217;s bimonthly magazine, Solidarity, began to publish putting tips for members. The UAW&#8217;s Bob King, citing his union&#8217;s ever-shrinking membership numbers, says the cutbacks to his union workers are necessary and disputes the contention that UAW bosses have been spending extravagantly. The OPEIU, however, disagrees : The OPEIU says its ranks at the UAW have already been cut more than 35 percent since 2009. About 260 employees remain, and the union says the UAW wants to cut another 100 positions. In 2010, the OPEIU agreed to reopen its contract and accept $4.5 million in wage and benefit cuts to avoid layoffs. Earlier this year, the workers agreed to work an additional two and a half hours each week with no increase in pay, again to avoid layoffs. &#8220; We keep giving and giving, but they keep coming back at us with the threat of layoffs ,&#8221; said one worker who did not wish to be identified because he feared for his job. &#8220; With the car companies, they talk about shared sacrifice. But with us, there&#8217;s no shared sacrifice .&#8221; Back in 2009, as the UAW was acquiring ownership of the bankrupted General Motors and Chrysler, despite the office workers voting to against cuts, UAW bosses  unilaterally imposed layoff, as well as higher health insurance costs. The UAW has lost so many members that it is cutting at least 120 staff positions in an effort to balance its budget , UAW sources said. &#8220;We&#8217;ve got to downsize,&#8221; a union source said. &#8221;It may not end there.&#8221; In a stunning role reversal, Gettelfinger told UAW employees Thursday that he would impose the terms of a concessionary contract that they voted down last month. That means reduced benefits for the union&#8217;s own retirees and requires each UAW employee to take a two-week unpaid furlough or give up their 401(k) matching contribution next year. As the OPEIU workers continue to fight their UAW bosses, a visit to the OPEIU&#8217;s website has a page ironically entitled Need a Union ? that states: By joining together with your co-workers you can build an employee organization that gives you a real say over your job, puts you on more equal footing with your employer and ensures a better economic future for you and your co-workers. Apparently, the OPEIU&#8217;s brand of unionization doesn&#8217;t work when trying to fight an employer like the UAW. ________________ “I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776 Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/11/15/unionized-clerical-workers-fight-uaw-greed%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Morning Briefing for October 27, 2011</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/27/morning-briefing-for-october-27-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/27/morning-briefing-for-october-27-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[game]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harry reid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[project]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/27/morning-briefing-for-october-27-2011/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ RedState Morning Briefing For October 27, 2011 Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge. 1. Student debt is a symptom of our lack of economic literacy 2. Stop Harry Reid’s Egregious Budget Power Grab 3. Public-Sector Unions To Ohio Taxpayers: We Will Bury You 4. Al-Jazeera and Green Peace Unite Against Keystone Pipeline 5. You Can’t Rely On American Cars Because American Car Makers Rely On Bailouts 6. In Which John Tillman Plays With Fire 7. An Anti-Semite? &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;- 1. Student debt is a symptom of our lack of economic literacy One of the failings of our public school systems is the lack of basic economic literacy of so many of our students. I am afraid this has infected our political discourse and policy making to a degree that is frightening and deeply disheartening. One prime example of this, are attempts to ignore basic things like supply and demand when making public policy. In my humble opinion, Democrats are guilty of this more than Republicans but a depressing amount of Republicans follow this path as well. A good example is a hot topic these days: student debt. This is a subject I have some inside knowledge about having acquired far too much student debt in order to achieve an advanced degree from a fancy Ivy League school (fine, a MA from a MAC school, but that is beside the point). This is also a classic example of politicians blindly declaring something a universal good and then making policy that not only ignores economic reality but undermines the economy and harms people (see, housing policy). We blithely declare that everyone should go to college and set up a system that allows anyone breathing to borrow large sums of money with no consequences or connection to reality and wonder why the system doesn’t function. Soon we have millions of people with massive debt and very little to show for it. The sad thing is that these people are now protesting in the streets and asking for what? More hair of the dog that bit them – more government intrusion and less economic reality. And it appears President Obama is happy to oblige them. Please click here for the rest of the post. 2. Stop Harry Reid’s Egregious Budget Power Grab Senate Democrats (and all other Democrats, for that matter) have not passed a budget for over 900 days, yet they are planning to come late to the game and commandeer the appropriations process. After delaying the process for over two years, Harry Reid, with the help of some Senate Republicans, is planning to expedite appropriations bills in a way that disavows standard procedures of transparency. House Republicans must rebuff this insidious plan. When Republicans assumed control of the House earlier this year, they completed the job that Democrats refused to do regarding the FY 2011 budget. Additionally, they passed a concurrent budget resolution for FY 2012, and proceeded to complete half of the 12 annual appropriations bills. When it became clear that Senate Democrats were dithering with roll call votes and speeches, and had no intention of even passing a budget resolution, Republicans held back the remaining approps bills, in an effort to wait for the Senate to get its act together. Now, instead of coming to the table and passing the 12 individual appropriations bills along with a budget resolution, Harry Reid is seeking to circumvent the process by using “Minibus” bills. He rightfully perceives that a 12-bill omnibus package would be politically unpopular, so he is planning to bundle the 12 appropriations bill into four minibus bills, containing three spending bills apiece. Why does Reid want to use this awkward and obscure process for appropriations bills? Please click here for the rest of the post. 3. Public-Sector Unions To Ohio Taxpayers: We Will Bury You With less than two weeks before the November 8th elections and with the polls leaning toward repealing SB5, it appears that Ohioans are ready to vote to increase their taxes and unemployment. Ultimately, that is a choice Ohio taxpayers will be making and fiscal self-immolation is certainly within their rights and, frankly, there are states who would be all-too happy to see Ohio’s unions put the nail in the coffin there. Curiously, though, after months of being pounded by a multi-million dollar union campaign of fear-mongering and deceptive propaganda, there seems to be very few Ohioans who know the true economic consequences of what happens when they repeal SB 5—and the unions, in their attack ads, certainly aren’t telling them either. Please click here for the rest of the post. 4. Al-Jazeera and Green Peace Unite Against Keystone Pipeline Al Jazeera, arguably the most terrorist-friendly news station after MSNBC, has offered some thoughts on the proposed Keystone Pipeline which will bring billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to the United States. Calling it a “pipeline of poison,” writer Dahr Jamail makes the case that the project will be an environmental catastrophe. Quite a shocker that the media outlet of choice in the middle east would be against something that might make us more energy independent. Please click here for the rest of the post. 5. You Can’t Rely On American Cars Because American Car Makers Rely On Bailouts The Consumer Reports Company just rated the reliability of 28 makes of automobile from around the world. No American car manufacturer scored better than 13th in ordinal ranking. Ranked on a Lickert Scale from 1 to 5, Jeep, the best American competitor, scores approximately 3.0. No American car does better than average at staying in one piece. This raises a fair question: did we really save GM and Chrysler or did we just screw the bondholders to put off the inevitable? Much-hyped and manfully-bailed General Motors finished 22nd out of 28 world manufacturers. Their subjects over at Chevrolet performed modestly better (17th out of 28) and are currently the standard-bearers and great hope for bailout motors. Their marquis offering, The Chevrolet Cruze, has received positive reviews and is temporarily well-positioned to sell well against other small cars. Please click here for the rest of the post. 6. In Which John Tillman Plays With Fire I understand where John Tillman is coming from. The CEO of the illinois Policy Institute has encountered a few of the occupiers and shares some concerns with them. I’ve written about the common ground conservatives might find with some of the folk who’ve joined in the occupation cause. The Sam Adams Alliance and other groups have found that there are some in the crowd who really are just angry about feeling like the deck is stacked against them. They aren’t there for punishment. They are there because they want to be able to compete. But as I noted at the time, “Most of the common ground with most of these damn dirty communists is superficial.” The more we learn about the crowds, the more I am set in that opinion. Playing with fire is going to get Tillman and likeminded souls burned. The better approach would be to push forward the legislative proposal Tillman thinks we find common ground on. Make sure the Occupy crowd knows about and let those who share our values come out of the crowd. If we push sound policy, they’ll come if they really are there. Please click here for the rest of the post. 7. An Anti-Semite? I’m so used to being called a Zionist, among other things, I am actually shocked tonight to learn Jenn Rubin thinks this statement makes me anti-Semitic: &#8220;A conservative friend says she’s best understood as ‘Likud’ rather than Republican or conservative. There’s nothing wrong with being Likud, but one ought to be honest about it.&#8221; I nor the friend of mine who offered that up are anti-Semitic, but it has apparently hit a nerve that I did not intend to hit and I feel I do need to apologize for that. A friend of mine explains to me that a Jewish-American might find it insulting because it suggests they put Israel ahead of the United States. I had not thought of that when writing it and was not my intention. Where I finally had enough of Jenn Rubin was her position on Jonathan Pollard that I cannot in any way, shape, or form comprehend as being the right position. It was that position of hers and her positions on national security, terrorism, and Israel (all three of which she and I see eye to eye on) that didn’t make me think twice about using the Likud comparison. Apparently I should have. Likud as a party is tough as nails on terrorism and security issues, but is liberal to left (by American standards) on fiscal and social policy, and that’s what I intended by the comparison, not a suggestion of misplaced loyalty. And certainly not anti-semitism. Please click here for the rest of the post. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/27/morning-briefing-for-october-27-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>You Can’t Rely On American Cars Because American Car Makers Rely On Bailouts</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/26/you-can%e2%80%99t-rely-on-american-cars-because-american-car-makers-rely-on-bailouts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/26/you-can%e2%80%99t-rely-on-american-cars-because-american-car-makers-rely-on-bailouts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chevrolet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chevycruze]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cruze]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[honda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lordstown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shrinking-three]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/26/you-can%e2%80%99t-rely-on-american-cars-because-american-car-makers-rely-on-bailouts/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The Consumer Reports Company just rated the reliability of 28 makes of automobile from around the world. No American car manufacturer scored better than 13th in ordinal ranking. Ranked on a Lickert Scale from 1 to 5, Jeep, the best American competitor, scores approximately 3.0. No American car does better than average at staying in one piece. This raises a fair question: did we really save GM and Chrysler or did we just screw the bondholders to put off the inevitable? Much-hyped and manfully-bailed General Motors finished 22nd out of 28 world manufacturers. Their subjects over at Chevrolet performed modestly better (17th out of 28) and are currently the standard-bearers and great hope for bailout motors. Their marquis offering, The Chevrolet Cruze, has received positive reviews and is temporarily well-positioned to sell well against other small cars. From thetruthaboutcars.com we read the following: The Civic was a more enthusiastic vehicle, and far more fun to hustle along the back roads, but it cannot match the Cruze for features, space, fuel mileage, or interior ambiance. The Corolla has simply outlived its competitiveness, period. The Focus, had it been present, would have easily shown-up the Cruze on over-the-road pace and interface design but would have struggled with noise and interior quality perception. The Elantra would have been a tougher nut to crack, given that it is a massive improvement over its precedessor. Still, none of these cars can “waft” like the Cruze… Yet even this fleeting victory could be tenuous. The Cruze competes well against other cars in its class at present and for the near future. Labor unrest at the Lordstown, Ohio plant where the Cruze is assembled could derail this opportunity. Autonews.com describes actions taken by the UAW Local that represents the Lordstown workers. Union local leaders there wrote an insult-laced flyer a week ago accusing management of sending Cruzes off-site for underbody repairs by outside workers. The language and tone were bad enough. The flyer, written by UAW Local 1112 President Jim Graham and Shop Chairman Ben Strickland, said management had acted “sneaky, evasive and dishonest.” But the timing was even worse. Here is Chevrolet, with so much at stake with the launch of its first legitimate contender in the compact segment in years, dealing with a union disclosure that the vehicles need repairs. The flyer said they were minor repairs to a “switch” and “canister.” This harkens back to the “Lordstown Syndrome” that ironically afflicted this very same plant back in 1971. GM modernized their line until it was the fastest in the world at that time. This led to an explosion of labor unrest from employees who felt they were being driven too hard and paid too little. The brand new production line was the fastest in the world, cranking out 100 cars per hour. Lordstown workers protested the speed of the line, and the lack of control they held over their own work. As Jefferson Cowie describes, “The workers balked at the speed and discipline by working strictly to rules, letting production slip by unfinished, pushing absenteeism and turnover to new highs, taking drugs and alcohol on the job, and engaging in a wide array of sabotage on the job.”* The situation led to a long strike, beginning in March 1972, and the press coined the term “Lordstown Syndrome” to cover the dissatisfaction many American workers felt toward the quality of their jobs in the early 1970s. Defenders of the bailout of GM, and the socialization of American industry in general, would point to Ford Motors falling from 10th to 20th place out of the 28 manufacturers rated. They would pointedly ignore the fact that Honda manufacturers Civics in Ohio (not too far from Lordstown.) Honda Motors finished 5th in reliability without any “assist” from President Obama or the UAW. That is Honda used workers from virtually the same socio-economic and cultural pool as GM except for two vital differences. Honda has no bailout backstop and Honda doesn’t have a UAW shop. Honda cars and Honda factories work. GM cars and GM factories do so with much less predictability. American labor can and does build very reliable cars. They just don’t seem to build those cars as members of the UAW or employees of America’s Shrinking Three Auto-makers. This reprises my initial question. Did we really succeed with the bail-out, or have we just incinerated money to postpone Darwinian Evolution in the automobile industry? ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/10/26/you-can%e2%80%99t-rely-on-american-cars-because-american-car-makers-rely-on-bailouts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

