Bill calls for loan guarantee for Big 3

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
WASHINGTON -- The Big Three automakers could get up to $20 billion in federally backed loan guarantees to speed the development of "green technologies," including hybrid electric engines, flexible fuels and clean diesel under a bill to be introduced this week in Congress.

U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, said the bill would give domestic automakers cheaper access to capital and spur faster development of technologies to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

"This isn't the dreaded bailout word. This isn't a free pass for them to avoid painful decisions or restructuring," Rogers said Tuesday. "This is a chance for the automakers to compete on a fair playing field with access to the credit markets. This is about supporting real jobs for real Americans through innovation."

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimerChrysler's Chrysler Group have all seen their credit ratings sharply reduced; GM and Ford are rated as speculative or junk status.

On Tuesday, Ford and Ford Credit's ratings was reduced again by both Moody's Investors Service and Standard & Poor's rating services.

If adopted, the bill could dramatically reduce borrowing costs for the Big Three, potentially saving them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Automakers were receptive to the congressman's proposal, welcoming the financial support for technological research.

"We find it encouraging that there is support from Congress to accelerate green technology," said Mike Moran, a Ford spokesman.

Rogers said the bill would speed up research and increase "the commercialization of American-made hybrid electric, clean diesel and flexible fuel vehicles." It would also allow an automaker to retool a plant to take advantage of new technologies.

The bill would create a "$20 billion green technology incentive program" that would grant the U.S. Energy Department the authority to approve loan guarantees to automakers for specific projects such as hydrogen research or E85, an alternative fuel made of 85 percent ethanol. The provision would mean the U.S. Treasury must repay the loan if an automaker defaults.

"This bill is fiscally responsible because it requires the loans be paid back," Rogers said. "I don't think this bill will cost taxpayers one cent."

Rogers said the bill would also "level the cost of investment capital in the United States between domestic and Japanese auto manufacturers." Ford said it supported the measure and disclosed it has expressed interest in a new, smaller federal loan-guarantee program.

On Aug. 7, the Energy Department unveiled guidelines for a $2 billion loan guarantee program to "help spur investment in projects that employ new energy technologies," stemming from a provision in the 2005 Energy Bill; applications are due Nov. 6.

Ford spokesman Moran said the automaker had been in "pre-application discussions with the Energy Department to see if there is a fit with what we are doing."

Rogers said hundreds of thousands of American jobs are directly or indirectly supported by Ford, not to mention retirees who live on Ford pensions. "Ford's survival is in America's interest," he said.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said the automaker wasn't seeking loan guarantees.

"It's an intriguing idea that merits consideration, but right now our turnaround and our success rests on the advanced technology that we are putting in our cars and trucks today," he said.

The proposal is modeled after an $18 billion loan-guarantee program Congress passed in October 2004 to build a 3,500-mile natural gas pipeline in Alaska.

While the draft bill is meant to help the Big Three automakers, it doesn't exclude any automaker. Rogers said foreign-based automakers would be eligible to apply.

Jo Cooper, Toyota's vice president for government affairs, applauded the effort, as long as it remains fair. "We really want our competitors to be strong and competitive in the marketplace," he said. "If it was offered broadly to companies in the industry and wouldn't advantage some companies over others, it may be very attractive."

Rogers has been sounding out members privately about the bill in recent weeks and has garnered a lot of support -- even from a member of the House Republican leadership.

Rogers said he hopes the bill can be approved by the end of the year.

"Anybody with an auto plant in their district, anybody will an understanding of the auto industry, will support this bill," Rogers said. "No one in America wants to see Ford's turnaround plan fail."


And I always thought that loans were required to be paid back, if not they usually call them grants.:laugh:

Anyway it looks like Ford is applying, GM is not interested, and Toyota is supportive of the bill, yet I wonder if they default will they treat them the same as those who can't pay their student loans?;)
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Is this a capatilist system where those who cannot compete go out of business or a fascist system where cronies get special favors to hog the market? I really would like to know? Do we need the GOV paying megacorps, with our tax money, to get off their lazy duffs, research new technologies, and produce new products that sell?:disgust:
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,101
5,640
126
Money spent this way is well spent IMO, but this is certainly Corporate Welfare at the same time.
 
B

Blackjack2000

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Is this a capatilist system where those who cannot compete go out of business or a fascist system where cronies get special favors to hog the market? I really would like to know? Do we need the GOV paying megacorps, with our tax money, to get off their lazy duffs, research new technologies, and produce new products that sell?:disgust:


It is the dark secret of capitalism that all successful industries are state subsidized. Competition is good for you, but not for me.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,537
6,975
136
so let's see.... here we have these huge US corporations screaming to deregulate their industries so they can start running each other out of business and create the global mega-monopolies they all wish for but can't have because of the fed reg's, and when they get their wish they find out they can't compete against superior products and services provided by their overseas competition and then go crying to the taxpayers to help them royally rip off the very same taxpayers they want help from through monopolizing everything in sight and off-shoring as many US jobs as they possibly can.

yep, why is it at the end of the day the poor taxpayer always gets handed the stinky short end of the stick that they've been raped by from US businesses that either can't make it on their own or are already taking us to the cleaners via excessive corporate welfare schemes provided by politicians that they own.

boeing complaining about airbus being government-subsidized seems to me the height of hypocrisy, as goverment subsidies "american style" is disguised in so many other ways.

iaccoca, where are you?

edit - addendum

 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
I would rather just have the 10 new nuke plants that could buy then doing research on fuels that use more CO2 to produce than gasoline uses when its burnt.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,433
6,090
126
American Auto companies have demonstrated 50 years of total incompetence in my opinion. Nobody should give them a dime. Give GE money to build an electric car.
 

BrownTown

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2005
5,314
1
0
Yeah, I'd be more in favor of giving it to GE to develop electric cars. Or they could use it to develop ABWRs too :p.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
Hell $20B would help me develop green tech too. That or I'd shoot every human to save the enviornment.

Seriously though, if they do it, and do it right, then it's money well spent.
 

fitzov

Platinum Member
Jan 3, 2004
2,477
0
0
With the amount of profits and monies spent on CEOs and what not, you would think they had some left for R&D.
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Is this a capatilist system where those who cannot compete go out of business or a fascist system where cronies get special favors to hog the market? I really would like to know? Do we need the GOV paying megacorps, with our tax money, to get off their lazy duffs, research new technologies, and produce new products that sell?:disgust:

Why not? We already pay billions to poor and unemployed people who are too lazy to get off their butts and find a job or develope some useful skills. How is this any different? (Other than the fact that these are major public industries which have an impact on our overall economy, and it is in everyone's best interest that they stay competitive)
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Ooooh I can see how this could turn into a huge issue @ WTO. That's very similar to Airbus/EU corp. wellfare scheme that's at the WTO right now.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: tweaker2
so let's see.... here we have these huge US corporations screaming to deregulate their industries so they can start running each other out of business and create the global mega-monopolies they all wish for but can't have because of the fed reg's, and when they get their wish they find out they can't compete against superior products and services provided by their overseas competition and then go crying to the taxpayers to help them royally rip off the very same taxpayers they want help from through monopolizing everything in sight and off-shoring as many US jobs as they possibly can.

yep, why is it at the end of the day the poor taxpayer always gets handed the stinky short end of the stick that they've been raped by from US businesses that either can't make it on their own or are already taking us to the cleaners via excessive corporate welfare schemes provided by politicians that they own.

boeing complaining about airbus being government-subsidized seems to me the height of hypocrisy, as goverment subsidies "american style" is disguised in so many other ways.

iaccoca, where are you?

edit - addendum


Please, please use sentances and periods. This hurts my eyes...
 
Aug 1, 2006
1,308
0
0
More "Conservative" Socialism. Cut off the poor and fund the rich. It's absurd that the government should have to finance the development of energy efficient cars! The car companies have had years and years to do this on their own and instead focused on giving us bigger and bigger gas hogs! Ridiculous!
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
More "Conservative" Socialism. Cut off the poor and fund the rich. It's absurd that the government should have to finance the development of energy efficient cars! The car companies have had years and years to do this on their own and instead focused on giving us bigger and bigger gas hogs! Ridiculous!

What about the screams over the last several years saying "Bush isn't doing enough to reduce our dependancy on oil!"? Isn't this what you wanted? Make up your mind.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Apperently you have not looked at the pricetag for a new automobile lately???

Car Companies spend millions and millions developing new cars already. They got buckets of money. You would think fuel efficient technology might make a better race car. They are always backing and building race cars. These people have the money to develop whatever they want. While they can develop better MPG products, it is not clear they would be able to sell them.

The main problem is that they might have to quit making SUV's to get better fuel economy. Just pass some laws making taxation tied to fuel economy and they will have an incentive to build better milage vehicles. At the present time there are laws on the books with the average gas milage target of about 24 miles to the gallon. When Car manufacturers are selling too many gas guzzlers and the averge gas milage falls below that mark, they put on sale or add incentives to their cars with higher MPG ratings.

I have heard Dave Finklestine talk about this on his car show on Saturday before. He has a syndicated Car Talk Show base out of St Louis, MO.

I am all for raising the Average Gas Milage target to say 30 MPG, but it takes time to develop the cars, and the engines. You will not see this change overnight. This will require legislation tied to Penalties or incentives to reach the goals desired.

If you offered the average tax payer a big writeoff on their taxes for buying a more fuel efficient car that might work better. Money talks and bullshit walks. Consumers can be bribed to a point. Consumers often research automobiles quite a bit. They are often looking more at Comfort, Handling, Safety, Price, and then economy. Consumers of automobiles are very fickle and very vain, and very picky.

It can be very difficult to make a fuel efficient vehicle for a soccer mom for a 6 passenger vehicle.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: tweaker2
so let's see.... here we have these huge US corporations screaming to deregulate their industries so they can start running each other out of business and create the global mega-monopolies they all wish for but can't have because of the fed reg's, and when they get their wish they find out they can't compete against superior products and services provided by their overseas competition and then go crying to the taxpayers to help them royally rip off the very same taxpayers they want help from through monopolizing everything in sight and off-shoring as many US jobs as they possibly can.

yep, why is it at the end of the day the poor taxpayer always gets handed the stinky short end of the stick that they've been raped by from US businesses that either can't make it on their own or are already taking us to the cleaners via excessive corporate welfare schemes provided by politicians that they own.

boeing complaining about airbus being government-subsidized seems to me the height of hypocrisy, as goverment subsidies "american style" is disguised in so many other ways.

iaccoca, where are you?

edit - addendum


Please, please use sentances and periods. This hurts my eyes...

Isn't it wonderful?
 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
GM has already developed the flex-fuel system...wtf do they need more money for? THe car makers don't need more money to deveope new technologies, they just need more money...hell they have already been given a ton over the years and failed....why start doing something now?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Hybrids . . . technology already available and on the market . . . Honda/Toyota.

Flex fuel . . . technology already available and on the market . . . GM/Ford.

Clean(er) diesels . . . technology already available and on the market . . . Daimler/VW and soon Honda.

Hydrogen fuel cells . . . technology in evolution but most major automakers are well into the R&D with a few Hondas on the road and most other big players (GM/Toyota/BMW) at the very least have quality prototypes.

Here's an idea . . . why not TAX (you know that pay-go thing) current gasoline to provide a subsidy for CONSUMERS to buy more fuel efficient vehicles? Automakers would be free to spend their R&D dollars as they see fit but ALL consumers would have the direct benefit of choosing the BEST vehicle that meets their needs. Automakers that produce fuel efficient (and high quality) vehicles would be rewarded with increased sales. Gasoline consumption would fall. Further, many of these outcomes would be immediate.

 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Hybrids . . . technology already available and on the market . . . Honda/Toyota.

Flex fuel . . . technology already available and on the market . . . GM/Ford.

Clean(er) diesels . . . technology already available and on the market . . . Daimler/VW and soon Honda.

Hydrogen fuel cells . . . technology in evolution but most major automakers are well into the R&D with a few Hondas on the road and most other big players (GM/Toyota/BMW) at the very least have quality prototypes.

Here's an idea . . . why not TAX (you know that pay-go thing) current gasoline to provide a subsidy for CONSUMERS to buy more fuel efficient vehicles? Automakers would be free to spend their R&D dollars as they see fit but ALL consumers would have the direct benefit of choosing the BEST vehicle that meets their needs. Automakers that produce fuel efficient (and high quality) vehicles would be rewarded with increased sales. Gasoline consumption would fall. Further, many of these outcomes would be immediate.

Well mostly because long run policy as defined in washington spans in between two election years... so no single politican would see the benefit of a real long-term energy policty. Ultimately that's the main reason why politicans whore themselves out to general populus - bubba wants to drive a 7mpg lifted duallie and he certainly doesnt care that the money he spends at the pump funds people like bin Laden
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Hybrids . . . technology already available and on the market . . . Honda/Toyota.

Flex fuel . . . technology already available and on the market . . . GM/Ford.

Clean(er) diesels . . . technology already available and on the market . . . Daimler/VW and soon Honda.

Hydrogen fuel cells . . . technology in evolution but most major automakers are well into the R&D with a few Hondas on the road and most other big players (GM/Toyota/BMW) at the very least have quality prototypes.

Here's an idea . . . why not TAX (you know that pay-go thing) current gasoline to provide a subsidy for CONSUMERS to buy more fuel efficient vehicles? Automakers would be free to spend their R&D dollars as they see fit but ALL consumers would have the direct benefit of choosing the BEST vehicle that meets their needs. Automakers that produce fuel efficient (and high quality) vehicles would be rewarded with increased sales. Gasoline consumption would fall. Further, many of these outcomes would be immediate.

Well mostly because long run policy as defined in washington spans in between two election years... so no single politican would see the benefit of a real long-term energy policty. Ultimately that's the main reason why politicans whore themselves out to general populus - bubba wants to drive a 7mpg lifted duallie and he certainly doesnt care that the money he spends at the pump funds people like bin Laden

In all honesty, I think Bubba is retarded to drive a 7mpg dualie (10mpg diesel) if his job doesn't require it. But even if Bubba is retarded, I'm not all that offended by his 'option.' My beef is that Bubba should pay the FULL cost of his consumption pattern, while considerate consumers are subsidized.

Further, I believe its in a politician's BEST interest to consider my approach . . . assuming they do it right AFTER an election.
1) Seasonal gas prices will be a relative ebb.
2) The gas tax is progressive yet gradual (1 cent/mo).
3) The subsidy for purchasing a car is retroactive (except for people that already got one ) . . . no double dipping.
4) When the next election cycle comes along and the opponent says, "this guy raised your gas taxes," our principled politician has his own ad saying, "I raised your gas taxes but your last car cost $2k less to buy and it uses 30% less gas."