As I mentioned in this diary, it was good see Obama start to outline his energy policy with a speech in Detroit last Monday. Obamarama did not pull punches with his Motown audience and was quite critical of the auto industry, right to their face.
Needless to say, that didn't play well. However, at least two articles were written on the speech (one by the Chicago Tribune, another by Newsweek, making mention of a factual gaffe by Obama. One factual gaffe a week ("10,000 killed in Kansas toronadoes") from the candidate is plenty, and his critics, on this count, are wrong.
The "gaffe" mentioned in both articles originate from this speech exerpt:
"While our fuel standards haven't moved from 27.5 miles per gallon in two decades, both China and Japan have surpassed us, with Japanese cars now getting an average of 45 miles to the gallon"
In Keith Naughton's Newsweek article, he states in response:
During his speech, the auto execs in the crowd—and there were many—began muttering that he didn't know what he was talking about. (One factual gaffe getting a lot of traction is Obama's assertion that Japanese cars average 45mpg, when the actual mileage is closer 30mpg).
Jim Mateja of the Tribune also took exception to this point, noting:
"I'm not sure where he got that figure," Toyota spokesman Mike Michels said. "No carmaker gets 45 m.p.g. Ours is closer to 30 m.p.g."
If elected president, perhaps Obama's first appointment should be a fact-checker.
If Obama had said "with Japanese cars now having sunroofs", no one would have construed he was speaking of all Japanese cars. The fact is, according to www.fueleconomy.gov, the top four Japanese models in terms of fuel efficency are:
- Toyota Prius (60 city/51 hwy)
- Honda Civic Hybrid (49 city/51 hwy)
- Toyota Corolla (32 city/41 hwy)
- Toyota Yaris (34 city/40 hwy)
Averages: highway, 45.75; city, 43.75. The Senator's "45 mpg" number is just fine.
And, while I'm at it, I'll address objections to Obama's policy posed by Detroit whiners who believe any medicine that tastes bad can't be good for them.
From the Newsweek article, Naughton quotes UAW and Chrysler as follows:
From the UAW: the jobs of 17,000 workers will be put at risk by Obama's proposal to require a 4 percent annual increase in gas mileage (a suggestion, by the way, first made by President Bush). From Chrysler: Obama's offer of $7 billion to help with the automaker's health-care costs translates to $29 per car, compared to a benefits burden of $1,500 per car the U.S. automakers now bear. "Twenty-nine dollars," says Chrysler spokesman Colin McBean, "is really not a lot of help."
UAW is talking as though GM's current strategies are bearing golden fruit. Detroit has steadily lost market share, both in the US and abroad, to Japanese competition over the last 20 years and in one 2006 stroke laid off 100,000 workers, having to sell off GMAC to finance the buy-outs. Does the UAW suffer from such short-term memory loss that they forgot Chrysler's sweetheart deal this past Valentine's day in which they cut 13,000 jobs?
The sooner the American auto industry makes a true strategic course-correction, the better off the UAW (and all the other union employees that directly or indirectly rely on Detroit) will be.
Speaking of Chrysler (doing so poorly Daimler-Benz today finally gave up on turning the operation around and sold at a loss to drop its albatross), their quote above which totally misses Obama's big-picture point makes it no great wonder they're in such financial trouble.
LOL, do they think Obama's initiative was supposed to bail them out of their healthcare benefit problem with respect to Japanese vehicles? The idea, in case they slept through that part of the speech, was to take the $29 per vehicle and subsidize factory retooling and research into alternative energy vehicles. At 2.5 million cars sold in 2006, Chrysler would be looking at a cool $72.5 million of taxpayer bucks to help offset their management's chronic inability to see beyond next quarter's balance sheet.
So I say, give the Senator a break. It's not a perfect plan, but the route he wants to take makes a hell of a lot more sense than the direction the American auto industry is heading in right now.