CARS Again...

Planes, trains, and automobiles—err, well planes and automobiles anyway—have come to dominate post after post on Buffalo Bloggins lately. From photos of my jet setting during the Fall of 2006, to my opines on the auto industry, it’s safe to say oil-driven, mass-transit machinery has been the talk of my blog lately. So as not to disappoint, I’m going to rail on “Cash for Clunkers” (hereto C4C) some more.

In my February 2009 Car and Driver, a few more details emerged as to some of the more exotic cars we American taxpayers purchased, then only to get screwed by having a government-mandated sodium silicate solution dumped in the crankcases. Rather than just list the cars, you can see photos, MSRP when new, and the number junked through the program right on C&D's website.

I thought an ambitious little research project would be to find out what the current values of these cars would be today. Surely they’re worth more than the maximum $4500 tax credit the government offered. Finding values on Kelly Blue Book for some of these exotic makes is impossible because they don’t exist in KBB’s database.

I did find a 2005 Mazda RX8. Assuming average mileage of 40,000 and “good” condition, the car still returned a value far above $4500. And the thought of listening to that rotary engine scream as the sodium silicate shreds its crankcase is almost more than I can bear to think of.

I checked eBay Motors to see what a few of these exotics may list for. I found one example: a 2001 Aston Martin DB7 lists for over $40,000. Granted, the C4C casualty was a 1997.  Condition:  it had to be in running condition and owned by the tradee for at least one year. I don't think this one was driven by the likes of Agent 007. 

Here are a few examples of more “common” cars I found on KBB. These are private party values, assuming average mileage (considering these probably weren’t daily drivers), standard equipment, and good condition:
• 1990 Mercedes 500SL Roadster, 120,000 miles: $5,575
• 1991 BMW M3, 120,000 miles: $8,785
• 1993 Mazda RX7, 120,000 miles: $8,860
• 1992 GMC Typhoon, 120,000 miles: $9,425

I think my point is made: a lot of these cars—collector’s editions for sure—were worth more than the puny tax credit offered. Why anyone would subject them to the sodium silicate treatment is beyond me. Even in poor shape, many of these could have been restored and gone on for years to adorn collector’s salons, auto shows, and Independence Day parades. Will Americans one day look back regretfully on this mass automotive destruction known as “Cash for Clunkers?”  What if FDR in all his social programming had mandated a Cash-for-Model-Ts program?  Would will still have these historic antiques—a picture of American nostalgia, prosperity, and ingenuity—as tangible relics from the past?

You may find this blog, complete with photos, interesting.  It lists the 10 most exotic cars trashed thanks to Obama and his administration.  If you're an auto enthusiast, be warned:  you may need the box of tissues.

About the Photo:  I shot these exotic European automobiles at the Hard Rock Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada.  For a [not so] small fee, one of these can whisk you from McCarran Airport to the Hard Rockin' action.  Hopefully none of these were junked in favor of a Prius...

I'm at it Again...Maybe it's Time We Junk the Obama Administration?

Ranting about the government’s controversial “Cash for Clunkers” program is nothing new for me. However, in the December 2009 Car and Driver, columnist David E. Davis Jr. brought to light a few more reasons to hate the Obama administration’s attempt to run the auto industry. Read the full text here.

To give a short synopsis, Davis Jr. basically reiterated the sentiment I expressed months ago that seeing a perfectly good automobile destroyed can be downright painful to watch. It’s as if every car has some personality; it’s not just a heap of steel parts sitting on rubber. However, just like humans, personalities can have a dark side, and there are plenty of cars I wouldn’t mind doing the honors of destroying (such as my gratefully departed 1998 Subaru Outback).

In the developing Third World nations such as those in Asia and Africa, people haven’t been afforded the liberties and economic prosperity that we here in America have enjoyed since at least the 1950s. This post-war era saw automobiles become an attainable luxury and urban sprawl gave way to suburban commuting. Davis Jr. makes the case that instead of blowing up the engines in so-called “clunkers”, perhaps those automobiles could have been given to poorer nations to help them enjoy a piece of the prosperity pie.

Geez, handing out American wealth (at the cost of taxpayers, no less) to poor nations (many of which hate us) sounds like it would be right in line with Obama-esque socialistic values.

Car and Driver, in the January 2010 issue, made mention of some of the vehicles American taxpayers purchased:  Jaguars, various 2008 models, and a rare Buick GNX. C&D editors jest that Nancy Pelosi kept the GNX for herself.  She'd look great cruising around in that, perhaps in her thong.  Sorry.  Back on topic, here. You need only look as far as YouTube to see the famed video of a fine Swede being blown up along with plenty of other still-useful cars and trucks.

To see a place where these clunkers could have made a striking impact, one need not even look as far as Africa or Asia. About 90 miles south of Miami lies Cuba. I know we don’t have diplomatic relations with Castro’s communist regime, but Obama is even trying to fix that. Since the embargo began in the 1950s, Cubans have kept alive as daily drivers many of the cars that today we see only in antique/classic car shows. Romantic as these Dinosaurs of Detroit are, the showroom floor and occasional Independence Day parade is about all they belong in.

Much to the chagrin of classic car collectors, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety plowed a 2009 Chevy Malibu head on into a 1959 Chevy Bel Air. Watch the results for yourself. It’s gruesome, but proves the iron behemoths of the past didn’t exactly offer much occupant protection in the event of a crash.  Oh, but Cuba offers superior socialized healthcare to its citizens, right Michael Moore?  So when Cubans get maimed in a crash, at least they get free hospitalization!  Oh wait, Obama's trying to get us that, too.  (Ok, don't get me started on the healthcare thing). 

Safer, cleaner, more reliable cars could have been redistributed to poorer nations where they’d make far more reliable transportation than the relics that rule the roads. Or how about this? Keep the wealth at home; get the true clunkers—the unsafe, unreliable, smog-belching cars—off the road here in the good old US of A. But as Davis Jr. quipped in his column:

“Not until the government got involved was anyone stupid enough to pour sodium silicate into the engines of the trade-ins on used-car lots and render them utterly useless except as junk to be sold by the pound.” (emphasis added.)

I won’t even go into what user-car inventory could have done for local dealerships, the economy, and those needing a car but unable to afford brand new, even with taxpayer-funded credits.


A Clunker Worth Junking?

One More Day Until the Back-to-School Harangue

The last post touched on some of my opinions regarding Republican criticism for President Obama's planned September 8 Back-to-School blustering.

The prepared text for the speech is now available on whitehouse.gov, and so I took a few minutes to peruse it.

While the speech's preparers rightfully keep politics at large out of the address, it does touch on a few of Obama's agenda points that I like to call the Three-E's:

• Education reform. Obama's education reform agenda is mentioned twice throughout the speech and is the most blatant political reference.
• Environment. Recycling and good stewardship is something I learned about in elementary school, and today it's a huge marketing campaign. It's also near and dear to our left-leaning president, and not surprisingly, he touches on environment in his speech. Teaching kids good stewardship isn't a bad thing, though.
• Economy. While brief, the text does touch on the state of the economy.

Otherwise, assuming Obama sticks to the prepared comments, (and with his reputation for heavily relying on a teleprompter, I'm sure he will) this speech is a good motivational talk to kids. It encourages themes like diligence, respect, hard work, applying oneself, perseverance, and patriotism.

Whether a "media grab" for the cameras or not, most of Obama's comments are relevant to kids in today's schools. I stand by my original conclusion that the critics need to quit the nit-picking. Children are often overlooked, and I think this is a wonderful opportunity for them to hear from their president in language they understand about issues relevant to them.

One final note: Prior to the election, I jokingly said Kohl's (my employer) should sue Obama for using the phrase "Yes we can" in all of his campaign materials. "Yes We Can" is Kohl's commitment to customer service, and at Kohl's U. (training class), we were schooled heavily in what this approach means. It's more than you think. So, jokingly, I posed the hypothetical question, can we also "expect great things" from Obama? "Expect Great Things" is the subtext on Kohl's logo. Toward the end of the speech, Obama uses this phrase. Perhaps it's time for my Wisconsin-based employer to have a little heart-to-heart with the White House about copyright laws and such?

Obama's Back-to-School Speech

This upcoming Tuesday, President Obama plans to give an address to school-aged children, many of which have just begun—or will be starting—the 2009-2010 school year. Already the opposition, such as Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty (Rep.), are crying foul. They’re saying this speech, designed to encourage kids to study hard and stay in school, is but a way to further Obama’s political agenda.

Anyone who knows me well knows how I feel about Obama and his left-of-center agenda. But that’s not the point. On this one I have to side with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs when he describes opposition as “Silly season.”

Regardless of who the president of the United States is, understanding that president and the issues he stands for should be an integral part of any child’s education. The system of government that this nation is built upon is one of her greatest strengths, and what better way for kids to learn about it than by observing it in action?

And it’s not like Obama hasn’t already given full disclosure. The speech will be available online Monday for anyone to read. If parents screen it and then feel there’s something objectionable, they have every right to opt their child out. Many school districts are glazing over the issue—fearing the strong opinions showing or not showing it may dredge up—with excuses such as scheduling conflicts: Students may be at lunch or gym. So have them watch it at lunch. Or cancel gym for a day and herd everyone into the auditorium for an assembly and show it on the big screen. And with DVRs, VCRs, and plenty of other recording media, it can always be shown at a later date.

Kids deserve not just to learn about America from the pages of a Social Studies textbook (although this is important). They need to see America in action, and I think it is a noble choice President Obama has made to give a speech to some of America’s often overlooked younger citizens. Who knows—with his supposed fine rhetoric—what Obama may inspire among the future leaders of America?

The Republican Party needs to quit these petty attacks and show a little bit of bipartisanship. Besides, how is Obama really going to impress his agenda on school kids? (Some high-schoolers near voting age may be more impressionable.) I can hear it now: “Kids, tell mommy and daddy to call their congressman and encourage them to vote in favor of my healthcare reforms or else you might not get to see the doctor anymore…” Get real. To kids, all they know of healthcare is: you get the sniffles, see the doctor, get some medicine and a lollypop; done deal. For a change, I support what our prez is doing, and think the Republicans would do well to layoff the petty criticism.

Thoughts on General Motors

This past week I’ve been following the news surrounding the auto industry very close. I was surprised at the forced ouster of Rick Wagoner at GM. I can’t say as I know much about him, but from recent headlines—plus an interview published in Motor Trend a couple years ago—I kind of liked the guy. I thought he understood the scope of what was going on in his company and what it needed to succeed.

I don’t know if a management change really includes a promotion for the COO/president, but hopefully Mr. Henderson can give GM what Wagoner was deemed unable to.

When I first heard the news of Wagoner’s getting the boot, followed by President Obama’s pledge to back GM warranties in the event of bankruptcy and/or failure, I immediately thought this was socialization of the automotive industry. Could GM become the new AmTrak? Would it be a government-run, money-losing, yet distinctly American venture? Would President Obama remake the company to serve his agenda: building bean-shaped, hybrid, Prius-like green cars?

After reading columnist David Broder’s take on Obama’s heavy-handed dealing with GM, I was introduced to an alternative viewpoint. By rejecting GM’s viability plan, Obama is playing hardball with the company, and namely the UAW. And while socialism is generally seen as a tenet of mainstream Democrats, union busting certainly is not.

Here are a few ideas I have on how GM can fix itself. Stop building crap. Rebadging a Daewoo (a car that failed in the U.S.) as a Chevy Aveo shows a real lack of commitment to quality. Stop marketing the same cars under 10 different nameplates. Ok a bit of an exaggeration, but the Saab 9-7x, Chevy Trailblazer, GMC Envoy, Buick Rainer, Isuzu Ascender, and Oldsmobile Bravada don’t even look remotely different. Finally, pursue the Chevy Volt. I’m not a big fan of hybrids and green cars, and I thought the Volt was stupid at first. However, there may be something useful to electric/gas technology that goes beyond traditional hybrids. Another subject for another blog…

One last thought, then I’m done. What do you figure Rick Wagoner drives? These days, even a Cadillac isn’t generally seen as all that great of a status symbol. Perhaps a Saab? (Before GM killed/sold off the brand.) Or maybe a Jeep Grand Wagoneer, kind of like his last name? Oh wait, that’d be supporting the competition. I don’t know…Wagoner’s wheels is but an interesting point to ponder…