seanmcl

KJP: This is encouraging, but I think that in order to really get the attention of the funding agencies, there needs to be a emphasis towards a balanced transportation policy. Our inland waterways, which are disastrously underfunded, transport more tonnage per mile per day than the railroads in a year. The intermodal system linking ships to rails to trucks needs to be made more efficient (and less subject to terrorist attack). For example, rail would be an excellent way to move freight from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River and vice versa, allowing us the opportunity to develop an inland port system more secure than a coastal system, alone, and it would be far more environmentally friendly than the silly canal idea proposed 20+ years ago. Rail and passenger, to be sure, need to speak with one voice. But what we really need is for the tried and true systems of large scale transportation to make the argument that they transport nearly everthing that we consume and produce, except for the last mile, and that after more than a century of innovation, we have found no more efficient ways to move freight and people than rail and water. For Ohio, in particular, this represents a great opportunity. Cleveland is the ideal hub to connect the New England and MidAtlantic States with the Upper Midwest and points West. Cleveland (or Toledo) are ideal port cities to offload freight destined for much of Middle America. Already we are seeing a resurgence in American steel production with new mini-mills springing up in the south and over the foot prints of the old integrated mills. But transportation costs will always be one of the most significant concerns to steel producers which is one of the reasons why mini-mills in the South are located close to the automobile and other manufacturers in the south. We need to make transportation more efficient, ALL forms of transportation, because it makes manufacturing more viable. My two cents worth.

I'm not blaming the SUV or the light truck for that matter. But what the US did was to take these imports and do them one better by upping the weight, room and hp. The epitome of this was the Ford Excursion which was designed and marketed in such a way that it was exempted from CAFE standards. The availability of these cars (and, sure, people bought them), coupled with artificially low fuel prices and you're off and running. With consumption at an all time high, the Feds could (and should) have raised the gas tax but no one want to stem the rampant consumerism the fueled the economy. But my point really is that business should not be saddled with the responsibility to provide services that the state should provide. Businesses should not be in the business of providing medical care, education or retirement planning but due to the tax structure they are encouraged to do all of these. Of course, once they enter into receivership, all of these promises go out the window which is why they should have never been made in the first place. Any kind of economic stimulus should be tied to changes in the tax code and in the structure of business. Business needs to stay focused on business and not becoming a welfare organization for employees. I guarantee you that if businesses got out of the mode of providing health care, retirement benefits and the like to employees and forced the employees to pay for these out of pocket you'd hear a lot less griping about "socialized medicine" and "privatization of Social Security" and a lot more demand that the government do control costs and increase the provision of services in both of these areas.

Then we spend the billions to provide these services until news businesses appear but it is simply inefficient to prop up a failing business simply to allow trickle down to take effect. The problems are two-fold. First, people don't have money to spend and credit has dried up. Giving money to people who manufacture expensive consumer goods that no one can buy isn't going to fix anything. Second, many of the products produced by these manufacturers are no longer in demand. Serious re-tooling is going to be necessary and it won't happen, overnight. So why keep existing production going when no one wants the products? Again, if you want to support the workers, provide temporary unemployment or furlough benefits until the industry starts producing products that consumers want or folds. First, I couldn't get the Insight to even test drive it or I might have looked at it. The waiting list was so long and the premium was so high that it was not cost effective to purchase one given artificially low US gas prices. Second, Insight was marketed as a "second car". You couldn't use a tow package, racks or other devices without voiding the warranty. The car was too soon for the market. As for the $75000 remark, I mentioned that because Ford truck and SUV sales were tied to the $75000 business vehicle allowance identified by the IRS. Basically, it meant that you could write off up to $75k of a vehicle purchased for business use. That price was not accidental. It was priced to include luxury trucks and SUVs, the cash cows of the Ford line.

Reversing that begs the question of just where we stop rescuing those companies which failed because of poor practices? We've known since the Carter administration that our dependency on foreign oil and reliance on artificially low oil prices was going to lead to an economic and political downfall and we should have known since the Iranian revolution that our dependence upon our relationship with despotic regimes would not last forever. It took tax breaks of up to $75,000 to keep Ford's most profitable lines producing. Meanwhile, Honda and Toyota were eating our lunch with stylish, light, fuel-efficient vehicles. None of this happened, yesterday. We've known about this for 30 years. As for gloom and doom, look at the steel industry. Steel production all but dried up in the US before experiencing a new growth fueled by economic growth in Asia and the Middle East but not before millions of jobs were lost. The American auto industry must be made to show that it has a plan to be viable in the future. It is not enough to save jobs, today, if the industry is going to fail anyway.