Posted: May 23, 2009 at 6:19 am
The Administration is starting to face some resistance in Congress about its plan to put GM (GM) into Chapter 11 using Treasury money to sustain the company as it works it way back to profitability. The government put another $4 billion into the car company Friday. In the process of a government supported bankruptcy, $27 billion in bondholder capital will probably become worthless, GM workers will be laid off, and hundreds of dealers will be closed.
Fundamentally, taxpayer money will be used to restructure GM in such a way that thousands of taxpayers will lose their jobs.
According to the FT, “hopes that GM can follow a similarly rapid path through court are being dimmed by a building backlash from lawmakers, some of whom are claiming that creditors’ rights are being given short shrift while others complain about job cuts and the closure of dealerships.”
The argument by Congressmen who are opposed to the process may get some “traction”. Blue collar workers around the country are becoming enraged by seeing their peers being thrown out of jobs with support from the Treasury. Local towns and cities will have to support workers at dealerships that close. Banking and investment firms not involved in the GM situation will have to ask themselves if their future rights could ever be undermined by a process driven by the financial might of the American government.
Of course the entire GM restructuring process will raise national unemployment.
As the pockets of resistance grow, GM may not has as easy a path through a bankruptcy court has Chrysler has had. Congress may decide to have an extended debate over whether the Treasury has the right to dis-intermediate bondholders and union workers. If the argument goes on long enough, the auto industry’s restructuring could still turn into a liquidation.
Douglas A. McIntyre
Number 3 has Fallen. Stay Tuned, More to Come....
GM to cut 3,400 more white-collar U.S. jobs
By TIM HIGGINS • FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER • May 22, 2009
General Motors Corp., facing a probable bankruptcy, is making plans to cut about 3,400 additional white-collar jobs in the United States, the Free Press has learned.
Earlier this year, GM cut 3,400 white-collar jobs from its U.S. operations as part of a global headcount reduction. People familiar with the planning, which has not been finalized, said the next round would be similar to the previous effort. That represents about 13% of GM’s salaried U.S. workforce of about 26,000.
ANY QUESTIONS???????
Special Guests!!
U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow
Lansing Mayor Virg Bernero
Reverend Jesse Jackson
Judge Greg Mathis
Other Guests Include: Mayor Mark Behnke of Battle Creek, LCLAA Executive Director Dr. Gabriela D. Lemus, & Mayor Victor W. Loomis, Jr of East Lansing
Cox protests Blue Cross rate hikes
BY PATRICIA ANSTETT • FREE PRESS MEDICAL WRITER • May 22, 2009
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox filed a petition Thursday to stop proposed individual rate hikes for more than 400,000 individual Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan customers. triggerAd(1,PaginationPage,11)
"Blue Cross should stop putting profits over people and focus on its mission as the insurer of last resort," Cox said in a statement announcing the challenge.
Overall, average increases sought would be 56% for non-elderly people buying their own insurance; 42% for group conversion policyholders who purchase coverage they once had at work, and 31% for seniors with supplemental Medicare, also known as Medigap policies.
Michigan's Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation was to have ruled on the rate hikes by June 2. Now the office has 30 days from Thursday to hold the hearing.
Blue Cross has said it needs the rate hikes to offset mounting losses for its individual policies, to exceed $1 billion through 2011, according to Blue Cross estimates. It also is laying off or not filling 1,000 jobs, has frozen executive and board salaries and cut spending on advertising, lobbying and other expenses, the Detroit-based company has said.
In a statement, Blue Cross said that it would prefer not to raise rates but "unfortunately our broken regulatory system puts us in this uncomfortable position."
Cox has had mixed results with rate challenges.
He and Ann Arbor attorney Joe Aoun lost a challenge earlier this month of 2007 Blue Cross rate hikes for non-elderly people who buy their own insurance. But Cox won a separate challenge in 2007 to raising Medigap rates.
Cox has issued his own 10-point plan to reform Michigan's health insurance industry. He said challenges like the one he filed Thursday will be reduced by proposals pending in the House.
Rep. Marc Corriveau, D-Northville, said he has tried unsuccessfully to work with Cox to frame the bills to retain his oversight. His proposals would allow the Attorney General to file a challenge to a rate hike, but would shorten the time he could do it.
The Axis of Evil - Thank God Their Power is Gone!!!!! Thank God for Our Savior, President Obama!!
“ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ”
It's Like Halloween Everyday.........
Master Of Torture
Vice President Cheney was invited to the proceedings. (Confession is good for the soul.)
The ((((REAL)))) Newt Gingrich
Adultery:
Several newspapers are now reporting that Newt Gingrich is dating and basically living with Callista Bisek, a "willowy blond Congressional aide 23 years his junior." Biske, 33, has been spending nights at Gingrich's apartment near the Capitol and has her own key. In an amazing act of hypocrisy, Gingrich was apparently dating Bisek all during Clinton-Lewinsky adultery scandal, even as he proclaimed family values and bitterly criticized the President for his adultery.
Reporters and other Washington insiders have known about this relationship since 1994, even before Gingrich became Speaker of the House, but did not have any solid proof to report. In 1995, Vanity Fair magazine described Bisek as Gingrich's "frequent breakfast companion." Gingrich was married to Marianne Gingrich during all of that time, and just filed for divorce in August 1999.
Newt is apparently trying to create a new hybrid form, Christian adultery. According to MSNBC, Bisek sings in the National Shrine Choir, and Newt would often wait for her at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, listening to her sing while he read the Bible.
This is hardly the first time Newt has cheated, either. "It was common knowledge that Newt was involved with other women during his [first] marriage to Jackie. Maybe not on the level of John Kennedy. But he had girlfriends -- some serious, some trivial." -- Dot Crews, his campaign scheduler throughout the 70s. One woman, Anne Manning, has come forward and confirmed a relationship with him during the 1976 campaign. "We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'"
Kip Carter, his former campaign treasurer, was walking Newt's daughters back from a football game one day and cut across a driveway where he saw a car. "As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the passenger seat and one of the guys' wives with her head in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me this little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy were a lot younger and shorter then."
Family Values? Pressing Wife for Divorce in the Hospital: "He walked out in the spring of 1980.... By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, "Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?" When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery." - Jackie, his first wife.
Dead-Beat Dad: The hospital visit wasn't the end of it, either. Jackie had to take Newt to court to get him to contribute for bills, as utilities were about to be cut off.
Draft Dodger: Though he relentlessly pushes military spending and talks like a bigtime hawk, Gingrich avoided the Vietnam War through a combination of student and family deferments. (He married one of his teachers at age 19.)
Problems With Women? Newt pressed his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was still in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery. He also graciously said "She isn't young enough or pretty enough to be the President's wife." But his second marriage hasn't been that smooth either. Newt and Marianne have been separated - "frankly", she told the Washington Post in June 1989, "it's been on and off for some time."
Does Newt have some kind of problem with women? He has said that he read a book called "Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them", and "found frightening pieces that related to my own life."
Incidentally, Marianne told Gail Sheehy she doesn't want Newt to run for President. " I told him if I'm not in agreement, fine, it's easy. I just go on the air the next day, and I undermine everything. ... I don't want him to be president and I don't think he should be." Newt's response? Marianne "was just making the point hypothetically" that he would not run unless she agreed he should.
House Banking Scandal: Newt Bounced 22 Checks Remember the House Banking scandal, where so many congressmen wrote rubber checks on government money? Newt hopes you don't, because he bounced 22 himself, which almost cost him reelection in 1992. His vote for the secret House pay raise, and the chauffeur who drove him around Washington in a Lincoln Town Car, didn't help.
Lucrative and Questionable Book Deals: Murdoch's $4.5 Million wasn't the first
In the past, Harper Collins has offered million dollar book contracts to several conservative politicians in countries where Murdoch was having regulatory trouble, including England (Margaret Thatcher, Jeffrey Archer) and China (Deng Xiaoping's daughter). A week after the initial offer, Newt met with Rupert Murdoch - and Murdoch's legislative lobbyist - to discuss politics, including the NBC complaint. As facts about the deal were made public, and even Republicans criticized him, Gingrich decided to give up the $4.5 million advance for a still-lucrative deal based on royalties.
Gingrich's story kept changing through the controversy. First, Newt's spokesman said that Murdoch knew nothing about Gingrich and the book deal. On Friday January 13, Newt's spokesman admitted that Murdoch actually met Newt on a park bench the week before the deal was made, but didn't talk about it. He also said he knew nothing about Murdoch's lobbyist being at their meeting. The next day, he admitted the lobbyist was there, but claimed he didn't say so because no one asked.
Newt also said repeatedly that the book wasn't his idea; that a literary agent named Lynn Chu had sought him out and proposed it. After Ms. Chu said that Gingrich's associate Jeff Eisenach called her first on Newt's behalf, Eisenach and Newt's spokesman admitted that was true.
The 1984 Book Deal Murdoch's book deal wasn't the first lucrative and controversial book deal Newt engineered. In 1983 he established a limited partnership in Atlanta called COS Limited, which pulled together about two dozen of his biggest campaign contributors to finance his book.
The former administrator of his congressional offices in Georgia, Dolores Adamson, resigned over the deal. "The manuscript was put together in the district office using office equipment," she said. "He would just come in and say 'This is what I want to do.' I would say, 'This is not ethical," but after a while he didn't listen." That office equipment, of course, was paid for by US taxpayers including you.
GOPAC sleaze: Taxpayer subsidies for his partisan campaign course. Newt in his poltical career was the king of using tax-payer subsidized donations for his personal and political purposes. He stooped so low as to hijack not one but two charities for poor inner city kids and use their donations for his personal goals.
GOPAC, Newt's longtime political action committee, was the centerpiece of a complex network of non-profit, and mostly tax exempt organizations that Newt has used to support himself and other conservative candidates. In an act of incredible hypocrisy, this crusader against taxes obtained taxpayer subsidies for his personal and political goals, by misusuing these tax-exempt groups.
For example, one GOPAC document said that its goal for the 1990s was "to both create and disseminate the doctrine of a majority Republican party." In another GOPAC document, titled "Key Factors in a House GOP Majority," Gingrich wrote "It is more powerful and more effective to develop a reform movement parallel to the official Republican party", instead of using the party structure, because it would get more attention and be more credible. Shortly thereafter, GOPAC paid for a television program promoting a "grassroots" movement to reform government; publicly they claimed it was nonpartisan, but private internal documents made its partisan goals clear.
After it got expensive, Gingrich transferred the program to the "Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Foundation," a tax-exempt group controlled by a GOPAC official named Bo Callaway. It had been set up years earlier to help inner city kids, which is why it was tax exempt. The group spent $260,000 on the television program in 1990. That same year, Newt started another tax-exempt group that paid poor students for reading books. He bragged of this in many a political speech. But after the first two years, most of this foundation's money went to Mel Steely, a former Gingrich aide who is now Newt's official biographer.
The best known effort was a college course (titled "Renewing American Civilization") at a third-rate college that Gingrich nakedly used to recruit and organize conservative candidates, and to feed them his carefully constructed ideology and political slogans.
Of course, using tax-exempt educational or charitable donations for partisan purposes is illegal, and several ethics complaints were filed against Gingrich. He agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for misleading the committee during the investigation, and in the process dodged conviction on the actual charges through a combination of finessing some legal definitions, sheer self-confidence and raw political power (as Speaker of the House at the time of the complaints, he appointed the ethics committee. Furthermore, GOPAC had one ethics committee member on its roster last session, and gave money to another.)
The Ethics Committee dropped its final charges against Gingrich not long before he resigned as speaker, despite finding that Gingrich had in fact violated one rule by repeatedly using a political consultant paid by GOPAC to develop the Republican political agenda, because there was no evidence he was continuing to do so.
The IRS also started an investigation of one group, the Progress and Freedom Foundation, for violating its tax-exempt status by donating to Gingrich's college course. In the investigation, the special counsel found that these activities were "substantially motivated by partisan political goals." The IRS eventually overruled him, and found that the course "was educational and never favored or opposed a candidate for public office.'' It said the foundation ``did not intervene on behalf of candidates of the Republican Party merely by promoting'' themes in the course. This extremely narrow reading of the law basically said "so what if he used the course to recruit, organize and groom candidates; as long as they didn't say 'Vote for Jones', it wasn't partisan." Despite what Gingrich fans argue, this hardly proves his innocence. The IRS has chickened out before in political cases, notably letting the Church of Scientology completely off the hook in its investigation of that group.
Corporate reward: $2,500/month to Newt's wife According to the Wall Street Journal, a company hired Marianne Gingrich (Newt's wife) for $2,500 a month plus commissions in September 1994 after he announced support for a free trade zone in Israel that they are trying to build. Her "job" for Israel Export Development Co. is to find tenants for the trade zone. Gingrich's spokesman said that since her job did not involve working with the US government, there was no conflict of interest.
Who Owns Him? - Rupert Murdoch (see book deal above) - Georgia's Richards family, owners of Southwire Corporate ($1.3 billion/year) The Richards lent and donated money and office space to Gingrich from his earliest days in politics. They have given over $100,000, and Gingrich was the first recipient of donations from Southwire's PAC. By coincidence, Gingrich has changed from an environmentalist critic of Southwire to a staunch anti-environmentalist during that time. People with ties to Southwire were instrumental in two earlier lucrative book deals of Gingrich's in 1977 and 1984; the latter was investigated for ethical violations. Sources:
Have a Calm and Peaceful Night Everyone.......
Buying Foreign Products puts us at a NATIONAL SECURITY RISK!!!!! Look it up. You can find article after article after article about how and why. It's got to stop or we will have no country left to leave our children. It's not just the out of high school blue collar jobs that are being out sourced; it's white collar, professional, college grad jobs too. How can we sustain an economy when all that is left is flipping burgers for minimum wage? If you own your own business, who will buy your products or use your services when no one makes over minimum wage? They can barely buy groceries.........
You know, we are called an INDUSTRIAL SUPER POWER!!!!! How can we maintain that status in the world when we have no industry left????
I'm attaching several articles here to prove this claim and there are 100's more....
WE DEAL WITH CHINA WHY?
CQ WEEKLY – IN FOCUS May 2, 2009 – 6:17 p.m.
With the Pentagon and other government agencies storing ever more of their data on networked computers, cybersecurity experts warn that the United States is losing the battle to safeguard itself from cyber-espionage. And ongoing neglect of the problem could produce foreign cyber-attacks that could bring some of the nation’s most critical technologies to a standstill.
“Cyberwar” attacks — i.e., deliberate bids to penetrate or immobilize sensitive computer networks and programs that operate central security infrastructures such as weapons systems and energy grids — are difficult to trace to a single national source because hackers can easily mask their online forays by using borrowed service providers and dummy online accounts.
But the growing consensus among students of cyberwarfare is that China is effectively targeting many U.S. computer networks and poses the greatest emerging challenge. In just one in a long list of recently reported incidents, accounts of a software breach in Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter development program surfaced last month citing sources that traced it to computers in China.
Information experts warn that U.S. security officials need to pick up their game in defending against cyberthreats and lead an effort to develop international agreements on how to deal with them, or they will find themselves increasingly vulnerable to attacks that could penetrate the nation’s most closely guarded secrets and impair the military’s ability to operate.
“The Chinese have come to understand that we live in the information age and that domination of the information age requires domination of cyberspace,” said O. Sami Saydjari, president of Cyber Defense Agency, a government consulting firm. “The irony, of course, is that the United States led the information age, yet it has not come to fully realize and understand this very simple fact that China has understood deeply: that cyberspace is every bit as strategically important as any physical arena.”
While the Obama administration is now scrambling to develop a strategy that would combat foreign penetration of U.S. computer systems, cybersecurity experts say the biggest challenge is overcoming the bureaucratic bottlenecks that have hobbled more robust U.S. measures to counter online security threats. Traditionally, the mandate to beef up cybersecurity has fallen chiefly to the Defense Department, but specialists on the threat say the federal government needs to mount a far more comprehensive and transparent effort against cyber-attacks.
Last week, the National Research Council, a nonprofit institution that provides science, technology and health policy advice under a congressional charter, issued a scathing report on U.S. preparedness for cyberwarfare, saying official policy is “ill-formed, undeveloped and highly uncertain.” And since most agencies tend to keep information about cyber-attacks from public view, the report argues, “neither government nor society at large is organized or prepared to handle issues related to cyberattack, let alone make broadly informed decisions.”
The council calls on the federal government to develop a new policy framework “through open debate within the U.S. government and diplomatic discussion with other nations.” The call for a greater push for international protocols against cyber-attacks is something that computer security specialists have long been urging.
“We have failed to do that; we are paying a price, and we need to turn that around immediately,” said Saydjari. “There is no time to waste.”
The sense of urgency surrounding cybersecurity stems from the dramatic upsurge in breaches.
Intrusions such as the foray into Lockheed’s F-35 files are in the small minority of successful breaches that get reported. Most military and corporate victims of cyber-attacks usually take pains to keep them out of the news to protect their image and prevent exposure of their vulnerabilities. Moreover, there are far more attempted breaches that don’t succeed.
“You’re dealing with something that’s going on all the time, especially with the military networks,” said Alan Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute, a Bethesda, Md.-based information-security research and education organization. “We’re losing a lot of data. We’re bleeding to death.”
Paller estimates that about a dozen truly damaging intrusions occur each day amid a barrage of thousands of less serious cyber-break-ins. U.S. government officials are coming to conclude that the attacks point not merely to Chinese computers, but in all likelihood to the involvement of the Chinese government as well.
“The scale of the intrusions and the type of information being taken from U.S. defense computer networks . . . leaves little doubt that the bulk of the activity is directed by the Chinese government or intelligence services,” wrote Larry M. Wortzel, vice-chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, in the January edition of the Far Eastern Economic Review.
China emerged as the likeliest culprit in an especially disturbing incident last August, when hackers compromised sensitive data in the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain .
“The Chinese government had access to confidential campaign documents,” said a former senior McCain campaign official who requested anonymity since the details of the breaches are classified. The official noted that stolen documents turned up in the possession of Chinese government officials.
The Chinese government has also been fingered as the likeliest culprit in similar breaches at the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, the Naval War College and several congressional offices.
Cybersecurity experts contend that the range and sophistication of these incursions point strongly to the Chinese government — and particularly the tech-savvy intelligence hands in the People’s Liberation Army.
“What organization in China has the right to massively organize an attack against the United States?” asked Paller. “That’s what leads me to believe it’s the People’s Liberation Army.”
China denies that its government is behind such attacks.
China has made no secret of its broader agenda to establish effective control over civilian cyberspace. Since the mid-nineties, Chinese officials have made “information dominance” a central military priority, said James Mulvenon, director of the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, a private firm that provides clients with open-source intelligence on China. “The Chinese government regards cyber as a legitimate overt tool of national power, whereas for the U.S. it’s still largely a compartmentalized, classified kind of capability,” Mulvenon added.
Strategically, China is looking to exploit its edge in cyberwarfare to offset U.S. advantages in conventional weaponry. Chinese military planners, for example, have a declared strategy to disable U.S. military logistics and communications networks long enough to allow a successful invasion of Taiwan.
That sort of long-term thinking is what has cybersecurity experts worried. “I view all of this as intelligence preparation of the battlefield,” Mulvenon said.
The Chinese experience also highlights the kinds of strategic disparities that U.S. counter-efforts suffer. Gen. Kevin Chilton, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, said the chief goal of U.S. cyberforces is to “maintain freedom of action” in cyberspace. Chilton noted that U.S. operatives can go on the offensive to prevent pending attacks, but critics of the U.S. approach say it doesn’t come close to competing with China’s strategies for cyberdominance. China is also working with legions of hacker recruits for its dominance scheme. The government reportedly works with an army of 50,000 to 100,000 “patriotic hackers” who may not have direct association with the ruling Chinese Communist Party but who act in concert with the party’s national aims.
At a more formal level, the Chinese army is preparing hacker militias, made up of computer experts at academic or industrial institutions who can be activated for duty at a time of war, according to the Defense Department.
“That’s a way they can attract talent from the private sector,” said a senior U.S. defense official following the release of the report. Such reservists require little additional training to conduct cyber-attacks.
Meanwhile, U.S. cybersecurity efforts are stovepiped between the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees civilian infrastructure, and the Defense Department, which monitors military computer networks. One recent indicator of how these mandates are failing to mesh came in March, when Homeland’s cybersecurity czar, Rod Beckstrom, announced that he was resigning over alleged end runs around his authority by the National Security Agency, which spearheads many of the Pentagon’s cybersecurity efforts.
The Obama administration will soon release the results of its review of national cybersecurity policy, which will probably include a call for ultimate White House authority over cybersecurity questions. The Pentagon is also reportedly preparing to announce the creation of a major new cyberwar-fighting command.
This kind of top-down overhaul would be an encouraging start in closing the U.S. cyberwar gap, officials say.
“The idea to have someone in charge of it, empowered by the president, is the right thing to do,” said Linton Wells II, a Pentagon chief information officer during the George W. Bush administration. “There needs to be someone empowered to do this. Right now, the organizations are broken.”
If You Don't Buy American, the America We Know and Love Will Be Gone........
New York Times: This map shows the names and locations of the 789 dealers Chrysler plans to close, about a quarter of the 3,200 total. See the full map here.
This is not even counting the 1,100 dealerships GM closed. It does effect you. It effects your stores, your restaurants, all of your businesses.
Why would an American choose to support Japan, China, Korea, India and Mexico over themselves, their neighbors, their co-workers family, their friends, THEIR FELLOW AMERICAN???? We Work, YOU WORK!!!!
This link is to a website called Manufacture This. I hope very much you will take a look. It shows you exactly where and how many jobs are being lost every single day. PLEASE WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!! Manufacture This
Thank You President Obama for Putting "US" the UAW Up Front With You Today!!!!! We needed that. We need you to care about us. It's nice to not feel like we are being beat up on, if at least for one day......
Ron Gettelfinger, President of UAW
For Release: Tuesday, May 19, 2009
WASHINGTON — A new agreement on fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards is a "major step forward" for the U.S. auto industry, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said today.
"This sets the stage for building a new generation of cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles here in the United States," said Gettelfinger, who will attend a White House event today for the announcement of the agreement, along with UAW Vice President Cal Rapson, who directs the union's General Motors Department.
"This is good news for our members, for consumers and for the environment," said Rapson.
The groundbreaking agreement, announced today by President Obama, is supported by automakers, the UAW, environmental groups, the federal government and the state of California. It calls for a single national standard on fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions for cars and light trucks, to be issued jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
"President Obama and his team showed real leadership by bringing everyone to the table to reach an innovative agreement," said Gettelfinger. "The final standards will be stringent, but will have support throughout industry, government and the environmental community. The standards will treat full-line manufacturers fairly; maintain a distinction between cars and light trucks; apply to all automakers, and continue credits for flex-fuel vehicles," said Gettelfinger. "These standards will also continue incentives for small-car production here in the United States — a capability that is vital to protecting jobs and our nation's long-term energy security."
"Members of our union have never accepted the false choice between protecting our jobs and protecting our environment," said Rapson. "With smart policies that bring together all stakeholders, we can have both. That’s what this agreement accomplishes, and that's why we support it."
The UAW, one of the nation's most diverse labor unions, represents workers in automobile, aerospace and agricultural-implement manufacturing, as well as workers in health care, higher education, gaming, public service and other industry sectors.
Eco Friendly Driving
Q: What is the Chevy Volt? A: The Chevy Volt is an extended-range electric car being developed by General Motors. It currently exists in prototype form only but GM reports they are fully committed to bring the car to production. In June 2008, GM’s board of directors voted to fund production of the vehicle, and in September 2008 the production version was unveiled.
Q: How is the Chevy Volt different than other cars on the road? A: The car is a plug-in range-extended electric vehicle with an on-board gasoline generator. It will have a large battery that stores power from your home electric outlet and which is connected to an electric motor. The electric motor directly propels the car. The battery can last for the first 40 miles. After that, should one continue to need to drive, the on-board gasoline/E85 generator will power up to keep the battery from running out.
Q: How is the Chevy Volt different than today’s hybrids, like the Prius? A: Today’s hybrids are called parallel hybrids. They use a small electric motor for low speed driving, but switch to a regular gas engine for acceleration and faster speed driving, hence both engines work side by side or in parallel. The Volt is a series vehicle meaning only the electric motor power the car at all times, the gas engine is just a generator, making electric to keep the batteries in a steady state of charge.
Q: What is the driving range of the Chevy Volt? A: The car is being designed to drive at least 40 miles on pure electricity stored in the battery from overnight home charging. After that the gas engine will kick in and allow the car to be driven up to 400 miles on a full tank (6-7 gallons) of gas.
Q: How many miles per gallon will the Chevy Volt get? A: A bit of a trick question. For the first 40 miles it will get infinite mpg, because no gas will be burned. When the generator starts, the car will get an equivalent of 50 mpg thereafter. One can calculate the average mpg per for any length drive starting with a full battery: Total MPG = 50xM/(M-40)
Q: When will the car be available? A: The plan is to have the car available for mass purchase in late 2010, as a 2011 model year.
Q: What type of batteries will the Chevy Volt use? A: The car is being designed around an advanced battery pack which uses lithium-ion chemistry. This chemistry appears in cell phones and laptops. For automotive use the packs and cells will be more powerful and safe.
Q: Is it a four or five-seater? A: Four
Q: How much will the car cost? A: Goal is to be less than $30,000, but first versions might be closer to $40,000.
Q: What is the cost of operation of the car A: With current average U.S. electric rates of ~10 cents/kwh it should cost 80 cents to drive for the first 40 miles, and then get 50 mpg thereafter using gasoline (market rate).
Q: Why is the car taking so long to make? A: GM reports that the battery packs are not ready yet. They have to be thoroughly tested to ensure safety and reliability.
Q: Who is making the Volt’s battery packs? A: Right now GM is evaluating products from a company called A123, working with Continental, and a company called CPI working with LG Chem. The best product will presumably be used.
Q; Does the car use regenerative braking? A: Yes. This means when the car is slowed, the kinetic or motion-based energy will be recaptured as electricity stored in the battery.
Q: How is the car different than the EV-1? A: The EV-1 had only an electric motor and older technology batteries, and had a 100 miles driving range. There was no onboard generator.
Q: How long will it take to recharge the Volt? A: 6.5 hours using a 110 volt (standard home) outlet, and about 3 hours if you have a 220 volt supply.
Q: Is GM recruiting test drivers? A: No.
Q: Is there a waiting list for the car? A: No official waiting list, but we have an unofficial waiting list here on GM-Volt.com; the names will be given to GM when the time is right.
Q: Is the model car a working model? A: No it is just a design shell with a golf-cart motor under the hood. There are currently fully-operational prototypes on GMs test track, but they appear with late model Malibu shells.
Q: What type of electric motor does the Volt have? A: A/C 3-phase
Q: Will the Volt have a solar panel on the roof? A: GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz has indicated that will likely be an option.
Q: Will tall people fit in it? A: Bob Boniface, chief of Volt design says the car is being designed to accommodate drivers from 5th percentile females up to 95th percentile height males.
To understand how the battery is charged by the on-board generator read this.
OTHER FAQs written by our readers (you may add more too in that section): GO HERE
Link to Future GM Vehicles: http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/mds/vehicles/futurelanding.do
BY MARK PHELAN • FREE PRESS AUTO CRITIC • May 19, 2009
David Letterman dismissed the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric car on April 29, saying it wouldn't have the juice to make it out of his driveway.
General Motors Corp. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, one of the Volt's biggest backers, is to appear Wednesday on Letterman's "Late Show" to set the record straight.
I drove a Volt test model Monday, and, just to get things started, offer these Top 10 Things David Letterman Should Know About the Chevy Volt:
10. With 40 miles of battery power, it'll clear a driveway that stretches from Times Square to Piscataway, N.J.
9. About 80% of Americans drive fewer than 40 miles a day, so they'd almost never need the onboard generator.
8. For longer trips -- say to Muncie, Ind., for Ball State alumni weekend -- the Volt's gasoline-powered onboard generator keeps the batteries charged for up to 400 miles between fill-ups.
7. Jay Leno wants one.
6. The Volt accelerates fast enough to put Letterman back on the New Jersey State Police's radar.
5. The Volt will be built by UAW workers in GM's Detroit-Hamtramck plant.
4. Danica Patrick will look great in one.
3. The Volt has an unofficial fan Web site, www.gm-volt.com, just like Dave.
2. Entering "Chevrolet Volt" on Google produces 3,460,000 hits. Entering "Late Show with David Letterman" gets 1,320,000.
1. Putting your tongue on the terminals of its lithium-ion battery pack would be a really stupid human trick.
GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE.......
ATTENTION: The ENTIRE State of Michigan is going out of business. Starting bids for the state are $1.98
Any Takers??????
GREEDY UAW Workers go with the sale. They can be used for slave labor.....
I start my day by driving to work. I stop at the gas station and fill up my car. That puts money in the pocket of the gas station owner. He sends the portion of that money he owes back to the gas company. They pay the truck driver that delivers the gas. They pay the refinery that produces the gas. They pay the men and women on the oil rigs that drill for the oil. The company purchased the truck that hauls the gas. Then a company designs the logo they use for the company. Another company puts the logo on the gas truck. The gas station pays someone to build their building. They pay the sign company they makes the sign. They pay the graphic design company that makes their logo. They pay the company that manufactures the pumps. They pay the state the taxes you paid on the gasoline. The state pays the employees: ie - teacher, police, road and bridge construction ect...
I continue on my way to work. I work a 10 hr day. It's Friday and my check is in the bank. The bank uses my money to lend, pay their employees and maintain their buildings. They hired a design company to make their logo. They hired a sign company to make their signs. They hire a company to construct their buildings. The city, state, federal taxes and FICA are taken out of my check. That funds my social security. That funds the Federal government services, buildings, military, the congress and the President of the United States. My state taxes pay for all of the state services and responsibilities. It pays for my city services, employees, buildings, road maintenance, police, fire, teachers, health department,snow removal, ect...
I continue on to the grocery store. I buy some groceries. That pays for product companies graphic designers for logos and box designs. It pays for the companies that produce the cardboard, plastic, metal and cellophane they are packaged in. It pays the truckers that truck the produce to the stores. It pays the farmers that grow the produce. It pays for the chemists and chemical companies that make preservatives for the food. It pays for the dairy farmers. It pays for the ranchers that raise the meat for the animals. It pays for the meat packers. It pays for the factoy workers that package and produce the products. It pays the builders that build the factories, barns and all of the other buildings. It pays for the companies that produce the tractors, trucks and factory equipment. It pays for the iron ore miners that make send their ore to the steel factories. It's then sent to the companies that make all the parts for the equipment. It pays the factory workers that assemble the equipment.
The next day my daughter and I go to the bridal shop because she is getting married. I pay for her dress. That pays for their buildings, employees, designers for logos and packaging. It pays for the dress/clothing designer. It pay for the seamstresses that construct the dresses and alter the dresses. They again pay all of the taxes. Then we move on to the florist. We purchase the flowers. That pays for the florists, the building, the logos, the builders, the glass and plastics producers that make the vases, the truckers that deliver the flowers and the growers that grow the flowers. We now move onto the bakery which pays for the bakers, the designers, the building constructors, the food products, the farmers, the truckers, ect. Now we move on to the caterer. We pay the caterer which pays for the food, you got the idea.
The following day I go to the mall. I purchase a dress, shoes and pantyhose. All of the designers are paid, the fabric makers, the cotton farmers, the truckers, ect... Then I go to the beauty shop. I pay the beautician to do my hair. I pay the nail tech to do my nails and a pedicure. All of the products they use pay all of the people I have been talking about.
The wedding is over. It's Monday morning. I return to work on the assembly line producing the trucks and cars. The trucks that are used in the business. The vehicles you drive. The miners. The steel workers. The plastics producer. The chrome producers. The radio producers. The computer chip producers. The GPS producers. The engine producers. The wire producers. The battery makers. The oil producers. The gasoline companies. The textile companies. The ranchers that provide the animal skins to produce the leather. The military vehicles. The assembly line equipment and robots. The building constructors. The engineers. The designers. The chemists. The truckers. The rail way trains. The ocean liners. The power companies. The phone companies. The car dealerships. The paper manufactures. The health care companies. The doctors, nurses, hospitals, dentists and ophthalmologists. The hospital equipment. The taxes the companies pay to the city, state and federal government. And More and More and More.....
This just touches part of the life of a UAW Auto Worker. It does effect you. If we work, you work. Their are over 7,000,000 people that follow in my footsteps and support all of these companies and much, much more.
This is a small part of the trickle down effect.......
Let's Have a Little Talk About Abortion From an RN:
I'll give you a little background about myself so you can see that I do know what I am talking about. I am an RN. I have worked in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (Sick Newborn ICU) in a city hospital. I have done home care for high risk pregnant moms and infants. I have worked in the Adult STD Clinic in the city Health Dept. I treated STD's, taught STD prevention and birth control and provided birth control to them if necessary. I worked in immunizations. I also worked in Children's Special Health Care Services at the Health Dept. It is a federal insurance company for children with disabilities.
Could you, the advocates of abortion under no circumstances, look those women or children in the eye and say you must carry that fetus? If you can, in my opinion, that is very cold-hearted. Plus, in my opinion, you are playing God just as much as you would accuse that woman of doing.
I do not believe in abortion as a means of birth control and I'm sure most do not. We need better education regarding sexuality and birth control. We need it to begin at early adolescence. We need easier access to birth control for everyone. We need free birth control for more people. We need better and more teaching as to how to effectively use birth control.
