Clinton offers Detroit automakers: tougher fuel economy standards in exchange for health care aid.

[Tellurian]

Clinton bargains for better fuel economy

Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton makes campaign offer to Detroit automakers: tougher fuel economy standards in exchange for health care aid.

June 9 2007:

DETROIT (Reuters) -- U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Saturday offered a double-barreled campaign message for the struggling U.S. auto industry: accept tougher fuel economy standards in exchange for federal help with the costly burden of retiree health care.

Speaking at a union hall, Clinton also pledged new U.S. government investment in technologies that promise sharp gains in engine efficiency, such as lithium-ion batteries, an area where Japanese suppliers lead the pack.

"I know we have to do more to support the American auto industry and to support the American auto worker," she said.

Clinton's speech before a loud and supportive crowd of several hundred mostly AFL-CIO members marked a contrast in tone on the ailing U.S. auto industry from Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton's leading challenger for the Democratic nomination.

Obama said in a Detroit appearance last month that the U.S. automakers had not moved fast enough to answer the rising demand for more fuel efficient cars, remarks that rankled both Michigan politicians and industry leaders.
3 big questions for Detroit's Big Three

In what she called a "win-win" policy prescription for Detroit, Clinton advocated reducing average fuel consumption and shoring up the payroll of an industry that has lost over 150,000 jobs in the past three years.

(...)

The U.S. Senate is expected to take up a bill that would require raising average fleet fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, up from about 25 miles per gallon currently.

The bill would also mandate 4 percent annual increases in corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE standards, after that.

(...)

Clinton said the U.S. automakers would have to accept the changes, but said in exchange the government could also help offset the retiree health care costs seen as the ailing industry's single biggest liability.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/09/news/clinton_automakers/index.htm?section=money_latest

[Tellurian]

1. Sen Clinton's proposal sure would put the color back

in the cheeks of the 1000's of auto workers who have lost their jobs and revitalize the BIG 3 in the automakers industry!

Wonderful plan and definitely a WIN-WIN situation for the country!

[Donnachaidh]

6. and exactly how MANY times are we to REVITALIZE corporations

who REPAY the american taxpayer by sending JOBS to Mexico?

The Big 3 can blow it out their collective ASSES. This is yet another PANDERFEST for VOTES by Hillary (I want NAFTA) Clinton.

[Raven]

7. How come I'm so longwinded and YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT

ON THE HEAD???!!

[jmp]

10. by sending JOBS to Mexico

Why do you blame the corporations for that? They operate in an environment that encourages and rewards that behavior. If you want to put a stop to that, our trade policy should be the target of your ire.

[The Magistrate]

2. A Cold Deal, Sir: Cold Enough To Work, Perhaps

[Raven]

4. Too cold for me, why are we going to subsidize companies

who have not been smart or competent enough to do the right thing? Are these company execs' salaries going to remain as bloated as they are now? Do I get a health insurance subsidy if I buy a hybrid or conserve energy in some other way? What about all the other companies who have screwed their employees and polluted the environment? Are we going to subsidize them too? Where does this end? Where will the $$$ come from? Why doesn't Hillary tackle the health crisis directly by giving everyone inexpensive access?

I could be wrong but this smacks of political bullshit to me.

[The Magistrate]

9. A Thing Must Be Played As It Lays, Ma'am

The companies have contractual obligations, that might well not be affected by a new plan of nationwide converage, however desireable we would both find such a thing. The companies have sufficient clout, as things stand now, to hamstring any attempt to force stricter emmissions standards in Congress, again, however desireable we would both find such measures.

"We will make you rich, or we will make you dead."

[WCGreen]

3. Man oh man, that's a great idea....

The folks in Detroit have been resisting CAFE increases as that action as a means to an end of their industry...

They are barely able to afford the cost of health insurance increases let alone the increases adoption of new CAFE standards would bring...

Japanese car makers don't have the hereditary health care costs that are multiplying faster than the car makers allowed for when they agreed to take on retiree health care costs...

Although, solving the retiree problem in Detroit would not solve the health care crisis overall. In fact, it may actually worsen the burden for the rest of us as a major industry that has been at least amenable to national health care would no longer have the incentive to push for national coverage...

Still, a rather bold move for the all to cautious campaign of Ms. Triangulation....

[Tellurian]

5. It's a brilliant incentive

to get autoworkers back to their jobs. A shot in the arm for the auto-industry itself and the kicker is a boon for fuel economy. (and hopefully the environment too.)

These ideas are "Classic Clinton"- helping to perpetuate the memories we fondly remember, as the Peace and Prosperity we had for a time, which every American so richly deserves.

[Enthusiast]

8. 35 mpg by

35 mpg by 2020 is hardly fast enough in the face of the energy crisis and environmental problems we face now. This average should be met earlier by years. Same old foot dragging bullshit. The technology is there right now. Also, government tax incentives should be ramped up for people buying fuel efficient vehicles.

There would be no need to protect grandfathered health benefits if we can move to universal coverage. Universal coverage is needed now, immediately.

[Tellurian]

11. 2020 is the date in the Senate Bill

I'm sure our democrats will try to amend it to a year closer in line with the current global warming crisis.

[WCGreen]

13. They need to get it down to about 2012 in order to excite the

environmentist, me included...

[dsc]

12. This is surely worth a try

I think it could be a brilliant grand bargain. I would like to see some guarentees in regards to outsourcing.