Fact Checking Fun

There’s been no shortage of exaggerations and lies from the stages of the political conventions. Even with help from BS filters and fact-checkers, such as Politifact.com, The Fact Checker, FactCheck.org and The Examiner, it’s impossible to sort it all out. Unfortunately, many voters don’t take these elections seriously enough to go in with an open mind and look for something that at least appears factual in a common sense sort of way, which is exactly what the candidates are hoping for.

After listening to Massachusetts Senate candidate, Elizabeth Warren cheer lead at the DNC last night (in which she even managed to mangle up and totally misinterpret a verse from the New Testament), I figured I should a pick a topic of personal interest and try to figure out what's really what.

For example, and this dovetails with the previous post "That Whole "Saved GM' Thing," here are some highlights from former Michigan Governor, Jennifer Granholm, from the DNC. She is obviously not very well informed as to the current state of the auto industry. Instead, the picture she chooses to paint is a distortion of what happened during G.W. Bush's days as a lame duck.

There are a lot of nits that we can pick with this, 
but the one that seems to surface the most is this:
While “Let Detroit go bankrupt” is a quote often attributed to Mitt Romney, it was actually the work of an editor for the New York Times, charged with coming up with a catchy headline for column that Romney had penned during the crisis in the auto industry. Apparently, most people don’t know (or don’t care to know) that Romney is also a car guy and that his father, George Romney, played a large part in the success of American Motors, during it’s days as one of the “Big 4” American auto makers.

No one has questioned that Romney’s business experience, especially in the auto industry, trumps Obama's. In fact, Romney is often vilified for being a successful business person. So what did Romney actually say? He said that the government should have let the automakers go into a “managed bankruptcy”... In his words... "Managed bankruptcy may sound like a death knell. But in fact, it is a way for a troubled company to restructure itself rapidly, entering and leaving the courtroom sometimes in weeks or months instead of years, and then returning to profitable operation."


For more fact checking fun:

FACT CHECK: Obama And The Phantom Peace Dividend

FACT CHECK: Clinton Claims Of Compromise A Stretch
“THE FACTS: From Clinton's speech, voters would have no idea that the inflexibility of both parties is to blame for much of the gridlock. Right from the beginning Obama brought in as his first chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a man known for his getting his way, not for getting along.”

FACT CHECK: Obama promised and failed to keep Janesville, GM plant open
So who was right? Ryan or Obama? Well, it sure wasn’t The Washington Post.

FACT CHECK: 4.5 Million new jobs created under Obama? According Yahoo News...
“CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 nonfarm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009.... Obama's job growth percentages trail far behind those of some other recent presidents, including Bill Clinton (+2.60 percent and +1.60 percent), Ronald Reagan (+1.75 percent and +2.53 percent) and even Jimmy Carter (+2.30 percent).”

Need a break from it all?  This pretty much sums it all up....

That Whole "Saved GM" Thing

On Monday (9/3) VP Joe Biden (reported just about everywhere) told a group of about 3,500 people in Detroit "I've got a little bumper sticker for you: Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive."

Obviously, Biden is a car guy as his daily ride is a petrol-gulping, tire smoking '67 Corvette C2 (although he is currently not allowed to drive it). His dad had dealerships for both GM and Chrysler and he even knows what a bumper sticker is. It's a safe guess that Biden (that's not his car) is more in touch with the auto industry than Obama, but I digress.

The part of Joe’s quote I found most interesting was the part that suggests that GM is alive because of the bailouts initiated by Obama. There are a lot of problems with this and it’s pretty complicated.

First, it was reported in the NY Times in December of ’08, that president “W” was the one who initiated the plan to pump $13.4 billion into the companies to rescue the financial industry. That plan gave GM and Chrysler until March 31, 2009 to produce a plan for long-term profitability, including concessions from unions, creditors, suppliers and dealers. There’s no question that Obama was handed a big mess. One that would require solid business experience and a working knowledge of the auto industry—which he does not possess.

But the story doesn’t end there. In fact, it’s far from over even today. While the Obama campaign now likes to boast that saved GM, those words may come back to bite them.

In April of 2010 it was announced that GM was doing so well that it had paid back the nearly $6 billion in loans to the US and Canadian governments. But wait. The US government gave GM $52 billion, right? So where’s the other $46 billion? And wasn't it $13.4 billion to start?

Oh, didn’t they tell ya? That wasn’t a loan. Despite the payback, we the people still hold controlling interest in General Motors. (Sources? - Just search  “How much has GM paid back” or click here). Seems to me we ought to at least get shareholder pricing.

And now, two years later, there’s reason to believe that GM is in trouble again. It's beginning to look like that big sales spike GM reported a while back was more the result of Japanese automakers dealing with the tsunami than anything else. As it stands today, GM is again losing market share and counting greatly on China and India to pull them out of the slump. According to Investors.com, "Ford, which didn't take TARP funds, grabbed market share from GM and is now more profitable. Ironically, Ford for the first time in years has outsold GM in the number of cars bought by the federal government — although Washington still owns a huge stake in GM. Not exactly a vote of confidence."

So don’t believe everything hear. As a part owner in GM, you shouldn't assume this book is closed.

As for Chrysler, well, you don’t hear the current administration even mentioning that that automaker has paid back $7.6 billion worth of high-interest government loans—most likely because, after the bail outs, Chrysler is no longer a full-blooded American company. Controlling interest is now held by Fiat, making Chrysler more Italian than American.

Another car company that has benefited from the generosity of the current administration is Fisker, which received a $529 million loan guarantee from the federal government so they could build cars in Finland. You don’t hear ‘em bragging about that one much either.

Also See:

Insight: GM's Volt - The ugly math of low sales, high costs.

General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again

Do They Really Think We're This Dumb?

Apparently, while we were focusing our attention on Hurricane Isaac and The RNC, those sneaky devils in DC decided that we are still not paying enough for cars and gas—and that vehicle safety should be in the back seat so that fuel economy can take the wheel.

According to an article in the International Business Times, yesterday, Obama finalized new fuel economy specs that will (supposedly) increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) of the U.S. auto fleet to almost 55 mpg by 2025—And save us oodles of cash in the process.
While that sounds great on the surface, the numbers don't add up.

Let's go back to the age of disco, the 1970s, when motorists were all up in arms over gas shortages and rationing that resulted from the Arab Oil Embargo. It was a rude awakening that we had grown overly dependent on imported oil and something needed to be done. As government's typical response to every crisis is to set up a new rule or regulation, creating a corporate fuel standard fit that agenda. And what would happen to any automakers that didn't comply? They would get taxed a set amount per vehicle and pass that along to the consumer. So for Washington, it was a win-win.

But was it necessary? It's common sense that, as fuel prices increase, vehicles that are the most economical to drive will have a solid sales advantage over those that aren't. So the marketplace certainly has had a lot more to do with improvements made in fuel economy than the gummint regs.

Regardless, in 1978, the first CAFE standard was set at a combined (cars and trucks) 17.2 mpg. The benchmark was then raised progressively. From 1991 through 2007 it increased from 20.2 to 22.2 mpg. During the same time, the average price of gas rose from $1.53 to $2.64. Using the US inflation calculator to compare the value of a dollar in '91 vs '07, that's an increase of ONLY 33 cents per gallon during the entire Clinton and "W"  presidencies! (note: in 2009, gas prices dropped temporarily to $2.14 a gallon).

Compare that to where we are now. 

Since Obama took office, the price of gasoline has been bouncing around $4 a gallon. That's an increase of $1.08 per gallon (adjusted for inflation) in less than 3 years.

The new standards adopted yesterday project a saving of 12 billion barrels oil and the elimination of 6 billion metric tons of CO2 pollution (I love how they round off these huge numbers). Who knows? Maybe. But to say that "A family purchasing a new vehicle in 2025 will save $8,200" is hog snot. A lot could happen in the next 12 years. There are just way to many variables. By then, gasoline* (based on what we've seen in just the last 3 years) could easily be $9-$12 a gallon and a basic family sedan that now costs $25K will be at least 32K.

And, because the easiest way to increase mpg is to decrease vehicle mass, future cars will have to be lighter and lighter means less safe. According to H. Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis, NHTSA data indicate that "322 additional deaths per year occur as a direct result of reducing just 100 pounds from already downsized small cars, with half of the deaths attributed to small car collisions with light trucks/sport utility vehicles." USA Today further calculated that the "size and weight reductions of passenger vehicles undertaken to meet current CAFE standards had resulted in more than 46,000 deaths."

Now, I'm just as concerned about the environment and the need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels as anyone, but I refuse to be taken in by slight of hand moves that have historically been nothing more than a another sneaky way to tax the citizenry.

Speaking of fossil fuels. This shouldn't even be about gasoline. While most of the other developed countries are putting their resources into Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology, Obama, shortly after taking office in 2009, actually pulled the plug on an aggressive plan put in place by George W. Bush. Apparently, he's starting to rethink that decision but in the meantime, we've fallen 3 years behind.


Additional Sources:

Official: 2012 CAFE Standards Finalized

Obama's Sneaky, Deadly, Costly Car Tax

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (Wikipedia)

"Summary of CAFE Fines Collected" (PDF).

Really Stupid Scam and Spam

We've all gotten those ridiculous Email invitations from rich foreigners (whom we don't know) offering us bazillions of dollars if we can just help them move some cash out of their country—those have been around for a long time, and most people are smart enough to steer clear. Lately, it appears spammers, scammers and phishers have decided to just be plain annoying. I know it's a numbers game, but really... do they actually think there are people who will nibble at these?

First came this one, informing me that I'm only minutes away from becoming a full-fledged Doctor, or as they put it, a "Doctroat."

Hello! 

We provide a concept that will allow anyone with sufficient work experience to obtain a fully verifiable Univresity Dgeree. Matsers, Matsers or Doctroate. No books!. No time wasted!. Obtain a Dgeree!. Think of it, within four to six weeks, you too could be a colelge graduate.

Now, who in their right mind would respond to an offer to earn a college degree from an email so loaded with typos? I'm not making this up.

Next came 5 Emails in succession (from different addresses) that started out with the exact same opening line:

"Good Evening, so I was bored out of my mind and started skimming on FOXs local career spotlight on last monday & ran into a brand new self-employed career that helps immigrants..."

 

I'm not an immigrant, but out of curiosity, I clicked on one of them and got the message above—at a tumblr.com address. I choose not to click the green button—I wasn't that curious. (Next, I promptly ran my virus scan software, just to make sure I hadn't stepped in something while trying to figure out the purpose of this ridiclous Email) -




Then came this hilariously bad facsimile of a notification from an airline:


In addition to poor wording and the fact that I stopped flying American years ago, there are at least 6 other problems with this supposed ticket. How many can you find? There was no  ticket attached, and clicking on "Print A Ticket" —which appears to be a link—does nothing.

But my all-time (at least up until now) "Most Annoying Scammers and Spammers Award" goes to some company named "Davison" who claims they specializes in services for inventors—when all they really do is annoy people.

I've clicked on a couple of these and have been redirected to pages that have nothing to do with inventor services. Here is a list of the junk they sent me in just one 7 day period—and this does not include an equal number of Emails that came from other addresses, even after I filled out their "unsubscribe" form multiple times.

Why anyone would want to do business with a company that has such low prospecting practices is way beyond me. Hey Davison! I have a brilliant idea—why don't you stop bothering people with your incessant Emails!

I never let politics interfere with my chicken.

The latest controversy taking over the headlines (aside from the daily sub-controversies from the Olympics) was sparked by a remark made by Dan Cathy, COO of the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain in an interview on July 16th.

What Cathy said was "We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Chick-fil-A has been around since the early '60s—longer, in fact, than Wendy's and several other chains. The chain has maintained a policy of being closed on Sundays since it's inception and explains why right on their Web site.

The chain helps fund numerous worthwhile causes and has provided millions of dollars in scholarships to deserving students—they operate over 1,000 restaurants and employ tens of thousands of people—and are considered one of the best chains to work for. In the spirit of full-disclosure, the two brothers who now run the chain hatched by their father, Samuel Truett Cathy, have plenty of scratch.

The company's mission statement is "Be America's Best Quick-Service Restaurant"—and to Chick-fil-A apparently, being "The Best" means more than just what's on the menu. I personally make a point of eating at one (and/or maybe a Shoney's or Waffle House) whenever I encounter one at meal time. The drill is simple: I order chicken, and they provide chicken. My relationship with Chick-fil-A is 100% chicken-based. My political views have never been part of this equation. 

Yet all along, hiding in the bushes, has been a group of individuals who disagree with Chick-fil-A's pro-family position and think that I should too. They've been waiting quietly and patiently for one of the company's corporate heads to say something they could twist and spin into something that could be used against their pro-family stance. Enter the politicians, Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino (to name just two) who saw it as their duty to block this pro-family business from ever opening new stores in their cities—and thus denying their citizens the jobs and the benefits from the additional taxes that these restaurants would generate. Talk about your abuse of power.

Now, I'm just sayin'... But how short sighted and stupid can these people be?—to deny their constituents jobs and to take from the people they serve the simple pleasure of having a new place to go for lunch, just because their personal opinions differ with the personal opinions of others.

Conclusion: Chick-fil-A knows how to run a successful business but is (or was) totally ignorant as to the lengths big-city mayors will go to to keep their jobs by appearing to look out for minorities. They obviously have no interest in promoting new business or bringing employment to their cities—if they did, they would not have been so quick to condemn (and than have to back-down) Chick-fil-A. A little diplomacy would have worked a lot better than bully-politics. while I totally disagree with the way they have behaved in this matter, I do not plan to boycott their cities, nor will I encourage my friends too. I happen to like Chicago (Boston, not so much) and would visit regardless of who the mayor is.

In the after math of Dan Cathy's remarks, the company issued the following statement:

"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender," the statement read. "We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent owner/operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena."

This was probably a good call in these days when you are no longer allowed to hold or express an opinion—if for no other reason than to make this go away so they can get back to doing what they do best — serve great chicken!

Of course, if you disagree and are offended because Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathy happens to support a definition of marriage that dates back several thousand years, then you are welcome to eat wherever you want—that's just more chicken for me.

Irony—As is typically true when any group tries to force their values on others, the others typically win. In this case, 9 out 10 people I've spoken to on this topic had never heard of Chick-fil-A prior to this making headlines.... Now they can't wait for one to come to their town! To paraphrase PT Barnum - It doesn't matter what people say - as long as they say!

Related: YELP: Here's what the people of Chicago really think about Chick-fil-A -