Confusing reporting or backtracking on outsourcing Jeeps?

Fiat, the majority owner of bailed-out Chrysler, told Bloomberg that they were going to re-start production of Jeeps in China and perhaps move all Jeep production to that nation.

Here is the actual quote from Mike Manley, chief operating officer of Fiat and Chrysler in Asia (emphasis added):

“The volume opportunity for us is very significant,” Manley, who is also president of the Jeep brand, said in an interview at Chrysler’s Auburn Hills, Michigan, headquarters. “We’re reviewing the opportunities within existing capacity” as well as “should we be localizing the entire Jeep portfolio or some of the Jeep portfolio.”

I read the Bloomberg article and thought they were saying they were considering moving "the entire Jeep portfolio" to China, and reported that here on this blog.

To be clear, I didn't think that meant they would idle all the assembly lines and the U.S. work force; my point wasn't about the loss of jobs, but the loss of the Jeep brand being 'made in America' and the campaign implications if the iconic Jeep was outsourced to China.

Apparently, that's not at all what they intended and they're now 'clarifying' after Mitt Romney mentioned the article in a speech in Defiance last night. The Detroit News reports:

The Bloomberg story, though accurate, "has given birth to a number of stories making readers believe that Chrysler plans to shift all Jeep production to China from North America, and therefore idle assembly lines and U.S. work force. It is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats," Chrysler spokesman Gualberto Ranieri said.

"Let's set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It's simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world's largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation."

The Bloomberg story, however, sparked the confusion in the first paragraph of the story, saying Chrysler planned to return Jeep output to China "and may eventually make all of its models in that country."

This may be a simple case of confusing reporting, but my distrust in this administration is so great that I couldn't help but wonder if someone didn't make a phone call to Chrysler to say 'hey - that's gonna hurt; make it go away.'

Quote of the Day - auto bailout and drunk drivers

The bolded sections are my own emphasis:

‎Calling the bailouts “successful” is to whitewash the diversion of funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program by two administrations for purposes unauthorized by Congress; the looting and redistribution of claims against GM’s and Chrysler’s assets from shareholders and debt-holders to pensioners; the use of questionable tactics to bully stakeholders into accepting terms to facilitate politically desirable outcomes; the unprecedented encroachment by the executive branch into the finest details of the bankruptcy process to orchestrate what bankruptcy law experts describe as “Sham” sales of Old Chrysler to New Chrysler and Old GM to New GM; the costs of denying Ford and the other more deserving automakers the spoils of competition; the costs of insulating irresponsible actors, such as the United Autoworkers, from the outcomes of an apolitical bankruptcy proceeding; the diminution of U.S. moral authority to counsel foreign governments against similar market interventions; and the lingering uncertainty about the direction of policy under the current administration that pervades the business environment to this very day.

In addition to the above, there is the fact that taxpayers are still short tens of billions of dollars on account of the GM bailout without serious prospects for ever being made whole. Thus, acceptance of the administration’s pronouncement of auto bailout success demands profound gullibility or willful ignorance. Sure, GM has experienced recent profits and Chrysler has repaid much of its debt to the Treasury. But if proper judgment is to be passed, then all of the bailout’s costs and benefits must be considered. Otherwise, calling the bailout a success is like applauding the recovery of a drunken driver after an accident, while ignoring the condition of the family he severely maimed.' ~ Dan Ikenson's testimony to Congress

Sunday morning - catching up on my reading

* I'm so glad that Indiana pension funds have challenged the bailout/bankruptcy of Chrysler in the U.S. Supreme Court.

For weeks people have been questioning under what authority the federal government is acting when it comes to the automobile companies. While the administration says their authority derives from the TARP funds, Congress only authorized that funding for financial institutions - not auto makers. Complicating matters is Congress's rejection of an auto bailout plan after the approved TARP. If TARP allowed the administration to address the car companies, then why was separate legislation even introduced, much less defeated?

I was opposed to the bailouts in the first place and hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Indiana pension funds.

* The stimulus isn't working and April figures prove it. At least, that's what Dick Morris and Eileen McGann say in their latest column:

1. Household personal income (inflation adjusted) rose, but every penny -- and then some -- went into savings or paying down debts. Consumer spending, on which Barack Obama is betting to stimulate the economy, actually fell. None of the stimulus money was sent. None.

2. Meanwhile, to pay for this stimulus spending that didn't stimulate, Obama had to borrow so much money that long-term interest rates have almost doubled since he took office, forcing postponement or abandonment of business expansion and hiring across the board.
...
The stimulus package was a total and complete failure. As predicted, as happened with Bush's 2008 tax cut, as happened with the Japanese stimulus packages of the '90s, fearful consumers sat on their money and wouldn't spend it. Keynesian economics didn't work. Again.
...
Consumers are not idiots. They know that when their paycheck is fatter -- either because of tax cuts or government spending -- that it is not the beginning of Nirvana, but just a short-term, one-shot respite from hard times. They know the difference between standing in front of an electric fan and a windy day.

Barack Obama has fatally undermined our currency, our solvency, our financial stability and -- ultimately -- our economy, all to spend money that has had no economic effect!

* According to Rich Tucker, 75% of Americans live in suburbs, but the government thinks that's a bad thing. And if government thinks you're doing something you shouldn't they'll create rules and laws to make sure you do what government wants.

We’d all like to think Washington has bigger problems to worry about than whether we make one trip or two to pick up, say, groceries and prescription medicine.

But, just for the sake of argument, consider the fact that it’s much easier to “combine errands” in suburbia than it is in Manhattan. With one trip to the Super Target, one can pick up everything from food to clothing to entertainment. That would require at least three separate stops in a city, imposing a much higher cost in both time and money.

Still, if Washington gets its way, we’ll have more people packed into smaller spaces.

Tucker also details how the Energy Department’s 2008 Buildings Energy Data Book, which purports to show how apartment living is better than owning a home, failed to take into account the energy costs of common areas including lobbies and parking lots. When those shared areas are included, apartment living is far less efficient than the report claims.

* George Will has a great column on the contradiction between the words and the actions when it comes to President Barack Obama's statements regarding General Motors. Despite saying he doesn't want to run the car company, that's exactly what he's doing.

And Congress will be sure to be part of the act, as well, as they insist upon adding their own dictates under the guise of a 'responsibility' to oversee how public dollars are spent. After all, this approach has been sooooo successful with Amtrak - right?

* If Chrysler gets bought out by Fiat, is it still an American company? Honda builds cars in Marysville, OH, and local UAW members will tell you the cars built there are 'not really' American cars since they're owned by a foreign company. Will that claim still be true when Fiat buys Chrysler? Or will they conveniently change their definition of 'American company'?