Posts filed under 'Management'
March 16th, 2010
Source: Manufacturing.Net - March 15, 2010
addthis_pub =MILAN (AP) — Fiat and Chrysler, which joined in an alliance last year, have taken another step toward tighter integration.
Fiat Group Automobiles SpA said Monday that it will handle the sales and servicing of Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge brand vehicles in several European countries beginning in April. Fiat will also gradually replace Daimler in performing support services.
Fiat said that the Chrysler sales employees in Europe will be transferred to Fiat Group Auto’s sales companies.
FGA Capital has already taken over financing services for Chrysler’s activities in Europe.
Fiat took a controlling 20-percent stake in Chrysler Group LLC last June, as the U.S. automaker emerged from bankruptcy, in exchange for small car technology and management leadership. Fiat’s engine technology and new Compact auto platform are bound for Chrysler under the deal, and Fiat is set to launch its iconic 500 city car in the United States by the end of the year, followed by the Alfa Romeo brand with a yet-to-be-announced model.
While Chrysler’s Grand Voyager minivan has been popular in Europe, the U.S. automaker sold just 54,300 cars in Europe last year, down 42 percent from 2008 when it sold 93,000.
March 12th, 2010
In an earlier post here PressRelease the Press Release said this bill was introduced in the House and Congressman Manzullo was a co-sponsor. Here is the actual bill… HouseMfgBill
Now of course, it’s time for action by the President. Here is his version of a Manufacturing Strategy.. ObamaPlan
March 12th, 2010
CAT is considering building a new factory in the U.S to produce hydraulic excavators, a common piece of construction equipment. NewCAT
March 11th, 2010
Congressman Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) introduced the bipartisan National Manufacturing Strategy Act, H.R. 4692, to help American manufacturing rebound from recent job losses and to ensure it is equipped to thrive in the 21st Century. The bill will result in a long-term plan for bolstering domestic manufacturing that reflects the input of a diverse array of industry leaders and stakeholders and that consists of non-binding goals and recommendations with broad private-sector support.
“As the source of millions of good-paying jobs, a critical component of our national security, and a major contributor to technological innovation, manufacturing remains one of the pillars of the American economy and the middle class,” Congressman Lipinski said. “But the industry has lost 2.1 million jobs since the start of the recession, and faces tougher competition from abroad than ever before. We’ve got to act now to prevent more jobs from migrating overseas and to provide the right environment for our manufacturers to prosper. This is especially true in a world where other nations are doing everything they can to give their manufacturers an edge, or even an unfair advantage. This bill takes an approach to bolstering manufacturing that has a broad, bipartisan appeal. It aims to help businesses of all sizes in every sector of the industry.”
“Manufacturing is the lifeblood of the American economy and its success is key to putting Americans back to work,” said Congressman Don Manzullo (R-Ill.), co-Chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus. “For too long, manufacturing has faced second-class treatment from our government as American industries have withered under intense global competition and jobs have gone overseas. It’s time the Administration gets serious and implements an agenda to strengthen American manufacturing and restore American jobs, and that’s exactly what this legislation will require.”
Although there are numerous federal programs to support American manufacturing, overall our manufacturing policy is disjointed, ad hoc, and reactive. Meanwhile, manufacturers in other countries benefit from more focused policymaking. Under the National Manufacturing Strategy Act, the Administration in consultation with a newly established Manufacturing Strategy Board would conduct an in-depth analysis of the nation’s manufacturing sector and develop a comprehensive strategy for enhancing its competitiveness and promoting its success in the global economy. The Manufacturing Strategy Board would consist of 21 industry leaders and stakeholders from across the country, representing businesses both large and small.
The aim of the strategy, to be issued every four years, is to harmonize manufacturing policy across the government and ensure that it is unified, coherent, forward-looking, and results-oriented. It would yield specific goals and recommendations for all levels of government and the private sector. The Government Accountability Office would be tasked with reviewing the strategy development process and analyzing the implementation of recommendations. In addition, the National Academies of Science would be required to conduct periodic in-depth studies on manufacturing and related issues to aid policymakers in their quadrennial review.
In developing this legislation, Congressman Lipinski reached out to many experts and organizations involved in manufacturing, including national industry organizations, corporations, labor unions, academics, think tanks, federal agencies, and others. The final bill represents their feedback, comments, and suggestions.
“Congressman Lipinski’s bill reflects his clear understanding that in order to revitalize American manufacturing, we need our own national pro-manufacturing strategy to advance policies that will enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness,” American Iron and Steel Institute President and CEO Thomas J. Gibson said. “It is time for the United States to develop its own manufacturing strategy to help our industry compete in the global economy. This is an important first step in restoring our manufacturing competitiveness.”
“Instead of handwringing, we need action that produces results,” Congressman Lipinski said. “America’s manufacturers are among the most innovative and productive in the world. But the fact is they aren’t getting the support they need. By developing a long-term plan with input from a wide range of stakeholders and experts, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act will ensure we are doing all we can to help this vital industry succeed.”
Cosponsors of the National Manufacturing Strategy Act include: Representatives Bruce Braley (Chair, Populist Caucus), Aaron Schock, Vern Ehlers, Tim Johnson, Tim Ryan (Co-Chair, Manufacturing Caucus), Don Manzullo (Co-Chair, Manufacturing Caucus), Betty Sutton, Phil Hare, John Dingell, Mike Michaud (Chair, House Trade Working Group), Marcy Kaptur (Co-Chair, Jobs NOW! Caucus), Pete Visclosky (Co-Chair, House Steel Caucus), Charlie Wilson, Linda Sanchez (Co-Chair, Labor & Working Families Caucus), Steve Kagen, Bart Stupak, Stephen Lynch (Co-Chair, Labor & Working Families Caucus), Dave Loebsack, Kathy Dahlkemper, Keith Ellison, Brad Ellsworth, Tom Perriello, Dale Kildee, Gary Peters, Carol Shea-Porter, Gene Taylor, and John Sarbanes.
March 8th, 2010
Last week, I presented the President Obama’s “Revitalizing American Manufacturing” Plan and comments from Congressman Manzullo’s office…here.. Plan
So what happens next? (according to the Congressman’s office)
The next steps are really up to the President and the Democrat Congressional leaders. The President could do a number of things through the different federal agencies. And Congress could do some things through the legislative process, either through a comprehensive package or through individual bills (probably more likely).
March 8th, 2010
Maybe a longer time coming than we think…Hybrid
March 5th, 2010
In an earlier blog… here.. ObamaPlan I said I would have Congressman Manzullo take a look and comment on the plan. Here’s what his office said…
“There are many good policy recommendations in this Framework for Revitalizing American Manufacturing, many of which Rep. Manzullo has worked on over the years. Of most importance, we need to acknowledge and praise the Obama Administration for recognizing the critical role manufacturing plays in our economy. But as with all reports from an Administration, there are areas of disagreement; thus the Framework represents a mix bag.
The Obama Administration lists seven broad issue areas that need improvement to help the manufacturing sector. All these areas are important; however, the devil is in the details. We need improved worker skills that can be accomplished through the right job training assistance programs and our nation’s community college network. We need to invest in new technologies and business practices that can be accomplished through making the Research and Development (R&D) tax credit permanent; improve intellectual property protection; and, of personal interest to Rep. Manzullo, better coordination of manufacturing programs already available through the federal government. We need to improve our nation’s transportation network and infrastructure, particularly through the encouragement of “innovation clusters” such as what exists at the EIGERLab in Rockford. We need to support fair trade through vigorous enforcement of existing agreements and expand user-fee based export finance programs at the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) with the goal of cutting our trade deficit.
However, there are policy recommendations in this Framework that would work towards the detriment of our nation’s manufacturers. The Framework discusses promoting “regulatory certainty” in environmental regulations which implies support for the many efforts the Obama Administration has made over the past year to overturn Bush-era regulations that helped the manufacturing sector and cap and trade. The Framework endorses the creation of a new Office of Production & Entrepreneurship at the Department of Commerce, which may duplicate much of the work already being done by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The Framework supports creating a “financial system” that works, which is code for endorsing the enactment of their comprehensive financial regulatory reform proposal that will cost jobs and could hurt availability of capital for manufacturers. The Framework supports health care reform that cuts down costs. Yet, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that the only health care reform plan that would actually cut costs is the Republican alternative. The Framework supports eliminating “tax breaks for overseas investments.” Unfortunately, this would result in companies with international operations paying double taxation, thus providing a perverse incentive to totally close all operations in the United States and relocate to a low-tax country. One private sector study estimates that this proposal would negatively impact as many as 2.2 million jobs. Finally, the Framework endorses a comprehensive energy and climate bill, which is code for cap-and-trade, which will cost 2.5 million jobs and hurt the manufacturing sector in particular.
Finally, the Framework makes no real mention of the pending Free Trade Agreements (other than saying it will “address outstanding concerns with the agreements”) or what a successful conclusion of the Doha Round at the World Trade Organization (WTO) would mean for manufacturers. One outstanding goal of the U.S. manufacturing sector is to have zero tariffs on all manufactured products at the Doha Round; yet that receives no mention in this Framework. The Framework just mentions the benefits of the yet-to-be negotiated Trans Pacific partnership. There is also no mention at all of what unfair currency manipulation or misalignment by foreign governments means to manufacturers. For China alone, this represents a 25 percent price advantage.
Thus, while there are many positive policy recommendations in the Framework, there are also some negative recommendations and some omissions. Thus, it represents a mixed bag”.
March 5th, 2010
If manufacturers priced their products this way, we’d be out of business quick!
The following are remarks made by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, about the cost of the House and Senate health-care bills at President Obama’s Blair House summit on health care, Feb. 25:
Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.
Mr. President, you said health-care reform is budget reform. You’re right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. That’s $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents’ generation, our generation, our kids’ generation. Medicaid’s growing at 21 percent each year. It’s suffocating states’ budgets. It’s adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for . . .
Now, you’re right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation. And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the House, you basically said—and I totally agree with this—I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.
Since the Congressional Budget Office can’t score your bill, because it doesn’t have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.
And if you take a look at the CBO analysis—analysis from your chief actuary—I think it’s very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health-care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.
Now let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10 years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day—very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors.
Now, what do I mean when I say that? Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.
Now, what’s the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That’s $2.3 trillion.
[The Senate bill] does [a] couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that’s really reserved for Social Security. So either we’re double-counting them or we don’t intend on paying those Social Security benefits.
It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That’s the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.
The Senate Budget Committee chairman [Kent Conrad] said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.
Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does [is treat] Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.
. . . [A]ccording to the chief actuary of Medicare . . . as much as 20 percent of Medicare’s providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors . . . who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.
You can’t say that you’re using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That’s double counting.
And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full 10-year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.
. . . [P]robably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. We don’t think we should cut doctors [annual federal reimbursements] 21 percent next year. We’ve stopped those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years.
We all call this, here in Washington, the doc fix. Well, the doc fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in the first iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big price tag and it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit . . . that provision was taken out, and it’s been going on in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn’t add up.
. . . I’ll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up?
Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we’re bending it up. He’s claiming that we’re going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.
And so, when you take a look at this, it’s really deeper than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. There really is a difference between us.
. . . [W]e’ve been talking about how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us. And it’s basically this. We don’t think the government should be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the big difference.
Now, we’ve offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year. Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It’s got to get fixed.
It’s bankrupting families. It’s bankrupting our government. It’s hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this.
But we don’t think that this is the . . . the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point.
Now, I’ll just simply say this. . . . [W]e are all representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I’ve got to tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you’re not listening to them.
So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean-sheeted paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring down health-care costs and not raise them. And that’s basically the point.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A19
March 4th, 2010
“While the Chrysler story is clear “the level of interface between Chrysler and Fiat is not clear … It’s not clear from the Fiat side. We need to be able to provide the linkage to close the loop.” Looks like April 21st is time to reveal his plan… FIAT
Previous Posts
