Bob Lutz opted for pen over political aspirations
06-26-2011, 03:31 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Roseville, MI, USA
Posts: 1,496
Bob Lutz opted for pen over political aspirations
Gov. Bob Lutz?
The consummate Detroit car guy looked into the possibility, but was turned off by the hard-core realities of running for public office.
It was three years ago when Lutz, now 79, was preparing to leave a career in high-profile jobs at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler and contemplating his next move.
Term-limited Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm was due to leave office at the end of 2010 and the state's decade-long economic freefall teed it up for the right Republican, Lutz told me.
A card-carrying member of the Republican Party, Lutz thought voters might embrace a bold executive and began looking into the process.
The consummate Detroit car guy looked into the possibility, but was turned off by the hard-core realities of running for public office.
It was three years ago when Lutz, now 79, was preparing to leave a career in high-profile jobs at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler and contemplating his next move.
Term-limited Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm was due to leave office at the end of 2010 and the state's decade-long economic freefall teed it up for the right Republican, Lutz told me.
A card-carrying member of the Republican Party, Lutz thought voters might embrace a bold executive and began looking into the process.
I've had the chance to speak with Bob frequently throughout the years and politics has always crept into our conversations. I was one of the first to report on Bob being involved with a Michigan campaign last year as a "co-chairman" of a Republican here in the State. Bob always said he wouldn't run because of the cost involved.
He's also shared with me SEVERAL times his desire to NOT be a CEO of any company, even GM. So, for those who have always wondered why Bob was never give a "chance" or his name never came us as CEO option it's simple: Bob never wanted it.
07-02-2011, 01:05 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: Bob Lutz opted for pen over political aspirations
Just bought his book yesterday.
07-02-2011, 01:09 PM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Roseville, MI, USA
Posts: 1,496
07-02-2011, 06:56 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Re: Bob Lutz opted for pen over political aspirations
"I'm a free-market Republican, too. But you have to temper political philosophy to its illogical extreme. I have a long memory and won't forget," Lutz said of Romney.
"These people who were against the loans forget there was no money available for debtor-in-possession financing. The banks were out of money. The only entity with money was the U.S. government, which only printed it.
"Without the loans, GM and Chrysler would have closed. Then the suppliers, then Ford. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would have been unemployed and (that would've) been a catastrophe for this country."
"These people who were against the loans forget there was no money available for debtor-in-possession financing. The banks were out of money. The only entity with money was the U.S. government, which only printed it.
"Without the loans, GM and Chrysler would have closed. Then the suppliers, then Ford. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would have been unemployed and (that would've) been a catastrophe for this country."
I need to get this book as well.
07-03-2011, 12:05 AM
#5
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Roseville, MI, USA
Posts: 1,496
07-12-2011, 09:14 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
Re: Bob Lutz opted for pen over political aspirations
Many people here are going to heve their heads screwed up with this book on multiple fronts, many which I have been advocating for some time.
A conservative republican that strongly favors gas taxes?
A conservative republican that feels that the auto industry bailout was the right thing?
A conservative republican that thinks GM's (non government) management enviroment is what had a far greater hand in destroying GM than the UAW had by far?
I'm about halfway through so far and although (save for behind the scenes tidbits) it has no surprises as far as Bob Lutz's observations, I think many strict idealists and overly political types here will go into coronary arrest over some of the points he brings up and positions he takes.
There's no absolutes in real life.
On other subjects, turns out that good old Roger Smith is the guy to blame for locking GM into FWD vehicles almost across the board. Chrysler made manual truck engines for GM (after great difficulty on GM's end), Lutz wound up at GM after something he said stuck with (or stung) Rick Wagoner, and GM's fall can be traced back to the late 70s (and of course, the 1980s). He also gives a very clear story why CAFE contributed to US automaker problems in the 80s and why a gas tax is actually free market influence (and the fact that it's NEEDED).
Great book so far.
Best automotive book since "All Corvettes are Red"!!
Easy to read..Good information....Highly reccomended.
A conservative republican that strongly favors gas taxes?
A conservative republican that feels that the auto industry bailout was the right thing?
A conservative republican that thinks GM's (non government) management enviroment is what had a far greater hand in destroying GM than the UAW had by far?
I'm about halfway through so far and although (save for behind the scenes tidbits) it has no surprises as far as Bob Lutz's observations, I think many strict idealists and overly political types here will go into coronary arrest over some of the points he brings up and positions he takes.
There's no absolutes in real life.
On other subjects, turns out that good old Roger Smith is the guy to blame for locking GM into FWD vehicles almost across the board. Chrysler made manual truck engines for GM (after great difficulty on GM's end), Lutz wound up at GM after something he said stuck with (or stung) Rick Wagoner, and GM's fall can be traced back to the late 70s (and of course, the 1980s). He also gives a very clear story why CAFE contributed to US automaker problems in the 80s and why a gas tax is actually free market influence (and the fact that it's NEEDED).
Great book so far.
Best automotive book since "All Corvettes are Red"!!
Easy to read..Good information....Highly reccomended.
07-14-2011, 11:19 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3,698
Re: Bob Lutz opted for pen over political aspirations
The gas tax is a crap idea. It is a BS regressive tax that artifically shifts the onus from automakers to do what's right (which is continually improve their product and make cars that get decent gas milage) to consumers to either pay a big tax every time they fill up, or buy a new, over priced, high gas milage car.
The number one reason I am against this is because it is essentially a tax increase, and expanded form of revenue. Consumers do not need new taxes right now. Aside from maybe fines automakers pay the governement for not meeting CAFE, currently the government really makes no money off of how fuel efficiant a car is. Let them get some revenue coming in from an expanded gas tax, and it will quickly lose it's original purpose, and become a money grab. Once the government gets the income from the gas tax..they will allocate it to pay for something unrelated. Then when everyone buys fuel efficianct cars, they will have to keep raising the tax to cover the declining gas tax revenue.
Also..sure Lutz loves the gas tax. Why would an automaker not love a gas tax? It basically creates demand for new cars, and goads people into paying a premium for gas saving technology they otherwise would not be interested in. However the gas tax is not a good idea if you are a lower middle class citizen who drives 20 miles to work each day in a crappy used car and cannot afford a new one. All the gas tax does is take more money out your pocket so now you definatly cannot afford a new fuel efficiant car.
My thought is automakers should be increasing gas milage every year as a simple facet of being in the business of making stuff. Apple comes out with an upgraded iPhone every year because it needs to have something better for people too keep buying it's product. GM should have their cars get better gas milage because when gas hits $4 a gallon, consumers will demand better fuel efficiancy. Increasing fuel efficiancy should be a business decision that is governed by a.) what the customer demands, and b.) what the customer is willing to pay for it. Regulating and creating artificial demand for stuff never works in a capitalist environment.
If there is a tax, I would say they should expand the gas guzzler tax. Make it a surcharge on every vehicle that gets less than average gas milage that gets progressivly higher the worse the mileage the car gets. If a childless couple wants a $70K Suburban, let them pay an extra $5K guzzler tax. If someone wants a Camaro, and can spend $40K on one..they can spend a $3K guzzler tax. Then give part of that money back to consumers in the form of credits for buying the most fuel efficiant vehicles, and leave the rest as prizes, or grants to the automakers who have the highest fleet average, or improve the the gas milage of their products the most.
To me, that sounds like a better policy that taxing gas till it hurts people enough they buy something more efficiant/
The number one reason I am against this is because it is essentially a tax increase, and expanded form of revenue. Consumers do not need new taxes right now. Aside from maybe fines automakers pay the governement for not meeting CAFE, currently the government really makes no money off of how fuel efficiant a car is. Let them get some revenue coming in from an expanded gas tax, and it will quickly lose it's original purpose, and become a money grab. Once the government gets the income from the gas tax..they will allocate it to pay for something unrelated. Then when everyone buys fuel efficianct cars, they will have to keep raising the tax to cover the declining gas tax revenue.
Also..sure Lutz loves the gas tax. Why would an automaker not love a gas tax? It basically creates demand for new cars, and goads people into paying a premium for gas saving technology they otherwise would not be interested in. However the gas tax is not a good idea if you are a lower middle class citizen who drives 20 miles to work each day in a crappy used car and cannot afford a new one. All the gas tax does is take more money out your pocket so now you definatly cannot afford a new fuel efficiant car.
My thought is automakers should be increasing gas milage every year as a simple facet of being in the business of making stuff. Apple comes out with an upgraded iPhone every year because it needs to have something better for people too keep buying it's product. GM should have their cars get better gas milage because when gas hits $4 a gallon, consumers will demand better fuel efficiancy. Increasing fuel efficiancy should be a business decision that is governed by a.) what the customer demands, and b.) what the customer is willing to pay for it. Regulating and creating artificial demand for stuff never works in a capitalist environment.
If there is a tax, I would say they should expand the gas guzzler tax. Make it a surcharge on every vehicle that gets less than average gas milage that gets progressivly higher the worse the mileage the car gets. If a childless couple wants a $70K Suburban, let them pay an extra $5K guzzler tax. If someone wants a Camaro, and can spend $40K on one..they can spend a $3K guzzler tax. Then give part of that money back to consumers in the form of credits for buying the most fuel efficiant vehicles, and leave the rest as prizes, or grants to the automakers who have the highest fleet average, or improve the the gas milage of their products the most.
To me, that sounds like a better policy that taxing gas till it hurts people enough they buy something more efficiant/
07-15-2011, 08:02 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle of Kansas
Posts: 2,688
Re: Bob Lutz opted for pen over political aspirations
The gas tax is a crap idea. It is a BS regressive tax that artifically shifts the onus from automakers to do what's right (which is continually improve their product and make cars that get decent gas milage) to consumers to either pay a big tax every time they fill up, or buy a new, over priced, high gas milage car.
The number one reason I am against this is because it is essentially a tax increase, and expanded form of revenue. Consumers do not need new taxes right now. Aside from maybe fines automakers pay the governement for not meeting CAFE, currently the government really makes no money off of how fuel efficiant a car is. Let them get some revenue coming in from an expanded gas tax, and it will quickly lose it's original purpose, and become a money grab. Once the government gets the income from the gas tax..they will allocate it to pay for something unrelated. Then when everyone buys fuel efficianct cars, they will have to keep raising the tax to cover the declining gas tax revenue.
Also..sure Lutz loves the gas tax. Why would an automaker not love a gas tax? It basically creates demand for new cars, and goads people into paying a premium for gas saving technology they otherwise would not be interested in. However the gas tax is not a good idea if you are a lower middle class citizen who drives 20 miles to work each day in a crappy used car and cannot afford a new one. All the gas tax does is take more money out your pocket so now you definatly cannot afford a new fuel efficiant car.
My thought is automakers should be increasing gas milage every year as a simple facet of being in the business of making stuff. Apple comes out with an upgraded iPhone every year because it needs to have something better for people too keep buying it's product. GM should have their cars get better gas milage because when gas hits $4 a gallon, consumers will demand better fuel efficiancy. Increasing fuel efficiancy should be a business decision that is governed by a.) what the customer demands, and b.) what the customer is willing to pay for it. Regulating and creating artificial demand for stuff never works in a capitalist environment.
If there is a tax, I would say they should expand the gas guzzler tax. Make it a surcharge on every vehicle that gets less than average gas milage that gets progressivly higher the worse the mileage the car gets. If a childless couple wants a $70K Suburban, let them pay an extra $5K guzzler tax. If someone wants a Camaro, and can spend $40K on one..they can spend a $3K guzzler tax. Then give part of that money back to consumers in the form of credits for buying the most fuel efficiant vehicles, and leave the rest as prizes, or grants to the automakers who have the highest fleet average, or improve the the gas milage of their products the most.
To me, that sounds like a better policy that taxing gas till it hurts people enough they buy something more efficiant/
The number one reason I am against this is because it is essentially a tax increase, and expanded form of revenue. Consumers do not need new taxes right now. Aside from maybe fines automakers pay the governement for not meeting CAFE, currently the government really makes no money off of how fuel efficiant a car is. Let them get some revenue coming in from an expanded gas tax, and it will quickly lose it's original purpose, and become a money grab. Once the government gets the income from the gas tax..they will allocate it to pay for something unrelated. Then when everyone buys fuel efficianct cars, they will have to keep raising the tax to cover the declining gas tax revenue.
Also..sure Lutz loves the gas tax. Why would an automaker not love a gas tax? It basically creates demand for new cars, and goads people into paying a premium for gas saving technology they otherwise would not be interested in. However the gas tax is not a good idea if you are a lower middle class citizen who drives 20 miles to work each day in a crappy used car and cannot afford a new one. All the gas tax does is take more money out your pocket so now you definatly cannot afford a new fuel efficiant car.
My thought is automakers should be increasing gas milage every year as a simple facet of being in the business of making stuff. Apple comes out with an upgraded iPhone every year because it needs to have something better for people too keep buying it's product. GM should have their cars get better gas milage because when gas hits $4 a gallon, consumers will demand better fuel efficiancy. Increasing fuel efficiancy should be a business decision that is governed by a.) what the customer demands, and b.) what the customer is willing to pay for it. Regulating and creating artificial demand for stuff never works in a capitalist environment.
If there is a tax, I would say they should expand the gas guzzler tax. Make it a surcharge on every vehicle that gets less than average gas milage that gets progressivly higher the worse the mileage the car gets. If a childless couple wants a $70K Suburban, let them pay an extra $5K guzzler tax. If someone wants a Camaro, and can spend $40K on one..they can spend a $3K guzzler tax. Then give part of that money back to consumers in the form of credits for buying the most fuel efficiant vehicles, and leave the rest as prizes, or grants to the automakers who have the highest fleet average, or improve the the gas milage of their products the most.
To me, that sounds like a better policy that taxing gas till it hurts people enough they buy something more efficiant/
08-01-2011, 02:33 AM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Annapolis MD
Posts: 2,802
Re: Bob Lutz opted for pen over political aspirations
Many people here are going to heve their heads screwed up with this book on multiple fronts, many which I have been advocating for some time.
A conservative republican that strongly favors gas taxes?
A conservative republican that feels that the auto industry bailout was the right thing?
A conservative republican that thinks GM's (non government) management enviroment is what had a far greater hand in destroying GM than the UAW had by far?
A conservative republican that strongly favors gas taxes?
A conservative republican that feels that the auto industry bailout was the right thing?
A conservative republican that thinks GM's (non government) management enviroment is what had a far greater hand in destroying GM than the UAW had by far?
Yes you do campaign (advocate) your ideology as reality quite often on here... Just because you are unable to separate the meaning of conservative from the meaning of republican party for whatever reason does not mean everyone else has that problem.
Your conservative assumption above is entirely inaccurate. Your Republican statement is not. No one's head is going to get "screwed up" because you cant tell the difference...
Last edited by 5thgen69camaro; 08-01-2011 at 03:15 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post