Government Motors Volt Costs Taxpayers $250,000 per Vehicle

A study conducted by a Michigan "think tank" has added up the costs of the subsidies, tax credits, rebates and "incentives" for production of the GM Volt reveals that the 6,000 vehicles sold thus far have been produced at a taxpayer cost of $250,000 EACH!
Analyst: 'This might be the most government-supported car since the Trabant'

James Hohman, of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has analyzed the amounts of state and federal assistance for the assembly plants, the battery makers, the dealers and the buyers.

His analysis included 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits. The amount of government assistance does not include the fact that General Motors is currently 26 percent owned by the federal government.

The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle. For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits (combination tax breaks and cash subsidies). These are among many of the subsidies and tax credits for the vehicle.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy is a privately supported research institute "dedicated to improving the quality of life for all Michigan residents by promoting sound solutions to state and local policy questions."
Mackinac Center

This has not gone unnoticed by government officials who do not quite agree with unlimited government support of certain industries and products.

“It just goes to show there are certain folks that will spend anything to get their vision of what people should do,” said State Representative Tom McMillin, R-Rochester Hills. “It’s a glaring example of the failure of central planning trying to force citizens to purchase something they may not want. … They should let the free market make those decisions.”

GM spokesman Greg Martin did not dispute the validity of the analysis, but tried to justify the "investments" by the Obama DOE and other agencies:

The investments provide [sic] by several different Administrations and Congresses to jump-start the country's fledgling battery technology and domestic electric vehicle industries (not just specifically for the Volt as Ford's offering will also use LG Chem batteries and Fisker will use the A123 system for example) matches the same foresight and innovation [sic] leadership that other countries are exhibiting and which America has historically taken pride in."

According to GM CEO Dan Akerson, the average Volt owner makes $170,000 per year.

Hohman, noting that he did not take into account other subsidies and incentives in his analysis, nonetheless offered the company an opportunity to challenge his analysis:

"This is a matter of simple math," said Hohman. "I added the known state and federal incentives that have been offered and divided by the number of Volts sold. If GM has additional information to add to the public data on the use of taxpayer money, I look forward to seeing it."

(Oh, lest we forget, we still own 26% of GM, and at today's stock price taxpayers are at least $16,500,000,000 in the hole!)

jw

Interesting, does it say how much they are selling for?

reply to post by filosophia


After the $7,000 government "credit" you pay about $40,000.
Some Obama cronies like Jeff Immelt's GE are buying them at full retail.
The feds themselves are ordering them to repace parts of certain fleets.

reply to post by jdub297


A government sponsored car.... no wonder why the Volt blows. Of all the Hybrid and plug-ins the Volt is the worse for gas mileage and quality.. go figure! The Volt gets roughly the same MPG as my little Scion (35) the volt (37) The difference in cost: about $24,000 (Chevy Volt roughly $40,000)

Hell you can buy a Chevy Sonic for $15,000 and get 35mpg!
Or a Prius with 51 mpg for $23,000
Or a Civic Hybrid 44 mpg for $24,000
Or if you got the money, $600/m for a Honda FCX Clarity which is 100% electric.
Or even better, buy a freaking Nissan Leaf 100% electric for $35,000 and the exact same tax rebates as the Volt.

People who bought the Volt should be kicked in the face for blatant stupidity.

reply to post by Rockpuck


I never really had a favorite automaker, but after the Obama takeover, I'll NEVER buy another GM vehicle.

Ever.

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

I never really had a favorite automaker, but after the Obama takeover, I'll NEVER buy another GM vehicle.

Ever.

jw

The bailout started with Bush......

mediamatters

On June 1, the Obama administration announced a plan that will "provide approximately $30.1 billion of financing to support GM through an expedited chapter 11 proceeding." Bloomberg News reported on June 1 that "efore declaring bankruptcy, GM received $20.57 billion in U.S. Treasury loans, according to the court filing today. Administration officials said yesterday the government would advance $30 billion more, with another $9.5 billion from the Canadian government." Among the $20 billion of existing loans are funds that were authorized by the Bush administration, a fact ignored by Politico. On December 19, 2008, Bush announced that GM would receive $13.4 billion in loans from the Troubled Asset Relief Program fund and gave GM and Chrysler until March 31 to demonstrate viability or repay the loans. The Wall Street Journal reported on December 20, 2008:

If your gonna hate, have all the facts and make sure to hate evenly.

That analysis is misleading.

Almost everything on the list pertain to multiple GM vehicles, not just the Volt.

Ie: The plant that makes the batteries...the same batteries that are used in every GM (and GM family) hybrid.

Whoops.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Totally. The Volt is laughable when you look across the board at the other automobiles numbers. Both in mileage and length of charge etc......

Originally posted by Connector
The bailout started with Bush......
mediamatters

On June 1, the Obama administration announced a plan that will "provide approximately $30.1 billion of financing to support GM through an expedited chapter 11 proceeding." Bloomberg News reported on June 1 that "efore declaring bankruptcy, GM received $20.57 billion in U.S. Treasury loans, according to the court filing today. Administration officials said yesterday the government would advance $30 billion more, with another $9.5 billion from the Canadian government." Among the $20 billion of existing loans are funds that were authorized by the Bush administration, a fact ignored by Politico. On December 19, 2008, Bush announced that GM would receive $13.4 billion in loans from the Troubled Asset Relief Program fund and gave GM and Chrysler until March 31 to demonstrate viability or repay the loans. The Wall Street Journal reported on December 20, 2008:

Do you know the difference between a loan and a bailout?

Obama took advantage of the financial weakness of some of our largest industries, and as a result we OWN 26% of GM, he gave the rest to the UAW, robbing preferred creditors (retirement funds) of their Constitutionally guaranteed preference. We own AIG, CITI and BofA.

If you're gonna post, know what you are posting about.

Originally posted by Rockpuck>snip<
The Volt gets roughly the same MPG as my little Scion (35) the volt (37) The difference in cost: about $24,000 (Chevy Volt roughly $40,000)
>snip<

In the late 80's, my '78 VW Scirocco repeatedly attained over 40 mpg over several trips from Riverside, California to Parker, Arizona and was typically around 28-35 around town.

Originally posted by peck420
That analysis is misleading.

Almost everything on the list pertain to multiple GM vehicles, not just the Volt.

Ie: The plant that makes the batteries...the same batteries that are used in every GM (and GM family) hybrid.
Whoops.

Not necessarily.

The packs in the Volt are being manufactured at the Brownstown Battery Pack Assembly Plant in Brownstown Township outside Detroit. General Motors spent $43 million and five months retooling the plant. It sits on a 375-acre site in an industrial park near two airports, where the lithium-ion cells would arrive from Korea. The cells will be assembled into the 400-pound T-shaped pack that will power the Volt, then sent up Interstate 75 to the Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly Plant where the range-extended electric car will be built.

The first packs are being built to make sure the manufacturing equipment is set up correctly. Once finished, they’ll be used for testing. Production of packs for cars we’ll see in showrooms will begin this spring.

General Motors is investing $700 million in eight factories throughout Michigan that will contribute components to the Volt and assemble the car. . Chu, who attended the opening at Brownstown, said 99 percent of batteries currently used in hybrids are manufactured in Japan.

www.wired.com...

The GM hybrid's battery pack sits under a seat. These don't.

Originally posted by jdub297...
The GM hybrid's battery pack sits under a seat. These don't.

Keep in mind a "battery" is not the same as a "battery pack".

I work on cellular phone sites and we often install the same "battery" as the next site, but the configuration is often different than the previous site. Long story short is the "battery" arrives as three 2 volt cells in a shelf and we stack the shelves as necessary and jumper between cells to create the voltage and amperage the design calls for. Sometimes the terminals exit left, others exit right. Sometimes the positive terminal is near the floor, others are far from the floor. Sometimes we wire for 24 volts and others wire for 48 volts. These variations are all accomplished with the same product; it's how we arrange and wire them that creates the difference.

Originally posted by jdub297

Originally posted by Connector
The bailout started with Bush......
mediamatters

On June 1, the Obama administration announced a plan that will "provide approximately $30.1 billion of financing to support GM through an expedited chapter 11 proceeding." Bloomberg News reported on June 1 that "efore declaring bankruptcy, GM received $20.57 billion in U.S. Treasury loans, according to the court filing today. Administration officials said yesterday the government would advance $30 billion more, with another $9.5 billion from the Canadian government." Among the $20 billion of existing loans are funds that were authorized by the Bush administration, a fact ignored by Politico. On December 19, 2008, Bush announced that GM would receive $13.4 billion in loans from the Troubled Asset Relief Program fund and gave GM and Chrysler until March 31 to demonstrate viability or repay the loans. The Wall Street Journal reported on December 20, 2008:

Do you know the difference between a loan and a bailout?

Obama took advantage of the financial weakness of some of our largest industries, and as a result we OWN 26% of GM, he gave the rest to the UAW, robbing preferred creditors (retirement funds) of their Constitutionally guaranteed preference. We own AIG, CITI and BofA.

If you're gonna post, know what you are posting about.

edit on 21-12-2011 by jdub297 because: quote

You don't get it do you? Bush's "loans" became part of the bail out. He kicked the can down the road. But you won't see this because your a left/right type of guy, hence the "if your gonna hate" comment. No where did I defend Obama in my post, I simply added more info to include the full story. Enjoy!

reply to post by Connector

Bush did not arrange the take-over of these various companies to benefit his cronies.

A loan is not the same as a bailout. We still own chunks of these guys because Obama altered the TARP to allow greater benefits to the insiders and supporters.

You do recall that it was he and Chris Dodd who re-wrote the TARP program and "slipped in" the language granting bonuses so that his buddies could bet huge bonuses, don't you? You do know that GM, AIG, B of A and CITI were all bailed out by taking ownership, not extending a loan?

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Connector

 

Bush did not arrange the take-over of these various companies to benefit his cronies.

A loan is not the same as a bailout. We still own chunks of these guys because Obama altered the TARP to allow greater benefits to the insiders and supporters.

You do recall that it was he and Chris Dodd who re-wrote the TARP program and "slipped in" the language granting bonuses so that his buddies could bet huge bonuses, don't you? You do know that GM, AIG, B of A and CITI were all bailed out by taking ownership, not extending a loan?

Stop letting your hate cloud your judgement. There is no left/right. Bush's original loans came from TARP and included the US gov taking non-voting stock in exchange(bail-out) and Bush's cronies also had their fingers in the cookies jar.

GM-Volt website

Government would take non-voting stock in the companies, and there would be limits to executive compensation. The Treasury would oversee the restructuring.

So what do you think would have happened if March31 came and GM went bankrupt? The US gov would have lost all it's investment(stock)....

BTW here's the definition of "bailout"

Bailout

In economics, a bailout is an act of loaning or giving capital to an entity (a company, a country, or an individual) that is in danger of failing, in an attempt to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin; or to allow a failing entity to fail gracefully without spreading contagion.[1]

The rest of your post is ad-hominem political hyperbole that has nothing to do with your thread. Have a good night.

reply to post by Connector

You insist on characterizing this as a "left/right" issue when it is not. It is about right/wrong.

Bush's TARP program had limits and conditions, with the companies responsible to their shareholders and for their own success or failure. It was temporary.

Obama's is not, it is about government control and expansion of influence. We still own those cos. 3 years down the line and with no end in sight or even contemplated.

How about getting on topic: Obama has forced the American public to foot the bill for his state planning of industry, and the Volt sucks as much as Chrysler, Solyndra, B of A, CITI and AIG. Might as well throw Immelt and GE into the mix; you know we took his high-risk finance branch, GE Capital, off his hands for him.

Originally posted by spinalremain
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

Totally. The Volt is laughable when you look across the board at the other automobiles numbers. Both in mileage and length of charge etc......

It is now being reported that not only are taxpayers funding these pieces of crap, but now the government is buying them up with taxpayers' dollars.

December 19, 2011- Mark Modica, an Associate Fellow of the National Legal and Policy Center, discusses GM's apparent goosing of Chevy Volt sales figures. Mark is interviewed by Neil Cavuto on the Fox News Channel.

GM Inflates Chevy Volt Stats With Fleet Sales

[

From my post on Facebook :

GM has since paid back 90% of what it owes to the Federal Govt and were told to invest the balance into advancing electric vehicle tech to get us off of oil. The problem with the housefire that gutted a house in CT over the summer was over miswiring as the way you are supposed to route it is charging box to it's own independent circuit breaker that it alone is alone and run that to the pole from the outside. The idiots in CT ran the box to the house breaker box and that caused the fire!

Correct wiring diagram is charging box to it's own independent circuit breaker box to the outside power line. Do not and I repeat DO NOT run the charging box to the circuit breaker box that everything your house is ran on or else it WILL cause a fire

GM's first true followup to the 1997 GM EV1 launches 2012 and that is the 2013 Chevrolet Spark!

With expansion of the solar power grid will reduce and eliminate our dependance on coal, petrolchems for power with the rise of electrics will serve as a 2 fold coordinated strike against petrol, coal and natural gas.

Try again!

reply to post by jdub297


So more wars is the alternative and the end all, be all answer for everything? Not a flipping chance!

It is an issue of "The People-v-The SCUM" and by continually slamming every single chance or opportunity this nation has for getting off of oil without offering one solution means you are playing right into the con known as the "Left-v-Right" paradigm and are failing to see the error of your ways. So in your ingenious idea was not have The USA get in front of this movement instead of being left behind? The US will be the leader and innovator in this new movement and cares not what anyone thinks or says as the fact remains last decade the nation got sank into bottomless pits like perpetual never ending war that serves as nothing more to keep on enriching the Military Industrial Complex that keeps us in a never ending cycle of debt is the answer?

So the following cars suck arse too :
Mitsubishi i/iMIEV, Tesla Roadster and Model S, Audi A2 ETron, Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus Electric, Nice MYCAR, smart fortwo ev, Chevrolet Spark, BMW i3, BMW i8?

Full electrics and hybrids are due by the end of the decade by the following :
Porsche, Volkswagen, Lamborghini, Fiat, Ferrari, Honda, Toyota, Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, Ram, Cadillac, GMC, Buick, Renault, Citroen, Daihatsu, Lotus, Maserati, Mini, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, Land Rover/Range Rover, Peugeot, Tata, Lexus, Infiniti, Morgan.

Does the following not matter? :
www.usdebtclock.org...
Year - Operating and overall debts (in trillions)
2000 - $5.67 - $27.09
2004 - $7.58 - $37.73
2008 - $10.66 - $50.87
2011 - $15.14 - $56.39

No more will we be held hostage by $6 a gallon, no more wars over energy, no more destroying the environment.

This is why we are doing it and by 2030 expect there to be no more petrol powered transportation produced new.

Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston-Martin, Saleen, Shelby, Bentley, Morgan, SCC, Koenisegg, McLaren, Bugatti, Pagani, Maserati, GMC, Ram, Jeep, Buick, Lincoln, Jaguar, Land Rover/Range Rover for cars -
Western Star, International/Osh Kosh, Peterbilt, Kenworth, DAF, Frieghtliner, Mack, Colet, JCB, Catepillar for commercial trucks -
Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Cessna, Cirrus for aviation and all marine craft and off road equipment like Yamaha, Honda motorcycle/moped manufactuers and basically anything that has at least 2 wheels, a gas tank and a way to pilot it is being changed now and will be totally petrol free by 2030-2035. The time is now.

The reality is that every metropolis with a populous of 500,000 or more will see it's petrol station population be reduced to 20 - 25% of current placements. All will be demo'd and replaced with electric battery replacement stations where you drive in, they open your hood, disconnect cables, remove old battery, place old battery in a charger, get a newly and fully charged one from the charger station, place battery in bay, reconnect cables, close the hood and you pay like $15 - $25 and drive off. Battery manufactueres like Eveready, Die Hard, Duracell, Energizer and like a hundered or so smaller companies throughout the world are now working on perfecting a long life battery that does not require one drop of oil. Oil companies like the fine people that put out WD-40 and lubricants are already at work on a petrolchem free lubricant that is cheap.

The entire manufacturing sector for things like appliances, electronics, rubber things, tupperware is also going petrolchem free as well as they want to do their part to help us in getting rid of this evil that has reigned uncontested from about 1935 - 2009. The Golden Age of Petrochemical Free living is upon us. We must embrace this.

Get real!

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


No, they didn't pay back 90%. The last tranch of money was paid from a Treasury Dept. fund to make it look like they'd repaid all the TARP funds. They haven't, and at today's stock price we lose another $16,500,000,000 if we sold our 26% before it falls further and goes back into bankruptcy.

But what neither G.M. nor the Treasury disclosed was that the company simply used other funds held by the Treasury to pay off its original loan.

Neil M. Barofsky, the inspector general overseeing the troubled asset program, revealed this detail when he spoke before the Senate Finance Committee on April 20.

“So it’s good news in that they’re reducing their debt,” Mr. Barofsky said of G.M. But he went on to note that G.M. was using other taxpayer money to make the loan repayment, according to the transcript of his testimony.

Armed with this information, Mr. Grassley fired off a letter to Mr. Geithner on April 22, asking for details of the transaction. “I am concerned ... that this announcement is not what it seems,” he wrote. “In fact, it appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle.”

Mr. Grassley heard back from the Treasury last Tuesday. Herbert M. Allison Jr., assistant secretary for financial stability, confirmed that the money G.M. used to repay its bailout loan had come from a taxpayer-financed escrow account held for the automaker at the Treasury.

At GM, Repaying Taxpayers With Their Own Cash
(This, from O's good buddies at the New York Times)

This was a "green" scam from Day 1.

It’s certainly understandable that G.M. would want to spin its repayment as proof of improving operations. But Mr. Grassley said he was troubled that the Treasury went along with the public relations campaign and didn’t spell out how the loan was retired.

“The public would know nothing about the TARP escrow money being the source of the supposed repayment from simply watching G.M.’s TV commercials or reading Treasury’s press release,” Mr. Grassley said in a speech on the Senate floor last Wednesday, saying that “many billions” of federal dollars remained invested in G.M.

“Much of it will never be repaid,” Mr. Grassley added. “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that taxpayers will lose around $30 billion on G.M.”

(Taxpayers still own preferred stock of G.M. and 26 percent of its common equity.)

Altogether, we'll lose about $40 billion on this.