Might GM Return Some State Aid?
Seems that General Motors might have to return some state aid to Wisconsin because the scheduled plant closing in Janesville doesn't uphold the company's end of the bargain.
Doesn't it seem that public financial incentives to private businesses often fall flat?
6 comments:
Maybe if these aid monies were returned, money could be spent to retool the GM plant to build rolling stock and engines to supply the resurgent rail industry, that even Warren Buffet is investing heavily in on a bet that expansion of rail will continue as a peak oil mitigation measure.
I would'nt bet on it. Wisconsin politicians and bureaucracies, with few exceptions, have lost the ability to think outside of the box that was once had many years ago and birthed the progressive movement and politicians such as Bill Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson.
Great idea Joshua; a reader at Soglin's blog proposed something similar.
Contact Feingold, Kohl and your house representative. They've been very supportive of automotive plants in the state. I can't see how they would not agree with you.
I looked up some links on Buffet's investments. E.g.,
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/07/pf/sivy_apr.moneymag/index.htm?section=money_topstories
The logic behind the investments is good, but this looks like conventional freight rail. As for technology improvements, I see where computerized scheduling could have an effect, but much of the freight cars look the same from what I've seen still running today. There isn't much incentive for a complete overhaul for freight rail because it serves its purpose--hauling heavy items.
Freight investment is sort of incremental. I suppose still worth it though from a state-company perspective. Especially when the employee base at a GM plant seems more geared for conventional machinery construction.
Where the big challenge lies is passenger rail, in my opinion. The cargo (i.e., people) is much lighter than freight, so there is the flexibility to reduce weight of the cars compared to, say, Amtrak cars. Nicer track would allow for higher speeds. Dedicated track would mean no delays for freight cars having the right of way because of track ownership. Also, dedicated track would mean the ability to run trains at higher intervals. (One passenger train a day probably isn't enough to make significant reduction in interstate traffic.) Data links on the train for business travelers might be nice.
Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, Twin Cities would be a great test-bed for newly designed, fast, efficient, clean, dedicated passenger rail. The regional Milwaukee plan Jim mentioned in the previous week might be a similar project. In fact, that might be a smarter place to start because regional traffic is "there and back" on a daily basis and doesn't compete with the airline industry's model. (Competition with the airline industry is sure to meet resistance in Congress.)
What I'd like to see is a bill to take a significant slice of the federal transportation budget and offer a state-wide, corporate competition for the project. Planning and designing--not necessarily actually building--might be the first step.
The political logistics would be everyone fighting to get in on the project and a debate of whether to invest in manufacturing base or just buy foreign make because the U.S. is probably so far behind in rail technology.
Your more focused and limited production, Joshua, has a better chance of success as far as the Janesville jobs, I suppose. To be honest though, I suspect that unless GM is willing to get into rail most employees will follow where ever GM will employ them so that they can retain pension benefits.
This Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission has been around since 2008:
http://www.miprc.org/
and it is just now that I hear of it.
The first item in the list is very timely:
"U.S. House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee unveils rail legislation"
Well, getting better, I guess. One of the items in the report is:
"Establishment of a process to help strengthen Amtrak's preferred access on freight rail corridors;"
New track would work.
I expanded on this issue at Daily Kos and at Sustainable Walworth (see the blogroll). Join the discussion!
I read the Daily Kos. Very well written and insightful comments from readers. Not much I can add.
Wait, I do have a comment...
I've argued that ethanol might make a good fuel source for just farm implements. (Not as a fuel additive for automobiles. That's too big of a market.) Reasons are farmers growing their own fuel source, stable prices because independent of oil, clean burning, etc.
The Wisconsin State Journal has a time line of the Janesville GM plant here:
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/289554
Look at how the plant started:
"1918 — General Motors purchases the Samson Tractor Co. in Janesville."
How about going back to the roots (pun intended) and GM start building tractors again with engines that run on pure ethanol?
Post a Comment