The Would-be Auto Czar

I also really like what Mr. Ligon said. His mention of the recent turnaround at Fiat by new management provide insight as to the choice of Fiat as a partner and why it could benefit Chrysler. However, if they only have 20% ownership, what sort of impact can they have on decisions? I think the "cash for clunkers" deal is a great idea and should include used cars. There should be firm guidelines concerning impact of the change. I.E. someone with an old Suburban should be allowed to get a minivan, and someone with, say, a 90's sedan, should be required to get a similar to smaller vehicle. A multiple tiered system seems ideal but could be too cumbersome to implement. I still think the union shares a significant portion of the blame. It's a cost issue all around. Between the union workers getting 40% more per hour of work than similarly skilled non-union workers in the south and the management earning more in a day than most people earn in a year, research, design, engineering and development all had to suffer to compete resulting in cars that just don't compete. Throw in the union minimum employee numbers requirements, and factory and design improvements to reduce labor per vehicle are de-incentivized, resulting in cars with more parts, requiring more labor to produce and having less reliability with the additional parts. Cost cutting on the parts level to compensate for the unreasonable compensation has also had disastrous effects on reliability.

With a scandal brewing over Ratner why should he head an auto task force in the first place?