The deadline for talks between the United Auto Workers and the Formerly Big Three automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) theoretically looms on September 14.

No one has more at stake in a sweetheart deal than Ford, for reasons almost entirely of its own making.

Oh, the Dearborn-based company has the same daunting challenges as its other brethren at the bargaining table: a too-high cost structure, expensive retiree health-care costs, and a product line in need of serious work. That much is known.

What isn’t as well-known, and rarely understood, is that Ford has embarked on a seven-year journey of uber-Politicial Correctness that now threatens to gut its core US vehicle business.

Yesterday, Tom Borelli at Townhall explained the environmental aspect of the company’s loss of, excuse the word, focus. As the company moved from concentrating on making great cars to the misnomer known as “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR), it hurt itself, and the entire industry:

At the turn of the century, instead of confronting the business threat posed by global warming, William Clay Ford Jr., then chief executive of Ford Motor Company, had a better idea: embrace CSR.

The company declared war on its most profitable vehicles in its first corporate citizenship report in 2000 when it said SUVs contribute more to global warming than cars. Mr. Ford expressed concern that SUVs would harm the company’s reputation and he feared public opinion would turn against the company. According to news reports, the company wanted to be considered the “most environmentally responsible automaker.”

….. Also in 2000, Ford put dollars behind its CSR effort. In announcing the company’s $5 million sponsorship of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) project at Princeton University, Mr. Ford said, “Corporations should be and could be a major force for resolving environmental and social concerns in the 21st century.”

….. With corporate dollars, CMI effectively whipped up global warming fears.

….. The political response to fossil fuel fears that Ford helped generate is evident in California. In 2002, the state passed a law limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles sold in California in 2009. In 2006, California sued automakers over global warming because greenhouse gases caused billions of dollars in damages.

If the harm Ford has done to itself was limited to enviro-nonsense, that would be one thing. But on top of that, the company has embraced far-left and culture-war causes that are far, far removed from anything having to do with making great cars. Two such examples have been its active opposition to affirmative action ballot initiatives and its stubborn support and sponsorship of groups supporting homosexual marriage.

Advocating causes that are at odds with the views of much of your company’s customer base may appear not have a lot to do with producing cars. But at a minimum, it distracts always time-crunched management from paying enough attention to it. If you somehow don’t agree with that, you can’t deny that getting behind causes customers don’t like often can, and often does, end up having a lot to do with selling cars — or, more accurately in this case, not selling them.

Ford has decided to make itself Exhibit A in proving that point.

The American Family Association called for a boycott of Ford over its support of homosexual groups over 18 months ago. AFA doesn’t want Ford to join the one-man, one-woman marriage bandwagon; it wants Ford to shift into neutral, as Wal-Mart did late last year, when it appeared that it too might have overinhaled on PC vapors. Wal-Mart specifically stated that it would return to putting all of its energies into what it does best, discount retailing, and threw its extraneous activities overboard.

I am not a supporter of AFA’s boycott, because I believe it is hurting too many good people. I recognize, of course, that reasonable people can disagree on this matter, and am not about to criticize anyone who finds the company’s positions and actions unsupportable, and a reason not to do business with it.

Unlike Ford, and unlike Old Media, which has thus far virtually ignored what may be the most “successful” boycott in the 21st century so far, I’m not pretending that the boycott doesn’t exist, or that it has been ineffective (I covered Old Media’s studied ignorance, while it gives inkand bandwidth to other very trivial boycotts, in April. Nothing has changed.). The boycott does exist, and it has had a significant negative impact that, if anything, continues to grow.

Since AFA’s boycott call, almost 750,000 people have signed their boycott petition. Ford’s monthly sales results during that time have come in as follows (figures were found in an AFA spreadsheet that is consistent with what I have seen reported in the months involved; August’s result was added by me from this Associated Press story at MSNBC):

The evidence that the deterioration in Ford’s US market position is accelerating is virtually beyond doubt. Ford’s monthly US sales during the AFA boycott period have almost always trailed the average result of its competitors by at least 5% to 10%. But August 2007 was even worse: Ford’s -14.4% trailed the unweighted average of its five biggest rivals by a whopping 16% (GM, +6%; Toyota, -2.8%; Chrysler, -6.1%; Nissan, +6.3%; Honda, +4.7%; average, +1.6%). Every 2007 decline during the boycott period has been worse than the corresponding decline 12 months earlier.

The sphere of influence of the AFA boycott is arguably every bit of 15-20 million people, and growing. AFA itself has over 3.1 million members who probably influence 3-5 others, while the boycott has the support of 34 other influential pro-family organizations. There’s little doubt that Ford has turned its back on at least 10% of car buyers, who also happen to be among those more likely to buy more-profitable SUV and crossover vehicles.

The fact is that anecdotes like this one are more than likely being played out hundreds of times across the country, to little or no publicity:

September 6, 2007

Pro-homosexual policies at the Ford Motor Company are being cited as the reason one ministry leader broke a longstanding tradition of purchasing vehicles from Ford.

….. ministry leader (Stephen Bennett) says Ford’s diversity policies meant his ministry could not purchase a Ford vehicle. “Ford lost out on a huge amount of money,” he points out. “….. it is just very sad that Ford continues to promote this agenda.”

It’s “sad” for more than Ford. Add to the “sad” list at least the following: its employees, whose livelihoods are in jeopardy (a good UAW deal for GM and Chrysler might not be good enough to enable Ford to survive in the US market long-term); its suppliers; its dealers; and the states and communities where its plants and facilities are located.

Short of more years of double-digit unit sales declines that the company can ill afford, what will it take for the deniers in Dearborn, and the Old Media business reporters covering the company, to acknowledge what is happening?

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

I don’t think so, but they’re definitely making it dramatic in the Motor City.

The good news: As in 2003, the United Auto Workers union hasn’t chosen a strike target.

Not-so-good news: A roundup of stories (here, here, and an older one here) on the negotiations between the UAW and the Number 1, 3, and 4 automakers formerly known as the Big Three (that would be General Motors, Ford, Chrysler; union-free Toyota is Number 2) make it clear that the sides are far apart.

A September 14 contract expiration looms. There hasn’t been a major auto-industry strike since the mid-1970s. I see the two sides meandering along on a day-to-day basis for a while and coming to some kind of common ground at the end of the month. There are some pretty creative ideas on the table, so I have reason to hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see the companies solving their fundamental cost-structure problems.

I certainly don’t like the idea that company-gutter Bob Nardelli, who before he became Chrysler CEO did lots of damage at The Home Depot and then parachuted away with $210 million, is on the management side of the table. He’s the kind of testosterone-overcharged guy who might actually think that surviving a strike would in some twisted way restore his legacy.

Unlike 30 years ago, I don’t see a strike, even a protracted one, doing serious damage to the economy as a whole. But Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana, which would take the large majority of the hit of a major work stoppage, would suffer quite a bit.

The “problem” (for Detroit and the UAW, not for consumers) is that there are so many other perfectly acceptable vehicle brands and models out there. The shift from the formerly Big Three to other brands that has been occurring for decades would go into overdrive. Marysville, Georgetown, Smyrna, and other foreign transplant areas in Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia would boom. People who said “the South will rise again” might end up having been right in a very different way.

Not after the November 2008 elections. NOW.

It’s in a subscription-only editorial today that channels frequently-expressed BizzyBlog sentiments over the past several months, the Wall Street Journal decries the tax-crazed mindset of the current congressional majority, and says that we should instead be going in the opposite direction:

The politicians also have a role to play here, especially the newly dominant Democrats. New York’s Chuck Schumer wasted no time Friday calling the jobs report “a punch to the gut of our economy,” but his own party is preparing to deliver more blows. Any hint of a growth agenda has vanished since Democrats took Congress. Trade-expanding deals with Latin America and South Korea are stalled, and every week brings a new proposal to restrict trade with China.

On fiscal policy, Democrats have proposed or discussed raising taxes on cigarettes, oil and gas companies, hedge funds, private equity, capital gains, dividends, the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies, and individuals earning more than $500,000 a year (which includes millions of small businesses filing under Subchapter S). Add the promise of every Democratic Presidential candidate to repeal the Bush tax cuts if he or she wins in 2008, and no wonder investors are growing more cautious.

Six years into an expansion, and with the Fed having limited flexibility, Congress and the White House should if anything be talking about another tax cut.

I think that the only “talk” should be about how large the tax cuts should be.

As I pointed out Saturday, initial announcements during 2000 of net job losses that were over 25 times larger than August 2007’s net loss of 4,000 (two examples from 2000 — July, -108,000; August -105,000) were not met by Armageddon-like frothing. I don’t have to bother to look to know that Schumer was surely among those who were silent seven years ago.

Though there are some rumblings from Henry Paulson at Treasury about cutting the corporate income tax, there has to be political will in the administration to fight for across the board cuts for everyone. The Journal notes that this will appears to be lacking. You would think that the good federal budget news coming in the next 30 days or so would provide momentum for going on offense. It should.

With the federal budget within striking distance of a nominal breakeven level (but go here if you don’t think I understand the long-term problems), enshrining the current investment-related tax structure of low capital-gains and dividend taxes, accompanied by a 10% across-the-board cut in individual and corporate tax rates — 5% this year, retroactive to January 1, 2007, and another 5% next year — would largely eliminate any potential risk of an economic slowdown next year. If Chuck Schumer and his party’s presidential candidates really cared about keeping the economic expansion going, while at the same time increasing the money flow into his beloved federal treasury, they would be behind this.

_________________________________________

UPDATE: Tax cuts and the 2008 presidential election came up on TIB Radio Saturday, but we didn’t go far enough. We agreed that the candidate who says he will cut taxes will have an inside track on winning the nomination. Actually, that’s not good enough. The GOP presidential contenders should be putting pressure on the president to cut taxes again — this year, retroactive to January 1. The candidate who does it first, consistently, and forcefully will have a distinct advantage over his rivals.

In an editorial, the New London Day (requires free registration; will require subscription after seven days) tells us that absolutely nothing has been done in the area that was the subject of the Kelo v. New London (CT) Supreme Court decision — even though the final settlement agreement with the holdouts was over a year ago. Oh, and the first agenda item for the area where a perfectly fine neighborhood of houses, many over a century old, stood, is ….. (brace yourself) ….. building 80 units of ….. (I warned you to brace yourself) ….. rental housing.

____________________________________

Ho Hum Hiring Headline:

11:53 AM September 7, 2007
Taiwan firm to expand, add 1,400 jobs

A Taiwan-based computer component manufacturing company plans to add 1,400 jobs over the next two years as part of an expansion in Plainfield, Gov. Mitch Daniels said today as he departed for a trade mission to Japan.

….. Daniels said FoxConn (Electronics) would make a multi-million dollar investment to its assembly facility following the company’s recent receipt of a significant order from a customer. The governor declined to identify the customer, but noted Foxconn is trying to get another major contact, which would entail more possible jobs.

_______________________________________

Here’s yet another article about companies making “high-risk workers” pay more for health-insurance coverage. In it, a privacy organization weighs in:

The National Workrights Institute says employers that assess surcharges are trying to control private behavior and amassing huge amounts of personal health data.

“It’s a backdoor approach to weeding out expensive employees,” legal director Jeremy Gruber said.

What if the evidence shows that people who are divorced have histories of higher health claims than those who are married? Or, as I suspect is the case, that those who engage in what is euphemistically referred to as “alternative lifestyles” have histories of higher health claims? If any company is successful in making those arguments stick and starts assessing higher medical costs on those affected employees, you’ll see a really quick 180-degree turn on the part of many who currently think all of this is a good idea.

______________________________________

Some news about the $215 million Bureau of Workers’ Compensation scandal found in the Toledo Blade:

The head of a money management firm indicted in June in the loss of $215 million in Ohio injured-worker investment funds concealed the circumstances of his earlier departure from two bank jobs, the government contends.

Before Mark D. Lay of MDL Capital Management in Pittsburgh was hired to manage Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation funds, he lost nearly $1 million in foreign currency trading at Mellon Bank and nearly $800,000 at PNC Bank in 1988-89, prosecutors said in a July 26 filing that was the subject of a hearing Thursday in U.S. District Court.

Prosecutors said the personal background that Mr. Lay gave the bureau did not mention his jobs at the banks.

The information, the government said, “could have alerted the [bureau] to his tendency toward rogue behavior.”

Note, however, that it’s an Associated Press story. Blade reporters can’t be bothered covering a $215 million BWC loss, even though they did the saturation thing with Tom Noe and Coingate. Though it has taken years and has cost millions in opportunity costs (money that could have been made if invested elsewhere), it looks like the Noe money will nevertheless be recovered. The Lay money is gone forever.

I wonder what page of the Blade’s print edition this news appeared on? Betcha it wasn’t A1 above the fold.

Congrats to Maggie Thurber on starting what appears to be a budding radio career.

______________________________________

Boring Made Dull (”John Edwards and Healthcare“): …. “Let’s see – mandatory exams for every American. One wonders what the penalties are for not going – no knock raids, with the offenders carted off to the Doc-In-A-Box? Fines? Loss of healthcare privileges? Offenders put into stocks in the town square? Mandatory organ donation?”

______________________________________

EyeHacker (”Chuckie’s Worried”) gives Chuck Schumer his due. The thing that’s maddening about Schumer’s claim, even beyond its obvious slander of our troops, is that it’s one of a half-dozen or so trial balloons just being thrown out there to see if something, anything, might resonate with the American people. If the defeat lobby finds one, Old Media will be sure never to mention the ones thrown to the wayside again — or, as shown in this BizzyBlog post last night, won’t even cover them until they test positive.

______________________________________

Interested-Participant caught a post at Advice Goddess containing a confession from the LA Times assistant editorial page editor that its web publishing software doesn’t have realtime link-insertion capability. That’s understandable. The Times doesn’t have a lot of journalism either.

______________________________________

Liberally Conservative rips Rudy for claiming illegal immigration is not a crime. Come back, Rudy, when the laws that say it is illegal are repealed.

______________________________________

Thespis Journal, which last week celebrated two years of blogging (congrats!), notes that the GOP debate TV audience on Fox dwarfed that of Larry King’s obviously counterprogrammed interview of Bill Clinton.

From Nagadoches, Texas:

Firefighters credit pair with saving 20-year-old’s life
Monday, September 10, 2007

Natalie Nichols often hears unusual noises — loud bangs and thumps — at her country home off busy state Hwy. 7, just east of Martinsville. A lot of vehicles, ranging from passenger cars to large tractor-trailer rigs, travel the rural highway at all hours of the day and night. And, living out in the country, it’s not unusual to hear a gunshot blast every now and then.

But Wednesday evening, when she heard a loud pop, she had a feeling that it wasn’t just a neighbor playing around with a shot gun.

And she was right.

A vehicle driven by Sarah Bennett, a 20-year-old art major at SFA, had struck a tree on the northeastern portion of Nichols’ property on Hwy. 7, and she was trapped inside the car, which had caught on fire upon impact.

According to accounts from neighbors and firefighters on the scene, had it not been for the rescue efforts of Nichols and her father, Neal, Bennett would not have survived the crash.

“There is no doubt in my mind that another minute in that car and she would have caught on fire,” said Mark Lacy, a Martinsville volunteer firefighter. “Sarah was busted up pretty good; there is no way she could have gotten herself out.”

Shortly before 10 p.m. Wednesday, Nichols and her parents were inside their living room, when they heard a loud noise, followed by screaming. Nichols said she wasn’t sure where it was coming from, and so she and her father got in their vehicle and headed toward the highway.

“That’s when we saw the fire,” Nichols said.

Since it was pitch black outside, Neal pointed the headlights toward the fire, and that’s when they realized the fire was coming from a vehicle.

“The front seat was filled with smoke, and I couldn’t really tell if there was anyone else in there,” Neal said, referring to when they arrived at the vehicle.

He said he and Natalie made several attempts to open the front door, but they were initially unsuccessful.

Go here for the rest of the story.