Senate majority leader

Latest news on senate majority leader

US carmakers rush to devise recovery plans before crucial bail-out talks

The big three Detroit car manufacturers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler - were yesterday scrambling to complete new business plans before submitting their latest plea for a $25bn (£16bn) bail-out to Washington.The carmakers must deliver restructuring proposals to Congress by tomorrow after being given a second chance following a disastrous appearance on Capitol Hill last month. Democratic leaders warned executives that a bail-out loan would not be forthcoming unless they produced a "credible restructuring plan".GM, the largest US car manufacturer, is considering killing off brands and is sounding out creditors about a debt-for-equity swap to cut borrowings that total about $43.3bn, according to reports. The United Auto Workers union is also reportedly looking at dropping the "jobs bank" agreement that pays sacked employees for 48 weeks - a totem for some members of Congress who are loth to rescue the industry."Nobody wants to throw money down a rathole," said Ron Gettelfinger, the UAW president, in an interview with CNN yesterday.The big three are in dire trouble because of poor sales, high debts and cost bases that are less competitive than those of foreign-owned rivals. GM has warned that it could run out of cash early next year without a government bail-out, merger or asset sales and Ford, considered the strongest of the three, posted a third-quarter operating loss of $3bn as sales slumped. The most endangered of the three, Chrysler, burned through $3bn of cash in the third quarter of the year and has only $6bn left.The chief executives of GM, Ford and Chrysler attempted to secure a $25bn bridging loan from Congress a fortnight ago but their plea was dismissed after it became apparent that the three had no new turnaround strategy. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the senate majority leader, gave the auto manufacturers until tomorrow to submit restructuring plans that would save the industry while "protecting taxpayer investments".The US electorate and politicians are becoming resentful of the bail-outs of the financial sector, which top $1tn, so a rescue of the big three is likely to face tough scrutiny. However, the auto industry accounts for one in 10 US jobs with the three manufacturers employing 239,000 people directly. Mitt Romney, a former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, argued last month that the big three should consider a "managed bankruptcy". Under this proposal the companies would enter chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which would shield them from creditors. The government would guarantee post-bankruptcy financing and stand by car warranties that would be threatened in a conventional administration process. The carmakers would also be able to restructure their workforce, pension and property costs during the process, Romney said. Detroit executives' concern over a managed bankruptcy is that sales would plummet because of fears over obtaining spare parts and the companies' ability to fulfil warranties. GM, Ford and Chrysler did not return calls yesterday.Automotive industryUS economyCredit crunchGlobal recessionGeneral MotorsFordUnited Statesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Citigroup bailout blackout: Network news programs featured no one asserting deal is bad for taxpayers

On their November 24 broadcasts, all three network evening news programs included reports on the bailout of Citigroup that included interviews with supporters of the deal. The report on NBC's Nightly News, for example, featured clips from interviews with Citigroup CEO Gary Crittenden and with "[o]ne of Citi's biggest investors," Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. However, only the CBS Evening News' report included any criticism of the bailout, and that criticism came from Egan-Jones Rating Co. founding principal Sean Egan, who said that the bailout was not large enough. None of the reports featured criticism of the bailout on the grounds that it is a poor deal for taxpayers, even though several economists have strongly criticized the bailout on those grounds. Prominent economists critical of the Citigroup bailout include: Andrew Samwick, professor of economics and director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College, who wrote of the bailout in a November 24 blog post: "The technical term for this is a joke." He continued: Citigroup has plenty of assets. It has just written too many claims on those assets. Those holding those claims need to face the reality that their claims are worth less than they were promised and adjust to that reality. That means either liquidating the firm, selling off the assets to the highest bidders, or becoming the new equity holders of the firm. The FDIC can get involved as needed to manage its contingent liabilities to insured depositors. If the government is to get involved beyond that, it should be senior debt to the restructured entity, not preferred equity (i.e. junior to the most junior debt) to the existing entity. New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who wrote in a November 24 blog post: "A bailout was necessary -- but this bailout is an outrage: a lousy deal for the taxpayers, no accountability for management, and just to make things perfect, quite possibly inadequate, so that Citi will be back for more" [emphases in original]. University of California at Berkeley economics professor J. Bradford DeLong, who cited Krugman in a November 24 blog post headlined "The Citigroup Bailout: What Are They Doing," adding: "It is unclear to me why they aren't just buying common stock. As it is, they're endangering their own reputations to an extraordinary degree." Additionally, The Hill reported in a November 24 article that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "criticize[d] the deal in a statement," and quoted his assertion, "Given the scope and size of this arrangement with Citigroup and the fact it is different from the others, Treasury should be prepared to defend that taxpayers are adequately protected." Further, in a November 23 blog post, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote: If you had any doubt at all about the primacy of Wall Street over Main Street; the utter lack of transparency behind the biggest government giveaway in history to financial executives, and their shareholders, directors, and creditors; and the intimate connections the lie between Administrations -- both Republican and Democratic -- and the heavyweights on Wall Street, your doubts should be laid to rest. [...] This is not a particularly good deal for American taxpayers, but it is a marvelous deal for Citi. In return for all the cash and guarantees they are giving away, taxpayers will get only $27 billion of preferred shares paying an 8 percent dividend. No other strings are attached. The senior executives of Citi, including those who have served at the highest levels in the US government, have done their jobs exceedingly well. The American public, including the media, have not the slightest clue what just happened. On Nightly News, CNBC anchor Erin Burnett's report included interview clips from: Crittenden, who said: "I think what we've done is increase the confidence that the company has the strength to do what it needs to in this environment." Prince Al-Waleed, who said: "We have been with Citigroup since almost two decades, and we anticipate to continue with Citigroup." Harvard University economics professor Kenneth Rogoff, who asserted: "Citicorp is on life support, basically. A lot of the financial system is basically on a respirator, and it's just being given food through a food tube in this. It's not getting it off the respirator." Rogoff later added: "I think the thing is, is that if we lose financing in the country, everything goes to stop. It's like turning off the electricity." Sandler O'Neil chief strategist Robert Albertson, who stated, "Of the two, by a large factor, the financial sector is far more important to our economy than any single industry, even one as important as autos." On the CBS Evening News, correspondent Kelly Wallace's report included clips from interviews with Egan and Jordan Goodman, author of Fast Profits in Hard Times: 10 Secret Strategies to Make You Rich in an Up or Down Economy. Egan asserted, "The $20 billion is about 10 percent of what Citicorp needs to get back to financial health. They need about 200 billion. They got 20, they need 200." Goodman said, "Citigroup is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and if it was to go under, it would bring the entire financial system down with it." In the following segment, guest anchor Harry Smith interviewed former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt, who stated, "I think the government is doing what they should do. They have to help restore public confidence." On ABC's World News, correspondent Betsy Stark's report featured clips from interviews with David Trone, a bank analyst with Fox-Pitt Kelton CCW, and with Jonathan Corpina, a trader on the New York Stock Exchange. Trone said of the bailout, "This is the route they should have gone all along," while Corpina said it was "the news that was the catalyst for the market today. Everything else just rallied with it." From the November 24 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams: BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): And now to the sudden fall of Citigroup. Just a few months ago, they were giants, considering buying Wachovia to rescue it; now they need rescuing. So the government stepped in during the night last night. And this intervention, by the way, potentially putting a whole lot of taxpayer money at risk. CNBC's Erin Burnett is with us for more on this. What an epic story. BURNETT: It certainly is an epic story, and you said it. It was so different a few months ago. And now what we've learned is Citigroup is simply too big to fail, and the government rescue, as Brian said, announced last night sparked the biggest two-day rally in the market since 1987. [begin video clip] BURNETT: Another government bailout. This time, Citigroup and investors cheered. The government announcing Citigroup will get an influx of $20 billion and a taxpayer guarantee for more than 300 billion in troubled assets. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: This is a tough situation for America. But we'll recover from it. And the first step to recovery is to safeguard our financial system. BURNETT: In return, the government gets a more than 7 percent stake in a company weighed down by failed home, auto, and credit-card loans. ROGOFF: Citicorp is on life support, basically. A lot of the financial system is basically on a respirator, and it's just being given food through a food tube in this. It's not getting it off the respirator. BURNETT: Citi shares plummeted more than 87 percent this year, 60 percent just last week. Today, with the bailout news, the stock rebounded nearly 60 percent, giving the markets a sigh of relief. CRITTENDEN: I think what we've done is increase the confidence that the company has the strength to do what it needs to in this environment. BURNETT: One of Citi's biggest investors, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed, told CNBC that the company's troubles are temporary. PRINCE AL-WALEED: We have been with Citigroup since almost two decades, and we anticipate to continue with Citigroup. BURNETT: U.S. officials didn't want to risk a Citigroup collapse. With more than 200 million customers worldwide and more than 300,000 employees, analysts say the ripple effect would have been catastrophic. ROGOFF: I think the thing is, is that if we lose financing in the country, everything goes to stop. It's like turning off the electricity. BURNETT: That's why analysts are not surprised that this government bailout came before any deal had been reached with the auto industry. ALBERTSON: Of the two, by a large factor, the financial sector is far more important to our economy than any single industry, even one as important as autos. [end video clip] BURNETT: All right, Brian, the bottom line here is, I spoke to the CFO of Citigroup today, and he said no management changes. They're not exactly sure what the restrictions will be on executive compensation or whether they need to lend more, so there's still a lot of questions. And one of the biggest questions is this: Is this going to be enough for Citigroup, and once we've done this with Citigroup, do we need to do it with all the other banks? I mean, this isn't the first money that's gone into Citigroup from the taxpayer. WILLIAMS: It's all new territory. Erin Burnett, as always, thanks. From the November 24 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric: SMITH: Now, to the latest bailout of Citigroup. The government said today it will give Citi another $20 billion from the $700 billion financial bailout package. And it will guarantee as much as $306 billion in risky Citigroup loans and securities. Kelly Wallace reports it's all aimed at preventing the financial giant from collapsing. [begin video clip] WALLACE: The market posted triple-digit gains after the government rescued Citigroup from the brink. The reason for the bailout, according to many analysts: The bank is just too big to fail. Until recently, it's been the largest bank in the U.S. in terms of assets, with businesses ranging from credit cards to home mortgages to investments, operating in more than 100 countries with 200 million customer accounts worldwide. GOODMAN: Citigroup is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and if it was to go under, it would bring the entire financial system down with it. WALLACE: This is the second time the feds have come to the aid of the struggling financial giant in weeks. After first pumping 25 billion into the bank last month, the government is injecting an additional $20 billion, with strings attached. The money will come in exchange for shares that will pay 8 percent back to the taxpayer. Citigroup also agrees to place limits on executive pay and help homeowners facing foreclosure. But some analysts say the bailout doesn't go far enough and that the company will need much more from Uncle Sam. EGAN: The $20 billion is about 10 percent of what Citicorp needs to get back to financial health. They need about 200 billion. They got 20, they need 200. WALLACE: Citicorp stock shot up nearly 60 percent today to just under $6, but the stock market rally might be short-lived. Shares of other major U.S. banks like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase have lost more than 50 percent this year. President Bush signaled more bailouts may be needed. BUSH: And if need be, we're going to make these kind of decisions to safeguard our financial system in the future. WALLACE: Why rescue Citigroup and not the Big Three automakers? The Treasury secretary says the $700 billion bailout bill is for the financial sector only. Help for anyone else requires Congress to change the law. Kelly Wallace, CBS News, New York. [end video clip] SMITH: Earlier today, I spoke about the financial crisis and the government bailouts with former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt. I asked him if Citigroup's need for a second bailout means the crisis is even worse than we thought. [begin video clip] LEVITT: I think it probably is worse than we thought, but I think the government is doing what they should do. They have to help restore public confidence. SMITH: A lot of people at home are sitting watching this and they're saying, "These folks on Wall Street have been preaching economic Darwinism for decades. Why not let them fail? They made this mess, why not let them fail?" LEVITT: The implications of failure now are global. They cut across the economy at every level. We're talking about three basic pillars of the economy: finance, automobile, and housing. If all three of those tank, we have an economy absolutely in the depths of despair. Can't happen. SMITH: Barack Obama puts his economic team in place today. It's two months until he takes office. Is this audacious, or is this good management on his part? LEVITT: This is smart. I mean, we have an administration that is virtually powerless, certainly a president whom nobody listens to. What we've seen now with the new administration is we have a shadow administration in power, in place, acting in a constructive and in a cooperative way with the secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson. We cannot afford a lost two-month period where public confidence would disappear. We cannot afford that. SMITH: Arthur Levitt, thank you so much for your time this evening. LEVITT: You're quite welcome. From the November 24 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson: CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): For the second day in a row, stocks rallied on Wall Street. The Dow industrials rose nearly 400 points, fueled by news that the government had bolstered the terms of its bailout of Citigroup, whose stock soared nearly 60 percent just today. Betsy Stark is here with terms of what the government is going to do with Citigroup. STARK: Charlie, some say Citigroup, with $2 trillion in assets and 200 million customers around the world, is the very definition of too big to fail, so after marathon talks this weekend, and with Citi stock heading rapidly towards zero, the government orchestrated its latest and potentially most expensive taxpayer bailout to date. [begin video clip] STARK: Outside this Citibank in Manhattan today, some customers wondered if there is any bank where their money is now safe. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I do not think that my money is safe. I'm very, very nervous about it. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Where can you find a bank that is going to stay afloat these days? STARK: That chilling loss of confidence in the U.S. banking system was clearly on the minds of government officials as they mapped out a sweeping new plan to keep Citi afloat. The bank is getting $20 billion in cash from the government's $700 billion rescue fund on top of the $25 billion it received just a month ago. But now the government is going even farther, for the first time guaranteeing up to $306 billion in risky assets held by the bank. If the value of those assets drops, Citi is responsible for the first $37 billion of losses, and the taxpayer is on the hook for most of the rest. TRONE: This is the route they should have gone all along. The approach of giving money to the banks without, you know, carving out or guaranteeing their problem assets, you're leaving the fear factor still there. So, this new tactic is a different approach, which obviously is a response to that stock performance last week. STARK: Last week, shares of Citigroup tanked, dropping 60 percent to less than $4 a share. UNIDENTIFIED TRADER: How's U.S. Bank now? STARK: Today, news of the bailout ignited a powerful rally in financial stocks, Citi jumping 58 percent, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley all up dramatically. CORPINA: Clearly, you know, this was the news that was the catalyst for the market today. Everything else just rallied with it. STARK: And what's in it for the taxpayer? They get a $27 billion investment stake in Citigroup and the option to buy more. Plus, Citi has agreed to do more to help homeowners, to slash dividend payments to virtually nothing, and put stricter limits on executive compensation. [end video clip] STARK: Americans may be wondering if other banks will now need a government bailout. Today, President Bush said his administration will do what's necessary to safeguard the financial system. After today's bailout, those safeguards now seem to include dealing with toxic assets, an approach Secretary Paulson suggested was ineffective just a few weeks ago, Charlie. GIBSON: All right. Betsy Stark, reporting again, tonight.

Boehlert: The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker

It's been one week since New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote that at General Motors, "the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs." The nugget was part of a column in which Sorkin argued that the government should not bail out the ailing Big Three automakers and that they instead should embrace bankruptcy. Sorkin's point was that labor costs were out of control -- workers enjoyed "gold-plated benefits" -- and that during bankruptcy, the auto companies could address those runaway wages. As I mentioned, it's been one week since the column appeared, which seems like plenty of time for Sorkin and the Times to correct the misleading $70-an-hour claim. But to date, there's been no clarification from the newspaper of record or from Sorkin himself. And he isn't alone. Appearing on NPR last week, Times senior business correspondent Micheline Maynard told listeners that the "hourly wage" of Detroit's union autoworkers had been driven up "towards $80 an hour." Somebody at the Times needs to clarify the record, because the average United Auto Workers member is not paid $80 an hour. Or even $70. Not even close. Yet (thanks to the Times?) the issue has become a central talking point in the unfolding national debate about the future of America's automotive industry. Indeed, that $70-an-hour meme, actively promoted by the anti-union conservative media, has ricocheted around the traditional press as well as the political landscape, where it was picked up by congressional critics last week during hearings and used to argue against aiding GM, Ford, and Chrysler. For the record, I'm not from Michigan, and I don't have friends or family members who work in the auto or auto-supply business. And honestly, I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the question about whether to bail out the U.S. auto industry. So I'm genuinely torn on the issue. But what's obvious to me is that it's harmful to public discourse when the press, on such a central issue facing our country, fails to clearly state the facts and instead perpetuates misinformation with sloppy reporting -- reporting that seems to hold blue-collar workers to a different standard than their white-collar counterparts. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that automotive executives should return to Washington in coming weeks to "make their case, to the Congress and the American people," for a federal bailout. And as Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner for economics Paul Krugman wrote recently, "[M]aybe letting the auto companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it's a decision that should be taken carefully" [emphasis added]. But having the media echo conservative misinformation and bandy about urban-myth salary figures about allegedly high-on-the-hog GM workers does not constitute a careful review of the facts. Question: Is the press just being sloppy on this issue of supposedly pampered autoworkers, or are there other elements in play? Because honestly, I've had trouble escaping the not-very-subtle elitist, get-a-load-of-this tone that has run through the media's misinformation on the topic; i.e., "These autoworkers get paid that?!" Answer: No, they don't, so please stop reporting it. (And why has the press been so reticent to note that Big Three autoworkers recently made significant concessions to management?) And it's funny, because I don't remember hearing much coverage in the press about AIG workers' six- and seven-figure salaries when the U.S. government announced it was bailing out the insurance giant. And I haven't seen or heard a single press reference to the annual salaries pocketed by Citigroup employees, even though the government has moved in quickly to bail the banking giant out of a hole its executives dug. As Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) pointed out during congressional hearings last week, "There is apparently a cultural condition that's more ready to accept aid to a white-collar industry than the blue-collar industry, and that has to be confronted." That cultural condition seems to extend to, and be embraced by, today's white-collar press corps. Make no mistake: The $70-an-hour claim represents a classic case of conservative misinformation. It's also a very dangerous one. The falsehood about autoworkers is being spread at a crucial time, when a make-or-break public debate is taking place, a debate that could affect millions of American workers. "Lavish contracts granted to the United Auto Workers, for instance, put GM on the hook for more than $70 an hour per worker." [New York Post] "The United Auto Workers are keen on saving their jobs and the $70-an-hour paychecks that go with them." [National Review] "[T]here's no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation." [James Gattuso, from the conservative Heritage Foundation, appearing on MSNBC] "Given that we're in tough economic times, it's hard for the average American to muster a lot of sympathy for workers at the Big 3 automakers when all of the companies pay out over $70 per hour in wages, pension and health care benefits." [Right Wing News] "The bailout as proposed today is a bailout of the UAW; it's not the auto industry. A Big Three worker in Detroit makes $73 an hour if you include all the benefits." [Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, appearing on the syndicated television show Inside Washington] "Companies at which union workers make $71 an hour in wages and benefits -- compared to just $47 an hour at Toyota's U.S. plants -- are not going to be saved by a $25 billion government check." [Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, writing at Human Events Online] "Big Three union workers, with their gold-plated health care plans, make about $73 an hour in total compensation." [Conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com] "When you're paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you're going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately." [Conservative radio host Lars Larson] "The average Detroit autoworker makes more than $100K each year." [On-screen Fox News graphic] Let's note that any suggestion in the press that most UAW workers earn, or are paid, $70 an hour is spectacularly dishonest. Period. (As one Daily Kos diarist pointed out last week, according to the UAW website, the base pay for a worker in a UAW plant is about $28 an hour.) What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos. Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.) Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not. Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the misinformation at play: The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers. [emphasis in original] Indeed, according to this Associated Press report, a chunk of GM's $70-an-hour labor costs goes toward paying current retirees' pensions and health-care coverage. In other words, that's money that's not going to end up in the pocket of any autoworker when he cashes his paycheck this week. That's money GM has to set aside in order to pay off costs associated with workers already in retirement. That money has absolutely nothing to do with calculating the hourly wage of a full-time UAW employee today. None. So, no, UAW workers don't make $70 an hour even if you factor in benefits, because a portion of those benefits are going to people who retired years ago. Nonetheless, that formulation (wages+benefits=$70 an hour) has been widespread. That's what Sorkin did in his Times column: "The average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs." Not only is that inaccurate, but there's also a problem in terms of perception. It's true that autoworkers don't earn annual salaries and that when calculating hourly wages, the cost of benefits paid directly to the worker can be included. But some media outlets have been so casual and sloppy in presenting the facts that news consumers are left with the false impression that GM workers pocket $70 an hour. That's not true, and it seems some in the press are doing very little to correct that misperception. For instance, BusinessWeek also used the same convoluted language: "Older UAW members make more than $70 per hour in combined wages and benefits." Dallas Morning News columnist Cheryl Hall did it, too: "GM's average worker makes $78.21 an hour in wages and benefits." Why does the press use that convoluted equation when calculating how much autoworkers supposedly make? I have a hunch it's because that $70 an hour is a real eyepopper. It makes a very deep impression within the space of just a few words. I'm sure everybody understood the $70-an-hour implication in Sorkin's column, especially since he also lamented the "gold-plated benefits" UAW workers enjoyed. (They were "off the charts," he stressed.) And since it's harder to back up a claim of gold-plated benefits by citing the actual hourly wage of UAW workers ($28), Sorkin went with the $70 figure, along with completely nebulous language about "health care and pension costs." The takeaway from Sorkin's column was quite clear: GM is mismanaged, and its workers are wildly overpaid. By the way, here's the right way to cover the issue: In a November 18 column, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's David Nicklaus wrote that the Big Three "need to bring their labor costs, which average $72 an hour, closer to the Honda or Toyota level of about $45." Note how Nicklaus never implied that labors costs equaled take-home wages. Why? Because they don't. (And kudos to Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein, who refuses to use the $70-an-hour figure because it's so misleading.) How much money GM's workers make is certainly relevant when discussing the unfolding automotive crisis. But the press should stop confusing the issue, and tainting the perceptions of news consumers, by casually suggesting that $70-an-hour labor costs represent what UAW workers pocket every 60 minutes. That's misleading and dishonest. And that's why it's still not too late for Sorkin and the Times to correct the record.

Reid, Pelosi To Automakers: Prove You're Good For The Money (AHN)

(AHN) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NE) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sent a letter to Detroit automakers saying the industry must submit a restructuring plan if it expects any money from Washington. - Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:14:25 GMT