General Motors Corp. has informed President Barack Obama's auto task force that the struggling automaker will not need a $2-billion loan in March from the U.S. government, as it previously said it would, the company said early today.
Advertisement

GM Chief Financial Officer Ray Young, in a statement, said the company won't need the money so soon because cost cuts at the company, as well as other measures, are resulting in savings.

"This development reflects the acceleration of GM's company-wide cost reduction efforts as well as pro-active deferrals of spending previously anticipated in January and February," Young said.

The Detroit automaker is operating with a $13.4-billion loan from the U.S. government and said Feb. 17 that it could need as much as $16.6 billion more to keep operating.

Part of that Feb. 17 request said it needed $2 billion in March and $2.6 billion in April.

With Young's new comments, it is unclear when GM would next need government loans or if its total need has changed.

"GM will remain in regular contact with the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry on the status of GM's restructuring actions, its liquidity position, timing of future funding requests, and other relevant topics of mutual concern," Young said.

Emphasis was in the original.

Roll Call reports that a group of 15-20 moderate Senate Democrats -- boosted by their success in "paring down the more than $900 billion economic stimulus bill to $787 billion" -- plans to "formally announce next week that it is aligning as a loose coalition or working group focused on deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility":

Led by Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), members said early press reports of their meetings were mischaracterized as an opposition group to President Barack Obama's agenda and budget. But they acknowledge that they are seeking to restrain the influence of party liberals in the White House and on Capitol Hill. [...]

[Nebraska Sen. Ben] Nelson said the moderate bloc is modeled after the Blue Dogs, but that the realities of the Senate prevent them from being as organized or unified as the House group, which regularly wins concessions from House Democratic leaders.

But as one anonymous Democratic senator told Roll Call, "Once you decide to be part of a bloc that is completely dislocated from the main [Democratic] caucus interests, you've not only separated yourself, you've also burned a lot of bridges." Politico previously explained the possible implications of such a group, writing, "If the moderate Democrats in the Senate are willing to work with moderate Republicans...they will negate the White House's ability to portray opposition...as partisan obstructionism."

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- A suspected U.S. missile attack killed 11 people Thursday in northwest Pakistan, an official said.

Six others were wounded, according to Arshad Majeed, an official in the Kurram region, where the attack occurred.

The missiles are believed to have been shot by a drone and Majeed said the attack targeted suspected militants. No other details were immediately available.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he didn't know anything about the attack and wouldn't comment if he did.

The U.S. military in Afghanistan routinely offers no comment on reported cross-border strikes, which are normally launched from unmanned drones.

But the United States is the only country operating in the region known to have the capability to launch missiles from drones, which are controlled remotely

The bill has four sponsors, two from each party. Since the bill has bipartisan sponsors, it will at the minimum get a hearing. Current thinking is that it will not become law.

Third Top Treasury Pick Withdraws From Consideration

February 28 2009

In the last several years, the U.S. Supreme Court has greatly reduced the ability of courts to award punitive damages in amounts that dwarf the amount of compensatory damages. In Exxon Shipping Co. v Baker (2008), a maritime case arising out of the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill, the Court held that the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages could not exceed one-to-one. Exxon Shipping indicated that the Court would find a ratio of greater than a one-to-one to be grossly excessive and in violation of the Due Process Clause. Recently, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Exxon Shipping to mean exactly that.    

Jurinko v The Medical Protective Co. (December 24, 2008) arose from a jury award on a bad faith claim against a medical malpractice insurer. The jury awarded compensatory damages of $1,68,345 and punitive damages of $6,250,000, and the trial court had found that the four-to-one ratio between punitive and compensatory damages was not excessive. The Third Circuit disagreed, finding the punitive damages award to be grossly excessive under the three-factor test laid out by the Supreme Court: "(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the [factfinder] and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases." Notwithstanding the fact that defendant's conduct was "outrageous," the court announced that in cases where compensatory damages were substantial, a one-to-one ratio is the most that due process will allow.

The U.S. Justice Department has launched a civil-rights investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office after months of mounting complaints that deputies are discriminating in their enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Officials from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division notified Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Tuesday that they had begun the investigation, which will focus on whether deputies are engaging in "patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures."