中国深圳大学

From The Associated Press By SARA LEPRO

NEW YORK (AP) — Wall Street was on edge Friday as investors waited to learn how many jobs were lost as employers slashed their payrolls in November. Stock index futures were trading moderately lower.

The Labor Department’s monthly employment report is expected to show that the unemployment rate soared to 6.8 percent in November from 6.5 percent in October and that companies cut another 320,000 jobs. That would represent the deepest cut to monthly payrolls since October 2001, when the economy was suffering through a recession following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The report is due at 8:30 a.m. EST.

Employers cut 1.2 million jobs through October. And the layoffs keep coming — on Thursday, bellwether companies like AT&T Inc. and DuPont Co. announced they were cutting thousands of jobs.

The fear on Wall Street is that a rising unemployment rate will, among other things, lead to a more severe pullback in consumer spending, which is a crucial component to helping the economy rebound. Weak retail sales reports for the month of November released Thursday added to these concerns.

Meanwhile, investors also are awaiting a second day of congressional hearings with the heads of Detroit’s top three automakers, who are appearing on Capitol Hill in an effort to save their troubled industry.

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC are collectively seeking $34 billion in emergency funding. While the market largely expects the companies to win some sort of government aid, support for the troubled carmakers wasn’t guaranteed.

Later Friday, the Federal Reserve will release consumer credit data for October.

Dow Jones industrial average futures fell 48, or 0.57 percent, to 8,354. Standard & Poor’s 500 index futures fell 7.20, or 0.85 percent, to 840.30, while Nasdaq 100 index futures fell 12.00, or 1.06 percent, to 1,123.00.

Stocks wavered Thursday before tumbling in the final hour of trading as investors grew increasingly cautious ahead of the employment report. The major indexes each fell more than 2.5 percent and the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 216 points after finishing higher in seven of the previous eight sessions.

While some analysts have been hopeful that the string of recent gains signals some stability may be returning to the market, many warn that much volatility remains as Wall Street struggles to emerge from bear territory.

The government’s consideration of additional moves to boost the waning housing market provided little encouragement for investors Thursday.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke called on the government to ramp up efforts to stem foreclosures, while the Treasury Department weighed plans to possibly lower the rate on 30-year mortgages. It is possible that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will ask Congress for the second $350 billion installment of the $700 billion financial bailout package to finance the effort.

Also Friday, shareholders of Bank of America Corp. and Merrill Lynch & Co. will vote on the combination of the companies. The deal, which is expected to be approved, would create the nation’s largest financial services company.

Bank of America agreed to buy Merrill for $50 billion after the collapse of rival investment firm Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in September raised doubts about the viability of indepedent investment banks in general. The value of the all-stock deal has since fallen to about $20 billion, based on Bank of America’s Thursday closing price of $14.34.

Bond prices fell early Friday. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, rose to 2.57 percent from 2.56 percent late Thursday. The yield on the three-month T-bill, considered one of the safest investments, rose just slightly to 0.02 percent from below 0.01 percent late Thursday, still indicating extreme fear among investors.

The dollar was mixed against other major currencies, while gold prices rose.

Light, sweet crude rose 22 cents to $43.89 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Concerns about the economy and weakening energy demand have kept oil prices down near four-year lows. The contract has fallen a staggering 70 percent since peaking at $147.27 in July.

Optimism that buoyed some overseas markets following massive interest rate cuts across Europe Thursday deflated ahead of the U.S. jobs report.

Japan’s Nikkei stock average dipped 0.08 percent. In afternoon trading, Britain’s FTSE 100 was down 1.04 percent, Germany’s DAX index was down 2.60 percent, and France’s CAC-40 was down 3.10 percent.

Hearing Comes Day After Senate Appearance Fails to Persuade Lawmakers

From washingtonpost.com By Lori Montgomery and Kendra Marr Washington Post Staff Writers

The chief executives of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford will take their plea for a rescue package to the House of Representatives today, appearing with the president of the United Auto Workers before a key Congressional committee a day after failing to convince U.S. senators to approve up to $38 billion in industry-saving loans.

The twin hearings represent a second chance for the auto executives, who irritated many lawmakers two weeks ago when they flew on private jets to make an initial request for $25 billion and weren’t prepared to answer questions about how they would spend the money.

Yesterday, the CEOs returned to Capitol Hill bearing austere business plans, a need for even more financial help and a dose of humility. But they again failed to close the deal.

Lawmakers said they were not convinced that the automakers could return to profitability even with a massive infusion of government cash. That left the once-mighty manufacturers with no clear path to salvation and serious questions about their immediate future. Without a quick rescue, General Motors has said it may not survive through the end of this month.

After a six-hour hearing with the auto executives, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said he would try to assemble a plan to revive the automakers, asserting that “inaction is not an option.” But he could not say what that plan might look like and he conceded that enacting any proposal to save the car companies would be “a tall order.”

Meanwhile, Democratic congressional leaders again urged the Bush administration to use its authority under the $700 billion financial rescue program to forestall the auto industry’s collapse. Dodd said Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. must explain why the car companies, which support one in 10 U.S. jobs, are less deserving of assistance than Wall Street banks and insurance companies.

“If the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, under President Bush, can find $30 billion for Bear Stearns, if they can concoct a $150 billion rescue for AIG, if they can commit $250 billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if they can back Citigroup to the tune of more than $300 billion, then there ought to be a way to come up with a far smaller dollar figure to protect this economy from the unintended consequences that would be unleashed by a collapse of the automobile industry,” Dodd said.

Paulson, who was in China, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke both rebuffed invitations to appear at yesterday’s hearing, Dodd said.

In testimony, Gene L. Dodaro, acting comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office, said the financial rescue program is “worded broadly enough” to permit Paulson to help the automakers. Several Republicans on the panel agreed: Paulson “clearly has the authority under TARP to do this,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), using the acronym for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. “He could do it in five minutes.”

Though Paulson has said he hopes to avoid the bankruptcy of any of the auto companies, he and other Bush administration officials remain adamant that the bailout funds be reserved exclusively for the financial system.

“Our preference is not to use TARP. We’ve said that over and over,” Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez said in an interview. Still, Gutierrez has been in constant communication with the automakers and met with Chrysler chief Robert L. Nardelli late Wednesday. “There’s no question that there’s a heightened sense of focus and intensity coming into these meetings,” Gutierrez said.

“We’re here today because we made mistakes, which we’re learning from,” GM chairman G. Richard Wagoner Jr. told the panel in his opening statement. Although last month’s hearings “were difficult for us,” Wagoner said, lawmakers’ concerns had “accelerated a healthy internal review.”

That review apparently produced a far clearer assessment of the rocky road ahead. Under orders from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), the companies drafted specific business plans. They made the 500-mile return trip from Washington to Detroit in hybrid cars.

Instead of the vague request from two weeks ago, this time Wagoner asked for $12 billion in short-term loans, plus a $6 billion line of credit. He said GM needs $4 billion immediately and $4 billion more in January, and hopes to repay the government by 2012.

Nardelli said Chrysler needs a $7 billion bridge loan, as well as immediate assistance for Chrysler Financial, the company’s auto financing arm, from the Treasury’s financial rescue program, a request that startled Dodd and other lawmakers.

Noting that Treasury has not granted the bailout funds, Dodd marveled: “Even if we do what we’re doing up here, Chrysler fails anyway?”

Nardelli declined to answer directly. “It’s a candid request,” he said.

Ford President Alan R. Mulally, meanwhile, requested a $9 billion line of credit, which he said he hopes never to use. But Ford projects that its needs could grow to $13 billion if the economy continues to deteriorate.

The automakers have already applied for nearly $22 billion from an Energy Department loan program intended to promote development of fuel-efficient technology, bringing their total request to about $60 billion, a skeptical Corker noted. Corker said the Bush administration has rejected those requests; an Energy spokeswoman said the agency has merely asked for more information.

In any case, all three companies have crafted business plans that count on the Energy Department money to help them stay afloat over the next two years. The Bush administration has proposed redirecting that money to provide immediate liquidity. But Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) noted that that idea “totally destroys the business plan.”

Tester was one of several senators who said they didn’t find the business plans particularly convincing. Neither did Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, who testified that the auto giants are likely to need as much as $125 billion “to avoid bankruptcy at some point in the next two years.”

Zandi urged lawmakers nonetheless to give the car companies the money, because their “bankruptcy, at this point in time, would be cataclysmic” to the economy. But lawmakers should release the money in two installments, Zandi said, making clear that if the firms’ restructuring is not successful, Washington will “work to ensure that there is an orderly bankruptcy process.”

Zandi’s was one of half a dozen ideas batted around the hearing room. Dodaro urged lawmakers to create an oversight board similar to the one that managed the 1979 Chrysler bailout. Dodd and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) promoted the giving some money to a presidential designee — perhaps Paulson — who could sit down with the companies, their creditors, their suppliers and the UAW and hammer out a plan. Corker and Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) discussed a forced merger of GM and Chrysler, which Bennett said could save up to $10 billion a year.

And Sen. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.), the senior Republican on the panel, said he opposes any bailout, which would “just prop up a failed business model for a few months.”

Schumer asserted “there’s a growing consensus we have to do something.” But he acknowledged that no one is sure quite what that is, even as the Senate prepares to return to Washington on Monday. With opposition to a bailout strong among Republicans and even among many Democrats, congressional leaders have given themselves one week to make something happen.

“Nobody knows the endgame right now,” Corker said.

Web giants unveil new features to promote the social web

Written by David Neal Fromvnunet.com, 05 Dec 2008

Facebook and Google have both launched new user-ID services that let users take their existing log-ins and deploy them across a number of sites.

Google’s Friend Connect, out now in beta, is pitched at webmasters who want to add social networking tools to their web sites. The search giant said in a blog posting that this is as simple as “cutting and pasting a bit of code”, and requires no advanced coding or technical ability.Friend Connect is also designed to be account-agnostic, letting users log in with an existing account from Google, Yahoo, AOL or OpenID, and other online sites including Plaxo and Google’s Orkut.

“The goal is to facilitate an open social web,” said Google product manager Mussie Shore in the blog post. “Using open standards like OpenID and OAuth, Friend Connect makes it simple for people to instantly interact with one another on the sites that they already love to visit. Additionally, web sites that use Friend Connect become OpenSocial containers capable of running applications created by the OpenSocial developer community.”

Facebook Connect, meanwhile, which was announced this Summer, has also been updated, according to a blog posting on its web site. However, as might be expected with a social networking site, Facebook is asking its users to create momentum.

As with Google’s service, Facebook Connect users can access different web sites using one log-in, meaning that they will not have to create new accounts as they move around the internet. The system will let users take their Facebook experience across a number of sites, creating links between them and essentially adding Web 2.0 features.

“For example, you can use Facebook Connect with the reviews web site Citysearch. You can easily log in using your Facebook account, and from there you’ll be able to interact with all of your Facebook friends. They’ll be able to see some of the same profile information they can see on Facebook, which is fully controlled by your privacy settings,” wrote Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg in the blog post.

“When you write a review for a restaurant, you’ll have the option to publish that story back to Facebook where your friends can see it too. This makes finding your friends’ reviews on Citysearch a snap. With Facebook Connect, it will be easier for you to share and connect with your friends across the web.”

Zuckerberg claimed that Facebook will add sites to the service where there is user demand, and asked subscribers to get in contact with the firms in question to request a connection.

Senators appear to aim for plan that won’t need vote

From buffalonews.com By Jerry Zremski NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF

WASHINGTON — Senators searched Thursday for politically palatable ways to rescue the U.S. auto industry, with some options seemingly designed to avoid submitting the unpopular idea to a vote in Congress.

Over the course of a six-hour hearing featuring the heads of the three major automakers and the United Auto Workers, senators repeatedly noted the difficulty of building support for the $34 billion in assistance the companies are seeking.

Without such a package, General Motors could be bankrupt by the end of the month, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said.

With a leading economist telling them an auto industry bankruptcy could cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars more than a bailout, lawmakers acknowledged the ramifications of doing nothing would be immense.

“All of us sense that inaction is unacceptable,” said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who presided over the hearing. “But we are not about to write a check and hand it over.”

Options spelled out over the course of the hearing included a Treasury Department or Federal Reserve bailout from available funds or a mandate that some of the recently rescued banks come to the aid of the auto companies.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., suggested a two-tier approach: Auto companies would get immediate assistance and federal oversight, then receive more money later if they met specified conditions.

After the hearing, Dodd said he was optimistic.

“We’ve got the makings of putting something together,” he told reporters.

If so, the deal seems to be coalescing painstakingly — with Dodd starting by pushing the sort of bailout he has favored all along.

He asked Gene L. Dodaro, the acting controller general of the Government Accountability Office, whether the Treasury Department had the authority to use some of the $700 billion Congress set aside for the financial bailout to help rescue the auto industry, or whether the Federal Reserve had the authority to use its funds.

“Both of those avenues of authority are available,” Dodaro said.

Neither solution would require action from Congress. Yet Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke turned down requests to testify at Thursday’s hearing.

Noting that Paulson is in China on business, Dodd said: “It’s time to come home. We have a serious problem on our hands. And I realize he has a meeting over there, but I need him over here, and I need the Federal Reserve to step up, too.”

The auto leaders made it clear that they need someone to step up to help them.

“I believe we could lose General Motors by the end of this month,” Gettelfinger said, adding that his union agreed to drastic concessions Wednesday for that very reason.

“Some forces beyond our control have pushed us to the brink,” said Rick Wagoner, chairman of General Motors, who asked for $4 billion in loans to get the company through the rest of this year and as much as $18 billion in total.

“Chrysler needs a $7 billion bridge loan to bridge the current crisis,” said Robert L. Nardelli, the company’s chief executive officer. “We believe this is the least costly alternative.

Alan R. Mulally, chairman of Ford — the least troubled of the Detroit Three — struck a less desperate tone.

Nevertheless, “the collapse of one or both of our domestic competitors would threaten Ford because we have 80 percent overlap in supplier networks, and nearly 25 percent of Ford’s top dealers also own GM and Chrysler franchises,“ Mulally said.

That sort of collapse would be “cataclysmic” for the American economy, said Mark Zandi, an economist with Moody’s economy.com. He warned that 2.5 million jobs could be lost as the impact of an auto bankruptcy trickled down to dealers, suppliers and communities.

The result would be dramatically higher government spending on unemployment benefits, auto industry pensions and other bankruptcy-related expenses that would, in total, far outstrip the cost of the bailout.

“It’s not a close call,” Zandi said. “It would be several hundred billions of dollars. It’s not even in the same universe.”

Zandi predicted the automakers eventually would need upwards of $125 billion in assistance — more than three times more than they are now seeking.

But for now, lawmakers seemed to be leaning toward a more limited rescue attempt.

Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, suggested that banks rescued by the government be encouraged to lend the auto companies the money they need, with the loans to be insured by the government.

Schumer, meanwhile, suggested giving the auto companies the cash they need to operate through March 31, along with a trustee designated by the president to oversee how they spent it. Auto companies then would be eligible for more government loans if they needed them, and if they had used the earlier loan money according to preset conditions.

Schumer said appointment of a trustee would be quicker than putting together an oversight board to watch over the use of the government funds, which other lawmakers proposed.

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said an oversight board would be “basically a federal restructuring trustee” with power similar to that of a bankruptcy court.

Addressing the auto executives, Crapo said: “I did not hear any objection from any of the three of you to the establishment of an oversight board, or whatever we call it, of a federal oversight entity that has the literal authority to impose restructuring conditions and to enforce those as a matter of law as these dollars are utilized. Am I correct?”

All three executives said yes, Crapo was correct.

Some Republicans, however, remained skeptical about helping the auto industry in any way.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the banking panel, said he would oppose the bailout, calling the companies’ loan requests hastily drawn and not nearly specific enough.

With some Republicans striking that attitude, Democrats will face difficulty mustering 60 Senate votes to allow passage of any bailout plan — which is why Dodd was looking for solutions inside and outside of Congress.

While Dodd stressed greater involvement by the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve, his counterpart in the House of Representatives— Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the Financial Services Committee — put the onus on President-elect Barack Obama.

“He’s going to have to be more assertive than he’s been,” Frank said at a Consumer Federation of America conference in Washington, the Associated Press reported.

“At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I’m afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have,” said Frank, who will convene another hearing on the auto bailout today. “He’s got to remedy that situation.”

Obama’s Money Was Three Times as Much as McCain in General Election

From abcnews? abcnews.go.com By TAHMAN BRADLEY

He was not quite the first $1 billion president — but he was three quarters of the way there.

In 21-plus months, Barack Obama raised nearly $750 million, surpassing all of his White House opponents this year and also eclipsing the total amount of money raised by all of the presidential candidates combined in 2004.

Post-election campaign finance reports, filed by the candidates and national political party committees with the Federal Election Commission Thursday, reinforced the striking contrast between the amount of money Obama had at his disposal versus Republican rival John McCain.

From Oct. 16 through Nov. 24, 20 days after he was elected president, the Obama campaign reported bringing in $104.1 million from more than a million contributors. In that time period, Obama raised more money than the McCain campaign had available to spend during the general election, which officially began after the parties held their late summer conventions. The campaigned finished the period sitting on $30 million. It’s not clear how that money will be used.

Obama’s best fundraising month came in September, when he obliterated all records by raking in $153.1 million. More people gave to the Obama campaign than any campaign in history. Team Obama estimated its total number of donors to be just shy of 4 million.

McCain’s fundraising for the 2008 cycle was not terrible. The Arizona senator raised a respectable $238 million from donors, in addition to the $84 million federal grant he received for participating in the public financing system.

In all, McCain had almost $50 million more to spend than George W. Bush did in 2004. Those were good overall numbers, but obviously not enough to complete with Obama’s enormous fundraising prowess.

?

Obama Fundraising Overwhelms Republicans

Obama’s reversal on a pledge to use public financing for the general election enabled the then-senator to collect as much money as possible for his campaign. Candidates who opt into the public financing system are limited to spending only the federal grant.

Obama became the first candidate to forgo the public financing system, a system first put in place after Watergate. During the final leg of the campaign, the roughly two months following the conventions, the Obama campaign amassed about $200 million more than McCain, who, it should be noted, also got a big funding boost from the Republican National Committee.

The Obama campaign put its fundraising to good use by expanding the political battleground map, by investing resources in traditional battleground states and even spending money in historically Republican states.

McCain, on the other hand, was forced to play defense in solidly red states and often couldn’t match Obama’s local number of paid staffers, campaign field offices and investment in paid media.

Obama really blew McCain away in television advertising. In all, Obama spent $100 million more on TV ads than McCain.

In the important electoral prize of Florida, Obama’s TV ad spending outpaced McCain’s by a 4 to 1 margin, according to ad spending figures from the Campaign Media Analysis Group through Oct. 29. In Virginia, the ratio was 3 to 1; in New Hampshire, 2 to 1; and North Carolina, 3 to 1.

The Obama campaign also spent $5 million on a 30-minute network infomercial that aired on several broadcast networks and cable stations.

Obama even was up on the air in the pricey TV markets of Chicago and Boston. Why? Because he could. The campaign wanted to reach northwest Indiana voters by buying the Chicago media market, and some New Hampshire voters by buying Boston.

McCain and the RNC, on the other hand, only used local Indiana and New Hampshire TV stations to reach voters in those states.

The End of Public Financing

Republicans have conceded that it looked like the deck was stacked against McCain because of GOP brand problems, the economic meltdown and record dissatisfaction with President Bush. But some believe McCain never had a real shot because of the financial disadvantage. They say the fact Democrats had about $400 million more than Republicans made all the difference and the campaign finance system — is doomed.

“No presidential candidate will ever take public financing in the general election again and risk being outspent as badly as Mr. McCain was this year,” wrote Karl Rove in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal.

Nine days after the election, the Republican National Committee filed two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which amended the original campaign finance laws on the books. McCain helped write the current campaign finance law, which ironically, some conservatives think limited what the Republican National Committee was able to do on his behalf.

Record Number of Contributions, Large and Small

Through the course of the campaign, Obama and team boasted about their unprecedented number of small donors, who wrote checks of $5, $10, $10 or $100. Team Obama has claimed that about 80 percent of its money came from small donors.

A recent Campaign Finance Institute study raised questions about that claim, finding that Obama received about the same percentage of donors who gave a total of less than $200 as George W. Bush received in 2004. The study found that the number of small donors who over time had exceeded $200 was been underestimated by camaign.

Its hard to know for sure if that’s the case or not. Contributions of less than $200 are listed as unitemized receipts in campaign finance filing, meaning information about the donor is not required. Interestingly, the percent of Obama unitemized receipts stayed pretty steady throughout 2008. February through September, Obama’s unitemized percentage was between 35 percent and 42 percent every month — which would seem to indicate that the campaign’s level of small donors did

?

Also in the New Reports

Obama’s big fundraising success contrasts with the situation of his main primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, whose campaign spent more than it raised. A report filed last month shows, Clinton carries a $7.5 million campaign debt as she prepares for Senate confirmation to head the State Department in the Obama administration.

Once confirmed as secretary of state, Clinton would be barred by the Hatch Act of 1939 from soliciting and receiving political contributions.

However, a little innovative campaign treasury maneuvering could yield a faster way for Clinton to erase most of the remaining debt. On Aug. 28, Clinton’s Senate account received $6.4 million in contributions that were first designated for the presidential campaign for use in the general election. That money could, theoretically, be transferred back to the presidential campaign and used to knock out vendor debt. A Clinton source would not comment on this possible scenario.

Clinton lost all opportunities to get back the $13.1 million in personal money she loaned the campaign for the primary election after the time limit for candidates paying back personal loans passed.

Under law, the Obama campaign committee would only be able to contribute $2,000 to the Clinton campaign.

The Associated Press reports that the Republican National Committee is expected to report spending $30,000 on accessories for vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The Alaska governor and the RNC made headline after it was revealed that nearly $150,000 had been spent for Palin clothes and accessories.

By BETH FOUHY – The Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — President-elect Barack Obama wants to keep an outstanding commitment before Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes his secretary of state by calling on his donors to help her reduce her massive campaign debt before federal ethics rules prohibit her from doing so.

His transition team was sending an e-mail early Friday asking them for help retiring the debt as she prepares for her new duties.

The letter asks for help honoring “an outstanding commitment we made during the election.”

Our campaign pledged to help Senator Hillary Clinton — one of the vital members of our team and our future Secretary of State — retire her campaign debt. That’s the money her campaign owes to the small vendors across the country that make our political process possible.

“We welcome Hillary as a partner in our administration, and I hope you will show your support by helping Barack fulfill our campaign promise,” the letter said.

Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will headline a major debt retirement event in New York Dec. 15 with “Ugly Betty” star America Ferrera as master of ceremonies. Tickets range from $50 to $1,000, with top donors earning a premium seat and a backstage photo with the former first lady.

Clinton also plans to sell a children’s book, titled “Dreams Taking Flight” by author Kathleen Krull, about her pioneering candidacy. Clinton’s mother, Dorothy Rodham, planned to send an e-mail to supporters later this week asking them to purchase the book to help raise funds to pay down Clinton’s debt.

On Tuesday, a day after Obama announced she would serve as his top diplomat, Bill Clinton signed an e-mail to supporters asking them to send a note of congratulations to his wife and including a link for contributing to her debt retirement.

The urgency is rooted in the size of the New York senator’s unpaid bills and the fundraising restrictions she will face once she joins Obama’s cabinet.

At the beginning of November, Clinton owed $7.5 million to vendors from her failed presidential bid, according to campaign finance records. The largest share of the debt — about $5.3 million — is owed to the polling firm of Mark Penn, the Clintons’ longtime political strategist. She owes hundreds of thousands of dollars for printing, equipment rental, phone banks and other services.

Clinton has slowly been trimming the debt since suspending her campaign last June, partly with Obama’s help. But her fundraising efforts will be curtailed if she is confirmed as secretary of state and becomes covered by the Hatch Act, which regulates political involvement by federal employees.

A 2001 advisory opinion by the federal Office of Special Counsel said a federal employee with a campaign debt would be prohibited from “personally soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions.” That means Clinton’s political committee could keep raising money to pay off her creditors, but without her direct involvement.

The lack of access to Clinton could pose a disincentive for donors, said Sheila Krumholz, director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political donations.

“People write a check to get into the room with a candidate or government official. If she’s legally barred from fundraising, the No. 1 reason for giving has been removed,” Krumholz said. “It’s like attending a wedding and the bride isn’t there.”

The advisory opinion does allow the former candidate to appear briefly at fundraising events and thank donors. That restriction could suit Clinton well, according to some of her top bundlers who say neither she nor her husband has ever been good at asking for donations.

But none of the Hatch Act rules apply until Clinton is confirmed, so there’s an opportunity for people eager to get some face time with the incoming secretary of state. Aides said she will try to avoid doing anything that suggests she is leveraging her new post for fundraising advantage.

Analysts said that fundraising to retire a politician’s debt — never easy — is more difficult during the recession. Also, Clinton is trying to pay off debts from the Democratic primaries, where many of her supporters already gave the maximum $2,300 per person. They cannot be solicited again.

The large share of her debt owed to Penn, a controversial figure and harsh Obama critic, also complicates matters for Clinton. Many Democrats blamed him for her strategic failings.

Clinton also has about $6 million in her Senate re-election account; some of that could be used under strict restrictions to help pay these debts. Under FEC rules, she would need to ask each contributor’s permission to move the donation to her debt retirement account — and none could come from people who already contributed the maximum to her presidential bid.

___Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn in Washington contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS extended headline to secretary of state.)

Technical problems make the planned 2009 launch impossible, officials say. The delay will add $400 million to the cost of the mission and might result in layoffs at JPL.

By John Johnson Jr.? December 5, 2008? from latimes.com

The launch of NASA’s SUV-sized, next-generation Mars rover has been delayed for two years due to continuing technical problems and cost overruns, the space agency announced Thursday.

Originally scheduled to launch late next year, the mission will now take place in 2011, officials said at a media briefing at NASA headquarters in Washington.

“We ran out of time,” Charles Elachi, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Ca?ada Flintridge, where the rover is being built, said in a phone interview.

The rover, known as the Mars Science Laboratory, is one of the most challenging projects that NASA has ever undertaken.

The craft will carry an instrument payload 10 times heavier than the twin rovers Spirit and Opportunity, which landed on Mars in 2004. Like its cousins, the MSL will be mobile and, with a 43-inch-high deck, will be able to drive right over obstacles that deterred earlier generations of rovers.

The mission is designed to explore the planet’s potential for habitability, both now and in the ancient past. A landing site has not yet been chosen, but mission scientists are looking at several sites where orbiting spacecraft have seen evidence of wet conditions.

Because of its large size, the craft employs a complex landing system, which uses a hovering rocket to lower the 2,000-pound rover on a tether as it nears the surface, similar to lowering a piano from an upper-story apartment.

It was a much more mundane set of challenges that forced the delay. Problems developed in the design and operation of 31 actuators — combination motors and gearboxes that control the mechanical parts of the craft, including the steering mechanism, the robotic arm and the drill that will bore into Martian rocks.

For a time, Elachi said, JPL engineers hoped they could solve the problems and still make the 2009 launch date. But mission managers finally decided they couldn’t take a chance with such a complex and costly venture.

“We want to avoid a mad dash to launch,” said Ed Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. “Failure is not an option on this mission.”

Elachi said his team at JPL had been fully committed to the 2009 launch date. Engineers “have worked their tails off to make that happen,” he said. “Unfortunately we came up a little short.”

Because missions to Mars can only launch every two years, when the planet and Earth are in proper alignment, the delay meant the earliest substitute launch date would be 2011.

The delay will increase the cost of the mission from about $1.9 billion to almost $2.3 billion. The extra money will come from other Mars program activities, officials said. They did not specify which ones.

At the briefing, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin was challenged to explain why NASA missions consistently run over budget.

Griffin said each space mission is a new venture that must be designed from the ground up. Asked whether he considered canceling the MSL altogether, he said no.

To do that, “I’d have to believe the project was going badly,” he said. “It’s not. It’s going great.”

In the phone interview, Elachi said the delay could have “some minor impact” on the workforce at JPL. He said there would be “a very small number, if any” layoffs, and “we think we can find other work for the majority” of those affected.

Space enthusiasts expressed disappointment over the delay but accepted the need for it.

“Mars exploration has always had its ups and downs,” said Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society in Pasadena.

“But if history has taught us one thing, it is that every setback has been ultimately followed by astounding new accomplishments,” he said. “MSL will be worth waiting for.”

Here is a look at Facebook’s latest feature Facebook Connect and what it can do for you. It looks like a winner.

?JR Raphael, PC World?? Friday, December 5, 2008; 12:19 AM From washingtonpost.com

?

By BILL VLASIC and NICK BUNKLEY?? Published: December 3, 2008?? From www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON — The United Automobile Workers union said Wednesday that it would make major concessions in its contracts with the three Detroit auto companies to help them lobby Congress for $34 billion in federal aid.
The surprising move by the U.A.W. could be a critical factor in the automakers’ bid not only to get government assistance, but also to become competitive with the cost structure of nonunion plants operated by foreign automakers in the United States.

At a news conference in Detroit, the U.A.W.’s president, Ron Gettelfinger, said that his members were willing to sacrifice job security provisions and financing for retiree health care to keep the two most troubled car companies of the Big Three, General Motors and Chrysler, out of bankruptcy.

“Concessions, I used to cringe at that word,” Mr. Gettelfinger said. “But now, why hide it? That’s what we did.”

Labor experts said the ground given by the union underscored the precarious condition of the Detroit companies, as the U.A.W.’s own prospects for survival are also in doubt. “It is an historic and awfully difficult moment for the U.A.W.,” said Harley Shaiken, professor of labor studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

The union’s willingness to modify its 2007 contract came a day after G.M., Chrysler and the Ford Motor Company submitted business plans to Congress in support of their loan requests.

Those efforts won praise from President-elect Barack Obama, who said the automakers had offered “a more serious set of plans” to save the industry.

G.M. and Chrysler have both said they are dangerously close to running out of cash to run their operations by the end of the year. Ford is somewhat healthier, but is also seeking government loans.

The chief executives of the Big Three, along with Mr. Gettelfinger, are to appear before Congress on Thursday and Friday in hopes of building support for emergency assistance.

Democratic Congressional leaders have said that they want to help the automakers and that they were heartened by the gesture of contrition that the executives made by driving to Washington — rather than flying on corporate jets, as they did two weeks ago — and by the more comprehensive plans submitted by the companies.

But the political climate on Capitol Hill is still doubtful for the automakers, and only seemed to worsen on Wednesday with a new CNN poll showing a majority of Americans opposing a taxpayer rescue.

As a result, there is growing concern among the Democratic leadership that they will simply not be able to drum up enough votes to pass an aid package next week, and that to do so will require a major lobbying effort by President Bush and Mr. Obama.

“We don’t have a good sense from our members that this is something they want to do,” a senior House Democratic aide said. “It’s going to take Bush and Obama calling people.”

Many conservative Republicans remain staunchly opposed to any further corporate bailouts by the government, and some are openly calling for Congress to let one or more of the automakers go into bankruptcy.

“Not only should bankruptcy be an option for domestic automakers, but it is considered by most experts to be the best option,” Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, said in a statement on Wednesday.

Many lawmakers are reluctant to approve another large expenditure of taxpayer money to prop up private corporations, especially given the mounting criticism of the Treasury’s $700 billion stabilization program for the financial system.

On Wednesday, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said there did not seem to be enough support in Congress to use that fund to help the auto companies. “I just don’t think we have the votes to do that now,” he told The Associated Press.

Two weeks ago, the Detroit executives left Washington empty-handed after skeptical lawmakers refused to approve federal aid until they heard detailed plans on how the companies could be viable in the long term.

Other lawmakers were withholding judgment on the plans until after hearings by the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday and the House Financial Services Committee on Friday.

But the automakers’ hopes for aid were buoyed by the positive comments on Wednesday from Mr. Obama. At a news conference on his latest cabinet appointment, Mr. Obama said the new plans were an indication that the Detroit companies were responsive to earlier concerns raised by lawmakers.

“I’m glad that they recognize the expectations of Congress, certainly my expectations, that we should maintain a viable auto industry,” Mr. Obama said. “But that we should also make sure that any government assistance that’s provided is designed for and is based on realistic assessments of what the auto market is going to be and a realistic plan for how we’re going to make these companies viable over the long term.”

The new plans were also being studied by officials in the Bush administration, which has yet to come to an agreement with lawmakers on how to finance a loan package for Detroit.

In its plan to Congress, G.M. said it would significantly reduce jobs, factories, brands and executive compensation in a broad effort to become more competitive with American plants operated by Toyota, Honda and other foreign auto companies.

But G.M.’s president, Frederick Henderson, said it was also important for the company to get help from the U.A.W. to close the gap with its foreign competition.

Currently, the average U.A.W. member costs G.M. about $74 an hour in a combination of wages, health care and the value of future benefits, like pensions. Toyota, by comparison, spends the equivalent of about $45 an hour for each of its employees in the United States.

Base wages between the Big Three and the foreign companies are roughly comparable, with a veteran U.A.W. member earning $28 an hour at the Big Three compared to about $25 an hour at Toyota’s plant in Georgetown, Ky. (Toyota pays less at its other American factories.)

But the gap in labor costs becomes larger when health care, particularly for thousands of retirees and surviving spouses, and job security provisions are considered.

Mr. Gettelfinger said Wednesday that the union would suspend the much-criticized “jobs bank” program, which allows laid-off workers to continue drawing nearly full wages.

He also said the union would agree to delay the multibillion-dollar payments to a new retiree health care fund that the automakers were scheduled to start making next year.

Beyond those two concessions, Mr. Gettelfinger said the U.A.W. would be open to modifying other terms of its contracts. Changes could include reductions in wages, health care or other benefits, and would require approval from union members.

Suspending the jobs bank program, which supports about 3,600 workers, removes one of the most politically sensitive union perks from the discussions in Washington.

“The jobs bank has become a sound bite that people use to beat us up,” said Mr. Gettelfinger. In the last five years, the U.A.W.’s membership at G.M., Ford and Chrysler has declined to 139,000 workers, from 305,000, because of plant closings and a series of buyout and early-retirement programs.

Both G.M. and Chrysler have said they are not considering bankruptcy as an option to restructure their businesses because of the damage a Chapter 11 filing would do to their reputations with consumers.

Mr. Henderson said that G.M.’s restructuring plan included cutting up to 30,000 more jobs in the next few years, as well as closing another nine factories in North America. He stressed that cooperation from the union would be crucial in the company’s overall efforts to match Toyota in labor costs by 2012.

A G.M. spokesman, Tony Cervone, said Wednesday that the U.A.W.’s offer to make modifications in its contract would help the automaker survive its current financial crisis.

“Clearly the U.A.W. and Ron Gettelfinger have shown a willingness to work with the industry to restructure and make it fully competitive going forward,” Mr. Cervone said.

Ford’s chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, said in an interview Wednesday that Detroit needed the union’s help to speed its transformation, particularly in replacing current workers with entry-level employees who will be making $14 an hour in wages under the terms of the 2007 labor agreement.

He said that suspending the jobs bank program was also important for cutting costs. “That would contribute to us closing the gap,” Mr. Mulally said.

The Detroit companies will remove billions of dollars in financial obligations from their books when the U.A.W. health care trust takes over responsibility for the medical bills of retirees in 2010. But delaying payments to the trust by the companies is a more pressing concern for the automakers.

G.M., for example, is scheduled to make a payment of $7 billion to the health care trust before the end of next year. The U.A.W.’s offer to delay that payment will significantly help G.M.’s cash flow as it tries to recover.

“Taking retiree health care off the books will save the companies billions and billions of dollars,” said Mr. Shaiken. “By not paying into the trust next year, it won’t postpone the trust, but it will save G.M. and the others a lot of money for now.” At the U.A.W. meeting in Detroit, union officials described their members as extremely anxious about the prospect of more concessions but at the same time afraid of what would happen if the union did not aid the automakers.

“We’ve helped them before, but it seems like they always come back to us,” said Shane Colvard, chairman of Local 2164 in Bowling Green, Ky., where G.M. builds the Chevrolet Corvette sports car.