This is Anne from GE. There are several factual inaccuracies in Mr. Spitzer's column, which we have alerted him to. They're set forth below but we take particular exception with the false and misleading suggestion GE has received a government bailout in any amount, let alone $2.5 billion.

Mr. Spitzer writes: "But GE has gained hugely from Fed policies. It has been a significant beneficiary of the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, created by the Fed in October 2008 to insure liquidity in the commercial paper market. By putting a federal guarantee behind GE's issuance of commercial paper, GE saves very significantly on its cost of capital."

This is not true. GE paid a fee of $98 million to the government (and indirectly to taxpayers) to use the program during a brief period from its inception until February 2009 when we fully refunded all borrowings. We continued to roll our paper throughout the crisis. We have paid above-market rates during our participation. The program was put in place to help the market overall, not GE, by promoting liquidity and restoring confidence in the short term funding market. Currently there is $160B of outstanding paper in the CPFF, $0 from GE. It's incorrect to suggest by paying fees to participate and by paying above-market rates, the company "increased its margins." At the time of the CPFF program's inception we made it very clear that we were going to "test" facility and help our customers who wanted to redeem and that we did not need this facility; we used the facility for a limited amount and fully refunded it in February.

Spitzer continues: "A back-of-the-envelope estimate of the value of these federal guarantees on the $80 billion in commercial paper that GE has issued with CPFF support."

This is also imprecise. The $80 billion cited was total CP outstanding back in the fall -- our current CP balance is $~58B with a target of $50B by end of the year. Our average maturities are months long, so it is incorrect and misleading to calculate fees on an annual basis. In any case, we cannot discern how Mr. Spitzer begins to calculate the value of federal guarantees at $2.5 billion.

The column continues: "Now, the fact that the Fed reinforced the commercial paper market and that GE therefore got these guarantees may be wholly justifiable as a matter of policy. But why is it that GE, unlike virtually every bank that got bailout funds..."

It's important to note these were not bailout funds in any sense of the word. They were guarantees to buy paper if no one else would and we have already repaid them. At the same time, we have demonstrated ability to place CP without the guarantees.

"But why is it that GE, unlike virtually every bank that got bailout funds, did not give warrants to the government to provide for some potential return of value to the taxpayer? That question remains to be answered."

The answer is that GE did not give warrants to the government because that is not the nature of the CPFF program, as explained above. If perhaps Mr. Spitzer is confusing CPFF with TARP, GE does not participate in that program. If he is confusing CPFF with TLGP, a program that we do participate in, his math is still inaccurate. On that program, we have in fact paid the government $1.3 billion to participate.

To be clear: GE has received NO government bailout. Rather, we have paid money out to the government to participate selectively in two programs designed to ensure liquidity to the market overall, while at the same time demonstrating ability to issue commercial paper without government guarantees.

We are engaging with Mr. Spitzer and his representatives to better understand how he arrived at what we believe are erroneous and misleading conclusions. In the meantime, it's important Slate readers benefit from the above.

Anne Eisele, Director, Financial Communications at GE Corporate.

Ms. Eisele,

Thank you for this 1,000-word clarification. I'm glad we got that cleared up. Are you by any chance also a "public" representative at the Fed? If so, I want to thank you and Mr. Immelt for doing such a great job of sticking up for us taxpayers. Just out of curiosity, how many shares of Goldman Sachs do you own? And are you, or have you ever been, an AIG counterparty? Oh, never mind, I think we know the answer. Have a nice day.

Well Anne:

Guess I have to ask the question: Did GE need the FED guarantee in order to unload its commercial paper?

If GE did not need the FED guarantee, than why did GE even bother to participate in the program unless GE was likely to lose more money then the $98 million + $1.3 billion in fees? The feeble protest of not needing to participate, when GE did participate, defies common sense and logic and certainly gives rise to some credibility issues. GE didn't demonstrate anything if it participated in the programs. Most of us have been around GE a long time and we all know GE doesn't spend a dime unless it has to do so or can make a sizeable profit from its dime.

Also, the program was put in place to assist in short term lending to the market of WHICH GE WAS A PART! You are splitting hairs with the way the article was written and trying to detach GE from the market the same as you believe Spitzer stated the program was developed solely for GE. Most taxpayers could care less that GE has repaid its portion, the same as we could care less that Goldman Sachs arrived at the same conclusion after its daliance in speculative investments with AIG-FP. What the taxpayers do care about is being dragged into this malaise and the associated losses in investments, retirements, 401ks, pensions, healthcare, loss of income in additon to massive layoffs and economic contraction as a result of corporate and W$ dabbling in speculative and risky ventures which in the end took the economy cliff diving. Is GE going to pick up the inflation tab by paying more taxes as a result of all of this? That GE came out from under its rock to challenge Spitzer's inaccuracies is laughable at best. GE, and you Anne, should be chaffing your lips on Taxpayer butts big time instead of this display of phony indignation. A suggestion, get some Burts Bee Lip Balm for the chaffing as it is pretty good stuff.

The kettle calling the pot black???

Here is an old quote for you and today's GE to think about:

"My main job was developing talent. I was a gardener providing water and other nourishment to our top 750 people. Of course, I had to pull out some weeds, too." Jack Welch

Looks like Jack missed a few of the weeds.