OK. The thread is now up. Tabouli may be indisposed so we have to leave it to jexster for the time being.
2. judithathome - 1/13/2002 1:32:47 PM
Thank you, Pelle.
3. judithathome - 1/13/2002 1:41:02 PM
Here is an article with some information about
Who's Accountable.
It's from Time.com and mentions Democrats and Republicans so it seems bipartisan in it's approach.
4. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 1:52:36 PM
Well that's because the Media Whores are covering their asses.
5. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 1:53:58 PM
6. bubbaette - 1/13/2002 2:10:17 PM
Just saw a Representative King on CNN talking about how weakens the nation to call for Bush to answer questions about Enron while the nation is a war. I hope that the families of the victims of the WTC and Pentagon are relieved that these deaths are serving a useful purpose -- to shield the pres. from scrutiny.
Whatta buffoon.
7. judithathome - 1/13/2002 2:27:01 PM
He trusts that there was no involvement by the President 100% and so should we, Bubba...
There is going to be enough blame to go around; I just want this to maybe alter the way campaign finance is done. Maybe something will turn up that happened in both parties and shake the country enough to demand campaign finance reform. Although I think people are so apathetic, they will be oblivious to any of it.
8. judithathome - 1/13/2002 2:35:24 PM
You've Got To Know When To Hold...and When To Fold 'Em
9. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 3:35:42 PM
"But at this point in time, I am unaware of any evidence that supports the allegation there was improper selling by members of the board or senior management."
Let usa know when you find a "point in time" when you can, dear!
10. Rama - 1/13/2002 5:12:04 PM
You guys are way overestimating the impact and importance of this.
I understand why those who have seen all of their political asperations crushed by successful response of the administration to the September attacks, but I don't understand why anybody else thinks this is more than another example of corporate executives doing what they do when they don't have a good business plan.
11. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 6:41:18 PM
Aired January 8, 2002 - 07:34 ET
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Time to check in with ambassador-in-residence,
Richard Butler, this morning. An explosive new book published in France
alleges that the United States was in negotiations to do a deal with the
Taliban for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan.
Joining us right now is Richard Butler to shed some light on this new
book.
He is the former chief U.N. weapons inspector. He is now on the Council
on
Foreign Relations and our own ambassador-in-residence -- good morning.
RICHARD BUTLER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Boy, if any of these charges are true...
BUTLER: If...
ZAHN: ...this...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ...is really big news.
BUTLER: I agree.
ZAHN: Start off with what your understanding is of what is in this book
--
the most explosive charge.
BUTLER: The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush
administration --
the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI
investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a
deal
with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.
ZAHN: And this book points out that the FBI's deputy director, John
O'Neill,
actually resigned because he felt the U.S. administration was
obstructing...
BUTLER: A proper...
ZAHN: ...the prosecution of terrorism.
12. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 6:42:01 PM
BUTLER: Yes, yes, a proper intelligence investigation of terrorism. Now,
you
said if, and I affirmed that in responding to you. We have to be careful
here. These are allegations. They're worth airing and talking about,
because
of their gravity. We don't know if they are correct. But I believe they
should be investigated, because Central Asian oil, as we were discussing
yesterday, is potentially so important. And all prior attempts to have a
pipeline had to be done through Russia. It had to be negotiated with
Russia.
Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the
need to
deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a pipeline
through Russia would cost. So financially and politically, there's a big
prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Pakistan
coast
would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and more cheaply.
ZAHN: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) as you spoke about this yesterday, we almost
immediately got a call from "The New York Times."
BUTLER: Right.
ZAHN: They want you to write an op-ed piece on this over the weekend.
BUTLER: Right, and which I will do.
ZAHN: But let's come back to this whole issue of what John O'Neill, this
FBI
agent...
BUTLER: Right.
ZAHN:...apparently told the authors of this book. He is alleging that
--
what -- the U.S. government was trying to protect U.S. oil interests?
And at
the same time, shut off the investigation of terrorism to allow for that
to
happen?
BUTLER: That's the allegation that instead of prosecuting properly an
investigation of terrorism, which has its home in Afghanistan as we now
know,
or one of its main homes, that was shut down or slowed down in order to
pursue oil interests with the Taliban.
13. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 6:42:19 PM
The people who we have now bombed
out
of existence, and this not many months ago. The book says that the
negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of
gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs. That's what the book
alleges.
14. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 6:43:59 PM
ZAHN: Well, I know you're going to be doing your own independent
homework on
this...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ...to see if you can confirm any of this. Let's move on to the
whole
issue of Iraq. The deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, at one time
was
considered one of those voices within the administration...
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: ...that was pushing for moving beyond Afghanistan. He seemed to
back
off a little from that yesterday.
BUTLER: Yes.
ZAHN: What do you read through the tea leaves here?
BUTLER: A very interesting report that the administration will focus on
the
Philippines, Yemen, Somalia as places where there are al Qaeda cells.
But the
word Iraq wasn't used by the man who was the chief hawk -- used as a,
you
know, as a future target. So what I interpret from that is this: That
very
likely our allies have been saying to us, this is too hard. This is
really serious. Be careful. Saddam is essentially contained at the
moment.
Don't start, you know, a bigger problem either in the Arab world or in
the
coalition by going after him. And Wolfowitz, it seems, has probably
accepted
that.
ZAHN: A quick thought on the Israelis intercepting this latest armed
shipment? What that means? You've got to do it in about 15 seconds.
BUTLER: It's extraordinarily serious, because it seems to have been tied
to
Yasser Arafat himself. It needs to be further investigated, but you
know,
Paula, the potentiality that this could once again prove an impediment
to
resume peace negotiations is really quite serious.
15. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 6:44:55 PM
ZAHN: Thank you as usual for covering so much territory. Richard Butler,
see
you same time, same place tomorrow morning.
BUTLER: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
ZAHN: We appreciate your insights.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR
SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
========================================================================
===
The Bush-Bin Laden Money Connection
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15727
BUSH SR. IN BUSINESS WITH BIN LADEN FAMILY
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15729
We the People of the U.S want to know....
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15730
MAJOR MEDIA WON'T TALK ABOUT IT
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15700
Petition to the Senate to Investigate Oddities Involving 9/11 Terrorist
Attacks
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495&article=15725
16. joezan - 1/13/2002 6:52:00 PM
I guess it never occurred to Butler that if there were any truth at all to this fantasy, it would've been all over al Jazeera months ago.
17. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/13/2002 6:56:09 PM
Rama- You're sooo worldly. Pigs are pigs and we shouldn't allow government regulations to hamstring corporate pigs--or the pols who feed from their troughs--because that's America, Baby!
18. wonkers2 - 1/13/2002 7:10:07 PM
It's time for a giant Heimlich Maneuver to force the disgorgement of ill gotten gains by the executives and directors who bailed out with all the money and left Enron's employees holding the bag. And for Arthur Anderson to pony up a big share of what it collected from the company for consulting and auditing.
It's time also for an amendment to the 401k law limiting the amount of retirement savings that may go into the employer's stock. People don't realize how much too much employer stock increases their risk. This is especially important when the 401k is the entire retirement fund, i.e. where there is no traditional funded and ERISA regulated,defined benefit pension fund.
19. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 7:10:53 PM
20. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 7:13:43 PM
And the ENRON links just keep on comin' !
21. joezan - 1/13/2002 7:23:45 PM
Agreed, wonk.
If the Enron execs are allowed to keep the money they walked away with, it will cause serious repercussions.
Last I heard, they cleaned out over a billion before the collapse.
I'm not sure how many employees were left holding the 401(K) bag, but let's say 5,000.
Divided equally, that'd be $200,000 apiece. That's what needs to happen with that money.
(Of course, legally these people probably have no more claim to that money than those who merely invested with the company -but whatever happens, Ken Lay and company need to leave this fiasco penniless).
22. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 7:43:48 PM
The phrase legal theft comes to mind for some reason.
23. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 7:47:37 PM
Yet another source of ENRON info.
24. dusty - 1/13/2002 8:05:29 PM
From the Time article:
Democrats in Congress, frustrated by Bush's soaring popularity and their own inability to move pet legislation through Congress, smelled a chance to link Bush and his party to the richest tale of greed, self-dealing and political access since junk-bond king Michael Milken was jailed in 1991.
This is an odd comparison.
Milken was greedy? If you mean he attempted to improve his financial well-being and worked very hard at it, then yes, he was greedy, along with millions of others (most of whom aren't as god at what they do). If they meant greed in the sense of willing to eschew ethics and morality in order to gain more bucks, find someone else, that isn't Michael.
When i think of "Self-dealing" I think of a regulator who also has a financial interest in the business being regulated. I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't know how the term applies to Milken in a negative way.
"Political access"? I'm sure he had better contacts than I have, as is true of anyone (metaphorically) on Wall Street engaged in a business involving billions of dollars, but i don't recall that he tried to take advantage of those contacts the way the Enron people tried (and failed). If anything, Milken's problem was that he was a bit on the naive side about government involvement. He didn't play politics as well as some of his counterparts.
So why on earth is Enron being compared to Milken. I don't see the connection at all.
25. dusty - 1/13/2002 8:06:41 PM
bubbaette
Just saw a Representative King on CNN talking about how weakens the nation to call for Bush to answer questions about Enron while the nation is a war.
If he did, then I agree the comment was pretty stupid.
26. dusty - 1/13/2002 8:19:26 PM
joezan
I'm not sure how many employees were left holding the 401(K) bag, but let's say 5,000.
They had 21,000 employees; I assume most had some exposure to the 401K.
BTW, there was one insider purchase in the last six months. I'd be interested in knowing who that idiot was. bet he feels like a chump.
27. dusty - 1/13/2002 8:20:58 PM
wonkers2
And for Arthur Anderson to pony up a big share of what it collected from the company for consulting and auditing.
A big share of what it collected?
I'd say its exposure is a big multiple of what it collected.
28. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 8:38:38 PM
Along the Texas Watchtower
There must be some kind of way out of here,
Said the Joker to the Chimp,
There's too much confusion,
I can't get no relief.
Enron men they drink my wine,
marxist oilmen dig my earth.
None of them along the line,
know what any of it is worth.
No reason to get excited,
the Chimp he smirked and spoke,
There are many here among us,
who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we've been through that,
and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now,
the hour is getting late.
All along the watchtower,
Old man Cheney kept the view,
While all the fundies came and went,
barefoot media whores too.
Outside in the distance,
a Democrat named Daschle did growl,
Two process servers were approaching,
and the Times began to howl.
29. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 8:57:19 PM
The Fox who's been sent to guard the hen house.
30. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 9:05:43 PM
31. joezan - 1/13/2002 9:16:48 PM
An obvious play for sympathy...
32. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 9:19:43 PM
Could those pretzels have come from (dare I say it?) Osama Bin Ladin ?
33. Cellar Door - 1/13/2002 9:27:33 PM
CNN awakens from its "War on Terrorism" slumbers to discover (gasp!) the ENRON story.
34. wonkers2 - 1/13/2002 9:33:31 PM
Dusty, Good point! Arthur Anderson may cease to exist along with Enron.
35. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/13/2002 10:20:50 PM
Cellar- A close artist-friend of mine married one of his student's, who, after she graduated, worked for Arthur Anderson, got promoted and went to NYC and became a partner in AA.
They had a penthouse overlooking Central Park & The Hudson and they would lend us their place on weekends because they had a country house in New Paltz.
Over time, my friend, the artist, gave up his art career and got an MS in Social Work and he is now a "Therapist," uptown & in SoHo. He was a promising artist--got a Guggenhiem and even had work in the Met's contemporary art collection.
Anyway, over time, it became more difficult and more tedious for my wife and I to endure their attitudes. His wife, we found out later, was responsible for the Met's acquisition and she got bagged by the IRS that year for playing fast & loose with their tax returns. We also learned that she urged him to get another masters so he could capitalize on all of the "neurotic whining-wannabe" artists in NY who needed psychotherapy.
They both became beyond insufferable; we broke off our friendship completely, six years ago. At that time she was a full partner in AA with reserved seats at Yankee Stadium behind the Yankee dugout. At that time she was the head of their Human Resorces Division. She was ruthless and arose in that position because she had absolutely no reservations about firing people--as a matter of fact, she relished it--a total Facist!
My question for you--or anyone who might know the answer--how do I find out 1.) if this woman is still with the company and 2.) more info about her? I know you do lots of research and are familiar with ways of finding out such info.
I'd appreciate some help because I'm curious as hell and knowing she's going to take a big stock hit would be divine justice .
36. judithathome - 1/13/2002 11:22:50 PM
If she knew anything about Andersons creative accounting for Enrons finances, she probably didn't by stock in Ken Lays company.
37. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 1:20:42 AM
The Latest from MWO:
In a statement sharply condemned in Washington today, Secretary of the Treasury Paul H. O'Neill revealed just how mean, immoral, and out-of-touch the Bush Administration is on the Enron matter.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Secretary O'Neill declared that the Federal Government had, and has, no responsibility in protecting stockholders in Enron -- or, by implication, any other company.
"I think what those of us in the administration knew was [shrugs] public property," O'Neill said offhandedly.
"Everyone knew from Enron's disclosures they were struggling. Uh, we didn't know more than that. The company had a duty to inform its shareholders and employees about things that were going on inside the company. That's not a federal government responsibility...."
NOT A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY??!!
Of course it is, Secretary O'Neill. Oversight of these matters had LONG been a matter of federal law. Are you even aware of what the Securities and Exchange Commission is for?
Senator Joseph Lieberman, appearing on Face the Nation, was quick to condemn the Secretary's remarks.
"With all due respect to Secretary O'Neill, those statements are outrageous. I hope that they sound more coldblooded than he means them to be," Lieberman said.
As Lieberman went on to comment, O'Neill's comments show that he is thinking like a Secretary of the Treasury of the 18th century or maybe the 19th century -- but not of the 21st!!
38. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 1:20:53 AM
O'Neill, former head of Alcoa, has already shown his basic hostility to modern American democratic capitalism. A laissez-faire zealot, he has declared his basic hostility to all taxation of corporations, and to many of the regulatory safeguards put in place by Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and other great presidents over the past century. He's a buggy-whip extremist, who wants to take us back to the bad old days of jungle-rules economics.
39. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 1:21:47 AM
If O'Neill's view become public policy, then ordinary Americans will have no protections whatsover from rich crooks like the ones who looted Enron -- rich crooks who just happen to be Secretary O'Neill's (and George W. Bush's) good buddies.
O'Neill shows he is utterly unaware of basic American civics. He looks heartless -- an ignorant businessman whose only morality is the morality of the rich and powerful. And this is the person who is now in charge of the Treasury Department?
40. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/14/2002 1:25:18 AM
Cellar- Does that mean no?
You're probably right, Judith, and she bailed long ago. 
41. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/14/2002 1:40:24 AM
eek! I just reread my story--that should have been "she rose to that position" and not "arose."
42. bubbaette - 1/14/2002 4:29:50 AM
One wonders whether Secretary ONeill has given any thought to what his statement means to his boss's fond dream to privatize Social Security. If he's honest in his belief than it seems to me a recognition that investing our retirement funds in the stock market is akin to pouring them down an unregulated rat hole.
43. thoughtful - 1/14/2002 8:42:55 AM
The key question in my mind which has yet to be answered is not if O'Neill or others spoke with Ken Lay in November, but if they held discussions earlier in the year which allowed for Bush &co. to dump shares of Enron based on insider information as had many Enron execs.
And, for Dusty, thus the comparison to Milken. From an SEC article:
The type of insider trading we discuss here is the illegal variety that most of us think of when we hear the term; the type of insider trading that achieved wide-spread notoriety in the 1980s with the SEC's civil cases and the United States Department of Justice's criminal cases against Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky and which inspired even Hollywood's imagination with the movie "Wall Street". It is the trading that takes place when those privileged with confidential information about important events use the special advantage of that knowledge to reap profits or avoid losses on the stock market, to the detriment of the source of the information and to the typical investors who buy or sell their stock without the advantage of "inside" information.
44. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 9:51:54 AM
"It's Not a Political Scandal". . . .says Bill Safire. Yeah. Sure. Anything you say, Bill.
45. Toenails - 1/14/2002 9:53:52 AM
I don't care if a lot of Republicans have been in bed with Enron. That's par for the course.
I do care whether the U.S. Government can conduct a comprehensive and honest inquiry into all this, and can manage to penalize the responsible corporate officers, big-time, for their obvious criminal conduct.
This will be the truest test in years of whether this country really has an ethical base and is a government of laws and not of men.
Unless the fat cats at the top of Enron are stripped of all their gains, and the money distributed to all those below them who got screwed in the Traditional Manner; and unless the profession of public accounting and auditing is thoroughly reworked in response to Andersen's misdeeds, we can know for sure that what we have here in the U.S. isn't true capitalism, but just thinly disguised corporate statism.
46. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 9:54:55 AM
Unfortunately it's a government of men. Always has been.
47. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 9:57:05 AM
The Genius of Capitalism: Looting.
48. TabouliJones - 1/14/2002 10:17:27 AM
I apologize to everyone that I was once again unable to get the Enron thread up and running. My recovery from the flu has dragged on and apparently it may take me awhile to get 100%. I am not seriously ill or anything, but will apparently be under the weather for a few weeks to come. This combined with certain work pressures is likely to make it difficult for me to give the proper attention to hosting an Enron thread. Accordingly, I suggest that jexter host the thread for the next while and see where things go from there. I will make an effort to post and steer conversation in a productive direction as time permits.
I trust the thread will grow into something interesting under jexter's guidance, although his approach is likely to be more partisan than my own. When I do post, I will attempt to shift the emphasis towards issues of SEC regulation, securities and corporate law issues, the power of credit rating agencies and the appropriateness of self-regulation in the accounting industry. Although the political angles are interesting, I believe that the Enron bankruptcy raises more compelling and pressing issues with respect to matters of securities regulation and corporate governance.
49. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 10:23:27 AM
The Houston Chronicle's ENRON file.
50. judithathome - 1/14/2002 10:38:25 AM
Well said, Toenails!
I think it might be interesting to see how many flights from Houston to the Cayman Islands were booked in the months prior to the public drop of Enrons stock and in whose names.
51. Julius Caesar - 1/14/2002 1:10:14 PM
With regard to the administration, it might be helpful to any debate on ENRON for someone to catalogue the allegations of wrongdoing. At present, the whole of it seems to be "Enron acted scummy with regard to their employees, they had access to those to whom they contributed dollars, they spread cash around, and they were so big, they got access."
If this is it, I suppose it dovetails nicely into a generalized McCain-Feingold complaint against money and politics. It also underscores corporate greed. But disproportionate access is given any large corporation or, for that matter, any representative of blocs of voters. No matter the administration, jexter's calls will not be returned. Those of CEOs and movers and shakers (like Robert Rubin) will be returned.
But what, specifically, are the allegations of wrongdoing - if any - against the administration?
I assume Ken Lay was calling everybody he knew to help out the company, something I presume every one of us would do.
Senator Lieberman has asked the following:
We know that Mr. Lay and other executives of Enron were right in the middle of the formulation of the Bush administration energy policy and energy appointments that were made," Lieberman said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "But we don't know enough to know whether any of that influence in any way stopped the administration or agencies of our federal government from protecting average shareholders who lost their life savings when Enron collapsed.
Is this the thrust, the cake of influence and the icing of Stan Greenberg little guy class resentment?
52. Julius Caesar - 1/14/2002 1:14:54 PM
Aren't You Supposed to be Accommodating to Big Business?
53. Julius Caesar - 1/14/2002 1:18:12 PM
54. CalGal - 1/14/2002 1:19:58 PM
JC,
Why bother with the partisan aspect, anyway? Can't that stay in the politics thread?
55. Julius Caesar - 1/14/2002 1:20:27 PM
The Wall Street Journal Answers "Is Enron Whitewater?"
56. Julius Caesar - 1/14/2002 1:22:48 PM
Cal
Sure. TJ, jexster, please move the Enron posts of 51-53, and 55 to Politics at your convenience.
57. CalGal - 1/14/2002 1:30:07 PM
My complaint wasn't directed only at you. I think Jex will probably make it political too, and its his thread. But it will be tedious in the extreme to have some folks yap about it being Republican greedmongers followed by you linking in Republican pundits who say it ain't no such thing.
It's just absurd, really, to pretend this is an administration mess unless some actual smoking gun comes up.
Of course, the partisan bitchers have no interest in actually identifying the real problems and risks that the Enron scenario reveals. Probably because there's no convenient party line to follow.
58. judithathome - 1/14/2002 1:38:43 PM
Since there seems to be evidence that both parties received money from Enron, it seems there will little room for putting the blame on just one party.
I was hoping it might bring about a renewed interest in Campaign Finance Reforem, which is needed by ALL parties, not just one or the other.
59. CalGal - 1/14/2002 1:41:43 PM
Please demonstrate where Enron received any special consideration from either party.
Best I can see, anyone who brings up CFR in regards to Enron is just whoring their agenda. I include McCain, who I quite like in general.
60. amax - 1/14/2002 1:42:50 PM
I dunno. It certainly seems like the political angle is being pressed hard by the Dems -- suppose I can't blame them with an election coming up, but the fact they are putting so many resources into this story is a sad commentary on the state of the party. From my limited understanding of the issue thus far, it has real blowback potential.
The story so far looks to be that the dems assumed that Enron and the Bush administraion must somehow be in bed together, and really started playing up the issue. Unfortunately for the dems, there doesn't appear to be any questionable dealings between the two (so far at least). Maybe that will change, but if it doesn't, the media may backlash against the dems and start playing up dem ties with Enron. Once you put blood in the water, the shark is going to get fed, one way or the other.
61. amax - 1/14/2002 1:48:46 PM
Also, So far the Enron issue looks to be a negative example for campaign finance reform -- even despite large amounts of money trading hands, we haven't seen any allegations of conduct on either side of the aisle that was against the public interest. Even JC's 52 article link, detailing insider relations between the corporation and the govt, doesn't have anything that is clearly against 'the public interest' -- Clinton ran on the agenda of helping Corporations with deals like the one outlined in JCs article.
Campaign finance reformers might want to resist the temptation to get on board this issue.
62. CalGal - 1/14/2002 1:58:09 PM
Amax, I largely agree with your two posts. I think it would be too bad if the media got distracted by the politics, but agree that it's likely.
Thus far, though, I think the coverage has resisted distraction.
63. robertjayb - 1/14/2002 2:08:51 PM
It's just absurd, really, to pretend this is an administration mess unless some actual smoking gun comes up.
You mean like the smoking gun that kicked off
Whitewater?
Oh. wait. The repubs spent years and millions looking for that, didn't they.
64. amax - 1/14/2002 2:20:13 PM
So far, the only real story that can be gotten out of Enron is an old economics cliche:
One of the useful things about recessions is that they expose flaws missed by the accountants.
This in itself might be a good thing -- I seen and heard repeated anectdoes about how the big 5 accounting firms are getting too cozy with their clients. I think they heavily leveraged the market's trust during the boom. Now we'll see which of them survive, and, hopefully, we'll see some new accounting institutions established to better meet the demand for accounting with integrity. OTOH, it surprises me a little that we haven't seen more companies get into the kind of trouble Enron has thus far. We have seen a lot of layoffs and cost cutting, but I don't know of too many other large established companies running into this kind of trouble. Perhaps that will change if the recession continues another six months, but if we don't see to many more, that could be taken as an endorsement of the state of current accounting practices, despite some of the nastier rumors one hears about the relationships between the big five and their clients.
65. CalGal - 1/14/2002 2:30:59 PM
One of the useful things about recessions is that they expose flaws missed by the accountants.
But they didn't miss them. That's actually the major scandal of Enron.
66. CalGal - 1/14/2002 2:33:05 PM
BobbyJ,
To make Whitewater an accurate analogy, Bush would have to have been involved in the early days of Enron's transition to a financial scam instead of a solid business, and have profited from it. I'm not saying this is what Clinton did; I'm just trying to identify a like to like situation.
67. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 2:41:19 PM
CalGal honey, Dubbya's been involved with Ken Lay the better part of his life! 68. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 2:47:41 PM "It also underscores corporate greed. But disproportionate access is given any large corporation or, for that matter, any representative of blocs of voters." 69. judithathome - 1/14/2002 2:48:05 PM I don't know if it was the better part but since the mid 80s at least. 70. Property of Jesus - 1/14/2002 3:15:07 PM It's Rep. Henry Waxman, the man who couldn't see any scandal in the Clinton years, who is trying to make this a Republican issue. 71. PelleNilsson - 1/14/2002 3:19:21 PM Shall we assume that the above is the first installment of the 600 word essay? 72. judithathome - 1/14/2002 3:20:28 PM Ha! 73. OhioSTOPAS - 1/14/2002 3:48:57 PM P.O.J. knows 600 words? 74. judithathome - 1/14/2002 3:54:32 PM Only by someone else. 75. amax - 1/14/2002 3:56:37 PM One of the useful things about recessions is that they expose flaws missed by the accountants. 76. OhioSTOPAS - 1/14/2002 4:04:17 PM My reaction to the "Enron scandal" is that it consists of two outrages with (apparently) no substantial connection between them: 77. OhioSTOPAS - 1/14/2002 4:05:47 PM And how about Bush's outrageous denial of his relationship with Lay? (see link in Cellar Door's Message # 30). Amazing. 78. concerned - 1/14/2002 4:08:00 PM Oh, wow. A thread about Enron, which made political contributions to both major political parties and did itself in through a combination of incompetence and wrongdoing. 79. judithathome - 1/14/2002 4:09:46 PM Yes, who knows? It might all come to nothing, just like Whitewater. 80. concerned - 1/14/2002 4:14:41 PM (How soon they forget, or perhaps they are afflicted with mental dead spots.) A number of convictions of Clowntoon's business associates re. Whitewater is not 'nothing', Judy. 81. CalGal - 1/14/2002 4:16:20 PM (a) government action to save Enron was feasible and appropriate, but (b) the Administration had to decline to take action because its previous favors for Lay and Enron would have made this action politically untenable. 82. concerned - 1/14/2002 4:17:33 PM I hope Lefties knock themselves silly trying to tie Enron & Lay to the Bush administration which has been in office less than a year and has acted more ethically than we'd ever expect Democrats to, because the harder they try, the more dismally they'll fail, IMO. 83. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 4:17:50 PM Watch connie expose how the REAL villain of the ENRON scandal is.....Bill Clinton. 84. ronski - 1/14/2002 4:19:01 PM As Brooks' article, posted earlier, points out, Enron benefited from government largess during the Clinton administration, getting overseas contracts with the Clinton team's help, after being generous to the Democrat Party. 85. concerned - 1/14/2002 4:19:08 PM There were no Bush adminstration favors to Enron of any sort that I know of. 86. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 4:20:26 PM BTW, for those of you playing our game at home it's important to remember that it is de rigeur for corporations to contribute to BOTH political parties when influence-peddling. 87. OhioSTOPAS - 1/14/2002 4:21:40 PM Oh, please. Letting Ken Lay make energy policy? Laying off while Enron screwed California? The Bush Administration has been very kind to Enron. 88. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 4:21:55 PM "There were no Bush adminstration favors to Enron of any sort that I know of." 89. ronski - 1/14/2002 4:22:01 PM And if the first tactic doesn't work, they will try to skewer Bush for not bailing Enron out. The Democrats' attack plan is so transparent even the media is noticing it. 90. OhioSTOPAS - 1/14/2002 4:22:04 PM 87 was in response to 85. 91. judithathome - 1/14/2002 4:22:40 PM There were no Bush adminstration favors to Enron of any sort that I know of. 92. concerned - 1/14/2002 4:23:17 PM Re. 87 - 93. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 4:23:27 PM "The Democrats' attack plan is so transparent even the media is noticing it." 94. ronski - 1/14/2002 4:24:43 PM We are supposed to believe that Clinton's helping Enron get foreign contracts had absolutely nothing to do with Enron's contributions to the Democratic Party? But anything Bush did for Enron was quid pro quo? 95. uzmakk - 1/14/2002 4:26:36 PM I get my ENRON news from The Mote. The Mote is a very good place. 96. judithathome - 1/14/2002 4:27:37 PM Ronski, of course it had everything to do with Enron giving money to the Democrats...but are we supposed to believe then that them giving money to Republicans had no strings AT ALL? Surely you don't think one is bad and the other good? 97. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 4:28:21 PM ALL POLITICS IS QUID PRO QUO! 98. CalGal - 1/14/2002 4:29:04 PM Christ. What strings? This is idiotic. 99. judithathome - 1/14/2002 4:30:12 PM Metaphorical strings...jeez, can I say NOTHING around here? 100. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 4:31:24 PM 101. ronski - 1/14/2002 4:33:20 PM I believe that if Enron had not collapsed, the Bush administration also would have been expected over the years to supply the company with the same kinds of contracts Clinton did, and probably would have obliged, though I cannot know that for sure. 102. glendajean - 1/14/2002 4:33:25 PM The real quid pro quo is the way we do politics in America: from one party to the next we scorch the earth with cries of scandal and outrage, and after each nauseous wave, people become more disaffected from the potlical world. 103. ronski - 1/14/2002 4:34:02 PM Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. 104. CalGal - 1/14/2002 4:35:20 PM Judith, you need more cheese with that whine. I wasn't talking to you particularly, and I was disagreeing with your metaphor, which should be obvious unless you assume anyone in DC is an actual puppet master. 105. uzmakk - 1/14/2002 4:36:14 PM Diaphanous strings of silk. 106. glendajean - 1/14/2002 4:38:51 PM For the moment, the scandal, if there is one, is Arthur Anderson destroying documents. Perhaps there is a regulatory agency problem as well. From Congress' standpoint, they ought to look at why the employees were locked into not being able to sell Enron stock in their retirement portfolios. Should employee plans have more flexibility? And there may be serious legal questions about company mangement hiding their debts and losses. 107. glendajean - 1/14/2002 4:39:22 PM or management... 108. uzmakk - 1/14/2002 4:40:52 PM Same diaphanous strings all them other 100 big fellaz have just like cal says. But my she is a jumpy _ _ _ _ _. 109. CalGal - 1/14/2002 4:43:20 PM For the moment, the scandal, if there is one, is Arthur Anderson destroying documents. 110. OhioSTOPAS - 1/14/2002 4:52:55 PM CalGal (Message # 81): I agree. I don't know what, if anything, should have been done by the Bush Administration. 111. OhioSTOPAS - 1/14/2002 4:54:54 PM What was that company that 4 or 5 years ago lost about a BILLION dollars in (I think) international currency trading? What was the U.S. government's response to that problem? 112. CalGal - 1/14/2002 4:56:32 PM Ohio, I know about that aspect of Enron's bookkeeping, but I was thinking of something even more basic that isn't even remotely criminal. 113. CalGal - 1/14/2002 4:58:11 PM What was that company that 4 or 5 years ago lost about a BILLION dollars in (I think) international currency trading? 114. CalGal - 1/14/2002 4:59:43 PM Hang on, I can't remember now which agency it was. I'm at work so I don't have the book handy. 115. concerned - 1/14/2002 5:00:44 PM Re. 111 - 116. CalGal - 1/14/2002 5:02:18 PM LTCM saga in brief. It was the Fed. 117. Shannon - 1/14/2002 5:21:14 PM This is pretty normal, is it not? After all, if employees were able to sell their company stock whenever they wanted to, it would require a lot more monitoring of insider trading. 118. CalGal - 1/14/2002 5:55:54 PM I agree about Anderson. 119. amax - 1/14/2002 6:33:28 PM Perhaps six years from now when the Enron execs are in geneva, they can donate $1M each to the RNC and get a presidential pardon. Marc Rich did almost the exact same thing for nearly the same crime. 120. amax - 1/14/2002 6:43:23 PM What the hell was the administration supposed to do? 121. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 6:44:45 PM "almost the exact same thing for nearly the same" 122. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 6:50:02 PM Bill Clinton is Guilty of Which of the Following: 123. concerned - 1/14/2002 7:02:45 PM Sure, the WH Rapist is guilty of wrongdoing regarding Whitewater. The creep just arranged for a bunch of his 'friends' to take falls for him. 124. concerned - 1/14/2002 7:03:24 PM Marc Rich is cellar's kinda guy, I guess. 125. amax - 1/14/2002 7:14:12 PM Ok, I'll play along.... 126. amax - 1/14/2002 7:15:19 PM strike the 'and' in favor of 'via' 127. amax - 1/14/2002 7:15:22 PM strike the 'and' in favor of 'via' 128. arkymalarky - 1/14/2002 7:19:12 PM Judith, you need more cheese with that whine. 129. CalGal - 1/14/2002 7:30:25 PM That line made the rounds with the junior high kids about five years ago. 130. concerned - 1/14/2002 7:46:29 PM LTCM, a hedge fund above suspicion 131. concerned - 1/14/2002 7:46:49 PM The banks have played a double game in their dealings with LTCM. Many financial establishments and even state bodies, including the Chinese and Italian central banks, put money into it. The banks offered LTCM credit facilities that gave it a degree of leverage (the difference between the expected profit on an operation and the cost of financing it) that promised spectacular returns. They also served to offset its financial transactions. And, better still, many leading figures such as the chairmen of Merrill Lynch and Paine Webber, David Komansky and Donald Marron, put their own money into it. 132. concerned - 1/14/2002 7:47:08 PM 133. concerned - 1/14/2002 7:47:20 PM 134. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 8:28:55 PM "Marc Rich is cellar's kinda guy, I guess." 135. Cellar Door - 1/14/2002 9:16:42 PM "Bush, the Corporations' Flag-Carrier" 136. jexster - 1/14/2002 9:24:42 PM Ronski - That the US Commerce Department would encourage major US export activity - 3 billion bucks worth for a large US corporation is not at all surprising. That's what they do! 137. ronski - 1/14/2002 11:23:52 PM jexster, 138. Property of Jesus - 1/15/2002 12:08:03 AM I bet a day doesn't go by without Cellar thinking, talking or writing about Andrew Sullivan. 139. CalGal - 1/15/2002 1:45:32 AM Enron Chief Was Warned of Problems 140. jexster - 1/15/2002 3:00:38 AM Hooray for the CEO of Ford. As Lay and his executive cadre were grabbing all they could get their hands on 141. jexster - 1/15/2002 3:58:10 AM Hooray for the CEO of Ford. As Lay and his executive cadre were grabbing all they could get their hands on 142. jexster - 1/15/2002 4:14:27 AM In the influence peddling political life, no one pulled more strings than Ken Lay. 143. jexster - 1/15/2002 4:35:37 AM 144. Property of Jesus - 1/15/2002 8:18:37 AM Oh, my... 145. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 9:40:09 AM Oh my... 146. marjoribanks - 1/15/2002 12:15:43 PM Apologies if this has been posted before. 147. marjoribanks - 1/15/2002 12:16:23 PM Cronyism is hardly novel in America; the Clinton administration took us to the edge of a trade war on behalf of Chiquita bananas, a major campaign contributor. But the Bush administration, with its sense of entitlement, seems unconcerned by even the most blatant conflicts of interest — like the plan of Marc Racicot, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, to continue drawing a seven-figure salary as a lobbyist. (He now says he won't lobby — but he will still receive that salary.) 148. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 1:05:05 PM The legal aspects of Enron are problematic for the company and its auditors. 149. jexster - 1/15/2002 1:07:52 PM Why are the Bushies having panic attacks these days??? 150. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 1:09:54 PM jexster 151. judithathome - 1/15/2002 1:12:08 PM Maybe he is reiterating the posts Banks made...you're as quick as a Democrat to judge, JC. 152. jexster - 1/15/2002 1:12:19 PM Because business reporters are about to blow the lid off the Bu$h clan including Carlyle which as i said is Teapot ThreeCrony Kapitalism American Style 153. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 1:15:09 PM juditha 154. jexster - 1/15/2002 1:15:51 PM i am busy...and i love my little begnan bartha 155. judithathome - 1/15/2002 1:16:26 PM We are such things as dreams are made of, or nightmares, I suppose. Thanks. 156. jexster - 1/15/2002 1:17:00 PM i would be more solicitous and respectful if Krugman were honest enough to admit he reads my posts the week before his Wednesday columns.... 157. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 1:17:43 PM jexster 158. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 1:19:01 PM Wooo -- I sense a lawyer getting a hard-on! 159. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 1:21:22 PM It is a natural reaction to even the most unlikely of fees. 160. Property of Jesus - 1/15/2002 1:23:13 PM Caesar: The first thing to remember about Jexster is that he spams a whole lot and doesn't read others' posts. 161. PelleNilsson - 1/15/2002 1:26:54 PM I have to agree with JC's Message # 148. I think there will be a lot of allegations and various conspiracy theories but no smoking gun. What would the gun look like, by the way, and where would it be found if there? 162. amax - 1/15/2002 1:33:17 PM re Message # 137 163. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 1:33:51 PM The gun is presently being constructed with two barrels - one aimed at the administration for being too cozy with Enron and unduly assisting the industry giant, the other aimed at the administration for being too hands off with Enron for fear of conflict of interest/undue influence charges and not giving the industry giant the help it deserved. 164. jexster - 1/15/2002 1:35:41 PM wrong again... 165. amax - 1/15/2002 1:40:37 PM JC, 166. jexster - 1/15/2002 1:41:03 PM Rosie... 167. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 1:48:54 PM amax 168. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 2:11:32 PM < a href="http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/38992.htm" target="new">I Would Certainly Hate to See Bob Rubin Tarred Over This
Meanwhile there's Pretzelgate to deal with.
Precisely. This is America of/for/by the Corporations. We're just peasants. The younger, healthier and more impressionable of us are cannon fodder for their "wars."
"I assume Ken Lay was calling everybody he knew to help out the company, something I presume every one of us would do."
And surely none of us would adverse to helping a little old lady cross the street, now would we?
"It's just absurd, really, to pretend this is an administration mess unless some actual smoking gun comes up."
Right. It's not a scandal until someone finds a blue cum-stained dress from the GAP.
BTW, I saw Waxman recently while hiking on the C&O Canal near Great Falls. I debated whether to confront him, but decided not.
Too beautiful a day, and even hyprocritical politicians deserve some downtime and privacy.
But they didn't miss them. That's actually the major scandal of Enron.
I agree that it's a major scandal, but the cliche isn't too concerned about whether the sin is of omission or commission.
1. Ken Lay and Enron enjoyed undue access and influence with the Bush administration, almost certainly as a result of campaign contributions.
2. Enron (with Arthur Andersen's assistance) deceived the markets with phony accounting, and Enron's managers enriched themselves by using inside information to sell Enron stock before the crash that wiped out the equity of remaining stockholders, including many Enron employees.
I don't think the two are connected because I don't know what, if anything, the Administration should have (or could have) done when Enron executives came asking for favors to prop up the company.
However, the Bush Administration may have some blame for #2 if (a) government action to save Enron was feasible and appropriate, but (b) the Administration had to decline to take action because its previous favors for Lay and Enron would have made this action politically untenable.
Good luck beating your heads against the wall Lefties.
Have you already forgotten names such as Hubbell, McDougal, etal., who were work associates and business partners of the Dirty Duo?
I agree with this to some extent, but I see no action that should have been taken. The freeze on 401(k) accounts is pretty normal, as I recall, and it's certainly not anything that the administratin would have known or thought about.
I can't remember where I just read this, but Enron was allowed to declare the total value of a sale as revenue, rather than just its commission.
Why on earth is that allowed? That's not a revenue, that's a lie.
In the lefties' world, however, none of this matters because they gave more to the Republicans.
The largest contribution, naturally, goes to those whose influence is actually sought.
So this "they gave to both side" business is
CRAP!
Cause what you "don't know" can't hurt you. Right connie?
Well, thtat's enough for me. Wrap up the thread, guys and slap an RIP on it.
So what happened in your version of the universe, Ohio? Did Enron have a heart attack while 'screwing' California?
LOL!
The media is the BOUGHT AND PAID FOR lapdog of the RNC!!!
That is amusing indeed.
I have long been critical of both major parties' willingness to pick winners and losers in big business.
What strings? What benefits did Enron get specifically that wouldn't be par for the course for any other Fortune 100 company? How did these strings prevent it from going into bankruptcy, or attempt to do so?
I agree. It is appalling, particularly since it went on into November, after they were told not to destroy them.
As Safire mentions: uh, the P in CPA stands for public, remember?
From Congress' standpoint, they ought to look at why the employees were locked into not being able to sell Enron stock in their retirement portfolios.
This is pretty normal, is it not? After all, if employees were able to sell their company stock whenever they wanted to, it would require a lot more monitoring of insider trading.
As for Enron's bookkeeping, it looks like the idea was to assign Enron's losses to affiliate entities, whose losses were kept "off-book" and were not included (until a few months ago, when the truth was revealed) in Enron's consolidated financial statements.
If this accounting method looks familiar, it is: It's what the federal government has always done to keep its deficit as small as possible. Programs that lose money (Medicare, S&L bailout) are set up in "trust funds" or other "off-book" vehicles, while programs that are running a surplus of revenue over expense (Social Security, at least for 10 more years or so) are lumped into the aggregate budget figures.
I found the article: A Bubble That Enron Insiders and Outsiders Didn't Want to Pop
Because Enron operated in a largely unregulated arena and because of the way energy trading firms are allowed to account for their operations, the company recorded revenue that made the economic status of its business appear larger than it really was. Under accounting rules, when an energy trading company trades electricity or gas, it can count as revenues the whole amount of every transaction rather than simply the profit or loss, as a brokerage firm does.
It is similar to the way Priceline .com counted as revenues the whole sale price of plane tickets sold online rather than just commissions, as traditional travel agents do.
That is largely how Enron, a relative newcomer to the trading of commodities and related financial instruments, was able to produce $101 billion of revenue in 2000, up from $40 billion in 1999. By comparison, Goldman, Sachs, a highly regulated firm with a long history of trading in the field, generated $6.5 billion in trading revenue last year.
You mean LTCM? There's a good book about that called "When Genius Failed".
They didn't have a government bailout per se, but I think the SEC was involved. I don't remember those guys doing anything illegal, though.
Are you talking about Barings, the British institution?
The potential effects on financial markets was such that the New York Federal Reserve felt compelled to act. On September 23, it organized a bailout of LTCM, encouraging 14 banks to invest $3.6 billion in return for a 90% stake in the firm.
I don't know how 401K rules work, never having had one, but I did read in a couple of places that the plan just happened to change administrators right as things were falling apart, which prevented any changes at all. Supposedly for 10 days, but I read somewhere (Time? CNN?) that employees say it was for longer than that.
I'd like a more clear explanation on that too.
Andersen's actions are indeed appalling, and one of the more interesting (in a train-wreck kind of way) angles IMO.
I did read in a couple of places that the plan just happened to change administrators right as things were falling apart, which prevented any changes at all.
That wouldn't surprise me at all, and that would indeed be illegal. But freezes per se aren't unusual, I don't think, and it's also certainly not the sort of thing a Presidential administration could address--even if they wanted to. Which is why Waxman's outcry just doesn't make any sense to me. What the hell was the administration supposed to do?
Why CalGal, mommy state was supposed to keep all of her dears safe and warm, of course.
Pure Conservabotspeak!
1) Whitewater (whatever that was, we forget)
2) The sinking of the "Titanic"
3) The disappearances of Judge Crater and Jimmy Hoffa.
4) ENRON
5) Shooting J.R.
6) Kidnapping the Lindberg baby.
7) Running over Laura Bush's ex-fiance.
8) Pushing margueritas on the Bush twins.
9) Pushing Killer Pretzels on Dubbya
10) All of the above
WHAT...IS...DIFFERENCE...BETWEEN...MARC...RICH...(TAX EVASION/RACKETEERING)...AND...ENRON...EXECS?
maybe CD can supply the punchline?
Btw, The Smoking Gun has the allegations against Rich -- turns out he was involved in bilking shareholders and speculating in oil and energy futures. Kinda spooky, huh?
That line made the rounds with the junior high kids about five years ago.
Sure, the WH Rapist is guilty of wrongdoing regarding Whitewater. The creep just arranged for a bunch of his 'friends' to take falls for him.
There was nothing there. But if that's what you truly believe, then let's hope Bush's friends are so loyal and we can all bemoan how much he got away with once he's impeached.
Honey, that line wasn't new five years ago. Not even in Arkansas.
IBRAHIM WARDE
Lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley and co-author of L e modèle anglo-saxon en question, Paris, Economica, 1997
Crony capitalism used to be cited as the underlying cause of the 1997 crisis in Asia. Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were model pupils of the IMF (1), they had got all their fundamentals right (inflation, unemployment, growth), so there had to be some other explanation. The blame was laid on the kind of capitalism practised in those countries, where a closed, secretive and incestuous elite held absolute sway over politics, the economy and finance, where banks lent to cronies and crooks, and the state miraculously came to the rescue when the time came to balance (or cook) the books. Japan, for example, has just nationalised some of the big banks, giving an immediate boost to ... the Nikkei index.
So for the past year, governments in Asia and elsewhere have been politely told to put their house in order, make their systems more transparent and subject to the laws of the market. Above all, they must stop propping up failing banks or enterprises on the pretext of some connection with a crony or his hangers-on.
This argument may have lost some of its edge since the rescue of the flagship hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), on 23 September. That was the day when William J. McDonough, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, called on the cream of the international financial establishment to refloat the fund which was virtually bankrupt. And, in only a few hours, 15 or so American and European institutions (including three French banks) came up with $3.5 billion in return for a 90% share in the fund and a promise that a supervisory board would be established (2).
The banks' staggering lack of curiosity about the fund's activities is particularly disturbing in view of the astronomical sums involved. At the beginning of the year, LTCM had capital of $4.8 billion, a portfolio of $200 billion (borrowing capacity in terms of leverage) and derivatives with a notional value of $1,250 billion.
But the banks had put their faith in the fund's pedigree and reputation. The founder, John Meriwether, was a legendary trader who, after a spectacular career, had left Salomon Brothers following a scandal over the purchase of US Treasury bonds. This had not tarnished his reputation or dented his confidence. Asked whether he believed in efficient markets, he replied: "I MAKE them efficient" (3). Moreover, the fund's principal shareholders included two eminent experts in the "science" of risk, Myron Scholes and Robert Merton, who had been awarded the Nobel prize for economics in 1997 for their work on derivatives, and a dazzling array of professors of finance, young doctors of mathematics and physics and other "rocket scientists" capable of inventing extremely complex, daring and profitable financial schemes.
The fund's operations were conducted in absolute secrecy. Investors who asked questions were told to take their money somewhere else. Nevertheless, despite the minimum initial payment of $10 million frozen for three years, there was a rush to invest and the results appeared to be well up to expectations. After taking 2% for "administrative expenses" and 25% of the profits, the fund was able to offer its shareholders returns of 42.8% in 1995, 40.8% in 1996, and "only" 17.1% in 1997 (the year of the Asian crisis). But in September, after mistakenly gambling on a convergence in interest rates, it found itself on the verge of bankruptcy.
The boys are very happy
Although he had no supervisory authority over the institution, Fed chief Mr McDonough considered the rescue justified because a sudden and disorderly retreat from LTCM's positions would have posed unacceptable risks to the American economy. And in fact, in a climate of general panic, creditors would have had to get the best price they could for the $200 billion portfolio. The Fed stresses that it was not really a rescue because no public funds were involved. It swears it had no intention of helping wealthy speculators out of a hole and vows that the shareholders will not emerge unscathed. The LTCM spokesman, on the other hand, thanked the firms that had contributed funds and added "The boys are very happy today. They're in better financial shape than ever over the long run (4)".
The supervisory board has assigned some of its best derivatives experts to monitor the management of the fund, but the latest news is that the patient is still bleeding despite the injection of new blood (5). Two weeks after the rescue, the fund is rumoured to have lost a further $200 million.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Ibrahim Warde, "Muddled measures by the IMF", Le Monde diplomatique English Internet edition, February 1998.
(2) Contributions from the various institutions were as follows: $300 million: Bankers Trust, Barclays, Chase, Deutsche Bank, Union Bank of Switzerland, Salomon Smith Barney, J.P.Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Crédit Suisse, First Boston, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter; 125 million dollars: Société Générale; $100 million: Crédit Agricole, Paribas, Lehman Brothers (Source: Wall Street Journal, 25 September 1998).
(3) Associated Press, 4 October 1998.
(4) Washington Post, 26 September 1998.
(5) Financial Times, 8 October 1998. Translated by Barbara Wilson
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 1997-2001 Le Monde diplomatique
AS reported today that......"As the company struggled to maintain its credit rating last fall, Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay - Bush's largest campaign benefactor - phoned O'Neill and raised the example of government intervention in the case of hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management, according to O'Neill.
But David Ruder, who was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (news - web sites) in 1987-89, said administration officials simply concluded that Enron's troubles didn't warrant government action.
``It seems to me that they made the right call,'' Ruder said.
It appears that the Bush administration decided against detrimental 'crony capitalism' in the case of Enron.
Why? Is he gay?
That won't work. Sully isn't my kind of guy. Neither were Roy Cohn, J. Edgar Hoover, Franny Spellman or Joe McCarthy.
"It appears that the Bush administration decided against detrimental 'crony capitalism' in the case of Enron."
The operative word is "appears."
That you do not omit any reference to what the Republicans have done for Enron and energy interests particularly and the wealthy as a whole in a year isn't surprising or amusing or persuasive....
That you defend a claim that isn't being made with a charge that has never been made leaves you with....
No answer to a charge your created thinking you were being cute?
You really are dense, aren't you?
My point has been obvious: I object to what the Commerce Department does, as a rule. I object to the existence of the Commerce Dept.
Could this be the reason why?
Watkins worked for Enron Chief Financial Officer Andrew S. Fastow as vice president of corporate development. She wrote the memo anonymously, Hilder said, and then sought out Chairman and Chief Executive Lay to express her concerns directly.
...After talking to Lay about it, Hilder said, she asked to be reassigned so she would no longer report to Fastow.
Before Watkins joined Enron, Hilder said, she worked for Andersen--the accounting firm that has come under fire for not sounding alarms on Enron's precarious financial condition.
...
The excerpts from her August letter provide a window on an internal debate underway at Enron about the company's accounting practices before its problems were widely known.
Watkins wrote that she had complained directly to Jeffrey K. Skilling, who resigned as Enron's chief executive Aug. 14. Skilling has denied any knowledge of the firm's financial problems.
"Mr. Skilling flatly denies the allegations in the letter related to him," said Judy Leon, a spokeswoman for Skilling.
The memo was written about the time that Lay was reassuring investors and telling employees that Enron would eventually see "a significantly higher stock price," according to one Aug. 27 e-mail from Lay released last weekend. Instead, Enron's stock plummeted as investors grew more concerned about the controversial partnerships. On Dec. 2, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
Ken Johnson, a spokesman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the memo "clearly shows that top Enron executives, including Kenneth Lay, were warned of serious financial problems months before the company reduced shareholder equity."
The grabbing hands grab all they can
Everything counts in large amounts
Its a competitive world
The Ford head is refusing not only the bonuses which even the most incompetant corporate executives routinely get, he is not taking a salary either.
The grabbing hands grab all they can
Everything counts in large amounts
Its a competitive world
The Ford head is refusing not only the bonuses which even the most incompetant corporate executives routinely get, he is not taking a salary either.
Of all the many and varied favors granted Lay at the yank of a string, none was more important to Lay than Bu$h's first War Against Evil Doers - The Crusade Against Trial Lawyers.
Reportedly, Lay was responsible for Bu$h's enthusiastic and persistent efforts to limit attorney fee recoveries and restricting the availablity of class action procedures.
How ironic then that the victims of this Bu$hwacking have only one hope of recovering a fraction of life savings stolen from them, the very process Lay and Bu$h tried to gut....
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP - Evil Doers
Whether you hate the Department, love it or are indifferent doesn't matter a wit. Your argument is half baked concotion half baked no matter.
I am not dense. True to form though, your accusation is irrelevant.
Jex, the anti-host of this bogus thread, thinks his posts are so important that he doubles them.
Props of Fundie, the anti-thought bogus Conservative thinks his links to Sully's pathetic website are important.
So we're shopping at "Office Depot" now, dear?
Meanwhile Clinton puts George Will under his Evil Spell -- Oh, the Humanity!
Krugman, in the NYTimes:
Four years ago, as Asia struggled with an economic crisis, many observers blamed "crony capitalism." Wealthy businessmen in Asia didn't bother to tell investors the truth about their assets, their liabilities or their profits; the aura of invincibility that came from their political connections was enough. Only when a financial crisis came along did people take a hard look at their businesses, which promptly collapsed.
Does this sound familiar?
On the face of it, the sudden political storm over Enron is puzzling. After all, the Bush administration didn't save the company from bankruptcy. But then why did the administration dissemble so long about its contacts with Enron? Why did George W. Bush make the absurd claim that Enron's C.E.O., Kenneth Lay, opposed him in his first run for governor, and that the two men got to know each other only after that race? And why does the press act as if there may be a major scandal brewing?
Because the administration fears, and the press suspects, that the latest revelations in the Enron affair will raise the lid on crony capitalism, American style.
The real questions about Enron's relationship with the administration involve what happened before the energy trader hit the skids. That's when Mr. Lay allegedly told the head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that he should be more cooperative if he wanted to keep his job. (He wasn't, and he didn't.) And it's when Enron helped Dick Cheney devise an energy plan that certainly looks as if it was written by and for the companies that advised his task force. Mr. Cheney, in clear defiance of the law, has refused to release any information about his task force's deliberations; what is he hiding?
And while Enron has imploded, other energy companies retain the administration's ear.
The political aspects of Enron, as I suspected, are really no more than indignation about big, corporations and the "illegitimate" Bush presidency.
It is almost the worst possible combination for Democrats, a mixture of Republican investigatory excess during the Clinton years (headed by the unappetizing trio of Lieberman, Levin, and Waxman) and Stan Greenberg's "Poor man, Rich man" theme that worked so well for Vice President Gore.
But who am I to deny such fun?
Let the games begin.
On the face of it, the sudden political storm over Enron is puzzling. After all, the Bush administration didn't save the company from bankruptcy. But then why did the administration dissemble so long about its contacts with Enron? Why did George W. Bush make the absurd claim that Enron's C.E.O., Kenneth Lay, opposed him in his first run for governor, and that the two men got to know each other only after that race? And why does the press act as if there may be a major scandal brewing?
Because the administration fears, and the press suspects, that the latest revelations in the Enron affair will raise the lid on crony capitalism, American style.
You should show courtesy to marjoribanks by at least reading his Krugman quotations before hurriedly posting your own.
Waxman
Your defense of jexster's excitability is Begalaesque. I salute you.
hey JC wanna represent me?
Desperately.
That's why he was picked to be host of this bogus thread by the Swede.
Former Treasurer Sec. Rubin Foiled the Democrats' Best-Laid Plans
Speaking as a former Commerce department employee, I couldn't agree with you more Ronski. Nevertheless, as I pointed out earlier, the Clinton administration cant be beat too hard over showering Enron & other donors with money -- it is after all what the administration campaigned on.
The two bullets will strike each other and carom into the face of the Democrats.
I love the way you Minions of the Moron keep answering charges that Karl Rove invented...
like dogs chasing tail
Yep, as I was saying earlier the Dems seem to have come to believe their own propaganda about the Bush administration -- i.e. The administration is run by and for the energy companies, etc. So when a major energy company gets into serious trouble, they can't believe that there isn't some deeper, political story that somehow involves the Bush administration. The result is all of this hoo-de-rah and tenative attempts to push this story through the news channels -- despite the fact that as far as I can tell the administration has acted more or less honorably during the whole affair.
You are here by the mercy of Commander Baba Jex
Best act accordingly
I'm happy to have the party masturbate its rabid wing at the cost of enervation and a lessened chance to make mid-term gains. Thus far, Daschle has stumbled by attacking the tax cut (thank you, say Baucus, Johnson, Landrieux, Cleland and Carnahan) and I have hopes Enron will be yet another self-inflicted wound.
169. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 2:11:55 PM
I Would Certainly Hate to See Bob Rubin Tarred Over This (Take 2)
170. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 2:20:07 PM
Poddy Jr. ? Awfully early to be taking the low road, Julius.
Sometimes I dream of meeting him just in order to tell him "You know John if your mother had gotten Merle Miller to go straight you would have never been born !"
171. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 2:22:19 PM
< a href="http://www.thenewrepublic.com/012102/lizza012102.html" target="new">If at first you don't succeed, try, try again
Instead, Democrats want to use Enron as a vehicle for a broader indictment of the White House. They hope to link people's perceptions of the company--a secretive, arrogant, anti-worker institution that hid its cooked budget numbers with good p.r.--to their perceptions of the Bush administration. And in that way, Democrats hope to cast the White House as beholden to corporate fat cats once again--a perception they think was catching on before September 11.
172. Julius Caesar - 1/15/2002 2:22:56 PM
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again (Goddamn, I can't link!)
173. Property of Jesus - 1/15/2002 2:28:15 PM
Caesar: So Democratic fundraiser Rubin said "this might not be a great idea" when he tried to lobby the Treasury Department about giving loans to ENRON.
Funny, that the New York Times failed to report this.
174. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 2:28:17 PM
"while it is unclear"
175. concerned - 1/15/2002 3:18:53 PM
Kenneth Lay - first in the pants of the envirosuckers
176. concerned - 1/15/2002 3:26:01 PM
Re. 128 -
arky -
Don't hold your breath waiting for GWB to be impeached. That doesn't mean that the 'Rats shouldn't make every effort to destroy what little is left of their credibility trying.
177. CalGal - 1/15/2002 3:30:53 PM
I really wish this would get off of politics.
George Will column
It will remind everyone -- some conservatives, painfully -- that a mature capitalist economy is a government project. A properly functioning free market system does not spring spontaneously from society's soil as dandelions spring from suburban lawns. Rather, it is a complex creation of laws and mores that guarantee, among much else, transparency, meaning a sufficient stream -- torrent, really -- of reliable information about the condition and conduct of corporations.
Always necessary to economic health, transparency has increasingly become crucial to civic health because of the changed demographics of stock ownership. A nation in which a majority of households own equities is neurologically wired to the stock market. Hence corporate corruption quickly begets political demoralization and cynicism.
Emphasis mine.
Cohen has some cogent points as well
178. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 5:16:45 PM
Latest from MWO:
CLINTON TRIED TO STOP ENRON SCHEMING,
BUT GOP CONGRESS STOPPED CLINTON
In a direct refutation of those who are trying to link Bill Clinton and the Democrats to the Enron fiasco, the Wall Street Journal has divulged details of a Clinton Administration bid to halt the failed energy giant's tax shenanigans -- efforts thwarted by securities lobbyists and the Republican-controlled Congress.
At issue were Enron's flagrant abuse of so-called "trust-preferred securities" schemes.
"As the strategy was initially marketed during the 1990s," the WSJ reports, "a corporation typically formed a subsidiary that issued preferred shares paying a fixed, regular amount to investors. The subsidiary then lent the proceeds to the corporation. For tax purposes, the corporation could deduct interest paid on the debt, arguing that the preferred shareholders owned the subsidiary. But for financial-accounting purposes, the corporation could argue that it controlled the subsidiary; hence, it could treat the loan more like an asset."
In 1996 and again in 1997, the Clinton Administration asked Congress to limit the strategy's use in many situations -- but securities firms and businesses lobbied intensely and got Congress to defeat the proposal.
The IRS under Clinton also tried to halt at least two Enron uses of the scheme, but got bogged down in heavy litigation.
179. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 5:17:09 PM
"Energy price swings and the company's use of off-balance-sheet partnerships appear to have contributed substantially to Enron's problems. But government officials also are interested in Enron's use of trust-preferred products. They said that at least $900 million or so shows up in the company's latest annual report," the WSJ article says.
Lackeys from corrupt administrations say the darnedest things
Last Sunday, Secretary of Commerce Dan Evans told Tim Russert, with a straight face, that some guy in Oregon named Dortz who gave $38 to the Bush-Cheney campaign has the same access to White House power as Kenneth Lay.
Rarely, if ever, has a scandal-ridden administration sounded so silly -- complete with all of the sentimental trimmings. A milestone in the history of American political booshwah.
Attempts to locate Mr. Dortz have thus far proven unsuccessful.
To commemorate this golden moment in the continuing history of the Enron Scandal, MWO is making copies of the Evans-Russert transcript available to the public, free of charge.
Feel free to download it and share with your friends. Makes an excellent gift for President's Day. Give 'em a piece of history!!
180. thoughtful - 1/15/2002 5:32:28 PM
We shouldn't forget the 19-month, $5.6 million investigation into Bruce Babbitt for "illegal political interference".
181. CalGal - 1/15/2002 5:37:56 PM
182. jexster - 1/15/2002 6:11:25 PM
My sister in law is librarian at Arthur Anderson Houston
She's home today at 4. She's ok but there today room to move up that corporate ladder Seems AA is clearing out its old batch of corporate whores to make room for some new ones.
Anderson may be more of a victim of the corporate cronyists than the press is allowing.
Look for the position that accounting firms and the SEC take at upcoming hearings. I should say at those hearings dealing with accounting practices, corporate finance,pensions....not to be confused with those dealing with campaign finance, energy, fefense, toxic Bu$h environmental policies, fiscal disaster and on and on
Man needs to revive his War Year...
Why I think it was a still birth.
183. concerned - 1/15/2002 6:28:11 PM
What say we revive the Salon deathwatch, combine it with this thread, and make it a twofer?
184. robertjayb - 1/15/2002 6:31:27 PM
Since your sister-in-law works there, jexster, you may as well learn that it is Andersen with an E, not Anderson with an O. I have heard that the difference distinguishes Swedes from Norwegians---but I doubt it.
185. concerned - 1/15/2002 6:33:14 PM
So, what does that distinguish jexster from? People who actually think?
Oh, HI, Jexster!
186. Property of Jesus - 1/15/2002 6:34:32 PM
Salon.com is selling at .12 a share.
And to think I had to be talked out of buying 500 shares at just under a dollar a year ago.
187. concerned - 1/15/2002 6:35:57 PM
What I want to know is: what strings has Salon pulled to keep from being delisted before now?
188. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 7:00:07 PM
Why not ask your pals at the RNC, connie?
"Salon" is nothing but Conservabot shills these days. With an occasional piece by Joe Conason for cover.
189. concerned - 1/15/2002 7:02:50 PM
Geez Cellar - Bet you see a 'Conservabot' around every corner these days -probably even under your bedsheets.
Poor ol' Conason - no rapist boots to slobber over any more.
190. amax - 1/15/2002 7:12:55 PM
CD has a list -- -- IN HIS OWN HANDS, ladies and gentlemen -- a list of the Conservabots, a list of two, no fifteen, no a list so vast that it can't be counted -- . Who are they? He doesn't say (well, sometimes he does. a conservabot is anyone who disagrees with CD).
191. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 8:06:34 PM
"Who are they? He doesn't say"
I saplenty.Just ask me.
" (well, sometimes he does. a conservabot is anyone who disagrees with CD)."
And sometimes that's the case.
192. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 8:45:08 PM
193. jexster - 1/15/2002 9:19:36 PM
Ya know I kind of resent wingnuts who yap about liberal media conspiracies...follows then that I am some Moronic victim of a media hoax...
and when that comes from a Mote renknown clown...why I wanna haul out one of my daisy cutters and roast a few wingnuts over an open fire
194. jexster - 1/15/2002 9:23:50 PM
But then I am doing that too much..running outta nuts...gotta squirrel some away... 195. jexster - 1/15/2002 9:24:20 PM 196. jexster - 1/15/2002 9:24:49 PM 197. jexster - 1/15/2002 9:29:05 PM Sorry for the double post Jex! 198. jexster - 1/15/2002 9:45:44 PM Rosie's Senator set to kick butt...and I can vouch from personal knowledge that those GAO boys and girls are a pack of junk yard dog investigators dyin to take a piece out of Cheney and Bu$h 199. Cellar Door - 1/16/2002 12:57:36 AM "Wingnuts roasting on an open fire, 200. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:20:29 AM 201. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:22:16 AM Half the man, twice the dirty politico.... 202. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:42:43 AM From www.continueto/enron: 203. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:44:14 AM 5. -In the days when Franjo Tudjman was Croatia's dictator and pretending to be both a reformed communist and best friend of America in the Balkans, poor Franjo had a problem. He and some of his very best friends were wanted as war criminals by the Hague's International Court of Justice. Enron wanted a power contract with Croatia. Enron offered a deal to Tudjman. Sign up with us and we will use our gang in Washington to make sure you and your friends don't go to jail. 204. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:44:48 AM 9. -The bulk of Enron's alleged chicanery had to have happened during the Clinton administration. 205. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:45:21 AM 16. -Joe Lieberman's and Tom Daschle's Largest Contributor in the 2000 election cycle was Enron's Largest Creditor, Citigroup. 206. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:46:01 AM 26. -Just days before Enron Corp. landed in bankruptcy court, the one-time political powerhouse may still have been funneling campaign dollars to Democratic lawmakers, federal election records indicate. 207. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:46:49 AM 35. -To help push through energy initiatives in Africa, Clinton’s Energy Secretary (and Monica Lewinsky’s job counselor), Bill Richardson, visited Nigeria in August 1999. “As a result of Secretary Richardson's visit to Nigeria in August, we have embarked on a bilateral cooperation program. The Department is developing an action plan with the Government of Nigeria, which will be coordinated with USAID. Cooperation could include: restructuring and privatization; rural electrification; deployment of clean energy and renewable energy technologies; promotion of energy efficiency; and development of an independent regulatory authority. 208. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:47:19 AM 36. -Texas Democrats received more Enron contributions than Texas Republicans. 209. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:47:47 AM 41. -Ken Lay was one of 25 business executives on Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development. 210. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:48:07 AM 46. -Enron also has supported Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), whose state is traversed by a major east-west Enron gas pipeline. 211. stostosto - 1/16/2002 3:50:00 AM rjb: 212. OhioSTOPAS - 1/16/2002 6:50:40 AM I only got to number one on "concerned"'s list before laughing out loud: "From 1990 to 1994 Enron gave 42% of their donations to the Democrats." What is the significance of fine-tuning the period 1990 to 1994? 213. stostosto - 1/16/2002 7:27:36 AM What is the significance of fine-tuning the period 1990 to 1994? 214. stostosto - 1/16/2002 7:37:28 AM I am not going to engage in the partisan battle over this, btw, lest anyone fears (or hopes) so. I think Jacob Weisberg's take in Slate is very sensible. 215. Cellar Door - 1/16/2002 10:20:05 AM I disagree. 216. Cellar Door - 1/16/2002 10:28:09 AM "I did NOT have improper relations with That Woman --Miss ENRON!" 217. thoughtful - 1/16/2002 10:46:42 AM I disagree with Weisberg. There are some key differences...many people were seriously financially hurt by Enron; examination and realization by the public that even a top 10 firm can crash and burn and take one's wealth with it has serious implications for recommendations like privatizing social security; influence over the development of national policy in an area critical to the security and health of the nation, like energy, was not even on the table during whitewater; and perhaps if the public gets aware enough and sick enough of the big $$ driving government policies in their own favor vs. in the national interest, maybe, finally, some sensible campaign finance reform will result. 218. stostosto - 1/16/2002 10:55:57 AM I have been wondering: 219. CalGal - 1/16/2002 10:56:37 AM There is literally no reason to bring CFR into Enron. In fact, Enron might start corporations wondering why they bother giving money at all, so little was done for them. 220. CalGal - 1/16/2002 11:00:44 AM Is it common practice in the US that employees have their pension savings resting in the company they work for? 221. stostosto - 1/16/2002 11:05:41 AM '401K' - what does that mean? 222. judithathome - 1/16/2002 11:25:12 AM On top of that, employees are often dumbfucks who then sink more of their money into stock. 223. CalGal - 1/16/2002 11:29:30 AM Judith, employees lost billions last year in their 401K without having an employer be illegal. You apparently haven't met anyone from Lucent. 224. CalGal - 1/16/2002 11:31:40 AM 401k definition 225. concerned - 1/16/2002 12:32:19 PM The point isn't that investigations aren't necessary; the point is that it's idiotic for the Dems to do a witch hunt for Republican wrongdoing. 226. concerned - 1/16/2002 12:47:41 PM I wouldn't be surprised by finger pointing and jockeying regarding Enron contributions by members of both parties as they campaign for the midterm elections. However, look for the 'Rats to rely most heavily on this gambit, since they are less enamored with private enterprise in general. 227. joezan - 1/16/2002 12:48:28 PM Yes, many people I know lost lots of money last year in their 401(K)s. 228. jexster - 1/16/2002 12:57:37 PM Lay,DeLay and the Committee for a Repbulican Majority - Lay Much More Than a GOP Contributor 229. judithathome - 1/16/2002 1:09:07 PM $28,900 since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 230. Jonesatlaw - 1/16/2002 1:24:21 PM The real scandal surrounding Enron is not what their contributions bought in terms of energy policy etc. There was other money and other political pressure groups surrounding the issue, and so their dollars probably don't buy much in that competetive political favor market. 231. jexster - 1/16/2002 1:28:41 PM The idea that the Democrats, victims of witch hunts that amounted to a net loss for Republicans would ape the GOP strategy is ridiculous. Anything is possible of course, but I believe and I've seen nothing reported to indicate otherwise, that the Dems are aiming at corporate cronyism, at the heart of GOP policy towards the wealthy, at the meritritious relations between the GOP and business generally, energy and mining companies in particular, at this sort of shit: 232. jexster - 1/16/2002 1:28:58 PM Mr. DeLay has been unabashed about demanding that business support Republicans, whom he considers commerce's natural ally. Aides said he froze Enron out of his office for some of the past year because it had hired Linda Robinson, a Democrat who was a senior Treasury official in the Clinton administration, to run its Washington office. 233. jexster - 1/16/2002 1:35:09 PM "Scandal" politics aside for a moment, I have questions of a different sort that I have no answers for but that are at least as important.. 234. jexster - 1/16/2002 1:37:04 PM And others too..JoeZ's hit close to it.. 235. jexster - 1/16/2002 1:41:53 PM JAH - 236. jexster - 1/16/2002 1:43:57 PM 237. judithathome - 1/16/2002 1:50:08 PM Jex, I've seen him more in the last week than ever in his life! He is mostly being asked about the money and is saying, like KBH, that he intends to do all he can in returning it to a special fund set up for the people who are jobless after Enron folded. 238. thoughtful - 1/16/2002 1:55:11 PM Jones, #230, I agree the regulatory agency failures is an important issue. I think how much influence their contributions bought is an important issue. But one issue that hasn't yet caught on is the potential insider trading issue. From this ABC article, "...Karl Rove, owned Enron stock while the energy task force was conducting its work. Rove sold his shares for $68,000 last June." 239. ronski - 1/16/2002 2:13:00 PM 240. judithathome - 1/16/2002 2:17:31 PM Ronski, that was a good link...last night on Nightline they explained about the limited partnerships and how they masked the bad bottom line. 241. jexster - 1/16/2002 2:21:49 PM CNN even now is describing WH reaction as "defensive" 242. jexster - 1/16/2002 2:28:07 PM 243. Jonesatlaw - 1/16/2002 2:32:27 PM There is little reason to doubt that there will be extensive self-dealing and insider trading discovered in the Enron debacle. If you are okay with the "hide the ball" accounting that Enron did and the general shennanigans regarding the partnerships as the management was, you probably would let your nearest and dearest politicos in on some of the action. 244. jexster - 1/16/2002 2:32:46 PM "As Enron Corp.'s collapse has mushroomed into a major political issue, pressure appears to be growing on Vice President Dick Cheney to fully disclose the Houston company's role in developing President Bush's energy plan last spring... 'Politically, they [the vice president's office] are going to do this,' one prominent Republican consultant said. 'They may be stalling this, but ultimately ... they are going to provide that information. They can make it fairly painful by delaying. But the longer you wait, the worse it gets...' 'The vice president may have to emerge from an undisclosed location soon to face some uncomfortable questions on a well-connected constituent,' said Larry Markinson, senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics. 'We do know that it sounds like Enron had some input in development of the energy policy. But we don't know where, how, what they got and what language got changed.'" 245. jexster - 1/16/2002 2:35:12 PM and if he doesn't come out with his hands in the air, the GAO swat team will go in 246. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/16/2002 2:36:01 PM He shoveled money at his corporate cronies and put corporate lobbyists in charge of state environmental protection.... 247. jexster - 1/16/2002 2:37:00 PM CSPAN Running Enron Special All This Week 248. jexster - 1/16/2002 2:39:10 PM As I've mentioned, I've a conflict of interest here. Family is worried. AA-Houston is a major player in Jexster's immediate family. 249. Jonesatlaw - 1/16/2002 2:40:13 PM There is little reason to doubt that there will be extensive self-dealing and insider trading discovered in the Enron debacle. If you are okay with the "hide the ball" accounting that Enron did and the general shennanigans regarding the partnerships as the management was, you probably would let your nearest and dearest politicos in on some of the action. 250. jexster - 1/16/2002 2:43:17 PM If there's a Bu$h scandal, you can be sure that Little Brother Jeb is involved. So it comes as no surprise that Florida's pension fund lost $300 million in Enron's collapse. Jeb claims to be a hero because he recently fired the pension fund manager, Alliance Capital Management. But why did he hire the firm in the first place? The chairman of Alliance is Frank Savage. Savage is on the board of directors of - you guessed it - Enron. So why did Jeb give his state's pension funds to a director of Enron in the first place, and why did he wait until he lost $300 million before firing him? Could a $6,500 contribution from Enron to Jeb in 1998 have influenced him? Jeb's campaign manager, Karen Unger, says "Gov. Bush has never been swayed on an issue by a campaign contribution. He cannot be bought." 251. jexster - 1/16/2002 2:45:16 PM Capitol Cronies 252. thoughtful - 1/16/2002 2:49:26 PM wasn't the bush family on the phone with someone in FL getting the inside scoop on election night before any results were supposed to be available on how the vote was coming? Using connections to get inside info didn't bother them then. 253. thoughtful - 1/16/2002 2:49:29 PM wasn't the bush family on the phone with someone in FL getting the inside scoop on election night before any results were supposed to be available on how the vote was coming? Using connections to get inside info didn't bother them then. 254. thoughtful - 1/16/2002 2:49:54 PM apologies for the double post....not worth repeating for sure 255. Cellar Door - 1/16/2002 2:51:15 PM Gene Lyons says: 256. Jonesatlaw - 1/16/2002 2:59:13 PM Concerned- So Liberman has a conflict of interest because one of his supporters got screwed by Enron in the collapse? Nonsense! He could be more aggressive than you or other apologists would like because his constituents and their employer/company may lose heavily in the deal. This is quite the opposite of the conflict that Ashcroft and others in the administration have, being the beneficiaries of the ill-gotten gains of Enron's management. 257. concerned - 1/16/2002 3:27:05 PM Re. 256 - 258. concerned - 1/16/2002 3:29:39 PM Re. 252 - 259. concerned - 1/16/2002 3:35:54 PM cd - 260. thoughtful - 1/16/2002 3:44:32 PM From salon.com about John Ellis, Bush's cousin: 261. PelleNilsson - 1/16/2002 3:45:07 PM concerned 262. jexster - 1/16/2002 3:50:05 PM Concerned is neither centrist,leftist, or rightist...he is a Moron peon, a victim of the vast right wing conspiracy whose spin he spews (see AP thread) 263. concerned - 1/16/2002 3:52:17 PM I'm agnostic. Therefore, I cannot be a member of teh religious right, now can I? 264. jexster - 1/16/2002 3:53:01 PM It's still early, but, yes, it's possible. If everything goes to form, and everyone executes according to the playbook, this one could go all the way: The collapse of Enron Corp. could turn out to be another Incomprehensible Washington Scandal. 265. Cellar Door - 1/16/2002 4:01:42 PM I'm agnostic. Therefore, I cannot be a member of teh religious right, now can I? 266. jexster - 1/16/2002 4:12:26 PM Ronski's article makes a good point albeit inaccurately. 267. Cellar Door - 1/16/2002 4:16:38 PM 268. PelleNilsson - 1/16/2002 4:24:06 PM jexster 269. Jonesatlaw - 1/16/2002 4:30:59 PM Concerned- at least READ the crap you cite with some level of comprehension. The Washington Times article claims that Lieberman recieved donations from a creditor of Enron- someone who loaned them money, and is now presumably screwed out of it. He is not, even according to the article you cite as evidence, the beneficiary of largess from Enron. 270. Jonesatlaw - 1/16/2002 4:43:15 PM Citigroup is the creditor of Enron, and they donated over 100K to Lieberman. Enron also donated 20K to a democrat action group that Lieberman is part of, not to Lieberman. No mention of whether Lieberman recieved any money from the Enron contribution in the Times article. Now those interests seem to be on opposite sides of the Enron case. 271. jexster - 1/16/2002 4:48:06 PM We need to add another corporate name to the title of this thread 272. jexster - 1/16/2002 4:55:20 PM Don't be fooled by this "equal opportunity" contributor crap... 273. jexster - 1/16/2002 4:57:27 PM if you believe that Leiberman is an Enron stooge...you probably believe that Lay supported Ann Richards...and you qualify for the Moron Medal of Mendacity 274. jexster - 1/16/2002 5:09:19 PM The aim of the heavy hitters in the contriubtions game is first access then influence..no access no influence..no contriubtion not much chance for access, less for influence... 275. jexster - 1/16/2002 5:12:18 PM With that in mind, don't forget Miss Wendy.... 276. OhioSTOPAS - 1/16/2002 5:16:11 PM Good news for Republicans: Enron's purchase of influence didn't start with Bush. 277. jexster - 1/16/2002 5:20:19 PM That's it...get fuckin REAL 278. Cygnus X-1 - 1/16/2002 8:24:13 PM Here's why Lanny Davis wants the Democrats to drop the Enron case: 279. Cygnus X-1 - 1/16/2002 8:29:20 PM From John Podhoretz: 280. jexster - 1/16/2002 9:33:17 PM Pelle - a lesson no a course, that it seems I am doomed to repeat until HE comes again... 281. jexster - 1/16/2002 9:36:51 PM Well to begin with Cyg, I am not sure which "sources" I am supposed to check... 282. jexster - 1/16/2002 9:40:39 PM Taking Pelle's advice, I won't take a sledgehammer to Cyg's Message # 278 but instead will refer him to my Message # 273 and following... 283. jexster - 1/16/2002 9:44:51 PM Word up on Billy Tauzin whose Enron "investigation" should be watched closely.... 284. jexster - 1/16/2002 10:10:37 PM We'll get some Special Report Links on the right when I figure out how to do that...my "sources" Cyg or not all but a few... 285. jexster - 1/16/2002 10:36:06 PM Fourteen Top Bushies Owned Enron Stock 286. Cellar Door - 1/16/2002 10:54:25 PM The (Sub) Genius of Capitalism 287. CalGal - 1/16/2002 11:40:11 PM Apparently Ms Watson, the lady who wrote the memo to Ken Lay, went to Andersen and met with several partners. 288. robertjayb - 1/17/2002 12:43:55 AM Enron Avoided Income Taxes in 4 of 5 Years...(NY Times) 289. Shannon - 1/17/2002 9:38:07 AM I heard that on the radio this morning, Cal. They're going down. 290. Cellar Door - 1/17/2002 10:32:21 AM 291. jexster - 1/17/2002 11:31:15 AM 292. jexster - 1/17/2002 11:38:05 AM Top Econ Advisor Conducted Enron Study: Did Nothing to Help Employees - Ethics Questioned 293. jexster - 1/17/2002 11:43:56 AM Huffington: Bush Sounding Like Clinton 294. jexster - 1/17/2002 11:53:06 AM Brownstein: Enron Leaves Bush Little Wiggle Room 295. judithathome - 1/17/2002 12:22:36 PM Today Enron sold all the plants that decorated headquarters to former employees. Plants went for as little as $4.00 each... 296. Cygnus X-1 - 1/17/2002 2:27:16 PM jexster, re 284: 297. PelleNilsson - 1/17/2002 2:58:04 PM I suppose most of have read Krugman on Enron but here its anyway. 298. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/17/2002 3:28:48 PM SEND THE PERFECT VALENTINE FOR 2002 ! CLICK IMAGE 299. robertjayb - 1/17/2002 4:01:25 PM Big John Ashcroft gonna get you, Wiz. 300. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/17/2002 4:11:06 PM Thanks Robert, though true love can be quite bruising at times, it's important to share one's true self in the affairs of the heart--wouldn't you agree? 301. robertjayb - 1/17/2002 4:13:59 PM Ashcroft releases photos of five scary al-Qaida suspects. Be afraid, very afraid. And whatever you do, don't think about ENRON. Really. These guys could be lurking in your backyard right now. 302. Cellar Door - 1/17/2002 4:52:39 PM Looks like a Hip-Hop DJ's convention. 303. Cellar Door - 1/17/2002 6:02:54 PM 304. Cellar Door - 1/17/2002 6:33:32 PM Former President of ENRON to host fund-raiser for Bush! 305. concerned - 1/17/2002 6:41:38 PM Re. 265 - 306. concerned - 1/17/2002 6:48:07 PM Enron and the Clintonites 307. concerned - 1/17/2002 6:48:25 PM And Enron benefited from its government contacts during the Clinton years. After Lay's trip to India with Ron Brown, Enron received nearly $400 million in U.S. government assistance so that it could build a power plant south of Bombay. According to reports in the Houston Chronicle at the time, the Export-Import Bank kicked in $298 million, while another federal agency, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, put up $100 million. 308. concerned - 1/17/2002 6:48:49 PM Under Clinton, the Commerce Department was proud that it was finally using the might of the U.S. government to assist favored firms. But the enterprise was plagued by constant criticism that somehow it always seemed to be big political donors that got most of the help. According to the Boston Globe, all but three of the recipients of OPIC aid during Brown's tenure were substantial Democratic donors. According to a study by the Center for Public Integrity, Enron, U.S. West, GTE, McDonnell Douglas, and Fluor donated a combined $563,000 to the Democratic party during 1993 and 1994 and received $2.6 billion in foreign contracts secured with government help. The Globe found that during the first Clinton term, 27 firms had donated $2.3 million to the Democrats and received nearly $5.5 billion in federal support. 309. concerned - 1/17/2002 6:48:58 PM When corporations make political donations, the money is generally not used to lobby for free market reforms--although Enron did some of that. Rather, the money is used to encourage French-style dirigisme. It is used to lure government into bed with private commercial interests. That's not an effect conservatives should cheer. 310. ronski - 1/17/2002 6:56:19 PM I posted a link to Brooks earlier, but I suppose pasting it in toto is acceptable as a response to jexster's continued carpet bombing. 311. concerned - 1/17/2002 6:59:38 PM IOW, the 'Rats are not only the culpable parties when it comes to cronyism, they prostitute themselves for chump change. 312. concerned - 1/17/2002 7:01:53 PM Re. 310 - 313. concerned - 1/17/2002 7:05:39 PM I should be ashamed of myself. But then I remind myself, 'think like a Lefty!'. 314. OhioSTOPAS - 1/17/2002 7:08:05 PM Message # 309: "French-style dirigisme." Oooh. An intellectual. 315. jexster - 1/17/2002 7:36:48 PM White Palace Denies It Aided Enron - Stonewalls GAO Request for Evidence - Lawsuit Near 316. jexster - 1/17/2002 7:38:36 PM Enron Benefits or Advocated 17 Policies in Cheney-Lay Energy Plan 317. jexster - 1/17/2002 7:43:09 PM Enron - A Crooked Company 318. Cellar Door - 1/17/2002 8:21:23 PM "All of this is not to deny that Enron was primarily a Republican donor. Nor is it to minimize the connections between Enron and the Bush administration." 319. jexster - 1/17/2002 8:58:14 PM Those Enron bois were smart from their business dealings, to their tax evasions, to their government relations, the more the learn the more I am in awe.... 320. jexster - 1/17/2002 9:35:22 PM The Real Enron Scandal 321. Absensia - 1/17/2002 9:43:16 PM This may have been brought up earlier, if so, I apologize. CPA's across America are very very worried about this. They are a self governing body, including discipline and they don't want that to change. And, they are very concerned as to what the SEC may require in the future. They have asked for protections in special situations like Enron but the SEC has said no. I am going to post a memo from the CICPA, posted on another board. 322. Absensia - 1/17/2002 9:46:41 PM "To Members of the AICPA: 323. Absensia - 1/17/2002 9:48:30 PM The new peer review system would enhance the reviews for the largest firms, requiring a more rigorous and continuous form of monitoring the quality of the audit process. The reviews would be administered by the staff of the new Board. 324. Absensia - 1/17/2002 9:51:20 PM Has anyone heard anything about the SEC holding a press conference? Some of the things, okay, a lot of things, sound vague and I think it's clear they accountants' association are pretty freaked out. 325. CalGal - 1/17/2002 10:35:19 PM Ha! Enron fired Andersen. 326. Absensia - 1/17/2002 10:46:05 PM Yes, I know....and no doubt said just that!!!Enron will no doubt sue Andersen..."It's all your fault...we didn't know." 327. jexster - 1/18/2002 9:44:46 AM Enron Influence Extended Deeply into Administration 328. Cellar Door - 1/18/2002 10:03:53 AM 329. Cellar Door - 1/18/2002 10:23:28 AM Latest from MWO: 330. Cellar Door - 1/18/2002 10:24:11 AM This new revelations causes huge problems for the White House -- and especially for O'Neill and Evans. 331. jexster - 1/18/2002 10:24:17 AM Yes he did Abs... 332. Cellar Door - 1/18/2002 10:25:02 AM The economic stimulus bill passed the House in a sharply partisan vote. Had it passed the Senate, Enron would now be picking up its $254 million check of taxpayers' money. Imagine how embarrassing and hurtful that would have been! 333. Cellar Door - 1/18/2002 10:25:17 AM And press corps -- press him to say something! 334. jexster - 1/18/2002 10:36:12 AM Thanks for the link Cellar...the story and this thread aren't about a corrupt Company but a corrupt system...and that 254 million (I stand corrected thought it was 500) that the CRS says would go to Enron if Bush's tax package II is adopted has Enron consultant & Royal Econ Advisor Larry Lindsay's fat paw prints all over it... 335. concerned - 1/18/2002 11:32:55 AM How William Jefferson Cronycapitalism Helped Soak Enron For a Billion 336. robertjayb - 1/18/2002 11:51:30 AM FOR SALE---Owner motivated... 337. jexster - 1/18/2002 12:08:34 PM Robert... 338. jexster - 1/18/2002 12:15:53 PM Its good to see from Concerned's link a concession .... 339. concerned - 1/18/2002 12:21:04 PM The question's gonna turn into: Why didn't GWB fix what x42 wrecked? 340. concerned - 1/18/2002 12:25:29 PM Partly because it was determined by the Bush administration that there was no sense in flushing more money down the same shithole. 341. jexster - 1/18/2002 12:26:36 PM Ask Phil and Wendy Gramm...hell ask Larry Lindsay and his Moron Boss...don't ask me 342. robertjayb - 1/18/2002 12:28:10 PM swiped from bartcop.com: 343. jexster - 1/18/2002 12:28:16 PM Enron/Bush Smoking Gun - The Great California RipOff 344. concerned - 1/18/2002 12:28:23 PM He must have had you in mind when he drew this one up, jex:-p 345. concerned - 1/18/2002 12:30:29 PM ....leading some critics to believe that Bush's hands-off policy toward the Golden State's energy meltdown was adopted at the bidding of Enron, whose profits soared during the crisis. 346. Jonesatlaw - 1/18/2002 1:42:12 PM IOW, the 'Rats are not only the culpable parties when it comes to cronyism, they prostitute themselves for chump change. 347. robertjayb - 1/18/2002 1:50:37 PM Very good, Jonesatlaw. It fits, you must admit. 348. robertjayb - 1/18/2002 1:54:20 PM concerned, 349. jayackroyd - 1/18/2002 2:01:10 PM So far the only Christmas tree ornament type of legislation (which is where I think the real scandal is demonstrable, and to some degree crosses party lines) are those discussed in the TNR editorial a couple of people have posted links to. These all look fairly broad. Has anyone seen references to legislative exemptions that were intended solely for Enron? 350. jayackroyd - 1/18/2002 2:02:24 PM My Enron quote of the day: 351. jayackroyd - 1/18/2002 2:05:11 PM Does anyone think there is any chance of Andersen surviving this? I mean, if you are the CEO of a publicly traded company concerned about your share price, are you gonna want Andersen certifying the validity of your earnings statements? Especially given Sunbeam, where six quarters were restated that Andersen had signed off on. 352. CalGal - 1/18/2002 2:10:05 PM Jay, 353. Cellar Door - 1/18/2002 2:17:57 PM Every time I see "Enron" I keep reading it as "End run." Why is that? 354. jayackroyd - 1/18/2002 2:23:58 PM In yesterday's NYTimes, there was a reference made to the fact that companies engaging in the trading Enron was doing are allowed to report revenue as earnings. I don't have the paper with me, and there were a lot of articles to read, but it seems to me that Phil Gramm's committee played a role in not fixing this. The TNR piece is on the nose here: 355. robertjayb - 1/18/2002 2:38:32 PM Has anyone seen references to legislative exemptions that were intended solely for Enron?...(jayackroyd) 356. jayackroyd - 1/18/2002 2:54:14 PM 355 357. CalGal - 1/18/2002 2:57:57 PM I don't think the objective is to disincent looting. I want roadblocks put in place long before it gets to that point. The auditors are the real culprits here. The Enron people were crooks, but if we don't address the incentives Andersen had to ignore the theft, it will just happen again. 358. jexster - 1/18/2002 3:13:10 PM Thank you Robert and thanks to Fast Phil G...this at least mentions one of the questions I have but unfortunately are being overlooked at least right now, is energy derivative trading a bad idea? 359. concerned - 1/18/2002 4:14:37 PM Re. 348 - 360. concerned - 1/18/2002 4:20:36 PM I haven't even seen the merest suggestion of preferred course of action that even pretends to make sense from those who whine about Enron's role in California's self inflicted energy crisis. 361. concerned - 1/18/2002 4:30:05 PM Lefty Enron Scandalmongers Destroying Own Reputations, Where That is Possible. 362. PelleNilsson - 1/18/2002 4:35:18 PM Suppose that Andersen Consulting devised those off balance sheet vehicles that the accounting arm allegedly did not know about? I wouldn't be surprised. 363. CalGal - 1/18/2002 4:39:54 PM Heh. Of course, the two of them divorced last year, so it would probably give Andersen a great deal of pleasure to have Accenture go down with them. 364. robertjayb - 1/18/2002 4:46:18 PM Methinks Accenture is the IT arm of what was Andersen. That would leave a business consulting group within Arthur Andersen. 365. jexster - 1/18/2002 6:35:16 PM Grimmer Than Grimm 366. jexster - 1/18/2002 6:38:25 PM Joe and Diane Rinard had simple dreams. 367. jexster - 1/18/2002 6:42:38 PM On E-Bay: Enron Ethics Manual 368. jayackroyd - 1/18/2002 6:42:57 PM Pelle-- 369. jexster - 1/18/2002 7:06:15 PM A month after being told of potential scandals, Chairman "Kenney Boy" Lay told workers "Enron stock is an incredible bargain." 370. Cellar Door - 1/18/2002 8:53:51 PM And now a word from the Vice President of the United States of ENRON. 371. CalGal - 1/18/2002 9:08:14 PM BobbyJ, 372. Cellar Door - 1/19/2002 10:07:03 AM Frank Rich (we're in Vulcan Mind-Meld you know) finds the cum-stained blue pretzel! 373. jexster - 1/19/2002 11:50:56 AM Bu$h is doing to US what he did to Texas. Pass an education bill then use that for compassionate cover to shovel money at his rich friends and appoint corporate foxes to guard the regulatory chicken coops..... 374. jexster - 1/19/2002 12:04:07 PM The search for quid pro quo in this matter is a fool's errand. Bush and Lay were so tight that the latter didn't have to pay cash on a per favor basis. 375. jexster - 1/19/2002 12:10:31 PM Of Foxes and Chicken Coops - Former Enron Employee Quits as Texas Utility Regulator 376. joezan - 1/19/2002 12:41:25 PM Cheney and Others Intervene To Help Enron Rip Off India... 377. Cellar Door - 1/19/2002 12:45:07 PM The latest poll results. 378. jayackroyd - 1/19/2002 1:28:54 PM Joezan-- 379. joezan - 1/19/2002 1:37:38 PM Hell no, it wasn't okay. 380. jayackroyd - 1/19/2002 1:42:51 PM I agree that this is not a partisan issue. Both parties are hip deep in corrupt practices. 381. jayackroyd - 1/19/2002 1:43:15 PM I agree that this is not a partisan issue. Both parties are hip deep in corrupt practices. 382. jexster - 1/19/2002 1:47:56 PM I have sent an e-mail to TJ asking him to place a few links on the Thread page... 383. jexster - 1/19/2002 1:49:34 PM One question JoeZ....actually 2.. 384. joezan - 1/19/2002 2:00:01 PM Oh - so it's not the relationship between Bush and Enron that's got your panties in a bunch, but the hypocricy you imagine? 385. jexster - 1/19/2002 2:02:13 PM About a year ago, I linked this article from the NyT....As it costs ya to get it, here is an excerpt courtesy Lexis 386. Cellar Door - 1/19/2002 2:02:46 PM Just keep repeating the mantra, joe! 387. jexster - 1/19/2002 2:04:27 PM To finish the tale a headline is sufficient 388. jexster - 1/19/2002 2:21:50 PM Cheney's Intervention on Behalf of Enron Scrutinized 389. jexster - 1/19/2002 2:23:56 PM In other developments: 390. Cellar Door - 1/19/2002 3:46:09 PM 391. robertjayb - 1/19/2002 4:22:50 PM Dear Secretary O'Neill, 392. jexster - 1/20/2002 11:45:48 AM In the upcoming legislative session, Democrats believe the Enron taint will aid their program. 393. jexster - 1/20/2002 11:53:28 AM A point, ahem, I have made myself is now made in Today's BUSINESS section of the NyT.... 394. jexster - 1/20/2002 11:56:47 AM HOUSTON, Jan. 18 — On the day that Enron (news/quote) Field made its debut in April 2000, its "Diamond Club" was a portrait in power. 395. jexster - 1/20/2002 12:13:56 PM Guess they weren't in the Diamond Club huh? 396. jexster - 1/20/2002 8:10:06 PM Enron Proving Costly to Economy 397. joezan - 1/20/2002 8:29:48 PM Looks like politicos were not the only ones to benefit from Enron dirty money. 398. jexster - 1/20/2002 8:56:45 PM So what did Sullivan say that was *different* from what Krugman did (in a column I linked BTW!) I would be DE-lighted to quote in full for you 399. jexster - 1/20/2002 9:23:21 PM And if Sully wants a piece of someone, why not me? 400. joezan - 1/20/2002 10:14:28 PM As the Sully article explains, jex, Krugman's original "confessional" in the NYT at the beginning of his tenure there paints his stint with Enron in a very casual light - which it was, as he was only there (along with William Kristol and others) as window dressing. But the fact that he very conveniently left out the part where they pay him $50,000 for doing basically nothing but letting them use his name seems a tad duplicitous in retrospect for a guy who now is going around bashing Republicans for taking Enron money. 401. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 8:01:00 AM Joe, 402. jexster - 1/21/2002 11:04:43 AM "A deep and abiding connection exists between a party's constituents and its positions. Bush and Cheney are oil and gas guys who feel at ease among oil and gas guys. Cheney views an alternative to oil as something of a joke. Bush, like his father, views the Saudi Arabian 403. jexster - 1/21/2002 11:09:08 AM They're gunning for the Gramms in Big D 404. jexster - 1/21/2002 11:14:52 AM Texas Lawyers in Frenzy As Even Lawyers Are Hiring Lawyers 405. Toenails - 1/21/2002 11:15:26 AM I believe in capitalism as a superior economic system, but I'll never be entirely satisfied with my country and my government until there are strong laws giving prosecutors maximum power to go after corporate misconduct. 406. judithathome - 1/21/2002 11:20:54 AM Great post, Toe! 407. Cellar Door - 1/21/2002 11:22:10 AM WORD! 409. Cellar Door - 1/21/2002 11:29:11 AM cllrdr@bigfoot.com 410. jexster - 1/21/2002 11:34:45 AM SF Prosecutor Tackles Enron - Leslie Caldwell has a history of putting away the big shots 411. CalGal - 1/21/2002 11:49:24 AM And whenever some hyper-rich S.O.B. screws some little everyday bastard employee who's trying to make a living and relying on that S.O.B. for a salary and a pension, the disparity in power between the two of them is very much like a rapist who victimizes a child, so the punishments for "Corporate Rape" ought to be every bit as severe as that visited on a child molester. 412. jexster - 1/21/2002 11:56:34 AM Who wants to buy stock if the numbers may have been ingeniously sauteed, braised, Texas barbecued or otherwise cooked? 413. Cellar Door - 1/21/2002 12:54:18 PM CG you'd "see no abuse of power" in the Spanish Inquisition. 414. CalGal - 1/21/2002 12:57:54 PM A devastating rebuttal. 415. Toenails - 1/21/2002 1:09:15 PM Their lost retirement income is their own problem, not due to their meeeeeaan employer. 416. Cellar Door - 1/21/2002 1:17:29 PM No one EVER expects the Spanish Inquisition ! 417. TabouliJones - 1/21/2002 1:33:03 PM I have had a chance to go through much of the postings to this thread. Much of the discussion has been interesting and informative. 418. CalGal - 1/21/2002 1:44:25 PM And what about the employees' inability to sell the stock during a critical period when there was at least still a market for it? 419. robertjayb - 1/21/2002 1:45:01 PM Along came Jones... 420. Cellar Door - 1/21/2002 1:56:17 PM No,just ordinary everyday rape. 421. Cellar Door - 1/21/2002 1:56:41 PM in which the victim is, as per usual, blamed. 422. CalGal - 1/21/2002 2:02:30 PM Not at all. I think Enron behaved criminally. I think the officers should be arrested and put in jail until trial and their assets seized, in order to eliminate the possibility of them filing individual bankruptcy or using all their ill-gotten gains to pay their legal bills. 423. judithathome - 1/21/2002 2:11:44 PM I wonder how many at the top at Enron sold their stock during those two weeks? 424. TabouliJones - 1/21/2002 2:14:33 PM The rape analogy re: the devaluation of 401(k) plans due to the Enron bankruptcy is inapt and misleading, imo. It places undue emphasis on the --perhaps debatable -- malevolence of Enron executives towards employees, when the more pertinent issues relate to regulatory myopia. 425. TabouliJones - 1/21/2002 2:17:38 PM Any links on who actually controled the Enron portfolio would be helpful and welcome. I myself am unclear on who controlled what. I thought that the portfolio was managed on behalf of the employees be a company appointed portfolio manager. 426. CalGal - 1/21/2002 2:29:26 PM Did Enron do anything illegal in their management of the 401(k) portfolio? 427. CalGal - 1/21/2002 2:34:31 PM Plan was frozen due to administrative changes 428. TabouliJones - 1/21/2002 2:36:24 PM I have added to informative links to the sidebar: one from Fortune.com -- Re. the Issues and another from Slate.com -- re: Enron's 401(k). Both are pertinent, informative and absent histrionics. 429. CalGal - 1/21/2002 2:40:45 PM The Slate link is reeeaaaaallly slow. Is it from the archives? 430. TabouliJones - 1/21/2002 2:42:10 PM The slate link is from November or December of 2001. 431. TabouliJones - 1/21/2002 2:45:15 PM Some perspective from Slate re: the issue of Enron's ENE heavy 401(k) plan: 432. jexster - 1/21/2002 2:48:20 PM Live From Houston its Lou "Moneybags" Dobbs! 433. jexster - 1/21/2002 2:51:34 PM OTOH, and not that I agree with Cal entirely, the 401(k) employee may have a better sense of the worth of the stock she is holding than say, a Lou Dobbs viewer/ Charles Schwab customer.... 434. CalGal - 1/21/2002 3:16:29 PM Accounting Firms "Peer Review" 435. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 4:29:41 PM There have been several comments like this one from CalGal: 436. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 4:33:57 PM Jones asks: 437. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 4:36:46 PM In 435 I forgot to mention that my customer has the same rule--match only with company stock, and no diversification before 50. That provision is now under review. 438. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 4:44:18 PM The employee sale lockdown date has also been reported differently in different stories. FOr example, the slate story Jones posted puts it at from October 17 to November 19. I've read elsewhere that company announced a lockdown date that exceeded the actual time required to change plan administration. And, of course, the timing is really suspect. But, iac, on the order of a third of most people's portfolio was not available for sale or diversification. 439. TabouliJones - 1/21/2002 4:44:20 PM Thanks Jay. I have added your NYTimes link to the sidebar. 440. CalGal - 1/21/2002 4:48:27 PM Company match only took place with Enron stock 441. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 4:56:46 PM From the NYTimes article: 442. concerned - 1/21/2002 5:14:57 PM I hear that Enron stock had already lost 70% of its value at the beginning of the lockdown, so that most employees who held on to them up to that point had already seen over two thirds of those savings vanish before the lockdown began. Then, if it is also true (I am not certain of this), that most employees' Enron holdings were only the 401K matching portions, what happened to the retirement savings of most of Enron's former employees was not the wholesale wipeout that certain Lefty droolers are attempting to portray it as, or even all that unusual in a recessionary financial environment which had already seen the NASDAQ decline by half before inauguration day 2001. 443. CalGal - 1/21/2002 5:18:41 PM That 33% was a tax free bennie that the company didn't have to give them. If companies are prevented from giving matching retirement funds in stock, a good portion of them may do away with the benefit altogether, and just let the employees contribute with no matching funds. Given that most companies won't collapse the way that Enron did, it's questionable whether or not this is an improvement. 444. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 5:26:00 PM 442 445. CalGal - 1/21/2002 5:30:25 PM It's worse to lie about the lockdown period required to change plan administrators. It's still worse (if it happened) to change admnistrators to keep employees locked in. 446. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 5:32:49 PM What is this tax free business? You pay tax when you sell the stock. 447. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 5:33:41 PM Changing your balances in a 401K is done under different rules at different companies. 448. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 5:41:47 PM "Enron blocked employees from selling their shares between October 26 and November 8. During that period the stock fell from $15.40 to just over $9 per share." 449. CalGal - 1/21/2002 5:49:43 PM What is this tax free business? You pay tax when you sell the stock. 450. CalGal - 1/21/2002 5:50:50 PM Changing your balances in a 401K is done under different rules at different companies. 451. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 5:53:56 PM It varies. The CNN link said that Enron employees could sell at any time. 452. jayackroyd - 1/21/2002 5:57:38 PM Taxes are deferred on the contributions of both parties. You and the employer put in pretax dollars, and you pay taxes when you draw down funds from the 401K at retirement. 453. jexster - 1/21/2002 6:09:43 PM JoeZ... 454. jexster - 1/21/2002 8:40:47 PM Enron Enablers - The Real Scandal 455. joezan - 1/21/2002 10:45:03 PM No jex - my point (and Sully's, I think) is that, short of actual bribes having been paid to politicians (and, really, Enron's relationship with the Powerful was no different than that of any other special interest -think Big Labor. So forget about that), Krugman did exactly what the more publicized Enron beneficiaries did - took influence money. 456. jexster - 1/21/2002 10:47:19 PM Well I still miss the point. Call me dull JoeZ but I hardly think that Paul Krugman can be accused of even an appearance of going easy on Ken Lay... 457. jexster - 1/21/2002 10:48:44 PM Don't bother with Sullivan..try something meatier Joe 458. wonkers2 - 1/21/2002 11:26:19 PM The article neglected to mention that there might have been a chance of avoiding or ameliorating Enron's demise if one of Clinton's ablest apointee's, Arthur Levit, recommendations had been adopted. In addition to numerous disclosure and reporting recommendations, he advocated prohibiting CPA firms from offering consulting services to their clients. 459. jexster - 1/21/2002 11:56:46 PM Why Is St. Jack [Danforth] Helping Andersen? 460. jexster - 1/22/2002 12:09:06 AM The Fall of a Giant: A Look at Enron's Political Contributions & Lobbying 461. jexster - 1/22/2002 12:13:53 AM 462. TabouliJones - 1/22/2002 10:11:49 AM I have added a link on the sidebar: WSJ - Enron by the Numbers. It links to a discussion between various professionals re: Enron and issues of corporate governance, financial reporting and auditor accountability, among other things. 463. rubberducky - 1/22/2002 10:33:14 AM beating Jex to the punch... 464. Cellar Door - 1/22/2002 10:59:09 AM HALIBURTON'S NEXT! 465. Cellar Door - 1/22/2002 10:59:50 AM Both stock-watchers and political heavyweights are nervously awaiting Halliburton's release of its latest earnings report, now scheduled for Wednesday. Bad news could lead to allegations of fraud and mismanagement like the ones that have befallen Enron.. 466. Cellar Door - 1/22/2002 11:00:21 AM Of special interest are Halliburton's payouts in connection with the highly controversial Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act, a piece of legislation so outrageous that it has not yet passed the Congress. Halliburton gave big money to 49 of the 77 lawmakers who in 2000 co-sponsored the act in the House of Representatives and 14 of 29 co-sponsors of similar legislation in the Senate. 467. Cellar Door - 1/22/2002 11:00:35 AM If he were to become vice president, one Halliburton official who admires Cheney but asked to remain anonymous said in 2000, "the company’s government contracts would obviously go through the roof." But the company's demise now could well bring close scrutiny to its government contracts, both before and after Cheney and George W. Bush "won" the disputed 2000 election. 468. jexster - 1/22/2002 11:24:14 AM A Huge Windfall For Supporters of Campaign Finance Reform 471. judithathome - 1/22/2002 11:36:45 AM ENRON and Deregulation: Recipe For Disaster 472. jexster - 1/22/2002 11:39:39 AM JoeZ...always better to read what was actually said than someone's (esp Sullivan's) rehash a year later.. 473. jexster - 1/22/2002 11:40:56 AM Reckonings; 474. jexster - 1/22/2002 12:09:54 PM And for Ronski who once commented on the absence of calls for revisiting electricity deregulation 475. TabouliJones - 1/22/2002 12:11:40 PM I have added to the sidebar Judith's link regarding Enron and the issue of deregulation in the market for supplying energy. The piece is opposed to deregulation and interesting to read as a starting point. If anyone has a link offering a pro-regulation viewpoint, I will post it as a counterpoint. 476. TabouliJones - 1/22/2002 12:16:15 PM I have also noticed that many commentators have expressed confusion as to the nature of Enron's actual business -- which for some time was touted as revolutionary. The ex post consensus seems to be that Enron was simply a glorified hedge fund that realized lacklustre returns. James Surowiecki, again in the New Yorker, has otoh argued that Enron's business was revolutionary and that the company would have survived if Enron had been upfront in its accounting all along. 477. TabouliJones - 1/22/2002 12:19:11 PM Er . . . in 475, end of paragraph 1, it should read ". . . a link offering a pro DE-regulation viewpoint, I will post it as counterpoint." 478. CalGal - 1/22/2002 12:21:54 PM What Weather Costs 479. TabouliJones - 1/22/2002 12:25:11 PM Calgal, 480. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 12:28:55 PM I haven't commented on this thread yet. However, I did some work for Enron a couple of years ago, and then worked with the company on a fairly significant project slightly more than a year ago. In retrospect, my written memos to our partners about both experiences were prescient - since I found the company very high on hype and projections but very low on delivery and on actual personnel quality. 481. ronski - 1/22/2002 12:28:56 PM As was pointed out in the energy debate last summer, there are those of us who do not buy the idea that California "deregulated" energy at all, but rather reregulated it. 482. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 12:30:33 PM In some ways, Enron's massive multi-billion-dollar investment in India provides you with a microcosm of the company's wider fortunes. It would take too much time to describe all the ramifications off-the-cuff, check out any of hundreds of write-ups in the business press. 483. ronski - 1/22/2002 12:57:58 PM Mandatory Unbundling is not Deregulation 484. jexster - 1/22/2002 1:07:52 PM Mandatory Unbundling Continued.... 485. Cellar Door - 1/22/2002 6:02:36 PM 486. jexster - 1/22/2002 7:56:55 PM RD---hard to do but you managed! 487. jexster - 1/22/2002 8:27:16 PM 488. jexster - 1/23/2002 11:05:59 AM Standing Up to Evil Doers: GWB - A Profile in Courage! 489. jexster - 1/23/2002 11:12:00 AM That from Howie Kurtz Attack on the Enron Conservatives 490. jexster - 1/23/2002 11:23:53 AM "One of the major falsehoods being bandied about by apologists for the Bush administration is that while Enron may have bankrolled much of the president's political career it got nothing for those bucks once George W. occupied the White House. That is nonsense. The administration's energy program, developed by Vice President Dick Cheney in secret meetings--six of them with Enron officials--could have been written by lobbyists for the now failed company. At the behest of Rep. Hennry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform has prepared a devastating analysis of 17 major concessions made to Enron that gave Kenneth L. Lay, Bush's intimate friend and Enron chief executive, just about everything he wanted. The report concluded that 'it is unlikely that any other corporation in America stood to gain as much from the White House plan as Enron.'" 491. jexster - 1/23/2002 11:31:24 AM Bush SEC Head Protects His Own - WPost 492. concerned - 1/23/2002 11:40:05 AM Hey, Jexster - where's the meat? 493. jexster - 1/23/2002 11:41:05 AM Bush-Lay-Enron Fuck Martha Stewart (NyT) 494. concerned - 1/23/2002 11:48:16 AM Re. 490 - 495. jexster - 1/23/2002 11:59:21 AM ThomasD-for-dassole...better learn to watch what you ask for... 496. jexster - 1/23/2002 12:00:58 PM For a complete discussion of exactly how Bush-Cheney-Lay benefits Enron in each of these "plan" areas...Click Here 497. jexster - 1/23/2002 12:04:43 PM oncerned about potential taint from the metastasizing Enron scandal, George W. Bush met with reporters recently to distance himself from Enron's chairman, Ken Lay (nicknamed "Kenny Boy" by W. before the scandal). It is testament to how indelible that taint may become that Bush found it necessary to lie about his friend. He claimed that Lay supported Ann Richards in 1994 when Bush ran for governor of Texas and that he only got to know him later. In fact, Lay was a leading contributor to Papa Bush's re-election run in 1992, and by his own account was "very close to George W." Enron's PAC and executives pumped $146,500 into W.'s 1994 race (while Richards received all of $12,500 from Enron sources). Bush "was in bed with Enron before he ever held a political office," reports Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. 498. jexster - 1/23/2002 12:06:31 PM And ya know what ThomasDaschle??? 499. CalGal - 1/23/2002 2:03:59 PM Accounting Alchemy 500. judithathome - 1/23/2002 2:27:46 PM Did ENRON really name their various entities after Star Wars and Jurassic Park characters as Solman was doing last night? Or was that just his little joke? 501. thoughtful - 1/23/2002 2:33:25 PM That's for real...from Washington Post: 502. thoughtful - 1/23/2002 2:35:09 PM Maybe some of the ex-enron execs can get a job working for sherwin-williams to develop names for paint colors: Princess Leia peach, R2D2 silver... 503. judithathome - 1/23/2002 2:38:45 PM Enron Mud....for that gloomy room no amount of light can brighten, anyhow. 504. thoughtful - 1/23/2002 2:58:54 PM thanks, jex....that enron link as well as some others have been most helpful. 505. thoughtful - 1/23/2002 2:59:17 PM i meant the waxman link on enron... 506. concerned - 1/23/2002 6:58:33 PM 'Helpful' obfuscation. 507. jexster - 1/23/2002 8:09:06 PM Your welcome Thoughtfilled... 508. jexster - 1/23/2002 8:12:32 PM Markets B Free! 509. jexster - 1/23/2002 8:15:36 PM and also from Lou - this guy Fastow appeared on the cover of CFO Magazine a few years back....hailed as Finanicial Man of the Year for his wizardry! 510. Cellar Door - 1/23/2002 8:31:15 PM 511. jexster - 1/23/2002 8:35:41 PM Great link...I especially enjoy the Royal motif as you know...hehehe 512. jexster - 1/23/2002 8:45:14 PM Did someone say somethin nasty about Henry Waxman's "reputation"????? 513. CalGal - 1/23/2002 10:08:44 PM Lay Resigns 514. CalGal - 1/23/2002 10:14:03 PM Hey, it was just a "friendly reminder" 515. Cellar Door - 1/23/2002 10:21:45 PM "My lawyer says it's OK." 516. Shannon - 1/24/2002 8:15:24 AM Friendly reminder. Heh. 517. jexster - 1/24/2002 11:11:07 AM If nothing else, Enron's difficulties have not only given us a lesson in Economics 101, but they also have told us how Washington operates. 518. jexster - 1/24/2002 11:29:44 AM The federal government is projected to run a $106 billion deficit this year, the White House said yesterday, confirming the sharpest turnabout in the nation's fiscal health in half a century. 519. jexster - 1/24/2002 11:32:39 AM Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) chided Crippen. "I don't see too much difference between this kind of presentation and consideration of budget responsibilities and Arthur D. Andersen," Enron's accountant, Hollings said. 520. jexster - 1/24/2002 11:40:11 AM After ripping off California ratepayers in the manufactured electricity crisis... 521. jexster - 1/24/2002 12:24:01 PM WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 — To listen to President Bush, it was almost as if an epiphany involving his mother-in-law drove him to turn on the Enron Corporation, his most generous political benefactor. In assailing Enron on a trip Tuesday to Belle, W.Va., Mr. Bush said, "My own mother-in-law" lost all of her investment when the company's stock collapsed. 522. CalGal - 1/24/2002 12:24:21 PM Shannon, 523. jexster - 1/24/2002 12:33:07 PM Other Republicans were more skeptical, suggesting that Mr. Bush's hasty retreat from his friendship with Mr. Lay — and his fresh outrage over Enron — was transparent. 524. jexster - 1/24/2002 12:34:55 PM That's GOP adviser Scott Reed, Old Dole's Campaign Manager.... 525. OhioSTOPAS - 1/24/2002 2:26:58 PM Way to go, Jex! You snagged the "What was the vote count in the 2000 Presidential election?" post! 526. jexster - 1/24/2002 3:32:36 PM 527. jexster - 1/24/2002 3:36:51 PM Hang on Ronski... 528. jexster - 1/24/2002 3:47:13 PM GOP Campaign Finance Stall Foiled - Enron Spurs Discharge Petition 529. jexster - 1/24/2002 4:16:32 PM From The Chronicle of Compassionately Conservative Crony Capitalism 530. jexster - 1/24/2002 4:21:36 PM Those rats are on the run....Never before in modern congressional history has a discharge petition suceeded in wresting control of the House Floor from the Majority 531. robertjayb - 1/24/2002 5:29:52 PM 532. jexster - 1/24/2002 7:36:29 PM Whether you think the story of Enron is a political scandal, a business scandal, both, or neither, that story has just reached a critical turning point. Yes, there's a slew of congressional hearings starting today, and that's part of what I'm talking about. But the real sign of where this is all heading comes with the startling appearance of Al Sharpton. 533. jexster - 1/24/2002 7:42:10 PM Andrew Sullivan's 3 Faced Rant Against Paul Krugman 534. jexster - 1/24/2002 7:57:10 PM OOOPS - Slate Slams Sullivan -Here 535. CalGal - 1/25/2002 2:02:04 AM What did Ken Lay Know on August 20th? 536. joezan - 1/25/2002 7:03:58 AM First Reverend Fatass Sharptongue, and now Jesse Jackson. Why, it's not a bankruptcy - it's a circus! 537. thoughtful - 1/25/2002 8:38:03 AM So, Bush & co. have Enron hire Ralph Reed to keep Reed in the Bush camp without having an "open to public scrutiny" connection to him which could have caused Bush political harm....not to mention it was a de facto campaign contribution outside the purvue of campaign financing laws. Lovely. See Associates of Bush Aide Say He Helped To Win Contract 538. jexster - 1/25/2002 9:51:03 AM Beat me to it!!!! 539. jexster - 1/25/2002 9:52:16 AM Too bad I have this not-so-secret lust thing for Ralph Reed.... 540. judithathome - 1/25/2002 9:52:53 AM Don't gloat...I'm sure there's stuff coming that involves the Democrats, too. 541. jexster - 1/25/2002 9:55:02 AM POOPSTAIN! 542. jexster - 1/25/2002 9:58:45 AM JAH.... 543. jexster - 1/25/2002 10:04:10 AM Its gonna start comin fast and furious...the Post and the NyT are locked in competition 544. jexster - 1/25/2002 10:04:54 AM Ain't competition GREAT! 545. CalGal - 1/25/2002 11:04:13 AM Further evidence that the employees probably didn't lose anything they had in the first place. 546. Cellar Door - 1/25/2002 11:39:27 AM You mean we can all go back to sleep now, CG? 547. jexster - 1/25/2002 11:47:50 AM Not at all. 548. jexster - 1/25/2002 11:48:48 AM Georgie's gonna have to do better than trot out his mother-in-law's BIG LOSS...what's her name Miss LulaBelle??? 549. CalGal - 1/25/2002 11:52:10 AM I didn't say anything about going back to sleep. I find the failure fascinating and look forward to the next revelation. 550. CalGal - 1/25/2002 11:54:11 AM John C. Baxter, vice-chairman of Enron, committed suicide this morning. Don't know if it's related. 551. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:04:33 PM In Sugarland no less...my brother used to live in Sugarland before moving down Tx16 to Missouri City.. 552. Jonesatlaw - 1/25/2002 12:05:50 PM Enron will spill apart into three scandals. First and now hottest is the political influence purchases of 70% of the Senate and a large portion of the House, with more largess scattered here and there amoungst local political petty nobility. This is will burn hot for only a short time, and since it's tough to play one whore lecturing others on morality, will not go too far. There just aren't enough unsullied members to mount an instituional fight. The saving grace for slime will be the distraction of the other two scandals, the economic abuse and disposal of Enron employees and retirees; and the total sell out of the accounting industry and other "self regulation" coupled with the utter incompetence of the SEC to regulate the market. 553. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:06:58 PM Sugarland...DeLay...Enron... 554. CalGal - 1/25/2002 12:07:08 PM Oh, the guy's name was Cliff Baxter (John Clifford). 555. CalGal - 1/25/2002 12:08:24 PM But Jones, there's simply no reason to get het up about campaign finance vis a vis Enron. I don't even see it being that hot now. There's far more focus on fraud. 556. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:12:26 PM All wet Jonesy...you have totally missed the key connection here...and that is Houston corporatist culture and its GOP Bush connection...Robert or Judith know...as do I ...Arky too...but these people are SO intertwined...Bush I & II and his entire team, Enron...hell down to damned Houston Astros... 557. Jonesatlaw - 1/25/2002 12:12:40 PM The employees case will languish in bankruptcy court and in a ton of litigation, while there will be some political action to throw them a small economic bone. The market on the other hand will be more certain and severe in its judgment and there will be a reinforcement of regulation and greater transparancy in corporate disclosures. Even if we do not have the political will to push for this, the market, including overseas investors and institutional ones not so beholden to direct political influence, will demand effective change or the capital will go elsewhere. This will be the scandal with the longest term consequences and likely the only one to have legs, independent of other influences. 558. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:14:56 PM there's simply no reason to get het up about campaign finance vis a vis Enron. I don't even see it being that hot now 559. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:16:12 PM First time in modern congressional history that a discharge petition has succeeded in wresting control of the House agenda from the Leadership.... 560. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:18:22 PM For Phil and Wendy Gramm - Enron Hard to Escape 561. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:20:31 PM It is critical to understand how bidniss, society, and politics happen in Houston 562. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:24:14 PM Stockholder suits "languishing"??? 563. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:25:08 PM these are the same TRIAL lawyers that Bush and Lay have been trying to skewer for years... 564. CalGal - 1/25/2002 12:26:15 PM I thought that article demonstrated that there was no substance to the Gramm "scandal". 565. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:29:45 PM Take a look at this website Jonesy...and look at what they are prominently featuring... 566. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:31:08 PM In late 1998, lawyers advised Enron Corp. board member Wendy L. Gramm that she faced a "material conflict of interest" if she owned stock in the company while her husband, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), was introducing legislation affecting Enron. 567. Jonesatlaw - 1/25/2002 12:31:36 PM Jex- Houston's Corporatist culture isn't news. Its the status quo in dozens of middle sized cities up to all but the top Metropoli in the country. The guys on the board in a handful of big players are the same faces you see across town in other boardrooms, the Chamber of Commerce, the political dinners and the charity and social club du jour. The course for the local ship of state is set there, while the politicians dutifully play first mate and flog the crew into sailing the ship on the course the captain(s) set. Meanwhile the crew is fed gruel and led in lusty shanties extoling the wonders of trade and the market. When it comes time to pay taxes or overhaul the ship, the jolly roger goes up, and its yo, ho, ho, tax breaks, subsidies,a round of champaign for the captain, a small grog for the crew, and "a pirate's life for me." It's only in busy waters surrounded by other pirate crews posing as traders do they keep a low profile and save the raping and pillaging for another day or place. 568. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:32:56 PM That after Wendy, appointed by Poppy, got the CFTC rule change which allowed Enron to exist which then landed her rear end in a chair at Enron Board of Directors 569. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:35:00 PM Jonesy... 570. concerned - 1/25/2002 12:35:36 PM Jexster, I cannot but admire your indefatigable efforts to whomp up a totally specious partisan scandal regarding Enron. Plus, you've been able to cadge your very own thread for that purpose. 571. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:38:50 PM is Beeville and is, coincidentally, of all things 572. jexster - 1/25/2002 12:42:50 PM Rove-Reed-Lay 573. Cellar Door - 1/25/2002 12:44:44 PM (01-25) 09:16 PST HOUSTON (AP) -- 574. jexster - 1/25/2002 1:08:47 PM The City of Houston, whose airport is Bush International, is run by the Greater Houston Partnership, under the tutelage of an even more elite group called The Committee of 100.... 575. robertjayb - 1/25/2002 2:01:42 PM The Houston Chronicle, long an Enron house organ, is sweating profusely as it finds it missed the BIG story. Here is their account(with Reuters and AP) of the Baxter death. 576. jexster - 1/25/2002 2:05:33 PM Goin to the ROH-DayO are ya robert? 577. jexster - 1/25/2002 2:07:06 PM Been shootin quail down there in Beeville have ya? 578. robertjayb - 1/25/2002 2:33:59 PM Please, jexster, Tony Lamas are so common. The quality wear Lucchese. 579. Jonesatlaw - 1/25/2002 2:48:28 PM I heard a snippet on NPR from a reporter for the Economist, who stated that the big problem from Enron is the ability of the company to so distort the public information on it. The question is how is a rational investor to behave if the required disclosures can be so divorced from reality for so long? Enron appears to have systematically overstated its profit, understated its debt, originally in an effort to play it both ways with regard to the tax treatment of its business dealings. It did so with the aid of either direct advice or a blind eye turned by a gang of "public" accountants whose job in reality was to insure that the public was placated without actually ever knowing the truth. Through the Lookinglass is a piece of directness and clarity in comparision to the double speak by the Enron execs and their "independent" auditors. 580. Jonesatlaw - 1/25/2002 3:16:59 PM Jex, Robert- 581. judithathome - 1/25/2002 3:36:54 PM Before old man Justin died, you could get some superb custom boots from him...I once worked at the printing company which did his catalog. He came in with a loupe and checked on the color of his BLACK boots; we had to redo it three times before it suited him. Perfectionist in everything he did. 582. Jonesatlaw - 1/25/2002 3:39:40 PM JAH- I knew anyone who could discuss the nuances of hat felt would know the skinny on this topic... 583. Jonesatlaw - 1/25/2002 3:42:36 PM Most cowboys I know would be rather uncomfortable claiming the label of "quality." Quality of their stock, tack, hat and boots, yes; but themselves, never. 584. judithathome - 1/25/2002 3:45:10 PM Yep, I agree...the most they would claim about themselves is "fair to middlin'". 585. CalGal - 1/25/2002 6:38:10 PM Jones, 586. dusty - 1/25/2002 6:47:52 PM thoughtful 587. jexster - 1/25/2002 6:48:34 PM Jonesy....Absolutely. 588. dusty - 1/25/2002 6:52:48 PM thoughtful 589. jexster - 1/25/2002 6:54:04 PM Word from Sugarland...I know where this guy lived ...Big subdivision right back of Gerland's Supermarket out there on 59 and just that side of Oyster Creek from the lower rent place my brother used to live in.... 590. dusty - 1/25/2002 6:57:27 PM judithathome Message # 58 591. CalGal - 1/25/2002 7:02:54 PM Nothing. But agenda whores must sell their wares. 592. Cellar Door - 1/25/2002 7:08:02 PM What's the latest? 593. jexster - 1/25/2002 7:10:17 PM All in due time, all in due time... 594. jexster - 1/25/2002 7:14:05 PM RULING: 595. jexster - 1/25/2002 7:32:52 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One day after members of the U.S. House of Representatives forced action on an overhaul of campaign fund-raising laws, the legislation's two Senate sponsors called on President Bush (news - web sites) to announce he will sign a campaign finance bill. 596. dusty - 1/25/2002 8:26:54 PM Slightly off-topic, but I want to report a first for me: I did a Google search for "Enron 401K rules" and one of the early hits was a Mote thread. Not the Enron thread, but a Wonkers post, to which I responded, in the Finances thread, where the disucssion was immediately preceding the creation of the Enron thread. 597. jexster - 1/25/2002 8:36:17 PM Way to go WONK!!!! 598. jexster - 1/25/2002 8:40:17 PM Nostalgia Break... 599. jexster - 1/25/2002 8:40:31 PM 600. jexster - 1/25/2002 8:41:55 PM O Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling 601. Property of Jesus - 1/25/2002 8:50:41 PM 602. Cellar Door - 1/25/2002 8:50:45 PM And as I'm sure you recall, jex, it was John Fund's WSJ gossip scribblings that pushed Vince to top himself. 603. jexster - 1/25/2002 8:52:09 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House apparently added a last-minute provision to the Bush administration's energy policy last spring that was helpful to Enron, a Democratic congressman said Friday. 604. jexster - 1/25/2002 8:56:16 PM Rose UR just tryin to bust Cllrs chops... 605. Cellar Door - 1/25/2002 9:01:29 PM Rosie's been fighting with me over in "The Atlantic Monthly." 606. jexster - 1/25/2002 9:11:45 PM CBS Evening News - 607. dusty - 1/25/2002 9:14:18 PM I read the NYT article linked to the right. It is surprisingly weak. It starts: 608. jexster - 1/25/2002 9:27:33 PM PBS this evening 609. Property of Jesus - 1/25/2002 9:36:56 PM Bill Moyers? LBJ's bitch? I thought he was writing books (and selling them on PBS) about witchcraft now? 610. Property of Jesus - 1/25/2002 10:08:30 PM Read it and weep, Jex. 611. Cellar Door - 1/25/2002 10:21:39 PM Rosie thinks that we think Krugman's a Liberal -- 612. Cellar Door - 1/25/2002 10:22:26 PM Of course to a Right-Wing Stalinist like Rosie, anyone who doesn't follow the Party Line is a Liberal. 613. wonkers2 - 1/25/2002 10:25:34 PM Rosie crucifixion thinks Enron is right and Krugman is wrong. 614. Cellar Door - 1/25/2002 10:27:18 PM Hey, do you suppose Rosie works for ENRON? 615. Cellar Door - 1/26/2002 9:35:49 AM 616. Cellar Door - 1/26/2002 9:54:04 AM From MWO: 617. Cellar Door - 1/26/2002 9:55:53 AM "The Weekly Taliban Standard" article referred to in the above. 618. Cellar Door - 1/26/2002 10:39:41 AM CNN says: "In weeks before his death, Senate subcommittee subpoenaed Baxter documents and House committee investigators tried to arrange a meeting with him." 619. judithathome - 1/26/2002 10:42:47 AM From MSNBC: 620. Cellar Door - 1/26/2002 10:44:32 AM 621. wonkers2 - 1/26/2002 10:47:13 AM Beware new metrics and killer apps 622. jexster - 1/26/2002 10:59:46 AM Wonk - we're not worthy...we're not worthy! Message # 596 623. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:00:56 AM Former Enron Vice-Chairman J. Clifford Baxter was seen as a potential whistleblower.... 624. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:01:58 AM I want MY name in GOOGLE 625. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:03:23 AM Scratch that - I have five entries 626. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:06:35 AM make that 4..one is "Che Jexster"!!! 627. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:11:18 AM 628. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:15:12 AM "To keep its mystique alive and its stock price growing, it set up partnerships where it could bury its losses, or generate imaginary revenues. Here's one of the more audacious examples, pieced together by The Wall Street Journal: Enron invested a bunch of money in a joint venture with Blockbuster to rent out movies online. The deal flopped eight months later. But in the meantime Enron had secretly set up a partnership with a Canadian bank. The bank essentially lent Enron $115 million in exchange for Enron's profits from the movie venture over its first 10 years. The Blockbuster deal never made a penny, but Enron counted the Canadian loan as a nice, fat profit. 629. judithathome - 1/26/2002 11:18:47 AM Jex, wonkers just linked that piece....in #621. But it's good enough to repeat! 630. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:33:39 AM OOOPS...we're not worthy! 631. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:41:17 AM From Cllrs link...another 632. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:42:08 AM We got the Bu$ Bagman 633. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:58:52 AM Baxter Murder Brings Hard Reality to Sugar Land 634. jexster - 1/26/2002 12:04:08 PM Krugman's Column Today - Rosie O'Sullivan - Shove it up your twat 635. jayackroyd - 1/26/2002 12:21:05 PM I have a pdf of the Watkins letter. Can I email to someone to post? 636. CalGal - 1/26/2002 12:25:11 PM I think it's online already, isn't it? I can't remember where I saw it. I mean the pdf file. I know the transcript is online, too. 637. CalGal - 1/26/2002 12:27:18 PM Oh, wait. It's too early in the morning. Watkins' letter. Yeah, send it to me. I'll upload it. 638. CalGal - 1/26/2002 12:30:23 PM No, now I'm back to the first response. I thought you meant you had Baxter's letter. Watkins's letter is online. 639. dusty - 1/26/2002 12:32:32 PM Jay, is it different than this? 640. CalGal - 1/26/2002 12:33:29 PM Watkins letter 641. dusty - 1/26/2002 12:39:06 PM Yep, same letter. 642. CalGal - 1/26/2002 12:48:21 PM Sorry, dusty, I didn't refresh. 643. jayackroyd - 1/26/2002 12:51:37 PM Same letter, yes. 644. CalGal - 1/26/2002 12:55:48 PM Media Missed Clues to Enron's Troubles 645. judithathome - 1/26/2002 1:01:54 PM Yep, and he wears weird suits. 646. CalGal - 1/26/2002 1:07:06 PM I liked Peter Siris, the hedge fund manager that he used to go to school with. 647. jexster - 1/26/2002 1:30:06 PM Suspicions are growing that the Bush administration is hiding something or lying about its dealings with Enron, the latest New York Times/CBS Poll shows. 648. jexster - 1/26/2002 1:39:44 PM If anyone is given to wonder why Rosie's posting crap about Paul Krugman, or why George Bush is trying to pin Lay on Ann Richards, or why that yokel moron offers up his mother-in-law as press fodder.. 649. Cellar Door - 1/26/2002 1:41:54 PM "But this poll shows, for the first time, that Americans associate Enron much more closely with Republicans." 650. jexster - 1/26/2002 1:45:47 PM One doubts that the people putting out this stuff really expect to convince anyone. But they do hope to muddy the waters. If they can get a little bit of Enron dirt on everyone — the Clinton administration, environmentalists, liberal columnists — the stain on people and ideas they support will be less noticeable. 651. wonkers2 - 1/26/2002 1:56:11 PM J.Clifford Baxter, RIP 652. CalGal - 1/26/2002 1:58:20 PM Is Enron Overpriced? 653. jexster - 1/26/2002 2:00:39 PM Right on Wonk... 654. jexster - 1/26/2002 2:01:24 PM Cal - 655. wonkers2 - 1/26/2002 2:03:18 PM At the barbershop last week I picked up an October issue of Money Magazine in which none other than Abby Joseph Cohen recommended buying ENRON! Just goes to show you that analysts's recommendations may be better than throwing darts but not much better. 656. jexster - 1/26/2002 2:03:47 PM Next month's Houston Livestock Show and RO-DAY-O is going to be a drizzly affair 657. Cellar Door - 1/26/2002 2:24:57 PM 658. jayackroyd - 1/26/2002 2:25:44 PM This quote from the lehrer transcript is very true: 659. CalGal - 1/26/2002 2:50:51 PM Jay, 660. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:42:57 PM Notice how immediately the TEXAS police conclude this was a "suicide." Christ, just it happened today, and the autopsy is already completed? The blood work is already back from the lab? All that forensic work was completed in just a couple of hours? 661. jexster - 1/26/2002 11:48:01 PM LAT - Enron: A Culture of Arrogance and Greed 662. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:06:32 AM What a horror! 663. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:13:45 AM Enron: All over Houston, they're saying the company's euphoric years were a facade, lies, a house of cards 664. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:14:05 AM 665. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:15:26 AM 666. robertjayb - 1/27/2002 12:25:00 AM Enron: Planet of the Privileged...(Maureen Dowd) 667. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:28:14 AM Reliant, Dynegy, El Paso. They call them the Louisiana Street Mafia, call this strip of concrete Energy Alley... 668. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:32:22 AM "The Bushes summered there, and W. and Jeb dropped by when they needed campaign cash. But lately, they began putting brown paper bags over their heads when they visited so no one would notice them hobnobbing with Kenny Boy." 669. Property of Jesus - 1/27/2002 4:43:07 AM My bad, Maureen. 670. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:25:27 PM The MUCK stops here Rosie. 671. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:26:31 PM I Am Woman Hear Me Roar in Enron Scandal 672. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:29:39 PM The Houston Livestock Show and Roh-DAY-oh needs a pick-me-up this year. 673. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:32:37 PM Pentagon Official From Enron in Hot Seat - Questions Raised About Army Secretary White and Possible Conflicts of Interest 674. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:38:53 PM 67% of the American public thinks Bu$h is hiding something or lying... 675. judithathome - 1/27/2002 12:46:25 PM This from White... 676. wonkers2 - 1/27/2002 12:46:47 PM Pitt Bull Libertarian at SEC Issues a "Puzzling Directive" 677. Cellar Door - 1/27/2002 12:48:34 PM Sullyblather for Rosie to shoot a Hot Milky Load over. 678. judithathome - 1/27/2002 12:49:02 PM Cheney: "You just cannot accept that proposition without putting a chill over the ability of the president and vice president to receive unvarnished advice." 679. wonkers2 - 1/27/2002 12:56:11 PM More like calling in the IOUs. 680. judithathome - 1/27/2002 12:58:19 PM 43% of those polled think the White House is covering something up with regard to Enron...CNN 681. jexster - 1/27/2002 1:01:27 PM Cliff Baxter was supposed to be on a boat right now, floating on some endless expanse of blue water beneath endless blue skies... 682. jexster - 1/27/2002 1:06:01 PM WOW that was FAST Cllr... 683. Cellar Door - 1/27/2002 1:12:31 PM Jerry V. Mutchler, the group's president, said Baxter had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the group because he wanted to help make certain young people "understood the values of the free enterprise system." 684. jexster - 1/27/2002 1:22:47 PM Rosie's Freeper Link inspired me to Freeper Frolic.. 685. jexster - 1/27/2002 1:25:43 PM More FreeperMadness.. 686. Cellar Door - 1/27/2002 9:40:05 PM 687. jexster - 1/27/2002 10:45:08 PM Enron was a human refinery, where managers wrung their hands over their advancing age and feared their superiors would deem them too meek. 688. jexster - 1/28/2002 11:27:41 AM Things have changed forever. 689. CalGal - 1/28/2002 11:54:27 AM When the Business of Business Is Politics . . . 690. concerned - 1/28/2002 11:57:54 AM Re. 684 - 691. Phoenix Rising - 1/28/2002 11:59:23 AM 692. Cellar Door - 1/28/2002 12:00:04 PM Hey connie, shouldn't you be out there investigating bullet trajectories? 693. judithathome - 1/28/2002 12:03:49 PM Phoenix, the wife is always the last to know....heh. 694. CalGal - 1/28/2002 12:07:49 PM Why credit her with innocence? She's got as much to gain from selling that story as her husband does. 695. concerned - 1/28/2002 12:13:18 PM Re. 692 - 696. judithathome - 1/28/2002 12:24:23 PM It was a joke, Cal....I'm not crediting her with innocence; just the opposite. 697. Phoenix Rising - 1/28/2002 12:24:37 PM Mrs. Lay evidently wears the balls in the family. 698. CalGal - 1/28/2002 12:29:36 PM I wasn't attacking Judith at all; I thought she was serious. 699. judithathome - 1/28/2002 12:32:21 PM Jeez, you never think I'm serious...you're always asking me if I'm serious or if I know what I'm talking about. 700. Cellar Door - 1/28/2002 12:42:01 PM Surely you're not buying that suicide story, connie. 701. concerned - 1/28/2002 12:43:15 PM JAH - 702. concerned - 1/28/2002 12:46:01 PM Re. 700 - 703. Cellar Door - 1/28/2002 12:46:58 PM ROTFALMAO!!!! 704. concerned - 1/28/2002 12:58:01 PM Glad you agree with me, cllrdr. 705. Cellar Door - 1/28/2002 1:06:30 PM That's what you think. 706. jexster - 1/28/2002 1:11:25 PM Leave it to Lefties to go nuts with the conspiracy mongering. 707. jexster - 1/28/2002 1:12:19 PM One freeper poster found the fact that Bob Bennett and David Boies were involoved on the Enron side 708. concerned - 1/28/2002 1:17:50 PM ..involoved on the Enron side... 709. Cellar Door - 1/28/2002 1:22:02 PM 710. jexster - 1/28/2002 1:28:16 PM Hell YOU TELL ME...those are Freepers...your people TD.. 711. concerned - 1/28/2002 1:31:00 PM jexster - 712. concerned - 1/28/2002 1:31:27 PM ...to... 713. Cellar Door - 1/28/2002 2:05:15 PM And where is John Fund today? 714. robertjayb - 1/28/2002 2:44:25 PM Ken Lay's wife blames media for Baxter suicide... 715. Phoenix Rising - 1/28/2002 3:21:24 PM Yea. Houston Chronicle guilty of murder. 716. jexster - 1/28/2002 4:20:28 PM Concerned....happy to have learned you SOMETHING... 717. thoughtful - 1/28/2002 4:29:52 PM as if she ever would... 718. amax - 1/28/2002 4:55:42 PM The VRWC that Krugman was talking about appears to be mostly Andrew Sullivan. I think this is great! Both are guys who can write and have some brains-- this is like WWF for political junkies! The only thing that would make it better would be if Krugman starts replying to Sullivan directly. 719. Cellar Door - 1/28/2002 5:08:01 PM "The only thing that would make it better would be if Krugman starts replying to Sullivan directly." 720. jexster - 1/28/2002 6:56:41 PM Stop that with FatBody's loads! 721. jexster - 1/28/2002 7:01:11 PM You were warned 722. joezan - 1/28/2002 8:06:37 PM Hey - what's this all about? 723. jayackroyd - 1/28/2002 9:41:34 PM 'To put this in perspective, Paul Krugman got more Enron money for adding his name to their advisory board (and precious little else) than any member of Congress. In fact, he got more than double the ten-year cumulative total of the biggest Enron beneficiary, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.' 724. Cygnus X-1 - 1/28/2002 9:57:27 PM What's the old saying? "People who live in glass houses shound't throw stones?" Hmmm... I think I like this one better: People who are disgustingly corrupt demagogues should shut their mouths. 725. Cygnus X-1 - 1/28/2002 9:58:08 PM Hey jexster, I think my post in 724 is what Lanny Davis was afraid of. 726. jexster - 1/28/2002 11:41:53 PM Hey Cyg...I don't think so. 727. concerned - 1/28/2002 11:59:30 PM I'll grant you that any recipient of funds of, say more than 1000 dollars, has been improperly influenced, and should resign their positions. Are you good with that? 728. concerned - 1/29/2002 12:04:23 AM I'll be satisfied if Jay merely calls for Terry McAuliffe's head. 729. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:15:30 AM Nice to see we've moved past the "Bogus scandal" phase... 730. concerned - 1/29/2002 12:33:39 AM What is TNR's prerequisite for GWB 'really knowing' Lay before being elected governor in 1994 anyway, since he first became acquainted with him only in 1992 via GHWB's reelection campaign? The author doesn't say. How convenient for him. 731. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:34:41 AM What planet are you from anyway? 732. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:35:39 AM Oh I get it...you were just "parsing" 733. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:36:37 AM 734. concerned - 1/29/2002 12:41:40 AM Seems to me that the better GWB got to know Lay, the less he had to do with him. 735. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:45:10 AM Yea right! 736. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:45:27 AM Kenny Boy 737. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:46:31 AM Did you know that Kenny not only did sleep overs at the Governor's Mansion, but that he slept at the White House before Bill & Hillary did? 738. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:50:35 AM 739. concerned - 1/29/2002 12:54:40 AM Sc'use me for a sec, jex - 740. concerned - 1/29/2002 12:56:06 AM Re. 737 - 741. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:58:15 AM So what did Enron get for its money? Plenty. For one thing, it stood to reap huge windfalls from the Bush administration's energy plan (parts of which read as if they came from Ken Lay's keyboard) and from its stimulus bill (under which Enron would have received $254 million in corporate tax cuts). 742. jexster - 1/29/2002 1:00:28 AM S'OK TD... 743. jexster - 1/29/2002 1:29:38 AM So what did Lay get from GHWB? 744. jexster - 1/29/2002 5:08:05 AM "Bush has "given an excellent imitation of Bill Clinton....". 745. stostosto - 1/29/2002 5:42:30 AM Jex: 746. stostosto - 1/29/2002 5:44:49 AM Or, conversely, do you consider that Clinton's behaviour was as reprehensible as that of Bush? 747. stostosto - 1/29/2002 5:46:36 AM Or do you think, perhaps, that Bush should be let off the hook and not be the object of politically motivated zealous investigations such as those that ruined Clinton's Presidency? 748. thoughtful - 1/29/2002 8:44:53 AM I'm confused...there is no privilege between a vp and task force members, though Cheney insists it's critical. Weren't these the folks from the same party that managed to blow up the privilege between the president and the white house attorneys where privilege is commonly considered critical and expected? 749. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 9:06:43 AM A letter to today's NYT: 750. Cygnus X-1 - 1/29/2002 9:31:13 AM It seems to me there are foul odors emanating for many sources, but the liberal loyal press only wants to sniff George Bush. 751. mgleason - 1/29/2002 10:42:13 AM For Jex: 752. OhioSTOPAS - 1/29/2002 11:21:32 AM Dick Morris, Cygnus? You must be desperate. 753. Property of Jesus - 1/29/2002 11:31:26 AM Dick Morris's claim to fame is that he got Bill Clinton re-elected in 1996. 754. bubbaette - 1/29/2002 11:32:39 AM Dick Morris's claim to fame is a penchant for sucking on the toes of hookers. 755. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 11:47:01 AM Beat me to it, bubbaette! 756. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:07:12 PM Bush to Focus on Accountability 757. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:09:46 PM Ohio... 758. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:14:03 PM GOP Lawmakers Concerned About Enron Fallout 759. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:16:31 PM As the repercussions of Enron's collapse continue to spread, the White House has become increasingly defensive--in part because of campaign contributions to Bush and other Republicans, and in part because of a friendship between the president and Enron's just-ousted chairman, Kenneth L. Lay. 760. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:25:57 PM First Enron Casualty - Bush Energy "Plan" - Reuters 761. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2002 12:52:50 PM Apropos mgleason's Message # 751. When will we see Cheney's " modified, limited hangout"? 762. jexster - 1/29/2002 1:28:00 PM Way to go Pelle! 763. jexster - 1/29/2002 1:31:14 PM Ett bra jobb! 764. PelleNilsson - 1/29/2002 1:48:33 PM I, too, followed Watergate closely through the IHT, Time and Newsweek. I lived in Lebanon then. I also read several of the books that appeared in the aftermath. 765. thoughtful - 1/29/2002 1:53:58 PM i don't get the reference...explain please (though I do remember deep throat and follow the money...or was that just in the movie?) 766. Cygnus X-1 - 1/29/2002 2:04:16 PM Hey jexster, I'm neither "concerned" nor "desperate" about the Enron situation. What say you about Global Crossing?.... Just what I thought, not a thing you miserable piece of shit. Here you have someone who actually profited from a company just before it became the 4th largest bankruptcy in history and that doesn't amount to anything? How do you people live with yourselves? Just think of how many accurate voting machines that could have been bought with $18 million. Oh yes, that's right, the ends justify the means. 767. Cygnus X-1 - 1/29/2002 2:19:39 PM Uh, I may have to take it all back. Look what The Nation uncovered: 768. Cygnus X-1 - 1/29/2002 2:21:08 PM Uhh... Wait, that wasn't entirely correct. Bush owned the Texas Ranges, not the Houston Astros. Here's the corrected version: 769. Cygnus X-1 - 1/29/2002 2:23:39 PM Oh crap, Enron Field is where the Astros play; the Rangers' home is the Ballpark in Arlington, which has no corporate sponsor. Also, Bush sold his interest in the Rangers in 1998; Enron bought naming rights to the Astros' new stadium in 1999. OK, here's the final version: 770. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 2:56:27 PM New York Press 771. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 2:56:57 PM I know, I know: here I am once again exposing Sullivan’s duplicities. But some of us have to do it–and it was satisfying to see Slate take him on last week, in a seamless piece by deputy editor Jack Shafer–as we’re not going to see any criticism coming from Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz or Sullivan’s other Beltway and New York media pals. Kurtz has a sharp eye and is a fine analyst; he’s someone I look to quite often. But when it comes to Sullivan he has had a blind spot, puffing Sullivan up often, bypassing his sloppiness and his transgressions and, as was the case last week, jumping to Sullivan’s commands like a trained beagle. 772. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 2:58:16 PM For days on his website Sullivan relentlessly hammered New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who’d taken $50,000 from Enron in 1999 when he sat on an advisory board of the company. That was before he became a columnist for the Times. Krugman disclosed his relationship with Enron both when he wrote a Fortune magazine article in 1999 while on the advisory board and in a column in the Times last year. He stopped serving on the Enron advisory board when he joined the Times as a columnist. And his writings in recent weeks have excoriated the company. Sullivan criticized conservative pundits for taking money, too, like the right-wing Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol (with whom Sullivan has fiercely sparred)–though much more gingerly, even though Kristol actually seemed to have more of a problem than Krugman: he took $100,000 from Enron for sitting on the same board while he was at the Weekly Standard, and didn’t disclose it until recent weeks. 773. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 2:58:31 PM Sullivan angrily declared he’d done nothing unethical. As Shafer notes on Slate, it’s weird that Sullivan claimed that he was unfairly attacked but is now attacking other people for doing pretty much the same thing. Even weirder was that Sullivan, in the end, decided not to take the PhRMA ads. Why give them up if you don’t think it’s wrong to have them? And why now attack others for something similar? 774. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 3:00:44 PM Sullivan lives in a glass house within a glass house within a glass house, and as usual it is shattered by one of his own huge stones. He has a list of benefactors on his website–you have to search around to find it–and one of the people at the top of that list is Bush friend and public-relations operative Charles Francis, a man to whom Sullivan gave a glowing writeup only days after Francis appears to have given Sullivan some cold hard cash. Francis is an old Texas buddy of the President’s who was one of the "Austin 12"–a group of gays who met with Bush during the election campaign after Bush had a falling out with the Log Cabin Republicans. He is also the brother of James Francis Jr., a member of the Texas Public Safety Commission (appointed by Bush) and a major Bush fundraiser. 775. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 3:01:30 PM It was last December, about a week after Francis’ name was listed on Sullivan’s site as a Sullivan benefactor, when the pundit wrote in his "Daily Dish" on the home page how "the work of Charlie Francis is of enormous importance–not just for gay Americans but also for Republicans who want to see their party grow and breathe and unite." (Francis is a founder of the Republican Unity Coalition, a gay-straight alliance.) Francis was certainly not identified as a Big Tobacco lobbyist, nor was there any disclosure–within the text itself, as Sullivan is demanding of Krugman and others–that "Charlie" gave Sullivan a wad of cash to keep his website going; one has to go find that information where it’s buried away elsewhere on his site. When you do find it, Sullivan doesn’t disclose the exact dollar amount (as he also has demanded of Krugman). We are only told that Francis is a Gold Sponsor–the top donor group, comprising people who gave $1000 and up to the site. 776. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 3:01:44 PM I remember several journalist friends wondering after they saw Francis’ name there if in fact The New York Times Magazine would now allow Sullivan to write about George W. Bush, the Republican Unity Coalition, Francis, gay Republicans, Big Tobacco and a lot of other issues without disclosing that he’s on the take from a gay Republican Bush buddy and a Big Tobacco huckster. Now, here he is getting all moralistic about Krugman having taken cash from Enron years ago–a company Krugman now is criticizing fiercely–while Sullivan is currently taking cash from Francis and doing something much worse: writing glowingly of Francis, not to mention Bush. And Francis may be just the tip of the iceberg: there are 59 other contributors named on Sullivan’s site (and then there are the ones he says don’t want their names used), some of whom must have conflicting business and political interests according to the all-new Sullivan Standards of Journalism. As Sullivan wrote on his website to Howard Kurtz (who immediately jumped into action and wrote an item in the Post about Sullivan’s attacks on Krugman, giving credibility to Sullivan’s charges), "C’mon, Howie. This is an easy call." 777. OhioSTOPAS - 1/29/2002 3:37:24 PM Cygnus (Message # 766): Of course Dodd got campaign contributions. But so doubtless, did his co-sponsor Domenici and any number of other Congress members. The distortion is Morris's implication that only one side received contributions from the supporters of this bipartisan legislation. 778. OhioSTOPAS - 1/29/2002 3:38:22 PM (There should be a comma between "so" and "doubtless" in second line.) 779. Property of Jesus - 1/29/2002 3:55:39 PM Let's hope the new owners of the New Republic ask Andrew Sullivan to come back at its editor. 780. Cygnus X-1 - 1/29/2002 4:13:57 PM Ohio, it is not a distortion when Morris is calling Dodd the hypocrite that he is. Morris' point is that Dodd was instrumental in getting legislation passed that allowed Enron to engage is the unethical practices that result it many being deceived into losing money, then he directly (financially) benefited from the benefactors of the legislation, and then now has the shamless audacity to claim to support the shareholders and has introduced legislation to ban precisely what he had passed. This is a scandal. You don't need to fish long here. But does the mainstream press care? Not if it doesn't hurt a conservative it doesn't. After all, this is "Bush's Whitewater". What that means doesn't matter, as long as it hurts Bush and people are too ignorant or lazy to get the real story. But, I see that the Fox News Channel has just surpassed CNN, so maybe the media's elitist, socialist ploy won't work after all. 781. Cygnus X-1 - 1/29/2002 4:18:32 PM BTW, it would seem to be a mystery why Morris would seem to support Bush in quite a few editorials lately. I thought it was anyway. Sure, there's money to be made appealing to conservatives and revealing the Clintons for the pieces of shit they really are, but I think there's more to it. I think Morris knows that Israel was going to suffer mightily if Clinton's Israel-must-submit-to-all-demands-so-I-can-get-the-Nobel-Peace-Prize-and-salvage-my-legacy plan was enacted. He knows Gore, being a foolish liberal/socialist, would have followed Clinton's lead. Therfore, he knows Israel's only hope is Bush and his commitment to kick ass. 782. OhioSTOPAS - 1/29/2002 4:25:04 PM ". . . Dodd was instrumental in getting legislation passed that allowed Enron to engage in the unethical practices that resulted in many being deceived into losing money . . ." 783. OhioSTOPAS - 1/29/2002 4:27:08 PM Morris discovered that bashing President Clinton and his colleagues was a good way for Dickie to make a nice living on Rupert Murdoch's payroll. Period. 784. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 4:30:25 PM Sully will keel over from illegal steroid abuse before anyone at TNR makes a call, dear. 785. Phoenix Rising - 1/29/2002 4:58:30 PM 786. robertjayb - 1/29/2002 5:35:47 PM A fine link, Phoenix. 787. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 5:53:57 PM And maybe it WASN'T a suicide. 788. concerned - 1/29/2002 6:23:35 PM 784. Cellar Door - 1/29/02 9:30:25 PM 789. Property of Jesus - 1/29/2002 6:46:01 PM Exactly. 790. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 7:14:49 PM Of course it's personal. 791. Cellar Door - 1/29/2002 7:15:50 PM And make no mistake, I wish you a long and happy life, connie. 792. bubbaette - 1/29/2002 7:25:58 PM Poor Ken and Linda Lay -- reduced to selling some of thier homes. On the bright side, maybe Linda's grocery bill will be reduced somewhat when ol Kenny Boy is in jail. 793. bubbaette - 1/29/2002 7:31:56 PM I know how I can help! I can put together some of my penny-pinching recipes that helped get me through collge. Think Linda would like mac n cheese with tuna fish? Hell, my mom used to feed a family of 7 with a cabbage, some potatos and a can of corned beef. 794. jexster - 1/29/2002 8:25:53 PM Cabbage is super! A list of Greater Houston Food Banks would help as well....maybe Robert can help with that 795. jexster - 1/29/2002 8:28:21 PM 796. jexster - 1/29/2002 8:41:14 PM If They Shred, You Get Your Bread - Johnny Cochrane Saddles Up for Houston 797. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 11:14:12 AM Hey jexster, why don't you show a shred of integrity and at least pretend to agree that this is a problem. After all, something actually happened here. 798. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 11:23:27 AM Why oh why didn't Lanny Davis get the word out to the media to let up on the Enron bit? Now everyone is focused on government corruption. To make matters worse, they're making the Bush administration out to be evil for engaging in unethical behavior championed by the Clinton administration. The spotlight is on government ethics, and Clinton's legacy is going to take yet another hit. Lanny really screwed up on this one. Oh yeah, he doesn't have the "War Room" to send out his faxes to the media anymore. OK, give him a break. 799. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:37:34 AM Because Lanny Davis never said what you claim, as I have already demonstrated... 800. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:41:51 AM And as Managing Partner of the Liberul Media Cunspirucy, I am pleased to report that a new word has entered the English language thanks the efforts of our team at CBS News 801. Cellar Door - 1/30/2002 11:43:04 AM Softballs from the Right's favorite closet dyke. 802. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:43:31 AM Ett bra jobb Dick! 803. concerned - 1/30/2002 11:44:31 AM Terry McAuliffe on investing in bankrupt corporations: 804. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:48:28 AM tsk..tsk..tsk.. 805. concerned - 1/30/2002 11:50:42 AM Enron, Global Crossing - same deal. 806. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:51:56 AM Hardly... 807. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:52:22 AM Damned Concerned and hans oinitierade idéer 808. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:53:33 AM The only relevance of Global Crossing to this thread is that it demonstrates how desperate the Bu$hies are, how panicked they are about Enron. 809. concerned - 1/30/2002 11:54:27 AM That GAO 'lawsuit' is more Leftist horseshit, btw. 810. Phoenix Rising - 1/30/2002 11:59:24 AM It is kinda funny. "Enron" is now the love that dare not speak its name for the Bush clan. 811. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:59:39 AM Yea right...it wasn't horseshit for Hillary now was it.. 812. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 12:01:17 PM OK, jexster, it's put up or shut up time. Since I can't address the media as a whole, I'll address it's ass-whole (it's a joke son, don't you get it?). What specific allegation are you making against Bush? Please keep in mind, you can't change your allegation as the wind changes direction. 813. jexster - 1/30/2002 12:07:40 PM If the GAO's suit is "leftist", how do you explain Judicial Watch's similar action? 814. concerned - 1/30/2002 12:29:32 PM Cheney's attorneys do not concede that GAO even has the authority to investigate this case, arguing that the task force is not a program or activity set up by a specific congressional enactment, but rather a policymaking process that was led by the president and vice president as part of the executive branch's general constitutional role to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." 815. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 12:32:39 PM Re Message # 812: 816. jexster - 1/30/2002 12:44:07 PM Damn right Ohio...Bill Clinton & his Axis of Evil? 817. jexster - 1/30/2002 12:46:36 PM TD you are SOOOOO sjåpig 818. jexster - 1/30/2002 12:55:07 PM Heeee's BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK! 819. thoughtful - 1/30/2002 12:55:48 PM Global Crossing story...maybe cygnus is right about the similarities with enron: 820. concerned - 1/30/2002 12:59:19 PM Krugman predicts wrong. 821. concerned - 1/30/2002 1:00:42 PM Funny, the lacunae which exists in 'thoughtful''s brain regarding the Clowntoon administration. 822. concerned - 1/30/2002 1:00:59 PM ...which exist... 823. concerned - 1/30/2002 1:05:44 PM whomp....whomp....whomp..... 824. concerned - 1/30/2002 1:20:08 PM Wonder if Waxman will investigate the Sierra Club's input to Cheney's energy task force with zeal at all comparable to any possible Enron contribution. 825. bubbaette - 1/30/2002 1:32:17 PM A few pointers from the Federal Reserve for Ken and Linda Lay: 826. bubbaette - 1/30/2002 1:38:24 PM More Tips for Ken and Linda from today's paper: 827. bubbaette - 1/30/2002 1:46:51 PM Use towels more often between washings to reduce the number of loads. Hand-wash anything you can to reduce the dry-cleaning bill. Better yet, stadd dry clean-only garments at the back of the closet and sport only wash-and-wear. 828. rubberducky - 1/30/2002 2:04:00 PM LOL 829. Wombat - 1/30/2002 2:11:29 PM Cygnus: 830. Phoenix Rising - 1/30/2002 2:17:11 PM Bubs, don't forget that the wine that comes in those boxes is actually pretty good. Substitute it at the table and auction off those expensive cabernets in the cellar. 831. thoughtful - 1/30/2002 2:27:58 PM Wombat? Supporting Con's contention that I suffer lacunae? 832. thoughtful - 1/30/2002 2:28:46 PM Oh the heartbreak...Ken Lay may have to sell all 13 of his homes! Would that I could have had so much to lose! 833. Wombat - 1/30/2002 2:31:00 PM Thoughtful: 834. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 2:43:41 PM That "What about the Sierra Club's input? Huh?" post was wacky even for him. 835. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 2:55:58 PM Wombat, are you clueless or what? 836. concerned - 1/30/2002 2:57:15 PM How much attention do you imagine Cheney paid to the Sierra Club's input vs. Enron's? 837. concerned - 1/30/2002 2:58:37 PM Ohio - 838. concerned - 1/30/2002 2:58:59 PM You Lefty hack. 839. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 2:59:05 PM Hey, let's use some Dan Rather logic here. Despite all of Clinton's shameless, unethical sellouts, he's still an "ethical" president. After all, you can be ethical and yet behave unethically in any number of ways. 840. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 2:59:54 PM It all depends on whether or not you support abortion. 841. concerned - 1/30/2002 3:00:16 PM Jexster, Ohio etal are more or less purely amoral, at least when it comes to their socialist politics. 842. concerned - 1/30/2002 3:02:41 PM McAuliffe getting rich from a World Crossing IPO is about the dirtiest linen I've seen in this thread today. 843. concerned - 1/30/2002 3:04:12 PM Re. 840 - 844. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 3:06:49 PM Re 841, you're right. In order for socialism to work, the elites must be held to a separate standard. After all, the ends will justify them means. 845. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 3:07:50 PM Cygnus (Message # 835): Read your own links. The Clinton administration didn't award that contract to Global Crossing, the BUSH administration did. 846. Wombat - 1/30/2002 3:11:05 PM Better call Bush and the Republicans "socialist," then. 847. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 3:11:44 PM "concerned" Message # 837 adds to the bafflement of your Message # 824. I don't know what you're talking about. 848. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 3:19:32 PM Ohio, the Bush administration cancelled the contract you idiot. 849. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 3:25:29 PM A month after it AWARDED it. Read. 850. Wombat - 1/30/2002 3:26:29 PM Cygnus: 851. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 3:34:47 PM You two fuck faces really are hard pressed these days. How long do you think the bidding process took, two days? Also, who prompted the Bush administration to cancel it? No one in the press new about it. You're just being deliberately stupid now, right? 852. rubberducky - 1/30/2002 3:35:27 PM Re: Message # 842, concerned. 853. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 3:37:16 PM Hey shitfaces, read it again without your blinders. 854. Cellar Door - 1/30/2002 3:37:42 PM ENRON's Vince Foster. 855. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 3:38:41 PM I wish Ace were here to tear you a new asshole. I have no patience for your 2nd grade obstinence. 856. rubberducky - 1/30/2002 3:39:26 PM CD: 857. bubbaette - 1/30/2002 3:41:48 PM It certainly is amusing to watch Cygnus work himself into a profanity-spewing hissy fit. But you guys better be carful or his head might explode. 858. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 3:52:41 PM Well, at least when you're dealing with children, you can understand some ignorant stubborness now and then; but, I thought we were all adults. 859. concerned - 1/30/2002 3:56:26 PM Re. 852 860. Wombat - 1/30/2002 3:56:59 PM Well gee, if the bidding process was so hinky, I am sure that the Bush Administration could have terminated the process long before it was awarded, and rebid it. It wouldn't have been the first time that happened. 861. Wombat - 1/30/2002 4:00:16 PM Maybe you should stop doing your own taxes, Cygnus. Turbotax has its limits, you know. 862. jexster - 1/30/2002 4:33:33 PM CD you've sold me... 863. jexster - 1/30/2002 4:40:36 PM Then Bush declared, "Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible way." Proposing a guns-and-butter spending spree accompanied by additional tax cuts and then telling Congress to be "fiscally responsible" is like Enron fobbing off blame for its bankruptcy on Arthur Andersen. 864. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 4:41:32 PM Coward 865. jexster - 1/30/2002 4:44:24 PM Prosecutors, FBI Pore Over Enron's Books 866. jexster - 1/30/2002 4:44:44 PM 867. jexster - 1/30/2002 4:45:26 PM Oh no I'm about to agree with CYG??? 868. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 4:47:20 PM '727. concerned - 1/28/02 11:59:30 PM 869. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 4:48:46 PM 724 870. jexster - 1/30/2002 4:49:19 PM You have to decide who you want to scapegoat -- who you want to build your case toward," said Donald Langevoort, a securities law professor Georgetown University. The choice goes beyond strictly legal questions, he said, for it helps establish a public face for the inquiry. 871. jexster - 1/30/2002 4:53:28 PM A public face... 872. jexster - 1/30/2002 4:54:11 PM toys 873. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 4:54:13 PM "Then there's the fact that David Walker, the GAO's comptroller, was a Clowntoon appointee." 874. jexster - 1/30/2002 4:54:43 PM David Walker - Ass Kicker 875. amax - 1/30/2002 4:55:34 PM Pretty good summary of the scandal to date: 876. CalGal - 1/30/2002 4:56:25 PM 877. CalGal - 1/30/2002 4:58:15 PM I forget if I posted this before, and it's too far to read back through all the chitchat, but has anyone read the transcript from the hearings with Odom and Temple? Riveting reading, and I'm not a hearings freak as a general rule. The committee had their guns loaded with cogent questions and they knew their stuff. Temple in particular looked extremely bad. 878. concerned - 1/30/2002 5:00:36 PM McAuliffe personifies what's wrong with this system as much as Cheney's private meetings with beneficiaries of Bush energy policies. I say take them all down. Are you good with that, concerned? 879. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 5:04:37 PM Cygnus (Message # 853): You claim it is significant that the fiber optic contract, ultimately awarded to Global Crossing by the Bush Administration, was put out for bid BEFORE CLINTON LEFT OFFICE!! 880. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 5:06:17 PM Message # 878: When was the Sierra Club part of the Vice President's "private task force"? 881. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 5:17:34 PM Ohio, re 879. 882. thoughtful - 1/30/2002 5:18:04 PM I see 11 issues coming out of enron...perhaps why it's such a rich story...and there may be more. Here in no particular order: 883. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 5:19:18 PM I liked amax's article: 884. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 5:19:24 PM And replace 'all' of them with what? 885. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 5:23:19 PM Message # 881: Don't ask me for explanations, ask the Bush Defense Department. With (apparently) 5 bidders (at least), it chose Global Crossing. 886. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 5:23:26 PM 883 887. CalGal - 1/30/2002 5:24:43 PM Thoughtful, I agree with most of the items on your list, with the exception of #4--I really don't see how CFR is related. On the other hand, enough people disagree with me that maybe that alone will cause change. 888. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 5:24:52 PM "Dat no stop Ohio and jexster. Dey trow shit anyway. Dey no nuttin' else to do." 889. CalGal - 1/30/2002 5:25:58 PM Oh, another one that Samuelson discussed in his column today--CEO compensation and options in general. 890. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 5:30:39 PM jay, re 886. 891. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 5:35:25 PM Remove the power to influence business interests from the government. 892. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 5:35:48 PM toys. 893. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 5:36:08 PM Toys again 894. wonkers2 - 1/30/2002 5:37:12 PM Good list. One more: Should public accounting firms be allowed to provide both public accounting and consulting services for a single client? Or even for different clients? For good reason, former SEC chairman, Arthur Levitt, tried but failed to get a law passed separating the public accounting and consulting functions. It was lobbied down by large accounting firms. This effort was led, in part, by Bush's SEC chairman, Mr. Pitt, who is apparently a bit of a libertarian on this and other regulatory issues. He's the wrong man for the job, especially at this time, in my opinion. 895. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 5:40:30 PM jay, lay off the hyperbole. Even diehard libertarians recognize the need to enforce contracts. 896. concerned - 1/30/2002 5:56:34 PM Re. 880 - 897. jonesatlaw - 1/30/2002 6:17:50 PM Concerned- 898. wonkers2 - 1/30/2002 6:40:25 PM I would think that thoughtful supporters of free enterprise would see the need for honest accounting and honest government uncorrupted by millions of dollars sloshing around in the halls of Congress and state houses all over the country. With a little luck the Enron debacle will push campaign finance reform over the top. 899. concerned - 1/30/2002 6:59:56 PM Just read that Lieberman will subpoena Enron for the Cheney Energy Task Force documents; also that Ari Fleischer said that the Bush Administration would be willing to release them to Congress if asked. 900. Cellar Door - 1/30/2002 7:16:07 PM And as we all know the GAO is a hotbed of Communism! 901. wonkers2 - 1/30/2002 7:33:50 PM Notice who got screwed and who ended up with the money in Global Crossing 902. wonkers2 - 1/30/2002 7:39:23 PM Last year a broker from NYC who I didn't know from a bale of hay must have called me 5 times begging me to buy Global Crossing stock when it was around 20. I wonder who was paying him to help them unload their stock. He had a very persuasive pitch that the company's visionary plan was on the brink of fruition. 903. thoughtful - 1/30/2002 8:08:20 PM wonkers2, I didn't realize there were any thoughtful™ supporters here. 904. thoughtful - 1/30/2002 8:11:02 PM wonkers, I would subsume the accounting/consulting conflict of interest issue under #2 in my list. 905. thoughtful - 1/30/2002 8:14:55 PM how 'come this issue of money buying political influence was very apparent to the right wingers when it was babbitt being investigated for his decision about the indian casino, but seems to be completely invisible when the $s involved go up many fold and the public policy issues become national and international in scope? 906. bubbaette - 1/30/2002 8:24:26 PM I would think that thoughtful supporters of free enterprise would see the need for honest accounting and honest government uncorrupted by millions of dollars sloshing around in the halls of Congress and state houses all over the country. 907. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 8:29:09 PM Message # 896: ".. . obvious willingness of Cheney et al to work hand in hand with environmental groups such as the Sierra Club . . ." 908. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 8:30:55 PM Message # 905: Hmmmm . . . Must be a trick question. "Conservative hypocrisy - again" is just too obvious an answer. 909. jexster - 1/30/2002 8:31:49 PM 910. thoughtful - 1/30/2002 8:36:03 PM I admit that as it's set up, the CEO does run a fine line....be like bill gates, ignore the government then pay for what politicians viewed as arrogance. Get in bed with the politicians to gain as much advantage for your firm as possible and be charged with excessive political influence. Your stated function is to maximize value to your shareowners which political influence can do via favorable tax treatment or regulation, and as a citizen a CEO may feel obligated to see that govt regulators make sensible, informed decisions that don't prevent corporations from getting the business of business done. After all, make it too expensive to do the job and the consumers and employees and shareowners and debt holders and taxpayers all suffer. 911. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 8:39:16 PM jay, lay off the hyperbole. Even diehard libertarians recognize the need to enforce contracts. 912. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 8:45:52 PM And now, back to the point. 913. bubbaette - 1/30/2002 8:48:13 PM I agree, thoughtful. Following the state legislature it's clear when it's money talking. Take, for example, the issue of those damned telemarketing calls. Last year I was at the committee meeting in which legislation was discussed about creating a state "do not call" list for people who don't like to receive these calls. Our fine legislature voted it down as an infringement on "free speech". 914. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 8:49:34 PM thoughtful 915. CalGal - 1/30/2002 9:01:31 PM What's deeply broken is that the board and managers do not, in most cases, serve the shareholders. 916. CalGal - 1/30/2002 9:04:15 PM Is it, or is it not, a bad thing when people representing businesses (like Enron) or individuals (like Marc Rich) give money to government officials, and receive benefits from those officials? 917. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 9:19:26 PM Huh? Yeah, politicians work very hard to fuzzy up the quid pro quo. But do you really think that businessman pony up money in the interest of the commonweal and not in their own narrow interests? 918. wonkers2 - 1/30/2002 9:20:52 PM He oughta know! 919. jayackroyd - 1/30/2002 9:24:22 PM Yeah. I do think the S&L thing affected his views. 920. CalGal - 1/30/2002 10:22:17 PM But do you really think that businessman pony up money in the interest of the commonweal and not in their own narrow interests? 921. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 8:20:24 AM jay, you may be right about the role of the bd of dir and the role of compensation. Unfortunately the issue is not in the forefront as a result of the enron thing...at least not yet. Perhaps the shareowner lawsuits that are coming will change that. Guys like TIAA-CREF and Calpers did not get very far when they raised the issue in the past and a guy like Graef Crystal is viewed as perennial gadfly, but not taken seriously, or at least not in any actionable way. 922. rubberducky - 1/31/2002 9:32:19 AM Re: Message # 912, jayackroyd. 923. wonkers2 - 1/31/2002 10:48:25 AM Guess who was Global Crossing's auditor. You got it! None other than Arthur Andersen. 924. wonkers2 - 1/31/2002 10:50:01 AM I believe I heard correctly on the radio this a.m. that Price Waterhouse announced plans to divest its consulting division. 925. rasheed - 1/31/2002 11:47:22 AM Cygnus X-1 wrote: "So, here's a solution: Remove the power to influence business interests from the government. Ahh, but that's not the socialist way. The enlightened elites would have no control over who prospers. This may lead to too many white, male christians who oppose abortion making a good living for themselves." 926. Cygnus X-1 - 1/31/2002 12:08:51 PM It looks like I have to scale back the level of sophistication in my posts. It should have been obvious that "white, male Christians" is the most un-PC group and therefore is a constant target of the PC movement. Therefore, in the PC world, they should not be able to prosper. 927. Cellar Door - 1/31/2002 12:33:50 PM Cygnus, you're the most sophisticated racist I know. 928. jayackroyd - 1/31/2002 12:35:31 PM thoughtful 929. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 1:32:02 PM Jay, so what's your solution? 930. jayackroyd - 1/31/2002 3:16:58 PM The only solution is that people have to start voting incumbents out. It's getting worse every year. 931. CalGal - 1/31/2002 3:25:14 PM The only solution is that people have to start voting incumbents out. 932. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 3:43:09 PM Jay, I remember Warren Buffet encouraged anonymous voting rather than proxy voting with our name prominently appearing on the ballot....how many employees would feel comfortable voting out their board of directors with their name and address prominently displayed on their ballot? Of course, those ballots are far from "objective" as they make separate sections for the BOARD RECOMMENDS VOTING FOR and the BOARD RECOMMENDS VOTING AGAINST banners. Curiously, the last proxy vote card I got didn't even give us an opportunity to approve the accounting firm! 933. jayackroyd - 1/31/2002 3:57:48 PM Our best bet on fixing corporate governance is greater shareholder activity from the likes of CalPers and the Wisconsin pension fund. 934. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 4:05:59 PM I agree unless, perhaps with enron, the shareowner lawsuit becomes a more popular vehicle. I know little about it, but my limited understanding is that if the shareowners bring a lawsuit against the corporation, since it's on behalf of the corporation the company actually pays the legal fees. Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I can confim. If true, it's a wonder there aren't more suits. 935. bubbaette - 1/31/2002 4:07:31 PM I suspect that I'm like most smaller investors -- when I get my voting cards for my little mutual fund holdings, I have no idea what the issues are, who the board members up for appointment are, and have neither the time nor the expertise to figure it out. So I don't vote. 936. CalGal - 1/31/2002 4:07:45 PM Why isn't CalPers getting more heat for their joint investment in Jedi? Granted, they got all their money out--but then, the investment really wasn't worth what they put into it. 937. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 4:08:35 PM Jay, Re FASB and the SEC, didn't FASB try to get through Congress more stringent reporting requirements around derivatives and fail? And isn't the SEC under the aegis of the administration? Thus the problem with campaign financing. 938. CalGal - 1/31/2002 4:10:27 PM I vote. It's neat now that you can do it online. I generally--but not always--vote for the board's recommendation, though, so there you go. 939. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 4:11:32 PM bbbtt, the issue is worse than that... I believe if they don't receive your card they vote for you so they are still in control. I'm sure the return rate for proxies is very low. The proxy statement should help clarify who is who and what the proposals are and recent legislation required that they be written in more understandable language but, as you suggest, I'm sure most small investors just toss the things. 940. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 4:12:23 PM Small investor...someone under 5'2"? 941. wonkers2 - 1/31/2002 5:37:30 PM I have been a party to a couple of shareholder class action suits but never collected anything. My impression is that the Corporation only pays if it loses the suit or agrees to pay in an out of court settlement. The lawyers usually agree to settle the cases for little or nothing beyond their fees. They make out but the stockholders don't. 942. jayackroyd - 1/31/2002 7:08:11 PM "But since they aren't, doesn't it suggest that they are happy with who they have? To some degree, of course." 943. jexster - 1/31/2002 10:06:43 PM 944. jexster - 1/31/2002 10:18:32 PM I was a member of one class and made out quite well. 945. jexster - 1/31/2002 10:23:51 PM Hosed 946. jexster - 1/31/2002 10:47:54 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, a friend and backer of President Bush (news - web sites), gave the White House recommendations for appointment to a federal energy commission last spring. Bush eventually appointed two of the people on Enron's list. 947. jexster - 2/1/2002 12:02:58 AM Concerned...Meet David Walker, REAGAN Republican.. 948. jexster - 2/1/2002 12:29:45 AM California's two senators pledged yesterday to turn up the heat on the White House after seeing what one called a "smoking gun" memorandum that highlights the close ties between Enron and the Bush administration. 949. jexster - 2/1/2002 12:12:07 PM 950. jexster - 2/1/2002 12:25:26 PM Kudos to the Chron for their coup re: Enron/Cheney Docs...this today... 951. rasheed - 2/1/2002 2:26:07 PM "You, rasheed, are obviously the 2nd most dense person posting in this thread." 952. dusty - 2/1/2002 4:23:49 PM My SO heard on the tube that part of the reason for the high percentage of company stock in the 401K's of Enron employees is that they were offered a conversion from a defined benefit pension plan to a defined contribution plan, either with the restriction that the proceeds be in stock, or an attractive incentive to select stock. I've poked around the internet, but haven't found anything on this. Has anyone heard about it? 953. CalGal - 2/1/2002 4:29:40 PM Dusty--when did the conversion happen? If it was a while ago, many of these employees would never have been in the pension plan. 954. dusty - 2/1/2002 5:46:29 PM Within the last 18 months 955. CalGal - 2/1/2002 6:26:54 PM Enron had a pension plan 18 months ago? Wow, that's so....80s. 956. dusty - 2/1/2002 7:42:36 PM I vaguely recall someone equating the term "pension plan" with defined benefit (db) plan. 957. wonkers2 - 2/1/2002 10:25:27 PM Two good articles on 401k plans in the March Bloomberg's "Personal Finance," one by Arthur Levitt and the other by Virginia Munger Kahn. Both advocate limits on company stock. 958. wonkers2 - 2/1/2002 10:35:04 PM Oops! Levitt's article addressed auditing and analyst conflicts, not 401k plans: 959. jexster - 2/1/2002 10:35:12 PM From the Associated Press Wire... 960. jexster - 2/1/2002 10:40:12 PM Dusty's right on about Defined Benefit Plans but leaves out something very important - unlike Social Security, these generally do not vest, if ever, until the employee is close to gold watch time...50+ years is common. 961. concerned - 2/2/2002 12:53:55 AM Is it, or is it not, a bad thing when people representing businesses (like Enron) or individuals (like Marc Rich) give money to government officials, and receive benefits from those officials? 962. concerned - 2/2/2002 12:58:32 AM Re. 959 - 963. Cellar Door - 2/2/2002 10:06:04 AM It's not possible to sya "The Sun will rise tomorrow"either. 964. judithathome - 2/2/2002 10:19:47 AM Concerned: 965. jayackroyd - 2/2/2002 11:21:51 AM "Dusty's right on about Defined Benefit Plans but leaves out something very important - unlike Social Security, these generally do not vest, if ever, until the employee is close to gold watch time...50+ years is common." 966. Jonesatlaw - 2/2/2002 11:23:08 AM Concerned-"Kenny Boy" is an affectionate nickname for a stranger? 967. jayackroyd - 2/2/2002 11:34:19 AM concerned: 968. jayackroyd - 2/2/2002 11:48:00 AM "jay, lay off the hyperbole. Even diehard libertarians recognize the need to enforce contracts." 969. jayackroyd - 2/2/2002 11:59:57 AM Should have said "take an advance that would not earn out." and "successfully lobbying against tax simplification..." 970. dusty - 2/2/2002 12:03:28 PM wonkers2 971. jayackroyd - 2/2/2002 12:12:22 PM 1. SEP-IRA 972. CalGal - 2/2/2002 12:31:03 PM Well, I'll answer for the only 401(k) program I ever participated in, at Schwab. 973. jayackroyd - 2/2/2002 12:46:11 PM Yes, they were stupid. But they were also lied to. The CEO was pumping and dumping, and covering it up by using the credit line maneuver to avoid reporting the transactions. 974. CalGal - 2/2/2002 12:57:45 PM Again, I think they have every right to whatever remedy is available to stockholders. It is as employees that I feel they have no grounds to complain. 975. judithathome - 2/2/2002 1:01:19 PM How do you separate being lied to as employees and being lied to as stockholders? Or do you mean as employees, they should have know better than to tie up so much of their stock in their own company? 976. CalGal - 2/2/2002 1:02:06 PM For that matter, are there any employees who did cash out? I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least a few. 977. CalGal - 2/2/2002 1:07:34 PM Or do you mean as employees, they should have know better than to tie up so much of their stock in their own company? 978. judithathome - 2/2/2002 1:08:45 PM This isn't the only company that ever screwed over it's employees, either...did any stockholders who made money off a company that wasn't on the up and up ever give back any profits? I sure haven't heard of any... 979. CalGal - 2/2/2002 1:11:49 PM Nothing to do with the employees, but the stockholders. Again, there is no special significance to the employees--it annoys me no end that they are being pandered to. 980. judithathome - 2/2/2002 1:11:54 PM I see what you are saying but truthfully, do you really think employees being told everything is rosy would cash in their retirement? For all they knew, they would be working there for years to come... 981. dusty - 2/2/2002 1:11:56 PM judithathome 982. robertjayb - 2/2/2002 1:11:57 PM The family that preys together... 983. jayackroyd - 2/2/2002 1:13:53 PM "I ask for rhetorical purposes, obviously. But surely it wasn't only Enron and institutional banks that made money when it was at its high. Enron benefited them just as it harmed the others." 984. dusty - 2/2/2002 1:14:54 PM robertjayb 985. dusty - 2/2/2002 1:20:18 PM jayackroyd 986. judithathome - 2/2/2002 1:21:47 PM Maybe Mark can loan his mama some money, since she claims they are dead broke. 987. wonkers2 - 2/2/2002 1:22:04 PM My current employer offers a 403b. My contribution and my employer's contribution goes 100% into an Index 500 fund. 988. CalGal - 2/2/2002 1:25:18 PM it is not so glaringly obvious that people can be called idiots for not knowing it. 989. CalGal - 2/2/2002 1:26:45 PM The SEC takes money away from people who pump and dump. 990. Cellar Door - 2/2/2002 1:26:56 PM And so the Chimp wants us to put Social Security into the stock market. 991. CalGal - 2/2/2002 1:30:55 PM Are you asking me? No, I believe that SocSec should be true insurance. I just don't think anyone with an income or networth above X should get payments, having done better themselves. 992. wonkers2 - 2/2/2002 3:18:13 PM This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow 993. dusty - 2/2/2002 3:59:41 PM CalGal 994. CalGal - 2/2/2002 4:22:25 PM Dusty, it doesn't require advanced math to know that most of the money should go into something other than company stock. The only issue is what small percentage might be worth risking on something other than an index fund. 995. judithathome - 2/2/2002 4:30:11 PM It's not a bright idea to think you're going to win the lottery every week but people still buy tickets, even when common sense should tell them they will lose. 996. CalGal - 2/2/2002 4:49:15 PM Sure. And if people spent every penny of their savings on lottery tickets, would you blame the gaming commission? 997. judithathome - 2/2/2002 4:52:50 PM No...I'm not totally blaming the company, either. But it's easy for someone who understands more about stocks and plans and things like that to think everyone ought to understand that stuff. Sometimes, people have a hard time with things getting it, that's all I'm saying. 998. judithathome - 2/2/2002 4:53:36 PM ..getting things like that... 999. dusty - 2/2/2002 4:53:56 PM Dusty, it doesn't require advanced math to know that most of the money should go into something other than company stock. 1000. judithathome - 2/2/2002 4:54:20 PM See? I can't even word it correctly! ;-) 1001. dusty - 2/2/2002 5:02:35 PM judithathome 1002. CalGal - 2/2/2002 5:08:13 PM Dusty, Enron Pt. 2
Ah what the Hell ... live for today for tommorrow we'll be bu$hwacked.. 
and thanks for that link Cllrdr..I have exactly one Republican friend (that's 1 more than I need) who is also a Francophile..extreme francophile... look down his nose Francophile...
Guess who gets that link.
The chairman of a powerful Senate committee probing Enron Corp.'s collapse Tuesday requested investigations into financial reporting and employee retirement fund investments in company stock, matching a White House call last week for reviews in the same areas.
Maryland Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes asked Congress' investigative arm to look into laws governing employee stock ownership in retirement funds such as 401(k) plans, as well as how corporations report their finances to the public.
In a move that will bring the hard-hitting General Accounting Office into the debate over regulatory responses to the Enron affair, Sarbanes kept up Congress' push for answers on how Enron collapsed ....
We're gonna see all the behind the scenes shit that went on with the Cheney-Lay Energy Task Force.
Sarbanes nippin' at their ass.. ."
50 reasons why the Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to Enron:
1. -From 1990 to 1994 Enron gave 42% of their donations to the Democrats.
Source: The Center for Responsive Politics
2. -Florida's state pension fund, which lost $325 million on Enron, is examining what role Frank Savage, a major Democratic donor, may have played in the state's loss. The fund's investments were directed by Alliance Capital Management, where Savage was a senior executive and chairman at the same time he sat on Enron's board. He has donated $100,000 to Democrats and is raising money for New York gubernatorial candidate Carl McCall.
Source: Time Magazine
3. -Lloyd Bensten, Clinton's first treasury secretary, was a recipient of Enron's money. At the time of his campaign for Senate, he received the second largest donation from Enron.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
4. -Robert Rubin, Bensten's successor, was involved with Enron while he worked as an investment banker at Goldman & Sachs. Clinton first hired Rubin to head his National Economic Council. Soon afterwards, Rubin wrote on Goldman Sachs stationery to former clients, including Enron, in which he ''looked forward to continuing to work with you in my new capacity.''
Source: WorldNet Daily
Tudjman signed. Enron made a heap of money. Nobody went to jail. Everyone was happy - until Tudjman died of cancer. Then the lid was off, his Croatian Democratic Union was defeated and the new boys in power in Zagreb could not believe how much of their budget went to pay the electricity bills from Enron.
Source: Pittsburg Tribune-Review
6. - In August 1993, McLarty, Clinton's former chief of staff, arranged an invitation for Lay, Enron's CEO, to play golf with Clinton in Vail, Colorado. This date irritated Oscar Wyatt, chief executive of Coastal, another natural gas company that had helped the Clinton election campaign raise funds. These connections to the Democratic administration helped Enron considerably.
Source: Time Magazine
7. -Clinton officials publicly helped Enron win the contract in India as well as in Indonesia. Enron had received U.S. government funds to build power plants in China, the Philippines and Turkey. Enron also won contracts in Pakistan and Russia while accompanying senior U.S. government officials on state trips. In June 1996, four days before India granted final approval to Enron's project, Lay's company gave $100,000 to the DNC.
Source: Time Magazine
8. -Enron got permission to build a pipeline from Mozambique to South Africa after National Security Adviser Anthony Lake threatened to withhold aid to Mozambique if it didnt approve the project.
Source: Mozambique News Agency
Source: Fortune Magazine
10. -Enron Corporation donated $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Six days later, Enron executives were on a trade mission with Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor to Bosnia and Croatia. With Kantor's support, Enron signed a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant
Source: The Weekly Standard
11. -Kenneth Lay hired the firm of Clinton's former chief of staff Mack McLarty.
Source: Fortune Magazine
12. -Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, John Breaux of Louisiana, and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico--chair of the Senate Energy Committee--among the top beneficiaries of Enron's political donations.
Source: Fortune Magazine
13. -Kenneth Lay retained Linda Robertson, a Democrat who worked for the Clinton Treasury Department, as his top D.C. lobbyist.
Source: Fortune Magazine
14. -Dynergy, an energy company which wanted to buy Enron and later sued them, donated $1,000 of dollars to Henry Waxman in the 2001-2002 cycle, one of the men leading the Enron investigation.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
15. -The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee received three checks from the Houston-based energy and trading giant totaling $100,000. Karen Denne, an Enron spokeswoman, said the company had a record of two checks written to the committee -- dated Sept. 24 and Nov. 2
Source: NY Post
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
17. -Enron was apparently a big backer of some parts of the Kyoto Treaty.
Source: Enron.com
18. -Ken Lay slept in the Clinton White House and served as an adviser to the Clinton White House on energy issues.
Source: Drudge Report
19. -Enron's lead Washington lawyer is Robert Bennett, who represented Clinton in the Paula Jones case.
Source: NewsMax.com
20. -Neil Eggleston, a former White House associate counsel under Clinton, represents Enron's outside directors.
Source: NY Post
21. -David Boies, Al Gore's lead lawyer in the Florida recount, is representing former Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.
Source: NY Post
22. -Former Democratic Texas Gov. Ann Richards appointed Ken Lay,the Enron exec, to the Governor's Business Council and received contributions from Enron.
Source: Washington Post
23. -Enron introduced the Clinton team to Lippo Industries and thence to China's People's Liberation Army (a wonderful source of political cash), to John Huang, another good provider.
Source: Pittsburg Tribune-Review
24. -Tony Lake, then Clinton's national security adviser, persuaded the impoverished, war-torn country of Mozambique to sign a $770 million electric power contract with Enron.
Source: Pittsburg Tribune-Review
25. -Al Gore and Bill Clinton introduced Enron to market managers in Russia, China, Indonesia and India. In India, Enron quickly became involved in one of that country's most massive corruption investigations, contracts were canceled and Enron was out.
Source: Pittsburg Tribune-Review
Source: Houston Chronicle
27. -Enron contributed some $682,000 to the DNC during the 2000 election.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
28. -Ken Lay hired Betsy Moler, Clinton's deputy energy secretary, as a consultant. She was accused of stopping Energy Department counterintelligence chief Notra Trulock from briefing Congress early on about Chinese espionage and security lapses at Energy's nuclear weapons labs
Source: Houston Chronicle
29. -Government records show that, during the Clinton years, Lay and other Enron executives got seats on at least four Energy Department trade missions and at least seven Commerce Department trade trips.
Source: WorldNet Daily
30. -The congressman who recieved the most money from Enron in the past 12 years is Ken Bentsen (D-Texas) who received $42,750. The second largest receiver was Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) who received $38,000
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
31. -The ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, John D. Dingell (D-Mich), is the 10th largest receiver of Enron contributions totalling $9,000.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
32. -71 House Democrats received $257,140 Enron Contributions.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
33. -Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) was the 20th member of the Senate to have received the most money from Enron. He received a total of $6,000.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
34. -29 Senate Democrats, not including those that are retired, were unseated, or died, received a total of $110,513 in the last 12 years from Enron.
Source: Center for Responsive Politics
This initiative, coordinated by Richardson, led to $882 million dollars in power contracts for Enron from the government of Nigeria:
Enron, an oil and gas firm in Houston, has signed a power purchase agreement to supply emergency electricity to state-owned power utility Nigerian Electric Power Authority (NEPA) through 30MW power barges located on the coast of Lagos State. Enron and its Nigerian joint venture partner signed the $82 million deal with NEPA and the power ministry in the capital Abuja. Enron and the Lagos state government entered a joint venture earlier in 1999 to build an $800 million gas-powered plant with capacity for 540 Megawatt (MW) to augment supply to the city. Unfortunately for Enron, the Nigerian Government cancelled these contracts in April 2000. As a further reward for their generosity to the Democratic Party, Clinton Administration Special Envoy Thomas Pickering hustled off to Nigeria (on the taxpayer’s dime) to plead Enron’s case.
Source: Several Sources/FreeRepublic.com
Source: CBS Affiliate KTVT in Texas
37. -Hillary Rodham Clinton ordered the destruction of documents, which Enron is now accuse of doing, of four files in 1988 from her work on the failed savings and loan that's now at the heart of the Whitewater affair.
Source: NewsMax.com
38. -During the 1991-92 election cycle, Enron gave $28,525 to the Democratic party while former Clinton Secretary of Commerce Ronald Brown served as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Enron gave $42,000 to the Democratic party in the 1993-94 cycle.
Source: PublicIntegrity.org
39. -According to internal Enron documents and the recollections of former employees, Chairman Kenneth L. Lay had the ear of top Democrats in the 1980s and '90s. He and his colleagues used that access to promote the company's interests with the Clinton administration and key congressional Democrats.
Source: Washington Post
40. -According to another Enron memo, Lay met with former Clinton Energy Secretary Federico Peña to urge White House action on electricity legislation favored by Enron. Peña "suggested that President Clinton might be motivated [to act] by some key contacts from important constituents,"
Source: Washington Post
Source: Washington Post
42. -Enron's political action committee gave $10,000 in 2000 to the New Democrat Network, which was co-founded by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.). Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential nominee that year, now chairs the Senate Government Affairs Committee, which is leading an inquiry into Enron's collapse.
Source: Washington Post
43. -Several senior Enron officials spent election night at Vice President Gore's headquarters in Nashville.
Source: Washington Post
44. -Enron backed Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) in his successful 1998 campaign to oust Republican Sen. Alfonse D'Amato. Schumer's views on electricity deregulation dovetailed closely with Enron's.
Source: Washington Post
45. -Two years later Schumer, who has advocated deregulation as a way of reducing New York state's high power costs, co-authored a bill to restructure electricity markets along lines favored by Enron.
Source: Washington Post
Source: Washington Post
47. -Former employees say Lay's friendships with other Democrats were based as much on rapport as pragmatism. This group includes former senator Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), whose brief 1992 presidential bid had Lay's backing, and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), with whom Lay served on the Eli Lilly Co. board of directors in the 1990s.
Source: Washington Post
48. -In 1996, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, stocked with Clinton appointees, helped Enron with a series of orders that weakened the monopoly of nuclear and coal-burning utilities. In July of that year, Enron gave $100,000 to the Democratic Party.
Source: Washington Post
49. -In 1992, a Democratic-controlled Congress approved a major energy bill that set the stage for a new wholesale electricity marketplace. Trading companies such as Enron could use the transmission lines of regulated utility companies to sell blocs of electricity to private customers.
Source: Washington Post
50. -Some officials in Enron's Houston and Washington offices backed Gore and Lieberman in the 2000 election.
Source: Washington Post
it is Andersen with an E, not Anderson with an O. I have heard that the difference distinguishes Swedes from Norwegians---but I doubt it.
Don't doubt it, it's correct. Andersen is Norwegian (and Danish) while Anderson, or, more likely, Andersson is Swedish. (The Swedes normally have two s's and an o in their surnames - like Nilsson).
It's hard to tell, but in those years Enron's revenues were only around a tenth of what they were in 2001. 
This glowing Enron extolling Economist article from June is rather amusing, btw. (May require subscription).
In this, the last of our seven e-strategy briefs, we look at how Enron’s spectacularly successful Internet effort has reinforced, but not transformed, its existing business
It was formed by the merger in the 1980s of a couple of ailing gas-pipeline firms. Kenneth Lay, the firm’s founder and now its chairman, is a free-market enthusiast who had sensed a seismic shift in the energy landscape. The government was beginning to deregulate the business, and Mr Lay spotted a one-off chance to profit handsomely by creating innovative instruments for the nascent spot and forward markets in energy products. He pushed regulators to open markets faster, and ensured that Enron was at the forefront of that deregulation.
During Mr Lay’s watch, Enron’s revenues grew from a mere $7.6 billion in 1986 to a whopping $101 billion last year (see chart). Mr Skilling, his right-hand man for most of that time, has now set the firm’s sights even higher. He has modified the banner that greets visitors at Enron’s glittering headquarters in Houston from “The world’s leading energy company” to “The world’s leading company”. So why, then, is he not trumpeting EnronOnline as a revolutionary breakthrough that is transforming his company—and his industry—beyond recognition?
*Gush*
Of course, by now the magazine is full of grave editorials on the obvious lessons from Enron.
Democrats who thought Whitewater involved excesses of congressional investigative resources, prosecutorial zeal, and media attention should give serious thought to nurturing all the same faults this time around. The reason is not so much that the Enron investigation has the potential to backfire on the Democrats, as some have warned. Rather, it's that the Enron investigation might prove successful for them in much the way Whitewater did for Republicans. That is, it could promote their political advantage in a very marginal way while causing great harm to the nation's political culture and ultimately leaving most sane people scratching their heads about what exactly those folks in the administration did that was so terrible.
Well said.
Revenge is dish best served Piping Hot!
Is it common practice in the US that employees have their pension savings resting in the company they work for? And is it common furthermore that these savings are invested in the stock of that same company?
If so, and if this is because of tax incentives that certainly needs to be changed.
Enron's influence over the energy policy had nothing to do with its bankruptcy, so it can't legitimately be brought up as part of it.
examination and realization by the public that even a top 10 firm can crash and burn and take one's wealth with it has serious implications for recommendations like privatizing social security
Oh, bullshit. That is extremely low on the list of things to be concerned about, to anyone who isn't an agenda whore looking for tangential connections to flail hackery.
The point isn't that investigations aren't necessary; the point is that it's idiotic for the Dems to do a witch hunt for Republican wrongdoing.
But then I think the Dems as a party have already figured this out. The hacks will still be whining about it for a year or two, no doubt.
It's not a pension. Pensions are defined benefit plans, which are largely disappearing. Most employees have 401K plans, which are defined contribution, and they aren't pensions. People cash them in (foolishly) when they leave jobs, some times.
But yes, a 401K is common.
And is it common furthermore that these savings are invested in the stock of that same company?
The employee puts in their own money and can choose from a slate of investments. The company puts in money, too, but in recent years companies have been putting in stock, which they sometimes prohibit the employee from selling until they are 50.
On top of that, employees are often dumbfucks who then sink more of their money into stock.
There are many, many articles on this and have been since long before Enron. Enron will probably be the straw, though, and you can expect some of this to change pretty soon. If you want to know more, there was a Jane Bryant Quinn piece in Newsweek that discussed it, or indeed any personal financial planning column. It's been heavily discussed.
And employers are sometimes dumbfucks who screw their employees over, as with Enron.
Sto,
401K is an employment retirement plan.
I chose it pretty much at random from a google search.
But then I think the Dems as a party have already figured this out. The hacks will still be whining about it for a year or two, no doubt.
CalGal has just called many of the 'Rats in Congress 'hacks'. Can't say I disagree.
In fact, I posted here about I guy I work with who lost a couple hundred thousand. What is real ironic about that is just a few months before his world came tumbling down, he asked me to put together a PowerPoint presentation for him to show at a general staff meeting. The poor guy was just amazed at how much his investment had grown over the last 10+ years and he wanted to encourage everyone else to invest. (We also have a pretty decent retirement plan, thank God - and his is the best of all).
At the time, what it seemed like we were being told happened was that the guy handling the account (which included a couple hundred employees) had split. What actually happened was similar to what happened at Enron - the plan's administrators had changed guys on us and our accounts hadn't been re-assigned yet, and we weren't allowed to move any money in the interim period.
From the time we were first informed of this fiasco, till the bottom dropped out, this one guy's losses went from around 10% to over 60%.
That is Tom DeLay..Tom of Lay....
Well, Ken Bentsen received $43,000 and Kay Baily H. received $99,OOO over the same period of time so that's not anything out of the ordinary.
The real political scandal, if one truly develops, is what failures of oversight were permitted by regulatory agencies, and the relationship between those decisionmakers and the benefactors of Enron's political largess.
Mr. DeLay has previously urged lobbying firms and trade associations to install more Republicans in executive positions. Indeed, the House Ethics Committee wrote a warning, but took no official action, after he tried to persuade a lobbying group not to hire a Democrat as its president in 1998.
Still, whatever the tensions last year, Mr. Delay and Enron had a natural alliance. In his days in the Texas Capitol, Mr. DeLay was called Dereg by some because of his support of business. And in Congress he has been a longtime proponent of energy deregulation, an issue dear to Enron.
Moreover, last year he was the chief Republican strategist who pushed through the House energy legislation that was favored by Enron and many other energy companies. Three years ago, when Enron lost out to a Japanese company in bidding to build a power plant in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, a United States territory in the Pacific, Mr. DeLay asked for the bidding to be reopened.
In some ways, Mr. DeLay's support for Enron was a matter of constituent service. Mr. Roy said that Enron's success had always been important to Mr. DeLay because of the hundreds of people the company employed in his Congressional district and the thousands of others in nearby Houston
That's the goal the Dems are working towards. It requires much more creativity than any House Republican leader is capable of. Above everything, it requires a catalyst for agenda control, thank you Enron.
- What are the implications of the Enron collapse for electricity deregulation?
- What are the implications for derivative trading activites and financial markets?
- Are energy traders like Enron, Dynegy, Calpine, Reliant etc really necessary or do their type of operations do more harm than good?
What are the implications for the Bush SS privitization scheme?
Does the Enron collapse suggest that the critics of privatization were right all along? (of course they were!)
What is Ken Bentsen doing? Is he laying low on this or is he in the news down there?
FYI - Cong. Ken Bentsen (D- Houston) is the son of Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and is a leading Democrat in Texas using that term loosely... 
I don't see how either of them can do that since the money was spent on campaigns, as it was meant to be.
Other tidbits include: "Lay himself worked with the Bush transition team and helped screen candidates for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission."
And, why did it take a threatened lawsuit for Cheney to make public what should have already been public...what's to hide? "Waxman and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., have been actively trying since last April to obtain the list of meetings held by Cheney and the energy task force. But the Bush administration has been steadfast in its refusal to make the information public, prompting the General Accounting Administration, the government's investigative arm, to threaten a lawsuit to reveal the task force's activities."
Granted at this point there is more speculation than fact around the whole enron story, but there sure is plenty that doesn't smell right.
Wonder why?
"Even as...Kenneth Lay boasted to employees of the company's growth, one of them privately warned him in August of the reckless practices that eventually brought down the energy-trading giant. 'I am incredibly nervous that we will implode in a wave of accounting scandals,' the employee told Lay in a letter. A 'veil of secrecy' surrounded Enron's partnerships, which were keeping huge amounts of Enron debt off the company's books, she said. 'It sure looks to the layman on the street that we are hiding losses,' wrote the employee, who was identified by her Houston attorney as Sherron Watkins, Enron's vice president of corporate development. She said several senior Enron employees 'consistently and constantly' questioned the corporation's accounting methods to senior Enron officials, including CEO Jeffrey Skilling. Skilling resigned in August". After Lay phoned them, "the White House should have disclosed the Enron phone contacts to the news media immediately, [the Brookings Institution Paul] Light suggested."
Enron Presages a Wave of Accounting Scandals?
Did you ever wonder why the Texas Oil Mafia chose Paul O'Neill as Treasury Secretary? After all, O'Neill was CEO of Aluminum giant Alcoa, based in Pittsburgh. Now we learn the answer: "Alcoa's Rockdale power plant has illegally emitted hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic pollutants into the Central Texas air since the mid-1980s, state and federal environmental regulators said Wednesday."
The HOUSTON Chronicle
The Chronicle is a really BAD newspaper useless for most topics but not this. They are gunning for Bu$h, Lay, and Tom-of-Lay on this one.
When he was governor, pre-coup, Bu$h did the same thing to Texas that he is doing to us.
He shoveled money at his corporate cronies and put corporate lobbyists in charge of state environmental protection....
That's the context. That's why the Chronicle is running this story now.
These folks have cojones the size of cantaloupes.
Enron Bunker Buster Bomb Will Force Cheney Out of Hiding - Chicago Trib
The Cheney case is being handled by the GAO Energy Unit
I'm shocked! 
These folks have cojones the size of cantaloupes.
Wontcha Listen To My Story 'Bout A Man Named Jeb....Oil That Is Black Gold, Texas Tea
"Let's see now, just short of a year into a Republican presidency, and we've got a war, a steep economic recession, a return to budget deficits for as far as the eye can see, and the biggest financial scandal in U.S. history just heating up. Thank heaven it's all Bill Clinton's fault. Every bit of it. Indeed, we at Unsolicited Opinions, Inc. propose a secret Supreme Court tribunal to enact the Blame Apportionment Act of 2001, effective retroactively to the date of the Bush II Restoration.
Under its provisions, former President Clinton would assume formal responsibility for every bad thing that happens in or to the United States of America from January 21, 2001 onward, in return for a codicil limiting Republican editorialists to attacking him no more than once a week. Now that our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over, as The Onion put it, it's the least Clinton could do to serve his country. With the former president manfully serving as an all-purpose national scapegoat, everybody in Washington would be off the hook. And we might be spared grotesque items like the recent Democrat-Gazette editorial sneering at Clinton upon the occasion of his dog's death."
If being associated with a victim creates a conflict, all prosecutors would have to close up shop. That is not to say that excessive zeal is not possible where one is closely tied to the victim, and could create a conflict of interest; just that it is a conflict the system is more capable of dealing with. Enron will have plenty of lawyers and lobbyists to vigorously present their side. A conflict is more serious where the opposing party is identified with the accused, rather than when the opposing party is identified with the opposition, be it prosectorial or political.
Using the Washington Times reasoning, since most successful political candidates in Texas would have been the beneficiary of donations from either Enron management and/or employees on one hand, and creditors, critics or other claimants on the other, no one in Texas could participate in the investigation in Congress. Thus candidates who regarded Enron or their allies as either saints or sinners are equally disqualified. Perhaps the Times thinks that only those without an idea or an opinion on anything would be qualified, and the Times would gladly supply them with an opinion in favor of Bush at least, and probably Enron management.
Silly and superficial reasoning seems to be enough to convince you of what you want to believe.
What's silly and superficial is your apologia for Liberman's (sp) improper continuation in a congressional committee investigating the very same corporation he benefitted from the largesse of.
Isn't it ironic that Lefties think that they cn pretend that they incapable of conflicts of interest? Could that be a more than likely implicit admission of the irrationality of their machinations? Lie-berman has already taken the tainted money. His credibility is fucked either way.
Does 'thoughtful' think repetition of lies validates them in some way?
Good thing Lyons got his hit piece in by now, because we're talking probably recovery by mid-2002.
So sorry about that, Lefty shitheads.
In an interview with the New Yorker's Jane Mayer, Ellis bragged about how he spent much of Election Night on the phone with his cousins talking strategies and exit-polling. Mayer deftly lets Ellis hang himself with his own self-important words: "At 2 a.m. Ellis called his cousins and told them, 'Our projection shows that it is statistically impossible for Gore to win Florida.' It was just the three of us guys handing the phone back and forth -- me with the numbers, one of them a governor, the other the president-elect. Now, that was cool."
It was also a violation of company policy. The data Ellis was reportedly swapping with the Bush camp (post-New Yorker, he now denies it) came from Voter News Service, a media-backed consortium that gathers crucial, hush-hush voting information on Election Day. According to a Boston Globe news report during the primary season, "Fox News chairman Roger Ailes warned staffers to keep exit poll results to themselves and reiterated Fox's policy not to 'broadcast, publish or disseminate outcome projections' based on exit poll data before poll closings."
You claim to be a "centrist". Would you care to define what political movements and/or political figures occupy the space to the right of you?
He deserves our sympathy, our prayers, and our support.
The Mote will avenge the wrongs done to him by the GOP Smear Machine
I believe in allowing abortions. Therefore, I am not a 'right to lifer', now am I?
I believe in state sponsored social policies, as long as they can be proved the best (but not only, of course) approach toward improving life.
Difference between me and you Lefties is that I have an open mind, not an empty head.
The ABC Essentials of a Washington Scandal
I believe in allowing abortions. Therefore, I am not a 'right to lifer', now am I?
Perhaps.
But you CAN be a liar.
The AA auditors of Enron aren't "expert". Far from it, those who actually DO the audits aren't qualified. To save money, Big 5 firms routinely assign college interns and recent grads to do the grunt work in an audit using step-by-step manuals prepared for another time. These manuals were basically developed for audits of industrial manufacturers and trace their origins to the 1930,40 and 50's. This game plan doesn't work in the New Age of fancy finance that Enron played and which has caused a free market failure of epic proportion.
But the point that Enron's operations are difficult even for experts is quite valid nonethelss. As I have mentioned, SEC investigators looking into the Collapse and California PUC and Justice Dept investigators looking into the criminal activity of Enron and other energy wholesalers both have been repeatedly reported as complaining about how complicated the Enron Rip Off is to investigate.
Consider then, how cam inexperienced accountants using outdated procedures produce in a couple of months (the effective time available for their SEC reporting) an accurate picture with information sufficient to enable a truly free market when real experts at SEC will take years?
May I suggest that a chisel is sometimes a more effective tool than a sledgehammer?
Arthur Anderson - 5th Biggest Contributor to Bu$h, and the #1 contributor to Billy Tauzin (R-La - Layfayette), Crook & Chmn House Energy & Commerce...
Tauzin's Big INVESTIGATIOn, interviewing Andersen's Duncan even today...figure on a sham there
Some years back, I set up a Federal Elections PAC as house counsel to a Fortune 500 firm that wanted a piece of the action in the Raygun Administraion....the company had nary a democrat in the ranks of its top management...Imagine the shit I took!
At any rate our SOP on donations, small though they were, is the same as Andersen's and Enron....
Two bucks to Republicans.....1 dollar to democrats..
Its called hedging your bets...didn't fool the Democrats or the Republican recipients...shoulnd't fool anybody with an IQ > imbecile
Everyone that matters *knows* which horse the heavy hitter contributor is really for....usually a Republican, not always....if his candidate wins, access is guaranteed and as is influence....if the other guy wins, he'll get access but have no real assurance of any influence
Wendy Gramm, wife of the Senator with out Chin or scruple, Republican of Texas "Muhnay is the mothers Milk of Politics" Phil Gramm...
If Poppy hadn't appointed Miss Wendy to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Enron would not have received the rules change that allowed them to impoverish so many poor slobs and Miss Wendy would not have found her fat ass sitting at the Enron Board of Directors meetings
Bad news for Republicans: Rather, it started with other Republicans.
The Bushies have revved up the Conintern propaganda machine in an effort to convince us that Ken Lay was fuckin Democrat!
Do they think we're ALL as stoopid as Rosie or as duplicitious as 109109?
Enron gave cash to Democrats, sought pact help
Excerpt:
Federal and confidential corporate records show that after donating thousands of dollars in soft money and PAC donations beginning in 1995, Enron received easy access to President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.
In one meeting, Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay met Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore in the Oval Office, during which the Enron boss was asked for input on a pending international energy conference in Kyoto, Japan.
"Last week's tempest was stirred up with innuendo, guilt by association and hysterically false information. Case in point: An administration official who's a personal friend told me on Friday that he had sold his Enron stock in February 2001 to avoid conflict-of-interest charges. He had owned $7,000 worth. When the sale went through, he made a profit of $14 — that's fourteen dollars — in total. And yet a major TV network referred to him last week as a 'big Enron stockholder.'"
It looks like you had better check your sources, jexster.
However, I think you are the one who should check his "sources" because Lanny Davis never ever has said that Enron investigations should be dropped....
He has come out loud and clear with warnings that the Demos should not follow the example of the Republicans and produce a farcical freak show in which case they will pay dearly
For Pelle is right...I am a moderator not The Terminator
Hasta la vista baby
Billy T of Thibodaux, not Lafayette though both are in his district, was Beneficiary #1 of Andersen's largesse..
What possible interest might Andersen have in a South Louisiana coon ass with greased back hair???
Well, Billy T chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee having jumped parties rat that he is.....Billy's district is heavy duty oil production...Andersen is the leader in accounting services to....you guessed it
Texas Oil
I am sorry to say Cyg that they don't include, as Paul Krugman put it "whining political pundits" (Chris Mathews?) nor such reputable sources as The National Enquirer or the Drudge News Service
Bisness reporters are onto this scam...for instance
GW Bush & Ken Lay - The Ties That Bind [CBSMarket Watch]
If that's true, it's all over for Andersen.
Enron (news/quote) paid no income taxes in four of the last five years, using almost 900 subsidiaries in tax-haven countries and other techniques, an analysis of its financial reports to shareholders shows. It was also eligible for $382 million in tax refunds.
You're really setting yourself up for a fall, dude. You should give it up while you have any shred of respectability left (too late?). Case in point: You cite CBS Marketwatch.com. As one of judith's links demonstrated, they are so rabidly anti-Bush that it's comical. Doesn't it strike anyone as peculiar that Enron flourished during the 8 years of Clinton and then went bust in less than 1 year of Bush and it's Bush that supposedly gave them favors?
The very worst you have against Bush is his stupid -Clintonian if you will - comment that Enron supported Richards in the '94 race. Give him the benefit of the doubt, though. After all, he just witness 8 years of the press not attempting to verify anything the president says.
BTW, isn't it such a fitting legacy for Clinton to have his name turned into an adjective that basically means deceitful?
Your response in this post epitomizes a major problem of the prescriptive Left.
The Clintonites may have been more accommodating than the Bushies.
by David Brooks
01/21/2002, Volume 007, Issue 18
ON JULY 5, 1995, Enron Corporation donated $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Six days later, Enron executives were on a trade mission with Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor to Bosnia and Croatia. With Kantor's support, Enron signed a $100 million contract to build a 150-megawatt power plant.
Enron, then a growing giant in energy trading, practically had a reserved seat on Clinton administration trade junkets. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, who egregiously linked political donations to government assistance, accompanied Enron chairman Ken Lay on a mission to India. Enron president Joseph Sutton was on the trip to Bosnia during which Brown lost his life in a plane crash (Sutton was not on Brown's plane at the time). After Brown's death, Enron's Terence Thorn, a $1,000 donor to the Clinton-Gore campaign, traveled with Commerce Secretary William Daley to South Africa. Ken Lay also traveled with Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary on her trade trips.
There were other contacts between Enron and the Clinton administration. Ken Lay was a close friend of Mack McLarty, Clinton's first chief of staff. In his 1993 disclosure statement, Robert Rubin listed Enron as one of the firms with which he had had "significant contact" while at Goldman Sachs. Enron was represented by the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, the firm where Clinton advisers Robert Strauss and Vernon Jordan worked.
In February 1995, David Sanger of the New York Times wrote a fascinating insider account of how the deal had been consummated. Enron had been the lead bidder to build the new power plant. Jeff Garten, then undersecretary of commerce for international trade, created what he called "our economic war room" to push the American firm's interests. The State and Energy departments were enlisted to press Enron's case. According to Sanger, the U.S. ambassador to India, Frank Wisner, "constantly cajoled Indian officials." The CIA performed some risk analysis and investigated rival British companies.
Clinton himself was involved in starting the India effort for Enron. According to Michael Weisskopf of Time, Clinton scrawled a note to McLarty telling him to help with the project.
Support for the Bombay power plant was just a small part of the help Enron received from the Clinton administration. All told, Enron received over $4 billion from OPIC and the Export-Import Bank for projects in Turkey, Bolivia, China, the Philippines, and elsewhere.
All of this is not to deny that Enron was primarily a Republican donor. Nor is it to minimize the connections between Enron and the Bush administration. Rather, the connections between the Clintonites and Enron remind us that the scandal is not the donations. The scandal is what gets done by federal officials in return for the donations. And while the Clintonites received less money from Enron than the Republicans, the evidence thus far suggests that Democrats extended more favors to Enron than Republicans. That suggests that the nascent Enron scandal may not end up helping Democrats as much as they now think.
Make no mistake, though: The press corps is in full frenzy over what the Bush administration may or may not have done to help Enron as it was going down the tubes--though there is no evidence the Bush administration did anything beyond take phone calls from desperate Enron executives. But the real story here is not about lawbreaking or extraordinary behavior. It is about what has become standard practice in Washington every day.
David Brooks is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.
The Clowntoon WH has always been known for its pervasive, arrant cronyism, from selling access to the Lincoln Bedroom, receptions and trade junkets to pork barreling and formulating US policy for cash to campaigns of personal destruction cheap in what can only be characterized as a racket.
Now that the huge majority of all of this corrupt behavior has been swept away by the Bush administration, Lefties who formerly could be relied upon to turn a blind eye to any Clowntoon heinousness are suddenly grasping at nonexistent straws in their frantic efforts to insinuate that the Bush administration has granted any 'special' favors at all to business interests.
This simple truth explains Enron's more extensive but far less successful efforts to woo Republicans with money.
Perhaps, since I fail to read much before I post, quite often, I missed your link. But to tell the truth, I saw so much linkspan from jexster, the red receptors in my eyes probably gave out.
Concerned...
In April 2000, I attended a ballgame at PacBell Park on Enron Barry Bonds Day and received a Barry Bonds commemorative pin from Enron.
Does that mean Lay is really a Jexster supporter?
Should I recuse myself?
Yeah. Sure. Right. War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Bush won the Election.
No one CAN deny that Enron and Lay were the #1 benefactors of GWB throughout his career...but Enron's campaign contribution strategy at least gives some cover, cover that the Bu$hies are now running for...
7 Congressional Committees investigating Enron, $700,000 total Enron campaign contributions to members..
Even I have that Barry Bonds pin ...
Lacking a "smoking gun" that would reveal illegal or unethical behavior by the adminstration, many now believe that Enron doesn't constitute a political scandal. On the contrary, the Editors argue, by making Enron's collapse possible, conservatives unleashed a much bigger political scandal than anyone seems to realize."
I've realized....
The New Republic
As you are aware, the bankruptcy of Enron has put unprecedented focus on the accounting profession and its self-regulatory system. The AICPA, in recognition of its public interest responsibilities, and at the insistence of the SEC, is developing a new regulatory model that represents a significant and substantive change from current self-regulatory processes. This model would affect all firms doing SEC audits.
The accounting profession has a successful, 100-year tradition of self-regulation, which has contributed to the most respected financial reporting system in the world. This is a tradition to which we have been and are deeply committed. To maintain this commitment to excellence and support public confidence in America's security markets, we have always responded to valid criticisms and addressed market changes and environmental issues that demanded our scrutiny.
With this commitment in mind, we are diligently working to improve the profession's peer review and disciplinary process as it relates to auditors of SEC registrants. Our objectives are to include public participation and increase transparency, effectiveness, and timeliness.
While the current self-regulatory model provides for significant public oversight over the SECPS peer review process, there is no public oversight over discipline. Under the new model being explored, there would be significant public participation in the peer review and disciplinary systems for members and firms auditing SEC registrants.
The new disciplinary and peer review system for members and firms auditing SEC registrants would be managed by a Board, a majority of whom would be public members.
On Thursday, January 17, 2002, SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt will hold a press conference regarding these matters. As a result, we expect stories to run in all national and trade media. The developments over the next few weeks and months will no doubt be rapid. We will keep you updated through Http://www.AICPA.org as solutions are solidified.
The AICPA has been and will remain actively engaged in developing a new model for those conducting SEC audits and in demonstrating leadership and responsibility to the public interest.
James G. Castellano, CPA Chair of the AICPA Board of Directors
Barry C. Melancon, CPA AICPA President and CEO
"You bastards! Look what you did to us!"
Official White House Records Divulge Massive Incompetence
$254 Million Handout to Ken Lay-- in Late October and November!!
Scandal Deepens: But Who Cares, Right?
An MWO investigation has discovered official White House documentation that the Bush Administration supported huge tax breaks to the Enron Corporation -- after top Executive Branch officials had been alerted to the mounting disorder within the collapsing energy giant.
On October 31, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer confirmed that both the President and Vice President supported legislation, under the so-called "economic stimulus plan," that would have handed Enron a gift of $254 million in taxpayers' money.
But this confirmation came after Kenneth Lay had informed Secretary of the Treasury Paul H., O'Neill and Secretary of Commerce Don Evans that Enron was in deep trouble. And it came while Lay and other Enron top brass were completing their fantastic looting of the company at the expense of ordinary investors and employees.
On October 29, Evans received a phone call from Enron CEO Ken Lay, informing him that Enron was on the ropes. Earlier, Lay had imparted the same information to O'Neill.
Yet two days after the call to O'Neill, the White House sent Ari Fleischer out to tell the press that the President and Vice President supported legislation that would hand the troubled Enron $254 million in taxpayers' money.
Moreover, over the following weeks, Bush went around the country drumming up support for the economic stimulus bill -- complete with its payout to Enron. And still, by there own testimony, O'Neill and Evans said and did nothing.
O'Neill and Evans have perversely tried to make a virtue out of their claim that they did not inform the President of Lay's calls and efforts to intervene.
But in light of the new revelations, these claims raise new and troubling questions.
For by not informing the president, O'Neill and Evans were content to let the payout plan to Enron to go forward -- and to allow Bush push hard for the payout, directly and through Ari Fleischer.
There have been a couple of stories in the NyT Business Section about Pitt's proposal and about the fact that this Bush appointee was in his former life an attorney to Big 5 accounting firms and opposed increased scrutiny of the industry...Some are wondering how seriously to take Pitt now that he is proposing policies he opposed during the Clinton administration
Common Cause has called for Pitt to recuse himself in the Andersen investigation.
Fortunately, support for the bill in the Senate was too weak to allow passage -- though the Bush Administration is still officially supportive of passing it in the upcoming session of Congress. Otherwise, thanks to O'Neill and Evans would have caused the White House even greater political problems than it has now. And the taxpayers would have been bilked out of hundreds of millions of dollars, above and beyond the billions that Enron executives screwed out of their ordinary shareholders and employees.
In short, O'Neill and Evans, if they did in fact did refrain from informing Bush, are guilty of gross ineptitude at best, and of collusion at worst.
Will the White House see fit to fire O'Neill and Evans, as they deserve to be fired? Will Bush show some outrage at erstwhile friends who let him down, and nearly caused him even bigger political damage than he has suffered already? And will the White House back off from the outrageous huge payout to Enron still proposed under the G.O.P. economic stimulus bill?
Or will it just be business as usual, Texas-style, in the West Wing?
What do you have to say now, Ari?
Document:
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 31, 2001
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
Q The second question -- in today's New York Times, on the economic stimulus package, says that a group of Texas energy companies will get big checks from the government under this package. And he says they're disproportionate in size. So, for example, while General Motors, which has 380,000 employees, will get a check for $800 million, TXU, which is the former Dallas Power & Light, which has only 16,000 employees, will get a check for $600 million. And he points the finger at Vice President Cheney, saying that a group of Texas energy companies, including TXU, Enron, Chevron and Texaco, will get these big checks.
The question is, what role did Vice President Cheney have in developing this economic stimulus package?
MR. FLEISCHER: The economic stimulus package or the energy package? I thought that's what you addressed the question to at the beginning.
Q These are tax rebates, the corporate tax rebates.
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, first of all, the President has proposed the economic stimulus package to apply universally to low- and middle-income taxpayers, to other taxpayers, in the case of expensing, which he's proposed, and in the case of corporate AMT, for all corporations that currently are treated under the tax code unfairly because they're penalized for their investment plans. That was a proposal that was made by the President. The Vice President, of, course, concurs with it. And that's where we stand.
Source
See also:
"Once-Mighty Enron Strains Under Scrutiny," New York Times, October 28, 2001
"An Economic Stimulus Bill With Corporations in Mind," New York Times, October 27, 2001.
Did nothing to help Enron???
Check the Bush Energy Legislation passed by the House, stalled in the Senate
Check the BUsh Tax Package, passed by the House, stalled in the Senate
Check the WH led campaign to smear Dasshole
Enron Chairman Ken Lay has put three of his four Aspen, Colo., properties up for sale for $16.2 million, or reportedly $3.6 million more than he paid for them since 1998.
They include a 4,537-square-foot log and stone "cabin-style" home listed at $6.8 million and a 4,559-square-foot riverfront residence listed at $6.5 million.
Both have hot tubs, security systems and lawn sprinklers. The larger house includes a "caretaker unit," according to the listing.
The third property is a 20,266-square-foot vacant lot listed at $2.9 million. It has a building permit with plans for a home, said Aspen broker Joshua Saslove, owner of Joshua & Co.
Anything available in Humble???
How about the Hill Kuntry
The Bu$hies realize that Mary Carville's spin 'this is worth less than the worthless shit we spewed for 6 years' line isn't gonna fly.
Fallback: Blame Clinton.
Be very concerned, concern
"The real smoking gun for Enron could be its role in the California energy deregulation debacle. Vice President Cheney has already admitted that he and Enron CEO Ken Lay discussed the California situation in some of their six meetings last year, leading some critics to believe that Bush's hands-off policy toward the Golden State's energy meltdown was adopted at the bidding of Enron, whose profits soared during the crisis. Lay was also instrumental in replacing the chairman of the federal commission that regulates energy issues with his own nominee, after the original chairman refused to kowtow to Enron's wishes on electricity deregulation. A California state Senate committee is currently calling for depositions of Enron and Arthur Andersen officials to find out if the former energy giant or its auditors willfully destroyed documents that were under subpoena from the committee." 
What profits?
This simple truth explains Enron's more extensive but far less successful efforts to woo Republicans with money.
Great campaign theme comes out of this
Vote Republican- We're the high priced whores, and America deserves the best.
What profits?
Please, concerned, don't disabuse me of the comforting notion that you merely play at being stupid.
I do agree with the article's argument,that this may serve as an indictment of the republican philosophy. It may therefore reverse the trend toward less transparency in financial reporting, under the guise of "deregulation."
It reminds me of PJ O'Rourke's very funny and pretty insightful book Eat the Rich. In it, he visits various countries and describes wich economies work and which don't, and makes inferences as to why. In his trip to Wall Street, he is surprised to discover just how much regulation is required to keep free markets running.
But a Republican official said the scandal had not affected the party's ability to raise money. `If you believe in something, you give money and you get nothing for it. I remain unabashed,' he said on condition of anonymity.'
No. I think the audit/consulting split that happened last year pretty much guarantees that Andersen will die, or be subsumed. They don't have a business to fall back on in the mean time.
To me, the real concern is how many other companies are doing this, and what else are auditors signing off on?
Enron was allowed to record the entire transaction cost as revenue, rather than just their commission. It's apparently legal. How can that be so?
But the single biggest reason Enron escaped detection is that it invested in a particular kind of derivatives--a complex financial arrangement--that, due to its newness, escaped regulatory oversight altogether. No law required Enron to disclose its derivatives' investments on its balance sheets at all. Some regulators found this alarming--in 1997 Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, proposed more stringent disclosure requirements for derivatives. But financial interests, including Enron, vigorously resisted. At one point, according to The Wall Street Journal, House Banking Committee Chairman Jim Leach scolded Born for two hours for her pro-reform leanings.
As Krugman says, this is about a system corrupted. How thoroughly, it's hard to say, because one hopes that most CEOs don't want to run a crooked company. Not out of lack of greed, but because crooked companies eventually go down in flames. We'll see what kind of disincentive for looting a company, at the expense of shareholders, voluntary and involuntary, is created by our indignant Senators and furious representatives--given that they all have their hands out.
Maybe not, but Dr. Wendy Gramm did what she could.
Well that's the point, I think. As a general illustration of the profound corruption of the political system, Enron is a powerful metaphor.
And the company's apparent influence in preventing oversight and regulation of the kind of business it was engaged in makes the Senate and the House look pretty bad. The constant stream of administration members who got money from or owned Enron stock looks bad.
But if attempts to directly aid the company actualy came to pass--if Dick or Condoleeza really did tell the Indian government to settle the Enron bill, or if someone finds a provision in some bill that is directed right at Enron, then we've got a real scandal. You got a quid and you got quo in that case.
"An economics advisory group to Clinton—with representatives from the Federal Reserve, SEC, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission—had come out against deregulated energy trading. They argued the market was ripe for manipulation. Yet the bill passed, setting Enron free to run what amounted to an energy auction, which Public Citizen claims "gained control over a significant share of California's electricity and natural gas market."
It's more than stupid to pule about 'soaring profits' in a company which has bankrupted itself.
Or is even the grossest irony lost on the delirious left?
The lah-de-dah lefties simply have no interest in extricating themselves from the morass of self contradictory statements they have offered regarding California energy, Enron and the Bush administration. And how could they defend their bullshit, post WH Rapist, even if they wanted to?
"Enron is just the tip of the icebergy.
This is going to make the savings and loan crisis look like a child's bedtime story," Cotchett told me yesterday.
They wanted to retire in their late 50s, buy a motor home and spend cold, wet Oregon winters in warm, dry Arizona. Every two weeks for more than 15 years, they contributed to their 401(k) savings at Portland General Electric and watched it grow a little bit at a time.
Then Enron Corp. bought their company. And soon, the Rinards' $340,000 nest egg plummeted to $900.
Protect YOUR Nest Eggs From Georgie and Kenny Boy
Like new
Never used!
The CrookedE.com
It's worse than that. It wasn't the consulting arm that devised the offshore shelters. It was the accounting arm. The conflict is between audit and tax, and audit and whoever the hell creates schemes to hide debt from balance sheets. The NYTimes reports today that Andersen senior execs were concerned that the revenue from such activity could reach 100 million dollars, creating an appearance of conflict of interest.
Oh, Accenture was just IT? I didn't know that and ah, now I see what Jay is saying.
ENRON was in the porno biz too. Does our ever-so-pious Attorney General know about this? Whoops -- he's recused himself.
Case-in-point - Accountants and the SEC
The profession's growing influence is perhaps most apparent at the S.E.C. Last month, President Bush said he would nominate partners from two of the Big Five accounting firms, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young, to two vacancies on the five-member commission.
Joel Seligman, who wrote a history of the S.E.C., said he could not recall a partner at a leading accounting firm ever being a commissioner. Moreover, the commission's current chairman, Harvey L. Pitt, a securities lawyer, once represented all five major accounting firms as well as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants before he took over at the S.E.C. last summer.
Auditing Firms Gain Muscle to Fight Regulation
Case-in-point....India
The White House coordinated a multi-front effort last year to help Enron Corp. settle a dispute with the Indian government, which the energy company hoped would deliver $2.3 billion as it was running out of cash in the weeks before declaring bankruptcy.
Cheney and Others Intervene To Help Enron Rip Off India
Just like they aided Enron in ripping off California....
I sure would be interested in finding out who these "other" are....
Oh! - Here they are...probably just an oversight on jex's part...
Three of President Clinton's commerce secretaries – Ron Brown, Mickey Kantor and William Daley – also advocated for the Dabhol energy project that Enron, General Electric and Bechtel Corp. undertook in India, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.
Just keep repeating the mantra "It's all Bill Clinton's fault!" joe.
I'm sure someone will buy it.
So if we grant that Clinton was corrupt, you'll concede Bush is? The Rich pardon doesn't leave much wiggle room.
IAC do you think the Enron relationship with adminstration and the Congress was an okay thing?
The point of my post (short tho it was - I can't even believe I need to explain) was jex's one-sided obsession.
In keeping with this one-sidedness he links in an article that questions Cheney's intervention in the Dabhol venture, when in the very same paper another article shows that the Clinton admin was waist deep into it - had done exactly the same thing - for nearly 8 years.
Til then:
Common Cause –Field Guide to Enron
http://www.commoncause.org/publications/jan02/011102.htm
CBS MarketWatch.com – The Fall of A Giant
http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/markets/enron.asp?siteid=mktw
CNN – Enron in Depth
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/enron/index.html
LA Times – Enron Collapse & Bankruptcy
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/enron/index.html
Financial Times – The World’s Biggest Bankruptcy
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT32NFNS8TC&tagid=FTDBIXD9CPC
Houston Chronicle – Hot Topic Enron
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/enron/index.html
Texans for Public Justice – Enron Fries in its Own Juice
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/01/enron/index.html
The Center for Public Integrity – The Pubic-I
http://www.public-i.org/
The New York Times – Understanding Enron
http://www.public-i.org/
The Washington Post - Enron Special Report
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/business/specials/energy/enron/
The Crooked E – Former Employees Site
http://www.thecrookede.com/
What would Dan Burton have made of things if Clinton/Gore did for Enron what Cheney Bush did?
What what would you?
Anyway - if things were turned around and Burton had also happened to have benefitted from the Enron largesse along with Clinton, I imagine he'd be doing exactly what many Democrats are doing.
....nothing.
Power Trader Tied to Bush Finds Washington All Ears
BYLINE: By LOWELL BERGMAN and JEFF GERTH
Curtis Hebert Jr., Washington's top electricity regulator, said he had barely settled into his new job this year when he had an unsettling telephone conversation with Kenneth L. Lay, the head of the nation's largest electricity trader, the Enron Corporation.
Mr. Hebert, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said that Mr. Lay, a close friend of President Bush's, offered him a deal: If he changed his views on electricity deregulation, Enron would continue to support him in his new job. Mr. Hebert (pronounced A-bear) recalled that Mr. Lay prodded him to back a national push for retail competition in the energy business and a faster pace in opening up access to the electricity transmission grid to companies like Enron.
Mr. Hebert said he refused the offer. "I was offended," he recalled, though he said he knew of Mr. Lay's influence in Washington and thought the refusal could put his job in jeopardy.
Asked about the conversation, Mr. Lay praised Mr. Hebert, but recalled it differently. "I remember him requesting" Enron's support at the White House, he said of Mr. Hebert. Mr. Lay said he had "very possibly" discussed issues relating to the commission's authority over access to the grid.
As to Mr. Hebert's job, Mr. Lay said he told the chairman that "the final decision on this was going to be the president's, certainly not ours.
Mr. Lay has been one of Mr. Bush's largest campaign contributors, and no other energy company gave more money to Republican causes last year than Enron.
"It's all Bill Clinton's fault !
It's all Bill Clinton's fault !
It's all Bill Clinton's fault !
It's all Bill Clinton's fault !
It's all Bill Clinton's fault !"
1. The New York Times, August 7, 2001, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Page 11; Column 5; National Desk, 577 words, After Short, Volatile Tenure, U.S. Energy Regulator Quits, By JOSEPH KAHN, WASHINGTON, Aug. 6
At least one administration official was cautioned to avoid playing any role in the power plant matter because of previous connections to Enron.
Fleischer said Friday that White House economic advisor Lawrence B. Lindsey received an ethics ruling from White House lawyers last year advising him to have "no direct involvement in the Dabhol plant
• Connecticut Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal called for an investigation into possible wrongdoing by Andersen.
• The Florida attorney general's office subpoenaed documents from Enron as part of a racketeering investigation into the sale of the energy company's stock to the state pension fund while the share price was plunging.
Public Citizen is deeply concerned that your office, shortly after the Bush administration assumed power, initiated actions which aided Enron’s ability to hide assets (and losses) in the company’s bank accounts registered in off-shore subsidiaries by delaying a new international agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration between the OECD and the United States.
(and much more detail)
"Enron is a metaphor for the Republican administration: cooking the books, covering up, the top guys taking their money off the table and leaving the working folks holding the bag," said DNC Chairman Terence McAuliffe. "I am going to challenge [RNC Chairman Marc] Racicot to join me in lobbying for campaign finance reform."
I know that the fact that I said this two-three weeks ago is suspicious.
I know that Cyg and Rosie will charge that I am member of the Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy.
Guilty as charged. I am Managing Partner.
Inside Houston: Lines Between High Society, Politics and Business Are Fuzzy
In the state-of-the-art baseball stadium's most exclusive section, behind home plate, there were the George Bushes — a former president and a president to be — along with the younger Mr. Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney, and his successor as governor, Rick Perry. Nearby was Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose husband, Ray, is a lawyer with Enron's chief law firm, Vinson & Elkins. And then came the executives of Houston's biggest companies, who had vied to become the younger Bush's most prominent fund-raisers, just as they had jockeyed to buy the prized luxury seats.
And at the center of it all, down on the pitcher's mound, was Kenneth L. Lay, the man responsible for building Enron into an American powerhouse, throwing out the first ball.
If the cozy intertwining of business and politics at Enron Field is not unique to Houston or to Texas, it is pronounced here, and it was starkly visible that day.
"Together, the Stevenses have 28 years of employment with PGE. After Enron bought their company, in 1997, they watched the value of their company stock more than triple. The quarterly investment statements that arrived in their battered old steel mailbox in rural St. Helens showed that they had $720,000 for their retirement.
When Enron filed for bankruptcy last month, all but $2,300 of the Stevenses' retirement money vanished. "Right down the rat hole,"
Explores economic impacts in depth from loss of shareholder equity, to finance, to drop in capital spending, to end of drive to deregulate energy markets....
Indeed, Mr. Krugman wrote a column almost a year ago in the New York Times that included a come-clean admonition:
"Full disclosure: Before this newspaper's conflict-of-interest rules required me to resign, I served on an Enron advisory board that turns out to have been a hatchery for future Bush administration officials. (What was I doing there? Beats me.)," Mr. Krugman wrote in his Jan. 24, 2001, column...
...But back to Mr. Krugman. Yesterday, an incensed Andrew Sullivan took the columnist to task in his own column (www.andrewsullivan.com) for a "disclosure" that omitted a few details. The Times implied that the disclosure "exonerates Krugman from the charge of not informing his readership about his Enron ties. In fact, Krugman didn't disclose his ($50,000) fee a year ago, passing off the board membership as some sort of jolly extracurricular," Mr. Sullivan writes.
I didn't disclose that Barry Bonds pin Enron gave me until many months of Lay bashing had come and gone
The bashing isn't for taking money. It's for following policies that were in Enron's interest and not the public interest. That is, for being bribed. And this is not a partisan issue. Both parties took these bribes, including one of my senators, Charles Schumer. I know you're just trying to add balance to jexster's posts. But it's important to remember that these guys took bribes.
peninsula as an extension of the Texas and Oklahoma oil patch; in other words, it's ours. In the case of Enron, we are seeing that oil
connection in full view, and we're learning the dangers of keeping fast company. After all, wasn't Bush the President who wanted to
encourage stock ownership? Wasn't he the candidate who wanted us to tie up our Social Security in stocks? So what's he doing hanging out with Kenny Boy and the other looters?"
138425.asp>Chris Mathews "Demos Should Shoot to Kill"
Oh Lord not Chris Mathews
Dallas Morning News Nails Wendy
Fort Worth Star Telegram Blasts Phil
Call it "Corporate Rape", because that's what it is. The responsible Enron executives ought to be treated exactly like forcible rapists, because that's the closest analogy to their brutal conduct that comes to mind.
And whenever some hyper-rich S.O.B. screws some little everyday bastard employee who's trying to make a living and relying on that S.O.B. for a salary and a pension, the disparity in power between the two of them is very much like a rapist who victimizes a child, so the punishments for "Corporate Rape" ought to be every bit as severe as that visited on a child molester.
Under the law, corporations are supposed to be "persons". Let's treat them as if they were persons, responsible for their actions.
I don't see the Enron scandal as "political" in the sense that the G.O.P. is more responsible than someone else....But if the Republicans don't respond to Enron as if it was a domestic version of Osama bin Laden, I suspect they'll get their butts handed to them in the next election.
And rightly so.
Oh, that's an absurd--and cheap--overstatement.
Employees aren't helpless victims these days, and I see no abuse of power in Enron's treatment of their employees. Fraudulent treatment of them as stockholders, certainly, and they should have recourse under those terms. The freeze should also be checked out.
But anyone who has 100% of their retirement in one stock is a fool. Their lost retirement income is their own problem, not due to their meeeeeaan employer.
One other thing--they didn't lose millions of real money. They only thought they had millions. In reality, they only lost the money that they put into it, which in all likelihood never would have been worth millions with any other investment, either.
Not me. I'm going into government bonds, because the government will be the last thing standing, even though Bush and his fellow Republicans want to knock it down. Maybe now folks will realize that government has a big role to play in our protection, and not just from terrorists.
We send homeless people to jail for being public nuisances. We send poor kids to prison for possession of small amounts of drugs. We send retarded kids to the big house for robbing 7-Eleven...
Lay's Next Pitch Should Come From Prison
...And what about the employees' inability to sell the stock during a critical period when there was at least still a market for it? Was that their "own" problem, too, or was their beneficent employer getting a little penetration in on the rape-job?
Jexter is doing a good job, I think, in moderating discussion -- though I understand that many may seee him as too partisan in his approach.
I also commend those many posters who have made useful contributions to this thread, particularly Calgal, who has done much to steer discussion away from partisan bickering towards matters of specific substance.
I have added useful links at the side of the thread -- all chosen by Jexter -- and will add some more when I have a chance. Please e-mail suggestions to scratchraster@yahoo.com
Lastly, just because I wanted to glory in my powers as thread host, and because he is such a Wild and Crazy Guy, I deleted one entirely innocuous post by Julius Caesar.
P.S. As a warning to those who take this update post as an excuse for empty meta-analysis of the direction of this thread, all substanceless whining will be deleted by me.
Keeping in mind that by then, the damage was already near complete, I agree that if it wasn't a normal window, then it was an abuse. But not much of one--consider that it quite possibly could have been a normal window, and the damage would have been just as bad. Still, I agree that if they went out of their way to shut the door on any sale, it adds a few pounds of disgust onto the scale.
So that means that employees had a two week window when they couldn't act like a normal stockholder. This is child rape?
I just don't see the employees as being harmed in any other capacity than as stockholders. Their retirement funds were under their control for all but two weeks, and it was flat out foolish to hold 100% of your retirement funds in one stock.
Should regulators have been aware and concerned about the lack of diversification in Enron's 401(k) portfolio?
If they were aware, could they or should they have made efforts to intervene?
Did Enron do anything illegal in their management of the 401(k) portfolio?
If not, should the laws change?
Sure, corporate greed makes for a sexy story, but many of the issues here have more to do with issues of proper or improper regulation. Remember, throughout much of the period when the Enron 401(K) plan was being stuffed with company stock, everyone was giddy about the volcanic rise in the equity markets. Many probably welcomed the shares at the time.
The only issue is whether or not the freeze was a normal one or specifically planned to prevent employees from selling. In the scheme of things, that's pretty minor. It's not as if employees were calling by the thousands, demanding to sell.
You're quite right about the stock price. Employees only had the "millions" because of the inflated prices in the first place.
If Enron specifically planned the administrative change in order to achieve the freeze, it would be criminal. Otherwise, it was just an unfortunate coincidence.
I also am unclear as to what they would have been able to do if the freeze hadn't been on. I haven't been in an employee 401K plan for ten years, but I'm pretty sure you have to fill out a form to change the allocations. It takes at least a few days, possibly even more.
"The arguments for the benefits of employee stock ownership are not less true than they used to be. What's different is that the downside is no longer abstract. And after all there's a perfectly legitimate school of thought that holds that if you really want to make big money through the markets, you don't diversify; you make a concentrated bet. Bill Gates and Michael Dell, for instance, did not build their fortunes on a diversified portfolio. The difference is that a line employee who ties up a huge chunk of his or her retirement fund in the company stock has a lot less influence over the firm's ultimate fate. This may mean the employee, good or bad, enjoys the fruits of the company's success or that the employee pays a price for the company's failure. All of that was just as true when the employee-owner idea was at the height of its popularity. It's just more apparent now."
One Hour Special from Ground Zero
CNN - 8 pm EST - Tuesday 01/22
But each probably knows a lot less than Lawrence Lindsay, Dick Cheney, Poppy, Georgie, even Miss Laura
Indeed, over the years the Big Five firms--down from the Big Eight as recently as 1989, and the Big Six as recently as 1997, as the result of mergers--have often behaved less like competitors than corporate partners. Among other things, they all belong to the same insurance pool. That means any time one of them has to cough up a wad of cash to settle a potential fraud case, it raises the insurance premiums for the other four. With that kind of incentive why would any of them ever rat on the other?
To make things even cozier, the Big Five firms have created a network of extremely close relationships between their in-house lawyers. According to an October 2000 BusinessWeek article, the general counsels of the Big Five accounting firms meet in New York once every six weeks to talk shop over lunch. Among the topics of conversation? How best to avoid audits that might require one firm to cast doubt on the work of another. This arrangement paid off for Deloitte & Touche in 1991. That year a little-known New Jersey thrift named Fidelity Mutual Savings and Loan Association discovered that one of its vice presidents had spent the previous 16 years defrauding it to the tune of $6 million. Confused at how this minor detail escaped its auditor's attention, Fidelity hired rival firm KPMG to investigate. Roger Ham, the lead investigator, concluded that the scam was only possible because of numerous failings on the part of Deloitte & Touche. Indeed, his initial report used some form of the word "failure" no fewer than ten times. But rather than accept that judgment, Deloitte's general counsel (again, according to BusinessWeek) simply picked up the phone and called his counterpart at KPMG. The final "revised" report contained not a single mention of "failure."
'Employees aren't helpless victims these days, and I see no abuse of power in Enron's treatment of their employees. Fraudulent treatment of them as stockholders, certainly, and they should have recourse under those terms. The freeze should also be checked out.
But anyone who has 100% of their retirement in one stock is a fool. Their lost retirement income is their own problem, not due to their meeeeeaan employer. '
This is not so. Many employees could not move a substantial fraction of their holdings. Company match only took place with Enron stock, and the employee could not diversify out until he or she reached the age of 50.
This is not an uncommon set of rules. I had dinner last night with a customer, for whom we wrote the software used by employees to make their stock plan contribution decisions. This is a very conservative fortune 500 financial services and consulting firm.
Moreover, it's apparent that senior management directly lied to their employees about the company's prospects. Pumping and dumping with your employees is shockingly bad behavior, and has to be illegal insider trading.
"Any links on who actually controled the Enron portfolio would be helpful and welcome. I myself am unclear on who controlled what. I thought that the portfolio was managed on behalf of the employees be a company appointed portfolio manager."
Employees manage their own portfolios subject to plan provisions about how often you can change your holdings, and on restrictions on the sale of company stock. This Nytimes article describes some of the different 401k provisions there are.
Reading the article requires registration at the NYTimes site.
I do know, from the inside, that companies try to structure their plans to encourage employees to invest in the company's stock. Enron was not unique in this regard. I expect the provision limiting the ability of corporations to channel employee funds into their stock will be enacted by Congress.
Sure. But that's not 100%. In fact, if a company gives you stock as matching, you could easily opt to put all your contributions into other areas. It was their choice to do otherwise.
Also, it's not required that a company match employee donations--and it's tax free, besides. It was considered largesse--in fact, as the Slate piece points out, employees wanted to get stock and felt left out because they were getting "only" cash. While they weren't able to sell that stock until they were 50, the fact is that the employer could have opted not to give them the stock--or the cash--at all. It's a benefit. So even if they'd lost 100% of that stock "gift", they'd be no worse off than they would have been had the company decided not to give them that benefit in the first place.
It's not like they were getting salary in stock. They were getting an optional company benefit--matching stock for their cash contributions in their 401K. They chose to buy stock with their cash contributions.
Their 100% retirement exposure was their own doing, not Enron's.
Pumping and dumping with your employees is shockingly bad behavior, and has to be illegal insider trading.
I don't know that it's any worse to lie to employees than it is to stockholders--in fact, they are stockholders and it was on that basis that they were lied to.
And, on that basis, I'm sure it is illegal. They have the same rights as any stockholder, and on that basis they certainly have legitimate grievances.
But that doesn't change the fact that they made their own decisions, and the degree of their exposure was their own choice, not Enron's responsibility.
. Just before Enron collapsed, 60 percent of its 401(k) assets were reportedly held in its own shares.
The company was providing a 50% match, so the amount you couldn't move was about 33%. A wise employee would have put the rest of the money in other places. But the company worked hard, culture-wise, pumping and so forth that people held about double that, on average.
No reason to hear things, when you can look them up.
The slate article indicates that the stock went from $35 to $1 during the lockdown period. 52 week high is currently $83, which, peering at the chart is, close to the 2 year high as well. Of course, journalists will write about the people who lost a lot.
On your second point, see 441, where the NYTimes reports that the average porfolio was 60% in Enron.
Now, having ridden the stock from 80 to 35, would the unwise employees have stuck with it the rest of the way down? Would they have dumped all they could? If not at 40, why at 30? If not at 30, why at 20? After all, the first half of October was up.
However, it is still a very bad thing for a ceo to pump and dump his employees. It's worse to lie about the lockdown period required to change plan administrators. It's still worse (if it happened) to change admnistrators to keep employees locked in.
The pump and dump has to be criminal insider trading. Covering the sales up makes that one worse too.
This I agree with. But I can't see them having that much foresight.
Is it not true, though, that employees can't just sell the same day? It takes a while to change your 401K.
And how is anything in 443 relevant to the argument that it was the stupid employees fault for failing to diversify? They couldn't diversify the match. They apparently split the amount they could diversify, on average, half on Enron and half on other securities.
There were some people making the big bet--what the slate article calls the Gates or Dell bet--of doubling up by betting their salaries and their savings on the company. That's a high risk-high reward strategy that had the risk part of the equation underestimated by those employees. That underestimate can be blamed, imo, in the general climate that the way to get rich was in the market, by the wacky influence paper value has on people (they think it's money) and executives who lied about the risk exposure.
The CNN link has a differenct shutdown window than the slate article. It puts the Enron share of 401k holdings at 62% and said that 11% of the stock held was restricted. The rest was purchased voluntarily and could be sold at any time, says this article. That means that in addition to purchasing through the plan up the point of the match, they were putting still more in, and into Enron.
I don't believe that you pay taxes on the benefit, do you? If so, that's the only benefit you do pay taxes on.
But my understanding is that you put in $3, company puts in $1. You don't pay taxes on that 1, even though it is certainly income.
And how is anything in 443 relevant to the argument that it was the stupid employees fault for failing to diversify?
I said it is foolish to have 100% of your retirement fund in one stock. You've explained that they had to have 33% of it in that stock. Fine, that's 33%. But that's a long way from 100.
The horror stories in the press are of the ones who put 100% in Enron. On average, 60% is pretty damn dumb, too. I absolutely agree that Enron's behavior was illegal. But that doesn't excuse their own decisions, which were responsible for them having lost so much of their investment.
They never really had those millions, anyway, since Enron's stock would never have been that high if they hadn't lied in the first place. So their real loss was considerably less. An employee who put in $5K/year every year since Enron began would have invested no more than $80,000.
That underestimate can be blamed, imo, in the general climate that the way to get rich was in the market, by the wacky influence paper value has on people (they think it's money) and executives who lied about the risk exposure.
The first, definitely. But the lies are irrelevant in this respect: Even if they had been telling the truth, 100% investment in one company is a foolish risk. The lies really don't mitigate the employee's error.
But it's not just a matter of calling up your broker, I believe. I'd be interested in knowing what the lead time is.
I still can't quite understand what Sullivan is getting at.
He concedes Krugman's point made a year ago that Enron used his name and ignored everything he had to tell them. In fact, he used his January 2001 disclosure as a launching pad for yet more bashing of Enron and its cozy, cryonism and its adverse effects on public policy.
Then there's my Barry Bonds pin....Krugman has been on Enron's case as long as I have. I can hardly see where either of us are even guilty of an appearance of being favorable to Ken Lay....
Perhaps this is what Sullivan's stretching for 
IMO, his failure to mention the $50,000 fee in his "full disclosure" column is very telling.
Now what about Georgie Boy and Kenney Boy?
And what about MY Barry Bonds pin dammit!
How to Blame Liberals for Enron
Needless to say, his Bush replacement doesn't like Levit's recommendations and probably is trying to roll back the changes that Levit succeeded in implementing.
The Center for Responsive Politics Examines the Close Ties Between Bush and Enron
Ex-Exec Says Enron Shredded Documents This Month
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Destruction of confidential documents went on at Enron Corp.'s headquarters until at least two weeks ago despite court orders forbidding this since October, a former company executive said in an interview broadcast on Monday.
packing material? hahaha
``I left the second week of January and the shredding was going on until I left. And I have no idea if it continues.'' Maureen Castenada, identified by ABC News as a director in the foreign investments section at Enron's Houston headquarters, told the ABC News program.
...
Castenada showed ABC what she said were some of the shredded documents she discovered in an office hallway. She said she had taken one of many such boxes, basically to use as ''packing material.''
The latest from MWO:
VEEP'S FIRM COLLAPSING OVER ASBESTOS LAWSUITS
Big-Time Payoffs to G.O.P. Pols
Panic On Pennsylvania Avenue
Halliburton: Enron II
(Washington, D.C., Jan. 21, 2002: Special to MWO)
The lid has just about blown off this already tense capital city with breaking news of the possible impending collapse of Vice-President Cheney's old firm, Halliburton Company of Dallas, Texas.
With its stock value in free fall for months, Halliburton is reported on the edge of doom, thanks to a mountain of asbestos lawsuits linked to its 1998 acquisition, under then-CEO Cheney, of Dressler Industries. The company has paid out more than $150 million in recent damages for asbestos cases -- and has about 260,000 related lawsuits still pending. More than $19 billion in Halliburton shareholder value has vanished since the summer of 2001 -- an undisclosed amount of it in employee 401(k) plans and other pension funds.
To try and stem off the disaster, Halliburton has given huge gobs of money to former and present Congressional Republicans in order to gain favorable deregulation rulings and other breaks. Among the more prominent names caught up in the Halliburton political operation, apart from Cheney, are former Missouri Senator and current Attorney General John Ashcroft and House Minority Leader, Dick Armey of Texas.
Confidence in Halliburton and its imminent statement is all the shakier given that the firm's accountant is none other than Arthur Andersen LLB -- the same outfit mixed up in destroying documents and defrauding shareholders in the Enron affair.
Non-partisan watchdog groups warn than Halliburton shows all the signs of becoming another Enron.
"Halliburton is just as vulnerable to collapse but doesn't get much scrutiny," said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. "We definitely
should be alarmed."
So, apparently, should the White House and the Republican Party -- big time.
According to public records, Halliburton and Cheney funneled nearly $500,000 to congressional candidates from 1997 to 2000, including more than $150, 000 to members of Congress sponsoring legislation that would limit the ability of workers to sue companies for asbestos exposure. The vast majority of the money has gone to Republicans --just as, not surprisingly, did the great bulk of the company's contributions in the last presidential campaign.
Halliburton's spending on the bill was intensely partisan, including 46 House Republicans and only three House Democrats, along with 14 Senate Republicans and no Senate Democrats.
Of the more than $150,000 Halliburton doled out over the asbestos bill, all but $3500 went to Republicans -- a pro-Republican division of 98% to 2%.
Among the top beneficiaries were Tom De Lay (R-TX, $5500), Dick Armey (R-TX, $6000), and J.C. Watts (R-OK, $7000).
Cheney, as an individual, donated $12,500 to members who sponsored or co-sponsored the asbestos bill.
A Halliburton spokeswoman, Zelma Branch, told reporters that the contributions were "purely coincidental."
Further complicating matters, while Halliburton, under Cheney, pressed for radical deregulation, it also fed richly at the federal trough, benefiting from at least $3.8 billion in federal contracts and taxpayer-insured loans between 1995 and 2000.
There were some scattered press reports about Halliburton during the 2000 campaign, no more. Even though charged by consumers and workers' groups with being an integral part of an asbestos industry which knowingly poisoned its own workers for years, Halliburton escaped media scrutiny. Reporters were too busy tracking down every last detail of Al Gore's "exaggerations" and the phony Buddhist Temple non-scandal to pay much mind to Dick Cheney and Halliburton -- to say nothing of Halliburton's hundreds of thousands of victims, Americans who are today riddled with cancer and other diseases which could have been prevented, except for Halliburton's immoral worship of the bottom line.
Now, just maybe, the press will start paying attention.
Chaulk up another I-told-you-so for Pinnochio Bore
Power and Profits
BYLINE: By PAUL KRUGMAN
BODY:
"Let them eat cake!" cried the new president's friend, a key campaign supporter who was also a prominent advocate of bakery deregulation, not to mention the owner of a chain of cake shops.
O.K., not exactly. Kenneth Lay, chairman of Enron, was a prime mover in George W. Bush's presidential campaign; he has also been an influential voice in favor of electricity deregulation, and Enron is profiting handsomely from the electricity it sells in California. But what he actually said was that California's power consumers "need to see the price signals that is, pay much more and start modifying behavior to reduce demand until we get new supplies." He also rejected the plea of California officials for a federally imposed cap on wholesale electricity prices, arguing that this would merely "start spreading the shortage around." And his friend the president has echoed his views. Full disclosure: Before this newspaper's conflict-of-interest rules required me to resign, I served on an Enron advisory board that turns out to have been a hatchery for future Bush administration officials. (What was I doing there? Beats me.)
....one can sympathize with the many people in California who feel that what is happening to them falls on the wrong side of that line -- that the Houston-based companies that helped sell naive officials on the glories of a deregulated market are now saying: "Sorry, it hasn't worked out the way we promised, but tough luck -- you'll pay the cost for our mistake, and we'll profit. And don't even think about alternatives -- our friend the president won't let you try them."
Houston, you have a problem.
Enron Collapse Refuels Electricity Deregulation Debate
James Suroweicki wrote a piece in the New Yorker last year arguing that deregulation of the industry has actually been a success in some states and, when done right, can be beneficial to consumers. Unfortunately, it is unavailable on the New Yorker site.
Comments on this would be much appreciated.
Is this the Surowiecki piece you are referring to?
That is not the piece, but it is interesting, regardless. FWIW, Surowiecki has displaced Krugman as my favourite writer on economic issues. His weekly piece in The New Yorker is a must for me.
In certain areas, the ones I witnessed, Enron had magnificent plans. These were feasible, but needed vast sums of cash (which it looked capable of producing) and careful management (which it did not). The company planned on building something like a parallel Internet in vast regions of the world, using oil pipelines in some areas. It planned on laying fibre across South America, and the sub-continent, and across the Atlantic, to provide the backbone for revolutionary broadband capability. It had already set up a virtual marketplace where broadband would be sold as a commodity, like its successful other trading sites.
These were and are brilliant visions, and if and when someone comes up with the vast troughs of cash required to implement them -they will change the world. Enron could have done it, I genuinely think it was 30% of the way there - but you need to sustain such visions with deep pocketsand to have critically aware and capable leadership. The real fault with Enron, in my highly limited experience, is that it didn't have the latter - the former would have been possible if it had. The top core of the company (I dealt with a member of the Board of Directors personally, for months) were all shysters, brilliant (but evasive) pitchmen, fantastic at presentations but far too shaky on detail and follow-through.
A Federal judge in Houston has ordered that the court take possession of all Enron documents amid reports that same were being boxed, bundled, and shredded.....
Proof that the Clintonistas didn't destroy all the shredders in CoupGate 
"Even Laura Bush's mom!
The list of Enron victims keeps on growing.
We're sure it was just a coincidence that the president happened to casually mention that his mother-in-law had bought Enron stock and got hosed. Jenna Welch bought the stock for $8,180 and sold it for $84.
Any chance Bush was sending the message that even his own relatives lost a bundle while his administration courageously refused to bail out Kenny Boy's company?"
Sheer, LAT
What Kenny Lay Wants, Kenny Lay Gets - Jexster, ~01/01
The 'Rats have got to be smelling their own goose cooking when even college students take it for granted that they're the party of corruption.
So, what did Waxman 'devastate'? The remaining shreds of his own reputation?
Bush-Lay-Cheney Energy "Plan"
Enron's Payola, referenced to "Plan" sections:
A. “Open Access” to Electricity Transmission Facilities B. Repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935
C. Federal Eminent Domain for Siting Transmission Facilities
D. Expansion of Transmission Facilities
E. Federally Owned Transmission Facilities
F. Uniform Interconnection Procedures and Standards
G. “Incentive Rates” for Transmission Facilities
H. Comprehensive Electricity Restructuring Legislation
I. Establishment of a National Grid
II. Recommendations Relating to Energy Derivatives and Commodities Markets
A. Energy Derivative Markets
B. Emission Credits
III. Recommendations Relating to Expanded Natural Gas and Oil Production
A. Expedited Permits for Energy Projects
B. Expanded Natural Gas and Oil Drilling
IV. Other Recommendations That Benefitted Enron
A. Support for Energy Projects in India
B. Increased Support for U.S. Energy Firms Abroad
C. Promotion of Wind Power
D. Hydropower Relicensing
Enron Conservatives
Mary Carville is right. There isn't a slimed Churchill or blue dress in the list!
Amusing and informative translation of the various scams that Enron used to hide its debts. I caught it on Newshour last night; this is the transcript.
I might not have been paying attention, but this is the first time I've heard that Enron violated SEC rules directly, no further investigation needed.
DOUGLAS CARMICHAEL: And they disclosed that they, among other assets received, 1.2 billion in notes receivable.
PAUL SOLMAN: Notes receivable meaning just --
DOUGLAS CARMICHAEL: I Owe You's
PAUL SOLMAN: An IOU
DOUGLAS CARMICHAEL: And what they don't tell people is that was a one-for-one exchange. They gave their stock for a 1.2 million-note receivable.
PAUL SOLMAN: For an IOU from a company they owned.
DOUGLAS CARMICHAEL: From a company they owned.
DOUGLAS CARMICHAEL: And the SEC doesn't permit that. It's on its face a violation of SEC rules and accounting requirements. It's called watered stock, and it inflates the capital. It makes the company look like it has more equity than it really does.
"Many of the hundreds of other Enron-related partnerships were clustered together to carry out different parts of billion-dollar financing deals and given colorful but unrevealing names. Jedi, Chewco, Obi and Kenobi Inc. followed a Star Wars theme. Rawhide, Cactus, Sundance, Ponderosa and Mojave had a Western flavor."
As for you concerned...
Well I must be moderate now musn't I...
CAL-
I dunno whether you or other caught Lou "Moneybags" Dobbs special from Ground Zero yesterday (boy he looked like he was wilting and its fuckin January down there!)
Anyway, he asked the CEO of Deloitte-Touche whether he could, from Enron's Annual Reports, determine what was happening with all those tax shelters and off shore partnerships (Raptor etc)...
He had to confess under friendly questionning from Lou that he couldn't and added that while Enron's accounting was about as complex as it gets, the financials of too many publicly traded companies were way too complicated...
Raising, of course, the question, how can a market be "free" when even the most sophisticated cannot determine what is being sold?
Slack where are ya?
TommieD B free!
THE ENRON COLLAPSE - Why auditors weren't likely to blow whistle
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s office again refused on Wednesday to turn over details of how the White House formulated its energy policy -- including bankrupt Enron Corp.'s involvement --despite increased pressure from Congress.
The investigative arm of Congress has been seeking more information about contacts between industry and the administration's energy task force, headed by Cheney.
I sure hope they keep track of his finances.
The Oct. 12 e-mail initially sent to Odom and then forwarded to Duncan, said:
"It might be useful to consider reminding the engagement team of our documentation and retention policy. It would be helpful to make sure that we have complied with the policy. Let me know if have you any questions. Nancy"
Andersen, which publicly disclosed the e-mail last week, added that Temple also sent a copy of company policy on document retention in the e-mail.
According to the firm's 26-page guideline on retention, staff must keep work papers for six years before they can destroy them. But client-related files, such as correspondence or other records, are only kept "until not useful." Managers and individual partners keeping such material in client folders or other files, should "purge" the documents, the policy states.
But in cases of threatened litigation, Andersen staff must not destroy "related information."
Both Odom and Duncan told congressional investigators that the Oct. 12 memo on document retention sent to them by Temple was unusual, sources said. Duncan told investigators he believed the memo was a signal to destroy all but the most basic "work papers" relating to their auditing of Enron, a source said.
Duncan did not think anything was wrong with destroying documents because he was relying on advice from counsel, a source said.
Unh Hunh.
I'd love to know more about what specifically was destroyed. Where I work, we keep damn near everything for six years--we're buried in it. And we sure wouldn't start trashing it because some boys from Andersen said to.
Cal, your link upthread about peer review at the Big Five firms was very interesting.
All the people in the Enron mess have played their roles -- from the executives in the company and their accounting firm to the lawyers who served them so well. But none of them could accomplish what they did without the Washington lobbyists. They are the ones who protect companies from a government that cannot be trusted.
Lobbyists are just like you and me, and they put on their golf shoes one foot at a time.
You have to be qualified to be a lobbyist. Many, but not all, are recruited from Congress. They have decided they are fed up with politics and want to make some big money for a change, or have lost an election and are not fit to do anything else.
A Crash Course in Lobbying (Buchwald)
Lobbyists are very friendly people. They call lawmakers and administration officials by their first names: "Ted," "Terry," "George." Theirs is the only profession, except for the FBI, that makes house calls.
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing, several Democrats couldn't resist comparisons with the scandal involving Enron Corp., in which senior executives sold their stock before a financial collapse ravaged the retirement funds of ordinary workers.
"This is a lot like Enron," said Sen. Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich.). "The top 1 or 2 percent of the public will get major tax cuts paid for by the retirement earnings of Social Security and Medicare by the majority of Americans."
Not even a Blue Dress in sight!
Sacramento -- Officials at Enron Corp., which used an army of attorneys and accounting loopholes to avoid paying federal taxes in four of the past five years, employed a simpler method of dodging tax collectors in California.
They just didn't pay...
Bush's Boi Kenney Slips CA a Churchill Up the Ass
A Texas Sized Load of Bunkum - NyT
It seems as if there is so little competition that they operate as a club. Kind of like those high priced auction houses that got in trouble for price fixing.
A longtime Bush adviser said: "He doesn't necessarily turn on people but he cuts them off. This is cut and run." He added, "It was a little gratuitous invoking his mother-in-law."
"The logical next step for the White House is to have the mother- in-law join this class-action suit," Mr. Reed said. "That's the way to cement this baby."
He may not have a big time Bushie job, but at least he's got a sense of humor!
Desperate times, desperate measures
They're Getting Krazy at Kato!
Safeguards failed to stop Enron fiasco
Regulators, auditors and media didn't detect company's problems
The Enron scandal could make an ideal metaphor for Democrats charging that Republicans are all about helping rich corporations at the expense of the unemployed. And conservatives fear it could slam the brakes on everything from private Social Security accounts to energy deregulation.
"This is going to be a show trial, and the idea is to make Ken Lay and Enron out to be the poster boy of unbridled capitalism," said Jerry Taylor, an energy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. Even without a White House scandal, he said, "I think there's a very good chance that in the public's mind, Enron will become synonymous with what happens when Republicans get too much deregulatory fever, and I think that's very unfortunate."
tom tomorrow
How did Andrew Sullivan respond last summer when he was the one charged with conflict of interest? Sullivan, you may remember, was branded by some as a bought-and-paid-for journalist after he accepted a $7,500 sponsorship from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a drug industry trade group. Salon and Inside questioned Sullivan's editors at the New York Times Magazine and the New Republic about the ethics of allowing him to continue reporting on the drug industry while accepting its money. (The HIV-positive Sullivan had previously saluted the drug industry for keeping him alive in Times and New Republic pieces.)
On Aug. 20, 2001, Kenneth L. Lay was absolutely upbeat about Enron's prospects. Although Jeffrey K. Skilling had abruptly resigned as Enron's president and CEO less than a week before, Lay insisted that the company's slate was clean. "There are absolutely no problems that had anything to do with Jeff's departure," Lay, who had just reassumed the CEO job, told BusinessWeek Dallas Correspondent Stephanie Anderson Forest that day. "There are no accounting issues, no trading issues, no reserve issues, no previously unknown problem issues.... There is no other shoe to fall."
Two months later, Enron's finances began to unravel. By December, the company was in bankruptcy, and on Jan. 23, Lay resigned under pressure from Enron's creditors. But what federal investigators want to know is: Did Lay know more than he was admitting on Aug. 20 -- and were his statements to BusinessWeek Online an act of securities fraud?
The timing is pretty damning. He almost certainly had read Watkin's memo by the 20th, since he had scheduled a meeting with her by that time to discuss it.
Step right up!
HOUSTON, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Former Enron Corp. chief executive Ken Lay on Thursday canceled a meeting with civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, who went to the company's headquarters anyway and called for laid off Enron workers to be reimbursed
from money pocketed by company executives.
(I guess times is hard all ovah da Noonited States. Even "Civil Rights" activists gots ta exploit...uh - ministah to a whole new class o' victims. We gots ta make dem whole agin!)
Damn this is GREAT....payola to Mister Taliban advisor to Bush!
This is coming apart faster than a cheap fuckin suit...
And those idiot Republican$ keep yappin about Clinton-gates, their manufactured scandals, their blue dresses, Linda Tripps, Paula Joneses, slimy ceegars
HA! This is a REAL scandal...real corruption...real policy consequences....
Well it could be worse..I could be like Cllr and be infatuated with 109109
"If Karl Rove was partly responsible for him getting the job at Enron, it illustrates the close relations between the Bush political world and Enron," said Trevor Potter, a Republican who is a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission. "If it was done for the avowed reason to keep Reed satisfied and out of someone else's political camp, it illustrates what everyone in the Republican world has known for years: Enron has been an important source of political power in the party."
It illustrates what everyone has known for YEARS : Enron has been an important source of political power in the GOP!"
Christ .... they ain't no equal opportunity corrupter, they've been Bush's benefactors for twenty freakin years!
Like the guy says "Everybody knows it"
Even Ann Richards!
Bush's NSC Acted As Concierge To Enron
Ex-Workers Say Unit's Earnings Were 'Illusory'
Under traditional accounting, companies book profits only as they deliver the services they have promised to customers. But Energy Services calculated its profit very differently. As soon as it signed a contract, it estimated what its profits would be over the entire term, based on assumptions about future energy prices, energy use and even the speed at which different states would deregulate their electric markets.
Then Energy Services would immediately pay its sales representatives cash bonuses on those projections and report the results to investors as profits. By making its assumptions more optimistic, the division could report higher profits.
As a result, the sales representatives and senior managers pressed the managers who made the central assumptions about deregulation and energy prices, said Glenn Dickson, a manager at Energy Services who was fired in December.
"The whole culture was much more sales driven than anything else," Mr. Dickson said. "The people that were having to sign off on the deals with a gun to their head knew that it wasn't a good deal."
Mr. Dickson and other former employees said senior executives at Energy Services knew that their assumptions were unreliable. At the same time, expenses ballooned as Energy Services found that the costs of managing its contracts were higher than it had projected.
Not damned likely!
Rove-Reed-Bush-Lay
But the employees didn't lose a great deal of money. The employees could rightfully complain that Enron deluded them into thinking they had a lot of money, when they might have quit and moved somewhere else. That's fair enough. But they didn't lose something that never existed in the first place.
Sugarland - home of TOM DeLay...as in Tom of Lay
My prediction is that the political scandal will limp along without much serious consequence to Congress. There will be an increased momentum to campaign finace reform, but unless the economy goes sour, it will fade. If the economy weakens further, look out. Bush will be weaker than Clinton post Monica and the GOP will get creamed in the off year elections.
Was it REALLY suicide????
The Times and the Post are in heat now...competing against one another, the best investigative journalists in the known universe, each and every one battling each other for the next big story...
In less than a month of frenzy, things are getting wilder by the moment...
and what is most interesting about the Rove-Reed payola story isn't the story itself but its attribution to an "un-named Rove associate"
The Rove-Reed thing is BIG...E
Campaign Finance Bill
Heads for House Vote
Enron scandal provided the critical momentum for stalled effort to ban unlimited "soft money."
The problem is that this is unravelling so fast on so many fronts that its hard to digest
Soon, very soon, this is going to turn on the House Leadership...Tom DeLay's Committee for a Republican Majority and ENRON
HA!
The TRIAL lawyers are lining up...Lerach was first in an ever growing queue...
Indeed not 5 minutes ago, CNN interviewed another TRIAL lawyer bottom line - the piece was legalized champetry - "Look at me...I am cute and smart..."
The suits aren't going to rest with Enron and Andersen as corportate entities but rather veils will be pierced and financiers such as JP Morgan are in deep shit....
This was the 7th largest US corportation...do you have any earthly idea what the finanical underbelly of a corporation that size is???
and they smell both blood and MUHNAY!
BTW, Cliff Baxter was mentioned in Watkins' letter as someone who "complained mightily" about some of the improprieties.
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP is the nation's largest class action law firm representing defrauded investors, consumers, companies and public entities in major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Milberg Weiss is a 190-lawyer firm with offices in New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boca Raton, Philadelphia and Seattle.
Good start...just ramp that up several fold...
Bush is Houston is Enron is Rice University is University of Houston is Bob Mosbacher is James Baker is Ken Lay....
Maybe someday, you'll leave the dark side and turn your energy toward something productive.
Until then, sic 'em boy! Arf! Grwowrf! Grrrrr!
The HOUSTON LIVESTOCK SHOW AND RODEO!
The Houston answer to Mardi Gras in New Orleans, where I grew up....very similar...new money Houston aping Old (Olde and dead) NO money....functionally however the two cities are identical when it comes to coroporate, social, political elites...
vice is nice but incest is best
Bogus???
As if I AM WHOMPING IT UP!
Turn on the damned TV!
A former Enron Corp. executive who resigned from the company last May was found shot to death in a car Friday, an apparent suicide, authorities said.
Police in the suburb, Sugarland, confirmed the death of 43-year-old J. Clifford Baxter, a former Enron vice chairman. He was shot in the head.
"We are deeply saddened by the tragic loss of our friend and colleague, Cliff Baxter. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and friends," the company said in a statement.
Spokesman Mark Palmer had no additional comment.
Baxter was vice chairman of Enron when he resigned in May 2001, several months before the energy company's collapse.
At the time his resignation was announced, then-president Jeff Skilling said Baxter had made "a tremendous contribution to Enron's evolution, particularly as a member of the team that built Enron's wholesale business."
Their big annual party is the Rodeo, these are the avenues of Big Oil power in the US...and Poppy and Carlucci and Rove and Baker and Mosbacher are all knee deep in the same steer shit
---requires registration, I think---
UR Tony Lamas all shiney for the next Bush Black Tie and Boots soiree?
And it's ROAD-e-O, doofus. But you knew that.
Still 9,000 tickets left for the Bob Dylan concert. It's the rodeo debut for the old Hibbing, Minnesota, cowboy. His new CD, Love & Theft aint bad for a codger. First Dylan album I've bought since Highway 61. Okay, I'm a codger, too.
If this behavior is not strictly confined to Enron, look out! We could end up with a crippled market, whose ability to bring capital to businesses may be crippled for a generation.
IOW if an investor makes a decision to buy stock based on the public information that the SEC requires, and the information is as bogus as Enron's was, how can that investor rely on the existing safeguards to insure that s/he won't send new money down a new rat hole with their next investment in Wall Street? When nothing happens to Andersen as a company, but only a few sacrificial lambs are led to slaughter as a sin offering, will investors have the necessary confidence that Enron is an abberation, or is there enough damage done that money will flow out of the Dow and Nasdaq to safer markets with more effective controls?
The guy from the Economist was of the opinion that if real reform is not forthcomming, the market will be crippled for years to come.
The quality order their boots from here-
The Dehner Company
Cowboys work in Justins, Nocona, or (gasp) Nikes but dress up in hand made pair. (They also don't have Skol rings in their jeans.)
You know, about those institutions you say won't tolerate Enron accounting?
Investors Lured to Enron Deals by Inside Data
nron (news/quote) executives enticed wealthy individuals and institutions to invest in one of the partnerships that helped wreck the company by dangling the prospect that inside knowledge could potentially help them double their money in a matter of months, according to partnership records and prospective investors.
In dozens of pages, the confidential records of a partnership called LJM2 describe the inner workings of an entity at the heart of the Enron debacle. The records show company executives wearing two hats, offering banks, insurance companies, Wall Street firms and wealthy investors inside knowledge about Enron and its off-the-books holdings — information that they denied company shareholders.
...
For example, documents sent to potential investors in 2000 revealed that Enron controlled about 50 percent more assets than disclosed in Enron's securities filings. The difference — $34 billion versus $51 billion, as of June 30, 1999 — was the value of assets moved off Enron's books through various partnership deals.
The disclosures created conflicts for Wall Street firms, as well. For example, the investment banking arm of Merrill Lynch (news/quote) & Company, which underwrote the LJM2 offering, was aware of the off-balance-sheet figures for Enron; indeed, Merrill's name is on the cover page of the offering containing the data.
But because the numbers were confidential, that information could not be shared with Merrill brokerage clients who were investing in Enron stock. Joe Cohen, a Merrill spokesman, declined to comment.
The type of insider trading we discuss here is the illegal variety that most of us think of when we hear the term; the type of insider trading that achieved wide-spread notoriety in the 1980s with the SEC's civil cases and the United States Department of Justice's criminal cases against Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky and which inspired even Hollywood's imagination with the movie "Wall Street".
That really came from an SEC article? I'd like to see it.
Maybe my recollection is wrong, but I don't believe Milken was convicted of insider trader, unless "parking" is technically considered insider trading. Boesky was slime, but I don't believe Milken was convicted of anything that most Americans would even consider a crime.
So do http://www.StompersBoots.com/>South of Market Leather Queens
Dehners rule...fuck that cowboy shit
(I found the "article")
Word up on the streets of Sugarland...
- he "bitched to high heaven" as a cover for his subsequent option exercises...
OR
- Poppy's bois did him
I was hoping it might bring about a renewed interest in Campaign Finance Reforem, which is needed by ALL parties, not just one or the other.
I'm interested in why you think Campaign Finance reform is needed, but this isn't the thread for that general discussion.
In an attempt to keep on topic, what about Enron relates to CFR, other than that it helps provide evidence against the need for Reform?
TNR piece has some interesting observations about the relative value of campaign contributions as opposed to lobbies, where the real money is and no plans on limits--and how impossible it would be to stop it, anyway.
Has Karl Rove been arrested for the murder yet?
Dan Burton has to hold hearings first!
Unless The Ubermoderator overrules the ruling on the field....campaign finance is on topic since Enron has provided the raison d'etre for the discharge petition and since Enron was such a powerful doer in all the evils (real or imagined) that campaign finance reform is supposed to address...
First down.
Sens. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, and Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, co-sponsors of a measure banning unregulated ``soft-money'' donations, asked Bush to make the announcement during his State of the Union speech to Congress next Tuesday.
- As depression consumed him, Vince Foster found it hard to eat, to sleep. He could not concentrate at work. His sense of humor dried up. His heart pounded and his stomach boiled.
But the White House deputy counsel was dependable to the last. Despite his illness Foster wrapped up stray details of his late father's estate and paid the family bills, as he had promised his wife he would.
Only then did he kill himself. Special counsel Robert B. Fiske Jr. concluded that Foster's death in Fort Marcy Park last July was a suicide. The Fiske investigation involved four lawyers, five physicians, seven FBI agents, approximately 125 witnesses; also DNA tests, microscopes and lasers.
- And indeed, from day one, conservative critics argued that Fiske, though a Republican, was not Republican enough, and had professional ties to then-White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum.
Throughout the spring, researchers from the Republican Study Committee, conservative activist Floyd Brown's Citizens United and GOP members of Congress dug into Fiske's background, assembling a dossier of connections between Fiske and the Clinton administration that they felt involved apparent conflicts. They noted his ties to Nussbaum; they criticized his role in leaking the names of Republican judicial nominees to liberal groups; they discovered he had once donated to the campaign of a Democrat.
Fiske, in an April letter to Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), said he had been questioned about some of those issues before the Justice Deparment appointed him, and it was concluded that they would not affect "my objectivity and my ability to fully investigate."
Still, when Fiske issued his first report, concluding last month that White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster had committed suicide, his opponents were ready to pounce.
"When the report came out on Vince Foster's death we went through it with a fine-tooth comb and we found glaring deficiencies," said Burton, who helped organize a group of Republican members of Congress who wrote the three-judge panel to complain about Fiske.
"It was a slipshod investigation," Burton said, that most notably failed to resolve why a confidential witness who found Foster's body did not notice the gun that law enforcement officials said was in Foster's hand.
From glen to glen and down the mountainside
The summer's gone and all the roses falling
'Tis you, 'tis you must go and I must bide.
And where is Fund today? Shit-canned for fucking his mistresses' daughter.
Hey -- he was likely as not the girl's father!
The assistance came to light when Rep. Henry Waxman of California produced a draft of the energy plan that contained no language that would have Bush Cabinet secretaries push energy development in India, where Enron had a money-losing power plant. The language was in the final energy plan.
In a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney, whose energy task force formulated the final policy, Waxman said his understanding is that any changes in the draft, which was reviewed by agencies across the government, "were made under the direction of the White House."
The final report adds language recommending that "the President direct the Secretaries of State and Energy to work with India's Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to help India maximize its domestic oil and gas production."
See Andrew Sullivan's Three-Faced Attack on Paul Krugman
"Republican sources tell CBS News that the White House is PANICked over Enron and have told Republicans who are critical of GOP dealings with the bankrupt energy giant to keep quiet" 
As the workers who lost their retirement savings in Enron (news/quote) stock demonstrated, Americans are not always the best investors. And sometimes their companies set up incentives that can make things worse.
The first sentence is true enough, but the second sentence isn't supported very well in the article. The GM plan includes some incentives, but a salaried employee with 20 years experience need not have more than roughly 3% of the total in company stock. Hourly workers could hold the optimal amount (zero).
The only Enron incentive listed for employee's own money was "corporate culture". (Yes, the match was company stock.)
Pretty weak example.
Bill Moyer's NOW - Enron's Bidniss Practices
KRUGMAN and ENRON: From The Best of the Web
ROTFALMAO!!!
Maybe he knows who killed that guy who "committed suicide."
Come on Rosie whisper it to us !
"STELZER, KRISTOL AWASH IN SECRET ENRON CASH
Who Else at the Standard Silently On the Take?
In kicking up a false fuss about Paul Krguman, Andrew Sullivan has inadvertently revealed a hitherto secret cash operation linking higher-ups at the Weekly Taliban Standard with the Enron Corporation.
According to National Review writer Larry Kudlow, Irwin Stelzer of the Weekly Standard and London Sunday Times -- former Reagan director of regulatory affairs, Hudson Institute fellow and a close confidante of right-wing press mogul Rupert Murdoch -- organized the consulting operation.
Apparently, Stelzer wangled cushy 50K a year consultant board appointments for various journalist and political buddies -- none of whom has divulged his or her involvement until confronted over the past few days.
Among Stelzer's Enron hirelings was WTS editor William Kristol, who worked with Enron for two years for a cool 100K, and never told the public --even as his magazine covered the Enron beat.
For its trouble, Enron has and is still receiving wonderful notices at the Weekly Taliban Standard -- most recently this essay about all the good that Enron has done, by none other than the right-wing shill, bag man and enforcer, Irwin Stelzer.
"I won't rat out others on the 'advisory board,'" Kristol said, confirming that there was something deeply unsavory about his connection to Enron, and suggesting why he (unlike Paul Krugman) did not volunteer information about his link long ago, but only now, when challenged.
Asked it he would return the money, or donate it to a fund for Enron's defrauded employees, Kristol smugly replied that he had "donated" the money to his daughter's college tuition."
Rep. Jim Greenwood, R-Pa., told MSNBC that the oversight and investigations subcommittee he chairs saw Baxter “as a good guy in the company ... that might shed some light on how this debacle took place.”
While Greenwood didn’t question Baxter’s death as an apparent suicide, he said “there is nothing in the documents that we’ve seen, nothing in the interviews we’ve conducted, that would lead us to believe that he had anything that he needed to be ashamed of. So it’s perplexing for us that, of all the players, he would be the one to take his life.”
Greenwood added that the subcommittee had been “very interested in speaking with Mr. Baxter” because he had been cited in a key Enron memo as one of the internal critics of Enron’s financial dealings.
So Cheney had him killed, execution style
Um, I'm not sure I follow that . . .
Neither did the Canadian bank.."
Sierra Club Files Suit Against Cheney in SF; GAO Tells Krusty to Kome Klean or Its His Ass
Poopstain Alert!
Former Enron executives disclosed yesterday that a top Bush campaign adviser, Edward Gillespie, served as the company's key conduit to the White House and House leaders. Gillespie's firm received $525,000 over nine months last year from Enron for lobbying that included the energy task force and economic stimulus legislation with tax provisions that would have helped Enron.
Next up -> Hard Reality for the Congressman from Sugar Land, Tom of Lay
Bottom line.
And it isn't even that early, so I don't know what my excuse is.
TJ, you may want to add this Findlaw link to the butterscotch bar. It has all the Enron docs in pdf.
The findlaw link has some interesting reading. That attorney, Nancy Temple, has some splainin' to do.
Interesting piece about the history of Enron coverage.
Also, I don't know if anyone has been watching the Lehrer Hour, but the business reporter is doing a bangup job of explaining this. He's a funny guy, too.
Last night was good when he interviewed that reporter from Fortune.
Transcript
When I was in industry and I was a senior financial executive at two New York Stock Exchange companies, then the analysts would always say to me, "you've got to put us in the deal because, you know, my compensation depends on getting a piece of this sale." I used to say to the analysts, "You want to be in the deal? We're going to earn $1.35 next year--this is what each division is going to make, this is what the company is going to do. And if you write or say anything different from what I'm telling you, you won't be in our next offer."
PAUL SOLMAN: You mean, "Your company, your bank, will not get a piece of the action."
PETER SIRIS: When I was in industry and then...
PAUL SOLMAN: You would actually say that to them.
PETER SIRIS: Absolutely. Why are you looking at me like it's strange? I wanted one story out there. I wanted every analyst to have the same story, and if they weren't willing to go along with exactly the way I wanted that story managed, I wouldn't take their phone calls.
GOP Sources Describe a WH in Panic
A picture is worth a thousand words 
What was it that Abe Lincoln said about "You can fool some of the people some of the time"?
Enter Rosie to dismiss Lincoln as a Gay Liberal.
Why is Enron a problem for conservatives? Even if the Bush administration turns out to be squeaky clean, which we'll never know unless it starts to be more forthcoming, the scandal threatens perceptions that the right has spent decades creating.
After all that effort to discredit concerns about the gap between haves and have-nots as obsolete "class warfare," along comes a real-life story that reads like a leftist morality play: wealthy executives make off with millions while ordinary workers lose their jobs and their life savings. After all that effort to convince people that the private sector can police itself, the most admired company in America turns out to have been a giant Ponzi scheme — and the most respected accounting firm turns out to have been an accomplice.
So eat shit Rosie
Again
Richard Cory
Whenever Richard Cory went town town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.
And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he
walked.
And he was rich--yes, richer than a king--
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was every thing
To make us wish that we were in his place.
So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the
bread;
and Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his
head.
Edwin Arlington Robinson
This is the Fortune article by Bethany McLean, back in March of last year, that is generally mentioned as an exception to the media failure. It's pretty fascinating to see all these analysts who are bullish on Enron while admitting they don't have the foggiest idea how they make their money.
The Enron CFO Fast-ow was named CFO of the Year
PETER SIRIS: Because if you don't own a stock, you don't care that somebody says, "Don't buy it." You own ten million shares of a stock and somebody says, "This stock is a fraud," and the stock goes down, you hate that person. They made your stock go down, okay? So one of the reasons you don't see analysts put out "sell" recommendations on stocks is it only makes enemies.
When I was in the business, my boss once said that there are four things that can happen. You can be right, and your client takes your advice, and everyone's happy. You can be wrong, and your client doesn't do as you suggested, and that's not great, but it's okay. You can be wrong, and he takes your advice, and at least you're in it together. But if you're right, and he ignores the advice, the relationship is toast.
Yes, that comment struck me as dead on, too.
I was watching Charlie Rose last night and Kurt Eichenwald, the Times reporter, mentioned that the really striking thing about Enron is what lousy management decisions they made.
I can't find the article--it's probably not written yet--but he described many people as complaining that everything would have been fine if they'd just been able to tap a $5 billion line of credit they should have had access to, except there was a clause that prevented their use of it if there was a material negative business impact affecting the company. So they couldn't use the line of credit.
But at no point does anyone realize that gee, it was pretty stupid to get a line of credit we couldn't use in an emergency. What else would you need $5 billion for, if not for the sort of emergency that the loan can't cover?
When asked why they included the clause, the people always say, "Oh, we got a lower interest rate with it in."
RANK AND YANK
Skilling took the performance review process he learned at the consulting group McKinsey to Enron.
Every six months the frenzy would repeat itself. Employees and managers would scramble to find reviewers among supervisors, subordinates and peers. Self-evaluations were projected onto screens and debated.
It took three weeks to chew over an employee's record and rate it against everyone else who held a similar position. Workers were ranked on a scale of one to five, with the number determining their bonuses, and their fate.
"Those who don't really meet the standards get cycled out of the company pretty quickly, which is probably good for them and good for the company," Lay told the University of Virginia researchers in April 2000.
Individual excellence was in. Teamwork was out.
"People became proprietary about their deals," said one Enron veteran. "Why should I help Johnny if I'm rated against Johnny?"
As the New Economy soured, there was much less success to go around. That only increased the competition. "As the company internally realized it was entering troubled times, rank-and-yank turned into a more political and crony-based system," said Bruner, the Virginia professor.
Some managers lied, altering records on employees they wanted gone, said Charles Turcich, an information technology contract worker who spent 18 months at Enron.
"Managers would change time from sick time to just 'absent' to make [workers] look bad. They'd keep spreadsheets of attendance and go back and change them," Turcich said.
"Enron was a really unpleasant place to work....I locked my desk every night so my colleagues wouldn't steal my work."
"HOUSTON -- The woman in high heels and dark glasses stood on the brink of the road, chin thrust high, cardboard hoisted aloft for all of rush hour to read: "Ex-Enron employee. Will work for fair salary and benefits. Seeking a company with integrity."
This parkway twists from the marble and ivy of the well-heeled River Oaks [Poppy's Place!] enclave down to the shadows of downtown's skyscrapers. A few hours after sunrise, it stood thick with the sedans of energy barons, receptionists and lawyers."
No news to Californians!
Enron had no equal. Its name graced the polished trestles of the new baseball stadium
It was no secret that Kenneth L. Lay was one of George W. Bush's most lavish benefactors, and a longtime supporter of the elder George Bush.
Someone tell Concerned..hell someone tell the Moron!
I was so hoping your column would do a review of BLACK HAWK DOWN today, talking about what hunks those Rangers were.
Or, to do at least a paragraph on the "bowel, woow, woow" of SNOW DOGS, the movie I was forced to watch with my twins Saturday afternoon..
Or, to touch on the temper tandrum that fellow NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman had on Friday when he took on those mean old "conservatives" because they had the nerve to bring up the $50K he took from ENRON to write favorable stories in FORTUNE and SLATE magazines.
The L.A. Times joins the VWRC, Krugman accuses.
Take note Rosie O'Sullivan!
bwahahahaha
All those River Oaks Bushies in the GHP are lookin a bit glum..
I suggest we send them our very own clown, Rosie O' Jesus
Cheney Set Up for GAO Suit - Refuses to Turn Over Lists of Meetings With Ken Lay
What say you?
He has said he suffered "significant personal losses" in selling his entire portfolio of Enron stock, for $12 million, last year.
Maybe if he'd stuck around, he could be crying he lost it all...oh, wait, he was in management!
Unvarnished advice? More like custom tinted advice.
Then Cheney Had Him Executed
CNN usually takes a month or more to put up their transcripts...
I TOLD y'all Fat Andy can't waddle backwards very well...
Personal request though
Please leave the smut on the Sex Thread...its 10 am, I am going to Mass, I don't need visions of Rosie in her dress ... Hot Milky scum on Sullivan's disgusting FatBody...
I may have to go looking for nude photos of Ralph "BoiDe-Lay" Reed...
And now they do.
The Freepers think Baxter was offed!
To: kattracks
A close friend of Baxter said he thought the former Enron vice chairman had been murdered. "It's absolutely incongruous that this guy would kill himself," the friend said. "He's not the kind of person who would ever do himself in." The friend said Baxter loved yachting and had recently traded in his 72-foot boat for one with a larger engine so he could travel to Florida in two days.
This is a simple yet interesting article. In it the cause of death is pinned down to suicide. Reasons are given, and the matter is seemingly put to rest, until... Then they include the above comments by a friend. If this is a close friend, then I'd have to think he knew Baxter fairly well.
For the time being I'm going to accept the suicide theory, but I'm still not convinced.
Shades of Webster Hubbel?
FreeperFreaks...gotta love em!
To: kattracks
Statement: "It's official: Enron big's death was suicide."
Reply: Yes. However, if history is any guide, his suicide shall be but the first of many "suicides" and "accidents" occurring to "Enron Big's."
Well I have to run...go pick up my copy of Bias
Inside a Horror Show - WP
Nothing in our country will ever be the same.
Familiar words, to be sure.
Only we're talking about Enron, not the war.
This could go on for a looong time.
This nicely captures the gotcha coming and going for Thomas White, current Secretary of the Army. If he's so good, how come he lost $500 million at Enron, and if he was just a figurehead with no real corporate chief credentials, why was he given the Army to run?
I also thought this was an interesting point:
Enron is not a political scandal in the sense of gotcha-gotcha-now-resign. But it has exposed the administration's sleazy corporatism and underlined its relative indifference to the market principles that form the Republican Party's more attractive side. The folks at the White House tolerate the free-trade efforts of the trade czar, Bob Zoellick, but they don't really like him. They hired a free marketeer to run the office overseeing regulation, but they won't necessarily back him up. Their agriculture secretary says the right things on market-distorting farm subsidies, but they don't have the stomach to fight Congress on this issue. They won't even stand up for school vouchers, despite Bush's emphasis on education. What the White House team really cares about is cutting taxes, which has less to do with market principle than with rewarding backers.
Name just one.
Who do YOU think killed Cliff Baxter?
Let me guess -- Bill Clinton, right?
Why, haven't you heard, cllrdr? He committed suicide.
Poor Ken was deceived not only by his own law firm but by those nasty accountants at Andersen.
Uh, CG, in your zeal to attack JaH, I think you missed the sarcasm, not to mention the irony.
Most people would think someone was joking when they said "heh" after an obvious joke.
You didn't think Vince Foster committed suicide.
Or Ron Brown.
Hey gang, remember how Ron Brown was supposed to have been shot while the plane was crashing?
CalGal probably thought you meant to type '..ehh..'.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Why don't you flush your bs where it belongs? I never indicated here, nor seriously thought in actuality, that that Vince Foster did otherwise than commit suicide.
Leave it to Lefties to go nuts with the conspiracy mongering. VRWC, indeed.
Wanna see some conspiracy mongering...Cllrs a piker...go to Message # 685 or for a real hoot
Freeper Madness
Still after you read up on the Army Secty's nine year career as a top Enron exec and the more you learn about Poppy and River Oaks....
It was a TEXAS coroner
Then what? Sounds kinky, IAC.
monger....monger....monger...
You tell ME how the MoronMind works
But I think its a fuckin hoot. These right wing wack jobs..their minds have been so twisted by John Fund and the Conintern during the Clinton era, they're now turning their paranoia on Bush!
I really have no idea what you're referring too. Course, you appear to have spent your whole life searching out the goofballs and crackpots of either political persuasion in any forum and, for instance, you have nominated yourself for that honor in the Mote.
Shitcanned from the WSJ for fucking his mistress' daughter.
They probably figured that he was the father.
(excerpt from LATimes): "Cliff was a wonderful man. It's a perfect example of how the media can play such havoc and destruction in people's lives. This is the ultimate. This is a loss of life."
Andersen heaves sigh of relief.
FreeRepublic.com...
Ask ALD or Rosie or Cyg I think..who are regulars
THE REAL POINT: But the point of this is not some smoking gun proving a nefarious quid pro quo. Washington corruption doesn’t usually get that crude. What this is about is the enmeshment of some of the pundit class in major corporate money. It seems to me that an integral part of a journalist’s vocation is independence – independence from any monetary interests that could even be perceived as clouding his or her judgment. Disclosure is a must – and not just when the subject matter comes up a few years down the line. The reading public has a right to know if their favorite columnist is getting private money from major corporations, especially when it’s to the tune of $100,000. They have a right to know how much and for what. We demand it of politicians. Why should we not demand it of the journalists who police them? To put this in perspective, Paul Krugman got more Enron money for adding his name to their advisory board (and precious little else) than any member of Congress. In fact, he got more than double the ten-year cumulative total of the biggest Enron beneficiary, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. If it’s corrupting for politicians, why is it any less corrupting for pundits, who can exercise as much power as many Congressmen and often have more influence than individual Senators? And what’s really amazing is the sheer contempt this pundit class seems to have for criticism. Check out Paul Krugman’s arrogant preening cited below. Kristol made a bit of a joke of it. I’m sorry, but part of the integrity of journalism, as with finance, is transparency. It seems to me incumbent on every pundit who took money from Enron to disclose it now, in detail.
The only thing that would make it better would be for Krugman to talk about Sully's HOT MILKY LOADS
and how Big Pharma is paying his bills to sing their praises.
GLOBAL CROSSING BANKRUPTCY:
GOP INSIDERS QUESTION DNC
CHAIRMAN MCAULIFFE PROFIT;
TURNED $100,000 INTO $18,000,000
What's the Bush total? Do you really want to use this line of reasoning? I'll grant you that any recipient of funds of, say more than 1000 dollars, has been improperly influenced, and should resign their positions. Are you good with that?
Or alternatively, do you really think it's an effective line of reasoning to say when your folks are being called crooks to say that the other guys are too? Are your guys any less crooked in this scenario?
I don't think Jay is 'good with that', for starters.
Raising the question Why Does Enron Upset DuhBya So?
What is it about Enron that makes George W. Bush so careless with the facts? First there was his amnesic appearance before reporters in the Oval Office in which he suggested that he hadn't really known Enron CEO Ken Lay (a.k.a., "Kenny Boy") before 1994, and that Lay had backed Bush's opponent, Ann Richards, in that year's Texas gubernatorial campaign. Short of the most Clintonian parsing, both statements were untrue.
Jokes on me..
Good one TD!
The Enron debacle could not have occurred were it not for the stranglehold that it and other special interests enjoy over our political system.
Enron & Campaign Finance Reform
Made him a Pioneer! 
Hey, cllrdr. Look who's claiming that the Enron suicide wasn't?
ENRONgate
Former Enron Exec's apparent suicide: another Bush body count?
That's right. Your buddies at the 'American Liberal' website. So, how long before your volte face?
Bwahahahahah!
No, I didn't. So what did Lay get from GHWB?
Add to that a huge rip off of California taxpayers
BartCop is also joining the conspiracy chorus...
As for me...I still believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone...
On the other hand, the coroner is from Tom DeLay's home district...
We at least ought to have Ken Starr look into this one..
WASHINGTON -- Army Secretary Thomas White, a former top executive at Enron Corp., is coming under scrutiny by congressional investigators probing links between the Bush administration and the collapsed Houston energy trader.
White, who served as vice chairman of Enron Energy Services, an Enron subsidiary, before assuming the Army post last May, once lobbied the federal government for a $25 million, 10-year contract for Enron to provide energy services to an Army base in Brooklyn, N.Y. And as his former company was spiraling into bankruptcy last fall, White has acknowledged that he had frequent meetings and telephone conversations with his former colleagues.
The Houston Chronicle
Its insistence on secrecy about Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force stems from the same root as its attempt to permit a Republican national chairman to double as a registered federal lobbyist. That root is arrogance of power, which infects administrations without regard to party or ideology." Robert Novak
"Bush's first remarks about his ties to Lay were Clintonian." George Will
I am confused: Do you regard it as some kind of damning accusation of Bush that he imitates Clinton?
To the Editor:
Re "Cheney Is Set to Battle Congress to Keep His Enron Talks Secret" (front page, Jan. 28):
When Hillary Rodham Clinton held secret meetings to formulate national health care policy, conservatives were in an uproar. Now they are defending Vice President Dick Cheney's refusal to release the minutes of his meetings with corporate executives on national energy policy. The hypocrisy is amazing.
We watched for eight years as the Republicans dragged us through petty make-believe "scandals" in the Clinton administration.
Where are the outraged voices now that there appears to be a real one at hand?
DEREK GREENWOOD
Santa Cruz, Calif., Jan. 28, 2002
TOP DEM OPENED THE DOOR
One example of dishonesty in the linked column by Morris, attacking Democratic Senator Chris Dodd:
"In 1995, it was Dodd who rammed through legislation, overriding President Clinton's veto, to protect firms like Andersen . . ."
You'd never know it from Morris's description, but the legislation he's referring to is the bipartisan securities litigation reform (so-called) bill. Dodd co-sponsored it with Republican Pete Domenici, and it received bipartisan support, with majorities sufficient to override President Clinton's veto. To say Dodd "rammed" this legislation through is misleading. (And how would a Democrat "ram" legislation through a Republican-majority Senate, anyway?)
Furthermore, the statute applied across the board to publicly traded corporations from (allegedly) unwarranted shareholder suits, not merely aiding "firms like Andersen".
It's telling that the Republicans' mouthpieces, like the New York Post, have to resort to such dishonest characterizations from dishonest characters.
UPDATE: In an effort to distance himself from the Enron case, the president will urge businesses to be more responsible in his State of the Union address, the White House says. 
You hit the nail on the head again
, Cygnus? You must be desperate
And so too Cyg but so too our Warriour King..which explains the "unnamed Bush sources" launching their latest smear - Terry McAulliffe...
Do these people think we're ALL Morons Rosie?
It was unclear to whom Bush was referring Monday when he accused "some" of seeking to politicize the issue. The committees probing the Enron matter in the House are chaired by Republicans.
Bush's comment about contacts between Enron and his administration was a reference to previously disclosed calls from Lay to Commerce Secretary Don Evans and Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill. Both Cabinet secretaries said they did nothing after the calls that could be construed as helping Enron.
The Houston-based company, the seventh-largest in the country until its sudden demise, has been the source of large campaign donations for the last decade or more. While its employees, directors and political action committee gave to Democrats as well, 74% of nearly $6 million in various types of contributions went to Republicans. Bush personally raised more than $114,000 in PAC and individual contributions from Enron in the 1999-2000 election cycle. Bush's inauguration fund received $300,000 from the company.
``They're going to kill the energy bill with Enron, and everybody will go along,'' said Christine Uspenski, an electricity policy analyst with Schwab Capital Markets in Washington.
Faced with a truncated legislative session and a plethora of Enron inquests, prospects are grim for a full vote on comprehensive electricity restructuring, she said.
``It's going to collapse under its own weight in a session that's been delayed by the fact that we all have to do all this due diligence on Enron,'' Uspenski said. ``Congress can't afford not to look vigilant.''
In 1973-1974, I was a first year law student in DC, workin on the Hill. I followed Watergate RELIGIOUSLY.
I'd totally forgotten about that!
And Ohio, nice of you to ignore the central point that Dodd took in huge contributions from the direct benefactors of the legislation. You must be taking a page from Ted Kennedy's book on how to distort.
When George W. Bush co-owned the Houston Astros and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron.
When George W. Bush co-owned the Texas Rangers and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron.
A year after George W. Bush sold his interest in the Texas Rangers, construction began on a new stadium for the Houston Astros, and Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the latter team's park after Enron.
Now, if that doesn't implicate George Bush then I don't know what does.
January 29, 2002
The Gist
Michelangelo Signorile
A Pundit’s Glass Houses
Once again, Andrew Sullivan has whirled himself into a self-righteous little tizzy that even has some of the self-righteous scratching their heads–and which, yet again, exposes a hypocrisy on his part that is more conspicuous than a bearded pundit on too much testosterone.
He’s railing about how unethical it is for certain columnists and editors to have taken money from Enron in the past, and appears to be saying that they need to disclose such facts each and every time they write critically about Enron, including the full dollar amounts they received. Conveniently, the most notable among these columnists and editors happen to be a liberal and others of his sparring partners. Meanwhile, Sullivan himself has been taking money from a man who is a George W. Bush buddy, a brother of a major Bush fundraiser and a covert p.r. operative who has schemed and scammed for Philip Morris and was exposed a few years ago for creating a front group for Big Tobacco. And Sullivan hasn’t disclosed the cash transaction when he’s written glowingly of this noted gay Republican–not to mention when he’s penned endless love letters to Bush.
To Sullivan, full disclosure of his entire past financial relationship with Enron was required by Krugman, including full dollar amounts, within the text of any critical column about Enron. Perhaps motivating Sullivan was his bitter experience last year when some in the media raised questions after it became known that he was going to accept ads on his website from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association. The critics wanted to know if The New York Times Magazine, where Sullivan is a contributing writer, would allow Sullivan to continue to write articles in which he defended drugmakers against calls that they allow poor, AIDS-ridden countries to make generic, cheaper versions of AIDS drugs. The Times released a statement noting that if Sullivan were to write on the pharmaceutical industry he would have to disclose in any such article that he’s on the dole from PhRMA.
Francis now works with DCI Group, a p.r. firm that has represented Big Tobacco and the NRA, founded by a former R.J. Reynolds tobacco company field coordinator. During the 90s, Francis had his own firm, State Affairs Company, which had Philip Morris among its clients. In 1996 SAC was exposed in The Washington Post as having created a front group for Philip Morris–a supposedly nonpartisan citizens’ watchdog group that was secretly collecting data on behalf of Big Tobacco to use against trial lawyers (detailing their political contributions, etc.).
Michelangelo Signorile can be reached a www.signorile.com
The last year TNR made any money was 1993, the year that Sullivan was editor.
Are you referring to the shareholder litigation reform bill as "legislation . . . that allowed Enron to engage in unethical practices"??
If you want to believe Morris called Hillary Clinton a lesbian in order to help Israel, self-delude away.
If his dwindling T-cell count doesn't snuff him out first.
whatever gets the job done !
Poor babies. Forced to sell two of their three propereties in Aspen.
Sully will keel over from illegal steroid abuse before anyone at TNR makes a call, dear.
If his dwindling T-cell count doesn't snuff him out first.
whatever gets the job done !
This wishing for the demise of others is one of the most repulsive aspects of the Left.
That's why I think it's something personal between CD and Sullivan.
NOBODY treats me like a nigger and gets away with it!
Props. . . .is another matter.
Anybody else have any living-on-less tips for the Lays?
"This is The Great War Year"
Last summer the Bush Administration canceled a Defense Department contract valued up to $400 million with the soon-to-be bankrupt GLOBAL CROSSING after question were raised about the bidding process -- a process top-level GOP insiders now suggest was sweetened by players from the previous administration!
If any of you here continue to focus on Enron without even considering Global Crossing, then go stick you head in a toilet because your opinion ain't worth shit.
And besides what do you think, that LD is leader of the Vast LMC?
Already told you - I AM!
GAO to Announce Lawsuit Against Cheney Today
"Bush's reaction to the dwindling surplus is kind of a 'What, me worry?' strategy. Sure, we can keep cutting taxes, heap on the spending for the military and homeland defense, pay off the debt and save Social Security all at the same time. It just defies arithmetic and at least one strand of the party's heritage. And as his pal Ken Lay should have taught Mr. Bush, the fat lady eventually sings. We should not kid ourselves that the lessons of Enron apply solely to business. The vanishing $4 trillion and continued precariousness of Social Security and Medicare should set off alarms. Otherwise, the taxpayers may be the ones getting Enroned."
Maj. Dick Meyer - Liberal Conspiracy of America
CBSnews.com Special Action Group
"This is capitalism. You invest in stock, it goes up, it goes down. You know, if you don't like capitalism, move to Cuba or China."
Even Bob Novak gets a chuckle out of the McAulliffe smear..
The guy made an IPO killing like many Americans.
Poppy for instance....took a shit load of same stock.
Only similarity is that they are both bankrupt.
And if those two GAO investigators I chatted with last month are any indication, those junk yard dogs are about to rip a large chunk of fat out of Cheney's lying corrupt ass
Here's my allegation about Global Crossing: It bought influence into the Clinton White House, after the door was opened by making McAuliffe rich, which then unethically rammed through a defense department deal for which Global Crossing would benefit financially.
What say you to that? Are you going to get all Kinsleyish on me and just call it "dumb"?
Oh....my bad...
I forgot our Double Secret Special Action Group in Northern VA has given Larry Klayman our Triple Action Mind Control Drug
Additionally, Cheney's lawyers argue, there has been no congressional committee vote to authorize the GAO inquiry, just a request from two ranking Democratic members of two different House committees, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and John D. Dingell (D-Mich.).
Then there's the fact that David Walker, the GAO's comptroller, was a Clowntoon appointee.
Sounds like frivolous Leftist horseshit to me.
The Bush Defense Department awarded a big contract to World Crossing? Obviously, this must be Clinton's doing.
It was a shocking event. With incredible speed, our perception of the world and of ourselves changed. It seemed that before we had lived in a kind of blind innocence, with no sense of the real dangers that lurked. Now we had experienced a rude awakening, which changed everything.
No, I'm not talking about Sept. 11; I'm talking about the Enron scandal.
One of the great clichés of the last few months was that Sept. 11 changed everything. I never believed that. An event changes everything only if it changes the way you see yourself. And the terrorist attack couldn't do that, because we were victims rather than perpetrators. Sept. 11 told us a lot about Wahhabism, but not much about Americanism.
The Enron scandal, on the other hand, clearly was about us. It told us things about ourselves that we probably should have known, but had managed not to see. I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society."
Paul Krugman
High-profile investors in the company included former President George Bush, who picked up shares eventually worth millions in lieu of an $80,000 fee for a speech.
and
Winnick [Chairman of Global Crossing] was a generous donor to the Republican Party, giving $200,000 in 1999 and 2000.
-yawn-
The sound of Leftists beating on the Enron nag.
Naah. What can you expect from a damned Socialist 'Rat motherfucker?
* Pay off your credit card balances and save the mondy your no longer spending on interest.
* Keep your car a year or two longer -- do routine maintenance and small repairs yourself.
* Shop with a list.
* Don't buy any new clothes until you've paid off your current wardrobe.
* Eat more meals at home.
While you are looking for a job or hoping your junk bonds turn around, consider taking seasonal or part time employment. Check the classified ads. Spring for a paper or look at communal copies at coffee shops or fast food restaurants.
You can have a garage sale and net $500 easily. Armed with a pen and some price stickers, survey your castle. You might be surprized what you can do without.
Consider your pawnable items. Tools, DVDs, TVs, stereos, gold jewerly and guns are all good bets. Think you won't be coming back to claim the item? Just tell the Pawnbroker who might elect to buy it outright.
Personal care appointments? Do without or chop them in half. Have your favorite hairdresser cut your hair every other month and find someone cheaper for the off month. Same look, less cash.
Put your largess gene on hold. Instead of million dollar grants to the Houston Ballet, give a coupon for free baby-sitting or carwash that you provide.
don't forget that maybe it's time to trade in that gas guzzlin' SUV for a nice, economical Japanese sedan
Hmmm...somehow Drudge left out a few details of the WorldCrossing story. I wonder why....
Concerned:
Look to your own lacunae in re Clinton before criticizing Thoughtful's.
How much attention do you imagine Cheney paid to the Sierra Club's input vs. Enron's?
Nah. More along the pot calling the kettle black lines. No one is as obsessive as Concerned.
Enron: The (unspoken) allegation is that Bush took Enron's donations and steered his energy policy in a way consistent with his business philosophy which also indirectly benefitted Enron and other energy companies.
Global Crossing: The spoken allegation is that GC made McAuliffe rich by giving him the opportunity to invest before the IPO. This bought influence into the White House. After a $1 million donation to the Clinton library, the Clinton Administration tried to award a lucrative contract to GC despite irregularities. This lucrative contract would have directly benefited only Global Crossing. When the Bush Adminisration noticed the irregularities, they cancelled the contract despite donations from Global Crossing that paled in comparision to the $1 million library donation.
Now, which is worse and why? Answer: Enron, because Bush opposes abortion.
Jexster, your silence on this matter speaks volumes you pitiful hack.
Most likely a substantial amount. Not that Waxman can be trusted to disclose the truth.
I thought it was beneath even you to dump on the Sierra Club in this manner. Guess I was wrong.
Also, the press is unbiased. You can be an unbiased reporter and yet file any number of biased reports.
Lefties think their blatant corruption don't stink, is just one of their big problems.
Elaborate for those of us that don't live in ConcernedWorld, okay?
One month after it was awarded. You can read past the headlines, can't you?
Let me guess, the economic downturn started after Bush took office and it was because of his tax cuts, right?
McAuliffe getting rich from a World Crossing IPO is about the dirtiest linen I've seen in this thread today.
WORLD Crossing or GLOBAL Crossing?
not that i'd accuse you of being lazy with facts...
Protests were lodged by AT&T CORP., QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL INC., SPRINT CORP. and WORLDCOM INC. after a lengthy bidding window, which began during the Clinton administration.
Emphasis mine.
Mote Co-Conspirators come clean.
You know who the perp was -- admit it now before the fecal matterreally starts to hit the fan!
Where is Ace by the way?
don't make the cabal take back your secret decoder ring!
And, it wouldn't bother me so much if I could be guaranteed that no matter what party was in office, I would never have to pay more than 25% of my income. Hell, I'd wash my hands of politics altogether.
Ack! Global Crossing, of course.
Maybe the complainants upped their contributions to the Republican Party after the election, and were expecting more for their money.
WANTED:
Bu$h/Cheney - Murder Most Foul
DEATH TO EVIL DOERS!
And speaking of Topic A, it was a ghostly presence, but no more, in the address. The president referred to the need for pension reform, higher accounting standards, and holding corporate America "accountable"—all thoughts that flow directly out of the scandal. But Bush wasn't about to say the word "Enron."
Weisberg
Responsibility for Company's Demise Is Shrouded by Mystery Partners, Offshore Entities
Yup
Chicken George
I'll grant you that any recipient of funds of, say more than 1000 dollars, has been improperly influenced, and should resign their positions. Are you good with that?
I don't think Jay is 'good with that', for starters.
728. concerned -1/29/02 12:04:23 AM
I'll be satisfied if Jay merely calls for Terry McAuliffe's head.'
McAuliffe personifies what's wrong with this system as much as Cheney's private meetings with beneficiaries of Bush energy policies. I say take them all down. Are you good with that, concerned?
'What's the old saying? "People who live in glass houses shound't throw stones?"'
So, Cyg, you're saying that it's okay for republicans to take bribes as long as democrats do too? You say that Enron paying off 75% of the Senate was OK?
"Would you rather this be a Kenneth Lay story or the story of a highly ambitious second in command?" Langevoort said. "Who you portray as the bad guy is a political decision."
Its a political decision so
Let's vote!
I vote for Chicken George's Good Buddy -KENNY BOY"
That argument might hold some weight if he were not also a Bush 1.0 appointee.
Reason
No one's talking about Thomas White, yet I think he's the most obvious guy to go.
After all, Bush hired the Secretary of the Army on the basis of his superlative corporate leadership experience.
What will White's excuse be: hey, I didn't know what was going on, I was just a figurehead?
And replace 'all' of them with what?
Wrt Cheney's so-called 'private' task force meetings with such as the Sierra Club which is now caviling at not having every last one of their 'suggestions' adopted without question by the Bush administration, what do Lefties think excuses their juvenile attempts to bully and hector this administration? Their obvious lack of ethics and crude partisanship?
Surely you don't think this fact is significant. ("Cygnificant", maybe.)
And in any event, it's a big retreat from your obviously false claim in Message # 812: ". . . the Clinton White House . . . unethically rammed through a defense department deal . . ." for Global Crossing.
You conservatives have to learn to act on reason, and not your feelings.
(In the real world, that is, not ConcernedWorld.)
...it's a big retreat from your obviusly fals claim
It is not moron. Explain to me how GC became prominant in the bidding when it was about to go belly up. Explain to me why GC should have even been considered in the first place. Explain to me how the Bush administration was to turn on a time and immediately realize this deal was bogus (What was Bush supposed to do, start all bidding from scratch?). Explain to me why you're so stubbornly ignorant. You're grasping at straws and you just look silly.
1. Transparency in financial statements...how much and what needs to be reported
2. Role of accounting and auditing functions and can they be self-regulating
3. Impact on the energy industry: issues around deregulation, impact on demand, long-term contracts enron held, credit issues
4. Campaign finance issues...do donations buy more than access and is that access open to public scrutiny and now issues around executive privilege and confidentiality and the role industry plays in developing government regulations
5. Implications for the commoditization (if that's a word) of new markets and derivatives: Milken failed, but the junk bond market continues to thrive. Will the market-making pursuits that enron engaged in survive them?
6. Investors and retirement plans: 401ks, privatizing social security, diversifying portfolios and what it means for financial instruments and financial services and reevaluation of investment risks.
7. Corporate taxation...issues around taxes and tax credits haven't stuck yet, but some kind of tax reform may fall out of this
8. Corporate governance...roles and responsibilities of the bd. of dir. in minding the shareowners' interests. Aren't they supposed to be minding the CEO?
9. Document retention policies (not a big issue but potentially interesting in light of growing use of electronic vs. paper contracts/transactions/etc.)
10. Role and functioning of credit rating agencies
11. Illegal activities: violation of SEC regulations such as stock watering, insider trading
Excerpt:
But when it turned out that nobody seems to have done anything on Enron's behalf in response to the calls, and that one of the last callers was Democratic economic guru Robert Rubin, the Democrats didn't quite know what to do. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) declared on Meet the Press that there'd be hell to pay if the Bushies intervened, while Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) indicated in a letter that the scandal was that the Bushies didn't do anything.
Dat no stop Ohio and jexster. Dey trow shit anyway. Dey no nuttin' else to do.
People who aren't crooks.
So, again, Rubin Bad. Schumer Bad. Grimm Bad. Cheney Bad.
Right?
The flip side of accusations of hypocrisy is that you've got no story if you're hypocritical yourself. Crooks are crooks. Enron was not really about parties. It was about power. They bribed people with influence over their business interests. That's a bad thing, isn't it?
The one thing I don't see on your list is the media and their coverage of big business. I think there have been a number of surprising revelations there, in terms of money and access provided. I also think that the media has learned to its chagrin that they ignored a lot of signals, and this might cause some changes. Don't know exactly what, but I suspect it will be further discussed.
What the hell is this?
They bribed people with influence over their business interests. That's a bad thing, isn't it?
Leaving aside that there haven't even been allegations of bribery much less proof of it (well, at least according to the Clinton standard, I'm not sure which standard to apply here), yes, it would be a bad thing.
So, here's a solution: Remove the power to influence business interests from the government. Ahh, but that's not the socialist way. The enlightened elites would have no control over who prospers. This may lead to too many white, male christians who oppose abortion making a good living for themselves.
You want to abolish the SEC? You want to return to a situation when a company reports their earnings and we have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER whether they're telling the truth? In fact, Enron received systematic interventions in their favor from the government, from negative interventions like the absence of oversight, to positive interventions like ExIm bank funding, support for the Indian power plant, special legislative provisions and so forth. They bought those favors with "campaign contributions." There's no doubt about that at this point.
(Oh, and BTW, in the absence of the government, abortion would be unrestricted.)
Can someone explain why Enron's contributions are any more nefarious than the many (I'm sure) other contributions from businesses that Bush received? Or, is it like the underpants gnomes episode on South Park where the gnomes tried to get rich by stealing underpants. They had 3 steps: 1) steal underpants. 2) ? 3) Reap the profits.
Is this the reasoning?: 1) Enron gives donation to Bush. 2) Enron goes bankrupt. 3) ? 4) Bush is bad.
Only in 'Ohioville' would any of the groups or corporations consulted by Cheney's energy task force have been considered part of the force itself.
What it's coming down to is a tacit admission by Lefties that there was no corruption or even improper influence by Enron or any other group or corporation on Bush Administration energy policy within the few short months it has been in power. Why else this angry shouting down, from the Left, not the political right, of the obvious willingness of Cheney et al to work hand in hand with environmental groups such as the Sierra Club?
The Lefties are in your head, man.
Let's be frank. Corporations, trade associations, unions and political issue groups don't give money to politicians merely for the ideology or because they're wholly civic-minded. They expect something for their money, and the politicians know this. No, there is nothing as blatant as bribery going on now in Congress, the White House or your local capitol. OTOH, just try to get some face to face contact with an elected official about some issue of public interest without pulling out some Dead Presidents.
Nope, handing back 15 years worth of previously collected AMT taxes to a portion of US corporations, which just coincidentaly benefits Enron and a few other heavy contributors to the GOP and incumbants across the board in congress is done for the particularly stimulating effect it will have on the economy, rather than spreading the effect over a broad section of American taxpayers, or corporations in general.
Clap your hands three times and the economy will live!!!
What was it that shithead from the GAO said about 'cheap words'?
I also thought about the current blowback on stocks of companies that are especially large or confusing, e.g., Tyco and ATT whose prices have slipped over concerns of lack of accounting transparency as a temporary situation. The other elements I've listed I believe have more staying power.
Are you kidding? Those with the most money should be able to buy the most access. That's government of the money, by the money and for the money.
I don't know in what alternate reality dimension this is true, but maybe if we trick Connie into saying "denrecnoc" he'll return there.
Enroned
Not saying it's easy. But the way the system is set up now, the voice of business is on balance too loud relative to that of voters (just think about the incumbency issue and the amount of PAC money that feeds incumbents in both parties) and the aggregate national interest for the system to make optimized decisions.
I think McCain is right on this issue.
Please identify any hyperbole.
Is it, or is it not, a bad thing when people representing businesses (like Enron) or individuals (like Marc Rich) give money to government officials, and receive benefits from those officials? Is it unreasonable of us to request more detailed information about what happened when officials receive money and favors are granted?
I don't know anyone who wants to receive these calls. As for it being free speech, I pay for my phone line and I suffer the irritation whenever commercial callers feel they have a god-given right to interrupt me in the privacy of my home. But a majority of the legislators don't give a rat's ass what their constituents want -- they cared about the $ from the telemarketing industry.
What's deeply broken is that the board and managers do not, in most cases, serve the shareholders. There are counterexamples, Microsoft among them. But for the most part there is an enormous incentive for senior managers to choose "independent" boards of other senior managers who all believe in riskless compensation for senior management.
I think the board and managers certainly serve the stock price, which is technically serving the shareholders. I would say that the board and the managers do not have the interest of the company at heart.
I don't think you can associate the two in any linear fashion. So the questions are "Is it, or is it not, a bad thing when people or corporations give money to government officials?" and "How can voters determine what these funds have purchased?"
And do you really think that politicians do not provide the favors sought by contributors? See this weeks New Yorker for John McCain's view on this issue.
No. I'm not even sure how you got that from my post. I said it wasn't linear.
In addition to it not being a straight quid pro quo relationship, it's also true that even though the donors don't really care about voters, voters often benefit from donor largesse. I'm sure Slack has the appropriate technical term for that.
Is it, or is it not, a bad thing when people representing businesses (like Enron) or individuals (like Marc Rich) give money to government officials, and receive benefits from those officials?
of course not. not necessarily at least.
that's how the system was designed to work down to BillyBob in Podunk AR emptying his penny jar for some candidate or other because he believes in him/her. so, in essence, even BillyBob wants to receive benefits from ... officials.
Enron was a different scale, perhaps, but the same precept.
Give it to the brother for standing up for white, male christians. If he doesn't do it, who will?
I'm impressed to see a white supremacist stand up in a "general" forum and state such view so forthrightly. Sure, anyone can hang out on a Christian Identity web board or treehouse or wherever and spout off about how white male christians are getting the shaft. But it takes a special kind of hero to speak his mind in a potentially hostile environment. Kudos, Cygnus.
You, rasheed, are obviously the 2nd most dense person posting in this thread. The most dense person is the one who predictably posts something about my posts being unsophisticated as a response to my first sentence.
These people have done some decent work http://www.lens-inc.com.
And, yes, it's true that boards and senior management don't take Crystal seriously. But that's the point isn't it?
But Enron itself may scare enough people into returning the SEC and FASB to their roles of keeping the US financial markets transparent.
There's very little hope on campaign finance reform--really effective measures will not be popular with incumbents. The best shot is if McCain is willing to push it very hard and very publicly.
Enron is a great metaphor for what's wrong.
But since they aren't, doesn't it suggest that they are happy with who they have? To some degree, of course.
I think you're right about the SEC and FASB roles being reinforced.
I've never seen stats on how many shareowner issues actually pass against board recommendation, but I suspect it's vanishingly small.
Then there's the issue of who holds the voting stock. With the options granted to sr. management it would be hard for any ordinary shareowner to match their representation unless they are extraordinarily wealthy.
Shame on me, you say? How am I supposed to find out about this stuff?
Yeah. But they've deeply rigged the system. Until some candidate comes along to use the rigged system as his or her primary reason to be elected, we're hosed.
While the White House insists that details of its talks with Enron officials remain secret, a memo outlining those discussions reveals the extent to which the Houston energy giant lobbied to influence government policy. The memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Chronicle, was handed by former Enron Chairman Ken Lay to Vice President Dick Cheney last April when the two met to discuss the administration's response to California's energy crisis. The White House acknowledged last night that aspects of the memo resembled elements of Cheney's energy plan, but it refused to say whether the document was included in notes that Cheney now refuses to divulge to congressional investigators... It's extraordinary for a private company, particularly one accused by California officials of having gouged the state with wildly inflated energy prices, to have played such a prominent role in the White House's response to the crisis.
The San Francisco Chronicle
Cuisinart price-fixing case way back when...got a very nice set of kitchen knives which I still use 20 years later.
But for the most part UR right Wonk about securities class actions especially in a case like this where a Ponzi scheme has gone south.
The key will be the fraud cases against executives, Andersen, and just perhaps a few investment banking firms. That should make for a nice pot for large individual and institutional players.
Still, the very fact that a small consumer does not make a killing in a class action is the very reason the device is much needed. Large enterprises in a complex economy can feast on the proceeds of thousands upon thousands individual swindles and without class actions could do so without much fear of ever being called to account, ie. no one individual's loss is sufficient to support the very complex litigation required.
"If the administration was allowing Enron to guide its policy during the California energy crisis, consumers should be outraged," said Janee Briesemeister, senior policy analyst at Consumers Union in Austin, Texas.
"It's not unusual for a company to hand policymakers their ideas for what should be done," she added. "Things break down when policymakers refuse to admit that they used what was brought to them by industry."
Cheney's argument, as he told an interviewer Sunday, is that revealing details of his talks with Enron would undermine "the ability of the president and the vice president to solicit advice from anybody they want in confidence."
Bush echoed this sentiment a day later
Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice, a watchdog group, called it laughable for the administration to cast its secrecy as a defense of high-minded principle.
"All they're fighting for is to keep the wraps on how much clout Enron had over Dick Cheney's energy plan," he said.
Lay gave the list of names to Clay Johnson, Bush's personnel director, White House spokeswoman Anne Womack said Thursday. Among the eight or so names were Pat Wood, now chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (news - web sites), and Nora Brownell, a member of the commission.
GAO hires Kirkland & Ellis's Chitown rival, Sidley, Austin Brown & Wood to represent it in lawsuit against Kenny's Krusty Klown
David M. Walker became the seventh Comptroller General of the United States and began his 15-year term when he took his oath of office on November 9, 1998. As Comptroller General, Mr. Walker is the nation's chief accountability officer and the head of the General Accounting Office (GAO), a legislative branch agency founded in 1921. The GAO helps the Congress maximize the performance and assure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people.
Immediately prior to his appointment as Comptroller General, Mr. Walker was a partner and global managing director of Arthur Andersen LLP's human capital services practice and a member of the board of Arthur Andersen Financial Advisors, a registered investment advisor. He also served as a Public Trustee for Social Security and Medicare from 1990 to 1995 while he was a partner with Arthur Andersen. Prior to joining Arthur Andersen, Mr. Walker was Assistant Secretary of Labor for Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs and Acting Executive Director for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a Reagan appointee. His earlier technical, professional and business experience was gained with Price Waterhouse, Coopers & Lybrand, and Source Services Corporation.
Mr. Walker is a certified public accountant. He has a BS in accounting from Jacksonville University and a Senior Management in Government (SMG) Certificate in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the memo shows that Enron was more concerned with "escalating gas and electricity prices, from which it benefited,
than in helping to fix the broken energy market."
As reported in yesterday's Chronicle, the memo was handed by former Enron Chairman Ken Lay to Vice President Dick Cheney when the two met in April to discuss a response to the California energy crisis.
Portions of the memo are closely reflected in the plan Cheney subsequently developed to serve as the administration's official energy policy.
"This is the smoking gun," declared Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
POLITICAL MUSCLE
Mike Florio, senior attorney for The Utility Reform Network in San Francisco, said that even though other energy companies advocated similar measures, Enron had the political muscle to see them enacted.
"Enron was the political and intellectual leader of the pack," he said. "It laid down the law and others followed."
State Senate President John Burton, D-San Francisco, said the memo all but places Enron in bed with Republican officials. "It always appeared that the Republican Party was a wholly owned subsidiary of Enron," he said.
here's what we had: In April of last year, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. had just gone bankrupt, electricity prices were up about 800 percent from a year before, and Lay was laying it on thick with state and federal leaders to prevent anyone from putting out the fire.
At the same time, his own company was quietly teetering toward financial ruin.
How's that for chutzpah?
"Ken Lay was the high priest of deregulation," Davis said. "No one had more to do with shaping deregulation than him."
The governor used to say to anyone who would listen that power companies like Enron were taking advantage of a flawed system to "game" the market.
He has changed his tune just a little. Davis told me he now believes Enron and its posse knew from the start that they would make out like bandits in California, that they in fact rigged the state's power market to allow them to bleed us dry.
If so, the Enron memo smells even worse. It could be seen as a desperate ploy to keep the money flowing until the last cent ended up jingling in the power industry's pockets.
Why didn't Davis say as much to Cheney last year when the vice president was doing all his fact-finding for the national energy policy?
"I wasn't asked to go to the meeting," Davis replied.
Cygnus certainly can't take a compliment too well.
I'm working on a mathematical model to provide guidance to people who are offered company stock. One of the critical inputs is any discount offered on the stock choice. So far, I haven't heard that Enron offered any (except for the matching portion), but if there was a conversion, it would change things.
That isn't correct.
While db plans used to predominate, and have been giving way to defined contribution (dc) plans, dc plans are still pension plans. Sometimes the term "traditional pension plan" is used, meaning a db as opposed to a dc.
The best known db plan is Social Security. And while db plans are dropping in number, there are still about 40,000 (my guess) in existence, in the US, covering a substantial number of employees.
Probably the best know dc pension plan is a 401(k) plan. Another common one is called 403(b). And, of course, IRA's are personal dc plans.
Kahn: "If you look at all plans with in excess of 5,000 participants we see 43 percent of all the money in the plan in a single stock issue. If you look at all plans, it's almost 40 percent. By anyone's calculation, that's a problem.
"Because we're ending up with very volatile defined contrtibution plans. Coca Cola's stock is down 22.6 percent for the year 2001. Eighty-seven percent of its plan assets are in its stock. GE has 69 percent of its plan in company stock, and it's down 16.4 percent for the year. Lucent, with 31 percent of assets in company stock, went down 53 percent.
"These employees already have a tremendous amount of exposute to their company. you show me a company where the stock has dropped 40 or 60 percent over the past 12 months, and I'll show you a corporation that is downsizing.
"Not only are you in a situation in which you have lost large chunks of value in your defined contribution plan, but you are probably a target for downsizing. There is a very strong correlation between those two pieces. I can make the case that you should never buy your own company's stock for that very reason."
"...the SEC must continue to push the National Association of Securities Dealers and the NYSE for new fules requiring fuller disclosure of analyst conflicts.
"Yet for all their excesses, analysts don't have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Boards of directors do. Enron's board failed the smell test. Millions lost money and careers were destroyed while the company and its directors entered into questionable, mutually beneficial arrangements. The SEC and stock exchanges must now revisit the issue of board and audit committee responsibility. Consulting contracts for directors should be barred, as well as seductions in the form of corporate jet usage and support for directors' favorite charities. Most important, at least half of every board must be independent by the most rigorous definition of the term."
The Justice Department ordered the White House and other federal departments Friday to preserve all documents relating to conversations with Enron executives about the firm's financial condition.
The order, announced by the White House, covers all documents including e-mails, letters, computer records and notes since Jan. 1, 1999, nearly two years before President Bush took office.
Bush, a longtime friend of former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, has sought to distance himself from the gathering financial scandal surrounding the collapse of the Texas-based company and the loss of life-savings of thousands of workers and stockholders
Bears repeating for the benefit of certain DitzBrains around here....
Bush, a longtime friend of former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay
Get it, got it, GOOD!
Worse, ERISA is filled with a shitload of loopholes that allow companies to raid the corpus in effect...
Private pension DB plans were fine for the Company Man of the 50's and 60's but are generally worthless in this a day and age of the Lay-off.
Of course, any benefits these 'people representing' Enron have received are not known of at this point in time.
I'll pose this question in answer: 'Should an administration reject out of hand any recommendation, solicited from a corporation with relevant expertise, to a federal energy commission, regardless of how optimal, because the corporation's representatives suggested this person, and if not, how do we satisfy the Jay Ackroyds of this world that such decisions are acceptable?'
It's not possible to honestly say that GWB is a 'longtime friend' of Kenneth Lay.
Frank Rich.
Not only is it possible but it is honest...since Ann Richards days as Governor, Bush and Lay have been buddies. That's several years ago. Lay was a guest at the Guvs mansion a lot during GWs stint there and he was one of the first Pioneers....
This is completely wrong. You vest after some period of time in single digit years, like 2. You can't withdraw money until you reach the plan's early retirement age, which is typically 50+. THere is an exception. If you leave before the early retirement age, and the pension owed is less than some number, you receive a lump sum payment.
Let's just say that 'Should an administration reject out of hand any recommendation, solicited from a corporation with relevant expertise, to a federal energy commission, regardless of how optimal, because the corporation's representatives suggested this person, and if not, how do we satisfy the Jay Ackroyds of this world that such decisions are acceptable?'
You left something out. Let's not let them participate if THEY GIVE MONEY.
This is simple to fix, btw. The problem is that what constitutes a bribe has been left intentionally difficult to determine by the politicians who receive them. Look at Torricelli, for heavens sake. Clean as a hounds tooth, right?
So we just have to define a bribe more clearly. And that's easy to do. Make contributions anonymous. And make it a crime to reveal the fact that you've made a contribution. Define that as a bribe.
This doesn't prevent people from contributing to politicians who "share their point of view" like Ken Lay, Anne Richards and George Bush and three quarters of the senate. They can provide support for people who they believe are good public servants. And if all the hoohaw they peddle when they claim they aren't bribing people is true they won't object.
I missed this Cygnus message. What do contracts have to do with regulatory enforcement of financial reporting? Transparency of financial markets.
"Can someone explain why Enron's contributions are any more nefarious than the many (I'm sure) other contributions from businesses that Bush received? Or, is it like the underpants gnomes episode on South Park where the gnomes tried to get rich by stealing underpants. They had 3 steps: 1) steal underpants. 2) ? 3) Reap the profits.
Is this the reasoning?: 1) Enron gives donation to Bush. 2) Enron goes bankrupt. 3) ? 4) Bush is bad."
They are more nefarious because they were bigger and more widespread than most, and they received quids for their quos. But it is just as bad as the Big 5 dumping money all over Congress, and then lobbying against tax simplification and regulation of conflicts of interests during audits. It just as bad as Marc Rich buying a pardon. It's just as bad as Newt Gingrich taking an advance from a media company. It's just as bad as Maria Cantwell taking money from contributors and repaying her loan to the campaign.
I agree that there is far too much company stock in 401(k) plans.
I am resisting the regulatory solution on general principles, although I fear I will lose that battle.
I would prefer to address it using education; to show people when and why company stock is a good deal or a bad deal.
While the general subject probably belong in careers and finances, it is the Enron situation that has raised the consciousness of the subject, so I'll continue to discuss it here unless there is a consensus to discuss it elsewhere.
Imply stated, if you participate in a 401(k), and the plan has a reasonable array of options (in particular, a diversified equity fund), the amount of company stock you should select rounds to zero.
The answer is different if the company offers the stock at a discount. I'll get into that further in a later post.
MOTE POLL
Note: I realize some Mote participants are likely to have a 403(b) rather than a 401(k), but it is fairly obvious that they do not have a company stock option. I also know that many participants are outside the US. I'd be interested to learn how retirement plans work in other countries, but that is probably a better subject for another thread.
2. Participation rate is low
3. Stock not available
4. NA
Someone at the company we've written stock plan software for would answer like this:
1. Supplemental to a defined benefit program with a pension.
2. Participation is high
3. Yes.
4. Participation is about 60% of the total plan.
There are actually three plans, an ESOP, a Stock plan for all employees, and a supplemental stock plan for highly comped employees. There are incentives in all the plans--discounts in the ESOP and the stock plan, special provisions for dividend handling that reduces taxes and increases contribution levels in the supplemental plan.
What are you doing with this model dusty? Can you send me an email wrt it? Jayac@dbsinyc.com.
Schwab had a 401(k), I participated, and no, none of the investment options were stock at that time. Schwab had Employee Stock Ownership Partipation. Schwab contributed stock for all employees, whether or not they had a 401(k), I believe.
I left in 92, but the behavior of many long-term employees at Schwab late in the 90s is telling. Their ESOP accounts had millions in paper value, but they couldn't sell it and lock in the value. Many felt this was a huge exposure, but they couldn't access their ESOP account until they were 50.
Of course, there was another way they could get the money. They could close out the account, by terminating employment.
There was a number of resignations in the late 90s, as employees with more than ten years quit to secure their millions. They sold a lot of the stock in order to diversify their portfolio, having done the calculations and realized that the huge tax hit and penalties were far less of a risk than having millions invested in one stock. Many of them turned around and were rehired by Schwab.
Schwab stock, after splitting several times, went from a high of 37 to its current 14. It might not be quite as dramatic a drop, but I think the comparison is instructive. These people not only didn't have 100% of their retirement fund invested in one stock, they quit their job simply to get access to a segment of their portfolio that was heavily exposed.
It highlights again that Enron employees had only themselves to blame. This doesn't mean they don't have the rights of any stockholder, but that's as far as it goes.
Pumping and dumping is way illegal.
BTW, I've been meaning to ask: why aren't the previous stockholders who sold the overvalued stock and made millions ever expected to give it back? Or in some way pay a penalty. After all, they are the people who collected the money that the stockholders lost.
I ask for rhetorical purposes, obviously. But surely it wasn't only Enron and institutional banks that made money when it was at its high. Enron benefited them just as it harmed the others.
Well, they should have. But that's not really the point. The point is that as employees, they ought not to have any restitution for their retirement accounts.
If Enron did illegally lock down the accounts for two weeks, and if an employee can demonstrate that they attempted to sell during that time, they could be reimbursed for that narrow period of time. But I'm not convinced yet that that many people actually tried to sell. I get the impression that a lot of them learned after the fact and just cite it as further evidence of dastardy.
But other than that narrow instance, the employees dug their own grave.
And my rhetorical question was general, not specific to Enron.
I think it would be a difficult thing to do, considering they were being presented with what they believed to be the truth.
Or do you mean as employees, they should have know better than to tie up so much of their stock in their own company?
Essentially, that is the question I want to address.
The employees didn't know better. Why not?
My tentative answer is that, while it is fairly obvious to people with some combination of math training and understanding of markets, it is not so glaringly obvious that people can be called idiots for not knowing it.
Additionally, while investment advice columns and books invariably pay some homage to diversification, how often do they explicitly warn against buying company stock in a 401(k)? Maybe it happens sometimes, but if it was ubiquitous, I think I'd remember seeing it.
Unfortunately, the rule is not as simple as "never buy company stock". I'm working on articulating the rule.
Two close relatives of Ken Lay, former chairman of Enron Corp., benefited from extensive business dealings with Enron, according to public records and interviews with family members and people close to the Lays.
(Houston Chronicle requires registration)
It's not rhetorical. The SEC takes money away from people who pump and dump.
I had no problem accessing the article. I don't recall registering.
The SEC takes money away from people who pump and dump.
I hope the SEC does go after them. Ken Lay publicly claimed there were no accounting issues at a time when he knew (or should have known) that this was materially false.
However, I'm more interested in seeing how the accounting profession reacts. They dropped the ball by not being more pro-active about off-balance sheet accounting, and may well be even more culpable.
My previous employer offered a 401k. The employer's match was in company stock which, as I recall had to be held for 3 years. My 10% contribution went, first into a GIC (guaranteed income fund) and later, after it was offered, into an INDEX 500 fund. Each year on the 3 year anniversary date I sold the company stock and put it into the Index 500 fund option. I never regretted doing this. I was working for a U.S. auto company. Had I been working for Microsoft I'm sure I would have been tempted to let the company stock ride. But even Microsoft is not immune to wide swings. Without looking it up my recollection is that it dropped more than 50 percent not long ago and remains more than 40 percent off its high.
I disagree. Everyone has access to financial planners. Everyone understands--and is, by law, informed--that stock can go up and down.
You certainly don't need math knowledge or any special training. The Schwab people I'm referring to--the ones I know personally--are programmers, project managers, operations staff. Much the same population as the Enron employees. Don't be fooled by those southern hick accents--Enron had a ruthless rank and yank policy, which meant that only the best survived. These are smart, educated people.
Of course they aren't actually idiots. If they were idiots--or at least ignorant, untrained, day workers--they'd have some excuse. But these were by and large people who had every opportunity to diversify their portfolio, who had the ability to read and understand the information and the risks, and who had access to every financial planning tool available in the modern world.
I'd venture to say that most of them knew the risk, but the market seemed unstoppable. This is a phenomenon of the 90s, nothing more.
But the people you're talking about didn't require any "rules" you might devise to know that it's crazy to put all your financial eggs in one basket. They knew it then. They took the risk. They lost.
I'm not talking about the people who deliberately manipulate the market. I'm talking about the person who bought Enron at $20 and sold at $90. They were just as fooled by Enron, but it worked to their benefit. How many people made money off of Enron? That's just as much due to their manipulation as the people who lost money.
We know this. Are we going to take the risk and lose?
I'd drop the percentage and the commitment.
You certainly don't need math knowledge or any special training.
Suppose a friend came to you and said that they decided they could afford to save 10% of salary for retirement. They have the following options:
How would you suggest that the person select X, Y and Z (X+Y+Z=10%)?
Would you answer be different if the ESOP discount were 5% and had to be held 20 years?
I contend that this is a fairly typical set of choices available to many employees (except that they also probably have bond funds and money market alternatives in the 401(k)).
I think that some fact situations are easy to analyze, and the answers are obvious, but other fact situations are harder to analyze. If you think there is an easy way to how much of a discount on an ESOP makes that a better choice than an unmatched 401(k), I'm all ears, because I am working on the problem, and I don't think it is trivial.
I fail to see how this example supports your assertion that employees don't know better than to put 100% of their retirement into company stock, that it would require some knowledge of math to understand why this is a bad idea.
I don't think the average ghigh school graduate can do the math to prove this. Maybe your point is that it should be obvious without doing math. Maybe it is. I'm trying to find out what people think is obvious, and what is difficult. Arguably, Markowitz was given a Nobel proze for figuring this out. I say arguably, because I am open to the argument that one can figure out the right course of action without showing the math.
The only issue is what small percentage might be worth risking on something other than an index fund.
I agree it is the only issue if the choices are within a 401(k) fund, and there are no discount issues, put options, or holding periods.
I fail to see how this example supports your assertion that employees don't know better than to put 100% of their retirement into company stock, that it would require some knowledge of math to understand why this is a bad idea.
Show me that you know what the percentages should be in my example. Tell me how you would split up 10% between X, Y and Z. I contend one of the numbers is a no-brainer, but not the other two.
It's not a bright idea to think you're going to win the lottery every week but people still buy tickets, even when common sense should tell them they will lose.
If people spend a tiny portion of their income on lottery tickets, and truly get enjoyment out of it, good for them. I don't see the enjoyment, but to each their own.
If people actually think they are making a sound economic decision exclusive of the enjoyment aspect, then they could use some better advice.
However, I think it would be easy to find thousands of financial advice columns telling people that the lottery is a bad financial decision. How many places have you seen telling people not to put 401(k) money in company stock?
CalGal
Sure. And if people spent every penny of their savings on lottery tickets, would you blame the gaming commission?
As an aside, I don't think state lotteries should be allowed to advertise. I normally don't feel strongly enough about this to do anything about it. However, the Connecticut State lottery once ran an ad suggesting that the lottery was a decent alternative to putting money on a retirement fund. I wrote strongly worded letters and made phone calls after that ad. While I wasn't the only one, and probably wasn't the straw, the person responsible was fired, and the ad pulled.
In that case I did blame the gaming commission. I think the state has an obligation to avoid giving bad financial advice.
Maybe your point is that it should be obvious without doing math.
Precisely.
As for the rest of your post, I think we're talking past each other. I don't care what "correct allocations" ought to be. Truly. And in fact, I have no idea.
Remember, we are talking about people who put 0% into option 1.
I'm trying to find out what people think is obvious, and what is difficult.
It is obvious that putting all of your money in one stock is a huge risk, Dusty. Particularly near retirement.
So again, I don't think there's much value in debating which percentage goes what and where. I'm not asserting that the average Enron employee could determine the optimal allocation. I am asserting that they were capable of--and did--understand the risk of putting everything into one stock.
The Mote | Mote Archive
back to top