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 $6,500 contribution from Enron to Jeb in 1998 have influenced him? Jeb's campaign manager, Karen Unger, says "Gov. Bush has never been swayed on an issue by a campaign contribution. He cannot be bought." 251. jexster - 1/16/2002 2:45:16 PM Capitol Cronies 252. thoughtful - 1/16/2002 2:49:26 PM wasn't the bush family on the phone with someone in FL getting the inside scoop on election night before any results were supposed to be available on how the vote was coming? Using connections to get inside info didn't bother them then. 253. thoughtful - 1/16/2002 2:49:29 PM wasn't the bush family on the phone with someone in FL getting the inside scoop
Ah what the Hell ... live for today for tommorrow we'll be bu$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