Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 23620
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/05/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
5/24    

2002/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:23620 Activity:nil
1/20    Enron and the Bush Administration:
        kindred spirits in fraud and criminality:
        http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/enro-j18.shtml
        \_ Why read rambling drivel?
           http://www.americanprospect.com/print/V13/3/meyerson-h.html
           \_  Interesting article.  Thank you.  --erikred
        \_ With an intro like yours why bother reading it?  Is there any
           factual links in there showing Bush is responsible for Enron's
           collapse in any way or profited from it or used/abused his power to
           aid anyone who had aided his campaign in any sort of quid-pro-quo?
           No Clinton quality sellouts to multiple foreign powers?
        \_ Yes there are political ties, but the delve equally into
           the repubs and dems.  Consequently, like Chinagate, the
           inquiry will go nowhere.  All the more reason for smaller
           government.
2025/05/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
5/24    

You may also be interested in these entries...
2012/12/18-2013/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:54559 Activity:nil
12/18   Bush kills. Bushmaster kills.
        \_ Sandy Huricane kills. Sandy Hook kills.
           \_ bitch
	...
2011/5/1-7/30 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:54102 Activity:nil
5/1     Osama bin Ladin is dead.
        \_ So is the CSUA.
           \_ Nope, it's actually really active.
              \_ Are there finally girls in the csua?
              \_ Is there a projects page?
              \_ Funneling slaves -> stanford based corps != "active"
	...
2010/11/8-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:53998 Activity:nil
11/8    Have you read how Bush says his pro-life stance was influenced
        by his mother keeping one of her miscarriages in a jar, and showing
        it to him?  These are headlines The Onion never dreamed of
	...
2010/11/2-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54001 Activity:nil
11/2    California Uber Alles is such a great song
        \_ Yes, and it was written about Jerry Brown. I was thinking this
           as I cast my vote for Meg Whitman. I am independent, but I
           typically vote Democrat (e.g., I voted for Boxer). However, I
           can't believe we elected this retread.
           \_ You voted for the billionaire that ran HP into the ground
	...
2010/5/26-6/30 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:53845 Activity:nil
5/26    "China could join moves to sanction North Korea"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100526/ap_on_re_as/as_clinton_south_korea
        How did Hillary manage to do that when we're also asking China to
        concede on the economic front at the same time?
         \_ China doesn't want NK to implode. NK is a buffer between SK and
            China, or in other words a large buffer between a strong US ally and
	...
2010/4/28-5/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:53808 Activity:nil
4/28    Laura Bush ran a stop sign and killed someone in 1963:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28laura.html?no_interstitial
        How come she didn't go to jail?
        \_ Car drivers rarely go to jail for killing people.  -tom
        \_ Ted Kennedy killed a girl. Dick Cheney shot a man.
        \_ Ted Kennedy killed a girl. Hillary and Dick Cheney both shot a man.
	...
Cache (8192 bytes)
www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jan2002/enro-j18.shtml
A column in the Los Angeles Times last week referred to the affair as "Teapot Dome, the Sequel" (the Teapot Dome affair essentially brought an end to the Harding administration in the 1920s). It is pointless at the moment to speculate whether or not Enron will prove the present government's undoing. The more critical issue is grasping the extent to which Enron as a criminal and parasitic enterprise expresses the social essence of the Bush administration and the American ruling elite as a whole. To speak of "connections" or "intimate ties" between Enron and the Bush regime nearly misses the point. To a large extent, the present administration is an extension of the Enron board of directors. This government, one might say, is Enron in office, not simply because numerous Bush cabinet members and other appointees (and other leading Republicans) have been employed in one capacity or another by Enron, but more profoundly in the sense that the social types found in Enron's boardroom and in leading government posts in Washington are interchangeable. As evidence one might simply note that the top law enforcement official in the land, Attorney General John Ashcroft, was obliged to recuse himself January 10, along with his chief of staff, David Ayres, from the criminal investigation into Enron launched by his own department because he received tens of thousands of dollars from the company for an unsuccessful bid to hold onto his Senate seat in the 2000 elections. The Vice President of the United States, former oil man Dick Cheney, has been obliged, under pressure from congressional investigators, to acknowledge that he or members of his staff met six times with Enron executives last spring during discussions held by his secret energy task force. The only executive Cheney met with alone was Enron chief Kenneth Lay. From this point of view, to debate whether Bush government officials "crossed the line" in their dealings with the energy trading firm results from a misunderstanding. In effect, one is being asked to accept that Bush's 2000 campaign manager (Evans) did not inform the president, or at least have him informed, that his long-time backer and largest financial contributor (Lay) was facing disaster. It is more likely that he didn't tell him because Bush already knew. In any event, the very manner in which the Enron crisis has burst into the headlines has considerable significance. Once again the underlying social issues in the US are coming to the fore. This speaks to the reality that the war in Afghanistan has been driven from the beginning by the growing social and political crisis in the US. It is enough to ask: what would be the standing of the Bush regime if there had been no attacks in New York and Washington on September 11 and no war as a result? The administration, only eight months old, was increasingly beleaguered and unpopular at home and abroad by the end of last summer. There is every reason to believe that had it not been for the suicide hijackings and subsequent events, the standing of the Bush government might mirror the present condition of Enron on the New York Stock Exchange, where the price of one of its shares has fallen from $90 to under a dollar. Enron's collapse, in its own fashion, gives some indication of the fragility of the political standing of the extreme right and the narrowness of its social base. It cannot be considered coincidental that the resignation of Jeff Skilling--one of the architects of Enron's meteoric rise--as chief executive in August (at a time when we now know a company vice president was warning that Enron was about to implode in "a wave of accounting scandals") was followed three weeks later by the announcement from Gramm, whose family fortunes (literally) have been bound up with Enron's fate, that he was bowing out of political life. In the wake of Enron's spectacular demise, a whole host of media analysts are wagging their fingers at what they describe as the "excesses" of the 1990s. One is presumably meant to conclude that, finally, cooler heads have prevailed. On the contrary, Enron is a paradigm for American capitalism in the era of Reagan, Clinton and the two Bushes. As we have previously noted on the WSWS, the deregulatory policies of Republican and Democratic administrations alike created conditions where profits could be accumulated, not through the construction of new facilities and the organization of new energy supplies, but through manipulations in the energy market. Enron acted like a financial speculator, purchasing and selling energy contracts extending months and even years into the future. Enron was not an excrescence, some entity peripheral to the workings of American and global capitalism. The Wall Street Journal, in a piece suggestively titled "How Wall Street Greased Enron's Money Engine," writes: "The upshot: Some of the world's leading banks and brokerage firms provided Enron with crucial help in creating the intricate--and, in crucial ways, misleading--financial structure that fueled the energy trader's impressive rise but ultimately led to its spectacular downfall. Indeed, without the financial grease from Wall Street, Enron wouldn't have grown into the nation's biggest energy trader and seventh-biggest company. The firm created a market for energy futures where none existed or needed to exist. Its role in California was particularly disastrous, where it deliberately manipulated energy prices, helping to nearly bankrupt the state. It was apparently assisted in its shady operations by accountants at Andersen, whose officials have now acknowledged that the firm shredded or deleted thousands of potentially incriminating documents as the roof was falling in last autumn. Enron essentially produced nothing and served no legitimate economic purpose. In the end, Enron's "asset-light" approach led to disaster, when disclosures of its web of transactions with related partnerships, some headed by company executives, shook investor confidence. Of Enron's reported $60 billion in assets, only about $10-15 billion is still in physical plant and equipment, according to estimates. Enron's methods accumulated fantastic wealth in the hands of top executives and have now wrought devastation on its workforce and those taken in by its promises. Bush officials see nothing extraordinary about Enron's rise and fall. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who has also acknowledged receiving calls from Lay last October about Enron's financial crisis, stated in a television interview last weekend that he was not surprised by the company's demise. People get to make good decisions or bad decisions, and they get to pay the consequences or to enjoy the fruits of their decisions. Moreover, it is a distinct possibility that many or all of those who operated in a fraudulent manner will "pay" no legal or financial "consequences" and continue "to enjoy the fruits" of their criminality. On the one hand, a corporation with no assets, and on the other, a government with no legitimacy. The political faction now in power in Washington first came to prominence under Reagan. After the defeat of the elder Bush in 1992, they chafed under Clinton, despite all his best efforts to appease them. They viewed even the most timid restrictions on their unfettered access to wealth as intolerable. Lacking confidence in their ability to gain office through elections, these right-wing forces, with the aid of a cabal of reactionary lawyers and judges, leveraged the trivia of the Whitewater-Jones-Lewinsky affairs into an impeachment drive aimed at unseating a twice-elected president. Following last year's election, in which Al Gore won the national popular vote and, by all indications, the popular vote in Florida, the Bush forces, gangster-like, hijacked the vote. The Bush administration was installed in office through fraud and rules that way today, in both domestic and foreign affairs. It has seized upon the September 11 terrorist attack to implement a sweeping, right-wing agenda of attacks on democratic rights at home and embarked on an open-ended colonial war in Central Asia, whose principal purpose is to pave the way for US...
Cache (4336 bytes)
www.americanprospect.com/print/V13/3/meyerson-h.html -> www.prospect.org/print/V13/3/meyerson-h.html
About This is an archived page of The American Prospect. Let's say only a handful of officials--the commerce and treasury secretaries, and (according to a subsequent clarification) several lesser officials at Treasury, and (oh, yes, we forgot) White House Chief of Staff Andy Card--knew about Ken Lay's phone calls imploring the administration to do something that would head off Enron's impending bankruptcy. Let's say that none of these presidential confidants thought to tell George W. That still leaves the scandals of trying to help Enron do just about everything else. To begin with, there's the scandal of inviting Enron to formulate the administration's energy policy in closed-door meetings with Cheney, and of Ken Lay effectively selecting the regulators charged with overseeing Enron's conduct. And it wasn't just the administration that did Enron's bidding. Enron was hardly the only beneficiary of these provisions, but it certainly was a mega-beneficiary. What's more, the stimulus bill that passed the House (and, like the House energy bill, is stuck in the Senate) provided Enron with a $254-million rebate as part of the retroactive repeal of corporate taxes. Now, far be it from me to suggest that the House Republican leadership--notably, Texas Republicans Dick Armey and Tom DeLay--had any interest in assisting the company that's the biggest star in the Texas GOP's financial firmament. And if they had, it would, of course, have been perfectly legal. So, too, have been Congress's sins of omission--its stunning indifference to rudimentary regulations that could have kept Enron afloat and at least moderately more responsible to its employees and shareholders. Simply forbidding 401 plans from investing more than 10 percent of their funds in a single company's stock--as is the case with defined pension benefits--would have allowed thousands of Enron employees and retirees to hang on to their nest eggs. If there was ever any doubt, it should now be abundantly clear that 401 accounts were set up more to help employers than to help employees. Also clear is that although the nation may have narrowly averted a financial meltdown during the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, Congress did nothing to avert a similar catastrophic reoccurrence. LTCM, a trader of those exotic new financial derivatives, was subject to almost none of the regulations that apply to old-style brokerage houses (like, say, the requirement to keep a minimum financial balance for those days when the trades go sour). Enron took the LTCM model and expanded it by what can only be described as a process of free association. Where LTCM set up a minute-by-minute bazaar for trading and speculating in financial matters, Enron tried to build a bazaar for trading and speculating in virtually anything that could take the form of a noun--gas, electricity, water, pollution, Internet bandwidth, advertising space--all the while, taking a nice-size cut for every such trade. And since Congress had drawn no lessons from the nosedive of LTCM, Enron wasn't required to have much cash in reserve if its deals went south. Indeed, most of Enron's operating capital came from the overnight loans of banks. So all it took to close down America's seventh-largest corporation was one gray morning of banker skepticism. In the words of erstwhile Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, Enron was trying to move from the "big iron" of the old economy--gas, oil, and the like--to the "soft assets" (and higher profits) of deregulated trading. The lesson from both LTCM and Enron seems to be the softer the asset, the harder the landing. Now, is Congress criminally negligent for failing to regulate companies engaged in this kind of shell game? Is the administration criminally liable for designing energy and regulatory policies to Enron's specifications? Absent a bombshell on the order of some politico having a piece of one of Enron's off-the-books partnerships, of course not. But whether or not the Bushes and DeLays actually held a smoking gun, they certainly cultivated one big-time breeding ground for corporate crime. Preferred Citation: Harold Meyerson, "Enron's Enablers," The American Prospect vol. This article may not be resold, reprinted, or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from the author.