That would help, but not 'end' the 'traitorous speculation,' Bill.
Much more where that comes from, no doubt.
This is what is of notable interest in the article that I think has been left 'unreported' until now ... regarding the 'changing of TX state law' to manipulate public monies 'in private:'
<<The University of Texas, though a state institution, has a large endowment. As governor,
Mr. Bush changed the rules governing that endowment, eliminating the requirements to
disclose "all details concerning the investments made and income realized," and to have "a
well-recognized performance measurement service" assess investment results. That is,
government officials no longer had to tell the public what they were doing with public
money, or allow an independent performance assessment. Then Mr. Bush "privatized"
(his term) $9 billion in university assets, transferring them to a nonprofit corporation
known as Utimco that could make investment decisions behind closed doors.>>
__________________________
Full story:
Krugman: July 16, 2002 -- Steps to Wealth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Why are George W. Bush's business dealings relevant? Given that his aides tout his
"character," the public deserves to know that he became wealthy entirely
through patronage and connections. But more important, those dealings foreshadow
many characteristics of his administration, such as its obsession with secrecy and its
intermingling of public policy with private interest.
As the unanswered questions about Harken Energy pile up — what's in those documents
the White House won't release? Who was the mystery buyer of Mr. Bush's stock? — let
me now turn to how Mr. Bush, who got by with a lot of help from his friends in the
1980's, became wealthy in the 1990's. He invested $606,000 as part of a syndicate that
bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in 1989 — borrowing the money and repaying
the loan with the proceeds from his Harken stock sale — then saw that grow to $14.9
million over the next nine years. What made his investment so successful?
First, the city of Arlington built the Rangers a new stadium, on terms extraordinarily
favorable to Mr. Bush's syndicate, eventually subsidizing Mr. Bush and his partners with
more than $150 million in taxpayer money. The city was obliged to raise taxes
substantially as a result. Soon after the stadium was completed, Mr. Bush ran
successfully for governor of Texas on the theme of self-reliance rather than reliance on
government.
Mr. Bush's syndicate eventually resold the Rangers, for triple the original price. The
price-is-no-object buyer was a deal maker named Tom Hicks. And thereby hangs a tale.
The University of Texas, though a state institution, has a large endowment. As governor,
Mr. Bush changed the rules governing that endowment, eliminating the requirements to
disclose "all details concerning the investments made and income realized," and to have "a
well-recognized performance measurement service" assess investment results. That is,
government officials no longer had to tell the public what they were doing with public
money, or allow an independent performance assessment. Then Mr. Bush "privatized"
(his term) $9 billion in university assets, transferring them to a nonprofit corporation
known as Utimco that could make investment decisions behind closed doors.
In effect, the money was put under the control of Utimco's chairman: Tom Hicks. Under
his direction, at least $450 million was invested in private funds managed by Mr. Hicks's
business associates and major Republican Party donors. The managers of such funds
earn big fees. Due to Mr. Bush's change in the rules, these investments were hidden from
public view; an employee of Utimco who alerted university auditors was summarily fired.
Even now, it's hard to find out how these investments turned out, though they seem to
have done quite badly.
Eventually Mr. Hicks's investment style created a public furor, and he did not seek to
retain his position at Utimco when his term expired in 1999.
One last item: Mr. Bush, who put up 1.8 percent of the Rangers syndicate's original
capital, was entitled to about $2.3 million from that sale. But his partners voluntarily gave
up some of their share, and Mr. Bush received 12 percent of the proceeds — $14.9
million. So a group of businessmen, presumably with some interest in government
decisions, gave a sitting governor a $12 million gift. Shouldn't that have raised a few
eyebrows?
All of this showed Mr. Bush's characteristic style. First there's the penchant for secrecy,
for denying the public information about decisions taken in its name. So it's no surprise
that the proposed Homeland Security Department will be exempt from the Freedom of
Information Act and from whistle-blower protection.
Then there's the conversion of institutions traditionally insulated from politics into tools for
rewarding your friends and reinforcing your political control. Yesterday the University of
Texas endowment; today the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; tomorrow those
Social Security "personal accounts"?
Finally, there's the indifference to conflicts of interest. In Austin, Governor Bush saw
nothing wrong with profiting personally from a deal with Tom Hicks; in Washington, he
sees nothing wrong with having the Pentagon sign what look like sweetheart deals with
Dick Cheney's former employer Halliburton.
So the style of a future Bush administration was easily predictable, given Mr. Bush's
career history.
nytimes.com
--------------------------------
bia |
