SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mephisto who wrote (8522)12/12/2001 7:53:19 AM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Mehissyfit:

IMO, you are not only STUPID but EVIL as well:

Message 16777180

Shame on you!

JLA



To: Mephisto who wrote (8522)12/12/2001 2:29:22 PM
From: Mephisto  Respond to of 93284
 
Enron-gate: Where are the investigations of Bush's liaison with the bankrupt company


By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
12.06.01, Email this item to a friend

AUSTIN -- Hail and farewell, o Enron! What a
flameout. The Establishment media, sucking its
collective thumb with unwonted solemnity, is
treating us to meditations on two themes: "How
the mighty have fallen," and, "Who would have
thunk it?" Pardon me while I snort, in lieu of ruder
noises, and offer two themes of my own: "What
took so long?" and, "Anyone with an ounce of
common sense."

If you want to know what this story is about,
pretend Bill Clinton is still president. Pretend
Clinton's long-time, all-time biggest campaign
contributor, a guy for whom Clinton has carried
water for over the years, a guy with unparalleled
"access," a shaper of policy, a man with a veto on
regulatory appointments affecting his business,
with connections at every level of the
administration, a political fixer beyond the wildest
dreams of James Riady -- imagine that this guy's
worldwide empire has tumbled into bankruptcy in
just three months amid cascading reports of lies,
monumental accounting errors, evasions, iffy
financial statements, insider deals, a board of
directors rife with conflicts of interest, top
executives bailing out with millions while regular
employees see their life savings shrink to nothing --
imagine all this back in the day of Bill Clinton.

Holy moley, we'd have four congressional
investigations, three special prosecutors, two
impeachment inquiries and a partridge in a pear
tree by now. The Republicans would all be
drumming their heels on the floor in full tantrum.

But this is not President Clinton, it is President Bush
-- so of course different standards must apply. The
fact that Ken Lay, Enron's chairman, has been
Bush's chief money man and key backer since he
first went into politics is mentioned only in passing.
The media don't want to be impolite. They have
been credulously swallowing Enron's p.r. and
overlooking the obvious for years.

The main problem with Enron is that it has never
produced much of anything in the way of either
goods or services; it has not added a single widget
to the world widget supply. Enron was in the
business of "financializing," making markets, trading
in wholesale electricity, water, data storage,
fiber-optics, just about anything. One Enron
executive told The New York Times the company's
achievement was to create "a regulatory black
hole" to suit its "core management philosophy,
which was to be the first mover into a market and
to make money in the initial chaos and lack of
transparency."

Enron started as a gas pipeline company that went
into trading natural gas, and even then the
company's critics claimed Enron was making profits
by stoking volatility in gas prices. The same charge
showed up again in spades with the newly
deregulated electricity markets. Enron had lobbied
for utility deregulation relentlessly, formidably and
very expensively at both the state and national
levels. The company seemed to spend more time
influencing government than doing business. Like
Long Term Capital Management, the hedge fund
that went awry, it seemed to have only a parasitic
relationship to actual economic activity. The
problem with deregulating utilities is the reason
they were regulated in the first place -- monopoly
power and the threat of market manipulation are a
set-up for unholy price-gouging. How many times
do we have to re-learn that lesson?

Just a few spiffy eye-openers on Enron's
connections:

Lay and Enron together donated $2 million to
George W. Bush. In 2000, a company memo that
was an open strong-arm recommended employees
give campaign checks for Bush to the political
action committee: low-level managers were urged
to contribute $500 and senior executives at least
$5,000. Another $1 million was given to mostly
Republican congressional candidates. It gave more
money last cycle than any other energy company.

Lawrence B. Lindsey, Bush's top economic
adviser, got $50,000 from Enron in 2000 for
consulting, presumably giving the company the
same excellent economic advice now proving so
healthy for the nation's economy.

Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist, sold
between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of Enron
stock earlier this year, after being criticized for
conflict of interest.

The California Legislature passed a contempt
motion against Enron for failure to respond to a
June 11 subpoena. The legislature is investigating
whether power generating companies willfully
manipulated electricity supply in order to drive up
prices last year.

Lay was the only energy executive to meet alone
with Vice President Dick Cheney while Cheney was
drawing up a new national energy policy in secret.

Enron influenced public policy time and again while
Bush was governor here, including the infamous
"grandfathered plants" deal. In 1997, Lay asked
Bush to contact every member of the Texas
delegation to explain how "export credit agencies of
the United States are critical to U.S. developers
like Enron, pursuing international projects in
developing countries." These agencies provide
political risk coverage and financial support to U.S.
companies abroad. It's called corporate welfare.

In Texas, Enron was a major player during the
utilities deregulation debate, for which Bush lobbied
actively, and, of course, in "tort reform," making it
harder to sue corporations for the damage they do.

You can read Molly Ivins' past columns here. To respond to
this article, report a problem or provide general feedback to
the editors of this site, click here.



© 2001 Creators Syndicate



To: Mephisto who wrote (8522)12/24/2001 4:38:05 AM
From: jttmab  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
There's Enron...nice bunch of guys.

And then there's American Airlines. I've always liked the spirit of free enterprise/markets that the conservatives so much like to tout, unless you're a big contributor.

American Airlines Requests Antitrust Immunity in Deal

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 14, 2001; Page E01

American Airlines Inc. is seeking antitrust immunity for a marketing alliance with British Airways PLC, provoking a pitched battle with three competitors who see the Dallas-based airline capitalizing on strong fundraising ties to the Bush administration to gain dominance in the lucrative transatlantic market.

The three competitors -- Delta Air Lines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc. and Northwest Airlines Inc. -- have, in turn, mobilized members of Congress and governors to try to block the alliance, which they argue would allow the American-British Airways combination to dominate travel between the United States and London's Heathrow Airport.

The dispute has become part of a larger fight for survival in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "At a time when we may be witnessing a forced reduction in competition among airlines, it is madness to actually encourage even less competition by allowing dominant carriers to collude in setting prices," Richard Branson, chairman of Virgin Atlantic Airways, protested to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.

Such marketing alliances allow each airline to offer customers a single ticketing process with "seamless" connections between the airlines. It also allows them to jointly determine routes and fares.

Heathrow has become a major battleground. Airlines serving the facility are able to boost profits by charging higher fares, especially to business travelers who pay a premium for the convenience of using Heathrow, compared with London's Gatwick and Stansted airports, which are farther out of town.

American Airlines, which is run by one of President Bush's top campaign fundraisers, Donald J. Carty, has had private White House meetings to make its case. The White House has ordered an inquiry into the progress of the antitrust exemption request currently pending at the Transportation Department.

American cleared a key hurdle last week when the Transportation Department rejected a request by Delta, Continental and Northwest for a judicial review of their claims that the alliance would be anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

In what would be a more significant development, the antitrust division of the Justice Department appears unlikely to intervene. Three years ago, a similar request by American was rejected in large part because of the strong objections raised by Justice.

The politics of wartime coalition-building also appears to be working to the advantage of American Airlines. Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister and a key Bush ally in the war on terrorism, has prodded the administration to make sure the Transportation Department moves swiftly on the application. In addition to helping American, the alliance would greatly strengthen the competitive position of British Airways at Heathrow.

Currently, 23 percent of the flights between the United States and Heathrow are on American Airlines and 37 percent are on British Airways. Critics say that means that together the two would make 60 percent of all U.S.-Heathrow departures. The other airlines with a substantial share are United with 23 percent and Virgin Atlantic with 12.9 percent.

If the alliance is approved, the Transportation Department is expected to insist on an "open skies" agreement with Britain, a bilateral accord that would open airports in both countries to more competition from the other's carriers.

Carty, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, noted that Northwest has an alliance with KLM and that Delta has requested permission to form an alliance with Air France. The formation of those international alliances, coupled with open-skies agreements widening access for all U.S. airlines to key foreign markets, has worked to increase competition and expand consumer choice, Carty argued.

But Larry Kellner, president of Continental, said that because American Airlines and British Airways are "the two largest carriers in the world's largest intercontinental market," the combination would crush competition. He said they "are asking for immunity from antitrust laws in order to fix prices, divide markets, allocate capacity and pool revenues in large and important markets where they currently compete."

In a bid to block an American-British Airways alliance, Delta, Continental and Northwest have mobilized at least two dozen senators from both parties, representatives, governors from such states as Alaska and South Dakota, and even the Teamsters Union to press their case.

Some 22 senators, ranging from Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) on the left to Trent Lott (R-Miss.) on the right, have signed letters to Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

American Airlines and Carty were key financial supporters of George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Carty was described in newspaper stories as a "pioneer" -- a fundraiser of more than $100,000 -- although his public relations staff said he was not a pioneer. In addition, American Airlines gave $100,000 -- the maximum allowed -- to help defray costs of the Bush inauguration.

During this past summer, top officials of the Bush administration held private meetings with American Airlines lobbyists and executives to discuss American's international goals, including the alliance with British Airways. These meetings included a June 11 session with Lawrence B. Lindsey, President Bush's White House economic adviser, and an Aug. 3 meeting with Andrew H. Card Jr., chief of staff.

After learning of the Lindsey meeting, officials of Delta, Northwest and Continental requested, and received, a July meeting with the top economic adviser. They asked for a similar meeting with Card after learning of his session with American, but they were turned down.

On Nov. 7, according to a White House spokeswoman, President Bush told Card to inquire at the Department of Transportation about the status of American's application for antitrust immunity. Bush told Card to make the inquiry during a meeting with Blair, according to White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, who said the inquiry was not an attempt to pressure the department.

Conservative columnist Robert Novak reported on Nov. 29 that Card contacted Deputy Transportation Secretary Michael P. Jackson to see how American's request for antitrust immunity was progressing. Jackson, in turn, called Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson "and allegedly instructed the Justice Department not to intervene," according to Novak.

Jackson, the columnist wrote, denied pressing Justice to stay out of the case, but "he confirmed to me that Justice is not intervening." In a separate interview with The Washington Post, Jackson contended that Novak misinterpreted his comments.

"They [Justice] have not given us any formal indication that they will do that [decline to publicly intervene]," Jackson said, and such intervention "remains an option if they decide to do that."

Asked if American Airlines received favorable treatment because of political support given the Bush 2000 campaign, Buchan said, "We meet with people to listen to their concerns."

She added, "The White House has not had any substantive communication on this issue with the Department of Transportation."

Staff Writer Frank Swoboda contributed to this report.