Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Non-Tech : The Enron Scandal - Unmoderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1352)	2/6/2002 4:33:20 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3602

Well, I believe it is Dem Zoe Lofgren(sp) that is trying to repeal the AMT - but only as applies to capital gains. Seems she wants to protect the "greedy " Silicon Valley capitalists that are hit via stock options with the AMT. That may seem inconsistent for a Dem but it is consistent with their overriding philosophy of serving whatever special interests can help them. As for the Nader, I don't share your respect the more I learn about his dealings with the trial lawyers. If he did save US from Gore, that's redemption enough. (Though you could as easily say that w/o Buchanan Bush would have won a few other states). btw, Naderites get it wrong: Not Guilty A conservative lawmaker, and a conservative law, get undeserved blame for Enron. By Ramesh Ponnuru February 5, 2002 8:55 a.m. I. Phil Gramm You may have heard that Phil Gramm, Republican senator from Texas, had done some of Enron's bidding in 2000. Numerous newspapers, relying on a report by the Naderite group Public Citizen, reported that Gramm had slipped through a provision exempting some of Enron's business from regulation. As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert put it on January 17, "In December 2000 Mr. Gramm was one of the ringleaders who engineered the stealthlike approval of a bill that exempted energy commodity trading from government regulation and public disclosure. It was a gift tied with a bright ribbon for Enron." This was Herbert's first example in a column dedicated to the proposition that "When Senator Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy danced, it was most often to Enron's tune." Public Citizen had Gramm "muscling through" the offending provision. In fact, Gramm had almost nothing to do with it. He didn't write it: It came to the Senate from the House, where it was part of a bill that passed by a large margin. He didn't usher it through the Senate: It was considered by the Agriculture Committee, of which he was not a member, rather than the Banking Committee, which he chaired. Indeed, Gramm blocked the bill that included the provision for several months because he objected to other provisions. He did, however, eventually vote for the bill, like most congressmen. It included the offending provision, which had hardly been altered during the legislative process. Several publications have had to print corrections for linking Gramm to the provision — notably the Washington Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Herbert's column has not been corrected, but the day after it ran the New York Times ran a story by Jeff Gerth and Richard Oppel that noted the inconvenient truth: "[In late 2000] Senator Gramm, for reasons unrelated to Enron, was single-handedly blocking a futures trading bill the company had dearly prized." nationalreview.com