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.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (3493)	7/30/2002 11:53:57 AM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

when small retail investors re-enter stocks, then lose again they will give up on this stock market later in autumn they sold at the lows last week they watch now as stocks rose 12-13% they will buy some shares again soon they will lose their asses for the 16th time this autumn sad / jim

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (3493)	7/30/2002 1:12:50 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Of the CEOs, by the CEOs, for the CEOs Devil in the Details The American Prospect Issue Date: 7.23.02 Give George W. credit where credit is due: He promised us an administration with business principles, MBAs, wall-to-wall CEOs. And, to his woe (and ours), that's just what he's got. In the president's cabinet, we have Commerce Secretary Don Evans, the former CEO of Tom Brown Inc.; Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at various times the CEO of G.D. Searle, General Instrument Corporation and Gilead Sciences; President George W. Bush himself, former CEO (Ceremonial Events Officer) of the Texas Rangers; Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton; and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former CEO of Alcoa. So you can see how the administration has become the odd man out in the debate over corporate reform. Because nobody's more loyal to his lodge than a CEO. When a CEO arranges for a fellow CEO to serve as an outside director on his company's board, he can be sure he's picked up one more vote for his own gargantuan pay package. And when another CEO asks him to be an outside director, he knows he's there for the very same reason. So is it any surprise that the Bush White House is sticking with CEOs even unto the end while congressional Republicans are frantically erasing those CEO numbers from their PalmPilots (so long as they're sure their fundraisers still have them)? Phil Gramm has never met a CEO he didn't like, excepting those socially conscious idiots, but even Gramm has voted for some tough penalties for criminal CEOs -- which offends this admin- istration's sense of justice (i.e., its double standard). But then, Gramm isn't Bush. He doesn't have CEOs on his team, scripting his every burp. He doesn't have Cheney coming by at nap time to defend the CEO's sovereign right to loot, or O'Neill to tuck him in and tell him that these mishaps are all part of the genius of the system. ("Should I meet this genius?" Bush wonders. "Probably bore me to death.") A different team might tell Bush that the reliability of financial reports really is a big deal, that he should try not to upset investors unduly, that he's sending the market due south. But his guys know what really matters: themselves and their buds. In a land where they suddenly feel like strangers, where stony faces and disparaging words now mark their passage, America's CEOs know there's one house where they're always welcome -- if they can just buy that boy a second term. Copyright © 2002 by The American Prospect, Inc. prospect.org

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (3493)	7/30/2002 2:21:40 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Bushwacked: Paul Starr says this Bush is as vulnerable as his daddy was a decade ago. ------------------------------------------------ How Bushes Get Beaten By Paul Starr The American Prospect Issue Date: 7.23.02 Only a short time ago the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, whoever that might be, seemed to face two possibilities: losing to George W. Bush by a respectable margin or being wiped out in a colossal landslide. Such dismal prospects, if they had persisted into next year, would have hampered Democratic fund raising and put the entire 2004 ticket at risk of being overwhelmed by a spiral of despondency and self-fulfilling expectations of defeat. But the picture looks different now that corporate scandals and panicky markets have reframed the national conversation and put Republicans on the defensive. The new political climate has boosted Democrats' morale going into the midterm elections, made a victory in 2004 entirely plausible and helped to clarify what Democratic primary voters may be looking for in a presidential nominee. Although history never repeats itself, the emerging framework of politics bears some resemblance to the situation that developed before the 1992 election. Like his father, the younger Bush has enjoyed an outpouring of public support after successfully meeting a challenge to national security. But he suffers from at least four of the same areas of vulnerability that Bill Clinton showed how to exploit, at Bush Senior's expense, a decade ago: the economy, the federal deficit, health care and the environment. To be sure, no one can foretell economic conditions two years from now, but the overall record of Bush's term -- measured by unemployment and economic growth rates -- seems likely to fall well below that of the Clinton years. Even without a double-dip recession, the business scandals have undercut public confidence in unfettered markets and laissez-faire nostrums; the devastating impact of the stock market's decline on retirement savings, for instance, has effectively stopped talk of privatizing Social Security. Clinton was able to beat Bush Senior not only by making the economy the central issue, but by conveying a more sympathetic understanding of voters' everyday worries. The younger Bush seems less out of touch than his father, but he suffers from the same basic problem. Locked in fiscally and ideologically, identified with business interests, he will find it hard to respond credibly to prolonged economic sluggishness, much less a crisis. This year's deficit, recently projected to run $165 billion, reopens a second vulnerability: financial mismanagement of the government. As Ross Perot pummeled the elder Bush on the deficit, so the Democrats this year -- and probably in 2004 -- should be able to hammer away at the same theme, emphasizing the surpluses the president squandered and the parallels between the false promises and deceptive accounting of his tax cut and analogous practices in the private sector. Health care and the environment are not only powerful issues for particular constituencies, they also serve as metaphors for the larger themes of Bush's solicitous protection of business and his indifference to wider public concerns. As in the early 1990s, health care has entered an inflationary cycle that threatens the affordability of services and drugs for many who previously felt protected. But given the fiscal straightjacket he designed for himself, this Bush will be no more capable than his father of responding to the problem. Similarly, the links between the Bushes and the energy industry, and the family's ideological hostility to regulation, make the son, like the father, vulnerable on the environment. Of course, the 1992 analogy is useful only up to a point. Unlike the Gulf War, the war on terrorism is not over and has no clear terminus; compared to his father, the younger Bush has enjoyed higher approval ratings for a longer time, and he can still invade Iraq and re-establish security as the overarching framework of national debate. Moreover, he and Karl Rove take Reagan rather than George I as their political model, and they have shown flexibility on such issues as protecting the steel industry to achieve focused political gains. The Democrats, for their part, have no obvious choice for a candidate to oppose the president, though that was also the case in 1990. Despite that vacuum, the corporate scandals and shaky economy have already changed the dynamics of electoral politics. As September 11 gave Bush a direction for his initially floundering presidency, so the scandals give direction to the long-floundering opposition. Whether or not new disclosures about Harken and Halliburton further implicate Bush and Cheney personally in the insider trading and misleading accounting that are at the heart of the investor confidence crisis, the Republicans are unmistakably the party of corporate interests at a moment when faith in business has plummeted. Voters -- particularly the Democratic primary voters who will pick the party's next presidential nominee -- are likely to look for a candidate who can clearly articulate a coherent alternative philosophy to the orthodox conservative worship of free-market idols. Democrats do not need to resuscitate a simple-minded populism. They need to recall a tradition that insists, as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. has put it, that business is powerful enough without controlling the government too, and that markets obedient only to self-interest cannot ensure fairness or protect a society's long-term needs. No one can yet say who the Democrats' candidate will be in 2004, but it is beginning to be clear what that candidacy should be about. Copyright © 2002 by The American Prospect, Inc. prospect.org

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (3493)	7/31/2002 5:43:09 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Republicans desperately seeking leadership and ideas By MARK SHIELDS SYNDICATED COLUMNIST Monday, July 29, 2002 I now owe a number of my conservative colleagues a public apology. During the fall of 2000, many of them bluntly warned that if I did not wholeheartedly back Republican George W. Bush, the following terrible things would happen: The Dow-Jones average would lose 4,000 points; the nation's unemployment rate would climb higher than it had been in eight years; historic U.S. budget surpluses would be replaced by budget deficits as far as the eye could see. Well, I have to admit that a) I did not back Bush in the fall of 2000 and b) every dire change they predicted has come to pass. It is not much fun being a Republican candidate in the late summer of 2002. The GOP, the party that has "met a payroll" and knows the bottom line, finds itself held accountable for an economy of reduced payrolls and led by a president, touted as a straight-talker, who in the middle of a hemorrhage of public trust in the honesty of corporate leadership, chooses a White House news conference to announce, "In the corporate world, sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting." All of us are entitled to our own opinions, but none of us is entitled to her own facts. The facts are painful for Republicans. The most recent Democratic administration first elected in 1992 inherited, after 12 years of Republican presidents and downsizing and layoffs, an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent and a federal budget deficit of $290 billion. Eight years later, that budget deficit had been turned into a $236 billion surplus; the nation's unemployment rate had been cut to 3.9 percent, the nation's lowest in 30 years; the Dow Jones had climbed by more than 8,000 points; and unemployment rates among women, African Americans and Hispanic Americans had been reduced to historic lows. In those two Democratic White House terms, more jobs -- 22 million plus -- were created than in the three Republican terms from 1980 to 1992. But that was nothing new. Since World War II, the country has had five Democratic and six Republican presidents (including the incumbent). U.S. job growth per year was higher under every one of the five Democratic presidents than it was under all the Republican presidents. That's right, American jobs grew faster under Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, John Kennedy, Harry Truman and, yes, under Richard Nixon than they did under Ronald Reagan. Not all was economic milk and honey during the Clinton-Gore years. The gap between the haves and the have-nots continued to grow. By 2000, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans owned more than did the bottom 95 percent. By that same year, American workers with less than a high-school diploma earned 26 percent less than they had in 1979 and workers with a high-school diploma earned 12 percent less in 2000 than they had in 1979. In defense of Clinton, he did appoint genuine reformer Arthur Levitt as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. And Clinton did back Levitt when the chairman had the guts to demand that the big accounting firms give up their lucrative practice of consulting and auditing the books of the same companies. For Republicans facing November voters, the bad news is that they and their party are widely judged to be the lapdogs of Big Business and more dedicated to protecting corporate interests than in fighting for "ordinary Americans." Compounding GOP liabilities has been the White House's tone-deaf response to questions about pre-White House business dealings of Vice President Dick Cheney and the president. Bush, almost universally praised for his post-Sept. 11 resoluteness, has been publicly petulant and uninspiring during the corporate crisis. Republicans, three months before Election Day, are desperately looking for ideas and leadership. ---------------------------------------------------- Mark Shields is a commentator on PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" and on CNN's "Capital Gang." Copyright 2002 by Creators Syndicate. E-mail: cre8ors@aol.com seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (3493)	8/1/2002 1:47:42 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Florida Recount Funded by Enron/Halliburton The Bush Family's Made Men thedailyenron.com Bush's Magical Mystery Tour JULY 30: If George W. Bush were cast as a TV sitcom character he would have to be modeled after ad man Darrin of Bewitched or Astronaut Roger of I Dream of Jeannie - a hapless fellow whose success hinges almost entirely on the extraordinary powers of others. And so it was when the presidency hung by a thread in Florida during the last election. A contentious recount was underway and the genies that had gotten Bush so far assembled en masse to assure his victory over Al Gore. Only now are those last-minute efforts fully becoming known. According to papers filed with the IRS on July 15, nearly $14 million magically poured into the Bush/Cheney Florida recount effort - four times the amount raised by the Gore/Lieberman camp. The money flowed in so fast, and in such enormous chunks, that Bush campaign officials - unaccustomed to Bush's perennial good fortune - were dumbfounded. "I think we were a little bit stunned by the amount we received," Benjamin Ginsberg, a Bush attorney for the recount, told USA Today. According to IRS documents, the Bush campaign took in $13.8 million, most in large contributions. Listed among those large contributors were Bush and Cheney's two most reliable genies - Enron and Halliburton. While the Gore/Lieberman campaign filed its IRS disclosures of their Florida recount expenditures months ago, the Bush's recount fund filed the required forms at the very last moment allowed by law. July 15 was the final day of an IRS amnesty program for groups that hadn't already complied with the law. "They obviously begrudgingly disclosed, and did it way after the fact," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "It's better than nothing, but it would have been better to have disclosed it when the money was coming in." The filings show that as soon as a recount was announced, Bush forces moved quickly. Money was no object. They dispatched over 100 lawyers to Florida and Texas, booking hundreds of plane tickets, rental cars and hotel rooms. Among the expenditures listed was a payment of $13,000 to Enron Corp. and $2,400 to Halliburton Co. for the use of their corporate jets and other unspecified services. "Eighteen months after the election, we find that the (Bush) administration literally flew into office on the Enron corporate jet," said Jennifer Palmieri, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee. "The administration's close ties with unscrupulous corporations like Enron and Halliburton prevent it from showing real leadership on corporate reform." Former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay and his wife also donated $5,000 apiece, according to the filings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bush Family's Made Men George W. Bush trying to morph into a business ethics professor is a bit like a Jessie Ventura trying to pass as a prim and proper schoolmarm. It's at once amusing and painful to watch. And, Americans are not buying the act. Numerous polls show that voters continue to believe that George W. Bush is more in tune with the wealthy and corporate interests than those of regular folk. Almost weekly now some publication or another reveals another politically connected, sweetheart deal that benefited either the President himself or one of his brothers. This week it was the St. Petersburg Times, and the focus was on brother Jeb Bush. It seems that back in 1989 (around the same time he was in business with a now-fugitive HMO operator as well as a convicted HUD borrower, and while Jeb was defaulting on a $4.5 million loan from a failed Florida S&L) Jeb was also partners with a fellow whose company is now under investigation for misappropriating federal loan funds to Nigeria. That deal reared its ugly head again this month when details became public thanks to a whistleblower and a federal lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the company, MWI Corp., a water pump manufacturer based in Deerfield Beach, FL, improperly used more than one-third of a $74.3 million U.S. loan to pay bribes and kickbacks to Nigerian government officials. Jeb Bush's business partner in the deal was prominent Florida Republican contributor J. David Eller. Court filings allege that Eller flew suitcases of cash to offshore tax havens to hide assets from the deal. Jeb Bush was paid $648,250 by Bush-El, a company he and Eller formed in 1988 to promote MWI's pumps. Eller and his company have contributed more than $129,000 to the Republican Party since 1989, according to the watchdog group Common Cause. The old deal was given new light this month when Bush's former partner moved to have all the court records of the ongoing suit sealed from public view. Jeb Bush, who is not named in the federal suit, continues to claim he had nothing to do with the Nigerian deals now in question. However, court records show that twice while his father was in the White House, Jeb Bush visited Nigeria on behalf of MWI. The Nigerians were so impressed with the fact that the son of a sitting President of the United States was associated with MWI that Jeb was welcomed by a parade of 1,300 horses, and tens of thousands of people lined the road to welcome him. The St. Petersburg Times also obtained a MWI marketing video, filmed around the time of Jeb's 1989 visit, in which Eller brags that his company has "support at the highest levels of our own government." The video, made for the Nigerian market, featured pictures of Eller with then-President George Bush. Eller also pointed out Jeb Bush's stake in the company. "In fact George Bush's son will be coming to Nigeria with us for the inauguration of our factory," Eller says on the tape. "And we're very proud of that, and it shows that our government is very interested in what we're doing in Nigeria and very supportive." The U.S. Export-Import Bank eventually approved $74.3 million in loans to Nigeria expressly to purchase MWI's pumps. Now federal prosecutors say that $28 million of those loans was improperly used to grease the palms of Nigerian officials and MWI insiders. The lawsuit cites one example in which MWI officials brought "large quantities" of cash to the Abuja Hilton Hotel, where they met with Nigerian officials. The MWI representatives left the meeting without the money. The lawsuit is all that now remains of the deal as the Bush Justice Department notified MWI in March that it had closed a criminal investigation into the pump deals. The Department of Justice's civil litigation division only recently joined a whistleblower lawsuit when the whistleblower refused to drop the case. Ordinary citizens are allowed under law to file suits in behalf of the US Government when the government itself refuses to act. Now part of the civil action, the Justice Department will be in a better position to determine its outcome. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of The Day "The Bush administration, with its economic happy talk, excessive corporate influence and unwillingness to grapple with a serious new federal regulatory role, bears a resemblance to the GOP of the '20s. Like the unlucky Herbert Hoover, George W. prefers business self-regulation and volunteerism, which will prove inadequate if the crisis deepens." -Kevin Phillips, Los Angeles Times

To: T L Comiskey who wrote (3493)	8/2/2002 12:43:07 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Bush Justice Department Enforcement Required Wednesday, 31 July 2002, 9:59 am Press Release: Judicial Watch For Immediate Release Jul 30, 2002 Contact: Press Office 202-646-5172 CORPORATE LEGISLATION scoop.co.nz Bush Justice Department Enforcement Required Justice Department Could Begin With Halliburton (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, said today that President Bush’s signing of corporate reform legislation is merely a cosmetic effort by the Bush administration to appease critics on Capitol Hill and in the media. The signing ceremony was also a publicity opportunity to bolster President Bush’s sagging poll numbers and settle the wildly volatile stock market. While President Bush promised in today’s signing ceremony that the corporate reform legislation is "the most far reaching reforms of American business practices," and warned executives who would break the law, "you'll be exposed and punished," ironically, no criminal charges or arrests have been brought by the Bush-Cheney Justice Department in connection with high officials of Enron, Halliburton, Global Crossing or WorldCom. President Bush and senior members of his administration have close ties to Enron and its CEO, Kenneth Lay, who the president affectionately calls, “Kenny Boy.” Vice President Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton in the late 1990s. Enron, Global Crossing and WorldCom were all large contributors to the two major political parties. “Actions speak louder than words, and nearly one year later, Enron executives who are friends of the Bush administration are still free to go and do as they please. What does that tell you about how seriously this administration takes the rampant corporate fraud that has destroyed the life savings and pensions of millions of American senior citizens? And, Vice President Cheney still has a lot of answers he owes the American public about his days at Halliburton. Let’s start enforcing the new law from the top down,” stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman. ENDS