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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (287773)	8/18/2002 2:36:53 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Fighting the Wrong Budget War Lead Editorial The New York Times 8/18/02 Like some of America's biggest corporations, the United States government has been forced to revise its ledger recently. The results, which show that the 10-year $5.6 trillion surplus foreseen two years ago has mostly disappeared, has propelled President Bush into a budgetary conversion. He is suddenly a scourge of wasteful federal spending. Indeed, he refused last week to spend a minuscule $5 billion appropriated by Congress for a grab bag of "emergency" items, angering lawmakers from both parties. "If Congress will not show spending restraint, I will enforce spending restraint," he said yesterday. Mr. Bush is not wrong to be concerned about Congressional wastefulness or the long-term budgetary outlook. But he is wrong about priorities. Federal spending under Mr. Bush has risen at record rates because of pressing and legitimate military and domestic security needs, as well as other priorities like education and health. Along the way, Congress adopted the attitude that a billion here and there for other favorite items would never be noticed. Mr. Bush went along. He has not vetoed a single spending bill since becoming president. He also signed a ridiculously expensive farm bill; farmers are the swing vote in several close Senate races. Mr. Bush's new austerity is acknowledged by aides to be mostly symbolic. But their attitude seems to be that he has to draw the line somewhere. The $5 billion package that Mr. Bush has killed, with what was effectively a pocket veto, is not, however, an opportune place to draw it. It contains money for home defenses, military spending, foreign aid, AIDS treatment and programs for victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. For the president, picking this fight on the current-year budget has become important because he and his budget director, Mitchell Daniels — referred to by Mr. Bush as Blade — are gearing up for yet another fight on next year's budget when Congress returns after Labor Day. The White House argues that the action this week will strengthen its hand for the next round. These battles will be resolved in due course. The sums are not vast or consequential for the economy. The underlying strangeness of the fight is that Mr. Bush does not want to talk about the main reason for looming deficits: the tax cuts of last year. The administration's own budget numbers make clear that nearly 40 percent of the disappearing surplus is a result of the multiyear tax cut, with the remainder evaporating because of the economic downturn, increased spending and some accounting changes. While campaigning in South Dakota last week, Mr. Bush attributed his economic problems to what he said was a recession inherited from President Bill Clinton and to the terrorist attacks and the corporate scandals of this year. Conveniently forgotten was Mr. Bush's confident prediction in 2001, when he first proposed his tax cut, that the country could "proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." It is that statement that has turned out to be false prophecy. Realistically speaking, there will not be a reconsideration of the tax cuts any time soon. The votes are not there to make the change. But history shows that Congresses and presidents are willing to raise taxes to close deficits in the face of war or as part of a grand bargain that involves austerity on the spending side. Both Bill Clinton and Mr. Bush's father embraced such deals. Mr. Bush's decision to pick fights with Congress on the margins of federal spending is unlikely to have any impact on the budget or on the economy. Only when he wrestles with root causes will he begin to approach a solution. nytimes.com

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (287773)	8/22/2002 1:04:11 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Hey Charles, what will this do for your "Bush protects his buddies" theory? If this leads to arrests of more top figures at Enron will your opinion of Bush change any? Of particular interest is the paragraph I put in quotes before the full article. I accidently posted this to myself a couple of days ago, but curious what you think. Today there is more ink on this stating that they are seizing assets, which is an "extremely aggresive" law eforcement tactic normally used for drug dealers. "It was widely expected that someone close to Fastow would face charges before the former CFO -- or any of the company's other senior officials -- were charged. In so doing, prosecutors may attempt to gain co-operation in subsequent cases against Enron's most senior executives" Former Enron Exec Kopper to Plead Guilty Tue Aug 20, 5:34 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former Enron Corp. executive Michael Kopper is expected to plead guilty on Wednesday to the first criminal charges in the investigation into the failed energy giant and will surrender $12 million in "criminally derived" assets, sources close to the investigation said on Tuesday. These are the first criminal charges in the U.S. government's investigation into Enron, which was launched after the company collapsed last fall amid controversy. Although U.S. investigators have made several high-profile arrests of top executives of other companies accused of corporate wrongdoing, they had yet to charge anyone connected to Enron. Kopper worked in the company's Enron Global Finance division and was closely connected to the failed energy giant's former Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow. He was considered Fastow's chief lieutenant in managing numerous off-balance-sheet partnerships that eventually helped destroy Enron. It was widely expected that someone close to Fastow would face charges before the former CFO -- or any of the company's other senior officials -- were charged. In so doing, prosecutors may attempt to gain co-operation in subsequent cases against Enron's most senior executives. Kopper will plead guilty in Houston on Wednesday morning to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, the sources said. As part of the deal he will also surrender the $12 million. Enron filed for bankruptcy on Dec. 2, wiping out thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in equity, shaking investor confidence and triggering investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission ( news - web sites), the U.S. Congress, and the Justice Department ( news - web sites). Kopper's attorneys could not immediately be reached for comment. A Justice Department spokesman would not comment. The Powers Report, an internal investigation by Enron directors, blamed Fastow for creating and managing the partnerships, but made clear that Kopper was right beside him in negotiating the complicated transactions that brought windfalls to both of them and other employees. Kopper was believed to have earned more than $10 million from the secret partnerships, on whose behalf he often negotiated when in discussions with Enron. Fastow did much the same, working both sides of the deals until Enron decided he could no longer be the general partner of a key off-balance-sheet partnership, LJM II. In one partnership, known as "Chewco," Kopper earned $10 million from Enron for a $125,000 investment. He also was instrumental in a partnership named "Southampton Place," so named for the swanky area of Houston where he and Fastow lived. He sold his interest in LJM to Kopper in July 2001, which allowed Enron to avert -- temporarily -- the problem of having a top executive running an outside partnership rife with conflicts of interest. Kopper left Enron at the same time to run LJM, which he since lost control of in legal battles. story.news.yahoo.com.