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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (197254)	10/13/2002 5:35:22 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Mr. Bush the Reformer? Lead Editorial The Washington Post Sunday, October 13, 2002 BACK IN JULY, President Bush signed the post-Enron reform bill put together by Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) and sought to share the credit for what he called "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt." In a ceremony at the White House, the president declared that "the era of low standards and false profits is over" and that "no boardroom in America is above or beyond the law." Harvey L. Pitt, Mr. Bush's chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, rightly summed up the challenge presented by the law's enactment. "Now we have to implement it," Mr. Pitt said. "We've got our hands full." The events of the past two weeks raise serious questions about whether Mr. Pitt and the president really meant what they said. The single biggest test of the law's implementation -- the selection of a credible chairman for the new audit oversight board -- is being inexplicably mishandled. Having asked a good candidate whether he would accept the job, and having encouraged him to leave his existing job early in order to make himself available, Mr. Pitt is backing away from him, apparently as a result of pressure from the audit lobby. Mr. Bush, who could stiffen Mr. Pitt's resolve by threatening to designate a different SEC commissioner as chairman, has apparently forgotten his reformist promises of three months ago. The good candidate is John H. Biggs, the head of a large retirement fund and a long-standing advocate of honest accounting. Mr. Biggs meets each of the three qualifications for the job laid down in the reform law. He has a demonstrated commitment to the interests of investors, having run investments on behalf of pensioners and campaigned energetically for reforms of corporate governance. He has a strong grasp of accounting, having served as a trustee of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which writes accounting rules, as well as of the FASB's international counterpart. And he understands auditing, having been a member of the Public Oversight Board that used to oversee the profession. One could not ask for a better candidate, which is presumably why Mr. Pitt initially approached him. Nobody -- not Mr. Pitt, not the White House, not even the lobbyists -- has made a public case against Mr. Biggs. Some have objected that his likely selection was leaked ahead of time to the media, but this isn't Mr. Biggs's fault (all the board members of his pension fund had to be told why he was leaving early), and it's a trivial reason to oppose the appointment of a man who is good on the merits. Others have objected that, since doubts arose about Mr. Biggs's candidacy, his supporters in Congress have protested, rendering the appointment "political." But Mr. Biggs was asked if he wanted the job because of his track record, and that was long before the process became public and contentious. It was politics -- in the form of pressure from lobbies acting through Congress and perhaps even the White House -- that caused Mr. Biggs's appointment to be held up. If Mr. Biggs does not get the job, there will be two kinds of damage. The most qualified candidate will have been passed over, depriving the new watchdog of a strong leader. Even worse, the lobbyists will have demonstrated their sway over the watchdog, undermining its credibility before it is even set up. If Mr. Biggs is pushed aside, what other credible candidate will want a job that's controlled by the industry it is supposed to stand watch over? If Mr. Pitt or Mr. Bush has an answer to this question, we would be interested to hear it. © 2002 The Washington Post Company washingtonpost.com

To: MSI who wrote (197254)	10/13/2002 11:18:45 AM
From: hdl	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

you cut the quote short and changed the meaning. if intentional, this was dishonest on your part. quote reads Frankly, I don't want to hear another word about Iraq right now. I want to hear that my president and my Congress are taking the real steps needed in this country — starting with sane gun control and sane economic policy — to stop this slide into over here becoming like over there

To: MSI who wrote (197254)	10/14/2002 2:51:11 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Cheney Blocks 9/11 Probe... Cheney: 'Investigators, Keep Out' by Michael Isikoff and Tamara Lipper NEWSWEEK Issue; 21 October, 2002 The vice president blocks an independent commission to investigate 9-11 NEWSWEEK -- Dick Cheney played a behind-the-scenes role last week in derailing an agreement to create an independent commission to investigate the 9-11 attacks. Last month the White House endorsed the formation of the panel. But on Thursday, hours after congressional negotiators hailed a final deal over the scope and powers of a 9-11 panel, Cheney called House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Porter Goss, sources told NEWSWEEK. Later that day Goss told a closed-door conference committee he couldn't accept the deal, citing instructions from "above my pay grade,'' sources say. Goss later said he was referring to other House leaders, not Cheney. Goss wouldn't discuss his call from the VP but said it wasn't the "determining factor'' in his stand. Cheney's office said the VP's only instruction to Goss was to "keep negotiating,'' and Bushies insist they still hope to hammer out a new deal before Congress goes home this week. One obstacle: subpoena power. Last week's proposed deal would allow any five members of the 10-member panel to subpoena documents, including internal White House intelligence briefs. But White House officials say this would allow congressional Democrats--who will control half the appointees--to "politicize'' the commission. Cheney strongly opposes the idea of any independent body's poking into the White House's conduct. He has repeatedly objected to efforts by a separate joint-intelligence-committee inquiry to obtain documents and interview key witnesses, including an FBI informant who lived with two of the 9-11 hijackers. Bush officials insist the VP's stand is based on "principle,'' not fear of embarrassments. Even some congressional critics tend to agree. "There's just this general philosophical orientation that the less the world knows, the better,'' says one GOP staffer. truthout.org