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


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29210)9/30/2003 11:59:21 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
The Iraq Reconstruction Bonanza

______________________________

Lead Editorial
The New York Times
Published: October 1, 2003

nytimes.com

Complaints about the $20 billion down payment that President Bush wants for the reconstruction of Iraq are going in the wrong direction. There's no question that the United States has an obligation and clear interest in rebuilding the country it invaded. The cost cannot be whittled down through political compromise or disguised as a loan.

The real problem is that without strong legislative safeguards and oversight, billions of taxpayer dollars are sure to be wasted through insufficiently competitive contracts to politically connected firms like Halliburton and Bechtel. That has largely been the pattern until now. Congress also needs to make sure that reconstruction programs do not fritter away their resources by relying on expensive American workers and supervisors when qualified, reliable and currently unemployed Iraqis could easily do the work.

These issues need to be addressed through explicit language in the financing legislation now taking shape. Striking the right balance is going to be tough for lawmakers facing elections in which they will have to explain why they are paying for a new postal system or schools in Iraq when they are not paying for those things back home.

It is clear that the White House cannot be left to manage the process on its own. The Bush administration's promises of more competitive bidding and more use of Iraqi labor are welcome, but difficult to put much faith in. It is hard to enter the debate over postwar Iraq without tripping over a business associate or political ally of the White House.

Vice President Dick Cheney has insisted that he severed his financial ties to Halliburton, his former employer and holder of an exclusive contract in Iraq. Just two weeks ago, he said on television that he has "no financial interest" in Halliburton.

But a recent report by the Congressional Research Service suggests that this is true only if you don't count the stock options Mr. Cheney continues to hold and $367,690 in deferred compensation he has reported receiving so far while vice president — on top of the $20 million severance package awarded in 2000.

Mr. Cheney's aides argue that he does not participate in the awarding of contracts, that he has insurance guaranteeing his deferred salary if things go badly for Halliburton and that he will give his after-tax proceeds from the sale of options to charity. But Mr. Cheney has not disclosed the full options agreement. His aides also note that he has complied with existing ethics rules. Unfortunately, that still leaves the unsavory image of the vice president cashing checks from a former employer while it profits from a huge no-bid contract.

On Tuesday, The Times reported that President Bush's former campaign manager and other businessmen with close ties to the White House have formed a business designed to use their connections to help other companies share the postwar bounty.

Senator Frank Lautenberg and other Democrats are right to call for hearings on Halliburton's contract. But Congress should look beyond that deal and work out fair and clear rules for awarding future contracts with public disclosure.

Unless Congress puts an end to this kind of profiteering, American taxpayers are almost certain to be saddled with much higher long-term reconstruction costs. The rebuilding of Iraq's shattered public services and vital infrastructure, already behind schedule, will be subjected to further dangerous delays. As the elections approach, Mr. Bush will find himself facing even louder demands than he's now getting from the conservative right and the liberal left to cut the nation's financial and military losses. Bowing to these pressures could have disastrous results. The faster Iraq's economy and society are restored, the sooner American troops can safely return home without leaving behind a new breeding ground for terrorism.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29210)10/1/2003 12:26:10 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Chinks in Bush's armour revealed

news.bbc.co.uk



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29210)10/1/2003 12:36:30 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Losing the Troops

truthout.org



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29210)10/1/2003 1:37:48 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Dollar crash could wreck U.S. economy

_______________________________

By KEN MORITSUGU
DETROIT FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF
freep.com

WASHINGTON -- A slide in the U.S. dollar spooked stock and bond markets this week, a reminder of the calamitous risk that a dollar crash poses to the U.S. and global economies.

A rise or fall in the value of the dollar against other currencies matters little by itself for most consumers unless they travel overseas. Yet a sudden change in the exchange rate can have profound indirect effects that raise or lower the cost of goods in the stores, influence job creation, investment, and mortgage interest rates, and could potentially batter the value of retirement portfolios.

In recent years, foreigners buying dollars and investing in the United States have been an important prop for the economy. Should they suddenly get cold feet, propelling the dollar down, they would likely pummel the stock market, drive up interest rates and push up the price of imports, stoking inflation. Such a shock would drag down other economies as well because so many countries depend heavily on the huge U.S. market to sell their goods.

While many economists agree that the dollar is too strong and should weaken, they are hoping for a gradual fall instead of a sudden plunge. But herein lies the danger. The herd mentality of markets can turn a gradual decline into an all-out run on the dollar. If investors believe the dollar is headed down, they will sell their dollar holdings. Those sales will depress the dollar, sparking a new round of dollar selling in what can quickly become a self-reinforcing downward spiral.

That fear drove down stock and bond markets Monday and well into Tuesday. Stocks fell further on Wednesday amid fears of another threat to the global economy: rising oil prices. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries surprised markets by announcing it would curtail production by 900,000 barrels a day, about 3 percent of total production.

Economists say the dollar, despite falling 33 percent against the euro and 17 percent against the yen since early 2002, remains overvalued. The U.S. currency needs to fall much farther to emerge from the danger zone, they say.

"The road ahead will be long and arduous, and not without risk, especially in oft-volatile currency markets," Stephen Roach, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley investment bank in New York, wrote in a commentary this week.

Behind the dollar's vulnerability is the huge U.S. current account deficit, which consists of the trade deficit along with some financial transactions.

America has in essence been living beyond its means, importing more than it exports, and relying on money from abroad to get by. That money can come in foreign investments in U.S. stocks or foreign purchases of U.S. bonds.

The current account deficit is headed toward a record $550 billion this year, the equivalent of $1.5 billion a day.

As the deficit grows, foreign investors could lose faith in America's ability to repay its debts. Any sign of weakness could lead them to dump their holdings, causing a dollar collapse.

"You're piling up more and more dry kindling, and at some point, there could be a spark," said Jay Bryson, global economist at Wachovia Corp., a Charlotte, N.C.-based bank.

There is reason for hope, however. The dollar, which rose from 1995 and peaked in early 2002, has declined gradually since then. A dollar buys about 111 yen today, down from 135 yen in February of last year. The euro has risen from 86 cents to about $1.15 over the same period.

A weaker dollar makes imports more expensive and U.S. exports cheaper for foreign customers. Over time, that should decrease sales of imports and boost exports, in turn chipping away at the trade deficit, by far the largest piece of the current account shortfall.

But the dollar is only halfway there, according to Fred Bergsten, the director of the Institute for International Economics, a research group in Washington.

The Bush administration, facing a re-election campaign next year, is trying to talk the dollar down further to help beleaguered domestic manufacturers boost exports.

Treasury Secretary John Snow succeeded last weekend in getting finance ministers from Japan, Canada and four European countries to join him in a statement calling for more flexibility in exchange rates. The implication was that China and Japan should let their currencies strengthen against the dollar.

China has a fixed exchange rate of 8.3 yuan to the dollar, so change isn't expected soon from Beijing. Analysts are unsure whether Japan will yield either, because a stronger yen would hurt its exports.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (29210)10/1/2003 9:02:52 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
SEC seeks Enron documents...[They clearly haven't been setting any speed records]

___________________________________

Agency asks court to force ex-chairman Lay to hand over files

msnbc.com

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — The Securities and Exchange Commission asked a federal judge on Monday to force Kenneth L. Lay, the former head of Enron Corp., to turn over documents the agency is seeking in its investigation of the business practices that led to one of the largest corporate bankruptcy filings in U.S. history.

THE SEC SAID it had filed the request with the U.S. District Court in Washington, arguing that Lay was wrong to contend that turning over the documents would violate his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.

“The documents being withheld by Lay appear to be corporate records, which Lay may not withhold from production based on any personal rights he may have under the Fifth Amendment,” the SEC said in a statement announcing its action.

Lay’s spokeswoman and his attorney did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

Enron spiraled into bankruptcy in late 2001, part of a wave of corporate accounting scandals that engulfed not only the Houston-based energy trading company but such other big corporate names as WorldCom, Global Crossing and Adelphia Communications.

The highest-ranking Enron executive charged to date is former chief financial officer Andrew Fastow, who faces nearly 100 criminal charges including fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Fastow has pleaded innocent and is free on $5 million bond as he awaits trial next April.

Earlier this month, Ben Glisan Jr., Enron’s former treasurer, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and was sentenced to five years in prison.

Federal prosecutors said Glisan made no deal to implicate higher-ups such as Lay, but that his sentence — the maximum under the law — could send what one federal lawyer called “a somewhat chilling message.”

Glisan worked for Fastow, who has been accused of masterminding the schemes that led Enron into bankruptcy in 2001 amid devastating disclosures of inflated profits, hidden debt and questionable accounting.

While the government has not filed criminal charges against Lay, the former chairman, or Jeffrey Skilling, the company’s former chief executive, the two were named in a civil lawsuit filed in June against Enron and several former executives and directors.

The civil suit filed by the Labor Department seeks to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement money that Enron employees lost when the company went into bankruptcy.