Posted on 01/11/2002 4:26:46 PM PST by Pokey78
THE White House response to the collapse of Enron, a Texas-based energy company with strong links to the Bush administration, has "shades of Bill Clinton", a conservative watchdog said yesterday.
Judicial Watch, a legal group that pressed Mr Clinton in the latter years of his presidency by investigating every aspect of his personal and professional life, called for a special counsel to investigate the Enron case.
Tom Fitton, the group's president, said: "The White House has a nice little scandal on its hands with Enron and they have only themselves to blame. Their reaction certainly has shades of Bill Clinton." The criticism is an indication of the potential risks of the Enron controversy.
Judicial Watch would normally support a conservative president such as Mr Bush. Enron applied for bankruptcy protection last November after overstating its profits by more than £400 million by hiding huge debts in the accounts of subsidiaries.
Its board is being investigated over allegations that 29 current or former members sold their shares for a total of £785 million in the months before the collapse. Thousands lost jobs and money when the Enron share price collapsed from almost £65 to only a few pence in less than a year.
The Houston-based company has close links to the Bush White House. Kenneth Lay, its chairman, is a friend of both President Bush and his father and was one of the principal fundraisers for the Bush-Cheney election campaign in 1999-2000.
Dick Cheney, the vice-president, had close contacts with Mr Lay when Halliburton, another Houston-based energy company of which he was formerly chief executive, built a baseball stadium for Enron.
Two senior members of the administration, Larry Lindsey, the President's chief economic adviser, and Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, worked as consultants with Enron before Mr Bush recruited them.
The White House said on Thursday that Mr Lay called on Paul O'Neill, the treasury secretary, and Don Evans, the commerce secretary, to help the company in the days before it collapsed, but added that they had turned him down, despite his close links to the president and his party.
But Mr Fitton yesterday called on the White House to be more open. "Conservatives are very uncomfortable about the relations between the Bush White House and Enron and I doubt you will see many coming forward to defend the conduct, at least so far."
He was particularly critical of Mr Cheney's efforts to prevent the release of the minutes of meetings he and his staff held with Mr Lay and other Enron executives in the process of formulating the administration's energy policy.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. I apologize. If we can't get proof, I guess at least some measure of guilt should be present.........but that's just me.......LOL.
What's the URL for the article being posted on CNN?
Isn't that what I am saying? Maybe I'm not making it clear; IF, a big IF, Enron thought there were going to get some influence for all that money, I don't think bankruptcy is what they had in mine.
Its kinda hard to have a conscience when you lied your way all through the election scandal in Florida.
Why are they in such deep doo? Why couldn't they use all of their past and present connections to mitigate this before Enron went down and them with it?
The answer is simple: The Democrats made such a huge class warfare fuss over Bush and Cheney's energy connections during the campaign -- they had claimed at one time that being in the oil business should disqualify them from office, for cryin' out loud -- that this Administration was far more sensitive to an "appearance" of conflict that they didn't lift a pinky to help when Enron called to say they were going down. The Bush Administration KNEW that any help would bring the Democrats out with long-knives -- and that they would never give up on the juicy "inside scandalous deal" to save their oil buddies, while all these working families weren't getting any help from the administration during these tough times.
None of these considerations stopped Clinton and Rubin from bailing out Long Term Capital Management with taxpayer dollars. None have stopped the government from bailing out the airlines. None will stop the government from propping up "employee-owned" United Airlines in the very near future.
But it did stop the Bush Administration from helping Enron. It is a case where not only was all that campaign money that went everywhere wasted -- but their efforts (like every large company) to create contacts in "high places" actually help push along their demise. The Bush Administration had no political choice but to let them crash and burn -- because Enron was in the energy business and because they were from Texas (and because people in the administration had connections). Had Enron been an airline from Colorado or an auto maker from Michigan, the government (the Bush Administration) would have been right there with a bailout package. But they were an energy company from Texas, people who had been supporters of the Administration, and as a result the Administration could only watch helplessly while they crased and burned.
That isn't my point. My point is, that unlike so many other large companies that have been bailed out with taxpayer money with barely the blink of an eye (particularly from the press), Enron had no chance at getting such help from its "friends" in the Bush Administration. The Administration was too conscious of the "appearance" problem in conjunction with the rabid Democrat class-warfare attacks, the working families being harmed by "big business" layoffs.
While most other companies of Enron's position and size would have come calling to the government and got assistance, the Administration had to cold-shoulder Enron for political reasons.
It was Enron's misfortune to be an energy firm from Texas that had input in Cheney's energy policy deliberations. If they hadn't been all those things they'd have gotten a bailout -- even though they were rotten businessmen.
Sincerely yours, (My real name)
Well done. You rock!
Power will always be located somewhere. If we eliminate government (all govt) from having any power over business, environmental regs, wages, etc. then by default the power will rest with big business.
With business given a free reign, abuse will happen. It always does because people, in general, are corrupt and adding power to the equation will only make that worse.
Unions will strengthen, trying to check the power of CEO's. People could *theoretically vote with their feet, thereby using their power. They could eschew the union, refuse to work for a corrupt or polluting company, and at last gasp attempt to raise their own non-corrupt company.
Most people will NOT do this. They will lodge their power with the company or the union hoping for security.
The whole of our past has led us to today. From robber barons to union thugs to federal intervention. At each step we have been attempting to give the people more protection and more power and have been thwarted at every turn.
We are a unique nation. Also in our past, was a group of men determined to try something which had never been tried before. We need people like that again. Someone needs to forge a new path.
I cannot make myself believe that there IS truly a new path to take. I simply cannot imagine a wholly different type of society. We will either progress further with centralized gov't and crash, or we will retard it's progress with baby steps. At some point, after the socialist crash perhaps, we will start again. But it won't be a new start. It will be the old one all over again..robber barons, union thugs and gov't.
How is that? And what dirty campaign money?
BTW, if the employees are stupid enough to put ALL their 401(k) into ONE COMPANY, they got what they deserved; the stock feel from $82 in January to $13 the end of September; as I said last night, that is a heads up for your A$$.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.