Posted on 01/12/2002 6:06:30 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
Agree completely.
Too bad. I kinda liked Phil Gramm. Seems that everyone has their wife and kids involved in the political money grab. The whole system is corrupted. It is really way past time when we should have thrown out all the bums in Washington. Term limits would be a good start.
Richard W.
Finally, Wendy Gramm (wife of Senator Phil Gramm) joined Enron's Board of Directors in 1993 after she resigned from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This Commission, just days after Gramm's resignation, deregulated energy futures, thereby allowing Enron to earn 10% of its profits by adventures on the financial markets.
So it was apparently deregulation by the commission, not legislation by the Congress. And the deregulation was issued after Wendy Gramm left the commission. However, if it was issued only days after she left, it must have been in the pipeline to be issued before she left.
Have you seen the list of lawyers Enron's execs have lined up? Bob Bennett (Clinton's defense attorney), David Boies (Al Gore's attorney) and a third one who name escapes me. Interesting times.
1. In April, 1993, the CFTC, headed by Wendy Gramm, exempted a variety of over-the-counter energy derivatives transactions from some requirements under the commodity exchange act. This was part of a broader effort by the CFTC to eliminate legal uncertainty for over-the-counter transactions. The actions involving energy derivatives followed other CFTC actions involving OTC interest rate and currency derivatives. The CFTC granted no special favors to the energy industry in general or Enron in particular. The regulations in question had their origins in the 1920s and were completely inappropriate to modern financial markets.
2. Enron wasn't Enron in 1993. That is to say, it wasn't nearly as big, important, and influential back then. There is little reason to believe that the CFTC was unduly influenced by Enron. A lot of other firms favored the new regulatory structure.
3. Wendy Gramm's "big money job" in 1993 was $22,000 in director's compensation.
4. In 2000, Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This also revised the regulatory structure for energy and other OTC derivatives. Phil Gramm was involved in this as head of the Senate Banking Committee. So was Richard Lugar, head of the Senate Ag Committee (which has jurisdiction over the CFTC). It was passed as an attachment to a budget bill.
5. There is no evidence whatsoever that Enron's collapse was connected in any way to the 1993 exemptions or the 2000 Modernization Act. Enron didn't collapse because it speculated wildly in energy derivatives. It collapsed in large part because it speculated wildly in bandwidth, water, and foreign power plants. Although Enron is known primarily as an energy company, its demise is more directly attributable to the collapse of the telecom sector (think Lucent, Global Crossing, and on and on) than anything involving the energy markets or the regulation thereof.
I have little sympathy for Wendy Gramm. She headed the audit committee of a company whose audits were a sham. For this she should be held accountable. However, these dark hints that she participated in a conspiracy to change regulations to favor a firm that subsequently rewarded her seem wide of the mark. The regulatory changes were defensible--indeed, they were correct. What happened subsequently is a different story altogether. She failed in her responsibilities as a director.
In case anybody missed it, there's a full-scale, no-holds-barred air war going on right now. A massive one. Daisy-cutters, 2,000-pound bunker-busters -- you name it. Bombs are dropping faster than you can blink. Squadrons of B-52s -- AKA 'big ugly fat fellows' -- are prowling the heavens, pounding enemy positions, unleashing their fiery wrath, carpet bombing around-the-clock....the works.
What's that you say? Haven't heard of this? Thought the war was over, eh? Well Fuggedaboudit! Flick on the idiot box, kick up your feet, sit back and enjoy (Drum roll, please?) -- OPERATION ENRON!!! Yep, folks, it's Enron at dawn, Enron at noon, Enron at dusk. Enron 24/7. The media high command has declared an air war against the Bush administration; The White House, like the mountains of Tora Bora, has become ground zero for media strike bombardiers.
Kidding aside, never -- ever -- in my life have I seen anything quite like what we're witnessing right now.
Media bias is one thing. We've all seen it. We've all tasted it. Heaven knows we've all groused about it, perennially. Bernard Goldberg's bombshell has soared to near the top of the New York Times best-seller list, and for good reason.
But, Ladies and Gentlemen, what we're witnessing goes beyond simple 'bias' -- well beyond. This isn't bias, this is fraud. Wholesale fraud.
The media is perpetrating one of the greatest frauds ever: To wit, the fabrication of a pseudo-political "scandal" -- out of whole cloth.
This isn't "news" "reporting", this is orgy-making -- a veritable orgy of innuendo. It would take years to tally all the libel and slander, all the malicious rumor-mongering, all the baseless smears -- the torrent of lies, insults and calumnies spewed straight from the bowels of our "major media" these past two days -- alone.
Question: Why is the media doing this? That's simple: Because they can.
Any proof of administration wrongdoing? No, not the vaguest hint, not the slightest intimation of official wrongdoing nor impropriety -- and even the media jackals know it.
Any proof of malfeasance or criminal activity by anyone in the Bush White House? Nope. None has been shown, none has been presented. Nothing even remotely resembling an allegation, even. But heck, who needs proof, anyway? Washington craves a 'scandal', and Enron fills the bill nicely, thank you very much.
No proof of a 'cover-up'? Then fabricate some! Of course, we all know Bush had nothing to do with the shredding* of documents, the massive cover-up by Enron's auditor. But oh, yummy, yummy -- how exquisitely delicious to find ominous buzz phrases like 'document-shredding', 'cover-up' and the name George W. Bush jammed together in the same sentence, eh? Who cares if they don't belong together? Who cares if Bush did absolutely nothing wrong? This is not about truth or fairness or facts or evidence: This is purely -- first and foremost -- about vengence. Avenging whom or what, you ask? Why, the media's darling golden-boy, William Jefferson Clinton, who eles?
But the haters have a major problem on their hands, and it's this: Signs are this phony "scandal" is headed in the opposite direction -- away from implicating current administration officials.
Indeed, think of how ludicrous this sounds: Democrats want to know -- not why there were -- but why there weren't any quid-pro-quo shenanigans. Why didn't you do any special favors on behalf of your big campaign contributor, Mr. President? Why didn't you bail out your rich oil buddy when he came beckoning and calling?
In other words, what the heck is the matter with you, Mr. President? Why, O why, didn't you do something wrong? Lotting the treasury to bailout fat-cats; seedy backroom deals, bribery, extortion -- that's what we do here in Washington! How dare you be so ethical, so squeaky clean, Mr. President?!?!
Bottom line: Democrats want to know why Enron's generous contributions didn't buy it any favors from this administration. How utterly UN-Clinton-esque can this President get, eh?
This is the first "scandal" in history in which no wrongdoing IS the scandal du jour. No special favors, no shenanigans, no quid-pro-quo -- now that's an outrage!
The Attorney General recusing himself? What?! This is earthshaking! Explosive! How scandalous!
Why the AG recusing himself to avoid tainting the probe should be seen as "scandalous"? You go figure.
But that's the nub of the problem with Enron as political "news": Its string of farcical flaws and fallacies.
It's why "Enron" will soon be running on fumes -- politically worthless, just like the company's stock. Absent some 'hook' -- proof of government cover-up, official malfeasance, etc. -- "Enron" inexorably reverts to its rightful place in the business page of the newspaper.
Already people are asking: Where's the beef?
*Ironies of ironies: The wholesale document destruction by Enron's auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, raises an interesting dilemma, particularly in light of the close ties between Ken Lay and the previous administration. Clinton was known to personally intervene on Enron's behalf on a number of occasions. Generous campaign donations would follow. The documents destroyed may have revealed a nexus.
My intrepid prediction: Enron will backfire on Democrats. Americans will see them as grossly over-reaching -- the "hearings" as sheer vindicativeness, an unwelcomed extention of Campaign 2000. Their vicious and spiteful crusade will be seen as bloodsport -- a thinly veiled, all-out effort to cripple this President; the Democrats' ultimate goal is to assassinate him, politically, with constant, deadly attacks and smears.
But it won't work, because it can't work. The public will not look to fondly at their "Wanted: Dead or Alive" modus operandi at politics (again, figuritively speaking).
A political party whose sole obession, whose only mission is to bring down the President -- come hell or high water -- is a party destined, rightfully, for the ash heap.
Fate will deal the Democrats, tone deaf and blinded by hate, a cruel blow, indeed. So let them nurse their hatred -- let them beat the dead horse of Enron: They will only bring down the wrath of a people, of a nation, still smoldering over September 11.
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Just like the savings and loans scandals.
Sutton was hired in March of 2001 to serve on "onExchange Advisory Board". In addition to its technology solutions, onExchange operates a U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission-designated futures exchange and clearinghouse.
Nice Bio in the Press Release on their website. www.onexchange.com
sw
In 1998, Wendy Gramm cashed out over $280,000 of stock options that Enron awarded her for serving on the the Enron Board of Directors.
That means it's an F for you "financeprof".
Well that's normal.
When the Republicans screw up they have to pay a fine (lawyer fees, etc.) to the Democrates.
When the Democrates screw up they have to pay a fine (lawyer fees, etc.) to the Republicans.
Meanwhile the people lose.
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.