Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Enron and the Clintonites
The Weekly Standard - (The Daily Standard) ^ | David Brooks

Posted on 01/12/2002 9:29:12 PM PST by oioiman

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-146 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: hogwaller
It's a grave pity, that YOU are SO ill informed. It HAS been proved , that Enron bigwigs, have made numerous phone calls to Treasury, and other people in the administration ( even had Rubin make phone calls, on ther behalf ! ) , and thus far, NOTHING has been uncovered, that was done for them; NOTHING ! OTOH, go read the various articles posted on FR today / night... it HAS been shown just how very much the Clinonistas did for Enron .

Game, set, and match !

23 posted on 01/12/2002 11:20:00 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hogwaller
You're nuts...

Clintooon did plenty to help Lay and enron and Bush did squat.

24 posted on 01/12/2002 11:21:32 PM PST by america-rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Jewels1091
There's an email service called mailblaster.com - at least there used to be. I haven't had to use it for awhile. You can send to only dems or repubs or both. You only have to create your message one time for each group you want to send to.
26 posted on 01/12/2002 11:23:03 PM PST by Sueann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: hogwaller
If you can prove they didn't, then post it

I think this falls to the old maxim "You can't prove a negative"

29 posted on 01/12/2002 11:37:21 PM PST by DaiHuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hogwaller
If you were only 1/100th as clever / smart as you imagine that you are, you might have noticed a few , rather important things ; but you didn't.

Who did what for whom, whilst they were president / held a Fed Gov. office ? Hmmmmmm ... ? And, is it your contention, that people , in private life, who are related to a past president , or other office holder, NOT do business with anyone ?

Maybe you should just take you naive self off such threads, since they so stimulate your imagination. : - )

30 posted on 01/12/2002 11:38:32 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: hogwaller
Oh I have an imagination; I just don't feed it / cover it with tinfoil . LOL
33 posted on 01/13/2002 12:08:10 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: hogwaller
So, as far as you're concerned, they're all damnd if they do, and damned if they don't .

How many boogymen are hiding under your bed; or are they in the closet ?

34 posted on 01/13/2002 12:09:50 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jewels1091
"How to" email a link to this here:

Ignorance Making You Ill? Cure It!

35 posted on 01/13/2002 1:20:26 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hogwaller
In late 1992 Gramm began proceedings to remove energy futures, a highly specialised financial instrument, from government regulation, based on a petition from Enron and other energy companies. She resigned her job just before the commission agreed to the petition. Today a tenth of Enron's profits are derived from playing this financial market.

Some background on this, as provided by Freeper financeprof on another thread...

----------

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.

----------

36 posted on 01/13/2002 2:12:54 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: oioiman
Clinton scratched Enron's back, too, by signing the Energy Policy Act of 1992. From a "suggested letter to your legislators" at the Enron Wind Power website:
The wind PTC [Production Tax Credit] was originally enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to advance the development of wind energy. The PTC, along with major advancements in wind energy technology, has helped drive down the cost of utility-scale wind power by more than 80 percent over the last 20 years. The PTC provides a 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour tax credit (adjusted for inflation) for electricity produced from a wind facility. Only wind facilities that are generating power sold into the market are eligible for the credit.

The credit is currently set to expire on December 31, 2001. Extending the PTC will spur more development of wind-generated electricity thus helping avoid power shortages in the West, Midwest and Northeast. Greater use of wind energy also boosts rural economic development through land lease payments made to farmers and ranchers. These payments are typically in the range of $4000-$5000 per turbine, per year for 20 years!

For all of these reasons, I hope you will consider cosponsoring this important legislation to encourage the continued development of our domestic wind energy resources. To become a cosponsor of H.R. 876 and S. 530, please contact Senator Chuck Grassley's (R-IA) staff at (202) 224-3744.

I wonder if the loss of these tax credits had anything to do with Enron's demise.

37 posted on 01/13/2002 3:00:36 AM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oioiman
The press corps is in full frenzy over what the Bush administration may or may not have done to help Enron

I noticed a subtle change in the coverage of the Enron collapse once the media began to detour from the "pack" and uncovered some of this Clinton-Democrat-Enron material. Petey Jennings declared that this scandal will surely be bad news for the Bush administration "every day leading up to the election of 2002" (paraphrase). JD Whatshisname (R-AZ) pointed out on CNN's Crossfire that the democrat from Florida he was debating actually accepted money from Enron. It was a hoot!

It will be interesting to watch the talking head shows today to see how this story has matured.

38 posted on 01/13/2002 3:05:28 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hogwaller
Bush is just as dirty

Your opinion is welcome here. I have found that people who cannot distinguish opinion from fact are easily manipulated. Hence, the term "sheeple".

39 posted on 01/13/2002 3:17:19 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: oioiman
Au contraire. It is exactly like Whitewater- including the fact that it is a Clinton scandal. ;-)
40 posted on 01/13/2002 3:38:22 AM PST by Hugh Akston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-146 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson