Posted on 02/22/2006 1:39:33 PM PST by Nasty McPhilthy
Okay, first let’s get a couple of facts straight.
First there is NO American corporation capable of operating our ports. The London based company that was doing this job, Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was one of a very few capable of doing it.
Second, the President has no authority to prevent the sale of British P & O to the Dubai State owned corporation, Dubai Ports World. This is a private business deal. However, the President and his administration do have the power to terminate the contracts with this private corporation to operate our ports.
Sometimes good policy is bad politics and when that is true politics will always win out. In my opinion, the President should delay approval of the deal and call for Congressional hearings and recommendations for a solution to this dilemma.
Given that choice, then the question remains, who’s going to run them? Port operations is a highly specialized endeavor and American industry cannot afford to wait for a new company to come up to speed. The same argument holds for Senator “Microphone Moth” Schumer’s suggestion of using the TSA solution (true to his nickname, he was the first to pop up in front of a microphone to protest this sale). How long will it take for a federal organization to hire and train the necessary employees and get the whole operation up to speed?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want another federal bureaucracy operating facilities which ought to be run by private companies. Haven’t we learned anything from the USPS, Amtrak, and FEMA? Senator Chucky’s dream deal might be a socialist state, but it’s not mine. If you liked FEMA’s handling of the Katrina disaster, just wait till you see “Hurricane Harbor.”
Do we hire Haliburton to perform this function? They are probably the only American Corporation capable of taking up this function, but would require some time before they had that expertise. Besides, I can hear the Liberals howling now…“Cheney’s rich buddies…”…“Bush’s oil field friends enriching themselves…”…“A plot by Rove to get Haliburton another lucrative contract…” I can hardly wait.
By the same token Mr. President:
How can you be SO tone deaf? Did you really not expect this kind of reaction? Are you truly so out of touch with public opinion? Have you no clue what the American people feel about the Middle East?
Tuesday you stated:
“I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a . . . British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly.’”
The answer, Mr. President, is that they ARE different. September 11, 2001 changed ALL dynamics with respect to the Middle East. I am astounded that you of all people don’t understand this. The enemy we are fighting DOES have an Arab face.
If 9-11 changed the dynamics, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with the deaths of over 2200 American servicemen and women have cast those changes in concrete. For you not to understand that is a disturbing fact.
I am fully aware that you don’t pay attention to the public opinion polls in making your decisions, and I am in full agreement with that attitude. It worked well for President Reagan and it has, for the most part, worked well for you. Such a philosophy leads to stability in governmental policy compared, for example, to President Clinton’s “finger in the wind” policy. However, there is a difference between independence, which is good, and obtuseness which is destructive.
What are you thinking, Mr. President? After five years you are finally going to use your veto on this? After years of profligate spending bills, only now you are going to use your veto pen?
You need to consider the debt you owe to the Republican Party. I am aware that you have no further political aspirations, but you owe your fellow Republicans some consideration. This may be a business winner, but it is a political loser.
Please wake up. This is not a time for you to stick to your guns. You owe the American people some deference to their feelings on this issue. Even worse, you have provided your political opponents, and those of all Republicans, a ready made issue in this election year.
Mr. President, Lindsey Graham described you as “tone-deaf.” I would describe this decision as your being blind, deaf, and dumb.
Political correctness is preventing our security people from doing their jobs more efficiently by outlawing “profiling.” Now you are allowing your desire to demonstrate your equanimity toward Middle Eastern nations to affect our entire nation’s peace of mind and potentially our security.
I have been an ardent supporter of yours on most issues, but on this issue you are wrong. It is time for you to reconsider and relent. There is nothing in this entire imbroglio that will suffer from a reasonable delay to allow Congress to investigate it.
It would be better, in this case, for America to proceed with a consensus opinion rather that one made unilaterally by your administration.
As for you hyperventilating opponents:
Take a breath, please. Take time to consider what I have stated above, our alternatives in this case are very limited. There are currently no American alternatives to Dubai Ports World. It is easy to criticize the administration on this, but criticism is pointless without a viable alternative, so don’t just whine, offer a solution.
I already know the Microphone Moth’s solution, a new federal bureaucracy like the marginally functional TSA. Do we really want another bureaucratic boondoggle on our hands? I know I don’t.
I also know this, if I were on the Halliburton’s board of directors, I would get my lobbyists activated, and put a team of experts together and come up with a strong port operations proposal immediately.
Who ya gonna call? Port Busters!
I don't know what the requirements were - the point is that NO American company bid for P&O - that should tell you enough right there.
Yeah, it will do. If I were in the business and had enough to bid, I would do so. If I didn't have enough, I wouldn't bother the Port Authority for nothing. The contract would state up front how much would be the minimum to be considered as a serious bidder, either net worth or a line of credit, either way. Staff of large horsepower can be hired overnight--they come out of the woodwork when they smell money.
Former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole was reported Wednesday as having been tapped to lobby the ports deal through Congress and company CEO Bilkey said the company is willing to do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security to ensure the deal goes through. "We're very much committed to that," he said. "We think it's a great strategic fit."
Yes they do. DPW may be borrowing the money from a bank, but they will be wiring 6+B in cash to the seller's accounts.
They are not just handing over a promissory note in exchange for hard assets.
If I had to guess, I would say that this deal was put together by some London investment bankers...and then taken to DPW.
I'll bet you are exactly right.
Most deals of this magnitude are hatched by a banker dreaming of a fat advisory fee.
In the world of finance, that still isn't what one might call a cash transaction.
If you buy a car and pay cash...you don't borrow to raise the cash...same principal in the mergers and acquisitions biz.
Unless it has changed since I was in it...
No. This was done according to the law. And all this hoopla is asking for violation of law.
If you are still on the left side of that event, bow down to Him and jump to the right. IMHO.
Uh, yes it is.
Whenever an acquisition occurs, the financial community's first question is: was it done for equity or cash?
If DPW is not using equity to acquire this business, then it is using cash - whether that cash is borrowed or comes from operations is of absolutely no concern to the seller.
To him, it is cash.
What prompted this outburst?
I apologize for being abrupt.
Fair enough. I apologize for offending you.
Thx!
"True, but there are lots of ways to defer those taxes, and they get credit for income taxes they actually pay to non-US jurisdictions."
The "credit" never seems to quite cover the actual amount lost, and deferring taxes generally involves accepting some other penalty in their stead. Both conspire to drive down ROI.
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.