Man, is this turning ugly. Just a snippet from the story... <i>WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Monday defiantly backed his administration's refusal to hand over energy task force records to the investigative arm of Congress, calling the demand "an encroachment on the executive branch's ability to do business." <b>Administration officials said they wanted to restore authority lost by the executive branch to Congress since the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.</b></i> I'm not so sure that restoring the secrecy and covert behavior of the executive branch that was given up after Watergate is such a great idea. There is a REASON why we have checks and balances in the government. Having all that power is not a healthy thing. Besides, we freakin' pay these people with our tax dollars. They owe us full disclosure on anything we want when it comes to back-room dealings. It is our right as citizens to know what our government is up to damnit! I just hate the hiding of crap. If you didn't do anything, just let it go and let's get on with the BUSINESS of the country.
I'll say it again...the mere fact that they will not release information makes it look like they are hiding something. The longer it goes on, the uglier it will get.
<i>.....meanwhile, back in the real world, President Bush's poll numbers remain as strong as ever, and for the first time in modern political history, more people identify themselves as Republican than Democrat. Despite the fact that a few Democrats on a witch hunt jump up and down with mean scowls on their faces, the average American is not fooled.
...and we all know how wonderful a television show MTVs "The Real World" is, now don't we. I had no idea they were shooting this year's season in the White House!
<B>Despite the fact that a few Democrats on a witch hunt jump up and down with mean scowls on their faces, the average American is not fooled.</B> <I>In sharp contrast to Bush's high job approval rating, a new ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll finds barely more than half of Americans, 52 percent, are prepared to say his administration has acted properly in the Enron debacle. A quarter think not, and another quarter are unsure. Seven in 10 want a full accounting of the Enron collapse, including disclosure by the administration and Congress members alike of all contacts with Enron officials. And 75 percent say they favor a broad federal investigation of the collapse — far more, for example, than the 43 percent who backed a probe into Whitewater in 1994. </I> Oops, seems the average American (or at least 7 out of 10 of them) DO want the "witchhunt" to continue.
Two things annoy me in this entire affair: 1. That people pretend to "know" if the Bush Administration acted illicitly or not. They might have, they might not have... nobody can know at this point. 2. The Bush administration's self-righteous attitude. Even if they are completely innocent, how the hell are we supposed to know that? It sort of reminds me of Ashcroft's statement along the lines of "we won't take away your liberty, you just have to trust us on that one." I mean, they could be the most honest people in the world... but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world is going to take them on faith. There are only about 3 people on earth that I trust implicitly. None of them are politicians.
Sigh Seems like only yesterday, the country went through the same crap because of some jackass from Arkansas that couldn't keep his penis in his pants. Now we're going through it again with some jackass from Texas over Enron and the cancerous muck it's turning out to be. People, this stupid bullsh*t cycle is going to keep going on and on and on...until we institute some type of campaign finance reform..and that's not going to happen until term limits are instituted. They're your politicians...hope you enjoy them....and the mockery they've made of our goverment.
The White house is in a no win situation with ENE. The lack of action from the WH proves there was no favoritism for ENE. Why do people not get that. What kind of conversations would we be having if the WH had bailed them out. They obviously weren't that close. The WH did what it should have done, let a failing business fail. Runts have to die off. The people on this WH/ENE witch hunt should answer 2 questions. 1) If the WH and ENE were so close, why didn't they bail them out? They could have done numerous actions to bail out ENE, but they didn't. Why? 2)If... that's if... the WH knew of the potential collapse of ENE, what should they have done? What could they have done that wouldn't have smelled of political favors? I challenge anyone to come up with an answer other than the WH was in a no win situation just by knowing Ken Lay. Just like thousands of us in Houston, they got screwed by Lay. As far as the meeting, it wasn't favoritism, they belonged there. ENE was the largest energy and natural gas trader in the world. No one cared that the meeting was closed door then, only now are people calling foul. Why would ENE discuss its financial troubles in the company of their competitors? Don't weaken the ability of the WH to conduct fact finding meetings. I don't want people showboating and spinning for the public. Let them speak their mind and trust our officials to make the right decision. I admit the secrecy and confusion is troubing, but step back from the scandal and all you have is the WH getting screwed for knowing Ken Lay.
Let me preface this by saying that I really don't like Andy Rooney. I tend to think of him as an old kermudgin way past his time, but this was his commentary from Sunday on 60 Minutes... <i>For a long time now, most of us have thought that there's too much government in Washington. We say "Washington" as though it was a dirty word. Maybe the pendulum has reached the top and ought to start swinging the other way. Maybe we need more government, not less. Something's seriously wrong when the seventh-largest company in the country, Enron, suddenly goes broke and the president of the company walks away with a couple of hundred million dollars while the employees get zilch. There are things that need to be done to fix a problem that big and only government is big enough to do it. The first thing we need from government is a law that prevents Business from buying politicians. That's a crude way to put it, but it's the truth. How did we ever let this happen? Enron was doing things that were bad for all of us and the government didn't stop it because Enron had paid to get a lot of politicians elected. We all like President George W. Bush. He's a good guy doing a hard job, but he took half a million dollars for his campaign from Enron. The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has excused himself from making any decisions in this case; he took $57,000 from them. The head of one of the investigating committees, Sen. Joe Lieberman, is relatively clean. He hasn't taken money from Enron since the $2,000 he got in 1994. Seventy-one senators and 188 representatives took money from the company. How tough were they going to be on it? This week, speaking about Enron, President Bush finally said that the government ought to force companies to disclose more of their financial information. Well, I'll say. What we can see of Enron's books are a mess, and a lot of their records are confetti now. The financial records of corporations ought to be open to everyone. If Enron's had been, this never would have happened. We even find out now that neither General Electric nor Enron paid any taxes last year. None at all! That's what you call tax free enterprise. It might be good if all of us had to say what we pay in income taxes. Forget Enron and General Electric. I have a neighbor whose tax return I'd like to see. Sometimes it seems as if our government and everyone in it is dishonest, and that's too bad because it simply is not true. It also seems as if everyone in business is out to screw the rest of us and that isn't true, either. The fact is, Big Government and Big Business are a lot alike, and they both have to be watched - by each other and by all of us. </i> I didn't agree with the first two paragraphs about government getting bigger especially because he seemed to contradict himself in the last paragraph, but the rest was right on for me.
They could have stepped in to protect the pensions of the workers who got screwed. That would have not smelled of political favors. With all due respect, BULL****!!! Me and every person who believed that our energy policy should contain alternative energy sources and conservation and every person who was worried about its impact on the environment was PISSED about closed door meetings and ranted when Cheney came out of them with a policy that was heavily weighted on oil and coal. It was just that no one cared to listen because we were in the midst of terrorist hell. But, the truth is that lots and LOTS of people were worried. There was even a gallup poll that showed that a huge majority of Americans were concerned with the environment and felt that our energy policy should reflect those concerns. How can we trust them if they won't let us in? You EARN the trust of the public. You don't just get it automatically.
<B>2)If... that's if... the WH knew of the potential collapse of ENE, what should they have done? What could they have done that wouldn't have smelled of political favors? I challenge anyone to come up with an answer other than the WH was in a no win situation just by knowing Ken Lay. </B> Well, for one, if they knew earlier, they should have opened an SEC investigation into fraud, rather than letting it all fall apart and screw thousands of workers. There are a thousand different possibilities, and to assume that they are all impossible is ludicrous because <B>we don't know any of the facts</B>. And we don't know any of the facts because the White House is not forthcoming with what could be relevant information. You'll have to forgive me if I don't accept "well, it's not relevant" from the party that is being investigated.
Quoted from Andy Rooney: "Enron was doing things that were bad for all of us and the government didn't stop it because Enron had paid to get a lot of politicians elected. " I keep hearing that the government should have stopped what was going on, but how? If the government had known....that's if....what could they have done that wouldn't have sounded the favoritism alarms? The witch hunters want us to believe that the politicians were in bed with Lay, then why did they let the company fail? This country bailed out Chrystler, why not the largest energy trader in the world? Certainly an energy trader would fall under "national security". Hell, we fought a war over oil vs the 5th largest army in the world, we can't lend $24 billion for "national security" No one can answer that question. Because to answer it would be an admitance that the politicians weren't in ENE's pocket. Instead the media is focusing on what could of, possibly, and might have happened, but didn't.
Where's Kenneth Starr when you need him? I would think more Americans' lives are affected by this scandal, directly and indirectly, than were by Bill Clinton's marital infidelities.
That's a good point, but....what kind of SOP would that set for other failing companies? Would the SOP be to step in for all failing companies? I think that SOP was set in the S&L scandal. Couldn't their pensions have been just as protected by bailing out the company? Then pensions AND jobs would have been saved. How would you have gone about protecting the pensions but not the company? I guess I missed that due to all the terrorist coverage. Your concern is duly noted. While the energy policy may not be as environmentaly friendly as many hoped, the complete lack of a policy or plan by the former administration left us in a dire energy crisis. We needed energy cheap and soon. What does an environmentaly unfriendly energy plan have to do with the financial coverup at ENE? I thought they gained our trust by getting elected?
I don't think starting an investigation sooner would have helped. It fact it would have hurt sooner. The SEC investigation was the final straw. The investigation is what led to the debt downgrade. Once ENE's debt rating was lowered, it became more expensive for companies to do business with ENE. Hence ENE lost customers and business, which caused calls on loans, which led to the complete deterioration. Once ENE lost its customers for its $200 billion trading operation, all was lost. So starting an investigation earlier, would only have led to a sooner demise.
No, this happened before 9/11. Jeff, myself, and others were angry about it. It was discussed in this forum. Might not be environmentally friendly? That's the understatement of the century. Right now, if the infrastructure were in place, many scientists believe that a solar/hydrogen combo economy would already be cheaper than coal. If not right now, then very soon. Yet is that infrastructure being created? Of course not. Such an economy would reduce our reliance on oil (all sorts of problems there, even if you don't buy the environmental spiel) and prove cheaper in the long run. Even if you don't believe in global warming, I've yet to hear anybody argue that fossil fuels are good for local environments anyway. yet almost nothing is happening. Funding is low, and nobody's in the US is seriously looking into implementing this techology on a grand scale, in spite of successful small-scale experiments in Arizona. Why? The energy lobby is too damned big. They have a vested interest in keeping the status quo... and the current government 's in their pockets.
your politicians...our country You sound like my Dad. When I did good, I was his son. When I did bad, he'd tell my mom look what your son did. ------------------------ There is some stuff that the President needs to keep from Congress to do his job. I doubt this falls in that category. There are things Congress and taxpayers need to know about the executive branch. I doubt this falls into that category. As far as I can tell without seeing the information, Enron's accounting practices should be judged, not Energy Task force documents. These documents would be most useful in implicating the executive branch in wrongful dealings. If Members of Congress believes there is executive branch wrong doings, they should say "We have reason to believe the executive branch and the President as head of this branch have been involved in illegal acts. We request these records for this investigation". If you want to investigate the President say it. I don't think Congress needs these documents to investigate the wrongdoings of Enron, but could be wrong. The problem with openly investigating the President and the executive branch is that you need probable cause like in A Few Good Men. Congress wants to shift through some dirt. They have the suspect picked out they just need a crime. A tyranny of many is just as bad as a tyranny of one. I am more afraid Congress goes for a power grab than the President. I'm just glad Newt's no longer the Speaker of the House. I believe the Republicans hunting after Clinton have really hurt the separation of powers in the US. I don't trust Congress enough to let them investigate anything they want since they make the laws. My opinion is that Bush probably knew Enron was in more trouble than they let on, but didn't know to the extent that they had done any illegal dealings. Bush is doing a knee jerk reaction.
What infrastucture are you refering to? How much will it cost? How long will it take to "build"? When will it be cheaper than the current prices? I certainly believe that we need to move towards alternative fuel sources. The complete lack of any energy plan by the former administration has left us in this situation. The last year of that administration was the worst energy crisis since the 70's. High energy costs and a supply shortage made a quik fix plan nessesary. Right now we need cheap and available energy. I still don't see what the energy plan has to do with cooking the books at ENE?
I didn't vote for them, therefore I don't consider them to be my politicians.....but that doesn't make it any less my country. Now go to your room, young man....no supper for you tonight
