<B>I don't think starting an investigation sooner would have helped. It fact it would have hurt sooner. </B> Doesn't matter -- it should have taken place earlier <I>if the Bush administration knew about the problems</I> regardless of the results. In terms of the real-world results, that would have been before the time people got locked into their 401ks and they would then have had a chance to start moving things out. Besides which, an investigation would have had a slowed effect as it would have taken a while rather than the immediate hell that broke loose. The point here is that we don't KNOW what the administration knew. No, they didn't help Enron in the end -- no one's arguing that point. However, they very well could have helped them survive for months longer than they would have. For example, what if they delayed an SEC investigation? That would have allowed Lay & company to commit additional fraud and make who knows how much extra cash. We all know Lay made a killing off off Enron stock options in July. What if the Bush administration knew in April? Bush's friend would have made millions off of fraud that Bush knew was occurring. Of course, this is all <B>pure conjecture and has no facts behind it</B>, but that's the whole point of an investigation. If Bush did nothing wrong, he shouldn't be worried about it.
The "we need cheap available energy" has ALWAYS been the argument of the big energy lobby. They want us to believe we will always be in crisis so we are dependant on them for every drop of oil and every chunk of coal they can muster. As for what the energy plan has to do with Enron, it is hard NOT to see what it has to do with Enron. By allowing Enron to shape policy, it ensures they have a hand in the benefits of said plan. And, by influencing it AWAY from alternative sources of energy, they keep their personal bottom line high. Imagine this scenario... Enron wants to influence the energy policy because it knows it is on thin ice financially. It hopes implementation will go a long way towards making them stable. Even if it DOESN'T, just the announcement of the policy will ensure that their stocks rocket high enough to bail themselves out as INDIVIDUALS even if the corporation goes belly up. IMO, that doesn't seem that far from the reality.
I haven't really understood the allegations of ENE employees being locked into their ENE holdings. From my understanding, ENE changed investment companies. For about 2 weeks, employees couldn't sell their stock. There was plenty of time to sell before and after. While I do fell sorry for the people that lost their shirts, they were definetly recieving poor investment advice to keep more than 10% in ENE stock. They only had to keep 10%, which was what the company matched at. I had over 700 shares of ENE, so I do understand the pain. It was the investigation that broke the camels back. 1 month after the investigation was launched, Moody's downgraded their debt. The downgrade was the shotgun that killed the mule. Once that happened, then all hell broke loose. Starting the investigation earlier would only have caused their demise earlier. ENE was on a collision course with bankruptcy since fall of '00. I don't mean to dog on you, but....that's the stupidest justification for an investigation.
This summer, we did need cheap energy. Do you forget the debacle in the summer of '00. The new policy was to ensure something like that would not happen again this summer and the next. We needed a plan that would reap the benifits in a matter of months not years. I don't have any problem imagining that scenario. ENE is an energy trader, they want to push ENE into the policy. That's all understood. ENE was the largest energy and natural gas trader in the world. In a policy that requires energy in months instead of years, how could ENE not be included. What about that is illegal and reason's for an investigation?
<B>I haven't really understood the allegations of ENE employees being locked into their ENE holdings. From my understanding, ENE changed investment companies. For about 2 weeks, employees couldn't sell their stock. There was plenty of time to sell before and after. </B> From what I've heard, it was far more than 2 weeks, though. "Technical issues" and such bogged down the process. (This may not be true, just what I've heard) <B>While I do fell sorry for the people that lost their shirts, they were definetly recieving poor investment advice to keep more than 10% in ENE stock. They only had to keep 10%, which was what the company matched at. </B> Maybe so, but corporate culture is a powerful thing. Corporate culture was to invest in the company, show your commitment, yadayada. While not required, it was very much encouraged by management ... management that was committing fraud. Certainly not an excuse if things just didn't work out -- people know the risks. However, they have a right to expect their company to not commit fraud. <B>I don't mean to dog on you, but....that's the stupidest justification for an investigation.</B> That's not justification for the investigation. The investigation has plenty of justifications as mentioned above, because there are many questions that have to be answered when you're dealing with entities that have this much power (Enron, White House, etc). It is a reason, however, that Bush should be cooperating. Perception really is reality in D.C., and if Bush has nothing to hide, he really should be cooperating. Otherwise, he's just fueling the fire for the investigation and eventually it will take its toll. 70% of Americans already support an investigation. Had the White House been upfront from Day #1 instead of fighting to keep things sealed, that number would be dramatically lower.
What is it you want to investigate again? What is your probable cause for an investigation? What charge are you seeking?
Boy, those sound exactly like some of the questions Democrats were asking Ken Starr during Clinton's second term. Go figure.
I think they are good questions. I fail to see any sign's that the WH has done anything remotely illegal . ENE was gonna collapse no matter who was in the WH.
It's too early to tell. We haven't spent $60 million on an investigation yet. Once we do, I'll bet we find all sorts of illegal things the WH has done. And none of them will probably have anything to do with Enron.
<B>What is it you want to investigate again? What is your probable cause for an investigation? What charge are you seeking?</B> I want to know exactly what Enron did and what they knew. They are in the midst of a criminal investigation and caused harm to many thousands of individuals through fraud. One primary component in the investigation of Ken Lay and company is exactly how much different individuals knew and when. To find that out, you have to investigate the conversations and documents. Some of those conversations involved administration officals, and those have not been released. The White House is not the primary target of the investigation: Enron is. However, the White House is blocking access to documents that are very important to an investigation of Enron. That's the only reason the White House is even involved in this mess. EVERYTHING Enron did is now up for scrutiny, and that includes meetings with government officials.
Shake that tree....let's see what falls out. It's high time we had a good political scandal. Gary Condit was just too sleazy to be entertaining.... At least Shrub'ya, with his diminished intellect, should provide us with some good laughs.
The Enron collapse should definetly be investigated. No doubt. I was under the impression you wanted to investigate the president. The cooking of the books and constant addition of debt took place in the years before the new administration. ENE started making some of the bad business deals public this summer and took a $1 billion charge also. I renew my believe that the WH got caught in a no win situation. Gore no doubt would have consulted ENE on energy policy and ENE still would have gone bankrupt. We all got screwed by Lay and his crew.
<B>The Enron collapse should definetly be investigated. No doubt. I was under the impression you wanted to investigate the president. </B> Sorry, I want Enron investigated, and the White House is holding that up to some extent. That's my issue with Bush & company here. If something turns up in those files incriminating Bush, then that's a separate investigation. My main issue is with those who think that because Bush & Cheney say there's nothing of relevence in those files, we should just accept that and move on. They COULD be involved, so their word that they aren't doesn't really do much for me. The files need to be turned over to investigate Enron, not the WH. <B>I renew my believe that the WH got caught in a no win situation. </B> That's where I was referring to the WH not cooperating. If they just give over the documents, citing the fraud that Enron committed, they get themselves out of this mess. Other companies shouldn't worry unless they also committed fraud, in which case, I don't care if they worry.
(just to lighten things up) ENRON EXPLAINED: In case you were wondering how Enron came into so much trouble, here is an explanation reputedly given by a Colorado Aggie professor to explain it in terms his students could understand. Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income. Enron Capitalism: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by your CFO who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on six more. Now do you see why a company with $62 billion in assets is declaring bankruptcy?
I wish the White House would go ahead and hand over the documents. I don't see why they shouldn't. I would think it odd if they didn't include people from Enron in those talks. Besides, I really can't figure out what talking with people from Enron would have to do with Enron doctoring the books. Does anyone really think that would have been part of the conversation or something?
And people wonder why some are going after the White House... http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/energy.gao/index.html "Bring it on"...real mature.
The real crime here is that ENRON didn't pay any taxes for 4 out of the past 5 years. The even bigger crime was that the Cayman holding corporation actually got money back on tax returns!!! during that period. Something to the tune of $200 million... Does everyone here understand what a "surplus" actually is? It's money that the Fed has recieved from us that is not already earmarked for spending. It is literally overtaxation money. It's extra money that has been taken from us, and is just set aside - not ever to be given back. (Personally, I think any surplus should be split to go to Defense and Education - not to tax rebates - but that's another argument) So, while we're all getting taxed to the kazoo, this company is paying no taxes, and actually making $200 million in tax returns - which (you guessed it) come from our surplus, which are a result of our over-taxation... Unbelievable. We pay higher taxes, and the result is a surplus. A corporate energy giant pays no taxes, and gets a huge return - that comes from the surplus we have created. That company goes bankrupt. We are in recession. And what's the talk oon Capitol Hill? Remove the tax cut. Bail them out. Now, I should say that I'm not in favor of a tax cut in the first place - we've got alot of weapons to buy for the coming war. But to declare that a tax cut is unjustifed in the face of this scandal (which both Dems and Repubs were clearly knowledgeable of) is ludicrous. It just wreaks of hypocrisy. Why don't we start with campaign finance reform??? Our campaign finance system is the root of all this "evil". Corruption will be a mainstay as long as politicians can be bought by Big Business. Or the Left, for that matter. They must be made to be untouchable by the almighty dollar if things are ever to change. Until we change the assholes we are forced to put into government, we will have an ******* government. Or is it the other way around?
BTW, if anyone is wondering why we'll have to spend all of that lovely surplus (which we all hoped would go to Social Security), it has nothing to do with the war. There are dozens of entities like Enron out there, many of them teetering on the balance of bankruptcy. If you happen to work for one, don't ask about it. Andersen is not the only organization that is engaged in fraudalent activities. I will bet on that. Claim ignorance when you find out that your stock is worth Zero. Jump on the bandwagon... These companies pay no taxes. You pay around 50% of your income towards taxes, health care, life insurance, etc. Why in the f*k should these people get a free ride, when you don't??? Hypocrisy is paying a 50% tax rate (including health) - and getting second-rate health services for it - while the corporations are banking on 0% tax rates, and their constituents get better than Tricare... They should be swimming in mud trying to figure out where they went wrong. Instead, 180 million people don't know where to go for health care, and an Enron exec can play his Cayman account (totally untaxed) for a few million if he feels like spending the weekend in Vegas... And again, "surplus" = "overtaxation"... Why do we put up with this sh*t?
