News Enron - a case for government regulation of corporations

[Plastic Photon]

Skilling will never spend a day in jail. His lawyers will drag this through the courts for the next 15-20 years.

But the Iraq war was not paid for by the sale of Iraqi oil, as ordered by Bush himself!

?I have never heard of this. I know Bush himself turned down certain oil offers from the Iraq government.

 

[edward]

But the Iraq war was not paid for by the sale of Iraqi oil, as ordered by Bush himself! Not even much (any? not sure...) of the reconstruction is being paid for by Iraqi oil.

Was not , or has not? It doesn't matter. It has not and won't be paid for with oil revenues. But regardless, the cost of reconstruction was supposed to have been and this was promised by the Bush administration. More than likely it will be my five year old grandson who will be paying for both this war and the reconstruction if it ever happens.

The fact that there has been little revenue form oil sales is a reflection on our inability to secure the oil fields and pipe lines.

Iraq was supposed to be a quick in quick out venture with the sale of Iraqi oil picking up the tab for the reconstruction. What was to happen with the revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil after reconstruction was completed was never really disclosed. If anyone knew in advance it had to be the oil companies.

 

[edward]

You're claiming those things are illegal? How so?

Nice try at quoting out of context, or was it an attempt at obfuscation, I really can"t.
decide. Either way no cigar russ. The wo links:

This
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html

And this
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols

Are directly below your own statement:

Originally Posted by russ_watters
Lets not be naive here, guys. What is lobbying, anyway?

The links were obviously examples of lobbying and influence peddling at its best, or worst, depending on how you look at it.

 

[russ_watters]

Was not , or has not? It doesn't matter. It has not and won't be paid for with oil revenues. But regardless, the cost of reconstruction was supposed to have been and this was promised by the Bush administration. More than likely it will be my five year old grandson who will be paying for both this war and the reconstruction if it ever happens.

You said, quite directly, that the war was to be paid for by Iraqi oil. And that is quite simply false. In addition, you said:

Who would have had to be prepared to process and sell the oil? The executives in that room.

Perhaps it depends on what you mean by "process and sell", but it sounds to me like you mean that Big Oil was going to set up refineries in Iraq and take the oil as soon as it came out of the ground. Again, that isn't what was intended nor is it what happened.

Nice try at quoting out of context, or was it an attempt at obfuscation, I really can"t.

I quoted your entire post - that's all the context you provided!

The links were obviously examples of lobbying and influence peddling at its best, or worst, depending on how you look at it.

Both are references to the very meetings where you say illegal things happened. I already provided a hypothetical example of the worst that lobbying could be - were you simply agreeing with me? What's the point of that? I want evidence of the illegal activity and evidence that the Iraq war was planned in that meeting. How about providing some evidence to back up the outrageous claims you are making. The banal ones don't require it.

 

[Astronuc]

Q: Will the revenue from Iraqi oil production pay for reconstruction?
http://www.usiraqprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-H-subs-1.db&command=viewone&id=7&rnd=905.768323871209

This webpage last updated 04/04/05.

The answer is not so clear cut!

----------------------------------------------------------

IRAQI FIRE SALE: CPA RUSHES TO GIVE AWAY BILLIONS IN IRAQI OIL REVENUES
June 2004
http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/061504.shtml

New York, June 16, 2004—With international attention focused on the impending transfer of power in Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority is committing billions of dollars to ill-conceived projects just before it dissolves, according to a new briefing by the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch Project. The briefing, Iraqi Fire Sale: CPA Giving Away Oil Revenue Billions Before Transition, says that the U.S.-controlled Program Review Board in charge of managing Iraq's finances recently approved the expenditure of nearly $2 billion dollars in Iraqi funds for reconstruction projects.

"With so much money available for cash give-aways, and so little planning on how the process will work, it will be all but impossible to avoid corruption and waste" said Svetlana Tsalik, director of OSI's Revenue Watch.

The money will come out of the Development Fund for Iraq, the main repository for Iraqi oil revenues. But a number of the expenditures the Program Review Board approved will go toward sectors for which Congress has already allocated American tax dollars. This includes $500 million earmarked for Iraqi security forces, even though Congress allocated $3.2 billion for the same purpose. Likewise, the Program Review Board approved $315 million for the electricity sector despite a $5.5 billion U.S. appropriation for the same sector. And $460 million, on top of the $1.7 billion allocated by Congress, is set to go to Iraq's oil industry.

----------------------------------------------------------

Report: $20B of Iraq's Oil Revenue Unaccounted For By U.S.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/30/1514255

A new report finds that the U.S. handed over "power" to Iraq without properly accounting for what it has done with some $20 billion of Iraq's own money. We speak with one of the authors of the report in British charity Christian Aid. [includes transcript]
The Bush administration handed over power to Iraq without properly accounting for what it has done with some $20 billion of Iraq's own money. This according to a new report published Monday by Christian Aid - a leading British charity.

The report points out that the May 2003 U.N. resolution giving the C.P.A. the right to spend Iraqi oil revenue required the creation of an international oversight board, which would appoint an auditor to ensure that the funds were spent to benefit the Iraqi people.

Instead, the U.S. stalled, and the auditor didn't begin work until April 2004. Even then, according to an interim report, it faced "resistance from C.P.A. staff." And now, with the audit still unpublished, the C.P.A. has been dissolved.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Guardian (UK)
April 26, 2003
American to Oversee Iraqi Oil Industry
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0426-RunIraq.html

----------------------------------------------------------

Restarting the Flow: Restoring Iraqi Oil Production
by Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1693
http://www.heritage.org/research/MiddleEast/BG1693.cfm

Protecting Iraqi Oil Revenue

The Bush Administration has issued an executive order barring claims in U.S. courts against Iraqi oil or proceeds from it.* It has also coordinated with other permanent U.S. Security Council members--the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia--on the imposition of a moratorium on Iraq's national debt.

The U.S. should further coordinate its actions with companies and sovereign claimants (states) to delay reparations for Gulf War damages and other claims. Iraq needs breathing space in order to restart its cash flow and get its oil industry up and running again.

* George W. Bush, "Executive Order Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest," May 22, 2003, at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html[/URL].

----------------------------------------------------------

US Is Quietly Spending $2.5 Billion from Iraqi Oil Revenues to Pay for Iraqi Projects
[url]http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/dfi/2004/0621usspending.htm[/url]
By Steven R. Weisman
New York Times
June 21, 2004
[QUOTE]Struggling with bureaucratic problems in spending the money appropriated by Congress to rebuild Iraq, American authorities are moving quietly and quickly to spend $2.5 billion from a different source, Iraqi oil revenue, for projects employing tens of thousands of Iraqis, especially in the country's hot spots, Bush administration officials say. The spending program, which was started unannounced, has been undertaken in consultation with Iraqi ministers, despite misgivings that the oil revenue belonged to Iraq and that it should be set aside for use when Iraq's sovereignty is restored, scheduled for June 30.

Because of deteriorating security and complex delays in contracts that have slowed the spending of the $18 billion in Congressionally appropriated money, occupation authorities say they decided recently that they had to spend the Iraqi money to build schools, factories and oil fields, and to turn Iraqis away from violence. "The security needs were just overwhelming," said an occupation official. "Would we rather have been able to save the money and have a nice kitty? Sure. There's always a tension between putting money to work right away and having it available for a tough year next year. This is the way we resolved it." [/QUOTE]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

As for what was discussed or mentioned by Cheney and energy industry executives, that is unknown due to the secrecy.

While Enron does not seem to be involved - because they were in serious trouble during '99-'00, Halliburton was a beneficiary of Bush largesse - no-bid, multi-billion dollar contracts. Halliburton was deemed the only organization capable of providing the support to the military in Iraq. The question is - did Cheney and Bush tip Halliburton with regard to the invasion - or did Bush and Cheney (while Cheney was still at Halliburton) discuss the invasion of Iraq? In that case, Halliburton was already moving on a plan for the logistics by the time the war was launched.

 

[edward]

OK Russ you win. I mistakenly used the term war and reconstruction caused by the war interchangeably. You and your family can pay for this illegal war and the reconstruction of Iraq. The tab is about $500 billion currently.

Iraqi oil money being used to pay for the war was an inferred result of the way the war was promoted. Most people I talk to, especially republicans, insist that the cost of the war still will be paid for with Iraqi oil. They are the same people who came to believe that Iraq was involved in 911.

Before the war, US officials engaged in a delicate balancing act. They sought to counter the pervasive belief in the Middle East and Europe that the war was all about oil, while vaguely telling the US taxpayer not to worry about the cost.

Although in reality it is now apparent that big oil looked into the situation pre war. (see link) Those pushing for the war were already informed that the Iraqi oil infrastructure was a calamity.

Behind the scenes, however, senior figures in the administration - including Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary, Douglas Feith, in charge of Pentagon postwar planning, Vice-President Richard Cheney, as well as the CIA's George Tenet - were being advised by former officials, experts and corporate bosses that the badly dilapidated Iraqi oil industry in no way represented a financial lifeline.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0116-10.htm

This all constitutes another big lie that was told to the American people. This is another example of the Administartion talking out of both sides of its collective mouth.

How about providing some evidence to back up the outrageous claims you are making. The banal ones don't require it.

Now russ, do you really think that I could possibly have hard evidence on what happened in Cheneys secret meeting? The secret meeting can be used to hide behind, and it has been, but there is damning circumstatial evidence. Ken Lay knew what happened in that meeting, and that was the direction that this thread had turned.

Some things in life are obvious. Personally I don't have to drop a brick on my head to know that it will be painful.

 

[ray b]

the war was not about cheap oil
cheap oil is not what the oil CORPs want
the plot was to reduce the total amount of oil on the world markets
and there by rase prices
less oil at a higher price = more oil CORP income
for less expence a true win win for the backers of the BuSh2 team
too bad ENRON went broke when they did
as they would have boosted the prices
to ever higher then current levels and made a mint in the process
as tricking the markets was what ENRON was all about

 

[edward]

the war was not about cheap oil
cheap oil is not what the oil CORPs want
the plot was to reduce the total amount of oil on the world markets
and there by rase prices
less oil at a higher price = more oil CORP income

It appears then that the oil executives got their most precious wish.

As far as the U.S. stakes in this, and in light of the fact that permanent bases are being built in Iraq, I think one of the secret reasons for the war was to establish a permanent American military presence in the Middle East. The Saudi's don't want us and the UAE and Kuait are just to small.

 

[Astronuc]

Getting back on track somewhat -

Leading the groups hoping to scale back regulation are, left to right, R. Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, John L. Thornton, a former president of Goldman Sachs, Robert Glauber, a former NASD chairman, Donald Evans, a former commerce secretary, and Samuel DiPiazza, chief executive of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Businesses Seek Protection on Legal Front
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/business/29corporate.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — Frustrated with laws and regulations that have made companies and accounting firms more open to lawsuits from investors and the government, corporate America — with the encouragement of the Bush administration — is preparing to fight back.

Now that corruption cases like Enron and WorldCom are falling out of the news, two influential industry groups with close ties to administration officials are hoping to swing the regulatory pendulum in the opposite direction. The groups are drafting proposals to provide broad new protections to corporations and accounting firms from criminal cases brought by federal and state prosecutors as well as a stronger shield against civil lawsuits from investors.

Although the details are still being worked out, the groups’ proposals aim to limit the liability of accounting firms for the work they do on behalf of clients, to force prosecutors to target individual wrongdoers rather than entire companies, and to scale back shareholder lawsuits.

The groups hope to reduce what they see as some burdens imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, landmark post-Enron legislation adopted in 2002. The law, which placed significant new auditing and governance requirements on companies, gave broad discretion for interpretation to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The groups are also interested in rolling back rules and policies that have been on the books for decades.

To alleviate concerns that the new Congress may not adopt the proposals — regardless of which party holds power in the legislative branch next year — many are being tailored so that they could be adopted through rulemaking by the S.E.C. and enforcement policy changes at the Justice Department.

The proposals will begin to be laid out in public shortly after Election Day, members of the groups said in recent interviews. One of the committees was formed by the United States Chamber of Commerce and until recently was headed by Robert K. Steel.

Of course, some businesses and the management would prefer no constraint whatsoever - and so does organized crime. The reason for laws is to 'protect' people. Corporations enjoy far more protection than individuals, and corporate managers can use (or abuse) the umbrella of corporate protection - as Lay and Skilling attempted to do.

 

[Futobingoro]

Of course, businesses and the management would prefer no constraint whatsoever - and so does organized crime.

I hope you realize that this subject is not one-sided.

Ironically, unregulated labor groups are prone to commit the same injustices as unregulated businesses. Reading up on the Landrum Griffin Act is instructional here.

Apparently, there have been more than a few cases of "misuse of funds" by union officials. The Landrum-Griffin Act even created a bill of rights to protect union members against abuses of power. If I were feeling Astronuc-ey, I would add the ubiquitous "Rolleyes" or "Laughing" smilies here for effect.

On a more serious note, however, I must say that the Landrum-Griffin Act serves as an important warning against drastic changes in economic policy. Sure, the bad working conditions of the 19th century may have warranted some kind of worker-organized leverage over management, but Landrum-Griffin shows us that unions can not always be trusted to wield this leverage responsibly. It is almost farcical to imagine that some unions might have picketed against themselves.

It is therefore prudent to consider every possibility when one advocates the transfer of power from one authority to another. It might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The Landrum-Griffin Act even created a bill of rights to protect union members against abuses of power.

So why object to an act with a similar aim for corporations?

And tu quoque is a very weak kind of argument, if you really wanted to discuss, and not just snark.

 

[Futobingoro]

And tu quoque is a very weak kind of argument, if you really wanted to discuss, and not just snark.

I did not use the Landrum-Griffin Act to dismiss unions as hypocrites, I used it to question the practice of blindly favoring the regulation of businesses. In fact, I was very careful in my choice of words. I consciously made sure that I included the highlighted words in the following passage so I wouldn't be putting a negative label on all unions:

Sure, the bad working conditions of the 19th century may have warranted some kind of worker-organized leverage over management, but Landrum-Griffin shows us that unions can not [HIGHLIGHT]always[/HIGHLIGHT] be trusted to wield this leverage responsibly. It is almost farcical to imagine that [HIGHLIGHT]some[/HIGHLIGHT] unions might have picketed against themselves.

If you remove those words, this passage has an entirely different meaning, i.e. demonizing all unions. That paragraph even started out with the phrase, "On a more serious note, however," implying that the preceding remarks weren't relevant to my main point.

My point was not, "Unions don't practice what they preach, so their ideas on regulating business are invalid." That would have been a tu quoque.

My point was, "It is therefore prudent to consider every possibility when one advocates the transfer of power from one authority to another. It might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems."

 

[Futobingoro]

Of course, businesses and the management would prefer no constraint whatsoever - and so does organized crime.

It wouldn't be proper to counter an accusation of reasoning fallacy with an accusation of my own, would it? After all, the Nazis at Nuremburg made a futile attempt at dismissing the Allies' accusations by coming up with some accusations of their own.

But I think my point has already been made.

 

[Astronuc]

Motivation for Landrum-Griffin Act was

. . . evidence of collusion between dishonest employers and union officials, the use of violence by certain segments of labor leadership, and the diversion and misuse of labor union funds by high-ranking officials.

I hope you realize that this subject is not one-sided.

No one said it was.

I have a few problems with Union Management - especially when they start behaving like some corporate managers. To be fair, I know a lot of good/great corporate managers, who have high ethical standards. They are not the ones seeking to roll back regulation, and they are not the ones with whom I have problems. It is the corporate managers who wish to remove regulation and proper constraint, or who seek protection/shielding from liability from their own improper action. I'd have the same issue with regard to union managers and politicians who seek to prevent regulation of their actions.

Certainly laws need to be fair and reasonable.

Along the lines of unions and their management, I have always wondered why unions have never gone on strike over the quality of the products or goods they manufacture, as opposed to going on strike over wages or benefits. Maybe I missed something along the way.

My point was, "It is therefore prudent to consider every possibility when one advocates the transfer of power from one authority to another. It might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems."

Of course.

 

[matthew baird]

Talking about government regulation of industries...
There is one in particular that runs rampant and is not regulated whatsoever. That industry is law. I have no problem paying good money for a job well done, but in the case of lawyers, they can practically do nothing then charge you a grand. Wth is that all about? Other industries are regulated aggressively, but not them, why is that? There is no justification for the crazy amounts they charge people.