Non-Tech | The Enron Scandal - Unmoderated


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: c.horn who wrote (1409)2/9/2002 9:20:10 AM
From: jlallen   of 3589
 
Yes. The arrogance of ignorance is often quite amusing....
BIA tends to typify that breed better than just about any other on SI...

JLA

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Jagfan who wrote (1404)2/9/2002 10:42:27 AM
From: Jerry in Omaha   of 3589
 
Jagfan,

<<Don't know who looked worse, the interrogators or the ones being interrogated.>>

I know you don't mean that as a confession of a lack of comprehension of the issues. And even though an obvious bias manifests when you call an interview an interrogation, could you elaborate on exactly what looked worse than what?

As you ponder, here's a little background on the man who wants to sue to know what Cheney knew, when he knew it and from whom he learned it. Unlike some TOU dodging, obscene acronym spouting, sorts popping up here recently Mr. Walker sounds to me like a clear headed sober man not to be taken lightly.

Jerry details-please in Omaha

The man who wants Cheney's Enron files

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the February 08, 2002 edition - csmonitor.com 

WASHINGTON - David Walker is the kind of guy who rarely wears jeans and if he does, friends say, they're probably ironed. He likes his numbers precise - usually carried out to the fourth decimal place. One of his biggest heroes in life is Elmer B. Staats, the fifth comptroller general of the United States.

Mr. Walker, in other words, might not seem like the kind of person to carry out a rebellion against a sitting presidential administration. But, in fact, he is, of sorts.

As head of the normally obscure General Accounting Office, Walker is leading an effort to try to force Vice President Dick Cheney to turn over records of meetings with Enron and other corporate executives about federal energy policy.

The lawsuit the agency is expected to file against the vice president - the first ever by the GAO against a federal official for access to records - could end up influencing the level of openness in the White House for years to come.

As he sits behind his tidy desk in the GAO building, Walker doesn't seem perturbed - or puffed up - by his moment in history. He doesn't want to be on TV and spurns most interview requests. "I'm just doing my job," he says. "It's not something I was pleased at having to do or wanted to do, but something I needed to do to comply with our governing statute and to do my job in an objective and professional and nonpartisan fashion."

Walker's penchant, almost obsession, with being a straight shooter helps explain why his crusade against the government may not, in the end, be a surprising rebellion at all. On the carpet in his office is the phrase "accountability, integrity, reliability." He had the carpet made when he took over the job in 1998. Among the people he most admires in public life are Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy - neither mealy conformists. A prolific reader, he's currently on "Theodore Rex," a book about Roosevelt by Edmund Morris, and notes with pleasure that three biographies of the man who "said what he meant and meant what he said" just came out.

But his real affection when it comes to public figures lies with Staats, whom he calls "a legend in public service." In the Staats years (1966-1981), the GAO vastly expanded its role beyond the green-eye shade functions for which it had been established in 1921. Instead of just auditing federal agencies, GAO investigators began evaluating the performance of Great Society social programs. That's when the agency evolved into the main engine for congressional oversight of the executive branch - Congress's watchdog.

Now Walker wants to expand that role further. "Our scope includes everything the federal government is doing or thinking about doing anywhere in the world...," he said in a recent speech (all of which he writes himself.) The new GAO needs to be not just oversight, "but insight and foresight," he says.

Origins of a confrontation

Still, about 85 percent of the time of the 3,000-member GAO staff is spent running down requests of Congress or fulfilling statutory mandates, Walker says. One of those requests was for more information about Mr. Cheney's energy task force - and here is where all the trouble began.

The initial request came from two ranking Democrats in the House of Representatives, John Dingell of Michigan and Henry Waxman of California, both with a history of challenging executive-branch prerogatives. They wanted the names, dates, discussion topics, notes, and other materials presented at any meeting between task-force members and outside groups, especially energy firms like Enron.

It's GAO policy to treat requests from ranking members of the minority on par with those of a committee chair, Walker says. The request couldn't be refused.

For months, the April 19 request met with rebuffs or silence from the vice president's office. Walker scaled back his request: Instead of notes and materials, the GAO would settle for names, dates, and general topics of discussion. The new request was modest, compared with the transcripts, e-mails, and tapes of conversations that previous congressional investigations have accessed, experts say.

But the vice president - a veteran of congressional-executive branch skirmishes in four previous GOP administrations - was not budging. In a tough Aug. 2 letter, Cheney warned Senate and House leaders that the actions of their agent, the Comptroller General, "exceeded his lawful authority" and if allowed to continue, "would unconstitutionally interfere with the functioning of the executive branch."

He argues that turning over the records would undercut the free and open discussion of issues in the White House.

On Aug. 17, Walker sent a tough letter of his own, notifying the White House of statutory noncompliance within the executive branch. Only six such letters have been sent in the last 21 years. According to statute, the next step is the courts.

Then came the Sept. 11 attacks, which put off the day in court. Then the Enron debacle, which revived the issue of corporate influence in government. On Jan. 30, Walker wrote to Congress announcing his decision to file suit. No comptroller general has ever gone to court to force the executive branch to release documents it doesn't want to give up.

But Walker says he has no choice. "To allow someone to absolutely stonewall you is not something desirable, and if you don't take definite action, it can wind up proliferating," he says.

Before taking on his appointment as Comptroller General in 1998, Walker was a partner and global managing director of Arthur Andersen LLP's human capital services practice - a consulting arm of the firm, which he expanded dramatically.

He did not handle the Enron accounts, but analysts say the association with Enron's lead auditing firm could be seen as a reason to stand tough on this request.

"One can imagine what the controller general - a former partner in Arthur Anderson - would be opening himself up to, if he decided to go lightly on this issue," says Peter Shane, law professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Political reprisals?

He's also opening himself, and the GAO, up to political reprisals. The office of comptroller general is one of the most secure political appointments in Washington: a 15 year term. But the job isn't bullet-proof. A former GAO head resigned after intense criticism, and the agency saw its budgets slashed in the 1990s.

Still, former associates say that's not likely to be a deciding factor in what is shaping up as a fight on principles for both the vice president and comptroller general. "He's a rigidly straight arrow, absolutely driven by the desire for public service," says James Klein, a longtime friend. "I'm confident that he's getting no joy from this scrutiny or having to go up against ... the administration."

"When he decides to do something and feels it's the right thing, he'll do it," adds a former coworker. "They had no idea who they were tackling when they tackled Dave Walker."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)

To: James Calladine who wrote (1390)2/9/2002 11:28:36 AM
From: greenspirit   of 3589
 
James, here's an article which nails it! Mark Levin puts the entire Enron spectacle in perspective below.

Article.....

Send in the Clowns
The Enron hearings.
Mark R. Levin

February 8, 2002 12:30 p.m.

What a bunch of clowns! If anyone still wonders why the American people have such disregard and even contempt for Congress, they need only watch a few hours of congressional hearings on Enron. I don't think most dictatorships could run better show trials. I'm waiting for Representatives Billy Tauzin and John Dingell to pull a Nikita Khrushchev and start banging one of their shoes on the table for attention.

I don't know whether executives at Enron violated any criminal statutes, securities regulations, or pension rules. I don't know whether they conspired with auditors from Arthur Andersen to cook the books, or with creditors like Citigroup to conceal the true financial condition of the company. But I do know one thing: The group demagoguery being practiced by Congress contributes nothing to the public's knowledge about Enron's bankruptcy — or to the pursuit of useful information in the formulation of public policy.

Of course, the irony of congressional handwringers denouncing Enron executives for screwing the little people is not lost on most conservatives. These are many of the same politicians who continue to perpetuate the myth that Social Security benefits are actually paid out of a trust fund when, in fact, they long ago misappropriated those retirement funds to support unrelated federal programs. This is the biggest financial scam in the history of man, involving hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of millions of largely unwitting taxpayers and pensioners. While Congress heaps praise on whistleblowers inside Enron, who purportedly sought to alert top management of the company's coming financial collapse, those who dare to question the practices and solvency of the Social Security program are denounced roundly and hysterically.

Congress also has legislative oversight responsibility for the rest of the federal bureaucracy. The General Accounting Office, an arm of Congress, has stacks of reports exposing waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the government — from the Education Department and the Environmental Protection Agency to the Interior Department and Health and Human Services. Billions and billions of tax dollars are mismanaged or unaccounted for in hundreds of programs involving student loans, Indian trust funds, unemployment compensation, grants to nonprofit environmental groups, farm subsidies, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid funds, and on and on. Yet despite the overwhelming evidence of widespread abuse, not only will every one of these budget items receive generous increases in funding, but Congress plans to create a massive new entitlement for prescription drugs, among other things.

The unvarnished truth is that Enron's collapse is of no direct consequence to most Americans. We haven't invested in Enron — or we've invested a small amount through widely diversified mutual funds. Despite the mantra that Enron's was the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, at its peak the company employed a workforce of only 19,000, 4,500 of whom have received pink slips. To put this in perspective, last month Ford Motor Company announced it was laying off over 20,000 employees. And since the beginning of the recession, over 1,000,000 workers have lost their jobs. Enron's bankruptcy simply does not merit the attention of a dozen congressional committees.

Moreover, and unlike the systemic mismanagement and malfeasance that pervade the federal government, Enron's dealings are in no way typical of corporate America. The overwhelming majority of businesses are law-abiding and ethical. They care about their employees, they manage their finances — including pension funds — responsibly, they make public a true accounting of their financial health, and they contribute mightily to the nation's unparalleled economic prosperity.

There's every indication that the Enron executives who appear to have failed in their fiduciary responsibilities to investors and employees, or who may have violated the law, will be dealt with by federal and state law enforcement and regulatory authorities. And that's as it should be.

What's troubling is the transparent attempt by too many in Congress to use Enron to advance their political agendas. Some hope to damage the Bush administration by creating a web of suspicion involving meetings, past associations, and campaign contributions. Others are using Enron to disparage capitalism itself and promote bigger government. And still more are grandstanding to impress their constituents, or to inoculate themselves from criticism for their own past associations with the company.

In the end, little benefit will come from these hearings. They afford little more than the sorry spectacle of public officials abusing the public's trust in the name of the public interest.

nationalreview.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Jerry in Omaha who wrote (1411)2/9/2002 11:35:59 AM
From: Jagfan   of 3589
 
in·ter·ro·gate (&#301;n-t&#277;r'&#601;-gât')
tr.v., -gat·ed, -gat·ing, -gates.
To examine by questioning formally or officially. See synonyms at ask.
Computer Science. To transmit a signal for setting off an appropriate response.
[Middle English enterrogate, from Latin interrogâre, interrogât- : inter-, in the presence of; see inter– + rogâre, to ask.]

in·ter'ro·ga'tion n.
in·ter'ro·ga'tion·al adj.
in·ter'ro·ga'tor n.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


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

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: jlallen who wrote (1406)2/9/2002 11:38:17 AM
From: JBTFD   of 3589
 
pot kettle black

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Jagfan who wrote (1413)2/9/2002 11:51:38 AM
From: Jerry in Omaha   of 3589
 
Jagfan,

So, who's ever heard of a Playboy Interrogation? LOL

My assertion of bias stands. Your reluctance to avoid issues other than spurious now manifests.

Jerry still-wondering-what's-worse-than-what in Omaha

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Jerry in Omaha who wrote (1415)2/9/2002 12:01:17 PM
From: Jagfan   of 3589
 
Playboy interogation? Where did you come up with that? Worse than what; My point is they all looked like idiots. The questioners and those being questioned.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: greenspirit who wrote (1412)2/9/2002 12:05:01 PM
From: Jerry in Omaha   of 3589
 
Michael,

From the article you posted by Mark R. Levin <In the end, little benefit will come from these hearings. They afford little more than the sorry spectacle of public officials abusing the public's trust in the name of the public interest. >>

Excuse me for butting in to your discussion with James, Michael, but Levin is absolutely correct. Nothing will be gained by these hearings when such opportunities for hypocritical grandstanding abound.

It should be a dispassionate Justice Department, providing they can raise a working quorum of individuals not associated with Enron, who should seek indictments; and prosecutors, judges and juries who should get to the bottom of this sorry scandal.

But, please allow me to tender a suggestion re the demagogues in Congress. As most all elected officials are attorneys I think we should we should put a ten year moratorium prohibiting anyone who has graduated from law school from running for public office all the way from dog catcher to president.

What do you think?

Jerry suspecting-that-will-never-fly in Omaha

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)

To: Jerry in Omaha who wrote (1417)2/9/2002 12:08:22 PM
From: Jagfan   of 3589
 
"hypocritical grandstanding" Well said, sort of what I was implying in my post, but you said it much better.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Jagfan who wrote (1416)2/9/2002 12:14:25 PM
From: Jerry in Omaha   of 3589
 
Jagfan,

<<My point is they all looked like idiots. The questioners and those being questioned.>>

That's a little clearer and allows me to state that I disagree with you. However, in order for me to formulate a refutation I still need some specifics to argue and still you do not provide them.

The best that can come from this is a spitting match. I'd much rather spar with substantial facts and tangible features.

I request that, instead, we simply agree to disagree on these nebulous issues and leave our thread interplay at that.

Jerry looking-for-something-real-to-chew-on in Omaha

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.