The GOP was Enron's Santa
William P F
campaign cash. They wanted less government oversight of their trading,
Wendy Grahm got for them. They wanted the ability to charge for power
exorbitantly high amounts, Pete Wilson showed them the way. They
wanted the ability to spew more pollutants in the environment to beef
up their margins, governor George W Bush delivered. They wanted a bail
out of sorts from the feds and Dick Cheney did his best to serve.
This in republican parlance is called "deregulation" and it's the way
to go. If in the process of "deregulating" jobs and retirement
savings are wiped out this is considered a beneficial side effect of
the policy as it will make the people affected more likely to accede
to pay cuts and give backs.
Marry Xmas
WASHINGTON, Dec 21 (Reuters) - Fallen energy trading giant Enron Corp.
(NYSE:ENE - news) used a web of political connections last year to
tilt the regulatory playing field to its advantage, said a report from
a consumer group released on Friday.
The nation's former leading power trader was ``completely dependent on
the removal of government oversight'' said Tyson Slocum, policy
analyst at Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group founded by
one-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader.
``They needed to get government off their backs so they could do
whatever they wanted, and that was their primary business strategy,''
Slocum said.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/011221/n21369762_1.html
wpf
______________
destroy_chara...@whitehouse.gov
>Everything Enron needed the GOP provided, in return of course for
>campaign cash. They wanted less government oversight of their trading,
>Wendy Grahm got for them. They wanted the ability to charge for power
>exorbitantly high amounts, Pete Wilson showed them the way. They
>wanted the ability to spew more pollutants in the environment to beef
>up their margins, governor George W Bush delivered. They wanted a bail
>out of sorts from the feds and Dick Cheney did his best to serve.
> This in republican parlance is called "deregulation" and it's the way
>to go. If in the process of "deregulating" jobs and retirement
>savings are wiped out this is considered a beneficial side effect of
>the policy as it will make the people affected more likely to accede
>to pay cuts and give backs.
>
>Marry Xmas
I say, this calls for another round of tax cuts for the rich!
bill b
> campaign cash. They wanted less government oversight of their trading,
> Wendy Grahm got for them. They wanted the ability to charge for power
> exorbitantly high amounts, Pete Wilson showed them the way. They
> wanted the ability to spew more pollutants in the environment to beef
> up their margins, governor George W Bush delivered. They wanted a bail
> out of sorts from the feds and Dick Cheney did his best to serve.
> This in republican parlance is called "deregulation" and it's the way
> to go. If in the process of "deregulating" jobs and retirement
> savings are wiped out this is considered a beneficial side effect of
> the policy as it will make the people affected more likely to accede
> to pay cuts and give backs.
I don't disagree with that assessment, however, the "people" allow all this
to go on and say nothing about it. The "people" really could change this by
simply renouncing all the materialist goodies that the corporations provide,
but I don't see this ever happening.
I mean, who doesn't want a fancy car house boat plane etc.?
William P F
>On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:34:00 GMT, ad...@128.0.3.2 (William P F) wrote:
>
What does your rant have to do with the GOP colluding with Enron?
Btw, I did see many attributions for you rant. The single linked
source you had said that Clinton set policy goals despite the wishes,
and donations, of traditional democratic constituencies.
>Nader ? Oh the Nader thats backed by the Green Party .
>
>Green Party excerpt :
>
>"Both Democratic and Republican Parties have been using the rhetorical
>threat of 'big government' as an excuse to raid essential public
>services and resources. At the same time, they're beefing up the power
>and wealth of corporations, through deregulation and privatization,
>through tax breaks and bail-outs, through military ventures and
>foreign policy designed to benefit corporate interests. We call that
>corporate welfare - big government for the benefit of the wealthy."
>
>The guy who wrote this article:
>The Democrats Bow to the Megabanks, by Ralph Nader
>
>This may be of interest :
>
>Democrats, Who Needs Them?
>Oligarchy: The Marc Rich scandal shows how Clinton and his followers
>raked in big bucks from the rich and dumped working people, the poor
>and grass-roots activists.
>
>by Jeff Cohen
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0311-07.htm
>In theory, Clinton has exited Washington. But the horse he rode in on
>- money-drenched DLC politics - is still there, alive and kicking.
>
>
>But lets move on :
>
>Capitol Hill is keenly aware of lobbyists' political affiliations.
>When the Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA) hired former Democratic
>Representative David McCurdy in 1998, the GOP leadership delayed a
>vote on intellectual property treaties that the EIA had been pushing.
>More recently, when Enron named a former Clinton administration
>official to head its lobbying effort, a GOP leadership aide told The
>Washington Post that "Enron has just slapped George W. Bush across the
>face. It just makes little sense."
>
>
>Contributions in Calif 2000 senate race
>Feinstein D
>Energy/Nat Resource $124,500 $88,750 $35,750
>
>Campbell R
>Energy/Nat Resource $27,950 $0 $28,450
>
>
>Salon.com :
>
>Gov. Gray Davis, a middle-of-the-roader whose grand political vision
>begins and ends with the desire to offend no one -- especially anyone
>with a checkbook -- was found asleep at the wheel while his state
>careened toward an energy disaster. The interesting question is: What
>made him so drowsy?
>
>Could it be the steady IV drip of soporific campaign cash he received
>from the two giant utility companies at the center of the current
>crisis? According to state records, since 1998 Davis has taken in
>$550,000 from Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric --
>his share of the $7 million the companies have doled out to
>politicians from both parties during that time. One of them, state
>Sen. Steve Peace, hailed as the "architect of electricity
>deregulation," received $179,409 between 1994 and 1998. If only the
>utilities were as good at buying electrical power as they are at
>buying political power.
>
>Of course, as is de rigueur in political circles, the governor has
>issued the standard, boilerplate denials that the money influenced his
>decisions. "It doesn't affect him one way or another," said Steve
>Maviglio, Davis' spokesman. "There is no connection between
>contributions and policy."
>
>This has become one of those lies -- like "We'll be pulling away from
>the gate momentarily" -- that we hear so often we don't hear it at
>all. If it were true, then why did the Davis camp tout to the press
>that the governor has not taken any money since October from the
>companies he's being asked to bail out? As though abstaining from
>orgies of campaign cash for a few months can restore one's political
>virginity.
>
>Indeed, the governor's office proudly announced that Davis had turned
>down an offer by a group of independent energy producers to hold a
>fundraiser for him last month. Putting aside the ludicrousness of
>painting the rejection of a fundraising opportunity as an act of great
>strength and moral leadership, why would Davis stop accepting utility
>company contributions if, as he claims, there's "no connection between
>contributions and policy"? And if he wants credit for turning the
>money down when the lights -- at least the media ones -- are on, why
>won't he accept the implications of taking the money when they were
>off?
>
>And what are we to make of the governor's decision to avoid meeting
>with the utilities' top executives prior to their recent negotiations
>because, according to his spokesman, "he wanted to stay away from the
>fray and not be influenced"? So Davis can be influenced by meeting
>with people, but not by pocketing their money?
>
>In the same spirit of pretending that campaign contributions really
>don't matter, the utility companies decided last month to hold off on
>making any more donations. "We didn't want it to be misunderstood,"
>explained PG&E vice president Frank Regan.
>
>Yeah, you know how confused taxpayers can get when they're being asked
>to fund a multibillion-dollar bailout of two companies that, between
>them, made more than $6 billion in profits since deregulation began
>and have combined assets of approximately $71 billion. Don't you
>worry, Mr. Regan -- we understand perfectly.
>
>
>Contributions:
>
>
>AT&T (The telecommunications giant has contributed $3.7 million in
>soft money, PAC and individual contributions in the 1999-2000 election
>cycle, of which 35 percent has gone to Democrats, according to the
>Center for Responsive Politics. AT&T also doled out $1 million to each
>of the general Democratic and Republican convention committees.)
>American Express ($564,000, 45 percent to Democrats)
>American Council of Life Insurers ($602,000, 38 percent to Democrats)
>BellSouth Corp. ($1.7 million, 42 percent to Democrats)
>Burlington Northern Santa Fe ($619,000 in soft money, PAC and
>individual contributions to federal campaigns this election cycle, 32
>percent to Democrats)
>Chevron ($769,000, 36 percent to Democrats)
>Edison International ($712,000, 38 percent to Democrats)
>Enron ($1.6 million, 25 percent to Democrats)
>Federal Express ($1.5 million, 38 percent to Democrats)
>
>
>Heres another contribution bail out:
>
>
>By Ralph Nader Legal Times
>
>U.S. corporations have been duplicitous in their aggressive drive to
>duck responsibility for dangerous products. The same profitable
>companies that have told Congress and the media that the product
>liability "explosion" is driving their business out of business have
>reported something quite different to investors and the Securities
>and Exchange Commission. Time after time, the same companies report
>in their SEC filings that liability exposure poses no material threat
>to their bottom line.
>
>Lawyers/Law Firms Dem 68% Rep 32% Total $8,383,065
>
>"Pay me my money," Montgomery said Tuesday, testifying under oath
>before a Senate committee investigating the secretive dealing behind
>Florida's $11.3 billion, 25-year settlement with the nation's tobacco
>makers. Montgomery, 67, an inductee of the nation's 100-member "Inner
>Circle" of wealthiest, most successful trial lawyers, says the
>contract he and many other private attorneys signed with the state at
>the outset of Florida's lawsuit against cigarette makers is clear:
>They get 25 percent of the winnings. "It is the tightest contract I've
>ever had in my 40 years of practicing law," said Montgomery, who has
>staked a court claim for disputed attorneys' fees -- his share: $11
>million for starter
>
>
>When the big tobacco settlement was first announced, Mississippi trial
>attorney Richard Scruggs admitted his fees might seem "a little
>obscene." But that, he explained, was inevitable, since "we have to
>come up with a fair way to compensate everyone."
>
>Some lawyers, like Scruggs, stand to collect an astonishing 25 percent
>of their states' payments. Even 3 percent of the total $368.5 billion
>settlement, which some attorneys characterize as perfectly "fair and
>reasonable," would amount to an incredible $11 billion.
>
>Not that such a windfall would be unprecedented. In the recent flight
>attendants' secondhand smoking lawsuit, the tobacco industry agreed to
>pay $300 million to a research foundation -- not the workers -- and
>$49 million to the lawyers.
>
>
>But the price of righting wrongs is steep. Add up the fees collected
>by plaintiffs' lawyers in a year, and the total tops $30 billion. Add
>in payments to injured people, as well as the costs of defense counsel
>and administrative expenses, and the overall annual tab for the
>American tort system is at least $179 billion, according to consulting
>firm Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. In an economy in recession, rising
>litigation costs take a bigger chunk of the nation's output. "That's
>generally not viewed as the best way to allocate society's resources,"
>says Tillinghast consultant Russ Sutter.
>
>No fool. Then there is Ronald Motley. His South Carolina firm will
>collect an estimated $2 billion in tobacco fees over the next 25
>years. Motley is masterminding a new legal campaign against paint
>manufacturers such as Sherwin-Williams and Glidden Paint. Motley
>believes that paint companies should be liable for the abatement of
>peeling lead paint and the medical costs of lead poisoning, even
>though the manufacturers stopped using lead in their products in 1978
>and lead paint that hasn't peeled isn't considered dangerous by most
>experts. Lawsuits, though, are surely a hazard: When the Rhode Island
>Superior Court rejected the defendants' motion to dismiss Motley's
>case in April, Sherwin-Williams's stock price dropped 21 percent.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
wpf
______________
satori
Tom Daschle's wife Linda makes millions of dollars a year as an airline
lobbyist. I don't hear any libs complaining about that.
"William P F" <ad...@128.0.3.2> wrote in message
news:3c24b894...@news.earthlink.net...
King Pineapple
news:3c24b894...@news.earthlink.net...
> Everything Enron needed the GOP provided, in return of course for
> campaign cash.
How about all the campaign cash they gave to the DNC? Like that big check 4
days before their big energy project got approved in India after Clinton and
McLarty pushed it along? You remember that one, right?
>They wanted less government oversight of their trading, Wendy Grahm got for
them.
Proof?
> They wanted the ability to charge for power exorbitantly high amounts,
Pete Wilson showed them the way.
No, Grey Davis did.
>
> Marry Xmas
"Marry"? Intellectually sloppy, Billy. Try typing slower.
King Pineapple
"bill b" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:u29o78l...@corp.supernews.com...
> I mean, who doesn't want a fancy car house boat plane etc.?
That's the "American Way", right?
King Pineapple
"satori" <nob...@speakhard.orj> wrote in message
news:chcV7.146868$bs2.24...@news02.optonline.net...
> And what's your point?
> Tom Daschle's wife Linda makes millions of dollars a year as an airline
> lobbyist. I don't hear any libs complaining about that.
Which airline?
Zepp the Weasel
> Tom Daschle's wife Linda makes millions of dollars a year as an airline
> lobbyist. I don't hear any libs complaining about that.
Have the airlines ripped off a state to the tune of $6 billion
dollars, and then bilked investors and employees of billions more in a
spectacular crach brought about by corruption, like Enron?